God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorksFind my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.comContent:Politics, Tariffs Coin-Flip, Peak AI, Alex Jones Case, Elizabeth Warren Behavior, CA Sanctuary Policy, Democrat Hoax Machine, DC Crime Stats Manipulation, DC Homeless Encampments, Hillary Clinton Allegations, Russiagate, Adam Schiff, Eric Swalwell, Lying Tell Narrative Smile, James Comey, China Pharmaceuticals, CA Redistricting, Gavin Newsom, Overwhelming Corruption Review, Trump Putin Meeting, South Korean Army, Greater Israel Concept, PM Netanyahu, 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 your comments are working and then we'll get racing along here.
And they are.
It's a Friday.
I hope you're all in a Friday kind of a mood.
Because you're going to get a Friday kind of a show.
yes you are 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 on elevating your experience to levels that no one can understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need for that is a copper mugger and glass attacker, Chelsea, Steiner, canteen, joker, 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 end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
And it happens.
That's right.
right now.
Siptastic.
Incredible.
Well, according to some publication called Cell Press, there's now a brain-computer interface that could decode the silent monologue in your head.
Do you believe that?
So they can put some kind of brain interface on your head, and they can not only determine what words you're intentionally trying to form, which that's actually a different technology.
This one will basically read the conversation in your head.
And it's already 74% accurate.
The actual sentences that are forming in your head as part of your thought process, it can read them.
So that's coming.
Now, you might say to yourself, but that will never be accurate enough, but it'll probably get better and better.
And here's the fun part.
What happens when we design an AI-based lie detector that works every time?
Because you can kind of beat a lie detector.
I won't tell you how.
It involves your sphincter.
But lie detectors are not, the ones that exist right now, are not allowed in court because they're not reliable enough.
Did you know that?
That's the reason that you can't introduce it in court.
Not reliable.
But what happens if we get one that's reliable?
If you could read someone's internal monologue, I feel like even at 75% accuracy, you would still detect lying 100% of the time.
You know, that's all it would take.
So we may be entering a world where an atom shift and a swell well can't even exist.
Let's check the news to see if there's any big surprises in science.
Well, according to people at Queensland University of Technology, a diet that's rich in vegetables and fruit can reduce your psychological distress.
Meaning that, let's see, that would include it's an umbrella term, so it would help you with depression, anxiety, and stress if you eat enough vegetables.
Now, what about all the people who do the cardivore diet?
Is it possible that the cardiovo diet is just terrific for a whole host of health benefits?
But at the same time, would you notice if you were more stressed or anxious or depressed?
It makes me wonder, is it possible that some of these diets are terrific for one part of your health, and they're bad for the other part of your health, like your mental health.
I don't know.
But the first thing I would ask is: who funded this study?
Was it big vegetable?
And by that, I mean eggplant.
I don't know.
But I wouldn't trust this study any more than I trust any of the nutritional science.
Nutrition science is mostly just guessing.
And if at this point we didn't know if the carnivore diet was healthy or not, how could we get to this point and not know if that's good for you or not?
Well, we don't.
So thanks a lot, experts, for nothing.
So you heard about the man who was accused of throwing a subway sandwich at a federal officer in Washington, D.C. And it turns out that that man had been working for the Justice Department.
And he decided that in a public area, he would pelt a cop with his Subway sandwich.
It was a 12-incher, by the way.
Anyway, he got fired from his job.
Attorney General Pam Bondi said goodbye.
But the important part about this story, you know, nobody got hurt.
It was a soft sandwich, is the jokes.
It's the jokes.
Do you know why he used the sandwich?
He thought it identified as a club sandwich.
All right, I stole that one from Greg Gofeld.
And then I saw a comment by Greg Kimball on X who said, use a bun, go to prison.
Okay, that's pretty good.
Use a bun.
All right.
But I was imagining what's going to happen when he goes in for his next job.
And he said in the interview, and the interviewer says, so why did you leave your last job?
I got fired for throwing a sandwich at a cop.
How many people are going to hire you if you lost your last job because you threw a sandwich at a cop in public?
It's going to be tough to talk your way past that.
I hope he's got relatives that are hiring because I wouldn't hire a stranger who lost his last job by throwing a sandwich at a cop.
Oh, how are the other experts doing?
