God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorksFind my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.comContent:Politics, General Purpose Robots, Billy Joel Fine People Hoax, Citizenship Test Requirement, Harvard Trump Settlement, Monetizing Bad Behavior, Terry Moran's Trump Fears, Trump's Media Control Fears, Gwyneth Paltrow, Biden Unaccompanied Minor Trafficking, Ghislaine Maxwell Pardon, Jeffrey Epstein Persuasion Skill, President Trump, Chuck Schumer, Media Matters, Europe's Deterioration, Hillary Clinton Medical Issues, John Brennan Body Language, NEA Racist Handbook, DNC Ken Martin, DNC Rockbottom Messaging, MS Epstein-Barr Virus, Bread Medical Issues, LA FireAid Nonprofits Scandal, NK Remote Worker Scam, Zelensky Drone Sale Claims, 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.
We're about to have some Saturday, Catter Day goodness because you deserve it.
You worked hard all week and now what you need more than anything is what I'm about to serve up as soon as the comments are working.
Do do do do do do do do do do do do do.
Okay.
Good morning, everybody, 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 to elevate this experience to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need for that is a copper mugger, a glass of tanker, Charles 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 dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called a simultaneous sip.
And it happens right now.
Go.
Good.
Better than usual.
Unusually satisfying.
Well, immediately after this podcast, Owen Gregorian will be doing a spaceless event.
You have to be on X to attend.
And you can find that on my feed on X or on Owen Gregorian's feed.
Just search for him.
And you can be part of that.
Well, I wonder if there's any new science that didn't need to happen because I could have told them.
Oh, here's one.
Eric Dolan is writing for SciPost, as he likes to do.
There's a new study that finds that humans can still be AI at one creative task, which is generating more original ideas.
Now, I'm a creative person by nature, and I do it for a living.
And I'm here to tell you, I've tried to get ChatGPT to do my job for me.
I've actually asked it, ChatGPT, can you give me some ideas for a Dilbert comic?
And not even a joke, just the basic setup, the idea, the situation.
And it really can't do that.
It can only give the most obvious ideas.
It would be stuff like somebody setting in for the boss, or the boss doesn't give you a raise.
And you're like, that's so boring.
I can't do anything with that.
So yes, it is true that humans are still way ahead of AI in coming up with creative ideas because AI is trained on existing ideas.
So it's a walking cliche by the time it gets to you.
Now, I have another theory of why it is that humans will be better at creative stuff.
It's because we can feel what other people are feeling at the same time they're feeling it.
So if I knew there was something happening in the news that was different or interesting, I might say, well, that's where my creativity will go.
I'll make a joke about that, or I'll write a song about that, because that's what people are thinking and feeling.
AI can't do that.
AI just looks at what has been done before and tries to do a little more of it.
But a human can say, what is everybody feeling right now that they don't normally feel?
And then use that to create.
So until they can do that, AI will be behind.
Well, a company, a Chinese company that makes robots called Unitry has launched a $5,900 full-size humanoid robot.
But you know how I always tell you, I'm not sure AI can ever power a robot because there's probably a reason that we only see it ever doing one thing.
Whenever there's a video of, look at my humanoid robot, it can put this box over on that shelf 100 times in a row, to which I say, can it do anything else?
So sure enough, this is not a general purpose robot because I don't think those are even possible.
I don't know, maybe Elon Musk has solved it, but I just don't think that the current versions of AI can power a robot.
So instead of having a general purpose robot, for $5,900, you can buy a robot that is designed for individual developers and early stage research teams rather than hobbyists.
So they don't even sell it to hobbyists.
Do you know what that means?
It means you can't even just dig around with it.
It has so little utility that you wouldn't give it to somebody who just wanted to play around with it and see what it could do.
You'd have to give it to somebody who's actually a developer who can make it do something because it doesn't know how to do anything, anything useful, apparently, except I think it has some kind of acrobatic thing.
You know how we always say that the Amish don't get the chronic health problems that the rest of us do?
And then we say, It must be them vaccinations.
And then we say, it's not the vaccinations, it's the food.
They don't have all the preservatives in their food.
And we don't really know.
But it does seem that they have fewer chronic problems.
One of those chronic problems is allergies that they don't have.
So the Amish children rarely have allergies.
And there's a new study, GME Science has this story from Rupendra Brahmbat.
And the story says that it might be because the Amish barns are full of dust that makes the kids more immune to allergies.
Now, do you know what kind of dust there is in a barn?
It would be hay, right?
And also cow waste.
So that's what they're breathing.
But if you spend a lot of time in barns, apparently you have fewer problems with allergies.
Didn't work for me.
