God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorksFind my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.comContent:Politics, Cloudflare, Chris Murphy, Communist Zohran Mamdani, Migrant Medicaid, Big Beautiful Bill, Economic Stimulus Calculations, Elon Musk, Debt Ceiling, Solar Energy, President Trump, Denaturalization, Deporting Elon, America Political Party, Car Company Subsidies, Anti-Solar Doug Burgum, Solar Battery Technology, Stephen Miller, JD Vance, Congressional Spending Caps, Russian Satellite Suspicion, RFK Jr., CDC Autism Risk Coverup, Pharma Ads Honesty, Trump Success Fragrance, Medicaid Fraud Arrests, Airlines Ransom Blackmail, Candace Owens, Brigitte Macron, MSNBC, Disavowing Globalized Intifada, China's Taiwan Strategy, Jerome Powell, US Interest Rates, Rand Paul, Fauci Subpoena, Syria Sanctions, 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.
Dare I say, it looks like you've lost weight, gotten a tan, and become sexier.
Yeah, that's you.
Well, stocks are down a little bit.
Tesla was down over 7%, but now it's down 5%.
So maybe people will get over that.
That would be the optimistic take if people just get over it.
All right, let's get our comments going.
And then, you know what happens then?
That's right.
You get the show you deserve.
which is a great show.
Do do do do do do.
Bum bum bum bum.
*clap clap*
Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.
And it's the best time you'll ever have in your life.
But if you'd like to take a chance on making it even better than that, well, all you need for that is a cover, a mugger, a glass, a tanker, jalice, or 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 doping me at the end of the day.
The thing that makes everything better.
It's called the Simultaneous Sip, and it happens now.
Now.
Now.
Oh, that was a good one.
Well done.
Your synchronicity is excellent today.
Mike Benz went for six hours on a live stream.
Well, I could top that.
So today we'll go seven hours.
No, we won't.
All right, I wonder if there's any new science that they could have saved some money just by asking me instead of doing the study.
Oh, here we go.
According to neuroscience news, you won't believe it, but people prefer human empathy even when AI says the same thing.
How many of you thought that the research was going to find that people liked AI empathy the same as human empathy?
Is there anyone who thought those would be similar?
Next time, you don't need to do the science.
Just ask me.
I'll give you all the answers you need.
Well, according to unusual whales on X, Amazon now has one million robots working in their various warehouses.
One million robots.
So, but at least they're mostly not the intelligent kind that will come and kill us all.
But one million robots on Amazon.
Wow.
Speaking of technology, a company called Cloudfair, hmm, sounds familiar, but I think it's a different company.
Cloudfair will now block AI bots from your website.
So if you're the New York Times, for example, and if you were to hire Cloudfair to protect your website, then if an AI bot tried to read it for trading purposes, it would block it.
And it would also offer a revenue model where the AI could still read your site and still trade on it, but it would have to pay.
It would pay a micro payment for trading on your website.
So we went from AI is stealing all of your intellectual property, which you could argue that it was.
We went all the way to, you can't read my intellectual property.
I'm going to hide it.
But if you want a taste, you have to pay for it.
And I thought to myself, I wonder if I could use that.
How much does CloudFair cost?
Because don't you think that AI looks at the Dilbert website?
Yeah, right now it doesn't have much on it, but it will pretty soon.
So maybe I could monetize that.
I doubt it.
And also, what happens to AI as a business model if it could no longer train for free?
Wouldn't you say that the main reason that AI is even such a big deal is that their primary input is other people's work that they take for free?
What if they couldn't get it for free?
Well, we might find out, because if this Cloud Fair product catches on, then the AI will have to pay for its content.
I don't know if it would be as economical then.
Well, Senator Chris Murphy says Democrats would win a lot more elections if they borrowed some of the techniques from our favorite socialist, Zorin Mamdani, who's running for mayor of New York.
But he's not talking about the socialist communist parts.
He's talking about the affordability and the shifting power from the powerful to the less powerful.
And I think he's right about that.
But why is it that when the Democrats finally find somebody Who knows how to message, knows how to come up with policies that his own people would vote for.
He's a great communicator and policy guy.
Why did he have to be the communist?
Like, they couldn't get one person in the entire Democrat party of tens of millions of people, they couldn't find one person who could also say, we need to work on affordability and shifting power, but I'm not going to try to seize your means of production.
Nobody?
There was nobody in the entire party who could just say the right thing without also being anti-Semitic and communist.
Nobody?
Tens of million?
The closest you could get was a communist, anti-Semite.
Now, that's what people are saying.
Now, when you probably heard me say the other day that when Trump called Amandi, Mamandi, when Trump called him a communist, I pushed back on that a little bit.
And I said, well, he's not a communist.
He's a socialist.
And, you know, that could be bad enough if you go too far with your socialism.
So I wasn't defending him.
I was just saying that that word communist is a little bit hyperbolic.
Boy, was I wrong.
So I looked up the definitions of communist versus socialist.
And first of all, they're not that different.
The communist problem is that generally some dictator is in charge.
But they also have control of the means of production.
Now, either the socialist or the communist model could still end up with a dictator.
But there's a video of 2021 where Mom Dani is answering some questions on a video.
And he actually says as an aside that the end goal is seizing the means of production.
That's pure communist.
So I would like to apologize to President Trump and everybody else who was calling him a communist while I was scoffing at it.
Like, he's not a communist.
I mean, come on, people.
What are the odds that a communist would be leading in the polls to be mayor of New York?
I mean, that's crazy.
That's crazy.
And so I rejected it as being something that, you know, couldn't really happen in the real world.
Well, I was wrong.
100% wrong.
He is a flat-hound communist.
He's a pure communist.
The part about the dictator is optional.
Dictator is something that arises out of it, but it's not how it starts.
