Hi to all the Charlie Kirk memorial attendees. We got your back.Politics, Charlie Kirk Memorial Event, Andrew Kolvet, TDS Mental Health Issue, Home Purchase Sharing, TikTok Purchase, Elon Musk, AI Simulated Microsoft, Autism Cause Speculation, Stephen A. Smith, Kamala Harris Career, Tom Homan, MSNBC Hit Piece, Abby Phillip, democrat Cancellation Policy, Jimmy Kimmel, FCC Fairness Doctrine, Kimmel's Ultra-Woke Wife, Gavin McInnes, AOC Presidential Campaign, Thomas Massie, Epstein Client List, Soros Funding Gatekeeper, Alex Soros, Gavin Newsom's Technique, Minnesota Massive Fraud, Local Government Fraud, Corruption Design Problem, Manilla Corruption Protests, UK Palestine State Recognition, UK MAGA, China Covid Whistleblower, Ukraine War, Drone Warfare, Cartel Del Sol, Venezuela Drug Boats, President Trump, Bagram Air Base, Soccer Brain Injuries, Baltimore School System, 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.
If you're attending the Charlie Kirk Memorial right now and you said to yourself, I think I need something to do for the next few hours until it begins.
Well, here I am.
I'm here for you.
We're all here for you.
So if you're waiting in line in the State Farm Stadium in Glendale, this show is for you.
All right.
Let me get my comments working so that we have a complete situation here.
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 this morning to levels that no one can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, well, to do that, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass of tanker chalicer stein a canteen jugger flask, a vessel of any kind, fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called a simultaneous sip, and it happens.
That's right.
It happens right now.
Well, as you know, as I mentioned, 100,000 people are expected to attend the Charlie Kirk Memorial at the State Farm Stadium in Glendale.
It begins at 11 a.m. the local time in Arizona.
So correct, connect, correct for your local time.
But people were showing up as early as three and four in the morning and walking long distances because the parking lots weren't even opened at the venue yet.
And the spirits are very high.
I mean, somber, of course, but something's happening.
I would like to read to you where is it?
Maybe I won't read to you that.
All right, well.
So one of my friends is there and gave me a little report to what's happening.
And I asked her, you know, are you there in person?
Because that's not very close.
And apparently she got inspired to go all the way there and is feeling a renewal of faith and wanted to be part of this thing.
Apparently there are also two plane loads full of the White House people and I guess Trump's going to speak.
And whatever you thought about this phenomenon, can we call it a phenomenon?
The tragedy seems to have awakened something.
There's definitely a religious renewal that's happening right now, and it's because of Charlie Kirk.
There's no doubt about it.
And so I'm expecting that this memorial, besides being tearful and sad, will be one of the more impactful things that happens maybe all year.
I mean, aside from the shooting itself.
And I'm here for you, people.
If you're waiting for hours and you need something to do, well, maybe that's one thing we can do for you.
Give you maybe an hour of the news without any commercial breaks, depending on what you're watching it on.
But best wishes to all of you people who are experiencing a probably almost everyone is feeling some kind of religious revival.
And if you were the Democrats and you were watching this, forget about the politics of it.
There's something that's beyond politics now.
We've entered some new domain.
But if you're a Democrat, whatever this power is that's been unlocked, I don't know where it goes, but it looks like a powerful positive force.
And it may not be what you had in mind if you're a Democrat.
So, if you're a Democrat, today would be a day to just stay quiet.
That would be my advice.
I'm not going to say something rude like, you know, hey, you guys just shut up.
Just today, the best thing you can do if you're a Democrat, unless you're being supportive and saying something positive, the best thing you can do today, the smartest thing you can do, take the day off.
This is not your day.
So, there will be magic happening today, maybe literally.
Well, there is a story related to the Charlie Kirk murder that I don't know what to say about this.
There's a sort of a magic bullet story.
Have you heard that yet?
So, Turning Poor USA spokesperson Andrew Colvet says this in a post on X. I want to address some of the discussion about the lack of an exit wound with Charlie.
Wait, what?
There's a lack of an exit wound.
Now, you know, there's some people say that the thing, the wound that we saw was the exit wound, but that wouldn't assume that there's an entry wound on the other side.
And apparently, the surgeon who worked on him says that's not the case.
What?
So, here's what we know.
All right, it's from Andrew Colvett.
I'm usually not interested in delving into most of this kind of online chatter talking about the exit wound.
And I apologize, this is somewhat graphic.
But in this case, the fact that there wasn't an exit wound is probably another miracle.
And I want people to know.
I just spoke with a surgeon who worked on Charlie in the hospital.
He said the bullet, quote, absolutely should have gone through, which is very normal for a high-powered rifle, high-powered, high-velocity round.
I've seen wounds from this caliber many times, and they always just go through everything.
This would have taken a moose or two down and elk, etc.
But it didn't go through Charlie's body.
Charlie's body stopped it.
His neck, his neck stopped the bullet from passing through it.
And Andrew goes on and goes, I mentioned to his doctor that there were dozens of staff, students, and special guests standing directly behind Charlie on the other side of the tent.
And he replied, quote, it was an absolute miracle that someone else didn't get killed.
His bone was so healthy and the density was so impressive that he's like the man of steel.
It should have just gone through and through.
It likely would have killed those standing behind him, too.
In the end, the coroner did find the bullet just beneath the skin.
So even in death, Charlie managed to save the lives of those around him.
Well, those of you who are familiar with my content are expecting me to debunk that and say that's not how bullets act.
They don't sometimes go through soft tissue and bone and sometimes not.
But today is the Charlie Kirk Memorial.
Mental Health Crisis Amid Gas Prices00:03:07
Today, miracles are allowed.
So I'm going to accept that one.
Trump says the gas prices are heading below $2 a gallon.
It might be some of the best prices we've seen in a long, long time.
Fox News is reporting that.
I don't know if it's going to get that low.
It's not going to get that low in California because we have a de facto state.
No, no.
Nope, no ricochet, no second shooter, just a miracle.
Today is just a miracle.
That's the beginning and the end of the conversation.
But gas prices are going down.
So Trump was at some event speaking yesterday and he asked Dr. Oz while the president was speaking.
He sort of tongue-in-cheek, but maybe not, asked Dr. Oz if Trump derangement syndrome should be added to the official mental disorders.
