Episode 2834 CWSA 05/09/25

Checking my stocks.

Looks like stocks are up.

Tesla is up.

Holy cow.

Tesla's way up.

The S&P 500's up a little bit.

Bitcoin's up sharply.

Looking good.

I guess we should have a show.

Do you want to have a show?

Get my comments working here and then we'll get going.

Good morning everybody and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.

It's called Coffee with Scott Adams and I'll bet you never had a better time.

But if you'd like to see if you could take this experience up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny shiny human brains, all you need for that is a cuper mugger, a glass of tanker chalice, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.

Fill it with your favorite liquid.

I like coffee.

And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.

It's called the simultaneous sip.

Darn it.

It's going to happen right now.

Go.

Don't you feel better?

That will cure your diabetes and women.

That's the latest news.

Well, unless you're the last person on earth who knows it.

An American pope was selected.

We've never had an American pope.

And I heard some uh people who know what they're talking about say that in the past when they considered American candidates to be pope, I guess that would have been the cardinals.

They decided that they didn't want to make it look like America owned everything.

Like America has the biggest military, has the biggest economy, and they didn't want it also to be looking like it was leading the Catholic Church.

So apparently the thinking was that they wouldn't uh select an American pope uh until America was in decline.

So it didn't look just so it wouldn't look like America was getting everything all the good stuff.

So I don't know is America in decline has the Catholic Church just basically indirectly given us the warning?

Ah, I guess we could have an American pope now.

Looks like you're all in decline.

Let's see if this is working.

But, uh, the American pope, I guess he, uh, grew up in Chicago and went to Villanova and he was a math major and he speaks five languages and, uh, good luck.

Good luck to him.

We'll see.

You know, it it feels like I'm just going to speculate.

Um it feels like if the Catholic Church wanted to have more influence in, let's say, big things that America is involved in, it probably would help a lot that they've got an American pope because don't you think the American pope, somebody else said this, so I'm I'm borrowing this idea.

Don't you think the American Pope could pick up the phone and just call Trump?

Of course he could.

That they could just have a phone call.

Whereas I don't think there's ever been a pope.

Is there?

When was the last time there was a pope who spoke English?

And well, there's never been an American one.

So, you know, Trump would take the call and he'd probably just hang out hang out with him if he wanted to.

you'd probably have dinner with them.

So, it might be one of the most genius things the Catholics have come up with if they want to have some kind of more influence on things they care about like immigration, uh, the environment, etc.

So, we'll see how that works out.

In other incredibly important news, u, Melania Trump unveiled a US stamp honoring Barbara Bush.

So, I guess it was a little uh dicey about who would be unveiling it because, you know, President Trump has said such bad things about the Bush family in the past.

He was the wrong choice.

So, Melania was probably exactly the right choice.

Um, and not many of the Bush family showed up.

I guess some cousins or something showed up.

Um, but all I can say about the Barbara Bush stamp is personally I'd be afraid to lick it.

But that's just me.

That's just me.

That's the oldest joke in the world.

You knew somebody was going to say that.

Um, according to the New York Post, there's this uh this top exNASA official who claims they saw a large white flying saucer uh in a big warehouse that had a US Air Force logo and he was told it was using the alien technology that they had captured.

So, he claims that he uh he once actually saw it himself.

uh Dr.

Gregory Rogers and it was part of a secretive project.

Now, how many of you think that's true?

Do you think this story is true?

And the US Air Force, you know, built their own UFO based on alien technology.

I have one word for you.

Nope.

I don't care how many times they try to tell us the same story.

No, I'm not even sure I would believe a video of it.

Like I would need to see you like a real person who was not part of the military or I think standing next to it, some credible reporter, you know, put his hands on it, you know, ride around in it, show us the alien craft.

It would take so so much to convince me that we had captured off-world alien technology and built a spacecraft and then we don't use it because apparently this would have been 30 years ago.

So, do you think we've had alien technology for 30 years and it's really the good stuff?

And for 30 years, we decided not to use it.

I don't believe any of this stuff.

Not even a little bit.

Uh, two-hour podcast with Bob Lazar wouldn't change your mind.

No, Bob Lazar.

Are you kidding me?

How many of you think Bob Lazar is a a credible source?

That is so not credible.

Well, last night was the weirdest.

Uh I actually I couldn't sleep because I kept thinking about it.

Yeah, I was going to say I almost couldn't sleep, but it actually kept me awake for a while.

So, by complete coincidence, um, toddling around, getting ready to go to bed early, as I like to do, and I had Fox News on, and uh, there was uh, one of the Fox News contributors, I guess maybe contributor is the right word, Cameron Kinsey.

She's 24 years old.

She's got long blonde hair if you've seen him before.

And I don't know the the host.

So the Fox News host was not familiar to me.

So he wasn't wasn't one of the name brand famous ones.

He looked like he was a fill-in kind of a host who does the weird hours or something.

So the Fox News host uh gives her a question and uh I'm sort of half paying attention while doing other things.

and she starts to answer the question and then all of a sudden she just stops talking in the middle of her answer which of course caused me to look at the screen to see what was happening and all of a sudden and you know this is nothing to laugh at cuz we don't know we don't know if she's okay yet.

I think she is but we don't know.

She she simply goes and just falls off her chair on the floor right next to the host.

How many of you saw that?

You you may have seen the the clip this morning, but if you saw it live, if you saw it live, it was super unsettling, but it it got even more unsettling because of the way the host handled it.

So, that's the funny part.

Now again, there's nothing funny about this if she has some real medical problem, but uh I think the fact that we haven't earned an update probably means it was just some kind of ordinary fainting attack and yet that she's fine.

So, she's laying on the floor.

We still don't know if she's okay.

It looked like one of the technical people ran into see what was what.

And so the host immediately calls for help.

He goes, "Oh, we need some help here." Immediately, just as he should, but then the host doesn't know what to do because they're still alive and he's got another guest that he has a question for while his uh while his colleague is laying laying on the ground next to his feet.

and he's probably thinking to himself, "How do I play this?

Do I just stop the show?" Uh, and he and he decides that his best way to play it is to just throw a question to the next guest, which I'm no expert in these things.

Yeah, I'm no I'm no medical doctor, nor am I a TV show host.

But I'll tell you what the wrong answer was.

The wrong answer was to throw a question to the next to the next guest while she's lying on the floor next to his feet.

Okay.

And again, there's nothing funny about it if anything bad happened to her.

So, I'm I'm hoping I'm hoping that, you know, I can make fun of the host of the show, you know, without any of that disrespect going to her because we don't know what happened.

It could be worse than it looked.

I don't know.

Um, but then you could you could almost hear the uh the the producers.

So, he starts to just go on with the show while she's still laying there on the floor.

you couldn't see her, you know, but you knew that she had to be laying there because of where the chairs were.

Uh, and then he goes, "Oh, uh, I guess we're going to a commercial." So, in case this ever happens to you, um, and by the way, I was trying to imagine if any other host of Fox News would have played it the same way.

And I'm trying to imagine, you know, Hannity, if that happened on a Hannity show, he would take his earpiece out.

He would say, you know, we got a problem here, he would have immediately gotten out of his chair, and he would have been on the ground, even if the camera couldn't follow him.

And he would have probably said while he was doing it, you know, cut to commercial.

he he would have just taken charge, right?

And you know, you could put in a bunch of other hosts of Fox News would have played it the same way, but the right answer is to immediately stop the program.

There's there's no second way to play that and that you immediately get down on the ground and see if you can be useful or, you know, at least find out what's going on.

And if the producers want to go to a commercial, well, let them go to a commercial, but that's not your problem right now.

So that's my my advice.

All right.

So that weird thing was happening.

And then I a little bit later, like almost the same time, I switched to CNN and I learned that uh Judge Janine from Fox News, you know her from um the five and other things, uh has been appointed by President Trump as the interim US attorney for Washington DC.

This is that highly controversial post that Ed Martin was uh um going to be nominated for, but he was withdrawn cuz uh Senator Tillis had a problem with his experience and some things he said in the past, I guess.

And I thought to myself, wait a minute.

Are are you really telling me that Ed Martin because he had said some things in the past about January 6 and maybe he didn't have as much prosetorial experience that that was the reason that the senator said no I won't support him.

Are you telling me that Judge Janine is going to pass those two bars?

Are all the things that Judge Janine has ever said about January 6 going to pass muster with that same senator?

Tell us.

How's that going to work?

And uh and I don't know, you know, about I don't have a way to comment about her prosetorial experience, but she hasn't been doing it for a while.

You know, I think she's been doing the TV thing for quite a while now.

So, I don't know if she's uh the right pick, but she would be loyal and maybe that's the most important part because uh you want somebody who's not going to use that position to go after Republicans and she definitely wouldn't go after Republicans.

So, you got that going for you.

But here's the weird part, and I I need a fact check on this.

So, I need one of you to have been watching CNN at the same time last night.

the CNN host host this I can't remember who it was uh kept teasing that she was going to be a guest live on CNN and I thought to myself what how does that even make sense that you know that Fox News would not be the first one to put her on and I thought is is this some kind of you know is she making a statement to Fox News you know did things go not Well, so she's going to do a hit on CNN.

And then it got weirder.

But here's where I need to the fact check.

I don't think she went on.

I kept watching and waiting and I think they had somebody else come on to talk about her.

Now, did anybody see her go on CNN last night?

Because if she didn't go on after they continually teased that she was the she was a guest and she'd be up pretty soon, would that mean that maybe it looked like they were sabotaging her and she pulled out?

Cuz I'm guessing that's what happened, but I don't know.

because it looked like when they were talking about her and they had somebody on before she came on to talk about her that it felt a little like a setup like like they weren't going to give her a you know a fair hearing and I wonder if she just said all right I'm out you know you you can do whatever you want with your dead air time did that happen so I I just need to fact check did she show up on air and did I just sort of miss it or something.

I don't think she did.

So anyway, maybe we'll hear more about that, but she would uh not be still on the five because Fox News has a rule that uh if you're working for the government, can't be on the show.

And I guess being nominated for this um would make it make it impossible for her to be on the show.

Um, did you know according to the Amuse account um you're aware that uh Smartmatic, the software company that does elections, election software, that uh they've got some kind of lawsuit that's still brewing with uh Fox News.

But the new new news that I didn't know about before that the Muse account is talking about is that allegedly Democrat billionaire Reed Hoffman secretly met with Smartmatic CEO and agreed to give them uh what uh Senator Tom Tillis says Judge Janine is a great choice.

