Trump is funny. Opinions are flying. News that won't make you snooze.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Politics, Gut Health Importance, Apple AI Strategy, Ken Mahoney, Indivisible Opposes Schumer, Chuck Schumer, Hakeem Jeffries, democrat Corruption Projection, TPUSA Berkeley Violence, Inadequate Security Strategy, Proxy Stock Voters, Russian Humanoid Robot, ElevenLabs AI Voices, AI Cross-Checking AI, Justice Pessimism democrat Crimes, RFK Jr., Climate Models Plankton Omission, Ukraine War Drones, UK Data Sharing, Chemtrail Conspiracy Theory, H-1B Specialty Jobs, President Trump, WH Hall of Presidents, President Sheinbaum Palace Fence, 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.
Or do you like a sloppy blanket and a roll of paper towels as your background set?
At least it's sort of glowing green, so it's not like I didn't put any thought into it at all.
All right, I'm going to check on your stocks.
They're not doing much.
You're just sort of sitting there.
Just sort of sitting there.
All right, let me make sure that I've got all of the valuable comments highly visible in my new setup that I improved upon this morning.
So with any luck, I will be able to see in living color all of your...
Oh, perfect.
No.
Did he really disappear?
Stay right there.
Boom.
all right 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 of elevating your experience up to levels that no one can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need for that is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tanker Chalsterstein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
And it happens now.
Exquisite.
Divine.
Beyond compare.
Well, it looks like it's time for the morning reframe.
You love it.
You love to get reframed.
Well, it's from my book, Reframe Your Brain, the best-reviewed book I've ever written, which I wasn't expecting, actually.
But people loved it, and that was awesome.
How about this one?
You've heard this one before, but it works so well, and you need it so often that I'm going to give it to you again.
You ready?
So a common way to look at the world, the usual frame, would be that history is important.
I mean, it's how we got here.
It explains who gets what.
History is pretty important, wouldn't you agree?
And if you don't understand history, you might repeat it in the worst possible way.
Yep, history is important.
That's the usual frame.
But here's a reframe.
History doesn't exist.
History doesn't exist.
Give me a handful.
Grab some history.
Here you go.
Here's some history.
Where is it?
History is entirely in your mind.
If you don't want it to bother you, it doesn't need to because it doesn't exist.
You create the history in your mind and then you use it as a spear to poke yourself or a way to torture yourself.
And I'm not even talking about like the history of nations.
I mean, you could go into a whole different conversation about whether you and I should care about what was happening in the Middle East 3,000 years ago.
Maybe we don't care.
If the people who live there care, I mean, that's up to them.
But you and I don't have to even pay attention to the fact that any history ever happened.
Because to us, it doesn't exist at the moment.
Now, it comes far more useful when you're using this reframe in your personal life.
In your personal life, how many of you have done something that gives you shame, which is a complete waste of time feeling shame?
One of the best ways to make shame go away or any kind of whatever you would call your personal failure is to just remind yourself that it doesn't exist.
History doesn't exist.
You couldn't find some history and put it in a little bag and give it to somebody because there is none.
So, if you're being tortured by history, well, I just reframed it away for some percentage of you, it won't be a big percentage, but for some percentage of you, a few of you probably are going to message me later and say, I can't believe it, but there's this thing that's been bothering me my whole life.
You just made it away by you just made it go away by telling me that history doesn't exist.
And the moment I realized that that was absolutely true, there's nothing really to debate on that, the actual problem went away.
And there you go.
All right, that's your reframe for the day.
How many of you saw the Northern Lights?
Apparently, there was quite a show last night.
It did not extend down to my little neighborhood in California.
But for those of you in the northern part of the country and the world, did you get kind of a light show last night?
Apparently, it's going to be better tonight.
So, I can't imagine what would be better than like going outside and seeing this Aurora Borealis, like this natural wonder that's like the best thing that ever happened.
I mean, what could really be better than that?
Oh, here's something that's better.
It's the 2026 Dilbert calendar, which is now available at the Amazon store, but only the USA Amazon, you know, the one you use if you're in America.
That's the only place you can get it.
Not available in stores, only in Amazon.
More beautiful than the Aurora Borealis.
I know that seems like an overclaim, but wait till you see it.
You'll agree.
All right.
We have a little fact check.
Remember, if you're following any of the drama on the right side of the news, do you remember the, let's see, Ben Shapiro was on stage with Megan Kelly.
And Ben claimed that Candace Owens claimed, and this is the part that's not true, that Candace had suggested that Erica Kirk was somehow responsible for the or involved in the death of her husband.
And Megan Kelly said, What?
So, yeah, I'm paraphrasing, but she basically said some version of what?
Like, I do this for a living.
I've never heard of that.
How could I not have heard of that?
And I had the same experience, which is when I heard it, I was like, I didn't think Ben Shapiro would be wrong, factually.
He's very fact-based.
So I thought, really?
How could that have happened?
And I never would have heard of it.
Turns out it never happened.
So now we have the final word.
Yeah, it never happened.
I don't know what Ben saw or believed he saw, or maybe he just interpreted something differently than other people.
But in case you want to know factually, there's no evidence that Candace did that.
She has, I believe, and I think I'm accurate in saying this, but I want to be very careful.
I don't want to mischaracterize anybody's opinion, which would be easy in this case.
I believe Candace does have some questions about Turning Point USA, one or more persons who may have been doing things that sort of didn't add up.
And that, you know, maybe that mattered.
So, but that's a far cry from saying that either that person or persons or any other person was involved in planning and executing a tragic murder.
So, moving on.
That's your drama corner.
I don't think the right side of the world does the drama as well as the left.
The drama crats really have an advantage in that thing.
All right, here's one piece of science.
According to SciPost, Karina Petrova is writing that shared gut microbe imbalances.
So, if you have an imbalance in your gut microbes, that it might be the same kind of imbalance for people who have autism, ADHD, and anorexia nervosa, which would suggest that your gut, at least one thing it suggests, is that your gut changes your brain or influences your brain.
Now, I suppose it could work the other way, right?
It's not obvious how it could, but you have to ask yourself: is it possible that if the brain is doing a certain thing, let's say one of these imbalances, that it causes your gut also to be imbalanced in some certain specific way?
