C (1:53)

Yes, the Farmer Workers Union.

A (1:57)

All right, I'm thirsty. All right, guys, let's go.

E (2:01)

Do you ever wonder why I do the simultaneous sip before my periscopes? Well, some of it is a bonding experience, of course, but I do it also. Somebody asked about this. I do it also because it gives to time for people to stream in before I get into the serious content so I don't have to repeat myself. And so because you're all here so early, it's time for the simultaneous sip. And all you need is a cup of mug or a glass of tanker 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. Pleasure. The dopamine at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better. The simultaneous sip. Go.

C (2:51)

Ah.

E (2:55)

To whoever said first time to come on time for the simultaneous sip. Well, now you know the pleasure. Oh, yeah, that's good.

A (3:08)

It's good. All right.

B (3:09)

It is.

A (3:10)

I needed that so welcome.

B (3:12)

I pity the people who always resisted and never took part.

A (3:15)

Right? Oh, those poor people. Owen, at least you got there finally.

B (3:20)

I did.

A (3:21)

He. So Owen's referring to. He resisted the simultaneous sip because he was like, scott's trying to hypnotize me, and you will not win. What happened, Owen? What happened?

B (3:31)

It was a beautiful experience, and I regretted it ever. Resisting it. I thought, you know, it. I know Scott has talked about how even, you know, even when you know someone's hypnotizing you or persuading you that it still works. And it did. He got me there. And, you know, I think it is what he just said, really, which is. It's partly building community and bonding and things like that. And I think he did a great job with that.

A (3:58)

I agree. So welcome to the Scott Adams School. My name is Erica, and as I said, BJ Is joining us again, our Canadian news reporter, Honking for Freedom. So, BJ Love. There's his book. Yeah.

D (4:15)

You know, Scott was not. Was not ashamed of Shameless Plugs. So.

A (4:19)

No, you should. You should show that you should. Honking for Freedom Dot com, y'.

B (4:25)

All.

A (4:26)

So BJ Was complimenting the show yesterday, and I did get a lot of feedback. Everybody loved that lesson Scott gave. So if you did see it, we had a discussion after, and that's where Marcella told us that words are spells, which we all loved. So you have to be careful of the words you use. Choose, listen, to, adopt. But BJ Wanted to make some comments about it. Bj. So please, you know, let us know your thoughts on that.

D (4:57)

Yeah. Oh, also, something else I forgot to tell you, Erica. A couple of days ago, you talked about brain worms and little jingles, and the one you said was Cars for Kids, I think is the one that gets in your mind. One of my very big followers and supporters works very high up in Cars for Kids and started watching you guys because of me, and they were apparently all jumping in the office and, oh, my God, they mentioned us. It was so good.

A (5:21)

Hey, Cars for Kids. Your jingle work, that is for sure.

D (5:26)

Yeah. So I think yesterday your. Your show really turned the corner and worked extremely well. I think it was extremely helpful because one of the things that we often didn't get with Scott was immediate feedback from people. Like, yeah, you could see in the comments and stuff, but it was just fascinating to see him give a lesson that was, I think, 12 minutes long. And then you all took something away from them. And the one I love the best was Marcella, which was. Who doesn't know this, which is how I feel too, but there are people who don't. And it was just interesting to see how you guys pulled something away from it. And it's interesting, when I was watching was so many of the things that you learn in hypnosis he frequently covered and he put them into lessons. This was Scott Adams big innovation in the field of communication and hypnosis was his ability to package. He was brilliant at packaging things that we have known in hypnosis for many, many years. But the way he simplified it for everybody to understand is unsurpassed. He talked about the fear of rejection. And you learn in hypnosis that those are people who are suffering from anxiety. Why? Because they're living in the future. They're always living in future outcomes. Right. And there are techniques to fix that. You know, how does hypnosis fix people that are dealing with living in the future? Well, there's a, there's an exercise you do when you put somebody in trance where you replay it forward in reverse and you, you increase the speed of which you do it and it just breaks through to the, the subconscious through the critical faculty. And then people just overcome it. It's. I don't want to get into too much, but that's the basic part of it. And this is also, you know, the things that you were referring. He was referring to in the lesson that you guys talked about, which was word poisoning, positive state. I try never to use the word hate. Tony Robbins talked a lot about this 20 years ago. If you start with, oh, I hate doing this, as opposed to, this is going to be amazing. It completely changes your emotional state and allows you to overcome challenges way easier. And then the last thing that was covered there that you guys discussed, that you just mentioned here were the five why strategy, five to seven why strategy. And I think that's important because that teaches. It forces people into starting to recognize, observing ego. In psychology, they call it disassociation. And that's often what mentally ill people suffer from. But there's a very. And psychopaths disassociate themselves. But it can be a very big tool for those of us who want to do self analysis. It's what you learn in hypnosis, how to disassociate yourself from the situation. And you do that by asking why, why, why, why, why? To get away from your emotions and just get into the raw data or the raw scenario of what you're experiencing. So I thought it was amazing. And you, kudos to all of you for giving some very insightful follow ups to Scott's lesson. And I, I hope you do more of that.

A (8:33)

Oh, thank you. That's really nice. We did get a lot of great feedback yesterday. A lot of people said, you know, they took notes, they're going to rewatch it, they're going to use this, they really needed it. And I just feel like the right lessons always show up at the right time. And, you know, Owen, you were saying this morning that you hope people really try the five whys, right?

B (8:57)

Yeah, I call it the five, six, seven method. But yeah, going deep into it and keep questioning it and getting deeper and really understanding why you're doing something, why it's important to you, and it gets you a much deeper emotional connection and goes into what you're really after, what your values are. And I think in many cases it does create a source of motivation that you might have not been able to access any other way.

A (9:22)

And Marcela, what was your feedback like yesterday?

