God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorksFind my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.comContent:Politics, American Pope, NASA Alien Technology UFO, Camryn Kinsey Collapse, DC US Attorney Jeanine Pirro, Smartmatic Reid Hoffman, Biden's PR Campaign, Tapper Thompson Biden Book, UK Trade Deal, Google Search Decline, Fake Polling Persuasion, Victor Davis Hanson, Elon Musk Democrat Propaganda, DOGE Savings, Fake US Budget Process, FBI Scalise Shooting Investigation, Racist DEI Persistence, Female STEM, Arrested Columbia Protesters, Male vs Female Biological Mindset, RFK Assassination Suspicions, DOJ Leticia James Criminal Probe, President Trump, Rich Tax Increase, Fake Climate Models, AI Crippling Regulations, Robot Military Future, LA Fire Rebuilding Regulations, 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.
I'll get my comments working here and then we'll get going.
Bye.
you.
you Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and I'll bet you never had a better time.
If you'd like to see if you could take this experience up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need for that is a cup or mug or a glass of tank or chalice of 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 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.
Don't you feel better?
That will cure your diabetes in women.
That's the latest news.
Well, unless you're the last person on earth who knows it, an American pope was selected.
We've never had an American pope.
And I heard some...
People who know what they're talking about say that in the past, when they considered American candidates to be Pope, I guess that would have been the Cardinals, they decided that they didn't want to make it look like America owned everything.
Like America has the biggest military, has the biggest economy, and they didn't want it also to be looking like it was leading the Catholic Church.
So, apparently...
The thinking was that they wouldn't select an American pope until America was in decline.
Just so it wouldn't look like America was getting everything, all the good stuff.
So, I don't know.
Is America in decline?
Has the Catholic Church just basically indirectly given us the warning?
I guess we could have an American pope now.
Looks like you're all in decline.
Let's see if this is working.
But the American Pope, I guess he grew up in Chicago and went to Villanova and he was a math major and he speaks five languages.
And good luck.
Good luck to him.
We'll see.
You know, it feels like I'm just going to speculate.
It feels like if the Catholic Church wanted to have more influence in, let's say, big things that America is involved in, it probably would help a lot that they've got an American Pope.
Because don't you think the American Pope, somebody else said this, I'm borrowing this idea, don't you think the American Pope could pick up the phone and just call Trump?
Of course he could.
They could just have a phone call.
Whereas I don't think there's ever been a Pope.
Is there?
When was the last time there was a Pope who spoke English?
Well, there's never been an American one.
So you know Trump would take the call, and he'd probably just hang out with him if he wanted to.
He'd probably have dinner with him.
So it might be one of the most genius things the Catholics have come up with.
If they want to have some kind of more influence on things they care about, like immigration, the environment, etc.
So we'll see how that works out.
In other incredibly important news, Melania Trump unveiled a U.S. stamp honoring Barbara Bush.
So I guess I was a little dicey about who would be unveiling it, because, you know.
President Trump has said such bad things about the Bush family in the past.
He was the wrong choice.
So Melania was probably exactly the right choice.
And not many of the Bush family showed up.
I guess some cousins or something showed up.
But all I can say about the Barbara Bush stamp is, personally, I'd be afraid to lick it.
But that's just me.
That's just me.
That's the oldest joke in the world.
You knew somebody was going to say that.
According to the New York Post, there's this top ex-NASA official who claims he saw a large white flying saucer in a big warehouse that had a U.S. Air Force logo, and he was told it was using the alien technology that they'd captured.
So he claims that he once actually sought himself Dr. Gregory Rogers.
And it was part of a secretive project.
Now, how many of you think that's true?
Do you think this story is true?
And the U.S. Air Force built their own UFO based on alien technology?
I have one word for you.
Nope.
I don't care how many times they try to tell us the same story.
No.
I'm not even sure I would believe a video of it.
I would need to see a real person who was not part of the military or anything standing next to it.
Some credible reporter.
Put his hands on it.
Ride around in it.
Show us the alien craft.
It would take so, so much to convince me that we had captured off-world alien technology and built a spacecraft.
And then we don't use it because apparently this would have been 30 years ago.
So do you think we've had alien technology for 30 years and it's really the good stuff?
And for 30 years...
We decided not to use it.
I don't believe any of this stuff, not even a little bit.
Two-hour podcast with Bob Lazar wouldn't change your mind?
No!
Bob Lazar?
Are you kidding me?
How many of you think Bob Lazar is a credible source?
That is so not credible.
Well, last night, It was the weirdest...
Actually, I couldn't sleep because I kept thinking about it.
Yeah, I was going to say I almost couldn't sleep, but it actually kept me awake for a while.
So by complete coincidence, I'm toddling around getting ready to go to bed early, as I like to do, and I had Fox News on.
There was one of the Fox News contributors, I guess.
Maybe contributor is the right word.
Cameron Kinsey.
She's 24 years old.
She's got long blonde hair, if you've seen her before.
And I don't know the host.
So the Fox News host was not familiar to me.
So he wasn't one of the name brand famous ones.
