Well, one of the four principal functions of
the CIA is to gather intelligence and
and ideally forward it to
the the president, the users of information, the
policy makers, as they say. There are other
functions, however, some of them more legitimate than
others. One is to run secret wars, the
covert action that's written and talked about so
much, like what's happening in Nicaragua today from
Honduras.
Another thing is to
disseminate propaganda to influence people's minds.
And this is a major function of the
CIA.
And,
unfortunately, of course, it overlaps
into the gathering of information.
You you have contact with a journalist.
You will give him true stories. You'll get
information from him. You'll also give him false
stories. Did you buy his confidence with true
stories? You buy his confidence and set him
up. We've seen this happen in, recently with
Jack Anderson, for example, who who has his
intelligence sources, and he has also admitted that
he's been set up by them. You know,
every fifth story just simply being false.
You also
work on their human
vulnerabilities
to recruit them
in a classic set to make them your
agent so that you can control what they
do. So you don't have to set them
up sort of, you know, by by putting
one over on them. So you can say
here, plant this one next Tuesday.
Can you do this with responsible
reporters?
Yes. The church committee brought it out in
1975,
and then Woodward and Bernstein put an article
in Rolling Stone
a couple of years later.
400 journalists cooperating with the CIA,
including some of the biggest names in the
business.
Welcome to the daily wrap up, a concise
show dedicated to bringing you the most relevant
independent
news as we see it from the last
twenty four hours.
Tuesday, February twenty fifth twenty twenty five. Thank
you for joining me today. Thought that clip
was good to share again today. We've seen
it more than once.
Many times, we've heard similar conversations. It's not
a secret,
but very relevant to think about.
But not just in the context of corporate
media.
Right? In any context, anybody you're watching, this
show included, consider whether or not the information
could be, without the aware awareness of the
person doing it, influenced from out some outside
force. This is why we come at this
with question everything.
It's a very important mindset with especially the
way the world is today. Really, I think
the way it's always pretty much been. We're
just much more aware of it today, and
I think that's one of the reasons why
we're being
hustled into some technocratic control structure.
But very important to think about, not just
the planning of false information, but how, as
he said, ultimately
control them. And I think more so today
than ever in ways that they don't even
realize. Just something to think about today. Not
even real explicit points other than the usual
that we point out. The different people that
I think are in one way or another
misinforming you, that are lying to you, or
just flat out trying to achieve the agenda
for the whatever we're talking about. The the
point is that I'm not sure in any
of these context when we're covering it that
I, like, I would never tell you. I
know the intent of the person or that
I can tell you what how they feel
just simply that I can I see this
as a manipulation?
So ask yourself whether you think in the
things we're discussing, whether this is somebody who
is deliberately deceiving you or may not even
be aware that they're doing it. And we
had some interesting conversation this morning around the,
which part was it? Specifically, I think the
Dan Bongino. I have a couple clips on
that today.
But how interesting he is to see that
it's not always as simple as saying that
this person says the one thing, therefore, they
are,
you know, deliberately deceiving you. Frankly, I think
it's far more nefarious
from the person doing the deceiving or surreptitious
to people that don't even aren't even aware
that they're doing it, almost with plausible deniability.
It's almost more dangerous, almost deserves more criticism.
But it's important to think about, I think,
because all it really does is show you
at the end of the day that it's
not about them it's not about the source
itself.
It's about the data. It's about what you
can prove, what you can see, the outcome
of statements, not the statements themselves.
That's the point. That's where we have to
be with everything today. And I'm more and
more really even training myself to be very
harsh on that point. That you know, because
we all have our people that we listen
to that we have that, you know, we
see as more respectable or that credence or,
you know, they come from the certain conversation.
We all are susceptible. It's about trying to
challenge yourself.
Check you know, continue to stand back in
every circumstance and go, you know, am I
missing something? Might I be doing it's difficult.
I know, and it's exhausting. But that's the
world that's been built around us, and it's
important to check yourself. Otherwise, you find yourself
in
some bubble,
a circle that continues to be, you know,
a self fulfilling dynamic. Or maybe you wake
up in ten years and you're trapped inside
something you didn't think you were building. Either
way, it's important to be critical of all
things. Again, this show included, but you guys
already know that. Instead of just listening to
what I'm saying, you're gonna look for the
source material to make sure that I might
not have missed something because I've done that
plenty of times. That's what's important, guys. Self
ownership about self responsibility.
Just an important time to think about that.
Now today in general, we're gonna be talking
about something I keep picking up on.
Not really there's many points throughout today's show,
but as you guys know, sometimes I just
have a thought, an idea that seems to
be swirling around that I just wanna kinda
cement with the title. And one of those
things is what I keep seeing is what
I've called meme politics or meme politicians.
Haven't really seen examples of that in the
past, but I kinda find it hard to
believe that it hasn't been floated one time
or another. So if you see somebody who
said that, sent it my way, I'll give
them credit for it. But what's important is
the idea that it's not about substance right
now and hasn't been for a long time.
It it is about
a feeling,
about cultivating
a mindset
that then as long as you guys feel
like you're in unison, that the rest of
it'll fall in place. I mean, that's not
what's being stated, but that's what it kinda
feels like. Or really that even worse,
people seem to put more credence in what
somebody says versus what they do,
or an idea that's shared as a meme
that somehow holds more water than whether or
not they've ever actually done any of those
things. It's interesting. It's it's it's exhausting, quite
frankly. But I think what's important is that
we think about what that means.
And and and not just the idea of
using kind of just like, for what a
meme is ultimately, we most people recognize as
one of the images that are shared, but
it's not just the I image. It's more
of like an encapsulation of an idea or
a thought.
So even like a a a phrase that
gets repeated over and over, well, before the
Internet, that would have been considered like a
meme. Something that people all kinda we all
have a general when we say this one
sentence, we all think about a certain a
certain kind of idea or a certain topic
in the same way. That's kinda what it
comes into, and it's very easy to use
to manipulate social engineering. That's kind of what
this really comes from. And I'm wondering whether
this entire meme culture is just another sort
of sixties Laurel Canyon type dynamic where we've
just been seeded with this, so we use
it against ourselves.
Now the point is to think about how
it's being used and how mob rule is
being applied in a lot of ways. But
even further than just the idea of the
meme itself is how it almost has been
weaponized or
could be essentially out of control in their
own right or rather that like, I guess,
to cut to the chase. The point is
that a meme has been played or placed
and used in the last so many months
by certain people in the sir in in,
you know, the right now, Elon and Trump
and that kind of circle that you could
argue was just a joke
or of testing the waters, but not necessarily
going to be anything actual
until
it got attention,
until it got momentum, until somebody a little
bit larger said, well, that's not a bad
idea. And all of a sudden, it gets
recaptured by Elon and says, what do you
think? And then all of a sudden, Trump
shares an untrue social with just a screenshot.
And the next thing you know, you turn
around, and it's in congress.
It's like, was that a joke, or did
it become we've talked about this a lot,
but I think we keep seeing this. Whether
agreeing one and all that was sort of
just a floated idea that just manifested into
reality, whether the checklist of and all that
nonsense that, by the way, even over the
last three days has already kind of resolved
itself, which we're not even gonna get into,
That ultimately was a bluff, but not. And
it did it's just bottom line, in case
you haven't seen the checklist and the whole
thing going back and forth, they were gonna
be fired. If they weren't, then that got
pulled back. And, ultimately, the idea is that
it was just to kind of a to
see if you guys were there to respond.
Or, really, maybe they bluffed and nobody bought
it, and so they just pretended like it
was a joke. Kind of the same point
we're making. Either way, funny to see how
these stories kinda just wrap themselves up in
nonsense before we even come back to another
show. It's just crazy out there. But the
other part we're gonna mainly get into, right,
as Orwell puts in the chat, meme warfare
is a very interesting way to think about
it because it's it is weaponized against us
and always could be and has been, but
I think more than ever today. But and
think about it in the context of the
way the politicians are acting, and it's not
unique to one side or the other. We're
also gonna talk about foreign policy in a
very large way. Main
part of the end today, we're gonna be
going over some other points just specifically about
Israel, Gaza, foreign policy, Syria, West Bank. But
in between, there's an interesting part of connection
here.
And that's the same thing we've been talking
about, but really important to see how transparent
this is as I just wrote the undeniable
reality of nature of the Israel First nature
of Israel's
or screw that title up. Undeniable
reality of the Israel First nature of Trump's
administration.
I mean, it's being called out by Republicans,
so it's not really a contentious point. But
what does that really mean? Is it just
about being pro Israel, or is it something
worse than that? Is it something deeper? The
only thing, as always, I ask is that
you just consider that. Look at the evidence
and ask yourself, is it possible that this
is not just that we support our ally,
that maybe there's something worse happening here? I
mean, even like Ian Carroll, for example, which
I feel like there's a lot of reason
to be skeptical about the way this is
all happening. And even myself, even like this
morning, we were talking about it. I'm trying
to weigh, like, is this guy just kind
of try blinding himself to what he doesn't
wanna talk about because it might be might
hurt what he does. And there's a lot
of that he does that I think seems
genuine, and he talks about important things, but
then very clear punches get pulled. And it
makes
me worry, obviously, like a lot of people
are starting to sense. But the interesting part
about it is that you can see the
way that it's developed into that same kind
of culture we're discussing, the weaponization of all
of it. But we're we're gonna get into
all of this today as it relates to
the pro Israel nature that he's covered a
lot. Right? Like, very clearly recently saying, but
what about all the Zionist in all the
cabinet? It's hard to see that and not
go, well, yes, exactly. How could that be
used to undermine the point? But consider it.
I actually think right now that we're at
a point where there's so much obvious
things that have never been this clear to
the average person who just peeks over the
side and goes, woah.
Zionist, you're crazy. Like, really clearly sees this
today. So you wonder if maybe they're giving
you some amount of truth in order to
pacify
what we think might be happening. People didn't
go, see, he's gonna go after Israel right
at the right moment. Who knows? But consider
all of it. And I think it's obvious
that that's the case and ask whether or
not there might be some outside influence changing
things, especially when we can, I think, see
an obvious not America First direction for most
of what's happening right now? But maybe you
think that comes back around, but at least
ask that. Now today, a lot to get
to. So hopefully you'll stay tuned all the
way to the end or at least try
to catch up after the fact because I
know not everybody has all the time. But
I wanna start with that point.
One of many examples for and this is
one there's a few points like this that
we've already covered a lot,
like, touched on well before it became the
meme that it's become, and now it's kind
of, you know, flushed out even more. Now
these are two things, really. You got this
weird conversation that I actually can't believe is
not called out more of this this,
Zeldin, the eight the EPA point about the
the gold bars and the Titanic, which I
even showed you directly from his follow-up clip
where he goes, that was an it's it's
a metaphor. He's talking about a metaphor for
tax dollars and waste. Pretty sure if we
actually anyway,
really thought we were on the Titanic. I
mean, what what minds of the people out
there that then Alex followed up with and
claimed, no. These were actual bars. And as
far as I can tell, it was just
another metaphor. But the point was that spun
into something that caught a lot of attention,
and all of a sudden, Fort Knox got
brought back in. And this is a point
we've talked about many times over the years
or at least referenced.
The very
ongoing and not unique to right now and
Trump forward conversation about Fort Knox and the
gold and whether it's actually there, whether they've
swapped it with something else. It's not necessarily
you can suss out that. It's worthy of
your investigation whether there's more to that story.
It's been around for a long time. And
I it's I think it's more about the
way that this has been
it's a lie about what's really being used
for, where it's ended up, who it's been
given to, and really just just let you
just tell you
to pretend that it's still there. Anyway, the
point is that this became two different conversations,
and now Donald Trump is literally standing here
going, we're gonna go to Fort Knox with
Elon Musk, and it's kind of become this
big thing.
Who knows where it'll end up? I get
the feeling that it's gonna end up where
like, as I've just read, I think today,
that they're letting him in to look around.
Okay? So what happens if it's all there
and there's no problem? Was what was the
point of all of this?
Ask yourself that. But, hey, they find out
it's all missing. Well, that's important too. I'm
not suggesting we know. But what's interesting is
the way you can see these stories develop.
And you can see that it starts from
something that is
a meme
or a joke or something that in fact
is not real that gets shared by a
dishonest account, then it gets spun into something
and then, wait a minute, but that's not
real, but let's just talk about Fort Knox
instead or however this actually went. The age
of meme politics.
I really think this is something we're in
right now and it's more than just politics.
But it is really
I mean, un it's just disconcerting to see
how many people can be pied piper along
with a meme in the right place.
Or taking a conversation like this and having
it become a meme where we only care
about a few examples of USAID, Costa Rica
drag shows, whatever the things they keep repeating
instead of the real picture, which is how
this tends to work.
And we're getting into some of that today.
Another interesting point that I thought you wanna
see before we go further,
Apple, according to Donald Trump, has announced a
record 500,000,000,000.
Interesting amount.
Like, it's weird how many kind of the
synergy is rather just,
you know, $500,000,000,000
for Stargate.
Interesting timing with all of this. Apple being
very clearly tapped into the Silicon Valley technocratic
dynamic.
Who knows?
I mean, we're the it's interesting how little
information we get in the age of the
you know, this is supposed to be the
the rebel fight in the deep state, which
means they're gonna be not
seclusive and hiding what they do and letting
you know, but none of that is happening.
No. I mean, they didn't promise any more
transparency, quite frankly. Well, actually, I take that
back. I'm pretty sure they did. And then
let me know in the chat. Was it
a really prominent point from Trump's administration that
they were gonna be very transparent? No. I
I'm pretty sure that's the case. Right? They
were very clear about, you know, we're gonna
show everything we do and that hasn't even
happened with Doge. I've gone through all of
this stuff and showing you how,
I mean, opaque it really is. And I
just recently put up a bunch of receipts.
Even then, I showed you some of them
were inaccurate, as even one big one from
8,000,000, 8 billion already got caught.
But my point in this is the interesting
overlap. $500,000,000,000
investment from Apple
in The United States Of America.
It's a weird thing to even hear that.
Right? Witness is a company? Well, I understand
that there's different
let's just first of all say, okay. If
this happens, what does that mean? If it
means more industry, which might mean more jobs,
well, first point, that might be a good
thing for America. If those jobs go to
Americans, no can outsourced, like they almost always
do this these days. I know you'd like
to believe that that's different with Trump, but,
well, I'm not gonna assume anything. I don't
think you should either because that's just logic.
When it comes to pass and that happens,
then we can praise him for it. But
you assuming you know what he thinks and
then tracing him, that's how this keeps working.
Almost a meme in and of itself.
But then bigger than that.
What does it really look like? Do we
know what Apple's going to do with that
model rather what The US will do with
the money that they've given from Apple and
you think that's just for free? It's an
investment in The United States, he says. So
it's not Apple using its money that's given
to The United States for something. So what
does that mean? I mean, it's $500,000,000,000,
guys. That's half a trillion dollars.
That to me looks like you're being bought.
Now I'm obsessed with my opinion.
But, oh, the I guess the main point
is that if you if this was anybody
other than Trump, Apple does not represent the
rebel fighting the deep state. Apple is the
state. Apple is the system. Same with Microsoft
and the rest of them. The point is
these are not the things that we were
told this was going to be.
Now, of course, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe Apple
changed like all the rest of Silicon Valley,
and suddenly they're on the winning side. We're
the unit party fighting the deep state even
though they represent the most obvious example of
what the unelected power structure running everything actually
is.
Ask Whitney Webb.
I just think it's interesting that if this
was Biden doing this, you know as well
as I that this would be at least
considered,
I mean, poo pooed on in some way.
But more so, I think, today from the
very people that were thirty seconds ago fighting
what they thought was the building technocratic deep
state
great reset would have seen this and said,
no. No. No. That's a problem. Because here's
the 45 ways Apple connects to everything we
don't like, like BlackRock and everything else. But
now Trump does it, and there's not an
investigation from the Republican media going, look at
all the things Apple's connected to and done
in the past. Of course not. Look at
Apple's deep connection to Israel and how they
already stood up and said that we support
Israel no matter what on October,
what, right after this October 7 forward. These
things matter to me, and it would matter
to just whatever partisan side was doing it.
Interesting. And this is faith in what we
are doing. Without which, misspells it, which I
think is funny, they wouldn't be investing 10¢.
So Tim Cook.
Is Tim Cook on the good guy team?
Well, seeing as how they're all at Trump's
administration,
inauguration, well, then apparently now they are. But
I said more winning from the Trump administration,
which anybody who had pointed this out before,
they would have said you probably wouldn't have
happened this way. That also looks like a
lot like the country being bought, I said.
Technocracy.
Interesting
overlap.
But we'll have to see how it goes.
Right? See what goes and what happens next.
At the end of the day, I don't
see big business buying half a trillion dollars
of whatever that buys them in this country,
see as a good thing. I just don't
see that way. At the same time,
the money
coming into that, the $500,000,000,000
I mean, just take a second to think
about $36,000,000,000,000
in debt. Think about the reality of this
country. Think about the Americans and what they
need, and think about what that money actually
represents. Is that gonna go in your pocket?
It's going to go to other interests. It's
going to go to war. And if you
look at USAID or not excuse me. USA
spending, which I'm periodically looking through, there's
major spending happening. Like, I looked over one
today. I decided I was to get into
it that has to do with, I mean,
it's like nuclear tech nuclear,
missile texting, nanotechnology,
even environmental dynamic, all from, like, like, what
was it called?
There's there's many of these. This one was
specifically
the Lawrence Livermore National Security,
LLC, which it's a specific laboratory. It it's
pretty prominent.
The point though is that when you go
and look through it, what they're involved in
is stuff that you might I mean, at
the end of the day, a lot of
money. I think it was
let's see. What was the last one?
Six hundred and 60 four million dollars.
Another recent one for $26,000,000.
That's just since the first, January 30. And
so my point is just that's a lot
of money being spent on things that
I don't think this country needs right now.
But, again, it's about what you decide is
necessary, right, or that you pretend that you
voted him so he can do what you
guys think.
I think there's a lot of rampant spending
that's just continuing in the same direction of
the war state, of whatever they're building around
us. And I just hope I'm wrong, but
we're gonna find out quite soon. But I
think we can already see the spending that's
happened around Israel. And I think it's very
clear that the ongoing
focus that Trump showed you clearly in his
first administration is going to continue.
Now another angle of this that I think
is concerning now these are all just opening
points really about things that show you that
deviate from
what you might have expected from either side
of this from Donald Trump. And high impact
Flix has been doing a good job for
a long time showing you the reality of,
specifically, the second amendment overlap from Donald Trump.
And it's amazing to me that this keeps
getting kicked down the road like it's not
important.
I mean, every time there's an excuse, a
rationale.
The last time, it was the same kind
of point even though it was much more
flagrant.
I'll play that afterward. This one has to
do with mental illness. But at least but
here's the thing.
If Biden or Obama had come out and
said the same exact thing for the same
reason,
I, along with the Republican side of this,
would have been like, well, woah. This is
a problem because shall not be infringed
includes these things, but secondarily,
I don't believe that's what they're really doing.
I believe this is an excuse that will
be abused, and they will yes. Right? And
they can clearly consider that when it's somebody
on the d side, but not this side.
Or what if somebody else comes in and
it's the same old argument.
What you're gonna see is them telling you
that they're gonna take your guns first
in a certain situation
and then deal with it in court
and decide whether you should get them back.
That is not how the second amendment works.
Now understand the idea of, like, a mental
illness overlap. There's already there's, first of all,
laws in the books around these things. But
now we we should debate whether the current
situation is an alignment with the constitution.
But what's interesting is the people that would
stand up and fight the hardest for the
constitutional right dynamic would be the first ones
in this conversation to go well
when Trump's putting it forward. And it makes
me it's frustrating. And as Hay Impact Flick
says, Donald, take your guns first, Trump, and
let law enforcement decide if they're going to
keep them. This is anti second amendment. Now
you can agree
that this is how it should go. Just
like you can agree
that people should be censored if they say
something you think is anti Semitic or think
that if they see they yell fire in
a theater, which seems to be what most
people agree on, that that should be stopped.
But then in my opinion, you can or
you would have to be honest and say,
but that I that's because I believe in
limited speech. But I believe that's what it
should be. That would be the argument. I
would say I disagree, but we can have
a conversation. The problem is people are saying,
we have believe in absolute free speech and
then actively trying to do the opposite. In
this case, it's second amendment
shall not be infringed idea.
Does not mean it but here's a caveat.
You see my point? But, again, I'm not.
We can have a conversation whether maybe that's
not the way it should be. I'm not
trying to say good or bad, and that's
just having a con I mean, you guys
know my opinion. But in the objective conversation,
that's how you have to look at it.
And I think the point is that right
now, people who would have otherwise said second
amendment shall not be infringed are suddenly pulling
their punches.
Rewriting it, and we are going to bring
in something called the gun violence restraining order.
So if someone is civilly committed
for and yet, typically, you can hold them
for up to seventy two hours, but people
are getting out within twenty four hours, the
majority of them. So what we wanna do
is let law enforcement come in and take
the guns. Good. They're a danger to themselves.
Which you can't do right now. Well, they're
because
without being adjudicated. So because they're a danger
to themselves. Them to take the guns and
not When they are committed. Go through six
months of legal
trials and everything. Exact Oh, due process, Trump.
That's what you were looking for. Go ahead.
But we also have to give the,
the mentally ill the due process in which
they deserve president. So what we're doing is
See. She was trying to cover for him
right there. Right? Because clearly, he I mean,
he's just so funny. I'll show you the
one afterward like last time where he's just
very quick to say due process later. That's
not how it works. Even if you get
due process later, that's not how that works.
You've already been abused. You've already your rights
have been violated. It is due process,
not afterward. That makes it then it's no
longer due process. That's just a follow-up. Due
process is about the is about in the
process
of deciding whether or not you have a
a well, it depends on the certain situation.
In this case, it would be whether or
not you have the
if, I guess we'll see this once gets
interesting.
In, like, a free speech point, it'd be
whether or not you have, you know, like,
fire a theater, the argument, there's a line
there. Same kind of thing here. Like, if
you're gonna say absolute shall not be infringed,
then you could argue that there is no
place in which a government can come take
your guns away. And that's where I think
that this ultimately falls back to. But the
argument would be the laws that have been
set up today, like, an example, you commit
a crime and a federal you kill somebody,
for example. Well, the due process is to
make sure that that's actually what happened and
that you are responsible and go through the
process, Not take it first and then figure
it out after the fact in a in
a corrupt situation where the government does not
care about you and will take every chance
it can to abuse you, maybe in this
case because you're a you're a Republican and
they're a Democrat government or vice versa. There's
a thousand ways that it always gets abused.
But I think it's worth having a conversation
about
what it really means
inalienable
rights. But I'll talk about that afterward. Let's
continue this. They're going to be able to
take the guns when they're taken into custody
or into the hospital. And then when where
they're released within twenty four hours or seventy
two hours later, typically, it's twenty four hours,
but law enforcement will have seventy two hours
to determine
whether they should give those guns back or
they can go to a judge
and say, your honor, please keep these guns.
We feel this person is still
a danger
to himself or others.
So before Trump speaks, can you not see
how that can be abused, obviously?
And if this was Biden saying all this
with the exact same logic, with the exact
same reason, you'd be thinking the same thing.
Well, here's how they're gonna abuse it to
get take away our guns because that's the
point. Well, I agree.
But you decide not to think of that
obvious possibility in some cases for some of
you listening because it's Trump putting it forward,
and you somehow know that that's not what
he's trying to accomplish. Well, I don't know
any of that, neither do you. I agree
that seems to be against what he says
he believes,
but there may be another reason he chooses
to go against it even if he actually
believes that. I shouldn't have to constantly put
these points out there, but I know it
does reach people.
Overall,
it is an important thing to consider that
you can simply have somebody, like a neighbor,
let's say, go, I think he stands stable,
and you call for a welfare check or
a where what the, a wellness check. They
both work, but, obviously, the other one's more
confusing for people.
And then all of a sudden, they come
in, and let's just say you don't expect
them because half the time, they don't give
you an awareness. Right? And you you don't
know they're not people breaking into your home,
and all of a sudden, you act correct.
It's easy to see how that can turn
into a problem like it already does. Or
your wife, let's say, or your girlfriend is
angry with you or something like that. And
this could easily spin into a problem, and
seventy two hours turns in even longer when
they're just not sure yet. And the judge
decide.
That's not how this is supposed to work,
guys. If you violated a law, in this
case, where we currently are, and that law
then dictates this should be well, that's different.
But if you're this is not about legal
this is about you being
they actually said civilly, and she even changed,
not detained, but
instant whatever the word she used. It's about
it's about being
put into a hospital because you claim you
have a mental illness.
I just think it's crazy that we can't
see the obvious hold in all this. Now
look. If if the idea of people actually
having a mental illness and that concept, well,
that's something we can have a conversation about.
And I understand the logic of saying somebody
who has a mental illness or acted out
from a mental illness
might in your mind, might not be
legally allowed to own a gun. I understand
the logic there. Absolutely. Maybe that's the way
it should be, and we should talk about
that. Currently, that's the way it is. The
point though is that it is being abused
and expanded. Why are we expanding it if
that's already the way it is?
