God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorksFind my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.comContent:Politics, Grok 4, Elon Musk, DJI Drones, T-Mobile DEI, Kyle Seraphin, Comey Brennan Investigation, John Kiriakou, John Brennan, Biden's White House Doctor, Douglass Mackey, Weaponized Government, J Edgar Hoover, Government Blackmail, Epstein Files Controversy, President Trump, Blackmail Leverage, Covid Vaccine Advisory, RFK Jr., Kristi Noem, Maui Aftermath, Ghislaine Maxwell Contacts, Hakeem Jeffries, Election Rigging Concern, US Rare Earth Mineral Mining, Ukraine Suicide Bombers, Linda Yaccarino, Butler SS Agents Suspended, Democrat Strategies, Republican Strategies, 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.
Let me make sure I can see all your comments here.
And then we've got some fun for you.
Boom, boom, boom, boom.
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 taking this experience up to levels that no one can understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need for that is a copper, a mugger, a glass of tankard, Chelsea, 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.
The dope of me end of the day.
The thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens now.
Oh, yeah.
That was really good.
That was good.
Oh, boy.
Well, I wonder if there's any scientific study about the benefits of magic mushrooms.
Oh, yeah, here's one.
According to IFL science, psilocybin shows potential in slowing human cell aging.
So not only will the magic mushrooms cure your depression, your anxiety, fix all your problems, but it might make you live longer.
Is there anything mushrooms can't do?
No, no, there's not.
Apparently they can do everything.
Well, this might seem like a nerdy little news thing, but it might be a big deal.
PJ Media is reporting that four independent pollsters have decided to join forces in some kind of an association of just the four of them.
There'll be the National Association.
Well, they might add some people, who knows.
There'll be the National Association of Independent Pollsters.
Now, you might say to me, why is that interesting?
That four pollsters and of the many, many pollsters have decided to create their own little organization?
Why would they do that?
Well, here are the pollsters.
Big Data Poll, Insider Advantage, Trafalgar Group, and Rasmussen.
Now, if you're a real nerd and you really watch your politics, you know where this is heading.
But for the rest of you, let me tell you what this means.
These four are the ones who are calling out the other pollsters for being frauds.
Rasmussen, of course, has been doing it for a long time.
But these are all top 10 pollsters who tend to be accurate and not gaming the system.
So I believe their claim will be that these are four you can depend on, and all the rest are likely to be gaming the system, especially for the political stuff.
So I feel like this is a big move, because if one pollster says, oh, those other ones seem fraudulent, how much are you going to pay attention to it?
But if there's an organization of pollsters, they have organized specifically because they're the ones who are not frauds, and they're calling out the rest of them in the industry for being frauds, that's got a little bit of weight behind it.
So that could get interesting next time there's a political poll.
Well, Grok 4 maybe is released, or maybe they're just still talking about it.
I cannot tell by looking at my own Grok that I pay for what I have and what I don't.
I think I have four, but there's a heavy four.
There's one that's $300 a month.
I don't have that one.
So Elon Musk says, we're in the beginning of an immense intelligence big bang right now.
And we're at the most interesting time to be alive anytime in history.
Now, you want to know how I know we're living in a simulation?
All right, just imagine this.
Imagine the, depends where you want to go, let's say 300,000 years of human development.
What are the odds that you happen to be here at exactly the most interesting time?
What are the odds of that?
That's really small, right?
So it seems to me that whenever something this unusual happens in my lifetime, I say to myself, what are the odds that I was born in this time zone?
Not time zone, but time period.
I feel like maybe this is proof where his simulation.
Well, Grok is also going to be put into Tesla's very soon, maybe next week.
And Elon has gone so far as to say that he'd be shocked if Grok hasn't discovered new physics by next year.
Apparently, Grok4 is now the leading AI.
It benchmarks better than all the other AIs for now.
And Elon says that with respect to academic questions, Grok4 is better than PhD level in every subject.
And it may be discovering new things that no AI has discovered before.
And it might discover new physics.
I mean, just think about that.
So according to Elon, the current version, the one they're releasing, I guess the expensive version, should be able to figure out things that do not exist already on the internet.
Now, that would be a big deal, because the large language models, largely, they look at what has gone before, you know, the body of knowledge that humans already have, and then it learns from what humans already know.
But it doesn't figure out new stuff.
The large language models don't do that.
If Grok can do that, and I think it's still an open question, if Grok can figure out new truths that do not exist already in human knowledge, that would be really scary and exciting and a really big deal.
So the odds of Grok or AI fixing cancer seems pretty good, but mushrooms will do that too.
I forgot to tell you that the mushrooms that might be operating on your telomers and allowing you to live longer, they're going to study mushrooms, the magic mushrooms, to see if they also are a treatment for cancer.
So what do you think will work first?
Do you think the mushrooms or Grok will cure cancer first?
I don't know.
Could be a dead heat.
Meanwhile, Apple's stock is apparently down this year, for the year, even as the other big tech firms are doing great.
And of course, people are saying that the problem is that if Apple doesn't figure out AI, and there's no evidence that they're even close, that they will be left behind and that you can't be the big leading tech company if you don't even really have an AI platform.
So maybe some say that Apple will try to buy diverse perplexity.
I don't know about that because it'd be about $30 billion.
But I'm going to re-up my prediction.
I feel like the risk to the smartphone companies is that somebody with an AI platform is going to make a phone that doesn't use apps.
At least not directly.
The biggest problem with the iPhone, the thing I hate, is that I have to find an app first, and then I do my thing.
And sometimes you got to update the app and sometimes you got to sign into the app.
And, oh, my God.
Imagine if you would, a phone with AI as its operating system, if you will, but not really having an operating system.
And it's just a blank phone.
And if you left your phone on the kitchen table and I picked it up by accident, it would look at my face and it would turn into my phone, but only as long as I'm using it.
As soon as I put it down again, it would become generic and then the owner could pick it up and it would be their phone.
So that's the first thing.
It could identify you with more certainty than a non-AI entity could.
The other thing I want to say is I want to start working before I pick an app.
So for example, if I want to text somebody I know, I want a blank screen every time, nothing but a blank screen, and then just start typing a message.