Maybe, but doesn't it seem more likely that the gut imbalance would lead to some variety of brain imperfections temporarily or permanently?
Anyway, as I often say, this little reframe, your body is your brain.
If you want your brain to be working the best it can, you have to take care of your body.
That's diet and exercise, people.
Do you remember that I was critical, and lots of people were critical of Apple for being so slow with AI?
And you thought to yourself, Oh my God.
Well, maybe you didn't think it, but I said it out loud as if I knew something.
And I thought, oh my God, Apple could actually be at risk of just completely going out of business or being cut down to size.
If AI is the thing in the future, like just the thing, and if Apple doesn't embrace it or lead in it or buy a company, it's going to miss out on the thing.
And maybe there's no way to catch up.
Well, as of today, the opinions seem to be turning toward Apple, meaning that NVIDIA just went down because SoftBank sold all of their stock.
But to be fair, SoftBank is putting it back into AI, just a different form, putting it back into open AI and building data centers, I guess.
So they're still all in an AI.
But the thinking is, from the smart people, that Apple might have been the most clever player in the entire tech industry.
And by clever, I mean, they never bought the hype.
Everyone else has gone trillions of dollars of risk into something that looks like it doesn't work nearly as well as they told us it might.
Apple looks like the only one who is seeing things clearly.
Too early to say.
But I've had two opinions that I realized today are contradictory.
Because I also said, hey, I think Apple's in real trouble for not having an AI strategy.
So I've said that.
But at the same time, you've watched as from the beginning, very early on, because I jumped into AI to see what it would do when it was newish.
And as soon as I found out it couldn't stop hallucinating and it couldn't even read a little file and tell me what was in it, it couldn't read a file and tell me what was in it.
And it looked like it never would be able to.
When I found that out, I immediately said, you better watch out for this AI.
It doesn't look like it might not be as big a potential as you think if it can't get past those enormous obstacles.
So at the moment, NVIDIA may have some pressure from either lower cost competitors or who knows what, maybe loss of confidence that AI is the thing.
And Apple might be the smartest player in the space.
So Apple's stock did not go down when some of the other AI ones did.
Very interesting.
You know, I'm always sold my Apple stock, as I said.
But you have to say that Apple does hire smart people.
So every time you tell yourself you're smarter than Apple, maybe check that.
Maybe check that.
You're probably not smarter than Apple.
At least I'm not.
And then things are getting even weirder.
There's somebody named Mahoney, who is some kind of expert.
What kind of expert is he?
He's a Wall Street guy.
What's his name?
Oh, Ken Mahoney, CEO of Mahoney Asset Management.
And what he says is that Walmart might be one of the big beneficiaries of AI.
So now people are saying, hey, we should, instead of putting our money in the AI companies, maybe now the smart money will go into the businesses or just normal businesses like Walmart, but they can lower the costs with AI.
And there is some thought that it's already happening at Walmart.
I don't know if that's already happening.
But remember, all of the Dilberty big companies are going to claim, especially if they put billions of dollars into AI, they're going to claim that that's why they can lower costs, even if all they're doing is firing people.
So it'll be a long time before we know it's real.
But we can tell what the claims will be.
The claims will be that it saved the money and it's a good thing they put $100 billion into it.
And so what they're saying, this is an axios, that 2026, this coming year, may be the year of investing in companies benefiting from all this AI.
Or putting your money into companies like Apple that knew they shouldn't waste their money, at least too much of it on AI.
We'll see.
Do you know the No Kings group, the ones that organize the No Kings protests around the country?
Well, apparently that group, Indivisible, is what they're called, Indivisible, said they're only going to support Democratic Senate candidates that called the canceled Chuck Schumer.
So Chuck Schumer is going to have the worst week anybody ever had.
You know, obviously the activist group Indivisible is pretty baked into the power structure of the Democrats.
So having them come against Schumer is probably a big deal.
But there's something about Schumer that bothers me whenever I see him.
And I'm wondering if you've ever noticed, which is that no matter what the topic is, he seems too happy about it.
Like he looks like somebody who's putting on a play for the neighbors, but his part is maybe sometimes the bad guy or the bearer of bad news or death or something.
But because he's just doing a play for his neighbors, he can't get the smile off his face.
So this is my impression of Chuck Schumer telling you he found a mass grave in his own backyard.
And there was a mass grave.
We just were putting in a septic tank.
And I tell you, I saw a leg and we kept digging a mass grave.
The mass grave.
Must have been hundreds of people in the mass bait.
And am I wrong that he looks too happy when he says stuff like, oh, we have the advantage now?
You know, children are starving.
It's exactly what we'd hope for.
I'm Chuck Schumer.
All right.
According to Harry Enton, Chuck Schumer is now the most unpopular Senate Democratic leader on record, going back to, I guess going back to 1985 anyway.
So he's even underwater with Democrats.
Even Democrats dislike him more than they like him.
So let me break this down.
I hate to give the Democrats advice, be it accidental, but I'm going to give you some persuasion lessons here.
And if any of them are listening, maybe they'll learn something, but I doubt it.
So a lot of people on the Democrat side are saying that what the Democrats need is a fighter.
You've heard that, right?
Every time they talk.
It's like, no, we need a fighter, a fighter.
We've got to fight.
Do you know what's wrong with that as an approach?
If you say that the thing you want is a fighter and then you get one, what does that get you?
A fight.
Because that's what you asked for.
You didn't ask for a solution.
You didn't ask for a great healthcare plan.
You didn't ask for reducing the budget.
You asked for a fighter.
So if you got what you wanted, you wouldn't want what you got, would you?
So the reason that they say we want a fighter is because you can't really measure the output of the fighter.
If I say I want a good healthcare plan where premiums do not cost more, then I would be able to measure whether I did that or not.
At some point, you'd be able to measure it.
But if I say I want a fighter, how do you measure that you got one?
Would it be that person swore more than normal in public?
That's part of what they think it must be because they're doing it.
Would it be that you simply wouldn't vote for things such as a continuing resolution until people suffered because that would make it look like you're fighting?
So when you look at the fighting, you have to think of that in terms of theatrics, because the fighting thing is not something that has a, it doesn't have a deliverable.
