Because we're losing a lot of people because
of the Internet. And we have to do
something. We have to go see Bill Gates
and a lot of different people
that really understand what's happening. We have to
talk to them, maybe in certain areas, closing
that Internet up in some way. Somebody will
say, oh, freedom of speech. Freedom of speech.
These are foolish people. We have a lot
of foolish people. And I think you should
get a one year jail sentence if you
do anything to desecrate the American
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.
Friday, March fourteenth twenty twenty five. Thank you
for joining me today. I wanted to play
that same clip to start again today because
I kinda feel like today is an extension
of of yesterday's show. Now I I'm, no
matter what, going to be getting to the
Doge discussion that I said I was gonna
carry over today that we didn't get to
yesterday. But I thought it was important just
for the continuity of that conversation to discuss
the the developments of what happened since yesterday
and just kind of to flush this conversation
out even further.
I I mean, it's it's hard not to
see this as
one of the most important conversations, like, as
it pertains to American
future rights of this country, really just kind
of the understanding of free speech in the
world.
I mean, and not that just because what
happens here will necessarily change everywhere else, but
in a lot of conversations,
we can acknowledge that at least the foundation
of what this country was, if you're forced
to live in a state of society,
is
I I argue, one of the best examples
of something that can hold power at bay
at least at least for some for some
time. Because clearly, we can see that it
still fall falls to this point, in my
opinion, every time in any situation where you
have some kind of government that centralizes power.
It's just what they do.
But free speech
is a foundational aspect of this conversation, of
this country, of the belief structures of at
least the feigned belief structures of both sides
of the paradigm. And what I think is
so alarming about this conversation is it's not
like and I say this every time we
have this conversation. I'll probably make the point
three times today, which is that if if
you if we wanna have an honest conversation,
just acknowledge that you're fighting for limited speech.
And make I mean, it's not right or
wrong. That's it's an argument. We should have
a conversation. Right? We should debate whether that
is what it should just a discussion. If
you believe in that, lay out your facts.
Lay out why you think it should be
this way. Maybe terrorism, maybe national security, maybe
because you feel like threatening words shouldn't be
allowed. You know, whatever your argument is, lay
it out. Lay out why it should make
sense more so than accepting the re the
dangers that might come by allowing free speech
in an absolute sense.
My point is that's not what's happening right
now.
There are some people that have that conversation,
and at least I can argue they're at
least honestly presenting what they think. But there's
a very large, if not the majority of
the Republican conversation right now, that are simply
just saying, no. No. No. That's that doesn't
apply. This is not about free speech. That's
not what this is. Even though it's, like,
the most textbook case of free speech suppression
that I've seen doing this in the context
of, like, actual like, not just that they
claim things or try to censor somebody on
a platform, but government action and now potentially
deporting somebody. I mean, it's it's but my
point is coming down to this.
It's interesting that we went from free speech,
you know, at least the argument of that,
to where now the very same people that
were screaming about, rightly so, that this is
a foundational important thing that we need to
fight for
are, in many cases, acting like it doesn't
apply. But if you were to to put
the definition before this about what we were
fighting for, it's exactly what this is. Like,
this is a textbook case, and what they
are pointing to like, even the argument saying
it's not about speech. It's it's actions
even though
exactly the opposite is true. The government is
saying they didn't break any laws. It's about
national security. It's the ideas. That's point blank
what the government's putting forward, and the conversation
becomes
that they it's not about a free speech
conversation, except that's explicitly what it is about.
The the government is drawing a line,
which is a line that continues to move
about fire in a theater, whatever else. It's
continuing to argue whether you agree with those
things or not. It's not about it's about
understanding
what the line always was. Even if we
wanted to argue before, that line should have
been moved, and now arguing that as it
rapidly moves, that it's always been in the
same place by the people who were arguing
that it should never move. It's it's infuriating.
It's alarming,
and I'm actually really hopeful that a lot
of I I I'd I have to believe
that most conservatives or just anybody out there
who genuinely believes these things understand them enough
to see that this is not that are
honest enough to call this out. And I
see plenty of them. Mostly the con the
comments that I see. You have to understand,
guys, that the the majority of the conversation
that we see are the influential,
loud, lots of you know, people that have
followings.
I'm just gonna list off different categories. The
point is honest people, liars, grifters, people that
are just there to get I mean, it's
it's a whole category of people that have
influence.
Now what you have to understand is that
a very small percentage of the real the
real conversation
that's being had between neighbors and friends and
the the the country.
The the vast majority of people have
low enough followings on whatever platform they're on
for their voice to not really reach the
conversation
that we have in the in the country.
And even more so because of the technological
manipulations, the the technocratic consolidation of power that's
becoming even more difficult to see,
around what they're framing as that conversation, which
I find not, to be honest, most of
the time. But just realize that, that a
lot of people out there that you don't
get to hear their opinion, even though you
have these people on left and right framing
as if their their opinion is everyone's opinion.
We, the people, think this. We see kind
of things like that all the time or
the same thing during COVID from the left,
and it wasn't true. So just think about
that and realize that you're not alone. Just
like with COVID, if you're out there going,
I don't I feel really uncomfortable with what
this is. I know this is not worth
fighting for, and don't just fall back into,
well, it must be something I don't see,
or that they are going to bring it
back once they get rid of the deep
state. That's not what the reality is, guys.
These people are continuing
the same things. And we'll go through a
good point to start about that in regard
to a new financial surveillance aspect,
which is all part of the same kind
of conversation,
using some kind of threat to rationalize the
deterioration.
I mean, really, the best way to frame
it, I even struggle with this word for
the title today, is the the and it
doesn't sound as good for a title, but
the lack of acknowledgment of your rights. Because
that's the tree the real way to frame
that. Your rights don't just disappear
because some tyrannical government decides to ignore them.
That's why they're inherent. That's why they're god
given based on the founding father documentation
or the word they used or the basic
understanding of the way that they outlined that,
which was that those rights existed whether or
not they wrote these papers down. And then,
of course, realize that inherent god given wouldn't
apply to one select country. And we've gone
over this again. We'll go over it again
today.
That, of
course, especially due process, especially free speech, apply
in most cases to even illegal immigrants according
to Supreme Court rulings, according to the constitution,
according to expert lawyers. You know, not the
screaming partisans online, but people that actually know
what they're talking about.
Now the the main thing today is to
make sure we understand
that if we allow this to continue, this
will be a stepping stone
into our detriment. And I see grifters and
sycophants, some people that don't care that it's
happening, some that don't even realize it, that
are screaming for their own demise. And I
think that's factually
exactly what's happening. And I may say factually
because I think we can as we go
through today, I think the facts make this
obvious.
It's it's like saying the color red is
blue and then debating that we're wrong because
it's a nuanced point. No. It's not. It's
obviously a very clear thing. The definition is
there.
They just decide to pretend it's something else
because of an interest. Now that happens in
partisanship.
We're also gonna talk about DOGE today, as
I said, around the lawsuits, around the financial
aspect.
And and on and then kind of extension
from that, a lot of conversations about the
tariffs, the the, you know, Greenland, Panama, like,
all these weird kind of evolving stories that
just seem to be I mean, we'll wait
to get there. There's a it's a whole
bunch of nuance to get into about why
we think these are happening, if they're ever
even gonna materialize.
And if that's the case, if they're not
meant to, what then what's that about?
But I think it's more than that. But
it's hard to tell because it hasn't happened.
But even Greenland is still being discussed. Panama
is like, well, we'll make a deal or
maybe take it by force. Like, that's what
they're actually saying. Even if you don't believe
they mean those things as we can see
with Canada,
just the ideas, the words being floated have
real world consequences, usually not for them, but
for you when they don't care about you.
Of course of course, we need to understand
that today, and that's the real point. But
I wanna start with something important today there
that I've referenced before. But, you know, just
the the I wanna make sure we continue
to support what Steve is doing with the
third eye carnival because he's putting a lot
into it. So I wanna make sure we
continue to shout this out. And in case
in case you didn't, hear us talk about
it and wake up,
April 4, as you actually I don't think
it's on maybe it's not on the oh,
yeah. It's right here.
The fourth, which is the first day of
this, and as you can see here, it's
a it's a $90 for all three days.
And just so you know, since I mean,
not that it should really matter, but I've
I've got no investment in this. I've get
I've got no return from any of this.
I just believe in what they're doing, and
I and I also, the point is that
the first day, as I was gonna show
you, Steve sort of decided to make that
our birthday party.
And I for for funny enough, I kinda
thought it was gonna be like a side
thing with, like, few of us playing guitars.
Apparently, it's literally on the flyer, so this
is gonna be like a a whole thing.
And so the the the third or the
or the fourth is the first day. And
as he says right here,
he says Friday night kicks off the music
and jams in a combo birthday celebration for
our very own Steve and Ryan Christian.
Saturday, we get the very best of the
uncanceled podcast. Comedians, in case you didn't see,
you got people like Sam Tripoli. You know?
In in in regard to music, you've got,
Scott's gonna be playing, I'm gonna be playing,
Faithless Town,
as you said, Spiderland,
others. I mean, there's a lot of people.
Apparently, Greg Reese said he might be coming,
Frank Kavanaugh. You know? A a lot of
different people are gonna be coming and including
a lot of people that
just just simply bought tickets that came. You
know? So my point is this is gonna
be a good time. And if you wanna
even join the birthday party bash in the
beginning, make sure you come for all three
days. I just think it's gonna be a
good time, and I think it's important to
find the community in times like this, nonpartisan
kind of conversation. Because trust me, guys, there
are people, especially because of the way we
do this, on all sides of this conversation.
I mean and you notice this from anything.
During COVID nineteen, there are people that believe
these things were you know, trans conversation. I
mean, there are people in this audience
that are that are transgender that understand that
what we're doing is a nuanced discussion about
what's really happening. Not that we're saying you
are not allowed to make choices in your
life. I mean, I laid out my opinions
around that. And I know that there are
people in this audience who are transgender that
believe in this work. Even if we still
disagree on certain points about their own life
choices, I still argue it's their choice to
make that, not as a child, but as
an adult. And see, the point is that
anybody objective, even if we disagree on these
central points, can still find the the importance
of work that maintains that objectivity.