And if you say that you want to seize the means of production, that's not adding a little bit of socialism on top of your capitalism.
That's pure communist.
So Trump is right on that.
I join you in calling him a communist.
He might be a little bit anti-Semitic, too.
We'll talk about that in a little bit.
But the big beautiful bill is still being ground up like sausage in the Senate.
I guess they had the voter rama last night.
Maybe it's still going.
The voter rama is when usually I think the minority party recommends all kinds of things to add to a bill, and then the majority party votes all of it down.
So it's a complete waste of time that for some reason they feel like they need to do.
I don't know what that reason is.
I guess just the process requires it.
But they're in that weird process now.
But one of the things that apparently they rejected was kicking illegals off of Medicaid.
Let me say that again.
This is a Republican bill that President Trump wants.
And one of the things that got rejected by the Republican majority was kicking illegals off of Medicaid.
It didn't pass.
It didn't even pass with the Republicans.
So it was 56-44 was a vote.
Susan Collins voted no on that one, according to the Gateway pundit.
So we got that going on.
Wasn't that like one of the main things the Republicans wanted?
So at this point, we started with this bill over in the House of Representatives that gets sent to the Senate, and they can change it all up, make a bunch of changes.
And then the parliamentarian gets a hold of it, makes a bunch of changes.
And then they do the voter rama, makes a bunch of changes, which have, you know, they've already negotiated a bunch of changes within the Senate itself.
So now this bill that I feel like started out as a semi-good idea, we don't even know what it is anymore.
We just don't even know.
So the one thing we could know for sure is that the people involved don't understand what they're voting for entirely.
That part I think we know for sure.
Because, like I said, it's 25 different topics within that bill, and they're all kind of convoluted and backwards and doesn't make sense on the surface, but there's some backstory that makes it make sense.
How many people in the Senate do you think studied all of that?
Not many.
Well, according to Unusual Wales, a site on X, and I think this was based on asking Grok.
Well, no, I'll just say that Grok agrees.
This comes from Bloomberg.
So Unusual Wales is just reporting what Bloomberg said.
And they say the sentence version of the Big Beautiful bill will cost the bottom 20% of taxpayers an average of $560 a year.
So that would say that it would make poor people more poor, and while giving an average boost of $6,000 to those at the top end.
So according to Bloomberg, it does indeed take money from the poor and give it to the rich.
What do you think?
Is that a fair interpretation?
And then I asked Grok if that was accurate.
And Grok said largely yes, that it would be accurate, that it would cost the bottom 20% of taxpayers, but it would benefit the people at the top end.
Now, do you believe that that is knowable?
Do you believe that AI can do the math or Bloomberg can do the math?
No.
I guarantee that this does not capture what would happen with this bill over 10 years, because nobody could calculate that.
This is very much like climate models.
Do you think a climate model can accurately tell you what the temperature will be on average in 20 years?
No, it can't do that.
Do you think a budget estimate that has hundreds of moving parts, do you think it can predict what's going to happen in even one year, much less 10 years, which is the term they're looking at?
No.
No, that's not a thing.
It's not a thing that anybody knows what's going to happen.
Probably when they look at these numbers, they're ignoring any stimulus benefit, which is what Trump would say.
If you don't count the stimulus benefit, then maybe this is what happens.
But if you counted the stimulus benefit, and I don't know that there will be a stimulus, but that would be the claim, wouldn't it make the bottom 20% more likely to be in a good economy?
If you take somebody and you take the bottom 20% of taxpayers and you say, I'm going to take $560 in taxes away from you, or by taxing you, but we're going to raise the GDP to 7%, which would be enormous.
Do you think the bottom 20% would come in ahead?
They might.
They might.
But that wouldn't be captured in any of the estimates.
How about, let's see what else.
So what about the effect of closing the border and deporting all the illegal workers?
Would that make a difference to the average income of a low-income person?
Yes, yes.
Supply and demand suggests that the income, just the wages of the average low-income person would go up because they would no longer be competing with 10 or 20 million illegal people who want those same jobs.
So is that calculated by the CBO or Bloomberg?
No, of course not.
No, it is completely unknowable how this would shake out.
If Trump is right, and there's this great stimulus, and at the same time he's sending back people who compete for those jobs, and as we've seen, the average wage for blue-collar people went up since Trump's been in office.
If he can find a way to decrease inflation, again, the money would be worth more.
So none of this is something you can calculate.
I would say that like climate models, when you're looking at these budget estimates, it's really just political.
So if you want Trump to fail, you calculate it one way.
And if you want him to succeed, you calculate it the other way.
But you might know by now that Elon Musk is not really happy with this bill.
One of the things he doesn't like, or maybe the main thing, is Musk asked on X, what's the point of a debt ceiling if we keep raising it?
To which I say, right.
Did you ever wonder that?
So the Congress imposes on itself a debt ceiling, meaning that they agree that they will never raise debt beyond this level.
And then what do they do every single year?
They change the debt level.
They change the ceiling so that they can add more to the debt.
So Musk is correctly asking the question, why do you even have a debt ceiling?
If you can change it at will, and you do, and you do it every single time, it's a pure waste of time, right?
Musk also says there's a, quote, a massive strategic error is being made in the bill because I guess it removes some government support for solar and battery technology that will leave America extremely vulnerable in the future.
So we, of course, need every bit of electricity we can get because AI will be increasing the need for electricity by, I don't know, a thousand or something, something ridiculous.
So for us to compete with China and other countries, we're going to need a lot of electricity.
Musk says that if we're not going full out in the solar and solar batteries for the network, we'd be losing out on, you know, obviously a big source.
Let me get to that in a minute.
I've got more to say about that.
So I looked at Grok.
I had to use Grok for all of my prep this morning because every time I saw a new story, I would say to myself, I think I need some context on this.
And Grok is amazing at that, just amazing at context.