C (9:27)

Oh, it was great, the feedback that I got. Yeah, Some people were, you know, they always have their, they have their issues with, with my abuse. But either way, I think everybody, if they need that, you know, we can always bring those lessons to them. So thank you, Erica, for bringing that up.

A (9:51)

Oh, yeah. You know what? I. Oh, go ahead, B.J.

D (9:54)

yeah, I just want to tack on to Marcella. I, I think, you know, when I, I loved what Marcella basically said, who doesn't know this? And I think there's a reason for that. And this is my experience, spending a lot of time living in Latin America, that those sorts of lessons they teach you, street smarts and the lessons of living what Marcella experienced when she was younger, civil war, narcotraficantes, paramilitaries. You know, Colombia is the same way. And we in the west, because it's been so peaceful here, we're extremely gullible. We really are. And I think it's the ability of people who grew up in Latin America under strife. They're not nearly as gullible as the rest of us. And I think that's why they just have a natural understanding of these things as opposed to, we struggle a little bit of it in the west, at least that's just my perspective.

A (10:44)

Yeah.

B (10:44)

But also I think there's a natural, I think it's wired into us that it takes a lot of energy to analyze, you know, where is this coming from? You know, why am I doing this thing that's not productive for me? Like, you have to trace it all back and break it all down. And really think about it. And, you know, I think we spend most of our time in the habits, just repeating loops of whatever we formed as habits. And there's good habits and bad habits, but, you know, most of the time, I think it's more of. It's kind of like a biological efficiency thing. It's like you don't have enough energy in your brain to just be going back to first principles all the time and figuring out why it is. So it's almost more like you need to decide, okay, when is it worth it to get under the hood and figure out what's going on here and make a change and then try and rewire your brain or, you know, form a new habit? And then once you have that habit formed, you can go back to that sort of automatic mode of saying, I'm just going to do that every day. And once I've done it for a month or two, it's just going to be a habit. And it may be hard in the first week if you're trying to lose weight or exercise or do whatever, but once you get in the routine of it and it becomes just part of your day, then it becomes part of who you are. And then it's kind of like riding a bike. It's like when you first ride a bike, it's really hard to learn, but once you've got it, you don't even think about it anymore. And I think it's the same thing. You're mostly living in your habits, and you don't necessarily really think about, where did those habits come from or do I even want that habit?

A (12:24)

Well, yeah, no, I totally agree with that. And it, it, you know, it takes no time for some reason to build a bad habit. And a lot of it's learned behavior. Maybe it's your friends or your family or whatever. So, like, you know, Marcella was saying, like, you know, her family, you know, like, her culture, her family. It was like, we just don't do this. Like, I. She didn't. She didn't say. She didn't say, who doesn't know this? She said, I never needed to have to learn this. Like, it was already within me, luckily, because of the way she was raised. But what I love is I think that Owen and Marcella and myself, we are three very different people with different upbringings and different cultural backgrounds, and that we all can bring something different to the same lessons Scott taught us, and that if you guys could find, you know, like, a little something in our responses, also that maybe helps you, that's you know, that's perfect. And so maybe it's like a little something Marcela said with the emotion of Owen and then the sassy chick over here, you know, waving my hand around like a lunatic. You know, maybe there's a little something in all of us or one person's resonating with you and that's perfect. And then, you know, that's why I was saying too, like, you just have to, you really have to practice choosing the right words, deciding to have better self talk, because once you realize like, how much meaning words have, like I always say, you know, don't say, I'm gonna try to do something, then you're allowing yourself to fail. Just say, I'm gonna do it and I'm gonna do it until it's done or until it's right or whatever. Because if you say I'm gonna try, then you're like, and if it doesn't work, it doesn't work. No, just get it. Get her done. So I, I like that we recap that. We are going to do more of that moving forward. You guys, I have a bunch of clips and lessons from Scott and, you know, more Scott, more better. But I do want to move over to a couple of fun little things. So one, I don't know what happens if I click this, but congratulations. There we go. So now the West Palm beach airport is going to be renamed to the President Donald trump air. Ron DeSantis just signed that, signed that in. So listen, another place where his name is going. This makes him happy. We like a happy president. Any comments on that?

D (14:57)

Yes, just, just a little context because my parents live very close to there and I spent a lot of time, I was there for the past two weeks. The thing that's hysterical about that is this has been an ongoing feud between Trump and, like, the local town council. Everyone hates the town council, but, you know, they're basically a bunch of commies. And so they've been going back and forth for years. They would deny him the helipad, couldn't fly his plane in, like, whatever they can come up to make Trump's life miserable, they would do it. And this is another example they put on Twitter of revenge is a dish best served cold. It's brilliant.

A (15:32)

Yeah. Now, now look what you got. You could have gave him the helipad, but now you got the whole freaking airport. There you go, people. Careful.

B (15:38)

I'm looking forward to watching people going through that airport. Just.

A (15:42)

Yeah, they're going to go around. They're going to, like, fly to Fort Lauderdale and take the extra drive.

C (15:46)

Yeah, he needs more airports named after him and airlines.

A (15:52)

I agree. Marcela. Okay, the other, the other story that Owen posted, I hope that came down. Okay, the other story Owen posted today that just had me giggling immediately because I love bringing it up. The, you know, the outrage over the ballroom. We were talking about it yesterday. So let's go through this quickly, Owen, but I want to pose. So Caroline Levitt first posted this and. Oh, and why don't you quickly read it for us?

D (16:22)

Sure.

B (16:23)

So the New York Times apparently had some people that quote, studied fine arts. Maybe I'll just read it. The New York Times had three random people who have studied fine arts, long written about urban planning and never built anything to write an article criticizing the new White House ballroom. President Trump and his lead architect have built world class buildings around the world and they're ensuring the people's house finally has a beautiful ballroom that's been needed for decades at no expense to the taxpayer.