And Trump said it's a mental disorder and they've got it in levels not seen before.
Dr. Oz, why don't we list that on Wednesday?
I know.
I guess something's happening on Wednesday.
Now, I thought that TDS, Trump Derangement Syndrome, was actually already in the literature as a genuine mental health issue.
Am I wrong about that?
I mean, I don't think it's in the most official DSM, whatever, six or whatever it is.
I don't think it's there yet.
But I'm pretty sure that the literature recognizes it as a major problem in mental health.
It's not nothing.
So even though I'm pretty sure the president was being humorous and it worked, I do believe that it needs to be added to the literature.
There's not the slightest chance that this isn't a genuine mental health gigantic problem.
One of the biggest.
I mean, it's probably the single most damaging mental health problem in the country.
I'll bet if you added up the next three biggest, they probably wouldn't be this big if you really were honest about the size of the problem.
You know, I mean, it's broken up families, it's people losing jobs, people yelling at strangers.
We don't have any mental problem, mental health problem that has one name that's anywhere near that big.
Nowhere near.
I mean, it's in a class by itself.
It's affecting entire populations at the same time.
And almost certainly, it caused at least one murder, Charlie Kirk.
There's no way that that happens without Trump derangement syndrome.
There's no way that happens.
Microsoft's AI Ambitions00:09:51
Anyway, you know, I've been yammering off and on about how the only way that the affordability thing will be fixed will be finding cheaper ways to live that are still really good ways to live.
You know, you're not giving up much.
And apparently, the young are, according to News Nation, there's now a minor trend, maybe it'll get bigger, of co-buying a home.
So people who are not related or in a relationship, they will say, do you want to buy a home?
I want to buy a home.
And then they'll go in together and split the cost.
So they both get half a home, basically.
And then they try to figure out some agreement for living there.
Now, as you might imagine, the part about living with a stranger and having some stranger have that much control over your real estate and you over them, it's not going to be easy.
But it does make me wonder if this will be a growing trend.
I think it will, because the alternatives are worse.
But my take is that you need to design the house from the ground up to be a more than one person house.
There's probably ways to do that.
You definitely don't want to be waiting for the bathroom with the, you know, while the person who helped you buy the house is in there.
And apparently a survey says 70% of Gen Z would be willing to do this.
So if 70% would be willing to share a home purchase, right there, the cost of housing went down 50%, at least within the home ownership group.
Well, allegedly, the news says that the TikTok purchase deal is done and that China agreed and we agreed and maybe there's some paperwork to sign, but basically it's all agreed.
And the details were told, and this is still a fog of war because the details that I heard even yesterday are already wrong.
So who knows if these are right.
But it would be majority American owned when it was purchased.
Oracle would be sort of the tech company in charge of privacy.
So it'd be an American company in charge of that.
And there'd be some other big investors.
So it's not just Oracle here.
And the algorithm would not be maintained by China, which was the first thing we heard.
The first thing we heard is that China was going to own the algorithm and just sort of feed it to the American company.
There's no way that worked.
I mean, that was sort of defeating the whole point.
But according to Caroline Levitt, the algorithm will now be controlled by Americans, the American owners.
Do you believe this is going to get signed?
There's something, there's a dog not barking in this story.
Isn't there something really, really missing?
Well, I'll tell you, China reportedly, and somewhat obviously, was using the TikTok thing as leverage for other things that it wants out of the United States.
So, the one thing you could know for sure is that there's no way in heck that China would ever allow the sale of their big, you know, I mean, incredibly successful asset to the U.S. There's no way they do that unless they got something in return that was pretty big.
Have you heard any news about anything they're getting in return?
Do you believe that China went from, well, there's no way you're going to take the jewel of our online assets unless you give us something pretty, pretty good.
It might be tariffs, it might be something else, but you better give us something pretty good.
And then we did hear that the U.S. was holding back some defense allocations for Taiwan and that it might be connected, but that was supposed to be temporary, you know, just while we're talking to them.
Is it temporary?
Don't you feel that there's no way this deal could have been done unless we promised them something, right?
There's no way.
I don't think so.
Now, do you think that maybe there's a secret deal, maybe a secret deal, where they're going to maybe not help Russia as much?
I don't think so.
I don't think TikTok would be worth that.
So I'm concerned that we don't know exactly what the deal was for that, but maybe we'll never find out.
You might remember that not too long ago, Elon Musk made the following observation about Microsoft's business.
He said, in principle, given that software companies like Microsoft do not themselves manufacture any physical hardware, it should be possible to simulate them entirely with AI.
He wants to simulate entirely the entire Microsoft product line.
I do believe that we might approach the place we're not there yet, but I could easily imagine we'd reach a place where replacing all of Microsoft is anybody with AI sitting in a room and saying, can you pretend to be every product that Microsoft makes?
And then if I need to put something on a spreadsheet or on a word processing, just give me a user interface that essentially mocks Microsoft and just act like you're Microsoft and I'll just use you, AI.
I feel like that is within the realm of maybe.
So there's some possibility that the entire Microsoft corporation could turn into one super prompt.
Hey, give me a suite of products exactly like Microsoft.
Maybe.
I don't know.
But we do know that Elon also kicked off an AI project in which he is trying to literally and directly knock off the Microsoft products with AI versions.
Do you think that Elon Musk and whoever he hires will have the capability to knock off Microsoft?
Well, the answer is maybe pretty good chance because I don't see how Microsoft could last in the long run, not with their current suite of products.
The only way Microsoft lasts is as a different company.
Now, the different company would also be AI, so they might be replacing their own products with AI before somebody else does it or something.
That's possible.
But yeah, I guess Microsoft, the CEO, is staying up late at night because he's already seen that there's no way that the Microsoft model lasts forever.
And we're definitely close enough to the end of it that you can kind of sense it coming.
And it'll happen fast when it happens.
All right.
President Trump also announced, if you believe this, that on Monday there's going to be a bombshell news release about the true cause of autism.
And he called it one of the most important things that they'll ever do.
Do you believe that's a possible thing?
Do you believe that our government is going to tell us the real cause of autism and that they didn't know before?
Nobody knew before, and they just found out this week or the last few weeks?
I don't know if anybody's going to believe it.
