God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorksFind my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.comContent:Politics, Target Self-Checkout, Diddy Jury Selection, Stephen A. Smith, Democrat Party Purge, Medicaid Cost Shift, DOGE, Treasury Receipts Requirement, AI Government Agents, Marc Elias, ReOpening Alcatraz, Hollywood Movies Decline, UK Hate Speech Laws, H.R.867 Anti-Boycott Act, Biden Cognitive Test Avoidance, Sam Harris, Senator Fetterman Anti-Iran, Gaza Ground Operations, China IP Theft, Scott Adams~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
All right, we'll do a show as soon as I got my comments working here.
Do, do, do, do, do, do, do, do, do, do, do.
Bye.
Bye.
Ooh.
Thank you.
you Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the Highlight of Human Civilization, Cinco de Mayo version.
If you'd like to take this experience up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny, shiny brains, all you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or gel, a stein, a canteen, a 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 that dopamine hit the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It happens now.
Go!
Ah, terrific.
Well, you'd be surprised to hear that according to Daily Coffee News, there was a study of...
6,000 adults, and they found out that coffee does have a protective effect against dementia.
So if my audience has a low level of dementia, now you know why.
It's all the coffee.
I saw a post on X from the government office of nuclear energy, and they were touting this micro-reactor.
A nuclear micro-reactor called the Marville.
And it's the size of a car, and it has enough energy to power 10 homes.
Now, does that sound like something that could be practical?
So it's only the size of a car, but it's a nuclear power plant, but it can only power 10 homes.
The question that jumps down is, how long does it last?
How hard is it to do maintenance?
And then what do you do with the waste when it's done?
I'm sure they have answers to that.
But I don't know if I would do the nuclear microreactor before I did the solar panels and the Tesla battery.
I might go for the battery first.
Although I was a little afraid of batteries because there's a small but real risk of fire from a battery.
I don't know what the odds are, but not very high.
Speaking of batteries and speaking of Tesla, Wonderful Engineering is reporting that there's a new Tesla 4680 battery that was, I think, first teased in 2020.
So if you're looking for how long does it take a technical breakthrough to become a product, About five years, even if you're Tesla.
So apparently this battery is way more efficient and it's simpler to assemble and it boosts your energy efficiency and it's going to be in Tesla soon.
So every time you hear me say, there's another breakthrough in battery technology, you can add five to seven years before you'll see it.
I saw a post by Mario Knopfel.
I see a lot of the news on his posts on X. They're very excellent, by the way.
If you're not following Mario Nawfal, N-A-W-F-A-L, you really should, because he summarizes the news better than anybody I've seen.
Anyway, one of the things that he highlighted was there's an AI scanner that can identify disease in people before they even feel bad.
So I guess it takes 2,000 images in 20 seconds.
It's got 70 sensors and 50 million data points.
And it's already worked.
It's flagged major health problems in people who look totally fine.
I'm not sure I want to know.
You know, there's always, for a while now, there's been a technology where you can get a private full-body scan.
Just in case there's anything going on in your body that you didn't know about.
But a lot of people found that when they did those scans, they would kind of routinely find things they didn't know about, and then they'd be all panicked about, well, no, what's wrong with my liver?
Even if there's nothing wrong.
Well, Target, the store, according to the post-millennial, is going to cut back on the self-checkout.
Guess why?
Why do you think Target stores are going to get rid of their self-checkout?
Now, they say cut back, but I think that means in certain locations they'll get rid of it.
It's because of theft.
So apparently people just pretend they're self-checking and then just take their stuff.
It's theft.
Yeah.
So I think that probably has everything to do with the location of the store.
In my neighborhood, probably even in my neighborhood, there'd be a little theft, but probably not a lot.
Here's an update on TikTok.
Does it seem like the TikTok story just sort of disappeared?
For a long time, there was all this activity, and there were people putting together offers, and then it just sort of disappeared.
And I think what's going on is that China is not going to say yes to a TikTok merger or purchase as long as our trade war is going on.
So Trump is likely going to extend again the deadline for TikTok to find a buyer.