I spent a lot of time in a barn when I was young, but it didn't cure my allergies.
Damn it.
So let me correct the fake news that you may have seen.
You may have seen on social media that the TV show The View is, they were taping the last show and said they were going on hiatus or something.
And people said, The View is going out.
You know, it's no longer on TV.
But that's not true because The View takes the same vacation every summer.
So there's nothing to suggest that the TV show The View will be discontinued.
They just always take that week off or two weeks or whatever it is.
Well, apparently there's a Billy Joel documentary on HBO, which is a worthless piece of shit that for reasons I can't even fathom, repeats the Fine People hoax more than once.
The Fine People hoax is in a documentary with Billy Joel.
Now, I haven't watched it, so I assume that it's something like, and then Billy Joel was inspired to, you know, get involved in politics because of the fine people hoax or something like that.
I mean, I don't even know why it's in the Billy Joel documentary, but you fucking pieces of shit, HBO.
I mean, absolute shit.
I believe the Trump administration should sue them.
So I think Trump should sue HBO for putting this documentary on and having what they should know by now is fake news about the fine people.
So we'll see if that happens.
Apparently the Trump administration is tightening foreign worker visas somehow, making it stricter.
But one of the things that they're also looking at is citizenship tests.
So for those people who would qualify for citizenship, which is separate from the visa question, there's some energy to make the test harder.
Now, I guess it used to be harder under Trump's first term.
I feel like they did this once before.
But apparently the thinking is that it's too easy to pass the test because you just have to memorize a certain amount of stuff.
So they want to make it longer and harder to pass.
And I kind of love the fact that that would be like an IQ test to get into the country.
That's better than a two-drink minimum.
It's like, all right, here's the deal.
You cannot enter our country unless you're at least this tall.
You buy at least two drinks and your IQ is high enough that you can pass this much harder citizenship test.
What would happen to our country if from this day on nobody could come in unless they could pass a citizenship test that even the people who were born here couldn't pass?
We'd have all the smart people here, wouldn't we?
But we can't say that.
It would be politically incorrect to say, we've instituted a IQ test because then immediately people would say that's racist, which would be racist, which is the weird part.
If you think that having an IQ test would be racist, you're the racist.
Just think about it.
Well, apparently Harvard wants to settle with the Trump administration because Columbia settled with that $200 million fine that they agreed to pay.
So maybe Harvard figured out it was cheaper to just pay a bunch of money and maybe agree to a bunch of stuff.
And we'll see.
So it might be a little early to assume that that's really going to happen, but Harvard might want to take the easy way out.
And Trump continues to monetize bad behavior.
So he's literally figured out how the government can make money by going after racists in the college community, specifically the people running the colleges.
So I don't mind that they're a little bit racist as long as they're reducing my tax burden or paying down the national debt.
All right, you can be a little bit racist, but it's going to cost you.
I don't know.
I'm just perpetually amused when Trump does the trumpiest thing you could possibly do, which is I'm either going to solve this problem, such as Ukraine or Fentolo or whatever, or if I can't solve it, or until I solve it, I'm going to monetize it.
I'm going to make whoever's involved with us just pay me a bunch of money.
Nobody else would do that.
But he does.
Well, do you remember Terry Moran?
He worked for ABC and got let go recently.
So he's got his own thing going on Substack, I think.
And he was talking to, who is he talking to?
What's his name?
Matthews.
And he was worried that Trump is going to close down or somehow force the sale or merger of all the big news networks to his cronies so that he would be able to control the news.
So, for example, the CBS was part of Paramount or still is, and the merger has just been approved for, was it, Skydance?
Is that the name of the company?
But that would be run by Larry Ellison's son.
So Larry Ellison's son would be in charge of CBS News because they merged.
And Larry Ellison is a Trump supporter.
So I'm sort of guessing his son would be supportive of Trump.
Now, that would look like a win for Trump because it would make one of the big news organizations appear to be, at least on paper, appear to be, well, maybe they'll be a little more pro-Trump biased.
And Terry Moran is sounding the alarm that if it's not stopped, Trump will roll up all the traditional media and make it somehow his puppet.
To which I say, do they have any awareness of why at least a third of the country believes it's all fake news?
Are they aware at all that nobody would need to move against them unless they were just monstrously biased in one direction?
We wouldn't be having a conversation about Trump trying to control the media, if you believe that's what's happening.
We wouldn't have that conversation unless the media was so bad that going after it and destroying it seems like your best strategy.
Now, but I have to admit, I have to admit, since I'm in my own little bubble, I don't often see everything that the other side is thinking.
I stopped for a while and I thought about this.
Is it true that Trump is sort of, maybe it looks like it's a bunch of coincidences, but is the media becoming more pro-Trump?