Would you?
Knowing as you do that all data is fake, because it is, why would you believe whatever they say about autism?
Why would you believe what anybody says about anything if it's based on data?
It's never, there just isn't any data that's accurate.
It's just whoever made up the data decided to show you this data instead of that data.
All right, well, we'll see.
What do you think it is?
Do you think it's going to be vaccinations or Tylenol for pregnant people or food?
My guess is that they're going to say there are three or four things that are very connected, and especially if they all happen at the same time, yeah, you might have an extra risk.
I don't know.
What I don't expect is for them to say, we got solid data.
Nobody's going to doubt it once they see it themselves.
And here's the cause.
Sting's $50,000 Bonus00:07:30
I don't think that's going to happen.
Do you?
In the real messy world, do things like that happen?
Might be food, but I kind of doubt it because little babies are getting it.
And the little babies are, aren't they?
Don't babies all eat the same food?
Don't they just eat baby food?
So although I think our food is not especially safe and could be way, way better, I'm going to say that probably won't be the thing that they identify.
Might.
It's not a zero chance, but I don't know.
I think I would go with more likely pharma, you know, some kind of pharmaceutical.
More likely that.
But I don't know.
Stephen A. Smith decided that Kamala Harris has ended her political career with her new book.
And he says it was the last straw.
He says, I think we've seen the last of her, meaning politically.
And he says, based on the excerpts of the book, it's too little, too late.
Now, I think what he's talking about specifically is that she admits she knew that Joe was not all there, but she didn't do anything about it.
And Stephen A. Smith says, that's the end of your career.
If you admit that you could see it, and you also admit that you decided not to make waves by doing something about it, then you were never the real vice president, were you?
Let me say it again.
If Kamala Harris knew that Joe had the cognitive problems that he did, if she knew and decided not to act on it for loyalty or whatever other reasons, she wasn't really the vice president.
Right?
Is there a more important job than being the one who identifies that the vice president's time has reached an end and he can't handle his job?
Probably nothing more important than that, right?
Except filling in if he were to pass away.
So I get why there was tremendous pressure on her to just ride it out.
We all understand.
There's no mystery there.
But if your only job is to be able to overcome exactly that problem, hey, people might not like it if you remove the president whose brain is dead.
Well, you kind of got to do it anyway.
Isn't that the job?
The job is to do it anyway.
The job is not to do it if it's easy.
The job is the job of vice president is not to act if it's convenient.
There's nothing like that in the job description.
By its nature, the reason we go through so much trouble to pick the right vice presidential candidate is that we look at them and we say, that person could remove a president if they had to.
Well, she wasn't that person, apparently.
She couldn't do it.
So I don't know.
It's hard to call an end to anybody's political career, but I'm going to agree with Stephen A. Smith.
I don't see how she could hold a major office ever again.
But I also think she may have decided that she was done with politics.
I feel like she was already done.
Well, are you up to date with the latest drama involving Tom Holman, you know, head of, is it ICE?
Is that his official job?
Head of ICE.
But he apparently during the Biden administration, when Tom Holman was not in the government, but he was doing consulting, private consulting, for companies in the border security business, I guess.
And he was the subject of an FBI sting operation in which they gave him $50,000, pretending to be some kind of vendors for things that he would be in his domain.
And he took the $50,000 reportedly.
I don't know that any of this is really confirmed, but reportedly took the $50,000 and agreed to help the contractors win contracts in the second Trump administration if Trump won.
Now, remember, this is before Trump won.
So there's no President Trump at the moment, and there's no borders are, yeah, if that's what you call them.
But we're just learning about this from an MSNBC investigation, but we're also told that the Biden administration didn't find any crimes and they just shut it down.
The Biden administration didn't find any crimes, even though you tried to set them up.
They tried to create a crime where there wasn't one by pretending to bribe him.
But it turns out that if you're a consultant and you offer to help somebody do something that is normal legal business, and you're a consultant who advises on that exact normal legal business, well, maybe taking money to do the thing you say is exactly what you're doing.
Maybe it's not illegal.
Now, so that would mean that he wasn't using his influence to give somebody a job who was incapable.
So I don't know exactly the details, but here's my question.
If it's true that the FBI came up with the $50,000 and paid it to him, but that there was no real work involved, it was only they were setting him up.
He thought there was work involved, but there wasn't.
Does he get to keep the 50,000?
So I'm trying to figure out if the Biden administration figured out a way to give Tom Holman a $50,000 bonus before he started the job.
And so far, that's what it looks like.
It looks like the FBI just found a way to pay him $50,000 and he had no legal risk whatsoever.
I just hope that's true.
I don't know if that's true.
I do believe that if they gave it to him, I feel like he could keep it, right?
Like it's not like there's, if he doesn't get charged with anything, it's not like they can take the money back, can they?
How does that work?
If it's part of a sting operation, do you get to keep it if they don't sting you?
I hope so.
Anyway, CNN's Abby Phillip was saying that she was trying to get her panel on CNN to agree, the liberal panel, mostly liberal, to admit that the Democrats censored and canceled too much.
Jimmy Kimmel's Censorship Conundrum00:09:16
And she thought the only way forward for Democrats is to say directly to the public, we canceled and censored too much.
And that was on us.
That's a mistake.
And now we're going to move on.
What do you think?
Do you think Abby is right?
That if the Democrats simply admit that they had censored and canceled too many people and they're very sorry about it and they realize how bad it was, that that's what would allow them to get past it and then have a successful Democrat Party?
I don't think so.
I don't think so.
Do you think I would accept an apology?
I got canceled.
Do you think I would accept an apology?
No.
No, I'm not going to accept an apology.
Not at all.
Not even a little bit.
Not an option.
Apology is not requested, not appreciated, not expected.
And just stay away from me with your apologies because it won't help me a bit.
But it does show that they're desperately flailing around trying to find something that would make them not look so bad.
All right.
Apparently, the New York Post did a little analysis and found that Jimmy Kimmel hosted only one right-leaning guest in the past three years, and it came with some kind of a condition.
I don't know who that was.
But only one.
And apparently he had 13 left-leaning guests this year.
That's not really very many, is it?
You know, since the beginning of the year, 13.
So it's not even that there was a ton of political people in general.
I mean, most of us entertainment.