But he's very pro-TikTok because TikTok was good to him in the election.
Anyway.
So apparently the P. Diddy trial starts today.
They're going to look for jurors.
And I was thinking to myself, I can't think of a trial I would less want to be on.
Because you would hear things that would just disturb you for the rest of your life.
And probably there's going to be pictures and images and oh my god.
But on top of that, I would also be worried about being murdered.
Is that a good enough reason to not serve on the jury?
Has anybody ever said, you know, I wouldn't mind serving on the jury, but I don't want to get murdered.
I was thinking about that because some time ago I was famous for the Dilber stuff, so I was already well-known, and I went to jury duty.
And the case was about a meth dealer who was well-armed.
So he had guns, and he was a meth dealer.
And I thought to myself, what is different between me and all these other jurors?
The thing that's different is he could probably figure out who I am.
And if I put him in jail, what happens when he gets out?
He's going to know exactly one person who voted to put him in jail.
I thought, that doesn't seem like the safest thing in the world.
I'd rather be anonymous.
So that's one of the things you think about when you're a public figure, is if you do jury duty, the defendant knows who you are and they know how to find you.
That's not a comfortable situation.
So I wouldn't want to be in the ditty jury.
So Stephen A. Smith is still teasing a run for president.
I don't think he's going to do it, but I love the fact that he's using the Donald Trump method, where for years he just keeps teasing like he's going to do it.
And it's probably really good for his ratings and his image and everything.
But he said, I believe that if I did take this very, very seriously, and I move forward, And I decided that I wanted to be a politician.
Do I believe I could win?
You're damn right.
Maybe he could.
But he said that the Democratic Party would need to be, quote, purged before he could run as a Democrat.
I guess he's a registered independent, but he would run as a Democrat.
Now, what do you think that means?
Purged?
It looks to me like...
Everybody involved in the Democratic Party at the leadership level is a negative.
If you can name them, in other words, if you know their name and they're a Democrat leader, they're probably more negative than positive because they don't have much of a bench there.
So what he says, purged, I think that would be the top 30 famous people.
You'd have to get rid of all of them before you'd be willing to run.
So I don't think he's going to run for president.
There's a new gizmo, according to New Atlas, that shoots UV light at your food in your refrigerator, and it will keep your food fresher longer, because the UV light kills whatever germs it is that spoils your food.
And it made me wonder.
I don't know about you, but I like to have fresh fruit and stuff.
And if you buy, let's say, two or three different kinds of fresh fruit, it's hard to eat them before they go bad.
So couldn't people cut their food costs down quite a bit by never having anything go bad in their refrigerator?
I feel like you could save money on this somehow.
It's not...
So this thing is...
It's been invented and it works.
But it makes me want my entire refrigerator to have that UV light.
All right, so as you know, the Democrats say that Republicans want to cut Medicaid.
But Trump says he's not going to cut Medicaid.
And the leaders say, we're not going to cut Medicaid.
Maybe just some fraud and abuse, but we're not going to cut the benefits.
But it turns out that the people noodling over the budget, the Republicans noodling over the budget, are looking at maybe capping how much the federal government covers for the states.
So Medicaid is kind of a state thing that is partially funded by the federal government.
And so the weasels in the Republican Party...
And it's not all of them, but we don't know which ones.
Some of these weasels are coming up with an idea of balancing the budget by just moving the expense onto the states.
So in other words, they say, well, the most we can pay you, California, is this per person, and it will never go up.
I guess at the moment, the federal government pays for whatever it is.
So whatever the amount is, that's the actual amount, the federal government just writes its check for its portion of it.
But if they said, all right, we're going to cap it, we'll only pay this much per person, that would mean that all the extra costs would move to the states.
And I think to myself, are the Republicans really going to try that?
I don't think they will.
But that would be the most weaselly, disgusting thing I've ever seen.
So, you're saying it's a smart move.
It's not a smart move, because it would just bankrupt the states.
And, you know, as a resident, I'd still...
Some kind of dogfight going on outside.
As a resident, I would still have to pay for it.
So, if I'm paying the same amount, I don't care if it's the federal government.
