The Scott Adams School - 07/16/26 BJ Dichter Joins Erica and Marcela today.

We are live. Let me get over here. Good morning, everybody.

Oh wait, wait, I forgot.

Oh, oh, BJ. I already blame BJ. All right, so BJ's being funny because, uh, I'm going live from the yellow planet called the Jersey Shore, which is full of smoke.

No, no, no, no, hold on. I was told during the cerveza sickness that this was like a hazmat suit. This is like, you know, the Star Trek Enterprise— shields up, nothing can happen if you put a face diaper on, right? So yeah, you know, it's brutal here. But, um, so that's why I'm doing it. I'm just following, you know, our officials in government who know everything, that a little filth of paper, that's going to protect you, right? So we should all do it, right?

Well, BJ, you just ruined my life because in the pre-show— so you guys, if you don't know, there are fires and we don't know whether to blame Minnesota or Canada, and I'm totally happy to blame both. So it is like, I'll blame Canada. I mean, all right. And so it's like we're living on this yellow planet, Marcella. Everything is dark yellow. There's— you can't see anything. It's hazy. It's disgusting.

And they're like, it's going to happen in the World Cup final in New Jersey.

Oh, is Is it outside? Outside or in a thing?

No, it's outside.

They're going to play in the New Jersey stadium. I don't know.

I have no idea. MetLife. I don't know. They're not going to be able to play. They're like, stay inside, don't go outside. And BJ just informed me that it should clear up in 3 weeks.

3 weeks?

Well, 3 weeks or longer.

That's not—

Is the latest estimate.

I can't.

That's not optimal.

No, I'm very upset.

Suboptimal.

Yeah, it's very suboptimal. Like, I'm living for the summer here on the Jersey Shore, like many of you people that just want to get out, enjoy the sunshine, go to the beach, take a walk. BJ says no.

Oh no, come together.

Okay, time for the sip. Here we go. It's all BJ's fault. Here we go.

And all you need to enjoy the simultaneous sip, well, you don't need much. That's the beauty of it. All you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or chalice or stein, 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 hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better except the protests in Portland. Apparently nothing helps those. It's called the simultaneous sip and a habit. Now go. Good stuff.

I agree. My sip was delightful. Okay, so in all seriousness, you guys, welcome to the Scott Adams School. My name is Erica. I'm joined today with co-hosts Marcella and BJ, and it is July 16th, 2026. I have a very ambitious agenda today. I have papers for tapping, I have notes, so you're guaranteed a disaster because it's just going to be overly ambitious and I'm going to be rushing through everything. But that being said, Marcela and BJ are pros and they know how to run with the flow. Owen left us in the dust this morning. He said, "Sorry, I can't come." BJ, I probably woke him up. He said, "I will be there." So thank you, BJ.

No, I was up for a few hours already. I was up at 6 in the morning.

You're no slacker, I know. All right, so Marcela, any quick, quick update on the game?

Oh my God, thank you. I'm just— oh, so Argentina beat England, but it means so much to me that they did. It was 2 assists by Messi, and you have to understand that he's 39. And I guess like every time they say, oh, a 39-year-old just scored, I think of my age, and I was like, oh, what am I, like 100? Use a cane or something. Um, so I was just, uh, it was just admirable to see him, um, score and make England look like they were just like, like whatever players, although the— this English team was like one of the best teams, uh, they were actually ranked number 3 or 2 or number 1. So they— so he was able to do it, but it's also his team, the passion. There's a lot of lessons that, that like if I were to get out of it is never give up, because they were losing 1-0 and any other team would have given up. There was like They were almost— the game was almost over and they still kept on trying to score.

So the same thing with Egypt, like giving up, don't give up. They did the same thing with Egypt. And, um, you know, for your interest, Erica, the finals are going to be— the, the final is going to be, uh, the anarcho-capitalist Argentinians versus the communists. And the semifinals is going to be the European caliphate match of the World Cup, which would be France versus England.

Well, I'm very interested to see— you guys said they're going to be playing in New Jersey. I don't, I don't know if they're going to be, honestly. So this will be interesting. I wonder—

I don't know what to change the venues then.

It's dangerous. It's dangerous. I know you're breathing and you're really like inhaling extra hard, and I don't think this is good. Um, all right, well, that was your sports update of the week— no, of the day. Okay, so I told you guys I'm like a nutball today.

Sunday is the final Sunday, Jersey.

Well, in Smoky Jersey. All right.

Mm-hmm.

Okay. Thanks for that update, you guys. Good luck to whoever Marcella wants. So, um, you guys, Argentina. So, you know, we love our Scott Adams. I have two clips I'm opening with today, and one is gonna answer the burning question we've all had. So let's take a listen.

Wasn't exactly an even trade, but for President Trump, it was pretty even.

He usually comes out on top.

Not usually.

Always.

Always. What are we looking at here? These look exquisite.

Yeah.

So these are the displays of our currency over the years. Some of it— we used to have silver certificates. We used to be backed by silver, sometimes gold, and then And then in the '70s, we just went to what was called fiat currency, where you didn't have to keep gold or silver in the vault. If any of these are still outstanding though, the silver or gold for them is at Fort Knox waiting for them to be claimed if so needed.

Have you visited Fort Knox?

I haven't. I haven't. People on my staff has. We're going to the Treasurer's Office. Has been to Fort Knox. I am happy to say all gold is present and accounted for. The U.S. has the largest pile of gold in the world, over a trillion dollars at current market value.

And we're getting more gold from Venezuela.

All right, that was the burning question: is the gold in Fort Knox? The answer is yes. I still didn't see any proof, but the answer is yes. So Marcela, were you like up at night wondering that since, since Elon was going to check it out?