Anyway, that's what you find in communities like
this, and I think it's important. So shout
out to that yet again. Now I want
to start with something quick before we get
into the point that I really wanted to
start with, which is around as the Cato
Institute wrote, Trump treasury expands financial surveillance,
which is first just a couple of we're
not gonna get into really Israel today other
than the overlap of why this censorship is
happening, and that's just transparent.
But this just in case you're missing it,
because I haven't really done focus on what's
happening in Israel or rather Gaza or Syria
or other than Vanessa's interview in a few
days.
It's not stopping, guys. I mean, it's surprise,
surprise. Right? The genocide is continuing. They haven't
let food in for over ten, eleven days
or water or electricity.
There there I mean, and all these different
reports are coming out all over the place.
And it's only gonna be couple quick points,
but just to make sure we don't miss
how alarming it is, in case you don't
understand it by now that all of this
is happening for this country while they're committing
genocide. And you and even if you don't
believe
that, this point isn't deniable. They're literally saying
this is because antisemitism.
This is about anti Israel hate,
not actions, not violence,
not crimes. They made that clear. This is
national security threats because he's connected to something.
That that that's what they're telling you.
Even though you can prove that what they're
claiming is not actually verifiable. It's it's it's
which we'll get into again, connections to people
like they were at the they were at
a protest, and these people said this on
their Instagram, and therefore, he's responsible for their
statements. Oh, even though we can't prove they
actually said it, hence the post is deleted,
and we can't verify it ever even happened.
Great time.
The sad thing is, clearly,
if you are in a situation or you
can I mean, even a fraction of what's
happening today,
just in Gaza,
and they're telling you you're not allowed to
protest that country to the point to where
they're willing to deport people for that country
because remember, Batar US, which is a
Zionist organization
founded by Jabotinsky,
and this is, like, the rabid, alarming,
violent,
colonial settler, terrorism, I mean, which is most
Zionism reality if you look back to the
history to this very day, but the worst
side of it? And they are ultimately the
ones that were going Trump, Marco Rubio, Bondi.
Go after this guy. Go after this guy
for weeks, and then they went after the
one person. And as even Candace Owens points
out,
what about the other people that you arrested
that literally actually committed violence? Why wouldn't you
just pick one of them? Why? Because they're
making a point here, guys,
for something other than American interests. Now here,
in case you missed it, is what the
United Nations is saying. And, yes, I know
the United Nations is Hamas. Are we really
that stupid? Are we still pretending that anything
that anybody that said something that ridiculously broad
is actually worth taking seriously? Consider that they
might be compromised in a thousand different ways.
But if you're gonna make a claim, for
example, like, he was the end of Western
civilization, you damn well better even prove it.
At least present any evidence besides a screenshot
that we can't verify. In this case, if
you wanna pretend that the UN is Hamas,
whatever that even means, to the point to
where you disregard
a massive body of inner working people that
are proving these claims on the ground that
you can check for yourself, not to say
we just blindly trust the UN because nobody
should, the evidence is there, then you're just
choosing to ignore this. This is what's really
happening.
Prevalence
and severity
of sexual and gender based crimes perpetrated across
the occupied Palestinian territory
leads the commission to conclude
that sexual and gender based violence
is increasingly used as a method of war
by Israel
to destabilise,
dominate,
oppress, and destroy the Palestinian people.
The commission documented a pattern of sexual violence,
including cases of rape and other forms of
sexual violence, torture, and other inhumane acts
that amount to war crimes and crimes against
humanity.
Now just in case you're not for didn't
see the show yesterday,
this is this is and, yeah, she does
have the the link right here.
This is a report that just came out.
March 13, more than a human can bear.
Israel's systemic use of sexual, reproductive, and other
forms of gender based violence just since October
2023. You can look at their reports going
back decades.
This is systemic. This is a plan. That's
why they debated on live TV whether they
should be allowed to rape, and guess how
most of them argued? Yes. They should.
In regard to people they have in their
prisons. And then also recognize that most of
the people they have in these prisons are
there without charge.
They're there for decades sometimes when from taken
when their children, released when they're 25. We've
seen this since this has started. It's just
insane. The kind of people that are acting
like not only we should ignore all of
this because you're racist, but then actively trying
to suppress what they pretend they're fighting for
for this government.
It's very unnerving for people like us to
see this so plainly continue to happen. When
I say people like us, I mean, people
that are objective and not blinded by partisanship.
Read it for yourself, and then check out
the information and the background and how obvious
you can go back decades, Human rights groups,
even Israelis inside their government openly admitting this,
whistleblowers, but let's all pretend it's not there
because, you know, politics.
She simply says, the UN accused Israel of
using rape and torture as weapons of war.
Oh, and by the way,
just in case you think, you know,
UN is from us. Right? So we just
we just can't
take that at face value. Well, maybe you
would take it face value or rather you
shouldn't shouldn't take any face value. The point
is maybe you would give more credence to
the leading Israeli human rights group. Literally, Betsalem.
Israel this is the Israeli leading human rights
group. Welcome to hell was what this was
called. The Israeli prison system has a network
of torture camps. This was written specifically after
the Sid Tiamen rape case, and this is
disgusting. You wanna not sleep tonight? Read this
report.
The problem is that people pretend like this
isn't happening for their own partisan agenda.
Now
I thought this was interesting just to include
since we're not gonna get into more today.
I can't stop seeing I mean, right now,
more than ever, there are this they're pulling
out all the stops. And I mean people
that are trying to propagandize you to not
say certain things.
Sad God Sad or however you pronounce this
guy's name is a a a self professed
he he's admitted to being a massage, just
so it's clear.
Now what's crazy is we just talked about
this. If you're on the show, the podcast,
I'll explain in a second. It's just a
a woman in a burqa, it looks like.
Right?
And Radio Genoa, which by the way is
the same group from before that was I
think was even tagging this. Let me double
check that. Hold on.
I
wanna see if he shared. We'll come back.
Oh, no. It was a different group. I
thought it was this is a group that's
been in many in many examples
part of the propaganda network. Right? 1,300,000 followers.
And that's what this is. Just not to
get into deep. These these are groups that
have been utilized, like, by the US government
propaganda network situation, and they simply says, what
is this on March 13? Well, I'll tell
you what it is. That's an that's an
Israeli Jewish woman in Israel. I know you
may not believe that, especially if you haven't
seen what I'm about to show you directly
from the Jewish forward, post.
But he says all court cultures are equal.
Now what he's trying to do right there
is act like he's he's trying to be
funny, like, clearly,
as if he's insinuating that this is a
Muslim woman being forced to wear a burqa.
Right? The problem is that's not what it
is. But I did this we posted the
same thing when Tabby Robinson did the same
thing. You know, another very clear, obvious agent,
and he says, this has no place in
the twenty first century. I simply said, but
will you still call this out as having
no place in the twenty first century once
you realize it's actually a picture of a
Jewish woman in Israel
as forward covered below, which I'll show you
in a second?
Of course not. They don't even care. It's
about just getting winning some points. Even if
they use their own or whatever they think
they're trying to fight again or for to
make the point.
So or and like I said with sad
gad or gad sad, whatever it is, I
said, the other one oh, I don't think
I said I basically said, seems like everyone
already called you out for this.
Obvious attempt to manipulate people or worse, you
actually didn't know this is a video of
a Jewish woman in Israel, but I will
include what I said to Tommy Robinson. I
think before, just I simply said, what, are
you an antisemite? Like, trying to play it
back at him. Like, are you still are
you calling out this Jewish woman for their
heritage? I mean, clearly, guys, it's actually insane
that this happens to the point to where
they don't even care.
So just in case you haven't seen this,
here's the actual article.
I mean, you can look into this for
yourself.
It says, introducing the Fremkwa,
Jewish woman under the burqa.
And it says, no. This is not a,
a dementor or modern art installation. This isn't
even this isn't even, as you're likely to
expect, a Muslim woman wearing a burqa. No.
No. This was a the photographer,
Yakov Lertman,
saw this site in Beth Shemesh, a Jewish
woman and her two daughters. Dark black cock
covering them head to toe. Yeah. Exactly. And
why is it so impossible for these people
to have an honest conversation? Well, because they're
dishonest. Not just accidentally wrong, literally dishonest. Because
if they were in any way honest, of
course, they would go, oh my gosh. I
made a mistake or deleted her. No. They
don't care.
That's the main point to make here. 225,000
views. You won't see them respond to this,
but looks plenty of people down there going,
look. This is from Times of Israel.
All they're trying to do is make you
hate Muslim people even if they have to
show you a Jewish woman that they pretend
as a Muslim person. This is disgusting.
This is why the Loomers and all the
rest of these people out there that are
screeching about this are clearly doing this for
an agenda. Maybe they simultaneously
just are disgusting people who hate people because
of their race. Either way,
it is a manipulation.
I just it's incredible how obvious this is
today. I'm really hoping
that people can see this. Oh, there it
was. Of course, I always do that to
myself. I said, are you implying that this
Jewish woman is not treated equally in Israel?
Are you an antisemite?
It's just no. It's of course, on this
platform, they'll go nowhere even though if people
actually got you know, things like this on
a platform like this that are contradictory, that
basically show somebody wrong or catch them in
a lie. No matter what it's about, those
things tend to get a lot of reach.
Not on this platform, though, especially if it's
about Israel. Very obvious to see.
Now some points I wanted to include before
we get into everything else.
This is not the action just yet, but
it's a continual step in the right direction.
This is what I'm worried about is that
it becomes sort of an ongoing narrative about
things that we're trying to do, and then
it just drifts into the background,
which is he says, I'm directing the FDA
commissioner to start the process
of changing the rules to eliminate the self
affirmed
GRAS, which is generally recognized as safe, which
is just ridiculous in its own right, pathway
for new ingredients.