So CBS, maybe.
We don't know yet.
We know Media Matters is having some issues.
They may run out of money.
We know Gwawker went out of business, you know, for its own reasons.
The whole Cogan lawsuit took them out.
Is it true that Trump is chipping the way?
And, well, he also sued ABC News successfully, right?
So maybe.
There might be something to it, but I wouldn't say it's the end of the world.
It's more like an attack on existing bias.
So we'll see.
What I don't expect is that CBS will turn into a pro-Trump news network.
I don't think so.
You know, they might shoot for a middle ground, but I don't think they're, you know, they wouldn't make money.
They wouldn't last long if they went the other direction.
Well, here is the persuasion play of the day.
Do you remember the, well, of course you do.
You all know the story of the CEO that went to the Cold Play concert and he was hugging his mistress and they got caught on the cam where everybody at home and, no, I guess everybody at the stadium gets to see them.
And then, you know, he ducked down because they were caught in the act.
And eventually, very soon after that, he resigned.
The company that he resigned from is called Astronomer.
And they sell some kind of technology product that I don't understand.
But today, they launched a commercial featuring Gwyneth Peltrow, who used to be married to the Cold Play frontman, right?
So the first thing you notice is, wait a minute, that's a weird connection.
They hired to do a little commercial, the ex-wife of the Cold Play guy who called out the cheaters, and that's why they're in the news.
And she says that she has a very temporary assignment, very temporary, meaning just making that one video, I think.
And she pretends that she's there to answer questions that all of you have.
Now, what is clever about it is that you instantly believe that the questions she's going to answer are something about the scandal of the CEO.
And then you see the question starting to form on the screen.
You know, the type is forming on the screen.
But before it completes the sentence, she cuts away and gives you a little commercial about something their company does.
And it's funny.
And it doesn't last too long.
And the commercial isn't painful because it's Gwyneth Paltrow and it's in the context of almost a practical joke because you're sure they're going to talk about that drama, but they never do.
They make you think about it.
And it's why the thing is so damn clever.
So it's all tongue-in-cheek, but they get in their whole commercial and it's viral as heck because they did it so well.
It's just really well done.
And it's the play of the day.
People are impressed by it.
Well, according to the Daily Wire, Tim Pierce is writing that the Trump administration has located 13,000 unaccompanied minors who came across the border.
That's the good news.
They've located 13,000 of them.
The bad news is that the total number who may have come over the border unaccompanied, meaning not with their biological parents, but probably with some adult who had sketchy intentions, that it may have been several hundred thousand.
Hundreds of thousands of unattended children came across the border.
Hundreds of thousands.
And the administration has only found 13,000.
I've seen a bunch of people say that the government of the United States is unambiguously the biggest child trafficker.
And I say to myself, really?
Or is it more possible that a lot of kids are coming across so later they can, I don't know get their parents across and maybe they're just coming to work?
What percentage of those hundreds of thousands are being trafficked and or used for illegal child labor?
I watched this story and I keep waiting for some kind of confirmation where we caught this big ring that had 100,000 child sex slaves or something.
And I think to myself, where is that story?
Or is it all Wednesdays and Tuesdays, but there are hundreds and thousands of them?
I don't know what to believe about this one.
I do believe there is an enormous problem.
What I don't know, are we talking about 50,000 victimized children, which would be an enormous, enormous problem?
Or are we talking about hundreds of thousands?
Which would be almost unimaginable.
Well, it is literally unimaginable.
So, no, no.
Well, you would not be surprised to hear that Ghelene Maxwell is her attorney, is raising the question of whether she should get a pardon because she's cooperating with the Department of Justice.
And apparently she's going to have her second conversation, maybe today.
And she has answered every question asked and seems not to be hiding anything.
But I guess I would ask how that works.
Shouldn't you make the deal before you give them everything they want to know?
And then I saw some people comment on the possibility that she would be pardoned and I guess it would be five years of her 20-year sentence if she would let it out right away.
And immediately there was a problem there, which is that people are not, I'm going to say that people are not rational when it comes to the whole Epstein situation.
They're not rational.
So they would rather she got her full 20 years than they would find all the other.
I mean, imagine if she could tell you all the other guilty people.
And it's the only way you could find out, which I think might be the only way you could find out.
If she were the only way you could find out who the other abusers were, the adult abusers, if she were the only way you wouldn't give her a pardon?
I understand that you think that would be the worst thing that could ever happen because she was so central to the badness that happened.
And to imagine that she could ever get off easy is bothering you no end.
But what if it was the only way you could find the two dozen other leaders or rich people who had been doing the worst possible things?
What would you think would be the better thing for society?