It feels like the gold, the Fort Knox is in the Oval Office with how golden it is, you know. And he, in that interview, he was talking about some painting, Hamilton painting, I believe. And he was like, oh yeah, President Trump liked it. So he took it to the Oval Office. Yeah, I don't know, because the way that he answered that question, it seemed like hearsay. Like, oh, the treasure visited, and so therefore I believe it, you know? Yeah, but he didn't see it with his own eyes. And, you know, has it been accounted for, audited, blah blah blah? It's not the same thing. You come into a room and be, oh, there's gold. Like, that's Is it, you know, is there an idea, like, is there an idea of how much there is there? Has it been accounted for? Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, you know.

Yeah, so we want proof of life of this gold, but, and I also want to see the weight of it, like, you know, probably half of it's painted gold.

Mitch McConnell next to it.

Yes, with Mitch next to it. Um, and I just want to quickly say someone pointed out in the chat that it was 3 years ago today that Scott Adams hit 1 million followers on X, and he promised us if he hit a million, he could rule the world. And promises made, promises kept. He certainly did, and maybe still does. So BJ, I'm going to move on to the next Bessent clip, and then I'm going to have you respond to that first. So this is our ongoing discussion. I am all over Mike Rowe these days, but this is interesting pertaining to work and trades and AI. Let's hear about this.

It feels to me like 75% of the country is uneasy about AI and nervous about data centers. Larry Fink at BlackRock says that we got a $10 trillion infrastructure that has to be built out in the next 7 or 8 years. It's, it's not really negotiable. But I think a lot of people look at that and they feel like we're doing it in the name of efficiency because we have to somehow compete with China in order to get the AI first, which means the data centers which we don't quite understand either. So we're like in some kind of crazy race and we don't know where the finish line is. We just know it's really expensive and unnerving. So make everybody feel better about that.

Yeah, I'm mercifully not an economist. I'm an economic historian. So the history of new technologies, people are always worried. People were— there were people who wouldn't get into cars when cars first came out. You had somebody at night who walked in front with a lantern and kind of You know, did that. And people who owned a horse and buggy maybe weren't happy. 20% of the jobs that people had now didn't exist in 2000. So we've got to keep innovating. The people who've done it, who are building it out, have done a terrible job explaining it. And, you know, when you use AI, when you go on Google.

Yeah.

Google's AI, when you do spell check, that's AI. It, it is just growing. It's growing and it's gonna be able to do more for you. Like the optimistic view of AI, I am very optimistic for small business on AI because it's gonna let the, it's gonna let small business compete with big business. You know, you could start a business that used to take 10 people to start. You can start with 1 or 2 people. And we've seen no job loss from AI yet. I don't think we have to. I talk to corporations. We see one large credit card company. Maybe we'll be able to figure it out when I say this. They move people from collections to the travel department. And, you know, AI is going to make people more, more efficient. It's a tool and it is to be used just like Google didn't exist in 2000.

Sure.

Now it's a verb.

All right. So, BJ, your instant take on that? You're muted.

Yeah, sorry about that. The first is on the Fort Knox thing. I think that's a perfect example of what Scott Adams always talked about. Something that comes from hypnosis is chasing confirmation bias. If you already believed that there's no Fort Knox, doesn't matter what they say, we're going to find an excuse to chase our confirmation bias. Like Marcello, what did you say? Well, yeah, but it feels like hearsay and I'm not sure and whatever. And there's nothing wrong with that. That's kind of how we are.

No, it doesn't feel like hearsay. It is hearsay in court. He couldn't testify to that.

No, I understand that. That's not the point. We're always going to chase what we believe is real no matter what. We all do it instinctively. There's— we just can't fight it. That's how we're wired. And so I think the people who believed, who believe everything about Fort Knox, they have not changed their minds. And the people who think, oh, Fort Knox is a ghost town and empty, they're not going to change their minds. This is why persuasion is so important to learn. And Scott Bessant was not persuasive, or at least it was not edited in a way that made him seem persuasive where he won over people. Who would be maybe open to a new idea. And that's the skill that Scott Adams had told so many of you guys. In terms of the AI thing, I think it's funny, I'm gonna agree with E.J. And what did E.J. say? He said, well, is China— where's China gonna get the $10 trillion if America is struggling just to get the $10 trillion? And that's what this is all about. This is all about a race between America and China. And I'm starting to think more and more, somebody who uses AI all the time, I think it's amazing, it's so helpful. I'm putting it into my to-do lists and in an organizational structure. It's amazing. Um, but I think at the same time, the— all the panic— remember Y2K, year 2000? I think we're— I think we're reliving year 2000. We have a bias towards negative. You know, to avoid risk and seek danger in the future. And sometimes we see risk and danger where it's not there. I'm starting to lean more and more towards that side, maybe because I'm also— my bias is to be positive about AI. But I think there's a whole lot of panic going on. And I think the panic right now is from the AI companies that have overextended the amount of credit that they need, and they're trying to position themselves into a too big to fail scenario. So when they— because they really don't have a business model, most of them. I mean, Google does, but OpenAI, I think, is going to— is on the verge of crumbling— that they go to the government for a handout similar to what we saw in the auto sector during the GFC. I think that's where they're leaning.

Well, I'm proud of all of you. Like, grill my soul, you're going to be— you're going to continue to be highly skeptical of anything your government tells me. Yes, ma'am. Always. Always. We all agree. Be skeptical. You know? Yes. I mean, I think, I think Marcella and BJ— somebody said correctly, we all have our own biases and our own confirmation bias. So BJ is feeling one way about it. Marcella feels another way about it. I feel another way about it. So that's just life, right? So this is kind of going to be kind of a theme, I think, throughout this show.

Well, and hold on. And related to what Scott Adams would talk about all the time. Scott Adams, he would talk about the filters of the world. And you know what you learn in hypnosis? To adopt different models of the world so you can understand people you disagree with. I'm not saying I agree with what I'm saying. I'm just trying to give you an argument, right?

That was the best.

Yeah.