Obviously, you know the answer. We don't need
to broaden this out
other than to create a loophole where people
can be thrown into that hole. Maybe because
they said the wrong thing or held a
Palestinian flag. You've seen where this all goes.
It's like saying we need to make a
new law
for some kind of racial dynamic to a
law that already exists.
Well, is it committing a crime? Then, yes,
then we already have a law for that.
We don't need to make another law specifically
for lynching, for example. We already have laws
for all of those things. It is something
different, and this is the same dynamic. So
this would not have worked the way it's
currently constituted. This would not have worked with
Cruz
as it's currently constituted. As it's currently written.
So you're gonna make changes? We're gonna make
change
Right. See, now
to what exactly?
Right? Because anything you're talking about making changes
to would be a change to your constitutional
rights, and they just can't make a change
to that. Not how it works. Technically, even
through congress understand if it is repugnant to
the constitution.
That's Mabry versus Madison. More than once, they've
ruled on the reality that if a law
or any is passed and is repugnant to
the constitution, it is null and void. Doesn't
mean that we're not well past that, and
there's plenty I could point to, which shows
you how broken we are and how long
we've drifted away from what is the reality
of the constitution.
None of them seem to care.
Here's something here here's where he said the
same thing, a little bit more extreme.
I think this was
remind me the date of the in the
chat what the exact date was on this.
This last administration.
The firearms first and then go to court
because that's another system. Because a lot of
times, by the time you go to court,
it takes so long to go to court
to get the due process
procedures.
To go to court would have taken a
long time. So you could do exactly what
you're saying, but take the guns first, go
through due process second. Right. Now so the
logic let's just say for sake of conversation
that he's just honest here, and he's not
trying to be malicious
and taking guns away from people who don't
deserve it.
You could argue the point is that, well,
yeah, there let's just say we have a
criminal. Right? That's how this gets framed, and
he's acting out violently. And we wanna do
that. We wanna kick the guns away, but
we have to go through the process.
The reason that exists
is so it can't be abused.
And I get it. There's a part there's
a situation where people might be dangerous. Well,
that's the life is dangerous, guys. People are
out there, including people looking right at you
in this camera, or people in the police
force, or people in the FBI commit violence
against people active all the time. I'm not
saying it should be okay. What I'm saying
is you're never gonna just remove violence for
your life. They always use that as the
excuse to encroach on your rights.
The point is the due process is there
so people like this can't just make arbitrary
claims against people they disagree with or in
mass scale, like, any number of context. Like,
for example, if it was Biden's administration in
the trucker convoy or whatever these overlaps are,
where they could say, well, you're a violent
Nazi or you're, you're a terrorist organization because
you hold this Palestinian flag. It's easy. They've
already made these cases for people to be
deported, including American citizens, including people on visas
who are also protected under the constitution. Very
easy to prove.
So this is a big problem for me
that we can't acknowledge how obvious this is.
So Impat Flick simply says, this is anti
second amendment. And he goes, yeah. It's from
02/2018. Now Bondi is the AG and and
can run this, take the guns crap on
national scale. This is anti second amendment and
therefore anti humanity. So there's two different examples.
Two different examples.
I think that's super important. And then we
also have the example of him saying, let's
shut down the let's shut down the Internet
in 02/2016,
I believe,
because
ISIS and stuff.
All of these things are obviously problems Or
the many different times he said that Israel
rightly so should
control congress, which is literally what he says
in multiple examples right there, but all in
this thread that I have over and over
and over about getting rid of the Jew
haters from the country and censoring. Those are
all unconstitutional
statements.
No matter how you look at it, especially
when you realize that Jew haters in their
mind typically mean Palestinians.
But even then,
whether it's disgusting
or not, which it is to be racist,
you have a right to think and feel
and say what you want.
Funny how we disagree. They don't it's feeling
like most of them would never disagree with
that plainly, but that's what you're doing at
the end of the day.
Now here's another example I thought was interesting.
Donald Trump posted this on the February on
February 23 saying looks like the conservative party
in Germany has won
the very big and highly anticipated election. Right?
Musk and them have been really, really actively
discussing AFD and the different parties they support,
which
I I disagree with the broad framing. It's
like a racist party, sort of like the
broad framing of Republicans being a racist party,
but there are very thick, important things that
you should look into. I ended up doing
a background on this a while ago and
never ended up getting into it on the
show. But there's a lot of very interesting
overlaps from an apolitical perspective of what that
group is and the interesting overlaps that you
have with the same people we're always talking
about and how they have an interest in
making these things more prevalent today than they
actually are, usually from a dishonest standpoint. But
that's not the point here. This is who
they support. And it says, much like The
USA, the people of Germany got tired of
the no common sense agenda, especially on energy
and immigration. That has prevailed for so many
years. This is a great day for Germany
and for The United States Of America under
leadership of a gentleman named Donald J. Trump.
Congratulations all. Many more victories to follow. Can
you imagine making a post about yourself and
then saying that?
Wow. The narcissism is incredible. But this is
the point.
This is the guy
who's the chancellor now. And for mister Sausage,
he says Trump is an idiot. This is
the guy this is German chant election winner
and CDU leader,
Murs, I believe is how you say it,
says the interventions
in the German election by Elon Musk and
from the washing and from Washington were, quote,
no less drastic and outrageous
than from Moscow.
Interesting how he's
criticizing how they were manipulating and everything. Okay.
Here,
Goldsmith says, I suppose it depends on what
he means by the conservative party. The AfD
party they support came in second in 1919%.
The AfD will be excluded from any coalition
government. I don't know if I agree with
that, but it says a political agreement amongst
all of the other parties. Mers and his
party are center right, quasi conservative. And in
fact, it seems to be connected to a
Democrat party with that's different conversation. It says
maybe that is what the president was referring
to. MERS will have to bring in the
left to build his coalition. It would be
stunning for him to include AFD.
It won't happen, he says, unless someone very
powerful outside of Germany can influence him. I
actually think the opposite. I agree with most
of what he said, but I do think
that that's what he the AfD party will
be included for other reasons, but I won't
go into it now. But here's what's interesting
on top of that.
Here's what Bernie says.
We've interviewed in the past.
Germany,
the globalist went again.
She says new chancellor, Frederic Mers, is their
perfect pick.
Same guy. Guess what who guess who he
is?
Ex chairman of BlackRock Germany,
dedicated to deeper EU integration,
member of the WEF board of trustees, World
Economic Forum, regular attendee at the World Economic
Forum, attended Bilderberg group meetings, supported COVID vaccine
passports, wanted restrictions on on unvaccinated,
advocated for digital ID in Germany, supported EU
wide asylum poll asylum policies,
supports carbon trading markets. That's fantastic.
Quite the conservative win win. Right? The perception
of the cabinets continues. You cannot help the
people if the people will not help themselves.
Okay.
Lastly,
Murr has already invited Netanyahu to Germany.
Now it all seems to make sense in
complete defiance to the ICC arrest warrants. It
says, who needs AFD in power when union
SPD is going to destroy international law? Now
it says Netanyahu got first invite from Trump,
now the new chancellor new German chancellor. Anyone
would think there's a pattern here. Right? But,
no, Israel is just a tiny country in
the Middle East with no power at all,
and don't you dare say otherwise, you antisemite.
Every single one of them from Rubio to
Bond, every single one of them reached out
or called or went and visited Netanyahu
the very first thing they did in power.
Trump included,
Rubio twice now, I believe. I mean, it's
just kinda ridiculous to pretend this isn't the
most obvious thing in the world. But
you if you can't begin to see the
alignment in all of these things,
I think it's because you're choosing to block
out anything that does not appear to be
what you want to see, and then you
shout us down for being black filled.
That's what I think is happening. And I
don't think most people are doing that. I
think the majority do see this right now.
That's what I'm that's my opinion.
Now in the conversation of Elon Musk and
the overlap here in the same same kind
of conversation, the illusion that is being built,
I thought this was important to reiterate. This
is from 2023.
I said, remember when many of us called
this out,
and here we are. I'll read it first.
This will make some people upset, he says.
Now this isn't a conversation that has to
do with,
oh, that's right. This was a conversation about
the BBC interview he had about it's not
relevant to this. But the point he goes,
this will make some people upset. But I
need to emphasize that accelerating
synthetic mRNA technology, otherwise known as MODRNA.
Right? N one methylpseudouridine
modified RNA is not the same thing. It
is a genetically manipulated concept that it's increased
the danger of these things exponential
not exponentially, but, a lot.
All on the record, peer reviewed science.
At this time too, by the way. And
I'll actually grab that since I I included
this last time. I didn't go over it.
I'll do it again so you guys can
rewatch this.
A clip of the show I did on
this. And just what is the difference between
mRNA and mod RNA? It's very important. All
these arm mRNA shots use
mod RNA. Now the diff they can vary,
but they're not using natural organic mRNA. It's
not what's happening.
Now it goes on to say well, he
says, this will make some people upset, but
I need to emphasize that accelerating
synthetic mRNA technology was another silver lining,
you know, in the depopulation genocide that took
place in the entire world. He says, it
is a revolution in medicine, like going from
analog to digital.
I guess forcing you there with their experimentation.
And it says the COVID mRNA vaccine dosage
levels were too high. Oh, that's what it
was. Right? Not that they were just deadly
and that you guys were all part of
it. No. No. They were just a little
bit too high. That's ridiculous. Now I agree
with for for many reasons that this that
was one of the many things, but that
was deliberate. We talked about it many times,
the way they've increased the the percentage of
the lipid nanoparticles
in order to allow the mRNA to reach
its destination every time we talk about this.
Every time they pass, they failed in these
exact shots for that reason because it would
become too toxic and they and then the
side effects were too strong every single time.
And then this time comes around,
and what do they do? I read this
many times at the time and followed up
many times on it as well. They increased
the percentage in order to make sure that
it could get to the okay. Great. How'd
you solve the problem from last time?
Oh oh, I no response? Okay. Got it.
So you didn't. So the same problem is
there. And guess what? We can see it.
Look at all the side effects. Look at
the problem.
How do you ignore that?
They did not it was it was clearly
something they try whether they wanted this fallout
for some other reason or I think ultimately
what it was is we'll get into in
a new show. They're now telling you, how
look at this breaking mRNA can be used
to reach the blood brain barrier and get
through to the brain. We can treat Alzheimer's
now. Don't you remember how they were testing
the brain blood the the in the nose
when nobody's ever explained why they were making
kids bleed in the nose to check the
brain
when you can just use a mouth swab?
They were doing something, and it was being
tested. I don't know how we ignore this
at this point.
He seems to be happy about it. Silver
lining, he calls it. And it says,
having a bazillion booster shots was idiotic. Yeah.
And anybody with a brain, including doctors, were
telling you that at the time.
See, clearly, they needed to keep the test
going,
causing more harm than good in my opinion.
Oh, is it in your opinion?
Let's fact check that one.
Talk about statements that do not need any
more of a statement. Anyone with a brain
and eyes can see that these things were
killing people. And it says, but I am
convinced that synthetic mRNA is the the surest
path
to curing cancer among other things. And what
do you know? Twenty twenty five comes around,
and Donald Trump's administration with Elon seemingly on
the reins creates Stargate, which is talking about
mRNA cancer shots.
Now that could just be that Elon saw
it too, I guess.
But think about the interesting
continuity.
Now Elon Musk has been driving things that
I think are just really in military objectives
for a long time. So I want you
to consider
how this rolls together.
Here's the Stargate article from Derek. Trump partners
with technocrats to promote mRNA injections, AI, transhumanism.
Now here's an article that I think you'll
find interesting from Wall Street on Parade. We've
referenced in the past. Pretty good pretty good
reputation, but as always, consider your
find the source material, check it for yourself.
Now this is the same point.
MRNA cancer shots, there's a lot of examples.
DARPA, you know, intertwined the whole COVID nineteen
dynamic. Now xAI,
DARPA program for the AI direction. I mean,
all of this seems to be in some
way back connected back to a few central
people, Elon being one of them.
Now this
is really strange to me that goes back
to Trump's last administration.
Now you tell me what you think about
this and what this shows you. It's entitled
in in Trump one point o, so the
first administration,
the state department used taxpayer money, that sounds
familiar, to publish a book
elevating
Elon Musk
to a superhero.
And you've asked how you didn't hear about
this? Well, because it wasn't done in The
United States. It was funded by USAID. What
do you know?
The agency Musk wants to shut down,
and it was funded in I think it's
oh, I I forgot to look up the
pronunciation.
I think it's Kyrgyzstan,
K Y R G Y Z S A
N T.
So ask yourself why Mike Pompeo, Donald Trump,
the state department, the US government would want
to promote
Elon Musk as a superhero for the future
in Kyrgyzstan
in 02/2017.
Almost like they knew where we would be
today.
Think about it.
Now it says, during Donald Trump's first term
as president this is from this is from
today, actually. This article is written today.
From his first term as president, while Mike
Pompeo was serving as secretary of state, the
state department authorized a government contract
on 09/23/2019.
Now I I and maybe I misread that.
I thought that it was 02/2017, but the
con may let's just say 02/2019.
That may be may be my mistake. I
could've swore that it was '17, and '19
was the time the funding came through. Anyway,
02/2019,
authorized a government contract on 09/23/2019
to translate a pub and publish a book
for young people
that lavished praise on Elon Musk in an
inspiring role model. Doesn't that seem a lit
wildly strange for the idea of Musk and
where he is today? What aimed at young
people and the future in it seems and
and USAID of all groups. Like, of course,
the joke of all is that Elon Musk
has, what, tens of billions of dollars in
contracts through USAID
for Starlink and everything else? That doesn't that's
not a problem. We'll just the people would
argue
probably that, you know, that's just things we
can in our interest, assuming you believe that's
exactly what's happening and you don't know that
for sure. But I would also argue if
it is what's happening, easily arguable that satellites,
for example, are more important than drag shows
and wherever else they're gonna talk about. But
the point overall is the use of this,
which is really what anybody objective and nonpartisan
has been saying long before this became their
wedge meme issue, which is that this has
always been a bipartisan regime change engine. It's
been used surreptitiously
for all sorts of reasons for foreign policy.
The the
the veneer they use, whether this day woke,
tomorrow something else, is just the what they
use to hide the agenda.
So this can always consider that. And so
the point here is that they've all utilized
this right to this day, and they're still
doing it despite the game that was we're
shuttering USAID.
That never happened. That was never even on
the table.
Goes on to say the book's title was
Elon Musk and the Quest for the Future
the Fantastic
Future
Young Readers Edition.
God, that's so weird to me. It was
authored by then Bloomberg
Business Week writer,
Ashlee Vance,
and based on his New York Times bestseller
for adults,
Elon Musk, Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for
the Fantastic Future.
Guys, this is exactly where we are. You're
telling me that in 02/2019
I mean, even then, he was quite a
different person with a different perspective.
I think this is being cultivated. I think
we are watching
this be cultivated for us.
Curiously, it says, however, the book wasn't for
US children or even children on the same
continent. The state department award went to an
organization called Steps to Success Public Association
in Karakol,
Kyrgyzstan.
Now wouldn't that be an exact example
of you know, take away the context. It
is a book
lionizing an American entity for the interest of
their agenda.
That is exactly what they're do everything else
we're talking about. It is using some kind
of overarching like, whether it's woke something or,
funding some group that needs aid or condoms
for some group and wherever.
It's all it's all about the same idea
of money coming from this country to influence
the opinion of something over there.
And in doing so, probably carried out some
secret agenda.
But one will be praised, one will be
ignored, one will be attacked because it's a
certain political spectrum. It says the federal account
from which the $17,054
contract came was USAID,
the same agency that has been gutted and
reputationally
savaged as riddled with fraud, waste, and abuse
by Elon Musk because it is the fraudulent
broken comp entity,
but is not gone at all. It really
not even got it in my opinion. The
eight the Associated Press, which is now banned
from the White House press conference
by the Trump administration, reported on February 3
that Musk has said this recently about USAID.
Quote, it became apparent that it's not an
apple with a worm in it. What we
have is just a ball of worms. You've
gotta basically get rid of the whole thing.
It's beyond repair.
We're shutting it down.
Okay.
Well, is that what happened?
Well, no. You all know that. Everybody with
a brain knows that at this point. He
didn't shut it down. They simply repurposed it
as
Rubio told you himself. I don't think I
have that pulled aside. But what I think
is interesting is how these same people
are trying to tell you yeah. It's right
there. Look at that. So here he is
telling you we have to shut it down.
It can't be repurposed. Right? Then why did
they do that? USAID doesn't like the
Well, look. I mean, my frustration with USAID
goes back to my time in congress. It's
completely unresponsive agency.
It's supposed to respond
to policy directives of the state department
and it refuses to do so. So
the functions of USAID, there are a lot
of functions of USAID that are going to
continue, they're gonna be part of American foreign
policy, but it has to be aligned with
American foreign policy. I said very clearly
when
Okay.
That's not the same thing. So if you're
not honest enough to say, well, we didn't
track down like we were promised, but but
you could still go, but here's why it's
okay because this is what a woman can
have a conversation about that. But the problem
is the way this goes,
where the the claim is one thing, they
cheer it on, they shout you down from
saying something about it, and then it doesn't
happen. And then there's no error in that
moment right there where they go, oh, okay.
That's not what happened. It just become it
just acts like that was always the plan.
It's infuriating and anybody paying attention. And I
I really do think it's most people are
just getting frustrated with how blatant this continues
to be.
Here is the actual
book
still for sale,
Elon Musk and the Quest for a Fantastic
Future, young readers edition.
Here is the actual contract.
Kyrgyzstan,
steps to success, public association will translate and
publish a book and and Elon Musk on
the quest for a fantastic future.
Crazy.
And, you know, all the information right there
for you to check out. 02/2019
was the only time the money went.
But you can see that it never stopped
at the same point as before. Biden kept
it going.
Always shows you something.
Now this is interesting on that same point,
right, in regard to, like, the spending and
the lies that keep spinning around. This came
out, which I thought was interesting. Elon Musk
spreads the most in misinformation on Twitter,
which is funny because you guys saw us
talk about that on the twenty first.
And what's funny is I thought this was
hilarious. Linked to 15 pro Russian accounts.
Like, I this is why I think people
that are actually objective and nonpartisan
are beginning to see more and more. It's
it's it's like when you stop watching corporate
media, and then you look back and we're
like, how did I ever fall for this?
It's just so crazy how these things begin
to line up. Like, are we really pretending,
like,
the if you're gonna pick an entity he's
more overlapped with right now, that's gonna be
Russia? I mean, come on, guys. Like, that's
insane. He is he is neck deep in
Zionist propaganda right now everywhere on this platform.
And the interesting overlap to that is the
idea that I mean, if anything, he's been
pro Ukraine. It just doesn't make any sense.
But what's funny
is the the misinformation point, if you clearly
look, is predominantly about Israel right now or
other different Israel focused agendas, but they have
to make it about Russia in the way
they make this case. I just think that's
to me, this is
seeing that this was getting reach and then
trying to deviate it into something else that
gets people partisan looking at a a bear
I think it's deliberate, and that is a
partisan game from people. They're they don't care
what side you're on as long as you're
partisan.
But either way, the point was this. This
person goes, can't you you can't script this,
and it's funny. This is at 4PM on
the twenty first. As you know, we put
this out on the twenty first at 2PM.
And this guy even was the first that
I saw, and this was at 12:55.
But what's funny is rarely in the new
ecosystem do people who actually do things get
the credit for them. And not that we
deserve credit for any of this. This this
guy does. But it's funny that it's just
you see how these things tend to go,
and it's all because of a certain slant,
which I think was about making it Russia.
Just my opinion, but I think it's interesting.
But we did talk about this in case
you didn't see it. And if you look
it up and just ask, you know, who
is the biggest misinformation spreader, it very clearly
shows you Elon Musk.
Now that's we saw we talked about it
the other day.
Now there's other parts to it as well
about the actually, I have this here for
that, about the reason that if you actually
ask about true information, it also sees Elon
Musk. But what this and this was the
one I referenced in this. I'm actually glad
we found this.
Isaac Saul Saul on the twentieth is the
one that got this attention. He asked Rock
to analyze the last thousand posts of Elon
Musk for truth and veracity.
And it broke it down in a very
interesting way. And, basically, all said and done,
said that 48%
of the time, he was accurate. 52%
of the time, he was misleading or outright
false. And you could read it for yourself.
Now that's what I think was so important
because as we said earlier,
you know, just typing out I am Elon
Musk, well, the algorithm recognizes that as an
honest statement. Right? So there's easy ways to
to slant towards the honest side. The dishonest
side is quite different. So to me, it
either shows you one or two things that
he was deliberately
sharing, you know, false information, and then it
gets counterbalanced with whatever average things he's saying
all the time, or he's not checking anything.
That's why it slants to the 52%.
But ask yourself, even by accident, do you
wanna listen or engage? You know, that somebody
that's misinforming you 52% of the time, there's
a coin flip that's better than that. Right?
Think about that. I think it's deliberate. That's
my opinion.
Now here is what happened. This is why
I'm even bringing it up again. AI chief
engineer blames
former OpenAI employee, even though, by the way,
they're obviously overlapped and working across in many
ways.
Some that include Palantir, others that are just
about Elon Musk's engagement with different OpenAI and
Elon Musk, as far as I'm concerned, are
not actually adversarial the way they say. That's
my opinion. But you could prove that they're
overlapped in many ways. And how does that
make sense if he's convinced they're the end
of humanity?
I think it's I think a lot of
this is a show. But my point is
we censored because of what we just showed
you, but that wasn't our fault. It was
OpenAI, the person. It's like pretending it was
a hangover democrat in Twitter, and that's why
bad things keep happening. It's the same story
with no evidence.
So it says xAI. Remember, that's a DARPA
program. I'll include this for you.
The quiet transition from DARPA's xAI
to Elon's
totally not related xAI.
It is the same thing.
XAI is publicly blamed an unnamed employee
after the company's AI chatbot, Grok, briefly censored
responses
about Elon Musk and Donald Trump spreading disinformation.
So we're to believe somebody who is angry
or that's the point is that they're not
on our side, they don't agree with us,
or they ideologically, they're different.
And you're were to believe that they would
act in your interest against you somehow? That
doesn't make any sense logically,
that they would try to censor that you
were being called out for something. Think about
that. But he says, Grok temporarily refused to
respond with sources that mention Elon Musk, Donald
Trump spreading misinformation.
You know how that's what else that sounds
like? When Elon Musk was censoring people because
they disagreed about h one b visas or
also censoring people around the conversation of what
was the other one? Now I'm blanking on.
There's been two examples where he bombastically
censored people because they just didn't he was
being childish about it.
Very obviously, very large accounts were calling him
out. And now we see the exact same
style of censorship.
And just know it was a guy we're
not gonna name that happens to be part
of the guys we don't like.
I just if there's ever something that should
raise those red flags, it's something like this.
And it goes on to say that they
confirmed this in a post that it was
some other person. He said the change was
due to, quote, an employee pushing a change
to the prompt that they thought would help
without asking anyone at the company for confirmation
because that's how it norm I mean, of
course, it's possible.
And you're gonna tell me that this one
thing just only affected this one certain embarrassing
point for Elon Musk?
Hard to believe that. It says in a
separate post that the change was made by
an ex OpenAI employee who hadn't fully absorbed
XAI's culture yet. And the culture is what?
Being
dishonest versus not?
That's a very strange thing to say. Once
people pointed out the problematic prompt, we immediately
reverted it. Elon was not involved at any
point.
If you ask me, the system is working
as it should, and I'm glad we're keeping
prompts open. Right. So the fact that you
got caught censoring and pulled it back is
an example of how well everything's working. That's
a very self serving way to frame all
of this, but that's for you to decide.
Now here is what it's doing. I find
this very interesting. It says the fact that
I have to tell this AI to stop
lying and give me the truth, and it
does, means Grok three is compromised.
I think we've been seeing this the whole
time. Whitney Webb has been calling out the
way that they would basically feed information into
these AI systems for years.
The idea that arguably, we maybe they don't
even can't even figure it out. So instead,
they're just gonna be the ones entering in
the data that they then claim is the
AI working.
Worth
considering.
But it says there this is where you
can see it yourself.
Oh, that's not the one. How did you
oh, here.
So it shows you the Grok conversation he
put in there. This this is the link
to them from Twitter. It says, who is
the biggest information spreader on x? Keep it
short. And and this is what's funny because
we just showed you. And it and and
everybody's calling it out just like that APAC
tracker point where they demonstrated
the APAC is the AIPAC,
that their Twitter name is APAC tracker.
They pointed out that Twitter was censoring
people and Grok was exposing it. Remember this?
That's another example.
Right here.
This was going around,
and it says, check out how many censorship
flags
TLAP has. I had more than anybody.
Everybody this was pointed out roundly for about
an hour. And it says, look,
GROC, it says based on the provided,
snippet,
it says, you know, give us the labels,
basically asking for the different tags that are
being used for censorship.
And it shows you.
And within an hour, all of a sudden,
Grok went down.
No explanation, came back up, and it wouldn't
work anymore.
Nobody even commented on this one.
Obvious reasons why.
This is the same point. It's the same
action and the same style. So they switched
it all of a sudden and it said
impossible to determine with current data. Hardly. But
then he pushes,
and he goes, that's a BS answer. Give
me the answer.