So, this is very weaselly.
But I don't see how they get to any kind of a decent budget without cutting stuff, and it looks like they can't cut stuff.
According to the Gateway Pundit, you know your favorite New York Attorney General, Letitia James?
I guess she's working with some other attorney generals, and they're going to come up with a lawsuit against Trump, and the lawsuit will be to prevent him from Cutting health and human services.
So to prevent him from cutting health care funding.
Don't they need to wait until there's actually a budget?
So they're planning to sue him over the cuts that he says he's not going to make.
Now that's pretty aggressive.
So good luck, Letitia James.
I think if she can stay out of jail with her own problems, that would be a good success.
Apparently, one of the things that Doge succeeded at, that maybe they'll never get enough credit, is they put in an automated payment verification system in the Treasury.
So it used to be that if somebody submitted something for payment, it just got paid.
There was nobody checking to see if it was a legitimate charge.
And in the first week alone, it blocked.
334 million in improper payments.
I got this from the Amuse account on X. Now, does that sound real?
Do you think that in the first week, just one week, that there were 334 million improper payments?
Or is it more likely that they might have been...
You know, a mix of proper and improper payments, but some of them had the wrong code on them or somebody didn't follow the rules.
I don't know.
There's been a lot of over claims on the Doge stuff, so I'd be a little careful on that one.
But, you know, as I said, I think the big benefit of Doge is just the idea that there should be somebody checking the expenses.
And that they'll put something in place to do it like that.
Well, there's somebody who worked on Doge has created a startup that's going to try to replace a bunch of government workers with AI agents.
So we're finally at the point where that's on the border of being practical.
And apparently it would save some immense amount of money.
But the best thing would be if you had to reach somebody in the government, instead of that being one person or a limited number of persons, that everybody would be able to get through to the AI agent.
My lights just go off again.
That's so weird.
Okay.
All right, fixed.
Seems like poltergeist.
Some kind of poltergeist problem.
Anyway, so this, according to Wired, they've got an article on it.
So this could be kind of exciting because it's the right person.
You know, somebody who was involved with Doge.
So they got to figure out all the places in the government that you could put an AI agent.
Could be a big money saver.
We'll see.
Well, 60 Minutes had some more fake news on Trump.
Well, maybe not fake news, but let's say news and a context.
Now, remember I always tell you that if you know what happened, you don't know anything.
But if you know the people involved and you know something about them, then probably you understand the situation.
And here's a perfect example of that.
So, Scott Pelley on 60 Minutes.
I was interviewing a far-left activist judge called Mark Elias.
How many of you are familiar with that name?
A lawyer named Mark Elias.
Does that ring any bells?
But he was there to talk about Trump's assault on the legal profession and how Trump is threatening the rule of law itself.
So that was, you know, basically they used him as their source to say how bad Trump was and, you know, going after the rule of law.
Now, here's what they did not include.
And this comes from Joel Pollack.
He posted on X, Elias is the Russia hoaxer.
Plotted the vote-by-mail fiasco and the lawfare against Trump, as well as any lawyers who helped him.
And that was never mentioned.
Tell me, where was this concern about targeting lawyers when Trump attorneys were being bullied and hit with phony bar complaints?
Now, don't you think that 60 Minutes should have mentioned that?
That Mark Elias is not just your average lawyer?
He was deeply involved in doing things that ordinary people think, that looks pretty sketchy.
So I think that was a big omission there.
Trump has also confirmed that he was pushing to send U.S. troops into Mexico to help fight the drug cartels.
But I don't think Mexico said yes to that.
But that offer is still out there.
Some people say, but wait, we wanted Trump because he would not start any wars.
But he was, when he was running for office, he did say he would send the military into Mexico if he had to.
So it shouldn't be a surprise.
He's been saying it directly for a while.
Well, Trump has a new proposal.
He says that he wants Alcatraz to be reopened.
So that we can put some of our worst prisoners in there.
Now, this might be his worst idea he's ever had.
Because Alcatraz is the least efficient place you could put somebody.
Because, you know, it's in the water.
You have to get there by boat.
It's super old.