And so I'm also calling on the USDA
and the NIH to continue to conduct and
improve post market assessments of GRAS, clinicals currently
in our food so we can rapidly identify
the compounds that are making Americans sick. Well,
I'm pretty sure we already know what makes
people sick in this country by and large.
Nonetheless, I like this direction, and this is
and so that American consumers and regulators can
make informed choices. Like, the idea of making
sure they can't hide ingredients or that we
make this so they can't jam through things
under some ridiculous, generally recognized and safe dynamic,
which what they claim about all the dangerous
things that we put in our bodies,
that's a good thing. But directing them to
start the process of changing the rules to
get that done is a long way away
from actually happening.
I wanna point that out because, as always,
the statements like this get framed as the
big thing. We're changing everything. It's a step
in the right direction, and I'm happy to
see that. We gotta wait until we actually
see something continue. Let's wait to see what
the FDA commissioner begins to do based on
him saying that. I mean, it could very
well devolve into a stand up between the
two of them even though RFK Jr. Does
have the authority to make that happen.
Or the NIH being included, you know, it's
like, let's realize, guys, they didn't just there's
there's a lot of overlap to the same
NIH that happened during COVID nineteen.
I just think it's interesting. I I think
a lot of this is an illusory dynamic
of acting looking like change is happening.
But DayCentre News simply points out that you
said last March that the mRNA shots were
causing documented harm to, quote, so many innocent
children and adults. Myocarditis, pericarditis, brain inflammation, we
all know this. He was just saying this
publicly before he took office. He says, why
isn't this a higher priority? Now
maybe it's because he tried and they wouldn't
let him. I mean, no. It's not about
knowing that he's the you know? This for
me right now, it's not about trying to,
like, show he's not the one he said.
I have my own doubts like anybody obviously
should for a lot of reasons, but I
don't think we can prove that he is
not the person he claims to be at
least in the context of hell. We'll put
it that way. But I would say I
mean, you know my opinion. I'm very doubtful
for a lot of reasons. But just to
be objective,
it's just as likely that Trump's mRNA
platform design clearly I mean, it's not even
a question.
That contradicts what he wants to do. If
you're gonna say mRNA is dangerous, which we
know it is,
why would Trump let that happen if he
disinvested $500,000,000,000
of other people's money into a massive direction
for mRNA?
So it just shows you a problem here.
Either you have to recognize that he has
been neutered and is not allowed to do
what he wants, which is all which means
they're using him as a token to keep
people tricked into thinking they're going in the
right direction, or he also has changed his
direction.
We'll have to wait and see what happens.
Problematico,
isn't it? I mean, it's obvious to me
that this is
far cry from what we wanted to see.
Ending the deep state, shutting this down, slashing
the government, changing mRNA, all of these big,
slashy moves, which basically became take the same
thing and make it a little bit better
for ourselves.
It's just wild.
Now I wanted to point this out too
before we got started. I just think this
is crazy. Now I should have done this
first, actually. But for the for those right
now that are watching on Rockfin,
I respectfully ask that you watch anywhere else.
Now if you only have that platform and
you don't like anything else, I'm obviously, I'm
gonna keep posting my content there like I
do on YouTube. Same difference at the end
of the day. But I'm recognizing something here
that's becoming very problematic, which is just I
mean, I'll I'll go right through it for
you just so you can see exactly what
my concerns are. If you're watching on that
platform, I mean, there's plenty of other platforms
I'd rather you watch on that I think
are even better to watch on. Secondarily, if
you wanna donate through to this platform or
to TLav,
I ask that you do it anywhere else
in this platform. That's just my personal opinion.
But that's still gonna be there if you
decide to do it. I simply said, okay,
Rockfin. We need some answers. Now we've been
going back and forth around things. Like, yeah,
I've even personally been tweeting or, direct messaging
or even, you know, back and forth to
try to find out what's going on, especially
during this weird change where all of a
sudden nobody's being paid out. And that was,
like, a couple months ago, but it was
very weird because they never tried to update
anybody. They never gave us information.
I basically had to reach out and go,
guys, what's going on? Why am I not
being paid? And they go, how much do
we owe you? This much. And they give
me money in, like, an hour. I'm like,
well, that almost made me feel worse. Like,
that felt really weird how that just happened
knowing there are other people that didn't get
their funds. Right? So it's been weird. Now
I've gave them the benefit of the doubt
first to go, hey. Maybe they're going through
some transition. Maybe the last team left them
a
dumpster fire. Maybe there's things they you know,
legalities. Because you take over a business. In
many cases, you tend to be legally responsible
for even things that were done by the
previous group. So that's a very damn the
damage hard situation. I don't need I I
don't know what's going on. I'm just throwing
out these ideas that I had the time.
Now today,
I saw something I just it's it's I've
seen it begin
on some of the channels, and I wasn't
sure if it was a glitch or whatnot.
But now today, we can see that there
are many accounts that have been zeroed out.
I said, either you address the clear shift
in principles or explain to us why this
is happening.
They've apparently removed all the followers from James
Corbett, Indie News Network, What is Truth podcast,
and, like, four or five others they list
down below.
You can look look for yourself, guys. I
mean, Corbett was just speaking about this on
a and wake up this morning.
Zero followers.
Here is any news network, zero followers.
What is news? You know? And look. And
they even put this up here. Account terminated.
Please follow all three platforms. I mean and
then just so it's clear, this has already
come they've emailed them and told them that
they did this.
They've they've they've removed them. They've zeroed them
out.
Now he Andy News Network says this is
the email that was sent to all to
to one
one of the creators, not everybody on the
platform and not even all of them being
zeroed out. To me, this is inherently dishonest.
Even if it's somehow and they're bound by
something. Like, this is just wrong. The way
they went about this is wrong,
and I just can't support that. Now it
says, which may which may help such some
light. Now here's what it says. Hi. Rockfin
is evolving.
We're doubling down on creators who are actively
building their audience and driving recruiting revenue through
premium content, which I don't do. So let's
see if they kick me off as well,
which is just crazy.
Unfortunately, your channel hasn't hit the momentum
needed to fit this new
direction, so we'll be revoking your publishing permissions.
Yeah. So you're basically kicking people off your
platform because they don't get enough reach or
enough enough benefit to
you. Now yeah. Look. It's a business.
You do what you want to do. But
if you're not gonna show people that's what's
happening, if you're letting people build these things
only to kick them off because you don't
like what they're that's as bad as anywhere
else, if not worse.
At least they're I mean, they only said
it to one person apparently, but, I mean,
this is wrong, guys.
That's just that said, we believe in creators
having control over their audience. Attached, you'll find
the email contacts you built on Rockfit. Well,
at least they gave them those email contacts
as far as we understand. Feel free to
let them know where they can continue to
follow your work. You know? So it doesn't
appear as if it's some kind of, like,
we wanna stop you from having people see
your work.
I mean, it's hard to feel there's some
overlap with what's going on in the world
today, but to me, it's just wrong. That's
just bad. You can't bill let people build
this up only to pull that rug out
and not even tell anybody that's happening. They've
been zeroed out for months now.
So I just want you guys to see
what's going on. I have a problem with
that.
So to get into
the first point about this that I think
is very relevant to the larger conversation around
how not just free speech or like, I
guess the larger premise is using like, I've
we like like we've been saying about the
administration so far, using things that we want
to change in order to basically
bring down something that will go you know,
we want that to go away, but only
to build into it something worse.
And the only reason we're being allowed to
see it as a problem or or bring
it down is because they've already been ready
to bring in the new thing.
And that's just straight up happening in a
lot of ways.
And I've got opinions about others too that
I think might be in that realm, but
let's realize,
provably, there are things just like that happening.
Whether it's the mRNA direction, whether it's the
technocratic drive, with all these different things that
were there still building out. And I mean,
like, to a t. Exactly.
This is an example of the smaller version
of it rather saying, you know, bad guy
terrorism just like they're doing with Khalil
in order to do exactly what Biden did,
but even worse.
March 13
says more than 1,000,000 Americans are about to
face a new level of financial surveillance.
Now just really think about this, guys, about
the idea of the great reset, about invasiveness,
privacy, constitutional rights, liberty, freedom,
and how you feel this adds up at
all.
Well, because bad guys. Right? We got terrorism
over there, so we have to spy on
your finance transactions.
In no world would Republicans
agree with that if it was a Democrat.
And anybody who's honest would make sure we
understand if they you know, you could have
your own opinions, but people who are aware
of the problem here or your constitutional rights,
anybody honest would say no matter who does
it, that's a problem.
And that's the reality. This is what the
article is even getting to at the end.
The reality is this is bad no matter
who does it. And now it's just just
like James Corbett was telling you, it is
a foundational step in administration to administration, and
that's exactly what this is.
Financial surveillance
based on the idea that we have an
unknown threat is exactly the slippery slope we're
trying to show you.
Now it says the Department of Treasury's Financial
Crimes Enforcement Network announced that the threshold for
currency transaction reports
has been lowered from 10,000
to $200.
And this is specifically for Americans living in
largely California and Texas.
Now it says financial surveillance in The United
States has long needed reform, but this move
is in the wrong direction. Now I personally
find it crazy that you're selectively
applying
this to people in certain areas even though
this is about or at least the guise
of this is about the border,
about Mexican cartels, about terrorism.
But it seems strange, doesn't it? To make
this about I mean, if that's the case,
why not Florida? Why not or either not
Florida, but specifically, maybe so, like oh, I
guess Texas and California is the bulk of
it for the most part. But the reality
is ultimately, guys, it doesn't matter
what the the narrative is.
This is a violation of your privacy. They
don't have any legal right other than creating
their own unconstitutional
laws to to just claim that because of
what we think might be happening that we
then get to dive in and look at
what you're doing with your transactions.
Again, this is where we end up today
where ultimately anybody with the principles are gonna
go, well, yes, obviously.
On the side of your rights and privacy.
But you've got the Republicans who claim to
be like that today who are going, no,
because you're gonna be a terrorist.
Because why? You don't hide anything. You don't
have to you know, what's that? What do
they say? If you have nothing to hide,
then it's like we're back in in Bush
neocon times, it seems.