You know how the experts do.
They do so well.
That's why they're experts and you're not.
The economists, for example, are still baffled, according to the Wall Street Journal, about why the tariffs have not had an impact on inflation.
Now, these are the smartest, most well-trained people in the country, and they can't figure out why the tariffs did not drive up inflation already.
It might still, you know, might still happen.
But also in the Wall Street Journal, one of the hypotheses, and we don't know if this is true, is that the average of the tariffs isn't as high as we thought.
So there are a whole bunch of workarounds and various complications, which make it impossible for the economist to even estimate what the average tariff is.
And if you don't know what the average tariff is, you know, like 18% versus 12%, you're going to have a tough time estimating what it does to inflation.
So the raw data is basically bad data.
You know, you'd have to make some big assumptions, whichever data you use.
So here is one more example where our experts were as good as a coin flip because tariffs were either going to raise inflation too much to be worth it or not.
It was literally a coin flip.
And They got the coin flip mostly wrong.
Now, I'd love to tell you that I guessed right, but I'm still not entirely sure it won't affect inflation in some way that we don't like.
I'm not entirely sure, but sort of looking good so far.
But I wouldn't trust the experts to predict.
Speaking of experts, the AI experts are catching up to me.
There's a story in futurism that scientists are getting seriously worried that we might have hit peak AI.
So, peak AI, meaning AI stopped getting better fast.
Might still get better, but yeah, creep along.
It's not about to break out and become this advanced general intelligence that will take over the world and kill us all.
I saw a post on X by Naval Ravikant, and he was sort of teasing the AI doomers because it seems like they all shut up.
Have you noticed?
AI went from, my God, it's unstoppable.
You know, the genie is out of the bottle, and in six months, it'll be smarter than us and take over the world.
And there's almost nothing we can do about it.
And today, the news is: I don't think it's going to get much better.
If it doesn't get much better, it's not really going to change the economy, is it?
I mean, it'll make your searching for stuff online a little more palatable, but on top of that, it's got hallucinations.
So it's kind of a mixed bag there.
Now, I will admit that there are a number of things that AI already does well, like helping programmers write code and looking for new materials and materials science.
And some of that's going to be probably a really big deal.
But if you thought it was going to become a general intelligence and just so smart that you felt dumb next to it, well, it may have plateaued.
I believe I have been telling you that for months, that by its nature, it can't really just keep improving.
There's a sort of a logical limit to how smart it can get with what we know how to do at the moment.
Someday, somebody might invent something that's different than what we have, and then all bets are off.
But at the moment, this large language model may be starting to reach its maximum.
There's still a lot of more commercializing that could be done.
So it's not a maximum in terms of economics.
But I don't know if it's going to pay for itself, honestly.
Speakeam bunny, Alex Jones' info war operation, the assets, which he lost in a lawsuit over the Sandy Hook claims he made that turned out not to be true.
I guess he claimed that the Sandy Hook event, the shooting at the school, may have been staged by actors or something.
Now, that is not true.
It was a real tragic event.
And now that whole story has played out, and the judge says he owes over a billion dollars.
And as a down payment on that, he's going to have to sell all of his assets for InfoWars.
Now, apparently, the people who run the Onion, the so-called hubris satirical site, they have some kind of an offer out to buy it and take over the studio.
I don't know if that's going to happen, though.
That seems a little iffy.
But Alex Jones says he's going to open up a separate studio and keep going.
I just don't know how this works.
If you lose a lawsuit where the Department of Justice is taking away your assets and it's not up to you, how do you open up another studio?
Does it have to be in someone else's name?
How can he ever make a living again?
Wouldn't the courts say, all right, you can keep the first, I don't know, $80,000 of whatever income you make for the rest of your life, but after that, anything above that, you're going to have to give to the victims because you'll never make up the full billion dollars.
Is Alex Jones completely ruined forever?
Or is he smart enough and he has good enough help that he can find a workaround and live a normal life?
Here's my problem.
The problem they had with Alex Jones is that he was wrong about something in the news.
And, you know, if you're someone who talks about the news, you're sort of an expert where you come off as one.
So did he get sued for being an expert and being wrong?
Because that's what all the experts are.
What about mainstream news?