He looked like he was a fill-in kind of a host who does the weird hours or something.
So the Fox News host gives her a question, and I'm sort of half paying attention while doing other things.
And she starts to answer the question, and then all of a sudden she just stops talking in the middle of her answer, which of course caused me to look at the screen to see what was happening.
And all of a sudden, and this is nothing to laugh at because we don't know.
We don't know if she's okay yet.
I think she is, but we don't know.
She simply goes and just falls off her chair on the floor right next to the host.
How many of you saw that?
You may have seen the clip this morning, but if you saw it live, if you saw it live, it was super unsettling.
But it got even more unsettling because of the way the host handled it.
So that's the funny part.
Now, again, there's nothing funny about this if she has some real medical problem.
But I think the fact that we haven't heard an update probably means it was just some kind of ordinary fainting attack and that she's fine.
So she's laying on the floor.
We still don't know if she's okay.
It looked like one of the technical people ran in to see what was what.
And so the host immediately calls for help.
He goes, oh, we need some help here immediately, just as he should.
But then the host doesn't know what to do because they're still alive, and he's got another guest that he has a question for.
Well, his colleague is laying on the ground next to his feet.
And he's probably thinking to himself, how do I play this?
Do I just stop the show?
And he decides that his best way to play it is to just throw a question to the next guest.
Which...
I'm no expert in these things.
I'm no medical doctor, nor am I a TV show host.
But I'll tell you what the wrong answer was.
The wrong answer was to throw a question to the next guest while she's laying on the floor next to his feet.
Okay.
And again.
There's nothing funny about it, if anything bad happened to her.
So I'm hoping that I can make fun of the host of the show without any of that disrespect going to her because we don't know what happened.
It could be worse than it looked.
I don't know.
But then you could almost hear the producers.
So he starts to just go on with the show while she's still laying there on the floor.
You couldn't see her, but you knew that she had to be laying there because of where the chairs were.
And then he goes, "Oh, I guess we're going to a commercial." So, in case this ever happens to you, and by the way, I was trying to imagine if any other host of Fox News would have played it the same way.
I'm trying to imagine, you know, Hannity.
If that happened on the Hannity show, he would take his earpiece out.
He would say, you know, we've got a problem here.
He would have immediately gotten out of his chair and he would have been on the ground even if the camera couldn't follow him.
And he would have probably said while he was doing it, you know, cut to commercial.
He would have just taken charge, right?
And you could put in a bunch of other hosts of Fox News who would have played it the same way.
But the right answer is to immediately stop the program.
There's no second way to play that.
And that you immediately get down on the ground and see if you can be useful or at least find out what's going on.
And if the producers want to go to a commercial, well, let them go to a commercial.
But that's not your problem right now.
So that's my advice.
All right, so that weird thing was happening.
And then I, a little bit later, like almost the same time, I switched to CNN, and I learned that Judge Jeanine from Fox News, you know her from The Five and other things, Has been appointed by President Trump as the interim U.S. Attorney for Washington,
D.C. This is that highly controversial post that Ed Martin was going to be nominated for, but he was withdrawn because Senator Tillis had a problem with his experience and some things he's said in the past, I guess.
And I thought to myself, wait a minute.
Are you really telling me that Ed Martin, because he had said some things in the past about January 6th, and maybe he didn't have as much prosecutorial experience, that was the reason that the senator said, no, I won't support him?
Are you telling me that Judge Jeanine is going to pass those two bars?
Are all the things that Judge Jeanine has ever said about January 6th Going to pass muster with that same senator, Tillis?
How's that going to work?
And I don't know, you know, I don't have a way to comment about her prosecutorial experience, but she hasn't been doing it for a while.
You know, I think she's been doing the TV thing for quite a while now.
So I don't know if she's the right pick, but she would be loyal and maybe that's the most important part.
Because you want somebody who's not going to use that position to go after Republicans, and she definitely wouldn't go after Republicans.
So you got that going for you.
But here's the weird part, and I need a fact check on this.
So I need one of you to have been watching CNN at the same time last night.
The CNN host, hostess, I can't remember who it was, kept teasing that she was going to be a guest.
Live on CNN.
And I thought to myself, what?
How does that even make sense?
That, you know, that Fox News would not be the first one to put her on.
And I thought, is this some kind of, you know, is she making a statement to Fox News?
You know, did things go not well?
So she's going to do a hit on CNN?
And then it got weirder.
But here's where I need the fact check.
I don't think she went on.
I kept watching and waiting, and I think they had somebody else come on to talk about her.
Now, did anybody see her go on CNN last night?
Because if she didn't go on after they continually teased that she was a guest and she'd be up pretty soon, would that mean that maybe it looked like they were sabotaging her and she...
Pulled out?
Because I'm guessing that's what happened, but I don't know.
Because it looked like when they were talking about her, and they had somebody on before she came on to talk about her, that it felt a little like a setup.
Like they weren't going to give her a fair hearing.
And I wonder if she just said, all right, I'm out.
You can do whatever you want with your dead air time.
Did that happen?
So I just need to fact check, did she show up on air, and did I just sort of miss it or something?