I'm not saying I agree with what I'm saying. Okay, so let's move along. So anyway, just two things to think about. But the exciting thing to me about all the AI hubbub is all of the nonstop talk about the trades. And maybe, maybe we needed this AI boom to scare people back into the trades, you know? And these are gonna be our new millionaires and our new entrepreneurs. It's not gonna be this like tech thing we've been living in. It's gonna be like, hey, I got hands, I got skills, I have a talent stack, I'm going to work, I'm gonna keep this country running. And to anyone going into the trades, thank you so, so much. And anyone in them, I thank you so, so much. So Let's go trades. Make trades the new popular guy in school because that's what it is. All right, so I'm going to keep it moving, you guys. I wanted to follow up, Marcella, we were talking about the Stop Nick Shirley Act and yeah, of course it's got some legal technical name, but here's Nick Shirley talking about it. So I just wanted to kind of wrap that up for everybody from yesterday. So here's Nick Shirley and I have two clips I'm going to play, but let's hear the first one.

You mentioned the Stop Nick Shirley Act. What is that? I mean, can you describe that in greater detail?

Yes, so that's a bill that's been created by Mia Bonta, the wife of the Attorney General of California, and the official title is AB 2624, and it's to provide— make it essentially illegal to expose and to film outside of immigration support service providers. That means any entity that provides services to illegal migrants, whether that be healthcare or legal fees. If I were to go out and film a video in front of one of these locations, perhaps an NGO like TURLA that receives— that's received over $80 million from the government, and they gave me— and they give me a piece of paper and they say, hey, you cannot publish that video. If that bill passes, it'll be illegal for me to.

So it really ought to be renamed the Protect Medicating Fraudster Act.

Wow, that's insane. Will that pass?

Lawyer, and now I'm the Deputy Attorney General. So I met him—

sorry, Marcella, will that pass?

So that's law already since 1999. The— what Mia Bonta was doing is adding to it. Um, it's been added to it. It's called the Safe at Home Act, um, and it's supposed to, um, as you know, the '90s were kind of— you may not know this— that they were kind of an issue, uh, with Pete Wilson trying to bring the Proposition 187, which was like nothing for illegals, and then there was the other side that were like, no, everything for, for, for illegals. So It was created under the— in 1999, uh, for to protect such groups like he was saying, CHIRLA and others that assist, uh, illegal immigrants from somebody creating kind of like a, a list online where they could be attacked as attorneys or as whatever they are, you know, um, doctors too that do assist illegal immigrants, um, So I, I see it as a challenge to the First Amendment to be able to speak out about— it's my opinion that I want to talk about the people that are doing this. Why am I not allowed to put a list online of them if they're so proud of it? Why can't I just publish that? So I think it needs to be challenged. So what they're trying to do is What I think the— this part of the challenge, this added amendment by Mia Bonta, was to add a bigger fee and jail time, I believe. Um, so it was going to make it even worse for anybody that did that. So, and it still hasn't gone through. It's, it's passed a certain stage, but it hasn't gone through fully. So it was challenged by Carl DeMaio, um, and other Republicans, but of course you know, there's not much power there, so it's going to possibly pass. However, it doesn't mean it can't be challenged.

Yeah, Carl DeMaio is out there. He's like, come on, people. I'm going to play one other clip from this same exchange. Where'd it go? Here it is. Let's listen to this. This is so crazy to me, Marcella. Okay, correct.

I mean, $700 million in cash flowing out of the Minneapolis airport. Back to, you know, countries in Africa. Have either of you gentlemen kind of investigated the foreign sourcing or an organization of a lot of this fraud? I mean, we're opening it up to foreign governments to fund their own operations.

Well, yeah, it's been proven that a lot of the money in suitcases that left Minnesota went back into the hands of people inside Somalia. And for instance, in New York City, where I just did an exposé exposing this adult daycare fraud, Nobody at these daycares actually knows who the owner is. A lot of them had just been hired within the past month.

It's—

in Miami, you have the Cuban government running these DME companies that are fleecing and quite literally looting from Medicaid. A lot of foreign governments have infiltrated our Medicaid because it's so simple and so easy to defraud.

By the way, we know it's $700 million because government watched it go out. They let it go. That didn't even put the IRS on the case. You know, it's truly remarkable what we're allowing to happen here. So again, Mr. Chairman, I commend you, like Senator Ernst, for holding this hearing. And, you know, Ashley Moody, this is an incredibly important hearing, and it speaks volumes that only the ranking member showed up to denigrate Mr. Shirley's efforts. Quite honestly, that was why he showed up, and not one of them are here. Talking about these hundreds of billions, trillions of dollars worth of fraud.

So none of the Democrats showed up. They didn't care to hear about the fraud. And I wish I could give credit, but like somebody said, you know, you make a lot of money when you're committing fraud, but when you're taking the fraud away, there's no money to be made. So, um, there's no incentive for these people to stop it. So, um, BJ, I'll come to you first on this. I mean, It's just, um, this was— this never would have been found out because it's been going on for obviously ever. And but because Nick Shirley got out there, like we said, and his partner, the, the older gentleman he goes around with, I forget his name, but they, they were on this. So what do you think, BJ?

Yeah, this has been, you know, I've posted a few times on, uh, online that 80% of politics is money laundering. Yeah, that's exactly what this is. It's been like this for a long time. It's the same way in Canada. It's the same way across the Western world. That's why you see so many NGOs, and they're money laundering mechanisms, sometimes for politics, for criminal activity. But then the other side, you do have NGOs who are on the right side of things that get donations from people who are really concerned and really want to push back against it. And that's how you get people— this phenomenon of people like Nick Shirley and other people who get donations— is because people on the other side using the mechanisms to push back. So it's, it's a complicated thing to solve, like getting rid of these NGOs. I think it's just the problem is it's been so biased towards the other direction, and so much of it has been a funnel for taking your taxpayer money and sending them overseas. In addition, we're not talking about the foreign aid, the 150 countries around the world that get your tax dollars in foreign aid. 150 countries. But this is in addition to that of when they come here, they set up NGOs, they run in a local council, local office in the state legislature, and they're able to funnel money through bills into the NGOs back to, I don't know, Somalia or some, you know, major tourist destinations like that.

