God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorksFind my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.comContent:Politics, Hawthorne Effect, Waking Mood Study, Hormone Blockers, NYC Rental Conversions, Khamenei Speculation, Alien Encounters Briefing, Smerconish, Trump Wins List, Holiday Fuel Prices, Torsten Slok, Trump Tariffs Success, CA Democrat Donors, Kamala Harris, Anti-Netanyahu Lawfare, Big Beautiful Bill, Medicaid Funding, Chuck Schumer, Ric Edelman Bitcoin, Tom Fitton, China Fake Driver Licenses, Climate Change Decline, RFK Jr., Chronic Disease Funding, 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.
Good morning, everyone, 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 a chance on improving your mood this morning, all you need for that is a copper mugger glass, a tankard, chelsu stein, a canteen jugger 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 dope immediate end of the day.
The thing that makes everything better is called the simultaneous sip.
That happens now.
Go.
Go.
Good.
All right.
I wonder if there's any new science that would suggest that drinking coffee is good for your health.
Oh, we hear something.
There's new research from the Queen Mary University of London that says that caffeine can improve your cellular longevity and repair your DNA.
And it activates your AMPK.
Oh, I feel my AMPK being activated right now.
I don't even know what it is.
But it's definitely activated.
So yeah, it turns out that every time you sip with me, you get a little bit younger.
Facts.
That's called science.
I wonder if there's any other science that you didn't need to do because you could have just asked me.
Well, here's one.
Apparently, according to Neuroscience News, there's a massive new analysis.
This is so dumb.
This shows that exercise is good for children.
Does that even seem real?
Can you believe that in 2025, somebody apparently got some kind of funding to do research to find out if exercise is good for children?
Guess what?
It's good for them.
So specifically, they're looking at anxiety and depression.
And big surprise, when children exercise, they have less anxiety and less depression.
Yeah, I think you could have saved a little bit of money on that one.
Just ask me.
All right.
Here's another one.
This one's almost as funny.
Stanford, I saw this on a post by Clint Jarvis on X. Stanford paid 35,000 people to quit social media, and then they checked back with them later to see how happy they were that they quit social media and got paid for it.
Turns out they were happier.
Now, again, do you think there was any chance that you were going to pay somebody to not look at their social media for a little bit and they were going to come back and say, oh, no, turns out I was very sad that I didn't get to look at my social media.
Oh.
And by the way, there's something deeply wrong with this kind of research.
Because obviously the people in the research study were completely aware that the reason they were being paid to quit social media is so that somebody could study what their mood was.
If you did that with anything, you would find a 5 or 6% improvement in mood.
You could be like, all right, we're going to remove one of the chairs that you don't use at your kitchen table.
Well, we don't even need that chair.
I know.
So you never use it.
So we're going to remove it from the room.
And we're going to come back.
And we're going to, yeah, after paying you to be allowed to remove that chair, in a month, we're going to measure whether you're in a better mood.
What do you think would happen?
Well, based on everything I know about scientific studying, you would convince yourself that removing that chair made you happier because you would know that they were measuring whether you were happier.
And that would be enough for some percentage of people to imagine they were happier.
So if people know you're measuring their happiness before and after a thing, I believe there's even a name for this.
Is it the Taylor effect?
Or is that only for something like that for business productivity?
If you're measuring the productivity in a business and you make any change whatsoever, productivity goes up.
Have you ever heard that?
So if you said, I'm going to study whether changing the light bulbs increases productivity.
Oh, the Hawthorne effect.
Exactly.
Thank you.
Yeah, the Hawthorne effect.
If people know you're studying it, they just sort of turn into that thing.
So, watch out for that, the Hawthorne effect.
According to a post on X by the World of Statistics, the average U.S. adult wakes up in a bad mood 300 times a year.
How many of you wake up in a bad mood almost every single day?
I didn't even know that was a thing.
Do you know how many times I've awakened in a bad mood in my entire life?
Awakened in a bad mood?
Not once, not a single time.
Did you ever see some kind of a problem that you know a lot of people have?
And you say to yourself, oh, thank God I don't have that one.
You know, like if you had some strange, I don't know, fetish or something illegal or you were drug addicted or something.
And you say to yourself, oh, you know, I got a lot of problems, but thank God I don't have that one.
But when I look at this, that the average U.S. adult wakes up in a bad mood 300 times a year, and I've never once in my whole life up.
I love the morning.
The first four or five hours of my morning, excellent.
Every single day of my entire life that I can recall.