I don't think she did.
So anyway, maybe we'll hear more about that.
But she would not be still on The Five, because Fox News has a rule that if you're working for the government, you can't be on the show.
And I guess being nominated for this...
Would make it impossible for her to be on the show.
Did you know, according to the Amuse account, you're aware that Smartmatic, the software company that does election software, that they've got some kind of lawsuit that's still brewing with Fox News?
But the new news that I didn't know about before that the Amuse account is talking about is that, allegedly, Democrat billionaire Reid Hoffman secretly met with Smartmatic's CEO and agreed to give them...
What?
Senator Tom Tillis says, Judge Jeanine is a great choice.
I'm seeing a post on that, but that's, uh, oh, okay.
So Reid Hoffman apparently put $24 million into backing the lawsuits against Fox News and Newsmax.
And according to the news account, the company kept the meeting secret from the court and the defendants.
Now, is that true?
Do you think Reid Hoffman put $24 million into the lawsuits?
And if he hadn't, would the lawsuits have happened?
Because in a way, that would be really clever, because he could have taken out, or almost did, Fox News and Newsmax.
He could have just completely taken them off the field for what would be a small amount of money for Reid Hoffman.
Did that really happen?
It feels like our government is whoever does the best job of suing somebody.
Anyway.
You probably have seen the clips by now that Joe Biden and Jill Biden appeared on The View, and it looked like they were trying to rehabilitate Joe in the public to make it look like he's functional and always was.
And he did not look functional.
He looked like he was a mess, and Jill had to jump in and try to save him on one important question.
But apparently even the Democrat consultants are mad that the Bidens returned to the spotlight.
How would you like to be a Democrat?
And you're trying to recover from just a disastrous last year.
And the thing you want more than anything is for people to think about the future and maybe your new candidates.
And then the new cycle gets absorbed by Joe Biden looking incompetent again.
Worst case scenario.
So a very bad week to be a Democrat consultant when Biden's just out there looking bad.
But apparently it's going to get worse.
So Scott Jennings is teasing that, he said this in the Post on X, he said, between what we saw of Biden today on The View and my understanding of what's about to drop in the Tapper slash Thompson book, uh-oh, I don't think Dems have fully internalized the nuclear bomb that's about to hit their party.
Oh my goodness.
So it looks like Jake Tapper and somebody named Thompson have a book that will not be kind to the Bidens.
And it sounds like Scott Jennings had a little preview of what's coming.
Do you think that's hyperbole?
Do you think that Scott Jennings is getting out a little bit over his skis?
Or is his book going to be that devastating?
I feel like it might be that devastating because the media really needs to make sure that the blame looks like it's just on the Bidens because then the media doesn't look like they're complicit.
So I think the media has to hit the Bidens as hard as they possibly can and that they feel safe to do it and it's even profitable at the moment.
So yeah, there might be some fun coming there.
Well, let's check how I did on my prediction about the UK trade deal.
You remember yesterday I said when the trade deal was being announced, I said that the left-leaning media would say it's no big deal and it's a special case and it really is not indicative of anything good happening and it wouldn't be much benefited whatsoever to America.
Well, that's exactly what happened.
That's exactly what happened.
But it is a small deal.
And apparently our trade imbalance with the UK was never much of anything to worry about anyway.
But it looks like what the things they've talked about anyway.
It's not a signed deal.
It's more of a memo of understanding kind of situation.
So, in exchange for the UK purchasing Boeing jets and giving American farmers more access to the UK, the US is going to allow Rolls-Royce jet engines to be imported tariff-free.
Is that all?
There will still be a 10% tariff on the UK, which is way up from, what, 2.4%.
And apparently we didn't have a trade deficit with the UK.
They were buying more than we were buying from them.
So it looks like it was a pretty small potatoes deal.
it was the easiest one to do because there wasn't much going on that either side cared about too much, I guess.
So on one sense, I think the critics were right.
It's not really indicative of anything else that's going to happen anywhere else.
It was the easy one.
It was a special case.
However, there's not really any chance that that's the only trade deal.
So the fact that the easy one went first probably doesn't tell you much of anything.
It's just that would be the obvious one to go first.
So we'll see.
In other good news, according to the Postmillennial, the world's second largest car maker, which is the Volkswagen Group, and I guess they own...
Do they own Audi?
I think they do.
And they're going to look to move production to the United States, at least for Audi.
And that wouldn't be another big deal.
Yeah, Trump is saying it's great for American farmers and ranchers.
Well, good.
So the one thing that Trump promised us appears to be real, which is that big companies will move their production into the United States if they can, and the car manufacturers are probably among the ones who would have the easiest time moving their production.
So, looks like it's happening.
In other news, for the first time ever, the volume of Google searches went down.
And that's because a senior Apple executive said that in a court situation, that Google searches over Safari fell for the last two months.
And that's something that hasn't happened in 20 years.
So I guess it wasn't forever, but in over 20 years.
And the executive attributed the drop to the number of people who were using AI, ChatGPT, and perplexity.
So big things are going to...
Looks like big things are going to change with Google's business model.
