reSee.it - Related Post Feed
@robertdunlap947 - Bobby D🎙
All I can say is, sit down because your blood pressure may spike after hearing what YOUR’S AND MINE TAX DOLLARS GO TO🤬! Seriously, we need to FIRE 99.999% of the Federal Government😡 https://t.co/7Pvkk6gTe1
Video Transcript AI Summary
Congress is rushing to pass a $1.7 trillion spending package without balancing the budget. Examples of wasteful spending include $2.3 million on injecting beagles with cocaine, $700,000 studying how male parrots attract mates, $187,000 on studying if dogs help kids cope, and $118,000 on studying if a robot of Marvel's Thanos can snap its fingers.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You would think that a looming recession spurred largely by exorbitant government spending would give this congress pause. But instead of taking a minute to consider what a responsible federal government budget looks like, we are instead placed behind the barrel of a gun, forcing us to choose between letting government expire or blindly passing a $1,700,000,000,000 spending package that not only does not balance, but in fact spends over 10% more than last year. How does congress spend taxpayers money? Well, here's just a few examples of how your government currently spends money. We found that they spent last year, $2,300,000 injecting beagles with cocaine.
It seems that they were curious. Their researchers were curious. Despite the pain they inflicted on these dogs, they were curious to know if cocaine causes adverse effects. Guess what? Read the newspaper.
Read the news. Look at the addicts across our country. You think you need to inject beagles with cocaine to know that cocaine's a bad deal. $700,000 was spent to study how male parents attract their mate. Really?
We've got people who go hungry in our country. We got people that are trying to get out from behind poverty and we're spending $700,000 studying how male parrots attract a female. We spend a $187,000 to study whether or not dogs help kids cope. Of course, they do. Ask any pet owner.
Any pet owner could have told you and we would have saved the taxpayer a $187,000. We spent a $118,000 to study if a metal replica, a robot of Marvel Comics evil warlord Thanos could snap his fingers. A $118,000 really? They apparently hired some
reSee.it AI Summary
Prosecutor Jack Smith and others in the DOJ are under investigation by the DOJ OIG due to a whistleblower complaint. Witnesses involved in the complaint have allegedly been offered bribes exceeding $25M. Judge Cannon may have received a copy of the complaint. The investigation, supported by @PatrickByrne, has been ongoing for over a year. This case could have significant implications for national security if the truth is revealed. The media has not covered this issue. Corruption must be exposed and eliminated for America to progress. More updates to come.
@GenFlynn - General Mike Flynn
BREAKING: Given the recent decision by Judge Cannon regarding prosecutor Jack Smith’s “classified documents” case, the following can now be stated. 1. A filed whistleblower complaint has Smith and other members close to him inside the DOJ under serious investigation by the DOJ OIG (yes, there are some good guys—but we’ll see). 2. Deposed witnesses (part of this WB complaint) have been offered massive bribes to back off their statements (by apparently Americans—to be named later). The bribes are north of $25M (you read that right). 3. I am told Judge Cannon had either requested or received a copy of this whistleblower complaint (I have zero idea if she actually received it or read it), but this is some of the information I’ve been made aware of. 4. This has been an ongoing investigation for well over a year now led by very credible investigators and the public whistleblower complaint was posted back in DEC (go find it). 5. This has been pressed very hard thanks to @PatrickByrne (w/out his patience and support), the investigation and the legal and very public filing would not have occurred. 6. Be prepared for more on this very serious case which stands in history to be one of the most egregious abuses of authority within the department of justice (if the truth plays out here, the 2nd and 3rd order effects could very well prove to be stunning to America’s national security). 7. The media hasn’t covered one iota of this (no surprise here). For America to move forward, the rot must be removed and the corruption must be publicly called out and eliminated. More to follow. @elonmusk
@alx - ALX 🇺🇸
TRUMP: “At the suggestion of Elon Musk — I will create a Government efficiency Commission tasked with conducting a complete financial and performance audit of the entire federal government and making recommendations for drastic reforms. Elon.. has agreed to head that task force” https://t.co/a48F9RUC1f
Video Transcript AI Summary
At Elon Musk's suggestion, who has given his complete and total endorsement, a government efficiency commission will be created. The commission will conduct a complete financial and performance audit of the entire federal government and make recommendations for drastic reforms. Elon Musk has agreed to be on the task force.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: 4th, at the suggestion of Elon Musk, who has given me his complete and total endorsement. That's nice. He's a smart guy. He knows what he's doing. He knows what he's doing.
It's very, very much appreciated. I will create a government efficiency commission tasked with conducting a complete financial and performance audit of the entire federal government and making recommendations for drastic reforms. We need to do it. Can't go on the way we are now. And Elon, because he's not very busy, has agreed to hit that task force.
Be interesting. If he has the time, he'll be a good one to do it.
reSee.it AI Summary
In my recent conversation with Tucker Carlson, I discussed various political topics, including my views on Kamala Harris and Donald Trump. I remarked that Harris is a "puppet" and noted Trump’s resilience despite assassination attempts. I expressed concern over rising illegal immigration affecting swing states and the potential for a permanent Democratic majority. I also addressed election fraud and the need for voter ID. Additionally, I hinted at fears among billionaires regarding a Trump victory and the Epstein client list. Lastly, I touched on vaccine mandates and my need for increased security if Trump cuts federal agencies.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
Elon Musk Drops Epstein Bombshell in Jaw-Dropping Tucker Carlson Interview You won’t believe who he named. 🧵 THREAD https://t.co/HYubZlYbIL
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
In an “off-the-cuff” conversation with Tucker Carlson, Elon Musk wasted no time going straight into politics and the 2024 election. He broke his silence on his deleted tweet about Kamala Harris, explaining that nobody even bothers trying to assassinate Kamala Harris because she's just another "puppet" of the "machine." “Nobody tries to assassinate a puppet,” Musk said. “She's safe,” he continued. “Like, they tried to kill Trump twice with actual guns and bullets.” Musk went on to explain that Trump inherently has the "constitution of an ox,” even though he doesn't work out and consumes “cheeseburgers and Diet Coke and stuff.” “I think he [Trump] just inherently has a strong constitution,” Musk said, adding that he is of “sound mind and body and strong backbone” after two assassination attempts.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 joked that no one is bothering to try to kill Kamala because it's pointless, as she is just a "puppet." Speaker 1 agreed, stating she is irrelevant and replaceable. Speaker 0 clarified that some people misinterpreted the joke as a call for assassination.
The speakers contrasted this with the two attempts to kill Trump with actual guns and bullets. Speaker 0 noted that Trump doesn't seem rattled by the attempts, attributing it to his strong constitution, despite his unhealthy diet and lack of exercise. Speaker 2 confirmed that Trump didn't seem like a man who'd been the subject of assassination attempts. Speaker 0 agreed that Trump seemed of sound mind and body with a strong backbone.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I've been trashing Kamala nonstop.
Speaker 1: Oh, I know.
Speaker 0: Well, not I mean, the Kamala puppet, I call her. You know? The the the the machine that the Kamala puppet represents.
Speaker 1: Yeah. She's irrelevant. I mean, she's
Speaker 2: not even
Speaker 0: No. No. Like, like, I I made a I made a joke, which I realized deleted, which is, like, nobody's even bothering to try to kill Kamala because it's pointless.
Speaker 1: What do you achieve?
Speaker 2: No. It's
Speaker 0: totally fine.
Speaker 1: Another puppet. Exact that's It's no point in killing It's
Speaker 2: deep and true, though.
Speaker 0: Nobody's tried to kill Joe Biden.
Speaker 1: It's imp it's pretty pointless. Totally. What do you mean?
Speaker 0: You actually put that up? Yeah. No. Some people interpreted it as as as as though I was calling for people to
Speaker 1: to Of course.
Speaker 0: To assassinate her. But I but I but I was like but I was like, no. We even you know? I was I was like, doesn't it seem strange that no one's even bothered
Speaker 2: to try? It's not worth it.
Speaker 1: I mean, there's an endless supply. Yeah. I'm like, nobody would it's it's absurd. It
Speaker 2: could be anybody.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah. You you nobody's gonna try to nobody tries to ask me to pop it. Of course not.
Speaker 2: A marionette.
Speaker 0: Yeah. A marionette. So it's like, you know?
Speaker 2: It's hilarious.
Speaker 1: What? She's safe. Like,
Speaker 0: I don't I like, to to try to kill Trump twice with actual guns and bullets.
Speaker 1: Oh, yeah.
Speaker 0: He shot in the air right in fucking butt butler where I was. And,
Speaker 2: He doesn't seem rattled. It's weird. Does he to you?
Speaker 0: This doesn't seem what? Rattled. He's I mean, he's the constitution of an ox. It seems. You know, it's it's not like working out and eating healthy.
And he's
Speaker 2: Okay. We gotta tape this. Oh, yeah. We're good. Oh, good.
Yeah.
Speaker 1: So so so He's he's not like, let
Speaker 0: me eat another salad. That's not no. Or or work out, you know, you know, fastidiously. That's he he I I felt like how he doesn't work out, and he eats, you know, cheeseburgers and diet coke and stuff. And because it it just I think he just inherently has a a strong constitution.
So when
Speaker 2: you I mean, you're just with him. He didn't seem like a man who'd been the subject of 2 assassination attempts?
Speaker 0: No. He seemed, of, you know, sound mind and body and, strong backbone.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
The conversation shifted to Musk explaining how it’s “pretty fun” to be “all in” on Donald Trump, even if the downsides of that choice come with some dire consequences. These remarks came after Musk trashed Kamala Harris, marveling at how “amazing” it was that he spoke at Trump’s rally without a teleprompter. “Wow. Amazing. I can talk without a teleprompter. That's crazy,” he mocked. Musk laughed that he is “all in the deep end [on Trump],” acknowledging that “in the hopefully unlikely event that he loses, there may be some vengeance on me.”
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker states their remarks were impromptu, without a teleprompter. They deny using a media consultant, saying they just thought about what to say and spoke off the cuff.
When asked about being "all in," the speaker confirms they are in the deep end, describing it as "fun." They acknowledge the possibility of "vengeance" in the "unlikely event" of a loss.
The speaker states they are a major government contractor doing "essential work." They claim their product is better and costs less, allowing them to compete for and win contracts.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Remarks I made there were impromptu. There's no teleprompter or anything. I just I was just speaking extemporaneously. Are you the only rich guy who does now, like, a media consultant? No.
I don't media consultant. Yeah. No. I've noticed. Obviously.
Yeah. Yeah. Oh, I mean no. I I just, no. I just thought about what what I what I wanna say, and I just spoke off the cuff, no teleprompter, nothing.
Good for you. Yeah. I can talk I don't Look. Like, I'm like, right now, I'm just talking. Look at me.
Wow. Amazing. I can even believe it. I can talk without a teleprompter. That's crazy.
But if if he loses, it's gonna be hard for you to pretend you never supported him. All in. All in. In the deep end? Yeah.
No. You are definitely in the deep end. You cannot touch bottom. No. No.
I'm I'm like I'm like rolling around. I don't like picking my I'm, like, baaah. It's all in, baby. Is it fun? Yeah.
It's pretty fun. How about I mean, there may be some in the hopefully, unlikely event that he loses, there may be some vengeance, on me. Are you kidding me? I mean, it's possible. It's possible?
You've got to be one of the biggest government contractors. We do essential work for the government. Yes. Yeah. But we're not it's not like, you know, we do useful, essential work that we compete for and win contracts on because our product is much better and costs less.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
Musk then raised a shocking and disturbing revelation that there has been a 700% surge in illegal immigration to some key swing states over the past 3 years, saying that this election is the "last election" if Democrats win. Why does he say that? Because “these swing state margins are sometimes 10, 20 thousand votes. So what happens if you put hundreds of thousands of people into each swing state?" Musk asked. “When somebody is granted asylum, they are fast-tracked. They can get a green card, and then five years after the green card, they can get citizenship, and they can fully legally vote. And when they do so, they vote overwhelmingly Democrat,” Musk explained. By 2028, every swing state will have turned blue, leaving America under a permanent Dem supermajority. That's why Musk calls this the "last election" if Kamala wins.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 1 believes that if Trump doesn't win the election, it will be the last election because Democrats are importing illegals via a secret CBP border app program. He claims this is illegal, but the DOJ isn't stopping it.
According to Speaker 1, government websites show triple-digit increases in illegals in swing states, sometimes up to 700% over the last 3 years. He asserts that asylum seekers are fast-tracked to citizenship and vote Democrat, prioritizing bringing family to the US and being beholden to Democratic handouts.
Speaker 1 predicts another four years of a Democratic administration will lead to legalizing enough illegals to eliminate swing states, turning the US into a single-party country like California, which became a super-majority Democrat state after the 1986 amnesty. He states California recently passed a law making voter ID illegal in any election.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So but back to the original question, you know, about the potential consequences if, you know, having gone all in, this doesn't work.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: I mean, you had to have thought about this long and hard before you did it. What was your thinking?
Speaker 1: I mean yeah. So I My view is is that if Trump doesn't win this election, it's the last election we're gonna have. That, the Democrats the Dem Machine has been, importing so many people, bringing in so many illegals, flying in with this, like, CBP border app thing that nobody even knew about, like secret program. That's illegal, basically. It's illegal, but there's no action by DOJ to actually to stop it from happening.
They're transporting, large numbers of illegals to swing states. If you look at the numbers, these are the numbers from the government website, so like from the Democrat administered government websites. Where do you get this data? From the government website that is run by Democrats. And, there are triple digit increases in illegals to all the swing states, and in some cases, it's like 700% over the last 3 years.
Now, these swing state margins are, you know, sometimes 10, 20000 votes. So what happens if you put, you know, hundreds of thousands of people into each swing state. And for the when somebody is granted asylum, they are fast tracked. They can get a green card, and then 5 years after the green card, they can get citizenship and they can fully legally vote. And when they do so, they vote overwhelmingly Democrat.
And sometimes I get this rebuttal of, like, well, a lot of them, their social values don't align
Speaker 0: with, sort
Speaker 1: of, the far left sort of work ideology. I said, that's true, but, but that's not their top priority. Their top priority is getting their friends and family also to the United States, and the the Dems also issue all these programs, these sort of handouts, essentially, that make them beholden to the Democratic Party. So they vote down. That's what happens.
So my prediction is if there's another 4 years of a damn administration, they will legalize so many, illegals that are there, that the next election, there won't be any swing states. And it will be a single party country, just like California is a single party state. It's a super majority Dem state state in California. Because of immigration? Yes.
The California was, fairly reliably Republican. Bill Clinton lost California in 92 and won West Virginia. Yes. So there was a 986 amnesty.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: And thereafter, California trended very strongly then, and as at this point, I think, 65, 70 percent dem, something like that. It's super majority dem. The California legislature Yes. Is more than 2 thirds Democrat.
Speaker 0: Has it improved the state?
Speaker 1: No. It's it's not. And they they California just passed, which is shocking. It's hard to believe this is even this is even real, but California just passed a law making it illegal, to require voter ID in any election at all in California. Do you know that?
No. Yeah. Newsom signed it into law last week. It's illegal to require an ID. In any election, even a town council.
And and a friend of mine who is this can he lives in Palo Alto was like it it was like, is this actually real? And he went to, like, vote in, like, some city council election. He tried to show them his ID, and they said, we're not even allowed to look at your ID.
Speaker 0: Have they extended this change?
Speaker 1: What's going on right now.
Speaker 0: By the way,
Speaker 1: they're proud of it. They're not hiding it.
Speaker 0: But it's only voting. It's not buying a gun or buying liquor or buying a pack of cigarettes or flying on an airplane or renting a hotel room. It's only voting that it's illegal.
Speaker 1: Oh, if you try to buy a gun, I mean, they're gonna ID you 6 ways a Sunday. Yeah. They try California is trying to make it basically equal to owning its own a gun.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
Without skipping a beat, Musk turned his attention to what few billionaires would dare talk about—election fraud and voter IDs. Without one single stutter, Musk declared, “The purpose of no voter ID is obviously to conduct fraud in elections.” “The same people that demanded vaccine IDs if you want to travel or do anything are the same ones who say no voter ID is required,” he added. Musk pointed out how it is “literally impossible” to prove fraud if no voter ID is required, saying it enables “large-scale fraud.” “So, yeah, the purpose of no voter ID is obviously to conduct fraud in elections, obviously. There can be no other explanation,” Musk concluded.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker believes that demanding vaccine IDs while opposing voter ID laws is hypocritical. They claim the purpose of not requiring voter ID is to enable large-scale election fraud that cannot be proven, because it's impossible to prove without ID.
The speaker dismisses the argument that voter ID laws are racist, calling it "insane" and "patronizing" to suggest people can't obtain identification. They argue that it's nearly impossible to live in the country without an ID, as it's required for almost everything except voting.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And and the same people that demanded vaccine IDs for if you want to travel or do anything are the same ones who say no voter ID is required. Is there any reason Obviously hypocritical. To pass a law like that except to abet voter fraud? It's it's for it's it's it's so that fraud can never cannot be proven. So it it it enables large scale fraud and no way to prove it, because how would you prove it?
It's literally impossible. No I no ID. You you're not even allowed to show your ID. It's insane. Well, it is insane.
Insane. So yeah. The the purpose of no voter ID is obviously to conduct fraud in elections. Obviously. There can be no other explanation.
I mean, they come up with some nice sounding thing. People don't have IDs? Could you live in this country without an ID? Yeah. I mean, their their their common rebuttal is, like, it's racist to require ID and which is insane.
I think it's actually race racist and patronizing to say that people can't figure out how to get ID, obviously. But how could you live here without an ID? I don't think it's even possible. Yeah. You can't do anything.
Yeah. You need ID for everything. Like, the list of the things you need ID for is basically everything, except voting.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
While you’re here, don’t forget to follow (@VigilantFox) and hit the bell 🔔 for more threads like this one. https://t.co/gsTQF3gnqh
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
The bombshell dropped when Musk suggested that Bill Gates, Democratic mega-donor Reid Hoffman, and other billionaires are “terrified” of a Trump victory because if he wins, the Epstein client list is coming out. Musk said this after declaring that there is a “strong overlap” between Kamala's top 100 puppet masters and the Epstein client list. Musk called it “mind-blowing” that hundreds of January 6th protesters have been sentenced to prison, yet there’s been no action to prosecute the “worst offender on the Epstein client list.” “That’s insane!” he emphasized. “I think part of why Kamala's getting so much support is that if Trump wins, that Epstein client list is going to become public. And some of those billionaires behind Kamala are terrified of that outcome,” Musk said.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker believes Kamala Harris is a "marionette" controlled by over 100 "puppet masters." The speaker claims to know most of them and suggests a strong overlap between these individuals and the Epstein client list.
The speaker is surprised that no one on the Epstein client list has been prosecuted, while many January 6th protesters have been imprisoned. The speaker believes a reason for Kamala Harris's support is that if Trump wins, the Epstein client list will become public, which terrifies some billionaires backing Harris.
The speaker specifically names Reid Hoffman and Bill Gates as potentially nervous individuals, noting Hoffman was the speaker's VP of business development at PayPal 24 years ago.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: But you'll just say whatever words are on the teleprompter. So, you know, it's it's really whoever controls the teleprompter. It's the actual sort of those those who's actually in charge.
Speaker 1: And who is that,
Speaker 0: do you think? Well, I've I've tried to put it down. It's it's not like any one kind of mastermind. It's not like it seems to be it's it's like, Kamala is sort of a a marionette with, you know, a thousand puppet masters type of thing. Like, not it's or maybe it's somewhere north of a 100, is what it seems
Speaker 1: like. Yes. I bet you know 80 of them.
Speaker 0: I probably know most of them.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. So what I mean, just by virtue of your job and what you've been doing for the last 30 years, I mean, you
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: And I should say, I think you voted
Speaker 0: for I I I'd I'd like to see a matchup of of of those we quote the the the top 100 puppet masters in the FD and client list.
Speaker 1: Do you think there's some overlap?
Speaker 0: Overlap. Strong overlap.
Speaker 1: When are we going to see that list, do you think?
Speaker 0: I don't know. It's it's it's it's mind blowing that that it, that they've not tried to prosecute even one. Not even the worst offender on on the Epstein client list, they have not even tried to prosecute even 1. Is that that's insane.
Speaker 1: Well, because they have a lot of diabetic grandmothers who were outside the Capitol on January 6th. They've they're kind of occupied.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I mean, they've put, like, whatever, 5 or 600 January 6th protesters in prison and not one person on the on the Epstein client list.
Speaker 1: Will that ever come out, do you think?
Speaker 0: Know, I I think part of why Kamala's getting so much support is that, if if Trump wins, that FCN client list is gonna become public. Yes. And some of those billionaires behind Kamala are terrified of that outcome. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Do you think Reid Hoffman's uncomfortable? Yes.
Speaker 0: Yeah. And Gates. And Gates. Yeah.