So I got problems.
You probably heard of a few, you know, like, you know, terminal illness, stuff like that.
But I don't have that one.
So by the way, if you haven't heard of the update for my terminal cancer problem that was likely to end me this month, that's what I thought.
You want to know a secret?
Here's a little secret.
In California, you have the right to end your own existence.
If you have a terminal illness, you get a couple of doctors to certify it and all that.
And I was in that situation, meaning that I'm officially terminal.
I've got two doctors to certify it.
I've done the paperwork.
I've even ordered the medicine that you eventually drink to end your life.
But that was based on the fact that in the month of May, I was absolutely whacked with pain.
I mean, I had pain like I've never felt before all over my body.
And so I had sort of internally planned, you know, but wasn't telling the world, that I needed to get past my stepdaughter's wedding and reception.
And then...
End my life, guess when?
Basically today.
Today was the day.
I was planning literally to take my own life today at the end of, you know, it might be tomorrow, but the end of June.
But what happened instead is that I started taking some hormone blockers.
They block your testosterone.
And the cancer needs the testosterone to eat.
So completely surprising me, I didn't realize that that would also remove all of my pain.
So, you know, last night I'm swimming in my pool and playing ping pong and walking around.
I have no pain.
No pain anywhere.
In fact, I don't have any real symptoms.
You know, my legs are a little bit wobbly because I couldn't walk for about five months.
At least not much.
I could hobble a little bit.
But at the moment, my PSA levels have dropped 90% in just a few weeks.
So just a few weeks after taking this very expensive new testosterone blockers, the number one indicator of how you're doing and how long you're going to last if you have prostate cancer that's metastasized, as I do, that PSA number is like the big one.
So it dropped 90%.
I mean, it was through the roof and it's still way too high, but it was going to be today.
So do I feel like I'm on borrowed time, got a little extra?
Oh, hell, I do.
Absolutely.
And you know what?
Harking back to our earlier conversation, even with terminal cancer that I thought was going to end me within a few weeks, I still never woke up in a bad mood.
Not once.
I just wake up feeling good.
Even with pain, I would still be in a good mood.
I would just be in pain.
Anyway, so that's the update.
I don't know how long I'll last, but it would be within the realm of possibility that we could add a year or two.
And maybe by then something else comes up.
You never know.
But the drug I'm on is known not to work long term.
So it's usually two or three years, and then your body acclimates to the drug, and it stops working.
So I don't have a plan for after that.
But at the moment, looks like I got some borrowed time.
Anyway, so that's the update for that.
Trump is blasting what he calls the fake news media for suggesting that he had some kind of plan to give Iran $30 billion to restart their domestic nuclear power program.
And Trump wants you to know that that never has been real.
But the news was not that Trump was going to do it.
Newsmax is talking about this.
The news was that there were some other countries that might be willing to be part of that.
So not that the U.S. was ever going to give any money to Iran.
So it's fake news.
Kind of.
So you know how you and everybody else in the world said if all the businesses are moving out of these big buildings, but yet rents are too high for individuals who want to just have a living space, isn't the most obvious fix that you convert some of the empty office space, like in New York City, there's lots of it, that you convert it into living space.
And then rents will go down because there's a greater supply compared to the demand, et cetera.
But that was never economical or even close.
However, according to the Wall Street Journal, Carol Ryan is writing that there have been some recent developments that have made that now economical.
So in New York City, there are actually office buildings that are successfully being turned into residential.
What changed?
Well, apparently New York City has some kind of a law now that if you do that, if you change your business space into residential, you'll get a 90% property tax exemption for up to 35 years.
Holy cow.
That's pretty darn good.
And then, let's see, Carol Ryan writes that around 16% of New York City offices are empty versus 1.4% of apartments.
So there's a lot more empty office space than there is empty residential, which tells you about your supply and demand there.
And what's happened is a lot of the owners of the office buildings were kind of optimistically holding on.
They knew their building was empty, but they were kind of thinking, well, maybe it's only a year, and then people will come back and we'll be glad we held on to it.
But now enough time has gone by that people who own those buildings for a variety of reasons are saying, all right, we're going to let it go for pennies on a dollar.
So the new developer can buy a building for 20 cents on the dollar, convert it to residential, and then have this property tax exemption for 35 years.
So suddenly, it looks like a good deal.
There's only one thing that could turn this into a bad deal again.
Do you know what it is?
What's the one thing that could turn that into a bad deal?
A socialist mayor.