So almost everything I'm going to talk about, I groked at first to find out if I know what's really going on.
So Musk has called this bill, the big beautiful bill, that's 940 pages.
He called it utterly insane and destructive.
He said it would destroy millions of jobs and harm future industries while favoring industries of the past.
And he said it would be political suicide for Republicans.
Now, a lot of that, I think, is because it cuts green energy projects, which I assume Musk thinks would be essential because we're not going to do everything we need to do with gas and oil and even nuclear.
We're going to have to do something a lot more than we're currently planning to do.
So he's right about that, I think.
So Musk is urging people on X to oppose the bill and especially the $4 trillion deficit increase that he says is pork-filled.
And Trump is responding by calling him a wonderful guy in a Fox News interview recently.
But Trump is suggesting that the reason Musk is opposed is because it removes the EV mandate, which would have an impact on all the electric car companies, including Tesla.
And he said that Musk campaigned with him and should support the bill.
But Trump didn't want to get into direct confrontation.
But later he did when somebody asked Trump about denaturalizing people who are citizens if they've acted poorly, because I guess ICE,
well, the government has a new priority that they're going to deport you, even if you are a citizen, if you've also done something that's super destructive, like committed a crime, you know, that's really bad or something.
So somebody asked Trump about, is it possible they could deport Elon Musk back to South Africa?
And instead of slapping that down as ridiculous, Trump said he might look into it.
Now, I don't know that I'm 100% right, but it seems to me that that is completely a bluff.
Because if Trump actually literally tried to deport Elon Musk, the country would be ripped apart.
There's no way he's going to try that.
But I've been wrong before, recently.
Is it possible that Trump actually would try to deport him because Musk has promised that whoever votes for this bill, which would be Republicans, that he's going to try to primary out of their office and he's going to try as hard as he can to get every one of them out of office?
And he probably does have the money and the power that he could certainly put a big dent in the Republican majority.
And Musk also says that the day it passes, he's going to start a third party, the America Party or something.
So he would create an alternative to the Republicans.
And I got to say, if it were my job to cut the budget and I did all that work and took all that personal pain and all that personal and business risk, and I risked everything,
including my life and my career and my reputation to lower the debt, and then the Republicans just added to the debt like it never happened, I might want to take them down too.
So, boy, do I understand where Musk is coming from.
Boy, do I understand.
Now, the only thing that gives, let's say, the possibility that they're sort of both right, you know, Musk and Trump, if it's true that Trump can boost the economy, not just with the Big Beautiful bill,
which would be a little bit simulative, but suppose he also gets interest rates down by percent or two, which is possible.
I mean, it might take till May, but it's possible.
Suppose the tariffs continue to bring in tens of billions of dollars, which they are now.
That's possible.
So there is a version of this where the bill does add to the debt at the surface Level, but that Trump would do so many other things for the economy that the economy would start zooming, and that zooming economy would make up for any shortfall and be able to pay down some of the debt.
Now, is that possible?
Does it sound even a little bit credible that Trump would be pushing a whole bunch of different buttons from tariffs to border control to stimulus to lowering taxes on some things?
If you put all of that together, plus the lower interest rates, if you put it all together, is it possible that Trump can stimulate our economy so much that it starts paying down the debt?
It's a stretch.
But has Trump done anything that was surprisingly effective that even the smart people thought wouldn't work?
Yeah.
Not only has he done it, he seems to do it somewhat regularly.
The tariffs are working better than the experts said.
The Israel-Iran ceasefire and the bombing of the nuclear facilities definitely went better than all the smart people said it would so far.
So the option of betting against Trump, it doesn't look as good as it used to look, right?
There was a time when you could just say, ah, that crazy clown, you know, he's got crazy ideas and you could bet against it.
But it's getting really hard to bet against Trump because he just keeps making things work that you wouldn't think would work.
So who's right?
Well, if I were Musk, I would definitely be up in arms because they put me through this, the ringer, and they didn't cut the budget and more of an obvious start on day one, cut it, as opposed to hoping that other things will make the deficit go down.
So they both have a pretty good argument here.
I don't know which one's right, actually.
It's hard to bet against either one of them.
And then apparently Tesla and SpaceX have large government subsidies, and Trump has implied that maybe they should look at those subsidies and cut them.
So again, it's probably hyperbole and it's probably just a threat.
But I did see that in the Amuse account on X, it's a good account to follow, Amuse, that Tesla is not the only car company in the U.S. getting subsidies from the feds.
So Tesla is getting, I'll just round off, $12 billion in subsidies.
But GM got about $50 billion.
Ford is also $15 billion.
Chrysler, $12 billion.
And that Congress created these subsidies because they thought it would be good for the country.
So Tesla would just be one of the car companies that's accepting the subsidy because the government wanted our car business to do well, apparently.
And SpaceX got a combined $23 billion in federal contracts and support.
But did you know that Boeing and Lockheed also received a whole bunch of billions in support?
While SpaceX launched 90% of the payloads to space with the JV-18 sending only 3% into orbit.
So Musk has actually said, go ahead and cut all of the subsidies, as long as you do it for everybody.
Just cut all the subsidies.
Now, is he bluffing?
Maybe yes and maybe no, because he probably could still be in the strongest financial situation relative to the other car companies if they all lost their subsidies.
So he'd probably still be competitive.
We don't know if GM would.
Would SpaceX survive?
Probably.
He probably has enough business from private satellite people who want to put satellites up and stuff that SpaceX would survive as well.
So they're both maybe bluffing.
Maybe Trump is only bluffing that he would take the subsidies away from Tesla and SpaceX.
But Musk might be also bluffing that he wants those taken away because he'll find a way to make it work.
And then nobody's got subsidies.
So that got interesting.
Anyway, so Musk, as I said, did a little poll on X to ask if people thought that it was time to create a new political party in America.