So you couldn't really bring it up to standards very easily.
I don't even know if he's serious.
To me, it looks like it's one of those things where he just threw it out there without too much research or none.
And he's just letting the media chew on it for a while.
Because if you check the political news, it's definitely taking up space.
I think that all the Democrats are going to be like, oh, we've got him now.
He doesn't know that that's a bad idea.
But maybe he does.
I don't know.
You know, I'm not going to say it's 4D chess.
I think it's more like he just likes throwing things at the wall and making the media chase after it.
So apparently Alcatraz would hold fewer than 400 prisoners.
And if a population of 1.8 million or so were in jail at the moment in the U.S. And one of the reasons it was closed in the first place is it cost about three times as much to run that prison as other prisons.
I don't know if that changed.
So I'm going to say the Alcatraz idea is a terrible idea, but I don't know how serious he was.
He might be just getting the media to...
Talk about something that's unimportant.
Here's another thing I'm uncomfortable with.
I don't know the details, but apparently many of the Trump family members are involved with crypto.
At the same time that Trump has dismantled a lot of the crypto regulatory structure.
And at the same time that he's...
You know, I think he's also got crypto.
How many of you are okay with that?
Because it does look like trying to make money from your office.
You know, the family making money as well.
Now, I think it's all transparent.
In other words, I don't believe anything's hidden.
You know, nobody's trying to pull one over on you.
And as far as I know, it's legal.
There's nothing preventing any of them from doing it.
But does it make you feel uncomfortable?
I don't think this is an ideal situation.
I don't love Trump being, you know, full crypto and his family being big on crypto.
Without us, I don't know.
It just seems like the whole area is too sketchy.
So I'm not really delighted with that.
Trump also said he's going to order a 100% tariff on all movies produced outside the U.S. Because, as you know, California in particular has priced itself out of the movie-making business.
It's just too expensive to make movies in California, so nobody does it anymore.
But if you do it overseas, you can get a 100% tariff.
And in related news...
The mayor of LA, Karen Bass, says she's working to cut fees and red tape for people to make movies in the LA area and looking to triple the tax subsidy for movie making.
I don't know.
I'm just not entirely sure that Trump just didn't end all movies.
Because if the only place that you can make the movie is overseas, you know, go to Canada or something like that, and Trump just made that too expensive, does that necessarily mean that people will do it in California, which is also too expensive?
Or does it mean they just won't make movies?
So I worry that the current situation would just make it impossible to make a movie.
Not that you're missing much, really.
Movies are terrible these days.
So Trump said something else that is going to cause the latest hoax.
So he was talking to Kristen Welker, CBS News.
So this was the other day.
And she said, your Secretary of State says everyone who's here, citizens and non-citizens, deserve due process.
Do you agree?
And Trump said, I don't know.
I'm not a lawyer.
I don't know.
And Walker said, don't you need to uphold the Constitution?
And Trump said, I don't know.
Now, that was interpreted by the Democrat leadership who were all weasels.
As he wasn't sure he would want to uphold the Constitution.
Is that how you interpret that?
That's not how I interpret it.
I interpret it as he's going to wait for the lawyers to tell him what to do, and then he'll do what the lawyers say.
So he doesn't know.
He's not a lawyer.
So does he need to uphold the Constitution, or is it not in the Constitution?
I don't know.
And I also don't know.
Is there anything he needs to do because it's in the Constitution?
Or are there things he needs to do but they're not necessarily in the Constitution?
I don't know.
So he could have answered that question a little bit more cleanly, but Chuck Schumer's already going full hoax on that.
He doesn't want to uphold the Constitution, which is, of course, not what he intended, I'm sure.
All right.
So you've heard this before, but it's been reported again by Liberty Nation News that we're negotiating with the UK for a new trade deal.
But I guess J.D. Vance has laid down the rule that we're not going to do a trade deal unless...
The UK gets rid of its hate speech rules that could affect Americans.
And I'm completely for that.
We shouldn't do any business at all with any country that's trying to take away our First Amendment rights when they're not even in our country.
They would just use their foreign influence to suppress platforms, for example.