So apparently the rent and control and the socialist mayor would once again make it, could, could, not guaranteed, but could make it uneconomical to create all this new residential property that would have been lower in cost.
So there's your socialist mayor situation for today.
All right.
So, you know, I've been speculating that Iran's supreme leader, whose name is either Khamenei or Khamenei or something like that, I've told you that I don't believe he's still in charge.
Reasons being, he's 86.
He probably got put in a bunker for his own protection during the Israel attack.
And they probably took his phone away for his own protection during the same time.
And probably it was the military who was in control of keeping him safe, which means that his closest civilian advisors and supporters wouldn't even have access to him.
They wouldn't be able to call him.
They wouldn't be able to see him because he'd be in the bunker.
Now, under that situation, I speculated that it would be a very small, small effort to simply pretend the Supreme Leader was in charge, but for the military leader to actually be in charge.
Because if the Supreme Leader says, tell everybody I want to attack Israel, the military leader can say, sure, I'll take care of it and just never do it.
So then Khamenei did that video, which was sort of generic.
It's like, oh, we won the war.
And it really didn't say much.
And that was supposed to prove he was still alive and running the country.
But I was not convinced.
And then today, there's a new post on Acts.
And I'm going to read the translation to you.
So it was posted in Farsi, but Grock gives me the translation.
And you tell me, if this sounds like the tone and the vibe of a supreme leader who just went through a terrible war, does it sound like him?
All right, here's the post.
The Iranian nation should know that the reason for the opposition To America is that they want Iran to surrender.
And this is a great insult to the Iranian nation by the Americans.
And such a thing will never happen.
Does that sound like him?
It doesn't, does it?
Now, it sounds like something in the same sort of domain a little bit, but I've read enough of the expos from when the Supreme Pleader was presumably actually in charge.
And he doesn't sound like that.
I believe that if you ran some kind of a writing analysis, you know, in Farsi, you wouldn't want to do it on the interpretation.
You'd want to do it on the original.
But if you use AI to look at his prior posts and then just analyze the writing style and then look at this one, I don't see it.
This is a different writing style.
This looks very much like somebody else wrote him a little post there.
So I'm going to double down on my prediction that the supreme leader is not the supreme leader, and that that probably has something to do with what the ceasefire is holding, because the crazy old 86-year-old leader probably would have never surrendered.
But he gets to say this, you know, on acts where nobody cares.
Well, apparently a congressman named Eric Burleson is being credited for saying that Trump was briefed on some kind of alien encounters and how many different types of aliens are walking the earth even now.
But Burleson says that never happened.
So just know that there's new flare-up of aliens.
We got aliens.
They're all over the place.
They're walking among us.
Some of them allegedly are tall, Nordic-looking aliens.
Some are little grays and some are human hybrids.
But none of this story is true.
So it's not true that they exist.
That's just me saying that.
And it's not true that the president was briefed by this congressman about it.
So none of that's true.
Well, did any of you see Michael Smurkonish on CNN talking about Trump's first six months on the job?
Well, I've told you a number of times that Smirkonish is the most unbiased person on CNN, which is why they only give him one show a week.
He can only have one show a week because he's too unbiased.
And he decided, yesterday, I guess it was, to do what was a six-minute description of all the wins that Trump has had that are impressive.
Now, if I told you the CNN was talking about all the wins that Trump had, would you think that the list would be long?
You would not expect that, would you?
But his list was pretty long.
I'll tell you about it.
Would you expect that when he was done talking about all the wonderful things that Trump has done, that that would be sort of the end of the segment?
Or would you expect that they would say, but he's becoming an authoritarian dictator Hitler, so even though he got some wins, the country is in terrible shape and we're all going to die?
Wouldn't you expect that from the regular CNN coverage or MSNBC?
Well, Smirkanish didn't do that.
He just told you all the things that Trump got right.
And that includes the Iran-Israel ceasefire, bringing the border crossings down to basically zero, inflation being under control, a whole bunch of companies bringing investments into America for manufacturing, real wage growth for blue-collar workers increased more than it has, I guess, in a long time.
NATO funding going from barely 2% to 5%, which probably protects us quite a bit if they're spending more on their defense.
Trade deals with China, maybe India pretty soon, and then the Supreme Court wins, and I may have left out some stuff.
But that's really big.
If the only thing that Trump got right was the things that Smirkanish mentioned, and he got all that done in six months, and that's not even counting, you know, brokering the Republic of the Congo versus Rwanda war, he ended one of the biggest wars in the world.