Part of it might be they have to break up because of some kind of...
You know, I've talked about this before, but I'm going to put it in a larger context today.
If you haven't seen it yet, you need to see the video of Victor Davis Hanson.
Explaining how the fake polls do their faking.
And apparently it's just really easy.
All they do is they control what percentage of voters for each candidate, Trump versus non-Trump, that they talk to.
So if they want a poll to look bad for Trump, they don't ask many Trump voters what their opinion was.
And if they want it to look good for Trump, Or not good for Trump, because they never want that.
If they want it to look accurate, like all the pollsters do just before the actual election, because that's the one time you can check their work, then all they do is make sure they ask the representative number of Trump voters versus non-Trump voters.
And it's sort of that easy.
And they even show their work.
So if you knew enough, you could look at their...
I don't know, the cross tabs or whatever it is.
And they publish it.
And they tell you what percentage are this kind of voters or this kind of voters.
And you could tell that they were doing that.
Now, what Victor David Hansen says, he gives some details.
He says in the New York Times and the Washington Post polls, they were deliberately not counting people who surveyed that they were Trump supporters in 2024.
And that was half the country, but they were only polling about a third.
And then he mentions some other people.
He says the most egregious of all these polls was the NPR-PBS Marist poll.
And they had Trump being super unpopular after his first 100 days.
Apparently, they may have used that same trick.
I think that's what he's alleging.
And the same poll, he says, that came out the night before the 2024 election that said that Kamala Harris would win by four points.
And they said it was beyond the margin of error.
And she ended up losing by a point and a half.
In other words, they were five and a half points off right before the election.
Now, you can't really be five and a half points off if you're a professional polling organization, unless you're trying to.
I mean, that would be a really big mistake a day before the election.
So, my larger point here is that apparently, you know, and based on what Victor Davis Hanson says, it kind of looks like polling is fake.
At least political polling, not corporate or, you know, the commercial stuff is probably fine.
But at least the political stuff seems to be highly biased.
But Rasmussen, which is not part of these bad behavior polls, with the Heartland Institute did a poll, and this is the most shocking thing you'll ever hear in a poll in the United States.
71% of Democrats would favor a hypothetical law to put Musk behind bars for his work on Doge, as would 80% of self-identified liberal voters.
Can you believe that?
That for him risking his life and his fortune and working all hours of the night, For the service of the country, trying to cut our expenses and saving us from going off the ledge in spending, that somehow the propaganda was so effective that 71% of Democrats would want them to be locked up in jail.
For what?
For what exactly would be the crime?
Is it stuff they just make up?
Because, you know, you hear all the people like the Democrat leaders say, oh, he's only doing it to lower the taxes on the oligarchs like himself.
He's only doing it to cut the regulators who are trying to control his megalomania or something.
And then 71% of Democrats were so convinced that that stuff was true that they would be in favor of locking him up.
I'll tell you, if you ever get the impulse to do something that's really good for America, don't do it.
It's a suicide mission.
Oh, my God.
But did Doge do what it was supposed to do?
Well, I saw a post by an ex-user, John Sellers, and I think he was using Grok as his source.
Which makes this interesting.
But here's what you need to know.
There's a great controversy about how much Doge benefited the budget.
All right?
You would not be surprised to know that some left-leaning groups have a much lower opinion of what Doge did.
So remember that Doge was looking to try to get $2 trillion in spending.
By now, basically.
So that was their goal.
And at one point I heard it was $1 trillion.
And then the other trillion would be made up with growth.
And I thought to myself, well, you know, $1 trillion.
$1 trillion would be amazing.
It would save the country.
But currently, Doge is claiming something like $160 or $165 billion in savings.
Do you think everybody agrees with that?
That it's $160 billion?
Well, Reuters, who does not seem to be super friendly to Republicans, they estimated that the actual Doge savings could be as low as $5 billion.
Five.
The New York Times...
Reported that the Doge savings could be only $2.3 billion.
How many of you even knew that?
So, again, the New York Times is not considered a Republican-friendly place.
The Partnership for Public Service, this nonpartisan group, they calculated that Doge's actions might have cost taxpayers $135 billion.
Due to paid leave, rehiring fired workers, and lost productivity, and basically saying that it's going to cost more than they save.
By about the amount they're claiming they're saved might be actually what the actual extra cost is.
Bloomberg, again, not friendly to Republicans, says that after correcting errors, Like an $8 billion contract that was misreported as $8 million.
The estimated savings for Doge would be $16.6 billion.
$16.
So the estimates of real savings range from $2 to $16 billion.
And the true figure remains unclear.
And Grok apparently supports those reports, meaning it doesn't agree with them, but it reports them that they are actually saying that.
Now, have you noticed that the people working on the budget don't seem to be coming to us with a smaller budget?
All they did was add $150 billion to the current budget, and they didn't do anything else.
I have no idea what Speaker Johnson is doing, but I don't think he's cutting anything.
Do you?
Have you seen anything that's being cut?
You know, there might be some trivial little things they move around, but basically, the entire budget process is just fake.
They're simply pretending that they're looking at it with a scalpel.