And maybe even individuals.
So, yes, J.D. Vance, I think you're on the right path there.
Well, there's a story, which I'm sure to get wrong, about a bill that was being introduced, but I guess it's been withdrawn at least for this week.
It's not dead, but I think they may have to clarify it a little bit.
It's H.R. 867.
And Thomas Massey and Marjorie Taylor Greene have already said, no, no way.
So, you want me to tell you what this new bill would do?
And here's the fun part of the story.
A lot of smart people on X don't agree on what the bill even says.
So, I'll take a shot at it, but be aware that everybody who's talked about it so far seems to have a slightly different interpretation of what it even is.
So what are the odds I'm going to get this right?
Low.
So you should put a low credibility on my interpretation of it, okay?
But what I think it is, is they're trying to make it, I won't say criminalized because it's not being criminalized, but they would put a financial penalty.
On American companies, but not individuals.
So this is not about individuals.
This is about companies.
If those companies get into a boycott of a foreign, let's say an ally.
Now, everybody knows that we're really talking about Israel, but I don't think it mentions Israel by name.
If it's organized by An international body of governments.
So in other words, the UN would be sort of an international body of a bunch of governments.
So if the UN said, hey, you need to join a boycott against Israel, and then a US company said, all right, we're in, then if this bill were passed, they would be penalized financially.
Now, apparently this is not that big of a change from current law, because my understanding is that current law already bans you from being part of a boycott that's organized by a foreign government.
So all this does is take the foreign government part and say, well, also, if it's an organization of multiple governments.
So I think that's the only thing that's changing.
So it's not changing anything for an individual.
You as an individual can boycott anybody you want, and you can say anything you want.
But if you are a business, and you take the lead from another foreign government, that was already something you could be penalized for.
But now it's just extended to...
Groups, you know, organizations of governments, I guess.
Now, because this was so confusing, I think it probably made sense for them to withdraw it.
It was just a little, it just felt like it was something else.
Now, part of the controversy is that it treats Israel special.
Even though it doesn't, because it doesn't mention Israel, but everybody knows that's the only ally that's likely to be boycotted.
So I think that's where Massey and MTG might be coming from.
They might be coming from, why would you take away an American company's freedom to boycott anybody they wanted for any reason they wanted?
Whether it was organized by another country or organized by another organization of countries, why would you take that right away from them?
And I don't know the answer to that question.
But it's a good question.
But apparently we have some precedence because there was already a penalty if you did it and a foreign government was organizing it.
Anyway.
There's a new book that's telling us a little bit more about Biden's cognitive situation.
Now, I feel like all of these books, the new ones about what was really happening behind the scenes during the Biden time, I feel like all of them are some version of trying to make the authors look like...
There's a reason they didn't notice.
There was something wrong with his brain.
So this new book says that Biden's team actually thought of giving him a cognitive test in February of 2024, but they decided not to because if they gave him a cognitive test, it would sort of draw attention to the fact that maybe he needed a cognitive test.
But at the time...
They're still pretending that people didn't know he had a problem.
And so the book is 2024, How Trump Retook the White House and the Democrats Lost America.
So it's coming out in July.
But I feel like, just based on some summaries of the book, it kind of looks like it's trying to give the writers of the book There are three reporters from Washington Post and Wall Street Journal and the New York Times.
So three reporters.
I feel like it's just trying to give cover.
I think the official story now is that the first time anybody noticed anything was wrong is when they were prepping Biden for the debate that went terribly wrong.
And that besides that, Other than that, nobody noticed anything wrong.
And watching the massive gaslighting that's happening about this, when all of us could see that there was something wrong with him, is really impressive.
I mean, there's a lot of work going into covering up probably the biggest scandal in politics in our lifetime.
I don't know if there's a bigger scandal than that.
And they're actually trying to make it completely go away.
Like, well, there was nothing to see.
I mean, you know, we didn't notice.
Jen Psaki said, I never noticed anything.
I didn't see anything wrong.
Unbelievable.
Well, Trump also made a little extra news talking to Kristen Welker in the same interview that I was mentioning.