And that was just sort of a sidebar for what he's been up to in the last six months.
Oh, my God.
So I give credit to Smirnkanish for telling the truth, which he does.
I mean, that's his norm.
But CNN allowed him to air it.
And to me, that feels like a big deal.
Anyway, and the White House has issued a holiday fuel price reminder that apparently, according Newsmax is reporting this, but according to the White House, gas will be the cheapest for 4th of July since 2021.
Now, you might say, but, but that's just the White House saying that.
But apparently, the data supports that.
It will be the, on average, your state might differ, but on average, cheapest gas prices since 2021.
That wasn't even on Smirkanish's list, which was also Solved.
So, I guess inflation covers gas and eggs.
But we talked so much about gas and eggs that it feels like that's worth a separate call-out.
He solved eggs.
He solved gas.
All right.
But the good news keeps on coming.
There's a story on OAN.
Brooke Mallory is writing about this, that there's this chief economist called Torsten Sluck, who apparently had originally said bad things about Trump's tariff plan.
And like many economists said that Trump's tariff plans, this would have been a few months ago, before we knew what was going to happen, were bad for the economy.
And he has now done a 180.
And he's called a leading Wall Street economist.
And he now admits that Trump may have, quote, outsmarted all of us with his trade policies.
He acknowledged that the uncertainty was maybe bad for the economy temporarily.
But at the moment, things look a lot more, let's say, transparent.
And we've got a much better idea where things are going or how bad it can get.
And it sort of looks like, according to this highly respected Wall Street economist, he thinks that everything is going to be fine with the tariffs, and it might produce $400 billion of annual revenue for U.S. taxpayers.
Countries, although they might be eating some of that, because the tariffs are paid by the U.S. company that's doing the importing.
But if the U.S. company doing the importing says, I'm not going to buy your high-priced stuff, I might go somewhere else, then the foreign entity that's providing it might have to say, no, no, no, don't look at Vietnam.
We'll just lower our price.
You ease some of it, we'll ease some of it, and we'll both stay in business.
So it's probably a combination, but it would add $400 billion to annual revenues.
Wow.
That's pretty amazing.
If true.
Then, as if things weren't good enough, Ed Gadget is reporting that Trump is reportedly getting ready for a bunch of new executive orders to make it easier to do AI.
And I think these orders have something more to do with power generation, but it might be bigger than that.
So it's an AI action plan.
So it's more than just energy production, but it will be removing some regulations and red tape that would stop AI and stop energy production for the AI data centers.
So Reuters is reporting this.
And it would, quote, make it easier for power generating projects to connect to the grid.
So that could be a big deal.
So that's how Trump is doing.
Trump is doing so well that even one of the main people on CNN is praising him.
And he ran out of time to mention all the good things that are happening.
He just ran out of time.
It's not like he ran out of examples.
He just ran out of time because they don't have all day to talk about it.
But how are the Democrats doing?
Well, let's check in with the Democrats.
So according to the Washington Free Beacon, a lot of the California Democrat donors are having a tough time because they're looking at a possibility of Kamala Harris running for governor.
And do you know what they think of Kamala Harris running for governor?
The people who donate the most money?
Well, it's being called, quote, a complete shitstorm.
And they're giving her the cold shoulder.
And donors are telling Politico that Harris's 2024 campaign for president was, quote, pathetic and traumatizing.
It was traumatizing.
So those are the people who are on her team.
The people on her own side are calling her pathetic and traumatizing.
And somebody else said, these are all anonymous, of course.
Tamala just reminds you, we are in this complete shiz storm, a California Democrat who had contributed a bunch of money said.
He said, quote, with Biden, we got bamboozled.
I think Harris did the best she could in that situation, but obviously she knew about the cognitive decline too.
I've written so many checks because I knew the Trump administration would be horrible, but we've lived in a nightmare because of Democrats.
I'm furious at them, truly.
All right, what exactly is the Trump nightmare that they're talking about?
Is there a reason that Shmurconish hasn't heard about the nightmare you're experiencing?
How many of you are experiencing a nightmare?
Have you been shipped off to El Salvador?
Did somebody knock on your door in the middle of the night and ship you off?
Did somebody raise your taxes or become an authoritarian leader?
Is there something happening I don't know about?
Other than the national debt, which of course would have been a tragedy no matter who was in charge, How long can they keep going with the idea that we're living in some kind of a hellscape when there's no evidence of it?
