God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorksFind my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.comContent:Politics, US Drone Production, Fibre Optic Cable Drones, Claude AI, Mike Waltz Fired Hired, Elvis Chan, Alien Enemies Act, China Spy Recruitment, Elon Musk, DOGE, DEI Slush Fund Closed, US Auto Production, US Manufacturing Plans, NPR PBS Funding, Harvard Tax Exempt Status, Chuck Schumer's Approval Rating, Public Opinion Poll Rigging, Eric Swalwell, Tom Homan, Forced Child Labor Rescues, US Entry Cover Charge, Texas Meme Law, Russel Brand Asylum, German AFD Party, Iran Oil Purchasers, Ukraine Mineral Deal, China Trade Deal, Scott Adams~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
If you're here and I'm here, we should do something about it.
Stocks are up a little bit.
You will enjoy looking at your stock portfolio if you have one.
And as soon as I get my comments going, we're going to have quite the show.
Oh, yeah.
It'll be epic.
It'll be epic.
Good morning everybody and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams and you've never had a better time.
But if you'd like to take your experience up to levels that nobody can understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass or a tank or a chalice or a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and darn it, it's going to happen right now.
Go. Go.
So good.
So, so good.
So, I wonder if there are any scientific studies that they didn't need to do because they could have just asked me.
Well, oh, here's one.
New York Post is reporting that a study was done on magic mushrooms, USSF did a study, and they found that a single dose of psilocybin That's the magic of mushrooms.
One dose can help Parkinson's patients with dramatic improved mood, motor function, and memory.
And it even lasts, even after one dose.
Now, I wouldn't have known specifically that this would work for Parkinson's, but when was the last time you ever saw a study in which psychedelics were involved?
And the result was it didn't work.
For whatever it was.
They could test it for depression.
Yep, it works.
They could test it for a variety of mental problems.
Yep, it works.
They could test it for really anything that's happening in your brain or your body.
If you have a...
What would you call it?
Not a drug, exactly.
But if you have something you can take that works every single time you test it, it doesn't even matter what you're testing it on, and there's basically no downside whatsoever, I would have guessed accurately that it would have been good for Parkinson's patients.
Without any knowledge whatsoever, I would have just said, well, does it work for everything else you test it for?
All right.
Probably it'll work for the next thing too.
All right, here's one.
This one's so dumb, it's just funny.
There's a Norwegian University of Science and Technology, and they found out that the children who have increased physical activity have a lower risk of developing symptoms of depression.
How many times are they going to do that study?
Well, let's do it in Norway.
All right.
Let's study 13 to 15-year-olds.
Okay.
How about 15 to 17-year-olds?
It's all the same.
Physical activity is good for your brain.
Just like psilocybin.
You could have just asked Scott.
All right.
Here's one.
I would have gotten this one right, too.
It turns out that you, if you compare, and the University of Basque Country did this, I don't know who they are, but they did a study and they found that children who learn to write, you know, actually physically write with their hand,
they develop better reading and writing, well, better reading skills, I guess.
Now, would you have known that?
I would have known that because, how many times have I taught you that your entire body is your brain?
When I studied for tests, you know, back when I was a student, one of my tricks was to get as many of my senses involved.
So if I were trying to memorize something, I would definitely write it down.
And then I would draw a picture of it.
And then I would hum it.
And then maybe I would chant it.
Like I'd say, you know, and the West was settled in the year, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
And if I could have smelled it or heard it or gotten any other senses involved, I would have done it.
Now you can't really smell history or math.
But the idea is the more parts of your body that get involved, the more learning, because your entire body is part of your memory system.
It is.
If you can get something into your head through all five of your senses, it'll stay there.
If you get it into your head through one of your senses, let's say just reading it on a page, it might stay there, but it's not going to be nearly as sticky.
So the more your body that gets involved, you can dance it, you can sing it, you can chant it, you can write it down.
Children, this is a great study trick.
I would have gotten that one right.
All right, here's a story.
Business Insider is writing that the U.S. Army plans to flood its forces with drones.
So every division of the Army is going to have all kinds of drones.
You've got drones here and drones there, and they'll probably have fewer aircraft and ground vehicles, but boy, they're going to have drones.
Now, my big question was, wasn't it just a few years ago where the common wisdom is America couldn't make drones and that only China had all the parts and the know-how to make drones,
at least make drones that economical way?
But apparently the U.S. has quietly developed quite the drone-making industry.
But we don't really know who they are.
We know about Anduril, but that's a bigger enterprise.
They do lots of different products.
But there must be a bunch of other ones.
Someone else, I guess, was involved in one of these drone companies.
Confirmed that they're making drones and lots of others are making them.
So I guess the problem of making drones in the United States has been solved, which is a really big deal.
Now, probably they're not cost-effective for consumers, but they're being made for the military.
Now, if you build a big factory that's ultimately automated and it's got robot arms and stuff, And if it can make drones, probably the price is going to come down, and probably there'll be consumer products too.
So the United States is finally getting competitive in drone making.
So that's good news.
Did you know that because the anti-drone technology is getting really good, and again, and real...
It's a company that can knock down drones with a man-portable device.
Apparently, the Russians in their war with Ukraine are starting to use drones that are on fiber-optic cables.
Now, does that seem like something that could work?
If you use your common sense, do you think that a drone that has to be physically connected to the operator With a very long fiber-optic cable, how much distance are you going to get on that?
Well, it turns out, I asked that same question of somebody who knows a lot about drones, and apparently the Russians can get these fiber-optic-driven drones.
They can't be knocked down with an electronic attack.