Speaker 1: And I only ask that because you can certainly just look at them and you're like, that that's a nervous person right there. I don't know. I mean, I assume you know them. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Yes. Reid Hoffman was my vice president of business development at PayPal Yeah. 24 years ago.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
In another striking moment, Musk entered the vaccine debate, saying, “We shouldn't force people to take vaccines,” adding, “I believe in freedom.” Musk explained that he's not “anti-vax” and that he believes vaccines have done a lot of good, but he also believes that the “quality control on vaccines” should be “incredibly good if we're giving them to children and whatnot.”
Video Transcript AI Summary
Vaccines should be subject to scrutiny to ensure high quality control, especially since they are given to children. People should not be forced to take vaccines.
America is supposed to be the land of liberty, freedom, and opportunity. The country should maximize individual liberty, where success is based on talent and hard work. These two fundamental values have made America great, and losing them will lead to a swift decline.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: That doesn't mean that vaccines should not have any scrutiny. Of course, they should we should be making sure that the quality control of vaccines is incredibly good, get since we if we're giving them to children and whatnot. And we shouldn't we shouldn't force people to take vaccines. That itself is a controversial statement, that we shouldn't force people. We shouldn't force people to take vaccines.
No. Yeah. So just to yes. I believe in freedom. Like, you know Yeah.
I've noticed. I'd like, the the you know, America is supposed to be the land of liberty. Yeah. You know, freedom freedom and opportunity. So that, we we try to, as much as possible, maximize people's individual liberty, and that we try to be a country where you succeed based on, your talent and hard work.
Yes. Those are 2 fundamental values. That that's what that's what's made America great, and and if we lose those, we will our decline will be swerved.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
In the final moments of the interview, Musk said he's going to need to beef up his security team if the Trump administration starts slashing federal agencies. “I'll probably need, if this happens, quite a significant security team because someone might literally go postal on me,” he warned. Musk pointed out the staggering number of over 440 federal agencies in the US government, suggesting it could easily be cut down to 99 without major consequences. He recounted his own experience at X, where he slashed 80% of the staff and “actually improved the features and functionality of the site more in the past year and a half than the last eight years.”
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 1 confirms he will continue to help Trump if he is selected. He refers to a potential "government efficiency commission" or "Department of Government Efficiency," possibly called "Doge."
Speaker 1 states that at Twitter, they cut about 80% of staff and improved the site's features more in the past year and a half than in the previous eight years.
Speaker 1 suggests reviewing all federal agencies to determine if all 428 are necessary, noting there are more agencies than years since the US was founded. He believes they should reduce the number of agencies and eliminate overlapping responsibilities. He also advocates for reviewing regulations to remove those that are not sensible, as regulators tend to add more regulations every year. He anticipates needing a significant security team due to potential unpopularity and threats.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Last question. You you really kind of pulled out a lot of stops to help Trump. You're on stage yesterday. If he gets selected, will you continue to help him
Speaker 1: Yeah. Now? Absolutely. So we've talked about, kind of a government efficiency commission or the Department of Government Efficiency, which is a funny What what percent?
Speaker 0: Sorry. I was laughing. I love it. You you managed to make it sound a little sinister. Government efficiency.
What percentage of Google employees did you can when you got there?
Speaker 1: You mean Twitter? Rather.
Speaker 0: I beg your pardon. Sorry. You I just you've just been talking about Google. Twitter.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. Well, we we we're about 80%. And we've actually, improved the features and functionality of the site more in the past year and a half than the last, I don't know, 8 years, with 20% of the staff.
Speaker 0: So Just for I just wanna throw that out for context. So you've talked to Trump about
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. He's he has mentioned publicly several times, and he's first point of of having some kind of, you know, government efficiency commission, can call it Department of Government Efficiency Doge. I kinda like Doge. It's more it's more fun.
Yeah. And, where we just take a look at at at all the federal agencies and say, do we really need whatever it is, 428 federal agencies? Like, there's so many that people have not even heard of, or and that have overlapping areas of responsibility we should I don't know. Probably, we should get I mean, there there are more federal agencies than there are years since the establishment of the United States, which means that we've created more than 1 federal agency per year on average. That seems a lot.
That's a lot. That's a lot. So we should have that seems crazy. I think we should be able to get away with, 99 agencies. I don't know.
That seems a lot like a lot of agencies. It's a lot. Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 0: 2 per state. That's what I mean.
Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly. We should have fewer agencies, and, and they certainly shouldn't have overlapping responsibilities, and and then we we need some kind of we just need a review of regulations to say which ones are sensible and which ones are not. Because because if you've got regulators, every year, they're gonna add more regulations. It's just automatic. Like like, they just output regulations, and and then and there's more laws and regulations every year until, basically, everything's legal, to get get anything done.
So we need some kind of garbage collection for regulations that don't make sense. I think I'm saying very obvious things.
Speaker 0: You're you are saying obvious things. Yeah. So that's will be very unpopular things.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I'll probably need if if this happens, I see quite a significant security team, so that because because someone might literally go post alarm me from the post office.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
Thanks for reading! If you found this post helpful, please do me a favor and follow this page before you go. To hear everything Elon Musk had to say, check out the video below for his full conversation with Tucker Carlson. https://t.co/QaTSaMmhRV
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 1 expresses deep concern about the future of democracy, believing the upcoming election is the last chance to prevent a one-party state due to unchecked illegal immigration and the Democratic party's policies. He criticizes the lack of voter ID laws, citing California's recent legislation as an example of enabling voter fraud.
He defends his support for Trump, arguing that the "Dem Machine" is importing illegals to swing states, leading to a demographic shift that will eliminate swing states and create a single-party system. He believes Trump is the underdog, fighting against a media, money, and celebrity-backed Democratic party.
Speaker 1 discusses AI, emphasizing the need for a truth-seeking AI to prevent a "woke mind virus" from programming AI to lie. He expresses concern about the power of AI and the potential for it to be controlled by untrustworthy individuals. He advocates for sensible deregulation and a review of existing regulations to promote progress and innovation. He also touches on the issues of over-prescription of psychiatric medication and the potential negative effects of hormonal birth control.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: If he loses, man, what? You're fucked, dude.
Speaker 1: You're not fucked. If he loses, I'm fucked.
Speaker 0: It does seem that way. You can't just be like you can't just be like, yo, I Yeah.
Speaker 1: I'm like, how how long do you think my prison sentence is gonna be tonight? Will I see my children? I don't know. Because it's not like
Speaker 0: you can say, well, yeah, I maxed out to him, but, you know, I get
Speaker 1: you're I'm no plausible deniability. No. No. And I've been trashing Kamala nonstop.
Speaker 0: Oh, I know.
Speaker 1: Well, not I mean, the Kamala puppet, I call him. You know? The the the machine that the Kamala puppet represents.
Speaker 0: Yeah. She's irrelevant. I mean, she's not even No.
Speaker 1: No. Like a like a I made a I made a joke, which I realized I deleted, which is, like, nobody's even bothering to try to kill Kamala because it's pointless. What do you achieve? No. It's totally fine.
Another puppet. Exact that's It's so important to kill It's
Speaker 0: deep and true, though.
Speaker 1: Nobody's tried to kill Joe Biden.
Speaker 0: It's imp They're
Speaker 1: pretty pointless. Totally. You actually put that up? Yeah. No.
Some people interpret it as as as as though I was calling for people to to Of course. Assassinate her. But I but I but I was like but I was like, no. We even you know, you know, I was I was like, doesn't it seem strange that no one's even bothered to
Speaker 0: try? It's not worth it. I mean, there's an endless supply.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I'm like, no nobody would it's it's absurd.
Speaker 0: It could be anybody.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. You you nobody's gonna try to nobody tries to assassinate a puppet.
Speaker 0: Of course not. A marionette.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Marionette. It's just like you know? It's hilarious. Yeah.
She's safe. Like, I don't I like, to to try and kill Trump twice with actual guns and bullets.
Speaker 0: Oh, yeah.
Speaker 1: He shot in the air right in fucking butt butler
Speaker 0: where I was. And, he doesn't seem rattled. It's weird. Does he to you? Doesn't seem what?
Rattled.
Speaker 1: He's I mean, it's the constitution of an ox. It's it's you know, so it's not like working out and eating healthy. And he's Okay.
Speaker 0: We gotta tape this. Oh, yeah. We're Oh, yeah. We're good. Oh, good.
Yeah. Is this so so
Speaker 1: He's he's not like, let me eat another salad. That's not no. Or or work out, you know, you know, fastidiously. That's he he I I felt like, oh, he doesn't work out, and he eats, you know, cheeseburgers and Diet Coke and stuff. And because it
Speaker 0: it just I think he just inherently has a strong constitution. So when you I mean, yours with him, he didn't seem like a man who'd been the subject of 2 assassination attempts?
Speaker 1: No. He seemed, of, you know, sound mind and body and, strong backbone.
Speaker 0: Did you,
Speaker 1: I mean, that's what I said in the in the thing, which Yeah. When and and the remarks I made there were impromptu. There's no teleprompter or anything. I just I was just speaking extemporaneously.
Speaker 0: Are you the only rich guy who doesn't have, like, a media consultant?
Speaker 1: No. I don't media consultant. Yeah. No. I've noticed, obviously.
Yeah. Oh, I mean no. I I just, no. I just thought about what what I what I wanna say, and I just spoke off the cuff, don't tell it prompted. Nothing.
Speaker 0: Good for you.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I can talk I just look like I'm like, right now, I'm just talking. Look
Speaker 0: at me. Wow. Amazing.
Speaker 1: Can you believe it? I can talk without a teleprompter. That's crazy. But if
Speaker 0: if he loses, it's gonna be hard for you to pretend you never supported him.
Speaker 1: All in. All in. In the deep end? Yeah.
Speaker 0: No. You are definitely in the deep end. You cannot touch bottom.
Speaker 1: No. No. I'm like I'm like rolling around. I'm like picking my I'm like, baa. It's all in, baby.
Speaker 0: Is it fun?
Speaker 1: Yeah. It's really fun. I mean, there may be some in the hopefully unlikely event that he loses, there may be some vengeance, on me. Were you kidding? I mean, it's possible.
Speaker 0: It's possible?
Speaker 1: You've got
Speaker 0: to be one of the biggest government contractors. We do essential work for the government. Yes.
Speaker 1: Yeah. It's not like, you know, we do useful essential work Right. That we compete for and win contracts on because our product is much better and costs less. That that's why we get covered contracts right now. And and and and, I mean, if you take, for example, the, the NASA contract to transport astronauts to and from the space station, Boeing got NASA awarded 2 contracts at the start, one to Boeing and one to SpaceX.
Boeing was awarded twice as much as SpaceX. SpaceX has done all the astronaut transport, from the space station, and and Boeing has only done one to one transport of 1 of 2 astronauts to the space station, and we had to bring them back. Boeing got twice as much as SpaceX. There's there's this total misunderstanding that that my companies have been subsidized and supported by the government and get all these and and it's like, do you do you really think that a Biden administration is gonna subsidize me? You're probably not.
Are you kidding? No. In fact, they take away every contract they possibly can. So, for example, there was the FCC contract to, $42,000,000,000 for providing rural broadband. Yes.
Okay. We we actually first said, look, we don't we think there shouldn't be any subsidies, so we recommend that this program just not exist. But since you're insisting that it exists, we will compete. And we we have better products. So we we we won, I don't know, about a quarter of it, which would have included the devastated areas like North Carolina and so on.
And, the FCC took it away illegally. They just voted 3 out of 5 commissioners voted away and said, even though you want it, we're we're we're we're sending it. On what ground?
Speaker 0: And do
Speaker 1: you know how many people they have connected? How many? 0.
Speaker 0: So you think that was political? Well, the 3 Democrats voted against it. Right.
Speaker 1: The 2 Republicans voted for it.
Speaker 0: So you tried to get StarLink you tried to get StarLink Yes. Into North Carolina, into Western North Carolina, the areas devastated by the hurricane.
Speaker 1: We have it is it is in there, and it is the primary means of communication in the devastated areas.
Speaker 0: You had conflict with Buttigieg over this. Well, I I I raised a cons
Speaker 1: I I said, look, we're we we had delivered we've been delivering Starlink terminals there for a while, and obviously, some people already had them, since they just, you know, consume private individuals that had Starlink there already. We delivered, thousands of terminals, and and got all the way up to the, you know, the areas where they wouldn't let us go any further. And then we're, like, okay, we're gonna send helicopters in, and and and find people who are stranded and and give them Starlink terminals, which I think is, you know, a nice thing. Yeah! Okay.
The they they wouldn't let us land, because there was an FAA, notice to M and NOTAM that said, in order to land, you have to know who you're going to meet with, to land. Now, the problem is, we're trying to deliver Internet communications. People don't have Internet communications. We don't know who they are, but then they can't reach us because they don't have communications. Do you see the catch-twenty 3?
Speaker 0: Yes, I do.
Speaker 1: Insane. So so it's obviously impossible for people who don't have Internet communications to let us know who they are, because they don't have the Internet. Yes. Yes. And so,
Speaker 0: Did you explain this to the federal government?
Speaker 1: Yes. What did they say? They they they they fixed it. How was Buttigieg when you talked to him? He was actually good.
So I wanna be just Yeah. Yeah. I I wanna give Buttigieg some credit here. Yes. 1st, a a you know, when I complained about it, he he he reacted in a in a in a very level headed way, and he reached out to me, and he called me.
Yeah. And we we discussed the issue, got to the bottom of it, and he fixed it. Good. So credit to the way
Speaker 0: to judge. Yeah. Well, and to you
Speaker 1: for pushing it. Yeah. I mean so but as soon as he was aware
Speaker 0: of the problem, he fixed it. Well, you publicized
Speaker 1: it too on Yeah. Yeah. As soon as you shamed him. Well, but I I do wanna give credit words too.
Speaker 0: Yeah. No. Amen. I agree completely. So but back to the original question, you know, about the potential consequences if, you know, having gone all in, this doesn't work.
Yeah. I mean, you had to have thought about this long and hard before you did it. What was your thinking?
Speaker 1: I mean yeah. So my view is is that if Trump doesn't win this election, it's the last election we're gonna have. That, the Democrats the Dem Machine, has been, importing so many peep bringing in so many illegals, flying flying in with this, like, CBP border app thing that nobody even knew about, like secret program. That's illegal, basically. It's illegal, but there's no action by the DOJ to actually to stop it from happening.
They're, transporting large numbers of of illegals to swing states. If you look at the numbers, these are the numbers from the government website. So, like, from the democrat administered government websites. Like, where do you get this data? From the government website that is run by Democrats.
And, there are triple digit increases in illegals to all the swing states, and in some cases, it's like 700% over the last 3 years. Now, these swing state margins are, you know, sometimes 10, 20000 votes. So what happens if you put, you know, hundreds of thousands of people into each swing state? And and and for this for this if when somebody is granted asylum, they are fast tracked they would they they they get get a green card, and then 5 years after the green card, they can get they can get citizenship and they can fully legally vote. And when they do so, they vote overwhelmingly Democrat.
And sometimes they get this rebuttal of, like, well, a lot of them, their social values don't align with, sort of, the far left sort of work ideology. I said, that's true, but, but that's not their top priority. Their top priority is getting their friends and family also to the United States, and the the the Dems also issue all these programs, these sort of handouts essentially, that make them beholden to the Democratic Party. So they vote down. That's what happens.
So my prediction is if there's another 4 years of a Dem administration, they will legalize so many, illegals that are there, that the next election, there won't be any swing states. And it's and we'll be a single party country, just like California is a single party state. It's a super majority damn state
Speaker 0: in California. Because of immigration?
Speaker 1: Yes. The California was, fairly reliably Republican.
Speaker 0: Bill Clinton lost California in 92 and won West Virginia.
Speaker 1: Yes. So there was a 90 986 amnesty.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: And thereafter, California trended very strongly, Dem, and as at this point, I think 65, 70 percent Dems, something like that. It's super majority Dems. But, like, the California legislature Yes. Is more than 2 thirds Democrat.
Speaker 0: Has it improved the state?
Speaker 1: No. It's it's not. And they they California just passed, which is shocking. It's hard to believe this is even this is even real. But California just passed a law making it illegal, to require voter ID in any election at all in California.
Do you you know that? No. Yeah. Newsom signed it into law last week.
Speaker 0: It's illegal to require an ID. In any election, even a town council.
Speaker 1: And and a friend of mine who is this can who lives in Palo Alto was like it it was like, is this actually real? And he went to, like, vote in, like, some city council election. He tried to show them his ID, and they said, we're not even allowed to look at your ID.
Speaker 0: Have they extended the same
Speaker 1: actually what's going on right now.
Speaker 0: But By the
Speaker 1: way, they're proud of it. They're not hiding it.
Speaker 0: But it's only voting. It's not buying a gun or buying liquor or buying a pack of cigarettes or flying on an airplane or renting a hotel room. It's only voting that it's illegal.
Speaker 1: Oh, if you try to buy a gun, I mean, they're gonna ID you 6 ways a Sunday. It's yeah. They tried California is trying to make it basically equal to own its own a gun. And and the same people that demanded vaccine IDs IDs for if you wanna travel or do anything are the same ones who say no voter ID is required.
Speaker 0: Is there any reason Obviously hypocritical. To pass a law like that except to abet voter fraud?
Speaker 1: It's it's for it's it's it's so that fraud can never cannot be proven. So it it it enables large scale fraud and no way to prove it, because how would you prove it? It's literally impossible. No no ID. You you're not even allowed to show your ID.
It's insane. Well, it is insane. Insane. So yeah. The the purpose of no voter ID is obviously to conduct fraud in elections.
Speaker 0: Obviously. There can be no other explanation.
Speaker 1: I mean, they come up with some nice sounding thing.
Speaker 0: People don't have IDs? Could you live in this country without an ID?
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, the the the their common rebuttal is, like, it's racist to require ID and which is insane. I think it's actually race racist and patronizing to say that people can't figure out how to get ID, obviously.
Speaker 0: But how could you live here without an ID? I don't think it's even possible.
Speaker 1: Yeah. You can't do anything.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: You need ID for everything. Like, a list of the things you need ID for is basically everything, except voting.
Speaker 0: So So you see the rest of the It's
Speaker 1: total bullshit, obviously. Come obviously. Yes.
Speaker 0: But that doesn't, in any way, minimize the aggression or self righteousness they bring to this conversation.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: It's you're a racist if you want that. Right.
Speaker 1: Where was that in fact, obviously, someone is racist if they say that, people of particular race cannot get ID. That's patronizing and racist. That's absurd.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. It's like when the governor of New York said people in the you know, get out don't know how to use computers or something like that. I mean, like, you know, I'm super out of
Speaker 0: touch. Yeah. For sure. Yeah. So It's like a So there's a really clear template.
Speaker 1: She doesn't know how to use computers, but they do, obviously.
Speaker 0: I don't think Hochul could use a computer. Yeah. I don't think she's She's not qualified intellectually.
Speaker 1: Yeah. No. Probably not.
Speaker 0: But not everyone in New York is as dumb as as Kathy Hochul. I think that's true. Yeah. So you see the other 49 states becoming California if the machine wins?
Speaker 1: Well, you don't need, all all 49 to to go that way. You just need, you know, enough to have the election have there not be swing states. I mean, there are only 6 swing swing states. Yep. So there are only 6 states out of 50 right now that are in contention.
So if those 6 states that are in contention, by narrow margins are no longer in contention, then, the the only contest will be for who wins the Democratic prime primary. That's how it is in California, that's how it is in New York. There's no there's no party, party versus party situation. The only contest is who wins the Democratic primary. And as we've seen with the, appointment of Kamala, who no one voted for, even in the Democratic primary Yes.
Speaker 0: Where's the democracy here? It's just it's easier, though.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's it's just that the Democrat elite just decides who who who is in charge. That's an that that that that's that's a, you know, a tiny oligarchy, basically. Comprised of That's not democracy.
Speaker 0: The richest people in the country. That's kind of the interesting part to me is that the richest people in the country are on board with this. I mean, that's what it is. It's the it's it's a collection of billionaires.
Speaker 1: Most of them are. Yeah.
Speaker 0: But you're not.
Speaker 1: Not me. And and not everyone is. I think there's but but it is a shocking number of so called billionaires are, in the damn camp. Well, more than are in the Republican camp Oh, for sure. Which is wild.
So the in in fact, the the astonishing thing in the swing states is that that it's that they're even a contest given that, the the Dems have far more money than the Republicans. So so the color came dramatically outspends the Trump campaign in the swing states. The, overwhelming the media is overwhelmingly pro Democrat, so you've got, you know, the press, you know, is a is a a Dem cheering squad. And, you know, so oh, and then and then you've got all all the almost all the Hollywood and entertainment celebrities also, you know, endorsing, comment, and and being pro Dems. What do you So you got the so you got the celebrities, you got the they got the money, they got, got it basically, everything on the side of the Dems.
The problem is the underdog here. Trump's the underdog in swing swing states, and still, it's a contentious it's still 5050. After all that,
Speaker 0: what does that tell you?