And then the AI says, oh, he's making a short message on this topic where he was just talking to Bob.
So then it will indicate as I work that it plans to open up a text, send a text message to Bob.
Now, if that's not what I intended, or if there maybe is more than one thing that I might be potentially hinting I want, it would give me a couple of choices.
But I would do the selecting of the app at the end, or not at all, because AI would know.
Suppose I wanted to work on a spreadsheet.
So I've got some existing spreadsheets that I update now and then.
If the only thing I did is start writing the new data for the new spreadsheet, the new spreadsheet should just appear, and then it asked me if I wanted that data to be on this column in this place.
So you see how awesome that would be.
But the problem is that Apple has commercialized this whole app model, which has been great for revenue, I guess.
But I don't want apps.
I don't want any apps.
I want just stuff to work.
And I want to just start working as soon as I open the phone.
Now, you might say to yourself that that would be a terrible idea, but it depends on implementation.
Well, in other news, DJI, that's the big drone maker in China, they have made a drone that can lift about 176 pounds And transport it for 16 miles.
That's the weight of a human that can carry for 16 miles.
What?
And it's not that big.
The drone itself looks like, I don't know, maybe a six-foot wingspan or something like that.
But if you can carry 176 pounds for 16 miles, you've got yourself a pretty good assassination machine right there.
Because we know now that the Russians have the ability to have a drone that just loiters and just hangs around and looks for its targets.
It's unjammable.
So imagine it being unjammable, can travel 16 miles, can find the target on its own after you've specified some stuff, I guess.
And then it could drop 176 pounds of explosives in that area.
So that would be pretty bad.
But on the positive side, maybe they'll use it for rescuing people in remote locations.
Or maybe it will be delivering your lunch.
I don't know.
I tell this story all the time, but I haven't told it in a while, so it's worth re-upping.
Years ago, when drones were a little bit newer and less powerful, I attended a startup pitch event at Berkeley, Berkeley, the college.
And I was one of the judges of the pitches.
And one of the companies pitching developed a new kind of blade for Jones that they claimed would vastly improve its cargo carrying ability from what it was at the time, which wasn't very much.
And I remember asking the startup crew, and remember this is Berkeley.
So it's the most lefty leaning group of people you've ever seen in your life.
And I said, well, with this new ability to carry more cargo, I would think the military would be very interested in your product.
Well, you should have seen their faces when this left-leaning group of entrepreneurs in Berkeley just realized that they had designed death weapons from above, but they weren't aware of what they had done.
Lithuania got attacked by a Russian suicide drone.
I'm seeing somebody report that in the comments, but I wouldn't take that as a fact yet.
That sounds unusual.
All right.
Apparently, T-Mobile had a thriving DEI program or a set of programs, but they're going to get rid of all their DEI, according to Newsmax, because they need FCC approval for some mergers and deals they want to do.
So once again, it wasn't enough that DEI is illegal.
That wasn't enough to make them stop doing it.
It's just until they needed approval from the government, they were just going to keep doing the illegal thing, I guess.
But now they've agreed to wipe it clean and get rid of all that DEI illegal stuff so that they can get their deals done.
So, T-Mobile, you're a little bit slow, but maybe you got to the right place.
And I was listening to Alex Jones.
He had a guest on, Kyle Seraphin.
He's an FBI whistleblower who's been around for a while on the podcasting and interview circuit.
So he's not a brand new FBI whistleblower.
He's a whistleblower from the not-too-distant past.
And he believes that the announcement that Comey and Brennan will be investigated for criminal activity is a distraction from the Epstein case.
Do you believe that?
Do you believe that it's not a coincidence that you heard about Brennan and Comey right at the time that the government wants to distract you from the Epstein situation?
I don't know.
Maybe.
I always think the government has a million things that they could use as a distraction.
So in a sense, maybe.
I mean, it works as a distraction, but that doesn't mean that they planned it that way.
Or did they?
It's possible.
And then Kyle was pointing out, Kyle Seraphin on Alex Jones' show, who's pointing out that Fox News is reporting that Comey and Brennan would be looked at for perjury,
for things that they said to, I guess, under oath to Congress, that turned out not to be true, except that there's a statute of limitations, says Kyle Serafin, of five years.
So it wouldn't really make sense to investigate them for something they couldn't be charged for anyway.
So maybe there's more to it.
We don't know.
But then I saw separately, I saw a CIA whistleblower.
I love the whistleblowers.
John Kiriaku.
You've probably seen him on social media.
He's there quite a bit.
And he had a lot of contact with John Brennan, because they were in the CIA at the same time.
And he describes John Brennan as a ruthless, quote, very bad guy.
He said, quote john was just torture torture torture we got to torture these guys talking about you know terrorists and stuff we got to do this we got to do that we need to start killing more people we need to get out there and start shooting john brennan is a very bad guy from day one he was a bad guy well and i guess uh brennan was notorious for expanding drone strikes um and
and brutal interrogation tactics.
Well, John Brennan appeared on MSNBC, the network that we think is most associated with being a tool of the CIA.
And I've seen him, I've seen John Brennan in a lot of interviews, but I've never seen him look this worried.
He acted like he was scared to death, like they have him.
he uh lashed out in exactly the way you'd expect he uh compared the u.s to nazi germany you know under trump and he said if the president of the united states is willing to weaponize intelligence and justice we really are in deep deep trouble now do you recognize that approach have we ever mentioned that the democrats always project literally
the reason that he's being, he's in the public eye is because he's being accused of the very thing he says that Trump is doing, which is weaponizing the CIA and the FBI and Department of Justice.
So he might have a point that weaponizing those things would be a bad idea, But it doesn't mean that's what's happening now.
now it seems to me that there are pretty credible accusations that would suggest he was behind an insurrection and that Obama knew about it and was part of it and that they were trying to overthrow or change the government of the United States without using the legal process.
Now, do you think he's guilty?
Well, I'm no expert, but I can tell you I thought he was guilty from the first time I saw him and he and Clapper doing their interviews.
They just looked guilty as hell.
I've never seen two people who acted more guilty from the start than those two guys.
But, you know, I'm not magic.
They can't read minds.
I just know that my impression of them from the start was, whoa, not only are you lying, it seemed to me, but it looks like you're the masterminds behind the whole thing.