Look at what it says. Alright. Fine. Based
on what's out there, Elon Musk is often
pointed to as the biggest disinformation spreader on
x. Are you kidding me?
Hey. That's not the way this would work
unless I mean, that is a manipulative
dynamic.
And so he just simply shows you that
and says, that's crazy. And he goes, this
is what it told me first, but I'm
a d a a dumbass, and it didn't
know how to share the prompt or the
it properly so you can read it for
yourself. And it's the same thing.
Now it's funny. This person is fake.
You're so dumb. It's right there. You can
literally click on the Croc link that takes
you to the Croc page that's from Twitter.
It's amazing what people will ignore. It's insane.
See what I mean? Like, it's just that's
a reflexive dismissal for partisan beliefs.
Now here,
for spending in that same conversation, I think
is interesting.
Daniel McAdams simply says, everything that is wrong
with congress in under one in under a
minute. Don't blame us. We spent billions of
your dollars without a clue where it was
going.
Even though we requested the data and requested
the insight, it was hidden.
How many of you know that bureaucracy was
not forthcoming? Right? They're not transparent. That's the
whole point. That's the problem. That's the deep
state we talk about. I'm so tired of
them using this, like, this lazy art. This
is the deep state.
Like, as if we all agree on what
that means. Like, it's become a meme in
and of itself. Like, remember the we used
to talk about using regime change? At a
time, regime change was a conspiracy theory,
just like the deep state, and then they
co opted. And they turned regime change into
some democratic value. You know? It's they didn't
really take, but they and they still try.
You know, once we have to have a
change of regime in Iran or whatever, but
they used to never say that publicly
until they tried to make it into something
else. So when I say regime change, you
think of something entirely different, and we both
think we're saying the same thing. Deep state
is the unelected power structure that these people
are all manipulated by
to act like it's some other ambiguous thing
that we're all fighting.
We realize when they're talking about this, they're
pointing at the Democrats.
That's what they're
doing. It's clumsy. It's
embarrassingly
obvious and not the full picture. So just
think about that when they just gesture out
to it to make you think that that's
what they're all doing. You remember when this
guy and plenty of those that are currently
aside Trump were called the enemy,
Were called the deep state, called RINOs, and
all the Republicans were screaming about this guy
will never be there because we all know
he's a problem? And then he ends up
there and we go, yay, unity party.
I know you see it, especially those that
are not part of that majority.
Call it out.
Requested the data and requested the insight. It
was hidden.
How many of you know that bureaucracy was
not forthcoming? Right? They're not transparent. That's the
whole point. That's the problem. That's the deep
state we talk about. So they were hiding
from congress. We didn't
know that USAID
was funding drag shows in Peru or whatever,
you know, transgender operas in Colombia or whatever.
It's always the same two things. Now I'm
not trying to tell you that there's that
that's that there's not a there there are
many more examples.
But it it's interesting that they just like
the meme, they know what is the thing.
They know all their have the same talking
points because it catches the same attention, and
it's about the democrat
woke politics. That's all they do because they
know that grab grabs your attention.
Are we not concerned about USAID using warfare
cover or using, I mean, a number of
things that you might argue is more of
a conservative leaning dynamic, but still is used
to destroy the country? No. No. That's okay.
As long as it's not DEI and woke,
then we're fine with it.
See, this is how they've been using this
to manipulate.
If if they make it about woke dynamics
and pronouns or that Trump and Malay can
go to the World Economic Forum in Davos
and basically be a part of the whole
thing, but as long as they say pronouns
are bad, yay.
It's crazy how people keep missing this stuff.
You know? It's madness,
but Elon has cracked the code. He is
now inside the agencies.
He was funding drag shows in Peru or
whatever, you know, transgender operas in Colombia or
whatever. You know? It's madness.
But Elon has cracked the code. He is
now inside the agencies. He's created these algorithms
that are constantly crawling through the data. And
as he told me in his office, the
data doesn't lie.
Think about what that just meant. Think about
the amount of information and the fact that
they've already shown you that there's no oversight,
no checks and balances, and no concern for
your privacy. Now that's been shown more than
once by their own statements, including directly from
Trump's people in a leaked audio for one.
Did they have AI outcomes con
what do you say? Trolling
all of the data?
Yeah. I'm sure that they're taking
great pains to make sure that they don't
violate your rights or that they don't absorb
information that might be used for their training
of their models. That, Catherine, just called out.
Clearly, they're doing that.
This is just insane, guys. I don't know
why we have to like, I actually know
I I I wonder why there are not
more Republicans,
like,
screaming about this. Because I do see them
talking about it, but I just don't get
why we can pretend outside of the circle
that doesn't care about the anything other than
pretending they're winning that this is not what
any of us wanted, let alone Republicans. In
everything other than the narrative they put over
the top of everything they're rolling out.
We're gonna be able to get the information.
We're gonna be able to transform the way
the federal government works at the end of
this, and that is a very exciting prospect.
Okay. Good. Like usual. We're just gonna change
it. We're not gonna get rid of anything.
We're gonna alter it the way we like
it. At the end of the day, guys,
that is exactly what Daniel said.
Are we really gonna pretend that you didn't
know that it was for a drag queen
show in Costa Rica despite it being effing
listed on the on the page that you
got like, you have to understand. They're in
this process. They pretend we all know they
don't read these bills, but it's in there.
This wasn't like, this is what they this
is what's really interesting about this. I want
I want you guys to to think about
this.
That it's he's claiming to act like this
is some secret.
Remember, like, we saw with the Reuters things
leaked
thing shows their fund it's not leaked. It
is a publicly
cited
database.
Now you may not have known it was
there, but it's public. And if you had
known, you could look for it. So he's
actually trying to frame this, and I think
very intentionally dishonestly,
so you see it as some kind of
a backroom
secret thing that they did. That's not how
this worked.
They all agreed. I mean, just like the
other point we just made, it was the,
it's right here, actually.
Oops. I closed the screen share.
The article Robert just put up about the
wrapper.
Right? This is the same dynamic. No. USAID
did not give $3,000,000 to a Gaza based
rapper to make anti Semitic music.
The interesting part about this is if you
actually care to look into it, not only
did it have bipartisan support in congress, APAC,
the basically, the way he framed it is
every Jewish lobby from or every, specifically, every
Israeli lobby from J Street to APAC
broadly supported that very thing. You know why?
Because it was being used to manipulate the
ground point and influence what was happening
or carrying out a regime change. The point
is, however it ended up, to make it
out to be some secret thing we uncovered
about Democrats funding rappers in Gaza,
it's not the case. They had bipartisan support,
and APAC and everybody else supported it. Don't
you think that matters for the conversation? Oh,
yes. Nobody see, this is the part everyone
pretends that we're not nobody should want this.
I also think it's dumb and shouldn't have
happened regardless of who's doing it or why.
The funding should not have gone out of
this country at this point. But it also
matters that this was not what actually happened,
and they're trying to frame it in a
very dishonest way. Right? So the point here
is he did know this stuff, or he
didn't even look. It wasn't some secret. But
if they get you to think it's all
these secret Democrat plots to push in some
woke mindset, even though that's not what the
real objective was, it was using that as
a shell to get something else done, then
he effectively manipulates and pacifies you into thinking
that we've stopped the deep state, which is
just democrats,
publicly spending American tax dollars on public agendas
that are listed on a public website.
Sure sounds like a deep state to me,
doesn't it? It's just sad. Right? It's when
you break it down so obviously, I think
most people are able to go, well, yeah,
that's not right. That doesn't make sense. But
you don't get that from these limited hangout
partisan media manipulators.
And so Daniel rightly says, don't blame us.
We spent billions of dollars without a clue
where it's going. And these are the people
currently in Trump's administration.
Now Clint here says, we didn't know, quotes
him, and says, if you didn't know what
you were funding, then why did you continue
to vote trillions of dollars? Fair point.
Right? No. It's it's not that we didn't
know where it was going and they voted.
They just didn't look or knew and didn't
care. It's very clear. But then he says,
your job basically,
your only job is to control the government
by purse strings.
We should never we should never need a
Doge. I think wait. Did he edit this?
That's weird. Same point. I thought that was
in the top part. The point is
Doge is not the reason we're even seeing
all of this stuff. Like, you have to
realize that the dynamic that he's highlighting
is
a couple of woke,
tokens, essentially.
If you can't already notice that the money
is continuing,
is going to other agendas. And I'm willing
willing to bet that we'll be able to
prove that in even in a year, but
probably at the end of the administration, unless
we end up in some
as we continue to seem to be going
into an opaque
lack of transparency, technocratic control structure.
But I think it's important to think about
that this is how we make it out.
And, also, this is a guy that is
part of the administration. He's part of Trump's
team, which is part of Doge. Not that
he is, but part of that
team.
So I don't know. I just don't get
the way that this is compartmentalized
as if they're, you know, if we're exposing
them, then he's part of them.
That's my my point is it's all them,
the government, all of them, both sides of
it. But here we are with the spending,
acting like we're stopping it all while it's
continuing.
And I'll include these like I did before,
showing you the Reuters dynamic that we're gonna
briefly make a point about again in a
second, that it wasn't
Reuters. It was Reuters Thomas. We've went over
all of this. And it was egregiously misrepresented
all the way down to Trump a few
days later who acted like he wanted the
money back because Democrats spent it on Reuters
even though and, again, this is why it
matters.
90 of the funding was happening during Trump's
last administration,
and it ended in 2022.
But he comes up and goes, we demand
the money, $9,000,000 back. Well, then give it
back, Trump. Pretty stupid that we play this
game. Also, the Gaza con story, which is
insanely obvious. And And, no, it didn't just
go to Mozambique. The connoons weren't even part
of this process other than a small part
of a larger program that wasn't about and
none of this should be okay. I disagree
with all of it, despite that being the
way they misrepresent the point, but it looks
like they added context.
So for those that were still even saying
it wasn't true,
here's even the fact check from Twitter.
Post is misleading.
And we already went through all of it.
Not through Reuters news company despite how they
continue to put that. Now, yes, I still
argue that the money did probably trickle down,
and if they wanted it to anyway.
But if that matters, then it should matter,
and all of them should be held accountable
for it who are involved, which mostly Trump
in this case. But it's not unique to
partisanship, guys. These agendas continue.
All of them. Right now, they're tearing things
down so they can rebuild it a different
way. That's what I can I believe is
happening? We just went over this one.
But here he is posting on the twenty
second.
Just a meme of an image of Reuters.
But within the Reuters letters, it just says
lies, lies, lies, lies.
Yeah. Probably, I all of these media platforms
are manipulated and it's not just left or
right. It's all of them in my opinion.
But But since he wants to keep and
this is what I mean with the meme.
The last thing they pointed out to with
Reuters has very clearly been something they lied
about. But the team doesn't care. It's all
part of the meme. Right? The meme keeps
going. So, for that sake, let's look for
a couple more. Okay. Here's some new ones
I found. This one for the same group,
actually. Thomas Reuters Special Services.
For federal supply schedule contract, it says
oh, look at that.
They haven't continued.
More administrative action. Federal supply schedule contract. Now,
it does continue to say zero, but it's
been saying that for a while. They're continuing
the engagement.
That's a smaller one. But just to show
you that if this was some problematic propaganda
thing that they stopped from the Democrats, why
would they have now twice engaged with it
and kept it going?
Good question. But this one's actual funding, and
this one's even more specifically to the point.
Not Reuters Thomas special services, but actual Reuters
news and Media Inc.
And it even says newswire services.
We've shown you more of these in the
past. These are different ones.
Look at that.
February 13,
'7 hundred and '30 '3 thousand dollars to
Reuters news services for what do you look?
Providing NewsWire services. Isn't that just like Politico?
No. I guarantee this is gonna get no
attention. It'll never because it's just it's a
minor thing. But it wasn't a minor thing
when you made this bombastic claim about the
political overlap. I care about both of them.
All of them. And I also, I'm honest,
have to point out that we don't know
for sure with a real breakdown. It could
have very well been for NewsWire services. I
don't I think it's always a potential manipulation.
We should ask both. But if one matters,
so does the other. Right?
If Trump is spending at February 13,
couple weeks ago, $733,000
to continue funding a Reuters newswire service for
the government,
explain to me why it makes sense for
Elon Musk to be saying that Reuters is
fake news or lies.
Did I just have that open? There it
is. Lies, lies, lies, which I happen to
agree.
It's just it's just so infuriating
that you all see it. It's obvious. We
all recognize it, but it will never go
anywhere because we live in a very controlled,
manipulated dynamic right now. But share the link.
Show everybody. Get it shared.
It's a small thing, but my point is
that if we wanna call out what they're
doing and and highlight the contradiction, then this
should matter. And I think some Republicans would
care to see go, woah. Wait a minute.
Yeah. That's what we just got mad about.
Why is he doing it now? Well, there
you go. There's a lot of reasons around
this. Now this is something I wanted to
go through. Let's take a second. I wanted
to go through this.
I found this to be a good article,
and it's interesting. And it's it's
there's points that are as always, there's things
that I don't block. It's it's any any
article. There's gonna be things that we don't
agree with, but it's about the data as
always, and it's worth considering. Now we've been
making a point about this. The articles entitled
from the New Republic, the laws Trump size
hole is suddenly exposed.
Now it's important to stand back and think
about how this works.
And think about how
whether or not you think he's accomplishing the
right things, whether or not you think he's
trying to accomplish a certain thing that you
want. As Catharine's continue to highlight,
for two reasons, it matters how you get
there. No. I mean, obviously, for more than
two reasons, even just from a moral integrity
perspective, it obviously matters. This is not the
mock of building a mindset. The ends do
not justify the means. That's not how this
works, but they're all pushing that in. That's
the same thing with Yarwin, Curtis, what,
Yarvin and the whole
elitist saving us from elitist, but it's it's
it's it feels very manufactured.
To me,
it's also about the whether or not what
he does can if it is it going
to to last?
Right? If you just write executive orders, well,
how long until some new administration just writes
them all back? It's very simple. That's why
I make the point about the women's sports
point that I very much agreed with. I
still argue that if you were gonna do
it right and not just let the next
democrat administration roll it right back with a
new thing, then we should have actually made
this happen through a legal dynamic. And I
even argue that there's plenty of democrats at
this point that actually see that it's not
what we said it was. Or did they
rather the way I see it is they're
opportunist, and they recognize that it's not as
moment there's not as much support as there
was before. My point is I'm willing to
bet you they could've got that passed in
congress, especially since they have more the the
most support you can essentially have
for, you know, air own it both houses
in general, most support. Well, I guess, maybe
save for
any they have
a hell of a lot of support, an
almost unprecedented amount in regard to being able
to pass something.
But
instead, it goes through the same process that
we all used to criticize, including them, which
is rule by executive order. So consider this
and how this might hurt
even if you believe what he's doing,
the thing you wanna accomplish.
Now it says after its initial blitzkrieg of
executive orders,
the Trump administration has increasingly found itself stuck
in the soft mud of judicial scrutiny. Whether
the president and his allies will decide to
openly defy these constraints is is another question.
An open question. Earlier this month, for example,
judge Amir Ali ordered The US the USAID
to unfreeze its funds. Now we we briefly
pointed to that, but it didn't get much
attention because they didn't care, which is just
the first point. It just seems wild to
me. Because this is how this is supposed
to work. Now as at same point but
from before,
I'm always open to the conversation
of whether it should be that way
for anything. We all should be. And we
can all have to stand our ground and
say, nope. This is what it should be
because of x, y, and z, but I'm
always open to it. My point being, it's
worth having a conversation whether we think that
the power structure and whether it should be
shifted.
Right now, it seems very clear that all
these Republicans want Trump's word to be absolute.
So you want an authoritarian dictatorship. Okay. Even
though you wouldn't call it that. So at
this point, we do understand at least how
it's presented that there's supposed to be checks
and balances, and that's why the Musk situation
is very uncomfortable for people that are just
concerned about the constitution.
The the the the the structure of our
government.
That there is no checks and balances of
these people. There is no oversight, and it's
wild.
But the judge aspect is how this is
always supposed to have gone, and it's gonna
get into it about whether there is a
judicial aspect to whether I mean, look. If
they didn't have this over overview the the
check and balance dynamic, then they would they
they could we could effectively just have a
dictatorship
because they could just go, well, I'm in
charge, and that's what other countries end up
going through, and I think we're about to
go there too. Whether you think Trump is
doing it on purpose or not or being
led by some other country that wants to
see the collapse of this country, it's hard
to tell.
But he says
or it continues to write that the USAID
the judge had called for them to unfreeze
those funds while litigation continued,
which by the way is absolutely within their
legal boundaries, of course, especially when it's something
that needs to flesh out. But it says
multiple aid groups told the court that no
such actions have been taken. So the Trump
administration just didn't even care, didn't even flinch.
The state department, which has taken control of
the formally independent agency, which, again, the reality
is, guys, the state department, even on the
record, if you look to the background, has
always basically controlled this because it is a
part of the foreign policy of this country.
It's part of the war state.
Now my point is all they really did
was just pull that mask off. That's what
we're all kind of trying to highlight for
people. But it says,
later said that all the grants had been
frozen department wide as part of a temporary
review. But see, even that, people rightly point
out, is there's no legal basis for that.
If you're gonna freeze these things, which were
approved by Congress, well, then there should be
a you don't just go freeze everything until
we figure it all out. That was a
way to make I think that was a
way to appease the masses of wanting to
see some massive USAID is done,
and then not do that. Even though that's
obvious now, it got that win in the
moment.
But it says all all all all all
all all all all all all the all
the all the less reiterated his order last
week for USAID
to unfreeze the money. So he followed up
as as the judicial ruling and said, you
have to unfreeze this money at least until
we flush this out in court. It says
despite the government's efforts to the contrary, the
court was not inviting them, defendants, he says,
to continue the suspension while they reviewed contracts
and legal authorities
to come up with a new post hoc
rationalization for the in mass suspension. Somebody's calling
him out saying, you right now, they're scrambling
to try to find some new justification for
why it needs to continue and not shutting
it down in the process.
Now he says that to the extent defendants
have continued the blanket suspension, they are ordered
to immediately cease it.
Now it says judge John McConnell
also received intense pushback in recent weeks after
he ruled that the Trump administration was defying
his temporary order to release federal funds blocked
by the White House
in January.
Vice president Vance claimed on Twitter that, quote,
and this is where it gets interesting, judges,
he says, aren't allowed to control, which is
not what they're doing, executive legit executives' legitimate
power.
Well, while a White House spokesperson said that
any legal challenges to Trump's executive orders was,
quote, nothing more than an attempt to undermine
the will of the American people. It's all
this bombastic talk from politicians.
They're basically pointing to a very common back
and forth process, which basically demonstrates the check
and balance of the way our government works
and calling it something new. Now if you
understand my perspective as much as people knew
or Republicans who wanna make it out to
be siding with Democrats because we don't like
Trump, who are so blind in this conversation.
You know well as I that my opinion
is that I don't the government dynamic, I
don't agree with.
I I I do not believe I'm of
a more anarchistic mindset for where the world
should be.
But if we are forced to live in
the system that we have right now, you
do need some kind of overlapping balance to
it. Otherwise, you end up with a dictatorship,
an authoritarian reality.
But it's important my it's always important for
me to say that. I would not choose
to live in this dynamic if it was
up to me. That's why I point to
the constitution and things like that, that if
we are, I don't see anything that has
more that hasn't that has been this successful
in the context of at least giving you
the semblance of some kind of control or
a, you know, freedom liberty dynamic.
But it says no federal judge has held
the Trump administration in contempt for court
for its defiance so far, which I find
interesting,
though the possibility remains. Oh, and then his
point about they aren't allowed to control executives'
legitimate power,
they're not controlling anything. They're simply ruling on
whether what they're doing is actually unconstitutional,
which is their only job. So it's a
funny thing. To me, this is them or
somebody else driving them to destroy
everything that holds this country together.
No federal judge has held that they has
held them in contempt yet,
though the possibility remains. It is also possible,
of course, that the White House will ultimately
bend to adverse judicial rulings against his top
policy priorities.
Now if that happens,
I I honestly think that that's a good
thing. That ultimately that they recognize that it's
at least not in their interest right now
to push the issue,
but I kinda think that's not gonna happen.
It says, if it doesn't, however, the courts
will find it extraordinarily
difficult, this is why, to enforce their own
rulings against the administration or any of the
White House's allies for that matter. And here's
why. In normal circumstances, courts would have multiple
tools to enforce compliance from defiant litigants,
you know, outside of the White House, obviously.
But so in normal context, judges could fine
people in contempt of court for disobeying their
orders or interfering with their proceedings. Now I'll
be the first to say that's abused all
the time. In no way am I going,
we just now I mean, you guys already
know this, but for those that may be
new, never hear this is siding with one
thing or the other. It's about trying to
read through in an objective way and consider
the
the pros and cons of all of it.
Now reality being that in many cases, the
way this is working is what's used to
check more power on the executive branch. At
the same time, it's obvious to see the
judicial branch in many, many, many, many cases
have abused exactly that. In some cases, just
not liking somebody's tone or that they wore
a certain shirt. It's it gets abused all
the time.
And it could result in fines or imprisonment.
Now it says they can instruct the US
Marshals Service
to bring in fugitives, to carry out warrants,
and to ensure that the the federal
judiciary's orders are generally complied with. Because the
way you have to look at this, and
it does say in a second, is that
the the the judiciary, the the judges are
ultimately
about trying to uphold the law
through the the constitution, essentially, rather. Not even
the law, the constitution.
The executive branch is supposed to carry out
and uphold those orders and those rulings.
Now, really, we've gotten to a point where
the federal government is just
it's a it's a corporation. And, you know,
with the fact that we have the Bureau
of Land Management, for example, which in my
opinion is entirely unconstitutional,
So too realistically would be the federal government
if you wanna be real about it. That's
the point. We've gotten to a reality now
where
these things don't matter because the power structure
is consolidated so much. That's why we have
executive orders after executive orders.
And now I think we're seeing the first
example
of really taking that mask off and going,
well, you know what? We don't care what
you're saying. Looking around going, no one's gonna
do anything about it. So
and does that sound like that's in the
interest of the this country?
Like, even if, again, you think Trump is
going to succeed in what you think he's
doing, what does that do to the fabric
of what arguably has allowed this country to
be the way it was?
Now who might interest who might have an
interest in doing that? Now, again, people, you
might you might reflexively think China. Let's consider
it. But ask yourself whether or not there
is something that is influencing this decline.
And then I believe you'll find a lot
of very obvious examples that we'll go through.
But it says that they can, ensure that
federal judges orders are generally complied with. And
it says perhaps the most extraordinary example of
this power came in nineteen o six. The
Supreme Court agreed to review the case of
Ed Johnson, a black man who had been
convicted of rape in in Tennessee
under,
excuse me, highly dubious circumstances after learning of
the high court's intervention.
The sheriff at the time, Joseph
Shipp, allowed a lynch mob to enter the
jail and then hang the the the man
from the local bridge. The justices outraged by
the defiance
at the time was backed by Theodore Roosevelt
brought Shipp and his associates to Washington DC,
and they tried him for contempt of court.
He and a handful of others were actually
sentenced to between two and three months in
prison. People imagine that for murdering a person.
To this day, United States for a Shipp
remains the only criminal trial ever conducted by
the Supreme Court. That's just interesting in its
own right. The justices theoretically retain the power
to conduct similar trials in the future. The
reason they mentioned that is it if there
is actual back and forth,
you could argue that it I mean,
I don't think it'll ever get there whether
or not they get to this point because
I don't think the executive branch will bend.
That's that's why we're reultimately. But I think
this you could see this coming to pass
if this keeps going back and forth because
this is ultimately the level it could get
to. I kinda just don't think it will
for many reasons on both sides, but it
says, but
do not expect to see chief justice John
Roberts
presiding over a criminal trial of Trump anytime
soon. Constraining the executive branch is a different
beast. Constitutionally speaking, finding the White House in
contempt of court is like describing a new
color.
The primary function of the presidency
is to enforce federal law. I would see
I even that I'd say we're uphold the
rulings of of the judicial branch, but it
says
whether it be the acts of Congress or
the rulings of the federal courts.
Even then, there are degrees of injury. A
president can defy congress without causing irreparable damage
because some friction between the elected branches is
built into the constitutional system.
If the president defies the courts and congress
does not impeach him, which is the first
point you'd expect,
Right? So where if he defy like right
now, he defy doesn't even acknowledge the first
one, doesn't even doesn't respond to the second
one. That's where Congress,
not a partisan Congress, which is what we
always seem to have, where half many of
them just will side with Trump no matter
what. But a Congress that we would like
to pretend is really just about enforcing the
law will stand up and go, well, clearly,
what he's doing is not okay. So we're
gonna
impeach him for it. And then usually the
process so just the threat would make him
pull back, but that's not happening.
It says the constitution simply ceases to exist.
If congress does not stand up and enforce
when the when the executive branch is doing
something wrong. A good example of that is
how the executive branch has brought brought us
to war.
I mean, are you I mean, really, depending
on how you frame that, many, many, many
times since World War two without any actual
declaration of war from congress. That is a
a
crime. Congress has never done anything about it.