Now, I do get that there would be individual people with individual situations where some funding gets cut and it has an effect on them.
I'm not minimizing that.
But if you look at the average, just how the country's doing sort of in general, not saying there aren't problems.
I'm not saying that the government's decisions and policies haven't created a burden on some people that they didn't have before.
But on average, do you think other countries are looking at the United States and saying, oh, look at that hellscape?
I don't think so.
I think they wish they were us.
So it's amazing that they can keep that fantasy in their head that somehow we're surviving this horrendous Trump situation when I don't feel it.
I don't feel it at all.
I mean, it's not just that I'm biased and that I like the things that his administration is doing in general.
You know, maybe not everything.
But I feel like I would see it, even if the pain were largely on other people.
Like, you would notice it, wouldn't you?
I don't really notice it.
So we'll see.
In the weirdest news, Axios is reporting that Trump is pressuring Israel to stop the, what I guess he would think is lawfare against Benjamin Netanyahu.
So Netanyahu is standing trial, and I guess this is going on for years now because he keeps postponing stuff.
He was being charged with, allegedly, accepting more than $200,000 in gifts from wealthy businessmen and granting regulatory benefits worth hundreds of millions of dollars to a telecom tycoon in exchange for favorable news coverage.
Now, I don't know about the evidence for any of that stuff, but apparently Trump is threatening that American funding for Israel could be cut if they keep going after Netyahoo through the courts.
To which I say, really?
Is the American president really trying to strong-arm the judicial system in Israel?
Like right in public while we're watching?
And is that going to work?
Would that work?
The thing that's amazing is not that he's trying to do it, you know, because Trump's pretty unpredictable.
He tries things that we think are impossible.
But realistically, he's doing this as publicly as you possibly could.
Do you think Israel is going to say, well, you know, it's been four years and we got all this evidence and we really would like to get a decision.
But now that we know that Trump doesn't want it to happen and he might put some pressure on funding for Israel, we've decided just to drop the case.
Is that even a little bit possible?
Does anybody think that might happen?
Because it doesn't feel like something that could happen in the world I live in.
But I'm also open to Trump doing the Kobayashi Maru as in the thing that nobody thought was possible.
Maybe.
How many of you think that Trump could make a difference in the Israeli judicial system trial of Netanyahu just because he doesn't want it to happen?
Does that sound even a little bit real?
So it's a puzzling story.
It also makes you wonder why Trump is that invested.
Now, I know he's had a good working experience with Netanyahu, and Netanyahu seems to be willing to give Trump maximum credit.
But is that why?
Or do you think there's some other agreement or understanding, or maybe there's something else he wants to accomplish?
Because Trump would love, I mean, All right, this is just speculation.
So Trump is probably pushing hard to get a relatively rapid agreement on Gaza.
Don't you think?
It seems reasonable to me to assume that he's pushing Israel to give something like a peace deal for Gaza.
Now, maybe Trump thinks that the only way he can get that done soon is with Netanyahu.
And that would be reason enough to try to keep him in office, I suppose.
But do you think that's what's going on?
Because if Trump gets a good result with Iran, and then he were to, let's say in just a few weeks, get something like a ceasefire in Gaza with some framework of how to go forward there, that would make Trump unambiguously a candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize.
But more importantly, he would go down in history as one of the, and maybe he already will, one of the most effective presidents of all time.
So it could be that Trump is just trying to roll up the wins.
And he's got so many wins and so many more that he could get that he really wants this Gaza thing and wants it fast.
And I've told you before that winning fixes a lot of stuff.
So, if Trump gets a bunch of wins that everybody sees as wins, you know, even the Democrats say stuff like, well, he did get that ceasefire.
Well, I have to admit he did close the border.
Well, okay, inflation does look pretty good.
So he's doing a bunch of stuff that it would be hard to criticize, even if you're the biggest critic.
But if he pulls in Gaza and gets something that looks even a little bit like it's, you know, let's say successful, oh my goodness, his legacy will be in really good shape.
We don't know what's going to happen for the next three and a half years, but wow, that would be the best six months any president ever had.
Anyway, let's talk about the one big beautiful bill.
So I, like most of you, do not understand all the processes in the Congress and Senate, but apparently the Senate has voted to move along the Big Beautiful bill.
But why is that not the end of it?
How many times do they vote to move it forward in the Senate?
Can't they just vote for it?
Why is there more than one vote?
Either you're for it or against it.
But I don't know how this works.
But it's simply there was a vote, and I think they only managed to be like one vote extra.