But here's what else we found.
Let's see.
That Kimmel's jokes and gags, this is from the New York Post, his jokes and gags targeted conservatives 88% of the time in 2023.
So in 2023, 88% of the jabs were at conservatives.
And it went to 97% this year.
So 97% of all of his jabs were in one direction.
Now, keep in mind that the FCC allows the airwaves to be used by ABC, CPS, NBC only, only to the extent that they're a public good.
They're a benefit to the public.
But also on top of that, there's a specific requirement that they can't be politically one-sided.
That if they have a Democrat on, they probably ought to have a Republican on and vice versa.
So they're supposed to make some attempt to balance out the time and the politics.
Does it look like they did that?
Does it look like Jimmy Kibble's staff and people, does it look like they were attempting to have anything like a balance that is required for them to fulfill their license?
Well, no.
No.
It would appear that they grossly violated the FCC regulations.
Now, as I've said before, the FCC had a very long-standing, very clear standard that you can't just be on one side if you have one of their public airwaves.
Other people can.
If you're a cable, if you're Fox News, you could just be biased all day long.
There's nothing illegal, immoral.
I mean, maybe suboptimal, but it's not immoral.
But if you got to one of those public airwaves, you better give equal time.
And they clearly didn't.
I saw most of you know who Gavin McInnes is.
He was one of the many people who got canceled during the great cancellations.
But apparently he was, he knew Jimmy Kimmel pretty well.
And he believes that Jimmy Kimmel's second wife is the ultra-woke person who ruined him.
I guess Jimmy Kimmel was an ordinary boy, and he got turned into some kind of a weird monster by his second wife.
That's Gavin's take on it.
I'm paraphrasing, of course.
And I think he compared it to the Howard Stern situation where Howard was a guy's guy, and then he gets married a second time, and suddenly he's the wokest guy around, and everything's different.
So one of the things that does not match well with humor, if that's your job, if your job is a professional humorist or a professional kind of shitsterer, one thing that doesn't match with that at all is a wife.
Because a spouse is quite reasonably, you know, there's nothing wrong with this, a spouse is going to be thinking about the family unit.
as the thing that needs to be protected.
The crazy performer person, you know, and I'm in that category, we're thinking about how to make the biggest impact, you know, what gets the biggest audience, you know, how do I get a special on Netflix or whatever I'm trying to do.
So it's very natural that the spouse would be in a more, you know, you don't want to do that.
You better take the popular view on this one.
You know, so it's very incompatible.
The best and funniest, well, let's take Bill Burr.
Does Bill Burr, do I even need to finish that?
If any of you watch Bill Burr, do you think that his wife is an influence on what he can and cannot say?
I don't know, but it sure looks like it.
And it looks like it degrades his effectiveness.
The funniest comedians, I think, are single people, or somebody who's got a rare kind of a spouse who says some version of, you know, go for it.
But that's probably not the most common instinct.
And by the way, here I am not criticizing wives whatsoever.
If a wife is protecting her husband and protecting the family, and maybe at the cost of that extra million dollars, but you're already doing fine, is the wife wrong?
I would say no.
I would say that would be a perfectly correct and moral and ethical, legal thing to do to try to make sure the family stays as strong as it could be.
But it does hurt the humor.
I also heard from Gavin McInnes that Jimmy Kimmel is a very good cartoonist.
Did you know that?
He did some cartoons for, I guess, Vice back in the day.
What are the odds of that?
Now I have to completely reshape my opinion.
I don't know if I've ever told you this before, but on top of a general professional courtesy that I feel toward Jimmy Kimmel and anybody in that business, because I'm sort of tangentially in the public humor business, if he's actually a skilled cartoonist who has actually been paid for his work, and apparently he has been, then I have to default to my how do I treat other cartoonists.
And I generally go easy on other cartoonists.
So I'm often asked, hey, do you think the guy who does Ziggy has a good cartoon?
Which, of course, I don't because it was terrible.
But I would try not to, depending on the cartoonists, I'd usually try to be kind to them.
So I'll be more kind.
Are you guys watching how many people who are credible are kind of in favor of more the leaning toward the free speech angle on this and making sure that people like Kimmel don't lose their jobs over some kind of bad day of speaking, a bad day.
Credible Voices for Free Speech00:12:18
So now, as I mentioned, Ted Cruz thinks there's a free speech issue here.
Ben Shapiro does.
And if you know anything about those two people, could we agree that they're smarter than we are, most of us, on these topics?
And if the two of them are both in, it looks like strong agreement that there's a free speech issue here and it would be bad for us to ignore it.
I'm on that side very strongly, very strongly.
But I feel the way you feel, which is Kimmel, I feel the same.
But I just think from a constitutional perspective, we don't want to get over our skis too far.
Well, there's more talk that AOC is looking at running for president in 2028.
How many of you remember when she burst on the scene and very early on, very early on, I said in public a number of times, you should watch out for this one because she has the game to become president.
Do you remember me saying that?
Now, I don't know that she does.
Well, I don't know that she'll become president, so I'm not making a prediction.
It's not a prediction because it depends who she runs against entirely.
But could she win?
Yes.
Yes, she has the game.
She just has that thing.
You know, the charisma, the energy, probably the right kind of support, at least in a little bit of the Democratic Party.
She would have to move toward the middle to have any chance of winning to get all the Democrats on her side, but that seems doable.
That's not impossible.
So I've been saying for a long time, you should watch out for that one.
And I will double down on, watch out for that one.
If you think to yourself that she doesn't appeal to you and therefore she can't win, that's the Trump mistake.
No, you have to look at the skill level only, just skill.
If you only look at a skill, she's got a lot of it, and she's still young.
So she's probably picking up technique as she goes.
She's no Trump.
You know, if Trump is, let's say at a scale of one to 100, Trump is 100 in terms of persuasion.
She's 65, which would be more than just about everybody, except Trump.
So, yeah, she's a threat.
She is not, in my opinion, smart enough.
So if I were running against her, I would try to establish that, that she doesn't actually understand economics.
She doesn't actually have plans that work in the real world.
So you would go after impracticality and inability to reason through things.
That's what I'd go after.
Thomas Massey is saying an ex.
I told Director Cash Patel that the FBI has names of 20 men, 20 men to whom Jeffrey Epstein trafficked women and girls.