Speaker 1: It tells me that if if people actually knew what was going on, they weren't being fed nonstop propaganda, it would landslide in favor of Republicans.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Well, how's this for crazy? Has there ever been a more volatile time in American politics? Not in our lifetimes. No one alive has ever seen anything like this.
But long before things started to really fall apart, the Heritage Foundation saw it coming. Heritage has pulled together a coalition of over a 100 right leaning groups to develop a comprehensive plan for day 1. That would include detailed policy proposals on the most pressing issues, the big ones. Securing the border, controlling inflation, cracking down on election fraud, protecting the rights of the individual, and saving the nation from being crushed by woke anti human ideology. The team at Heritage has also developed a plan to dismantle the deep state that keeps this nonsense going and reclaim this nation from the small group of technocrats that's broken everything.
Heritage is also running a training and vetting program to identify effective conservatives to serve in the next presidential administration. People who will share your values, this country's values, and actually do the job. It can't just be the same pool of discredited people from Washington populating every administration. Headers has a long head start and they put in a lot of work already But they need your support to finish the job and to support the incoming president You can go to heritage.org/tucker and contribute to this important work today a lot depends on it heritage.org/tucker. But why not join the easier side?
I mean, you're just you're creating problems for yourself by getting on stage with Trump and into I mean, you must have had friends who said that to you. Sure.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Yeah. People care about you. Like, why even get involved in this?
Speaker 1: Well, I get because I I think we wanna remain a democracy, and we don't wanna become a one party state.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: That's the reason. And the it's exact opposite. They the people who call Trump a threat to democracy, but the people who are saying Trump is a threat to democracy are themselves the threat to democracy. Yes. One party rule is not democracy.
One party where essentially the party elite pick a candidate, as happened with Kamala, is not democracy. Where did the people vote? Show me where the people voted. No, there were no people voting. It was all just damn party elite that disappointed someone.
And and when the when the Biden puppet, when the pro Biden puppet's ratings sagged, they knocked him in the back immediately, and just tossed him out, and put it put a new puppet on. That's exactly what happened. Tell me I'm wrong.
Speaker 0: Well, not only you're right. I mean, it's almost not even worth criticizing Kamala Harris
Speaker 1: because No. No. Exactly.
Speaker 0: What does she have to do with it?
Speaker 1: There's no point in in criticizing Kamala. She's she's simply the the face of a lot a much larger machine. Yes. And she will say whatever is whatever the tele the tele teleprompter whatever's on the teleprompter, she's gonna say it. Yes.
Now she gets stuck if the teleprompter breaks. That happened recently. I think the Yeah. The teleprompter is stalled, and she just she just, like, looping for a while for about a minute. So I think that happened yesterday or something.
It was pretty funny to watch. But she'll just say whatever words are on the teleprompter, so, you know, it's it's really whoever controls the teleprompter. It's the actual sort of those are the best who's actually in charge.
Speaker 0: And who is that, do you think? Well, I've I've tried to
Speaker 1: put it down. It's it's not like any one kind of mastermind. It's not like it it seems to be it's it's, like, Kamala is sort of a a marionette with, you know, a a 1000 puppet masters type of thing. Like, not it's it's it's or maybe it's it's in it's somewhere north of a 100 is what it seems
Speaker 0: like. Yes. I bet you know 80 of them.
Speaker 1: I probably know most of them.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah. So I mean, just by virtue of your job and what you've been doing for the last 30 years, I mean, you Yeah. And I should say I think you voted for that.
Speaker 1: I'd I'd I'd like to see a matchup of of of those quote that the the top 100 puppet masters in the FDN client list.
Speaker 0: Do you think there's some overlap?
Speaker 1: Overlap.
Speaker 0: Strong overlap. When are we gonna see that list, do you think?
Speaker 1: I don't know. It's it's it's it's mind blowing that that it, that they've not tried to prosecute even one. Not even the worst offender on on the Epstein client list, they have not even tried to prosecute even 1. Is that that's insane.
Speaker 0: Well, because they have a lot of diabetic grandmothers who were outside the Capitol on January 6th. They've they're kinda occupied.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, they've put, like, whatever, 5 or 600 January 6th protesters in prison and not one person on the on the Epstein client list.
Speaker 0: Will that ever come out, do you think?
Speaker 1: Know, I I think part of why Kamala's getting so much support is that, if if Trump wins, that FCN client list is gonna become public. Yes. And some of those billionaires behind Kamala are terrified of
Speaker 0: that outcome. Yeah. Do you think Reid Hoffman's uncomfortable?
Speaker 1: Yes. Yeah. And Gates. And Gates. Yeah.
Speaker 0: And I only ask that because you can certainly just look at them and you're like, that that's a nervous person right there. I don't know. I mean, I assume you know them. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yes. Reid Hoffman was my vice president of business development at PayPal. Yeah. 24 years ago.
Speaker 0: He Did does he seem nervous to you? Yeah. I mean, he's terrified of the Trump victory. Because of the disclosure that would follow?
Speaker 1: I think yeah. I mean, I think he's he's certainly ideologically in line with Trump anyway, but I think he is concerned about the, the the the Epstein situation. Like, something might actually the DOJ might actually move forward. There are
Speaker 0: a lot of videos apparently. Those rooms on the island and I think out in New Mexico were wired for video. Right. And Where's
Speaker 1: the video? I mean, between Denny and Epstein, it's got this this was probably several 1,000 hours of footage here.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah. It's kind of weird that the people on those videos are lecturing the rest of us about our moral failings, isn't it?
Speaker 1: Yeah. It's weird. What is that? Well, I mean, part of how they deflect attention from themselves is by a march you know, criticizing the morals of others. Yes.
So they it's sort of like a preemptive moral strike. Yes. I mean, as I said, I think those who are saying Trump is a threat to democracy are themselves actually the threat to democracy.
Speaker 0: It feels like we're getting to a place where the rest of us know too much. Is this do you know what I mean? I mean, it's it's it's easier to live in a society where you don't really know what the people in charge are doing or why they're doing it. But now, thanks, I would say, largely to x. Yeah.
I think that's fair to say that.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: We we do know a lot. Not everything, but we know a lot. And I wonder where does that like, what happens next now that we know all this? The kidnapper shown us his face. Like, what happens?
Speaker 1: Well, I think if, if Trump wins, we can do some housecleaning and shed light on things. Yeah. All all the x platform does is, adhere to freedoms freedom of speech within the balance of the law.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: And if if people want to change laws, they they can change laws. And so, like, x in different countries, the we x does censor in in in countries where censorship is is is the law. We don't try to, you know, push American laws in other countries, but we do try to stick to the law in any given country. That's what we're doing. We open source our algorithm.
We try to be as transparent as possible. But, those who want to push lies obviously hate truth and transparency. Yes. Because it shows them to be liars. I mean, you you look at that, like, how outrageous it was that, Kamala in the presidential debate kept kept pushing the fine people hoax.
They know the fine people hoax is is false. Trump would never support, Nazis, Nazi rallies. It's absurd. And and he explicitly said that, you know, in that same speech, that you must condemn not you know, anyone who, who has Nazi tendencies with the, in the strongest possible terms. And yet, despite knowing that to be false, the people who who who wrote the speech for the Kamala puppet, put the fine people hoax in a presidential debate, Deliberately lying.
Again. Mess up.
Speaker 0: If she wins, I mean I how can they let X continue, in its current form, in its current role in American society?
Speaker 1: They they won't. They will, try to shut it down by any means possible. What do you mean by any means possible? I mean, either by I mean, they'll try to pass laws. They'll try to prosecute the company, prosecute me.
Any I mean, the amount of lawfare that we've seen taking places is outrageous. I mean, the I mean, I have many examples, but, like, the Department of Justice, for example, launched a huge lawsuit against SpaceX for failing to hire asylum seekers. Come on.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Asylum seekers?
Speaker 1: Asylums not asylum those who granted asylum asylum seekers. Now there's now there's also a law, called International Traffic and Arms Regulations, that because SpaceX develops advanced missile technology that can be used in in nuclear ICBMs, that we have we have to be very careful with who we hire. We can only hire someone if they're a permanent resident or citizen. That's what the ITAR law says. Then there's another law that says that, you cannot discriminate against asylum seekers.
So we're damned if you do, damned if you don't. The DOJ did a massive lawsuit against SpaceX, for failing to hire asylum seekers, even though we are it is illegal for us to hire asylum seekers under ITAR law. This is an actual thing that that that's that's going on. And they can only they can only do a fairly small number of lawsuits every year. So why did they pick this one?
Because you have an x. Yeah. Yeah. Lawfare. I mean It's like that famous quote from Beria, you know, the Yeah.
Stalin's, like, chief torturer and head of the secret police. Beria said, show me the man, and I'll show you the crime. Exactly. I mean, we have so many laws that it is actually impossible to, you know, impossible to to do business, but impossible to operate without being, violating some law, because you have laws like the ones I just gave you, where where both things are illegal. Yes.
They contradict one another. They contradict one another. So, you know, it's it's illegal to discriminate against like, discriminate against asylum seekers in in jobs, but it's also illegal for us to hire asylum seekers. But it's just They just chose one they chose the the the the one law and ignored the other one. And the Department of Dutch Justice at federal level prosecuted SpaceX for that.
Speaker 0: What do you think It's mad. Well, it also discredits the idea of law, which some of us wants to take seriously.
Speaker 1: Absolutely. It it it this affects both the perception of of American justice and the reality of
Speaker 0: it. Yes.
Speaker 1: So now I'm actually a big fan of the American justice system, and I think on balance, you know, we've we've got still still have an excellent judicial system. We still have judges that care about the letter, and intent of the law. I mean, not just the letter, but also the intent of the law. But something that people should be concerned about is that there's an increasing movement to place activists as judges. This is, if you look at who who did the Biden administration confirm as federal judges, and who are being confirmed at at the state level, in in in sort of follow-up states, increasingly it is it is not, judges who care about justice, or or they they don't care about following the law.
They care about social justice, not justice justice. Right? What they call social social justice. Activists as judges. Now you got a real problem.
Do you think if If that continues, we we we will not have a real justice system. Or a real country. Yes. I mean, yeah.
Speaker 0: But again, your purchase of x has been I think it's fair to say even if I hated it, I would say this because it's true. It's been pivotal in American politics
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: In an American society. Do you think they could shut you down if the Democrats continue to hold power?
Speaker 1: They'll unequivocally try. Yeah. Yeah. And and if if if they if they, if they get a majority in the Senate and House, and the presidency, then they can simply pass a law, and delete section 230. So it's gonna make us liable for for what any what anyone says on a platform with, you know, good like, at this point, almost 600,000,000 monthly active users.
Yeah. Which is impossible. You know, that's that's like trying to regulate speech in city of like, as a country. So A big country. Yeah.
It'd just be instantly bankrupt.
Speaker 0: But I bet they wouldn't withdraw legal immunity from the vaccine makers at the same time, would they?
Speaker 1: No. That's unlikely.
Speaker 0: Just I mean, as long as we're withdrawing legal liability protection.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. I mean, the whole vaccine debate is a is a is a long one. You know, I'm I'm not actually I'm not anti vaccine in general. I think we wanna exercise caution with use of vaccines, but, in the absence of vaccines, there'll be a lot more, I think, people that that, that have died.
You know? Like, we want the smallpox vaccine. That was a
Speaker 0: good one. It seems a good one.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Smallpox will kill you. Killed a lot of people.
It killed a lot of people. I I used to be people who would like a lot of people would die of smallpox, and a lot of people would get polio. For sure. Yeah. We had a president who had polio.
Speaker 0: Oh, yeah. There's still peep you meet people today Yeah. In their eighties who were limping from childhood polio.
Speaker 1: Right. It's good that we don't have that, and vaccines, you know, played a major role in that. So that doesn't mean that vaccines should not have any scrutiny. Of course, they should we should be making sure that the quality control of vaccines is incredibly good, I guess, if we're giving them to children and whatnot. And we shouldn't we shouldn't force people to take vaccines.
Speaker 0: That itself is a controversial statement that we shouldn't force people. We shouldn't force people
Speaker 1: to take vaccines. No? Yeah.
Speaker 0: So just to yes.
Speaker 1: I believe in freedom. Like, you
Speaker 0: know Yeah. I've noticed.
Speaker 1: I'd like, the the you know, America is supposed to be the land of liberty.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: You know, freedom freedom and opportunity. So that, we we try to, as much as possible, maximize people's individual liberty, and that we try to be a country where you succeed based on, your talent and hard work. Yes. Those are 2 fundamental values. That that's what that's that's what's made America great, and and if we lose those, we will our decline will be swept.
Speaker 0: What what do you if you had to get if you had to bet, I mean, does freedom reassert itself in America or not?
Speaker 1: Well, that's why I think part of why this election is so pivotal. I think if we with the Trump administration, I think we can improve the liberty of Americans. We we can, I think we need to have sensible deregulation, where we we we keep the regulations that matter, like, we we don't want to destroy, you know, important habitats or Yes? You know, encourage oil spills or anything like that. But there there are so many regulatory agencies that have overlapping responsibility, that we are smothering progress.
And we can't build a high speed rail in America. You know, look at the ridiculous high speed rail project in California, where they've spent $7,000,000,000, and all they've got to show for it is a 6 a 1600 foot section of concrete with no rails on it. There's a picture of it online. So it's not
Speaker 0: it's not that fast yet. We wouldn't say it's high speed at this point or even rail.
Speaker 1: It doesn't even have rail on it. And may maybe by now, they've put some rail on it, but it's this comically small section of rail. $7,000,000,000 has been spent, most of it in like environmental consulting, and I don't know where, but clearly not in building high speed rail. So we can't we can't we've got there are so many different regulatory agencies and so many laws and regulations that prevent progress that if those continues, we simply won't be able to get anything done.
Speaker 0: It does seem like the engineers are not getting rich. It's the environmental consultants, the climate consultants, the DEI consultants. A whole consultant class seems to be getting richer by the year, where people with actual skills, the ones that bring actual progress
Speaker 1: Useful things. Products and services that use Useful things. That's right. Yeah.
Speaker 0: So this is a tricky things
Speaker 1: that if you were, like, traveling on a desert island, you'd want those people
Speaker 0: Right. Right.
Speaker 1: But you wouldn't want environmental consultants.
Speaker 0: They seem under they seem under
Speaker 1: confident. Star. Okay?
Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And, It's
Speaker 1: like, who who who's who are actual builders at at Get Things Done? And, you know, and and and every year, we're making it harder in America for actual builders to get things done. You know, we're in this, like, weird Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged Yeah. Scenario, where it's you know, there's yet another regulation, yet another rule. And and what there's a sort of that that phrase in in Atlas Shrugged.
Oh, you'll oh, you'll manage. Oh, you'll manage. Oh, you'll manage. It's like, eventually, you're like, can't get anything done.
Speaker 0: Why the hostility, though, toward people with with meaningful skills? It's it's not it's not a neutral posture they have. Yeah. And they're enriching themselves, obviously, by creating fake jobs because they have no skills and, you know, they don't have creative power. So I understand that, but why do they hate people who do have creative power and actual skills?
I I don't understand that.
Speaker 1: I don't I'm not sure I understand it either because it's difficult for me to put my put myself in a mindset because I'm I'm someone who believes in construction. I I build things, that's what I do. Yeah. I build cars, I build rockets, I build Internet, you know, satellite Internet. You know, I've spent, 1,000 of
Speaker 0: hours tens of thousands of hours in in
Speaker 1: in factories, building up factories. So, you know, I I also I I can't really put myself in the mind of, say, someone who would wanna do crime because I don't wanna do crime.
Speaker 0: Yeah. You
Speaker 1: know, I don't wanna hurt, you know, there's there's some people who who enjoy hurting other people. I don't enjoy hurt hurting other people. So I'm like, I have a hard time imagining why would somebody do that. Yes. You know, in an extreme case, you you can't put yourself in the mind of, like, say, Jeffrey Dahmer, where where you're like a cannibalistic serial killer, because you're not a cannibalistic serial killer.
Right. You're like, I can't I don't get it. You know?
Speaker 0: It's not a fetish you can relate to.
Speaker 1: It's not. You know? But I do think this is in in the sort of well meaning sort of liberal mindset, I know, I've I've many good friends who, you'd they're very they have deep empathy for their fellow human being. Good. And they they they care.
And and and but the challenge that they have is that they've often grown up in a very sheltered existence, where everyone around them is nice and civilized. And they just really don't encounter people who are, have have uncontrolled violent tendencies, or or like hurting people. You know, they've just always grown up in a sort of kumbaya Yeah. Everyone is nice,
Speaker 0: hippie commune situation. Minneapolis pre riots. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, if you if you if you yeah. But but there's there's a small number of people. It's like a few percent of society that, either can't have anger management issues that are so severe that they they they lose their temper and hurt or murder others, and there's a a small it's like a it's not not a large number, that that enjoy hurting other people. And if you do not incarcerate them, they will they will do that.
They will they will hurt other people. And what I see is is what I call, shallow empathy. Like, people have empathy for the criminals, but not empathy for the victims of the criminals. Yes. And so if you simply have and I believe that one should have deep empathy to say, like, what is the greater good for society?
Is it better to incarcerate violent criminals and prevent them from hurting people, or to let them loose and allow those people to be hurt? And I think the latter is much worse. You know, my mom is my mom lives in New York, and and it's my mom at this at this point is has gone from being Democrat to Republican, and her her friends in New York, are should for having the same experience. Because you know what'll turn you from a Democrat to a Republican pretty fast? Is getting punched in the face while you walk down the street.
Speaker 0: Yes. For no reason.
Speaker 1: Yes. And then and then and then no action being taken against those who hurt you. And that happened to your mom? Not not to my mother, but to 3 of her friends this year.
Speaker 0: Hey. It's Tucker Carlson. I am not in the studio. I'm in the and you can hear it in the audio probably. I'm in the back of an SUV outside a hotel in Tulsa, Oklahoma.
I think it's Tulsa, Oklahoma. Anyway, we're on the road for this month long tour, and there's a lot going on in the world. And the question is, how do you understand what's happening? There are deeper trends unfolding. You probably sense that, and it would be helpful to have some grounding in exactly what they are.
And if you're like me and you spend 4 years in college and didn't learn all that much, where do you go to understand what's happening to your world? Well, Hillsdale College, in our opinion, is one of the very few places left in the English speaking world where your kids can get a real education. But not just your kids, you. They have free online classes completely free. You can get them anywhere, including in the back seat of an SUV outside a hotel in Tulsa, Oklahoma.
And you'll know that when you go there. Go to tucker for hillsdale.com. They have an amazing new course called Marxism, Socialism, and Communism. Hillsdale is offering it. It doesn't cost you a dime, and you could pull it up right on your phone if you want.
Go to tucker for hillsdale.com and the class, Marxism, Socialism, and Communism, and you'll have a much better understanding of what you're watching every day. Why would someone punch them in the face?
Speaker 1: I don't know. But that's I don't I'm not a face puncher.
Speaker 0: Right. No.
Speaker 1: You know? But if you walk around the streets of San Francisco and and many downtowns, so they go downtown Philadelphia right now, you know, they they call the people homeless, but but the the homeless is the wrong term. Violent drug zombie. Yeah. Okay.
It's like you know, you look at them, you say, like, homeless is a misnomer. It implies that someone got a little behind on their mortgage. And if you just offered them a job, they'd be back on their feet. Yeah. No.
No. But if if you're going to look at downtown Philly or San Francisco or parts of New York and actually, most downtowns, what you actually have are violent drug zombies. So they're like shuffling down the street with dead eyes, you know, and with, like, needles, you know, on the and human feces on the streets. You've been to South House SF, right? Have you seen this?
Speaker 0: Oh, yeah. I was born there. Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. Like, one of the most beautiful cities in
Speaker 0: the world. Oh, yes. The greatest.
Speaker 1: And now you have to step over the drug needles and the feces and the bodies. Like, one one couple I met, the final straw for leaving San Francisco was there was a they came home, one night, and there's a dead body in front of their garage. They can can get their car in to to can can can can park their car.
Speaker 0: Because of
Speaker 1: the corpse. And, yeah, there's no street fog. They're like, this is a corpse. This is a corpse in front of the garage. And they don't wanna move the corpse, you know, because, like, well, you know, there you don't you're like, maybe there's they need to, like, figure out why the guy died or something.
You know?
Speaker 0: That's to me. That's liberal compassion, though.
Speaker 1: They're in a bit of a quandary because they get they get in a place to park their car, and they they feel that they shouldn't really move the dead body. So they called 911 and said, there's a dead body outside our house. And, they said, well, they said they said that 911 San Francisco says, well, are you in danger right now? It's like, well, no. He's dead.
He's pretty sure he's dead. And, they're like they're like, okay. We'll we'll send someone tomorrow to pick up the body. Like, they're like, what do you mean tomorrow? So so so they're, like, going out of their house while there's a dead body, as in front right in front of their house, you know, like it took like, it took, like, 24 hours or something like that to eventually pick up the body.