If you were to make a list of all the things Alex Jones predicted or claimed was true, and then you held it up to, I don't know, CNN or MSNBC, and you had some way, there is no way, but if you had some way to independently rank them, who do you think would be the better track record?
And even if it turns out that they had a better track record than Infowars, how much better does it need to be before you don't get sued for all the damage you're doing?
You could certainly make a case that some of the bad news sites like MSNBC and CNN, you could make a case that they cost you money.
If you were a Trump supporter and that news got out and it destroyed your small business, wouldn't you have cause to be able to sue because the news was fake?
And on some topics, the news knew they were fake.
I don't believe that in the Alex Jones case, you can give me a fact check on this, but I don't believe there was any evidence to suggest that Alex Jones believed he was lying.
That didn't come out, right?
I think he said something like he was having a mental event of some kind.
But I think he believed what he was saying.
I don't think he still believes it, but I believe he believed it when he said it.
Now, is that better or worse, you know, being wrong in a way that was, you know, according to the court, it must have damaged the people whose families were involved.
But it seems to me that the regular news is way worse, isn't it?
So we've got the economists who are completely wrong on the most important thing going on.
And then you've got, well, we'll talk about all the other bad behavior.
But it's pretty obvious to me that Alex Jones is targeted.
And it's not so much what he did as it is what people want to do to stop him from doing stuff in the future.
There is a report in Reuters, this is unconfirmed, that the Trump administration and Trump in particular may have negotiated with Intel so that the U.S. government takes some equity in Intel in for, I don't know, in return for what, but presumably they could give some certainty to Intel's future.
Some say they might help them with the building of a Ohio complex to make chips, maybe.
Might be that they become a guaranteed purchaser of a certain kind of chips, which would be good for Intel staying in business.
But I like the fact that Trump is meddling in the economy when it comes to our biggest, most important industries.
That's where I want him to meddle.
And I like the fact that he's taking an equity position because that's me.
That's you, right?
If Trump can find a way To be useful to companies, meaning that the company definitely makes more money and stock price goes up because of something it did with the government, and the government takes a piece of equity in return.
And I'm a beneficiary of that, if only because it pays down the debt.
I like that.
So I don't know if this is going to happen.
It's sort of an early report.
There's probably a lot of talking that has to happen before anything can be official.
But I like Trump's instinct to help the big, important American businesses and take an equity position.
I like it.
I think we've done it before with Chrysler, right?
So it's not the first time it's ever happened.
I guess the retail sales data for July was strong.
So it's up 0.5%.
Do you remember, was it a year ago that all the smart economists were predicting that we'd be in a recession right now?
Nope.
No recession.
I mean, it's not perfect, but I know the odds of a recession seem kind of low right now.
Trump, in his normally provocative way, has once again in public, I think he did this once already.
He urged Elizabeth Warren to take a drug test.
The Washington Times is reporting.
Now, a drug test, because Elizabeth Warren recently was on video sporting Mondami, I guess it was.
And she was all jumpy and excited, and her eyes were as wide as saucers.
And Trump had the same impression that I did when I watched it, which is, what drug is she on?
She's on some kind of drugs because it didn't look like ordinary behavior.
And it didn't even look like ordinary Elizabeth Warren behavior.
It looked like somebody was really on drugs.
Now, I want to make sure that I'm not defaming her because I don't know.
I have no information that would suggest she was on any drugs or has ever done any drugs.
All I know is she looked like she was on drugs to me.
And apparently it looked like that to a lot of you and to Trump as well.
So I do like the fact that he just puts it out there because everything he can do to get the press to talk about that kind of stuff, it's all good for him.
Because the rest of the day, he's just getting stuff done.
For example, Pam Bonte is warning California that California will lose its federal funding unless it ends its sanctuary city policies.
So that's getting stuff done.
So Breitbart News is reporting on that.
And I wonder if that'll work.
I feel like California really can't survive without the federal funding.
I don't know what percentage of total funding it is, but it's got to be a big part.
So that makes sense.
We'll see if he gets away with that.
So Zero Hedge is writing about how Google seems to be busted, although they would say it's not true.
So there are two sides of this one.
That GOP fundraising emails were being sent to spam by Google.
But if it was a Democrat fundraising email, it did not get sent to spam.
Now, keep in mind that I believe Google is denying that that's the case, but there seems to be strong indications that it might be the case.