A (16:48)

And then of course, this sparked, you know, outrage. Right. So here's, here's the outrage over the ballroom. I wish I could make this bigger. I don't, you never know with rumble. But anyway, I'm going to look at it. So I don't know if you guys can see it, but they were like, you know, it's too tall. The columns get in the way of the view, the path looks bumpy. The stair, the little stairs go over here to the entrance. But then they have grand staircase that doesn't even go to the door. You know, whatever you could complain about. Right.

B (17:19)

And then it looks to me like a fifth grader did this for one thing. And it's just ridiculous. The criticisms they have of this. Oh, it's very tall.

D (17:29)

Oh, like not a tall ballroom.

B (17:33)

What exactly is the issue with that? And you know, I don't know, it just all of it's ridiculous.

D (17:39)

But you know, Owen, you know what that is? That's called the fake because trying to persuade in the opposite direction.

A (17:46)

So that was, that was that one. Then we have here, this is my favorite one.

B (17:55)

Yeah, that's the parody version. When you, you have a top naval architect who does the same thing with criticizing an aircraft carrier.

A (18:03)

And you can see bottom of the boat gets wet, there's not enough parking. What does it say?

D (18:10)

Yeah. For everybody listening. Because I do listen to you guys as opposed to watch. And it's important they understand. The meme is basically echoing that with an aircraft carrier with these very unprofessional lines pointing out to Parts of the aircraft carrier. Oh, my God. Why is it so tall? Oh, my God. Why does it have so many planes or whatever else. Right. It's just ridiculous.

A (18:31)

I love it so much. And then, of course. Oh, and did you want.

B (18:35)

My favorite is the railing blocks the ocean view.

A (18:40)

The ship railing blocks the ocean view. Oh, no. And then, of course, then we have one of our favorites of always. Oh. Just to show you how tall, the ballroom is

D (18:54)

showing a picture of a guy who is Baron.

A (18:56)

It's Baron.

D (18:57)

Baron, who's absurdly tall.

A (18:59)

He's taller than the ballroom.

E (19:01)

Yeah.

A (19:02)

Bless. I love. I love the outrage. It's so fun.

C (19:06)

Biden is taller than the ballroom.

A (19:08)

Oh, yeah. Big Biden was amazing. And then last on the fun Trump hysteria. I hope this works. So there's also the release of the Trump Library, the AI depiction of what it's going to be. And all I want to tell you guys is that it is also very tall.

C (19:30)

Oh, there we go. It's showing the video at the Trump Library.

A (19:36)

There is a very tall Trump Library. And Barron is up to the sphere on top.

C (19:46)

He's taller.

A (19:49)

I love it.

B (19:49)

Perfect.

A (19:50)

So good. I think that was from Politican Meme Maker on X. So that was all the fun I wanted to share. But good, good times. Okay, so, Marcella, I am. I'm going to toss to a news story to you first, if you don't mind, and we'll take it from there. Okay, thanks.

C (20:11)

So keeping the theme of Trump, Trump comes to the rescue for tsa. He yesterday, he created or wrote an emergency action emergency order to pay the TSA officers. Basically he declared a national emergency to pay them, and they will be getting their first paychecks in a few weeks. So basically he rescued them. So how. What. What was happening is that DHS was funded, partially funded in the Senate, but then for whatever reason, they ended up taking out the ICE funding and the Border Patrol funding in order for the Dems to vote for that. Then it went to Congress. Congress didn't want to vote on it because they disagreed with the Border Patrol being excluded from the funding. And I. So basically it was standstill, the. Or however you want to call it. But Trump always comes to the rescue. He also was the one to bring ice to the airports to do TSA's job while they were. Some of them weren't there. But you know, I was thinking,

A (21:33)

yes.

C (21:34)

Then everything. So today I was like, nothing is organic. So yesterday we talked about no Kings protest and how like they all came out. 3000 events and none of that was organic. All of it was paid for. You know, your Soros, your blah, blah, blah. There's so many different evil people anyways, when it comes to TSA officers or TSA people that weren't on the job, I wonder if some of them were, you know, pushed to not go to work, you know, and stay away from work. So it created this chaos. So that's just my conspiracy theory of

A (22:16)

the day, I thought.

C (22:17)

But it didn't seem organic.

A (22:18)

I kind of thought that, too, because Trump, you know, funding it now, like, giving, you know, their paychecks, has to piss off the Democrats because they're so sick like that. They're like, oh, let's just screw up air travel for everybody. You know, have people not have jobs. And then, you know, Trump funding it is like, no, wait, like, it's backfiring. So I agree. And that list of people paying for those that protest was so sick, it was like over 500 organizations paying for it. So none of that's organic people. So you see those crowds and you're like, wow. No, it's all paid for. Oh, my God. I'm going to pull for tomorrow. I think the clip of this woman talking to the people at the protest in Minnesota telling them, you just need to be. What does she call them? You just need to be like a folding chair. She's like, we. Oh, we need mules. She's like, we already have the brilliant people putting together these protests. We just need mules. And we need you to be the mules. We need you to be the people that are like, here's some donuts for, like, the people that are putting this together here. We'll do the folding chairs here. You know, I'm like, oh, my God. Like, you are literally telling people, like, I just need you to be an NPC mule. So, you know, it. It's all. It's all very well funded and corrupt. It's really sad because it's affecting people's lives in the worst way possible.

C (23:49)

So. So the. So just to clarify, the. The executive order signed by Trump Yesterday also added 1 1.2 billion for emergency funds that are going to be used for security operation, not just tsa. And it's going to help in other operations, not just the. The TSA service people or officers. Okay, good. It's good.

A (24:16)

That is good. All right, Owen, I'm going to toss to you.

B (24:20)

Yeah, well, speaking of conspiracy theories, there's been a plot twist in the Tyler Robinson case with Charlie Kirk that apparently the bullet, the atf, is unable to match it to the rifle that the assassin used, allegedly. And I think it's probably, they're probably stretching on this in terms of claiming that, oh, this means he wasn't the killer. I think it, I think it, I think it's common that that can happen like that. You can't necessarily always ballistically match a bullet, a rifle. It's not like every time they can always do it, and this time they can't. So it's clearly from another rifle. I think it's, you know, bullets, when they go into a body, usually fragmented to a bunch of pieces. And there isn't necessarily something you can do to really definitively say this bullet came from this rifle.