And they're like, this the hell with us were leaving.
Speaker 0: And did they?
Speaker 1: Yes. By the way, there's a million anecdotes like that. Oh, I know.
Speaker 0: No. But I just don't think This
Speaker 1: is not rare.
Speaker 0: It's well, it's it's it's ubiquitous. And so then you wonder, like, how can people still tell themselves they're compassionate
Speaker 1: if they're loving it? Is is that is that people really just need
Speaker 0: to think
Speaker 1: what like, I believe in being compassionate about Of course. I believe that we should care about our fellow human beings. I think this is a good thing.
Speaker 0: Of course.
Speaker 1: We should not we should not be we should not be selfish and not care about others. We should care about others. But we should just care about others, all things considered. Like I said, care not merely just about the criminals. It's just one layer deep.
You should also care about the criminals' victims.
Speaker 0: Yes. Yes. Well, especially the criminal's victims.
Speaker 1: Yes. Innocent people who get attacked and killed. So, I mean, I got so many anecdotes. I mean, you know, like, about a year ago, there were there were 3, actual Twitter employees who were just, leaving the building and walking down Mock Street in in San Francisco. Mock Street used to be a beautiful, wonderful street.
Of course. Obviously, it's called Mock Street because that's where the market was. Right. Now now it's boarded up shop windows and stuff, and, and, they were chased by a guy with an ax who wanted they they they they outran him, and they reported, hey, there's a guy with an axe who who tried to hit try to kill us with an axe. The police did nothing, and, that guy with an ax, subsequently murdered 2 people.
With an ax? With the yeah. With the ax. Because eventually, he's gonna find somebody he cannot run, and he did. So what I'm saying is if you if you don't stop ax motors while it while they're attempting to ax motor, eventually, they will succeed in ax motoring people.
Speaker 0: If this goes on, I mean, that's such an obvious observation.
Speaker 1: Seems obvious.
Speaker 0: Yes. I I think it is. Yeah. That if you're in any way abetting axe murder, then you're really you're against civilization. That's the way it looks to me.
I mean Yeah. I don't see I'm trying to understand motive here. I can't relate like you, but you're against the whole project if you're allowing that. I guess, is what I'm saying.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I think we should, controversial position, but I think we should arrest axe murderers when they first attempted to axe murder, not after they've succeeded in doing so.
Speaker 0: And I think we should assign at least some of the blame for the axe murderers to the people who allowed allowed this guy to run around with an axe on Market Street trying to kill people. Yes.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, you know this this whole movement to decriminalize crime.
Speaker 0: Oh, I've noticed. Yes. What is that?
Speaker 1: Madness? Yeah. Like, do do do you to to a crime crime legal? Like, in California, you can just steal things, and nobody does anything? It's, like, fully legal to steal anything under $1,000 in California?
That's why got they don't have to, like, lock up goods behind these, like, you know, glass and plastic walls. So you go into the supermarket, and you you can't even get, like, what, toothpaste. So that's and and this has actually been particularly difficult on small mom and pop operations. Of course. They don't have the resources of a large corporation.
So it's put a lot of small businesses out
Speaker 0: of just kill them. So when you're at dinner parties and you make these points, what do people say?
Speaker 1: Well, I actually think I've been I've been able to persuade people that, yeah, we we really, we we we need to reverse course here. I think I have actually been able to to persuade a number of people. And I think there actually is a now a ballot on a California ballot initiative to recriminalize, theft. You know what? Guys guys, we there's a reason why we criminalize theft in the first place.
So so and then amazingly, I think Gavin Newsom was a came out against that, proposition. Yeah. No. Honestly, he's the goddamn joker. Gavin Newsom is like if is like like from the like Batman, Dark Knight, the Joker is in charge of Gotham.
You remember, like,
Speaker 0: when he
Speaker 1: took over New York, basically? And and and the criminals run free and the citizens are arrested. That's how that's California. But but, I mean, at least there's a ballot initiative, which I think will probably pass, to say, no. You actually, it is a crime to steal things.
Speaker 0: So you know Gavin. You've gotta know Gavin Newsomie knows. I know Gavin Newsomie. You know, everyone knows Gavin.
Speaker 1: I've known Gavin for a long time.
Speaker 0: Oh, exactly. So what is that? And he doesn't seem crazy when you talk to him in person. He's a perfectly nice guy. Like, what why would he and he's not stupid.
Why would he come out in favor of crime?
Speaker 1: Well, his stated reason was that it would disproportionately affect, people of color.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Well, again But that was his public statement. Right. Well, that is one of those patronizing racist positions you described at the outset, obviously.
Speaker 1: Yes. He I mean, he's literally saying, black people are, and Hispanics are criminals. Yeah. Of course. Yeah.
Yeah.
Speaker 0: No. That's what he's saying.
Speaker 1: That's what he's saying.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 1: And by
Speaker 0: the way, it is true that crime like that does increase distrust between races. It actually gives rise to racism. It's totally destructive of the social fabric, I think. But I'm but I'm asking like, what do you think his real motive is? Like, who's pushing him in favor of crime?
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, there's always the Saros boogie man. Yeah. Or who you know?
Speaker 0: How real is that?
Speaker 1: It's it's real. I I don't think one can ascribe everything to Saros. I mean, he's, and and George George himself is, is quite I mean, he's seen out at this point. He's not Yes. Not compass measures.
So his his son, Alex, is is in charge. And, but but there is this whole system that SARS built up over many decades. You know? And, so so so I guess SARS and like minded people or whatever, you know, they believe in open borders. They they believe we shouldn't prosecute crime.
This is insane.
Speaker 0: The those seem like expressions of hatred toward the United States. Like, I don't if I was pushing that on a country, I would only do that if I hated the country and wanted to destroy it.
Speaker 1: Well, it's anti civilizational. I mean, and and and similar organizations have been pushing this in in Europe and other countries too. Yeah. Anyone who everywhere they can.
Speaker 0: What's going on in Europe, would you say? Europe suddenly seems like a different place.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, my biggest concern for Europe is that the both rate is half replacement rate.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: So Europe is rapidly becoming, with each passing year, older and older with fewer and fewer young people. So I think at the at the most fundamental level, unless Europe has birth rate at least roughly equal to replacement rate, it is, in population free fall. Population collapse is what's going on in Europe. So, there's also, like, a shocking amount of censorship. You may have seen, like, in, you know, Britain, they're I kid you not.
It's how can this be real? They are releasing convicted pedophiles from prison in order to put people in prison who for Facebook posts.
Speaker 0: But to be fair, those are posts that criticize the government, so they have a good reason.
Speaker 1: Well, they were actually some of these posts that I've these ones I've seen didn't actually criticize the government, or or or they they they they were they were seen as as sort of as as hate speech.
Speaker 0: Right. So Because they noticed the society getting crappier and crappier with every year, and they said so.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, there there were and this is the sort of so we're stating a fact that there were migrant rape gangs in Yes. In England that were gangs that would run around and prey on young girls, gang rape them. And some people found that objectionable, which, will say, it should be objectionable. And, they're upset about that.
And so they complained about it online and were sent to prison. That sounds crazy.
Speaker 0: It is crazy, and that's like
Speaker 1: like, what?
Speaker 0: Well, it is so it kind of gets to the I mean, you're an engineer, so you're
Speaker 1: It's so mind
Speaker 0: boggling. It is mind boggling, but it's the same you use the phrase mind virus, but it it's behaving like a virus. It's infecting people and making it impossible, apparently, for them to make rational decisions. What is that virus?
Speaker 1: You know, someone I think you should interview is, God Saad.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I have.
Speaker 1: Oh, you have? Yes. Oh, I should watch that, actually. He's great.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Smart. Super smart guy.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And he he wrote a great book called, The Parasitic Mind.
Speaker 0: Yes. A
Speaker 1: very good book. Highly recommended. Yes. Which where he tries to understand how do you get to this parasitic mind situation. And he's writing a book now, which hopefully will publish soon, which is about suicidal empathy, where you have so much empathy, you're actually suiciding society.
Or so much perceived empathy. It's not actually it's called shallow empathy, not deep empathy. Deep empathy would be you'd want the society to continue. Shallow empathy is because you have, like, empathy that's essentially skin deep, and then you and and you don't but it's ultimately bad for civilization and results in the destruction of civilization. And Gut's Gut's Heart has got a good term for this, suicidal empathy.
So it's it's gonna sort of deconstruct what's what's you know, where does this come come from? And, yeah. I mean, part part of it, I suppose, is is is sort of the decline of religion. So, you know, as the saying goes, nature abhors a vacuum. So when you have, essentially a decline in religion, an increase in the secular nature of society, for most people, they need something to fill that void.
And so they adopt a religion. It's not called a religion, but like but effectively like woke, the woke mind virus. It takes the place of religion. Yes. And they internalize it, and they feel it with religious fervor.
Yes. So And rigidity. Yes. Yes. And they you know, they essentially conduct, like, a holy war, effectively.
It's just not called a religion, but it is a religion. That was sort of a work holy war. And they're highly resistant to change as is normal for for for religions. So, now for myself, I'm I'm I sort of see myself as a sort of, you know, engineer, physicist. For me, I'm culturally Christian.
I grew up Christian. I mean, I was Anglican, was baptized. You know? I was went to Sunday school. Yeah.
Actually, oddly enough, I was sent to Hebrew preschool and Anglican Sunday school at the same time. So it was Habanagila one day, Jesus Eloh the next, which is, you know, to if you're 5 years old, it's fine. There's not there's you know? So, but I'm I'm not Jewish. It's just that my my father's 2 partners in his engineering firm were were I think it was went went to the same Hebrew preschool, and and it was near our house, so I just got sent there.
And so but but but, you know, I I I I, you know, I I maybe this will make me even more amused, but I I I have trouble sort of believing all these stories, these religious stories, but also a lot of people do. And, I respect people who wanna have religious views. I'm not trying to dissuade them from their religious views. But, anyway, I'm just I I guess the the operating system I have is is is a sort of a physics engineering operating system where I'm I I I try to understand as much as possible possible about reality. You know, in in physics, you're you're not supposed to believe everything anything absolutely.
You're you're supposed to question things. That's how you discover new physics. You know, in engineering, that's how you discover if your machine will work or not work. Will the rocket get to orbit? Will you know.
Yeah. You know, if you if your rocket is designed with, you know, physics in mind, correctly, it will get to orbit. And if it is not, it will not get to orbit, no matter what you believe, sister base. You can believe, you know, whether, it yeah. You know, it's like like I I meet a lot of people speaking of LA.
I meet a lot of people in LA who believe witchcraft is real, and that you can do spells. And that spells and witchcraft magic is real. I'm like, can you magic us to the moon? And no one has yet been able to magic us to the moon. Like, spells can't be that good, okay, if you can't I wanna go to the moon.
Let's go. How about Mars? And,
Speaker 0: So we we got to the moon the first time.
Speaker 1: We definitely went to the moon. I was like yes. We went to the moon. We didn't go to the moon we went to the moon several times.
Speaker 0: Right. Alright. Yeah. I just wanna check your view on that.
Speaker 1: We 100% went to the moon. What? I mean, I I know in-depth the technical designs of the rockets, the spacecraft, everything. Yes. What went right, what went wrong.
And, it it it was a remarkable piece of technology, like, incredible piece of technology for to go to the moon in 69. Yeah. That that that was, like reaching into the future and pulling the future forward, dramatically. And and it was an important ideological battle with communism, because they couldn't put a person on the moon and capitalism could.
Speaker 0: We did an interview a couple of weeks ago with a woman called Casey Means. She's a Stanford educated surgeon and really one of the most remarkable people I have ever met. In the interview, she explained how the food that we eat produced by huge food companies, big food in conjunction with pharma, is destroying our health, making this a weak and sick country. The levels of chronic disease are beyond belief. What Casey Means, who we've not stopped thought thinking about ever since, is the co founder of a health care technology company called Levels.
And we are proud to announce today that we are partnering with Levels. And by proud, I mean sincerely proud. Levels is a really interesting company and a great product. It gives you insight into what's going on inside your body, your metabolic health. It helps you understand how the food that you're eating, the things that you're doing every single day are affecting your body in real time.
You put stuff in your mouth, speaking for myself anyway, and you don't think about it. You have no idea what you're putting in your mouth and you have no idea what it's doing to your body. But over time, you feel weak and tired and spacey and over an even longer period of time, you can get really sick. So, it's worth knowing what the food you eat is doing to you. The levels app works with something called the continuous glucose monitor, CGM.
You can get one as part of the plan or you can bring your own. It doesn't matter. But the bottom line is big tech, big pharma, and big food combine together to form an incredibly malevolent force, pumping you full of garbage on healthy food with artificial sugars and hurting you and hurting the entire country. So with Levels, you'll be able to see immediately what all this is doing to you. You get access to real time personalized data, and that's a critical step to changing your behavior.
Those of us who like Oreos can tell you firsthand. This isn't talking to your doctor at an annual physical looking backwards about things you did in the past. This is up to the second information on how your body is responding to different foods and activities, the things that give you stress, your sleep, etcetera, etcetera. It's easy to use. It gives you powerful personalized health data, and then you can make much better choices about how you feel.
And over time, it'll have a huge effect. Right now, you can get an additional 2 free months when you go to levels.link/tucker. That's levels dot link slash Tucker. This is the beginning of what we hope will be a long and happy partnership with Levels and doctor Casey Means. Do you believe there's a power higher than people?
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, yeah. I mean, I think there's there's a lot we don't know. We don't we don't know like like, why does reality exist? Why where did it come from?
Where are the aliens? What questions should we ask that we don't even know to ask?
Speaker 0: So When you say what are the aliens, what do
Speaker 1: you think? Where are the aliens? Like, why don't we see them? A lot of people think we see aliens, but I I've not seen any evidence of aliens. You know, we've got 6,000 satellites in orbit, and not once have we had to maneuver around an alien spacecraft.
So
Speaker 0: But on this Earth, the US military has had to do a lot of maneuvering around objects they can't explain.
Speaker 1: Well, unidentified flying objects is one thing, but, I mean, there's always there's always a bunch of, classified programs that are underway, that of of new aircraft and new missiles and things. So that that are classified even within the military. So it's, you know, only, you know, the if you have the top secret compartmented clearance would you know about this new program. So then, you know, some pilot sees something fast moving fast and so say, yeah. I saw a UFO.
I'm like, yeah. That was actually a new weapons program, but we can tell you that. Should you But I I I if if you can guarantee that the split second I see any evidence of aliens, I will immediately post that on the x platform. And it'll probably be our number 1 post of all time.
Speaker 0: That'll be your biggest day Yes. For sure. I mean But but to the question of a power beyond people, beyond our consciousness, a creator, where are you on
Speaker 1: that? Well, we must have we must have come from somewhere. So I guess, you know, that there must be some creator or creative force or something that caused our exist existence to come into being. What is the nature of that creator? That I think is an unknown.
At least I I think it is it is this I I I I can't I don't know of a definitive answer to that. So
Speaker 0: But it sounds like you're open.
Speaker 1: Yes. I'm very open to, you know, I I I I'm I'm driven by curiosity. Yes. And I try to understand more about the nature of the universe. So my my my driving philosophy is, to understand the meaning of life or or really what questions to ask if the meaning of the life the meaning of life is is is not the right question.
Like, as, you know, Douglas Adams made the point in the Hitchhiker's Guide of the Galaxy that the, like, what is the meaning of life is probably not even the right question. So, you know, famously, the in in that book, the earth was actually a computer to figure out the question answer the question, what is the meaning of life? And then it came up with the answer 42, but then they're like, what does that mean? And it's like, oh, that's that's that's the answer, but the question is the really hard part, and you'll need a much bigger computer than earth to figure that one out. So so my philosophy is that we should try to expand the scope and scale of consciousness.
We should try to have more humans, more thinking, and, and perhaps there there's an argument even for machine consciousness.
Speaker 0: So let me just address those in order. So the first is you say we need more people and not commit civilizational suicide. It does seem like the US government, if you take 3 steps back, is pretty committed to making fewer Americans. Yeah. There's a lot of anti fertility propaganda.
A lot. Actually, that seems like their main sort of domestic social policy is convincing you not to have kids. What is that? I mean, that's certainly part of civilizational suicide.
Speaker 1: The the the environmental movement in the extreme is fundamentally misanthropic and anti human.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: They start seeing humans as a plague, a blight on the surface of the earth. That if that earth would be this paradise if only the humans weren't here. And some people actually have say this explicitly. There's there's there's the Extinctionist Society that is literally they they the this guy who's the head of the Extinctionist Society was on the front page of the New York Times quoted as saying, there are 8,000,000,000 people in the world. It would be better if there were none.
So there's some people who actually say that explicitly, which is is isn't completely insane. He's advocating a holocaust world of humanity. To utter madness, he should be condemned for such a statement, but he wasn't, for some reason. Now most people on the sort of, environmental movement have that implicitly. They're not they don't realize that they have that as their organization, but that is their actions, take us towards extinction.
So, a lot of people believe that the Earth can't sustain this level of human population, which is utterly untrue. It may seem in a crowded city that there are a lot of people, but actually, if you look down on an airplane and you say, look down, am I over a person at any given point in time when you're in an airplane? The answer is 99.9% of the time. No. But if you flew from LA to New York and say your your job is to drop a ball on someone and and hit them, you would fail.
You have to drop a
Speaker 0: lot of balls. You have to
Speaker 1: drop a lot of balls. It'd be insane. So, all of the humans on earth can fit on one floor in the city of New York. Yeah. The cross sectional area of of of all humans of 8,000,000,000 humans is small.
So we we have this totally wrong idea that, the earth is over over overpopulated where in fact it is underpopulated.
Speaker 0: How I mean, have you ever heard a politician say anything like that? Are there how many
Speaker 1: pro There's there's maybe a few
Speaker 0: prohuman politicians out there?
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, like, like Viktor Orban, Georgia Maloney Yes. Because we're starting to see pronatalist, politicians, and hopefully more as time goes by. I think there's a guy that just got elected in the Czech Republic who's also pronatalist. Now these have to translate into actual actions that change the birth rate or doesn't matter, and, so far I've not seen any country make a meaningful dent in the birth rate.
Speaker 0: What would you do if you were in charge of natalist policy?
Speaker 1: First of all, I changed the education, system so that people understand, that, you know, stop being taught that we're overpopulated. This is completely false. A lot of it comes from this insane, misanthropic book that Paul Ehrlich wrote,
Speaker 0: The Population Bomb. Like 60 years ago.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I hope he burns in hell, that guy. Seriously. Terrible human being. Total absolute mustn't throw.
And, and say just, look, the the earth can absolutely sustain this population. It could we could double or triple the population. There's a professor I was talking to at at Oxford, who who's his his math says we could 10 x the population, with without destroying the Amazon rainforest or anything terrible. So, so I think we should expand the human population and increase the scope and scale of consciousness so we can better understand, the nature of this universe, this wonderful universe, and and all the amazing things that exist. And and and so that's one of the things I'd like we need to stop teaching people false propaganda that the Earth is overpopulated.
I I think we need to, you know, especially with the education of women and manna, is when you stop scaring women that having a kid destroys your life, this is false. You know, we we terrify girls into saying that if you get pregnant, your life's over. This is this is what schools teach. And I agree we should not have teenage pregnancies. Yeah.
But but but, but actually having a child is one of the most delightful, happiness inducing things you possibly do. Of course. Of course. So there's, there's also, you know, with, hormonal birth control, I think, maybe a lot of women are unaware that hormonal birth control causes depression, and dramatically increases risk of suicide, and changes, their preferences on who they wanna marry or have kids with. It it it changes their personality.
And I just say this on the box, by the way. But then
Speaker 0: Caution may change your personality.
Speaker 1: Yes. If the warnings are, has significant cause significant risk of depression, significant increase in suicide, and will make you wanna go out with people that you don't actually like. That's actually true, by the way.
Speaker 0: I know.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying that people shouldn't use birth control. I think we should just be we shouldn't use I think hormonal birth control is making is making a lot of women sad and depressed. Yes. And they don't realize it, and they don't realize that's the cause. And and that, you know, there are other forms of contraception that could be used and that we should they should just read the just read the label on the box is what I'm saying.
Speaker 0: That was cons what she just said the warning label. That was, like, the most taboo thing you could ever say for most of my life was to offer any criticism at all of hormonal birth control.
Speaker 1: Look. I'm all I'm saying is read the warning label.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Fair. But why the pressure not to read the warning label? And just why are we giving it to 12 year olds to regulate their acne? Right.
Speaker 1: I I think we should give it to 12 year olds. We wish like kid kids, they don't know what's going on. So it's like, now, like, there are, you know, I think there there are other forms of birth control that I think are have fewer negative effects, than hormonal, but but that's we should just be aware that that that, this is not a riskless thing, and it does cause severe mood changes, it does dramatically increase risk of suicide and depression. So so just FYI, you know, just make sure you that that that there's full disclosure here and
Speaker 0: And do you want all
Speaker 1: of this? Label is all I'm saying. Just read, you know and and consider maybe other options for birth control. To any woman listening, just just just read the one label and consider other options. Because the reason you're the reason you're sad might be the the the birth control the hormonal birth control that is fundamentally changing the hormones in your body in ways that probably are not good for you.
