Lefty violence and lots of other headlines to reframe for you~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Politics, Corporate AI Expense Reduction, Squirrel Attacks, MAHA Successes, Ex-President Sarkozy Jailed, Scott Bessent, Bessent Warns NYC, Oklahoma Schools, Casey DeSantis, FL Cancer Innovation Fund, Ivermectin, President Trump, Kamala Harris, Right vs Left Rhetoric, Democrats Promoting Violence, UN Escalator, UN Teleprompter, UN Sound System, Joshua Jahn ICE Shooting, JD Vance, ABC News Greenberg Documentary, Josh Shapiro, Clinton Global Initiative, Gavin Newsom 2028, Hillary Clinton, Pro-Violence Brainwashing, James Comey, Antifa Domestic Terrorist Arrests, Incompetent Congress, Russ Vought, Mass Fed Firing Threat, Black-American Advantage, Jezebel Witches Cursed Kirk, Denmark Drone Incursions, Ukraine War, EU Energy Stupidity, Cartel Drone Warfare Training, Greta Thunberg Flotilla, Scott Adams
Uh I would check your stocks, but doesn't look like good news on the stock market.
So we'll just ignore that.
And instead have the best live stream you've ever seen.
Yeah.
do Boom boom boom.
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called a 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 up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny shiny human brains, all you need for that is a copper mugger and glass attack or chalicers in a canteen jugger flask, vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called that's right.
the simultaneous step but it happens now sip-tastic Incredible.
Well, I have a movie review for you.
The movie Fantastic 4 is now on streaming.
So I watched oh maybe half of it or a third of it last night.
Um the reason I didn't watch the whole movie is don't bother.
It's so bad.
So apparently Hollywood has come up with a new technique for casting for at least for a superhero movies.
Instead of attractive charismatic actors, they they put in homely actors you don't even want to look at for a second.
I mean, one of them is famous, but he's he's better if he's wearing a full costume, so you can't see his face.
I hate to say it.
But uh yeah, the Fantastic Four is uh poor effects, um terrible casting, and absolutely unwatchable completely.
Yeah, you know, it looked like they looked like they made it in a basement or something.
It looked terrible.
Well, I'd like to give you a little warning about owning a cat.
Uh I've already told my subscribers on locals this, but you know, one of the things about having a licensed character is you get to keep some of the cool things like this little um squishy thing, you know, you can squeeze and stuff.
So I've got most of the main characters in squeeze, but I only have one set.
You know, I don't I don't have two of these, I just have one of them.
And so if anything happened to one of these, well, I wouldn't be very happy about that.
And then I had a cat.
Uh, this is what's left of the Alice character.
Uh I found her head in my shoe, which I believe was not a random act, I believe it was a planned terrorist act.
That's right.
My cat is a terrorist, and uh, if this is if that's not a warning, I don't know what is.
You know what this warning says?
Don't bring a woman into this house to compete with us.
We are the stars of the house.
Message received.
All right.
Well, there's a news study that didn't need to be done, uh, in which they found that rising gun violence in movies uh might be increasing youth firearm homicides, according to Sci Post, Eric Nolan is writing about this.
Now, how many of you would have already known that the more firearms that there are in movies and games, the more likely young people are gonna use firearms for bad purposes?
Is there anybody who didn't know that that's obvious?
Now, I'm not In favor of you know censoring that stuff, but where do you think people get the idea to use a gun?
If they'd never heard of a gun, like literally never heard of one.
Do you think that they would go buy one?
No, you have to at least know they exist.
You have to know kind of what it looks like to use one, and then you have to have that idea just pounded into your head day after day after day after day until you get mad at something or somebody.
What's the first thing you think of?
Oh, gun.
So it's not uh, you know, it's not one-to-one.
If you watch a movie about guns, you're gonna go shoot something.
It's not that, but if you have enough people, and you just fill them with gun content, yes, absolutely 100%, no doubt about it.
Speaking as a hypnotist, uh, the repetition alone will cause some percentage of people to shoot somebody that they would have not have shot otherwise.
So that's a real thing.
And by the way, it's not that different from what I'll talk about in a bit, which is the political rhetoric causing people to do things that they wouldn't have done without the rhetoric.
Doesn't mean you have to give up free speech, it doesn't mean you have to give up your guns.
It does mean you should be aware of the price of these freedoms.
It's not all good.
Well, here's something I sort of have been hinting at for a long time.
Apparently, uh, according to an article in Futurism, Frank Landymore is writing that uh AI has not been boosting the productivity of or the profitability of companies.
So they did a study and looked at what companies are using AI for and found that 95% of companies that gambled on integrating AI into their process saw no meaningful growth in revenue.
Well, you know, you would think that what they're trying to do is uh reduce their expenses.
I I wouldn't think it would necessarily be expected to grow revenue, um, you know, maybe return on investment, but not revenue.
I don't, you know, there aren't too many ways to use AI that would increase revenue that I'm aware of.
Um they you know they still can't sell as well as a human and etc.
Well, that's one that you could have just asked me.
Um apparently a lot of them are looking to hire back people that they got rid of, and um so that's pretty much what I warned you would happen, and even the people using AI for writing code.
Um, there's some indication it might be slowing them down instead of making them better.
But I think that's a mixed bag.
I think in some cases it definitely speeds things up.
Well, in uh California, according to the uh Daily Mail, there's been a uh wave of squirrel attacks.
So squirrels are attacking humans, uh jumping right up on their faces and trying to tear them to death.
Um at least two people have been sent to the emergency room from squirrel attack, uh, and they're happening near me in San Rafael.
That's not super near, but driving distance.
Um, so these squirrels are becoming dangerous.
Um my only comment about these squirrels starting dangerous are I didn't even know squirrels could be democrats.
I'll let that sit there for a moment while you savor it.
Um but uh my advice is you know what I'm gonna say.
You already know what I'm gonna say.
There's a dad joke coming.
Guard your nuts.
All right, well, somebody had to say it.
If I hadn't said it, you would have said it, right?
It's not like you weren't ready.
I'm gonna say it.
I'm gonna say something about watch your nuts watch.
Nobody will think of this.
Ha, I got there first.