Well, I don't know.
But apparently it hasn't been negotiated in advance.
So maybe they're just trying to do the thing where if they answer every question, then she just hopes that the right thing will happen.
We'll see.
But I've seen some people, I guess Newsmax host Greg Kelly, have suggested that she might be a victim herself, a victim of Epstein.
What do you think of that?
Do you think that she could be seen as a victim?
Well, let me add my hypnotist take on this.
Whatever it is that Epstein did, he seemed to be consistently able to get people to do things that you wouldn't imagine people would do.
Are you all on the same page there?
That Epstein was able to get an ex-president of the United States to fly to his little naughty island like 26 times.
Does that seem to you like something that anybody could have done?
Not really.
Then there's the whole convincing people to do things which you could argue if they had been of age, you could argue was consensual.
But of course, below a certain age, there's no such thing as consensual.
Not really.
So how did he talk so many people into doing so Many unbelievable things.
So, somehow he had some ability of persuasion that was not normal.
Would you all agree with that?
He might have been a blackmailer.
He might have been just, I don't know, charismatic in person.
I haven't heard anybody say one way or the other, actually.
So how in the world did he get people who normally would not do anything like the things they're accused of, so many of them, to do things that you can't imagine?
What about the money that he got?
What about the fact that all these people, even after, all right, here's the best way to say it.
Even after people knew that he had been accused of and incredibly convicted of sex crimes, didn't Bill Gates still meet with him a whole bunch of times?
Which obviously was going to get out?
So there are a whole bunch of people in this story who you would normally say to yourself, why would they do that?
I'm talking about the victims as well as people who are accused of being perpetrators, but we only know that they were in his company.
So I have a mixed feeling.
On one hand, you have to punish the people who were adults who did things that are crimes.
You can't just say, well, I got talked into it because he was so convincing.
So on the criminal, on the level of criminality, you just have to punish, you know, as if nobody influenced her and it was all her idea.
However, outside of the realm of the purely legal and how you have to run a country, you can't just let people get away with stuff.
I do believe that it's very likely that she was psychologically influenced in a way that almost effectively removed any chance she would resist.
But I don't know.
I'm just looking at the total picture and saying that he's clearly a person who gets people to do things you can't imagine anybody could get anybody to do.
So, but again, just to be clear, you can't have a system that allows that to be an excuse because then everybody would use it.
Well, it wasn't me.
I got talked into it.
President Trump is in Scotland, the only country that's named after me, and I always appreciate that.
And he was asked about pardoning Ghelane Maxwell, and he said, and I quote, this is no time to be talking about pardons.
And then he changed the topic to you should be talking about Clinton and former president of Harvard.
Talking about his friends, the hedge fund guys that were there.
Don't talk about Trump.
So if you were trying to decipher what's in Trump's mind, he didn't say, I haven't thought about it or I haven't looked into it.
Although he did say that, I think, yesterday.
He said, there is no time to be talking about pardons.
That does suggest that there could be a time when you would talk about pardons, but this is not the time.
To me, it sounds like there's a little bit of movement toward at least testing to see if pardoning her would cause more problems than it solves.
So my guess is that he hasn't ruled it out.
Meanwhile, Chuck Schumer used all this situation to tell us that sending Todd Blanch over there to talk to Ghelaine Maxwell.
Schuber says, let me be clear, Trump sending his personal lawyer.
Now, I think maybe Todd Blanch was his personal lawyer at one point, but now he's with the Department of Justice.
But he says, Trump sending his personal lawyer, Todd Blanch, to meet with Ghelaine Maxwell, stinks of high corruption and conflict of interest.
Now, how many of you would have even thought that that was a problem, that the Department of Justice is talking to Ghelaine Maxwell?
Like, would you even see that as political?
It didn't even strike me as political, or conflict of interest or corruption.
Do you think that, I mean, how would that plot work?
What exactly would Trump be up to that he could benefit by having the Department of Justice and a lawyer that he has some connection to talk to her?
How is that bad?
Is the idea that if she said, well, and Trump was on the island, that they just wouldn't tell us?
Is that what he thinks?
Or is it just an excuse to say something that ties Trump to Epstein?
I don't know.
But meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal has a poll that says that economic optimism is way up.
I feel that that's just the optimism about the economy.
I feel that optimism is entirely because the tariffs are not causing any destruction yet.
I mean, anything could happen.
But so far, it looks like the tariff situation worked or will work or continue to work.
So I could understand why optimism surge because people don't have their own opinions.
They turn on the news and then the news tells them what their opinion is.
Yeah, then the capital expenditures are up and employment is not bad and inflation's, at least the rate is not bad.