A (25:13)

Well, I think. So they're going to say, what, it wasn't a.30 06.

B (25:18)

Well, I think it probably was the right caliber. I don't, I don't think that detail was in the story in terms of whether it was a different caliber. That would certainly be a problem for the prosecution if it was like a 9 millimeter, you know, and then it wasn't a.30 06. But I don't think anyone's alleging that at this point. I think it's just that they can't necessarily definitively say, you know, this bullet came from that rifle.

A (25:40)

What? Wasn't there something etched on it, though, Owen?

B (25:43)

Well, that. I think there was something etched on the casing.

A (25:46)

Oh, the casing. Okay, gotcha.

B (25:48)

Yeah, but that would have been left over on the roof. And, you know, that would at least probably show that a bullet was fired.

A (25:54)

Right.

B (25:55)

But it wouldn't necessarily match it to that bullet. And I think we've had too many of these CSI shows and things where people do these things that aren't real in their analysis. They'll say, oh, I got this matched up to that, or I was able to definitively prove that this is that, or do this DNA analysis in five seconds or whatever it is. And people have come to expect that that's reality when in many cases, I don't think that is what police can do. So I do think it's a little bit of a stretch to say this is a real, like, smoking gun, but I think that's what's going around X right now. And there's certainly a lot of stories being written about it, and the defense will probably try and do something with it, but I think chances are it's probably not. It really doesn't mean anything. And I think there's plenty of other evidence that would point to that person being the Killer?

A (26:50)

Yeah. I mean, he was on the roof with a gun, or was he? I don't know.

D (26:58)

Can I just weigh in?

A (26:59)

Yeah.

D (27:00)

As the. Sometimes foreigner, I think this is very concerning. This is persuasion in action. So we've forgotten the ability to understand that certain things are just inconclusive. The evidence can't point in either direction. And I think this might be another indication of that. And I think the reason that's so concerning for me, and again, this is the persuasion sort of hypnotist filter, is people, once they get some sense of doubt, there's this. The process of how the human operating system works. If we don't know with absolute certainty, we naturally gravitate to the most irrational and extreme possibility. You know, oh, I don't know what that light in the sky is. Therefore, it might be. Must be aliens from another galaxy sort of thing. And I think this is what people who have nefarious intent for the United States, who know this. This field very well, this is exactly what they're trying to do. They're trying to get people to. Once again, it's the Yuri Besmanov strategy of get people to be demoralized, get people to question absolutely everything, and then they cannot process actual reality which is right in front of their face. The slightest little question gets them to go off the rails and, okay, it must be aliens. I think this is just. It's ballistics is an engineering science that like all, like mo. Like many engineering sciences, sometimes when there's a lack of precision, you got to be able to admit that, okay, this is inconclusive. And you see this in murder trials in DNA as well. Sometimes it's inconclusive because it's only mitochondria DNA that's available. I think that's all this is. But that's just my. My two cents, my two situations.

B (28:48)

And I mean, Scott has talked about this in some aspects of saying maybe the opposite part of this is something being too on the nose. If everything lines up perfectly, it might be a good reason to be skeptical to say, wait a second. Life isn't really like that. And, you know, the. I certainly remember a lot of these earlier conspiracy theories about Tyler Robinson and like, oh, look at what, you know, he didn't have the rifle when he jumped off the roof, or it would have acted somehow differently. And I. I think, you know, and they were making these big deals out of a particular frame where it's like, oh, his bodyguard did it. Look, he moved his arm this way, therefore he shot him. And. And, you know, they're connecting all these dots in these extreme ways, like you said. But I think I agree that it comes back to that human nature aspect that we don't like uncertainty. We don't like something to be unexplained. We don't like it when all the facts don't match up exactly as we expect. It makes us uncomfortable. We don't want to be there. So we find another way to say, well, what is a theory that would explain everything? Or what is a way that it would, you know, have all the facts in a nice straight line, even though life isn't like that, just because it makes us feel better, it makes us feel more comfortable, or it, you know, allows us to say, okay, now it's all explained, even if it is kind of a ridiculous explanation.

D (30:10)

Chasing confirmation bias.

A (30:11)

So then it. It. So, oh, and I'm confused. I'm not even looking for, like, what your opinion is on this. So that could go either way. So if Cash Patel is like, hey, we got the guys buttoned up. Here's the gun. So then some people are like, okay, good. Glad that's taken care of. But then there's other people that are like, I grew up questioning every single single thing that came in front of my face. So then there's people questioning it like, well, that got buttoned up fast. But what about this and what about that and da, da, da, da, da. So I have no issue with anyone questioning anything about anything. Ask questions. I tell you guys this all the time, too. Scott would tell you too, like, and Owen just told us yesterday, peel it back. You know, the five, six, seven wise. Keep asking questions until you personally are satisfied. You don't have to. You don't have to take anyone's answer for anything. So I just. I just say, peel it back. If you. If you feel uncomfortable and your gut is saying something, then go ahead.

B (31:15)

Yeah, I'm all for asking questions and examining things and trying to make sense of the world, you know, with that analysis. But I guess what I would challenge people to do is to say, number one, don't go into it with some bias. Like, you think you know the answer and you're just going to line up all the facts to match that. And because you can probably convince yourself of anything if you really want to, and, you know, you'll come up with a theory that makes it work. But I think, you know, the other part is, you know, it just. If you and Scott said this part as well, that when you see something where someone's making a case For a particular theory, go look up the debunk, go look up the other side. And there, you know, for these controversial things like this, they're always out there. You know, someone will say, oh, it's definitely not Tyler Robinson and here's all the facts. And then you'll have someone else who deconstructs that video and explains why none of that makes sense at all.