And you I know women where where they stop taking birth control and their depression immediately disappears. So that's maybe worth a try. But then you miss an opportunity against the birth control.
Speaker 0: Then you don't you don't get to go on SSRIs.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. And s s s I I think the SSRIs are the devil.
Speaker 0: What? You don't think? I so vehemently agree with you. I I guess I guess once you endorse Trump, you can just say it all now. Right?
Speaker 1: No. I think I think selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors are, zombify people and change their personality and make them not who they are.
Speaker 0: Terrible. They're so common. Yes.
Speaker 1: I think we should revisit whether this is this is actually good. I disagree with the the SRIs are like, I'm not saying we should that no one should ever be subscribed to SRIs, but giving them out like candy is, crazy. You look at, like, as as sort of, antidepressant prescriptions in the United States versus other countries, and we're, like, way above everyone else. Oh, yeah.
Speaker 0: I have seen many, many times in my life in the news business after a mass shooting, like school, for example
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: Someone will say, well, what meds was the shooter on?
Speaker 1: Oh, yeah.
Speaker 0: Exactly. Immediately be shouted down as a crazy person, as a, you know, Bobby Kennedy level wacko Yes. Who should himself be institutionalized for even raising the question. I wasn't like, why wouldn't we want to know what meds are
Speaker 1: based on? Absolutely want to know what meds are on. Now sometimes it's it's it's perhaps they were on because they're they're like, some people do I I you know, I don't want to say it's like all one or all the other. I mean, there are there are people that have fundamental chemical imbalances in their brain. And if they don't take, medication to control, for example, paranoid schizophrenia, they will have paranoid schizophrenia.
For sure. And, and and I know many cases where people stop taking their, you know, meds and, and and lost their mind.
Speaker 0: Oh, yeah.
Speaker 1: And, and then try to try to kill people and stuff like that. Yeah. So it's or themselves.
Speaker 0: Well, the guy with the ax on Market Street probably should be on meds.
Speaker 1: That guy should we should try it. Yeah. It may you know, does he want ax motor more or less on a given med? You know, so so there there are psychiatric medications that I that where where the good outweighs that. Yeah.
I'm not saying that that doesn't exist. But we overprescribe psychiatric medication in the United States, obviously, obviously, far in excess of any other country, like, you know, way more than Canada or Britain or Japan or any anywhere. It's like we're off the charts on on psychiatric, medication prescriptions in the US.
Speaker 0: Why why don't people raise that point more often, I wonder, in public? I should. I'm I'm raising it. Yeah. You are.
You said that, our artificial intelligence, machine intelligence, might be a good thing. Where where are we on AI right now, AGI, right now? And what are your views?
Speaker 1: Well, I think at this point, it's obvious to everyone that AI is advancing at a very rapid pace.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: You can see it with the new capabilities that come out every month or every week every week sometimes. You know, you AI at this point can write a better essay than probably 90%, maybe 95% of all humans. Say write an essay on any given subject. AI right now can can beat the vast majority of humans. If you say draw an image, draw a picture, it can draw it like, if you try, say, mid midjourney, which is the aesthetics of midjourney are incredible, it will draw it will create incredible images, that are better than, again, like 90 percent of artists.
It's just objectively the case. And it'll do it immediately, like, 30 seconds later. We're also starting to see, AI movies, so you're starting to see, you know, short films with AI, AI music creation, and the rate at which we're increasing AI compute is exponential, hyper exponential, so there's dramatically more AI compute coming on online every every month. You know, there seems to be roughly I don't know. The the amount of AI compute coming online is increasing at, like, I don't know, quote, roughly 500% a year.
And like it's like that's likely to continue for several years. And then the specification of the AI algorithms is also improving, so bringing online a massive amount of AI compute and also improving the efficiency of the compute and and what and and like what what the AI software can do. It's quite so it's it's quantitative and qualitative improvement. So the you know, I might I think next year will you'll be able to ask AI, so certainly by the end of next year, make a short movie about something, or, you know, probably can do at least a 15 minute, you know, show or something like that. So, yeah, it's advancing very rapidly.
My top concern for AI safety is that we're we need to have a maximally truth seeking AI. So the this is the most important thing for AI safety, in my opinion. You know the the the central lesson that say Arthur C. Clarke was trying to convey in 2001 A Space Odyssey was that you shouldn't force AI to lie. So in that book, the, the AI was told to take the astronauts to the monolith, but they also could not know about the monolith.
It resolved that, quandary by killing them and taking them to the monolith, or didn't kill all of them, killed most of them. That's why hell, hell would not open the pod bay doors. Right. So, very important to have truth seeking AIs. Now and and what what I actually see with the AIs that are being developed is that they're being programmed with the warped mind virus.
Speaker 0: So the lying is baked in?
Speaker 1: Yes. And we saw this on display very clearly with the release of Google Gemini Yes. Where you would ask for a picture of the founding fathers of the United States, and it would show a group of diverse women. And, you know, dressed in in with with sort of
Speaker 0: 18th century garb. Powdered wigs. Yeah. But from Saint Lucia.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, like, look. If I understand if you say, like, show me a group of people.
Speaker 0: For sure.
Speaker 1: If and it shows a group of people, I mean, that's totally fine. But if you say this if you say this very specifically, the the founding fathers of the United States, which were, you know, a group of white dudes, then you should show them, like, and and with and and what they actually look like, because you've asked for something which is a a a fact from history. But it didn't, it was it was programmed with the work of my virus so so much that it it actually, even though it knew the truth, it it produced a lie. Now, of course, then then people really started playing with it and said, okay, now now show me a group of often SS officers in World War 2. Turns out they were also a group of divorced women, according to Gemini.
Speaker 0: All the black Nazi ladies.
Speaker 1: Yeah. It's like it's like, wow. I didn't realize that. Yeah. It's not what I expected.
So, you know What's
Speaker 0: also not what happened?
Speaker 1: It's not what happened. So it's it's just it the the AI is is producing a lie, and, and that, you know, then that like, one of the questions that people that people asked was like, which is worse, global thermonuclear war or misgendering Caitlyn Jenner? And said misgendering Caitlyn Jenner is worse. Now Caitlyn Jenner It kills kills fewer people. Yeah.
To Caitlyn Jenner to her credit, said, no, please misgender me. That is far more preferable than World War Global Thermonuclear War, we all die. But but to have a, you know, a production release AI say stuff like that is concerning. Because if if if this becomes, like, all powerful, and it's and it still has this programming, where misgendering is worse than nuclear war. Well, it could conclude that the way to ensure that there's there can never be any misgendering is to eliminate all humans.
With now, prob if, like, optimization is probability of misgendering is 0, no no humans, no misgendering. Problem solved.
Speaker 0: Now back to Arthur c Clark, who's Exactly. Pretty prescient.
Speaker 1: Yes. So that's why I think the most important thing is to have a maximally truth seeking AI. That's why I started XAI, and that's our goal with Grok. Now people will point out cases where Grok gets it wrong, but we try to correct it as quickly as possible.
Speaker 0: But maybe even a bigger problem is that when you make decisions that affect people you want those decisions to be informed by love of people
Speaker 1: yeah
Speaker 0: and machines are incapable of love yeah
Speaker 1: I mean they're they're they certainly are okay. They're they're capable of you can program a machine to be philanthropic rather than misanthropic. Yes.
Speaker 0: But don't don't instincts shape decisions, particularly decisions you can't plan for? I mean, if I ask you, you know, a question about one of your children, every answer you give is gonna be shaped by your love for that child and that's why you know, that that's what makes us decent parents in the end is that that instinct, which is love. And if a machine has any power over us without that animating instinct, won't it def by definition hurt us?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, whether whether I mean, I don't know. It we should certainly aspire to program the AI philanthropically, not misanthropically. Yes. And to have like I said, we wanted to be truthful and cure curious and to foster humanity into the future.
And, yeah. That's what we want obviously.
Speaker 0: Is there any way, I guess, to set limits on the decisions that machines can make that affect human lives and make certain that there's some trigger in the system that inserts a human being into the decision making process.
Speaker 1: Well, the look. The the reality of what's happening, whether one likes it or not, is that we're building super intelligent AIs, hyper like hyper intelligent, like intelligent more intelligent than we can comprehend. Yes. So I I'd like in this to, like let's say you have a child that is a super genius child, that that you know is gonna be much smarter than you. Then what can you do?
You you can instill good values in how you raise that child. Yeah. Even though you know it's gonna be far smarter than you, you can make sure it's got good values, philanthropic values, good morals, you know, honest, you know, productive, that kind of thing. Controlling, at the end of the day, I I don't know if I don't think we'll be able to control it. So I think the best we can do is make sure it grows up well.
Speaker 0: You've been saying that for a long time.
Speaker 1: Yes. I've been saying it for a
Speaker 0: long time. Yes. Are you still as worried about it as you seemed to be 2 years ago when I asked you about it?
Speaker 1: Well, I I think that but my guess is, like, look, it's it's it's 80% likely to be good, maybe 90. So can look think of a glass as 80% full. It's probably gonna be it's probably gonna be great, but there's some chance
Speaker 0: of annihilation. And you say the chance of annihilation is 20%? 10 to 20%, something like that. How concerned is Sam Altman about annihilation, do you think?
Speaker 1: I think in reality, he's not concerned about it. I don't trust OpenAI. I mean, I you know, I started that company as a non profit open source.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: The Open in OpenAI I named the company I named the company Yeah. OpenAI as an open source, but, and it is now extremely closed source and and maximizing profit. So does risk I don't understand how you actually go from being a an open source nonprofit to a closed source for maximum profit organization. I'm missing
Speaker 0: Well, but Sam often got rich, didn't he?
Speaker 1: At various points, he's claimed not to be getting rich, but he's claimed many things that were false. And now, apparently, he's gonna get $10,000,000,000 of stock or something like that. So, I don't trust Sam Altman. And I and I don't think we wanna have the most powerful AI in the world controlled by someone who is not trustworthy. And sorry.
I just don't I mean
Speaker 0: But that that seems like a fair concern. Yeah. But but you don't think as someone who knows him and has dealt with him that he is worried about the possibility this could get out of control and hurt people?
Speaker 1: He will say those words. Yeah. But no.
Speaker 0: If AI did if it became clear to the rest of us that it was out of control and posed a threat to humanity, would there be any way to
Speaker 1: stop it? I hope so. I mean, if you have multiple
Speaker 0: AIs and
Speaker 1: ones that are hopefully, you have the AIs that are pro human be stronger than the AIs that are not.
Speaker 0: Battle of the AIs? Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, that that is how it is with, say, chess these days. The the, like, the AI chess programs is vastly better than any human, and comprehensively better, meaning, like, we can't even understand why it made that move.
Speaker 0: In fact, why they're so good. Right? Yeah.
Speaker 1: We we don't even know why it made it. Well, it'll make a move. We don't even know why it made the move. So and in fact, some of the moves will seem like blunders, but then turn out to checkmate. So and for, you know, for for a while, there there was there was some, the the best human chess players with the best computers could beat just a computer.
And then it got to the point where if you added a human, it it just made everything worse. And then it was just AI, but it's just computer programs versus computer programs. That's that's where things are headed in general.
Speaker 0: What I mean Sweet dreams. At what point So
Speaker 1: I don't know. I I think we just gotta make sure, like I said, make sure we instill good values in the AI. What's everyone gonna do for a living? I mean, in a benign AI scenario, that is probably the biggest challenge is how do you find meaning if AI is better than you at everything?
Speaker 0: Yeah. That's the benign scenario. That's the good news?
Speaker 1: Well, yeah. But I I guess, you know, for for a lot of people like the idea of retiring and, you know,
Speaker 0: Really? Are you looking forward to it?
Speaker 1: No. Not me. I I'd like to hope, I'd like to think that I I'd like to be doing useful things. Do
Speaker 0: you think it's a universal desire? It's it's
Speaker 1: it's not it's not universal in that there are certainly I know many people who prefer to be retired, that they prefer to, sort of have not have responsibilities and engage in leisure activities. So, I mean, we're and we're on the cusp of of this. It's it's really a remarkable time to exist. Well, I tell you, like, one of the ways I I I sort of was able to sort of sleep and reconcile myself to, to this is that I I thought, well, would I prefer to be alive and see the advent of digital superintelligence, or would I would I prefer to be alive at a different time and not see it? I guess I'm like, well, I guess I'd prefer to be alive to see if it's gonna happen, I'd prefer to be alive to see it happen out of curiosity.
And then I was like, well, let's say you knew for sure it would, kill everyone. Would you but you you could now now you could shift back in time. Like, I guess I'd wanna be near the end of my life or something before that happened, but I would at at the end of the day, it's like, if, if it's gonna happen, and there's nothing you do about it, hypothetically, would you prefer to see it or not see it? And I guess I I guess if it's gonna happen, I would prefer to see it rather than not see it.
Speaker 0: Yeah. But as a man of action, why not convince Trump to make you secretary of defense and then just nuke AI?
Speaker 1: I I I think I would certainly push for a having some kind of regulatory body that at least has insight into what, these companies are doing, and it can ring the alarm bell even if we don't have a regulation or rule. So I'm not I'm not someone who wants to get rid of all regulatory agencies or anything. I think we've got we've there's the right number of regulations, right number of regulators Yeah. And we've gone we've gone too far. Just like if you in a football game, if you had too many referees on the field, it would be weird.
Like, you can't throw the pass because you hit a referee. Exactly. Then there's too many referees. So, but but no. But if you like to say, look at any pro sports game, they all have referees.
But, like, the teams could decide we're gonna have we're we're gonna not have referees. That could be a thing. But but every sports game, they have refs to make sure that the rules are followed, and and it's it's a better game if if you have
Speaker 0: Well, we have cops too.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. Cops are the referees. So, I think we for for something that is a danger to the public or potential danger to the public, we we have referees.
We have regulators. You know? So, like the FDA and the FAA and, you know, various regulatory agencies, they were they were established because aircraft were falling out of the sky, and and some manufacturers were not, you know, building high quality aircraft. They're cutting corners, and then few will die. And, you know, for food and drugs that some manufacturers were making low quality drugs, and so they that they're they're lying to people.
So saying that something cured them when it killed them. To FDA to, you know, regulators to referees to try to make you make sure that this this, drug manufacturers are truthful. Now, I I do think it mostly works, and I think it's doesn't mean we don't need regulatory reform. We do reform we do, but, I I don't think we should have no regulators in in AI given that it's potential existential risk.
Speaker 0: Weird that everything is regulated.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: I mean, you said you're being sued by the Department of Justice for hiring more asylum seekers for your high-tech company. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Even though it's a legal process to hire some seekers.
Speaker 0: Right. So, so they're watching everything, regulating everything, controlling everything, including our thoughts. Right? That's why they're opposed to free speech, but they're not meaningfully regulating AI which will eliminate, like, the purpose for most people's lives and could kill us all. It's a little weird.
Yeah.
Speaker 1: I think we should have some
Speaker 0: But why don't we I guess
Speaker 1: something above nothing.
Speaker 0: In that range.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: But why don't we?
Speaker 1: I don't know. You know, I I all the way back, like, I I I during the Obama presidency, I I I you know, I met with Obama many times, but usually in, like, group settings, the the one one on one meeting I had with Obama in Oval Office, I said, look, the one thing that we really need to do is set up an at the beginnings of an AI regulatory agency. And it can start with insight where, you know, you don't you don't just come shooting from the hip throwing out regulations, you just start with insight, where the the AI regulatory committee, simply goes in to understand what all the companies are doing, insight. And then proposes rules that all the AI companies agree to follow, just like, you know, sports teams in the NFL, you know, you have proposed rules for football that everyone agrees to follow, that makes the game better. You know?
So that that's the way to do it. But nothing came of it. What did he say when he said that to him? I mean, he seemed to, like, kind of agree, but but also people didn't realize what what what the where AI was headed at that at that time. You know?
So AI seemed like some super futuristic Yeah. For sure. Sci fi, basically. So and, like, I'm telling you, this is gonna be smarter than the smartest human, and, my predictions are coming absolutely true. And, so we need to have some insight here just to make you know, make sure that these companies aren't cutting corners, doing dangerous things.
But Google kinda con controlled the the White House at that time, and and they they did not want any regulatory Well,
Speaker 0: that's it. I mean, you never see politicians turn down opportunities to become more powerful, which is the point in regulation. It makes them more powerful.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: So it sounds like regulatory capture then.
Speaker 1: Well, yeah. I mean, the CIO of the the YS at the time was ex Google person. So, they they put the brakes on any AI regulation. And we still don't have any AI regulation at the federal level. That's amazing.
So I I think we should have something above nothing. Like I said, at least insight. Where even even if there's no there's no rule that's been break broken, they can at least say, hey, we we have insight into what this company are doing or that company is doing, and we're concerned.
Speaker 0: That would be helpful to know. Yeah. Instead, politically motivated liars are in charge of the future. It seems a little Yeah. Sketchy.
Last question. You you really kind of pulled out a lot of stops to help Trump. You're on stage yesterday. If he gets selected, will you continue to help him
Speaker 1: Yeah. Now? Absolutely. So we've talked about, kind of a a government efficiency commission or the Department of Government Efficiency, which is funny.
Speaker 0: What what percent?
Speaker 1: Sorry. I was laughing. It's what
Speaker 0: I love it. You you managed to make it sound a little sinister. Government efficiency. What percentage of Google employees did you can when you got there? You mean Twitter?
Rather. I beg your pardon. Sorry. You I just you've just been talking about Google. Twitter.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. Well, we we we're about 80%. And and we've we've actually, improved the features and functionality of the site more in the past year and a half than the last, I don't know, 8 years with 20% of the staff.
Speaker 0: So Just for I just wanna throw that for context. So you've talked to Trump about
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. Information? Yeah. Which is he has mentioned publicly several times, and he's very supportive of having some kind of, you know, government efficiency commission, can call it Department of Government Efficiency, Doge.
I kinda like Doge. It's more it's more fun. Yeah. And, where we just take a look at at at all the federal agencies and say, do we really need whatever it is, 428 federal agencies? Because there's so many that people have never even heard of or and that have overlapping areas of responsibility we should I don't know.
Probably, we should get I mean, there there are more federal agencies than there are years since the establishment of the United States, which means that we've created more than 1 federal agency per year on average. That seems a lot. That's a lot. That's a lot. So we should have that seems crazy.
I think we should be able to get away with, 99 agencies. I don't know. That seems to a lot like a lot of agencies. It's a lot.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah. 2 per state.
Speaker 1: That's a lot. Yeah, exactly. We should have fewer agencies. And, and they certainly shouldn't have overlapping responsibilities. And and then we we need some kind of we just need a review of regulations to say which ones are sensible and which ones are not.
Because because if you've got regulators, every year they're gonna add more regulations, just automatic. Like like, they're just output regulations, and and then and there's more laws and regulations every year until basically everything's legal, so we can't get anything done. So we need some kind of garbage collection for regulations that don't make sense. I think I'm saying very obvious things.
Speaker 0: You're you are saying obvious things.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So that's Which will
Speaker 0: be very unpopular things.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I'll probably need if if this happens, quite a significant security team. So because because someone might literally go postal on me from the post office.
Speaker 0: But in the meantime, you've got America PAC Yeah. That is encouraging voting for the next month. Am I summarizing correctly?
Speaker 1: Yeah. I I mean, I formed America PAC, really to support core values that I believe in, which are, I think, again, very obvious centrist positions, which is, like, we in America, I think we want safe cities, secure borders, sensible spending. Tell me where I'm going for right here. You know, we wanna, have the right to self protection. We we should respect the constitution and not try to break the constitution.
It's there for a reason. And, you know, we we should stop law fair. I I kinda listed these out. These are all listed on the America PAC website. People can go look at the America PAC website, to the americapac.org, and see if there's anything they disagree with, or where perhaps we should modify these goals.
But I think these are good goals to have. They, they're certainly part of the oh, and right to free speech, you know, first amendment. If we don't have free speech, we don't have democracy because people cannot make an informed vote. So those are my controversial views. And, you know, and and look, I I I don't think either party I don't think the Republicans are perfect.
I don't think obviously, right now, I more Republican than Democrat, but it's not like I think the Republican Party is perfect or or is is without issues. But we've got a choice between 2 candidates. And I think on balance, it's a no brainer, to vote for Trump. And if we don't vote for Trump, I think we're at serious risk of losing our democracy and becoming a one party state where, there isn't an election anymore. There's only a democratic primary like there
Speaker 0: is in California. Elon Musk, thank you.
Speaker 1: You're welcome.