They're not looking at it with a scalpel.
They're just giving us the same fucking budget they always do with a little bit added for military.
There's no doge savings in it.
It's just completely fake.
And they're just going to put it at us just like they always do.
And Thomas Massey will once again vote against it for all the right reasons.
And we'll end up getting mad and we'll say bad things.
We'll just go racing toward the ledge that we can't possibly survive, which is uncontrolled debt.
Do any of you think there's any chance that the budget is going to have any self-control whatsoever?
I don't think so.
And I don't think the Doge savings are even big enough that they'll show up at all.
I don't think any of it was real.
So that's what I think.
Trump said today that he might cut tariffs on China to 80% from 145.
And that would be before the weekend talks in Switzerland between the United States and Chinese representatives.
And I don't understand this.
Why would he offer to cut the...
Cut the tariffs before the negotiations.
That would be like negotiating with yourself.
Unless, you know, maybe he has some indication that China's going to be flexible and he wants to make sure that he looks like he was a little bit flexible himself.
I don't know.
But the funny part is that when he posted about it on Truth, He referred to Scott Besant as Scott B. Scott B. Because of Besant.
But the good news is I'm still Scott A. So, wouldn't you rather be Scott A than Scott B?
Makes him my backup.
But he's cool too.
He's cool too.
I like Scott B. I don't know if you heard this, but Steve Scalise is complaining that apparently we know now from some documents that have recently become available that the FBI deliberately withheld facts about the congressional baseball shooting, which included Steve Scalise as one of the victims of the shooting.
And at the time, they said that the...
Motivation was suicide by cop.
In other words, they said that the guy doing the shooting wanted to die, you know, in sort of an exciting way, so that's what he did.
Apparently that was totally made up, and that the FBI knew at the time it was completely politically motivated, and it was simply left-wing violence.
Why do you think the FBI reported it as suicide by cop, which would be a non-political thing?
Instead of exactly what it was, which was a left-wing person who got turned into an extremist by the propaganda.
Well, the only reason I can think of is that the FBI was politicized.
But Kash Patel seems to have fixed that by releasing some extra documents.
So, yes, the FBI...
As recently as the congressional baseball shootings, which wasn't that long ago, were politicized.
And so their work could not be trusted.
Do you think that changed?
Here's an interesting study by George Mason University is talking about it.
So they did a study where they were trying to figure out In advance, which businesses were likely to manipulate or bend their earnings reports, essentially fraudulently make claims about their earnings so that their stock wouldn't go down.
So they used AI to see if they can identify the language that's used when they're hiring people for the job of...
Reporting the earnings and doing the calculating.
And they found out that the ones who were planning to cheat and planning to lie about their earnings, when they were hiring people to be the main person who would do that kind of work, they used rule-bender sentences.
So the rule-bender sentences would be that they're looking for somebody who can think outside the box.
Explore alternative solutions and strategic data interpretation.
So apparently, if you're looking for somebody who can think outside the box when it comes to reporting your earnings, it's sort of a wink-wink.
You know, we need you to, you know, think outside the box.
Can you be flexible?
But if they wanted to...
If they were not planning to fraudulently report their own earnings, the rule follower language was they're looking for somebody who can ensure conformance, enforce compliance, and provide accurate and timely financial reporting.
Now, I don't know if this is a reproducible study or not, but it does sound like it might be.
If you knew you needed somebody to bend the rules, I can imagine that your job opening would have some language that was kind of rule-bendy right in there.
Anyway, the UCLA Medical School just got hit with a class-action lawsuit for still using DEI and race-based admissions.
Fox News is reporting on this.
Here's my take on all this.
It seems like every day there's somebody who's getting defunded because of their DEI, or in this case somebody who's going to be part of a class action lawsuit because of their DEI.
But I don't think any of it's going to go away.
And I think the reason it can't go away is that it's the same people at those entities that put it there in the first place.
It's going to be a combination of people who are true believers, who think they're on the side of the angels, and that the government is the bad guys.
Now, if you think the government is the bad guys, and you're doing the underground railroad or something, you feel like you're some kind of a hero by resisting the government.
But there might be a much simpler reason.
Why it's never going to go away.
You know, even though the government says it's illegal and people are suing you and there's all kinds of pressure to get rid of it.
But it's not going to go away.
Because imagine being part of an organization that embraced DEI as one of its highest principles.
And you'd be living that way for years.
Then imagine coming into the room and having to give this announcement.
Hey, everybody.
I know DEI has been our highest priority, and you're looking at your diverse employees by now.
But it turns out that it was all illegal, and it was racist, and it turns out we're the racists.
We didn't see that coming.
But it turns out we're the bad guys.
So instead of being the bad guys, We're going to change everything and stop being racist.
Who could do that?
Nobody.
There's no actual way that in the real world, real people could change on a dime from it's our highest priority to, oh, well, it turns out that it's actually just illegal and we're just a bunch of racists and we better cut out this shit right away.
Nobody can do that.
They're all going to turn into secret underground railroad heroes.
Well, let's just change the names of our department.
Let's just hide.