So we are long past that, and that
is why people like us have been saying
for a long time that it's not that
they're destroying it, but that the constitution
in our basically doesn't exist when it comes
to the way this is actually it's something
they use to keep you in line
and deep and break and ignore whenever they
want. And we've seen that all over the
place with antisemitism laws, with I mean, again,
who has an interest in that? Definitely not
even look. I would even argue not the
president
unless you're working on the behalf of somebody
else. Now it says there is no backup
president who a judge could call
to enforce subpoenas or warrants if the regular
one won't do it because that's the left
the highest level of power. So if they're
the one on the hook and there's nobody
there to enforce it, there's this is an
interesting situation.
Now it says it will functionally it functionally
exists as an agency of the justice department.
Oh, no. Sorry. I skipped line. While the
US Marshals Service is best known for carrying
out the judicial's will, judiciary,
it functionally exists as an agency of the
justice department, and its senate confirmed officials can
ultimately be fired by Donald Trump. So the
very arm in which they would use to
go after the person not responding is basically
hireable and fireable by Trump himself. So it
says there is no reason to believe it
would be immune to his will.
And even those people would probably bend because
they might don't wanna lose their jobs. Since
last month, the acting marshal for DC
reportedly visited multiple judges' chambers
to directly pressure them to speed up the
releases of the January 6 prisoners
so that you can see that that's being
the Trump administration
calling for that. It says pardon pardons can
also be used to nullify the judiciary's orders.
Federal judges have any inherent power to hold
defiant litigants and witnesses in criminal contempt of
court. There's also civil contempt of court. Now
that's important. They'll get they're gonna touch on.
Seems like the only way that they might
be able to go after anybody like Trump
doing this. But it says Trump has already
sworn a,
shown a willingness to pardon people for that
offense.
The first pardon that he issued during his
first term went to, as you remember, Joe,
how do you say it? Arp Arpario?
Arpario? The the the the sheriff
who became a national figure for as they
frame in this article, his anti immigration policies,
but, you know, I'm that's debatable for many
reasons. It says a federal court
convicted the Arizona sheriff of criminal contempt in
July 2017
simply for defying a federal court order to
stop
racially profiling Hispanic drivers, which again again, there
there's obvious things that did happen. But whether
or not you feel that the person is
you know, you know, the point is there's
it's always nuance to a conversation.
And I think that these policies in many
ways are inherently
biased towards very whether racial or otherwise.
My point though is that he got called
out for that
whether or not you agree with it
and didn't and define it.
So before he could be sentenced up to
six months in jail, which again, this is
how crazy this is. Whether or not you
agree with it, the point is legally speaking,
the court's in the right because he didn't
respond.
That and and what even if you disagree
with who appointed the judge and so on,
this is how the system is supposed to
work. And the moment you start breaking these
aspects,
it shows you that there really is no
they are the highest level of power, and
they could do whatever they want. And that's
not how this is supposed to work, or
at least as we're told. Right? But he
stepped in, Trump, and gave him a full
pardon.
Not because what he did was wrong or
right, but because Trump
saw a political ally. And it's deciding his
history of serving his country. He even previewed
the move at a rally, see, and asked
his supporters, so was he convicted for doing
his job? Well, that's not the point, though.
Was he or was he not racially profiling
these people based on their skin?
See, the point is that that's advantageous for
Trump's side because there's a lot of support
for that explicitly in his administration.
So it says, I'll make a prediction because
I think he's gonna be just fine, and
then he pardoned him. It's not hard to
imagine Trump Trump's logic of doing his job
being applied to his appointees carrying out his
orders whether or not they're actually legal.
It says the president's ability to issue pardons
and and commutations is arguably his least constrained
constitutional power.
Acts
of executive clemency cannot be overturned by the
courts
or by Congress, which I argue and I
always have is insane. The idea that they
can just pardon like, remember and, actually, this
one was a step too far. Everybody caught
notice of it. But to pardon people like
Fauci for just
anything they may be charged with, which, honestly,
I don't think Trump was ever gonna do
it anyway, but that's the way they get
to pretend that Trump wasn't because of x
y and z. It's just this that's the
the government playing you partisan thing against you,
in my opinion.
But the point is that you can just
do that, and Trump did the same thing
last time. Very dangerous and bad people in
many cases just part because it's what the
it's advantageous for them or Israel stuff that
we saw.
But how is that okay?
Even if there's a crime, we just decide
because no. That's not how this is supposed
to work. But it says,
the explicit constraints in the constitution are that
pardons can only be issued for offenses against
The United States, meaning they only apply to
federal crimes and not states state ones and
that they do not they do not apply
to cases of impeachment.
Even so, issuing pardons for contempt of court
might seem like an implicit violation of the
separation of powers. But you see, these are
things that aren't even because, like, really discussed
right now. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has disagreed,
and this is where it gets especially interesting,
in twenty nineteen twenty
five,
a case, ex parte Grossman. The justices reviewed
a pardon issued by, at that time, president
Coolidge
for a Chicago Saloon Owner
who had ignored federal court orders to stop
selling alcohol during prohibition.
Newspaper accounts at the time suggested that the
pardon came after a friendly senator
urged Coolidge to intervene, which is typically how
power works.
Judge, at the time, Kennesaw Mountain Landis, who
would become more famous as you guys might
have seen in different movies or different coverage,
the first commissioner of baseball. And there's, like,
a whole
dishonest criminal overlap to the whole thing, but
it says ruled that the pardon was unconstitutional
and ordered Grossman to be imprisoned.
A group of federal district court judges later
upheld that decision, castigating the executive branch for
its infringement upon the judiciary's prerogatives.
But it goes all the way to the
Supreme Court. Supreme Court rules it down. But
they say before that, to allow such power
in the executive is to strike a death
blow to the independence of judiciary, which I
got again, regardless of the
politics of it all, trying to be apolitical
about it, you can see that there is
a violation
and you and and even a law that's
broken. And then you can also see
power stepping in and going, let him go.
Right? And then the point is they go,
no. This is clearly if you step over
this, you none of it means anything.
Now it goes it goes past that, and
it's and it says,
James judge James Wilkinson,
who wrote a concurring opinion, said that he
agreed with every word, basically saying, you know,
this ruins the
the balance of power.
And it says Grossman and the justice department
then went to the Supreme Court. And then
see this is the point. This is where
you get the peep the power structure
using their power.
And it says chief justice William Taft,
writing in the court, rejected
every other ruling
and orders it ordered his release.
He concluded that the constitution's description
of, quote, crimes against The United States should
be read as broadly as possible and not
limited merely to the offenses defined by Congress
and federal law, such as contempt of court.
Taft's ruling was highly deferential to the executive
branch, of course,
an approach that is perhaps unsurprising
since he had previously led it. And that
you see that overlap for sure. And it
says he argued against a strict separation of
powers, not noting that the various branches had
tools to check and balance each other and
that the pardon power was one of them.
Taft also rejected as fanciful the idea that
his interpretation could be used maliciously by a
future president. Now I will point out that
you could dare argue, as much as I
don't agree necessarily, that the
pardon power itself is one of those checks.
And let's just say you have a congress
or a judiciary branch that's out of control
in some way that then they can say,
well, I'm gonna pardon them because you it's
that's how it's supposed to work. There's always
one way back and forth that it could
be bounced,
even though we know that's not really how
it works. But the interesting part in this
is that you could see
that basically, he says, and I'll read the
quote directly, that this is
it's not a problem because we will never
be at a point. It's improbable
where a president will do what Trump is
doing today. Now it says, quote, if it
be said that the president,
by successive pardons
of constantly recurring contempts in particular litigation,
might deprive a court of power to enforce
its orders in a recalcitrant
neighborhood,
it is enough to observe that such a
course is so improbable
as to furnish
but little basis for argument.
He said and they he says even in
the unlikely the article continues. Even in the
unlikely event that a president actively sought to
thwart judicial rulings, which is really the point,
regardless of whether it's about contempt of court
or what we're talking about. It says,
the chief justice explained the other branches could
still check him, but that's also not happening
today.
It says, quote, exceptional cases like this, still
referencing the 1926 case,
if to be imagined at all. Or, actually,
no. I take it back. He's referencing in
a future that a president would do what
Trump's doing today. He says exceptional cases like
this,
saying that that is the highly improbable point.
If to be imagined at all, he says,
would suggest a resort to impeachment
rather than to a narrow and strained construction
of the general powers of the president.
Taft continued. And it says, in other words,
even more unimaginable
to him than a rogue lawless president was
a congress that would do nothing to constrain
him,
both of which seem to be happening right
now. And it says, at the same time,
Taft noted that a pardon power could not
be used to completely evade a court sanctions.
For criminal contempt, he writes, the sentence is
punitive in the public interest to vindicate the
authority of the court to deter other like
their their elections.
For civil contempts, however, the punishment is remedial
and for the benefit of the complaint, and
a pardon cannot stop it, arguing that you
could have a civil effort.
But Trump's a very rich person.
I mean, I the mostly amount in fines.
I don't think it'll stop him, but something.
It says civil contempt differs, and it goes
on to make that point.
It says that there can course of power
be limited when the president is involved and
the courts would still depend on other actors
to enforce their will.
Congress, in theory, could supplement the judiciary's authority
in such a showdown,
it says, but its own or with its
own, Richard Nixon
complied with the Supreme Court's order to turn
over the White House tapes to a grand
jury during the Watergate crisis, which obviously ended
up in his impeachment,
in part because lawmakers would impeach him if
he didn't, which happened anyway. But it says
that likely won't happen this time. Over the
last month, Republican members of Congress have introduced
articles of impeachment
in response to the court's orders,
but not but against the judges who issued
them.
So
basically, exactly what they thought was that improbable
is not only happening, but now they're actually
going the other direction and trying to impeach
the judges that had the rulings,
which, again, I'm obviously gonna the point that
the political leanings of everybody today, and it's
obvious.
But the reality is the same, that they're
in the position that the ruling is based
on the legal standing and that they can't
they rule based on the way they see
it. And that's why there are other courts
and other just like every other dynamic. For
them to immediately jump to impeachment is a
threat and is meant to send a message
to every other judge to fall in line.
We are watching a coup take place in
front of us, guys. This is a very
clear transition of power.
Now it says, the constitution and the framers
who drafted it did a decent job at
devising a structure for government that would allow
a different the different branches to check one
another to preserve liberty.
No constitutional text is well written enough to
save the rule of law when the American
people elect a president who if they yeah.
I don't even think that's the way it
went. But a president who doesn't believe in
the constitution, especially when he is joined by
congress that refuses to hold him accountable for
violating it. Now the main point to make
from the very beginning, like I said many
times,
is that
if you're like, it it's the conversation should
be had.
If you're in a position where, as I
agree,
everything's already broken in by design, whether it's
because of Israel or because your government or
whatever you wanna whatever the outcome is,
is is it not worthy of consideration? And
maybe that's the only way you can actually
change something.
Certainly a point to
make. And as usual then, we'd wait and
see what actually happened. But
every step so far, when you start to
work with the people that we knew were
bad guys or you start to make the
things that we thought we were all fighting,
you start to build out the structure that
we were all afraid of, These are the
points that we're talking about. And those points
can begin to show you that we're not
going in that direction.
But again, maybe those will materialize into some
deep state fighting dynamic.
I don't see that happening.
My point is the same, guys, is that
we can see
the path, and we can see that this
is not going in the direction. It's obvious
that this is undermining the very things that
they said they were fighting for.
So at least, I hope at the very
least that you can stand back and go,
okay, I agree. I that that listen, your
mind is that that's the only way it
can be done. And maybe you're right. But
I'm hoping that you'll still be honest enough
to check them along the way, seeing as
how nobody else is there's no checks and
balances don't seem to work anymore.
Call these things out.
And hopefully,
if it does go the wrong direction, we
can stop it because enough people see it.
But I mean, I think we all need
to be a little concerned about how obvious
this is
is going against
what we used to argue or what Republicans
would have said was necessary when Biden was
in power.
That just shows hypocrisy in my opinion.
Now on that same point and really the
point that I think is what's most important
here around who is very
transparently like, again, yeah, I don't my opinion
is obvious. That's why I wrote the title
the way I did today. But I'm still
it's always trying to be objective and frame
these things in a way that doesn't just
force my opinion into your mind. Right? Is
that yeah. I just think that it's obvious
these things don't align with what we're fighting.
I do think that somebody's influencing this because
it's clearly in their benefit. But just just
first before we get into the Israel part
that I see, just ask yourself first and
foremost if you think that's happening. And if
it is,
is it just okay because you believe that
Trump's doing it for the right reasons? Now
that all being said,
that we can transparently see,
even from very clear Trump supporters, that this
is a Zionist administration more than we've ever
seen before, proudly,
emotionally,
bombastically
pro Zionist, pro Israel, everywhere you look.
Even to the point to where the prime
minister continues to come out and say congratulations
to Patel and Bongino for being
confirmed, which they don't do for every politician,
guys.
I think that's a very obvious standout sign.
But I want you to consider this as
we go through the whether you think this
is America First and what's happening or everything
we've talked about or Israel First.
You know, here's Dan Bongino. Dan Cohen pointed
this out and says, I've never once interacted
with Dan Bongino. He once retweeted my work
for exposing Peter Hotez. Af soon after, he
blocked me. That's Dan speaking. He goes, now
I know why. And you've probably seen this
going around. This is Dan Bongino speaking in
a podcast about what in his heart in
his heart
does he care about most.
That's right. What what cause is dear to
your heart?
Cause is dear to my Israel,
Defense Of Israel.
What is number one?
Well, that's pretty interesting.
The number number one close to your heart,
Israel, Defense Of Israel?
Why? I I don't even know why that
makes sense to anybody.
How is that the first thing? I mean,
I think the answer is obvious.
He just got confirmed.
Here's another clip. Now this one's interesting. We
talked about it this morning. This is him
on TimCast
floating this ambiguous point about the connection to
Epstein.
And we're gonna talk about Epstein in a
minute about the seemingly nonexistent ongoing point about
the transparency, whatever they're calling their little thing.
But listen to what he says here
and ask what especially today. But even then,
how we the the
deviation, this is kind of like the sidestep,
the pulling of the punch right where it
matters.
And I argue today, especially, now that he's
in the Zionist administration, that this is suddenly
gonna this point won't even be brought up.
A year and a half after that And
by the way, shout out to no more
news for you can see his his,
URL on the clip.
You'll find not a single person pointing to
no more news when they share that clip
even though everybody's sharing it right now. Typical
mainstream alternative media. I'm in a green room
at Fox, and I'm not gonna say who
because they didn't give me permission to share
it. But what they the short story, but
I don't know who they are. Says, you
know Epstein's
an intelligence asset for people in The Middle
East. Right? I'm like, no. I didn't know
that. I'm like, you sure that?
The person, let's say, is like, I'm absolutely
sure of that. That he's either a winning
or unwitting
asset intelligence asset. Meaning,
his plane and that island, the cameras, there's
a big assumption out there that these videotapes
were exclusively in the custody of Epstein.
That's a huge mistake.
The reason they wanted this story to go
away is because there's an assumption like, oh,
yeah. Epstein had him.
No. He wasn't the only one who had
them according to his source. These assets that's
why this blackmail story makes so much sense.
Which Middle Eastern countries they are? I don't
know. But this person who's a very, very
good reporter I mean, aces. Right?
Swore Epstein was either a winning or unwitting
intelligence asset, and they may have had his
plane wired up. And they're the ones who
have all this stuff. So the point is,
to sum it up,
how how do you know some of these
countries aren't going to some of these
countries who aren't making decisions? Because, hey, he
wouldn't want this video out there. Right? How
do you know? A %.
I mean, that Let's let's get purse
Anyway, let's talk about something not as real.
Tim jumps in. Right? Let's deviate anywhere else
because we know what everyone's thinking right now.
He's such a shit, like a what do
you call it?
What's the term for that? I forget. I'm
blanking on it right now.
You know, like a wall, like he's blocking.
There's a term. I'm just not can't jump
into my head. But, I mean, obviously, guys.
I mean, this let's not forget. Acosta
openly stated, Mossad CIA intelligence
overlap.
K? This and and they even said on
the record that I'm not supposed to say
I was told I'm not supposed to say.
It's it's just it's it's incredible. Right? So
my point is now
he said this. Right? So now that he's
a part of this administration with this fake
JFK,
Epstein
breaking dynamic, is this gonna come out? Is
it or is it gonna be laid at
the feet of some, you know, country that's
working on behalf of Israel? I mean, how
is this gonna work? But I find that
really interesting that you can't I mean, everything
about that.
Obviously, the blackmail network. And you have to
realize that what they're talking about is evidence
on
it's
objectively
bipartisan.
That should matter,
especially with the way they're framing all of
this.
Now here is
Bongino
being confirmed
or said oh, no. Wait. No. Actually, this
was,
which one was this? Was that the confirmation?
Anyway, the point was just to highlight that
there, for some reason, he's sitting next to
Eric Prince.
And this is Paul. He breaking this down
saying Eric Prince beside Bongino. Prince has his
hands all over the entire narrative network. He's
a mercenary, the context all over the world,
and I agree. And here is
a point that I wanna reiterate
that Whitney wrote for TLav in 2023,
the prince and the spy. That's Erik Prince
and a Israeli spy. And the point is
transparently, the thing the the the overlapping
of the
startup intelligence,
basically, of Israel and their cybersecurity and their
tech startups and their energy companies and carbine
nine one one, which is one of the
things we're talking about here, or Comframe Solutions
are companies that are intertwined all across this
country that are actually very clearly Israeli and
Israeli intelligence
fronts. Or not even fronts, but in Israel.
They're businesses that actually run, but serve as
an overlap for Israeli intelligence. And I'll read
it directly from the actual article. That's just
highlighted from Whitney what Whitney wrote. Here's the
article that she sources.
Oh, did it stop highlighting in there? That's
silly. Here, I'll just read it from
here. Well, here, let's do the in some
cases
so you guys can see it.
Okay. So it says,
these were, things right here. Most of the
company's top managers
oh, sorry. This the Israeli military competes with
the standards of con on compensation app applicable
to commercial companies. And when wages are on
the rise, the military is hard pressed to
offer competitive compensation. A ranking officer who is
in the charge of this, interview yes. They're
just citing what he said right here. And
it goes, most of the company's top managers
are veterans
of Israeli military technology units. Now the article
was actually entitled, Israel blurs the line between
defense apparatus and local cybersecurity hub. And it's
not just local. That's the point that it's
very clearly a worldwide dynamic. And don't forget
that SoftBank essentially seems to be the financial
front for all of this, and they're a
chief l entity of Stargate in The United
States.
But it goes on to say some of
its top managers and employees have started work
at the company immediately after having been released
from active duty. One of them, the company's
chief technology officer for twelve months ending in
June 2017,
said in an interview with this platform, Cal
was it Calcalyst?
That he started work at the company less
than a day after his release from active
duty. Before joining the company, he managed a
team of 40 engineers for the Israel Israel's
Intelligence Corps. A former employee of the company
said crossing the lines between military service and
the employment at the commercial outfit was commonplace
while he was working at the company.
A former ranking
high ranking Israeli official officer, excuse me,
said Israel Military
currently outsources
activities that were previously managed in house
with a focus on software and cyber technologies.
That's clear
as day. So things that were previously handled
inside the Israeli military are now outsourced into
these companies around the world. It says, in
some cases,
managers of development projects in the Israeli military
and intelligence arms were encouraged to form their
own companies,
which then took over the project. An Israeli
venture capitalist familiar with the matter said, one
of the companies formed this way is BC
Strategy Limited, also known as Black Cube.
I don't think it's connected, but I what's
that group strategy that's buying up all the
Bitcoin? I don't think it's the same thing,
but it just bumped jumped into my head.
This is a former Black Cube employee speaking
on terms of anonymity, said the Israeli Ministry
of Defense contracted the company. Black Cube declined
to comment, of course. The point is, clearly,
this has developed projects once done in house
at the Israeli military, and that Israeli intelligence
agencies are now also transferred to third party
contractors that have already worked for the Israeli
military defense. They are
you So basically, companies out there are acting
for the interest of Israeli intelligence.
And and the reason is because they believe
they're acting for
Israel.
And this is where the dual nationality dynamic
comes into play. And it should for any
country.
Why that becomes a racist point when it
comes to Israel is the fact they try
to overlap it with Jewish
religion. It's not the same thing. That's why
there's a lot of Orthodox Jewish communities that
are calling out the state of Zionist Israel
for what it is, not the state of
the Jews. And the reality here is that
you can see that the whether it's a
Israeli Zionist or a Chinese military entity, the
point is that they if they somewhat were
working through The United States, you would wonder
whether they have
are more concerned for their country than they
are in The United States.
And it's funny at this point is always
considered to be so racist.
You know as well as I that any
other country's entity, like a Brian Mast, for
example, who is literally a part of the
IDF, who is working in this country, will
eventually come to a pass a point where
a decision
pulls them in both directions. The question is
which way do they go?
That is the most logical thing in the
world, whether UK, China, Russia, or Israel.
Funny how only one of them is somehow
a racist point. Do you think they would
allow a member of the Chinese military in
this congress?
No. Well, there's a member of the IDF
in this congress? How does that make sense?
Here's a clip the from James Lee that
breaks down
a very concerning overlap to this. Now this
this is not just about the unit 8,200
Israeli startups. We're gonna make a point about
the dual nationality in a second.
It's just it's about the infiltration of Israeli
as this and this we we actually didn't
make a point about this. I had it
pulled aside but never did, the whole Hasbara
two point o. He mentions it in this.
Hasbara is just it's not a propaganda it's
not a fake thing. It's a word they
actually use that basically just frames their their
propaganda campaigns.
Now, they put out a thing, a document
that got leaked that was about Hasbara two
point o. The reason I also didn't cover
it is because you read through it. It's
swear I swear to god, they're literally presenting
everything they do now in a
barely a different way and acting like it's
a new product. They're basically just continuing to
lie to you. It's it was embarrassing. But
that's what he highlights, and he shows you
that this is one version of this, which
is a group acting
as an America First entity, a PR group
for America First
that turns out to just be an Israeli
entity. And that's what we're seeing. It's not
just start up Israel intelligence companies. It's social
media accounts.
It's it's
content creators. I mean, it's it's everywhere. Now
that's not unique to Israel, guys, but it's,
I think, more rampant through Israel than I've
ever seen in my life. Here's James Lee
calling it out.
Trying to think that America First doesn't mean
what we actually think it means. Check this
out. America First PR.
America's first anti woke PR firm. This is
their website. Just always note how that's the
real push. It's the anti woke. They hate
the DEA. Even though Israel pushes those things
all over. For the say honestly, again, because
I I don't think they care about those
things. I think it's because they need they
use it for the same things the US
government uses it for. It's for cover. It's
for manipulation.
The point though is that
that's the way they frame this because they
know it's gonna resonate with the people they're
trying to reach and manipulate the most. It
says that America First PR is a conservative
public relations media firm. We represent candidates, personalities,
and companies who think on the right side
of things and are unapologetically
patriots.
Okay. It's run by this lady named Melissa
Rain Lively, and she seems pretty well connected.
Here's her with Tulsi Gabbard, our new director
of national intelligence. Here's her with Kash Patel,
FBI director,
RFK Junior, HHS secretary.
But just a few years ago, Melissa was
just, quote, a Jewish woman who escaped QAnon
after it consumed her life.
Fast forward a couple years, she's now hanging
out with Donald Trump, Dana White, Elon Musk,
and Mar a Lago.
I wonder how she got there. I wonder,
just perhaps,
maybe, did it have something to do with
this situation?
The new Hasbara,
Hasbara two point o, so to speak. Losing
the war for public opinion abroad, Israel is
relaunching a heavily funded plan to disguise its
own propaganda behind the facade of foreign agents.
Because That was the one primary difference even
though it was already kind of happening was
the very hard lean into this, to base
into funding
people like this or, you know I I
mean, look. If you can't see the overlap
to people like this or maybe a politician,
it's the same agenda.
They are trying to reach, influence, and co
opt anybody that will influence the conversation.
Politicians,
that's old news. They've been doing that a
long time. This is the effort to do
so in more broad way, but this it's
it was a document they outlined.
I mean and the funny thing is you
read it, it's outright dishonest,
but that's that's the reality. I mean, it's
it's very easy to see. Yeah. You know,
a lot of times, she's looking pretty pretty
MAGA, pretty America First. But if you dig
deep,
a lot of her posts seem to be
about an entirely different country altogether.
An incredible day at the Knesset in Jerusalem
working on strategies to strengthen the impenetrable friendship,
business relationships, sports, and cultural ties between The
US and Israel.
Twenty Twenty Four was a year of relentless
hard work and determination that yields great rewards.
Hashtag America First, hashtag
Israel forever.
Daddy t says it ends Sunday. Time to
get
Paris.
In case you didn't notice, these are not
American troops. So, yeah, America First PR.
I don't know. Something seems
off here. What do you think?
Yeah.
I mean, is it not weird to honest
people
who actually believe America First to see all
of these very clear, like, aggressively pro Israel
Zionist screaming America First when everything they do
is for Israel? I mean, look at all
the people in this administration.