They moved to move it along.
Does anybody even know what that means?
So it's not passed.
It's just sort of moved along to the next stage, and they did a vote on it.
I guess Rand Paul and one other person said no on it.
So I went to Grok to try to figure out what's in the Big Beautiful bill, because I first of all wondered how many topics are there?
And there's something like 25 topics, meaning separate budgetary policy changes.
And then within the topics, there might be several things that happen.
So we're talking about, I don't know, 100 different things.
How many of those could you describe?
Not too many.
Not too many.
And then I was trying to understand what's happening with Medicaid.
So Medicaid is what the states are spending on people who can't afford their own insurance, I guess.
So let me read what Grock said about just one of the changes to Medicaid.
See if you can follow this.
So apparently what's happening is the Republicans were looking for a way to cut the budget, which would necessarily mean cutting Medicaid, because that's a big part of the budget, but make it look like they're not cutting the budget so they can say, we didn't do anything to Medicaid.
So they're coming up with, it sounds like some real weasel ways to do it.
So listen to this.
The Senate bill proposes reducing the state-imposed tax on Medicaid providers.
That would be like hospitals and nursing homes.
So states are already taxing those providers.
And the federal bill would lower their taxes from like 6% to around 3%.
Now, first of all, why does the federal government get to tell the states what they can and cannot tax in their own state?
Isn't that totally non-obvious that the federal government could tell them to not tax as much?
How is that even legal?
Now, why do you think they would do that?
Why would the federal government tell the states to tax their own citizens less?
Well, there's a reason for that.
Apparently, the existing law says that the feds will match whatever money is raised by the state.
So if they can force the state to raise less money for their own Medicaid from their own state, then the federal government won't have to match it.
Is that what you wanted your senators to do for you?
To strong-arm the states, to cripple their money-raising ability for Medicaid so that they would have an excuse when they matched it to say, we didn't cut anything.
I don't know what you're talking about.
The states cut things.
Oh, the states cut the taxes.
No, that wasn't us.
All we do is match.
We're just matching what the states do.
Yeah, we didn't cut anything.
You fucking liars.
You just weasel pieces of shit.
This is not what anybody's paying you to do.
Now, I get how clever it is, but when you're listening to your favorite Republican tell you that they're not cutting Medicaid, they're just fucking lying.
They're just lying.
They're cutting Medicaid.
Now, there are also cuts to take away Medicaid for non-citizens.
Now, you might say to me, but Scott, that part I like.
And you might.
You might like that.
But this other matching funds thing, that is so sketchy.
And this just happens to be the one thing I chose to look at.
I didn't look at all the other 24 things.
Are they all like this?
Are they all just weasel bullshit crap that they can't just cut a budget and say, sorry, we don't have any money.
We'll just have to cut the budget.
Everybody will have to make due.
Oh, man.
It was Tom Tillis who was the one who voted against it with Rand Poll.
So then Senator Schumer decides that, you know, now that the Republicans have something that's close to a positive vote, that he's going to use his persuasion skills to argue against it.
Now, if you've been listening to me for a while, you know that Chuck Schumer has no persuasion skills.
He is completely pathetic when it comes to all things persuasion.
I mean, he's really bad, as bad as I've ever seen.
I don't know if I've ever seen anybody worse, honestly.
So what would you do if you wanted to argue against it?
Well, here's what Chuck Schumer comes up with.
He says, I objected to stop Republicans moving forward on their big, ugly bill until they read every single word of it to the American people.
So he said he was going to force the chamber to read it out loud.
So last I check, the staff had been reading for nine hours.
So now it would have been 10 or 11 hours.
So they're having the lower level staff literally read the bill out loud, where they're just monotoning it.
And then the level will turn down.
And then page three.
So nobody's listening to it.
And it's not really the senators who are in charge anyway.
It's just staffers reading it.
But now Schumer thinks he's got the win because he made them read it to the American public.
Nobody listened.
And if they listened, would they have understood like that Medicaid matching, you know, matching dollar amount trick?
This is completely useless.
And this is also typical of Schumer.
Instead of coming up with better policy ideas and saying, you know, if it were our bill, we would have done this instead of this and this instead of this.
He can't do that.
Instead, he has to complain about the process.
Now, to be fair, you know, Rand Paul and Thomas Massey and lots of people complain about the process.
The process of something gets dumped on the Congress or dumped on the public with no time to review it.
That's a fair criticism because it comes from both sides.
But if he's focusing on the process, he is losing.