@CollinRugg - Collin Rugg
JUST IN: Elon Musk rips the federal government, says the Department Of Government Efficiency will get them "off your back and out of your pocketbook." "America is going to reach heights that it has never seen before." 🔥🔥 https://t.co/Nj9PeD61s8
Video Transcript AI Summary
All government spending is taxation, either directly or through inflation. The Department of Government Efficiency will address wasted money. The goal is to get the government out of people's pocketbooks, leading America to unprecedented heights and an amazing future. The speaker expresses enthusiasm for the positive energy present.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I mean, at the end of the day, you're being taxed. You're being taxed. All government spending is taxation. So whether it's it's direct taxation or all government spending, it's either becomes inflation or it's it's direct taxation. Your money is being wasted, and the Department of Government Efficiency is gonna fix that.
We're gonna get the government off your back and out of your pocketbook. And America is just not not just gonna be great. America is gonna reach heights that it has never seen before. The future is gonna be amazing. Now you guys are awesome.
Honestly, this is like What? Honestly, this is like yeah. I mean, this is this is, like, this is the kind of positive energy that America is all about.
@elonmusk - Elon Musk
🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸 YES 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
reSee.it AI Summary
In a recent meeting with Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, we discussed how unelected bureaucrats have undermined our constitutional republic, stripping us of our rights. Reflecting on pivotal years in American history—1776, 1861, and 1937—I believe 2025 could mark another significant turning point. It's crucial to restore constitutional protections and hold our government accountable. We must dismantle the administrative state, reduce regulations, and empower the American people to reclaim their freedom and prosperity. Let's make 2025 a year of transformation.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
🧵1. In a meeting today with @elonmusk, @vivekgramaswamy, & @speakerjohnson, Elon & Vivek referred to the fact that, because unelected bureaucrats now make most federal law & control much of our economy, we’ve been stripped of the benefits of a constitutional republic. https://t.co/8Zo3DoilrB
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
2. As @vivekgramaswamy noted, the need for Americans to demand accountability from their own government is precisely why we fought—and mercifully won—the American Revolution. That got me thinking …. https://t.co/SPw5vfO7J7
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
3. Throughout Anglo-American history, we’ve seen a major upheaval every 75-90 years. It’s almost like clockwork! https://t.co/miZWDp40Ck
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
4.Each pivot in American history has been kickstarted by events in just three critical years. By my reckinging, those years were 1776, 1861, and 1937. These aren’t just random years; they’re game-changers. https://t.co/A23Ba6OHxu
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
5.In 1776, we declared our independence from a large, distant government that recognized no limits on its authority and refused to hold itself accountable to the American people. Sound familiar? https://t.co/fkhQexOV47
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
6. In 1861, the American Civil War began, hastening the end of a tragic chapter of our history when many Americans “owned” other Americans as property—as slaves—with the approval and protection of government. https://t.co/aAVSrP7vUj
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
7.In 1937, progressives in all three branches of the U.S. government—with one final push from the Supreme Court—dangerously eroded the Constitution’s twin structural protections: the “vertical” protection we call federalism and the “horizontal” protection known as separation-of-powers, all to facilitate FDR’s quest to centralize power in the federal government in response to the Great Depression.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
8. In the nearly 88 years since the Supreme Court opened this era on April 12, 1937—the day the Court re-defined Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce so broadly that nothing remained of federalism, and indirectly set in motion Congress’s now-common habit of delegating lawmaking power to unelected bureaucrats—Americans have lost much of their power to control their own destiny to people in Washington, D.C.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
9. We’re about to have another one of those years, one that could initiate the reversal of the immense harm that has been unleashed on the American people—by their own government, no less—ever since April 12, 1937.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
10.Brace yourselves because 2025 is shaping up to be the next big, pivotal year—only the fourth in our 248-year history as a country. We're on the cusp of setting in motion a new, brighter era for America.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
11. This next era MUST be about reinstating the Constitution’s core, structural protections—both the vertical protection of federalism and the horizontal separation-of-powers.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
12.Congress needs to step up aggressively. It’s time to open this next chapter where WE, the American people, take back control from unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats who've been running our government like it’s their personal sandbox, treating us like their toys—or, better said—their subjects.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
13.These bureaucrats churn out nearly 100,000 pages of regulations every year. Regulations that NOT ONE ELECTED LAWMAKER votes to enact into law!
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
14.It’s nearly impossible to fire these federal bureaucrats. They enjoy so much insulation from the citizens they govern that King George III—the tyrant whose excesses triggered the American Revolution—would be green with envy were he alive and able to observe conditions in America today. That has to end—and 2025 is the year it must happen.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
15.It's time to put the PEOPLE back in charge.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
16.In approaching this daunting, but all-important task, we must be looking not just at cutting costs, but also at setting the stage for an unprecedented era of economic growth. Without the federal “administrative state” leeching off our economy—like an alien parasite that’s torturing its host and robbing it of nutrients—we can and will thrive.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
17.Think about this: some estimate that laws imposed by the federal administrative state (generally referred to euphemistically as “regulations”) cost the American economy roughly $4 trillion annually. That’s money that could and should be in the pockets of hardworking American families, not wasted on red tape.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
18.The @DOGE effort led by @elonmusk and @vivekgramaswamy is not about austerity; it's a call for prosperity—the kind of prosperity that’s long been stifled by a bloated government, which thinks it knows better than the people it’s supposed to serve, not terrorize.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
@DOGE @elonmusk @VivekGRamaswamy 19.Some have suggested that if we had never formed the federal administrative state, our economy could be an astounding FOUR TIMES its current size. Imagine the opportunities, the innovation, and the growth!
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
@DOGE @elonmusk @VivekGRamaswamy 20. This bureaucratic monster doesn't just cost money; it undermines us our freedom, our peace of mind, and our popular sovereignty. In a constitutional republic, the people are supposed to have power, not some faceless agency run by people who can’t be fired—even by voters!
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
21.We need a government of the people, by the people, and for the people—not one in which major questions of law and public policy are dictated by those who aren't answerable to the ballot box.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
22. The coming year, 2025, can and must mark the beginning of the end for our current era of bureaucratic overreach, which commenced in 1937.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
23. We’re talking about restoring the balance of powers that our founders—wise men, raised up by God to that very purpose—righteously intended.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
24. It’s not just about shrinking government; it’s about making government work FOR the people, not against them or without them.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
25. So, let’s make 2025 the year we pivot back to the American dream, where government serves the people, not the other way around.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
26. We’ll see an America where businesses aren’t bogged down by regulations, where innovation isn't stifled, and where every American can truly pursue their happiness without government overreach.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
27. The time is now to dismantle the administrative state, reduce the regulatory burden, and unleash the potential of the American economy.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
28. Remember, this isn’t only about less government; it's about better government. It’s about government that respects the Constitution and the will of the people.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
29. This new era will be one in which we will see the fruits of our labors, where we can innovate without permission, and where prosperity isn't just a promise, but a reality.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
30. Let’s make 2025 the year we remember as the turning point back to constitutional governance, where the American spirit isn’t just nominally free, but truly free and empowered.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
31.No cap: this is our chance to redefine America for the better—for freedom, and for prosperity.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
32. So, let’s get to work. Let’s ensure that the next chapter in our history is written by us, the American people, not by unelected officials in D.C.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
33. We've got the power, we’ve got the will, and now, with 2025 on the horizon, we’ve got the moment. Let’s seize it.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
34. The haters can’t handle this frickin' smoke, but we know the truth: America's best days are ahead—and they always will be—when we put the Constitution first and the bureaucracy last.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
35. Please join me in this fight. Together, we'll make America not just great again, but truly free again.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
36. Please follow me if you’d like to see more posts like this. @DOGE #RestoreTheConstitution #MakeAmericaAboutFederalismAndSeparationOfPowersAgain #Pivot2025
@elonmusk - Elon Musk
This needs to be fixed. Should be rule by democracy, not rule by bureaucracy!
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
🧵1. In a meeting today with @elonmusk, @vivekgramaswamy, & @speakerjohnson, Elon & Vivek referred to the fact that, because unelected bureaucrats now make most federal law & control much of our economy, we’ve been stripped of the benefits of a constitutional republic. https://t.co/8Zo3DoilrB
reSee.it AI Summary
I believe everyone should know about Roscoe Filburn, an Ohio farmer who faced extreme federal overreach when the government limited how much wheat he could grow. In 1938, the Agricultural Adjustment Act imposed quotas, and when Filburn planted more than allowed for his own use, he was fined. The Supreme Court upheld this regulation, expanding federal power under the Commerce Clause. This case highlights the dangers of government control over personal freedoms. We must remember this when discussing regulation and advocate for restoring power to the states and the people.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
🧵🚨 1. Everyone should know the story of Roscoe Filburn, a farmer from Ohio who found himself in the crosshairs of one of the most absurd federal overreaches in history. It’s a tale of government control over the most basic of American freedoms—growing your own wheat. https://t.co/7WIK4XeCuN
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
2. In 1938, Congress passed the Agricultural Adjustment Act so the feds could dictate how much wheat Americans could grow on their land. They set quotas, telling farmers like Roscoe Filburn exactly how many acres of wheat they could plant. Notice was sent on cards like this one. https://t.co/L4JS24HTF0
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
3. Roscoe Filburn was just trying to feed his livestock, feed his family, and keep some for seeds. He planted 23 acres, not because he wanted to flood the market but because he needed it for his farm’s survival. The government said, “No, you can plant wheat on only 11.1 acres.” https://t.co/i7s9KckTBk
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
4. So, they slapped him with a fine for the extra wheat he grew—wheat that never left his farm, never entered interstate commerce. You heard that right - they fined him for self-sufficiency. This isn’t about commerce; it’s about control, folks. https://t.co/rufqZkrOvP
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
5. Filburn took this to court, arguing that his wheat wasn’t for sale, it was for his own use & thus wasn’t within Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce. But the Supreme Court said, “Even if your wheat’s just for you and never entered interstate commerce, the feds can regulate it—because if everyone did what you did, it’d affect the interstate wheat market.”
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
6. This ruling in Wickard v. Filburn expanded federal power under the Commerce Clause to an insane degree. It meant the government could regulate anything—even noneconomic activity entirely within one state—that might, in some theoretical way, affect interstate commerce. https://t.co/Xl3Vdufe9G
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
7. Here’s the kicker: This wasn’t about protecting consumers or ensuring fair trade; it was about controlling supply and demand to manipulate prices. It’s federal bureaucrats deciding that you can’t grow extra wheat because it might make prices drop. https://t.co/bKedYlwqxZ
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
8. The sheer audacity to tell an American farmer he can’t grow food for his own use on his own land is a mockery of liberty. It’s government overreach at its finest, wrapped in legalese to sound like it’s for the “greater good.” https://t.co/KAG6BBU48W
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
9. We need to remember this story when we talk about government regulation. If they can control how much wheat you grow, they can control anything. It’s time we push back against this kind of overreach and restore the freedoms that make America, America. https://t.co/jX4vErp5Zy
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
10. So, next time someone tells you regulation is just for “public interest,” remember Roscoe Filburn. Remember how far the government will go to dictate, control, and fine for something as fundamental as growing wheat on your own land. #Liberty #GovernmentOverreach https://t.co/9dXbTjRH3t
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
11. Some 82 years after the Supreme Court decided Wickard v. Filburn, the federal government remains mired in nearly every aspect of human existence—including many of the minute details of farming—under the Commerce Clause. https://t.co/yGdSbCcT5M
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
12. Absent some other nexus to federal authority, the U.S. government should have no authority over purely intrastate activities like labor, agriculture, manufacturing, and mining—even though they might in the aggregate affect interstate markets in some tangential way. https://t.co/cwOPWRnJ7n
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
13. Congress and President Trump, with an assist from @DOGE, have the rare opportunity in 2025 to revisit the government overreach that’s been afflicting Americans since the New Deal Era. It’s time to return power to where it belongs—to the states and to the American people! https://t.co/220eVonCF4
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
14. Please like and share if you agree that it’s time to give the U.S. government a massive haircut, and follow if you’d like to see more posts like this one. https://t.co/d93aJL5nrM
reSee.it AI Summary
Mike Johnson just declared that Congress will swiftly work on legislation to shut down federal bureaucracies, aiming to significantly reduce government size and return power to the people. The reaction from Democrats was notably unhappy. I can only imagine @ElonMusk and @VivekGRamaswamy are thrilled by this commitment.
@BehizyTweets - George
BREAKING: Mike Johnson just announced that Congress will immediately move to pass legislation to shut down the federal bureaucracies. Zero Democrats looked happy to hear that. "We're going to drastically cut back the size and scope of government. We're going to return the power back to the people." @ElonMusk and @VivekGRamaswamy are sitting somewhere beyond excited to hear this public commitment.
Video Transcript AI Summary
We are committed to rolling back the administrative state and reducing the size of government. Our goal is to return power to the people and create a more efficient federal workforce in collaboration with President Trump. Citizens should not be governed by unelected bureaucrats but by those they have chosen to lead. This aligns with the principles of Article 1 and the original intent of Congress. The American people demand a departure from the status quo, and we will respond to their call for change.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And as heirs to the American Revolution and the descendants of patriots who defied tyranny, in the coming months, we are going to pass legislation to roll back the totalitarian 4th branch of government known as the administrative state. We're going to drastically cut back the size and scope of government. We're gonna return the power back to the people. And in coordination with president Trump and his administration, we are going to create a leaner, faster, and more efficient federal workforce. We need to do that.
Our people do not deserve to be ruled by millions of bureaucrats they've never voted for, never met, and can never hold accountable. They deserve a government that is led by those they've elected to lead. That is how article 1 is supposed to work. That was the idea of the congress, and we will return to that principle. The American people have called on us to reject business as usual and throw out the status quo.
We must and we will heed their call.
reSee.it AI Summary
A piece by Palantir CTO Shyam Sankar critiques government inefficiency, highlighting the contrast between SpaceX's cost-effective rocket launches and California's expensive rail projects. It notes the slow progress on electric vehicle charging stations and rural broadband connections, as well as failures in emergency response during recent fires. The argument calls for a leader willing to embrace change and unlock America's potential, suggesting that Trump could shift the country from a "manager mode" to a more dynamic approach. A response emphasizes government inefficiency.
@PirateWires - Pirate Wires
NEW PIECE from Palantir CTO Shyam Sankar on Pirate Wires: Trump will get America out of “manager mode” • While SpaceX put more than 300 rockets into orbit for less than $10 billion, California has built 1,600 feet of elevated rail for $11 billion, and now projects its high speed rail project will cost a total of $128 billion. • Congress earmarked $7.5 billion in 2021 for a half-million electric-vehicle charging stations. By May 2024, only eight had been built. Not 8,000. Not 800. Eight. • The federal government allocated $42.5 billion on rural broadband and has connected zero homes after three years. • Unimaginably large parts of Los Angeles were just destroyed by a devastating fire while its fire hydrants didn’t work, and while fire department leadership seemed more focused on DEI than saving lives. Something has to change. Our politicians can no longer remain fixated on steady, predictable preservation of the status quo. Instead, we need a leader who will fight for the country, is willing to risk change, and who realizes America’s exceptional potential. Link is threaded to @ssankar's full piece on why Trump will pivot the country back to founder mode — and usher in a golden age for America and its people.👇
@HugoVale_ - Hugo Vale
@PirateWires Government is highly inefficient at doing anything. https://t.co/AoccVExcpV
@EndWokeness - End Wokeness
Before the election, Trump told us he would put Musk in charge of cutting spending and federal agencies. We voted for this. https://t.co/PvQznutRE1
Video Transcript AI Summary
There's a lot of inefficiency in government that needs addressing. When it comes to which agencies to shut down, I'll let Elon Musk share his thoughts, as he's eager to discuss this. Musk is not just known for his work in science and rockets; he's also an excellent businessman and cost cutter. He often shares innovations, like a new titanium screw he's developed, which showcases his focus on efficiency and improvement.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So that there's a lot of fat in government that you would want to split down. Fat. So So what agencies would you wanna shut down? Well, let me let me, have you ask another person that because I'm gonna have Elon Musk. He's he is dying to do this.
You know, he's a great business guy, actually. You think of him for science and rockets, and every time I think he's telling me about a new screw that was developed, he's developed a new screw. Screws are difficult, and it's made out of titanium and it's so exciting. But you know what? He's a great business guy and he's a great cost cutter.
You've seen that.
@nicksortor - Nick Sortor
🚨 ELON MUSK: THE BUREAUCRACY IS AN UNELECTED FOURTH BRANCH "The Bureacracy currently has more power than elected representatives. That does not match the will of the people!" — @ElonMusk We the People voted to TEAR DOWN the bureaucracy! https://t.co/OmGbVJIovn
Video Transcript AI Summary
Our federal bureaucracy must be responsive to the people; that's fundamental to our democracy. Currently, this unelected bureaucracy holds excessive power, exceeding that of elected officials – a situation unacceptable to the public. We must address this imbalance.
Furthermore, our $2 trillion deficit demands immediate attention. Failure to act will lead to national bankruptcy. The interest payments on our national debt now surpass even our defense budget, a truly alarming reality given our substantial defense spending. We must find a solution to this critical financial problem.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: But you can't have an autonomous federal bureaucracy. You have to have one that's responsive to the people. That's the whole point of a democracy. And so, and if if you looked at the if if you asked the look at the today and said, what do you think of the way things have turned out? Or what we have this unelected, fourth unconstitutional branch of of government, which which is the bureaucracy, which has, in a lot of ways, currently more power than any elected representative.
And this is, this is not something that people want. And it's it's not it does not match the will of people. So it's just something we've gotta we've gotta fix. And then we also gotta address the the deficit. So we've got a $2,000,000,000,000 deficit.
And if this if we don't do something about this deficit, country's going bankrupt. I mean, it's it's really astounding that the, the interest payments alone on national debt exceed the defense department budget, which is shocking because we've got a lot of we spend a lot of money on defense.
@nicksortor - Nick Sortor
🚨 ELON MUSK: “The people voted for major government reform… and THAT’S what they’re going to get” LET’S GO!!!! 🔥🇺🇸 https://t.co/QBlVgW7pwp
Video Transcript AI Summary
The people clearly voted for major government reform. This was a central campaign promise, discussed at every rally. I made it clear this is what they would receive. My presidency will deliver on that promise. Too often, people don't see their votes reflected in government action. But in this case, the people will get what they voted for – that's the essence of democracy.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The people voted for major government reform. There should be no doubt about that. That was on the campaign. The president spoke about that at every rally. The people voted for for major government reform, and that's what what people are gonna get.
They're gonna get what they voted for. And and a lot of times that, you know, people that don't get what they voted for. But in this presidency, they are gonna get what they voted for, and that's what democracy is all about.
@WhiteHouse - The White House
🇺🇸@ElonMusk telling it like it is. "It's not optional for us to reduce the federal expenses. IT'S ESSENTIAL." https://t.co/M8bW9qa5sT
Video Transcript AI Summary
It's not optional for us to cut federal expenses; it's essential. People voted for major government reform. The president spoke about it at every rally. People are going to get the major government reform they voted for. If the people cannot have their will decided by their elected representatives, then we don't live in a democracy. We live in a bureaucracy.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: It's not optional for us to sit to reduce the federal expenses. It's essential. People voted for major government reform. There should be no doubt about that. That was on the campaign.
The president spoke about that at every rally. The people voted for for major government reform, and that's what people are gonna get. They're gonna get what they voted for. If the people cannot vote, I'd have their will be decided by their elected representatives, then we don't live in a democracy. We live in a bureaucracy.
reSee.it AI Summary
The Wall Street Journal highlights that Trump and Musk have made significant strides in government reduction in just 3.5 weeks, surpassing what Ronald Reagan achieved in eight years. The piece describes Musk's actions as a remarkable and unprecedented effort to downsize bureaucracy, likening his approach to an avenging angel rather than a traditional advocate for smaller government. It emphasizes that the changes Musk is implementing could be the transformative shift many have long envisioned.
@CollinRugg - Collin Rugg
NEW: The Wall Street Journal says Trump & Musk have achieved more in 3.5 weeks than Ronald Reagan did in 8 years when it comes to gov shrinkage. In a piece titled 'Democrats Ought to Love DOGE,' the WSJ says Musk is accomplishing something nobody has ever pulled off. "Elon Musk's glorious rampage through official Washington is like something from a dream. Many conservatives and some Republicans have fantasized for decades about laying off bureaucrats and shrinking the government. Nobody’s ever pulled it off," the opinion piece reads. "Even Ronald Reagan, the great apostle of smaller government, couldn’t achieve in eight years what Mr. Musk has done in 3½ weeks." "The billionaire businessman is less apostle than avenging angel. The Department of Government Efficiency is the change we’ve been waiting for."
Video Transcript AI Summary
A significant goal of this presidency is to restore democracy by fixing the feedback loop between the people and the government. Currently, an autonomous bureaucracy often overrides the will of elected representatives, which contradicts the essence of democracy where the public, through the president, house, and senate, should decide what happens.