80% of the people who answered said yes.
And Trump is over on Truth saying, don't be a panican, the jokey name for Republicans who panic, a panicin.
A new party based on weak and stupid people.
So that's what he's calling the new party, the panikins.
Trump says, be strong, courageous, and patient, and greatness will be the result.
So Trump very consistently and very expertly and very effectively is making the case that we need to go through the problem, not around it.
So I'm talking about the debt.
Going around it would be, oh, we are spending too much.
We better cut our spending.
So that would be sort of the defensive, you know, weak way to approach it.
Oh, I don't want to spend too much.
Whereas he's doing what he would call the strong, courageous, and patient method of greatness, which is you just blast through the middle of it and don't run up the budget or don't run up the deficit, but rather you have such good growth and such a strong economy that the deficit looks small in comparison.
Could he do it?
Well, no one else could.
If it were any other president, I would bet against it and say, you can't go through it.
You're going to have to retreat.
You're going to have to back up and cut your expenses.
But he says, just go right through it.
Is he right?
I don't know.
And that's, I hate to say this kind of fun that I don't know because usually this stuff is a little more obvious.
But I really don't know.
Could he do it?
Nobody else could.
But could Trump?
Man, it's like a coin flip.
He might be able to do that.
And it would be glorious.
It would be one of the most amazing things America has ever experienced if he can do it.
Maybe.
But if he doesn't get his bill passed and Elon Musk primaries everybody, if it does get passed, you can imagine that things could come off the rails pretty quickly.
Doug Bergham, the Secretary of Interior, was on Fox talking about solar power.
And he was making the case that solar is unreliable because it doesn't work at night.
Now, I complained about that online and said, if you're still saying that solar doesn't work because the sun goes down, you don't sound like the smart person in the room anymore.
There was a time when that was the smart thing to say.
You'd say, well, how can you make electricity when the sun is down?
But in today's world, the model is that you collect the sun and put it in batteries.
And then when the sun goes down, you release the batteries.
So I was calling Doug Bergham dumb for acting like there's no such thing as batteries and acting as if we don't already have these very exact things, solar-powered batteries that are in networks.
China has them, other countries have them, we have them.
However, I was corrected by people who know more than I do about this, who said that you would never get the batteries to last all night.
So the batteries might be good for peak periods where you're just filling in where you don't have enough other energy.
So you might get two to four hours.
But if you really wanted it to last overnight, you would need about 16 hours of battery power and we're nowhere near that.
So the best technology, if you stretched it, you might get to six hours.
But then you would still need, you know, three entire networks of batteries to get there and it would be not price competitive.
So what does Elon Musk say, since he's in that business and he's smarter than all of us about the direction of these technologies?
Well, he would say, and others would say, Grok says this too, that we're probably eight to 10 years away from having batteries that can last all night and be economic.
So was the big beautiful bill talking about using our current technology, or was it if we're boosting companies that are trying to invent our way into the time when the batteries will last all night and it would be our best source of electricity?
Well, maybe we don't need to know the answer to that because Doug Bergham is still wrong, even though I'm wrong about the economics.
He's still wrong if he thinks that solar doesn't have a place in the network because its place is to handle the peak.
That's what it's for.
So if it can do that, then you don't need those other sources of power because your solar would handle the peak.
So I would say that Doug Bergham is off point.
What he should have said is that it would take 10 years or so before this would be economical.
So maybe we should wait, or maybe private industry should fund it, or maybe we don't need to give subsidies to people like Tesla because they have enough money to do it on their own.
Maybe.
That one has sounded smart to me.
But if he just says the sun doesn't shine at night, he just sounds like a dumb guy who's sort of not up to date.
I'm sure he is up to date, by the way.
Wait, what is?
I'm seeing another comment.
Breaking...
Bannon is going back to prison this time for a long time.
Bannon wants to nationalize SpaceX.
I guess Muss said Bannon is going back to prison this time for a long time.
I don't know if he knows something.
We don't know.
But things are heating up.
It's getting spicy out there, people.
Getting spicy.
Anyway, so I asked Grok again where we are in Terms of batteries.
And apparently, Musk predicted that we would have terawatts from that source, solar, annually by 2030.
So that's only five years away.
So shouldn't we be subsidizing and working like crazy at the moment so that five years from now, there will be enough battery power in the network to make solar work?
Well, we'll see.
All right.
Stephen Miller was trying to defend the Big Beautiful bill, but he wisely stayed away from the economics.
So rather than defending what it would do to the deficit, which is a tougher sell, he quite wisely, because he's good at this, said that each part of the bill would be a huge accomplishment for a president.
Then he talked about things like building the missile shield and border security and things we like.
We like to be safer.
So that's a pretty good argument, but it doesn't get to where Trump is at or Massey's at or even where I'm at, the people who think that the deficit is the big problem.
And according to Bill O'Reilly, the fate of the Big Beautiful bill is it's all on the line for President Trump's legacy.
Do you think that's true?
That if this doesn't pass, that Trump's legacy will be damaged?
Well, I would argue he's already done so many good things that his legacy is going to be amazing.
And it doesn't seem like the bill would be completely destroyed.
Maybe it has to be pared down to just the things we really, really, really care about and agree on.
So maybe something smaller will end up out of this.
Maybe.
But as you might imagine, Tesla shares have dropped because of the Trump-Musk feud.
Do you know how angry Elon Musk must be?
And maybe angry is the wrong word, maybe just determined, that he would once again put his entire assets in play at risk over this issue.
He knows he's putting everything at risk.
And as a Tesla stockholder, which I am, I'm a little bit uncomfortable with him putting my finances at risk as well.
But I do appreciate that he's willing to go all in.
And I do appreciate that he's not lying.
He's treating the deficit like an existential threat, and he's all in.