A (32:11)

What about the guy that tried to kill Trump? Like what we. There's nothing about him yet. There are people that dug in and they found a ton out about this guy.

B (32:20)

Well, I'm not saying that there aren't gaps in a lot of these things. And I do think in some of these cases, it seems like they wrapped up the case without doing enough digging. And there certainly are mysteries about the Butler, Pennsylvania thing and that, you know, why wasn't there even silverware in the house? Why was it kind of cleansed, almost like someone cleaned up a crime scene? I mean, I get it and I'm not disputing any of that. I think there probably is more to the story in some of these cases. I'm just saying that when there is a. Like at least using this as an example, when Cash Patel and all these other people are saying, yes, this is definitely the guy, we have plenty of evidence, we know that he did it and there's no question about it. And then someone else says, well, that's all bs and look at my frame by frame analysis of the video and look at how it couldn't have happened that way and all that. I mean, again, if you walk in with a bias, wanting to believe one side or the other, you're probably just going to say, okay, whatever the other side is saying is, is crap. So try to keep an open mind if you are going to do that. But also at least make sure you've heard both sides. And when I say both sides, it's that documentary effect problem. It's like if you watch this frame by frame analysis and someone says there's no way Tyler Robinson was the shooter, look for someone else that deep disputes that. You know, it's kind of like what Scott did with climate change, where he, you know, certainly heard all the consensus views about it and probably for a while believed it. And then he heard all the debunks talking about the other side of that, how it's all bs, but then he went back and forth and back and forth and back and forth and look for the debunk of the debunk of the debunk. And there can Be many layers to it like that, where you know, if you just stop at whatever point you agree with, you may be missing part of the story.

A (34:12)

Bj, you wanted to say something? Yeah, yeah.

D (34:14)

I feel like I'm in Twitter space. I gotta raise my hand. I'm trying to be the polite Canadian. I also think there's just kind of the human nature effect of it. Like if we start with. If our bias is everything is a lie to us, then we're always going to look for something to convince ourselves of something else. But in this particular case, didn't. Wasn't he turned in by his law enforcement father like a retired cop and he admitted to it.

A (34:38)

There's a lot of dispute to a lot of the stuff.

B (34:41)

Apparently that person just resigned.

D (34:43)

D D yeah, I think if his father is turning him in, his father is a veteran police officer. If there was any funny business, I

A (34:52)

don't think it was his father. Wasn't it like a friend? It was a. Yeah, it was like somebody else. It wasn't the dad.

C (34:57)

And that was alleged. It was not ever confirmed by the, by the.

D (35:02)

His father was. Is a retired cop, isn't he?

A (35:05)

No, no, he's like a family friend or something.

B (35:08)

But I think his father was an enforcement.

D (35:11)

Yeah, his father was in law enforcement, that's for sure. That, that much I remember. You know, and having family that's in law enforcement, it's kind of a close knit community, especially in smaller towns like that. You don't think there would be pushback from other cops on the inside? If he was innocent, there's no way this would have gone forward.

A (35:28)

I don't know, you guys. Listen, I'm moving on from.

C (35:31)

Well, I have, I have something to talk about.

A (35:34)

Okay.

C (35:35)

The main thing about this case is, is it's gonna go to trial. So it's beyond a reasonable doubt. So that's what the, the hurdle to, to meet is. You're always going to have on one side the expert showing the opposite side, you know, going against Tyler Robinson. And then on Tyler Robinson's part you're going to have his own expert saying, you know, it didn't match the gun. However, the main detail that I recently learned is that Katherine Nestor is going to be his defense counsel, his lead defense counsel. And that in itself worries me, but that's just my opinion. Why about Katherine Nestor? She was recently the counsel for Corey Richards, which some of the people in the chat may know. That was a very publicized trial of a woman that, that. Well, now it's not alleged because she was convicted of the murder of her husb. But I had my issues with her abilities. So it's very interesting that they didn't put somebody better able to defend him. That's all I can say.

A (36:53)

I want to say to Basketball Jones, you asked, why isn't anyone talking about the Israel connection? This panel doesn't know the CK case at all. Well, I respectfully, fully would like to say to you that I do know this case a lot, and it is not our job here to talk about that stuff. Like, we're not litigating this case. We don't want to take it to that level because it's always changing. It's never ending, and it's very volatile, and we don't want to get stuck on that. Scott wouldn't get stuck on that. We're not going to get stuck on that. So do your own research, you guys. And the whole point of it is, you know, if something seems suspect to you anywhere in life, you know, trust your gut and your instincts. It doesn't matter whether it's this or, you know, taking a trip with someone and you feel weird about it. Just always, you know, do your five, six sevens and find out what it is that's bothering you and maybe you'll get the answer and then realize, like, okay, all right, I'm cool with this. Like, I thought this, but it turns out this is okay. So do your own research on that. Yes. I'm just here to kick your butt. Okay, so I wanted to bring up, if you guys don't mind, let me just open this, a story that BJ shared with us today. We were talking about the shenanigans in. Excuse me. In Canada the other day. And, you know, whether you have free speech and they're going to come to your house and knock on your door and tell you that, you know, you wrote a tweet that wasn't right. So, come on, little thing here. Okay, so I'm loading up here. So BJ shared. Why don't you set up what the. What the story was about, bj and then I'll play the clip.