This basic fact seemed to surprise him.
Why?
That's a pretty good question.
If it's true that Massey knows for sure that there are 20 names that have been trafficked to.
And then Massey says, is the FBI withholding those names to protect the president's rich and powerful friends?
Release the Epstein files.
What the hell is going on here?
It doesn't seem likely to me that Thomas Massey would make this up.
And it seems like he's smart enough that he wouldn't be simply wrong about it.
So is this true?
Is it true that Thomas Massey could write down the names of 20 people because he's seen the names?
Does he know where that list is?
I mean, did he was it in his skiff so he doesn't have a copy of it, but he remembers most of it?
What is going on here?
You know, on one hand, this would be just so terrible if this is true.
On the other hand, it's the only thing that would explain everything we've observed.
Am I right?
Everything we've observed would easily be explained if you said, yeah, there's 20 powerful people.
It's really all about protecting the 20.
Everything would be explained.
I would have no more questions.
I mean, I'd have questions who the 20 are, but beyond that, no, everything would be answered.
Oh, okay.
Got it.
Now, that would still leave, you know, some blackmailing stuff and things like that, but it would certainly get along, go a long way toward explaining things.
Well, we'll see.
I would like to see Cash Patelby ask that question under oath and have the ask, do you have a list of 20 names that Epstein trafficked young people to?
Let's see.
According to the Daily Color News Foundation, there's some kind of exclusive, explosive report showing that George Soros or his organization doled out $80 million to leftist groups that are glorifying terrorism.
Now, that means that somewhere in their communication, they said something about, well, you know, sometimes you have to go beyond nonviolence, basically things like that.
Not super direct, as in pick up a gun and meet me on Tuesday, but suggesting very clearly that violence is on the table, that it's just one of the options.
And his money is going to a number of those groups.
And my question is, and I've been saying this for years now, the Soros organization, who exactly is even watching where the money's going?
Because I feel as though the Soros organization is being robbed every day, just like really robbed.
Because George Soros is clearly beyond the point where he's making the detailed decisions.
His son honestly doesn't look smart enough or interested enough to look into every organization the money goes to.
I'll bet that's not happening at the top.
And that would mean that there's somebody in a lower level who's a gatekeeper for this money and is, I'll just say it.
There's almost no chance that there isn't massive fraud.
A fraud against Soros.
So whatever you say about Soros being bad might be true, but I'll bet you he's also a victim of massive corruption within his organization.
My guess is that Huma might have been put in there to help get that under control.
I don't think she's necessarily the one stealing money, although her connection to Hillary Clinton would suggest it's a possibility.
But I would give this caution to Alexander Soros.
Almost certainly you're being robbed in the biggest possible way because none of this looks organic.
It looks like somebody figured out a way to take money from the old man and a lot of it.
That's what it looks like.
Gavin Newsom of California is pushing back against Trump and his ICE efforts to deport people.
And he wants the ICE agents to unmask.
So now there's some kind of, I don't know, he's got some kind of state law or something that they're pushing to unmask the ICE people.
Now, as far as I know, there's no way he could get away with that because the ICE agents are under federal control.
And as the feds say you definitely can't wear a mask, I don't think the state can stop them.
So even if the state had their own little law, I don't think it would apply.
I think the feds would overrule it.
But we'll see.
However, I will note that Gavin Newsom has learned a valuable lesson from trying to copy Trump.
I've been telling you for the last several days that one of the things that Trump does brilliantly, like I've never even seen it, is that he goes strong on every topic.
And he must know that some number of them will be blocked or he doesn't get away with it for one reason or another.
And then he can just adjust.
And he's already moved on to the next thing.
But the next thing, he goes strong.
And maybe it works, maybe it doesn't.
But the next thing after that goes really strong.
Now, if two or all three of those things that I'm mentioning hypothetically, if all of them didn't work out, what would you remember about Trump?
The strength.
You would forget about the individual topics pretty quickly, unless you had some special interest in them.
But you would remember that he was the boldest, strongest, take no prisoners.
I'm going to get this done kind of a president.
Well, it looks to me that Governor Newsom is taking that approach, meaning that I don't know if he thinks there's any chance he can unmask the ICE agents.
He knows that his people want him to ask.
They know that they want him to go strong.
So, if Newsom goes strong, say, you've got to take those masks off, you bastards, and then things happen, and that doesn't actually happen, no masks come off.
What will you remember about that?
You'll remember that Newsom was the only effective person fighting Trump, even though he wasn't effective.
But you'll remember him as strong.
So, it does look like, and this is so weirdly ironic, that part of Newsom's technique is literally overtly, obviously, and for humorous effect, copying Trump.
Like, he's doing that as part of the act, but he tells you, I mean, he's broadcasting his parody, his satire.
It worked pretty well.
The parodies work pretty well.
Good job on that politically.
But it looks now he's also copying his strategies.
Trump's strategy is strong no matter what.
If it doesn't work, it's better that he win strong.
That's definitely what Gavin's doing.
Strong first, even if it turns out to be wrong.
I hate to say it, but it's an upgrade in his performance.
I hate to say it, but he really is.
He's finding a little bit of purchase.
And, you know, a lot of us said the same thing.
A lot of us said, you know, don't underestimate Gavin Newsome.
I don't think he can win, but I wouldn't underestimate him.
Corruption as a Design Problem00:05:13
Well, maybe I just did, huh?
you know he's definitely got skills um apparently the uh state of minnesota is having a problem They're, quote, drowning in fraud.
Apparently, there was some taxpayer-funded housing stabilization service, and there was a lot of money involved in it.
And allegedly, over $100 million per year is stolen from one state, and not the biggest state, Minnesota.
$100 million a year stolen.
Not once, per year.
And so it's like there are fraudulent healthcare companies being set up to collect money, fraudulent housing programs, rehab patient frauds, fake Medicare and Medicaid.
So there's just this whole network of fake companies that popped up to do fake claims to steal the money.
Now, let me say it until it sinks in because I've been saying it for a while, but it doesn't seem to be working.
All local governments are criminal organizations by design.
Now, it's not intentional design.
I don't believe anybody sat down, you know, the founding fathers and said, let's make us a government where it's guaranteed to be all corrupt.