It says financial surveillance in The United States
has long needed to perform, but this is
a move in the wrong direction. Now it
says FinCEN officially announced the temporary policy changes
in an effort to further combat the illicit
activities and money laundering of Mexico based cartels
and other criminal actors along the Southwest Border
of The United States. Now if you believe
for one second this will be temporary in
any real context, you aren't paying attention.
Now with the number, it can easily fluctuate.
But the reality of giving them the setting
the precedent to where they can just dive
through your personal information no matter what, as
long as they claim we think bad things
might be happening, and then realize half the
time they don't even have a real threat.
They just use that as the reason to
go after things they wanna find out. That's
any size far back as you wanna look.
But it says treasury secretary Scott Bessent said,
quote, as part of a whole of government
approach
to combating the threat,
treasury remains focused on leveraging all our available
tools and authorities to better identify and counter
these criminal activities.
You know, Scott Bissett being the person you
know, the only person in the world apparently
that it doesn't matter have direct ties to
Soros.
As they're all screaming about Soros, which is
a valid point to make, but it's only
half the story.
Apparently, it doesn't matter when he has funding
that made his business based on Soros or
direct ties back to him in the order.
It's just basic hypocrisy as always.
Anybody with a d next to the name,
these things matter more than anything. Of course,
when it's not, but same thing in reverse.
Partisanship
breaks logic
or creates dishonesty. You can look at it
both ways.
But it goes on to say, whether it's
the mob or the cartel,
as in, like, the mob is like organized
crime, organized crime is not an easy thing
to deal with. This is the article speaking.
It says, however, this challenge does not mean
Americans should have their rights steps stripped away
in the pursuit of justice.
Which again, to break it down to its
simplest terms, that's what it is.
You have rights to privacy.
Like, I mean, if you were gonna like,
if you if if they just the government,
in any context, left to right, wanna say,
we wanna look at what you did, what
you spent money on yesterday.
Would you be like, yeah. Why not?
Or at the very least, would you go,
that's my choice to make, not yours? You
know as well as I that most Americans
who believe in the free in any of
our rights would would absolutely
die on that hill in a conversation.
But now
we're seeing this happen. Right? Where they're saying,
no matter
what the case, we should not have a
right stripped away even if it's actually in
the pursuit of justice. That's obvious because then
that opens the door. We've been there for
a long time. This door has been kicked
in. This is what we're watching happen. But
it says,
as fight for the future warned in con
warned congress in 2023 during Biden's administration,
quote, should criminals successfully tempt The United States
to abandon the human right to privacy and
the US constitution,
everyone will lose.
They were saying that to Biden's administration.
And, of course, whether they're actually going after
criminals or not is irrelevant.
The article finishes by saying that was true
when the Biden administration tried to surveil bank
accounts with just $600,
which Republicans roundly denied, cried out as a
crime because it was a problem.
And that is true now that Trump administration
is surveilling as little as $200.
So right now, I should have done this,
but I was organizing a lot today. Go
find some of these Republicans that were screaming
about why but what Biden did with that
was crazy. I'm willing to bet you that
most of them will not say a word
about Trump doing it even worse.
But you'll also find a lot of people
out there, I think the majority hopefully,
that are in these crowds and are calling
it out. They just don't have 10,000,000 followers.
Very important to think about, guys.
So the main point again,
using the guys or even actually going after
people from the cartel, but in order to
then suppress your right. It's it's like the
NSA spying on you because terrorism, guys. It's
the same conversation.
And when we look back now, we realize
that they weren't the half of what they
were doing wasn't even about that. It was
just using that guys to look at you,
or we could talk about FISA warrants. It's
all the same conversation.
It's time to stand with principles and integrity.
Oops.
Close that one now. So this this continues
that conversation. You might have seen this.
Many points to make here.
Nick Sorter
says Pam Bondi announces an arrest has been
made for
Epstein client list? No. For deep state people?
No. For for for Bill Gates or or
Fauci? No. None of that. For somebody who
threw a Molotov cocktail at a Tesla showroom.
Man, they're really going after those small people
that are carrying out violent acts against Elon
Musk or you know, it's just so now
let's be clear. Obviously, it's a crime. It's
obviously a crime. You're vandalize you're you're vandalizing
property. You're breaking a window. You're okay. But
this is actually crazy to me that we're
talking with so many big things that they
were all pretending these people will work, and
then the focus becomes
we're going after anybody. If you go after
a Tesla, we're coming for you. That's what
she says.
You're looking at twenty years in prison. Twenty
years in prison for
if you're gonna touch a Tesla, she says,
go to a dealership, do anything.
You better watch out because we're coming for
you.
Yeah. I wonder if the Epstein sexual traffickers
are just as worried. What do you think?
And Nick's order says, charge them with terrorism
because these people are children.
I mean, I'm embarrassed for these people, and
I'm hoping all these people out there can
see how silly this is.
I mean, look. It's a crime. Charge them
with a crime, obviously.
Now let's also find out whether it was
done to themselves or it was a republican.
Do we get to blame a democrat? I
don't know anything. I was saying his point
is all those things are always possible. So
everyone that jumps to conclusions before we have
anything to back anything up are part of
the problem. Look. The honest point is it's
I would argue it's clearly most likely this
was somebody who is angry about Musk and
what he's doing, who's a democrat probably, and
did this because they're angry with him. No
way that's justified.
My point is that nobody really knows, and
everyone jumps to conclusions. And for this child
to say, charge them with terrorism,
I mean, this is the slope we're on,
guys. This is an authoritarian wet dream. They
are running this forward to the point to
where whatever they don't like is suddenly terrorism.
Guess what, guys? Your government's been doing that
to the world for
hundred years.
Now these people pretending we are the media
now fighting for free speech are literally destroying
all of that, including free speech.
I simply said, this is what team sport
politics looks like.
Who cares about the Epstein files? Let's use
government power to go after alleged haters of
Elon
because winning.
Wow. This is everything, say all the partisan
followers.
Right now, look. Look for yourself.
This is action. We're watching it take place.
We're winning.
I just I'm speechless.
As Sally Agaras writes, it's been three weeks
since Pam Bonney said Epstein's client list was
on her desk.
I guess we're not worried about that anymore.
See? But if you look look at the
comments, a lot of conservatives are going, what
the f?
They just they just don't have 10,000,000 followers.
Right? So the problem is that
the grifters take note of that don't want
to talk about this or and you know
what? I I even be willing to point
out, many of them probably actually care about
seeing this. My point is whether they don't
or they do, they'll pull the punch for
the Trump administration or any other context for
the Democrat side, whoever's in power. These people
in partisanship will decide to ignore the facts
even if they wanna see it or or
believe in the truth because they've been convinced
that's somehow the greater good.
It's it's all dishonesty, though, and it's wild.
And he puts this out as well. This
and they oh, these memes based on for
the podcast, the, what's it called?
What's that called?
Paunch Pawn Stars, I think, or whatever it
is, where they're selling from the pawn shop.
And it says, can we get an Epstein
list? And she goes, best I can do
is deport you if you criticize Israel. It's
exactly what's happening. It's insane. Now on top
of that, I found this quite interesting. Elon
Musk is giving Trump another hundred billion dollars
just after the president did an ad for
Tesla.
There's a lot of weird stuff. I mean,
the idea about all this, like, just to
break it down in case you're not paying
attention to these ridiculous sub side points, to
me, it's relevant about the overlap of what
they're not doing and the partisan mania to
try to hide the bigger picture.
But what's behind it all is this weird
Tesla overlap.
Understand what's happening right now is that he's
lost a lot of money because Tesla stock
has dropped quite a bit. Then on top
of that, the the resale value of these
Teslas dropped by more than half.
And and people are trying to sell. I
I can't suss out whether it's, like, everybody
or, only the democrat. The point is a
good portion of people are selling their cars
or not buying them. It remember, Tesla was
largely more of a left leaning thing, like,
the electric car.
And so what's interesting is he's is he's
been kind of suffering from that.
And and on top of that, then people,
as you can see,
are arguably going after his dealerships and so
on. Now Trump stands up and goes, I'm
gonna boo this and buy this because Elon
helped his family. Oh, his family. Because he's
a struggling single dad. Right? Not a billionaire,
a technocrat, oligarch, doesn't have a want in
the world. Yeah. Buy it to help out
Elon. Like, it's just so sad how easy
it is to play people who are invested
in the ideology and the hero worship of
these people.
But to me,
this looks like a lot more this looks
like here's money.
Help me build help help me this is
a personal exchange,
not a government thing. And this is what
we're at. This is these people, and it's
not unique to one side. Always understand that.
This is just being very clumsy and forward
about it.
That this is this is buying things in
this administration. Look at Mary Madelson. Seems like
the price.
Then, of course, to make it even more
obvious,
hey. Benjamin Netanyahu chimes in. That's not weird
at all for a genocide committing leader of
a country that should be arrested by the
ICC that's been funding and influencing these exact
people since the beginning to step up in
the midst of this Tesla thing and go,
hey.
Israel asks Tesla to bid on Tender for
top officials' cars.
Right. So the genocide leader is gonna help
out Eli in a jam.
There's no nothing weird there. It's not like
he's been doing everything they ask for their
benefit. Now they're gonna bail them out in
the I mean, there's a lot of ways
you could look at this. The bottom line
is this is a terrible evil person
who he has buddied up next to, who
is now helping him in a in a
personal situation by simply dumping money into a
company that people are acting out against because
of politics.
And I he said much appreciated.
And this person says, the market in Israel.
And it says, Israeli protesters rally for the
right to rape prisoners.
Very real, publicly discussed on most mainstream channels.
So the point is, there may he's just
simply going, this is disgusting. Like, you are
being,
I guess, supported by the worst
government in the world.
Nah. I mean, that's debatable based on a
few things, but I'm talking about in the
context of being in the midst of a
genocide.
Now this person simply points out, you are
known by the company you keep. In this
case, the absolute scum of the planet.