And if it's not an existential threat, well, then don't be all in.
And if you say that it is, which it is, you kind of have to be all in.
So I do like his consistency.
If Musk had been so much about cutting the deficit, and then suddenly when the big beautiful bill comes up, if he had been, all right, well, these are all really good ideas because every one of these would be something the president would be happy to get, and there's 25 of them in the bill.
I would not be happy with that.
That would look like he flipped on his most important existential threat, which is the debt.
But he didn't flip.
He's staying completely consistent.
Meanwhile, according to Reuters, the U.S. dollar is doing poorly, had its worst first half since the 70s.
Yikes.
And the reason for that is just all the roiling of things are going on.
So uncertainty, et cetera.
But the dollar is taking a dump compared to the currencies of other countries.
So that's not good.
Apparently, JD Vance is in the capital in case he has to break a tie on the vote.
And they're trying to flip Lisa Burkowski, I guess, to get her to vote for it.
We'll see where that goes.
The U.S. has also, according to Al Jazeera, approved another half a billion dollars for arms sales to Israel.
So we would be up to in 2023, that might be the last number we have, U.S. military aid to Israel hit $18 billion.
$18 billion just in 2023.
Now, obviously, because there was some military action, it sort of makes sense that the number would be bumped up a little bit at the moment.
Because some of that is to the benefit of the United States, too.
But do you know what the annual aid cap is for Israel?
So the aid cap that was passed in 2016 by the Congress capped the amount we would give to Israel at 3.8 billion.
And 2023, it was 18 billion.
So let me tell you what Congress is really bad at, putting caps on spending.
Apparently they just ignore all their caps on spending.
So when it comes to the budget or it comes to Israel, but a lot of that military spending goes back to the U.S. I don't know what percentage, but it goes back to U.S. companies that sell the weapons that Israel needs.
Not all of it, but some of it.
In other news, Russia has put up some kind of a suspicious satellite asset that appears to be stalking a U.S. satellite.
So it's an unknown object that I think came out of a satellite, one of their satellites.
And some say it's some kind of a weapon to destroy a satellite.
And some think it's something else, like research or maybe trying to gather information from our satellites.
I don't know.
But it's sketchy.
So Russia has a satellite-threatening asset next to our satellites.
Here's a story that if there hadn't been so much other things going on, would be the biggest story of the day.
So RFK Jr. was on Tucker's podcast, and here's what RFK Jr. says.
Now, imagine this being like the seventh biggest story of the day.
Just listen to this, and it would only be the seventh biggest story.
I'm just making up the seventh part.
But RFK Jr. says that the CDC covered up, so remember the cover-up is sometimes worse than the offense.
They covered up an internal study, so it was the CDC's own internal study, which found a 1,135% increase in autism risk from people who took the hepatitis B vaccine.
Now that would be young people, of course.
Now, you might say, how did they cover that up?
Well, the way they covered it up was once they got this result that they didn't like, they removed from their data set the older children.
Do you know why they did that?
Because younger children don't yet show symptoms of autism.
So they eliminated from their data set the ones that you would expect to show symptoms, and they limited it to people that you wouldn't notice if they had it.
Now, wouldn't that be the biggest story in the country if everything else was even a little bit normal?
You like fewer wars and Musk and Trump stuff?
How is that not the biggest story?
And then RFK Jr., who at one point reportedly was considering banning pharmaceutical ads on television, has now reversed that and says he only wants them to be more honest.
How in the world are you going to accomplish that?
How are you going to make them more honest?
That's not really a standard that's not really a variable that you can manage to, because one person's opinion of what is honest enough is not really going to be what other people's opinion is.
So I think one of the examples was showing people living all happily, just in case they don't all live happily.
Is that a case of being dishonest?
Or is it just what commercials do?
So I would worry that big pharma has flipped RFK Jr. or maybe the big network TV people said, we can't do the news if we don't have big pharma ads because they pay our bills.
Something happened.
Somebody got to him and changed him from, we're going to get rid of these ads all the way to, well, we'll just make sure that they're honest, as if that's going to make any difference.
So that's disappointing.
In weird news, Trump has introduced a fragrance which he's selling called Trump 45-47.
And the funniest part is it is for men or women who want to smell like success.
Trump says in the advertisement, get yourself a bottle and don't forget to get one for your loved ones too.
So if you're Trump supporters, you can spray each other with this fragrance and then sit around on the couch and smell like winners.
So I'm having a little bit of agreement with the Democrats who are saying the Trump family is using the office to increase their wealth.
Now, I don't know how much wealth they're going to increase with their fragrance, but it does seem like he's using the office to increase his wealth.
I tend not to, it doesn't bother me as long as it's transparent.
So, you know, truth social, totally transparent.
You can see what he's doing.
Whatever he's doing with crypto, again, kind of sketchy enterprise, but it's all transparent, right?
So I don't have the same opinion about people who are not hiding anything.
So if Trump can monetize the presidency by selling a fragrance, as long as everybody knows exactly what he's doing, I don't have a problem with it.
But I think the Democrats do have a little bit of a point, a little bit of a point, that there does seem to be a little monetizing going on here.
Then another story that is so massive that, again, it would be the only story if we didn't have so much going on.
I guess our law enforcement people Found that there was a massive Medicaid fraud that had already stolen $15 billion from the Medicaid program.
$15 billion.
I'm not misspeaking.
It wasn't a million and it wasn't $15.
It was $15 billion.
And apparently the way this scam worked is some overseas entities, I don't know which ones, bought a bunch of medical device outlets so that they owned real companies that until the fraud started were doing real things.
They were selling medical devices.
And then they got 94 doctors and a few hundred nurses to be in on the scheme.
Presumably they were benefiting financially.
So the doctors would prescribe things like catheters.
And then the bad guys would just use their fake stores to say that they'd sold catheters to a list of people that they knew were on Medicaid, but they were not actually doing any business with them.