Would you agree?
If your job is to persuade for your side, the Democrats, going after the process just sort of never works because people aren't really invested in the process.
It's not what motivates us.
Like, you don't hear, oh, they should have given them more time.
And you're like, oh, I'm going to go to the streets.
It doesn't activate anybody.
You just go, oh, that's a stupid system.
And then you're kind of done with it.
So he talks about trying to stop Trump and stop the Republicans.
He talks about the process, but he adds nothing.
He doesn't tell you what they would do that's better.
Completely empty resistance.
So that won't change anything.
Over on CNBC, there was a Bitcoin guy, big advisor, financial advisor, Rick Edelman, who thinks that people should hold 10 to 40% of their investments in cryptocurrencies.
Does that seem a little high to you?
He says the old way of having 60% of your portfolio in stocks and 40% in bonds, that just doesn't work anymore.
Partly because people live too long.
So if you didn't have your money in stocks, you wouldn't make enough to last that long.
But now he's saying that 10 to 40% of your total portfolio should be in cryptocurrencies.
Now, I don't give financial advice, but 40% looks high.
So maybe I did.
Maybe I just gave you some financial advice.
But it's not advice.
That's just more like a reaction or a feeling.
10% does seem like the minimum because I don't know what your US dollar will be worth or what your house will be worth.
But in all likelihood, Bitcoin will keep churning along.
Not guaranteed.
If it were guaranteed, I'd say put 100% in Bitcoin, but at least 10%.
So think about that.
Don't take my advice because I'm not a financial advisor.
And if you did, you probably feel sorry for it.
But if you were going to do your own research and talk to your AIs and your financial advisors, I would ask them what percentage should be in cryptocurrencies, specifically probably Bitcoin.
And they may have some advice for you.
But don't take my advice.
All right.
Tom Fenton over at Judicial Watch.
I saw a video of him talking About the story you've already heard, that allegedly the FBI was aware of a plot in which China was allegedly, too allegedly, trying to influence the 2024 election with fake voter ballots.
Now, in order to get those fake voter ballots, allegedly they were going to use fake driver's licenses, and then that would allow them to get the fake ballots.
And then allegedly, presumably, they would make those votes for Biden because they had some allegedly, possibly, some blackmail over him because of Hunter Biden's activities in China and getting money from China.
So then, as the story goes, and Tom Fenton reminds us, the FBI, according to Cash Patel, the FBI decided not only to drop it, but also to tell people to delete references to it on their computers.
Now, I don't know how often they do that.
Does it happen often that the FBI will say, we've got these allegations we need to look into, then later follow up with, not only is it not real, but we want you to delete it from your devices.
Is that common?
I've never heard of that in any other context, but maybe it's something they do in the FBI.
I don't know.
But as Tom Fenton points out, the FBI was aware that there was some confirmatory evidence, which is that I guess the FBI, or at least law enforcement, found 20,000 fake U.S. driver's licenses that did seem to come from China.
Now, do you think that it's a coincidence that China had 20,000 fake driver's licenses?
And there was also an alleged plot to use driver's licenses to get fake ballots.
Do you think that these two are connected?
Because they might not be.
And it seems like it would be the biggest story in the world if we knew for sure that these were connected.
But boy, does it feel like they're connected?
But I would say probably it's just short of being so confirmed that you just treat it as a fact.
So I'm not yet, not yet going to treat it as a fact.
But boy, is I heading in that direction.
Next, do you remember when it was either Project Veritas or OMG had the producer from CNN saying that they were going to pivot to talking non-stop about climate change?
Do you remember that?
And that it was a corporate decision that they would just nail this climate change stuff all day long.
And then I don't see it.
Do you?
Do you see CNN and or MSNBC talking non-stop about climate change?
I feel like they're giving up on it.
They still do mention it, so it hasn't gone to zero, but usually it'd be like a guest mentions it in passing.
I feel like the news business has finally given up on climate change.
Because I, of course, am in a bubble, so I see the things that people send to me.
I don't see the things that people don't send to me and I don't notice on my own.
But it seems to me that there's an awful lot of evidence, including the Washington Post saying that the temperature has fluctuated for all of Earth's history, with or without people.
And then there's stuff like the ice is not as bad as you thought it would, and the water levels don't seem to have risen, and the storms don't seem as bad as they predicted.
And while it does seem like maybe the temperatures are going up, it's not as obvious that that's bad for anything.
It might be good that it goes up a little bit.