They can go from 5 to 12 miles.
Does that even seem possible to you?
That this little fiber optic cable could stretch for 5 to 12 miles and then they could just rewind it and use it again?
Anti-tank missiles are wired, somebody's saying.
So I had no idea that you could get that kind of distance.
But they don't have too many of them because it's very hard to make the spools and the cable that's strong enough.
So the war of anti-drone versus drone, anti-anti-drone, anti-anti-anti-drone is in full blast.
But apparently these fiber optic cable drones are a thing.
And they would operate with visual commands.
So the operator would just be seeing through the drone.
So there's no satellite connection, and the electronic countermeans would be useless against them.
I'm sure that'll change fast, too.
Well, there's a big revolution in AI that if you don't follow AI, you wouldn't know.
But the problem with AI, maybe it wasn't a problem, maybe it was the right thing for the right time, was We've all been watching AI develop, but it wasn't really connected to any of your real work.
It could write some code, but it was still up to you to take that code and figure out how to make your computer recognize it and use it.
So in other words, there was almost like a wall between what the AI could do and what your other apps would do.
But...
That's coming down quickly, I think because the AI is more capable.
So here's another example.
The AI called Claude can now look at your files, according to TechCrunch.
So it can look at your files.
It can look at other files.
It can activate your PayPal and your Zapier and your Atlassian.
And it can do stuff like summarize tasks or automate your boring work.
In other words, It can connect to the other stuff on your computer with permission and do stuff.
So it can send stuff, activate stuff, use your other apps.
And we saw that Visa, the Visa payment company, was also talking about making Visa available to AI so AI could operate it.
And we're seeing a lot of what you would call agentic.
Apps.
I heard that word yesterday.
I decided I was going to use it.
Agentic.
So an agent would be like a little fake AI personality where you can just tell it what to do.
So that's the next level.
Instead of simply knowing what to do and being able to write prompts and make you do something, you'll just have a person.
And you'll say, hey, could you look through my files and find that thing?
And then write up a little summary about that thing and then send an email out to these four people.
And it would just do it.
And maybe check with you, but it could just do it.
So, if you look at all the AIs now becoming at least capable of connecting to your other apps, this is where we give up all control.
I gotta tell you that I'm having mixed emotions about it.
One of my emotions is, are you kidding?
I could automate my entire operation?
Because there's a whole bunch of things that I do that are just purely, you know, idiot work.
I just have to do it over and over again that I would love to be able to tell an AI to just go do, such as publishing my Dilbert comic every day.
It knows where the comic is.
It's always in the same folder.
And it knows what it has to look like and where it needs to be published.
I should be able to just tell Claude to go publish it and not even tell it.
You could just do it automatically every morning looking through my files.
So I'm very tempted.
But on the other hand, I can't even imagine allowing AI access to any of my financials.
I would probably want to keep up some kind of a wall.
So I might say, for example, alright, you could have access to my PayPal, but not my bank account.
You could have access to my credit card that has a low limit, but not my one that has a high limit.
So I feel like I wouldn't totally trust it, nor should you.
Well, according to...
I guess he made a claim on CNBC that Apple was only waiting for some robotic arms to be able to make iPhones in America because, you know, the labor costs are different.
But do you believe that?
Do you believe that Tim Cook of Apple, the only thing that's preventing them from building a...
Significant iPhone manufacturing capability in the United States is that they don't yet have robotic arms.
And you know what my first question about that would be?
Who makes the robotic arms?
Would it be China?
Is it possible that we're waiting for China to deliver the robotic arms so he can make his stuff?
Not in China?
I don't know if that's the case, but who else makes robotic arms?
If they were made in the United States?
I don't know.
Are we at capacity?
We can't spare a few robotic arms for Apple?
It seems like if they were made domestically, he would already be building the factory in anticipation of...
You know, if it takes a year, they can make a few robotic arms for the factory.
So it might be China.
So that part, I'm just guessing, speculating.
But maybe South Korea, you think?
Maybe South Korea?
Could be.
Well, you probably all saw the story that Mike Waltz was promoted fired.
Which is such a perfect Trumpian thing to do.
So I guess Trump didn't want external forces to make him fire Mike Waltz, but the cry for his termination was going.
He was the U.S. National Security Advisor, but he also was accused of some mistakes in SignalGate.
Trump presumably, we can't read his mind, but the smart people say Trump just didn't want to give up the W. So instead of firing and firing him, he does remove him from the office.
But hours later, Trump announced that he was going to nominate him to be the UN ambassador, a role requiring Senate confirmation.
I'm going to tell you a story from my college experience, because it's the only other time I've ever seen this happen.
So he got fired into a promotion.
Some are saying that's a better job, you an ambassador.
I don't know if that's true.
But let me tell you something from my college experience.
I'll make it fast.
Before I was a trained hypnotist, and before I had learned persuasion, I still thought I was kind of persuasive, but only in sort of an arguing way, you know, sort of a good debater.
I didn't really have the skills that I developed over a lifetime.
But even in college, I knew I was more persuasive than the average person.
So one of the side jobs I had in college was I had volunteered to be the finance guy because I was an economics major.
The finance guy for the only business that operated, student business, that operated on campus.
We had something called the Coffee House, which is where we served beer and peanuts, and we'd have live entertainment.
It was sort of the only place on campus you could go and sit down and buy a beverage and stuff like that.
Now, this place had never made money, so somehow...
It was a monopoly on campus, and it was usually full, and somehow it didn't make money.
So as the finance guy, and they'd never had a finance guy, I went in and implemented some accounting and some accountability and negotiated with some vendors and made it profitable.