One of the things I always assume about this is that there are enough technical people working on Gmail that if the boss says, hey, did you rig Gmail?
Because the press says it's rigged.
Did you do that?
And then whoever they're talking to says, no, I didn't do that.
And that would be like the manager of the programmers.
But it only takes one programmer to slip in a little code that I assume nobody would notice.
It's not like they're All checking all of each other's code all the time.
Don't you think that as long as it doesn't break the system, that people are adding code on a regular basis?
And maybe somebody skims it or just tests to see if it causes an error.
But if it doesn't cause an error, I would imagine it would skate right through.
So I feel as if it might be true that Google management is not behind it, but it might be true that it's happening.
That's just a guess.
So my question is: if Alex Jones is a conspiracy theorist, that's what the New York Post was calling him in a story today, a conspiracy theorist.
If that's true for Alex Jones, what is the Google search engine?
What is Gmail?
If Gmail is literally engineered to not give you reality, but rather give you Democrat reality and not GOP reality in the form of fundraising, is that better or worse than being a conspiracy theorist?
Again, all of our experts are suspicious.
Speaking of Democrat hoaxes, I am continually amazed that it seems to me that when Republicans are wrong about something, let's say some statistic or some version of history, and they are wrong.
I mean, humans are wrong about a lot of things a lot of the times.
But when Republicans are wrong, it seems to me that they're legitimately, honestly, mistaken.
But when the Democrats are wrong, and I'm going to put wrong in quotes, we eventually find out that there was a vast conspiracy with Adam Schiff and Squalwell and Clinton.
And there's actually a documented trail of how they made up the hoax and implemented it.
And then we can observe that the illegitimate press can spread stuff like the drinking bleach hoax and the fine people hoax.
But you can see them as hoaxes.
And even if you suspect they're a hoax, but you don't know yet, you just wait a few years and you find out, oh, well, I thought that's what I thought.
I mean, that was my first impression.
It looked like a hoax.
Sure enough.
So I guess it's been true for a while that Democrats have created literally just making stuff up against the party, which is sometimes mistaken, but I really haven't seen them do the just making stuff up.
Now, I will allow an exception that Trump uses a lot of hyperbole and stuff, but at least the right-leaning news usually knows what's true and what's not.
Trump's, you know, he's a salesman, and we've all adjusted to his style.
So, you know, you take it with a directional truth grain of salt.
Directionally is usually true.
So it seems very different.
They're not like organized giant hoaxes.
But now the new one is this the DC crime stats.
So apparently the leadership of the police department, allegedly, according to whistleblowers, they were telling everybody they had to charge people with lower level crimes to make the stats look like they were improving.
And so they did, and it made the stats look like they were improving.
And then all the people who probably know it, that's not true, they probably know that the crime level didn't actually go down, but they all sort of agreed with the mainstream media who didn't look into it too hard.
And they went with a story, you know, like Schuber and Clinton and all those liars, went with a story that the crime rate was already dropping fast in DC, so that authoritarian didn't need to be moving all of his private army in there, they would say.
But what I say is, I hope there's more authoritarian stuff happening today, because so far it's all been good.
Did you hate it when the authoritarian closed the border?
No, I didn't hate that.
Did you hate it when the authoritarian said, I think I'm going to clean up all the homeless in DC because the capital of the country can't look like a toilet?
I was okay with that.
So I guess there are probably a few other authoritarian things he's done lately.
I can't think of one off the top of my head, but I'd probably like it.
I'd probably like it if I knew about it.
He's done a lot of executive orders for things I like in a very authoritarian way.
So yeah, I'm pretty happy about authoritarian stuff.
I'd like to see more of it.
As long as it's authoritarian in our interests.
And so far it looks like it is.
Anyway, like I said, DC is already clearing out the homeless encampments.
And they've arrested a bunch of more people.
So yeah, the heavy equipment is out and they're just bulldozing down the homeless encampments in DC, like an authoritarian does.
And apparently Trump has vowed to make sure the homeless have options.
So they have to go off the streets of DC, but he says, we'll give you places to stay, but far from the Capitol.
And I guess they're being offered drug counseling and mental health counseling.
So they have some options.
They're not going to have to sleep outdoors if they don't want to.