I'm seeing a post on that, but that's uh Oh, okay.

Um, so Reed Offman apparently put 24 million into backing the lawsuits against Fox News and Newsmax.

And uh, according to the news account, the company kept the meeting secret from the court and the defendants.

Now, is that true?

Do you think Reed Hoffman put $24 million into the lawsuits?

And if he hadn't, would the lawsuits have happened?

Because in a way that would be really clever cuz he could have taken out or almost did Fox News and Newsmax.

He could have just completely taken them off the field for what would be small amount of money for Reed Hoffman.

Did that really happen?

It it feels like our government is whoever does the best job of suing somebody.

Anyway, um you probably uh have seen the clips by now that Joe Biden and Jill Biden appeared on The View and it looked like they were trying to rehabilitate Joe in the public to make it look like he's functional and always was.

and he did not look functional.

He looked like he was a mess and Jill had to jump in and try to save him on one important question.

Um, but apparently even the Democrat consultants are mad that the Biden's return to the spotlight.

How would you like to be a Democrat?

And you're trying to recover from just a disastrous, you know, last year and the thing you want more than anything is for people to think about the future and maybe your new candidates and then the news cycle gets absorbed by Joe Biden looking incompetent again.

Worstcase scenario.

So, a very bad week to be a Democrat consultant uh when when Biden's just just out there looking bad, but apparently it's going to get worse.

So, Scott Jennings is teasing that uh he said this in a post on X.

He said, "Between what we saw of Biden today on The View and my understanding of what's about to drop in the Tapper/Tompson book, uh oh, I don't think Dems have fully internalized the nuclear bomb that's about to hit their party." Oh my goodness.

So, it looks like Jake Tapper and somebody named Thompson have a book that will not be kind to the Bidens.

And it sounds like Scott Jennings had a little preview of what's coming.

Do you think he is uh do you think that's hyperbole?

Do you think that Scott Jennings is getting out a little bit over his skis or is this book going to be that devastating?

I feel like it might be that devastating.

Um because the the media really needs to make sure that the blame looks like it's just on the Bidens cuz then the media doesn't look like they're complicit.

So I think the media has to hit the Bidens as hard as they possibly can and that they feel safe to do it and it's even profitable at the moment.

So yeah, there might be some fun coming there.

Well, let's uh let's check how I did on my prediction about the UK trade deal.

You remember yesterday I said when the the trade deal was being announced, I said that the uh the left-leaning media would say it's no big deal and it's a special case and it really is not indicative of anything good happening and it wouldn't be much benefit whatsoever to America.

Well, that's exactly what happened.

That's exactly what happened.

Um, but it is a small deal and apparently our trade imbalance with the UK was never much of anything to worry about anyway.

Uh, but it looks like what uh the things they've talked about anyway, it's it's not a sign deal.

It's more of a memo of understanding kind of situation.

So, in exchange for the UK purchasing Boeing jets and giving American farmers more access to the UK, uh, the US is going to allow Rolls-Royce jet engines to be imported tariff-free.

Is that all?

Um, there will still be a 10% tariff on the UK, which is way up from what, 2.4%.

Um and and apparently we had a trade uh we didn't have a trade deficit with the UK.

We they were buying more than we were buying from them.

So it looks like it was a pretty small potatoes deal.

It was the easiest one to do because it wasn't much there wasn't much going on that either side cared about too much, I guess.

So um so on one sense I think the critics were right.

It's not really indicative of anything else that's going to happen anywhere else.

It was the easy one.

It was a special case.

However, there's not really any chance that that's the only trade deal.

So the fact that the easy one went first probably doesn't tell you much of anything.

it just that would be the obvious one to go first.

So, we'll see.

In other good news, according to the postmillennial, um the world's second largest car maker, which would include the which is the Volkswagen group, and I guess they own um do they own uh Audi?

I think they do.

and the they're going to look to move production to the United States, at least for Audi, and that wouldn't be another big deal.

Um, yeah, Trump is saying it's great for our American farmers and ranchers.

Well, good.

So, so the one thing that Trump promised us appears to be real, uh, which is that big companies will move their production into the United States if they can, and the car manufacturers are probably among the among the ones who would have the easiest time moving their production.

So, looks like it's happening.

In other news, for the first time ever, the volume of Google searches went down.

And uh that's because a senior Apple executive said that in a court situation that Google searches over Safari uh fell for the last two months.

And that's something that hasn't happened in 20 years.

uh so I guess it wasn't forever but in over 20 years and and uh the executive attributed the drop to the number of people were using AI chat GPT and perplexity so big things are going to looks like big things are going to change with Google's business model you know part of it might be uh they have to break up because of some kind of monopoly claims that are being made.

But the other possibility is that nothing will happen because there uh there is a new competition and AI will be eating their lunch unless they do something big to correct.

You know, I've talked about this before, but I'm going to I'm going to put it in a larger context today.

If you haven't seen it yet, you need to see the video of Victor Davis Hansen explaining how the fake polls do their faking.

And apparently it's just really easy.

All they do is they they control what percentage of voters for each candidate, Trump versus non-Trump, that they talk to.

So if they want a poll to look bad for Trump, they don't ask many Trump voters what their opinion was.

And if they want it to look good for Trump or not good for Trump, because they never want that.

If they want it to look accurate, you know, like all the pollsters do just before the actual election because that's the one time you can check their work, then all they do is make sure they ask the representative number of Trump voters versus non-Trump voters.

And it's sort of that easy.

And they even show their work.

So you could, if you knew enough, you could look at their, I don't know, the cross tabs or whatever it is and they publish it and they tell you what percentage are this kind of voters or this kind of voters and you could tell that they were doing that.

Now what Victor David Hansen says, he gives some details.

He says the New York Times and the Washington Post polls, they were deliberately not counting people who um who surveyed that they were Trump supporters in 2024 and that was half the country, but they were only polling about a third.

Um and then he he mentions some other people.

He says the most egregious the most egregious of all these polls was the NPR PBS Maris poll.

Um, and they had uh Trump being, you know, super unpopular after his first 100 days.

And uh, apparently they they may have used that same trick.

I think that's what he's alleging.

And uh, there the same poll he says that came out the night before the 2024 election that said that Kla Harris would win by four points and they said it was beyond the margin of error.

and she ended up losing by a point and a half.

In other words, they were five and a half points off right before the election.

Now, you can't really be five and a half points off if you're a professional polling organization unless you're trying to.

I mean, that would be a really big mistake a day before the election.

So my larger point here is that apparently uh you know and based on what Victor Davis Hansen says it kind of looks like polling is fake.

Uh at least political polling not corporate or you know the commercial stuff is probably fine but uh at least the political stuff seems to be highly biased.

But Rasmusen, which is not part of these bad behavior polls, um, with the H Heartland Institute did a poll, and this is the most shocking thing you'll ever hear in a poll in the United States.

71% of Democrats would favor a hypothetical law to put Musk behind bars for his work on Doge, as would 80% of self-identified liberal voters.

Can you believe that?

that for him risking his life and his fortune and working, you know, all hours of the night for the service of the country trying to cut our expenses and saving us from going off the ledge and spending that somehow the, you know, the the propaganda was so effective that 71% of Democrats would want him to be locked up in jail for But for for what exactly would be the crime is stuff they just make up?

Because you know, you hear all the people like the Democrat leader say, "Oh, he's only doing it to lower the taxes on the oligarchs like himself.

He's only doing it to cut the regulators who are trying to control his megalomania or something." And then 71% of Democrats were so convinced that that stuff was true that they would that they would be in favor of locking him up.

I'll tell you, if you ever get the impulse to do something that's really good for America, don't do it.

It's It's a suicide mission.

Oh my god.

But did Doge do what it was supposed to do?

Well, um I saw a uh post by an exus user, John Sers, and I think he was using Grock as his source, which makes this interesting.

But here's what you need to know.

There's a there's a great controversy about how much Doge benefited the budget.

All right.

Now, you would not be surprised to know that some left-leaning groups have a much lower opinion of what Doge did.

So, remember that Doge was looking to try to get $2 trillion in spending by now, basically.

So, that was their goal.

Um, and at one point I heard it was$1 trillion and then the other trillion would be made up with growth.

And I thought to myself, well, you know, one trillion, one trillion would be amazing.

It would save the country.

But currently, Doge is claiming something like 160 or 165 billion in savings.

But do you think everybody agrees with that?

That it's 160 billion?

Uh well, Reuters, who does not seem to be super friendly to Republicans, uh they estimated that the actual Doge savings could be as low as $5 billion.

Five.

Uh the New York Times reported that the Doge savings could be only 2.3 billion.

How many of you even knew that?

So again, the New York Times is not considered a Republicanfriendly place.

Uh the Partnership for Public Service, this nonpartisan group, uh they calculated that Doge's actions might have cost taxpayers 135 billion due to paid leave, rehiring fired workers, and lost productivity.

And uh basically saying that it's going to cost more than they save.

by about this the amount they're claiming they're saved might be actually what the actual extra cost is.

Bloomberg again not friendly to Republicans uh says that after correcting errors like an 8 billion contract that was misreported as 8 million uh the estimated savings for Doge would be 16.6 billion 16 Um so the estimates of real savings range from 2 to 16 billion and the true figure remains unclear.

Um and Grock apparently supports supports those reports meaning it doesn't agree with them but it it reports them that they are actually saying that now have you noticed that the people working on the budget don't seem to be coming to us with a smaller budget.

All they did was add $150 billion to the current budget and and they didn't do anything else.

I have no idea what Speaker Johnson is doing, but I don't think he's cutting anything.

Do you have you seen anything that's being cut?

You know, there might be some trivial little things they move around, but basically the entire budget process is just fake.

They're simply pretending that they're looking at it with with a scalpel.

They're not looking at it with a scalpel.

They're just giving us the same budget they always do with a little bit added for military there.

There's no Doge savings in it.

It's just completely fake.

And and they're just going to put it at us just like they always do.

and Thomas Massie will once again vote against it for all the right reasons and we'll end up getting mad.

We'll say bad things and we'll just go racing toward the ledge that we can't possibly survive which is uncontrolled debt.

Do any of you think there's any chance that the budget is going to have any self-control whatsoever?

I don't think so.

And I don't think but I don't think the Doge savings are even big enough that they'll show up at all.

I don't think any of it was real.

So that's what I think.

Um Trump said uh today that he might cut tariffs on China to 80% from 145 and that would be before the weekend talks in Switzerland between the United States and Chinese representatives.