So the first thing that happened was I won a full Doge on it before Doge was a thing, and it worked.
Because it just needed a little tweaking and then the college didn't have to supplement it, which it had been.
So if you do something that works and people see it and it's visible, you get all this credibility.
So because the other people on the committee, it was all student-run.
There were no outside people, just students running the thing.
If you make something work, you become more credible.
Now, one of the things I did was One of my good friends wanted a job as a bartender, and I recommended him.
And because I was a member of the working committee that ran the place, my recommendation carried some weight.
Now, unfortunately, he was very bad at his job.
He's a very capable person, but not everybody can do every kind of job.
So he was just sort of not good as a bartender.
We'd come in late after basketball practice, and he'd be too tired, and he just wasn't up for it.
So one day, the people who ran the coffeehouse, we had a meeting, and there were two major things on the agenda.
Number one was we needed to elect a leader for our own committee, the people who ran the coffeehouse.
We had lost our leader.
So we needed a new leader.
The other thing that was on the agenda was the proposition of firing my friend, the bartender.
So I decided that I wanted to see if I could get my friend to promote fired.
Fired as a bartender, but hired as all of our bosses.
Now, do you think I pulled that off?
Do you think I...
Do you think I pulled off getting my friend fired for being a bad bartender and simultaneously hired to be the person who would be all of our bosses?
So we would fire him and make him our boss at the same time.
So I actually said, you know, the skills that are required to be a bartender are very different from the skills to be a leader.
And people looked at me and they said, well, okay.
I suppose that's true.
And I went on, and by the time I was done, we fired my friend, the bartender, and made him our leader.
But when I say leader, I might mean puppet, because he was my friend, and if I had anything that I really needed to get done, I would just bring it up with him, and he would bring it up with the committee, and we would get it done.
None of it was evil.
He was actually a very good leader.
He turned out to be great.
He did a good job as a leader.
But it's the only other time I've seen somebody promote fired.
And I got to tell you that that was about the time I realized that my ability to persuade wasn't normal.
Because I walked out of that thinking, did that really happen?
Did I actually pull that off?
And then later, that same friend and I and a third friend, we recommended to the administration of the college that the three of us should be in charge of our dormitory and that we should get a salary and each of us should get a private room.
Now, if you know what a private dorm room is worth in a college where not many private rooms existed, you would know.
You know, what kind of a reach that was.
We actually pulled that off.
We actually convinced the administration to fire, or not hire again, I guess, the professional guy who lived in the dorm just to make sure that we were in line.
And we convinced the administration to put us in charge and to pay us a salary and to give us private rooms.
How did we do?
Great.
It became a model for the rest of the college because we ran the thing really well.
So it turns out that I made a bunch of promises, but we actually delivered.
We had lower expenses and basically we were really successful.
So long before I entered this domain, I was aware that I had unusual powers of persuasion, and I didn't know what the limit was, and I still don't, and neither do you.
All right.
Apparently, the FBI assistant or special agent, a guy named Elvis Chan, who had been apparently the main censorship liaison between the FBI and social media, During the 2020 election,
as you know, the FBI tried to suppress things on social media, and he was the main guy, and he's been placed on terminal leave.
So the Trump administration continues their purge of people who are censors or, in their view, bad actors in the past.
Here's no surprise.
A federal judge ruled that the Alien Enemies Act, the one that Trump is using to deport the Venezuelan gangs, does not apply.
And so, therefore, Trump cannot deport the Venezuelan gang members using the Alien Enemies Act.
Now, the argument is that they don't meet the definition.
And this judge in...
This judge said that it must involve an organized armed force entering the United States to engage in conduct destructive of property and human life in a specific geographic area.
So that's Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr.
He's actually a Trump appointee.
But he says the rarely used law, because it's very, very old law, can only be invoked when I quote, organized armed forces entering the United States.
Now, to me, it seems like these Venezuelans, at least we've been told by our administration, are organized and are sent by Venezuela with the express purpose of messing up the United States.
So, to me, it meets the definition.
And I also think that the Commander-in-chief is the one who should decide if it meets the definition.
I don't feel like the courts should even make that decision.
It just feels like it shouldn't be their domain.
Maybe it is.
But if you have a commander-in-chief whose job it is to protect the country and we allow the commander-in-chief to have a pretty wide latitude because you don't want them to be handcuffed by process if they're trying to protect the country.
I just feel like I would give the nod to the commander-in-chief on this one.
So we'll see what happens with it.
The ACLU was, you know, arguing that it should not be the law.
Now, what would be the alternative if we don't deport them?
That wouldn't stop us from arresting them, right?
So would we just have to build some kind of El Salvador-like facility for jailing them?
So it just seems like it's going to be expensive.
And what are we going to do?
Leave them there forever?
Because they're still going to be non-citizens.
And if we can't deport them, what do you do with them?
Put them in our American jail just forever?
Because they're still non-citizens and they still have a criminal connection?
Maybe Gitmo?
Somebody says Gitmo?
I don't know.
I don't know what the alternative is.
We'll see.
Well, I think this is funny.
The CIA is saying publicly that they've got some videos that are in Mandarin and they're aimed at recruiting Chinese officials.
And John Ratcliffe of the CIA says one of the primary roles of the CIA Is to collect intelligence by recruiting assets that can help us steal secrets.
Now, isn't it funny that we say that out loud?
Hey China, we want to recruit some of your citizens.
Here's a video.
And when they become traitors to your country, we're going to have them steal your secrets and give them to us.
Now, it's not like we don't know this goes on, right?