So does it seem to you like climate change hasn't gone away, but that the people who are promoting it have lost confidence in their own story?
They might still think it might be true or even probably true, but now that we've watched the complete destruction of all scientific bullshit, I think even Democrats are saying to themselves, you know what?
We've been lied to quite a few times and the lies always look like this, this being climate change.
It always looks like that.
Do you think they've noticed?
Well, I like to end any climate change conversation or postdocs by saying the following.
Wait till they find out about climate models.
Oh, wait till they find out.
There will be whistleblowers.
There'll be people who do the climate models who say, okay, I got to confess, I could make these models do anything I wanted just by changing my assumptions, which they can.
So that's coming, I predict.
So.
So I guess Maria Bartiroma is interviewing Trump probably right now while I'm talking.
But there was a teaser for that interview In which Maria asked Trump: Does he think that Iran might have hid some of the uranium before the attacks on Fordau and the other sites?
Trump says no, that they did not have time or ability to move those, the uranium, because he says, first of all, it's hard to move and it is heavy.
And I said to myself, it's heavy?
How heavy is it?
They can't move it.
There's an estimate that they may have 800 pounds of enriched uranium.
It might be buried at this point, but the estimate was at one point they had 800 pounds.
And I say to myself, is it really hard to move 800 pounds?
It's not like all 800 pounds is in one big barrel, right?
It would be a number of different containers, each of them with, I don't know, if I had to guess, 50 to 100 pounds a piece.
But there would be multiple containers.
Are you telling me that the entire nation of Iran can't figure out how to move 800 cumulative pounds when it's in 50 to 100 pound units?
And there's no such thing as a truck that can handle 100 pounds?
Even if they didn't move all of it, wouldn't they take the stuff that was 60, enriched to 60, say, all right, well, that's not 800 pounds.
That's only 100 pounds.
But we'll take that 100 pounds because that's what you would build a bomb from.
And the fact that we did not see them move, I don't know what that's worth, because there must be things that they do that we don't see.
And then Trump said that they wouldn't have had notice, but of course they had notice.
They didn't know the exact day that Ford out was going to get taken out, but they knew that was the, you know, it was like the main theme of the war.
So of course they knew it was coming.
So I would say it was movable.
They did have notice.
They did have time.
They did have the ability.
But did they?
Did they do anything with it?
Remember, I guess it was yesterday I was telling you, there was a news story that I thought was low credibility that said that Iran had offered to give up their uranium to other countries in return for yellow cake that they could use for domestic nuclear power.
And I said, I don't know.
I don't trust that story.
Low credibility?
Well, I haven't seen any confirmation that Iran says they still have any uranium.
So I'm going to say that that story was almost certainly fake.
Almost certainly fake.
Anyway, so I'm impressed by the military.
I'm impressed by Trump.
I think the operation that the U.S. did to take out Fordow and the other sites was amazing and as successful as you could possibly be when you have specific targets.
The only open question is, did Iran do something that we don't know about?
Trump says almost certainly no.
And I say, I don't know, maybe.
But I do agree with Trump that if they decided to go hard at reinvigorating their nuclear program, that we would know.
And Trump says he would absolutely, quote, absolutely bomb Iran again if needed.
So even if they had some uranium, what are the odds that they would try to weaponize it?
I would say it would be a really bad bet at this point to try.
So I think Trump probably did get a good outcome.
But we don't know.
Nothing's 100% in this world, but probably.
I would say the odds are very good that he got a lasting outcome.
We'll see.
Well, RFK Jr. is talking about how teen boys today have lower testosterone than their grandfathers.
So this is what RFK Jr. said recently.
You've heard this before, but it's shocking every time I hear it.
He said, when my uncle was president, we spent zero on chronic disease in this country.
Spent zero, meaning that it just we didn't have much.
He said, today we spend 1.7 trillion and rising.
And the expense is rising faster than our economy.
He says it's an existential threat to our country in every way.
75% of American kids cannot qualify for military service.
What?
75%.
What was it when I was a kid?
If I had to guess, you know, just sort of thinking about my classmates and stuff, I would guess that 75% would qualify and maybe only 25% wouldn't.
But now it's reversed.
75% of kids would not qualify for military service.
Holy, moly.
And fertility rates are plummeting, as you know.
And according to RFK Jr., who certainly has looked into it, he says that American boys have half of the testosterone of a 65-year-old men and half the sperm count.
What?
Half?
Holy moly.
So I guess my testosterone blockers are just ahead of the game.