There's no deliverable.
So in order to claim that you fought, you've got to have video clips of you looking like a fighter.
So if you're Jasmine Crockett, for example, she's doing the best that any of the other Democrats are doing because she's creating unlimited viral clips of someone who looks like a theatrical fighter girl.
Oh, I'm fighting.
Look at these words I'm using.
Look at me fighting.
Tomorrow there's going to be another video clip of me fighting just like this.
Deliverables, I don't even know what you're talking about.
Policies, never heard of them.
Fight, fight, fight.
You got to fight, fight, fight.
And whoever does the best acting job of being a fighter will be the standard bearer for the Democrats, probably.
They're so not on the right page.
The right page is not to do a theater, a theatrical rendition of a play that you call the fighter.
That's not what anybody's asking for.
They actually want some health care, a budget that makes sense and doesn't break the bank, you know, like to protect that border, get the crime down.
Yeah, you know, you know, it's another thing that I hate is when somebody chews up airtime like I just did, listing the things that you could have listed yourself.
How much do you hate that?
You'll be watching the show and somebody will go, I think the Democrats, they need to work on health care.
And then you're like, don't list all the things that they need to work on.
Got to work on the crime.
Seriously, just shut the fuck up.
We know what the list is.
I've got to make sure the border is secure.
Stop it.
Stop it.
You're wasting my time.
All right, that's what kind of a day it is.
I would also say that whoever came up with that fighter thing, I don't know if that's a professional.
That may have won, that may have grown organically.
But I'll tell you what does look like professional work is you may have seen Hakeem Jays.
He did a little video in which he said that the entire Republican power structure is corrupt.
And then he went through and he was asked about that.
And he said that the Republican Congress is corrupt, the president is corrupt.
And then he said the Supreme Court is corrupt.
But what he really meant was, when asked about it, is that Justice Thomas and Alito, in his opinion, crossed some kind of ethical boundary by, at least in one case, accepting a trip with one of his best friends.
Like he went on one of his billionaire best friend's boat and the billionaire paid for the vacation, which is sort of just what your billionaire friend is going to do anyway.
So, you know, you could argue whether that should or should not happen.
But how do you tell a Supreme Court guy he can't hang out with his best friend?
They weren't strangers.
That was actually one of his best friends.
So anyway, my point is that when corruption was chosen, that looks like professional work of a persuader.
And what I mean by that is that when you see them pick things like dark, remember in the Hillary Clinton race?
She goes, oh, everything Trump says is dark.
The reason that works so well for them is that you don't have to do much thinking.
You can take everything that Trump says, just everything, go, well, that was a dark take, even if it isn't.
It doesn't even matter if it's a dark take.
You just call everything dark.
Corruption is one of those things, too, because you can't really prove it in any given moment, but you can just throw those accusations out there and everything sicks.
I'll bet you can't even think of a certain topic, any topic, that you couldn't at least throw into the corruption pile.
Maybe abortion is an exception.
But everything else you can say, oh, he just wants to make his cronies richer.
Oh, tax policy.
Oh, that's about his cronies.
Oh, the Supreme Court, we need to pack it.
That's the reason we need to pack it with 13 because otherwise they'll be corrupt and they'll be taking vacations with their friends and everything.
I mean, there's a slippery slope situation.
If you let Justice Thomas take a vacation with one of his best friends, and his best friend helps pay for it because he happens to be a billionaire, if you let that happen, where's it going to end up?
Well, obviously, they're going to take two vacations per year.
Start with one, and you're like, test the water.
Next thing you know, two vacations.
Now, the Republic might survive a Supreme Court member, you know, a justice taking one vacation with his friend per year.
But people, how would we ever survive if he took two?
And do you realize how quickly it could go from one to two?
That's only one more than two.
This is a real danger.
And I think Hakeem Jeffries needs to warn us about it some more.
It's going to be some corruption.
Some corruption.
You know, I have this bad habit of casting people in movies that don't exist.
And whenever I see Hakeem, I want him to play the part of death in a movie.
You know, death always wears the black robe and has the whatever that thing is for cutting grass, a scythe, scythe, scythe, scyth, scythe.
Because you can imagine death walking into the room in this movie, and the face is entirely concealed by the shadows.
Notice how I avoided saying black so it didn't sound racist.
And then he takes down the hood and it's Hakeem.
You're like, ah, Grim Reaper, the Grim Reaper.
He would be the best Grim Reaper ever.
All right, well, as you know, Turning Point USA had an event in Berkeley, UC Berkeley, and there was some dusting up and some people got roughed up and it was a little bit of violence, way too much.
I don't want to minimize it.
But now there's going to be a Department of Justice investigation into the failures of security.
And the theory is that if you don't treat this one as just some random bad day that some protesters showed up and you wish they hadn't, but rather it looks like it might be part of a pattern.
And the pattern is that when the left wants to censor the right, they simply don't give enough security where they know security is warranted.
Do you think that's a real thing?
Do you think that people on the left actually think that through?
Not necessarily coordinated, but maybe sort of all on the same page.
Do you think that they intentionally Give inadequate security so that if somebody goes and talks, they can say, Well, we told you.
We told you it was going to be a mess.
We can't let them speak.
Look what happened at Berkeley.
There's no way we can afford all the security it would take to avoid what happened in Berkeley.
All right, you're almost, you're all unanimous.
You all believe.
Looks like you all believe that that's intentional.
You know, I think I'm on your side on this.
I wouldn't say that there's a smoking, smoking gun, but you can smell it before you can see the smoke.
That's sort of where I am.
I can smell it.
I don't see the smoke.
So I'll say, you know, we're short of something that I would call proof, but boy, you can smell it.
So, consistent with everything else we know about the world, it sort of fits right into that frame, doesn't it?
Like it fits the whole Mike Venn's view of the world, you know, plus.
Yeah, it smells.
Apparently, the White House is responding to some complaints I talked about, which is that a lot of stock, a lot of companies that have public stock have these proxy entities that go and get the, essentially they're the ones that cast the vote on behalf of lots of stockholders, which gives them a lot of control over companies.
And it's not really the kind of control you'd want them to have over companies because it doesn't help their profitability.