Obviously, China has A zillion spies in the United States.
Obviously, even our allies have spies in the United States.
Obviously, the United States has spies in every country we can put a spy in.
But it's something hilarious about just saying it out loud.
That we can just say, oh, by the way, China, we're trying to recruit some of your officials.
We'd like to get our spy numbers up, so...
We'll be offering them excellent deals and retirement packages.
But yeah, we'll be recruiting your people as our spies.
Now, it makes me wonder, is the real play to get extra spies, which, you know, maybe partly that's the real play, or is it to make China doubt their own cohorts in government?
Because I love the fact that if China saw we were making a big push, then everything that the other leaders were doing would start looking suspicious.
So what this does is, this is a persuasion play as well as a recruiting play.
The persuasion would be, if you put in China's head that we're actively recruiting, then anything that another Chinese leader says That isn't exactly what you want them to say.
You're going to say to yourself, "I wonder, I wonder if that one got promoted or got recruited.
You're acting a little bit suspicious.
Why is it you need access to this information?
Oh, well under normal times..."
It would be normal for somebody to say, I need some access to some confidential information to do my job.
But if it were in your head that America was recruiting more spies, and then your fellow leader said, oh, can I have access to that private information?
You'd say to yourself, hmm, why?
Why do you need that?
So I think it's very clever in making the Chinese leadership doubt other Chinese leadership.
So that's kind of clever.
Well, we heard from, I guess, Susie Wiles, chief of staff for Trump, that Elon Musk is no longer physically in any kind of office in the West Wing.
He's doing things remotely by phone.
He's still involved.
But to a lesser extent, and obviously he's going to be paying more attention to his businesses.
But Jesse Waters met with the Doge team, and they did make some news, but I'm not going to report any of it.
As you know, I've made the mistake of repeating what Doge has claimed in the past, and I got bitten every time.
So they have some provocative claims that if they were true, would be pretty newsworthy.
But since I can't tell what's true, and Doge has overclaimed and left out in context, and in some cases just been maybe wrong about what something meant, I do believe that they're honest in the sense that they don't say stuff unless they think it's true.
I don't think they necessarily get everything right.
So I'm not even going to report the provocative claims of the things they say.
I do think that directionally, Doge is good.
And I don't think it came anywhere near its own stated goal of finding a trillion or so.
And I'm not even sure if the $160 billion they claim will actually prove out.
But here's what I think is the biggest benefit of Doge.
It made Doge a thing.
Now when people in the States realize that they need to get their budgets under control, they use the word.
They say, we need a Doge.
And what they mean is, it can't be the usual people in government.
It probably needs to be some kind of independent people brought in who can audit things and maybe improve things technically.
So if I were going to evaluate Doge on meeting their, let's say, their own goals, I would say it doesn't look like they did.
But if I were to evaluate them on their long-term impact on the country, it might be one of the best things that's ever happened.
Meaning that we now understand that the Doge is completely necessary and needs to be permanent.
In other words, there just needs to be some smart people really paying attention so that all our money is not being stolen.
So the idea of Doge...
Looks like it's going to live on forever.
And it's got a word.
You know, once you've got a word associated with it.
And so I think that they're honest.
I think they're well-meaning.
I think directionally it's all correct.
And it might take longer to get the kind of benefits that they wanted from it.
But it's all good.
I just don't believe any specific claims.
So I'm not even going to repeat them.
Well, meanwhile, Tulsi Gabbard, according to Just the News, she's closed an office she claimed to act as a, quote, slush fund for DEI.
What was the name of that office?
It was the Intelligence Community Human Capital Office.
So she shut the whole thing down, and it will save taxpayers $150 million.
And she said it was a slush fund for DEI.
Now, on one hand, there's so many reports of a DEI thing being made illegal, a DEI thing being threatened, a DEI thing being closed down.
I'm not sure I believe any of it.
Because it looks like they're just trying to go dormant until another Democrat gets in power.
And then it will just go, bing!
Hey, surprise!
It was always here.
We just used a different name to call it by.
So there will be a few situations, like the Tulsi Gabbard one, where they closed the entire office.
That might work.
So that might be a case where they did, in fact, reduce some DEI.
But with all the colleges and the big corporations and all the various little entities of government Trying to be part of the resistance instead of the administration.
I feel like they're just going to hide all this stuff with secret names and just change the look of it until they get power back, and it'll just completely come back.
So I don't know that it can be killed, even though it's being treated as unconstitutional and illegal by the current administration.
All it's going to take is the next administration to say, oh, no, actually, it's completely legal and everybody should be doing it, so we're going to do it like crazy.
So I don't know about that.
Well, here's some good news.
Joe Hoft is writing about this.
Mercedes says they're going to shift more vehicle production to the U.S. Now, that would be in response to the tariff threats.
But they're not the only ones.
So here's a list, I guess, according to the administration of other automakers who are looking to move more production to the U.S. So you've got BMW is thinking about adding more production in South Carolina.
You've got Honda plans to shift production from Japan to the U.S. You know, some production.
So all of these are partials.
Hyundai is going to do some big investment in the U.S. Kia.
Plans to produce hybrid vehicles in Georgia.
Nissan is considering moving production from Mexico to the U.S. Stellantis, I don't know who that is, says it will reopen its Belvedere, Illinois plant for mid-sized trucks.
And Toyota said it will boost hybrid vehicle production at its West Virginia plant.
Now, those seem like pretty big accomplishments.
But it gets better.
So now you have to be careful about whether all these news reports are exactly true, but it's starting to look like Trump is getting big wins in the automotive industry, and those would be good jobs.