And I don't understand this.

Why would he offer to cut the cut the tariffs before the negotiations?

That would be like negotiating with yourself.

Unless, you know, maybe he has some indication that China's going to be flexible and he wants to make sure that he looks like he was a little bit flexible himself.

I don't know.

But the funny part uh is that when he posted about it on truth, he referred to Scott Basent as Scott B.

Scott B because of Bent.

But the good news is I'm still Scott A.

So wouldn't you rather be Scott A than Scott B?

Makes him my backup.

But he's cool, too.

He's cool, too.

I like Scott B.

I don't know if you heard this, but uh Steve Scaliz is uh complaining that apparently we know now from some documents that have recently become available that the FBI deliberately withheld facts about the congressional baseball shooting, which included Steve Scalis as one of the victims of the shooting.

And uh at the time they they said that the uh motivation was suicide by cop.

In other words, they said that the guy doing the shooting wanted to die, you know, in sort of an exciting way.

So that's what he did.

Apparently, that was totally made up and that the FBI knew at the time it was completely politically motivated and it was simply left-wing violence.

Why do you think the FBI reported it as suicide by cop, which would be a non-political thing, instead of exactly what it was, which was a left-wing person who got um got turned into an extremist by the propaganda.

Well, the only reason I can think of is that the FBI was politicized, but uh Cash Patel seems to have re, you know, fix that by releasing some extra documents.

So, yes, the FBI as recently as the congressional baseball shootings, which wasn't that long ago, were politicized and so their work could not be trusted.

Do you think that changed?

Here's a uh interesting study by George Mason University is talking about it.

So they did a study where they were trying to figure out um in advance which which businesses were likely to manipulate or bend their their earnings reports essentially fraudulently make claims about their earnings so that they wouldn't uh you know their stock wouldn't go down.

So they use the AI to see if they can identify the language that's used when they're hiring people for the the job of, you know, reporting the earnings and doing the calculating.

And they found out that the ones who were planning to cheat and planning to lie about their earnings when they were hiring people to be the, you know, the main person who would do that kind of uh work, they use rule bender sentences.

So the rule bender sentences would be that they're looking for somebody who can think outside the box, explore alternative solutions and strategic data interpretation.

So apparently if you're looking for somebody who can think outside the box when it comes to reporting your earnings, it it's sort of a wink wink.

you know, we need you to, you know, think outside the box.

Can you be flexible, but if they wanted to if they were not planning to fraudulently report their own earnings, the the rule follower language was they're looking for somebody who can ensure conformance, enforce compliance, and provide accurate and timely financial reporting.

Now, I don't know if this is a, you know, a reproducible study or not, but it does sound like it might be because if if you knew you needed somebody to bend the rules, I can imagine that your job opening would have some language that was kind of rule bendy right in there.

Anyway, uh the UCLA medical school um just got hit with a class action lawsuit for still using DEI and race race based admissions.

Fox News is reporting on this and here's my take on all this.

You know, it seems like every day there's somebody who's getting, you know, defunded because of their DEI.

in this case, somebody who's going to be part of a class action lawsuit because of their DEI.

But I don't think any of it's going to go away.

And I think the reason it can't go away is that it's the same people at those entities that put it there in the first place.

And so it's going to be a combination of people who are true believers who who think they're on the side of the angels and that the government is the bad guys.

Now if you think the government is the bad guys and and you're like you know you're doing the you know what is it the underground railroad or something you feel like you're some kind of a hero by resisting the government.

But there might be a much simpler reason why it's never going to go away.

You know, even though the government says it's illegal and there people are suing you and there's all kinds of pressure to get rid of it, but it's not going to go away because imagine being um imagine being part of an organization that had embraced DEI as one of its highest principles and you'd be living that way for years.

Then imagine coming into the room and having to give this announcement.

Hey everybody, I know I know DEI has been our highest priority and you know you're looking at your diverse employees by now, but it turns out that it was all illegal and it was racist and turns out it turns out we're the racists.

You know, we didn't see that coming, but turns out we're the bad guys.

So, instead of being the bad guys, uh, we're going to change everything and stop being racist.

Who could do that?

Nobody.

there there's no actual way that in the real world real people could change on a dime from it's our highest priority to oh well it turns out that it's actually just illegal and we're just a bunch of racists and we better cut out this right away.

Nobody can do that.

They're all going to turn into secret, you know, underground railroad heroes.

Well, let's just change the names of our department.

Let's just hide.

All right, we'll say we got rid of the web page, but we'll just keep doing it like we always do it.

I don't think any of these victories are going to be lasting.

I I think the DEI racist um approach will just become permanent.

Well, I think it is permanent.

I I just don't see anything that's going to change it.

I hate to say it, but every claim, you know, I was getting all excited because the Trump administration was doing all the right things to attack the DEI practitioners.

I don't think any of it's going to work because they would be willing to take enormous risks to stay illegal because they think they're the angels.

According to the University of Pittsburgh, they did a study, a Pit Michigan study, and they found out that uh women who have both high math and verbal abilities are less likely to go into STEM careers.

But if they have higher math abilities and lower uh verbal, they're a little more likely to want to go into STEM.

So, this is all part of the uh an effort to figure out how to get more women who are both high high math and high verbal to go into STEM.

Now, they they're speculating that the reason that the the group with the most capability, the women with the most capability are not as likely to go into STEM is that they have more options.

So if they have high verbal, well, you could also be an author or you could also be the head of a I don't know, you could be the CEO or something.

So you don't you're not limited.

So you just decide other things.

But my question is this, how long are we going to pretend that you can hypnotize women into doing they don't want to do?

Don't you think the entire problem boils down to, well, they just don't want to do that?

And no matter how much you try to convince them, they're still going to look at it and say, "Yeah, yeah, I mean, I wouldn't be good at that." Yeah, you're right.

I would be good at that, but I don't want to do it.

Doesn't look like fun.

I have I have options.

So, it feels like we're just we're we're just spinning our wheels on that.

Speaking of women, um you probably heard Fox News is reporting this that at the Columbia University protest that some would call anti-semitic.

I guess it was it.

So, it was a pro Palestinian, but maybe it was too close to pro- Hamas uh protest.

And there were a bunch of arrests because it happened at Columbia University.

But of the 80 people arrested, there were only 19 males but 61 females.

So, how do you explain that it's mostly females in that particular demonstration?

Well, I think it's because the men were in STEM programs and they didn't have the time.

No, I'm just kidding.

I'm just kidding.

It had nothing to do with STEM.

But uh I'm going to give you my speculation and it goes like this.

It's super sexist.

Are you ready?

I don't think women have the same biological aptitude for military security.

I don't think women have the same biological aptitude for military security.

Here's what I mean by that.

Only men know how deadly men are.

Women can observe it and they can be victims of it, but they can't truly understand that we're all killers.

And that if you put us in a situation where we can kill our enemies, we sort of do it.

And if you look at the uh the Palestinian situation, one interpretation would be um the female interpretation would be, "Hey, if you could just be nicer to the Palestinians, then the Palestinians would calm down and uh the violence would stop and everybody would win.

So, let's just give the Palestinians their own homeland, give them the things they want, and we'll be able to solve these problems.

I believe that men have a completely different biological military security opinion and it goes like this.

Whoever has the power in the Middle East to wipe out the other side is going to wipe out the other side.

So, your only choices are, do you want it to be somebody who is your ally or somebody who wants to wipe out you next?

Now, we can't say these things out loud, but we kind of know it.

We know it.

And I don't think women know it.

I think women are still trapped in the well, of course they're angry and, you know, of course they're going to act out because you're not being nice to them.

If you would just treat them right, then I think everybody would just hold hands and get along.

And men say, "I don't think you understand what's happening there at all.

We're killers." And in the Middle East, both sides are pretty deadly.

And uh if if the Palestinians got everything they wanted, I think women would be surprised and men would not.

So I do think there's a biological difference in just understanding how deadly men are.

And I think that you just have to be a man to understand that.

Same way, I mean, you can reverse it easily.

I don't think men should be involved in abortion decisions.

You know, I mean, you can be.

It's legal and you have a right to it, but I don't feel like I could understand it the same way a woman could understand it.

So, let them make the decision.

That's just one example.

So, I'm just speculating, but that's what it feels like to me.

Um, Tulsi Gabbard's releasing going to release over 6,000 files on the RFK assassination.

Um, I'm going to make a prediction.

You're not going to learn anything new.

I really don't think any of these document releases are going to be really super telling us anything we didn't know from the Kennedys to Epstein to anything else.

um for all the obvious reasons.

You know, if it really mattered, it would already be deleted or wouldn't be in the records at all.

But it's kind of interesting that RFK Jr.

um who has looked into it quite a bit as you'd imagine is not entirely convinced that Sirhan Surhan was the killer.

And if you've heard any of the speculation and talk about the murder, there is all kinds of stuff that doesn't make sense.

You know, they're like too many bullets were fired and from the wrong direction and there's just all kinds of stuff in that story that doesn't make sense.

But on the other hand, there were so many witnesses.

There's like just tons of witnesses.

Is it possible that none of the witnesses had the right story?

Maybe.

I mean, it's not impossible, but it seems unlikely.

On the other hand, is anything that's important in our history real?

Probably not.

There's probably nothing in our history that you think is, you know, settled history except for maybe names and dates, you know, like we know RFK's name and we know the date of the event, but probably that's the only thing that's real.

I mean, it might be like everything else, which is not real.

You know, it's just the version we got fed.

But I don't think the documents that we have on file redacted or not are going to make any difference to that.

Meanwhile, the Postmillennial is reporting that uh that uh US attorney John Sirone is going to be part of uh looking into Leticia James mortgage fraud.

So, the FBI has opened a formal criminal probe into Leticia James over her own uh real estate related transactions, which uh at least on paper look obviously illegal.

We'll see what the uh courts decide.

But uh here's the So, it's the good news, bad news.

The good news is I'm very happy that Leticia James, who seems crooked, is being looked into for her own crimes.

On the other hand, why did it take a Republican administration for this to happen?

Doesn't it sort of suggest that the FBI is completely politicized and if the uh Republicans have the dominant control, they can just pick a Republican leaning bunch of FBI people to do what they want and go after anybody they want.

It's not better if the Republicans do it, but it does suggest that the FBI is not anything like an independent body that's just trying to get rid of crime.

at least when it comes to the political domain.

So, uh, the the attorney general, Leticia James, was probably crooked and politicized.