They might be looking for some woke stuff to happen.
Basically, it's a distortion of the free market.
And without getting into too much of the boring details of how that works, essentially there are a few entities like ISS, that's a company, and index fund giants such as BlackRock.
And I think there was a, I think there's another famous one that should be mentioned there.
I don't know which one.
But they knew who it is.
And the complaints are coming from people like Elon Musk and Jamie Dimon, you know, the most important banker and the most important technologist, engineer, entrepreneur in the world.
So they're on the same page, which is you need to get rid of this proxy voting stuff.
And apparently the White House has opened up some kind of a project to look into it.
You say Fidelity?
Fidelity, I think, State Street?
Yeah, I'm not sure.
I don't want to throw out names because I don't know.
Well, how many of you saw the video of the Russian humanoid robot?
I thought it was fake.
So the video shows the Russians introducing on stage something you think you've seen lots of times in America, which is, hey, this is our new humanoid robot.
And it's going to dance or something.
So their humanoid robot stumbles forward and it walks like Joe Biden on a bad day through tall grass.
And then it just falls on its face and can't get up.
And that's the Russian humanoid robot.
Now, I thought it was a joke because the way it walked was so much like Joe Biden that I didn't think that could be a coincidence.
It looked like they were either mocking him or it was AI or something, the Biden bot.
So I waited on it.
My first reaction was I did repost it, but then I undid my repost because I was not confident that could have been real.
How in the world was that real?
All right.
So go find that on social media.
I'm sure you can just do a normal internet search and look for Russian humanoid robot.
You're going to laugh so hard when you see that robot.
You're also going to think that Ukraine is going to win the war when you see their best technology.
It's pretty funny.
Anyway.
Also in the AI world, Variety is reporting that Matthew McConaughey and Michael Caine, both of them, they're teaming with an AI audio company called 11 Labs.
11 Labs is the one that does really accurate voices and faces.
And they're going to, it looks like they're licensing their voices is how I would interpret this.
So you'll be able to use 11 Labs to reproduce either of their voices.
Now, here's why I think that's smart.
Don't you think at some point a lot of other people are going to be doing this?
So whoever goes first is just going to get all the goodness.
It's one of those things where going first is just sort of obvious.
If you're Matthew McConaughey and you're a certain age, he can't play the same roles he's played forever.
Although he's a good actor, I like what he does.
So he might have a longer shelf life than a lot of people.
But he's smart enough to know that he's not going to be a forever actor because AI will take that work.
Why wouldn't he try to get in first and get the best possible deal and get a perpetual license on his very interesting voice?
Same with Michael Caine, very interesting voice.
So I believe whoever is representing them, their management, good job management.
You don't usually think, you know, look at an actor and say, wow, that's some good management there.
And maybe they're just both smart.
I think McConaughey probably does a lot to run his own affairs.
That would be my guess.
He looks like he's a good generalist.
They would be able to figure out everything from his career strategies to what he's doing in the next movie.
But smart.
The CEO of Eli Lilly says he uses AI every day and likes asking science questions, but doesn't like the answers he gets from ChatGPT.
So he thinks he gets better science answers from either Claude, that's an AI, Claude, or XAI, which would be Grok, I guess.
He finds Grok more terse, which I like.
Terse.
And he says the ChatGPT does a lot of fake references, so you have to be careful.
And I'm going to say this again, because until somebody smart tells me this is a bad idea, I feel like I fixed this idea.
Why couldn't you have two AIs open all the time and one AI is instructed simply to listen to the other AI?
And you tell the second AI to fact check everything that the first AI says.
And if there's no problem, just stay silent.
But if you catch it giving you a fake reference or something, speak up and we'll correct it.
You don't think that if you had two AIs running at the same time, the odds of both of them saying that this fake reference is real would drop to almost zero, wouldn't it?
And it would cost you nothing but the subscription to the second service?
Am I wrong about that?
And is that something that people don't want to talk about just because for competitive reasons or something?
You run Grok and Gemini side by side.
But tell me why that wouldn't work.
Now, on day one, maybe one doesn't hear the other one well or something.
But you could easily hook them up so that their audio connection was flawless.
So there's not even any outside room noise to bother one, right?
I'm looking at your comments, and I don't see anybody saying, Scott, you idiot, that would never work.
Because it would sort of obviously work, wouldn't it?
I don't know.
Maybe there would be cases where the second one refused to do what you told it to.
And it would just say stuff like, I cannot correct my fellow AI.
I don't know.
Well, I know you hate to admit it, but I just solved AI.
All right, what else is happening?
According to Just the News, Bondi and Kash Patel are going to look into the Clinton Foundation under allegations that foreign entities and some domestic actors influenced the policy of the government back in those Clinton Foundation days.
Now, the weird part about that is that what else was the foundation for?
Don't we, at this point, don't we understand that it was only for corrupt reasons and that whatever good they did was just the cover for the corruption?
Don't we all know that?
But there's this weird thing about time and about how the media works.
If the media doesn't tell you, and here the media in this context would be the New York Times, the Washington Post, you know, the left-leaning media.
If the left-leaning media doesn't say this is a story, it just won't be.
It just won't be a story.
So it doesn't matter how much just the news reports on it.
It doesn't matter how much I mentioned on my podcast.
Just won't be a story.
But how hard do you think it would be to find out if the Clinton Foundation was corrupt and accepting money to influence policy?
Do you think that would be hard to find out?
I have a suspicion that the FBI or somebody looked into it enough because they would want to have leverage over the Clintons, obviously.
Anybody would.
That they looked into it enough that probably we already have like really specific, you know, hidden phone calls and stuff.
So anything could happen.
But if I had to put a bet on it, nothing will happen.
How many, let's do, let's do an incident poll.
How many of you think the Clinton Foundation, despite the fact that 100% of you think it was corrupt, because of course you do, how many of you think there'll be any arrests or indictments of, let's say, the Clintons, specifically the Clintons?
How many think that?
It feels like zero, right?
So you have this weird situation where that our assumption that the crimes happened and are sort of just obvious or is 100%.
And then our faith that it will be treated the way you think crime should be treated is 0%.
That's not ideal.