D (38:37)

Well, basically, we have very restrictive gun rights in Canada. So I. I can't understand all these shootings that we have because, you know, we don't. We're not allowed to have shootings here because we have restrictive gun rights. Yet amazingly, they still keep happening. And the government, while Blackface Trudeau was still in power, they. They imposed a series of restrictions on firearms, meaning you could no longer purchase firearms. They did a whole long list of now banned firearms in Canada, which included ar15.com ar15.net and ar15ca. Yes. Somebody went to the Internet and just copied a list and pasted it into the legislation. That's the, it's a Dilbert cartoon. It's, it's the Dilbert filter which works very well in Canadian politics. And so now they're continuing down this path because extremists always escalate and they can never self evaluate whether they're making a mistake or not. And the latest is the government. I've received some of them because I don't, I don't need firearms in Canada, but I have a firearms license. And they're sending us emails saying, you know, you should surrender your firearms if they're on this list of now prohibited guns. Prohibited firearms in Canada. And the latest was, well, you'll see in the video how the, the government has their strategy of getting legally legal firearms owners to return their firearms to the government. This buyback program and which you recognize from Australia and by the way, in Canada, did you know it is not lawful to use a firearm in self defense? That's right. A firearm is only for sport shooting or if you have a hunting license. That's how ridiculous it is. And it's still not enough. They're still doubling down maybe so they even wanted to.

A (40:33)

So what about people that hunt? They can't have guns either.

D (40:37)

No, because the law, the hunting rifles are not within the ban. It's, it's certain firearms, like certain pistols and all that sort of stuff.

A (40:46)

My video is gone. I don't know why. It's a rumble kind of a day.

D (40:50)

Okay.

A (40:50)

So if you guys want to like talk about this, I can probably pull it back up, but I'm just afraid that I lost it. But it,

B (41:02)

if there is a self defense shooting, which I'm sure there have been in Canada, what kind of punishment does a person face for that? That in Canada?

D (41:09)

It's funny, you know, I haven't, I haven't mentioned that you guys know, but I produce a podcast for a, a lawyer, a defense lawyer in Canada who focuses on false accusations called not on Record. We do it on Sunday nights. And Joseph in particular has defended, I think one or two cases that will actually paint lay the foundation for Castle doctrine in Canada. Because he was, he, he was able to get the defendants off. And in these cases, you know, property encroachment. Somebody came into their property, threatened them, came into their house and they ended up using their firearm in self defense. Unfortunately in Canada that's immediate prosecution, you immediately get arrested. And although the person ended up being acquitted, the problem is they had to go through the legal system for a couple of years. And how many hundreds of thousands of dollars.

B (42:05)

Yeah.

D (42:05)

In expense. And that's, you know, it's kind of, it's an example of lawfare, you know, where the process is the punishment. Yeah, okay, you didn't do anything, you didn't murder somebody. It was self defense. But we've now bankrupted you in the process. And that's, that's kind of the real problem. Right.

B (42:20)

Yeah. Well, that's in the United States. That's one of the reasons why I recommend and was recommended to me to have firearms insurance for that particular thing because it's, it's a kind of insurance you buy. It's not very expensive, maybe like 100 bucks a year or less if you can shop around for it. And they essentially will pay that $200,000 legal bill or they'll provide you with a knowledgeable lawyer that will otherwise cost about $200,000 to try and defend you in a self defense shooting. And so it's very specific insurance only for that type of thing. And if you commit a crime with a gun, that's not going to cover you. But if, if it is a real self defense shooting where you did everything the right way and you know, I'm sure there's some latitude of whether it's questionable or not because there's always probably some gray area. But, you know, as long as you pretty much did everything legally, then they will defend you and they will go through what, however long that process takes. And it's still going to be painful. It's not like it still won't be a punishment. Just like we saw with Kyle Rittenhouse, you know, like his whole life was ruined or at least changed by that. But, you know, at least financially, he wasn't bankrupted and put into financial straits from that process. So I'd certainly recommend anybody who owns a firearm to make sure you have insurance for that.

D (43:36)

Yeah. And that's because you know who Kyle Rittenhouse is. But, you know, these people are, you know, unknown, just regular people, local community and rural Ontario. And, you know, some drunk. One of the cases, the guy was drunk who came onto the property but almost killed the guy, had no choice but to defend himself. A firearm. Canada is not exactly the Freedom Baskin that maybe it was or people thought it was. And somebody mentioned that Canada is slipping into, you know, socialist communist dystopia sort of thing. We are And I remember this when I lived in Latin America. And I can compare it. We are exactly 11 years into Hugo Chavez political strategy and political policies. So we're doing exactly the same policies as Hugo Chavez did when he ruined Venezuela. That's how bad things are here.

B (44:30)

Well, we'll come in and get Maduro when it's time.

D (44:34)

Come in now, please. Come on. Mm.

B (44:41)

I know there's been talk about it, but I personally don't want Canada to be the 51st state, so.

D (44:46)

Well, no, you want it to be a territory because you don't want us to have any impact on the Electoral College. The last thing you want is us voting. But it's actually how the writings are distributed in Canada. But that gets all very boring, unless you're a political nerd. But they biased all the. Right. The districts and they've condensed them just basically into a few small. Into a few cities. Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. And those cities determine the entire. The entire electorate on the. The electoral results on the federal level. If it was distributed fairly. That's why you see this movement in Alberta. Alberta should have more seats because Canada is actually a very conservative country. It's just a. It's just a couple of cities that are very. They used to be liberal, now they're leftists. But if it was distributed fairly, then you would see Conservatives wouldn't. Would win just about every election. That's the reality.

B (45:39)

Well, in a related story, did you see that Hagseth came out with his Greater North America policy?

D (45:45)

You know, the Monroe Doctrine includes Canada, Right. What'd he say?

B (45:50)

Well, he kind of. Basically he used that term Greater North America, which I'm sure triggered a lot of people because it's probably like the Greater Israel thing. I don't know why he chose those words, but that's the words he used. And. But he basically said we're going to be protecting all the North American countries. Like, we're going to have military influence and protect, you know, be the primary protector of all the people above a certain latitude, I guess. I think he talked about the Amazon river being one of the dividing lines, but he basically said we're going to have a really primary role to play there. And then he said for anyone in the south of that, essentially those countries would be required to defend themselves. We would partner with them and still help them, but we'd be primarily focusing on the Northern American thing, which he now calls Greater North America. So I don't know if you think that might be a step in the direction of empire building, but oh, my God.