It's really disgusting. I mean, how many— all right, so how many times can we tax $1 in this country? $1 gets taxed like 100 times. And then they're like, and we're going to take your tax dollars and we're just going to send them everywhere twice, 3 times for the same people to benefit. It's so crazy. Marcela, anything on this just to kind of button it up for me?

No, I'm glad that we're doing something about fraud. But like you said, it doesn't really pay to prosecute it. It pays to create it. It's easier to have somebody else work and earn that money and then take it away from them. So that's the problem. But I think the more we talk about this, the more we have, you know, having JD Vance as the fraud czar and having individuals like Nick Turley, which going back to that bill, is important that our journalists or anybody that any of us can talk and put and challenge government and challenge anybody that's receiving money from government, uh, NGOs, um, anybody else, any contractors or anything else like that. Um, the First Amendment is like primary in being able to do this. And having somebody tell you you're not allowed to inform the rest of the public about certain people, you know, or about fraud, like where your money's going—

hello.

Or just even ask questions. Because when Nick Shirley was just doing this, he didn't prosecute for fraud. He was just telling the guy where the, uh, if you're running a, um, a certain, um, daycare, where are the children? You know, it's just a question. And if you're not doing any kind of fraud, you'd be like, oh, they're outside, you know, like, right? That'd be just—

they're all like, we were just hired yesterday, I don't know who my boss is, I don't know who I'm working for. I'm like, yeah, okay.

There's also one more piece to this puzzle, and that is the people who do speak out and do put a magnifying glass on these issues, journalists who do it, they get law fared, and they get dragged through the court system. The process is the punishment. I've been a victim of that in Canada, as well as many other people I was involved with that we tried to draw attention to things, and we got law fared. So what has to happen, you have to get somebody like Nick Shirley, who just doesn't care and gets support from the administration who has his back, that if they try to put any pressure on him, they'll put him in front of a congressional hearing and then they'll back off. But that's why, that's why the media lies to you, because the media is not interested in having a BS lawfare harassment suit levied against them every day of the week, which is what's happening. And this is largely by your friends, the Islamists. Who are here. There's the one— they're the ones behind so many of these lawsuits.

Well, they're benefiting with the money, so, um, and the power. Okay, so I'm gonna move on from this. There is going to be so much more about it because I have yet to wear my Nick Shirley Leering Center shirt here. I keep forgetting that I want to have like Nick Shirley Day and like really get it together. But if, if not, we'll just trickle— we'll just trickle them out into the, into the school. Okay, so I'm just gonna quickly go through, um, what was going on with Todd Blanch. So he is currently serving as the acting attorney general, and then he had to go in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee for his confirmation hearing. And as usual, it was just, you know, these senators that want like, oh, I want my moment. Uh, Spartacus was there, everybody. We had all the characters. Um, I really like him. So the problem is for them is that he was President Trump's personal attorney when he was going through all of these, I'll just call it political lawsuits against him. And so they're just like, well, can he separate it? And yeah, he can. I mean, this guy's a professional. I don't know who asked him this question. Adam Schiff. So Adam Schiff was questioning him. I found this on Rapid Response 47, the account Rapid Response 47. I don't know, I love this guy. Here, here he is just saying like who he is. Take a listen.

You asked me what happened to Todd Blanch. I am still here. I am the same exact person I was when I was a federal prosecutor in the SDNY, which is do the right thing and, and do everything you can to keep communities safe. So when I was a line prosecutor, when I was a supervisor, when I was the head of a division My motive, my motivation and my goal was the same thing with the people who worked with me and worked for me, which is do the right thing, enforce the laws and put bad guys in jail. And so you spend time talking about—

would never—

I did not interrupt you. I did not interrupt you. A little courtesy would be appropriate. So when you ask me what has changed, okay, and you talk about a single document that I signed, okay, and somebody had to sign that document. On the president's suit.

Okay.

So I tried to do the right thing. What I do every single day and what the prosecutors in this country do every single day and the nearly 100,000 indictments and informations that have been filed since January 20th is exactly what everybody in this building should want the Department of Justice to do, which is to make our community safer, enforce the laws both civilly and criminally, and always do the right thing with integrity, which is exactly what I'm doing. So I am the same Todd Blanch I was. When I was a federal prosecutor in the SDNY.

Okay, so there was that exchange. Then we move over to, um— oh, you guys should see my notes, they're so funny. So I wrote Cory Booker, and I'm like, my notes to remind me what it is, I wrote man-child loser. So here's the man-child loser clip of Spartacus. You know, Cory Booker, would you just stop this performative nonsense. It's so exhausting. And like, every adult watching you just knows what you're doing. It's, it's really embarrassing. Here's, here's Cory Booker.

Every appearance or dinner or speech that I give are cleared by ethics officials.

So you, your, your attendance at that dinner was cleared by ethics officials?

Everything that I do—

I didn't ask you everything you do.

Was your appearance at that dinner—

you can ask the questions, but you cannot control my answers. I'm under oath and I can answer the questions I choose to answer them.

Were you—

what I will tell you is when I do things outside of the—

outside of the department, whether it's a speech, whether it's a dinner, whether it's an event, they are approved by ethics officials.

You did not answer whether that attendance was approved.

Every time I go out, it's approved.

Yes.

Like, grow up. I mean, can we all act like adults? And could men start acting like men? And Mazie Hirono, you're so pathetic, I'm not even playing your clip. But, um, so I just— I think I'm going to get through the one last clip and then we can discuss. And here's my notes for Senator Dick Durbin. I wrote, oh, so bold, also a loser. So here's this clip, you guys. The notes I write myself are amazing. Okay.

Me talk to you for a moment about the survivors who are in the room. There are 10 individuals who were exploited and abused by Mr. Epstein. They are here today. None of them have had a chance to speak to anyone in the department or FBI, though they've asked repeatedly. So can I get your word under oath that within the next 30 days you will personally sit down with these 10 victims and hear their case in terms of what needs to be done by the Department of Justice.