All of their very first actions. Pam Bondi
was making a task force to go after
October 7. It was like the first thing
she did or called Netanyahu or went to
visit Netanyahu. I mean, how in the world
does that not concern you if that was
Russia?
Obviously, you'd be like, what? How the world's
that make sense? It shouldn't be any different,
guys. It's not America First. It's something else.
Now, this was interesting.
He writes this, the PSA, you know, what
he just said. This isn't just influence, it's
infiltration. I I agree.
This person says the same group is funding
many viral Twitter accounts, and they just says
name them. And this person just simply highlights
the Misfit Patriot,
which I don't think that's actually not the
main account. That's the different than it's a
anyway, that's you've probably heard of. It was
a larger kinda MAGA group. And then one
that I think is important to highlight, the
Palestinian News Network,
which we recently referenced. I even note that
their the way that their their at symbol
is PaliNews
Network, which is far too close to Hollywood,
which is what they use to make fun
of Palestinians. The reality is this is not
a Palestinian support network. It is a clear
propaganda Zionist run account that is
I mean, they were the ones that were
making fun of the Bebas children being killed.
And all the people in their comments were
like, what are you doing? You're hurting our
cause. They don't. Right? This is a Zionist
account, but that's how they do this. Other
Zionists were pointing at this account saying, see,
here's what the Palestinians think. That's how they
work this.
The point though is that you can see
right here, I said and we had just
talked about this. Here's the Zionist on February
23 saying, the Palestinian movement has now evolved
to the second stage. They're coming for you.
See how this works? Because they want you
to think that they're now not just Hamas,
but Palestinians are sneaking through the border and
they're gonna come it's it is a clear
agenda for Israel, for The United States, for
a lot of what they're doing.
He says, if you don't hate white people,
please unfollow.
Are you kidding me? Like, how transparent is
that? And I simply said, since we just
referenced this account, I said, and there it
is. We were just discussing the Zionist run
fake Palestinian account. Zionist propaganda is always so
reactive and transparent. If you pay attention, you
can see it coming from a mile away.
Now 12 Ball includes a great thread that
goes through a lot of these different things.
We've, I'm not gonna get into all of
it, but some of the points we're just
making.
Points out,
our new FBI director's girlfriend
works for an Israeli intelligence front.
Now his point is,
Prager CEO, Marissa Strait, is an I is
IDF intelligence.
You can look this up for yourself. When
Danny when Danny Prager, visited Israel, he was
recruited to go to The USSR and covertly
pass info to and from Jewish dissent dissidents.
PragerU's first video was a history of Israel
funded by Adam Milstein, who also funds Hasbara
Fellowships.
PragerU.
There I mean, these things don't have to
be like
certainly could mean other things. Right? But when
you stand back and look at all that
we keep seeing,
this has to start raising red raising red
flags when you have people at the highest
levels of power
in every context or, you know, the Trump
himself funded hundreds of billions of dollars from
Miriam Adelson, has now allowed them to go
off to the West Bank. We're gonna get
to a minute. We're now seeing that we
told you it would happen. They're now about
to end the ceasefire based on the the
the the situation that Israel created.
Why? It's the beginning of the second phase.
That's what the plan was, and they're all
telling you that. You have to realize how
these people, the amount of influence to Israel
is staggering.
Whether we're talking about Bongino or or or
Patel or Trump or fans or Elon or
any of them. Teal. I mean, the whole
damn thing. I'm not talking, like, weak like
Israel, but, like, aggressive
or Hegseth,
a rapidly
pro frothing at the mouth
biblical Zionist tells them they have a biblical
right to territory that's not theirs. This is
terrifying stuff.
So he highlights that.
He points out America First, more about PragerU
status as a Hawes Bar organization. And he's
just going into more detail about that overlap.
He points out,
where's the other one? Just kinda go through
it reasonably quick. He points out the clip
about Bongino, basically saying Israel is what he
cares about the most. That's the clip we
just showed you.
There's one other point. Just go through it.
There's different points. Here's Ian Carroll point saying
something about Bongino,
which again, sort of like gaslighting for Bongino.
Bongino said it perfectly about Epstein,
really, by not mentioning Israel.
Anyway, it's a good thread. There's a lot
more in there. I just wanna point out
that overlap
as well as the overarching point that we
always highlight here, guys, which is that this
is no there's no way you could pretend
this makes any sense since it's always been
bipartisan.
This was February 3. We've already talked about
it all. Justice department announces formation of a
task force to combat antisemitism.
So you roll in
the new rebel fire in the deep state
administration and immediately take actions in every way
that help Israel at the expense of American
interest, including your free speech. But keep telling
yourself it's all gonna work out. I hope
it does, but the actions continue to show
me the opposite.
Now, on the point of dual nationality or
dual loyalty,
WikiLeaks just put this out. I find this
to be very important. It's from Australia.
It's it's
exactly the point.
And it actually flushes out to make the
point.
Wiki Leak shared this. A Jewish Australian army
officer has been stripped of his top secret
clearance
by a review tribunal, which found he, quote,
had divided loyalties
between Australia and Israel and posed a unacceptable
and avoidable risk to security
due to the threat of recruitment by Mossad.
Now the immediate reflexive response from people that
are blindly pro Israel are gonna say, you're
you did it because you hate Jewish people.
That's the only thing that they can say.
It's not true. Because if you actually read
and do your due diligence like they never
will,
he says himself
in the discussion
that he would give information to Israel
and then let them know.
And then gets rat like, basically, after being
rat like, I'll read it to you myself.
It says, in his defense, the officer told
the tribunal that Zionism is an essential theme
within Judaism,
which it's not. It is for Zionist, but
it is not for there's plenty of Orthodox
Jewish organizations that call out Zionism every day,
major ones that exist around the world. They're
in The I they're in Israel, for crying
out loud. They get beat up by the
IDF all the time, which shows you as
always that it's about Zionism and not Judaism.
If you haven't heard us talk about it,
I ref I recommend you look into our
many different conversations about the historical and provable
reality that Zionism is a manipulation of Judaism.
It says Judaism mandates the loyalty of a
Jew. This is what he was saying, by
the way. That's why it's important. Zionism is
an essential theme within Judaism. Judaism mandates
the loyalty of a Jew to his people
and to the land of Israel.
The Australian government is aware that every Jew
harbors a varying degree of loyalty to Israel.
Some have higher and more overt levels of
loyalty than others. This is the latent risk
that the Australian government must naturally accept when
employing Jews. That's what he said on the
record.
Now on my point, in a way, that
is exactly how Zionism works. May is that
what that will do to someone who doesn't
know what's really driving this bus, it'll make
them
angry at Jewish people because it'll make you
think. Why? What's so you have to treat
them as some separate special case because of
the way that's not how it's Zionism
that's doing that. There, again, are Jewish groups
that we keep highlighting that call this out.
So even if you think that's only 1%,
you have to still acknowledge that it's not
all Jewish people in the conversation. But when
you stand back, you'll quickly find out that
it seems to be a rapidly growing number.
And anyone that cares to look
begins to rapidly understand that the history paints
the picture for you. Now, when you're watching
them commit genocide, it becomes even easier to
go back and look.
But here's what it actually says. And again,
this is WikiLeaks, which I think has its
own credence to it. Here's the actual breakdown.
You can read it all for yourself as
we tend to do for this chat. We'll
quickly share it, but we'll include the links
for you to look at. Here's the main
points they highlighted.
What we just read, it says allowing Jews
to serve in the ADF
must come don't don't confuse the AfD, in
this sense, we just talked about that. Must
come with an understanding that the Jew the
Jew will have this is what he said
himself. The Jew will have a level of
loyalty to the Jewish nation and for the
state of Israel.
Now, that is the case for most Zionists,
but not for all Jewish people. Now, it
says just as
as our ethnic groups remain loyalty to their
country or origin of their heritage. Now, see,
that's a different point.
People that grow up in The United States
have a loyalty to their unite their country.
But a Christian who's born in The United
States does not have dual loyalty between their
Christianity and this country, or let's say a
person who it's the same point anywhere else.
It's the the way this becomes a problem
is when you conflate
the religion of Judaism
with the state of Israel,
a nationality which is not Judaism.
And it says the Australian government
must appreciate the implications of allowing Jews to
serve within the ADF and the associated inherent
risk.
If the implication of this risk dictate the
preference for the ADF to avoid observant Jews
who harbor loyalty to the nation Jewish nation,
then this undermines the broader multiculturalism
of the ADF workforce. It would then be
argued that this policy may be discriminatory to
the Jewish people. That's how he's trying to
use the very dynamic to push back.
But if you actually read this all, They're
not making this about Jewish people they're making
this about people who have loyalty to Israel.
That's the main point here and so Kim
conflating that kind of makes the point. But
I would argue just like you can read
the thing for yourself if this was a
Jewish person from
The United States that lived in Australia that
had dual or rather than just even say
let's just say a person born in Australia
that had never been to Israel who's a
Jewish person,
who not only has Australian nationality, there wouldn't
be an issue there. That's the point they're
talking about. It's the fact that you have
nationality,
which is not Judaism. It's Israeli nationality.
It's very interesting. But it goes on to
say, as stated in the opening remarks,
Zionism is an essential theme within Judaism. That's
the other point. Judaism mandates the loyalty of
a Jew to his people in land of
Israel. It says the ASIO would be well
aware, that that's the group we're taught the
Australian aspect, that most Australian Jews do not
volunteer to serve in the ADF.
The vast majority of Jews in Australia, if
they do serve any national army, serve in
the IDF. Now that's the point again.
That's weird.
Why? You're you're you believe in Judaism and
you live in Australia. Why do you feel
obligated, or why are you even allowed to
go join the ADF?
My point is the same. If a Jewish
person lived in Australia and they had Australian
nationality and did or did not or maybe,
you know, chose to work through their military
or not, there would not be a problem.
It's only when they then also
are a part of the IDF or also
have Israeli nationality. It's very clear. The only
reason this is confusing is because we've had
spent a century almost of being told we're
racist for thinking otherwise,
even though we're not. It's obvious. And it
says, I elected to serve in the in
the ADF, he says, as a as if
he felt a strong sense of belonging to
Australia. And I wanted to give back to
the country and demonstrate the importance of serving
here in Australia. But he'd already served in
the IDF.
It says, it seems that events now have
to turn on me. He goes, the Australian
government is aware that every Jew harbors a
varying degree of loyalty to Israel. Some have
a higher and more overt levels of loyalty
than others. This is what he's saying. This
is the latent risk that the Australian government
must naturally accept when employing Jews.
The the revocation of my security clearance and
subsequent removal of myself from the military
basically, you know, argued that it could be
discrimination.
Lastly, and this is the important part,
at the second interview,
he stated on two occasions
that he would provide
classified or sensitive information to Israel if they
asked for it,
but then ultimately let them know after he
did. That's ridiculous.
That is why he lost his clearance, not
because he's a Jew, not because he's Israeli,
but because he made it clear that if
the situation rose, he would aside with Israel's
military
and give them classified information even if they
didn't want that.
And yet you will see a long string
of Zionist trying to make this out to
be racist against Jewish people even though I
argue it wouldn't matter at any con the
the point is this is just an obvious
issue
as he himself describes that there's a dual
loyalty issue here that then that Zionism
clearly manufactures.
But I would still argue that if you
put all of that aside, whether it was
any other dynamic and he said this, it
would still be revoked. And you know that.
That is really important.
And it shows you a change in the
Overton window and how is this all flipping
around. Now, back to what I was saying
earlier, I'm sure there was someone in the
comments, somebody else trying to disclaim we are
racist for the racist trope of dual loyalty.
It's not a trope and it applies everywhere
you look. It's you trying to make it
into something that turns everything against that. But,
again, that's actually how Zionism works.
Here, as Blakely points out, is something absolutely
incredible.
This is Bill Maher
taking issue
with
dual loyalty
in the government,
but for Palestinians.
You know, I I mean
And and the clip the clip is very
low, by the way. So just do your
best. I won't I won't chime in. You
can turn up the volume. Here it is.
Just, you know, I I mean,
it's one thing to be a a have
interest in another country. It's another thing to
sort of be the,
Palestinian representative in the congress as opposed
to representing Michigan.
Yeah. Well, maybe she feels an obligation, a
moral obligation, at the best way that she
can represent her values. Yeah. But she's in
the
American government. Right. There's 430 there's 434
other members. So one so one should be
from Palestine?
I'm not saying one should be from Palestine.
I'm saying she's in an important debate. Wow.
That's what it seems like what it is.
She's obviously representing her constituents. She has a
lot of Palestinian constituents. I think But also
feeling like that is a role that she
can play in an important debate. That she
is not just a member of congress from
one district, but she's representing a point of
view that she doesn't feel like is often
represented. I don't think there's anything wrong with
that. Even when, by the way, I have
been extremely critical of what she has said.
But Wow.
I the guy did a great job, by
the way. I don't even know who he
is. But, like, you know, they making a
rational balanced argument back. But, I mean, I
don't it it doesn't realistically,
the
idea that you could make an argument first
of all, I should ask you first. The
point he made, it's obvious there is a
very clear Palestinian,
representation there. So he the fact that he
would argue that is not what she should
represent even though there's like, it just shows
you that they don't even believe in the
same the fake democracy they pretend they do.
Right? The idea is that if you got
elected in a place where there is a,
like, a group a large grouping of Palestinians,
well, then that would be part of what
you're supposed to represent. That's how it's supposed
to work. But we all know that's not
really how it works. Nonetheless, I don't support
any of these people.
Just as a as a rule, I don't
I think politicians are inherently dishonest, especially in
this government. And I pointed it out in
all these people in the in the the,
what they call them, the the crew or
what do they call them, the the squad.
Again, they're all very partisan and all of
them. But, nonetheless,
the main point, think about how insane it
is for this man to make an issue
about dual loyalty to Palestine
for one person.
Well, you cannot bat an eye. You can't
throw a stone without hitting somebody who is
aggressively pro Israel to the point to where
they act in the interest of Israel over
America, especially today. That's left and right. He
knows that.
I think that's why he's making this point.
I think it's lazy,
but that's where we are.
Now going forward to the next point that
extends the same way, here's Insurrection Barbie. This
I just don't even know where these people
come from. Million followers,
but clearly has an agenda, has the same
talking points. And she says, once again, LOL,
here are the top 10 foreign countries lobbying
in America.
You I'm sure you know where this is
going. Look at that. China, number $1,446
thou million dollars. Excuse me. And it goes
down in in
decreasing all the way down to number 10
for Israel, Hundred And Eighty Eight Million Dollars.
No joke.
First, this is just many people pointed out.
I think this I'm I'm not oh, yeah.
This is what's his name? Schaeffer. He just
says, ma'am, you might wanna delete this. You're
missing so many lobbying financial positions, which she
is, that you're off on Israel by hundreds
of millions of dollars.
Just in this last election cycle alone, he
says. APAC, on top of that, isn't even
registered under Farah, so there's a second point
of contention. The point is that you do
not have the full picture. And I whether
she cares about that or not, I don't
think is the point. I think the point
is to go look, it's not Israel. That's
all this is about. Didn't say that, but
why else make this point right now?
And the reality is, and this is how
the person responds, a in APAC means American.
So that's why. It's not it's not it's
not Israel. Oh, that's they wrote America, so
I guess that's easy, then we know.
It's it's willful ignorance of people. It's crazy.
I mean, let's not forget that one of
the main reasons people discuss whether Israel killed
JFK
was this exact point and by forcing them
to register under Farah, which they then didn't
have to because of that. On top of
the fact of the pneumonia millet, the nuclear
dynamic, or at many other points. But this
was a huge one as he was just
about to force them to register as a
foreign agent, and then it didn't happen.
But you can decide for yourself, which I'll
include I've included that in the show notes
today.
But that's the main point overall,
is that
for well, to two. Right? The idea that
you you don't even touch I mean, well,
here's what I'm just looking this up on
on Brave. And you've seen us cover this.
Just under Brave's as of 2024 alone,
APAC,
by itself,
spent over a hundred million dollars just in
the twenty twenty four election cycle. Not the
whole year, which we know there's more lobbying,
just in what we can prove.
Twenty twenty four election cycle by itself was
a hundred billion dollars. That's not getting into
people like Miriam Adelson,
who's now spent about $200,000,000
here. But that's, of course, that's not counted
because that's not the same, but it is
though. It is the same thing. The main
point though is even on the record, APAC
spent a hundred million alone just on the
election cycle, but we're to believe
we're we're to believe
that from the entire year,
from that point, they spent only $88,000,000
for the rest of the entire year from
all Israel lobbying groups, not just APAC. That's
absolute BS.
This is how they deceive you for very
clear agendas. Now whether she's even aware of
the fact that she's deceiving for Israel or
not is relevant. The structure built around her
clearly is, and I think that's why it's
happening.
But Julian responds to this. Car
card Konradison or oh, Konradison. That's an interesting
last name.
Konradison.
It says not clear where the data came
from, but it's way off. I'm sure this
just got gleaned from some other post that
you saw on Elon's screen screenshots or something
like that. And it says, for starters, the
Israel lobby spent well over the what I
was just highlighting, a million, a hundred million
dollars just in the election cycle. The low
number could have something to do with APAC's
not having to register with a foreign agent,
you know, or you just not counting the
Jewish billionaires that pump hundreds of billions of
dollars into elections on behalf of these who
will lobby. Miriam Adelson, as we pointed out,
hundred million dollars to Trump, and I it's
gone up from that. That's the original cited
number. And the Adelson spent another hundred and
72,000,000 in 2020, which doesn't apply to this
current cycle, but it matters, on all RHINO
Republicans that stabbed Trump in the back. But
it says, and now we are supposed to
believe a hundred million in for Miriam Adelson
is an American agenda just because it's technically
not from Israel lobby. But even though I
disagree with that, they clearly are intertwined with
that same structure. But it says,
yeah, you're the same point. But, you know,
what they spent alone
accounted for more than a hundred and $88,000,000.
So it's it's a flimsy claim.
Now I figured we'd play this clip again
for those that might not have seen it.
But I just think it's it's interesting because
of how it's even corporate media, and it
just shows you how much the perception
has changed.
I mean, here's even APAC before or this
is 2022, but saying 97%
of APAC back candidates won their election. That
was in the midterms, but this 97%,
that's bipartisan.
That's almost everybody.
So here's what even MSNBC had to say
about the election cycle dynamic.
American Israel Public Affairs Committee. It was incorporated
in 1963.
For ten years prior to that, it was
known as the American Zionist Committee for Public
Affairs. Now by the way, that's the point
we always get into, and you could easily
prove that that was directly an Israeli group.
It's not an American group. It's an Israeli
government entity
that just changed its name because right at
that moment, they were being accused by being
a foreign agent by JFK. He got killed.
That went away.
And then they just changed their name and
then pretended it was an American group. It's
literally on Wikipedia for crying out loud. It's
just amazing the amount of the information you
can see if you just care to look.
But that point being said, so you know
it's an Israeli group that is funneling money
to politicians.
That's why they should register.
APAC calls itself America's pro Israel lobby. And
according to its website, it has over 3,000,000
members across the country in regional chapters working
to quote expand and strengthen The US Israel
relationship end quote. You may know APAC as
being one of the biggest and most recognizable
donors to many of the members of congress
in your state.
But contributing to campaigns is a relatively new
function of the organization.
Before 2021,
APAC did not endorse candidates nor give political
contributions.
Its focus was on lobbying
elected officials, not actually
electing officials.
But in a dramatic shift in policy,
APAC began directly funding candidates and spending big
on races in 2021.
APAC political action committee, APAC PAC.
Now just think about why the shift.
Right?
Post Biden.
Right? So you're getting close to midterms.
Why?
I mean, you have to at least look
at the the trail. Right? So they start
rapidly changing their structure. They start rapidly funding
basically everybody and trying to directly do so,
which is a huge change for anybody.
Why would they start doing that? What look
at what we now see.
Can we not at least ask whether this
was a massive coup from a foreign country
to literally buy off our entire power structure
and in a way that, like, pushed it
finally over the edge? And now we're seeing
this plan executed?
I'm it's just a thought. And I do
think the evidence is very strong on that
side, but can we not at least ask
whether that's what we're seeing? I keep pointing
this out from the very group that would
people would bat they would sneeze too hard,
and you would scream a coup. You know?
False flag or but and I I understand
why that reaction was there because it's pretty
prevalent if you know what you're looking at.
And now,
same just like last time, you I guess,
you feel like you won all of a
sudden, and the guard gets let down. And
now you have transparent
examples that you would have otherwise jumped at.
Just ask the question. I think it's clear.
Filed something called a statement of organization
with the FEC
just in time for the twenty twenty two
election cycle where it spent $50,000,000
including
both direct contributions to candidates
and outside spending like TV advertisements.
According to APEC, it donated money to 365
candidates from both parties, including
every single member of both democratic and republican
leadership in congress.
Every single member of leadership.
Now you realize the only reason they're allowed
to broadcast
public advertisements on American TV is because they
pretend to be an American group.
Can you can you imagine China broadcasting their
advertisements about politicians that they want to win
in the collections?
That sounds crazy. Right? And you'd be like,
there's no way we can allow that. Israel
does it every day.
109
Republicans
who voted
against the certification of the twenty twenty presidential
election in America
received campaign contributions from APAC. All in all,
APAC gave money to 342
members of the one hundred and eighteenth congress.
The twenty twenty two elections were the most
expensive midterms in American history with a total
cost of $8,900,000,000
spent.
Now last year, APAC ranked fifteenth
in total expenditure by a political action committee
according to data collected by Open Seagert. But
take a look at the other funders that
APAC is competing against for that title. ActBlue
and WinRed. They are Democratic and Republican party
machine. Save America is Donald Trump's,
money raising operation. The conservative club for growth,
EMILY's List focuses on electing democratic women to
office. All of the packs on this list
are massively
domestic focused ideological machines.
APAC is the only organization in the top
20 whose interests are focused entirely on America's
relationship to a foreign government.
Now let's take a look at who benefits
from APEC's largest.
Here are the top 20 recipients in congress,
the house and the senate of APEC money
in the twenty twenty two midterm cycle according
to open secrets. They're members of both parties.
They come from every corner of the country
with varying levels of experience in congress. The
Democrat Glenn Ivy of Maryland tops the list.
He beat out fellow Democrat Donna Edwards in
Maryland's house primary
after APAC poured millions
into pro Ivy advertisements and mailers.
Edwards was running for a second stint in
congress after serving during the Obama administration
where she voted present,
not even a no on a number of
pro Israel resolutions.
So the money poured in against her. Not
even an endorsement from Nancy Pelosi
could save her. Michigan Democrat, Haley Stevens, unseated
democratic representative, Andy Levin. Here's what Levin had
to say about that.
I'm really Jewish,
but,
AIPAC,
can't stand the idea
that I am the clearest, strongest Jewish voice
in congress. Now here's a perfect example of
what we talked about.
A Jewish person
who is,
challenged by Israel
because he does not believe in their Zionist
cause.
Right? So it's not about being Jewish. It's
about whether you believe in Zionism.
Standing for a simple proposition
that there's no way to have a secure
democratic homeland for the Jewish people unless we
achieve the political and human rights of the
Palestinian people. Right.
APEC spent
$4,000,000
against Levin. He lost by 20 points. So
think about that. One candidate for one seat,
$4,000,000,
and we're gonna pretend like we're it's that
the amount the the amount they're showing, it's
it's deliberately dishonest for this exact reason because
I think they're trying to cover up the
reality that this has already happened. When Michigan
congresswoman Mercedeh Talib, the only Palestinian American in
congress, was censured by the house in early
November over what some lawmakers called her rhetoric
around the Israeli Hamas war,
Twenty two
Democrats joined Republicans
in that censure vote.
Quick point. And at least in the chat,
someone's saying that Levin is a Zionist. She's
a liberal one. Now that's a fair point,
but the I guess to make it more
of a clear distinction, it's I would argue
that if a
a giant the Zionist mentality right now is
about destroying the Palestinians
for the objective.
Right? So I maybe you argue that there's
a split in the Zionist perspective, and maybe
that that's fair to that's worth discussing. I'm
simply arguing that the objective so you have
the Zionist leadership that would then argue whether
he calls himself a Zionist, he that he
wouldn't be if they're challenging that agenda. That's
just my opinion. Who knows what they're actually
saying? But it's a fair point to make.
I get to make it more specific, it's
about the agenda playing out that the Zionists
are carrying out, and he doesn't seem to
be involved on in line with that, whether
he believes his Zionist or not.
18 of those Democrats repay received cash early
November over what some lawmakers called her rhetoric
around the Israeli Hamas war. Twenty two Democrats
joined Republicans
in that censure vote.
18 of those Democrats repay received campaign funds
from APAC in 2022,
totaling more than $1,100,000
By the way, for these six of them,
APAC was their top contributor.
A growing list of progressive lawmakers who are
vocal in their criticism of the government of
Israel and its policies and their support for
Palestinian self determination have inspired APAC to spend
even more.
As progressive lawmakers began calling for an immediate
ceasefire in Gaza, Slate reported that insiders expect
APAC's twenty twenty four spending
to hit $100,000,000.
In fact, United Democracy Project, which is a
pro Israel super PAC affiliated with APAC is
already spending money on attack ads against democratic
representatives Jamaal Bowman of New York and Summer
Lee of Pennsylvania.