So that would look like a win.
But Tim Cook is reportedly excited, according to 9to5Mac, whoever they are.
That TSMC, the big chip-making company that's based in Taiwan, is going to break ground on their third U.S. chip plants.
So that would mean that they're building three of them, because I don't think any of them are complete.
So that would mean they're building three U.S. chip plants.
And Apple's Tim Cook says he's excited to be the first customer of the Arizona chip plant.
Now, let's say this is true, too.
This would be really, and then we heard about NVIDIA, you know, making sure that it's going to do a gigantic increase in capital expenditure in the United States to make their stuff.
So, is this really happening?
Is Trump actually successfully bringing the automotive industry back to the U.S.?
Because it looks like it, at least to some degree.
At the same time that the biggest, most important chip companies are wildly building production in the United States?
Because it looks like it.
This is very impressive.
This is very impressive.
And we'll talk about China and the tariffs in a little bit.
But, you know, you saw that the stock market is up today.
There are reasons for that.
If Trump gets this to work against, you know, all the experts' recommendations that trade wars are always bad and tariffs are always bad and there's no exception.
It's going to be one of the greatest accomplishments of any president ever.
Now, it's too early, much too early, so I'm not going to declare that it's working.
But, boy, it looks like it's working.
And I don't say that easily, because I would have been a, you know, wait and see, you're not going to know anything for two years.
But it kind of looks like it's working already.
And that would surprise the hell out of me.
The rate of it working would surprise me, not that it worked.
Meanwhile, Trump, as he's trying to cut funding on NPR and PBS, now you should know that that doesn't close them down, but it will put them under pressure because a lot of that federal funding would go to the local and urban stations.
And then some of that money would flow back to the national ones.
So they might have to downsize a little bit and maybe some local stations won't operate.
But for the most part, they'll stay in business because most of their funding is from private donations.
And if it goes the way things usually go, the Democrats will just donate more money so they don't go into business.
But I am happy that the government is not funding a biased news entity.
And there's also Congress would need to approve the cuts, and there could be legal challenges.
So it doesn't even mean that their funding is going to be cut, because you know there's going to be legal challenges, and they're just going to shop for some judge that will say anything about anything.
And at the very least, they'll have to probably fight it.
Trump also says he wants to take away the tax-exempt status from Harvard.
And the reason-giving is that they are racists and they're violating civil rights, basically because they're DEI and hiring preferences, etc.
So, I don't know.
This feels right.
If Harvard absolutely...
Wants to continue violating the Constitution by favoring one race over another, etc.
I don't want them to be tax-exempt.
Maybe you can do things privately illegal, but why would we keep giving you money?
So I understand that they do super valuable things for research, etc.
But why does all of our research have to go through universities?
Is that necessary?
Maybe what we really need is that our research facilities are no longer connected to a university.
Because you know what happens if you give a million dollars to Harvard?
How much of it actually goes to the scientists?
Not much.
Actually, most of it will go to the overhead for the college.
So don't you think we just need to completely retool?
Where we're giving money for scientific research.
I feel like there's a much less expensive, more effective way to do it than to have it couched in some racist college.
So maybe that'll turn into something good.
So I'm going to mention this probably more than once.
I've already said it.
But I'm still laughing at Chuck Schumer.
Doing a public event that was built entirely around pointing out how Trump's approval ratings have dropped.
So that was the whole point.
Trump's approval ratings on polls have dropped.
And then one of the reporters called out and mentioned that Schumer's own polls are even worse than Trump's.
And Schumer says, well, polls come and go.
So, with one question, they got Schumer to completely debunk his own point that the polls were telling you something useful.
As soon as it was about him, he's like, well, polls come and go.
Now, on one hand, it's a funny story about an elderly Democrat leader who's just a clown and was completely outmatched by one question.
One question just destroyed his whole thing.
But there's a bigger thing going on.
I think the biggest gaslighting that's happening right now is the idea that the polls are driven by public opinion.
Because that's what you think it is, right?
The pollsters ask the voters, what's your opinion?
And then they give us the result.
Well, I was listening to Victor Davis Hanson explain That some of these recent decreases in Trump's polls are because the pollsters simply didn't ask many Trump voters the question.
So instead of asking, let's say, half of the people who are Trump supporters, and let's say half who are not, what do you think of Trump?
Because that would match the actual vote, right?
Because the vote is usually almost a tie.
So if you wanted a good poll, you'd want to talk to about half of the people who voted for Trump and half of the people who didn't.
And then that would tell you something.
But if you favor the people who didn't vote for Trump, and you say, what do you think about his approval?
And they say, not so much.
You haven't really measured the public.
What you've done is you have a fake poll, which is done for completely political reasons.
To move the public.
But beyond that, where does the public get its information?
It gets its information from the fake news, for the most part.
It's not like people are doing their own deep dive and doing their own investigation.
They're doing what the media tells.
They're basically just parroting the media.
Have you seen the people on the street, when they do the street interviews, and somebody would say, what do you think about Trump?
And they'll say, well...
Too much chaos.
And Doge should use a scalpel instead of a chainsaw.
Where do you think they get those buzzwords?
They didn't do their own deep dive and come up with the same buzzwords.
They're literally reporting what they heard on the news, which we know is fake news.
So you got your fake news that's come up with this trick.
I don't know how long they've been doing it, but they're doing it now.
Where they...
Pretend that the public makes up its own mind.
The public doesn't make up its own mind.
It makes up its mind based on what the media told it.
So if the media has collectively decided to say chaos a million times and scalpel a million times, what do you think the voters that they talk to are going to say?