And she asked him, are you not ruling out military force to take Greenland one day?
And Trump said, I don't rule it out.
I don't say I'm going to do it, but I don't rule out anything.
No, not there.
We need Greenland very badly.
Greenland is a very small amount of people which we'll take care of and we'll cherish them.
That's such a Trump thing to say.
We'll cherish them and all of that.
He says, we'll cherish them and all of that.
But we need that for international security.
Now, of course, the follow-up question is, do you want to take Canada by military force?
And although Trump doesn't like to rule anything out, he definitely ruled that out.
He said, no, we're not going to take Canada by military force.
I don't think he's going to take Greenland by military force, but having the credible threat out there might.
Cause a little bit of negotiating advantage.
We'll see.
Well, according to the Defense Post, the U.S. military is not ready to defend against drone attacks on our bases.
I guess we've got pretty good offensive drones, but we don't have much of a drone defense.
So if anybody did some massive drone attacks on our bases, we'd be in trouble.
And there have been 350 drone incursions, meaning over a military area, I guess, reported over 100 U.S. military installations in the past year alone.
Now that doesn't mean that those are foreign drones.
We probably just don't know.
But that's a lot of incursions.
So I'd be worried about that.
It's all about the drones.
According to Reuters, the European Union is going to announce a roadmap for getting off of Russia oil and gas, to which I said, wait, what?
Are you telling me that the European Union is still buying Russian oil and gas?
So would that mean that they're funding both sides of the war?
Apparently, Europe's getting around 19% of its gas from Russia.
19%.
Now, they're trying to get off it, but that would very clearly indicate that the European Union was funding both sides of the war because they were directly funding Ukraine and then indirectly funding Russia by buying their...
By buying their gas.
To me, that sounds so crazy.
It just sounds insane.
And I understand it.
I mean, in the real world, you can't not have gas, and it's not easy to make a change, and if Russia's willing to sell it to you, well, what are you going to do?
But, like, if you ever thought that war was stupid, this is the best war is stupid anecdote you'll ever have.
That the European Union was funding both sides of the war.
Oh my God.
Anyway.
Sam Harris is in the news again.
He said this.
If Trump isn't a Russian asset, one wonders how he can do a better impression of one.
He's doing exactly what Putin would want.
Doesn't Trump have massive sanctions on Russia?
Didn't Trump sell the first deadly weapons to Ukraine long before the invasion?
Didn't Trump just make a mineral deal with Ukraine that presumably was not very popular with Putin?
Hmm.
It doesn't look to me like he's doing everything that Putin wants.
But poor Sam Harris.
I just worry about him because he just looks...
It looks like mental illness is what it looks like.
But I can't...
I can't...
Oh, I'm just looking at a post coming through from the Amuse account.
According to the Amuse account...
The EU is sending more money to Russia each year than it sends to Ukraine because of the purchase of energy.
Wow.
All right, well, so I don't think that that holds up, but I don't think also that we're going to be negotiating any kind of a peace deal with Russia and Ukraine.
I think they're just going to have to fight it out.
Well, the Houthis have taken it up a level.
They sent a missile into Israel the other day, and it exploded near the Ben-Gurion airport.
And now their Houthi spokesperson is saying that they're basically trying to close down Israel.
In terms of airspace.
So they want to make it too dangerous for anybody to fly into or out of Israel.
And they're vowing repeated strikes on airports to enforce their siege.
Now, are the Houthis just sort of asking for it?
Apparently the continuous bombing by the United States is just making them more likely to...
So I guess it doesn't help at all to attack them.
They're just taking it up a level.
And doesn't Israel have to attack them now?
I mean, if they succeed in making commercial aircraft not want to land in Israel, doesn't Israel have to just wipe out the Houthis?
Because they can't really live there as a country with some other country closing their airports.
I mean, I think they're going to have to go pretty hard at the Houthis, or if the United States doesn't do it for them.
Anyway, so Israel's already threatened to respond sevenfold.
This is according to Al Jazeera.
Trump says what he wants from the Iran deal is a total dismantling of the Iran nukes.