Uh well, uh, Secretary Kennedy is uh happy that uh Maha has another win.
Apparently, the UTS brands, UTZ, I guess that's a big food brand.
Um, they're gonna fully transition away from synthetic dyes by the end of 2027.
So Maha gets another win, and uh and Kennedy is urging other companies to follow suit.
So far, I'm liking what I'm seeing because you're seeing a lot of voluntary action, and that's the best.
I mean, if you can get them to do things voluntarily, all right.
Another news.
The former French president just got a sentence to five years in prison for, I guess back in I don't know, 2007 or something.
Um it was a while ago, he uh allegedly, and now he's convicted of uh accepting money for his campaign from Libyan leader Mo Mark Gaddafi.
So New York Times is writing about this.
So that was surprised are you that a leader of a major country, one of our allies, was I hate to say a crook, but what would you call it if somebody takes money from a Libyan dictator to uh run for president?
I don't know, it's crooked, but I don't I don't know exactly what the word for that would be, but uh there he goes.
Now my question would be this.
How many ex-leaders of major countries?
And I'm talking about you know, NATO countries, not not small little countries, but how many of them do you think you could find an actual crime at least as bad as this one, which is accepting uh campaign funds from a dictator.
Don't you feel like it's nearly all of them?
Uh I feel like the only thing that's different about Sarkozy is that maybe it got caught.
Don't you think they've all done a little little something something?
Is it just me?
I feel like you know, if you tried, you could put every one of them in jail.
So I don't know if the real story is there.
Maybe it had more to do with somebody wanting him in jail than what it was he did.
Well, Scott Besent, head of the treasury, um, says that if a Zoran Mamdanny gets elected mayor in New York City, and as you know, he's a commie mum dummy.
Um Scott Besson says that if New York City asks for a bailout, because they have money problems from the if they ask for a bailout from the federal government, um they will not get it, and they will be told to drop dead.
So that's another reason to not vote for the communist, um, because there would be no reason throwing good money after bad.
So the feds would say, well, you voted for him, you work it out.
So it feels like a reasonable position.
We'll see if they change their mind.
Well, as you know, um, nearly all schools are left-leaning, and uh Oklahoma just came up with a uh sort of a stopgap way to address the fact that the teachers' unions and the schools are pretty much thoroughly left-leaning, and what they're gonna do is establish turning point USA chapters in all state high schools, according to the the Epoch Times.
Joseph Lord is writing about this.
So, what do you think of that idea?
The so Oklahoma is going to force.
I mean, they don't have to force it too hard because people want to do it.
Uh turning points in every single state high school.
I like that.
I like that better than trying to erase the left-leaning influence.
Um, just put another influence in there, and uh if we do Thailand all Americans instead of autistic when they do something dumb.
Eric Erickson is saying the high school boys are calling each other Thailand all-Americans instead of autists.
All right, They're cruel.
They're cruel.
It's funny though.
Anyway.
So Oklahoma, good experiment.
We don't know if it'll work, but definitely worth a shot.
Let's see.
There's a the college fix is writing about there's a large study of uh syllabi in colleges.
You know, the syllabi.
That would be plural of syllabus.
Yeah, the syllabi.
Uh so they looked at the syllabi, which is you know, the the list of what they're going to teach in the classes, and uh they found out that the uh college professors predominantly present left-wing perspective on all the uh all the you know controversial stuff.
So if it's anything from uh you know the Palestinian situation, abortion, etc.
Racial bias, all those things.
You get only the left-wing view.
So do you think colleges need their own turning point USA?
Yes, they do.
Yes, they do.
Well, the first lady of Florida, Casey DeSantis.
Um, she's getting involved in looking into cancer studies, and she's looking into generic drugs or drugs that already exist, and uh is gonna find out if any of them have a purpose or a use in cancer, and she mentioned ivermectin as the the one that's sort of at the top of the interest list.
Now, you know what I'm gonna say, right?
Well, as luck would have it, I have cancer, so I know a little bit more about this topic than those who don't have cancer, probably, unless you're a doctor.
Well, what do you think I'm gonna say about ivoromectin being a cure for cancer?
You you've heard me before.
All right, I'm a little surprised that this is still a question, and that well-meaning, intelligent, you know, educated people are still believing that there's a real good chance that ivorymectin cures cancer.
Here's what you would need, and I've said this before.
This is what you would need to convince me that there's something to it.
Now, obviously, a you know, randomized controlled, you know, gold standard study would be great.
But short of that, I would I would settle for anybody who had an incurable cancer who cured it with ivermectin.
Now I know what you're gonna say, but but but Scott, I heard about that guy.
No, you didn't.
No, you didn't.
You did not hear about a guy who got cured of cancer with ivermectin.
You believe you did, and there's a there's a real person named with a real name and has a real life, and if you asked them, he'd say, 'Oh yeah, this ivermectin cured my cancer.
But what you would need to convince me, and ideally it's one do it what it would take to convince you as well,' is you would need the patient with a story.
You'd need the oncologist, not any other doctor, you know, not some random doctor, but the actual oncologist who treated them.
You would have to see their medical records, and you would have to see in the medical records that they used no other treatment, nothing else.
And then you can say, well, this was incurable.
The doctor can confirm that this is the only thing that they did.
You can look at the record, you see that they used to have terrible cancer, and look at this updated medical record.
It's all clear now.
Well, you're never gonna see that.
Do you know why?
If it were true that ivormectin worked, obviously the oncologists would know about it by now.
Not everyone, but clearly there would be an oncologist who had a patient who said, Oh my god, we've we may have discovered something amazing.
So let's let's at least share it with the world and see.
You know, maybe somebody else is noticing this too.
But there's not one.
Not one.
Not one oncologist with a patient with, and this is very important.
You can't leave this out with the medical record before and after.
How hard would that be?
Now, um, I think a year and a half ago, I told you I was working on a very big project.
Uh didn't work out.
The big project was I tried ivermectin, and if it had cured my cancer or even reduced it a little bit, I would have told everybody.
I would have forced my oncologist to go public and say, look, you're coming with me.
Well, I don't do that kind of thing.
Yes, you do.
Yeah, you're coming with me.