Well, the Trump voters are still going to favor Trump.
The polls show that.
But what about the other people who are oversampled?
The oversampled people are just going to repeat what they heard on MSNBC and CNN.
Oh, they didn't use a scalpel, and there's so much chaos.
Can you give me an example of the chaos?
Well, they didn't use a scalpel.
Okay, well, we talked about the scalpel thing, but what would be the chaos?
Well, all the tariffs seem to be...
They seem to be moving, and they're complicated, and they keep changing.
And then you would say, you mean exactly like Trump tells you he always negotiates, where he brings great uncertainty into a situation until people are begging for certainty, and then he negotiates and gets what he wants?
You mean that?
Is that the chaos you're talking about?
Oh, no.
On MSNBC, they said it was all bad.
It must be bad chaos.
There's nothing like public opinion happening here.
There is just brainwashing, and then the media looks at the pollsters and go, go check to see if our brainwashing is working.
And it does work, because they're using Nazi technique.
The Nazi technique is you tell a big lie, and then you repeat it endlessly to the media that you control.
That's what we're watching.
You're watching Nazi technique that the Democrats use very successfully, and then they launder it through polls, so it looks like people made up their own minds.
It's the greatest gaslighting that's happening right now, and I'm impressed as hell.
Meanwhile, I always tell you about the designated liars, the DDLs, the Democrat designated liars.
So, Swalwell is one, Jamie Raskin is another.
Adam Schiff is another.
There's a certain set of Democrats who will tell the big lie that is sort of part of the Nazi propaganda that regular Democrats won't do.
So your normal Democrats will just sort of stay out of the news.
But the ones who want to be in the news, they will tell any lie.
So they're the ones saying, Trump wants to cut your Social Security.
There's literally no evidence of that, and there's plenty of evidence that he says, absolutely not, I won't do that.
But the designated liars will say it, and people will believe it.
It's part of the Nazi propaganda that they use.
Well, here's one that Eric Swalwell is trying to push.
So despite all of the election denial stuff that's happened over 2020, Swalwell was on some kind of podcast with some leftist, and there was an allegation brought up that enemies of the U.S. stole U.S. data and that somehow Elon Musk's Starlink was involved.
Now, what evidence is there that Starlink was involved in any of the election stuff and certainly...
What evidence was involved that if they were involved, I don't even think they were involved in any elections.
They're not part of the election system as far as I know.
And what evidence would there be that they somehow participated in helping Russia get election data?
I mean, it's just a ridiculous accusation.
So what does Swalwell say?
He goes, Elon Musk has done nothing in the last five months.
To make me think that we shouldn't ask questions about what the hell he was doing in 2024.
In other words, Swalwell, one of the Democrat designated liars, wants you to believe that the 2024 election might have been rigged by Elon Musk.
Meaning technically rigged.
Not just that he participated and that he funded stuff and he was effective in the campaign.
They don't like that.
But how shameless do you have to be to say something like this?
Well, you know, we can't rule it out.
They certainly ruled it out in 2020.
So are we to believe that the election systems are that vulnerable?
If we are to believe that they're that vulnerable, then wouldn't they also have been vulnerable in 2020?
Or did they only become vulnerable when Trump won?
Just insane lies coming out of the designated liars.
Well, meanwhile, according to the AP, you know that 60 Minutes report that caused Trump to sue CBS?
It's the one where Kamala Harris was being interviewed, and there was at least one edit that allegedly made her answer look more coherent than it really was.
And that's part of what Trump is suing over.
And apparently that report, that segment of 60 Minutes, is nominated for an Emmy Award.
It's nominated for an Emmy Award.
Now, that is just the classic Democrat thing, because remember the Russia collusion hoax?
It won Pulitzer Prizes for some of the writers.
The people who are pushing the biggest hoax this country has ever experienced, probably the biggest one, got a Pulitzer, and now the...
And now the 60 Minutes thing that will probably end up in a win for Trump.
So Trump will probably get a big paycheck out of that.
They nominated for an Emmy Award.
That's funny.
Well, Tom Homan says that they've already rescued 5,000 children.
And of the 300,000 migrant children who went missing or were trafficked, they claim, under the Biden administration.
So I don't think it's disputed that 300 children came through and we don't know what happened to them.
So I think that's what RFK Jr. was referring to when saying that the United States was complicit in child trafficking.
Is that we allowed 300,000 kids to come through without really checking where they were going or who they were with, at least checking enough.
And so 5,000 of them had been rescued, and at least some of them were in forced labor.
What kind of forced labor do you think that was?
Because...
You know, I've never met anybody who was in forced labor in the United States, so there's probably some enormous underground, you know, thing going on.
But, you know, I don't have any contact with it, thank God.
Anyway, according to Just the News, the House Judiciary Committee that's working on the current write-up of the 2025 budget proposal...
It looks like they're going to put a cover charge on entering the United States.
And I always used to joke about this, that entering the United States should have a cover charge and maybe a two-drink minimum.
But here's what they're proposing, or at least they're noodling on.
We don't know if this will become an actual proposal yet.
But that asylum seekers and parolees would pay a $1,000 minimum fee if you're an asylum seeker.
Now, how many asylum seekers could afford $1,000?
So I assume this would be a way to reduce the number of asylum seekers.
And then migrants requesting temporary protected status, and I don't know how that's different from...
An asylum seeker, but let's say it is, would have to pay $500.
Sponsors of unaccompanied migrant children would be charged $3,500.
Now, I assume that would also include us vetting them to make sure that the children don't get trafficked.