So people would notice, they'd look at their Medicaid records, I guess, and they'd say, hey, I didn't buy any catheters or anything or whatever other medical devices.
But if they tried to complain, the bureaucracy would just stymie them.
So if you were just one person who believed there was one thing on your bill that shouldn't have been there, first of all, it wasn't you paying for it.
It was Medicaid.
So how much did you care?
Second of all, if you tried to do anything about it, there wasn't really a process for that.
So you would just be stymied by the bureaucracy.
So they had this perfect little Medicaid fraud going where the only people who would notice it didn't really have an incentive or even a channel to complain too much.
But it got to $15 billion, and it looks like the FBI has taken them down and Department of Justice.
Anyway, let's see, Trump's getting in more trouble because he wants to go after the naturalized citizens and deport them, but only if they've done terrible things, broken laws and stuff.
So that's out there.
There's some big hacker network that apparently is blackmailing, doing ransomware, blackmailing some airlines at the moment.
And they think it's something called Scattered Spider.
It's a ransomware crew.
And they're doing ransomware on big companies by essentially locking up their networks and telling them they won't unlock them unless they give them tens of millions of dollars.
And apparently they're doing really well.
They're linked to Russian-alliant actors, and they're recruiting fluent engineers with zero accent.
So Forbes is reporting on that.
Candace Owens, who continues to be fascinating, is claiming that somebody at the White House called her to ask her to stop talking about Bridget Macrone.
That would be the French first lady, allegedly, because Candace had done a series in which she followed her hypothesis that Bridget Macrone was born a man and has always been a man, just dressed as a woman, I guess.
Now, I do not personally feel that I'm convinced that's true.
It's really interesting, and if you listen to the evidence that she has for it, it is compelling.
But as I've warned you many times of the documentary effect, you know what I'm talking about, right?
If you watch a documentary that has one point of view, by the time you're done with that documentary, you will believe that it's all true because there's no counterpoint.
A documentary just shows one point of view.
And if you watch something for an extended time, it's just one fact after another that's on the one side of an issue, you will be convinced.
But that doesn't make it true.
It's an effect that I call the documentary effect.
If you watch a long form of any one point of view, you'll probably be convinced.
So you really have to see the other point of view to really know what's going on.
So the first thing you need to know is that although Candace Owens' evidence for her hypothesis that Bridget McCrone is really a man is really convincing, I've watched quite a bit of it.
And I have to say, when I'm watching it, I think to myself, wow, that's pretty convincing.
That's a pretty good argument you got there.
However, I'm also aware that I'm being affected by the documentary effect.
So if you told me, Scott, you have to bet your entire net worth on whether it's true.
Well, I wouldn't.
I wouldn't.
I'd probably bet against it, even though it's possible.
I mean, anything's possible.
And let me also go further and say, I really don't care.
Does it matter?
Does it matter to the United States?
Whichever way it is.
If she's a man or a woman, does that matter?
To me, it only matters to Macron, and obviously he's happy with whatever his situation is.
So why would I even care?
So, first of all, I don't care, and I don't judge him no matter what it is.
It's just not my business.
However, Candace has now said that the top White House person called her and told her to cool it on that story because we need France to help negotiate something with Russia and Ukraine, and France might be stalling a little bit to try to see if they could put some pressure on Candace.
Now, some people said Candace made up the whole thing, not just the Bridget McCrone thing, but some are saying that she made up the fact that somebody at the White House called her and told her to cool it on the story.
What do you think?
Well, I'll give you my opinion of Candace, which is, as far as I know, I don't know that she's ever been accused of telling like a bald-faced lie.
Has she?
I've never seen that.
So she always strikes me as somebody who might be right, sometimes might be wrong, like every other person who talks in public, like me.
Might be right, might be wrong.
But lying?
How many of you believe that she would just make up like a lie that's that specific?
That doesn't sound real, does it?
I don't know.
I'd have to see if some of you have some other example where you know that she, you know, you know that she knew she was lying and did it anyway, then maybe I'd change my mind, but I'm not aware of anything like that.
My sense of her is very similar to my sense of all the independent journalist types.
You know, if I see Glenn Greenwald say something, it might be right, it might be wrong, but is he lying?
No, no.
How about Michael Schellenberger?
He might say something that maybe, you know, because like I say, not everybody's going to be right every single time, might say something that doesn't check out, but would he be lying about it?
How about Matt Taebee?
If he got something wrong, would you guess that he was lying about it?
No, because there's no evidence that any of them are about lying.
It just doesn't seem like a thing.
So I'm going to say that I don't know anything about Bridget McCrone's biological reality.
It doesn't matter to me, one way or the other.
But no, I don't think that she would make that story up.
To me, it sounds perfectly natural that the White House would say, you know, you're making it a little bit tough on us.
Could you pull back a little bit on that?
That makes sense to me.
So I'm going to say that that's real.
Well, so let's talk about the communist Mamdani again, running for mayor of New York City.
Apparently, he's lost MSNBC.
Imagine being the most prominent Democrat at the moment.
And Donny Deutsch was on MSNBC saying, basically, this guy's too close to anti-Semitism and it's a problem.
Now that's MSNBC is one of the main voices that you hear on MSNBC.
And how could you possibly win an office if you can't win MSNBC, if you're a Democrat?
Republican obviously never wins MSNBC.
But is that even possible?
Now, here's why, here's what got him in trouble.
So apparently there are people who say globalize into FA.
So if you say globalize into FADA, am I saying that right?
Into Fada, yeah.
As Donny Deutsch points out, if you're Jewish, and even if you're not, you interpret that as a cult of violence against Jewish people everywhere.
Now, you don't have to agree with that interpretation.
You just have to know that that would be a common interpretation, that other people do believe in that interpretation.