But if you're good at watching the news, you know that they have options to be indoors.
They just prefer outdoors, usually because of drugs or mental health or something like that.
But we'll see.
So according to the confidential messages we're seeing lately coming out of the FBI, here are the things we know Hillary Clinton was guilty of.
And when I say we know, I don't mean that there's been a court case.
I mean, if you follow the news, it certainly looks like it.
She was guilty of running a major money laundering bribery operation called the Clinton Foundation, which has been described as pay-to-play, meaning that when she was the Secretary of State, if some other country wanted a favor, she'd say, hmm, have you donated to the charity called the Clinton Foundation, which does many good things to solve AIDS?
And they would say, so hypothetically, if I did give $10 million to this Clinton Foundation, you might be on our side on this issue that matters a lot to us.
Well, I can't say that directly, but I certainly like people who give money to the foundation because it helps with AIDS and everything.
And then suddenly it becomes sort of their private piggy bank.
Now we know Hillary Clinton paid for and was behind the Russiagate hoax, the worst political crime in the history of the United States.
Yeah, she was behind that.
And we know that she had her email on her private server, which if she had been someone else would have been put in jail for violating security in such a known and obvious way.
And then when she got caught, did she not have all of her messages scrubbed and deleted so that they couldn't be recovered?
Yeah.
So those are the things we know about.
Would you even question any one of those?
I don't believe there's really any question about the nature of the Clinton Foundation, Is there?
I mean, I don't have any proof, but it kind of stopped getting funded.
It stopped getting funded the minute she was under power.
So, you know, connect the dots.
And the Rashiday stuff, I think that's proven.
And the email and the service stuff, that's all a matter of record.
Even she's not arguing that.
So apparently we know now that the FBI had several efforts to investigate whether Clinton was running a pay-to-play scheme on the Clinton Foundation, and the orders came down on three separate occasions to shut down the investigation.
Does that sound sketchy to you?
Should.
And the FBI was ordered by Barack Obama not to arrest Clinton for email violations, which are a violation of some kind of espionage act, apparently.
And then James Comey actually sort of ran interference on the topic of whether she should be charged and prevented it.
So Alex Jones is a conspiracy theorist, but all of this stuff about Hillary Clinton really happened.
It doesn't appear to be any conspiracies in that.
How many of those things did Alex Jones report correctly that the mainstream media reported incorrectly or ignored?
Hmm.
Hmm.
Well, Adam Schiff's crimes are mounting up.
I feel like we also have enough to say with some certainty, based on the confidential stuff we've seen so far, that Adam Schiff was not only a leaker, but he was part of an organized attempt to get other people to leak and to make it a massive thing for the specific purpose of damaging Trump and getting him thrown in jail or at least removed from office.
And they believed that they would get away with it, according to documentation.
And the FBI apparently knew it beginning in 2017 and decided not to pursue it.
Now, here's the weird thing.
Didn't most of you know years ago that Schiff was the one behind all the leaking?
Trump told us that years ago, and he never stopped telling us.
And other people would say it in the news, and they acted like they knew it.
And then when he would talk in public, you'd say to yourself, huh, seems like there are several things that he's been proven to be a liar about, especially what he saw in the skiff, that being the most obvious.
And so I wonder, I would be amazed if he doesn't get indicted.
I don't know for what, but there must be something.
Anyway, how did Trump know that Schiff was the biggest leaker?
How did he know that?
Because what Trump said was, this is a while ago, before the new stuff came out, Trump said, I think Adam Schiff is the biggest leaker in Washington.
You know that, I know that.
We all know that.
So he's acting like it was common knowledge.
Well, it still isn't common knowledge because Democrats don't see real news.
But if they did.
Then also there's allegations that Swalwell was part of the leakers.
Now, here's the thing that I've recently realized is their tell for lying.
They have what I would call, I'm going to call it, narrative smile.
Now, when they're just lying, lying, their eyes get big quite often And their forehead wrinkles.
So they'll say stuff like, Donald Trump is a murderer and a dictator.
You know, and their eyes will go real wide like that.
But the ones that we know are the biggest leakers and liars, if you look at them, they have something in common when they're doing that weird hoax stuff.
So only for the hoaxing stuff.
And what it is is they get the hoax smile as they report the story and they find themselves being proud of themselves as they're talking.