And apparently they're being accused of being the masterminds behold behind the whole thing.
Why did it take us years to get to this point?
Well, apparently, the way our government works and the justice system is that it takes five years before somebody admits that something was wrong and action is taken.
And by then, you're just tired of the story.
And it just doesn't have the impact it would if they had started from the beginning.
So that's happening.
So well, I guess we'll find out if our system is completely rigged.
Because doesn't it seem to you that no matter what kind of evidence they have against Brennan, that he's not going to go to jail?
Don't you have that feeling?
That it really wouldn't make any difference how good the case was, how illegal it was.
The statute of limitation hasn't run out yet for some stuff, I suppose.
But do any of you believe that the justice system would lock him up?
It seems unbelievably you do.
You believe he might get locked up and comi?
What do you think?
I think no.
I believe that at that level, they're just always protected and that somebody get blackmailed or bribed or something.
Yeah, to me, it seems impossible that Brennan will go to jail, no matter what he did and no matter what the evidence is.
I just don't think we live in a country that can bring that kind of justice to this kind of situation.
We'll see.
That's my prediction.
My prediction is that you might see evidence that looks really, really damning, followed by, huh, several years are going by and he spent some money on lawyers, but he's still free.
We'll find out.
Well, Joe Biden's personal doctor, from when he was in office, agreed to go talk to the committee, Comer's committee, but he didn't answer questions.
Instead, he took the fifth.
Why would the personal doctor have to take the fifth?
Because it wasn't like he was being asked HIPAA questions that were private medical things.
It looked like he was quite aware that if he answered honestly, there would be some liability there for somebody, either his boss, either Biden or him or the family.
So let's add the Biden's doctor to the List of things that are probably exactly what they look like.
It's probably exactly what you think that he was in on it.
He knew that Biden was degraded.
He decided for whatever reason that he wasn't going to make a big deal of it and he just went with it.
But how much of that is because people like John Brennan told the public that Trump was Hitler and so that the only thing that mattered was that Trump didn't get back in office.
Probably everybody was infected by the same problem, which may have started from Brennan.
Well, speaking of justice, do you remember Douglas Mackey?
So he was the fellow who went by the online name Ricky Vaughn, and he was convicted in 2023 because he sat on a meme that said that the voting was for Democrats.
The voting was the day after the election.
Now, it was a joke, and it was a meme, but he was convicted.
Convicted for breaking a law which would be trying to interfere with an election.
It was a meme, a joke.
But here's the good news.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals just threw out his conviction, just threw it out.
And the reason they gave for throwing out the conviction, there was no evidence that he did it for any reason other than it was funny.
There was no evidence that it was a crime because you would have to intend it.
You would have to intend that it misleads people.
And there was no evidence, apparently during the trial that he got convicted for, there was no evidence that he ever intended it as anything but a meme or a joke.
So he's a free man.
Good for him.
And it reminds us of just how dangerous it was to just be a Trump supporter during that period.
Because people were just being targeted for destruction, wouldn't you say?
How many of you think that my cancellation is because of what I said versus I was just targeted as being a Trump supporter and they used whatever they could use?
Well, I don't know, but I will tell you that zero Republicans canceled me.
None.
Zero.
Zero black Republicans?
Zero.
Not a single Republican said, I won't talk to you or I won't book you on a podcast or I won't buy your stuff.
None.
Do you think that Republicans somehow are such bad people that they can't tell what horrible things I thought or said?
No, actually, they looked at what I actually thought and said and didn't see a problem because nobody disagreed with what I said.
Nobody, left or right.
They just used it as an excuse to cancel me.
So Douglas Mackey and a lot of us who got all kinds of public attacks, sometimes physically, sometimes people got, what do you call it?
What do you call SWAT?
SWATted.
If you look at the abuse that Republicans were Trump haters or Trump supporters took during the last 10 years, we had careers destroyed, reputations destroyed.
The January 6th people put in jail.
If you wore a MAGA hat outside, you got beaten up.
And the January 6th thing was the ultimate, that they just massively started jailing the most ardent supporters of the president without ever asking them why they were there to protest in the first place.
Was it because they knew that Trump lost and they wanted him to be president anyway?
No.
Probably not one person had that thought.
Did we ever see in the news what they were thinking, which would be easy to determine?
You could just bring a few of them into a room and say, what were you thinking?
And they would say, well, it looked to us like the election was irregular, and we wanted it not to be certified until somebody in charge looked at it and determined that it was a good election.
Nobody's ever reported that.
They've never reported the truth about that story.
And then, of course, there was the whole white supremacy thing and DEI so that people like me could be targeted for being what?
Just white and being alive.
So I'm, and now the ICE officers are being attacked, you know, violently.
So it's really easy.
I feel like I fell into a trap that because these things happen, you know, one at a time, and sometimes it doesn't affect me personally.
And then a few weeks go by and there's a different situation and you don't like any of them, but you don't realize that collectively they create a story that I don't know how historians are going to deal with it in the future.
Because the truth is that half of the country got weaponized against the other half.
And it was a dark, dark time.
And we're not necessarily out of it because we're having this little golden era because Trump's in office.
I don't know what happens when he leaves.
I don't know what happens.
Unless there's another strong Republican there, do we just go back to this reign of terror where just waking up and being a Republican makes it dangerous to be an American?
Is that what's going to happen?
I don't know.
But apparently, I saw Joshua Steinman made an observation that the deportations may have made the traffic in LA really manageable.
Now, I guess it's just a fact that there are mass deportations in effect in LA.
And also the traffic is the lightest it's been in anybody's recent memory.
Are those related?
Or is it just because this is the peak vacation period of the year?
Is it just maybe people are on vacation?
I don't know.
Might be a little of both.
I saw there was a viral clip from Sean Ryan's podcast.
He was talking to journalist Nick Bryant, who believes that the reason the Epstein case is being covered up is because it would destroy their entire operational system of the government if they revealed it.
Because the operational system of the government is that it's run by blackmail.
How many of you buy into that narrative?
That the reason that we can't know about the Epstein truth is that we would learn that the entire government is a blackmail operation.
And maybe always has been, and maybe all of them are.