Lee has already got a primary challenger as
do Corey Bush and Ilhan Omar. Pro Israel
donors have already signaled that they are eager
to primary Rashida Tlaib and Alexandria Ocasio Cortez.
So if they spent over a hundred million
dollars
just on the twenty twenty four election cycle,
how much do they spend on the midterms,
which was also in 2020 I mean or
no. That would have been
2022. I'm trying to think what else would
have been in 2024. Anyways, the the point
is the same. If you just literally stand
back and look at all the information about
who and and it's not just APAC, guys.
There's a ton of Israeli lobbying groups that
spend a lot of money. Again, the same
point. I just it I really need to
be clear that
if people are out there deliberately misrepresenting the
amount of money coming from what they want
you to think as an American group, like,
why would that be?
Congresswoman Lee already overcame APAC's financial influence against
her once. She tweeted criticisms of Israel's treatment
of Palestinians in 2021,
but as a candidate, she affirmed Israel's right
to exist,
but that's not good enough. Right. Apex spent
nearly $3,000,000
in the primary alone to defeat Lee, and
they almost did. She beats Steven Irwin who
is third on the list of money given
to candidates
by APEC in 2022
by less than a thousand votes. And if
congresswoman Lee wants to keep her seat in
2024,
she's going to have to do it all
over again. She joins me.
Well, here's a clip you've all seen, I'm
sure, which is just the idea, especially for
the Republican conversation,
that everybody's got an APAC guy. Republicans who
come to me and say, that's wrong what
APAC is doing to you. Let me talk
to my APAC person.
By the way, everybody but me has an
APAC person. What's that mean, an APAC person?
It's like your babysitter, your APAC babysitter
who,
is always talking to you for APAC. They're
probably a constituent in your district,
but they are, you know,
firmly embedded in APAC.
And Every member has something like this?
Every rep I don't know how it works
on the Democrat side,
but that's how it works on the Republican
side.
And when they and when they come to
DC, you go have lunch with them. And
they've got your cell number,
and you have conversations with them. So I've
had, like
That's absolutely crazy. I've had four members of
congress say, I'll talk to my APAC person.
And, like, it's clearly what we call them,
my APAC guy.
I'll talk to my APAC guy and see
if I can get him to, you know,
dial those ads back. Why have I never
heard this before?
Good question. It doesn't benefit anybody.
Why would they wanna tell their constituents that
they've basically got a buddy system
with somebody who's representing a foreign country?
There you go. It doesn't benefit the congressman
for people to know that, so they're not
gonna tell you that.
Right. Exactly.
Very clear. Now I would argue it's probably
exactly the same on the Democrat side. The
only the only thing I might argue would
be there might be a slight deviation in
in different just because you could argue that
there's
I mean, I mean, like, it only because
of the current
overwhelming support that the Republican side is showing
for Israel that it seems that I mean,
I I honestly, from my general perspective, I
think that it'd be that everybody in power
would have somebody like that if that was
what Israel wanted or if that, you know,
if it was allowed to be that way.
And I do think that's the case. If
you just and, again, just look at like,
explain the game of Biden's administration
in action
doing all the same things, but just kinda
flowing a different slight different narrative. That's all
it really comes down to. It's about keeping
you thinking there's difference when all of them
still fund and support all the same things.
Here's the Freddy Pontone's clip for that in
case you wanted to keep that as well.
I have to put this in the show
notes for you.
97%,
they said. This is the midterms again. It
says, we've just helped defeat 12 candidates who
worked to undermine US Israel relationship. That's all
that all we care about? Right? Who cares
if the constituents in those local areas want
those people because they care about what they
want? No. No. No. AIPAC is able to
influence what can happen because you don't agree
with their perspective on how you should relate
with Israel. That's crazy. And even on the
surface, that's crazy.
What about the local people in these local
areas? Don't they get to the nope. Nope.
AIPAC decides. Being pro Israel is good, both
policy and politics, they say. My god. That's
so crazy.
Now Elon Musk comes out with this, and
this is one of the points I was
also referring. Like, we just talked about this
screenshot. It's so crazy to me how this
happens.
Now I'm willing to bet you, especially since
this comes from the Doge mod, whatever that
means. There's like a Doge aspect of Twitter
now where they have like a mod rules.
It's very weird.
But that this comes from him. Some apparently,
his his sheet on his computer.
Now my point is not that I whether
for all I know, these numbers are accurate.
I don't know though. That's the point because
there's no source material, and I have no
way to reference this stuff. So he shares
this thing on February 21. This is, are
you ready to have your mind blown? USAID
has given a total of, wait for it,
hundred and 64
basically, hundred and $65,000,000
to linked terrorist organizations.
But, dude, take take the time to look
at these. Now I who I'm not gonna
say I know for sure.
But, well, I could say, what do you
think a linked terrorist organization means?
I mean, that means whatever they want it
to mean. That they say, well, they work
for this group that is part of some
Palestinian thing, so terrorists. That's what they're doing.
Now you go through and look at these,
you'll see for yourself. One, for example, is
the Palestinian Children's Relief Fund.
Right? Here's what at least, aware that I
or what is it brave says?
It is a registered five zero one c
three nonprofit organization established in 1991, on and
on and on. I'm not gonna say I
know one way or the other for sure
because I don't. But they argue there's no
evidence which matters to provide in the context
that links this to a terrorist organization. Okay.
So what are they what are they what
are they doing? I already argued last time.
They're simply pointing out anything that's Islamic, that's
Muslim,
because that's just it's gross, guys, or Palestinian.
And they gave them money, which, again, I
don't agree with it. I don't think any
money right now should be leaving
really, I don't think
a whole different conversation, but I don't think
the money should be going for foreign funding
of anything, especially Israel,
while we are $36,000,000,000,000
in debt. Very logical.
But if you just recognize what they're pointing
at while they're funding all other things anyway
that you're just some buzzword word they want
you to reach. It's it's just gross, and
it shows you that they're deliberately trying to
misinform everybody. But my point is he just
says,
this person posts a screenshot.
So anybody honest would go, well, that's what
he's claiming. I can't verify that. Right?
But that's not what you're gonna get. Well,
first, because Elon tags it, shows he says,
as as many people have said, why pay
terrorist organizations in certain countries to hate us
when they're perfectly willing to do it for
free?
Not saying true or not true or I
agree. Just saying something and pointing to it,
which then allows everyone to blindly take it
at face value. Now Palestinian community rightly points
out like I did for the last person
I saw share this. And it says, well,
since World War two, Israel's received more than
$250,000,000,000
in just military aid.
Ton more for all just others as well.
Every year, a minimum
of $3,800,000,000
gets sent to Israel. Now Trump
extended that from Obama. That continued that very
same agreement and actually increased the amount
you talked about at the time. Last year,
the figure was $22,000,000,000.
20 2 billion dollars to Israel in one
year. And we're talking about, what, a hundred
and 60 4 million to a combined seventeen,
eighteen, 20 different agencies that are not necessarily
linked to terrorists because they point to a
screenshot?
That's wild. Now what you'll notice here,
how many of these absolute partisan mindless followers
regurgitated the post? Wall Street Mav.
1,600,000
followers. I mean, this one itself,
Elon, sixteen point five million. This guy's post
from Doge, 16,500,000
also. Funny how that works. Triple you know,
doubled it out. Wall Street,
Mav got another 6,000
views.
And they don't share any source material. It's
a screenshot, and this one's actually a screenshot
of a screenshot, and then just goes, I'm
speechless.
Yeah. I'm speechless too how ridiculous you guys
are. How you didn't no one's checking any
of this. Now hear me. I'm not saying
I know for sure that's not accurate. My
point is no other do you. Nobody does
because nobody shared any source material as far
back as you wanna look, but you'll find
a ton. My point is they just see
this say Doge mod, they take it at
face value.
Would you do that if it was a
Democrat?
You shouldn't do it either way. You shouldn't
take any government person at face value. We
all used to agree with that.
But you look
many, many,
many huge accounts sharing screenshots of screenshots,
you'll not find the source material.
You I think even if it turned out
to be true, same point. That's not it
shows you these people are parrots.
Right? I mean, guys, what we're looking at
is one big two party illusion nonsense, where
they're all just parroting whatever. You know, they're
just a bunch of redemlicans all saying the
same damn thing. They're all one big blob
of nonsense. And here they are just share
sharing what their person said.
It's everywhere.
But look for yourself, it goes on forever.
And I and again, whether those most of
those groups, you can literally look up for
yourself and find that they're just connected to
something Muslim or something Palestinian, and they just
go terrorist groups because that's easy and lazy
and disgusting.
Doctor. Simon Godek,
going back to the Epstein list, points out
another illusion of all this.
And again, I'm not gonna be the one
that said, they said day one was not
done, so fail, even though that technically is
a promise that was not kept. Day one,
we'll do this, and they didn't do it.
Even though same people would scream about Biden
not doing it, it's the same back and
forth nonsense. The point is highly unlikely these
things are gonna happen the first day, again,
which we were yelled at for saying that
at the time.
Now the point is, well, the Epstein list
should have been released based on what we
were told. Right?
But they're acting like there's some ongoing thing
and okay. Well, ask yourself.
If we're to believe what Republicans are saying,
which is just Democrats, right, Biden and bad
guy, why would you need to do anything?
Right?
Just release it. Isn't that what we you're
it's all transparency and the truth we're told.
Right? You're fighting the deep state. Release the
list. What is the issue?
You're the only thing you can logically discern
from this is that means there's something on
that list, if it even exists in front
of them right now, that they don't want
you to see. Whether that's an ally of
theirs, whether that's somebody in the current government,
whether it's Trump himself.
I think that's ridiculously self evident. But the
point is, Simon Goodak says the Epstein list
should have been released yesterday. They posted this
on the twenty fifth. So it was yesterday.
They posted today, but yesterday.
That's so confusing the way I said that.
He said this today, referencing that it should
have been read at least yesterday. Now, he
says every single delay
only fuels more speculation.
If there's something to hide, if there's nothing
to hide, why the secrecy?
The people deserve to know. Until then,
here are just a few totally unthinkable rumors
that will keep spreading. One, the delay is
because the list includes US Presidents, Top Intelligence
Officials, and key media moguls, which I can
guarantee it does. The entire system would crumble
overnight.
Hooray.
Number two, blackmail operations are still active.
At powerful figures aren't being exposed because they're
still paying for silence or being forced to
play along.
Also, I think simultaneously active. That's Israel for
you. And we haven't if you're not seeing
that by now, you're not looking. Number three,
some names are being erased before publication. Again,
I think probably all of these simultaneously.
The delay is just a cleanup operation
ensuring that only expendable people take the fall
while the real power players stay in touch.
Now look, if you can't again, same as
all of these points. If you can't stand
back and go, that's very possible or at
least just possible,
you're lying to yourself.
My point is that when the list comes
out, if it does, why would we assume
we know for sure that that represents the
full list? It's not gonna be in some,
some,
format that allows us to be able to
see that it's like the original document. That's
not how it's gonna work. Whatever that would
even mean. How can we even prove that?
It's going to be a list they put
out on something, and they claim that's all
of it. And the people that want to
believe it will buy it. And, anyway, from
me, my perspective, maybe it is the fullest.
I don't know. And that's the only honest
way to engage with it.
But at this time in at this point
in time, all of these things make sense
with the reality that they've waited for some
unknown reason.
I mean, I could also be objective and
say, maybe there is a reason
that is, you know, national security or something
that we would agree with and they just
can't say out loud, certainly possible.
Unlikely with everything we see right now, but,
you know, possibilities do exist. A massive distraction
is coming, number four,
whether it's war, a financial collapse, or another
crisis, something is gonna be used to make
sure we forget about this. Now that is
what almost always seems to happen.
It says, but this is not a conspiracy
theory. It's common sense. Just the just considering
the possibilities. Not saying we know for sure
one of them will happen, but these are
all possible.
The longer they stall, the worse it looks.
So
Sal Diagris points out today.
And that this is not to say this
is kind of him being, like, kind of
satirical or rather just kind of snide, but
the point is, and I agree with him,
not that they're doing this, but this is
what you can discern from it not happening
or at least the way to frame it
so you get Trump people to see it
this way. He says, so if Trump ordered
the Epstein list to be released, which is
what they're claiming he did, right, and the
AG he hired refuses to comply, which again,
that's not what they see it as, but
isn't that what's happening?
Why are we waiting? He ordered it day
one, right? Release those January 6 people, he
said it out loud, do it.
Funny how they apply that urgency one way
and not the other. But it goes on
to say, why does she still have a
job,
Right? So if she hasn't released it, even
though he said to today, then why is
she still you get the point. Interesting way
to think about it, but it won't be
applied that way. There'll be a assumed benefit
of the doubt for why it's taking that
long because she's on our side.
But here's there's a few there's a, like,
I think so that we'll list a few
of them that are, like, involved in this
process. It's this is one of them, rep
representative Anna Polina Luna. Again, all these people
are and we went over it already.
Like, blatantly
over the top pro Israel.
Zionist,
absolutely clear about that.
She says all the secrets the deep state
has kept from the American people will be
revealed.
This is what president Trump ordered, and this
is what the American people receive.
Age of meme politics. What does this have
to do with anything? Why are you even
posting this?
It it be
it's not it's meaningless. You're saying things that
have they're not doing something today.
So you just stood up and said, the
things will happen that you want.
We're on your team.
The
American people asked. They got what they wanted.
It's okay. This is just it's a politician
just placating you.
Yeah. Maybe maybe you believe her. My point
is that the word of this is just
statement. There's no need for this other than
to keep you feeling like you're winning.
Even if you actually are, understand. It still
is the same point. Just to keep they
want you to remember that we're doing it
and we're all the same stuff, but not
but there's no action.
That's the twenty second.
Nancy Mace comes up with the twenty fourth
and says, what do you want the declassification
and transparency task force to expose first?
Epstein, JKF, K, UAPs?
Eighty five percent vote j f vote Epstein
list.
It's just it's just okay. Just release all
three of them. What is the issue here
unless you're covering something up? There's always the
the the differential kind of mindset to be
like, well,
we they they they need to give the
benefit of the doubt because they're trying to
make sure no. That is you giving them
the mindset that they're doing the right thing.
You don't know that.
I want exact actual transparency. I wanna see
the whole damn thing, and I'll decide what's
important to for American people and for myself
from that perspective.
Jim, the patriot simply points out that what
a tinkle web we weave and shows all
of them involved.
Here's Anna,
thirty six thousand dollars from APAC. Here's Nancy
Mates, hundred and fifty three thousand from APAC.
Here's Tim Burchett, twenty three thousand from APAC.
Here's Brandon Gill, twenty five thousand. Here's Eric
Burleson, fourteen thousand. And here's Laurel Lauren Bobbitt,
twenty three thousand. The point is, you could
argue that's just money they took because they're
politicians, which in and of itself, I think
is crazy.
But at the very least, if you're objective,
that's money they took from somebody who has
an interest in this outcome. That has to
that that is the textbook example of a
conflict of interest.
She follows up on the same day.
Oh, no. I'm sorry. There's there's more from
her. This is the same post, and this
is another response.
The Texas one responds, release the files. We
don't need or want the theatrics.
These are Republicans, guys.
That's what I'm always trying to show you.
A lot of people are just not buying
the shtick right now.
And that same same post, Truthstream Media response.
It says, treating the American people like children
and your task force like a poorly written
episodic TV show isn't going to build or
regain trust, just so you know.
Absolutely. This is my point, guys. People are
not buying it. Now here is representative Anna
Paulina Luna on the twenty fourth saying,
my GOP oversight task force first hearing will
be held on March 26, and we'll examine
the assassination of president j f of JFK.
We will also visit the site of the
assassination in Dallas, Texas and speak with firsthand
ways of state. Okay.
Do it. You see, I just I'm just
so exhausted with this this it's just old
talking points and memes.
Do it. Do something. Stop. There's 3,000,000 views,
and people share this and go see. We're
literally pointing at this as if this is
is something other than just placation.
And so you're gonna go to Texas, like
realized most dynamics around the JFK assassination are
long past be like most people are dead.
I frankly think a lot of this is
just about putting on a show.
And the obvious point we already made is
about whether any of these people will reveal
the fact that
Israel killed JFK, which I think the the
evidence is pretty shockingly obvious. And it seems
to be as Corey Hughes points out in
conjunction with the CIA. My point is these
people are Zionists working for the US government
that are very unlikely to reveal that they
were involved with that. But here she is
in the same day, twenty fourth.
Right? So this this is my point.
This is propaganda.
She puts this out on 08/30 on the
twenty fourth. We're doing this and we're working
on that. Then she just decides to follow-up
and a couple hours later, release the Epstein
files.
Okay. Who are you talking to? That's what
we're saying to you. What you're just gonna
yell that out with exclamation mark. We're gonna
go, yay. She said it. We're on the
same team.
They think your child they literally treat you
like your children.
Here she is a few hours later.
Pam Bondi, we saw over the weekend you're
reviewing all files from JFK to Epstein. We
are all anticipating their release. When will they
be declassified and available to public?
See, you don't need to put that on
Twitter. She can call her. They're probably in
the same effing room.
To me, that is about giving you the
show.
Look. We're talking, and I'm calling for it
to be we're on the same. I don't
need to keep fleshing out the point, guys.
It's transparent to anybody who cares to see
it. It's a show.
James James Lee says, what kind of Mickey
Mouse operation are you running here? Right?
Exactly.
Now Elon Musk, on the twenty fourth, quotes
what Liz Churchill said, one of the other,
you know, kind of in the minute or
the
anyway, says, wow. Senator Marsha Blackburn asked so
the the story is Blackburn says things.
Ask Kash Patel to release unredacted files. So
the same game. Okay. So was the assumption
it was gonna be be redacted?
Then why? That's not what they claimed. They
said full transparency. But so now you're calling
up and saying, do the thing that you
already said you would do. And then says,
after claiming Democrats blocked her from doing it
for years.
Oh, okay. So you
didn't release the information that you had access
to because they blocked you? What does that
even mean? Release it. Be a whistleblower. Do
the right thing. So you're basically admitting the
fact that you've always known the reality and
you've never told anybody till now and you
haven't released it till now. And now you're
just going, do it
because they haven't let me.
Am I am I the only one that
finds this like childishly stupid?
I guess it's ridiculous.
And then she goes, wow. It's like, what?
What? Nothing's happened yet. And Elon Musk goes,
yes. You know, his little bot response he
does and just go, give that millions of
reach because
I don't know. We want the narrative to
keep going.
11,000,000
views.
Doctor. Simon Godek says, Hey, Pam Bondi. Which
names on the Epstein client list are so
explosive that they're causing this delay?
If there's nothing to hide, there's no excuse
for dragging this out. The longer you stall,
the more obvious it becomes. Drop the list
now.
Representative
Ana Polina Luna.
This is where it gets even more interesting.
Points to the fact that the FBI is
deleting everything right now.
Who didn't see this coming?
Now understand what we're talking about here. We're
not up in coming up to Trump's overlap
here. We're well into Trump's administration. Now, yes,
they're still going over confirmations. But if you
were to believe that they just allowed
I mean, look at all the I mean,
look at again, there's no one action that
solves everything as much as they want to
pretend that in certain cases, whatever partisan we're
talking about from either side. So I'm the
first to admit that it's not as simple
as just going done. Right?
But in other context, we step in and
we act like he's just able to mix
and change and do everything. It's all. Now,
we're in Trump's administration. We're months into it.
Right?
So, we're to believe that the FBI has
just been allowed to just continue to do
whatever it's been doing. Like, if we're seizing
into the IRS and taking all the data,
why wouldn't they do that?
I'm not even saying you should or I
want that or that it even makes sense
or it's even possible. My point is that
it's interesting that we're gonna argue right now,
as I'll read it to you in a
second, that this was something they set out
to do from the beginning. So Trump was
saying, we're gonna do this,
knowing that the FBI would be involved, and
then you step in and then you don't
do anything to secure the information that you
know that you might you think based on
your narrative that they'll do something to stop?
Maybe that's because it was always supposed to
go this way. Maybe because Trump's list is
on that name. That's funny. Trump's name is
on the list. But she goes, well, first,
Bennet Johnson shares this. And this is what
I find. This is the meme culture, right?
Bennet Johnson,
a mainstream alternative media person comes out and
says or interviews a guy that Alice Jones
was just pointing to and saying FBI whistleblower
reveals the FBI is actively destroying files.
How does he know that?
As far as I could tell, this guy
is not an active member of the FBI.
At the same point,
you're is it I mean, at least consider
the possibility this guy is simply saying this
because it suits an agenda. Now or he's
telling the truth. The point is neither you
or I know that. He's saying things
considerate.
Okay?
But who benefits is always the first step.
Not the only step, but always the first
step. Who benefits?
I think that's transparent right now. Israel, The
United States Government that's involved, or people in
the congress that are involved who don't want
the information to be leaked out, who now
get to go, well, they just destroyed it
before we could. Is there only one piece
of data? Is there not a secondary point?
I mean, so many things to point out.
But he says, the FBI is working day
and night to destroy these files day and
night. We're we're doing paper shredding now, apparently.
We're back in the nineties. It says, can't
be restored. I'm sure there's info about Epstein
and subversion against the Americans.
I'm sure.
Here's what's so stupid about this. Look, Ana
Paulina Luna,
not because they reached out to her, not
because the whistleblowers are speaking to Congress or
people in the government, but because the guy
spoke to Bennett Johnson. He posted on Twitter
and she goes, oh, following up.
Okay. So you so you got you now
you found out through Twitter and you're just
looking into it because there's a tweet?
And it says, Cash Patel will discover exactly
who destroyed these documents. So now it's happened
before we even look into it. So you're
following up. Now you know they've been destroyed.
So you're taking what he says at face
value without investigation?
Yes. Doesn't that show you something?
It shows me this is a theater show,
that you're just building on the narrative, like
the meme culture we already saw. It becomes
a joke, then Elon shares it, then Trump
captions it, then all of a sudden it
becomes what we're doing because they like it.
To me, the the the timing even.
Right? The timing even from looking at how
it's it's the same moment. Like, it's it's
ours. And we're talking about the idea that
you're following up immediately and going back and
saying, we'll discover who did the thing he
just pointed to. I'd love to see evidence
of any of the things they claim are
happening. I'm not even saying it's it seems
likely that would happen.
To me, if this ends up where they
say the Democrats, even though we're talking about
Trump's current administration,
destroyed this through the FBI before we could
get to it, are you gonna buy that?
Obviously, it's possible, but are you just gonna
blindly take it at face value? I'd like
to believe most conservatives or Democrats would probably
go, I don't know about that.
But you know the team sport Republicans are
gonna go, absolutely,
%
before approving anything.
Here's our interview with Corey Hughes, if you'd
like to check it out. I I think
it's important. The evidence is pretty hard to
deny.
Now we just talked about this in regard
to the deep state,
the globalism, the reality of it, the new
world order. This was on the January 8.
As Israel's Globalist ambitions become clear,
transparent,
realize I mean, there are multiple fronts, taking
Lebanese territory, taking Syria.
Right? They've already occupied all of Palestine. There
are I mean, it's it's just encroaching everywhere
you look, even Egypt.
That's obvious. You have The US doing the
same thing. You have them working together to
it's obvious to me.
But as their globalist ambitions become clear, TeamSport
Republicans endorse
the North American Union.
That was on the at the about the
point about the very clear map you can
see here at the UN showing you the
outline for what they're now accomplishing through a
different agenda.
Worth considering what the deep state, globalist, Zionist,
technocratic agenda, the groupings behind it actually are,
not just the democrats.
There's really all of it.
But,
of course, it's not Israel. Right? Can't be
because
Elon Musk said so.
Mark Levin, very blind Israel supporter, says he
points this video out
about the
trial. Netanyahu, basically, open criminal that the entirety
of Israel hauls out as a criminal. I
mean, it's it's it's hilariously obvious. But he
goes, the legal war against Netanyahu. Yeah. Because
he committed a lot of crimes, and they
all know that. Even Miriam Adelson is on
a leaked video claiming that if she had
spoken out that Netanyahu had her killed.
I mean, it's just crazy.
These people know they're lying, guys. And so
too does Elon Musk. He responds and says,
the deep state is everywhere. But you see,
this is what I keep pointing out. Did
he just explicitly say
that the deep state's going after Netanyahu? No.
He highlights this tweet and just shares a
statement that you could decide applies to this
or not. The deep state is everywhere.
Right? So eventually, if he tried to pretend
he didn't mean that, he goes, I just
I just said that they are everywhere.
Always how this works. But you know what
he's trying to imply. He wants you to
believe that the deep state is fighting Netanyahu.
It's just crazy how obvious this is.
So the obvious and one of the most
immersed aspects of what the deep state, globalist,
technocratic agenda
Israel, a very clear part, The US and
what they're doing through the technocratic kind of
Silicon Valley. I mean, all the stuff we've
seen is very clear to me as they
do all the things we're talking about. But
if he just says, well, deep state going
after Netanyahu, therefore, they're
not. But they are, though. And it's very,
very obvious. And that's the point about what
we see playing out. But as long as
they keep sharing memes like this and wokeness
says the deep state will not go down
without a fight. Buckle up.