You're gonna be on this, you're gonna you're gonna tell the world, uh, you're gonna show them my medical record, and you're gonna confirm with me that this cured my cancer that was uncurable.
Well, nothing like that happened, but I did get on uh testosterone blockers, which um had a huge, just a gigantic impact on reducing my symptoms, etc.
It's not a cure, but my guess is that the people who have claims that the ivermectin worked, they're either lying or they might have been on something else, such as testosterone blockers, and they're just not talking about it.
So there's something going on, but I will give you a 100% odds that you can't just take nothing but ifermectin and cure your cancer.
I I will give a 100% certainty of that.
You would definitely know about it by now, because every oncologist would want to go public with that if they'd even seen it once, right?
Now you will see some doctors say, Um, yes, it cured all kinds of people, all of my patients.
Oh, so many of my patients are cured of it.
They're all making money by selling you that advice.
Find somebody who was going to make the same amount of money whether you got cured or not.
That would be my oncologist, it's just a Kaiser oncologist, so he gets paid the same.
If you can give somebody who gets paid the same, no matter whether it works or not, and they say it works, well, I would listen to that, but don't listen to somebody who's made a career out of it.
That uh that that's just not credible by its nature.
All right, uh, let me tell you what will happen as soon as I get back on X. There will be somebody who said, Scott, you fucking idiot.
I know of the one guy who cured.
No, listen to me.
If all you know is the name of one guy, you don't have anything.
But Scott, I know this doctor who says he or she is cured.
No, doesn't count, just the doctor, doesn't count, worth nothing.
But Scott, I saw the medical record.
No, you didn't.
No, you didn't.
You need the patient, you need the doctor who treated him, the oncologist, not some random doctor, and you need the medical records before and after.
Anything short of that is bullshit.
All right, that's my final word on that.
Uh, Trump is talking about uh Kamala Harris and uh is referred to as quote, dumb as a rock, and he's complaining because Kamala keeps saying on her book tour that uh she saying on her book tour that uh she lost the election, but it was the closest presidential election, you know, in a lifetime or something.
This is not even close to true, it's just totally made up out of nothing.
And does she really think that we didn't pay attention to the presidential election?
Is there anything that got more publicity than the presidential election?
Who how who in the world thinks it was close?
As in closer than anything's ever been.
Well, it was not.
Um, but it does make you wonder if she believes it.
So Trump said it wasn't close, she's dumb as a rock, and uh California's election was rigged.
So there's that.
Now I would compare the rhetoric from the right to the rhetoric from the left.
So here's some you know hard rhetoric from the right.
If uh you heard that Trump called Kamala dumb as a rock, would you buy a gun and climb on a roof and try to hurt her?
Because after all, she's dumb as a rock.
No, no, you would not, because you don't shoot people because somebody said their brain isn't good.
That doesn't happen.
But what would happen if you said, oh, it's a dictator trying to steal your democracy, he's a Nazi, and he's trying to be another Hitler.
Well, you might.
If you believe that were is literally true, there's nothing you wouldn't do.
But no, dumb as Iraq, that does not motivate people to violence.
Um so Trump is calling for uh an immediate investigation about the UN events.
He so there were three systems of failed that all impacted Trump directly.
So the escalator failed the moment that he and uh Melania got on it, so that they had to walk up the steps, you know, kind of kind of uh inelegant, and uh certainly bothered him.
But the UN said, oh, we looked into it, and it was just uh a weird coincidental mistake.
Maybe, but then the teleprompter didn't work for the first 15 minutes, and just that I mean that happens sometimes, right?
But luckily Trump is one of the most uh maybe the most gifted public speaker we've ever seen in America, and so he didn't need the teleprompter, he could just do his thing until it worked, and then he then he got back on it.
Um then also I didn't realize this that the sound system in the room didn't work.
So the only way you could have heard him is if you had the um the interpreter uh headphones in, I think.
It wasn't projecting just you know to the room in general.
So those are three things which if you told me that all three of them happened by coincidence and to the same leader, I would say to you, no, no.
One of those things, maybe one maybe.
Three, the the three things that are most directly related to him being able to do his thing, no.
Now that's uh I can be wrong, right?
We live in a world where you know strange things do happen, but if you're gonna ask me to believe that was completely a coincidence, no.
Uh I've seen I saw at least one person say, was it uh somebody uh right, um that it was a message being sent to Trump, a message.
I don't even know, I wouldn't even go that far.
More likely just somebody who thought they could mess with him.
I doubt it was a message message from anybody important.
Well, Gavin Newsom continues his uh uh dangerous rhetoric.
Um he ordered what he called a code red and ordered his base to quote push back against the quote gestapo.
So if you tell your your base that you have a code red, does that sound like an exaggeration?
It doesn't.
It sounds like you're really warning them of an actual physical immediate danger.
That's that's how I hear it.
Do you hear that differently?
What why would a leader say there's a code red about something that important?
I mean, if it were something unimportant, like, oh, there are too many traffic tickets, it's a code red.
Well, you wouldn't take that seriously.
But if you're talking about the government of the country, and you say it's a code red because the Gestapo is taking over, that sounds like you mean it.
Now, most people are gonna know it's not exactly literal.
But if you've got tens of millions of people hearing the same message, some, unfortunately, too many will think that that is literally what's happening, because that's what they heard.
I heard that's happening.
So in the backdrop of Newsom with this super dangerous rhetoric, an ICE facility got shot up just hours after he said that.
Jesse Waters talking about it on Fox News.
And uh and also Tom Holman apparently uh I didn't know this, but Jesse Waters said it.
Um he's been forced out of his home because the threats are too high.
And uh Newsom wants the ice agents to be unmasked.
Um so some uh young man, 29 years old, uh Joshua John.
He shot uh several bullets into a Dallas ICE facility, which uh had the unfortunate effect of uh killing one detainee, one uh non-citizen, and critically wounding two others that were in a transport van, and then uh I guess John killed himself.
And uh the shell casings apparently are engraved with the message anti-ICE.
Now Geraldo Rivero.
Um I think fairly, I think it's fair that he said uh that he's entirely unconvinced that it was an ice that it was somebody who was against ice because who they killed were only the people ICE picked up.
And maybe, you know, maybe there was some way for the shooter to know that he was shooting the people he presumably would have wanted to protect.