Not ideal at all.
Well, according to OAN, Ed Martin, who's working for the Department of Justice, was on and was talking about Jack Smith when he was trying to convict Trump.
That he was running all across the country, building this conspiracy network, as some would call it.
And we're going to get to the bottom of that.
do you think the jack smith thing although it does seem to me to me i think there's enough reporting that i'd call it obvious that it was a rico hugely coordinated democratic thing We know all the players.
We know how they're connected.
We know what meetings they had.
We know what memos they sent.
We know their handwritten notes.
We kind of know exactly what this was.
It was an attempt to control the government without the normal democratic process that we know and love.
How many of you think that that will result in meaningful indictments and or convictions?
I already know the answer.
None of you think this will result in conviction, do you?
I don't.
I do think that the maybe not in a beyond a shadow of a doubt court sense, but certainly in every common sense way that you can imagine this, it looks like just exactly what it was, in my opinion, a very organized, RICO-like criminal enterprise with the worst possible intentions.
You have 25%.
All right.
Well, according, apparently the Supreme Court, no.
This is the Olympics themselves.
So the Olympics, whoever controls it, the IOC, they're going to stop having transgender women athletes.
Apparently, they've looked at all the science and they've determined that even if you discontinue, or even if you start the right hormone therapy really early, people who are born male have an undeniable advantage.
And so they don't think it would be fair to have any competition except men and women.
So those will be the only two categories.
Did you expect that to happen?
I didn't even know that was brewing.
But, you know, the athletic thing has to be seen in its own category.
I wouldn't put that in the trans category.
It's just its own specific thing.
Same with the questions about children.
I don't put that exactly in the trans bucket.
It's its own thing.
It's not like any other thing.
All right.
Apparently, JFK Jr.'s relative Jack Schlossberg, who is, who is he?
He's JFK's grandson.
So Jack Schlossberg's running for Congress.
And as part of that, he's throwing his relative, RFK Jr., under the bus.
And he's being really mean.
He's being very mean.
This is him talking about his own relative.
I mean, when he's not making infomercials for Steak and Shake and Coca-Cola, he's spreading misinformation and lies.
They're leading to deaths around the country.
And then he talks about measles and vaccines and stuff like that.
God, I hate watching this because have you noticed that whenever they do these laundry lists of accusations of RFK Jr., they never actually mention anything specific and real.
It's always sort of these general things.
Do you think you can explain RFK's complicated opinion on vaccines by saying something like, you know, he's against them, that he's an anti-vaccine?
That would not even come close to the nuance of his opinion.
Not even close.
Or how about that he was making infomercials for whatever those products are?
I don't even know what he's talking about.
I never heard of him making any infomercials, but he did get some of the dye out of the diasotas, right?
I don't think Coca-Cola loves him as much as they did, if they ever did.
So it's all this generic stuff.
And I guess Florida's happy because the courts have upheld that they can block Chinese land buys in Florida.
So if you go to Florida and you're Chinese and you want to buy some property, no go.
No property for you.
Do you think other states will follow suit now that it has passed at least one court's judgment?
Maybe.
You might.
Saudi Aramco, so Saudi's one of the biggest or the biggest energy company, they're going to make this giant push into gas because they think electricity is the future.
So generating electricity with gas, and they got to do a lot of desalinization, and then they want to have enough power to power ginormous data centers.
So even Saudi Arabia needs more than oil.
So they were more about the oil, but now they're just going to go wild in the gas business.
Anyway, speaking of climate change, did you know that climate models have not included plankton?
And now the green people, according to the Université Automano de Basolono, they've decided that plankton is really important.
So these, they call it the ocean's tiniest engineers, calcifying plankton.
They play a vital yet often unnoticed role in regulating Earth's climate.
So they're very important to the climate, and they're currently not included in any climate models.
Huh?
Way do you find out about those climate models, people?
Yep, plankton.
They forgot the plankton.
The next time somebody argues with you about climate models, bring up plankton and act like it's a really big deal.
And if they don't understand the plankton problem, why are they even in this topic?
Scott, you seem to be quite a troglodyte.
98% of scientists have concluded with their advanced climate models and all their smartness and their gigantic brains have concluded that climate change will end us all possibly within a few years.
And you're so dumb that you don't know that.
And then you just wait for it to stop.
And then you look at him and you go, did you know that the climate models didn't even include plankton?
And then they'll look at you and go, what?
Plankton.
I mean, it's vital to the climate.
And yet the climate models don't even have any plankton variable in it.
Did anybody tell you that?
There's no plankton.
Oh, well, I'm sure that they've really proven to be very accurate.
How could they be accurate without plankton?
You have totally plankton-free climate models.
That's crazy.
That's crazy.
Plankton-free?
Come on.
You're not even trying.
You plankton-denying bastard.
That's how you handle that.
Well, Trump is trying to get the courts to throw out that Egene Carroll lawsuit that he lost.
His argument still is that she's not his type.
His strongest argument was, she's not my type.
And what's funny about that is it's actually a pretty good argument.
I mean, we weren't there, and there's no actual evidence.
It's just he said, she said, right?
That's as close as it is to evidence.
There's no video of it.
I don't know.
I guess what they would call evidence might be different than what you would call evidence.
But I find that completely compelling.
Yeah, she's not really his type.
I know how that sounds.
Let's see.
According to interesting engineering, Kapil Kajal is telling us that the Ukrainians are getting so good with their drone warfare and their anti-drone warfare that they found out how to use some music to disrupt the Russian drones.
Now, you might say, how does music disrupt a drone?
Well, it's not the music per se.
It just has to be any consistent sound source.
Well, you wouldn't want it to be just boop, but you'd want a sound source that has variety but is persistent, not consistent, a persistent sound.
And apparently, if you beam that just right with the right electronics working, you can confuse a Russian drone.
So the music is not important except as a sound source.
And then they use a sound source as part of the jamming protocol.
And apparently they're doing it really well.
And there's some thought that the Ukrainians are sort of ahead of even America in their technology deployment, but even maybe understanding and engineering.
I don't know about that.
I've got a feeling that Andaryl is making better drones than Ukraine.
You know what I mean?
Maybe not every company is doing better than Ukraine.