Well, you know why it wasn't guaranteed to be corrupt back in the early days of the Constitution?
They didn't have much money.
They might have like, you know, a handful of projects.
It would be stuff like, well, we need the streetlight on that one corner.
And then you could sort of all pay attention to the few dollars it took to build the streetlight.
And it wasn't nearly enough opportunity for fraud because it wasn't much money.
And you could all just sort of watch it.
Probably had multiple witnesses and stuff like that.
Now, still, probably there was a little, you know, a little bit of a little bit of bribery and stuff like that, but not nearly as much.
But then, fast forward, and suddenly a city, which used to be a smallish enterprise, now has a billion-dollar budget.
A billion dollars.
What happens then?
Well, obviously, it's going to attract all the people who want to figure out how to steal it.
And there is no way to catch them all by design.
So if you're the mayor and let's say you alone get to choose who wins some contract, you just make sure it's your friends.
And then your friends have a whole bunch of extra money that they got.
Where do you think some of that goes?
Probably back to you, right?
So as long as you have this situation that very easily and by design, everybody can rip the money out of the system, it's not going to stop.
Here's where people get systems versus goals wrong.
It would be a goal to not have corruption in local government, right?
Everybody agree?
That would be your goal, my goal, their goal, the voters' goal.
Everybody'd have a goal.
But what is their system to prevent that from happening?
It's the opposite.
The system is designed for the opposite of the goal.
And as long as you have a system that's designed on paper, there's no way it can operate any other way except illegally in the long run.
It's a design problem.
It's a system problem.
We need to develop some kind of a system and test it on some city to see if we can make at least one city operate fiscally responsibly and not steal your money.
Because we don't have that.
Maybe smallish towns or something might get lucky, but we got to change the system.
We can't just keep hoping that the next person we elect is the honest one.
That's just a goal.
It doesn't work.
All right.
So reframe corruption as a design problem, not a moral failing of that one person who got caught.
Every time you say, well, moral failing of this one guy that got caught, but at least we put him in jail, so problem solved.
Nope.
Problem not solved.
Problem not even approached.
Problem not even addressed.
If you don't change the entire auditing transparency system, not a chance.
Maybe put it on the blockchain or something.
What about the Philippines?
Drug Boat Drones00:15:17
Oh, guess what?
There's huge protests in Manila because $7 billion sort of went missing.
Now, there's a lot of corruption over there, but when we say a lot of corruption, it really means that it's just more overt.
I don't know that we have less corruption here, honestly.
So every government that has the same design about it has massive corruption.
It's all the same design.
The people in the government get to decide where billions of dollars go, so they steal some of it, like a lot of it, like 25% of it in this case.
So the whole country is falling apart because they got caught stealing too much.
And in a way, what they did wrong was steal too much.
If they had stolen maybe 10%, there might not be any riots at all.
Meanwhile, over in Great Britain, some of the Brits are allegedly, according to a Telegraph poll, are rebelling against their Prime Minister Starmer's decision to, what was it, grant, recognize the Palestinian state.
That was not very popular at all.
And 90% of Britons think that he jumped the gun by recognizing the Palestinian state.
Jump the gun might be the kindest way they could have said that.
I've got a feeling there's a whole bunch of Britons, the ones born there, who are more than just a little put out by what's happening over there.
So we'll see.
Well, here's interesting.
According to News Max, James Morley III is writing with this.
There's somebody named Liz Truss, who's a former UK Prime Minister.
Somehow, I never heard of that name before.
How many of you knew that there was a UK prime minister named Liz Truss?
Why have I never even heard that name?
I usually don't pay attention to anything that's happening in Europe until I absolutely have to, you know, like there's a world war or something.
But anyway, here's the good news.
This ex-UK prime minister, Liz Truss, she's called for what she calls a mega moment in Britain.
Well, you were all well informed.
Good for you.
Oh, she was prime minister for less than two months.
Okay.
Okay, now that makes sense.
Only briefly.
All right.
And she says that Britain needs sort of a Trump mega populist movement.
And she said that talking to Newsweek.
Quote, I want Britain to have its mega moment.
And in 10 years to save the West.
So she believes that the West needs to be saved and that the model for doing that is Donald Trump.
Do you remember when Trump, they said, was going to be mocked and the United States would be the laughingstock because we had a clown as a president, whereas the rest of them had real leaders?
Do you remember that?
How'd that idea hold up over time?
Well, guess what, Europe?
You all wish you had our president now, don't you?
Don't you?
Yeah, you do.
But you can't have him.
I don't think.
Can he, after he's done with his term here, can he go run another country?
I don't know.
Probably not.
Well, you may remember there was a COVID whistleblower in China, a Chinese citizen, who was sent to jail because you don't want to do too much whistleblowing in China.
That's not going to be good for you.
But I read for the first time what the charges were in 2020.
The charge was picking quarrels and provoking trouble.
That apparently you can go to jail for quote picking quarrels and provoking trouble.
Remind me never ever to go to China because you know what I do on a regular basis, about four times a day?
Picking quarrels and provoking trouble.
It's practically all I do.
It's almost my full-time job picking quarrels and provoking trouble.
But the part that's really not funny, like one of the best, most messed up things I've ever seen, is that, first of all, this whistleblower shouldn't be in jail at all.
But secondly, the term was over, and it was a she, I think it's a she, male or female.
I don't know.
What is Zhang?
Zhang, a male name?
So he, I think it's he, was set to be released, and China just decided, nah.
That's how their prison system works.
At the end of the term, time to release him.
Nah.
We're just going to keep him in jail.
So China is unsafe for business.
Do not physically go to China unless you happen to be the president of the United States and you're backed up by the entire U.S. military if things go, you know, go pear-shaped.
The rest of us, if you're not bringing the entire U.S. military to back you up and get you out of country, don't go because you don't know if you're ever coming back.
Did you see what I just did there?
Just now, what I just did?
That's called Picking Quarrels and Provoking Trouble.
Yeah, it's my middle name.
Well, once again, Russia has conducted a massive attack of drones on Ukraine, Newsmax is reporting.
How many?
There were 580 drones that came out of Russia and 40 missiles.
580 drones on one night.
580.
Now, my question, as you know, is what's the upper limit?
If they're still fighting a year from now, is that number going to be 10,000?