So there's something about the story that doesn't make sense unless the shooter was shooting randomly, or didn't know exactly where he was shooting, or was you know, literally insane and more than just a shooter wave to be insane?
So there is a little bit of fog of war here, but um the conservatives who say uh anti-ICE on the bullet, we're kind of done here.
There's no additional investigation needed.
He wrote it on the bullets.
Now that's a pretty good argument, but it also doesn't explain why he shot who he shot, you know, even from a distance from a roof.
Wouldn't you know that the van would be full of uh full of the people you're trying to protect instead of the people you're trying to kill?
Wouldn't anybody know that?
That the van is not gonna be full of employees, is it at an ice facility?
So I do think that there's cause for a little bit, a little bit of wait and see, but just a little bit.
So I'm gonna give Geraldo a Geraldo's an advocate for uh non-legal citizens in a number of domains, and uh I don't know.
I'll I'm gonna give him a little bit of uh grace on that point.
I don't think it's gonna come down that way.
I think it'll be exactly what it looks like, and the guy wasn't you know, just shot the wrong place.
That that seems to me believable.
But I'll wait.
I I do assume that it's exactly what it looks like, but it might not be.
Could be could be fooled.
Well, JD Vance had some strong words to say about Gavin Newsom and other people with this strong rhetoric, and he said, you can go straight to hell, and you have no place in the political conversation in the United States.
Um he said more.
He said, Because here's what happens when Democrats like Gavin Newsom say these people are quote, part of an authoritarian government, when they lie about who they're arresting, uh, what they're doing is encouraging crazy people to go and commit violence.
You don't have to agree with our policies, but if your Political rhetoric encourages violence against our law enforcement.
You can go straight to hell.
Now, it seems like everybody is doing this.
Um, I have to use some curse words to look like a strong leader.
I feel like it's already overdone.
Are you having that feeling that it's overdone?
I I mean, I think uh JD used it in an appropriate way and goes straight to hell is not the worst thing that anybody said, it's not you know, it's not things that Newsom is saying at the moment.
So I mean it's a little bit controlled and it is on point, and it does make you know show the depth of his feeling about it.
So I I would say it's well chosen, but uh I'm just seeing so much of it now that it feels like they've you know leaders are running out of ideas.
It's like you don't really need to do that, do you?
Now I don't mind it.
I mean, I'm not against cursing, it's just if you do too much of it and it becomes gratuitous, yeah, it loses its uh its power.
However, I don't think JD lost power on this one, so this is more reminding me that there's too much of it.
I don't I don't think he overused it in this particular case.
Um but JD also said, and I think this is important.
Um he said, I think in particular, my Democrat colleagues need to ask some very hard questions about why it is that folks from their side of the political aisle seem to be engaged in these politically motivated attacks.
And I think it's important for them to look in the mirror and say, uh, you know, can we actually take some steps?
Blah blah.
But he also says, can we actually take some steps to police some of the violent rhetoric on our own side?
Now that's what I want to see.
That's exactly what I want to say.
I want to see some acknowledgement that it's not a perfectly clean situation on either side, but maybe one is a little worse than the other.
But if you say it's only happening on one side, it only takes one example to prove you wrong, and you know, surely there will be one example.
So I like I like JD saying we have to police ourselves, you know, the right has to police itself, don't use this violent rhetoric.
Uh, if you want a chance of getting the left to do the same, and I think that's true.
So this is not one of those cases where you want to go, oh, they went hard and they used rhetoric to kill some of our people, so we should go hard and use rhetoric that might cause somebody to kill some of their people.
No, no, that's too far.
And in the long run, it's not going to help you.
It's going to be worse for the country in a big way, like in a really big way.
So, JD, I think um hit all of the notes kind of perfectly.
Kind of perfectly.
I'm impressed.
All right, I'm gonna get back to that in a minute.
But uh this story uh is really interesting, because I'm gonna tie together a few things here.
So it'll look like this has changed in the topic, but watch how I cleverly tie it all together.
So ABC News has a new documentary, and the important part of this story is that it's ABC News.
Now, you know, ABC News, we believe is sort of uh a left-leaning news entity, and you would not expect them to do anything that was clearly and unambiguously bad for a leading Democrat, right?
You wouldn't expect that.
But the ABC's news documentary is about a Pennsylvania woman, Ellen Greenberg, who was stabbed 20 times.
This was some years ago in 2011, and it was ruled as suicide by the then attorney general, Josh Shapiro.
So Josh Shapiro is often mentioned as the strongest or one of the strongest candidates for maybe future president.
Huh.
So why in the world would ABC News dredge up a Story from 2011 to try to destroy Josh Shapiro because it looks like that's the only purpose.
Why would the left destroy one of their leading names from the left?
Well, here's my belief.
All right.
This is speculation.
But I believe that the real criminal elements in the Democrat Party, I mean, the super criminals.
I'm talking about the the Clintons, super criminals, as far as I can tell.
Um they they are uh reinstituting their, what do you call it?
The uh Clinton global initiative, which we all believe was a money laundering operation.
And in order for that to work again, they would need not just uh Democrat in office, but they would need one that they could say, hey, other countries, uh this president whose office is not us, and it's not the Clintons, but it's somebody who's so tight with us that we can get them to do some favors if you give us a huge amount of money that we can launder into our own pockets, right?
So if the Clinton Global Initiative is starting up again or trying to, that must mean that they've picked somebody they know they can work with if that person becomes president.
And here's my speculation.
They don't think they can work with Josh Shapiro.
They do think they can make a lot of money with Gavin Newsom.
So what I'm gonna be looking for is to see if the most criminal people, the ones you just know are criminals, um, are all backing Newsom.
Because if they do, that would suggest they know that he can be he can be their Biden or their Obama or whatever they need him to be.
So I don't think it's a coincidence that ABC News is strangling one of their own.
The only reason to do that is if one of their own could beat Newsom in a primary, and Josh Shapiro could beat Newsom in a primary.
He does he does have the ability.
So that's what I think.
So I think that the power people in the Democrat Party have already picked Newsom.
It probably won't matter what the public thinks, because they will tell the public what to think.
That's how it works.