Gareth Ike points out
in a more of a partisan sense. He
says, from what I can see,
if you adore Trump and Musk, the algorithm
loves you. If you despise Trump and Musk
but adore the Democrat alternatives,
the algorithm loves you. If you say you're
an old bastards acting in unison as two
wings of the uni party, you get throttled.
Telling.
How long we've been talking about this, guys?
That's the point. Objective nonpartisan?
They don't want that because they can't play
that.
The the two party illusion is their bread
and butter. That's how they maintain this whole
broken thing. What he's highlighting is anybody on
us can see. If you tap into the
two party illusion, start cheering one of those
false paradigm sides, you get benefited from it.
Now ask yourself how that makes sense
if it's one bad guy side and one
good guy side.
Ian White says the propagandists of our day
are the ones who promote the dual party
system. I couldn't agree more. Whichever side they're
cheerleading, it is for for is regardless.
They give the entire system credence
to which ensures
continuity of government.
Well said.
Then I wanna add one last point to
this that was funny because here's what you
keep getting. Right? In the midst of this
collapsing paradigm, you get these people that are
trying to prop it up. Wall Street Mav
says Republicans first, Democrats.
Because we're you understand. They all sense this
thing being it's fragile right now. And so
what do they need to do? Keep pushing.
This one says Republican platform, free enterprise, secure
borders, honest elections, real journalism, ethical judiciary,
civil rights, moral standards, birth to liberty.
God. It's like I you wanna give me
four hours I could break down how ridiculous
it is that the point is obviously stupid
to make the claim that that's what they
stand for. You can prove that in every
case, your government doesn't believe in just about
any of those things. But and then the
Democrat platform says, hate Trump.
Okay.
Partially true.
I said, here, I'll fix it for you.
Republican platform, hate Democrats, sell off lobbyists, ignore
Israel. Democrat platform, hate Republicans, sell off the
lobbyists, ignore Israel.
That's your reality, guys. That's the point. So
the two party illusion is how you keep
people trapped because it's the same thing. You
we need to start making this a bigger
case
for those that believe it anyway. If you
think I'm wrong, then good. Then then then
show I'd love to see why you think
that. Show me the evidence.
Now Massey, as an extension of the two
party illusion point, has gotten even crazier. It's
funny how these things continue to extend, and
this one is really interesting to me. So
this is the post from Trump, which I
won't go over again. Bottom line is Trump
is calling out Massey for not voting the
way Trump likes, which in and of itself
to an adult is embarrassing. The way that
he puts congressmen in quotes like this, it's
it's a childish attack on somebody who's just
not towing the line.
That's in that's silly to me. Like, honest
people would be like, well, that's embarrassing.
Like, at least go, I wish you like,
lay out the facts. Don't just undermine and
attack somebody because they don't do what you
like. That's bully tactics. That's childish.
The bottom line is he mentions the the
he can't even approve a continuing resolution, which
I find interesting seeing as how right now,
Trump is praising,
we'll get to it in a second, well,
blanking his name all of a sudden, the
Democrat leader
for
backing down and allowing them to go forward.
I just think it's interesting. So what it
shows you, just like, you know, Zionism, Judaism,
it's not about Jews. It's about Zionism, same
thing. It's not about one side or the
other. It's about the agenda, and it's constantly
the case. We'll go to that in a
second. But he says, Thomas Massie's a grandstander,
says the biggest grandstander in the room. And
the great people of Kentucky are going to
be watching very interesting primary in the not
too distant future. That's a threat. That's him
suggesting either he's gonna do something or at
least that the the point suggests that he
is gonna do something to get him out
of power or maybe that he knows that
APAC is already fighting to stop that.
Kinda hard not to see the latter clearly
as this person has tapped into the Israeli
machine. The problem is
that's not about anything other than the Israeli
outcome.
Now I said, well, this is very telling.
Trump attacking Massey for not toeing the line.
There's the link to the actual true social.
Now since then,
we got some interesting developments.
I think this is so hilarious to see
which people,
the leaders of this fake community, or rather
the, you know, partisan fake night dynamic
are screaming about how this guy is now
compromised.
Literally talking about and I'll go through exactly
what they're pointing to, which just like I
said yesterday, glad I did because it's always
my opinion. I don't trust any of these
people. Even Massey who seems to say almost
entirely what I wanna hear today. Because historically
speaking, I don't know why we'd ever choose
to trust any of these people. Question all
of them all the time. Even almost consider
that they're probably lying as long as you
think and consider all perspectives. Because typically, they
are.
In this case, like I said yesterday, like
I briefly mentioned, I think, you know, funding
coming from certain people they're claiming are tied
back to x, y, and z. Yes. Most
likely. I think all these people are being
influenced and funded in ways that make them
compromised.
That doesn't change what he's saying being true
in the point we're making today. That's the
same as always. I don't care if it's
Pelosi,
Maxine Waters, Donald Trump. If the if it's
just tax and they're making a point, if
all you care about is who it is,
you're trapped in the cult of personality.
It matters, obviously, but the point is if
the context is still true, it's still true
regardless of who says it. The point is
it matters insofar as you wonder why they
might be trying to use that. Then you
get into why, and you can think, well,
what have they done? Why would they wanna
put the truth out? The problem is people
will ignore the truth or say it's false
because of the person behind it. They've been
doing this for a long time. That's what
these people live on. Now Cat Turd writes,
can all you massy simps and by the
way, isn't it wild how this guy is,
like, one of the most like, in a
conservative conversation, libertarian,
like, especially even before the selection. Remember? They
were all trying to pretend like Massey was
gonna be the guy, this guy included.
Why? Because they needed to trick all those
people that actually believe
in constitutional
rights and freedom.
And now that he's barely stepping out of
line and Trump decides to make a mean
post about him, all the sycophants jump up
and start and clapping like seals. And he
says, can you, Massey Simps, who brag about
him not being an APAC, which he's not,
not being funded by APAC,
Explain why his number one donor is Jeffrey
Yass?
Just curious. Can you please explain to me
and all my followers? Now what's hilarious about
this is the it's $32,000.
30 2 thousand dollars.
I mean, really think about how dumb that
is to argue that that much money is
more consequential than, I don't know, 1,000,800
that people like, what was it?
Now blank. Oh, I'm not I I thought
it was, the
people that get hundreds of thousands to a
million from APAC,
like Rubio, like
and, well, Trump got hundred millions from many
different Israeli oligarchs, even more so, even overlapping
with Elon who gets directly influenced by them.
But, really, the point is that almost everybody
left and right are funded by APAC. Massey
seems to be the only one that is
proudly saying I've not taken a dollar, and
I don't have an APAC guy like everybody
else does.
And these people want you to go after
that more. Now we should consider this just
like everything,
which is why my stance is always that
I think all of them are potentially compromised.
But you may not re realize how, like,
disgustingly dishonest it is for this person to
pull a punch for everyone on their side
who are taking hundreds of thousands, if not
millions, for some of them, from APAC, like
Tom Cotton, for example, but then go after
him for something that is like, you're trying
to make the same point in a lesser
way for less money. Let me show you
what I mean by that.
He goes, just curious. Can you please explain?
And this person says, what does Yass' money
get him? No votes? There's not enough information.
What agenda does that help? How much money
did he take? See? Because Qatar doesn't wanna
include the money because that makes him look
stupid because in general sense, it's pretty small
amount when it comes to politics. Right? He
doesn't care that Miriam Adelson gave Trump a
hundred billion dollars for something literally illegal, which
was the West Bank annexation. That's what they
publicly said. That's okay. Right?
But this guy gives him $32,000,
and there's really no context. And his only
argument,
he's Jewish,
not even Israeli.
Now my point is always is all of
it should matter, whether Jewish, Israeli, Christian, Muslim,
or somebody's funding a politician, it matters.
Here's what he asked Grok, please. This is
what Grok says. Jeffrey Yass donated $32,000
$32,200
to Thomas Massey, likely
swaying his vote against a TikTok ban. See,
this is how obvious it is that Grok
is biased.
What do you mean likely swaying his vote?
What a biased I mean, you you could
say it's possible that money swayed his vote,
but to say likely swayed his vote is
to suggest that's probably what happened.
How in the world could you know that?
That's grok for you. Okay? But, nonetheless, let's
just pretend maybe it did because that's that's
certainly a possibility. Right? And it says as
ByteDance investor yeah. So, again, the guys invested
in TikTok, ByteDance overlap, which, let's remember, is
a
it will for two reasons important. One, because
that's concerning regarding the Israeli influence on that,
which to to this very day now, they
have Israeli back people in in the background
working on the platform. But, overall,
simply because it is,
the contentious conversation around this TikTok censorship, around
the the China connection, all these different things.
But realize, as far as I can tell,
none of this has been extremely clear.
The guys from Singapore, they claim it's China,
but the overall point is that doesn't even
seem to be the reality.
So it's based on this kind of
this kind of muddy water picture when over
here,
you literally have Israeli agents hand delivering information,
funding, spying, and they don't care about any
of that. My point is it all should
matter, but especially ones that you can prove
in real time.
And he says, Massey's libertarian stance aligns, but
the cash raises ethic questions. See, even Grock
can tell you that, well, it doesn't even
compromise him based on his principles, but it
suggests there might be something.
Doesn't that sound a lot like what partisans
are doing right now around Khalil and everything
else, leaning into the hypothetical for their agenda?
Well, here is Jeff Jeff Yass,
born in 1958, Queens, New York, grew up
there in a middle class Jewish family. Now
as you know, I have no problem with
somebody being Jewish, Christian, Muslim. To me, it
doesn't matter. It's about their actions.
Now Zionism
uses Judaism. It also uses Christianity in in
in in so in what we can see
happening today. Infiltration,
manipulation,
overtaking governments, destabilization,
false flags, weaponized migration,
literally can prove every one of those.
So what's funny to me is as this
guy, Kath Turd, is trying to undermine the
idea that somehow we're all upset with all
the rest, but not this one, and then
makes the point in revert. Like, he's literally
trying to make the case this guy is
a problem or that we should think he's
a problem because he's Jewish.