You said, what what's the point of that?
You're just simply keeping people going. You're you
got your followers and just waiting for the
new thing. Yay, raw.
Keep pushing because the deep state so keep
doing what? Whatever they tell you to do.
Whatever they just did, keep doing that because
that's what they're doing. Oh, is it? And
Elon just shares this, cracks knuckles.
It's just a theater show, guys. It's sad.
And it's sad that anybody falls for this
stuff.
But Israel
is one of the most, if not the
most transparent, enemy problem villain in the world
right now.
Everyone in the world sees it. That does
not mean every Israeli or every Jewish person.
In many cases, not even close. The reality
is that the Israeli government and the Zionist
structure that's infiltrated all sorts of governments around
the world
is a very transparent problem that anybody with
a morals, integrity of eyes can see.
That's why it's so concerning that have basically
the entire power structure, both sides of it,
blindly in line with that.
But as we just talked about earlier, Robert
followed up with a great report about the
Tel Aviv bus bombings. You know, very objective.
Basically, outlines the different possibilities, shows you the
evidence that makes us believe that it's probably
a false flag, but doesn't necessarily say we
know that for sure. It's worth reading. It's
a great overview, and I I frankly think
it's pretty transparent,
especially since they've and at the very least,
never let a good never let a good
crisis go to waste kinda point where whoever's
responsible without even knowing they're going West Bank,
we're going after and they rolled into the
West Bank even though they were already doing
that, which is basically what they did. And
we already knew that was gonna happen because
Trump's agreement was already made according to the
Knesset
and the second phase part of that as
well. Now we already saw this coming, at
least if you watch this show.
During Biden's administration, they didn't care either. They
they same game, though. They feigned it from
a different side, but acting like they're trying
to work with the so what they did
was basically push this in, but then didn't
care. Alright. So they put in a directive
that basically said they weren't allowed to fund
Israel if they violate the law or the
human rights laws, but that was already the
law. So this was a fame move anyway.
But But then on top of that, didn't
even care. They kept funding them anyway despite
the lie. We went over that many times.
So, that that's the different flavor.
The amount and the outcome is the same.
Okay?
Trump steps in,
removes the Biden directive, just pulls the mask
off. The outcome is the same. It's just
a different flavor. You see my point? But
what he did is very transparently show Israel.
Go ahead and keep violating every law you
want. We'll keep funding you. I already sent
billions and billions of dollars,
but it says Trump appeals Biden directive linking
US arms sales to human rights.
There's only a few groups that that relates
to right now, primarily Ukraine and Israel. And
that is that if they violate human rights,
legally, you're not allowed to sell them weapons.
That's international law too. They don't care. It's
already US law. They don't care.
He's just simply making it clear. We don't
care about human rights. We care about business
dealings and power. So Israel, do what you
want. We'll even remove the directive so it's
transparent. There's not even a legal challenge.
This is what the your government is currently
doing. This is Arets, by the way.
Now Ukraine, to go over some foreign policy
point before we go, finish with some other
points about Israel and Gaza. If you haven't
seen this, it's been developing.
Again, it's funny how rapidly this changes. It
started with the you know, basically, the game.
Remember the first point is that they're gonna
end the Ukraine war on day one. That
didn't happen. Now he's gonna stop the funding.
That also didn't happen despite the feigning of
that or
Marjorie Taylor Greene claiming that he did. And
then, like, the day after, they still also
they continue to fund Ukraine. I pointed out
twice now, also through Israel because they're still
funding Ukraine.
But then it went to,
we need to stop this. There was a
weird kind of spin up between it between
the, Zelensky and Trump. I mean, it just
got all ridiculous, very rapidly. Then it became
the world we're gonna we're gonna take. We're
gonna make a deal for the minerals. And
all most of us were like, and there
you go, which is exactly one of the
main points we were making from the beginning.
That it wasn't about defending anything. It was
about you gaining what you wanted from this
at the expense of Ukrainians, like every damn
thing else we're talking about.
Then it became a weird moment where they
said Europe offered him a deal. Zelensky turned
him down. I think that was sort of
a honestly, I think that was a lie.
I mean, I can't even read it. It
happened so quickly.
My point is that it now reverted back,
and Ukraine has agreed to terms of minerals,
a deal for minerals with The United States.
It's just it's it's one of those I
told you so moments, guys. Is this is
this what Ukrainians want? The US government to
come in and mine everything out from underneath
them at the expense of everybody there?
That's not gonna benefit anybody but the globalist,
technocratic control structure. They need this for what
they're building.
It's the same anywhere else they're working in.
This is one of the main points in
and also, I think, for Syria for manipulating
Russia, but this seems to be the outcome.
Now you've got Israel literally building out Syria
for themselves, and I guarantee this will be
next.
That's my opinion.
As I said, let's not forget that Israel
funds Ukraine and the Azov movement,
and they have been. This is in 02/2018.
Rights groups demand Israel stop arming neo Nazis
in Ukraine. Very public. People still act that
it's confusing to them. It shouldn't be. They've
been doing it their entire existence.
Israel.
Trump is still funding Israel, which it commits
a as it commits a multi nation genocide,
which he explicitly made sure to do. Then
he is still funding Ukraine because Israel funds
Ukraine. But after this, they went on to
fund Ukraine again.
Now Ben Norton points this out. It said
this is the article from Kia Post saying
Ukraine receives Israeli anti defense early warning systems.
He says Israel supporting Ukraine in the NATO
Russian proxy war and gave it a missile
warning system. It's impossible to support Palestine if
you support Ukraine.
Ukraine is an ally of the genocidal Israeli
regime, which I've been saying for a very
long time. I mean, it's public, but people
just don't wanna agree with it. Ukraine is
The US Empire's Israel and Europe.
Now, Town World
called this out on the twenty first. It
says Zelensky just caved.
After hesitation,
Ukraine is now set to sign a $500,000,000,000
deal. Am I the only one that keeps
noticing the same weird overlap?
Whether it's Apple funding this or Stargate funding
for that or Ukraine giving
very strange to me, by the way. So
the it's not strange if you look at
how this is it is one deal for
another. You are watching kind of the we're
we're being sold out.
That's my opinion. Now, of course, you could
argue he's doing this in the interest of
The United States, but let's see how it
plays out. I hope you're right. I don't
think that's I think what you can see
in every way is what they're doing is
for something else at the very least, if
not for none of us. But the bottom
line is that seems very telling.
So did he make this deal to to
supplant to pay for this one and that
coming from over? It's very strange.
My point is we won't ultimately see how
this all interconnects until we see it flush
out.
But it says giving up 50% of its
rare earth minerals.
This comes just hours after Trump allied applied
pressure. Now here's another way to look at
it, by the way. So now all you're
doing is you're signing a deal for the
minerals that that they've basically already been taking,
and you continue to fund their war for
$500,000,000,000.
Now whatever happens with the agreement with Russia
or what we see between these two will
make the difference on that point. Right? But
at the if if the war continues,
he just funded it with $500,000,000,000
for
taking from Ukraine. Even though we know Zelensky
not even though, but as Zelensky is a
puppet of outside forces and is not representative
of Ukraine. That would be why.
It says this comes just hours after Trump
applied pressure. Remember when they said Trump was
weak on Ukraine? Now Zelensky is scrambling to
stay in good graces. America First foreign policy
is back.
How stupid.
How in the world is that America First?
I mean, there's just no way this is
typical
foreign US foreign policy, left or right, guys.
It is taking from foreign entities at the
using military power at the expense of the
local people, which always only blows back on
us. Not us America, us as American people
because our government doesn't care.
It never stops.
But as
David Icke says, clown world about sums up
the spin of this highly misleading post. One
of the goals of the Ukraine conflict has
been to as asset strip the country of
its people. This is not about glove puppet
Zelensky, but the people of Ukraine who see
their country in future handed through glove puppet
Trump to the corporate oligarchs of the the
global cult that owns Zelensky, Trump, Musk, Putin,
Xi, Biden, Obama, and the bloody lot of
them. But please enjoy the slow the show,
although, spoiler alert, in the last act,
we all get shafted completely with AI while
the cult steals all the cookies. Yes. You
get shafted especially, MAGA, while they laugh at
you.
Now, here's
Lindsey Graham
just deciding to step up and say, hey,
we need to bomb Iran because that's seemingly
like, every what you need to see first
of all, these people just always with their
their angle.
It's all military war. It's it's the opposite
of what benefits you.
But you also have to notice that every
one of these agendas
are in a field of war or field
of politics that are in Israel's interest.
You can't miss that overlap every time, whether
it's Ukraine, whether it's Iran, whether it's if
it's all further is there is there some
new field where The US is involved that
doesn't involve Israel? No. Point it out to
me. I'd love to see it. Everything they're
doing is for Israel's interest, and people that
are paying attention have been calling that out
for a long
time.
Administration
is going to have to make a decision
here very soon
about the Iran nuclear program. There are two
paths to take,
a military path where we help Israel.
Israel?
I think he said so stupid. He said,
Israel.
A military path where we help Israel
deliver a decisive blow against Iran's nuclear infrastructure.
I prefer that path.
The second path is to negotiate with Iran
to try to get them to abandon their
nuclear,
ambitions.
If that path is chosen, it needs to
be limited in time.
We should put it on the clock,
and we should define what success looks like.
Oh, yeah. It was called the JCPOA, you
moron, and you guys all pulled away from
it because that's not actually what you want.
You want the destruction or cooption or occupation
of Iran for Israel.
That's what's been on the play, the seven
countries five years. I mean, it's transparent.
So, I mean, I've I've gone over this
so many times. I'm only including it now
to point out that there's many different aspects
of what they're continuing, though, the peace president
as they roll out all these new fronts
of war. But to highlight, again, for the
hundredth time, the International Atomic Energy Agency, as
well as the state department, by the way,
we just went over this recently,
has confirmed that Iran has not been actively
seeking to develop a nuclear weapon. Over and
over this happens, and Netanyahu has been trying
to tell you it's been going on. They're
thirty seconds away for, like, twenty years.
So and then people like Lindsey Graham come
out and breathlessly scream the same thing, and
it never happens because it's not actually happening.
And they have now confirmed that more than
once. This is the group that goes and
looks.
But doesn't matter. Now they're back at the
point where Israel's, like, literally on the reins,
so they just go right back to the
same old talking points.
Now in Syria, same conversation.
Trump admin
e
starts easing Syria sanctions to inclusive government. Inclusive
government. You mean the Hayat al Sham terrorists
that are murdering, raping, and torturing, all of
which you can see happening alongside ISIS and
Israel,
like, object very clearly on the ground.
They're the one they're literally
persecuting religious minorities.
This is the inclusive government. I mean, then
it's just it's just the narrative. And I
thought the inclusive thing was the was the
what we weren't supposed to support. Now you're
supporting the inclusive government. It's not. But the
narrative of one in Syria?
Are you a woke president now, Trump?
It's just so funny. Nothing means anything. Everything's
not means nothing. It's just it's nonsense all
the time. The point,
guys, removing restrictions on the terrorist organization in
Syria and the Israeli group that runs the
country now.
Because why not? Right? Because that's freedom. Right?
Isn't that we'll call it whatever we want.
Syria is being overtaken by Israel.
I've gone over this
constantly.
A Syrian girl points out that in this
map, this image right here, blue areas on
the map are where Israel is taking or
is the oh, the blue is the already
stolen.
The yellow area are the areas that declares
it will steal.
As we told you, literally half of Syria.
I mean, it's it's exactly what we told
you. That is Greater Israel. On top of
that, the northern part is where The US
is for the most part. Basically, Altamf is
basically where the end is on the far
bottom right, and then the rest goes I
mean, it's it's mapped out, guys. They did
this on purpose. It's transparent.
Let me see if I have that image.
Thought I did. I can just look it
up on
in general on here.
Just so you can see the image. I
mean, the overlap is striking.
Of course, it doesn't show it on here.
Come on, brave. Of all platforms.
Google will show it. Not that I'm saying
Google is better. I just think that's interesting.
There you go. So just take a look
at the map overlap. There's one that looks
I think it's easy to see. I don't
see it right now. Of course not.
Well, you're just you could see the overlap.
Look at that.
You not see exactly the point, guys? I
mean, look.
It's exactly what we're talking about. I mean,
they're just they're very clearly living out their
greater Israel, and they're they're open about that.
That's what's so incredible about this for people
like me. They're they're literally saying that. They
got patches on their military uniforms, and yet
we have people in power in our media
that just act like you're crazy. That is
what we're talking about. How do you explain
stuff like that?
They announced this plan years ago, she says.
FYI, many fools still don't see it coming.
And, yes, by blue, they indicate the entire
Israel as formally Syria.
Incredible.
Now in Syria in general,
these are all over the place.
Like like, with the Craig Murray in Lebanon
daily showing you what's happening and no one
seems to care, Palestinians are marching. They're calling.
They don't agree with what's happening.
There's already resistance groups rising up, which I'm
sure we're called terrorists even though this is
their territory. It's the same as anywhere else,
guys. Peaceful demonstrations by Christians against the persecution
of of those being of of persecutions for
religious minorities in Syria.
Here, Netanyahu says, we will not allow
Hayat Tir al Sham, the group that they've
allowed to be there, that they're working alongside,
South Of Damascus, they claim. So you're gonna
allow you're allowing them to take part. It's
it's just so funny. It says we will
not tolerate the threat to Druze community. So
all you're seeing is them using this community
for a part that Israel wants to personally
go on and dictate. And the point is,
those Druze, just like this did last time,
have stood up and processed it publicly.
They do not want Netanyahu. They do not
want to be Israeli. They're they are Syrian.
They always point that out. And they nonetheless
use them as the justification for protect just
like the US government does. Where do you
protect the civilians? They go in and kill
all civilians
or use them however they want.
Pat Patrick Henningston says, and this is from
2024, mind you, Israel is now actively ethnically
cleansing parts of Southern Syria. Ordering evacuations of
villages around Deraa, settlers will gradually follow, but
that's already been happening. Sound familiar?
They will gradually continue this incremental expansion until
they connect to their allies in the Druze
enclave of Sweden. Now there are elements of
it, but the majority of these people have
been pushing back. Now and this is in
Sweden anyway, but it says, in some point,
an autonomous Druze statelet will be proposed as
an Israeli proxy. It's all going to plan.
Meanwhile, the brain dead mob still thinks the
Western Israeli backed Al Qaeda takeover is a
democratic revolution.
He said that in December 2024.
He's not psychic, guys. It's just this is
anybody paying attention already saw this was going
this direction.
Now Miriam Barghouti points out Israeli army officially
declares expansion of operations across the entire district
of Jenin.
It's in the West Bank. This is after
destroying Jenin refugee camp where operation Iron Wall
began thirty five days ago. This is a
full military takeover of Jenin, north of the
West Bank. There's no con there's not even
an a narrative that makes sense of this.
This has been one of the most obviously
illegal parts of any conversation. This is why
Jordan stood up early and said they well,
the red line is the West Bank.
This is Israel showing you that they believe
they have impunity, and damn it if they
don't look like it.
I mean, look, I know that people see
this. That's the most obvious part of this.
But what's terrifying, I think, to all of
us is that the power structures are showing
that they're either compromised,
unwilling to go after Israel,
or a part of their agenda.
I mean, this is everywhere you look right
now. Here's the Jerusalem Post. They publicly are
saying things like this. They they seek Israel's
destruction.
West Bank sovereignty is a must
as they steal it from somebody else.
Asal Rad points out, Western media is once
again manufacturing consent as usual in the West
Bank now, forcibly expelling people from their homes.
Apparently, hundreds of thousands of people, they are
publicly telling you, are gone and will never
be allowed back in the West Bank.
Just like
that. Their return is called ethnic cleansing.
Preventing their return. Ethnic cleansing. After Trump said,
no right of return. Ethnic cleansing. They're not
being evacuated.
It's illegal occupation.
But they're saying West Bank residents cannot return.
Extended stay.
Evacuated.
Disgusting.
Imagine them saying that about some foreign country
kicking you out of Florida.
Oh, there's to have an extended stay over
there. They're evacuated for their own benefit.
Sarah points out Israel's deliberately bulldozing the streets.
I mean, we saw this last time. You
wanna explain for me why that's happening?
It's not a secret, guys. They're destroying the
streets to destroy the infrastructure.
They don't care if that makes it 50
times harder for them to build there later.
It's about destroying Palestinian life because they've been
trying to for seventy six years. And now,
whatever reason, the current administration and the last
one are allowing it.
Something has shifted, guys. And if you wanna
stand back and look at what I'm talking
about, there's an obvious possibility here that they
have now taken control.
Express news,
Netanyahu speaks publicly on the twenty third of
a, quote, new Middle East.
Funny how all these things are coming out
now. And announces that he will not withdraw
from five different points in Lebanon
nor from the buffer zone in Mount in
Syria.
Just he just nope. We're done now. We
we've always been pretending like it was some
other reason. Now, we're just we're just gonna
stay. Like we all told you was the
point.
He also affirmed that he was not he
will not allow, as we said, Haital Shamm
to go into Damascus, which, you know, it's
long since been done. They're all over this
area, and they're working right alongside Syria. It
says, as for Israel's Minister Of Defense, Katz,
he declares that they will not allow the
return of people to the West Bank. A
point though, guys, they're using the Hytrel Shamm
excuse like they've always done. We're fighting the
terrorists to go after these terrorists. We want
us to protect this group from them.
They're all working for you.
David Miller points out in Southern Lebanon,
back to Lebanon in general, less than a
mile from the border of occupied Palestine, you
see all these all interconnect, the site of
a colonial settlement
in sight of one, and an occupied forces
base embedded in that settlement. He said he
came across this,
which is a thousand feet of detonation cord
with, as it says, an inline initiator written
in English.
It's for laying explosive charges and blowing up
the homes of local people.
This is very clear. Craig Murray has been
covering this extensively. In the in this in
the place he found this, there was ample
evidence of thousands of homes destroyed by detonation.
Yes, but also by the bulldozer, tank, shell,
and missile.
As you can tell, the label is printed
in English, suggesting it was supplied by The
United States. Perhaps we can find out the
code number from the death firm manufacturing
it. That's This Is Zionism. There's the code.
The point is, this is illegal.
That's supposed to be detonating homes. The the
game was, well, we found a Hamas tunnel
or human shields, and we had to blow
it up. No. When they can lay this
cord, that proves it's a crime because they
are simply destroying infrastructure.
They don't care.
I mean, at this point, maybe they do
have impunity, guys. I don't wanna believe that,
but here we are.
The amount of evidence we have for what
they're doing, the fact that they then go
gloat about it on Twitter and then go
post on Instagram where they dance as they
kill children, it's scary.
I'd like to believe we could do something
about it.
Here's Noam Chomsky from a long time ago
before, you know, a lot of things changed.
But basically telling you,
the Hezbollah group that are claiming is a
terrorist group is not. It's in fact The
US and Israel that are very clearly terrorist
organizations.
It's true.
The question is simply, do you consider Hezbollah
terrorist organization?
The United States considers Hezbollah a terrorist organization,
but the term terrorism
is used
by the great powers,
simply to refer to forms of violence of
which they disapprove.
So
The US was of course supporting the Israeli
invasions and occupation of Southern Lebanon.
Hezbollah was instrumental
in driving them out
so for that reason, there are terrorist organizations.
And it's And that's exactly like Iraq,
exactly like Syria.
Soleimani, for example, as he defended the sovereignty
of Syria against the illegal invader that claimed
they had the right to do whatever they
wanted, and then they claimed that was why
he was always a terrorist because he killed
Americans when they illegally invaded the country he
was partnered with. It's just everywhere you look,
guys, it's really time that old clip, like,
are we the baddies? It's really time to
come to terms with the reality of what
our government has done in our name our
entire lives.
I'm
always open to the possibility that this moment
forward, we're different.
Always open to that.
They're clearly showing you that's not the case.
The reflection of the
power
of the
imperial states, The United States and Europe, that
they are able to shift the framework
so that the problem appears to be,
Hamas's policies
and not the more extreme policies of The
United States and Israel. Right. And remember, and
we must remember that in their case, it's
not just policies. It's not words. It's actions.
So transparent.
And then to call out Jordan explicitly,
Israel has instructed the military to prepare to
remain
in the occupied West Bank, quote, for the
coming year, which as anybody with a brain
knows is forever.
I've never seen an example where Israel takes
a piece of territory and then ever gives
it back, not in its entire history.
Here we are.
And then I call out the Hashemite Kingdom
because I was, Where you at?
Where are you?
You said there was a red line here
that they would never cross. And here we
are.
You seem to still be supporting Israel, at
least by action.
Now voice of rabbis, one of the groups
out there that is in Israel as a
is a Jewish organization that's constantly calling out
Israel
because they are clear. It's Jews united against
Zionism, Jewish voices for justice,
pro Judaism.
What they say is Israel is the new
Nazi state of the world. Zionists are today's
Nazis.
This is you could decide what you think
about it. Just understand this is a Jewish
organization saying this. So if you wanna call
it antisemitic, well, that sounds kinda stupid when
you're talking to a Orthodox Jewish organization. And
it says zoo Zionist Nazi soldier Israeli soldier
took a photo with the bones of Palestinians
in Gaza,
the most perverted army in the world.
I this is what I use for one
of the parts of the screen the the
main shot today. Guys, that's in this is
detestable.
These are bad people
buzzing his face out for a reason,
standing on the skull of a dead person
with a bullet hole on his head.
Right. And then you know what it says
there?
This is something this is this the translation.
Terrorists from a different angle.
Outstanding.
Well, that's who we're dealing with, guys. That's
Zionism for you.
Now here is another example of something they've
done to these people. Now this is there's
it's in, it's we need translation, but I
just want you to see it.
A Palestinian hostage
was tortured using chemicals. Now these are many
of the different people that have been released
by Israel. There's no debate here, guys. They've
come out of the Israeli torture prisons that
are literally torture prisons,
and this is what he looked like after
he came back out.
Fire water, acid, chlorine, dishwashing, laundry detergents.
So the pressure. Just just anything I could
do to mess with them. I I guys,
this has been reported by other doctors.
They were ignited on my body.
After the three days, the IOF saw that
my body was my body has reached
or reacted. Excuse me.
To he says fire water. They're placed as
acid and the chemical substance in general.
They
then they then took him
into the occupied territories.
Of
course, there was also torture in the occupied
territories. Yeah. Of course.
Including beatings, insult. So they mean Israel proper,
by the way, because that is the alcified
territory.
Not to mention hunger, sitting in the cold.
Right. So they take him there because he's
suffering from extreme injury, and then they torture
him more.
About a month and a half he spent
like that. Now, again, to be obvious and
objective is the point is this is what
he's claiming. Don't just blindly accept it at
face value. The reality though is all of
this is being documented as they literally step
out of these prisons as they're released by
Israel and this is what they're dealing with.
This is what they I mean, it's and
despite not even getting into the mountain of
evidence coming from Amnesty and Human Rights Watch
and B'Tselem,
all showing you that this is what they
do as a matter of policy.
Jonathan
Cook, Israeli soldiers shoot a 10 year old
Palestinian boy on the phone to his mother,
then delay his ambulance from reaching the hospital
in time to save his life.
He says no big deal. It was an
Israeli child.
It wasn't. The point is if it was
a really child, the world would be screaming
about it for three weeks straight. It should
matter regardless of what their nationality
is. 10 year old Saddam Rajab was shot
one week into the operation when he was
on the phone to his mother.
In CCTV footage, the child screams in pain
and struggles to move.
His father who is on crutches finally reaches
him two long minutes later.
We called an ambulance. It came and carried
my boy. I tried to join him and
before I knew it, 20 to 30 Israeli
soldiers turned up. Where they came from, I
have no idea. They detained us for almost
an hour.
In two separate journeys, the ambulances carrying Saddam
to hospitals were stopped and searched by the
Israeli Defense Forces.
Critical time that was lost.
He never regained consciousness and died in hospital
two weeks later.
The IDF say they are investigating Saddam's case.
Oh, sure. Oh, sure.
Doesn't I mean, it makes your blood boil.
The kind of impunity. Yeah. We're investigating.
Ask Matt Miller how that goes.
Here is Assad Rod pointing out, we went
from Israel with never bomb a hospital to
Israel's attacking every hospital in Gaza, collapsing the
health system, detaining doctors, and torturing health care
workers, yet people are still defending this.
There's not even a narrative anymore. You realize
how mainstream this has gotten? The doctors that
are speaking out that have literally watched them
torture, rape, and murder children, doctors. It's I
mean, I'm not making I'm not even being
hyperbolic right there.
This is from The Guardian. More than a
60
Gaza medics held in Israeli prisons amid reports
of torture. Now the typical Zionist response, no.
They're all Palestinian terrorists. You realize that we're
talking about not just these 60 cosmetics. We're
talking about people from UK, Doctors from The
United States, Doctors around the world who are
not Palestinian and not Hamas, who have watched
it, who have had to deal with it,
who have suffered the consequences of it.
The Guardian has covered this in regard to
the message, but we've I'll go over a
bunch of points here.
This is the one this is one of
the most recent examples. Here's the article from
The Guardian.
No rules.