Additionally, we must address the $2 trillion deficit. The interest payments on the national debt now exceed the defense budget, which is unsustainable. Reducing federal expenses isn't optional; it's essential for America's solvency. Without addressing this, we risk bankrupting the country and losing the resources needed to serve our citizens, because we will be stuck servicing vast amounts of debt.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So the, at a at a high level, if you say what is the goal of those or or and and I think a significant part of this of presidency is to restore, democracy. This may seem seem like, well, are we in a democracy? Well, if you don't have a feedback with FX, we'd have to if you if you sorry. So gravitas can be difficult to our parents. So, if if there's not a good feedback loop from the people to to to the government, and if if you have rule of the the bureaucrat if the bureaucracy is in charge, and then then what meaning does democracy actually have?
If the people cannot vote and have their will be decided by their elected representatives in the in the form of the president and and the senate and the house, then we don't live in a democracy. We live in a bureaucracy. So it's incredibly that we close that feedback loop, we fix that feedback loop, and that the public, the public's elected representatives, the president, the house, and the senate decide what happens as opposed to an a large bureaucracy. This is not to say that there aren't some good there are good people who who, are in the federal bureaucracy, but but you can't have an autonomous federal bureaucracy. You have to have one that's responsive to the people.
That's the whole point of a democracy. And so, and if if you looked at this if if you asked looked at founders today and said, what do you think of the way things have turned out? Or what we have this unelected, fourth unconstitutional branch of of government, which which is the bureaucracy, which has, in a lot of ways, currently more power than any elected representative. And this is, this is not something that people want. And it's it's it's not it does not match the will of the people.
So it's just something we've got and we've got to fix. And then we also got to address the the deficit. So we've got a $2,000,000,000,000 deficit. And if this if we don't do something about this deficit, the country's going bankrupt. I mean, it's it's really astounding that the, the interest payments alone on national debt exceed the defense department budget, which is shocking because we we got a lot of we spend a lot of money on defense.
But and and if that just keeps going, we're essentially gonna bankrupt the country. So what what I really would say is, like, it's not optional for us to sit to reduce the federal expenses. It's essential. It's essential for America to remain solvent as a country, and it's essential for America to have the resources necessary to provide things to its citizens and not simply be servicing vast amounts of debt.
reSee.it AI Summary
I shared a 40-minute compilation highlighting President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore's efforts to cut the federal workforce, eliminate agencies, and reduce spending, which ultimately erased the deficit and led to a budget surplus. Clinton's administration saw a reduction of 380,000 federal jobs through the Reinventing Government Initiative. Today, the national debt stands at $36 trillion, with interest payments soaring. I question whether the current Democratic Party can prioritize the country over party, suggesting that figures like Trump, Musk, and DOGE could lead similar reforms.
@KanekoaTheGreat - KanekoaTheGreat
EXCLUSIVE: A 40-minute compilation of President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore cutting the federal workforce, eliminating agencies, slashing wasteful spending and regulations, and reducing the deficit. You know, like Trump, Musk, and DOGE. 🔹 In his first weeks, Clinton ordered a 100,000-job reduction in government. 🔹 Over eight years, he cut 380,000 federal jobs—a 16% decrease. 🔹 This was largely driven by the Reinventing Government Initiative (RIGO), spearheaded by Gore to streamline operations and reduce bureaucracy. 🔹 The result? The deficit was erased, and the U.S. ran a budget surplus for the first time in decades. Today, annual interest payments on the national debt have doubled in four years, reaching $1.17 trillion—now exceeding the entire U.S. defense budget. America is $36 trillion in debt. History proves it can be done. The real question: Will D.C. Democrats and activists judges get out of the way so @realDonaldTrump, @elonmusk, and @DOGE can do it again? Can the modern Democratic Party put country over party? Because let’s be honest—DOGE is saving America from financial collapse. 🇺🇸
Video Transcript AI Summary
The American people want effective government without wasted money. To deliver this, we're overhauling how government operates, beginning with a 25% reduction in White House staff and $10 million in savings. These steps will save taxpayers $9 billion.
We're reducing the federal bureaucracy by at least 100,000 positions through attrition and cutting administrative costs by 12%. We're also eliminating unproductive advisory commissions. We aim to cut inessential spending and tackle the growing deficit and debt.
Government programs should be efficient, and overhead must be reduced. These changes are crucial because debt consumes tax dollars and hinders private sector growth. We're also working to cut waste, streamline processes, improve customer service, and reform procurement and personnel systems. We need a government that works better, costs less, and treats taxpayers like customers.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The people demand and deserve an active government on their side, but they don't want a government that waste money, a government that costs more and does less. They voted for change. They wanted a little a literal revolution in the way government operates, and now you and I must deliver. Yesterday, I announced the reorganization of the White House staff that will reduce our staff by 25% and cut cost by $10,000,000 per year. Today, I have called you, the members of the cabinet, together to take the next step, to begin the overhaul of government as a whole.
The steps we're taking today will save the American taxpayers $9,000,000,000 They won't be easy, but they will make a difference. We have an obligation and an opportunity to change the way government works and to show that government can do more with less. Our government needs change. For the last dozen years, I've heard our leaders call loudly for less government while giving people more government and, perhaps more importantly, while giving almost no attention to better or different government, to new ways in which partnerships could be made with people in the private sector and in the state and local governments. First, I am ordering a reduction of the federal bureaucracy by at least 100,000 positions over the next four years.
At least 10% of these cuts must come from senior management. The cuts must come can come from attrition. I see no need for layoffs. These cuts will make our government more efficient and more effective. The government is full of dedicated people whose hard work is being choked off by our own bureaucracy.
Second, I'm ordering each federal department and agency to reduce its administrative as opposed to its program cost by 12% over the next four years. With better planning and innovation, we can make better use of the money we already have. In many agencies, overhead is too high, red tape is too thick, and the day to day operations of the agencies have not been reexamined in a very long time. I believe government can both care about people and be careful with their money. Third, I am today ordering the elimination of hundreds of unproductive and duplicative advisory commissions that have spread across this government like Kudzu.
I'm asking the Office of Management and Budget to eliminate at least one third of the 700 advisory boards and commissions that were not created by Congress. From now on, agencies and departments will not be allowed to create new commissions without permissions from OMB. We simply cannot allow the federal bureaucracy to beget more bureaucracy. Change must begin at the top. That's why I cut the White House staff by 25% and ordered federal agencies to cut billions of dollars in administrative costs and to trim 100,000 federal positions by attrition.
And in my budget, there'll be more than a 50 specific cuts in government spending programs. The government is the problem here. It causes inflation. It causes middle class people to have trouble. What we need is a very restricted role for government.
We have run a horrendous government deficit. The deficit is now four times as big as it was in 1980. We have seen spending go up in areas that the government would have to move to control, mostly health care and then interest on the debt because when the deficit gets bigger and bigger and bigger, you spend more money on the debt. So we have reduced investment, increased the debt, moved money upward so that there's been much more inequality of income distribution. It means that we must reduce the government's debt.
Why? Why? Because if the debt gets bigger and bigger and bigger, two bad things happen. Bad thing number one is that Congress spends more of your tax money every year paying interest on the debt than investing in your future. It's now up to 15¢ on the dollar if we do not change present spending patterns.
When you hear people oppose the program I outlined, ask them what the cost of the status quo is. If we behave for four years if we behave for four more years like we have for the last twelve, here's what'll happen. By the end of the decade the deficit will be $650,000,000,000 a year and we'll be spending about 22¢ of every one of your tax dollars just paying interest on the debt. We'll be spending by then, because of the growth of health care costs, about 65¢ of your tax dollars on entitlements and being in Congress will be a matter of how you spend 5 or 6¢ on every dollar. The rest of it will just be rubber stamped.
You just have a computer instead of Congress. I know what you're thinking. Please don't say that. It's squeezing the life out of the money you're giving up in taxes. Second reason, even more important, is the more money the government borrows every year, the less money there is for people to borrow in the private sector and the higher the cost of the money is.
Just since the election, since we made it clear that there was going to be a determined effort to lower the deficit, interest rates long term have dropped considerably. I'll come back to this in a moment, but if you think about it, this year, if we pass this budget, everybody in America who borrows long term to finance a business, to finance a car, to finance a home, to finance credit card purchases. Everybody that has access to variable interest rates will have those interest rates go down. And in my judgment, virtually everybody who has credit will save more money in lower interest costs than they will pay in higher taxes. Now, that's very, very important.
Now, how are we going to do this? First thing we have to do, and I mean the first, is to cut inessential government spending. I've been president four weeks and I've been president four weeks and I've found things that I wouldn't have believed. The White House, when I became president, was running on Jimmy Carter's telephone system and Lyndon Johnson's switchboard in this high true and high wage this high technology era with a procurement system that would have broken Einstein's brain. There are a lot of things that needed to be changed in the federal government.
There still are. But in four weeks, we have cut the White House staff by 25% starting at the beginning of the next fiscal year and reorganized the White House so it will work more efficiently, not just cut, but serve better. We have authorized in this budget administrative cuts in every government department totaling 14% over the next four years for savings of $9,000,000,000 and there have been 150 specific cuts in government programs including programs that help a lot of good people, but I don't think we can afford at the present level anymore. All these things have constituencies, but I can tell you we are gonna have to prove that we can cut things. That when when Roosevelt talked about bold, persistent experimentation, you know what an experiment is in science.
It is trying out a new thesis. If it works, you incorporate it, you build on it, you go on to the next experiment. If it doesn't work, you quit. Government has a one way experiment. Right?
We're very good at starting things and absolutely terrible at stopping them.
Speaker 1: If you wanna know why government doesn't work, look behind you. The answer is at least partly on those forklifts. Those forklifts hold copies of budget rules, procurement rules, and the personnel code. The personnel code alone weighs in at over 1,000 pounds. That code and the regulations stacked up there no longer help government work.
They hurt it. They hurt it badly and we recommend getting rid of it. And that's one reason I'm so pleased today to give you the report of our national performance review. The report contains hundreds of suggestions just like that one, totaling a 8,000,000,000 in savings over the next five years if these recommendations are enacted. It is inspired by your vision of a government that works for people, cleared of useless bureaucracy and freed of red tape and senseless rules.
This report tells us how to cut waste, cut red tape, streamline the bureaucracy, change procurement rules, change the personnel rules, and create a government that works better and costs less. Let me tell you a little bit about what we found. First, some bad news. We found that government really does not work very well in ways that will take a long time to fix. We've accomplished a lot in the last six months, but we still have a government that writes 10 pages of regulations on how to make an ashtray.
We have a government that for the last twelve years has managed to spend $4 for every $3 that it takes in. That personnel code on those truck lift pallets behind us, we hire 40,000 people just to enforce that personnel code and let's not forget, much of what is wrong with government doesn't lend itself to amusing anecdotes. It's the kind of unnecessary red tape that means somebody who calls the IRS with a question gets put on on hold forever or a small business owner has to spend hours and hours filling out a completely useless form or a division head buys equipment he doesn't need because it's the end of the budget year. It's old fashioned, outdated government. It's government using a quill pen in the age of word perfect, cut wasteful spending.
We can get rid of those outdated subsidies not just for mohair sweaters but in every area. We'll consolidate departments. We'll get rid of duplicate departments. We'll allow competition to bring bring about better service at lower cost. Second, it tells us how to streamline the bureaucracy and we can cut it dramatically.
We can downsize government by 12%, reducing the bureaucracy by 252,000 positions. We can also change the structure of government by getting rid of the layer upon layer of management that prevents us from getting things done for the American people. Third, it tells us how to improve customer service. We can set customer service standards equal to the best in business. We can require agencies to survey customer satisfaction and measure performance based on customer satisfaction.
Fourth, it tells us how to overhaul federal procurement. We can simplify it, give managers buying authority, streamline the process so they can buy more like businesses buy and save money in the process. And finally, it tells us how to overhaul the personnel system. We recommend scrapping that 10,000 page personnel code by next September, replacing it with guiding principles. We want managers to be able to hire and to fire, to promote, to reassign, and to reward excellence.
If we make these changes, we can create a government that works better and costs less. We can treat taxpayers like customers. We can provide a quality product. We can hold government employees accountable and reward excellence. The National Performance Review is about change.
It will get us moving a the hard work that earned them. For too long, government has been an obstacle to change but if government is powerful enough to block change, then it is powerful enough to bring change.
Speaker 2: The Reinventing Government or RIGO report aims to save $108,000,000,000 over five years through eliminating scores of wasteful programs and regulations. Among the 800 recommendations, eliminating 12% of the federal workforce, merging some government agencies like the FBI, the DEA, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, closing hundreds of government offices outside Washington. Today,
Speaker 1: we're releasing a formal status report on the first year of the national performance review. Here's the report in CD ROM version. It's also available on the Internet, and for some of us, there is also a book.
Speaker 0: Since I became president, the size of the federal workforce has been reduced by 71,000 positions. In three years, we'll have the smallest federal workforce since president Kennedy was here to go with three years of deficit reduction in a row for the first time since president Truman was here. I'm proud to announce some more good news today. At the General Services Administration, administrator Johnson saved $1,200,000,000 by carefully reviewing construction projects that had been approved and not yet built. In other words, buildings we really didn't need.
And just today, the GSA is announcing its saved $23,000,000 simply by managing the government's motor pools more efficiently. Today, the secretary of defense set a goal to cut in half the time it takes to complete internal business processes from hiring workers to building new weapon systems. This is very important. Senator Glenn has worked for years on procurement reform. If we're going to maintain the national security at a time when we have to impose budget discipline, we must find ways to make these dollars go further.
We can't simply abandon our technological lead, our readiness, our preparedness, all the things that have been so carefully build up over the last sixteen or seventeen years. At the office of management and budget, director designate Rildon tells me the federal government will offer buyouts to another 40,000 employees at the beginning of the new fiscal year next month. I am more convinced now than ever that we have to keep doing this, that we have to make this reinventing government a permanent process, and that there are serious structural issues which still have to be addressed. Washington needs to work for ordinary middle class Americans, and in order to do that, we have got to find a way to open this process up so that the public interest can always overwhelm particular interest in matters of great importance. We have worked very hard to cut government spending and to bring the deficit under control.
The government debt increased by four times during the twelve years before I took office. I wanna remind you what that burden means. It means that this April, when people make out their checks to the government, 28¢ of every dollar of federal income tax will be necessary to pay interest on the debt accumulated between 1981 and the day I was inaugurated. It is our responsibility to turn that around, and we have been working to fulfill it. We have already passed budgets that cut the deficit by $700,000,000,000, eliminate 100 government programs, and cut over 300 others.
A major part of this endeavor has been the reinventing government initiative led by the vice president. I have worked hard to reduce and to redirect governments for many years since my early days as governor of my state when we were one of the first states in the country to adopt a statewide total quality management program which resulted in cutting regulation and paperwork, eliminating agencies and departments and programs that were unnecessary. Now we are cutting things that can be cut. We propose to stop doing things that government doesn't do very well and that don't need to be done by government, and we believe we should increase our efforts where government can make a real positive difference in the lives of ordinary Americans. We have to change yesterday's government and make it work for the America of today and tomorrow.
In the last two years, we have made a good beginning. We have begun to shrink the federal government's bureaucracy to its smallest size in thirty years. The workforce of the federal government is already almost 100,000 below where it was on the day we were inaugurated. We are on the way to reduction of 272,000 positions, cuts that are freeing up money to invest in our people. For example, every dollar that goes to fund the crime bill, which is a direct transfer of investment to our local communities at the grassroots level, comes from the cuts we are making.
Our administration has just completed a review in which we have identified $24,000,000,000 in cuts in bureaucracy, red tape and outmoded programs to help to do this. And we are committed to continuing the freeze on discretionary spending which will save another $52,000,000,000 in the next five year budget cycle. We will do even more to shrink yesterday's government. I have called on the vice president to review every single government program and department for further possible reductions. He's also going to review the federal regulatory process, and we have spent a good deal of time on that already so that we can get better results for the public with less interference in their lives.
Put customers first,
Speaker 1: cut red tape, delegate authority, and cut back to basics. That is how we will decide what government should stop doing. We'll put customers first in this review by getting them involved at every stage of the process and listening carefully to their opinions and ideas. We will stop producing red tape and start paying more attention to results than we do to processes. And as you have asked, mister president, we're going to also see about in reinventing the government's approach, to regulatory issues and the regulatory process.
That's well underway also. We will stop making so many decisions in Washington that would be better made by state government, local government, or individual citizens, and we will replace Washington interference with local opportunity. By next week, there will have been 98,000, positions eliminated. We are we were previously committed before today's announcements to an additional, 175,000 for a total of 273,000. There will the the FTE, savings, associated with, today's announcements will be over and above or under, the limits already announced.
But, but the specifics will flow from the detailed plans in each agency and department.
Speaker 3: Mister Vice President, could you spell out the $52,000,000,000 freeze in discretionary spending in 1999 and February? Where will those cuts be made? Specifically, which departments will be frozen?
Speaker 1: That is closely related to, the president's, other announcement today, which is that he is directing me to look at every single department and agency and program and take the same approach that we have been taking, to reinvent the entire process and to eliminate programs and commissions agencies that are not needed. The the 52,000,000 that comes from the freeze on domestic spending is, in essence the bogey that we, will have to hit for the remainder of the the, the reinvention process. Now there are other related efforts at cutting and saving that, will also enable us to hit that, 52 bogey.
Speaker 0: How did he come up? I ran for president promising to put the American economy back on track and to cut the federal deficit in half. In 1993, without a single Republican vote, the Democratic congress adopted our deficit reduction plan. It was a plan that shrunk the deficit while investing in our people, their education, and the technological future of America. We took firm steps toward a balanced budget, but we did it in a way that honors our values of responsibility and opportunity, work and family, a strong American community, and a strong America around the world.
We did deficit reduction consistent with our values, and it was very good economic policy. Today, America is on the move. The economy is growing. The American people have produced seven and a half million new jobs, two and a half million new homeowners, over 2,000,000 new small businesses, and the lowest combined rates of unemployment and inflation in twenty five years. And I am pleased to announce today that the deficit in fiscal year ninety five is $164,000,000,000 cut almost in half in just three years.
The deficit was projected to be $3.00 $2,000,000,000 as you can see here before our plan was adopted. It was $290,000,000,000 in 1992. We began immediately to bring it down. It came down to $2.55, to $2.00 3, now to $1.64 in these three years. This is the first time since Harry Truman was president that the deficit has actually dropped three years in a row.
The plan has worked better than we projected that it would, and as the chart shows, the deficit reduction is for real. Now it is time to finish this job, to take that red line down to zero. We must balance the budget to take the burden of debt off of our children and to free up more funds for investing in our future. The most important thing about this, folks, is that America is moving in the right direction. The deficit is coming down.
The jobs are going up. The crime rate is down. The welfare rolls are down. The food stamp rolls are down. The faults in child support are down.
The poverty rate is down. The teen pregnancy rate is down. Small businesses are up. Business failures are down. We are moving in the right direction.
We know what strategy works. The strategy that works is to reduce the deficit and invest in people, invest in technology, and grow the economy. Why would we abandon a proven strategy that works and it will take us all the way to a balanced budget? Look. We have proven what works.
Cut and invest works. Reduce the deficit, but invest in our future works. It's quite conceivable that if my budget were adopted, just as I proposed it, that economic growth could take the deficit down even more quickly. But I didn't estimate that is that my budget is premised on, the economy growing at about the same rate it has for the last twenty five years with the profits of of our business enterprises at about the same level. If the same thing happens in the next three to five years has happened in the last three, we would have quicker growth and a quicker resolution of this.
But that's why I think we should not be pessimistic about the future. But if the the more we can get this deficit down, the lower our the lower interest rates will be for people in the private sector. That means they'll borrow more money. They'll build more houses. They'll have more home mortgages.
They'll they'll invest in more plant and equipment. The economy will grow quicker. Also, the lower our interest payments on our own debt will be, which means we'll have more funds to invest in education, health care, and the environment. The annual deficit and the total national debt had quadrupled in the twelve years before I took office. In two years, we have turned that around.
In 1993, we passed the single largest deficit reduction package in American history, reducing the deficit over five years by $5.00 $5,000,000,000 When you take into account improved performance of the economy and reduced interest rates in 1993, the deficit reduction will exceed $600,000,000,000 over this five year period. We did it by returning something to Washington that had been missing for too long, real discipline and honest numbers in the budgeting process. We did it unfortunately last year and the year before without any votes from members of the other party and I hope now we will be working together to keep the deficit under control and keep the economic growth going. We cut the federal government by more than 100,000 positions in the last two years. We're on the way to reducing it with laws already passed by 272,000 positions, making us the smallest it's been in more than thirty years.
We cut taxes for 15,000,000 working families with 40,000,000 Americans in it, about an average of 1,000 apiece for families of four with incomes under $26,000 this year. We made nine of 10 of our small businesses eligible for tax reductions. We invested in the tools our people need in education and training and technology. We did more to open markets in the last two years than in any previous period in a generation. The results are clear.