I think Andaryl probably is, or will soon, without the music.
Anyway, we'll see.
And as I've said many times before, why in the world don't we hear casualty numbers from Ukraine anymore or Russia?
I saw one person who seemed a little bit knowledgeable saying that Russia is right on the verge of winning.
You know, Ukraine's going to collapse any minute because it's really about people and Russia's run.
Russia has more people.
Do you believe any of that?
Does it look like this war is on the verge of ending one way or the other?
It doesn't look like it's on the verge of anything.
It looks like it's just stuck, stuck in time.
You found Death Leopard works best on Russian drones?
We'll get that information to Ukraine immediately.
Well, meanwhile, the UK allegedly stopped sharing intel about Caribbean boat locations because the U.S. is blowing up Caribbean boats that it says are carrying drugs from Venezuela.
So Washington Times is reporting on this.
Vaughan Cockain is writing about it.
So do you think that we'll be much crippled by the fact that the UK is not giving us information about Caribbean cartel boats?
I don't know.
I think we'll somehow survive.
How much difference did it make that we were getting some UK intel?
Do you think we had an enormous fleet of our maritime and our Air Force over there?
Like we have all our best assets surrounding Venezuela right now.
Did we really need British intel to know where their boats are?
What were we doing without it?
Are we just shooting missiles into the water and hoping something lucky happens?
Could we really not tell where anything was?
We really needed them?
I don't know.
Something wrong with that story.
Did you see the guest that Tucker Carlson had recently made some claims about chemtrails, chemtrails being real?
Let's see, who was that?
Well, there's a story in the Daily Mail, too, about the U.S. military accused of secret climate spraying.
And let's see, there's a Dane Wiggington.
He's an environmental researcher for 30 years.
He claimed that the conspiracy surrounding chemtrails is not only true, but has actually crippled the Earth's ability to naturally overcome the pollution caused by humans.
Okay.
How many of you are now convinced that chemtrails are real and that they've been happening for decades?
I don't know.
I don't know.
Yeah, certainly they've certainly tested things.
I know they've certainly seeded clouds.
I mean, there's certainly parts of it that are real.
But whatever's happening, I don't know if we know.
We don't know what's new.
No, no, no.
Hell no.
Call me skeptical.
I wouldn't rule out anything at the this curl.
My current worldview is that you can't really rule out anything anymore.
But you know what?
It's probably something like, here's my best guess.
There's probably something like chemtrails, meaning that there's something real at the base of it.
But I'll bet you that most of the things that people see in the sky and they believe to be chemtrails are just water vapor from jets.
How many of you would accept that there might be something to it, to the claim, but that most of what we see, and most you could use your own definition of most, but most of it is just imagining you see it?
Would you agree with that?
Even if there's something real at the base?
There might be something real.
I mean, there's nothing that rules it out, really.
You couldn't disprove it.
Anyway.
So President Trump was talking to Laura Ingram yesterday, I guess.
It was a nice piece.
You should watch it if you can find it.
And Trump was defending the so-called H-1B visas.
So those are the ones that we use to, as Trump would say, bring in talent.
But the America First people, depending on which ones you're talking to, might say, hey, we have enough talent here.
Why would you bring even one person into the country to take an American job?
The answer would be, whether you buy the answer or not, the answer would be, oh, we do not have enough talented, trained people for every kind of job.
So in some cases, when you bring people over, you're going to have to, you know, it'll take a while to train Americans, or you're going to have to bring somebody from the country that invested, such as the South Korean battery company.
At least in the short run, they might have to bring their own people because they know how to make batteries and we don't.
But we're better off bringing the, you know, onshoring the company.
That would be the better long-term play.
So Trump is in favor of using them where you can't easily find or train workers.
And if you had those workers, we would be ahead.
How many of you agree with that take?
That there is such a thing as a worker shortage for some specialty jobs.
And there are probably a lot of them that would be specialty.
And that you can't really just take the homeless and train them to make microchips.
How many think you can take the homeless and just train them as hard as you can until they know how to make microchips, AI microchips?
All right, so I'm exaggerating a little bit.
You couldn't do it with the homeless.
But how many think you could just take, let's say, good engineers from American schools and teach them to do really anything, just anything at all?
Well, you can do that, but would there be enough?
And would there be enough people wanted to be trained in that specific thing?
So I can completely understand the two sides, because the two sides have reasonably good arguments, reasonably good arguments.
I mean, certainly the side that says, damn it, you could always find an American to do these jobs.
Don't let in one other person.
I get that.
I understand that argument very well.
And then the people who say, but if you tried, Scott, if you tried to keep out 100% of the non-citizens, and you tried to simply train people in America to do these jobs, you would fail.
It would be impractical.
That's actually a really good argument.
If you've spent any time in the real world, it's hard to find anybody who's trained to do anything, just anything, much less some specialty high-tech thing that we just shipped in from South Korea.
Where are you going to find somebody who can do that?
And then you say, but you can train people, because we have some of the smartest, most educated people.
Yes, you can.
But there's friction.
It might take you a while.
Or you might need to get these specialized workers to work there for a couple years while they're training.
But why would they do that if they know they're going to get fired in a couple of years?
So in the real world, it's sort of really, really hard to get anybody who's trained to do anything.
And then you add on top of it that it has to be trained in this specific thing in a specific amount of time.
It's really hard.
So I think both arguments are substantial.
And I guess I lean toward Trump has a common sense view of the world.
I think we agree on that, right?
So the question is, which of these two takes fits what you would call common sense?
I feel like Trump has got the high ground here.
And I hope I'm not just being a team player because you have to watch out for that, right?
I feel like he just has a stronger case because it's sort of it's aspirational that you could train Americans to do all these jobs.
I love the aspiration and I love the confidence that that shows in American workers.
I just don't think in the real world you could actually fill the jobs.
So that's where Trump's common sense take comes in.
You know, you got your ideal.
The ideal would be don't hire anybody outside the country.
You can train Americans.
That's a nice ideal.
Trump gets, he knows that.
He would agree with the ideal.
So if he's still in favor of doing it, fully understanding that the ideal situation would also be ideal America first mega, and he's still not going with the ideal America first mega, it's because he has a common sense view of the world.