If you remember the stories from J. Edgar Hoover, and correct me if I'm wrong, I'm no historian.
But don't we know for sure that J. Edgar Hoover was controlling the government with blackmail?
We know that as a fact, right?
What exactly changed since J. Edgar Hoover's time?
Anything?
Did any laws make that go away?
Is there a new system in place to prevent people from getting blackmailed?
I don't believe so.
So if it worked for J. Edgar Hoover, why would you ever imagine that people stop doing it?
It's probably the most effective thing that anything that happens in our government.
But I'm not willing to say that's the only reason that you're not seeing the Epstein stuff.
I believe that one of the things that Trump said, which rings true, is there might be a lot of names associated with Epstein, and Trump would be one of those names, that are not implicated in any crimes.
But as soon as you made that public, then every single person he talked to who returned a phone call would look like a horrible sex criminal.
So you would destroy maybe, I don't know, maybe 100 people's lives would be completely destroyed who didn't deserve it because they would have no criminal activities on their resume.
But they had some contact with Epstein maybe before they knew what he was up to.
So would that be a good enough reason to not release the files?
I hate to say it, but it would be.
Because that would very much be a case of, well, you don't throw away 100 people's lives and their families and everything else.
You don't throw away 100 people's lives because the public has a right to see some files.
I wouldn't go that far.
Suppose that the Trump administration is very serious about protecting the country and protecting the Republican view of how things should be.
And they realize that if they release the Epstein files, it could destroy the entire government, maybe bring down every government, not just the current one, but maybe all the ones in the past.
If we found out what was really going on.
What would be the right play for Trump?
Now, this is just speculation hypothetical.
But suppose that revealing the full story about Epstein would crash the United States as a government.
Like we would just lose everything.
Is that possible?
It's totally possible.
It's totally possible that if we found out we were a blackmail operation and always were, it's totally possible we would crash the whole country.
What about if Trump was trying to protect some other country, let's say France or the UK or Israel or some other ally?
Would it be a good enough reason to not tell the citizens of the U.S. what the truth is if it would destroy an ally?
I mean, just absolutely devastate another country.
Would that be a good enough reason to keep it a secret?
Here's my take.
If you trust Trump, you have to also trust him to lie to you when it's in your best interest.
I know.
It's uncomfortable.
But how many of you know that there's something called the CIA?
Have you heard of it?
If you know that there's a CIA and you have not been railing to completely eliminate them from our system, then you've already bought into the idea that your government can lie to you.
So don't act like you're all above it.
We're not above it.
I wake up knowing that my country has a CIA and that their job is to not tell the truth.
I mean, it's built into the job.
And I don't expect them to tell me the truth, but I do expect them to keep me safe.
So, you know, they're not going to be perfect and there'll be some corruption that gets into every system.
But if you trust Trump to handle the country's interests first, then you should also trust him to know when to lie to you and that when that's in your best interest or the best interest of the country as a whole.
So that's where I'm at.
To me, it's obvious that Bongino and Bondi and Cash Patel and Trump are all lying.
I just accept that as a fact because they could not wink at us any harder, could they?
Wink, wink.
We didn't find anything.
Wink, wink, wink.
To me, they're doing the best they can, which is letting you know without letting you know that they're lying to you.
And you would have to trust that all four of those people, because we presume they all have some version of the truth.
I don't think they're in the dark.
I think they know the truth.
And would you trust that all four of them, with nobody defecting, because that's important, none of them turned whistleblower, none of them resigned, none of them said, well, I disagree with this decision.
They all got right on the same page, which suggests that they probably think that the country is better off if they just don't let us know the full truth.
Now, it could also be that there is no full truth to find because all the records have been scrubbed long ago, so there was nothing to find.
So it could be that they simply have their own suspicions about the data being deleted and the files disappearing and stuff.
They may have their own suspicions, but it's also possible they don't have any proof of any crimes that we don't know about.
So if they didn't have any proof, because it had all been removed from the files, what are they going to do?
What would you do?
Because it's not your job to spread rumors or hunches.
You would unfortunately do what they did.
You'd say, well, I looked at all the files and I didn't see anything to show you.
Anyway, so my current take is that I'm going to trust that the four of them are more patriots than weasels, because I don't think any of them lack bravery.
Would you agree with me on that?
Would you say that the four of them, Trump, Bondi, Patel, and Bongino, they don't lack bravery.
So they're not afraid.
They're probably protecting us.
Now, is that the most generous take you could ever imagine?
Probably.
But have those four people earned a little extra trust?
And the answer is yes.
Yes, they have.
Now, does that mean I'm right?
I don't know.
But, you know, you have to take a position because you have to live in this world and you're going to have to accept some interpretation as more likely than the other.
I feel like the most likely interpretation is that they know it would be bad for the country to be fully disclosing what they know.
It doesn't mean that they're bad people.
It could mean the opposite, that they're protecting us.
But I don't know.
Maybe someday we'll find that out.
As Alex Jones says and others have said, maybe the other possibility is that Trump found it really useful to have all that blackmail for himself.
So let's say you wanted to do a deal with some other country that's an ally.
Wouldn't it be useful if that ally was fully knowledgeable that you knew everything in the Epstein file?
And if you wanted to, you could release it.
You could leak it or you could announce it.
Wouldn't that make you very flexible when dealing with the United States?
Yes, it would.
So one possibility is that once Trump found out what the actual blackmail was all about, and we have no evidence that he did this, by the way.
I'm just, this is more of a what-if.
Wouldn't it make sense for him to use it instead of ruining the asset?
Because imagine how valuable that asset would be.
What if it felt like the difference between getting the Abraham Accords done and not?
I'm not saying Israel's the target or anything like that.
I'm just saying there are things that are way bigger, way bigger than what Epstein knew or videoed or blackmailed about.
What if keeping that blackmail alive is what allows Trump to get a peace deal between Ukraine and Russia, which I don't think is going to happen anytime soon.
But what if it did?
Wouldn't you be better off if he didn't tell you and just Used that leverage and got a peace deal for the world that kept us out of World War III and the nuclear holocaust.
I don't know.
I wouldn't feel bad about it.
So we'll probably never know what the truth is, but let's see.
So apparently there are several healthcare organizations.