Chairman, I appreciate them being here today. I also have somebody from my office who's spent her entire career working on cases like Mr. Epstein's. She's in charge of our task force investigating human trafficking. She's available to talk to them.

She can sit right next to you. She can sit right next to you when you meet with these survivors.

I am— I have never said I will not meet with survivors.

Will you meet with these 10 survivors? I'm asking —on the record?

They have lawyers, as you know. I'm prohibited from meeting directly with them. I have met with counsel for survivors, as has many people in the Department of Justice— over 30. But if they are represented by counsel, we will work with their counsel. If they don't have a lawyer, I will certainly make arrangements to make sure the right people at the Department of Justice meet with them.

Will you get it done? Absolutely.

Will you get it done within the next 30 days that each of these survivors—

I will get it done today if that's necessary. I mean, my point is there's somebody here who can meet with them today, get their information, arrange to meet with them.

I think you want to be in the room.

Pardon me?

I think you ought to be in the room because you ought to hear this. You had a singular responsibility for these files. Uh, there's a delay in meeting the statutory requirement of disclosure. You were involved in that. I think you ought to be part of this.

I am definitely part of it, and I have been from day one, and it will be done within the next 30 days. I have— I can keep on repeating myself, but I said it could get done as soon as today. It could have gotten done last week. We remain available to meet with any victim or their representative at any time.

Will you notify the committee when you've done this?

That would be prohibited by law if they're talking about an ongoing investigation.

I'm asking you if you'll notify the committee that you've met with the survivors.

It depends on what they said. I'm not sure I'm allowed to notify you. If there's an ongoing investigation.

Oh my God. I mean, oh my God, Marcella. It's like they're just talking to talk and to be like, look, I'm doing something. I'm saying you must notify. Like, why are you giving him work to do? Like, stop this nonsense. Okay. I know nothing about the law. So, Marcella, how's Todd Blanch doing?

He's doing great. I mean, he's, he's, uh, fighting back, uh, with respect. But he's like, they, they, you know, it's my understanding that a lot of these senators are attorneys, but they seem to forget the law or act as if they don't because they want to put this act on like, oh, Epstein, oh, this. And, you know, and it's like, what are you saying? What are you really saying? Are you really saying that Todd Blanch somehow was involved in the Epstein matter? Like, the way that he's, uh, kind of dancing around with everything. But he's doing great. Um, I, I— again, it's the Republicans in the Senate. They have to stick together. Like, the Democrats, regardless of what you say about them, they stick together. And, uh, That's what he needs. He needs the votes. He just needs a simple majority in order to get confirmed as attorney general. And if President Trump thinks that he will serve as attorney general and he is the best there is, then that's, that's who he chooses, you know.

And so one of the problems, I guess, is John Cornyn, who is losing his Senate seat because Ken Paxton in one. So he's gonna be like, oh, all the attention's on me, I'm gonna be the deciding vote. Um, but you're right, we have to stick together. Like, can we stop playing games? Everyone's on a power trip. Okay, BJ, what say you?

Yeah, I think it's, um, it's very frustrating that the radical left loves to use this strategy all the time of hurling accusations but disguising it as a question. That's why I say, oh, yes or no, or something that's kind of like, there's more complexity to it. And so that's very frustrating. The other thing is, this is never gonna change how they are because on the left they are collectivists, the modern left. I'm not talking about like liberals, but like the crazy people. They're collectivists, and that's why they're socialists. Whereas on the right side of the political spectrum, we form alliances based on consensus. So that's why we will argue points and, you know, we may agree on 80%, but we'll disagree on a bunch of stuff because it's, as Scott Adams always talked about, it's bottoms up versus top down because of that structure. So you have the collectivist structure that's always going to fall in line because it's top down versus conservatives who are more consensus-based, and it's always, well, show me that I need to support you. I'm not just going to blind you, blindly support you. And that's just how it's going to be for another couple of generations, I think.

I fear I agree. Okay, so this next portion is going to trigger people. Uh-oh. I mean, I can't help it. It's just— it is what it is. You're going to get triggered one way or the other. Everybody get their amygdala ready. And if you can remain neutral, then good for you. We will bond together. Okay, so there was a, um, here, I put it in a little note for you. So the House voted. Okay, so listen, okay, listen to the details. Okay, the House voted on an amendment that would have ended $3.3 billion in military aid to Israel. It failed, but more than 100 Democrats voted in favor of ending the aid. The vote exposed a major ideological— ideal— yeah, divide inside the Democrat Party. So what they're— so the vote was like, okay, we want to stop sending $3.3 billion of aid to Israel. And so it was exposed, I guess, people like Nancy Pelosi, you know, she voted in favor of ending the aid to Israel, which has, you know, put a lot of Jewish Democrats are surprised, right? And then here's just a couple of quick bullet points on it. Okay, so the amendment failed. More than 100 Democrats supported cutting military aid. Democrat leadership was divided. Republicans largely remained united against the amendment. And so wait, there was one other thing I wanted to tell you about that because— okay, so it goes a little deeper. Okay, this is where I wanted to dig in a little bit about what these amendments were. So it was about Section 219, which was previously Section 224. Marcel, are you proud of me? I dug this up. So here, here is what the divide is about. And the reason why I want to read this is because I can understand not wanting it to pass, and it does not make you anti-Semitic. Okay? It— like, these two things can be true. Like, passing it and not passing it doesn't mean I hate Jewish people. I don't hate Jewish people. Here's what the amendment are. Okay, so Section 219. So this creates a US-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative. So what this does is it directs the Secretary of Defense to appoint an executive agent to expand and formalize joint research, development, testing, integration, and co-production of defense technologies between the US and Israel. The key focus areas include AI, autonomous systems, cyber electronic warfare, quantum computing, counter-drone tech, and missile defense. The goal is deeper embedding of Israel or Israeli-origin technologies into the US military system supply chains. Okay. And then the other one is Section 622. That's titled United States-Israel Intelligence Sharing Enhancement. I'm not going to lie, this freaks me out. This section amends the National Security Act to require the president, via the director of national intelligence and the secretary— Secretary of Defense, as needed, to expand and enhance intelligence sharing with Israel. It makes it harder for any future administration to reduce or limit that sharing by requiring specific national security justifications, for example, protecting sources, methods, or counterintelligence risks. And it prompts congressional reporting. So, uh, both sections aim to institutionalize closer to a U.S.-Israel military intelligence ties, shielding them from future policy shifts. They remain under debate and have drawn criticism over sovereignty and leverage concerns. So that was from Grok. I'm going to play you two opposing clips and then we're going to talk about it. Here's I mean, he's a lunatic. This person voted against the Save America Act. We're going to talk about all this here. So just keep in mind what the amendment is. Okay, guys, here we go.