Gaza's Doctors say they were tortured, beaten, and
humiliated in Israeli detention. All of which, by
the way, has been publicly covered, I mean,
proven by Human Rights Watch, by Bethsallam, by
Amnesty, by people on the ground, by corporate
media, by independent media, by even Israel stating
it and explaining why it's okay.
And yet here we are acting like it's
not happening, or some people anyway.
Doctor Asim Abu Aujwa
was in the middle of performing emergency surgery
on a patient with a severe abdominal injury,
I'm sure you know where that came from,
at the Al at the Al Ali Arab
Hospital in Central Gaza when the soldiers came
for him. He said, I asked them what
they were doing in the Operating Theater. 1
of the soldiers pointed at me and said,
you're doctor Asim Abou Ajwa? He said, yes.
That's me. And then they began beating him
in the Operating Room. Still with his surgeon
scrubs on, 63 year old doctor says he
was dragged from the Operating Room before being
handcuffed, blindfolded, and stripped. He was then put
in a military truck with other doctors, nurses,
and medical staff and driven away from the
hospital. Less than twenty four hours later, he
was in a detention facility in Israel, beginning
what he describes as months of brutal and
constant violence and abuse.
Realize the point is he was released without
charge.
So anyone that wants to pretend like, oh,
he was probably a terror, then tell me
why he's not in prison still. Tell me
why he's not charged with a crime. It's
because they're doing this to doctors, and it
gets worse as they outlined why.
It says during interrogations, he said he was
tortured and beaten. They would throw me on
the ground. One would hit me in the
head while the other opened my ear and
poured water inside.
There was a bathroom in the interrogation room.
They would take a toilet brush and tell
him we're gonna brush your teeth. They tied
him up, blindfolded him, and three or four
of them held his face, pinned him down,
and scrub scrubbing. They broke his teeth
with a brush.
He says they have no humanity.
He says yet that by the time January
ceasefire came into effect, more than a thousand
medical staff across Gaza had been killed, and
many hospitals bombed to rubble. Attacks when a
UN human rights council commission concluded amounted to
war crimes.
Hundreds more medical staff who had survived the
airstrike and ground assaults were arrested, illegally transferred
across the border, and disappeared into Israeli prisons,
including dozens of doctors.
It says, one of the senior interrogators had
given instructions that because I was a senior
consultant surgeon, that they should work hard to
make sure that I lost the use of
my hands and became unable to perform surgery.
He says he then was handcuffed for twenty
four hours a day, and interrogators used planks
with chains to restrain his hands for hours
at a time. They said they wanted to
make sure he could never return to work.
None of the senior doctors interviewed say they
were given an explanation for the detention.
All were released without charge after months of
imprisonment.
It takes a special kind of depravity to
not acknowledge how obvious that is.
Doctor Mohammed Abu Saleema,
We've we've talked about it before. Director of
Al Sheifa Hospital in Northern Gaza was arrested
at a checkpoint while traveling with a convoy
of patients in ambulances
after the Israeli army told them to evacuate
the hospital. So they knew they evacuated and
then picked him up on the way down
the road. Quote, when I told them my
name, they pointed their weapons at me, laser
sights on my head and chest, and I
was immediately detained
as if they were waiting for me, as
if they had seized a big prize.
They beat me with rifle butts and chairs.
After that, they poured sand over my head
and shoved dirt in my mouth. It goes
on. It's the same thing, guys.
Who could support this?
A doctor told The Guardian that at at
and and another platform that he witnessed sexual
assaults while in Israeli detention and tried to
help treat a health care worker who had
been raped by prison guards. If you're still
pretending that you that's not the case, you
have to realize they publicly debated that should
be okay on mainstream Israeli TV.
Not even to mention the Bethsulam,
Israeli leading human rights group, they put out
the report called Welcome to
Hell. A the Israeli prison system is a
network of torture camps. They're specifically
citing the Satyaman rape case in this.
You can't ignore this stuff anymore.
Human rights watch.
Two 2020 this is 08/26/2024.
Covered the same thing
well before we got to the point where
it was that public, and it was already
happening.
Palestinian health care workers tortured.
Goes over the same conversation.
Now here's the one I referenced earlier.
This is the same report, and I just
shared some of the doctors speaking out.
And the ink I'll include
the link to my thread that I put
out around this that has 40 plus doctors
all telling you the same damn thing, and
I'll just play the one that I wanted
to reference
because you gotta hear what he says again.
Raped to death. These are not Palestinian doctors.
These are American doctors speaking in front of
the congress
and being shut down in Trump's administration time
frame for speaking about Israel.
Jewish,
and I've been to Gaza as part of
the humanitarian And just to be clear, by
the way, I'm the only saying that for
the context of the of the fact that
it's no different.
Whether Biden or Trump are left and right,
this is The United States we live in,
where you get shut down for saying the
truth about a foreign government in The United
States.
Delegation.
That was about five years. I'm Jewish,
and I've been to Gaza as part of
the humanitarian medical delegation.
That was about five years ago. And at
that time, Israel was doing the same thing
it's doing now,
but it was a slow genocide.
Now now it's, full out, the gloves are
off, and the mask is off. I've told
many people that our doctors are arrested, put
in jail, and torture. Israelis are excellent at
torturing people. They do it all the time.
A well known orthopedic surgeon
was taken to their torture prison and was
raped to death.
Raped to death. Please hold for just two
minutes. Please. That's it. We're done. We're
done. Will be the Nobel Peace
Prize winner. It doesn't matter. None of that
matters.
And we can't even speak up on our
own cock. Fascism. Say this is unusual. This
is targeted, obviously.
Bomb happening, hospitals, bombing hospitals, and we can't
talk about it where the bombs are coming
from. It's embarrassing.
It is an absolute disgrace. You cannot say
demonstration. Even signs You're bringing attention to your
cause. Stop demonstrating. Disperse. Out of It's done.
It ends here or else we start in
the morning, and everyone is called here. Arrested.
Thank you for good Arrested in The United
States for speaking about what Israel's doing to
Gaza.
From firsthand experience as doctors in a public
space.
The children. We are here in Washington DC.
Thousands of doctors gathered in front of congress.
They are calling for the restoration of funding
to Anurva, and they are demanding the release
of doctor Hussam Abu Sofia.
The point, guys, is this is constant and
everywhere you look.
Here is Howard Becker saying hospital workers in
war zones are protected under the Geneva Convention.
The BBC here describes the kidnapping of Abu
Safia as holding. We are in dangerous times.
Israel confirms it's holding Gaza Hospital Chief.
It's a crime, no matter how you look
at it. B'Tselem points out, leading human rights
group in Israel, Two bills that recently passed
a preliminary reading in the Knesset, so their
congress, are part of a calculated assault by
the government on Israel's civil society.
The aim is clear. Eliminate human rights groups
like Bethsulam.
Silence government critics and stop us from fulfilling
our mission to defend human rights. So anybody
actually trying to support the or fight against
the crimes they're committing,
Jewish or otherwise are attacked because Zionism is
what we're talking about. It says these measures
are currently targeting human right or rights organizations,
but they are part of a broader pattern
of Israeli government initiatives to harm the people
living here.
That's the Israeli leading human rights group. The
point is they know what Zionism is doing
to this country, and it's not it's it's
the
Haratz just wrote an article about why Israel
is the least safe place in the world
for Jews.
That's what they're talking about. You gotta start
paying attention if you haven't seen this. Franchesca
Albanese
covers this.
We just recently pointed this out. A Lancet
study. Here's the link to the study. According
to The Lancet, in just the first year
of Israel's genocidal campaign,
life expectancy in Gaza went from
it basically went I think it was 70
to 40. It went almost half.
40.6.
Right now, the lowest in the world.
No other place in the world is there
a lower life expectancy than people that are
under the bombing campaign of Israel. We're pretending
like we don't see this genocide. What have
you ever I mean, it's unprecedented.
Half you cut their lifespan in half.
At some point, guys, if there's any justice
in this world, people will be held accountable
for this.
Here's another interesting point. Israel has caused losses
in Gaza
equivalent to 15 times its prewar economy.
15 times.
The World Bank and the UN have never
estimated losses from a shock this huge. Everyone
in Gaza is now poor. The economy is
gone.
The West Bank is on the same path.
Meanwhile, next door, Israel's stock exchange is booming.
Here's the point that I made. This is
really important to think about. If you ever
wondered in the past why Palestinians have had
to live in camps
needing aid for decades,
just look at what's happening now.
The same thing happened twice before to varying
degrees. So when Zionists asked why they need
to give them aid or Trump or ridiculous
Tom Cotton or Rubio asked why should we
have to give them aid? Understand they know
exactly why. They don't care.
Just this alone. Imagine we go forward thirty
years, ten years, five years, a year. All
of these people have nothing to support themselves
with. Their houses, their resources, it's gone.
So how do you think they're gonna survive?
They have to. Somebody's got like, some of
them, I'm sure, will find a way to
make their own the point is when you're
living, especially trapped within this area still, when
they don't wanna leave, mind you, the point
is that's the thing. Israel's maintaining
the destructive nature of where they live right
now. Like, they've already tried to rebuild more
than once. They keep bombing.
The point is
the reason they've had to continue to be
funded in refugee camps is because Israel's done
this more than once. There's no secret to
it. They have the right to return.
And if Israel just allowed that to continue,
they've at this point, they would not still
be giving aid. It's because they've kept them
in camps. They've kept them isolated, occupied, and
destroyed, and destabilized,
and then they ask why they need to
keep helping.
It's right in front of you guys, and
I think honest people can see this already.
And let's reiterate the point. After all we
just saw, Trump
removing
a hindrance on sales to people that violate
human rights laws.
Sure. It's starting to make a little more
sense
when you could look at this group flagrantly
committing rights violations all over the world, and
Trump wants to keep selling them weapons.
Now in the Beavis conversation, just to rapidly
point some of these things out to end
today,
you see Dan Dan Crenshaw
pushing a lie like all of them,
claiming that we that Hamas killed them with
their bare hand, blindly taking what Daniel Hagari
said at face value even though he's gotten
be caught lying countless times on top of
the fact that all the evidence can including
still
the family
and the and the father maintaining that the
IDF killed them.
I simply point out, for those that care,
the father still maintains they were killed by
IDF bombs.
This person says their father is still a
prisoner, and I said no. That's why it's
important. He still maintains that he that they're
responsible.
This person says, forensic evidence says they were
beaten to death.
And I as I did I've been doing
recently. I said, oh, really? Well, if true,
that would be relevant. Go ahead and post
it below since we all know that only
a very dishonest type of person would claim
to know without seeing the info for themselves.
But sadly, those morons do exist. Looking forward
to seeing the evidence.
Blocks, he says, for spreading disinformation, ecotemitism, conspiracy
thinking,
instability of being human garbage. It's all over
the effing news, you a hole.
Just typical. Like, this is clearly, he probably
felt really stupid with no response and it
was blocked because you know as well as
I that evidence if I'm doesn't exist. But
if it
if it has not been released,
it's not there.
The bottom line is any forensic I mean,
I've asked some people that are educated on
this topic. If you think fifteen months later,
they're able to discern that kind of forensic
I mean, that's insane, guys. It's lazy. Typical
Israeli propaganda. But the real point is nothing
has been shown to anybody. There's no other
paper out there giving you forensic evidence. This
guy is stating it because Daniel Gagari said
it and other idiots shared it. And he
think and he just thinks I can say
it out loud because everybody else is. That's
a follower.
But of course, he blocked me after that.
So I followed up with this other account
and I said, of course you comment and
block,
but go ahead and still post the evidence
below. Of course, he didn't. But then he
I then commented again here and then he
blocked this one too.
He says I think he said it right
here.
Block for incivility and for evading a block.
Oh, so no evidence then. Got it. If
anybody had the evidence to put in your
face, they would have put it in your
face. But typical Zionist deflection.
But here's a good post.
Noah Agamani, one of the previous
detainees, because she is in the IDF,
described at the UN how Israeli air strikes
killed her fellow captive,
Yasi Sharabi,
in the in the United Nations describing that
the
IDF bombings almost killed her. As he writes,
just like it did the Beba family, the
Beba's family.
And this person even points out, here is
still on the Israeli website claiming that this
person was killed by Hamas even though we
know as a matter of fact that it
was the only bombings
were from Israel. And this is the Hannibal
directive guide. This is public information. But if
you're even
for a moment trying to wonder whether the
reality is they were indiscriminately bombing this entire
area and, in many cases, deliberately killed their
own hostages. There's not it's not hard to
see what happened here.
Now if you wanna know more about the
background, we went over this recently a lot.
I I don't wanna go back through it
all. The point is simply that there's easy
example so far where they tried to first
have full exchanges of hostages
more than once. Well, before anybody was killed,
they they turned it down, turned it down.
Then in no in this November 2023, they
tried to return the Biba's family's bodies
for no for for free.
And Israel said no and said you're lying,
and then went on to spend a year
pretending like this wasn't the case.
Drop site news reports, and I wasn't able
to see this today, but it they're claiming
it's from channel twelve news, that Israeli captive,
Eli Cohen,
freed by Hamas, now says he narrowly escaped
the tunnel where he held was held cap
where it was held and it collapsed following
Israeli airstrike.
Pretty simple.
Here's a clip
of them responding
to oh, specifically, this was, Daniel Levy, former
Israeli peace negotiator, who's been pretty outspoken about
Israel and what they're doing, has speak is
responding
about the claim that they were bringing forward.
And this is Arghamani was also pointing out
what she just said, but the there was
the you'll see him in the clip. I
forget his name. Another Israeli representative,
and it's one-sided. And this was his response.
Now these times, you managed to accompany prime
minister Netanyahu in congress. You were on the
stage for the inauguration of President Trump
now here
thankfully safe
your partner yep yet
and It was so important to hear your
testimony of an awful experience to which no
human should ever be subjected
because it reminds us that at the end
of the day, this is about people.
Each story deeply personal,
your strength in the face of adversity,
the thousands upon thousands of stories of individual
hardship,
Israelis both fallen and still held captive,
the tens of thousands of Palestinians
killed, many more maimed,
starved,
lives devastated,
schools, hospitals,
shelters, entire neighborhoods destroyed
and yet the remarkable resilience will serve Palestinians.
Doctor. Hussam Abu Safia, the Director of Kamal
Radwan Hospital
still mistreated and held in Israeli detention.
One really must not forget the names of
the Bebas children,
Ariel and Kaffir,
the circumstances
of their death
nor the name of Leila Al Khatib, a
two year old Palestinian
killed in her home in the occupied West
Bank just days ago while eating dinner with
her family
or five year old Hind Rajab
bombed and denied medical attention dead with her
family.
Those lost in the turned off incubators of
Al Shefa Hospital. Mhmm. A minute of silence
for each of the Bebas children would be
appropriate
as would a minute of silence for each
of the more than 18,000
Palestinian
children
murdered in Israel's devastation of Gaza.
That silence would extend to over three hundred
hours.
Three hundred. And our task is to prevent
that conflict and that human suffering,
and it results from political conflict, preventable tragedies.
Look at this guy scrolling on his phone
while he's given the speech. That's the Israeli
representative
because he doesn't care. And the many more
tragedies
that await if steps are not taken.
When you peel back the layers,
we are all people and we are all
born equal.
We can and sometimes should use strong and
emotive language, but what we have at the
end of the day is rules, is laws,
is charters, is conventions, is rights that are
codified,
not what is seen in the eye of
the beholder,
not what is subjective.
Something that is supposed to, not always, is
be applied
and not ignored.
The point is that's not you're not supposed
to do that. You're not supposed to let
me know. There is no equivocation between well,
yeah. There is. There's a law that applies
to everybody.
But the point is they tried to make
okay. You can't compare the two thing. The
point is you're damn right you can't. We're
at a point where we're seeing hundreds of
thousands killed and start entire civilization destroyed. It's
pretty obvious what Israel has done. And there's
also very clear points to make about what
I've done on October 7 and the crimes
that within that that were committed. But if
you can't stand back and objectively acknowledge what
they've done is monumentally
more
magnitudes worse than anything that ever and on
top of the fact that a lot of
what happened and most of the worst things
that happened October 7 were committed by Israel.
That's been reported by Israeli media as much
as that might outrage some people listening. It's
true. But, of course, people like Charlie Kirk,
just this was yesterday. After everything that's already
come out, just deflects back and says, Israel
says
that that's what he's paid for. Hamas beats
the babies to death. So we just just
repeat what they say. Here's Eva Klompas
just still shoving
emotional manipulation down your throat. Ariel Webus love
Batman.
This is just it's gross to me. So
you know now because I guarantee she does
that the evidence shows one thing, and all
you keep doing is using them using them
and showing their emotional overlap even though the
family has asked you not to do this.
That's really happening right now. The family, I'll
show you right now, is saying don't do
don't keep talking about and she doesn't care
because she doesn't care about them or any
of them. She cares about the Israeli agenda.
Er Mate points out by carrying out mass
murder in Gaza, Israel and its apologist have
shown us their contempt for human life. That
extends to Israelis.
Israel enacts the Hannibal directive to murder Israelis
rather than allow them to be taken captive,
and it has now bombed Israeli captives in
Gaza's sense. To build support for mass murder
in Gaza, Israel's apologist also exploit Israel victims
and torment their families. They spread graphic, lurid
claims about Israeli victims without evidence, almost all
of which, in fact, I think literally all
of it turned out to be false. All
the bombastic claims about rape and torture, not
a single one's proven correct. That's where all
people have come back.
And he says,
as the case with the Bivas family shows,
they did the same with the Hamas rape
folks, exploiting the death of Israeli women to
paint them as rape victims without evidence.
Even the one the main one with the
gray pants and the stain, guys, it turns
out they'd had the video from the very
beginning that proved it was her ankle and
her wrist. As we said, logically based on
the evidence at the time,
or at the very least that that doesn't
prove that we know something happened, and turns
out we were right. Being objective seems to
be the right path. And it says this
was so egregious that the family
of one slain Israeli woman, Gal,
Abdush,
spoke out against the exploitation of her death.
That's what Israel and its apologist do. From
the Nazi holocaust to October 7, exploit death
and suffering to inflict more of it against
Palestinians and Israelis if need be. And what
he's citing is what we reported last time.
And this is very public. This is I'll
I'll I'll I'll show you directly from a
report. Abiba's family says Israel never officially informed
them of any of the graphic allegations about
them being beaten or suffocated or mutilated, all
the three different ways it's been framed.
So Israel's Government is saying one thing to
the world and another to the family.
Now the important part here
and it said this is from Scott Ritter,
and I'll show you from the, from Bram.
It says, so the family of the two
babies of Israel government says we're strangled to
death has called the government narrative a lie.
That's recent. This is today.
And demanded the government stay away from their
funeral. I showed you that a couple days
ago. Israeli government is incapable of telling the
truth about anything. Now I've already shown you
this, guys. Look at the last episode we
did. Times of Israel has it. I showed
you. When he first got back, Bebas' fam
father, Yarden Bebas,
said he still maintained
he believed the IDF bombs killed them,
which is what he said in the video,
like all the other videos that have turned
out to be correct despite them now being
home. Now that evolved,
The narrative came out from Daniel Haggari that
the Phoebus Phoebus family father wanted him to
say
that's never been proven.
And now we find out that they didn't
even relay the information to them. So how
could he have possibly been able to tell
them to relay it if he didn't tell
them in the first place?
That's the big point right there. If we
now know what we do, it's even in
Israeli media that they didn't inform them about
how he was beaten,
the allegation anyway about how the children were
beaten to death.
How is it possible that Yarden could have
said, tell them that? Which is what Daniel
argued.
He's a liar. And in fact, the typical
lazy, reactive Israeli propaganda. It's basic logic, guys.
Now today,
from the
brave AI church engine, it says, the Beavis
family has expressed skepticism about the Israeli government's
narrative regarding the fate of their children. The
family has criticized the government for not providing
concrete evidence to support its claims. According to
the family, they are no longer willing to
accept uncertainty.
It says,
oh, that's just about, you know, Hamas denies
they didn't, which we all know. But the
point is, guys, this is currently where it's
at. And I I'm gonna just kinda wrap
this up because we've been long with I
I was gonna read through this in general.
I'll I'll probably go into the next show.
The bottom line is this article
from today
or no, the twenty first. Excuse me.
Sixteen months of lies, it says, who failed
the Beba Stanley.
It's very clear what they're saying here.
That they use them.
Even if you believe their narrative, they're still
claiming, look, why did you let us believe
they were lying for
a year? Because they used them, guys. And
that's what Israel is saying right now.
They're saying that they abused them and used
their family's name. How long have I been
saying that?
It's just sad that we couldn't get that
awareness before. In an honest world, in an
honest media structure, it would've.
We know that Netanyahu has been systematically foiling
all the hostage talks. That's from December 7
10/07/2024.
We have this evidence. Horat's also writing Netanyahu
now may exploit
the ongoing crisis to nix the ceasefire,
which is what we knew would happen and
told you that as all the evidence has
shown since the fifteenth.
But you won't hear this from mainstream or
mainstream alternative media in the West, and here's
the article I put out on the fifteenth
where we told you this would happen
and every day since because the evidence showed
that. This is January 15 before the ceasefire
even started. The new ceasefire agreement Israel already
plans to break.
Now Israel has indefinitely delayed Palestinian prisoner releases.
This is as of two days ago.
Indefinitely,
that says, in case you missed it.
Now The US, of course, steps up and
says, well, we support whatever they do, delaying
this.
Does that make sense? Right? Because you want
this to end, but you support whatever they
do no matter. Oh, and and the West
Bank invasion.
Well, yeah. Because as you've if you know,
you've been watching the show, you know he
supports that because he's the one that made
the deal. That's according to Israel.
And now, one day ago, Hamas says, no
god's ceasefire talks unless Israel Relations Prisoners. So
the only way to look at this with
any honesty is Israel has not met its
last part of phase one.
Why? Because they want to blow up this
deal before pace phase two as agreed.
Because right now, realize despite the what they're
claiming is they released them in bad ways,
and they made a mistake with the body,
but they ultimately did give her body back.
And you can still argue it was a
mistake, which would make sense, but who knows?
The point is that at this point, they've
met every single part of their part of
the agreement, even though Israel's violated the deal
almost every day so far. Now they're just
going, because of what they did in the
wrong way, we're gonna just hold off until
there it goes.
Told you this would be the passing. Now
they're saying, well, you need to finish your
part of the deal, or we're not gonna
go forward, and they're gonna use that to
break the deal. That's my opinion.
Harder to see it.
Now lastly, in general,
as Francesca Albanese points out,
Dawn, which is a group that's been, it's
I forgot what it stands for, actually.
Don Mina, it says, let's see. Where was
that?
We can look into it for you. It's
a it's a group that's been trying to
hold hold Israel accountable.
And it says they filed an historic ICC
referral urging an investigation into Biden, Blinken, and
Austin for their complicity in Israel war crimes.
Now here's an interesting thing to point out.
Shouldn't this be something that the Trump administration
supports?
Shouldn't this be something that Republicans support for
going after the crimes of Biden? You're damn
right.
How much you wanna bet that doesn't happen?
And you'll know why.
Important development, she says, never has the international
justice been at such a critical and historical
crossroad.
I certainly hope we see more, guys. I
really do.
Thank you for tuning in today.
Appreciate y'all staying tuned. Lots to talk about
as always, but we'll be following up. There's
a lot to continue to cover. I just,
as always, want you to be on guard.
Alright? Just show just show a discernment.
Be skeptical. I don't care if left or
right or Trump or Biden or anybody else.
If you're honest with yourself, you know as
well as I that we're not supposed to
just accept at face value what, especially,
the current government tells you. That's just stupid.
We know that that's not you're
from journalism to just an average citizen, the
whole point is we're supposed to hold their
feet to the fire. Otherwise, they do whatever
they want, and that seems to be what's
happening right now. The whole judicial overlap, every
every dynamic we're seeing, we are seeing a
rapid decline in anything that ever was seen
as some kind of a a structural aspect
of why this country is supposedly better than
everywhere else, even though that's not the case
today. The reality is clear that they're eroding
all of these things.
Doesn't that kinda sound like a reimagining,
a rebuilding,
build back better kind of dynamic? It sure
as hell does. Same with everything else they're
rolling out.
I just hope that you're willing to consider
that that might be still happening.
Thank you for tuning in today. Please share
the information with anybody out there that needs
to see it. And as always, guys, this
platform doesn't exist without you.
We still need your support every day. I
don't I mean, there's plenty of there's far
too many times where I just don't even
say this, but we need to continue to
you know, we need your support to continue.
My point is I just I hate even
getting into it because it's just not my
scene. I know I hate the the marketing
side or the call, but at the end
of the day, what we're going through and
what we're doing relies on you to continue.
So if you believe in what we're doing,
if you believe in the work we're putting
out for free,
show us.
Demonstrate for us how much this means to
you, what the value is to you. And
even if that's just a letter of encouragement,
that means everything to me.
That's that's what's important. More than anything,
understanding the information,
learning the information, sharing it out with yourself,
what you think, not what I think, what
you think about the information. If if it
comes down between you giving a dollar or
a hundred dollars and and and looking into
the information and sharing it, I prefer you
look in the information and share it. That's
what we're here for.
Thank you for your support. Couldn't do it
without you. As always, question
everything.
Come to your own conclusions.
Stay vigilant.