You know, because they can make the hoax narrative fit, whatever the news is that day.
You look for it.
Look for it in Swalwell, Schiff, and Clinton.
You won't see it in Brennan or Clapper because they're stoneface.
But the other liars, they get this little smile that they try to suppress.
And then everybody knows that Trump had sex with Vladimir Putin.
And you look at that creepy little smile.
That is such a tell that they're hoaxing.
Anyway, so let's see.
So we also know that we knew this before, but we'll throw it in the mix.
That Comey, when he was head of the FBI, he had his own little private leaker.
So a friend of his that he put on the payroll so that the friend could have access to the secret stuff.
He would have this friend, a Columbia law professor, do the leaking for him with the intention of improving his reputation and furthering his narrative.
And we just know that that's real.
Like, I don't even think this is under question, right?
there you go.
And how did that matter?
Well, after Trump fired Comey in 2017, Comey leaked a memo of his conversation with Trump to his friend, and his friend took it to the press.
And that was all so that that leak would cause a special counsel to be appointed.
And it worked.
And they got Mueller, who obviously was brain damaged, or it seemed like it, to be that guy.
In other news, I got some of my news today from Rod D. Martin, who's a real good follow on X. He's one of the people who do good news summaries so that you can understand the complicated news for the first time.
You need somebody who's really good at it, or these stories are incomprehensible.
Anyway, Rod D. Martin.
And he tells us that Trump has signed an order to refill America's strategic reserve of drug ingredients.
Now, I didn't even know that existed, but sounds like the accusation is that Biden let it get drained.
And the reason it exists is in case our supply chain gets cut off, especially from China, because China is a source of much of our raw materials to make drugs.
90%, 95% of our core materials for making drugs come from China.
Anyway, Trump has ordered that somehow we buy a bunch of that stuff in advance just in case.
And the question I ask is: will Democrats now object to planning better to have pharmaceutical drugs available in case there's a problem?
Well, if we look at their history, they're going to say this is an authoritarian thing to do.
This damn authoritarian, he's making certain that my drugs exist.
Now, this might matter a little bit more to me and Some other people than it does to you.
But take my specific situation.
I'm on very specific drugs, which took my cancer death sentence, which probably would have been this summer, and pushed it out maybe for years.
I don't know.
But at the moment, I don't have any pain or any cancer symptoms.
And it looks like it might last for a while.
Don't know how long.
But if you cut, if you cut off my access to those specific drugs, it's not like there's a backup.
I would be dead in probably three to six months if they cut off my supply of meds.
Think about that.
Just think about how vulnerable people are.
Now, I'm not the only one.
There are a whole lot of people who are only alive because of the meds they get to take.
I would guess that you would see hundreds of thousands of people die within a year, probably more.
Maybe over a million would die from what would look like natural causes, but it would just be not having access to the drugs that were keeping them alive.
So, yeah, I'm very much in favor of this national emergency reserve of drug materials.
All right.
According to Politico, the California California has leaked their little maps for how they plan to gerrymander to get even because Texas, I think I told you Texas already passed their gerrymandering, but I think I was premature on that.
I think they're still trying to make that work.
I assume that they'll get it done, but I might have been premature on that.
Anyway, California wants to, I guess, their current system for redistricting is that they have this so-called independent group that does their, it's an independent redistricting commission.
So that's unique to California, it sounds like.
And I think Schwarzenegger was behind that, so that the districting maps would not be just crazy stupid.
But, and 64% of California voters want Newsom to keep it the way it is.
Now, that doesn't mean keep the map the way it is.
It means keep the process for who gets to draw the map the same, which is, in other words, keeping this independent redistricting commission.
So almost two-thirds of the state kind of likes it the way it is, at least in terms of the process.
And he's going to put it up for a special election to see if they can change their minds and more people will vote to do this special redistricting.
Now, I hope California voters say no to this, but I don't know.
You could get 64% down to 49%, you know, if you worked on it hard enough.
So we'll see what happens there.
But the funny part, and I have to give some advice to Newsom here.
Apparently, they're calling what it is that they want to do with redistricting.
They're calling it the Election Rigging Response Act.
Now, I get that what they're saying is that they're trying to respond to California's what they would call rigging.
So it's an election rigging response act.