How far are we from an everynight attack of 10,000 drones?
Like, even if 5,000 of them got lasered out of the sky, could you just add another five the next day?
Because if both Russia and Ukraine are working as fast as they can on manufacturing of drones, and they both clearly understand that the way to win anything here, if you can win, I don't know if winning is an option.
But the only way it could be an option is if one of the sides can reach 10,000 drones when the other one's only up to 1,000.
So if you were to guess how long it will take Russia to go from 580 drones at the same time to 10,000 and just blacking out the sky over Kiev, Kiev, Kiev, Kevin, It's not a year, maybe I don't know nine months or something.
So that's coming.
Marco Rubio said about Venezuela that Maduro, who allegedly is the president, Rubio said, said Maduro is not the president of Venezuela.
He's the head of the Cartel de la Souls, a narco-terror organization that took over the country.
Does that sound like we're not going to attack their country?
If the Secretary of State says you're not actually the leader of the country, you're head of a cartel, doesn't that really signal that we're going in?
Now, I don't know if that means boots on the ground, but I would say there's now 100% chance that the U.S. is preparing a military operation to decapitate the government.
I don't think they want to spend one minute fighting any Venezuelan soldiers if they can avoid it.
I mean, it would be unavoidable.
But I'm pretty sure that the U.S. has decided that if we can't bring them down without a direct attack on the capital, I feel like we're going to do a decapitation strike.
What do you think?
Because Rubio is setting it up that if we were to let me put it this way: if we assassinated the leader of another country, we would get all kinds of pushback, right?
Like even the countries that like us would say, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, you can't go assassinating the leaders of the countries you don't like because then they're going to assassinate us.
And there's sort of this weird agreement among leaders, no matter how much they hate each other, that everything would be worse if we assassinate a leader of another country.
Like everything would be worse.
And it's sort of everybody sort of understands that at a real base level.
Okay, you can't take out the leader of the other country.
But what if, what if the leader of the other country wasn't really the leader, according to us?
What if he was really just the head of a cartel who took over the country?
Well, you could assassinate the head of a cartel, right?
So it appears that we have just set up the predicate, I guess.
Is that the right word?
Have we established the predicate for a decapitation strike that takes out Maduro and his generals?
Yes, that's exactly what happened.
Now, whether or not we plan to literally do that, the pressure that it puts on Maduro is the right kind of pressure.
Because Maduro can never go to bed again without expecting a knock on the ceiling, if you know what I mean.
So we're clearly bringing up the turning up the temperature.
I guess the U.S. sunk a fourth suspected drug boat in the Caribbean.
And hey, hello.
If you're listening but not watching, Gary the Cat has made his stop by.
Those of you watching, always look for Gary.
Gary is the happiest, friendliest, most loving cat in the entire world.
His brother, his brother is just my roommate.
I've got one cat that basically just acts like a roommate, doesn't look at me with any loving eyes or anything like that.
It's just, you know, he's there for the food and the shelter.
But Gary seems to be in love.
Gary acts like he can't get it off of me.
I mean, it's, oh my God, it's that guy again.
I cannot get enough of him.
I'm going to rub every part of my body on every part of him.
Watch this.
So that's Gary the cat.
Anyway, what I was saying is we've sunk four of these drug boats now off of Venezuela.
And my question is: how many drug boats are there in one night?
If I told you that we sang four of them, let's say hypothetically, we sank them all the same night, would that be four out of four?
How many are there?
If you were on a boat in that part of the ocean, would you just see drug boat after drug boat go by?
And our military is doing the best they can, but they can only get one every day or two?
Are there hundreds?
How many of them don't look exactly like drug boats?
Imagine if you're a smuggler and you're planning to take your drug boat that looks exactly like a drug boat and doesn't look like anything but a drug boat.
It's clearly, obviously, by its design and purpose and where it is and at what time it's operating.
Obviously, a drug boat.
Don't you think that by now they would have figured out how to make it not look like a drug boat?
Don't you think by now they would have made it look like a family of white people on vacation?
You know, hey, we just have a nice boat.
Hey, hey, hey, military.
Yeah, here's the kids.
And do you think they'll start putting innocent children on the drug boats?
How long is that going to take?
Yeah.
Yeah.
So Hamas is over there in the news every day with their hostages.
You don't think that the cartels, even one time, have thought to themselves, you know, we do have all these little children we're trafficking.
We could put the children on the boat, traffic some children, make it look like, you know, it's too dangerous to blow it up, and fill it with drugs at the same time.
So I don't know what the cartels are doing, but they're not doing much of a much of a defense there, unless unless the drug boats are a decoy or something.
Well, you know, when we left Afghanistan, we abandoned that the biggest best U.S. air base, Bagram.
And now Trump apparently has opened talks with the Taliban demanding that they give at least part of the base back to us that we would use again for military attacks against terrorists.
Now, what do you think the Taliban said?
What do you think the Taliban said when we said, I got an idea.
You won the war.
You know, you got us to leave and now you have the whole country.
But you know what would be great is if you gave us some of it back so we could put a big military presence right in the middle of your country again.
How about that?
Well, you might be surprised to learn that the Taliban's position is not one inch of their property is going anywhere.
Heavy Headers00:05:50
And no, that's a hard no.
But Trump has already warned that there will be hell to pay if they don't cooperate and just give us, I don't think he wants to pay for it, just give us part of Bagram back.
Now, do you remember what I say about Trump, that he does so well?
He goes strong, even if it doesn't work out.
This is just the perfect example.
Now, who asked for people to just give them land in the middle of their country for a purpose that they really, really don't want you to do, which is to have a military base there?
Who does that?
Like, who even asks?
It wouldn't even occur to me that we would have a conversation with the Taliban about that or that there's any chance at all that it might work out.
But Trump goes strong.
He has an argument for why it would be good for us.
I understand the argument.
I definitely would like us to have a little Bagram if it's going to make it easier for the military to do what they're going to do anyway.
So it's worth asking.
The worst that could happen, well, maybe it's not the worst, but one of the things that happened is they say no.
Maybe we put enough pressure on them that they say, oh, damn it, we got to say yes now.
Maybe.
But whether it works out or it doesn't work out, that is a strong play to go to your, I'm not sure they're the enemy, but to go to them and say, why don't you just give us the base?