I saw this on a post by the Vigilant Fox, who's a real good follow on ACTS.
If you're not following the Vigilant Fox, you might be missing a lot of stories.
But so RFK Jr. had said that the people who, kids and pregnant women, should not be getting the COVID vaccination.
Now, you probably said to yourself, well, I'm pretty sure the science strongly indicates that it doesn't make sense for pregnant women and children, young children, to get the shot.
But you might be wrong, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Physicians, the American Public Health Association, and the Infectious Diseases Society of America, because they all got together and they're filing a federal lawsuit against Kennedy for banning the COVID vaccine from kids and pregnant women.
Now, do you think that they have the data to back up that lawsuit?
Because the reason for banning it was the data.
Is there two sets of data, one that says it's a great idea and one that says it's not?
How in the world is this even a decision?
Is there really just two completely different worlds of data?
And one says that, oh yeah, give these to those pregnant women for sure.
And the other says, whatever you do, don't give it to pregnant women?
What?
How is it even possible?
Well, the thing that you would have to wonder about is, are these four associations heavily funded by big pharma?
Hmm, I wonder.
And is it really just big pharma trying to increase their revenue?
And they're doing it indirectly through these organizations that they look to us like they're legit, right?
If I told you that the American Academy of Pediatrics decided that it was something that was safe for children, wouldn't you automatically think, well, they don't sound like criminals to me.
It's the American Academy of Pediatrics.
So if I were a big pharma, I would use my clout with big organizations that I fund, or I fund maybe speaking fees for people in the organizations, that sort of thing.
And I would use them to go after RFK Jr.
So that it didn't look like it was me.
I don't know if that's what's happening, but that's how I would see the world.
Christy Noam, head of Homeland Security, said that after the Maui fires, and while Biden was in charge of FEMA, I don't know if I believe this, but one in six survivors of the Maui fires had to trade sexual favors for basic supplies to survive.
Do you believe that?
One in six?
Now, I assume that we're not counting men in that.
So if you eliminate men, you know, there might have been some gay men or whatever who were offering sex for food.
But it feels like it'd be more like one in three.
If one in six survivors, but let's say half of them are women, half of them are men, wouldn't that suggest, since mostly the women would be offering the sex for supplies, I don't know, I'm not buying it.
One in three?
Does that sound right to you?
You know, it's a horrible world, but one in three?
And we're just hearing about it?
I don't know.
Oh, the article says one in six women.
I'm seeing in the comments.
What I see is one in six survivors.
So that's the quote I got from the news.
One in six survivors.
So, I don't know.
I'm going to say I don't believe that one.
If it happened to even one person, it's horrible.
So, you know, let me make sure that I'm not minimizing the potential of how bad that was.
But seems a little exaggerated.
Marjorie Taylor Greene is wondering about Ghelane Maxwell's little black book that has over 2,000 names in it, we believe.
And that would include The Rich and the Powerful.
And I guess that her little black book was sealed by the court as part of her legal defense there.
But this would be a perfect example of if there are 2,000 names in her book, and she was known to be a big networker, how many of the 2,000 names committed any kind of a crime?
How would you like to be somebody that she met at a party and you traded phone numbers and you didn't know anything about any bad behavior?
And the next thing you know, you're being outed in the news for being in her little black book.
That would be pretty bad.
So I guess I would disagree with Marjorie Taylor Greene that the Ghelane Maxwell's little black book should be made public because people would just draw conclusions, and all it would be would be a name and a phone number or an email address.
And we would go not say, Well, look who's in that book.
Look what people did.
We're just seeing the flight information to the island.
I assume that there were people who went to the island and committed no crimes whatsoever.
I assume so.
But don't we treat it like they all did?
Like everybody who was on these flight thing, anybody who was ever on his plane, anybody who ever whispered in his ear at a party like Trump did, don't we use that to say, well, there you go.
They must have been involved in that bad behavior.
So yeah, that would be a little dicey to release those names.
Here's something interesting.
So Akeem Jeffries, Democrat, he would be the minority leader, I guess.
He says he trusts Democrats to run the next election legally and appropriately in the Democrat-managed states.
But he believes that the Republican-managed states, the states where the Republicans were handling the election in those states, he doesn't trust them.
So do you realize what a big deal that is?
The whole January 6th thing depends entirely on the question of whether our elections are unriggable.
Because if they're unriggable, then the people involved in storming the Capitol that day should have known that the election was pristine because they're unriggable.
And therefore, it would look a lot like an insurrection because, hey, there's nothing to complain about the election.
It's unriggable.
And the Democrats on the news, who are all fucking assholes, have been telling us with a straight face that there was no way that the election was anything but factually good in 2020.
And now, the same assholes are telling us that they think the Republicans can rig an election in their states.
Really?
So you think the Republicans can do that, but that the Democrats can't or wouldn't.
That is a complete surrender on the question of whether we know for sure our elections are riggable or unriggable.
If everybody from Rosie O'Donnell to, you know, I think Hillary Clinton said it at one point, and now Hakeem Jeffries is saying it, they're saying out loud that they believe the elections could be rigged by Republicans, and it sort of implies they could do it without getting caught.
Now, they don't say that.
They don't say the part about they could do it without getting caught.
But why would Republicans or Democrats or anybody attempt to rig something if they didn't have a really good way to get away with it?
It's not going to be like, if you knew enough about the system to have a way to rig it, wouldn't you know enough about the system to know whether they could easily catch you or not?
Wouldn't you say, well, here's all the ways they could catch us.
So if we can't get around this, we won't do it.
So, of course, the Democrats have now admitted that it was possible that any election was rigged, and we don't know it.
Well, Tom Cotton has introduced a bill to make it easier to mine rare earth minerals in the U.S., which, as you know, for whatever reason that I don't understand, mining for rare earth minerals is way more ecologically damaging and dangerous than a lot of different things.
So Tom Cotton's bill would make it easier for a number of these environmental laws to be looked at individually.
And if it makes sense to be, let's say, to do a workaround to those.
Now, why did it take so long for this?
Is there something I don't know about this story?
I feel like we should have had this bill a long time ago.
It's not even passed.
It's just introduced.
So again, I can't give Congress full credit for doing what makes sense because they haven't voted on it yet.
Who knows if they will.