So if you're just looking at his odds of winning the election, he was asked on Meet the Press if he would disavow the people who say globalize into FADA.
Now, apparently, he has not said that.
So he's not being accused of being one of the people who said it.
He's being accused of being unwilling to disavow it and say that he doesn't agree with it.
So when pressed on the topic, instead of doing the easy thing, which is, oh, I don't say that, and the reason I don't say it is that I don't believe it, and I disavow it.
That would have been sort of the non-anti-Semitic version of how to deny it.
But instead, he went all weasel and said, oh, I don't say that, but I don't like to disavow things because if I start disavowing the language used by other people, I would become like Trump.
Really?
Really?
That was his concern, that he wouldn't disavow what looks like to many people a call to violence against Jewish people around the world.
He wouldn't disavow that because doing so would make him sound like Trump.
Now, that doesn't even sound a little bit like that's a real reason, does it?
And first of all, Trump Did disavow the neo-Nazis in Charlottesville.
So it's not like Trump has never disavowed anything.
He's disavowed quite a few things.
I don't think it hurt him.
So we get that.
And then I think Deutsch was talking about how he talked about taxing white people.
And he's not running away from that.
He's just saying, oh, that was just sort of a way to refer to rich areas.
I'm not buying that.
Sorry.
I think it was exactly what he meant to say.
But MSNBC also had a guest, Pablo Torre, who said that Mamdani's refusal to condemn the phrase globalize the Intifada is actually smart and it might be a chess play because he doesn't want to get caught, I don't know condemning or apologizing things like Trump would.
But I would argue that he's using a Trump strategy right now, which is Trump does not spend time explaining or apologizing or walking back statements.
He doesn't do that.
And that does make him look stronger.
But how in the world can you lose...
Hakeem Jeffries was asked about the fact that Mamdani is not disavowing the phrase globalize the Intifada.
So what does Hakeem Jeffries say?
He says that they'll need to work with him on that to improve that messaging.
But basically, even Hakeem Jeffries was saying that if you don't fix that, you're going to have trouble getting elected.
So Momdadi seems to have lost MSNBC and lost Democrat leadership because he's unwilling to condemn what many would see as a call to violence against Jewish people around the world.
And he still is unwilling to do it.
Wow.
So not only is he a communist, but he's, I would say, the accusation that he's an anti-Semite, I would say that that's demonstrated, wouldn't you?
Would you at this point say that that's in question?
I don't think it's really in question, is it?
I think he's a fairly pure anti-Semite and anti-white.
It seems like it.
So can he really get elected?
I don't know.
You know, it would be the most amazing thing if he did, but it would prove to you that all it took for a Democrat to get elected was to have a policy that people liked.
And his policy that says, I'll make New York City more affordable.
Well, your low-knowledge voter is going to say, well, I like that.
I like a city that's more affordable.
But I think New York City doesn't have the highest number as a number or percentage of Jewish residents.
How in the world does that city elect an anti-Semite mayor?
Is that even possible?
The fact that this looks not just possible, but probable, is absolutely mind-blowing.
But that's the power of having an actual policy.
So, you know, if the other Democrats catch on, Chris Murphy was correct.
If the other Democrats catch on and they start saying we can make things more affordable, they don't even have to be telling the truth because people are just going to say, yeah, more affordable.
Sign me up.
So there's that.
According to Reuters, Taiwan is going to be doing some war games in which they'll simulate a Chinese invasion.
So how would you like to be Taiwan at the moment when you're wondering if you're next in our game of thrones?
I don't know how much of a fight they could put up, but my suspicion is that China will not directly attack.
Maybe in our lifetime.
Well, your lifetime.
Mine might be shorter than yours.
I don't think they will, because China is not really an aggressive, offensive military.
They've done very well by not starting fights.
And if they started a fight with Taiwan, they don't know how that would go.
There's no way for them to know for sure that that's going to be a one-week operation.
That could be devastating for China.
So I'm going to predict that you will not see China attack Taiwan.
I'll say during the Trump administration.
That's as far as I'll look out.
But during the Trump administration, I say no Chinese attack on Taiwan because they wouldn't want to do it under his regime for sure.
Well, Trump sent a note, a personal note, to Fed Chairman Jerome Powell, showing a list of other countries that have much lower interest rates and arguing that that means we should lower our interest rates.
Now, as you know, Trump's been on him forever and wants him to retire and drop out and wants to fire him if he could, but that would be hard.
But does it make sense for Trump to compare us to other countries?
No, it doesn't.
It's a persuasive argument because people who see the argument would say, hey, why does Switzerland have a 1% interest rate and we've got five, whatever.
So if you're trying to be persuasive, it's a really good argument.
But what do I tell you about analogies?
So he's analogizing the United States to this list of other countries.
Do you think maybe there's a reason that they have lower interest rates than we do?
Yes, there's a reason because we're different.
The countries that already have low to no inflation can lower their interest rates because higher interest rates are what you do if you're trying to tamp down on inflation.
So in the United States, even though our inflation is at a reasonable number at the moment, which would be Trump's argument, hey, inflation's under control at the moment.
It's not as low as it is in Switzerland or those other places that have low interest rates.
It's not as low as them.
But we also have the extra risk hanging over us of what will happen with the trade deals and maybe some other stuff, what will happen with the Big Beautiful Bill.
So we have some uncertainty in the United States, which Powell would argue is good enough reason to wait a little bit, see how things shake out before you lower interest rates.
But do not be fooled by looking at a list of other countries.
There's a reason that these other countries act differently.
And the difference is they have different economies.
They have different export and import ratios, which apparently makes a big difference to this conversation.
So no, they're just different.
But is it persuasive?
Yes, it's absolutely persuasive.
Because I'm probably the only person today who will tell you it doesn't make sense to compare countries.