A (46:46)

Greater North America is amazing.

D (46:48)

But there's, there's a reason for that. I don't know if I mentioned on this stream or another one, but when I, when I ran for office, which was now two, when, when Trudeau got elected and I was in the Conservative Party, and this was the chatter behind the scenes amongst MPs and staffers and chiefs of staff, because we all kind of got to know each other, was we had a regular problem in Canada of Russia surfacing nuclear submarines in the Canadian Arctic on a regular basis. And that was just to show that it's not protected. And if they really wanted to launch a nuclear attack on America, they could very easily do it despite norad, they could very easily fire off a couple of nukes. And it was, everybody was, I was shocked how scared everybody was within the political class that it was such a. And, you know, one of the people I, I knew pretty well, he had worked in Moscow, he was an ambassador, and he was fluent in Russia. And this is what was really frustrated, frustrating about the whole Russia, Russia, Russia gate stuff is the leftists have overplayed their hand. So now it's become almost like a, an inverse of a painted word that when you tell a conservative, oh, Russia, they just automatically tune out, oh, yeah, it doesn't mean anything. Well, Russia's not exactly our friends. And the strategy of Alexander Dugan online and people parroting it is a perfect example of that. So, yeah, that's, that's where this all comes from. And the U.S. knows that. Everybody in Canada knows. Everybody in the U.S. knows it. And they we would, we need the United States to secure our northern border. And Trump knows that. And that's probably why he's saying, well, then you're going to be part of the United States because we're not flipping the bill anymore if you're not going to be involved. Involved, Right. Yeah.

B (48:34)

And I think the other, maybe somewhat unstated part of this message from Hegseth is Europe might be a little bit more on their own, too, that, you know, essentially he did say, we're going to be basically focusing on our own region of the world militarily. I don't know that he necessarily called out Europe, but I certainly know Trump has been saying, I think there was a post today about that where he said, you know, you weren't there for us. We're not going to be there for you. So Europe, you're on your own. You know, all these other countries that wouldn't help with this. You know, you can't basically count on us to defend you the way we have in the past. And so it's another step in the direction of maybe NATO isn't really NATO anymore.

D (49:15)

Yeah. I mean, because from the US Perspective and Trump's perspective is if you want to commit seppuku and commit suicide in Europe, like, okay, then we're not going to support. We're not going to help you commit suicide. You're on your own. You want to be partners, great. But, you know, the U.S. and I understand this perspective, it's not the U.S. responsibility to flip the bill for everybody all over the world. Yeah. They're somewhat tasked with securing international ports and waterways around the world. That was a big thing in Bretton woods, that, okay, you're going to be the reserve currency, but you got to make sure to secure international trade. And for many administrations, they actually didn't do that properly. That's what you're seeing going on right now with the Strait of Hormuz and Iran and all that sort of stuff up. But at the same time, they're not going to flip the bill to run everybody's country and then have them just, you know, not, not own up any tax, like, leave it with the American tax taxpayer, like, and the American taxpayer shouldn't pay for that. So I understand the frustration. They're completely right.

A (50:11)

I like that they're showing us who they are. And this.

C (50:14)

Yeah, that's my next story regarding Trump and his allies. Him telling them to fix your own oil message to your.

A (50:24)

Read that. That was a really good. Are you talking about his post that truth?

D (50:28)

Yeah.

C (50:28)

Can you read it or. Or do we have Owen read it in his.

A (50:32)

I mean, I have to find it.

C (50:35)

I need to send it to you

B (50:38)

if you have it handy. Sure.

A (50:40)

Here it is.

C (50:41)

Wait, the one that says all those countries. Yeah. Shoot.

A (50:50)

Where is it? It's so good. I like it. I thought that was the way to go. I can't dig it up. I'm afraid to hit a button right now. My, my system's like, what?

C (51:02)

You can send it to you, Owen, if you want.

B (51:05)

I think I got it. Okay.

A (51:07)

Here's a reading by Owen of President Trump.

B (51:12)

All of those countries that can't get jet fuel because of the straight of Hormuz, like the United Kingdom Kingdom, which refused to get involved in the decapitation of Iran. I have a suggestion for you. Number one, buy from the US we have plenty. And number two, build up some delayed courage. Go to the straight and just take it. You have to start learning how to Fight for yourself. The USA won't be there to help you anymore, just like you weren't there for us. Iran has been essentially decimated. The hard part is done. Go get your own oil. President djt.

A (51:39)

Yeah, good.

D (51:42)

Brilliant. Like a business. Remember, everything is like a business transaction. That's his filter in the world, right?

A (51:48)

Yeah. You're not our children. Like, it's your problem. That's a. That's a you problem. People figure it out.

D (51:53)

Daddy teaching them how to grow up and be big boys. Yeah, right. You want money? You want to go out on the weekends? Go get a job.

B (52:00)

Well, I think this is completely aligned with Trump's whole energy strategy that he's been saying, drill, baby, drill from day one. And he's done a lot to make that happen. And I think we were reaching a point, like earlier this year where, at least in my mind, we were starting to say, are we going to have a supply glut? Which is a problem for the United States because we do a lot of fracking, which is more expensive, and if you push the oil price down too far, those companies go out of business. And so it's almost like you have to have the oil price above a certain level for the United States to be competitive. And now we are, because oil prices are high. And so, you know, it. It's interesting just to me, strategically, I don't know how much of this was intentional, but it's like he is really positioning the United States as a primary supplier of oil to the world. And a lot of the steps that we've taken with a lot of these different conflicts, including the Ukraine war, has positioned the United States as a supplier. Like all this liquefied natural gas. Europe is signing up for getting it from the United States because they can't get it from Ukraine or Russia anymore. And, you know, the pipelines are bombed and all these other things, but it just positioned the United States to be the primary supplier. And now the same thing is true for General Oil that, you know, Trump is basically saying, we're open for business, you can buy it from us, and, you know, we'll make a lot more money off this in the process. And so I think he's kind of flipping the script a little bit to say, yeah, in the past, we've tried to just make sure oil prices were affordable and that it's smooth global commerce across the world, but now it's your problem. If you want to go get your oil, go get it. And, you know, we did the hard part, but, you know, basically, you're on your own from here on out.