They'll just tell them he he's the guy.
He's the only one that can beat him.
And in the meantime, uh Hillary Clinton says, uh, I think it was yesterday, uh, we have to stop demonizing each other.
And then she demonized the Republicans.
It's it's almost it looks like a joke.
I mean, it looks like Saturday Night Live or something, where she says we have to stop demonizing them, and without taking a breath, she didn't even pause before she demonized them.
Incredible.
All right, uh, let me give you my strongest opinion on all this rhetoric stuff.
And uh, as JD said, uh, JD Vance, um, I also believe that there are people on the right who say things that go too far and might, but hasn't happened yet, might potentially you know cause somebody to act in a in a violent way, and we don't want that.
So I'm against that, however, there does seem to be a difference in the Reddick rhetoric on the two sides, you know.
As I said, calling somebody dumb as a rock doesn't make you want to do anything violent.
Saying somebody is Gestapo and they're taking power and they're gonna take your democracy definitely makes you think of violence.
So I'm gonna say that the Democrat leaders are 100% to blame for recent violence against Republicans.
Now, let me be clear.
The way our legal system works is that the people who pushed, you know, pulled the trigger are the only ones who can be blamed.
But that's because that's the only practical way to run a legal System.
You couldn't say, well, yeah, he murdered somebody, but in fourth grade, uh, he had some bad influences, or really, you know, it's that fourth grade influence.
That doesn't work.
The only way you can organize a society is that the person who does the act gets punished, but whoever talked them into it or influenced them or brainwash them, unless it's really direct and really immediate, doesn't count.
They get a pass.
Well, as a trained hypnotist who studies um persuasion a lot, let me tell you with 100% certainty, it is the Democrat leaders that are causing the violence.
There's not even the slightest chance that it's any other way.
Because do you know what causes action?
Ideas.
Simple actions like a reflex, there's not much thinking involved.
But a complex action, like I'm gonna do a plan, I'm gonna be in a place, I'll have these assets, I'll do this thing.
If it's a complex plan, then that only can happen because you have an idea.
Let's say the idea is that uh Hitler is taking over the country.
It doesn't have to be a correct idea, it just has to be a full idea in order to get a complex action.
Now, there's no exception to that.
Can we agree on that?
That for a human being to do a complex action, they have to have an idea in their head that matches the complex action.
Would you agree?
There's no question about that.
Now, what causes an idea to be in the head?
How many people would have thought, hey, I think I'll climb on a roof and start shooting people if they if their entire influence in life had been sitting in a darkened room by themselves.
If they had no one, if they had no input from anything, do you think they would say, huh, of all the things I could be doing, I feel like I'll get a gun and climb on a roof and start shooting people.
No, no, there's there is no way that that complex idea gets in your head without being put there.
It has to be put there.
You don't go looking for it, it has to be put there.
That's the way it all works.
It's the way it works on both sides, it's not just a democrat thing.
All of our complex ideas about politics on the right and the left were put there.
You don't have an original idea in your head, nor do I. All of our ideas were put there.
And so if somebody climbs on a roof and starts shooting, it is a reasonable question.
What put that there?
Now they might also be crazy, but even crazy people have a wide range of things they could have been doing that day.
Why'd they pick that one thing?
It's because somebody put it there.
And the way you put an idea in people's heads is what?
How do you put an idea in somebody's head?
Well, sometimes you can show an image, you know, meme, but mostly in politics it's words.
And those words are Nazi, Hitler, Gestapo, stealing your democracy, uh, autocrat, oligarch, oligarch doesn't get you killed.
I I will give Bernie credit, if I may.
Bernie Sanders is sort of he's always been a mixed bag.
Uh, he'll he'll do 10 things I hate, and then one thing where I'll go, oh, okay.
That's actually quite reasonable.
One of the things that Bernie Sanders does is he doesn't do this Hitler bullshit.
Does he?
I don't believe he does.
Uh now it also makes his rhetoric kind of you know empty.
They're an oligarch.
Do you do you do you climb on a roof to choose somebody who's an oligarch?
Not really.
Oligarch would be in the category of dumb as a rock.
That they both are just insults, typical, but you don't go kill somebody for being dumb as a rock, you don't kill somebody for being an oligarch.
Just you just don't.
But that Other stuff?
Oh, yeah.
You start making a plan if you hear those other words.
So words create ideas, ideas create action.
There's no other way it happens.
Pictures can augment the words, but even the pictures wouldn't do the trick without the words.
So the words are the key part there.
So I'm gonna say it again.
The Democrat leaders are not slightly maybe a little bit guilty.
They are 100%, there is no other thing.
There is no other thing at work.
It is only that 100% guilty for causing the violence.
And you could guarantee that there'd be more.
There's not, you know, if they continue talking the way they're talking, we haven't seen the end of it.
It's guaranteed to be more.
So I would ask, as J.D. Vance has noted, that Republicans start watching their own camp, right?
You've got a responsibility to make sure your side is saying dumb as a rock and not Nazi.
Now, we all use it.
I've done it myself.
But I've always been conscious that nobody would act on it.
You know, I'm sometimes just using it rhetorically or whatever.
But never, I'm never trying to sell it like it's actually Hitler.
Never.
But the Democrats are selling it like it's actually Hitler.
That gives them 100% guilt, not legally.
Because remember, our system only punishes the person who does the act.
So they're, you know, they can always say, well, you know, a person has free will.
I was just making a point.
It's not me.
No, it is you, you motherfucker.
Gavin Newsom, you are a piece of shit.
Now, does that make you want to climb on a building and do something bad?
No, no.
He's a piece of shit doesn't inspire violence.
So it's a well-chosen phrase.
But boy, he is garbage.
I mean, that man is absolute piece of shit.
Because he knows he's doing it.
He's by far smart enough to know that he is the primary driver of things right now.
And to imagine that he's okay with it.
Oh, my God.
Oh, my God.
He is a truly broken man.
Now, if I'd said he's truly evil and he wants you to die, then you would think, hmm, maybe violence is the right answer.
But if I say he's broken, it gives you a different feel, right?
You're like, oh, okay.
I need to fix this.
I need to make sure he doesn't get elected.
But I don't need to do any crazy violent stuff.