But the sign has two lines, and they put the sign in front of the podium.
So all the people who are trying to make it happen, like Newsom and his gang, they get to stand behind a sign that says election rigging.
Second line, Response Act.
But boy, do you see the election rigging part first?
So as your friendly hypnotist persuasion expert, I will tell you that that was a huge mistake because it makes all the Democrats in California anyway, stand behind a sign that literally says election rigging While they're trying to rig the election.
Yes, it also says response act, but that doesn't mean anything.
Your brain has trouble processing response act, but it doesn't have any problem processing election rigging if it's literally on the chest of the person who's talking.
So that was pretty funny how bad that was.
Trump says that his administration has kicked a whole bunch of people off of the social security database that didn't belong there in the first place.
The kickoff, he says, 275,000 illegal aliens off the social security system.
Now, you might say, were all those people being paid illegally?
And the answer is no.
That doesn't mean that that many were being paid.
It just means that their names might have been on some database.
So we don't know how much money it saves, but there wasn't a good reason that non-citizens would be on the social security system.
275,000 of them?
And that's complete lack of control.
Wow.
So let's go over our experts.
All right.
Let's see how the smart people are doing.
We've got the FBI who couldn't catch Adam Schiff leaking, even though it was this giant process, and everybody in the country who watched television could just listen to him and say, I feel like you're a leaker.
You look like a leaker to me.
You got the Google Gmail people who probably have their thumb on the system.
You've got the DC crime numbers that are fake.
You've got the AI experts who might be, a little too early to say for sure, but they might be wrong about HI and the potential of AI, which would be a big thing to be wrong about.
Science still doesn't know what you should eat.
Is the carnivore diet the best for you?
Or does it cause those mental problems that that one study suggests?
Then you get your gerrymandering, which makes the entire political process a joke.
Wouldn't you agree?
The gerrymandering just takes all the power away from the voters.
It just turns the whole fucking thing into a joke.
But both sides are doing it.
And, you know, if one side does it, the other one really has to, but that doesn't make it better.
Then you've got, don't forget the UFOs and the so-called interdimensional beings that Representative Luna told us about.
So our experts suggest that we've got angels or interdimensional beings visiting us, but we couldn't get any good photos.
So that's some good expert stuff there.
And then the economists missed on the tariffs and the inflation.
So are there any experts I haven't mentioned?
Let's see.
Science, finance, government, FBI, Department of Justice, crime numbers, AI.
Yeah, absolutely everything's corrupt or bullshit.
Well, the big news, of course, is that today Trump is meeting with Putin in Alaska.
And all the chatter about it probably is useless because people are just literally just guessing.
But there's some belief, at least in Germany.
Who is it?
The German Chancellor, MERS.
He thinks that Kiev is ready to make a deal that would involve some property transfer, which Zelensky has up until now said no way we would not consider giving one inch of our territory.
But Germany thinks they might.
They might be a little bit more flexible than they used to be.
I don't know if that's true.
So I have no reason to believe that Zelensky will suddenly say, yeah, let's give away some property.
So I don't think they're going to walk away with a deal, but I'd love to be surprised.
Anyway, some of the possibilities, and I've taught you this before about negotiating, is something that Trump does well that you don't see other people act like it's a thing, which is if you can't make a deal, you can widen the number of things you're talking about, and then maybe you can make a deal.
So, one of the things that the U.S. would want and Russia would want is a really good renewed nuclear arms deal.
I guess the one we have is going to expire, which could be a problem.
So, if Putin wants a nuclear arms deal and we want one, Trump can go in and say, all right, here's the thing.
There's no way we're ever going to make a nuclear arms deal while the Ukraine war is raging.
So, then suddenly, Putin has this gigantic other new reason to end the war that just wasn't part of the negotiations before.
So, I do expect that Trump will float the idea.
We may not hear what the private conversation is, so this is just speculation.
I think he'll float the idea that he can make Russia richer, you know, maybe do some deals with rare earth materials or pipelines or whatever, and that he can give them nuclear power safety, and he can get him out of a war, and he could probably help him keep most of, if not all, of the things he's already occupied.
So, Trump definitely has a, and then he also has the hammer.
So, it's not just the, you know, here's some candy.
The hammer is that he really pissed at Putin.