The FBI may not be much better according to Steve Scaliz and the uh, congressional shooting stuff.

And and you know what, Crossfire, hurricane, and how many other things have we heard where they appear to be politicized, if not corrupt?

Uh, President Trump is doing his Trumpian thing, uh, where he can take both sides of an issue.

Man, he could do this better than anybody's ever done it.

So, one of the questions about the the budget thing is whether they will raise taxes on the um the rich.

You know, I think it's people over 5 million a year or something like that.

And there's a some movement within the Republican party to do it, but of course there are other people who are just saying, "No way.

No way.

No raising taxes.

We just don't do that." So it's certainly not a solved problem.

But Trump is now saying on uh Truth uh that he's not in favor of it.

He's not in favor of raising the taxes because the Democrats would use it as a sound bite.

Sort of like uh George Bush's read my read my lips no new taxes.

So if he did raise taxes even on just the rich and even if the Democrats were fully on board with that um he still feels they like they would use it as a club to say, "Well, it's not what you said you'd do." and he probably has a little bit of a point there.

But then he says at the same time he says he doesn't want to do it because it gives the Democrats a a sound bite, he doesn't want to act like he's just protecting his own tax base because that would be a bad look to.

So he says that uh uh the the GOP should probably not raise taxes on the rich, but if they do, he's okay with it.

He's the only person in the world who could say that.

And you just say, "All right.

All right.

Um, digital equity program." I guess Trump's posting about this.

There was a digital equity program.

Some racist program that's getting cut, I guess.

All right.

So, um, all everything that was in in my, uh, my reading today was leading up to the following point.

Do you ever wonder how I, as a non-scientist, could be so darn confident that the climate models are BS?

You ever wonder about that?

It's like, I'm not really an expert on climate models.

I'm not even a scientist and I don't have any expertise in environment.

Why am I so confident that the climate models are BS?

Well, some of it is that, you know, I worked with prediction models in the finance area and I saw that as soon as you add certain number of variables, you can't predict anything.

You know, you can sort of just pick your assumptions to make it look anything you want.

So, that's part of it.

But here's the real reason.

The FBI is corrupt.

The DOJ is probably corrupt.

Uh I'm not sure.

In 2020, there was a suspicious number of Biden votes that don't look real to me.

I don't know for sure, but they don't look real to me.

Uh the polls are often fake.

Victor David Davis Hansen explained that the Doge savings may be entirely fake or it may be that just if you're left-leaning media you you could say they're fake and if you're right leaning you say they're real.

The tariff estimates that Trump has done seem ridiculous.

The trade deals are being called fake and the budget process is completely fake and corrupt.

So, are we supposed to believe that every institution that we look into is completely corrupt except for the climate models?

I mean, I mean, just let that soak in.

Every single thing that we can check that's big and important is fake.

Everything.

But you think the climate models are the only exception.

You don't need to be an expert.

All you have to know is that everything is fake.

Once you learn that everything that can be faked is faked, you you become the expert.

If they invented something tomorrow that, you know, I don't even put a name on it, just a new thing that was big and complicated, I would tell you it's fake and I would be right without even knowing what the topic is.

If you just said, "Oh, we're going to put $50 billion into this new thing and they they've got all kinds of data and the data backs what they're doing." I would say, "Yeah, it's fake.

It's all fake." And if if you got a chance to look into it, you would find out I'm right without being an expert because everything that can be faked is faked.

Everything.

It doesn't take any expertise at all to know that.

So to me, it's just hilarious that every time I post on X, wait, do you find out about the climate models?

There is a 100% chance that those climate models will be debunked and go down in history like the food pyramid.

It's the food pyramid, people.

It's the food pyramid.

I don't know when it will happen.

Could be tomorrow.

Could be in 20 years.

But the climate models, there's not a chance, there's not even the slightest chance that those are real.

So, we'll see.

Anyway, uh Google's ex Google CEO Eric Schmidt uh has warned that China technology is pulling ahead and Davis Axe writing about this on on X um saying that uh they're they're doing better on AI.

Part of the problem is that apparently in the US we've got something called uh some kind of AI diffusion rule.

It's 200 pages of regulations that hinder the adoption of American technology even by close partners.

Now, I don't know the details of that, but it sounds like the US has crippled itself so that it can't compete with China and that that's a big deal.

Now, um since the smart people seem to know about it, I mean, Sachs has a a big voice in the administration, he knows about it.

Um maybe we're doing something about it.

He says that Trump is committed to residing 10 regulations for every new one.

And if the US doesn't embrace this uh the same concept for AI, we're going to lose the AI race, which would mean losing everything.

So, we'll see if that goes in the right direction.

Um, as you know, Putin was doing his victory day celebrations over there, and I was wondering if any Ukrainian drones were going to go that way.

Well, I guess they sent one that struck a government building, but you know, didn't cause any death or too much damage.

But I guess the Ukrainians just couldn't resist, so they sent one little drone to blow up nothing important.

According to Interesting Engineering, France plans to have an all robot army by 2027.

No, by 2040.

But they'll have combat robots by 2027.

How would you feel if you got drafted into uh into a military that was mostly robots, but they needed some humans?

Because if robots fight robots, which is where it's heading, obviously, if robots fight robots, what happens when one of the robot teams wins?

because they don't really need to go kill any civilians, right?

Because they would have destroyed all the robot military, so there wouldn't be any resistance.

So, there's not really any reason to kill the, you know, the civilians.

So, doesn't it look like we're heading exactly for the original Star Treks vision of war?

I tell you, when I was a little kid, I remember seeing that episode, and I'll describe it in a moment.

And I never forgot it.

It was like one of the most disturbingly probably future world.

And the idea was that instead of having real wars, there was a planet, maybe a few planets, they would have uh these simulated wars where they would look at, you know, the assets and the military capability of each side and then they would put it in a computer and they would say, "All right, if this is the war, this is the side that would win." And then the winning team would well the losing team would uh basically volunteer to get um killed by some machine that would do it quickly and painlessly and they would just line up to be killed because their side had lost so at least they'd make it painless.

And it was just so disturbing.

And I thought to myself, is it going to be some version of that where if the robots of one big country beat the robots of the other and presumably they could be, you know, hunt down and kill every single robot of the other side if they were the dominant side?

What would you do with the humans?

Would you kill them because you could?

Or would the humans say we don't surrender?

And maybe they wouldn't.

Maybe you'd have to.

I don't know.

So, we'll see.

But robot armies are going to be more than it's going to be more than just the war.

There's going to be a whole difference in what war is and how we think about it and the psychology of it and everything else.

Very unpredictable.

Well, meanwhile, Fox News is reporting that Mandy Moore, you know, she's a celebrity star, Mandy Moore.

Uh, I guess her house was partially destroyed in the LA fires and, uh, she's finding that it's impossible to build build back.

So, as she points out, she has the contractor, um, she has all the plans, she's submitted everything.

She just can't get approval to build.

And apparently there have been six approvals given of 10,000 structures that were destroyed.

Now, how incompetent is California?

Because don't you remember that uh there was this point where I think even Trump was warning the the mayor that they're going to have to figure out how to get rid of all the regulations so they can build back in a efficient way.

Nothing like that happened.

Nothing.

Uh now I don't know why but if I had to guess it's very much like I was describing the DEI situation.

Imagine if you're the part of the government that has control over approvals and you know what endangered frog has to be saved and you've you've dedicated your whole life to the proposition that we can't be doing these dangerous bad for the environment things.

How are you going to change your mind if if Trump comes to town and says, "Yeah, you just have to do it faster and and cut some regulations." Are the save the frogs people gonna suddenly say, "Oh, well, okay, screw the frogs.

I want Mandy Moore to build her house faster." Not in any world.

The the people who created the rules are going to dig in and they're just going to say, "We can't change these rules.

Are you kidding me?

We'll lose a frog or we'll lose a fish." So, I don't think that the people have the ability to change their minds.

I mean, they would be everything about their life would become a joke if they just threw it all away and said, "All right, all right.

We didn't mean it about the frogs." Yeah, go ahead.

Build your house, Mr.

Rich Person.

Build your house.

So, I don't see how it gets fixed unless 100% of the employees who are involved in approvals are replaced because they're the ones who created the stuff.

They're not going to throw it away just cuz somebody else wants them to.

They'll just slow walk it because you can slow walk anything.

And it looks like that might be what's happening.

Doing a little slow walking.

All right, ladies and gentlemen, that's all I had for today.

I'm going to say a few words privately to the subscribers on locals.

If you don't subscribe yet to the Dilbert comic, which you can see on X if you subscribe to me on X, um today's Dilbert comic might be one of the funniest things I've ever written, if I do say so myself.

So, you're missing out if you didn't get to see that today.

It's pretty damn funny.

Um has anybody seen it yet?

Those of you who are subscribers, I want to see if you agree because sometimes maybe I just think it's funny myself, but I think today's Dilbert comic, the one that just the subscribers are seeing, it just might be the funniest thing I've ever written.

Um, so if you only care about the comic, you can subscribe on X.

If you like some of the political stuff and some extra political comics and stuff like that, then you want to subscribe on Locals, but you got options.

So, there you go.

All right, Locals coming at you privately.

The rest of you on Rumble and You.

Tube and X, thanks for joining.

Hope to see you tomorrow.

Same time, same place.

Checking my

stocks. Looks like stocks are

up. Tesla is up. Holy cow. Tesla's way

up. The S&P 500's up a little bit.

Bitcoin's up

sharply. Looking good. I guess we should

have a

show. Do you want to have a

show? Get my comments working here and

then we'll get going.

[Music]

Good morning everybody and welcome to

the highlight of human civilization.

It's called Coffee with Scott Adams and

I'll bet you never had a better time.

But if you'd like to see if you could

take this experience up to levels that

nobody can even understand with their

tiny shiny human

brains, all you need for that is a cuper

mugger, a glass of tanker chalice, a

canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any

kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid.

I like

coffee. And join me now for the

unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine end

of the day, the thing that makes

everything better. It's called the

simultaneous sip. Darn it. It's going to

happen right now.

Go. Don't you feel

better? That will cure your diabetes and

women. That's the latest

news. Well, unless you're the last

person on earth who knows

it. An American pope was selected. We've

never had an American pope. And I heard

some uh people who know what they're

talking about say that in the past when

they considered American candidates to

be pope, I guess that would have been

the cardinals. They decided that they

didn't want to make it look like America

owned everything. Like America has the

biggest military, has the biggest

economy, and they didn't want it also to

be looking like it was leading the

Catholic Church. So

apparently the thinking was that they

wouldn't uh select an American pope uh

until America was in

decline. So it didn't look just so it

wouldn't look like America was getting

everything all the good stuff.