And why did it take so long?
Haven't we been talking about China and their rare earth mineral monopoly for now years?
It's been years, right?
And just now they're coming around.
Hey, I've got an idea.
Why don't we make it easier to do it in the U.S.?
Yes.
Yeah, why don't you do that?
All right.
Trump had the leaders of five African nations over at the White House.
And he declared, Trump did, that it's time to benefit Africa by trading with them as opposed to just sending them money.
So the USAID thing is winding down.
And some say that that was, you know, keeping people alive in other countries.
And others say It was just a CIA cutout, and anything that looked like charity was really just a trick to get control over the area.
But Trump is saying, no, how about now you might be better off if we just trade with you?
So let's do that instead.
So that's a new way.
So I saw that Trump took a bunch of questions at that meeting yesterday, but I'm very impressed at how tight his answers are to some kinds of questions.
So I'm just going to read you a few of his answers.
He was asked about Harvard and going after Harvard, the government going after them for being anti-Semitic and stuff.
So here's what Trump said.
He said, quote, Harvard's been very bad, totally anti-Semitic.
And yeah, they'll absolutely reach a deal, saying that they'll come up with some kind of deal with the government.
Now, isn't that a tight answer?
Harvard's been very bad, totally anti-Semitic.
Yeah, they'll absolutely reach a deal.
Nothing else to say.
I love how tight that is.
And then Peter Ducey asks about the fact that Gory Booker and Alex Padilla want the border police and ICE officers to have IDs so you can tell who they are and to not cover their faces.
And so Trump says, quote, they wouldn't be saying that if they didn't hate our country, and they obviously do.
What?
Now, I don't believe that you can know what people are thinking and that you can know that they hate the country.
But the fact that that's his only answer to that, and it's so tight, they wouldn't be saying that if they didn't hate our country, and they obviously do.
Next question.
It does seem that they act as if they hate the country.
Because if you're trying to stop the people who are stopping the flood of immigrants coming across the border, it doesn't really look like you're on the same side as the country.
It feels like you're against your own country.
And why would you be against your own country?
Well, Trump suggests that they hate the country.
Do you think that's true?
Do you think that Corey Booker and Alex Badilla hate the country?
Well, you know, if there were some way to find out for sure, I'd probably bet against it.
But it's such a good response.
Yeah, they wouldn't do it unless they hate the country.
Obviously, they do.
Peter Doosey asked Trump if he wanted to see James Comey and John Brennan behind bars.
Now, imagine all the ways that Trump could answer that wrong.
Would you like to see Brennan and Comey behind bars?
Brennan and Comey are people who tried to put Trump out of office if not behind bars.
And what's he say?
I think they're very dishonest people.
I think they're crooked as hell, and maybe they have to pay a price for that.
But he acted like he didn't know the details.
So pretty tight.
Good answer.
Remember, you don't have to agree with his answer.
I'm just impressed at how tight they are.
No words out there.
Trump has threatened 200% tariffs, according to the New York Post, on pharmaceuticals if they're being made in other countries.
But he might wait a year and a half before imposing that to give them time to try to reshore it in the United States.
But a 200% tariff on pharmaceuticals come in.
Now, obviously, the purpose of that is to encourage them to move to the U.S. to manufacture that stuff.
I don't know if they can do that in a year and a half.
And I don't know how this will not raise prices.
It doesn't seem likely to me that this will have no impact on prices.
So you might see some of your pharmaceutical drugs go up in price.
Speaking of which, have I told you how expensive my testosterone blockers are?
Oh my God.
With healthcare, this is with healthcare.
So this is not the full price.
I paid $1,400 for a month of supply.
$1,400.
Now that's with healthcare.
Apparently the real price might have been, I think it was like $10,000 for something that you would need every month for years.
What?
How would somebody who didn't have a lot of money even afford that?
I guess there are alternatives that don't cost that much, but have side effects.
So you would have to pick the one that had side effects and not good side effects either, because you wouldn't be able to afford the good stuff.
Now, I sort of blundered into it.
I didn't know it was the good stuff until I got it.
But wow, does it work well?
I mean, that's my experience.
But can you imagine it?
$1,400 a month for a person with a normal income and a normal job?
Just like put that right on top of everything else?
Unbelievable.
Anyway.
According to a news nation, Trump is considering some harsher sanctions on Russia or the Congresses or somebody else.
But I asked Grok What kind of sanctions are left?
Like, what are they even thinking about?
And Grok, this is not the smart new Grok, but the old Grok, said it would be maybe potentially secondary sanctions for any financial institute that's dealing with Russia, or maybe a 500% tariff on any country buying Russian oil or natural gas or uranium.
But how are we going to do that?
We're just going to slap a 500% tariff on China and India?
That's not going to happen.
Holy cow.
Wow.
I'm seeing somebody else's drug expenser.
Wow.
So to me, it doesn't look like, oh, and then the other thing would be to seize Russia's 300 billion, I guess we have frozen Russian assets, and then use them for arms purchases in Ukraine.
Well, I don't believe that any of these harsher sanctions are practical.
I don't believe we're going to put a 500% tariff on everything that comes from China and India because they buy gas from Russia.
Does that sound like something we could actually do and get away with?
I don't think so.
And penalizing the banks?
Maybe, but wouldn't we have done that already if there were no problem with doing that?
So I'm kind of thinking that maybe there aren't any harsher sanctions.
There's a story in Newsmax that Russia is turning Ukrainian teenagers into unwitting suicide bombers.
So the way they do that would be they'd say, I'll give you $1,000 if you go do some, let's say, some, what would they call it, to vandalize a police station in Ukraine.
So imagine you're a teenager in Ukraine and some Russian contact offers you $1,000 to go vandalize a Ukrainian police station.
Well, it would be pretty hard to turn down $1,000 if you're a teenager and all you had to do is do some graffiti or something on a police station.
And then they give you a backpack and say, all right, here are your supplies for vandalizing.
And then when you get to the police station, you realize that the backpack they gave you was explosives and they just detonate it.
So they basically just turn these teenagers into suicide bombers, but they don't know they're suicide bombers.
They think they're just doing some other thing for money.
But apparently some of them, maybe they're just flipping and they don't mind, you know, they're not being killed themselves, but they're doing some work for Russia.