He's just broken.
So that man is broken.
So here's what I think.
Generally speaking, in this political realm, whenever the Democrats do something to Republicans, say lawfare, the Republicans say, yeah, we don't like lawfare, but they did it to us.
And the only way to stop it in the future is we do it to them.
That does not apply to violence.
You all know that, right?
If the Republicans decided or any individual Republicans decided on violence, that's not helping.
That doesn't move us forward.
So don't do it.
You will not be treated as a hero by Republicans if you do violence.
You will not be treated as a hero.
You will be treated as scum.
And you have to live with that.
But more importantly, I believe the Democrat Party is in the full collapse mode.
And you don't have to do anything violent, even if you were tempted.
You just don't have to.
Because things are moving very much in the right direction if you're on the right.
So I think you can wait this one out.
All right.
Apparently, James Comey...
the rumor is he'll be indicted for lying to Congress.
So he lied uh about five years ago.
Allegedly, allegedly he lied to Congress.
We're pretty sure that he did.
And uh I guess they have until the end of September, which is any moment now, um, to get in before the statute of limitations runs out.
So are you in favor of going after Trump's enemies?
Does it feel like Trump has an enemy list, or that um Cash Patel has an enemies list, allegedly he had a list of people in his book or something.
Well, um I don't know if Comey is the biggest criminal in this bunch, but uh this is one of those cases where they did jail, they did jail uh Republicans for behavior that's in this category.
You gotta do it, you have to do it.
Now, of course, um I only want this to happen if it's a real crime, really made a difference, and the court system you know operates the way it should, and they come to that conclusion.
I don't want him railroaded, you know.
I don't want to purely lawfare him, but uh there does need to be some lawfare balance, and uh he's gonna have some trouble coming.
Um JD Vance, when he's talking about the potential for uh legal action against all these various democrats, he said, quote, a lot of people broke the law in the last administration, they've got to face real justice, not just words, not just getting hauled before a committee on Capitol Hill.
If people broke the law, they have to actually be prosecuted.
Uh he says, I think the only thing the far left really responds to is power.
If they get off scot-free, they're and never investigated, they're gonna be prosecuted when they violate the law, and blah blah blah.
Now, here's what I think.
I I think the left has demonstrated that they'll use every tool at their disposal, no matter what the right does.
So I don't think it makes any difference.
I I think if the right punish them back the same way and put a bunch of them in jail, it wouldn't make any difference.
They're still going to use every tool that they can use, especially if it once worked or almost worked, such as law-faring Trump.
Almost worked.
You know, in some ways it worked, but not the way they wanted it to.
So I would disagree with JD that what the right does to the left makes a difference to what the left will do.
The left will use every tool that they have.
They're not they're not gonna say, oh, oh, you know what?
It worked the last time we tried it, but uh, we've noticed that the Republicans did not you know give it back to us as much as we gave it, so I I guess we won't do it again.
No, no, they're gonna use every tool every time.
So I'm in favor of the uh Republicans giving as good as they get, but not because it changes the behavior of the other team.
It's because you know you gotta use the toolbox.
If they give you a tool by you know justifying it as something that can happen in politics, once they've justified it's something that can happen in politics, then I think the Republicans are just taking players off the table, and they have every right to do that.
It would not be a moral or unethical to use their tool against them just to remove players.
So Comey's the player, not much of a player now, but a little bit.
And uh I think he's just a warm-up act.
I think Comey might be The easy one, because they can just say, all right, here's a video of him lying.
Here's the proof that he lied.
Here's the law that applies.
Boom.
So it could be that the uh the Trump administration wants to make sure that they get an easy win.
And then they can ramp up to get to Brennan and Clapper and maybe even Obama.
We'll see.
Well, apparently there's the first ever Antifa domestic terrorist arrest.
It's never happened before.
Um, the post-millennials writing about this.
Um several Antifa members were arrested in Eugene, Oregon.
Um, I guess they were terrorizing employees at some ice facility.
So they got arrested as domestic terrorists.
Well, we'll see if that works out.
I'm sure there'll be all kinds of legal challenges to that, but we'll see.
I thought somebody said that there's no such thing as a domestic terrorism law.
I I heard that the other day on social media, but is that true?
Do you get any extra penalty for being a domestic terrorist versus just bothering people where you shouldn't be?
I don't know.
I don't know about that.
I'll have to find out about it.
Well, the budget debacle is beginning again.
Uh Republicans won a seven-week extension.
Do you know why?
Because they're completely incompetent and unable to work with Democrats.
Do you know why they can't work with the Democrats to get something done on time?
Because the Democrats are completely incompetent and can't work with the Republicans.
So Congress is just completely broken on the most important thing they do, which is allocating money.
They just can't do it.
And it doesn't look like there's anything that will ever change that.
I I think you could change the personnel, wouldn't make any difference.
There's nothing you can do.
We're we're basically running headlong into financial certainly disaster, and nobody has even an idea what you would do differently.
So we're gonna kick this stupid can down the road.
I'm gonna hate the members of Congress with a white hot fire that I've you know, is at a level that you've never seen before.
Um meanwhile, the Democrats are pushing for hundreds of billions of dollars of extra spending for health care and some other things, but uh these are things which Congress intentionally looked at and decided not to do, at least the majority did.
And um, but apparently there's a new wrinkle.
So uh Russ uh Vaught um is saying that uh there might be massive layoffs if there's a shutdown of the government.
So if there's a government shutdown, the Trump administration is going to use it as an excuse to fire massive numbers of people that maybe wouldn't have been fired otherwise.
So do you think that the Democrats will cave?
Because they'll say, oh no, no, we have to save those thousands of Democrat jobs.
They might.
I've never seen anybody um offer to make this play before.
The all right, well, you can you can delay the budget, but if there's no budget, I'm gonna have to fire all the people who are unfunded.
Well, not all of them, some are some are necessary, but all you Democrats doing things that Democrats like, not funded.
So you're all fired.
And if you ever fund it, great, but there's nobody working there.
So you you'd be funding, you know, a hole.
Um, it feels like a good play.
I don't know how this will turn out yet.
I won't make a prediction, but it feels like a strong play by the Trump people.
Um, it's a brand new variable.