So I don't know is America in

decline has the Catholic Church just

basically indirectly given us the

warning? Ah, I guess we could have an

American pope now. Looks like you're all

in

decline. Let's see if this is

working. But, uh, the American pope, I

guess he, uh, grew up in Chicago and

went to Villanova and he was a math

major and he speaks five

languages and, uh, good luck. Good luck

to

him. We'll see. You know, it it feels

like I'm just going to

speculate. Um it feels like if the

Catholic Church wanted to have more

influence in, let's say, big things that

America is involved in, it probably

would help a lot that they've got an

American pope because don't you think

the American pope, somebody else said

this, so I'm I'm borrowing this idea.

Don't you think the American Pope could

pick up the phone and just call

Trump? Of course he could. That they

could just have a phone call. Whereas I

don't think there's ever been a

pope. Is there? When was the last time

there was a pope who spoke English? And

well, there's never been an American

one. So, you know, Trump would take the

call and he'd probably just hang out

hang out with him if he wanted to. you'd

probably have dinner with

them. So, it might be one of the most

genius things the Catholics have come up

with if they want to have some kind of

more influence on things they care about

like immigration,

uh, the environment, etc. So, we'll see

how that works

out. In other incredibly important news,

u, Melania Trump unveiled a US stamp

honoring Barbara Bush.

So, I guess it was a little uh dicey

about who would be unveiling it because,

you know, President Trump has said such

bad things about the Bush family in the

past. He was the wrong choice. So,

Melania was probably exactly the right

choice. Um, and not many of the Bush

family showed up. I guess some cousins

or something showed up. Um, but all I

can say about the Barbara Bush stamp

is personally I'd be afraid to lick it.

But that's just me. That's just

me. That's the oldest joke in the world.

You knew somebody was going to say that.

Um, according to the New York Post,

there's this uh this top exNASA official

who claims they saw a large white flying

saucer uh in a big warehouse that had a

US Air Force logo and he was told it was

using the alien technology that they had

captured. So, he claims that he uh he

once actually saw it himself.

uh Dr. Gregory

Rogers and it was part of a secretive

project. Now, how many of you think

that's

true? Do you think this story is true?

And the US Air Force, you know, built

their own UFO based on alien

technology. I have one word for

you. Nope.

I don't care how many times they try to

tell us the same story.

No, I'm not even sure I would believe a

video of it. Like I would need to see

you like a real person who was not part

of the military or I think standing next

to it, some credible reporter, you know,

put his hands on it, you know, ride

around in it, show us the alien craft.

It would take so so much to convince me

that we had captured off-world alien

technology and built a

spacecraft and then we don't use it

because apparently this would have been

30 years

ago. So, do you think we've had alien

technology for 30 years and it's really

the good stuff? And for 30

years, we decided not to use

[Laughter]

it. I don't believe any of this stuff.

Not even a little bit. Uh, two-hour

podcast with Bob Lazar wouldn't change

your mind. No, Bob Lazar. Are you

kidding me? How many of you think Bob

Lazar is a a credible

source? That is so not

credible. Well, last night was the

weirdest. Uh I actually I couldn't sleep

because I kept thinking about it. Yeah,

I was going to say I almost couldn't

sleep, but it actually kept me awake for

a while.

So, by complete coincidence,

um, toddling around, getting ready to go

to bed early, as I like to do, and I had

Fox News on, and uh, there was uh, one

of the Fox News contributors, I guess

maybe contributor is the right word,

Cameron Kinsey. She's 24 years old.

She's got long blonde hair if you've

seen him before. And I don't know the

the host. So the Fox News host was not

familiar to me. So he wasn't wasn't one

of the name brand famous ones. He looked

like he was a fill-in kind of a host who

does the weird hours or something. So

the Fox News host uh gives her a

question and

uh I'm sort of half paying attention

while doing other things. and she starts

to answer the question and then all of a

sudden she just stops talking in the

middle of her answer which of course

caused me to look at the screen to see

what was happening and all of a sudden

and you know this is nothing to laugh at

cuz we don't know we don't know if she's

okay yet. I think she is but we don't

know. She she simply

goes and just falls off her chair on the

floor right next to the

host. How many of you saw that? You you

may have seen the the clip this morning,

but if you saw it

live, if you saw it live, it was super

unsettling, but it it got even more

unsettling because of the way the host

handled

it. So, that's the funny part.

Now again, there's nothing funny about

this if she has some real medical

problem, but uh I think the fact that we

haven't earned an update probably means

it was just some kind of ordinary

fainting attack and yet that she's fine.

So, she's laying on the

floor. We still don't know if she's

okay. It looked like one of the

technical people ran into see what was

what. And so the host immediately calls

for help. He goes, "Oh, we need some

help here."

Immediately, just as he

should, but then the host doesn't know

what to do because they're still alive

and he's got another guest that he has a

question

for while his uh while his colleague is

laying laying on the ground next to his

feet. and he's probably thinking to

himself, "How do I play

this? Do I just stop the

show?" Uh, and he and he decides that

his best way to play it is to just throw

a question to the next

guest, which I'm no expert in these

things. Yeah, I'm no I'm no medical

doctor, nor am I a TV show host. But

I'll tell you what the wrong answer was.

The wrong answer was to throw a question

to the next to the next

guest while she's lying on the floor

next to his

feet.

Okay. And again, there's nothing funny

about it if anything bad happened to

her. So, I'm I'm

hoping I'm hoping that, you know, I can

make fun of the host of the show, you

know, without any of that disrespect

going to her because we don't know what

happened. It could be worse than it

looked. I don't know.

Um, but then you could you could almost

hear the uh the the producers. So, he

starts to just go on with the show while

she's still laying there on the floor.

you couldn't see her, you know, but you

knew that she had to be laying there

because of where the chairs

were. Uh, and then he goes, "Oh, uh, I

guess we're going to a

[Laughter]

commercial." So, in case this ever

happens to you,

um, and by the way, I was trying to

imagine if any other host of Fox News

would have played it the same way. And

I'm trying to imagine, you know,

Hannity, if that happened on a Hannity

show, he would take his earpiece out. He

would say, you know, we got a problem

here, he would have immediately gotten

out of his chair, and he would have been

on the ground, even if the camera

couldn't follow him. And he would have

probably said while he was doing it, you

know, cut to commercial.

he he would have just taken charge,

right? And you know, you could put in a

bunch of other hosts of Fox News would

have played it the same way, but the

right answer is to immediately stop the

program. There's there's no second way

to play that and that you immediately

get down on the ground and see if you

can be useful or, you know, at least

find out what's going on. And if the

producers want to go to a commercial,

well, let them go to a commercial, but

that's not your problem right

now. So that's my my advice. All right.

So that weird thing was

happening. And then I a little bit

later, like almost the same time, I

switched to CNN and I learned that uh

Judge Janine from Fox News, you know her

from um the five and other things, uh

has been appointed by President Trump as

the interim US attorney for Washington

DC. This is that highly controversial

post that Ed Martin was uh um going to

be nominated for, but he was withdrawn

cuz uh Senator Tillis had a problem with

his experience and some things he said

in the past, I guess. And I thought to

myself, wait a minute.

Are are you really telling me that Ed

Martin because he had said some things

in the past about January

6 and maybe he didn't have as much

prosetorial

experience that that was the reason that

the senator said no I won't support

him. Are you telling me that Judge

Janine is going to pass those two bars?

Are all the things that Judge Janine has

ever said about January 6 going to pass

muster with that same senator? Tell us.

How's that going to

work? And uh and I don't know, you know,

about I don't have a way to comment

about her prosetorial experience, but

she hasn't been doing it for a while.

You know, I think she's been doing the

TV thing for quite a while now.

So, I don't know if she's uh the right

pick, but she would be loyal and maybe

that's the most important part because

uh you want somebody who's not going to

use that position to go after

Republicans and she definitely wouldn't

go after Republicans. So, you got that

going for you. But here's the weird

part, and I I need a fact check on this.

So, I need one of you to have been

watching CNN at the same time last

night.

the CNN

host host this I can't remember who it

was uh kept teasing that she was going

to be a guest live on

CNN and I thought to myself what how

does that even make sense that you know

that Fox News would not be the first one

to put her on and I thought is is this

some kind of you know is she making a

statement to Fox News you know did

things go not Well, so she's going to do

a hit on

CNN. And then it got weirder. But here's

where I need to the fact check. I don't

think she went on. I kept watching and

waiting and I think they had somebody

else come on to talk about

her. Now, did anybody see her go on CNN

last night? Because if she didn't go on

after they continually teased that she

was the she was a guest and she'd be up

pretty soon, would that mean that maybe

it looked like they were sabotaging her

and she pulled

out? Cuz I'm guessing that's what

happened, but I don't know. because it

looked like when they were talking about

her and they had somebody on before she

came on to talk about

her that it felt a little like a setup

like like they weren't going to give her

a you know a fair hearing and I wonder

if she just said all right I'm out you

know you you can do whatever you want

with your dead air time did that happen

so I I just need to fact check did she

show up on air and did I just sort of

miss it or something. I don't think she

did. So anyway, maybe we'll hear more

about that, but she would uh not be

still on the

five because Fox News has a rule that uh

if you're working for the government,

can't be on the show. And I guess being

nominated for this

um would make it make it impossible for

her to be on the show.

Um, did you know according to the Amuse

account

um you're aware that uh Smartmatic, the

software company that does elections,

election software, that uh they've got

some kind of lawsuit that's still

brewing with uh Fox News. But the new

new news that I didn't know about before

that the Muse account is talking about

is that allegedly Democrat billionaire

Reed

Hoffman secretly met with Smartmatic CEO

and agreed to give them

uh what

uh Senator Tom Tillis says Judge Janine

is a great choice. I'm seeing a

post on that, but that's

uh Oh, okay.

Um, so Reed Offman apparently put 24

million into backing the lawsuits

against Fox News and

Newsmax. And uh, according to the news

account, the company kept the meeting

secret from the court and the

defendants.

Now, is that true? Do you think Reed

Hoffman put $24 million into the

lawsuits? And if he hadn't, would the

lawsuits have

happened? Because in a way that would be

really clever cuz he could have taken

out or almost did Fox News and Newsmax.