I'll tell you, these are it's hard to root for Ukraine if their own teenagers are attacking them, at least in small numbers.
Well, the ex-CEO of X, no, this one, the ex-CEO of X, who's the, let's call her the ex-CEO, Linda Yaccarino.
about x.
And Elon Musk said a little bit less.
Something like, thank you for all the contributions.
So I don't think they left on the best of terms, just a guess.
And we don't know exactly what the problem was or why she left.
But we do know that the timing was after Grok got accused of being anti-Semitic.
So it could be, although we'd only be guessing, that she just didn't like that kind of heat and didn't think she needed it in her life.
Maybe.
It could be that she's got some other opportunity that she hasn't mentioned.
Maybe.
It could be it was just too hard to work with Elon Musk because as much as we love him, I don't know that I would want him to be my boss because he'd be pretty tough.
So we don't know why, but she's on her way.
And the U.S. Secret Service has suspended six of the agents who were working at that Butler event where Trump got shot in the ear.
So after the long investigation, they decided that there were six people who should have done something different than what they did.
Six?
That's kind of hard to believe, isn't it?
That for one event, there would be six individuals who all didn't do their job at the same time, and it was enough that they would get, at least for a while, they got suspended from 10 to 42 days.
I don't know about that.
I think that was from CBS News.
According to CNDC, Germany has agreed to import more liquefied natural gas from America.
And now the U.S. is officially Germany's largest supplier of LNG.
So I assume that that had been Russia in the past.
And so I see about one story every day where some country agreed to buy more of our stuff.
Often energy, Because that's the easiest thing.
Everybody needs some.
So that goes to Trump's benefit.
I saw an interesting article by Orrin McIntyre, who was at the Blaze.
And he said, the right is facing a serious problem about how to handle its intellectuals.
And I thought, the right has intellectuals?
Who are these intellectuals?
And what is this problem?
Well, I think I'll just read you his opinion, and then I'll give you mine, right?
So he says, Warren McIntyre says, the right is facing a serious problem about how to handle its intellectuals.
The left has a university where it can assign smart people good paying, high-status jobs where they can explore and cultivate ideas.
But the right has no similar institutions.
So right-wing intellectuals end up in think tanks or content production.
This creates the public intellectual who comes onto the scene with a burst of insight.
But content production is a grind.
Even if you're saying intelligent things, eventually the need to say something about everything leaves you little time to think deeply about anything.
Academics are also not really equipped to be public figures.
They are not built to do battle with the hostile public on a regular basis.
So what I'm reading into this is that if you get on the grind of having to say something about everything, that you just don't have the ability to do what you might be able to do in a university, which is take some time to really think through something more deeply.
But I have a completely different view.
My view is that you should not look at the smart people on either side as individuals.
Rather, you should see them as a system or one intelligence.
What I see on the left is that their system of how to deal with smart people on the left is that they are minimized and that the left surfaces the worst takes from the dumbest people.
Now you've seen it, right?
The people on the left are not being driven by their smartest people.
I mean, very clearly.
They are literally, they have some kind of upside down system where the loudest, most prominent voices are actually their dumbest people.
The Jasmine, Crocketts, etc.
Right?
And you see it consistently.
If somebody's really dumb and they're a Democrat, you're going to hear from them a lot.
Okay.
But it seems to me that the smartest people on the right operate like one brain.
You know, your own brain wrestles with things and disagrees with itself all the time, right?
You have that experience.
If it's just you thinking about a new topic in the news, you probably go back and forth in your own mind.
Well, could be this, could be that.
What if it's this?
What if it's that?
The political right, and I'm not going to use the word intellectuals.
I'm going to say the smartest people.
All right.
So I'm going to include like your Charlie Kirks, your Steve Bannons, your Tucker Carlsons.
Nobody would say that they're intellectuals per se.
They're just some of the many smart people on the right.
But what happens when the right disagrees, which has happened a few times recently, the conversation is all public and we all look at each other.
And, you know, I might be looking at what Charlie Kirk says.
I might be looking at Jack Pasabek, what he says.
I might be looking at a couple of other podcasters.
Maybe I'm looking at what Megan Kelly says.
And then I'm forming my opinion, which is informed by all of their opinions.
And I might make some mistakes.
I might make some corrections.
But overall, doesn't it seem to you that the right has a system in which you get to see a pretty good debate over what's real and what's not?
And they don't all agree.
But that you get to a point where the smartest people seem to have surfaced.
And there might be more than one.
So there might be smart people that say we should do A and smart people say we should do B. I think that happened with the Big Beautiful bill.
That you saw not a smart opinion and a dumb opinion.
I think you saw two smart opinions.
One smart opinion is we have to deal with the deficit.
That's just got to be top priority.
And another smart opinion is said, we will, but not on this bill, because we have these other priorities, but trust us, we're going to get to it.
We understand that that's top priority.
Now, to me, that's a system that is really, really good.
And part of it is driven by the fact that we know that Trump listens.
I don't know how he does it.
Presumably, it's people talking in his ear that did the listening.
But Trump is paying attention to all these people I mentioned, plus dozens more.
And because he pays attention, it kind of makes your game a little bit better.
You know that somebody important might be listening to you.
So you kind of make sure you think it through as well as you can.
So I would argue that it's not so much the grind of producing, because I do this every day.
I mean, seven days a week.
And I don't feel a grind at all.
In fact, you know, the more I interact with content, the more I see the connections.
So I would argue that the right has developed a system, somewhat accidentally, I don't think it was conscious, in which the smartest people act like one brain that often has more than one opinion, but the smartest opinions eventually bubble to the top and consistently so.
And on the left, the least capable thinkers, for whatever reason, bubble up to the top.
It's a big, big difference.
So that's my take.
But I appreciate Oren McIntyre's raising.
Well, actually, there's a perfect example.
So, yeah, we might have a different opinion of this intellectual stuff, but we both get to say our thing.
And then you get to decide which one bubbles to the top.
All right.
So Axios is saying that the top mega influencers are warning that this Epstein stuff is going to cause a loss of trust in Trump.
Well, we already talked about that, but do you believe that?
Do you believe that the top mega influencers are going to lose trust?