That's what Trump does so well.
If there's a situation that nobody could ever negotiate before, he'll add a new variable, and it's a new variable that changes the balance of everything.
So it's a new variable.
Um, at least in in concept, it's very well played by adding a new variable that's a strong one.
Well, there's I I may have the name wrong here, but it looked like there's a some YouTube channel by uh Cam Higby, maybe some other people.
It looks like they're trying to duplicate the um Charlie Kirk college debates.
So they went to TSU and they tried to do the thing where anybody could come up and debate them.
And uh it formed uh and they said there was an anti-white riot that erupted because they were so hated for just being uh white Christians with a you know MAGA hat that it just caused a riot, basically an anti-white riot, they called it.
But I uh was amused because I've I've seen Charlie Kirk do the same thing.
So they were doing the debate before, I guess before the trouble started, and there was a young black man, a student, who was pointing out um the discrimination and the inequality for uh black Americans.
And so I don't know if it was Cam or maybe he's just the one who does the videos.
Um so the young white guy who was taking the questions and the debate, he said, can you give me an example of let's say a law that uh would prevent you from doing something but allow me to do something?
Uh no.
No, I can't think of any examples.
All right, well, is there any non-legal thing that I can do that you can't do in America?
Uh well, all the things, you know, the the the you know, the the things, all the things.
So amazingly, black Americans don't know that they have superior rights in this country and have for a long time.
They have superior rights, meaning that uh if I wanted a job and I got uh got a choice to be black or white just for the purpose of looking for a job, what do you think I would pick?
I mean, seriously, I would pick black every time.
So would all of you.
That's why that's why literally nobody uh nobody claims to be white if they can also claim to be black.
Even Obama um downplayed his whiteness, you know, half white, because being black was his advantage, and he knew it.
So how do you fix that?
Because I don't think this model fixes it because they they hate the white guys in the red hats, so anything those guys say is not gonna stick.
But I keep thinking if I could mentor, you know, a uh an 18-year-old black kid, the first thing I'd say is, all right, you know that you have a huge advantage in employment, right?
And a huge advantage in getting scholarships, and a huge advantage in complaining.
Just you have an advantage in almost everything.
And if you find a place where you don't have an advantage, let's say a small business or something that's discriminating, because that would still exist, don't go there.
I would say, oh yeah, yeah, there are companies that might discriminate against you, but not big ones, not a fortune 500.
They're not going to discriminate, they're going to discriminate in your favor every time.
So go there.
Just don't go where you think there might be just some discrimination.
I'll tell you where to go, and you'll get a job every time.
How about if you were a young black professional and you wanted to get some mentoring, but you look around and you know, there's there are no other black faces in senior management.
Do you think you'd have trouble getting a white um a white, let's say uh executive of your company to agree to mentor you?
No, you would not have a trouble getting that.
They would say yes before you finished the sentence.
Uh Hi, Mr. So and so.
Uh you know, I wouldn't I wondered if you could mend.
Yes.
No, you're gonna get a yes before you finish the sentence.
You're gonna get a yes for mentoring, a yes for financing, a yes for hiring, a yes for college applications, a yes for medical school, a yes for law school.
How do you not know that?
If you're an 18-year-old black guy, how do you not know that all the advantages, the racist advantages are in your direction?
I don't know.
So, but the college debates are not going to change anybody's mind about that.
You need some entirely different process.
Well, you probably heard that Jezebel, which is a disreputable um lying piece of shit organization that I'm surprised is still in business, but it's a bunch of uh I don't know, feminists and horrible people, not the feminists are horrible people, but they're feminists and horrible people.
Uh they happen to be both.
And apparently they paid some witches that they found on Etsy to curse Charlie Kirk two days before he was assassinated, and they actually published that.
They published, I think they published it after he was assassinated, and they published it.
That they got witches to try to kill him, and he got killed.
So apparently Erica Kirk, uh widow of Charlie Kirk, was quote, genuinely rattled by it.
Now, I'm not a believer in witchcraft, so I would not have been too worried about the the witchiness of it.
But I'll tell you what I do believe in affirmations.
And I worry, I don't have proof of this, so this is you know a little bit of woo-woo on my my part.
But doesn't it seem that the things that happen in life are the things we're thinking about the most?
In my personal life, the way my life has turned out is very much similar to whatever I thought about and wanted the most, to the point where it looks like how can that even be a coincidence that the things I thought about the most actually happened?
Good and bad, good and bad.
My cancer, I've been thinking about since my 20s, the specific cancer, not just cancer, um, prostate cancer.
I've been worried about it and obsessed about it since I was in my 20s.
I started researching it in my 20s in anticipation of getting it.
Now, is that coincidence?
Well, it's you know, it's the most popular or common cancer for an adult man.
So on one hand, it's just a coincidence, but not even a big one.
Um, but I do worry that when people focus too much on one outcome, there's a weird bias toward that thing happening that I've noticed all my life, and it could be just my imagination.
You know, maybe there's nothing to it.
But uh when I hear that a bunch of witches and some writers at Jezebel all started to think about a bad thing happening to one person at the same time, and and on the same day.
You know, I don't believe in witchcraft, but I do wonder if we live in a simulation where you can cause it to collapse on a certain set of realities based on what you're thinking about.
I wonder.
Um the Trump administration wants Congress to end what is called anti-racist teacher training grants to universities.
The college fix is writing about this as well.
Now you might say to yourself, wait a minute, why would you want to end anti-racist?
Wouldn't that be like agreeing with racists?
No, the anti-racist stuff was the racist stuff.
The anti-racist stuff is basically saying that white people suck and white men suck more than The rest of the white people.
So, no, yes, the anti-racist stuff is racist.
Just overtly obviously, no question about it, way over the top racist.
And uh, yeah, I want that halted.
Um, according to the New York Post, uh, Trump is stopping uh, I guess there had been a regular report on food insecurity, but like everything else, it turned out to be uh fake data and uh the food insecurity would include anybody who wasn't sure if they could get food in the future.
So it's not people who are hungry or don't have food, it's people who just feel insecure about being able to have it in the future, and I'm not sure that's telling you what you need to know.
So probably it was a waste of money.
Um they stopped that.