And then many work permit applications would also have a $550 fee.
So, I like the general idea.
Of charging people to come into the country.
I don't know if these are specifically the best ideas.
According to the Postmillennial, the Texas State House is passing a bill banning political memes with fines of up to one year in jail.
Now, when I first read that, I was kind of dealing at the headline level, and I thought, are you kidding me?
You could go to jail for a year?
For a meme?
But it turns out this would be limited to the paid political advertisers.
So in other words, if you were running an ad on TV, for example, and it was a paid political ad, you couldn't use AI to make it look like your opponent did something that they didn't do.
It would not apply to you and I making a comic and putting it on Social media.
So it's not that different than requiring some kind of, you know, honesty in political ads.
But my question is this.
When has there ever been an honest political ad?
I thought that political ads were always lies, no matter who did them.
Isn't that your experience?
That political ads are always lies?
How in the world do you distinguish between a meme, which would be a political lie if it were showing something that didn't really happen in real life, versus them claiming, let's say, that Trump is going to cut your Social Security?
Do you think there are any political ads that are going to say, Trump is going to cut your health care and your Social Security?
Which, as far as I know, will not happen.
It's not true.
Would you go to jail for a year for claiming that he will?
Or is that just an opinion?
Whereas if you had some AI and the AI looked like Trump saying something that he didn't really say, would you go to jail potentially for a year because the AI is more persuasive than simply saying he said it?
I don't know.
I got a lot of questions.
I'm not comfortable with this.
But at least it's limited to paid political ads.
Well, I saw Tucker Carlson pushing for asylum for Russell Brand.
And I'm going to read what Tucker said.
And I don't know exactly, you know, obviously I don't know about the charges against Russell Brand.
But I'm also in favor of offering him asylum.
Because it feels like, and Tucker says this better, I'll give you what Tucker said, it does feel like it's politically driven as opposed to driven by actual victims.
Here's what Tucker said on X. Russell Brand was once a famous left-wing actor celebrated by the British establishment.
Then he criticized the government for using COVID to turn the UK into a totalitarian state.
The accolades abruptly stopped.
A government TV station accused Brand of committing sex crimes against anonymous women they refused to name.
Government officials called for his opinions to be scrubbed from the Internet.
Again, this is Tucker Carlson saying this.
Last month, British prosecutors charged Brand with rape and sexual assault.
None of the charges are backed by hard evidence.
All of them supposedly took place more than 20 years ago, one of them from the 90s.
The entire case is transparently political and absurd.
A near-identical replay of the fake rape charges authorities brought against Julian Assange 15 years ago.
Russell Brand, whose youngest child is barely a year old, now faces life in prison.
He has no shot at a fair trial because Britain is no longer a free country.
Over the last few years, millions of foreigners have applied for asylum in the United States.
Russell Brand actually deserves it.
Say a prayer that the Trump administration comes to his rescue.
I'm going to say yes.
Political asylum.
We should absolutely offer it to Russell Brand.
Because it does look so political.
I mean, he became one of the most effective non-anti-Trump people, because he wasn't anti-Trump.
And it seems like a really big coincidence that when you guess somebody...
It was that effective.
Suddenly they have rape charges.
It's just a little bit hard for me to believe that these are based on reality as opposed to it's just the normal play that comes from usually the intelligence wing of a country that's trying to stop somebody from doing what they do.
So remember, Assange isn't the only one.
Trump too was...
You know, brought up on charges that, to me, looked pretty suspicious.
So, yes.
Now, I will tell you that...
When was it?
Was it two years ago?
One year ago?
I'm losing a sense of time.
So, I was asked to be a guest on the Russell Brand show, which, of course, was a gigantic honor, and he was at the top of his game before the accusations.
And the very week that I was going to be on his show is when all this news first broke, that he had been accused of terrible crime.
And I got to tell you, he did the best he could, but boy, was he affected.
I mean, you could tell he was not his usual self.
So I never got to experience being on his show when he was at the top of his game, because he had taken a gut punch, you know, that very...
I think within just a day or two of me being on the show.
So I felt very bad for him.
And yes, asylum.
Let's check in with Germany.
According to Reuters, I guess the leading conservative party, the AFD, which is leading in the polls, has been designated an extremist entity by German intelligence.
Does that sound legitimate?
Do you think that just as this political party is picking up popularity to the point where it could potentially get into power, it's not there yet, is this a coincidence that German intelligence has designated them an extremist entity?
And do you think the facts will support that?
Now, I'm not saying there are no extremists in the party, because every party has some extremists.
But that looks a little suspicious to me.
So that's what Germany's up to.
Let's check in with Israel.
According to the Times of Israel, Netanyahu was asked about the goal of getting the hostages back from Hamas.
And Netanyahu had this very honest answer.
He said it's a very important goal, meaning getting the hostages back.
But then he continued, but the war has a supreme goal, and the supreme goal is victory over our enemies, and this we will achieve.
So he's got an important goal, but also a supreme goal.
Now, he is very honest about this, and there's something about transparency in this domain that, as horrible as the situation is, I do appreciate transparency.
And so he's saying as clearly as possible, if the hostages get in the way of us destroying Hamas, we're going to destroy Hamas.
And if you're a family member or friend of the hostages, that's the worst thing you could ever hear.
But it is leadership, and it is very clear, and it probably is the Smartest thing you could say, because you know Hamas is listening to, you can't give them too much power, and you can't let taking hostages work.
So he's taking the hard road, and he's saying, we're not going to let hostages work.
And if that means that the hostages don't come home, the supreme goal is to get rid of Hamas.