Things are too expensive, but at least the rate of inflation is not bad.
Anyway, so it's good for Trump.
And Trump has suggested, I think he might have said this, well, either before his Scotland trip that he's on right now or during, I can't tell.
But he suggested that giving out rebates is possible from the billions in tariff revenue he's getting.
Do you think that Trump should be talking about rebates?
I guess that would be like a tax rebate to the citizens.
Do you think that's something he should be talking about as opposed to paying down the national debt?
I say pay down the national debt because that's an existential threat.
I understand that people are suffering and they need money, but I really wouldn't be delighted if that money went to rebates because people weren't expecting it.
So he's probably just floating the idea, but I don't know that that would be an 80-20 idea.
I would be curious.
I feel like most people would have preferred if he'd never brought it up.
Because if he'd never brought it up, then they would say, well, here's 500 billion.
Maybe in 2026, it'll be 500 billion that goes toward the national debt.
And I would say, that is the best president of all time.
If he actually pulled that off, I would be just amazed.
Even though we know that a lot of that is coming from the profits of the American corporations.
But, you know, if it pays down the national debt, that's a pretty big deal.
So I don't love the rebate idea.
Well, according to Breitbart News, Jasmine Jordan is writing that Media Matters.
Do you know Media Matters?
It's a, I guess it would be a media organization that lives to defend the Democrats and attack the Republicans.
And it's generally considered by anybody on the right as just a horrible, horrible entity that they wish would go away.
But apparently they're having some issues.
Some say they're on the verge of going out of business, but they say no.
But they've racked up over $15 million in legal bills for some sketchy stuff they've been doing.
So they're in legal and financial jeopardy.
We don't know if it's fatal.
And their future is in jeopardy.
So that would be another example of a media entity, although they weren't really a media entity, more like an attack dog, that may be having trouble in the Trump world.
But they have quietly cut back on their attacks and slashed staff and floated the idea of shuttering operations entirely.
I guess the New York Times is writing about this.
But when asked about it, this is what they said.
They said they have no plans to close.
When a corporate entity says we have no plans for that, does that mean they have no plans for that?
I feel like if they had no plans for it and they didn't think it was going to happen, they would say, oh, absolutely, we're not going to close.
But if you can't say, we're absolutely not going to close, and instead you say, we don't have plans to close, that's a little more about the plan than it is about the closing, if you know what I mean.
It shifts your attention from the, are you going to close, to the question of whether you have a plan for it.
I do believe they don't have a plan.
That doesn't mean they're not going to close or that they don't expect to.
Also, Trump over in Scotland is warning Europe that they're basically killing themselves with unrestricted immigration.
Immigration is killing Europe.
That's his exact quote.
Immigration is killing Europe.
Now, do you believe that the Trump effect could be strong enough to save Europe?
Or is it already too late?
I think it's already too late.
I think Europe is done.
You know, it might take a generation to adjust to what's happening, but it's definitely not the Europe of my childhood.
Whatever it will be, good or bad, it won't be anything like it used to be.
And Trump thinks it will be bad.
So what do you think of the cover-up that's happening with the new Russia hoax documents that Tulsi Gabbard has produced?
Especially the part where we recently learned that Russia knew, which means that the Democrats knew, that Hillary Clinton had allegedly psychoemotional problems, uncontrolled fits of anger, aggression, and cheerfulness.
And she was on a daily regimen of tranquilizers.
Now, don't you think that should be the biggest story?
That we almost elected somebody who is on a lot of tranquilizers and needed it.
You know what's missing from that story?
We know that Hillary has, at least in the past, enjoyed a good glass of wine.
Do you believe that these are mental problems or the sign that sometimes she's drinking?
If somebody said there's this woman, she seems to sometimes, but not all the time, have psycho-emotional problems, uncontrolled fits of anger, aggression, and cheerfulness.
Isn't that exactly saying drunk?
I mean, isn't it?
If I didn't give you any hints and I just said, all right, here's a set of symptoms, and it includes uncontrolled fits of anger, aggression, but also cheerfulness.
My first guess would be that she's an angry drunk, right?
Now, there's no evidence of that, but isn't that the kind of question we'd be asking if this were anybody on the right?
Yeah, maybe it's bipolar, but I doubt it.
I don't know.
I feel like there's some kind of protecting people who are drinking in public.
You know, we've heard that a lot of the people in Congress are drunks, and maybe there's just some unwritten rule that the media doesn't focus on that because they're also drunks.
That's my guess.
But the fact that the mainstream media kind of touched on this story, but they're not treating it like it's the biggest thing, the biggest story in the history of the country, it's one of the biggest stories in the history of the whole country.
And the mainstream media was sort of acting like, well, that was last week's hit and we'll just move on.