We'll say we got rid of the webpage, but we'll just keep doing it like we always do it.
I don't think any of these victories are going to be lasting.
I think the DEI racist Approach will just become permanent.
Well, I think it is permanent.
I just don't see anything that's going to change it.
I hate to say it.
But every claim, you know, I was getting all excited because the Trump administration was doing all the right things to attack the DEI practitioners.
I don't think any of it's going to work because they would be willing to take enormous risks.
To stay illegal because they think they're the angels.
According to the University of Pittsburgh, they did a study, a Michigan study, and they found out that women who have both high math and verbal abilities are less likely to go into STEM careers.
But if they have higher math abilities and lower verbal, They're a little more likely to want to go into STEM.
So this is all part of an effort to figure out how to get more women who are both high math and high verbal to go into STEM.
Now, they're speculating that the reason that the group with the most capability, the women with the most capability, are not as likely to go into STEM is that they have more options.
So if they have high verbal, well, you could also be an author, or you could also be the head of a, I don't know, you could be the CEO or something.
So you're not limited, so you just decide other things.
But my question is this.
How long are we going to pretend that you can hypnotize women into doing shit they don't want to do?
Don't you think the entire problem boils down to, well, they just don't want to do that.
And no matter how much you try to convince them, they're still going to look at it and say, yeah, I mean, I would be good at that.
You're right, I would be good at that.
But I don't want to do it.
It doesn't look like fun.
I have options.
So it feels like we're just spinning our wheels on that.
Speaking of women, you probably heard, Fox News is reporting this, that at that Columbia University protest that some would call anti-Semitic, I guess it was.
So it was a pro-Palestinian, but maybe it was too close to pro-Hamas protest.
And there were a bunch of arrests because it happened at Columbia University.
But of the 80 people arrested, there were only 19 males, but 61 females.
So, how do you explain that it's mostly females in that particular demonstration?
Well, I think it's because the men were in STEM programs and they didn't have the time.
No, I'm just kidding.
I'm just kidding.
It had nothing to do with STEM.
But I'm going to give you my speculation and it goes like this.
It's super sexist.
Are you ready?
I don't think women have the same biological aptitude for military security.
I don't think women have the same biological aptitude for military security.
I don't think women have the same biological aptitude for military security.
Here's what I mean by that.
Only men know how deadly men are.
Women can observe it, and they can be victims of it.
But they can't truly understand that we're all killers.
And that if you put us in a situation where we can kill our enemies, we sort of do it.
And if you look at the Palestinian situation, one interpretation would be, the female interpretation would be, hey, if you could just be nicer to the Palestinians, Then the Palestinians would calm down, and the violence would stop, and everybody would win.
So let's just give the Palestinians their own homeland, give them the things they want, and we'll be able to solve these problems.
I believe that men have a completely different biological military security opinion, and it goes like this.
Whoever has the power in the Middle East to wipe out the other side is going to wipe out the other side.
So your only choices are, do you want it to be somebody who is your ally or somebody who wants to wipe out you next?
Now, we can't say these things out loud, but we kind of know it.
We know it.
And I don't think women know it.
I think women are still trapped in the...
Well, of course they're angry, and of course they're going to act out, because you're not being nice to them.
If you would just treat them right, then I think everybody would just hold hands and get along.
And men say, I don't think you understand what's happening there at all.
We're killers.
And in the Middle East, both sides are pretty deadly.
And if the Palestinians got everything they wanted, I think women would be surprised and men would not.
So I do think there's a biological difference in just understanding how deadly men are.
And I think that you just have to be a man to understand that.
Same way, I mean, you can reverse it easily.
I don't think men should be involved in Abortion decisions.
I mean, you can be.
It's legal, and you have a right to it.
But I don't feel like I can understand it the same way a woman could understand it.
So let them make the decision.
That's just one example.
So I'm just speculating, but that's what it feels like to me.
Tulsi Gabbard is going to release over 6,000 files on the RFK assassination.
I'm going to make a prediction.
You're not going to learn anything new.
I really don't think any of these document releases are going to be really super telling us anything we didn't know, from the Kennedys to Epstein to anything else, for all the obvious reasons.
If it really mattered, it would already be deleted or wouldn't be in the records at all.
It's kind of interesting that RFK Jr., who has looked into it quite a bit, as you'd imagine, is not entirely convinced that Sirhan Sirhan was the killer.
And if you've heard any of the speculation and talk about the murder, there is all kinds of stuff that doesn't make sense.
You know, they're like...
Too many bullets were fired and from the wrong direction.
There's just all kinds of stuff in that story that doesn't make sense.
But on the other hand, there were so many witnesses.
There was like just tons of witnesses.
Is it possible that none of the witnesses had the right story?
Maybe.
I mean, it's not impossible, but it seems unlikely.
On the other hand, Is anything that's important in our history real?
Probably not.
There's probably nothing in our history that you think is, you know, settled history, except for maybe names and dates.
You know, like we know RFK's name, and we know the date of the event, but probably that's the only thing that's real.
I mean, it might be like everything else, which is not real.
You know, it's just the version we got fed.