I
mean, it's just they've lost the plot, guys.
And I think what he's trying to do
is insinuate that's what we're all doing with
everything else.
Most of the conversation is not. So these
people continue to show how bad they are
at this, how uninformed they are about most
of it.
Foreign contributions. It says according to Haaretz, the
ass is a major supporter of Israeli right
wing think tanks. So to me, in a
general political sense, I'm like, okay. This is
kinda what I was alluding to before. We
should question whether that has some influence on
what Massey's doing. And maybe years from now,
it turns around and he becomes the like,
look at Tulsi.
Right? I mean, there's there was times when
I was like, yeah. She's saying all the
right things, and I wanna believe that she
might be jealous. Well, here we are today.
Oh, now she endorsed Clinton. Oh, now she's
saying Islam with the biggest threat in the
world. I mean, complete diametric change.
Wonder why that happens. It could be that
she was always built to do that, so
you fell into it, so she or she
changed for some reason. The point is you
have to continue questioning.
But since the Guardian reported that Jeff Yass
donated 16,000,000
to anti Muslim and pro Israel groups.
So the question becomes,
is that
like, in the sense of somebody donating to
Thomas Massie, was he something that he, like,
shook hands with and took money, which would
make a difference? Was it donated to him
through a website?
Right? Or even if that was a handshake
deal, does that then make the case that
he's compromised?
I mean, my point would be simply that
if you're put professing the principles that Massey
does, I'd like to believe that somebody like
this, just like APAC, you'd look in and
go, well, I don't agree with your stances
on this. I don't want that.
But politicians, in my opinion, like I said
in the beginning, are all pretty much willing
to bow for money. See? So this is
how easy it is to just have a
logical stance. We don't blindly trust any of
them. We question all of them, and we
consider that all of them are probably compromised.
But at the same time, what Massey continues
to say is accurate.
That's why you got people like this going
after him, like Kat Turd and the rest,
because he suddenly is not in line with
what the
partisan MAGA sycophant team wants.
And there's yeah. So just to make clear,
he's not an Israeli. So it's just funny
how this gets pushed.
Harry Scatterd saying, how hilarious
it is that all the Jew haters
see, he had to, like, double down and
make it more clear because he was getting
called out for what I was just saying,
who simp for Thomas Massie. What are you
even talking about? Like, the idea that somehow
because you support Massie or the only people
that hate Jews, which is really what he's
saying is people that are calling out Israel,
which Massie does in some cases too.
He says,
it's hilarious how all those people found out
who his biggest donor was today. Can't stop
laughing.
Right? Because you're you're gonna ignore millions of
funding to people directly from Israel, but you're
gonna laugh about the fact that he got
32,000 from a Jewish person who's not an
Israeli. Like, this guy is ridiculous. I mean
and the point is he this is an
effort to undermine somebody because Trump said, or
rather just be feels the direction.
Maj Tajore says, so he took money from
APAC?
No. He didn't. This is a reach.
See my point?
Same thing. This is, Marcella j says a
whopping $3,013,200
was donated to Massey by Jeffrey Gass. Gass
also
has a stake in ByteDance,
Chinese parent company that operates TikTok and has
a small stake in Truth Social. That matters,
doesn't it?
I mean, guys, think about this. Like, so
you're gonna make a big case about this
or at least pretend that we're somehow doing
and you're not gonna highlight the connection to
Truth Social? I think you know why, guys.
Hypocrites.
Trump vehemently opposed TikTok, and then last March,
Yass went to Mar A Lago to speak
with Trump.
After their meeting, Trump suddenly and loudly flip
flopped on the issue. If you if you
get rid of TikTok, Facebook and Zuckerberg
will do double their business, he wrote on
True Social.
I don't want Facebook
who cheated in the last election, says, doing
better. They are a true enemy of the
people. And ain't that the this ain't the
flex you think, he says to Catcher.
Right? And, well, of course, you know, that's
the same Facebook who later or Mark Zuckerberg
who later stood next to Trump, and they're
all friends now in Unity. Right? Enemy of
the people until suddenly we say the same
things, then it's all good.
This is the best they can do. Now
realize, to be clear again, I'm not simply
or advocating whatever you call it for, Massie.
I'm advocating for objective reporting and the truth.
Question Massey, like, for these reasons and everything
else, but realize that what they're doing here
is pretty damn obvious.
The Beck, parody account says, so you're perfectly
fine with our politicians being bought and controlled
by a foreign nation like Israel because Massey
is the only one brave enough to call
it out that says everything. And he really
does have provable zero money from APAC. But
that doesn't mean there's not some other part
that we can't see. Right? Always consider everything.
But he also called out the APAC guy,
which is a huge shift in this conversation.
Thomas Massie, on the eleventh, as I showed
you, spoke up to Trump calling him out
and said, POTUS is spending his day attacking
me and Canada. The difference is Canada will
eventually cave.
We'll get to that at the latter half
of this in regard to the Doge part.
Now following up on that, he posted yesterday,
in less than three days, and this is
the quote from the article rather, I've received
$261,000
through 3,200
three individual donations
without sending an email, text, or phone call.
It's a fundraising record for me, and it's
boosted my current cash on hand north of
$1,100,000,
Massie said. And the point is that's because
Trump attacked him. Massie reveals how much campaign
cash he's hold in since Trump targeted him.
See, I don't think they have the support
they think they do, and that's why people
like Kat Turt and the others try to
come out and go, don't fall for it.
They're gonna try to show you that people
aren't supporting MAG anymore. It's a trick. Like
before he was saying it. They already see
it coming. They recognize that Republicans aren't stupid,
rather conservatives, that they believe in free speech,
that they don't like mRNA vaccines, and there's
just so much they can take.
And it's collapsing. Now let's realize that already,
the partisanship was not the majority. So it's
a false binary in the first place. But
this is only showing you
that the people out there are leaning into
people that they at least can, you know,
principles,
integrity,
at least feigning those. And on top of
that, the $1,100,000
in cash, but let's keep talking about $32,000
that changed everything. Right?
Selective outrage.
Now Jake Sherman says Trump praises Schumer. That
was Schumer was the one I was referencing
earlier. Not exactly what Dems need right now.
Schumer, Fetterman, and six others need to vote
to closure
to to vote foreclosure to avert a shutdown.
What's interesting about this is Schumer comes out
and basically says that a shutdown would give
them too much power. And you know what?
It's funny. This is how the false binary
works. My opinion,
none of them want this shutdown. None of
them. It's important for their money flow, for
the Israeli, for the Gaza genocide, for a
lot of things. But the bottom line is
that it's about the power that they gain
from having the system. And so, ultimately,
they get they every time this comes around,
we've talked about it, like, a hundred times.
It's this false game. We have to make
sure it doesn't shut down. People like myself
or even Elon pretends to want this, just
shut it down.
Shut it down.
I know there's conflict
to that, but I think the problem is
that we're always it's like an addiction, guys.
And every time they ram through all sorts
of things that we don't even see, that
aren't our benefit, like, right now, for the
average person listening, go out and try to
find the continuing resolution house GOP bill right
now.
Now I spent time today. I looked on
congress.gov. I looked at house GOP.
Now maybe it's somewhere that I wasn't able
to find, which shows you that it's not
meant to be seen. It's not I looked
it directly up, and it's not fault. You
you even ask,
one of the, you know, Rock or or
Brave,
and it literally says, that's very difficult to
find right now.
How is that even possible that they're literally
voting on something that we're supposed to pretend
we're informed about, and they don't even have
a written example of it we can read
about? I'm willing to bet you because it's
riddled with things for Israel and all sorts
of things that we don't get to see.
Every moment, it seems that we're getting more
opaque, less transparency
from the most transparent government in the world.
But Trump says, congratulations, Chuck Schumer, for doing
the right thing. Like, that's supposed to be
a a basically a Thomas Massie, I think.
But it says republicans voted for POTUS who
attacks Thomas Massie while praising Chuck Schumer. Good
job, morons.
Better than Kamala.
That's what they said, by the way. That
wasn't me. That was the the post.
Now I think those are important. Right? I
think that's important to really highlight
how obvious this game is and how obvious
it is that it seems to be breaking
down.
More no more nowhere no I can't talk.
Nowhere as obvious
as this conversation.
Now we recently on the thirteenth did the
show the US government's flagrant attack on free
speech. Mahmoud Khalil is just the beginning.
Now this is an important conversation, guys. I
just can't stress that enough. It it is
foundational.
What
not even just because it's a precedent system.
This is going to set a precedent that
is alarming.
Even though, by the way, there's been similar
examples, it's about where we are right now,
it's about the way it's being framed, and
it's about how it's going to be applied.
There are previous examples of people being deported
under the context of just terrorism. But the
reason the point today is there's it's transparent
that not only was that not even remotely
the case, you can't even make that the
case about the people that they're claiming actually
said the things that they're generally
moving over onto him. Western civilization and all
these different claims.
Those things in and of themselves are legally
protected speech and ideology under whether you wanna
end this country or not. That's what free
speech protects, your thoughts and your ideas.
For them to say that we don't want
that here, that means you don't believe in
the constitution. And look, again, maybe there's a
case to be made for why that is
what we should be doing today. I don't
agree.
But at least be honest about your stance.
The problem is the definition, the line, very
clear. The same things most of you would
have been saying back during Biden's administration.
Problem today is they're just saying bad guy
terrorism,
Muslims, and all of a sudden, these people
jump up and say, do whatever you need.
It's very simple.
So we went over all this
on the thirteenth. There's some things I wanna
follow-up on today.
Before we get to that,
I thought this was fascinating. Now I wanna
make a point about this in regard to
swatting.
You might have seen this circulating. I I
I gotta be honest. I'm very for I
have a very I I'm
everything in me tells me there's something going
on here. Just my gut, that doesn't mean
I'm proving anything.
But this whole thing with the swatting, like,
first, let me just say this first. Swatting
is very real, and it's absolutely wild to
me that this is even still possible. Like,
the idea that you can just call in
a fake call and send the SWAT team,
which by the way, why is a SWAT
team even going to one of these locations
for someone's home on some kind of check?