I think the exciting thing is every Republican except our one anti-Semite voted against it. So the Republican Party made clear that we stand with that relationship with Israel. But a majority of Democrats would not vote to support Israel, including, by the way, my understanding is Nancy Nancy Pelosi voted to kill funding to Israel. I mean, the Democratic Party is a Jew-hating party, and I think we have to accept that now.

Okay, so I didn't like that last comment because I, I don't agree. I mean, there are some, there are some Jew-hating Democrats and Republicans and whatever, and I'm not saying that Massie is one. I'm not saying Pelosi's one. I think there's nuance, and I think nuance is so important. Okay, now here's Thomas Massie.

Uh, I think what's even more concerning is in the NDAA Section 219, which is going to start commingling our military supply chains and technology with Israel's. Doesn't make sense to do that with a country of 10 million people. Um, but they've got that in the NDAA. I'm told that's not coming up this week, but we know it's going to come up sometime, probably sometime soon. And so I've offered an amendment to strip Section 219. It was called Section 224 from that bill.

And, uh, it's— you've had success in the past with discharge petitions to push, um, you know, legislation that leadership wasn't necessarily aligned with.

Do you see that in the case of, uh, of Israel, of these, of these measures, um, regarding Israel?

Well, they're going to give me a vote, so we don't have to do the discharge petition on the defunding in the State Department. As far as Section I mean, that is a place where you could use a discharge petition, but you got to know that you're going to get 218 signatures, and that's rather difficult right now. We'll see how the defund vote goes.

Okay, so with the little bit that I know, I'll just tell you where I stand, and then I'm going to go to BJ first and then Marcella. So for me, I agree with funding Israel if they need funding. I get nervous with this intelligence sharing because, this is my opinion, I feel like we're too tied in with Israel with this Iran war and with the Gaza thing. Like, we can't separate, we can't, we can't accomplish what we want to accomplish because we have two leaders of two different countries with two different goals. So it's like, how do you split the baby? I don't know. So, uh, I'm not anti-Semitic. I can't believe I just said that for your benefit, but I'm not. I just, I just don't think I like tying our intelligence and everything together. Like, if we want to share something here or there, share it, but let's not make it like a thing. Um, so BJ, I'm gonna come to you first on this.

Yeah, I get, I get increasingly frustrated talking about this issue with, uh, with Americans. I feel like they're gonna have to shit or get off the pot. They want to fight Islamic terrorism or not. Because they're in the United States now. And, you know, there's this quote I grabbed from the Secretary of State Alexander Haig under Reagan, and this is how he described it. He said, Israel is the largest, most battle-tested and cost-effective U.S. aircraft carrier that cannot be sunk, does not carry even one U.S. soldier, and is located in the most critical region for U.S. national security. And, you know, there's something else that Ameri— this is why, okay, there's a reason the Jews get crazy, and I can explain why. Israelis have conscription. So they have the draft that Americans are always paranoid about. They actually have it. And every Israeli, irrespective of your political ideas or opinions, has to serve in the military for 3 years. As you see, many of them get killed, like in Gaza. Whether they like it or not, to serve Israeli and American interests. I can't understand how Americans cannot figure it out. I hear people, "Oh, no more wars for Israel." Well, excuse me, Israeli soldiers are the ones who die. That's the— that's their strategic advantage for Americans and American politicians, is they have a conscripted army that is fighting Islamic terrorism in the region. They don't have to go in, and their relationship is very similar to Korea and Japan. Korea has, I think it's 72 American military bases on it, and Japan has 86 US military bases there. Israel has zero because they have their own military who can do the fighting for the West. That's why in the '80s they knocked out Saddam Hussein's Was it Saddam Hussein? No, sorry, it was Syria was developing nuclear weapons in the '80s. Israel knocked it out for the West and for the world and got condemned for it. They keep doing this over and over again. That is the American or the Western world's subcontractor that is fighting the battle kinetically with the very Islamic terrorists who are getting involved in US politics and trying to destroy America from within. And this is why Mamdani doesn't shut the hell up about Israel. He's Muslim Brotherhood, that is why. And by the way, the Russians support it, and they're the ones who are doing the brainwashing online through the Duganists and the integralists to get people to turn against Americans' own interests because that's just opportunistic for Russia to have a weakened America. Why? Because it's all about China. Trump has told— tried to tell people many, many times, I wish he would articulate it better, This is all about IMEC and the Abraham Accords. And China understands the strategy of IMEC and that it will make China basically— well, I wouldn't say completely irrelevant, but it will destroy their economy. So already got a hold of Iran's oil. He's got— America's got— Trump's got a hold of Venezuela's oil. And they're building the opposition to the Belt and Road Initiative that we've all been screaming about for 15 years. And they're doing it through IMEC, which is what the Abraham Accords are. And that is why Hamas attacked Israel, to destabilize the region and stop the Abraham Accords attack. Has anybody ever thought why was China co-funding the tunnels from Gaza into Israel? Why would China be paying for that? What's the interest of China? Oh, they want to destabilize it and get everybody fighting in America and outside of America because it's a threat to the Belt and Road Initiative. That's what this is all about. And the fix— you know, Scott Adams always talked about this. What do people care about? They care about what they hear most frequently through repetition. This is why the Islamists and the CCP and the Russian bots, everybody who's in media, keeps saying Israel, Israel, Israel, Israel, Israel genocide, Israel genocide, Israel genocide. They're trying to create a painted word so people will react on the right the way the left reacts to the word Trump. They hear the word Trump, it spikes their amygdala, they go crazy. This is why Tucker says Israel genocide, Israel genocide, Israel genocide, to create a painted word amongst conservatives. Luckily, I think it's not working, but America needs to just decide, do you want to end this Islamic terrorism problem or not? That is why they're so focused on Iran, because that is such a major piece of this puzzle. And the last point, I'll be quiet about this, The war in Yemen, it's amazing. Russell Brand, I, I was going to talk about it, was on his show, but he kept going off and on about the war in Iran, the war in Yemen, the war in Yemen. Who is fighting in the war in Yemen? Never talks about that. That was Saudi Arabia and Iran. It's not Israel's war, it's Saudi Arabia's war. They want to weaken Iran, as well do all the, all, all these Gulf countries, because they want a IMAC because they want to build a real economy based on trade, and China wants to do everything they can to stop that.