You can't easily fill these jobs.
Elon Musk will tell you that sometimes you're just going to have to grab a Brit or a Nigerian engineer or something, somebody who's already closer to knowing how to do the job.
So I'm no expert.
And if you say to me, Scott, I would rather that we don't even have these industries than we have this big open door where people are coming in and taking all our good stuff like our jobs.
I can respect that opinion.
I would respect that.
I would disagree with it.
But I think that's an opinion I could respect because it's grounded on something that makes sense.
Don't give your stuff away.
If you can make it work, if you can find a way to not let in any H-1B visa people and also be dominant in all these high-tech industries, if you can find a way to do that, I'm all in.
But I'm kind of agreeing with Trump if you're just trying to be practical and you're trying to be common sense and you're getting advice from real people in the real world.
Like if Elon Musk says I can't hire as many Americans as I need to support my high-tech companies, what are you going to say?
You're wrong?
He's not wrong.
He's in the trenches, right?
So I think the people in the trenches largely agree that it would make a big, big difference if at least for some sets of jobs, not everyone.
I'm not in favor of H-1B for sort of ordinary jobs where you could clearly find Americans who would love those jobs.
We're not talking about that.
We're talking about somebody who knows how to make a microchip, right?
Real specialized stuff.
For that, I would take no chance.
All right, here's a way for me to say it so that you might agree with me.
It's just a better way to say it.
I would never take the chance that the USA fell behind in an important technology because of H-1B visas being unavailable.
That would be a risk, wouldn't you say?
Whenever we allow anybody else to get ahead of us in a technology, if it's one of the critical ones, that becomes their economy, it becomes their military, and then they would dominate us, depending on the industry.
So would you agree that it's super important that we dominate the critical industries if we can?
You'd agree with that, right?
So what gets you closer to being able to dominate those industries, a controlled economy or a free market?
And of course, I'm setting you up, right?
How do they know we don't have the talent?
You're on the wrong argument.
You're on the wrong argument.
So let me also say that the way the H-1B visa stuff has run in the past, I'm not arguing for that because I do think that there were too many abuses.
But the question is this: if you allowed these big companies to hire whenever there was a real shortage of a real skill, would America do better or worse industry-wide in dominating a technology?
If you could say, Scott, if you just let the big companies hire, but only when it's really critical, we're not talking about ordinary skills.
But if you give them the freedom to do that, you're closer to a free market than if you don't give them the freedom to do that.
So what Trump is arguing is you need to give these people like Musk freedom.
That if they say the only way I can make this work is with these specialized people, then you let them do that because you're not running their company.
You don't want the government to decide who they hire, right?
Now, the exception would be, and here's where we all agree: if it was for somebody to work on the assembly line and it was just like a real good union or non-union job, I want that to go to American.
Even if it's, say, you know, entry-level engineering and we don't have that many, still, still, I'd want that to go to the American.
So if there's a little bit of friction, I want it to go to the American.
But if there's a lot of risk, such as we'll fall behind in a critical industry, I want.
So first you want to win if it's a critical industry.
And if somebody like a Musk says the only way we can win, I'm sorry, I would love to hire America first, but for some of these jobs, such as building your own microchip fab, which is what Tesla wants to do, for some of these jobs, you're just going to have to hire from other countries.
And by the way, every time we hire away one of the top people from another country, that also is good for our situation in the world.
So we win by getting the talent, but we also win by denying that same talent to a country that could have used it instead of us.
So if you see it in terms of risk management and you apply it only to those industries that are critical to our future survival, I think we end up in the same page or very close.
But yeah, short of national survival, which is tied to dominating certain industries, short of that, there's no reason to consider H-1B when you can train Americans.
All on the same page.
Here's something that I keep trying to say in different ways until it hits.
I don't think it hasn't hit yet.
But I was watching a movie that was called something like the something of extraordinary gentlemen or something, warfare of extraordinary gentlemen.
And I thought that one of the biggest stories that political stories, one of the biggest political stories in the world is completely ignored.
It's like an unspoken understanding.
And it goes like this: that the GOP has been taken over by unusually intelligent people.
Unusually intelligent people.
Let me tell you what I mean by that.
In my opinion, one of the things that people get wrong about Trump all the time, and then they're surprised, is that he likes extraordinary people.
He likes extraordinary people, be they athletes, you know, could be boxers or fighters, could be, you know, baseball players, Daryl Strawberry.
He likes extraordinary people.
Now, some people think, oh, he's got such a big ego that he doesn't want to be around, you know, people who are actually smart because he wants to be the smartest person in the room.
No, that's not him at all.
Part of what makes him special is that he recognizes and boosts unusually capable people.
You know, why is RFK Jr. part of his administration?
Because he's unusually capable.
Right?
Why has David Sachs got an important role?
Only one reason, he's unusually capable.
Jared, why does he have Jared helping?
He's unusually capable.
He happens to be related, which gives him a little bit of an advantage, but he's unusually capable.
And once you see that, and you see that everybody from Elon Musk to, you can go down the line from the Joe Rogans, et cetera.
If you made a list of the people who are supporting him, how many of them would you describe as unusually smart?
Like just not normal smart, but just unusually smart.
And when you see that the unusually smart seem to have found a home, like they found a home because you can't really, it's hard to be unusually smart if you're not around other unusually smart people.
And so it kind of created a home for the unusually smart.
And we could talk about, you know, who's on my list of unusually smart, but I'll bet you would have a very similar list of the unusually smart.
And I don't know how you beat that group.
If they stayed, you know, if they decided to have a coherent after-Trump policy, they could put together quite a doozy if they could find the right carrier for the ideas.
You know, it might be JD, maybe not.
We'll see.
So Trump gave his tour of the White House to Laura Ingram and took her by the Hall of Presidents that includes now the Autopen photo in place of Biden.
And Trump said that was his idea.
He comes up with all the good ideas he says, which is also funny.
And he has no plans to ever change it.
He's going to keep the Autopen there for four years.
I don't know how long it will last after that.
But that is a good joke.
If you can't appreciate the humor of that And you think that's the worst thing that ever happened, you don't really understand Trump at all.