And if Putin pulls the football away, Charlie Brown, one more time, I feel like Trump is just going to try to destroy his economy.
So, I believe that the deal will look something like this.
You have embarrassed me.
He doesn't need to say it, but it's sort of hanging out there.
You've embarrassed me so far.
And here's the thing: it's not going to happen again because I pretty much have to hammer your entire economy into the ground if you do.
But if you play along, and we all know this has to end someday, some way, we can solve your nuclear power, your nuclear weapon issue, make you safe from attack from that way, and make you richer and be done with the war.
So, we'll see.
Putin has said that Trump is sincere and energetic in his efforts to get a deal.
Do you feel in that that there's some signal if he says that Trump is sincere and energetic?
Those are not really the kind of compliments you'd expect to hear if Putin was thinking, I think we can wrap this thing up.
I feel like a deal is really close.
You don't say that the best the other guy is doing is that he's energetic and sincere, because that's not saying much, is it?
I feel like he's kind of almost insulting him by saying that he's sincere and energetic, because that sounds like a puppy.
Well, my puppy is sincere and energetic, and he keeps trying to hump my leg, but we'll see.
So, anyway, so I guess Trump doesn't want to make a deal.
He just wants to maybe soften up the room so a deal can be made.
Meanwhile, over in Korea, north and south, South Korea is having trouble, according to CNN, keeping an army because their birth rate is so low that now it's reached that point where they don't have enough people to field the army that they think they need to protect against North Korea.
So, the troop numbers in South Korea have declined by 20%.
So, I wonder if this Is going to be a gigantic thing in the future.
Will it be a gigantic thing that countries' national defense is just going to hell because their population is declining?
Because that should affect almost everyone, right?
So that might be a big factor.
But robot warriors are coming.
Let's do a hoax check, or is it?
On the story that maybe you saw on social media that Netanyahu seems to, at least in his words and some of his actions, be backing the idea of something called Greater Israel.
Now, Greater Israel is an idea that some of the rightmost people in politically right people in Israel would be in favor of Israel expanding until it took over land that currently is owned by people like Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, or Egypt.
I don't know about Saudi Arabia, but maybe.
Anyway, and Netanyahu has used that language that he's sort of in favor of this greater Israel.
So the idea of a Greater Israel has been around a long time.
It's not something that Netanyahu made up.
And here's what I think.
I think that Netanyahu is only using that to make sure that everybody's on his side because you can hear what you want to hear.
The people who don't want to make that trouble with those neighbors and would think it would be unthinkable to try to take land from Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, or Egypt under the current conditions.
But if he uses the words, they might be able to say to themselves, well, he can't say it out loud.
He can't say it directly.
But I think he's on our side.
Meanwhile, the people who wouldn't want any of that, and maybe they do want some kind of greater control over Gaza or the West Bank, can say, all right, all right.
He just wants to make sure that Israel consolidates in that larger West Bank Gaza sense, but not those other countries.
You know, he's not going to go so far as to try to conquer those other countries and make them part of Israel.
So I feel like he probably does not have designs on taking land from those other countries.
Just speculating, because I can't read his mind, but it's probably something that goes well if he talks that way.
So it's probably just for his internal cohesion he's doing it because you can interpret it any way you want.
So that's probably just good politicking, but it's scary if you don't know that.
That's my guess.
Could be wrong.
You never know.
All right.
Drones are the future of war.
True enough.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, that is all I have for today.
It's a Friday, and that means that your weekend's about to kick off.
Maybe we'll get some big news out of Alaska, but I doubt it.
I think Alaska will be the Democrats will say, what did he promise Putin behind closed doors?
And the Republicans will be, well, he moved the ball forward.
We're much closer to Nobel Peace Prize.
So it'll be two movies on one screen for sure.
We'll see.
All right.
I'm going to say hi to the subscribers on my locals platform, my beloved subscribers.
The rest of you, thanks for joining.
And I will see you looking at the numbers.
You can't see the numbers, right?
But I'll tell you how many people are watching live right now.
YouTube, 3.7,000, locals over 700, and Rumble, 1,200.
Usually on X, there would be 10 to 20,000 watching it live, and then much More watch it later.
Most people watch it after the fact.
I would recommend listening to me at 1.25 speed because almost everybody says that's better.