Okay, um, I told you it could be triggering for people today. I'm not upset, not you, I'm just saying in general, because like, for— I am, I am a very nuance-driven person. It's all about the details for me, and I can, you know, I just see all sides of this. Like, I can even see where Tucker's coming from on certain things. I can see where you're coming from. I can see where my friend Siggy Flicker is coming from, who's a good friend of President Trump. I can— I get it. Like, I get everybody's got their point of view, like their interest. I'm looking at the chat, like some people are like, well, Israel's interests and our interests aren't the same. Like, you know, whatever. But, um, you know, Rob, don't say stay away from my take. I mean, that's not useful. There's probably a lot of people that feel like I feel, like they don't have a dog in the fight as far as like an emotional triggering type of thing. We all We can think whatever we want, Rob. So I want to come to Marcella and I hope it was helpful for me to read those two explanations of what the amending was because I'm okay with the funding. I don't know. It seems like a lot of money, but I understand funding and the Iron Dome and I'm all for it, but I'm weird about joining together with someone with intelligence. I think we have to remain a country that can pick and choose what we want to do.

Okay, Marcella, what, what I don't see in, in the clips you had— I don't know the first man that— I'm sorry, I didn't know. Oh, I don't know him. Um, but what I was going to say is, what's the best interest for the U.S.? You know, so that doesn't seem to play. It seems BJ's right in regards to what is playing in their head from what they're saying is, oh, Israel genocide, so we must vote against it. Or the other side is America first. We can't, you know, we must be sort of isolationist. We must not work with Israel. So these, these things are playing in their brains from what it seems. I'm mind reading right now. But what the question that's not being asked is, what's— is this in the best interest of America, you know? And like BJ said, if you believe Islamist terrorists, or just Islamists in general, is a huge enemy, and so is China, then you're going to have to work with Israel. Maybe not in this fashion, but you're gonna have to do some kind of work together with Israel. So my issue about this, Erica, is that they're not voting against it because of your reasons. They're voting against it because they don't want to fund Israel at all, you know. So that's the— so let's just say if we don't have intelligence gathering or forced intelligence gathering, as you read, where other administrations have to have it and they can't it's intertwined, as you read. What if we take that off the bill? Would they still vote for funding the other things?

Yeah, so I don't know. I don't know what's in their minds, you know, when they're voting. I really don't. From what I— yeah, I just want to be careful of labeling people, you guys, okay? Because I don't know. I don't know who's anti-Semitic and who's not. I hear a lot of people calling people anti-Semitic. I seen people that I know that are in the public domain being called anti-Semitic that are not anti-Semitic, but they said something someone didn't like. And I'm like, this is so— it's like it's gotten to such a gross point, like everything else, that it makes it impossible for people to, like, take a breath and, like, have some nuance and understand all positions because everyone's, again, so dug in on something. And I'm like, everyone's got to just, like, calm down a little bit. Like, it doesn't help to call everybody anti-Semitic. It makes people pissed off, you know. It's like when you call someone a Nazi or a racist, it pissed people off. So, you know, it's like, let's stop with the name-calling and like talk about the issues. And yeah, you know what, we are America. And I, you know what, I'd love to see Islam getting the fuck out of my fucking country. How about that? Okay, so show me what's happening here and show me that somehow Israel's helping me with that. I'm like, let's go. So, but I want them out.

So I think that in the nuance of how they're voting, and I don't have to mind read this, they are saying it is that the Democrats are voting against it not because of the reasons you're indicating, not because of Thomas Massie's reasons. They're voting against it because they would vote against any, um, Israel funding because they become the party of Palestine. They're starting to become Islamist. And that's what BJ is indicating. So I understand Thomas Massie's issues with it, but they have to kind of maybe change the bill, maybe make it different, go back to the drawing board. But Israel has always been a U.S. ally. Yes. Who is important in fighting Islamic terrorism.

100%. And they're like a sitting duck over there. And I have compassion for them. I really do. And I also think that Bibi should step down and let them have an election. Let them vote for their president. I feel like him and Zelensky are just avoiding whatever. So, you know, make me feel better. Make me feel better about us being intertwined with them. Let the Israeli people vote for their president. Let Ukraine vote for their president or prime minister. I don't know. I just think, I think sometimes like we keep things going just because maybe like Zelensky is afraid of what will happen if he steps down. He loses money, he loses power. I know there's an issue for, um, Bibi. And listen, I think Bibi's done a lot of great things. He's been around a long time. I, again, he's not my prime minister, so I, I don't really care. But I just think, I feel like I'm looking at the whole picture and I want Israel and the Israeli people to be safe. Um, I think it's a, a very important piece of the world, and everybody deserves, you know, and you want them to live free and safely. I want that for them. Um, I'm gonna go just a 2 seconds over. If anyone has to go, you can go. But this, I just, in doing my research for today's show, and thanks for allowing me to be spicy, you guys, I just feel a certain way about people shutting down nuance or whatever. And I really don't like people calling people names and just accusing people of being antisemitic. It just makes me sick. So I found this clip. This is Anne— I hope I'm not saying her name wrong— Whittacombe. She died this month and she was a British politician. She was an author, TV personality, famous for her forthright, no-nonsense style and strong social conservatism. Anyway, I found a clip of her speaking and she's talking about free speech, and I would like to end with this clip if you guys don't mind. Let's take a listen.