Well, over in Denmark, there's some uh drones that have been plaguing them over airports and whatnot.
So multiple drones in the last few days, and the assumption was in the beginning that it was Russia and they were just you know messing with a NATO country.
Do you believe that Russia decided to you know skip over other countries and plague Denmark in particular?
Does that make sense?
That they wouldn't be doing it to you know, France and Germany and you know, Great Britain, but they decided to pick on Denmark of all places, and then to put a bunch of you know drones in the sky.
Now, some people are saying, but wait, we don't know that these are Russian drones, we don't.
Maybe they're UFOs.
Maybe this is the same problem that the USA had, right?
Um, but here's my takeaway from this.
Are you telling me that Denmark can't shoot down a drone?
Like any drones?
They don't have any way to shoot down a drone.
Seriously?
Denmark, a NATO country, can't shoot down a drone that's loitering.
It's not like the drones even like snuck in and attack something and blew up before you could get them.
They're just hanging around.
Are you telling me that drones, multiple drones, just hanging around for days?
And Denmark doesn't have the ability to shoot one down, and NATO doesn't have the ability to shoot one down.
What's going on here?
So I'm gonna say there's something about the story that's either seriously missing, or maybe what you know.
I I'm even trying to imagine what Russia would get out of this if it were them.
One thing they might get out of it is proving that there's no air defense, they have no air defense.
You know, uh I don't understand why the U.S. didn't shoot down our drones.
The the story was that they were actually our own drones.
So now I guess I understand why you don't shoot down your own drones, but Denmark doesn't seem to think it's theirs.
They can shoot those down, they're not manned.
Why in the world wouldn't you shoot it down?
I don't know.
Some missing in that story.
Well, uh, according to NSTE 1231, uh Trump is launching uh nuclear exercises in Europe, so they're doing some long-range bomber flights and stuff, and uh thinking is this is to just rattle uh Putin's cage because we don't have really much going on there that's gonna threaten them.
So at least you know, acting like we have a dangerous nuclear potential, which we do.
Um Rubio, talking about Ukraine, says that the Russian military losses are what he calls staggering.
The casualties in a single month exceed total U.S. death deaths in Afghanistan or Iraq.
Now, I don't know if that's a good comparison, because we had unusually low casualties in both Afghanistan and Iraq for the context of a war.
The other side had massive casualties, but there wasn't a normal war because it was so one-sided.
Um do you think that Russia has enough uh military losses that it will change anything?
I don't know.
We do know that uh uh Trump said unambiguously, with no hesitation, that any Russian military planes that fly over NATO territory, uh, they could just shoot them down.
Because you can't have the Russians just you know testing all the defenses and going home with no response.
So I don't know if that's gonna happen, but there might be a Russian plane that gets shot down.
And we'll see if that makes any difference to anything.
Uh Trump is saying that Ukraine, if they had the right weapons um that the US and others could provide, that they would actually be able to win back the territory they've lost.
Now, I don't know anybody who believes that that they could win back the territory.
I don't know anybody who thinks that's gonna happen.
But it goes further and saying, maybe they can get a little extra too, take some of Russia.
So I don't see how that could possibly happen with the current variables in play.
But Trump and uh the administration are still pushing the other countries to stop buying Russian oil and gas, and if he succeeded, if Trump succeeded in getting these other countries to stop buying, mostly China and India and some European, um, that would collapse the uh Russian economy and might bring them to the table.
But as others have pointed out, uh Russia still has the ability to turn off Europe's energy in the winter.
So are we seriously three and a half years into a war?
Are we seriously letting Europe's uh stupidity with energy affect us?
I mean, it's one thing when you know the situation first comes up, but spend three and a half years.
If if Europe is still depending on Russia for their energy and therefore cannot mount you know uh uh vigorous enough defense, uh I'm not sure how much we should protect them.
I mean, you need to do something for yourself as in work harder to get another source of uh energy.
Um Zelensky has warned Putin that he and uh Putin's officials need to find the nearest bomb shelter, uh the nearest one to the Kremlin, because he says the Kremlin's gonna come under direct attack.
Now, I I think they've sent a drone or two over there before, but sounds like Zelensky plans a more major attack on the Kremlin.
Now I don't know how Russia could fail to escalate if that happened.
I mean, the escalation is getting higher.
But do you think it's possible that Zelensky could dismantle the entire U Kremlin, like one drone at a time?
You know, if you just send dozens of them every day, and maybe one gets through every now and then, couldn't you make the Kremlin unusable in let's say a month?
Could you?
And if you did something like that, what would Russia do to respond?
Maybe they're doing everything they can do short of going nuclear.
I don't know.
So I have lots of questions about what Russia would do if we if we increase the pressure in any other way.
Apparently, there's some Mexican drug cartel members, according to publication The European Conservative, that uh joined the Ukrainian military so they could learn drone warfare.
So believe it or not, there are Spanish-speaking troops fighting for Ukraine, but apparently they're doing it more for their own training, and they are Colombian and Mexican, and that they're cartel members and they're terrorists, and they're gonna take this learning back.
Great, terrific.
Well, you know, Greta Tunberg's got her freedom flotilla, she calls it, trying to go over there and fix everything in Gaza.
Um, apparently it's being uh uh I'll say attacked um by jammers.
They're jamming their radios and playing ABBA on their radios on repeat.
Uh and they so if they keep their radios on all the goods ABBA on repeat.
And uh apparently there are some other um some other kinds of attacks, non-lethal attacks are happening, but mostly to make it really unpleasant to be on that flotilla.
Um the group said that Israeli military drones targeted five of their vessels.
There's quite a few vessels actually involved.
And damaged mass and communication equipment.
And it's the third assault on the aid-bearing ships, they say.
So they got fifty-one boats in that operation.
That's pretty big.
They sailed from Barcelona at the end of August.
They're gonna try to break that siege on Gaza.
Do you think they'll break the siege on Gaza?
Or will they just hear a lot more ABBA than they wanted to?
Yeah, it might be a Waterloo, exactly.
Waterloo.
Um, all right, ladies and gentlemen, that's all I have for you.
Sorry, I went long.
Um, I'm gonna talk to the local subscribers, my beloved local subscribers.