Nothing happened here.
Yeah.
So the media is disappearing the story.
But John Brennan, who is central to the story, and is being suspected and accused of allegedly being behind a plot to overthrow the Trump administration, actually a coup, by manufacturing some fake intelligence in his role as head of the CIA at the time.
So John Brennan went on Jensaki's show on MSNBC.
How many of you know that NBC and MSNBC are widely assumed to be working with our own intelligence people to hypnotize the country?
Now, I don't know if they are.
I know that people who are smarter than me say, oh yeah, it's obvious.
They're basically in the pocket of the intelligence.
But anyway, you have to watch John Brennan tell you his side of the story.
The body language is hilarious.
You've heard of women who have resting bitch face.
Just if they're sitting there silently, it looks like they're really angry.
Just their face is naturally that.
Well, John Brennan has a resting liar face.
He just sits there and he looks like he's lying.
He doesn't even have to have his mouth moving.
But you add, if you listen to it with the sound off, watch how uncomfortable he is.
And his body language was like, oh, oh, oh, oh.
You know, if you watch it with the sound off, it looks like a sci-fi where his body is being taken over by a demon.
Anyway, look for that.
So Matt Taibbe commented on X to a clip of John Brennan on Gensaki's show.
And Matt said, of all the goons from that administration, Brennan is the most likely to be cut loose or ratted out, roundly disliked, even by people in his own party, and also the player with the most obvious exposure.
So I guess Brennan was saying that Tulsi Gabbard isn't stupid, so therefore she must be lying with the stuff that she's telling the public.
And Matt Taibbi says, what exactly is she lying about?
So he says this in his ex posts.
And he says, Matt Taibbi says, did you not base your central claim on crap evidence your own handpicked analysts wanted to reject?
You didn't lie to Congress about using the steel dossier in the ICA.
And then somebody else put a video of him lying to Congress about that very thing.
So they've got video of him lying, you know, and documentation that proves that what he said on video was a lie.
And that's illegal.
But I'm going to stick with my prediction that none of those top guys will go to jail.
I don't know why.
It just seems to me that we live in a country where people at that level just don't go to jail.
Just somehow the energy gets pulled out of the whole situation or there's some weird legal thing that happens.
I don't know.
But I don't expect Obama or Brennan or Clapper to be held accountable.
Well, the nation's largest teachers union, the NEA, according to Corey DeAngelis, he's a school choice evangelist.
You should be following on X. And apparently he had noticed and called out the fact that they had their handbook on a website.
So you could see the national, whatever it is, the biggest, largest teachers union.
You could see their handbook.
And the handbook was this anti-white, this whole anti-white thing.
So here's what it says in their handbook that they have now, without comment, removed from their website.
So they felt they had to remove their own handbook from their own website because we might see what they were teaching the teachers.
And this is what they expected.
Educators must acknowledge the existence of white supremacy culture as a primary root cause of institutional racism, structural racism, and white privilege.
Educators must also work to prohibit institutionally racist systems.
The NAA will push strategies fostering the eradication of institutional racism and white privilege perpetuated by white supremacy culture.
Now, I'm not questioning whether there's some of that in existence.
It's just that if that's the slant you put on it and the teachers are teaching it, what do you think is going to happen to the white kids who had nothing to do with any of this?
They were just born and went to school, and then they have to sit there and find out that they're the problem.
And you're sitting in the class and your teacher is telling you, yeah, all of you non-white kids, you're just all victims.
And, you know, Brad over here, he's one of the reasons that you have all this systemic racism.
He's part of the problem.
That's the way it's going to come out.
So I would homeschool.
I would not let a child go into that environment.
That looks dangerous.
So Ken Martin, who is the head of the DNC, this is how well the DNC is going.
So imagine being the head of the DNC and ask yourself if Trump would ever do this.
We know that Trump takes credit for anything, even if it didn't happen.
We know that Trump tells you everything's going to be great and maybe it's already great and it's getting greater every day.
So now compare what Trump would have said, even if there was a little bit of hyperbole and exaggeration involved, to what Ken Martin of the DNC says about the Democrat Party, which is his job to make sure they do better.
He said, quote, when you hit rock bottom, there's only one direction to go, and that's up.
And that's what we're doing.
Really?
He's describing his own party, the one that he's been intimately involved with trying to rehabilitate.
And he says that while he's been in office, that they've hit rock bottom, and there's only one direction to go.
So the most optimistic thing he could say is that you can't get any worse.
Can you imagine in any world where Trump would use those words?
We've hit rock bottom, there's only one direction to go.
After he'd been in charge for months, maybe if he had just taken the job, Trump would say we're at rock bottom, but it will take me a week to sort this out, and then it would be great.