But I don't think the documents that we have on file redacted or not are going to make any difference to that.
Meanwhile, the Postmillennial is reporting that U.S. Attorney John Cercone It's going to be part of looking into Letitia James' mortgage fraud.
So the FBI has opened a formal criminal probe into Letitia James over her own real estate-related transactions, which, at least on paper, look obviously illegal.
We'll see what the courts decide.
So it's the good news, bad news.
The good news is I'm very happy that Letitia James, who seems crooked, is being looked into for her own crimes.
On the other hand, why did it take a Republican administration for this to happen?
Doesn't it sort of suggest that the FBI is completely politicized?
And if the Republicans have the dominant control, they can just pick a Republican-leaning bunch of FBI people to do what they want and go after anybody they want.
It's not better if the Republicans do it.
But it does suggest that the FBI is not anything like an independent body that's just trying to get rid of crime, at least when it comes to the political domain.
So, the Attorney General, Letitia James, was probably crooked and politicized.
The FBI may not be much better, according to Steve Scalise and the congressional shooting stuff and, you know, Crossfire Hurricane and how many other things have we heard where they appear to be politicized, if not corrupt.
President Trump is doing his Trumpian thing.
Where he can take both sides of an issue.
Man, he could do this better than anybody's ever done it.
So one of the questions about the budget thing is whether they will raise taxes on the rich.
I think it's people over $5 million a year or something like that.
And there's some movement within the Republican Party to do it.
But of course, there are other people who are just saying, no way, no way, no raising taxes.
We just don't do that.
So it's certainly not a solved problem.
But Trump is now saying on truth that he's not in favor of it.
He's not in favor of raising the taxes because the Democrats would use it as a soundbite.
Sort of like George Bush's, read my lips, no new taxes.
So if he did raise taxes, even on just the rich, and even if the Democrats were fully on board with that, he still feels like they would use it as a club to say, well, it's not what you said you'd do.
And he probably has a little bit of a point there.
But then he says, at the same time he says he doesn't want to do it, because it gives the Democrats a soundbite, he doesn't want to act like...
He's just protecting his own tax base, because that would be a bad look too.
So he says that the GOP should probably not raise taxes on the rich, but if they do, he's okay with it.
He's the only person in the world who could say that.
And you just say, all right.
All right.
Digital equity program.
I guess Trump's posting about this.
There was a digital equity program, some racist program that's getting cut, I guess.
All right, so, everything that was in my reading today was leading up to the following point.
Do you ever wonder how I, as a non-scientist, Could be so darn confident that the climate models are BS.
You ever wonder about that?
It's like, I'm not really an expert on climate models.
I'm not even a scientist, and I don't have any expertise in environment.
Why am I so confident that the climate models are BS?
Well, some of it is that, you know, I worked with...
Prediction models in the finance area, and I saw that as soon as you add a certain number of variables, you can't predict anything.
You can sort of just pick your assumptions to make it look anything you want.
So that's part of it.
But here's the real reason.
The FBI is corrupt.
The DOJ is probably corrupt.
I'm not sure.
In 2020, there was a suspicious number of Biden votes that...
Don't look real to me.
I don't know for sure, but they don't look real to me.
The polls are often fake.
Victor Davis Hanson explained that.
The Doge savings may be entirely fake, or it may be that just if you're left-leaning media, you can say they're fake, and if you're right-leaning, you say they're real.
The tariff estimates that Trump has done.
Seem ridiculous.
The trade deals are being called fake, and the budget process is completely fake and corrupt.
So, are we supposed to believe that every institution that we look into is completely corrupt, except for the climate models?
I mean, just let that soak in.
Every single thing that we can check that's big and important is fake.
Everything.
But you think the climate models are the only exception?
You don't need to be an expert.
All you have to know is that everything is fake.
Once you learn that everything that can be faked is fake, you become the expert.
If they invented something tomorrow that, you know, I don't even put a name on it, just a new thing that was big and complicated, I would tell you it's fake and I would be right without even knowing what the topic is.
If you just said, oh, we're going to put $50 billion into this new thing and they've got all kinds of data and the data backs what they're doing, I would say, yeah, it's fake.
It's all fake.
And if you got a chance to look into it, you would find out I'm right without being an expert.
Because everything that can be fake is fake.
Everything.
It doesn't take any expertise at all to know that.
So, to me, it's just hilarious that every time I post on X, wait till you find out about the climate models, there is 100% chance...
That those climate models will be debunked and go down in history like the food pyramid.
It's the food pyramid, people.
It's the food pyramid.
I don't know when it will happen.
Could be tomorrow.
Could be in 20 years.
But the climate models, there's not a chance.
There's not even the slightest chance that those are real.
So, we'll see.
Anyway, ex-Google CEO Eric Schmidt has warned that China technology is pulling ahead, and David Sachs is writing about this on X, saying that they're doing better on AI.
Part of the problem is that apparently in the U.S. we've got something called some kind of AI diffusion rule.
It's 200 pages of regulations that hinder the adoption of American technology, even by close partners.