Now, only two sorts of people oppose free speech, and they are at opposite ends of the scale: snowflakes and totalitarians. Nobody has the right to live their lives being protected from offense or from insult or from hurt feelings. It is an occupational hazard of living in society. And if you really can't take it, become a hermit. But more seriously, on the opposite end from the snowflakes, poor little darlings. On the opposite end from them are the totalitarians. Totalitarians like to curtail your right to disagree with state orthodoxy. Now, for state orthodoxy, substitute the words social orthodoxy, as exemplified by by social media, Twitter, and other such places where people decide what is and what is not acceptable. It is absolutely right that we should allow people, no matter how profoundly we disagree with them— I hate to utter clichés in this august debating hall, but I am going to utter one— that no matter how much we may disagree with somebody, we should defend to the hilt felt their right to say it. And that is something that I have believed all my life, that you succeed by defeating your opponent, not by wishing him away. You get nowhere by trying not to hear what is being said, not to hear the other arguments. And just remember this, You may feel virtuous today in what you will not hear, but tomorrow somebody may feel virtuous in not hearing what you have to say. Free speech is for all, not for the privileged few.

God bless.

So she was murdered, you guys, in her home, and they believe, you know, Again, like, you know, you have a big, strong voice and sometimes they just want to shut you up. So rest in peace to Anne. I hope they find out who did this to her. It's such an excellent talk that I just thought would be great to end with today and only took us a minute over. So Marcella and BJ, I love the spirited conversations. I really do. We all are passionate about things that we feel and believe. And I think it's great to have exposure to all different points of view. So thank you for that today.

And if I could just add one comment to what we just watched, as Jordan Peterson would infer, as you've seen many of his talks, the snowflakes are the authoritarians when they get institutional power.

100% accurate. Oh, you guys. All right. So thank you, Marcella. Thank you, BJ. That was a fun show today. I always try to warn there could be cursing, and if I feel it, it comes out. I'm sorry. Okay, so let's say thank you to Scott Adams and Shelley Dweck for allowing this show to go on. I miss them both so, so much. I'm not going to get emotional. And let's be useful today, you guys. I am going to play an Akira song after, so if anyone wants to stick around, if not, no worries. But the home team—

And what's the big secret in Joel Pollack's book? I know, right?

I know. I actually don't. Don't blow the whistle. Never. I'm a vault. Okay, you guys, so let's get out there and be useful today. Have a great day. The home team will be back tomorrow, and I put Basket Case back in the playlist, so we'll do that for Jim Courtney in Alaska. I don't know if he's here, but Jim Courtney is coming at you. Thank you, you guys. Tiscott. Here we go! Everybody— everybody— everybody—

everybody— is someone else's weirdo. Weirdos? Everybody— everybody— everybody— is someone else's weirdo. Weirdo? Everybody— everybody— everybody— is someone else's weirdo. Weirdos? Everybody— everybody— everybody— ever feel like you're Feel not normal?

You don't belong here? No one wants to to be around you?

yourself, Nobody likes your voice or face? Is that what it feels like when you have schizophrenia? man, I am so weird. If anybody found out how weird I am, I'd be in trouble, because man, I'm so weird. Well, I would like to introduce to you the Basket Case Theory, something I developed when I was a young man to explain what I was witnessing. And it goes like this: if you meet a stranger, could be Maybe somebody you want to date, or just somebody you work with. Maybe just a friend. When you meet them, don't they seem pretty complete? Have their act together pretty well? Man, that stranger. I wish I could be like that stranger because that stranger doesn't have anything weird about them. They've got their act together and on the inside, pretty confident and pretty capable. And then time goes by, and you learn more about your date, or your friend, or your coworker, and suddenly there's a flaw. Oh, I didn't see that on day one, but there does seem to be a flaw, maybe a little weirdness. Day 10, looks like there's more than one flaw. 2 years later, well, I guess everybody's fucked up. That's the Basket Case Theory. Everybody looks good until you get to know them. Once you get to know a human being, they're always basket cases. Well, I guess everybody's some kind of basket case. That's the Basket Case Theory. Everybody looks good until you get to know them. Once you get to know a human being, they're always baskets. Always. Just different kinds of baskets. As soon as you realize that every fucking person is a basket case, you're free.

You're free.

What is it that bothers you more than anything? As long as you, you're healthy and you have a job. What bothers you more than anything is what people think of you, or what you think they think of you, or what they might think of you, or how they would treat you if you didn't. Embarrassing thing. You're not better than them. Basket case theory. They're not better than you. They're just people you don't know that well. That's it. There's nothing else to the story. You just don't know them that well. If he did, you wouldn't be impressed. Everybody's fucked up. That's the basket case theory. Everybody looks good until you get to know them. Once you get to know a human being, they're always basket cases. Well, I guess everybody's fucked up. Scott Adams. That's the Masky Kid theory. Everybody looks good until you get to know them. Once you get to know a human being, they're always bad.

I think I'm going to listen to more Akira today. I'm having a moment, you guys. I love you guys so much. Thank you for allowing spicy subjects, right? And like Annie said, you got to put it out there. You got to talk about things. And just always remember there's nuance, okay? I mean, sometimes I do it too where— actually, let me say goodbye to YouTube. I don't want to get all nutty on the interwebs here. Say goodbye to YouTube. I'll see you guys tomorrow, and eff