He could have just completely taken them

off the field for what would be small

amount of money for Reed Hoffman. Did

that really

happen? It it feels like our government

is whoever does the best job of suing

somebody. Anyway,

um you probably uh have seen the clips

by now that Joe Biden and Jill Biden

appeared on The

View and it looked like they were trying

to rehabilitate Joe in the public to

make it look like he's functional and

always was. and he did not look

functional. He looked like he was a mess

and Jill had to jump in and try to save

him on one important question. Um, but

apparently even the

Democrat consultants are mad that the

Biden's return to the spotlight. How

would you like to be a

Democrat? And you're trying to recover

from just a

disastrous, you know, last year and the

thing you want more than anything is for

people to think about the future and

maybe your new candidates and then the

news cycle gets absorbed by Joe Biden

looking incompetent

again. Worstcase scenario.

So, a very bad week to be a Democrat

consultant

uh when when Biden's

just just out there looking bad, but

apparently it's going to get

worse. So, Scott

Jennings is teasing that uh he said this

in a post on X. He said, "Between what

we saw of Biden today on The View and my

understanding of what's about to drop in

the

Tapper/Tompson book, uh oh, I don't

think Dems have fully internalized the

nuclear bomb that's about to hit their

party." Oh my

goodness. So, it looks like Jake Tapper

and somebody named Thompson have a book

that will not be kind to the

Bidens. And it sounds like Scott

Jennings had a little preview of what's

coming. Do you think he is uh do you

think that's

hyperbole? Do you think that Scott

Jennings is getting out a little bit

over his skis or is this book going to

be that

devastating? I feel like it might be

that

devastating. Um because the the

media really needs to make sure that the

blame looks like it's just on the Bidens

cuz then the media doesn't look like

they're complicit. So I think the media

has to hit the Bidens as hard as they

possibly can and that they feel safe to

do it and it's even profitable at the

moment. So yeah, there might be some fun

coming there.

Well, let's uh let's check how I did on

my prediction about the UK trade deal.

You remember yesterday I said when the

the trade deal was being announced, I

said that the uh the left-leaning media

would say it's no big deal and it's a

special case and it really is not

indicative of anything good happening

and it wouldn't be much benefit

whatsoever to

America. Well, that's exactly what

happened.

That's exactly what happened.

Um, but it is a small deal and

apparently our trade imbalance with the

UK was never much of anything to worry

about

anyway. Uh, but it looks like what uh

the things they've talked about anyway,

it's it's not a sign deal. It's more of

a memo of understanding kind of

situation.

So, in exchange for the UK purchasing

Boeing jets and giving American farmers

more access to the UK,

uh, the US is going to allow Rolls-Royce

jet engines to be imported

tariff-free. Is that

all? Um, there will still be a 10%

tariff on the UK, which is way up from

what, 2.4%.

Um and and apparently we had a trade uh

we didn't have a trade deficit with the

UK. We they were buying more than we

were buying from

them. So it looks like it was a

pretty small potatoes deal. It was the

easiest one to do because it wasn't much

there wasn't much going on that either

side cared about too much, I guess.

So

[Music]

um so on one sense I think the critics

were right. It's not really indicative

of anything else that's going to happen

anywhere else. It was the easy one. It

was a special

case. However, there's not really any

chance that that's the only trade

deal. So the fact that the easy one went

first probably doesn't tell you much of

anything. it just that would be the

obvious one to go

first. So, we'll

see. In other good news, according to

the postmillennial,

um the world's second largest car maker,

which would include the which is the

Volkswagen group, and I guess they own

um do they own uh Audi? I think they do.

and the they're going to look to move

production to the United States, at

least for

Audi, and that wouldn't be another big

deal.

[Music]

Um, yeah, Trump is saying it's great for

our American farmers and ranchers. Well,

good.

So, so the one thing that Trump promised

us appears to be real,

uh, which is that big companies will

move their production into the United

States if they can, and the car

manufacturers are probably among the

among the ones who would have the

easiest time moving their production.

So, looks like it's

happening. In other news, for the first

time

ever, the volume of Google searches went

down. And uh that's because a senior

Apple executive said that in a court

situation that Google searches over

Safari uh fell for the last two months.

And that's something that hasn't

happened in 20 years.

uh so I guess it wasn't forever but in

over 20 years and and uh the executive

attributed the drop to the number of

people were using AI chat GPT and

perplexity so big things are going to

looks like big things are going to

change with Google's business model you

know part of it might be uh they have to

break up because of some kind of

monopoly claims that are being made. But

the other possibility is that nothing

will happen because there uh there is a

new competition and AI will be eating

their lunch unless they do something big

to

correct. You know, I've talked about

this before, but I'm going to I'm going

to put it in a larger context today. If

you haven't seen it yet, you need to see

the video of Victor Davis Hansen

explaining how the fake polls do their

faking.

And apparently it's just really easy.

All they do is they they control what

percentage of voters for each candidate,

Trump versus non-Trump, that they talk

to. So if they want a poll to look bad

for Trump, they don't ask many Trump

voters what their opinion was. And if

they want it to look good for Trump or

not good for Trump, because they never

want that. If they want it to look

accurate, you know, like all the

pollsters do just before the actual

election because that's the one time you

can check their work, then all they do

is make sure they ask the representative

number of Trump voters versus non-Trump

voters. And it's sort of that easy. And

they even show their work. So you could,

if you knew enough, you could look at

their, I don't know, the cross tabs or

whatever it is and they publish it and

they tell you what percentage are this

kind of voters or this kind of voters

and you could tell that they were doing

that. Now what Victor David Hansen

says, he gives some details. He says the

New York Times and the Washington Post

polls, they were deliberately not

counting people who um who surveyed that

they were Trump

supporters in 2024 and that was half the

country, but they were only polling

about a

third. Um and then he he mentions some

other people. He says the most egregious

the most egregious of all these polls

was the NPR PBS Maris poll. Um, and they

had uh Trump being, you know, super

unpopular after his first 100 days. And

uh, apparently they they may have used

that same trick. I think that's what

he's

alleging. And uh, there the same poll he

says that came out the night before the

2024 election that said that Kla Harris

would win by four

points and they said it was beyond the

margin of error.

and she ended up losing by a point and a

half. In other words, they were five and

a half points

off right before the

election. Now, you can't really be five

and a half points off if you're a

professional polling

organization unless you're trying to. I

mean, that would be a really

big mistake a day before the election.

So my larger point here is that

apparently

uh you know and based on what Victor

Davis Hansen says it kind of looks like

polling is

fake. Uh at least political polling not

corporate or you know the commercial

stuff is probably fine but uh at least

the political stuff seems to be highly

biased.

But Rasmusen, which is not part of these

bad behavior polls,

um, with the H Heartland Institute did a

poll, and this is the most shocking

thing you'll ever hear in a poll in the

United States. 71% of Democrats would

favor a hypothetical law to put Musk

behind bars for his work on

Doge, as would 80% of self-identified

liberal voters.

Can you believe

that? that for him risking his life and

his

fortune and working, you know, all hours

of the night for the service of the

country trying to cut our expenses and

saving us from going off the ledge and

spending that somehow

the, you know, the the

propaganda was so effective that 71% of

Democrats would want him to be locked up

in jail for But for for what exactly

would be the

crime is stuff they just make up?

Because you know, you hear all the

people like the Democrat leader say,

"Oh, he's only doing it to lower the

taxes on the oligarchs like

himself. He's only doing it to cut the

regulators who are trying to control his

megalomania or something." And then 71%

of Democrats were so convinced that that

stuff was true that they would that they

would be in favor of locking him

up. I'll tell you, if you ever get the

impulse to do something that's really

good for

America, don't do it. It's It's a

suicide mission. Oh my god.

But did Doge do what it was supposed to

do? Well,

um I saw a uh post by an exus user, John

Sers, and I think he was using Grock as

his source, which makes this

interesting. But here's what you need to

know. There's a there's a great

controversy about how much

Doge benefited the budget. All right.

Now, you would not be surprised to know

that some left-leaning groups have a

much lower opinion of what Doge did. So,

remember that Doge was looking to try to

get $2 trillion in

spending by now, basically. So, that was

their goal. Um, and at one point I heard

it was$1 trillion and then the other

trillion would be made up with growth.

And I thought to myself, well, you know,

one trillion, one trillion would be

amazing. It would save the

country. But

currently, Doge is claiming something

like 160 or 165 billion in

savings. But do you think everybody

agrees with that? That it's 160 billion?

Uh well,

Reuters, who does not seem to be super

friendly to Republicans,

uh they estimated that the actual Doge

savings could be as low as $5

billion.

Five. Uh the New York Times reported

that the Doge savings could be only 2.3

billion. How many of you even knew that?

So again, the New York Times is not

considered a

Republicanfriendly place. Uh the

Partnership for Public Service, this

nonpartisan group,

uh they calculated that Doge's actions

might have cost taxpayers 135 billion

due to paid leave, rehiring fired

workers, and lost

productivity. And uh basically saying

that it's going to cost more than they

save. by about this the amount they're

claiming they're saved might be actually

what the actual extra cost

is. Bloomberg again not friendly to

Republicans

uh says that after correcting errors

like an 8 billion contract that was

misreported as 8 million uh the

estimated savings for Doge would be 16.6

billion 16

Um so the estimates of real savings

range

from 2 to 16

billion and the true figure remains

unclear.

Um and Grock apparently

supports supports those reports meaning

it doesn't agree with them but it it

reports them that they are actually

saying that

now have you noticed that the people

working on the budget don't seem to be

coming to us with a smaller budget.

All they did was add $150 billion to the

current budget and and they didn't do

anything else. I have no idea what

Speaker Johnson is doing, but I don't

think he's cutting

anything. Do you have you seen anything

that's being

cut? You know, there might be some

trivial little things they move around,

but basically the entire budget process

is just fake. They're simply pretending

that they're looking at it with with a

scalpel. They're not looking at it with

a

scalpel. They're just giving us the same

budget they always do with a

little bit added for

military there. There's no Doge savings

in

it. It's just completely fake. And and

they're just going to put it at us just

like they always do. and Thomas Massie

will once again vote against it for all

the right reasons and we'll end up

getting mad. We'll say bad things and

we'll just go racing toward the ledge

that we can't possibly survive which is

uncontrolled

debt. Do any of you think there's any

chance that the budget is going to have

any self-control whatsoever? I don't

think so. And I don't think but I don't

think the Doge savings are even big

enough that they'll show up at

all. I don't think any of it was

real. So that's what I think.