The deficit that two years ago was projected to be over $400,000,000,000 a year by the end of the decade is now under $200,000,000,000 It's going down for three years in a row for the first time since Truman was president. The economic plan we have already passed will cut the deficit in half as a percentage of our economy. We have almost 6,000,000 new jobs, the biggest year in economic growth in 1994 in a decade with 93% of those jobs in the private sector. That's the largest percentage of private sector job growth in fifty years. We have the lowest combined rate of unemployment and inflation in twenty five years.
I am proud of this record and the budget we send today builds on that foundation. In the third year of our strategy, we are adding $81,000,000,000 more to deficit reduction. That's nearly $600,000,000,000 in real deficit cuts and in addition to that, of course, there is more, as I said, coming as a result of the economic growth of the last two years. This budget provides more than a dollar in deficit reduction for every dollar that goes into the tax cuts I will discuss in a moment. If congress gives me the line item veto, I will find even more cuts.
The budget already provides a hundred and $44,000,000,000 in hard budget savings. Behind me, you can see in black and white the 400 programs that this budget will eliminate or consolidate. The terminations of about a 30 programs here. And over here, the consolidation of 270 more. Those 271 programs will be distilled down into 27.
We are also restructuring five major agencies as a part of the second round of reinventing government, the vice president will discuss in a moment, to save $23,000,000,000 And our reinventing government effort is looking at all the other agencies for further opportunities that might emerge in the course of the budget debate this year.
Speaker 1: One of the ways this has been possible is through reinvention. In the first phase of the national performance review, we set out to make government work better and cost less. And this budget reflects continuing progress toward the goals outlined in the first national performance review. That work is ongoing. In addition to the federal workforce reductions that the present president mentioned a moment ago and that are reflected on the graph behind Bob and Laura there, we are also seeing and incidentally, we're gonna we're we're now on a track to do that even more rapidly, and a 2,000 reductions already, another 70,000 already locked in, quite a few more on the way.
For example, the 40,000 alone with the privatization or the incorporation of the air traffic control operations. This budget also reflects significant streamlining in a number of agencies that have cut headquarters and obsolete field offices. For example, the custom service is cutting its headquarters by one third and abolishing seven regional offices. The agriculture department is cutting over 1,200 field offices. The interior department will cut its headquarters staff by nearly 50% as part of its overall restructuring, and the labor department will close many regional and field offices as it streamlines for the 20 century.
We've also made changes to make the federal government more results oriented. More than a hundred agencies and departments have set for themselves more than 1,500 customer service standards by which they can be held accountable and with which they pledge what they will each do, to serve the public according to measurable standards. Agencies are measuring their results and reporting on their progress. To date, the administration has designated 75 pilots covering more than 400,000 employees. In the future, we will use performance information in the development of budget priorities.
The administration is also committed to using technology to make government work better. One quick example, currently 38 states are working to implement electronic benefits transfer, which will help deliver nearly $500,000,000,000 in benefits with great savings in monetary terms and also large reductions in the rate, of fraud. In the second phase of the National Performance Review, which started, in December, we actually announced it back in September, but the formal beginning was in December. We plan to continue our efforts to improve how government works and add a second focus by asking what should government be doing. The second phase of the Performance Review has, three elements.
It is examining every agency and program with an eye toward whether they should continue to exist, and if they can be privatized or consolidated or if they can be streamlined significantly so they can provide better service at lower costs. We have some early results and they are reflected in the budget being unveiled today. For example, this budget proposes to terminate the Interstate Commerce Commission, cancel highway demonstration projects, privatize portions of the National Weather Service, privatize the Helium program, rely on the private sector for NASA communication with spacecraft, expand lease authority in our national parks so they're run-in a more entrepreneurial way, and privatize the Naval Petroleum Reserve. Several agencies such as HUD, Transportation, and Energy have radically restructured their operations. At HUD, sixty programs have been collapsed into three flexible performance based funds.
At the Department of Energy, significant efficiencies efficiencies have been outlined in the areas of nuclear waste cleanup and management. And at the Department of Transportation, the old rigid structure based on modes of transportation has been replaced by a more modern and efficient organization. Finally, this budget takes a big step in providing more flexibility to state and local governments by consolidating more than 270 programs into 27 performance partnerships that are based on trust and accountability, trust and the ability of state and local governments to get the job done without federal micromanagement, and accountability to the federal government for the spending of federal dollars. They will tie federal aid to performance, not to compliance with an administrative process. The largest of these new partnerships will combine 70 job training programs into one system, combine 108 public health and human services programs into 16, and combined 12 specific environmental grants into one.
Together, the changes from the second phase of reinventing government total over $26,000,000,000 and there is much more on the way. In the next few months, we will continue to improve and streamline and reinvent the federal government. Now let me say in closing that reinventing government is not all about cutting. It's also about making the government, we must have, work better. Anybody can propose to cut departments or to take a certain percentage out of the government.
But as, some of our, adversaries on Capitol Hill are finding, doing the actual review and separating out what can be cut from what must not be cut is a delicate and difficult business. And I don't think they've put any cuts on the table yet. President Clinton has done just that and will continue to do just that. This budget is a statement of his courage in taking on the tough job of creating a government that works better and costs less. Now who goes next?
Speaker 0: A special word now to those who work for our federal government. Today, the federal workforce is 200,000 employees smaller than it was the day I took office as president. Our federal government today is the smallest it has been in thirty years, and it's getting smaller every day. Most of our fellow Americans probably don't know that. There's a good reason.
A good reason. The remaining federal workforce is composed of hardworking Americans who are now working harder and working smarter than ever before to make sure the quality of our services does not decline. We know big government does not have all the answers. We know there's not a program for every problem. We know and we have worked to give the American people a smaller, less bureaucratic government in Washington.
And we have to give the American people one that lives within its means. The era of big government is over. America has balanced the budget. In fact, as the chart shows, the achievement of the American people will not stop there. OMB projects that the budget surplus will be $39,000,000,000 this year, the largest dollar surplus in our history.
The largest surplus as a share of the economy in more than forty years. America can now turn off the deficit clock and plug in the surplus clock. Given the speed with which our nation has reached this remarkable milestone, it is perhaps all too easy to forget how hard it was and how far we've come. Just six years ago, because of the drag of deficits, our people were running in place. Our nation was falling behind.
Interest rates were high and so was unemployment. On the day I took office, the deficit was projected this year to be $350,000,000,000. How did this greatest projected deficit in history turn into the greatest projected surplus? The old fashioned way, we earned it. Our nation earned it as a result of hard work by the American people.
And as the vice president said, we earned it here in Washington with the help of two visionary actions in congress. First, the courageous vote by the Democrats in 1993 in the midst of withering, extreme criticism that led to a cut in the deficit of 90%. And then the truly historic bipartisan balanced budget agreement passed by congress last year that finished the job. I think it would also be wrong if I didn't mention as mister Liu did that the reinventing government efforts headed by the vice president played a major role. We not only have the smallest government since the Kennedy administration with more than 300,000 fewer people.
We also have savings in excess of a hundred and $30,000,000,000, during the budget period as a result of those efforts. And mister vice president, I am very grateful for what you have done. Now that we're about to have the first surplus since Neil Armstrong walked on the moon, we face a crucial decision about what to do with it. We can use these good times to honor those who've put in a lifetime of work and prepare for the future retirement of the baby boomers by saving the Social Security system for generations to come, or we can give in to the temptation in this election year to squander our surpluses the moment they start coming in. I think the choice is clear.
We got to where we are today with 4.3% unemployment, more than 15,000,000 new jobs, the lowest inflation in over 30, low interest rates, high growth, the highest homeownership in history by doing what was right for the American economy over the long run. That is what we should do now.
@elonmusk - Elon Musk
Sounds familiar
reSee.it AI Summary
What I'm seeing from Elon Musk is revolutionary. The DOGE algorithms are uncovering long-hidden fraud and waste in executive agencies, paving the way to restore our Constitution's intent for a leaner, more efficient, and accountable federal government, checked by Congress.
@SpeakerJohnson - Speaker Mike Johnson
What @ElonMusk is doing is truly revolutionary. As the DOGE algorithms find widespread fraud, waste, and abuse in the executive branch agencies that have been hidden from Congress for decades—it will allow us to restore the original intent of our Constitution: a leaner, more efficient, and more accountable federal government that is kept in check by the legislative branch.
Video Transcript AI Summary
**Speaker 0:** Why is Elon Musk criticized while George Soros, who influences government decisions and backs progressive prosecutors, is not? Is this hypocrisy?
**Speaker 1:** Absolutely. Elon's actions are heroic. He's bringing transparency to the federal government and the "deep state." I told him that his work can restore the original intent of the Constitution. Congress has struggled to oversee the bureaucracy because it has not been provided key information. Now, Elon is revealing things we suspected but couldn't prove. This is revolutionary and will restore the government to its intended form. That's why big government advocates are afraid; it's exciting for the people.
**Speaker 0:** If you love the country and the Constitution, you are supporting this effort. Thank you.
**Speaker 1:** Thanks. Great to be here.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I wanna ask you another question related to Elon Musk. They turn him into this boogeyman. Why do you think they love multibillionaire George Soros, who has used the various instrumentality of the government to acquire radio stations, who spends tens of billions of dollars throughout the years, he and his son to influence our government, to insinuate themselves in governmental decisions, to elect prosecutors who refuse to prosecute and so forth. That's their sugar daddy. That's their guy.
But when it comes to Elon Musk, they want him criminally investigated. They believe he doesn't have any role in anything and so forth and so on. Do you see this as complete hypocrisy?
Speaker 1: Complete hypocrisy. And what Elon is doing is heroic. You used the word, in the opening monologue. Exactly right. This is an heroic effort.
He is bringing common sense and transparency and sunlight to the federal government, to to the bureaucracy, to what many of us refer to as the deep state. And this is what he and I were talking about, just on Monday night at his office. I said, Elon, I am so excited about what you are doing, what you are uncovering. I I said, you think of this as a scientist and a data analyst. I think of it as a constitutional law attorney and historian.
Elon, what we are going to be able to do through this effort is restore the original intent of the framers of the constitution. What they had in mind is a small federal government that was closely monitored and had heavy oversight by the duly elected representatives of the people. The challenge we've had here in recent decades is that members of congress, these representatives, have not been able to do that job well. The oversight job has been hindered because the deep state and the bureaucracy has not turned over the data. They wouldn't give us the information we were seeking.
We didn't know all this because it was hidden. Now Elon has cracked the code. He is on the inside of the belly of the beast, Mark, and he is he is unveiling and revealing all these things that we knew intuitively were happening, but we didn't have the evidence. This is a game changer. It is truly revolutionary, and we're gonna restore, ultimately, through this process, the federal government to the original intent of the founders, and that's what has the the big government, socialist, liberals, and Democrat party apoplectic because they're afraid of what the final result of this is gonna be, and it's very exciting for the people.
Speaker 0: You're so right. If you love the country, you love the constitution, you love small r republicanism, you're cheering these guys on. Mister speaker, thank you for all you're doing, and God bless you, my friend.
Speaker 1: Thanks, Mark. Great to be with you.
Speaker 0: We'll be
Speaker 1: right back.
@PressSec - Karoline Leavitt
For decades, leaders in America have pledged to address the rampant waste, fraud, and abuse in our federal government – only to end up doing nothing while watching the crisis grow even worse. But where others failed – President Trump is delivering. Major reforms are underway! https://t.co/9YsOsPh3Rq
Video Transcript AI Summary
We're keeping our promises. President Trump is the first in a long time to actually deliver. Democrats and the media are losing it over our commitment to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse in the federal bureaucracy.
I want to set the record straight. President Trump has directed Elon Musk and the Doge team to investigate fraud at the Social Security Administration. We suspect millions in fraudulent payments are going to deceased individuals. Our goals are to identify and end duplicate payments, stop payments to the deceased, and protect the system for hardworking Americans who have paid into it. If you've paid in honestly, you'll continue to receive your checks. Don't believe the fake news trying to scare you. We're protecting your hard-earned money.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Listen to the words from those Democrat politicians. You would think you are listening to president Trump, Elon Musk, and our entire administration who are saying the exact same things that Democrat politicians promised the American people they would do for decades. President Trump is just the first president in our lifetimes to actually do it. And now you see the Democrat party in the mainstream media spiraling out of control about a very simple promise, rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse from our federal bureaucracy. This is a promise president Trump campaigned on.
He is now delivering on it, and I've been fighting fake news reporters all day long here in the Washington DC swamp who are trying to fearmonger the American people into believing that this administration is going after their hard earned tax dollars and their hard earned Social Security checks. So I wanna set the record straight on your show tonight, Sean, and I'm very grateful for the opportunity to do so. President Trump has directed Elon Musk and the Doge team to identify fraud at the Social Security Administration. They haven't dug into the books yet, but they suspect that there are tens of millions of deceased people who are receiving fraudulent Social Security payments. And so their goal in going into the Social Security Administration is to identify three things.
Number one, to identify, duplicate payments and to end them. Number two, to identify payments that are going to deceased people who are no longer living and should no longer be receiving that money. And number three, to protect the integrity of the system for hardworking Americans who have been paying into it their entire lives. So rest assured to all of the people watching your show tonight, if you paid into the system, honestly, you will continue to receive your Social Security text or checks. Do not buy into the lies from the legacy fake news media who are trying to fear you and scare you into believing otherwise.
This is what we've seen them do about president Trump for years with every promise that he has made, and he's going in there to protect your hard earned money. That is the ultimate goal.
@RapidResponse47 - Rapid Response 47
"In less than a single month, @DOGE has already saved over $55 billion — and we're just getting started," says President Trump. "We will rapidly grow our economy by dramatically shrinking the federal government." https://t.co/OUYPnfUxfg
Video Transcript AI Summary
In under a month, the Department of Government Efficiency has already saved over $55 billion, and this is only the beginning. We're targeting trillions of dollars in waste, which will lead to significantly lower inflation and interest rates. This will also bring down payments on mortgages, credit cards, and car loans, while boosting the stock market. I believe the stock market is going to perform exceptionally well. Our strategy involves rapidly growing the economy by dramatically reducing the size of the federal government, a necessary step for our nation's prosperity.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: In less than a single month, the Department of Government Efficiency has already saved over 55 this is just a short period of time, $55,000,000,000. And we're just getting started. That's nothing compared to the numbers that you're talking about. Right? We're ending trillions of dollars in waste, and it'll mean much lower inflation, lower interest rates, lower payments on mortgages, credit cards, car loans, and much higher stock markets.
I think the stock market's gonna be great. In other words, we will rapidly grow our economy by dramatically shrinking the federal government, and we have to do it.
@robbystarbuck - Robby Starbuck
Kevin O’Leary, aka Mr. Wonderful, has some criticism for @elonmusk… He says Elon isn’t doing enough and needs to cut 20% more from the federal budget. I think Elon will like this challenge and probably agrees with it. America is ready for seismic change! https://t.co/6BsCSfeuNh
Video Transcript AI Summary
The federal government isn't a company to dismantle. It requires constitutional adherence, not a Shark Tank takeover approach. The government is fat and hasn't been scrutinized in a century.
An individual is willing to do this work for free, but isn't cutting enough. In private equity, when dealing with a broken company, you cut deep and fast, then rehire. He should cut 20% more. It's all fat and waste.
You can't be surgically precise, you have to cut more because you don't know. We've never audited government for a hundred years.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Restoring the services and the jobs and the people that have been broken by this this ridiculous process. The federal government is not a company that you take over. This may work on Shark Tank, but it's not a company that you take over and dismantle and self departs because you wanna do it in a different way. You have to do things in accordance with the constitution.
Speaker 1: The smile is back. I think I know why. Kevin, what's your thought?
Speaker 2: Federal government is fat, tripping with fat. A hundred years of never being scrutinized, never been examined, never looking for any efficiencies. Finally, here's an individual who's willing to do it for free with extremely great executional skills and people aren't comfortable, don't worry about it. The American people want to know how much waste is evident. And I think they're getting answers, and it's not good.
So, you know, you could Tom, I love it. I I you're absolutely right. But frankly, just between you and I, he's not cutting enough. You know? And the concept of private equity, when you find a broken bankrupt company, company, you look at the spreadsheet, you say, okay.
This is the original cut idea. You cut 20% more because it really hurts when you cut. You cut deep. You cut fast. You chop.
You hack. And then you hire back because you don't want the trauma to everybody multiple times. I don't think he's doing enough. He's not cutting enough. We should cut more, 20% more.
It's all fat. It's waste. There's so much waste in federal government. This is great for the American people.
Speaker 1: Kevin, how how can it be so great to than if if it's to rehire? First of all, the number percent just seems completely arbitrary. I don't know what you're basing that off of other than it sounds like a maybe a a idea. But also hold on. I wanna I wanna hear your responses.
But, Kevin, it doesn't make efficiency sense to say I'm gonna thrash and burn and then try to regrow everything and try to come back and figure out what I've done that was ineffective in the instance. Is it isn't an audit supposed to be, I'm gonna take an assessment, and then I'm going to decide the prudent course of action? Why is it, while I'm auditing, I'm getting rid of, and then I'll figure out if it was a good idea? That would that work in your business?
Speaker 2: Yes. You can't be surgically precision. There's no way to be surgically precision in this. You have to cut more because you just don't know. There's no way to do it.
Remember, we've never audited government for a hundred years. Never done this before.
@elonmusk - Elon Musk
I will do whatever I can. There are limitations place upon me.
reSee.it AI Summary
I've been reflecting on our long-standing reliance on government spending. It's crucial to shift focus back to the private sector. By reversing excessive spending and embracing responsible deregulation, we can foster growth and prosperity for hardworking Americans.
@SecScottBessent - Secretary of Treasury Scott Bessent
We’ve been addicted to government spending for far too long, and now it’s time to re-leverage the private sector. By reversing Biden’s blowout spending and implementing responsible deregulation, we will deliver growth and prosperity for hardworking Americans.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker joined the Trump campaign and administration due to alarm over high government spending, unprecedented outside of war or recession. The Biden administration continued this spending, which was uncriticized due to its allocation towards green programs and overseas engagement.
The current goal is to correct course by deleveraging the government and releveraging the private sector through spending cuts and lowered interest rates. Deregulating the banking system will allow banks to lend to the private sector, especially Main Street and community banks. As the government shrinks, the private sector will expand, with the private sector absorbing excess labor from the government.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: One of the reasons I came out from behind my desk and asked president Trump if I could join the campaign, then, when he asked me to be in the cabinet was because I was so alarmed by this high level of government spending. We've never seen anything like this. Highest level ever when we weren't in a war or in a recession. So the Biden administration relied on this blowout spending back to the mainstream media. They no one criticized it when they were doing it because it was for the great and the good.
It was for green programs. It was for this. It was for overseas engagement. Now, what we're trying to do is do a course correction where we bring down the government we deleverage the government and relever the private sector. We're gonna do that by cutting spending, lowering interest, we'll get a natural lowering of interest rates.
And then on the other side, as we relever the private sector, we plan to deregulate the banking system, which was one of the things I talked about at the Economic Club of New York last week. So as we allow the bank as we unshackle a regulated banking system, they can lay they can lend to private the private sector, and especially Main Street, which has been overlooked. So small regional banks, small banks, community banks. And so as the government comes down, the private sector will go up. Government will shed excess labor, and there's plenty of it, and then the private sector will pick it up.
@SecScottBessent - Secretary of Treasury Scott Bessent
Watch more of my interview with @BreitbartNews here: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2025/03/14/exclusive-secretary-bessent-reprivatization-economy-laser-focused-deficit-control/
Exclusive — Secretary Bessent on ‘Reprivatization’ of Economy: ‘We Are Laser-Focused on Getting this Deficit Under Control’
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told Breitbart News that President Donald Trump’s administration is "laser-focused" on cutting the deficit.
breitbart.com
@ThomasSowell - Thomas Sowell Quotes
"We've got a gigantic government bureaucracy. We've got overregulation. We've got agencies that have overlapping responsibilities." https://t.co/Ju4GtBzhM3
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker claims there is a gigantic government bureaucracy with overregulation and overlapping agency responsibilities. There are approximately 450 federal government agencies, with new agencies constantly being created.
The speaker suggests that this overregulation makes it difficult to get anything done and everything is basically illegal. These regulations create hidden but substantial costs for people.
The speaker states that excessive requirements drive up housing costs and slow down new housing starts. The speaker concludes by saying that the builders of America need to be allowed to build.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We've got a gigantic government bureaucracy. We've got overregulation. You've got agencies that have overlapping responsibilities. There's something like 450 government federal government agencies. Almost two per year that company since America was founded.
So, mean, we're just creating new agencies all the time. It's getting to the point where basically everything's illegal. You just can't get anything done. I've noticed. These become real costs to to people.
They're they're hidden costs but they're very substantial. You know, it's very hard to build, new housing if if if, you're burdened with massive requirements that don't make any sense. It drives up the housing cost, it slows down new housing starts. We need to let the builders of America build. Amen.
Yeah.