Now, I don't know the details of that, but it sounds like the U.S. has crippled itself so that it can't compete with China and that that's a big deal.
Now, since the smart people seem to know about it, I mean, Sachs has a big voice in the administration.
He knows about it.
Maybe we're doing something about it.
He says that Trump is committed to rescind 10 regulations for every new one, and if the U.S. doesn't embrace the same concept for AI, we're going to lose the AI race, which would mean losing everything.
So we'll see if that goes in the right direction.
As you know, Putin was doing his Victory Day celebrations over there, and I was wondering if any Ukrainian drones were going to go that way.
Well, I guess they sent one that struck a government building but didn't cause any death or too much damage.
But I guess the Ukrainians just couldn't resist, so they sent one little drone to blow up nothing important.
According to interesting engineering, France plans to have an all-robot army by 2040, but they'll have combat robots by 2027.
How would you feel if you got drafted into a military that was mostly robots, but they needed some humans?
Because if robots fight robots, which is where it's heading, obviously, If robots fight robots, what happens when one of the robot teams wins?
Because they don't really need to go kill any civilians, right?
Because they would have destroyed all the robot military, so there wouldn't be any resistance.
So there's not really any reason to kill the civilians.
Doesn't it look like we're heading exactly for the original Star Trek's vision of war?
I tell you, when I was a little kid, I remember seeing that episode, and I'll describe it in a moment, and I never forgot it.
It was like one of the most disturbingly probably future worlds, and the idea was that instead of having real wars, there was a planet...
Maybe a few planets.
They would have these simulated wars where they would look at the assets and the military capability of each side, and then they would put it in a computer, and they would say, all right, if this is the war, this is the side that would win.
And then the winning team, well, the losing team, would basically volunteer to get...
Killed by some machine that would do it quickly and painlessly.
And they would just line up to be killed because their side had lost.
So at least they'd make it painless.
And it was just so disturbing.
And I thought to myself, is it going to be some version of that?
Where if the robots of one big country beat the robots of the other...
And presumably they could be, you know, hunt down and kill every single robot of the other side if they were the dominant side.
What would you do with the humans?
Would you kill them because you could?
Or would the humans say, we don't surrender?
And maybe they wouldn't.
Maybe you'd have to.
I don't know.
So we'll see.
But robot armies are going to be more than...
It's going to be more than just the war.
There's going to be a whole difference in what war is and how we think about it and the psychology of it and everything else.
Very unpredictable.
Well, meanwhile, Fox News is reporting that Mandy Moore, you know, she's a celebrity star, Mandy Moore.
I guess her house was partially destroyed in the L.A. fires.
And she's finding that it's impossible to build back.
So as she points out, she has the contractor.
She has all the plans.
She's submitted everything.
She just can't get approval to build.
And apparently there have been six approvals given of 10,000 structures that were destroyed.
How incompetent is California?
Because don't you remember that there was this point where I think even Trump was warning the mayor that they're going to have to figure out how to get rid of all the regulations so they can build back in an efficient way?
Nothing like that happened.
Nothing.
Now, I don't know why, but if I had to guess...
It's very much like I was describing the DEI situation.
Imagine if you're the part of the government that has control over approvals and what endangered frog has to be saved.
And you've dedicated your whole life to the proposition that we can't be doing these dangerous, bad-for-the-environment things.
How are you going to change your mind?
If Trump comes to town and says, yeah, you just have to do it faster and cause some regulations, are the save the frogs people going to suddenly say, oh, well, okay, screw the frogs.
I want Mandy Moore to build her house faster?
Not in any world.
The people who created the rules are going to dig in and they're just going to say, we can't change these rules.
Are you kidding me?
We'll lose a frog.
Or we'll lose a fish.
So I don't think that the people have the ability to change their minds.
I mean, everything about their life would become a joke if they just threw it all away and said, all right, all right, we didn't mean it about the frogs.
Yeah, go ahead.
Build your house.
Mr. Rich person, build your house.
So I don't see how it gets fixed unless 100% of the employees who are involved in approvals are replaced.
Because they're the ones who created the stuff.
They're not going to throw it away just because somebody else wants them to.
They'll just slow walk it.
Because you can slow walk anything.
And it looks like that might be what's happening.
Doing a little slow walking.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, that's all I had for today.
I'm going to say a few words privately to the subscribers on Locals.
If you don't subscribe yet to the Dilbert comic, which you can see on X if you subscribe to me on X, today's Dilbert comic might be one of the funniest things I've ever written, if I do say so myself.
So you're missing out if you didn't get to see that today.
It's pretty damn funny.
Has anybody seen it yet?
Those of you who are subscribers?
I want to see if you agree.
Because sometimes maybe I just think it's funny myself.
But I think today's Dilbert comic, the one that just the subscribers are seeing, it just might be the funniest thing I've ever written.
So if you only care about the comic, you can subscribe on X. If you like some of the political stuff and some extra political comics and...
Stuff like that.
Then you want to subscribe on Locals, but you've got options.
So there you go.
All right.
Locals coming at you privately.
The rest of you on Rumble and YouTube and X. Thanks for joining.