And if they just do this,
even though they know there's literally a thing
called swatting, there's a name for it, and
they just go anyway, burst in the door
and go, oh, I guess the call was
wrong.
Like, do you not see that that's almost
like an allowable problem? Like, it's just wild.
Either way, even if that's just incompetence, which
is just as likely it seems, it still
happens.
So nobody should be okay with that in
any context.
Not whether it's about reporting things about, I
don't know, Malamika Leal's wife, for example,
or Republicans claiming they're being targeted.
Either way it goes, this should be called
out as a problem. Now, obviously, first and
foremost, we should probably prove this is actually
happening. Right?
So this has been circulating.
Weirdly, right after this I mean, I was
just talking about yesterday even. Like, this is
a rapidly devolving conversation. They're losing control. They're
being called out for things that they claim
they're fighting for. And all of a sudden,
oh my god. We're all being attacked. Teslas
are being bombed. Oh my god. It's republican
it's democrat terrorism.
It's like the every buzzword. Now even if
it's actually happening,
it's interesting. This takes the conversation away from
genocide,
away from literal destruction of this country, the
removal of your rights, or rather the lack
of acknowledgment of your rights
into we are now the story. We are
not just we're now the media. We are
the story. We are the ones that we
are the victims. We are being attacked. Here's
the woke right as always, guys. And I
mean the sense of making your victimhood the
point.
Now if they were swatted, yeah, that's horrible,
and nobody should be okay with that. That
should be something that is called out, and
that's a criminal act, and we dare I
hope we find the person who would do
something like that because you realize
whether you agree with these people's ridiculous, childish,
naive political opinions, they're still people, and they
might have families. And the idea that you're
gonna bust in the door and potentially cause
someone harm because of a joke or because
you hate them, that's just vile.
But let's be clear, this is happening on
the partisans both ways.
But here's what Kat Turd said today. I
was just swatted again for the fourth time.
As I tweeted earlier, and what's interesting is
this is on the tail end of other
people saying that. I just I something about
this doesn't feel real to me. I it
says I live in the middle of nowhere
and know all the cops here because of
the past swatting. They know it was just
an immediate and it was it wasn't they
knew what it was immediately and just called
me and sent one officer who I just
had so that was till you weren't swatted
then. Swatted is when the SWAT team comes
and breaks in your door or, you know,
cost you no. So a cop came to
your door and said somebody called about you.
Not the same thing.
I find that to be insane. Right there,
that seems like a really a huge stretch
because other people are saying that's happening.
Oh, what you would've said if you're being
honest is somebody tried to swap me, and
it turns out it didn't happen because the
cops knew me. But just to be clear,
it says really nice guy. I have my
number and blah blah blah. My the last
two swaddlers are sitting in prison right now.
This one will be joining them soon. Good.
If they did it and that's a provable
case, I'm glad. Because that's a that's a
terrifying thing, and people like that should be
charged with a crime.
But here's the thing. It seems to be
a round conversation right now.
Now
I guess it's obviously I mean, Democrats, just
like Republicans, are all wrapped up in their
mania around this whole thing and would act
out in violence against the perceived other side.
That's how this whole thing works.
So it's not hard to wrap your mind
around this actually happening. I'm not sure I'm
sure somebody will be assaulted by my just
being critically objective about this. My point is
that I think right now these people have
been caught lying, all of them, in 45
different ways just since the selection process over
and over and over. So why we wouldn't
at least go, maybe this might not be
what it looks like, or maybe somebody did
it to them from their own side or
maybe they lied or any number of things.
I'm not saying we know that. Obviously, these
are possibilities.
It's the same thing we did around any
of these other horrible conversations.
When you just go, obviously, if we don't
know, we don't know. We have to be
able to consider all these things. How dare
you consider the possibilities?
But it says over a dozen more prominent
Trump supporters, he says, this is Alex Jones,
were viciously swatted last night.
Over a dozen?
So I'm starting to get the sense that
other people like, it was me too. I
oh, Alex, I got swatted. And they're just
tallying them up without any evidence, which by
the way is what Infowars does.
Reports things without barely even checking. And that's
coming from people that used to work for
them. David Knight, Greg Reese, the the TruStream
people. I mean, I'm
blanking on, anyway, I'll I'll grow, for example,
with plenty of others.
As the desperate Democrat party escalates their terrorism
see? So now you know it was Democrats?
I'd like do you have evidence of that,
Alex? Do you know it? Or you're just
assuming that because that's working for the agenda?
You see my point? So even if it
is actually happening, they're already turning this into
some weaponized element because they want that to
be the case. Show me the evidence that
you know it was some democrat machine. I
would not even would
surprise me for a second.
It's the same thing we keep seeing.
Self serving, making yourself the story about something
going on. We have this example as well
with the same people.
Conservatives are getting swatted. Now do you think
that cons that Insurrection Barbie verified any of
this, or she just see Alex post it
and assumed?
You know as well as I. Now it
says journalists are being killed. Now, yes, somebody
was shot,
and it did work for Infowars. I don't
think we have any real understanding of what
happened or why or whether it's about journalists
at all, but let's pretend that's the case
because we're building a narrative about how we're
the victim while we're ignoring children being starved
to death and murdered right as you type
this.
Teslas are being burned.
Okay? Who was it? Do you know? Did
they say why they did it? But, yeah,
let's build a case without knowing into facts.
We are the media now. Students are being
terrorized on campus.
So now you're just broadly bringing this back
to, like, the entire campus conversation even though
all of the evidence shows you that wasn't
actually what was going
on? So you have to begin to see
if this is dishonest, then wonder if the
other parts are too. The only way this
stops is when people who engage in domestic
terrorism get charged as such.
Great. So
burning a Tesla is now domestic terrorism. Like,
you know how insulting it is for the
very people who were the ones used
to build
the domestic terrorism dynamic from Biden. And now
you have these people
handing the baton from their hand to Trump
going, yes. Use it. Call them domestic terrorists
as if that won't spin back around to
anybody
who they decide to not like that day.
It's a may I mean, either these people
are working for
interest of what they think they're fighting for.
It's sad.
It's, you know, it's like saying insurrectionists like
they've been doing. The moment they sit down
inside of some building, insurrection, and then them
actually stay with that.
So if you were upset about them calling
it insurrection on January 6, why would you
do it to them back?
It means you're the same thing.
To call someone a domestic terrorist without even
knowing what happened because they did something against
your perceived hero, even though it's not even
close to the realm of the word terrorism
is
I mean, it's just dangerous.
I mean, there's so many things you could
say right
there, but it is dangerous. It is the
destroying what we believe is the fabric of
this country.
Now here,
Mel points out,
is instruction Barbie. You know, there's talking on
the spaces
about trying to find his wife.
Now I just made this point.
Laura Loomard saying,
where is she? What's her name? Who is
she? She's probably more radical. We should find
out. She's probably doing terrorism. Like, literally.
Like, I'm paraphrasing, but that's what she was
saying. Based on someone she doesn't know, doesn't
even know her name, but you're willing to
throw out libel and slander.
She's a she's probably radical. She's probably a
terrorist.
Why? Because she's Muslim and Laura Loomer's a
disgusting vile person.
Mel says two things. These people are psychotic,
and they're literally in spaces planning ways to
stalk and harass mom and Khalil's pregnant wife
and her family, who by the way is
an American. That doesn't matter to these America
First people because she's brown. It says, remember
when I said Zionists are like abusive lovers
always trying to isolate America from all our
friends and allies? Listen to the way they're
talking about Britain. It's so insane.
I'm good. I just wanted to to to
just assure you that, yeah, she didn't wanna
be identified yet. She is very well known
who she is. Now That's what I was
saying. Right? So the reality of Loomer coming
out and going, where is you know, just
shows obviously bad journalism, but it's really just
about building the the momentum of going after
people. It's the same thing they would call
domestic terrorism if the Democrats are doing it
to them.
Now realize, guys, the real point is both
those sides are dangerous and alarming and problematic.
Right now, it's just very obvious to see
that they're doing it right back around. So
recognize it's the government. It's partisanship. And then
recognize that they're not they're the minority in
the conversation.
Now she
we want to go and check her parents
because that looks like an arranged marriage.
So I wanna go back a little bit.
I'm I'm this is where I am right
now. I mean, just think about how vile
that is. You're talking about her the parents
now.
Who cares if it's an arranged marriage? Because
there's cultural differences, by the way. There's a
very act in India, for example, that's still
reasonably prominent. And it's not it's not some
forced dynamic in many cases. It's a cultural
difference. But the whole point is a whole
different conversation. Yes. It also is forced in
plenty of ways. Also happens in Israel, by
the way. We're gonna talk about that, though.
The point is that you're literally talking about
stalking her family because you assume or think
something, by the way, is not a crime,
is not even relevant to the conversation.
It's
it's literally being driven by racism.
And if for some reason you think any
mention of racism is somehow woke, then you've
lost the plot. Because, obviously,
you're ignoring it everywhere else too, seeing as
how a genocide is being committed based on
the idea of racism.
I'm sure that's an arranged marriage. Right? This
is instruction Barbie responding.
So I wanna go back a little bit.
I'm I'm this is where I am right
now.
I'm sure it isn't arranged marriage. Right? Are
women allowed to change those filters? I I
don't know. No. See, that's the kind of
journalism you expect from We Are the Media
Now. And, yes, they are. You absolute morons.
Probably arranged marriage. Probably right? Because are they
even allowed?
I mean, who I mean, you must imagine
a low intellect of people to listen to
these people if that's where we're at.
But, I'm this is where I am right
now.
Oh, I'm sure it isn't arranged marriage. Right?
Are women allowed to change with those falters?
I I don't know. No. So you think
he came here and no. Move on. Yeah.
That's false, by the way. Yes. There's many
different dynamics. There are people that have different
religions and different culture within all these places.