But the Democrats are so bad at messaging that they just beat themselves up and act like they couldn't be any worse.
If you were thinking of joining a political party, would you join the political party that says the golden age has begun and the best six months of any president has just happened and America's back and we're suddenly now again respected in the international stage?
NATO is stepping up with us.
Would you want to be on that team or the one that says like Droopy Dog, when you hit bottom, there's only one direction to go and that's up and that's what we're doing.
Well, how are you doing that, Ken Martin?
Well, we'll probably have an off-site meeting to talk about our strategy, but it probably involves swearing more to appear to be more authentic.
Oh my God.
Well, there's a Harvard study, according to the brighter side of news, Joshua Shavit is, is that really his name?
His last name is Shavit.
S-H-A-V-I-Z.
I used to work with somebody named, her last name was Beavers.
So every time I see a name like this, I think, what if it were the 70s and Joshua Shavet married into the Beavers family?
Would they name their kid Beaver Shavet or Shavet Beaver?
I don't know.
Could happen.
But that's not why I brought it up.
There's a Harvard study that finds that a common virus is what triggers multiple sclerosis in 97% of cases.
A common virus.
And that the virus is, are you ready for the greatest stimulation you've ever heard?
Think about all the things that have been in the news recently.
Okay.
And now listen to what I'm going to tell you is the name of the common virus that may be the cause of almost all of multiple sclerosis.
I'm not making this up.
You've heard of this virus before.
It's not the first time you've heard his name, but you haven't heard it in this context before.
The virus is called the Epstein-Barr virus.
Now, most of you have heard of that, Epstein-Barr, B-A-R-R.
The Epstein story features Bob Barr and Bob Barr's father.
The actual news is about Epstein and Barr, and then there's other news that Epstein-Barr is causing multiple sclerosis.
Come on.
How is this not a simulation?
Is that just a weird coincidence?
Anyway, I would bet that the Epstein-Barr virus does not cause 97% of MS, because it feels like that would be a much bigger story.
But there's a study, so maybe it'll be reproduced.
Maybe we'll find that out.
Maybe that would suggest a cure.
I don't know.
Apparently, there's now indications that bread, eating bread, is what makes people sad, anxious, or even hallucinate.
And that the gluten triggers an immune response in up to one in 17 people that causes inflammation in the brain, I guess.
They would get brain fog, mood swings, anxiety, depression.
Oh, I guess that's the problem with Hillary Clinton.
I was blaming her for being a drunk, but I feel like there's no evidence for that.
But I'll bet she eats bread.
Maybe she's one of the one in 17 where she's perfectly normal, and then she eats some bread, and then she's like, ah, ah, you.
So yeah, mood swings.
Yeah, could be.
But apparently, there's even an indication that schizophrenia is caused by bread.
That if you're schizophrenic and you have some bread, that's what triggers your schizophrenic hallucinations.
Do you believe that?
Do you believe that bread is not just not the best for you, but that one in 17 people are triggered into essentially some kind of schizophrenic thing?
I don't know.
I don't trust science as much as I once did, to say the least.
To say the least.
But maybe.
I don't know.
Maybe.
That was in the Telegraph.
Do you remember that, of course, there was a big fire in January in Los Angeles, and hundreds of people lost their homes and had financial issues, etc.
But the good news is that the musical stars pulled together and they held a concert to raise money.
It was called Fire Aid, and it was to raise money for the LA wildfire victims.
So what political party do you think most of the performers belong to?
Well, I don't know, but I'm guessing almost all of them were probably Democrats.
What political party is in charge of California and also Los Angeles?
Well, Democrats, Democrats.
What political party do you think organized the FireAid concert?
Well, I'm guessing Democrats.
Probably Democrats.
So Democrat performers, Democrat management, Democrat government.
And what do you think happened to the $100 million they raised that the Democrats raised that was managed by the Democrats in the Democrat state and the Democrat city?
What do you think happened?
Well, if you said that none of it went directly to the victims of the fire, you would be correct.
It's all Democrats.
Now, give me a guess.
Where did the money go?
Where did it go, if not directly to the people suffering?
Where'd it go?
Well, the answer is it was spread among 120 nonprofits.
Can you freaking believe it?
120 nonprofits.
And when you hear the names of some of the nonprofits, it's really obvious that they're not providing any kind of service to anybody.
I mean, some of them might, but 120, 120.
And none of the money, none of it.
And as far as I can tell, none of the nonprofits have done anything with the money that would help anybody.
It looks like Democrats just stole it from other Democrats.
It looks like it was just all stolen.