Um Trump said uh today that he might cut

tariffs on China to 80% from

145 and that would be before the weekend

talks in Switzerland between the United

States and Chinese

representatives. And I don't understand

this.

Why would he offer to cut the cut the

tariffs before the

negotiations? That would be like

negotiating with

yourself. Unless, you know, maybe he has

some indication that China's going to be

flexible and he wants to make sure that

he looks like he was a little bit

flexible

himself. I don't know.

But the funny part uh is that when he

posted about it on truth, he referred to

Scott Basent as Scott

B. Scott B because of

Bent. But the good news is I'm still

Scott

A. So wouldn't you rather be Scott A

than Scott

B? Makes him my

backup. But he's cool, too. He's cool,

too. I like Scott

B. I don't know if you heard this, but

uh Steve Scaliz is uh complaining that

apparently we know now from some

documents that have recently become

available that the

FBI deliberately withheld facts about

the congressional baseball shooting,

which included Steve Scalis as one of

the victims of the shooting. And uh at

the time they they said that the uh

motivation was suicide by cop. In other

words, they said that the guy doing the

shooting wanted to die, you know, in

sort of an exciting way. So that's what

he did. Apparently, that was totally

made up and that the FBI knew at the

time it was completely politically

motivated and it was simply left-wing

violence.

Why do you think the FBI reported it as

suicide by cop, which would be a

non-political thing, instead of exactly

what it was, which was a left-wing

person who got

um got turned into an extremist by the

propaganda.

Well, the only reason I can think of is

that the FBI was

politicized, but uh Cash Patel seems to

have re, you know, fix that by releasing

some extra

documents. So, yes, the

FBI as recently as the congressional

baseball shootings, which wasn't that

long ago, were

politicized and so their work could not

be trusted.

Do you think that

changed? Here's a uh interesting study

by George Mason University is talking

about it. So they did a study where they

were trying to figure out um in advance

which which businesses were likely to

manipulate or bend their their earnings

reports essentially

fraudulently make claims about their

earnings so that they wouldn't uh you

know their stock wouldn't go down.

So they use the AI to see if they can

identify the language that's used when

they're hiring people for the the job

of, you know, reporting the earnings and

doing the calculating. And they found

out that the ones who were planning to

cheat and planning to lie about their

earnings when they were hiring people to

be the, you know, the main person who

would do that kind of uh work, they use

rule bender sentences.

So the rule bender sentences would be

that they're looking for somebody who

can think outside the

box, explore alternative solutions and

strategic data

interpretation. So apparently if you're

looking for somebody who can think

outside the box when it comes to

reporting your earnings, it it's sort of

a wink wink. you know, we need you

to, you know, think outside the

box. Can you be

flexible, but if they wanted to if they

were not planning to fraudulently report

their own earnings, the the rule

follower language was they're looking

for somebody who can ensure conformance,

enforce compliance, and provide accurate

and timely financial reporting.

Now, I don't know if this is a, you

know, a reproducible study or not, but

it does sound like it might be because

if if you knew you needed somebody to

bend the rules, I can imagine that your

job opening would have some language

that was kind of rule bendy right in

there. Anyway,

uh the UCLA medical school um just got

hit with a class action lawsuit for

still using DEI and race race based

admissions. Fox News is reporting on

this

and here's my take on all this. You

know, it seems like every day there's

somebody who's getting, you know,

defunded because of their DEI. in this

case, somebody who's going to be part of

a class action lawsuit because of their

DEI. But I don't think any of it's going

to go away. And I think the reason it

can't go away is that it's the same

people at those entities that put it

there in the first place. And so it's

going to be a combination of people who

are true believers who who think they're

on the side of the angels and that the

government is the bad guys. Now if you

think the government is the bad guys and

and you're like you know you're doing

the you know what is it the underground

railroad or something you feel like

you're some kind of a hero by resisting

the government.

But there might be a much simpler reason

why it's never going to go away. You

know, even though the government says

it's illegal and there people are suing

you and there's all kinds of pressure to

get rid of it, but it's not going to go

away because imagine being um imagine

being part of an organization that had

embraced DEI as one of its highest

principles and you'd be living that way

for years. Then imagine coming into the

room and having to give this

announcement. Hey everybody, I know I

know DEI has been our highest priority

and you know you're looking at your

diverse employees by

now, but it turns out that it was all

illegal and it was racist and turns out

it turns out we're the

racists. You know, we didn't see that

coming, but turns out we're the bad

guys. So, instead of being the bad guys,

uh, we're going to change everything and

stop being

racist. Who could do that?

Nobody. there there's no actual way that

in the real world real people could

change on a dime from it's our highest

priority to oh well it turns out that

it's actually just illegal and we're

just a bunch of racists and we better

cut out this right

away. Nobody can do that. They're all

going to turn into secret, you know,

underground railroad heroes.

Well, let's just change the names of our

department. Let's just hide. All right,

we'll say we got rid of the web page,

but we'll just keep doing it like we

always do it. I don't think any of these

victories are going to be lasting. I I

think the DEI racist

um approach will just become permanent.

Well, I think it is permanent. I I just

don't see anything that's going to

change it.

I hate to say it, but every claim, you

know, I was getting all excited because

the Trump administration was doing all

the right things to attack the DEI

practitioners. I don't think any of it's

going to work because they would be

willing to take enormous

risks to stay illegal because they think

they're the

angels. According to the University of

Pittsburgh, they did a study, a Pit

Michigan study, and they found out that

uh women who have both high math and

verbal abilities are less likely to go

into STEM

careers. But if they have higher math

abilities and lower uh verbal, they're a

little more likely to want to go into

STEM. So, this is all part of the uh an

effort to figure out how to get more

women who are both high high math and

high verbal to go into STEM. Now, they

they're speculating that the reason that

the the group with the most capability,

the women with the most capability are

not as likely to go into STEM is that

they have more options. So if they have

high verbal, well, you could also be an

author or you could also be the head of

a I don't know, you could be the CEO or

something. So you don't you're not

limited. So you just decide other

things. But my question is this, how

long are we going to pretend that you

can hypnotize women into doing they

don't want to

do? Don't you think the entire problem

boils down to, well, they just don't

want to do that?

And no matter how much you try to

convince them, they're still going to

look at it and say, "Yeah, yeah, I mean,

I wouldn't be good at that." Yeah,

you're right. I would be good at that,

but I don't want to do it. Doesn't look

like

fun. I have I have options. So, it feels

like we're

just we're we're just spinning our

wheels on that.

Speaking of women, um you probably heard

Fox News is reporting this that at the

Columbia University protest that some

would call anti-semitic. I guess it was

it. So, it was a pro Palestinian, but

maybe it was too close to pro- Hamas uh

protest. And there were a bunch of

arrests because it happened at Columbia

University. But of the 80 people

arrested, there were only 19 males but

61

females. So, how do you explain that

it's mostly

females in that particular

demonstration?

Well, I think it's because the men were

in STEM programs and they didn't have

the time. No, I'm just kidding. I'm just

kidding. It had nothing to do with STEM.

But uh I'm going to give you my

speculation and it goes like

this. It's super sexist. Are you

ready? I don't think women have the same

biological aptitude for military

security. I don't think

women have the same biological

aptitude for military

security. Here's what I mean by that.

Only men know how deadly men

are. Women can observe it and they can

be victims of it, but they can't truly

understand that we're all

killers. And that if you put us in a

situation where we can kill our

enemies, we sort of do it.

And if you look at the uh the

Palestinian

situation, one interpretation would be

um the female interpretation would be,

"Hey, if you could just be nicer to the

Palestinians, then the Palestinians

would calm down and uh the violence

would stop and everybody would win. So,

let's just give the Palestinians their

own homeland, give them the things they

want, and we'll be able to solve these

problems. I believe that men have a

completely

different

biological military security opinion and

it goes like this. Whoever has the power

in the Middle East to wipe out the other

side is going to wipe out the other

side.

So, your only choices are, do you want

it to be somebody who is your ally or

somebody who wants to wipe out you

next? Now, we can't say these things out

loud, but we kind of know it. We know

it. And I don't think women know it. I

think women are still trapped in the

well, of course they're angry and, you

know, of course they're going to act out

because you're not being nice to them.

If you would just treat them

right, then I think everybody would just

hold hands and get along. And men say,

"I don't think you understand what's

happening there at all. We're

killers." And in the Middle East, both

sides are pretty deadly.

And uh if if the Palestinians got

everything they wanted, I think women

would be

surprised and men would

not. So I do think there's a biological

difference in just

understanding how

deadly men are. And I think that you

just have to be a man to understand

that. Same way, I mean, you can reverse

it easily. I don't think men should be

involved

in abortion

decisions. You know, I mean, you can be.

It's legal and you have a right to it,

but I don't feel like I could understand

it the same way a woman could understand

it. So, let them make the

decision. That's just one example. So,

I'm just speculating, but that's what it

feels like to me.

Um, Tulsi Gabbard's releasing going to

release over 6,000 files on the RFK

assassination. Um, I'm going to make a

prediction. You're not going to learn

anything

new. I really don't think any of these

document releases are going to be really

super telling us anything we didn't know

from the Kennedys to Epstein to anything

else. um for all the obvious reasons.

You know, if it really mattered, it

would already be deleted or wouldn't be

in the records at all. But it's kind of

interesting that RFK Jr.

um who has looked into it quite a bit as

you'd imagine is not entirely convinced

that Sirhan Surhan was the killer. And

if you've heard any of the speculation

and talk about the murder, there is all

kinds of stuff that doesn't make

sense. You know, they're like too many

bullets were fired and from the wrong

direction and there's just all kinds of

stuff in that story that doesn't make

sense. But on the other

hand, there were so many

witnesses. There's like just tons of

witnesses.

Is it possible that none of the

witnesses had the right

story? Maybe. I mean, it's not

impossible, but it seems unlikely. On

the other hand, is anything that's

important in our history

real? Probably not. There's probably

nothing in our history that you think

is, you know, settled history except for

maybe names and dates, you know, like we

know RFK's name and we know the date of

the

event, but probably that's the only

thing that's real. I mean, it might be

like everything else, which is not real.

You know, it's just the version we got

fed.

But I don't think the documents that we

have on file redacted or not are going

to make any difference to that.