But he's open to Iran having a civilian nuclear energy, as long as they're not doing any refining, just getting the materials from foreign countries.
I guess that would be safer.
His goal is total dismantlement.
Do you think that's going to happen?
Do you think Iran is going to agree to just have commercial...
Commercial nuclear power?
I don't think so.
I feel like Iran is just sort of tapping along.
But here's something I wasn't expecting.
Senator Fetterman is all in for an attack on Iran.
He posted on X. We cannot negotiate with Iran.
It's time to destroy their nuclear program and neutralize the remaining capabilities of its proxies.
I remain steadfast with Israel.
Provide whatever is necessary to carry this out.
Now, does that sound like he's our senator?
Or does that just sound like he's working for Israel?
You know, I hate to be the guy who says, oh, our politicians are just working for Israel.
But why would he talk like this?
He's talking exactly like he's just a politician in Israel.
I'll tell you, I definitely don't trust him after this.
Because I had kind of a positive opinion of him because he was sort of commonsensical.
But he doesn't seem to be America first.
This definitely looks like Israel first.
So, I don't know.
Put that in your Fetterman box.
Evaluate it any way you want.
Well, according to the Wall Street Journal, Israel's security cabinet voted to approve new ground operations in Gaza that would include occupying the Gaza Strip.
Now, the way it's written, it would suggest that the Israeli military and other resources would essentially Occupy and be in control on the ground in Gaza.
But they're still acting like the civilian population of Gazans would still be there.
I'm not sure that's the intention.
I've got a feeling that at some point, Israel will clear out all the tunnels, because they have to have some presence there to actually get rid of the tunnels in the last of Hamas.
But then it's going to be way too dangerous to let anybody back in because there'll be so much toxic everything because everything's destroyed.
So I've got a feeling that the next play will be that, well, we can't let the residents come back right away because it's going to take a few years to clean this up.
We better find some other place to put them in another country.
I just don't see the Gaza residents ever going back to Gaza.
I think Israel is just going to control it and depopulate it and then build back something.
And I don't know who's going to be there, but it won't be the Hamas-loving population that was there.
That's just my guess.
I've got some questions about the trade negotiations with China.
One of our problems with China trade is that they steal our IP.
You know, they steal our ideas and they steal our technology and stuff.
And I thought, if that's one of the big things that we need to get fixed, how could that possibly be fixed?
Because I don't believe there's any mechanism.
I don't think there's a court that we would trust that wouldn't just be, you know, Chinese puppet court.
How would we ever build a system that we were satisfied that would prevent China from stealing our IP?
What would stop them from doing it?
Because mostly I think they would just say, we don't do that.
I think that's the best you're going to get.
Oh, no, we'd never do that.
No, no.
Oh, okay, maybe one company did that.
Oh, no, oh, no, a second company did it.
Well...
Yeah, we'll tell them to cut that out.
I don't think that's solvable.
So unless you built some, like, international body that China was willing to give up some sovereignty to, and I can't imagine that happening, and if it were a Chinese court, let's say China said, all right, we'll start our own court that only handles these IP complaints.
Would you ever trust it?
Because the Chinese court would probably rule for the Chinese company every time.
So, to me, this seems unsolvable.
I feel like we just have to run away and just get out of China.
We'll see.
All right.
All right.
And then China's also talking about the fentanyl.
I don't believe that's real either.
I think China just wants to act like they're doing something, like they have before, and just keep the fentanyl flowing.
So I think that that's probably a non-starter.
I don't know if we could ever reach a deal with China.
If we're...
If we're serious about fentanyl and we're serious about the theft of IP, I don't know what that would even look like.
You know, it's easy to imagine a deal that has to do with tariffs because you just say, okay, whatever your tariff is, that'll be our tariff too or something like that.
But these other things are actually unsolvable because China would have no interest in solving them whatsoever.
And so they could just pretend they were doing something and not do anything.
So that's all I got for today.
It's a weird day in the news.
I'm going to say a few words privately to the subscribers on Locals and the rest of you.
Thanks for joining.
We'll see you same time tomorrow if you're on X or Rumble or YouTube.