A (53:45)

Yeah, that's the way to go. I mean, that, that to me shows putting America first. And that's what I think. That's what we want to see.

C (53:56)

Can I beat devil's advocate?

A (53:57)

Always.

C (53:59)

Okay, so if I was Europe, I'm not Europe, but let's pretend I'm Europe. And Europe would say the only reason the Strait of Hormuz is a disaster and chaos is because of Donald J. Trump fighting and with Iran, when they didn't have to, because there was no imminent threat in their mind. So that's just how they see it. And now Trump is telling them, go take the oil, but they are they in their mind, they're not the ones that created the issue to begin with. So.

D (54:32)

And can I play devil's advocate to the devil's advocate?

A (54:34)

Yes, sure, certainly.

D (54:36)

I, I understand. We, we see that, that perspective and they try to push that out. I think people in the west have a really, really poor understanding of Iran and what Iran is. And we discussed that on a previous stream. Right. That Iran has caused such chaos in the region that even Saudi Arabia is now sending jets like never before could you imagine? And this is how brilliant Trump is. He gets the Jews and the Arabs both to love them and working together. So he's got Bahrain and UAE and Saudi Arabia and Israel in an alliance against Iran, which has really been the one that's been trying to be the neighborhood bully, to push everybody around because they really are quite extreme. People don't understand the implications of the irgc. The Iranians do and people in the Middle east do. This is why he killed Soleimani in his first term, because Soleimani was the one who ran the irgc. The guy they killed last week was the guy who ran sleeper cells for the IRGC around the world, including sleeper cells that are in America and Canada. They really are. The reason they have two militaries is one is a regular military, but then one is the true believer military. Think ISIS as a military. That's what the IRGC is. And they got immense power and they were going for nuclear weapons. And up until they were invaded, they said, we have enough uranium for what they say, 11 nuclear weapons, and they were building their ICBM. So this all was inevitable. And this has been the international community kicking the can down the road for 47 years. And he's, if you look at what Trump is doing, he's, he's solving the big, the big annoying problems economically and regards to security around the world from the 20th century. You know, he got rid of Chavez's Venezuela. It looks like he's going to get Cuba. He's got rid of Iran. These were major issues throughout the 20th century, the back half of the 20th century, and he's probably solved them all. What's the next thing he's gonna solve? You know.

A (56:47)

Well, you know, go ahead, Marcella.

C (56:51)

You think that he's solved the RAN yet? I mean, there's still.

D (56:55)

Oh, yeah, yeah. It's really funny when, you know, the two movies, one screen phenomenon that, that Scott Adams looks at discussed frequently. It's amazing to see the complete divergence of opinions that are promulgated online and in legacy media. And it's got often said, and we learn in hypnosis, if you hear the same opinion five times, you're likely to adopt it and absorb it as your own opinion, especially if you're kind of, you're not really emotionally involved in it. And it's amazing to see that. And this is to people's shock. People thought Iran was one of the most powerful militaries on the planet. So everybody's afraid of them. He sunk their navy. Like there's, there's two navies, right, that both the Americans and the Iranians are in, are on the ocean, except the Iranians are at the bottom of the ocean. He destroyed their entire air force, destroyed their entire defense system. Everybody can fly in with. The last thing they have is a gang of militia on the ground. That's the last thing that's left of it. See, it's completely destroyed them. But it's amazing to see there's people online and they did this within a month. There's people online trying to brainwash people in the west to say, oh, Trump has lost, Trump has lost. I guess they, they basically didn't have any background of the implications of Iran over the past 30 years. Let's say when they got very, very strong. And if you take the long term approach, you zoom out of what has transpired, that he's taken out this regime that was singularly focused on America. You guys are the target. And he just destroyed them in a month. This is 47 years of work for the great battle.

B (58:45)

And I think there is a lot of goalpost moving and persuasion going on here because you certainly can see both sides to it if you want to. You can say he took out three layers of leadership. The regime is gone. Even if they have another one, even if they might be just as bad, they're at least a different regime. And they've probably learned a lesson that if they go too far, they're going to get smacked down. Well, and it's also going to take many years for them to have any kind of nuclear capability. Probably five or 10 years.

A (59:11)

We just got to get the uranium. I'm going to say they're definitely hurting and crippled. And I don't think Trump. I want to say that Iran is really the one that unified everybody by firing missiles at their neighbors for no freaking reason. So thanks, Iran. They did that. So, you guys, time to end. I'm sorry, it's 11. So listen, BJ, thank you so, so much. Thank you, Marcella and Owen, as always, and everybody in the chat. You guys are amazing, amazing, amazing. Tomorrow we have a very new guest coming to the show to Scott Adams School. And please check him out today online. His name is Kyle Becker. Scott really liked him and liked his work. So Kyle's gonna come on with us. And don't let him know we know, but it's his birthday tomorrow, too, so he's spending his birthday morning with us for the first time. So, you guys, we'll see you tomorrow. I want to say a very special, like, closing sip to Scott and to Shelley, and we miss you. And let's be useful today, you guys. Okay? Do all the things. Do all the things. And bj, hopefully we'll see you sometime next week. We'll see. You know, I'll be texting you after the show. All right, thanks, everybody. All right, let's cheers to Scott and Shelly and be useful, guys.

D (60:36)

Cheers to Scott.

A (60:41)

Bye, guys. I'll wait till I see your goodbyes and then I'll end it.

D (60:45)

Bye.

B (60:45)

Bye.

A (60:46)

Bye. Thanks, everyone.