And if you don't, we're really going to make your life miserable.
That is strong.
Might be wrong, might not work, but you're going to remember how strong it was.
So it's right even if it's wrong.
I wonder if there's any science that didn't need to be done because people could have just asked me and saved a lot of time.
Well, according to Science Alert, Carly Casalo is writing that they've discovered in a large study that doing headers in soccer damages the brain even without concussions.
Let's see.
I wonder if I would have known the answer to this question.
Scott, if a surprisingly heavy and hard object called a soccer ball hits you in the head, is it likely to cause brain damage?
Well, how many times?
700.
Wait, what?
Yeah, it's a heavy, hard object.
It's going to hit people's heads pretty hard in the context of a game.
Will that cause brain problems?
Well, maybe not once, but 700 times.
It's heavy.
It's heavy in the sense that when it's traveling, whoever is saying heavy, like you're challenging whether a soccer ball is heavy, apparently you've never been hit in the head with a fast-moving soccer ball.
Do you know how heavy that feels if you get hit at a high speed?
You know, soccer used to be one of my favorite games.
And do you know how I would handle headers?
I had a way of handling headers.
I would miss the ball.
Oops.
Yeah.
My entire life I said to myself, I love this game, soccer, and I don't even mind if I hurt my leg.
You know, it'll get better.
But I'm not going to injure my head.
I'm not going to injure my head for a game.
So for all of my soccer playing years, when I jumped up for a header, I just didn't get it.
I guess I'm not that good at headers because the other team got it, and sometimes my team got it.
But man, I was in that middle of that play.
I jumped up and moved my head.
I just made sure that a fast-moving, way too heavy object never hit my head.
So did I know that having that heavy object hit my head over and over and over and over again would be bad for my brain, even if technically it wasn't a concussion?
Yeah, I knew that.
I absolutely knew that.
Why?
Because I feel what it feels like when it hits me.
There's no way that's good for my brain.
No way.
I would go further, and I think that headers in soccer should absolutely be banned at every level.
It doesn't make the game better.
Right?
Does it make the game worse that you have to wait for the ball to reach the ground or reach your legs?
No.
No.
You know what?
Is a really bad game is if all of your touches of the ball are with your legs, you're like foot, foot, foot, foot, foot, foot.
And then you run in front of the goal, and then somebody kicks it in the air, and then you make the goal with your head.
It's like suddenly you change games.
It's not even the same game anymore.
It's like, well, you weren't using your head until now.
I mean, much.
Anyway, headers should be banned.
Baltimore's Math Crisis00:06:31
So Zero Hedge is reporting that there's an educational crisis in the Baltimore high schools.
Apparently, in four straight years, this isn't funny.
Stop laughing.
There's nothing funny about this.
In four years, the entire Baltimore high school system has failed to produce a single proficient math student in four years.
not one.
Do you think that all the administrators and teachers kept their jobs when they produced zero success in what is generally considered the simplest thing you could ever succeed at?
Getting at least one person to be able to add.
Nope.
They couldn't pull that off.
So do you think there was a big house cleaning and they all got fired, the teachers and administrators?
Well, I don't know, but I doubt it.
Didn't happen after the first year.
Apparently, they've gone four years with zero students who can do math.
What percentage of the Baltimore schools are black?
What do you think?
What percentage of Baltimore high schools are black students?
What percent?
The answer is 73%.
And I think if you count all the other non-white ethnicities, I think it's over 90%.
Right.
Now, the obvious question is, what's going on here?
Now, some people are going to say, oh, some people who are racist are going to say, what's wrong with black people?
And then other people are going to say, it's culture, something about culture.
And then other people will say, you racist, you're saying it's about culture.
And then, you know, maybe people will offer to help and that help will be turned down unless it's money.
Because, you know, if you offer to help with money, then somebody could steal it.
So if you offer money that people can steal, they'll say yes.
But there's nothing else anybody's going to say yes.
And I want to say this again.
Black Americans, you have to work this out.
This one's on you.
For sure, people like me can't help you.
And the thing is, I'd be willing to try.
I'd be willing to try.
You know, I don't know what the solution would be, but I know that it would not be welcome and not just because it's me.
But I don't think any white people would be appreciated.
So, Black America, I do believe you are fully capable of solving this.
Maybe not turning Baltimore into the best school system in the world, but certainly getting at least one person to be able to add and subtract.
I mean, that'd be cool.
So you could definitely do that.
I mean, I'm exaggerating, of course.
It's higher math.
But if it sounds like I'm not being helpful, because I just told you, I can't help.
Like, even if I wanted to, it would go to nothing.
I think it is helpful to say we're not going to help.
The only way this gets better is if Black America somehow, and I don't know how, I don't have the first idea how this could get fixed.
No, I do.
I do have the first idea.
The first idea would be to send in a bunch of dads.
I think that worked in some school, where they bring in some dads so that there's some serious muscle there.
And then the kids have somebody they can trust to talk to, and they've got a father figure.
And maybe they can be coached into less anti-school behavior, I guess.
So I feel like I've seen stories where that has worked in individual schools.
Now, I guess I'd have to get confirmation of that.
But if you're not trying something like that, there's nothing else that's going to work.
And what else are you going to do?
Make the periods one minute longer?
What else do you have to work with?
You got nothing to work with.
There's no tools.
If the school system, a regular school that works for other people, doesn't work in any way at all in Baltimore, you're going to have to do something totally different.
And I am confident that Black America can solve this.
And I'm also confident that it would be helpful to make it clear that, you know, it's up to you.
It's up to you guys.
You got to solve this and let us know how it turns out.
All right.
That's all I've got from my prepared comments.
Do you notice that I went long today?
It's because I'm trying to entertain the people.
Well, I guess the Charlie Kirk Memorial is started now.
So you don't need me anymore.
All right.
You don't need me anymore if you're at the Charlie Kirk thing.
And those of you who want to go watch that now, go ahead.
Oh, wait.
No, this, no, you're still waiting because this is only the time that you were let into the venue.
The actual event will be in a few hours.
So I hope it was useful that I gave you a little extra long commercial free, I hope, content, because all those other lazy podcasters are taking the day off or they're in church or something.
But today I knew that you might need a little extra.
All right.
I'm going to talk privately to my beloved local subscribers.