Meanwhile, the Postmillennial is

reporting that

uh that uh US attorney John

Sirone is going to be part of uh looking

into Leticia James mortgage fraud. So,

the FBI has opened a formal criminal

probe into Leticia James over her own uh

real estate

related transactions, which uh at least

on paper look obviously illegal. We'll

see what the uh courts

decide. But uh here's the So, it's the

good news, bad news. The good news

is I'm very happy that Leticia James,

who seems crooked, is being looked into

for her own crimes. On the other hand,

why did it take a

Republican administration for this to

happen?

Doesn't it sort of suggest that the FBI

is completely

politicized and if the uh Republicans

have the dominant control, they can just

pick a Republican leaning bunch of FBI

people to do what they want and go after

anybody they

want. It's not better if the Republicans

do

it, but it does suggest that the FBI is

not anything like an independent body

that's just trying to get rid of crime.

at least when it comes to the political

domain. So, uh, the the attorney

general, Leticia James, was probably

crooked and politicized. The FBI may not

be much better according to Steve Scaliz

and the uh, congressional shooting

stuff. And and you know what, Crossfire,

hurricane, and how many other things

have we heard where they appear to be

politicized, if not corrupt?

Uh, President Trump is doing his

Trumpian thing, uh, where he can take

both sides of an

issue. Man, he could do this better than

anybody's ever done it. So, one of the

questions about the the budget thing is

whether they will raise taxes on the um

the rich. You know, I think it's people

over 5 million a year or something like

that.

And there's a some movement within the

Republican party to do it, but of course

there are other people who are just

saying, "No way. No way. No raising

taxes. We just don't do that." So it's

certainly not a solved problem. But

Trump is now saying on uh Truth uh that

he's not in favor of it. He's not in

favor of raising the taxes because the

Democrats would use it as a sound bite.

Sort of like uh George Bush's read my

read my lips no new taxes. So if he did

raise taxes even on just the rich and

even if the Democrats were fully on

board with that

um he still feels they like they would

use it as a club to say, "Well, it's not

what you said you'd do." and he probably

has a little bit of a point there. But

then he says at the same time he says he

doesn't want to do it because it gives

the Democrats a a sound bite, he doesn't

want to act like he's just protecting

his own tax base because that would be a

bad look to. So he says that uh uh the

the GOP should probably not raise taxes

on the rich, but if they do, he's okay

with it.

He's the only person in the world who

could say that. And you just say, "All

right. All

right. Um, digital equity program." I

guess Trump's posting about this. There

was a digital equity program. Some

racist program that's getting cut, I

guess. All right.

So,

um, all everything that was in in my,

uh, my reading today was leading up to

the following

point. Do you ever wonder how I, as a

non-scientist, could be so darn

confident that the climate

models are BS? You ever wonder about

that? It's like, I'm not really an

expert on climate models. I'm not even a

scientist and I don't have any expertise

in environment. Why am I so confident

that the climate models are

BS? Well, some of it is that, you know,

I worked with prediction models in the

finance area and I saw that as soon as

you add certain number of variables, you

can't predict anything. You know, you

can sort of just pick your assumptions

to make it look anything you want. So,

that's part of it. But here's the real

reason. The FBI is corrupt. The DOJ is

probably corrupt. Uh I'm not sure. In

2020, there was a suspicious number of

Biden votes that don't look real to me.

I don't know for sure, but they don't

look real to me. Uh the polls are often

fake. Victor David Davis Hansen

explained that the Doge savings may be

entirely fake or it may be that just if

you're left-leaning media you you could

say they're fake and if you're right

leaning you say they're real. The tariff

estimates that Trump has done seem

ridiculous. The trade deals are being

called fake and the budget process is

completely fake and corrupt.

So, are we supposed to believe that

every institution that we look into is

completely

corrupt except for the climate

models? I mean, I mean, just let that

soak in. Every single thing that we can

check that's big and important is fake.

Everything. But you think the climate

models are the only

exception. You don't need to be an

expert. All you have to know is that

everything is fake. Once you learn that

everything that can be faked is

faked, you you become the expert. If

they invented something

tomorrow that, you know, I don't even

put a name on it, just a new thing that

was big and complicated, I would tell

you it's fake and I would be right

without even knowing what the topic is.

If you just said, "Oh, we're going to

put $50 billion into this new thing and

they they've got all kinds of data and

the data backs what they're doing." I

would say, "Yeah, it's fake. It's all

fake." And if if you got a chance to

look into it, you would find out I'm

right without being an expert because

everything that can be faked is

faked.

Everything. It doesn't take any

expertise at all to know that. So to me,

it's just hilarious that every time I

post on X, wait, do you find out about

the climate models? There is a 100%

chance that those climate models will be

debunked and go down in history like the

food

pyramid. It's the food pyramid, people.

It's the food

pyramid. I don't know when it will

happen. Could be tomorrow. Could be in

20 years. But the climate models,

there's not a chance, there's not even

the slightest chance that those are

real.

So, we'll

see. Anyway,

uh Google's ex Google CEO Eric Schmidt

uh has warned that China technology is

pulling ahead and Davis Axe writing

about this on on X um saying that uh

they're they're doing better on AI. Part

of the problem is that apparently in the

US we've got something called

uh some kind of AI diffusion

rule. It's 200 pages of regulations that

hinder the adoption of American

technology even by close partners. Now,

I don't know the details of that, but it

sounds like the US has crippled itself

so that it can't compete with China and

that that's a big deal. Now, um since

the smart people seem to know about it,

I mean, Sachs has a a big voice in the

administration, he knows about it. Um

maybe we're doing something about it. He

says that Trump is committed to residing

10 regulations for every new one. And if

the US doesn't embrace this uh the same

concept for AI, we're going to lose the

AI race, which would mean losing

everything. So, we'll see if that goes

in the right

direction.

Um, as you know, Putin was doing his

victory day celebrations over there, and

I was wondering if any Ukrainian drones

were going to go that way. Well, I guess

they sent one that struck a government

building, but you know, didn't cause any

death or too much damage. But I guess

the Ukrainians just couldn't resist, so

they sent one little drone to blow up

nothing

important. According to Interesting

Engineering, France plans to have an all

robot army by

2027. No, by 2040. But they'll have

combat robots by 2027.

How would you

feel if you got drafted into

uh into a military that was mostly

robots, but they needed some

humans? Because if robots fight robots,

which is where it's heading, obviously,

if robots fight

robots, what happens when one of the

robot teams wins? because they don't

really need to go kill any civilians,

right? Because they would have destroyed

all the robot military, so there

wouldn't be any resistance. So, there's

not really any reason to kill the, you

know, the

civilians.

So, doesn't it look like we're heading

exactly for the original Star Treks

vision of war?

I tell you, when I was a little kid, I

remember seeing that episode, and I'll

describe it in a moment. And I never

forgot it. It was like one of the most

disturbingly probably future world. And

the idea was that instead of having real

wars, there was a planet, maybe a few

planets, they would have uh these

simulated wars where they would look at,

you know, the assets and the military

capability of each side and then they

would put it in a computer and they

would say, "All right, if this is the

war, this is the side that would win."

And then the winning team would well the

losing team would uh basically volunteer

to get um killed by some machine that

would do it quickly and painlessly and

they would just line up to be killed

because their side had lost so at least

they'd make it

painless. And it was just so disturbing.

And I thought to myself, is it going to

be some version of that where if the

robots of one big country beat the

robots of the other and presumably they

could be, you know, hunt down and kill

every single robot of the other side if

they were the dominant

side? What would you do with the

humans? Would you kill them because you

could?

Or would the humans say we don't

surrender? And maybe they wouldn't.

Maybe you'd have to. I don't

know. So, we'll see. But robot armies

are going to be more than it's going to

be more than just the war. There's going

to be a whole difference in what war is

and how we think about it and the

psychology of it and everything else.

Very unpredictable. Well, meanwhile, Fox

News is reporting that Mandy Moore, you

know, she's a celebrity star, Mandy

Moore. Uh, I guess her house was

partially destroyed in the LA fires and,

uh, she's finding that it's impossible

to build build back. So, as she points

out, she has the contractor,

um, she has all the plans, she's

submitted everything. She just can't get

approval to build. And apparently there

have been six approvals given of 10,000

structures that were

destroyed.

Now, how incompetent is

California? Because don't you remember

that uh there was this point where I

think even Trump was warning the the

mayor that they're going to have to

figure out how to get rid of all the

regulations so they can build back in a

efficient way. Nothing like that

happened. Nothing. Uh now I don't know

why but if I had to guess it's very much

like I was describing the DEI

situation. Imagine if you're the part of

the government that has control over

approvals and you know what endangered

frog has to be

saved and you've you've dedicated your

whole life to the proposition that we

can't be doing these dangerous bad for

the environment things. How are you

going to change your mind if if Trump

comes to town and says, "Yeah, you just

have to do it faster and and cut some

regulations." Are the save the frogs

people gonna suddenly say, "Oh, well,

okay, screw the frogs. I want Mandy

Moore to build her house

faster." Not in any world. The the

people who created the rules are going

to dig in and they're just going to say,

"We can't change these rules. Are you

kidding me? We'll lose a frog or we'll

lose a fish."

So, I don't think that the people have

the ability to change their minds. I

mean, they would be everything about

their life would become a

joke if they just threw it all away and

said, "All right, all right. We didn't

mean it about the frogs." Yeah, go

ahead. Build your house, Mr. Rich

Person. Build your house.

So, I don't see how it gets fixed unless

100% of the employees who are involved

in approvals are

replaced because they're the ones who

created the stuff. They're not going to

throw it away just cuz somebody else

wants them to. They'll just slow walk it

because you can slow walk anything. And

it looks like that might be what's

happening. Doing a little slow walking.

All right, ladies and gentlemen, that's

all I had for today. I'm going to say a

few words privately to the subscribers

on locals. If you don't subscribe yet to

the Dilbert comic, which you can see on

X if you subscribe to me on X, um

today's Dilbert comic might be one of

the funniest things I've ever

written, if I do say so myself. So,

you're missing out if you didn't get to

see that today. It's pretty damn funny.

Um has anybody seen it yet? Those of you

who are

subscribers, I want to see if you agree

because sometimes maybe I just think

it's funny myself, but I think today's

Dilbert comic, the one that just the

subscribers are seeing, it just might be

the funniest thing I've ever written.

Um, so if you only care about the comic,

you can subscribe on X. If you like some

of the political stuff and some extra

political comics and stuff like that,

then you want to subscribe on

Locals, but you got options.

So, there you go. All right, Locals

coming at you privately. The rest of you

on Rumble and YouTube and X, thanks for

joining. Hope to see you tomorrow. Same

time, same place.