It's horrible, but it's transparent.
And I'll tell you, transparency goes a long way to making the horrible not acceptable, but at least barely tolerable.
So there's that.
And by the way, that's what I predicted would happen, that defeating Hamas would be...
Ultimately, the primary goal.
Well, according to President Trump, he said that all purchases of Iranian oil or petrochemicals must stop now.
He says that any country or person who buys any amount of oil or petrochemicals from Iran will be subject to immediate secondary sanctions.
And so I said to myself, who buys oil from Iran?
Who exactly is he threatening?
So I went to Grok and said, who buys oil from Iran?
Well, apparently 90% of it is China.
So did he just threaten China with what would be kind of permanent secondary sanctions?
Because it's 90% China.
But there's also Syria, which I can't believe they buy much oil.
Turkey.
Which could be a bigger deal, you know, a NATO member.
UAE, Bangladesh, Oman, and Venezuela.
Can you believe that Venezuela, which is an oil exporting country, or should have been, has to buy oil from Iran?
Boy, that is a failed country right there.
And then, allegedly, some European countries might try to buy some oil from Iran, but that's harder to verify.
I don't know.
Is this a play against China?
Or does it really make a difference to Iran?
I don't know.
Well, according to the New York Post, the Russian Security Council Deputy Chairman, Dmitry Medvedev, who is very well connected, so he's a Putin guy.
He talked about the mineral deal that the US signed with Ukraine, and he doesn't like it at all.
And here's what he says, and he certainly chooses his words in an interesting way.
So Medvedev said on Thursday that the mineral rights deal with Ukraine, he praised it sarcastically, praising the US leader for making a deal with a nation that will soon disappear.
What?
Will soon disappear?
So this is Putin's right-hand person who says that Ukraine will soon disappear?
That really doesn't sound like somebody who wants a peace deal in which Ukraine thrives and they just keep the stuff they've already taken.
Doesn't that feel like he's revealing a little bit more than he was supposed to reveal?
I mean, if you say that the nation will soon disappear, aren't you kind of saying that Putin's plan is to take the rest of Ukraine?
And if that is the plan, why is he mad about the mineral deal unless the mineral deal is a good strategy?
So I was kind of criticizing the mineral deal as too weak.
Meaning that it wouldn't stop Russia from doing anything.
But maybe it isn't.
Maybe it isn't.
Because if the right-hand person of Putin, you know, somebody that close to Putin, feels that he needs to criticize the deal, that means the deal has some importance.
And it means that Russia is saying, oh crap.
This is going to make it harder for us to disappear Ukraine.
So I'm going to tentatively revise my opinion about the mineral deal.
Now, we don't know if it'll translate into actual money and mining.
We don't know if it'll actually economically work yet.
But politically, it looks like it's already working.
Because if Russia hates it, That feels like it's on target.
If Russia didn't care one way or the other, then I would have said, well, see, it was irrelevant.
But apparently it is relevant.
So if it bothers Russia, maybe it's right on point.
Well, according to Newsmax, there are riots in China over the...
Over the tariffs causing them to close factories and people not getting paychecks and people laid off.
So there are riots and mass protests spreading across China.
Now, as I've told you before, every time I see a story about China's economy, whether it's these factory closing and riots happening, I eventually learned that it was hyperbole.
And that China is surviving just fine.
So I don't know if this is real yet.
Goldman Sachs estimates as many as 16 million jobs could be lost in China.
Again, is that enough to make them change path?
Is 16 million jobs, you know, in the context of China having an iron fist, does that make a difference?
We'll see.
But China does seem to have been easing up on its rhetoric at the same time that allegedly they're getting all this economic pressure.
So apparently China is, quote, evaluating an offer from Washington.
This is from Reuters.
So they say that...
Beijing is evaluating an offer from Washington to hold talks over the tariffs.
And China's commerce ministry sat on Friday, although it warned the United States not to engage in, quote, extortion and coercion.
And then at the same time, China was kind of quietly exempting a bunch of U.S. imports from tariffs.
So, quietly...
They're taking some of the tariff pressure off on the important stuff like pharma, etc.
And in terms of their rhetoric, all they're really asking is that we stop saying aggressive things about them.
And Trump is.
I think Trump is doing his usual thing where he starts out, you're bad, you're bad, you're little rocket man.
And then as soon as things start going in more of a, well, you know, we could be friends, direction, then he stops that rhetoric, and now you're his best friend.
So what I would expect is that Trump's rhetoric will very quickly, assuming that China stays cool, and so far the suggestion is that they're going to stay cool because they need a deal too,
right?
They need to get past this.
If they stay cool, I think Trump is going to change all the way from his really bad rhetoric about China and is suddenly going to go to, President Xi is very smart.
He knows that he can make a better deal.
It's good for China.
He sure knows how to run a country.
And that's when you know there will be a deal.
So, this stuff that the Trump critics call, they call chaos.
How many times do you have to see the chaos work before you understand that he tells you in advance that being unpredictable is his technique?
And then you watch it, and you can label it chaos all day long if you want, but it works.
And it looks like it's working again.
So, we'll see.
I don't think it's an accident that the stock market is looking stronger than people expected.
Because I think the stock market is saying, you know what?
I think there's a pretty good chance that China is going to, you know, get the rhetoric it wants because things just calm down over time.
And then they're going to say, all right, now we can negotiate as peers, and we won't negotiate like we're being blackmailed, and maybe we can get something done now.
We'll see.
We shall see.
All right, that's what I got for you today, ladies and gentlemen.
I'm going to talk to the locals people privately, if all my technology works.