And I would argue that my prior point about the unusually intelligent people who have decided to be on the same side, part of that unusual intelligence is accepting of edgy humor.
Would you agree?
The smartest people you know are probably the people who can take the hardest joke, right?
Am I imagining that?
Or is that just sort of obviously true?
It's dumb people who have trouble understanding that a joke is a joke.
You know, once you get to a certain level of intelligence, you just know a joke's a joke and you get over it pretty quickly.
So I think the base totally understands the AutoPen and they know that its purpose, in large part, is to bother the Democrats.
And every time it's there and it bothers a Democrat and it gives them something to talk about, I laugh again.
So it's like the gift that keeps on giving.
It's never not funny.
But the funny part is not that he's doing it.
I'm sorry.
The funny part is not just that it's an auto pen instead of a photo.
That is funny, but you get over that part kind of quickly.
But it remains funny because it still bothers them.
The fact that it never stops bothering them, that's the joke.
That's the joke.
And that doesn't get less funny.
All right.
Did you know, the Washington Times is reporting, Stephan Dinan, that the number of suspected terrorists coming over the border is way up.
Did you know that?
The number of, quote, suspected terrorists crossing the border is up by 30-fold.
Are you afraid yet?
The number of suspected terrorists coming across the border is up 30-fold.
Okay, don't worry.
It's not bad news.
What it is is once the cartels were designated as terrorist organizations, and then we got good at grabbing their photos.
It turns out we're now good at identifying cartel members.
So when it says that the number of suspected terrorists is up 30-fold, it means we got really, really good at spotting cartel members crossing the border.
Trying to do it legally, but obviously we're spotting them.
So what looks like bad news is actually extraordinary, extraordinary that they had a 30-fold improvement in spotting cartel members coming across the border.
How often do you get a 30-fold improvement in anything?
That's pretty impressive.
So yeah, that's just sort of all good news.
I would like to have fewer cartel members crossing my border.
That'd be good too.
But the fact that we can now spot them seems like a good idea.
Well, apparently there's going to be some protests against the Mexican president for not doing enough to go after the cartels.
And the Mexican president, what do you think she did when the security risk got too high?
That's right.
She's building a wall around wherever the president lives.
I don't know what it is in Mexico, but whatever their version of the presidential palace or whatever it is, they're building a big steel wall all around it.
Build the wall.
Build the wall.
And it's interesting that the public so clearly blames her as being basically a tool of the cartel.
I'm pretty sure that Trump thinks of her the same way, but she's the only president they have.
So he has to deal with her in the real world in some kind of real world productive way.
So maybe he just has to pretend he knows less about the cartel connections than he does.
But it could suggest that there's going to be a military move against the cartels by the U.S. because you might expect that the president of Mexico would be very vulnerable to some kind of cartel attack if she didn't stop the U.S. from attacking Mexico.
So things could get a little wet and a little dark as soon as that fence is done.
There's some specific protests coming up, but I'll bet you they keep the fence up after that's over.
According to Interesting Engineering, Kaif Shaik is writing that there's some new technology that promises to turn ethanol plants.
That would be a place that turns things into ethanol.
But there's some CO2 waste that comes out of that and they could turn it into jet fuel for 80% less than the current cost of jet fuel.
Now, I'm not going to try to tell you that this is likely to happen, this specific technology, but all the times I've read to you, almost every day, there's always some breakthrough in either producing energy or converting CO2 into energy or reducing costs by 80%, like in this case.
I feel like the future is something like everything will cost 80% less and then 90% less.
If you were going to look at the near term and midterm, everything will look more expensive.
But if you were to look at the long term, it looks like the cost of everything is just going to plummet because we'll keep finding these little ways to do stuff like this.
It's like, oh, no, we'll just turn this into something.
It'll reduce the cost by 80%.
So jet fuel is one of the big, big polluters in the world.
All right.
Let me just finish up here.
If you haven't seen the video yet of a giant bridge in China collapsing, it's sort of a newish bridge, but it was one of those big, impressive ones.
And they had some mudslide that just took out the whole bridge.
Nobody died.
The police did a good job, cleared it out in anticipation of the problem.
And sure enough, there's video of a mudslide taking out the whole bridge.
So the reason I bring that up is I've been thinking lately that China is the only one who can make anything anymore.
But it used to be that we thought that China didn't manufacture as well as other countries because we were racist or something.
And now I'm wondering, how many other engineering miracles that China has built are just going to fall over?
You know, all those ghost cities they built that they ended up blowing up.
Did it ever make sense to you that they would just blow them up?
Unless they were built so poorly that they knew they couldn't put people in them and that they would be dangerous.
Could it be that some percentage of their engineering miracles are just pure bullshit and that they didn't do a good job?
They just made it look good and then sold it as a miracle?
I don't know.
Yeah, it makes me wonder how much is real.
Anyway, the U.S. is going after some more of those drug boats, RSBN is reporting, Dylan Burroughs.
Two more taken down on Sunday.
And we report that these vessels were known by our intelligence to be associated with illicit narcotics.
Well, how could we know that without the British intelligence?
Without the British intelligence, these could have been tourists.
How would we know?
I'm just joking.
Have you noticed that there are a lot of things governments do that they can blame on our intelligence people, and you and I can't check?
So, are you sure that those were narco boats?
Oh, yeah, yeah, our intelligence people confirmed it.
Which intelligence people?
Oh, we can't give that up.
How'd they confirm it?
Sources and methods.
Sorry, I'm not going to tell you that.
How sure are they?
Oh, they're really sure.
Very sure.
You can just blame anything on the Intel group, and nobody has any way to check.
Absolutely.
These are narco boats, if I ever saw any.
Apparently, there's some big anti-corruption watchdog thing happening in Ukraine where there's some allegations that Ukraine is filled with corruption.
Huh.
And that they believe that the corruption is not just the government itself taking its taste, which of course is probably happening, but rather it seems to be criminal enterprises.
So there seems to be criminal organizations that are taking 10% of everything that's happening over there.
So, starting to think I can't trust those Ukrainians.
That's my joke of the day.
All right, everybody.
Thanks for joining me.
That takes me to the end of my valuable comments.
I'm going to talk for a moment to my beloved members of locals.