Watch the news today.
See how many of the talking heads bother to research it and find out that it doesn't make sense to compare to other countries.
We'll see.
Senator Tommy Tuberville says that Powell could drop interest rates just one point and we'd save taxpayers $400 billion because he says inflation is as low as it's ever been.
So it's just about politics.
It feels like it.
You know, I have to say that the current interest rates, it feels like politics, more than it feels like good economic decisions.
But $400 billion, that would take a nice bite out of our deficit, wouldn't it?
So now imagine you're Trump and you've got Elon Musk chewing at your heels for bringing up the deficit.
Imagine, if you will, that Trump could get interest rates lowered by 1% by just jawboning the Fed forever.
I don't think it'll work.
But by May, there'll be a new Fed chairman.
So by May, it'll work when he's got his own guy in there or lady.
So what if Trump gets us $400 billion per year in interest rates and another $200 billion per year in extra tariffs that we weren't expecting, even though American companies pay for a lot of that?
And then let's say that the Big Beautiful bill did work as a stimulus.
So let's say he gets another couple hundred billion dollars from the stimulus.
And then let's say that the upcoming budget packages in which Speaker Johnson says those are the ones that you would get the Doge cuts in, what if they cut $100 billion?
So you could sort of crawl your way up to a trillion dollars in work against the deficit.
Now, I think we're spending like $2 trillion a year more than we bring in.
So it'll still be only half of the deficit.
But it probably that it would calm things down.
So So it seems to me that Trump has a play that only he can make work because he's the only one who would do tariffs.
He's the only one who would browbeat the Fed.
He's the only one who could get big beautiful bill passed if he does get it passed.
So these are very much only Trump things.
And they might be worth a trillion dollars a year collectively.
So if he gets that done, it's certainly going to look like he did something positive for the overall debt.
But it would still only be halfway there.
So I don't know.
I don't know if it'd be enough.
CNN was doing some news reporting about a new app that the anti-immigration deportation people have called ICE Block.
And I guess I'm doing the same thing CNN was doing, which is telling you about something that was bad for ICE people.
So I won't give you any more details.
I'll just say that Tom Homan, when asked about it, says the DOJ needs to look into CNN because it would be like they're assisting people trying to avoid law enforcement or assisting people to hurt law enforcement because they would know where they're going to be.
So I won't say more about that, but that's a dicey situation.
Apparently, Pam Bondi says that the government is the DOJ is going to be suing the sanctuary cities.
So LA, New York, Illinois, New Jersey, Colorado, Minnesota.
So she's suing all of them for their sanctuary city policies.
I don't know if that'll work, but maybe.
And let's see.
Rand Paul is continuing his quest to put Fauci in jail.
And he says now in a new video he was on, Rand Paul says, that there are new documents that reveal Anthony Fauci did know gain of function research could be the cause of the COVID pandemic and that they're going to force him to testify under oath.
Now, as far as I know, Fauci is covered by pardon, right?
So preemptive universal pardon.
So I don't know if you could ever put him in jail for that or anything else, but it would be nice to know.
How many of you think Fauci is as dirty as Rand Paul claims?
And that he knew he was funding it, he knew there was a risk.
And then when it happened, you know, the worst case scenario, it got out, that he covered it up and lied about it.
How many of you think that's a description of reality?
Well, I don't know, but I'm definitely interested in hearing what Rand Paul and Congress has to say about it.
Because I don't feel like Rand Paul is somebody who would just make shit up.
He must have a really strong case where he wouldn't be going this hard.
So Rand Paul is another one that I trust that even if I disagreed with him, it wouldn't be because he was lying.
So I don't think he's lying, but we'll see if he's also correct.
Apparently, Trump has signed some executive orders about Syria to drop some of the sanctions without asking for anything in return.
So he's just going to drop the sanctions on Syria.
Now, that's presumably because the new dictator in Syria has been cooperative and may in fact be part of an increased deal in the Middle East for the Abraham Accords.
So it looks like Trump is probably smartly assuming that if we play nice with them, they're going to play nice with us.
So that would be a function of knowing if their leader is that kind of personality.
So going first and just giving something to Syria, that doesn't seem very Trump-like.
Normally, he'd be asking something in return.
So probably there's something that the leader of Syria has promised privately.
If you do this, we'll be cooperative in the Middle East.
I think one of the questions would be the Golan Heights.
So maybe they want to make sure that Syria gives up the Golan Heights forever to Israel.
We'll see.
Iran is asking the UN, Breitbart is reporting this, Francis Martel, that Iran is asking the UN to make the U.S. pay reparations for the bomb nuclear sites in Iran.
I don't feel that that will be successful.
However, is Iran smart for trying?
Yeah, yeah.
From a persuasion perspective, obviously it won't work.
But if they can get some headlines saying, hey, you should pay reparations, it's making you think past the sale.
The sale is should we have bombed them.
If you're talking about reparations, they're making you think past the bombing to how much should the U.S. pay for its terrible, terrible mistake of bombing them.
So persuasion-wise, A plus.
Chances of success, zero.
I guess Texas is now banning land purchases by China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea, according to the national pulse.
So Greg Abbott signed it into law.
If you're a citizen of any one of those countries, you will not be able to buy land.
I wonder why the states have to do that.
I feel like that's just embarrassing to the federal government, because it feels like the federal government should have done that, not just a state.
So we'll see if that makes a difference.
Meanwhile, in science, Northeastern University is writing about this.
There's a discovery in quantum materials that could make electronics a thousand times faster.
So researchers at Northeastern University have figured out how to change the electronic state of matter on demand.
So it's a quantum matter transition technique that apparently, if you built it into the computers, they'd be a thousand times faster.
That's pretty exciting.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, I ran a little bit long, but that's all I have for today.
I'm going to say a few words privately to my beloved subscribers on locals.