Maybe, a little bit, temporarily, but I'll about they'll get over it.
Because the alternative is to trust Democrats.
Not much of an alternative.
So I think disagreement looks completely different on the right.
It doesn't look like it's a game ender.
We just go forward with a little disagreement about what we just saw.
That's it.
It doesn't drive the MAGA apart.
It's not some long-term beginning of the end.
It's just we recognize that there are other smart people who have a different opinion.
And that's it.
And then we allow that, and then we go forward.
The College Fix, which is a publication, has an article that says that college grads are now unprepared and more unpopular with hiring managers than ever.
Now, doesn't that feel like a story you heard every year of your life for your entire life, that the young people are worse than they've ever been?
And I thought to myself, if it's true every single year that the young people are worse, you know, worse character, they're lazier, they have the wrong priorities, et cetera.
If every year, I remember when I was the college graduate, I'm positive that we were being blamed for being the worst generation of all time.
You hippies, get a haircut.
You've ruined everything.
You've ruined America.
So do you believe, even though there are plenty of examples, and you may have seen plenty of them yourself, do you believe that the recent batch of job applicants are the worst we've ever seen?
Do you believe that?
I always have this view, that the people who matter in commerce and science is maybe 1%.
And everybody else is just keeping the lights on.
And that it doesn't matter that much how many bad ones there are, because they weren't moving the needle anyway.
But if the top 1% is as good as they've always been, and I would argue that they're better than they've ever been, better, because we have more people to choose from.
And now they have AI tools to boost their intelligence, et cetera.
As long as our top 1% is the best it's ever been, everybody else is just making sure that the garbage gets picked up and the lights stay on.
And that's fine.
So I'm not too worried, but maybe I should be.
You know how I keep telling you that there are all these breakthroughs in battery technology?
I saw a counter to that on What's Up With That.
Willis Eschenbach did an article saying that one of the recent stories I told you about, about a new battery that could charge in a very short time, that there's no practical way to do it.
It's just something you can do in the lab.
But if you wanted to do that fast charging in the real world, you would have to vastly change the entire charging network in ways that would be impractical to change them.
So just be aware that whenever you hear these stories about amazing breakthroughs in battery technology, they might be a little exaggerated and they might not be so practical to actually roll out in our lifetime.
So here's another difference between Democrats and Republicans.
I always tell you that Democrats get the incentives wrong, that they don't understand people for some reason.
I mean, it's weird.
Like, who could live in the world their whole life surrounded by people and then not understand people at least a little bit?
So here's an example.
Compared to the Republicans.
So Brooke Rollins, the Ag Secretary, was noting that the new rules about Medicaid that were part of the Big Beautiful Bill, which would cause people to need to work if they were able-bodied, they would have to work to get their health care, to get their Medicaid.
Now, at the same time, Republicans are doing a mass deportation, which Is taking workers away from employers at the same time that the Medicaid rule should, if everything goes right incentive-wise, make people who weren't sleeping on the couch say, All right, all right, I guess I'll take these jobs that have now been opened up by the deportations.
So that would be an example of two policies that are complementary.
Here we're getting rid of the people.
I don't want to say get rid of, because that's sort of demeaning.
But rather, there's a mass deportation of workers that opens up a bunch of jobs that can be filled by people who want to keep their Medicaid, and all they needed was a job.
Very compatible systems, right?
Now, let's compare that to the Democrats who want to push climate change and affordability at the same time.
Is the climate change agenda, you know, which would suck up a tremendous amount of resources and put them in more expensive forms of energy and would decrease your ability to get the less expensive energy, is that compatible with we want to make things more affordable?
No, it's not compatible.
So once again, you see the Republicans build this beautiful system where they understand the incentives of human beings, and then they build a system that matches those incentives.
And then you look at the Democrats, and it looks random.
It just looks random.
It's like they hadn't thought through anything.
So look for that pattern.
You'll see it.
Well, according to the Public Library of Science, there's an article there saying that loneliness predicts poor mental and physical health outcomes.
Are you surprised that people who are lonely, it affects their mental health and physical health?
Now, you know that I usually say, well, maybe that's backwards correlation.
Maybe people who have bad mental and physical health have trouble making friends.
So they would end up being lazier, not lazier, lonelier.
So it probably works both ways, but I'm totally willing to believe that loneliness can cause you less good health.
And I'm going to offer you a solution to that.
Many of you come to watch this show every day.
And you see that the reason I do it live is because of this loneliness factor.
Don't you feel as if I'm sort of your morning friend who visits with you every morning?
In the comments that are going by live right now, I know you feel that because you tell me that all the time.
And I have very consciously, it's not an accident, I've presented myself as your daily friend because you are my friends.
But you've also made friends with the other people in the comments.
And before I do the show that you're watching, my regular live stream, for my subscribers on locals, I do about a half an hour of a pre-show.
Now, I used to have a little bit of resistance to doing the pre-show because people weren't listening to me.
You know, all I'm doing is preparing for the show and getting my coffee.
And I go down to my little putting room downstairs and I shoot three putts to see how the day will go.
But if I look at the comments, 90% of them are people talking to other people in the comments.
And they've made friends with each other.
So they don't know each other except in the comments, although some of them have actually gotten together.
But they feel this community of people who are just there because they're lonely.
And it's really not about what content that I give them during the pre-show.
It's really about just creating this little forum that people who would otherwise be sitting there lonely, they get to interact with the other people.
And it took me a long time to figure out why when I first fire up the pre-show, which is also a live stream, it took me a long time to figure out why everybody just said hi to each other.
So for the first 10 minutes, it's nothing but, good morning.
How you doing?
Good morning.
And not just to me, but they're saying good morning to the other chatters as they see them coming online.
It's like, hey, magician.
Hey, this or that.
Magician is one of the common users, common as in everyday.
So here's what I'm going to add to it.
Loneliness is definitely dangerous.
And I've accidentally created a model where people can feel a little less lonely every day.
So if you were not taking it in that vein, well, maybe you could, because I'll be here every day as long as I can.
And you might be some people that you want to say good morning to every morning.
And you might feel a little bit less lonely.
All right, that's all I got for you.
I'm going to talk again privately to my local subscribers who are beloved, as you know.