But they do that the way Democrats steal is they raise money through some legal means and then they channel it all to these nonprofits that are, as far as I can tell, either largely fake or mostly fake or nearly all fake.
I mean, I don't know, but so if you hear any nonprofit organization these days, I would just assume it's a scam.
So there may have been 120 different scams.
I don't know, maybe some of them are legitimate, but that is the most Democrat thing that ever happened.
First, the fire is there, you know, you could argue that the Democrats should have done more to make the place not burn up.
And then they don't get much in the way of approvals for building permits.
And then they raise money, but they steal it all.
So far, Democrats doing great.
You're doing great.
There's an American woman who just got sentenced to eight and a half years in prison for running a laptop Farm that North Koreans could use to pretend to be working in the U.S. remotely.
So, as I understand it, she was an American and she would set up a bunch of different laptops in America in her own apartment, it looked like.
And then the North Koreans, I'm guessing this is what was happening, could remotely access those laptops and then do the work as if they were doing the work in America.
And then she would charge them and they would make a bunch of money for North Korea.
And I have to admit, this is another one of those situations where I want to be all judgy, like you criminal, you stole money.
But there's no indication that the companies that bought this service didn't get good service.
So it might be that the North Korean remote workers were really good workers, but they had to be.
They would get executed if they didn't produce money probably.
I'm just making that up.
But instead of being outraged that this woman ran this scam, I find myself weirdly thinking, well, that was pretty smart.
That was kind of awesome.
It's not exactly victimless because American money is being sent to North Korea, but it's on the edge of being victimless because if the companies that bought that service got the service, then it's not the worst criminal.
So there's a story that's been in the news that I haven't talked about.
I'll tell you why.
You've seen stories that food is not getting to the starving people in Gaza, the residents, which is a big problem.
Now, you've probably seen allegations that the IDF, Israel's military, may have shot people who were just trying to get food.
Do you believe that's true?
My advice is don't believe anything that comes out of a war zone about who's doing what with food or who's got a base under a hospital.
None of this stuff is credible.
Now, if that happened, I would think, well, that's pretty bad and somebody needs to pay for that.
Or then I'm sure the Israel version is that Hamas is the one that's stealing the food and then reselling it to the Gaza residents or something.
So my point is that the reason I don't talk about this one is that if you're not right there, you really can't believe any of it.
So I'm not defending Israel, but I'm also not condemning them.
I just feel like this is one that you'll never really know who did what or why.
So I'm just going to let it go.
I'm just noting that I'm not ignoring it.
It's just there's nothing you can do with it.
And as I often say, I'm not pro-Israel or anti-Israel.
It's not my country.
I'm just observing and sometimes predicting.
Here's a weird story in a newsweek.
Sophie Clark has this story that Zelensky over there in Ukraine is working on a deal with the U.S. where the U.S. will buy up to $30 billion worth of drones made in Ukraine.
And that the U.S. military would be essentially acquiring all of these drones.
And in return, we would provide other non-drone weapons that Ukraine needs.
So we would buy their drones.
They would get in return our non-drone weapons they need.
And it would be up to $30 billion.
Does that sound real to you?
The part that doesn't sound real to me is that Ukraine has extra drones.
Because separately, we learned that the Ukraine Defense Ministry says the drone strikes are now responsible for up to 80% of Russian battlefield casualties.
Does that mean that they've actually ran out of targets?
Because if the drones are killing 80% of the people who are getting killed on the Russian side, and they still are able to sell $30 billion worth of drones to the U.S., doesn't that suggest that they've run out of Russians?
There must be no Russians on the ground, because surely there are enough Ukrainians, I mean, because you could train women to do the job.
You wouldn't need male fighters or anything to operate the drones.
So there's something wrong with this story.
I don't understand Ukraine being at war, their primary weapon being drones, and they still have the ability to sell $30 billion worth of them to the U.S., even if they're getting better weapons or different weapons.
Doesn't make sense, does it?
Also, I would worry that if it's true, that it suggests that the U.S. feels there's some kind of time constraint where we're going to need these drones really quickly.
Because otherwise, I believe we would just spin up our own factories, which I'm sure is already happening, and make them ourselves.
Or we should be well on the way to make them ourselves.
But if this is true, and I guess I'm skeptical that the story itself is true, but if it's true, it would suggest that maybe the U.S. feels it needs a whole bunch of drones really quickly, which would be very scary.
Maybe it has something to do with Taiwan or something.
Anyway, that worries me, but I think it's most likely that the story is fake.
As I told you, I'm finishing the show now, and those of you who would like, you can join Owen Gregorian on a spaces event that will get fired up within a minutes of me ending I'm
going to talk to the locals people privately and the beloved locals people.