The idea is they're trying to make it
sound like a repressive reality. And you wanna
compare what's going on there to any of
these locate Israel or any other examples of
how about Saudi Arabia? No. We don't care
about those ones, though, because we're hypocrites.
That green card situation was set up right
away?
No. I think he was sent here by
I think he was sent here by, British
intelligence,
and I would like to know why. Because
in my mind, it's probably nefarious. It's Now
the reason they're saying that is because what
there's been information going around about a connection
back to a British,
like, think tank dynamic.
Now you can look into it for yourself.
The evidence to me does not in any
way indicate that there's provable action
about some kind of nefarious thing. This guy
seems to be somebody who's been active in
trying to fight for the rights of Palestinians
or fight against oppression. Now could is it
possible he's an agent for the British or
or The United States or even of course
it is.
Of course it is. And no one out
there who's honest should disregard a possibility.
But they're building a case about somebody that,
as far as I can tell, is based
on subjective, hypothetic
hypothetical
ideas that are being used to build in
a direction for your agenda.
That's who these people are. Then again, I
read too much stuff. So
maybe I'm going the wrong way here, but
that's what I think without any proof, obviously.
No. No. No. You're you're right. I mean,
like like,
if you I I mean, if you're gonna
be
I I have to be careful with my
words. Mhmm. I don't think our relationships with
the British is as great as everybody thinks
it is.
I actually think it's way worse than it
is, and nobody wants to talk about it.
And it's been in the IC community. Especially
in the IC community.
Like, we did we we quit sharing information
Hey, Sam. I heard we may be missing
an eye in the I fives.
Maybe. Potentially.
God.
I mean, is is is it insulting for
me just to say that they all sound
like they're pretty unintelligent, but that's you know,
I'm a jerk. Call me a jerk. The
bottom line, guys, you can listen to the
content of what they're saying, the way they're
discussing this, the lack of grammar. Clearly, these
people are not who you should be listening
to, but you can decide for yourself. The
bottom line is that what they're trying to
do right there is build this on nothing.
You it starts with the idea of who
she is, her parent. We don't even know.
And you're literally building this into, we think
she's working for the British
because based on subjective
public information, by the way. Now, yes, obviously
possible, but it's amazing how these
mental magicians can't piece together the possibility that
our entire government's being funded by the Israeli
government or that half the people working in
this situation are working for some kind of
intelligence apparatus. Or how about we just ignore
the entire Epstein intelligence connection and just lurch
into the idea of Teslas because good job
journalism.
Here's what she said in response to this.
This person's kinda making fun of her saying,
OiVeigh, why are they inciting violence against poor
Barbie? So people called us out, and she
responds by claiming you're attacking her. Says I
have never once in my life said a
word about stalking, harassing anyone's wife or family.
You're literally having a space is about trying
to find out who they are and wonder
whether it's an arranged marriage. What the hell
would you call that? At least have the
the constitution to own what you're doing.
And it says,
anyone that has ever heard me speak in
a space, which we just did, knows that.
That's not true. In the intent of this
post from someone who has never interacted with
me is actually meant to incite violence against
the people referenced in the space. Is it?
How exactly is pointing out what you're doing
and signing because what's interesting is in a
way you're saying that, okay. Well, I'm doing
something wrong, therefore people attack me for it.
I mean, you read it into yourself.
It says very clearly,
psychotic that are literally placed you know, go
you can argue that calling her a psychotic
is not necessary, but that's not going that's
not going to attack this person.
Planning ways to stalk and harass their family.
That's what they're doing. Remember when I said
Zionist or abusive lovers always trying to pay
them? Listen to the way they're doing that.
You wanna
walk me through how that's going? Go after
this person.
It's it's commenting on what you're doing.
But like I said, like the swatting point
being done today, we're the victims.
You pointing out trying to highlight who the
doge workers are, you're trying to get them
killed. You know, beside the fact that we
have every right to know who's working on
these processes for our government. But, you know,
doxing is whatever you want it to be
when you don't want us to see what
you're doing.
It
says, meant to make attack incite violence against
me and the people in this, myself included,
and at a time when people are being
swatted.
It begs the question, why?
Quite the sidestep.
I bet you don't know people listening.
I mean, look. You tell me if I'm
you think I'm wrong. This is very transparent
to me. They are going after people like
the rest of them because of ideology, because
of a partisan agenda, based on no evidence.
They're literally trying to get people like this
deported for saying things out loud and acting
like they care about the constitution. And then
when somebody points out what they're doing is
wrong, they say, you're attacking me. You are
the woke attacking me. You are the woke
left, guys, rather than the woke right. You
are the very Democrat woke left that you
think you're calling out. All of them. They
are the woke right, and I've never seen
it more obvious than today.
Now on that note and overlap before we
get into the larger point about the first
amendment, free speech, and all that,
Aviva Klompas, one of the most obvious Zionist
propagandists in this conversation, is now stepping into
this conversation to use it for her own
agenda, which is what they do.
So this is actually crazy to me. She
says Eden Alexander is an American boy who's
been tortured, starved, and held in Gaza
dungeon. Now you might ask yourself how she
knows that. Right? Seeing as how he is
still there. This is right now being discussed
as
March 14. Hamas says it's willing to free
American Israeli captive, but Israel expresses doubt. Now
it's funny. It says Hamas says he agree
it agreed, because it did, that conversation is
public, to release Eden and turn over the
bodies of four other hostages.
Israel,
this might sound familiar, accused Hamas of psychological
warfare suggesting it wasn't close.
You know, exactly like they did with the
Biba's family that they are now caught lying
about. We even just had
the former defense minister openly telling you guys
we knew they were dead for fifteen months
and used them anyway.
And we knew
at that time I knew at that time
that some of them, including
the Bebas kids, are not alive,
unfortunately.
Well,
Now I played the whole thing yesterday. The
point is, guys,
he literally tell like, he just heard right
there. They knew. And then they went on
to use them for psychological warfare. And so
what did they say when they for nothing,
by the way, tried to return them, which
even Lifshitz,
the first hostage released, admitted publicly.
They tried to return the Beebel's family.
And they said no. Psychological warfare. And then
went back to war and said they broke
the deal when that was what happened.
So do you trust them now? Why would
anybody? I mean, it seems that's this is
like literally trusting a murderer to watch your
children because they promise they won't do it
again. You know? Or or how about a
pedophile? Like, it's insane,
the level of stupidity in this conversation.
So my point though is he's still there.
Right? So this is still being discussed. So
ask yourself how Aviva Clampus knows he's been
tortured and starved.
He she doesn't. And now let's also take
a step back and recognize that she has
said that about every single one of them
before they come home and tell you that
they were treated kindly and they were fed
and that they tried to protect them with
their own bodies, and then they also watched
hostages killed by IDF bombs.
This monster knows what she's doing. She's absolutely
trying to build, and here's the worst part.
His captors refused to let the Red Cross
in to see him, which by the way
is provably false. The Red Cross is not
allowed to get through with the Israeli blockade,
and they've been very clear about that from
the very beginning. And it goes on to
say, let alone grant his lawyer
or due process.
I mean, how clumsy is this? Then she
goes on to say, yet, more voices are
rallying to for for Mohammad Khalil.
Mohammad Khalil, a man who openly supports terrorists.
No. He does not. Then and then to
demand Eden's release.
This is so gross. I mean, they're shameless.
So realize, what are you talking about a
lawyer in due process? She they're literally in
a in a got a destroyed
Gaza occupation territory,
right, where they're not allowed to leave, they're
being starved, there's no water or electricity, and
you're going, why not due process? I mean,
you're an absolute moron. At the end of
the day, I think she's preaching to a
group of people that won't even know that
doesn't make sense.
Only to make a clumsy point about Mohammed
Khalil because it's important to them right now
because they're all losing
their everyone's seeing who they are.
I just think that's insane. So to lie
about what you think is happening, even though
every other person's come out and showing you
they weren't tortured, and if they were starved,
it's because they're not letting food in, and
most of them were fed anyway even while
there's Palestinian children starving in the streets,
and then go on to make a case
about lawyers and due process while you don't
give any of that to a single person
in your actual torture dungeons in Israel as
your own people are calling out.
I mean, it really it it just it
gives me a physical feeling.
It's it's it's revolting that this even exists
in the world, but obviously also makes you
motivated because this is the kind of thing
we have to fight.
Now this is important to reiterate, guys.
Click this out, highlight this, use the source
links because it's everywhere right now. From JD
Vance, Tom Cotton, and everybody in the administration
to basically half of this communicate the the
Republican MAGA conversation right now.
Literally dying on the hill of this is
not about free speech
while they're undermining
exactly that.
Now just again, showing you the links we
included yesterday, and do your due diligence, guys.
This is just looking up for Brave. Does
it do do constitutional rights apply to illegal
aliens? And this says, yes. Constitutional rights do
apply to undocumented immigrants, also known as illegal
aliens. US constitution guarantees certain rights to all
people, all people living within the jurisdiction of
The United States regardless of their immigration status.
Now that's just brave. Right? Of course, it
could be wrong. The point is there's foundational
rulings, even one from Scalia that we pointed
out yesterday in 1993
that makes this undeniably
clear.
This is just from a law group simply
pointing out, yes, the constitution protects all people
living in The United States regardless of immigration
status. Most constitutional provisions apply based on personhood.
That's the main point, not citizenship.
Any person, x, y, and z.
In other words, if an individual is physically
present in The United States, they are entitled
to the protections granted by the constitution. Now
again,
maybe you disagree with that. Maybe you think
that shouldn't be the case, but let's be
clear. It is right now the case.
That is the legal reality of the situation.
So if you disagree, then make that argument.
For you guys to pretend that it's just
not the reality either shows how wildly uninformed
you are or how dishonest you are.
Everyone needs to call this out. This needs
to be a huge point that we rattle
behind because it's the reality. Here's the Fifth
Amendment.
And this is one of the points that's
roundly cited by the Supreme Court. No. It's
it's not about a citizenship status or an
American. It's about any person. That's how it's
framed.
No person, the fifth amendment says, no person
shall be held to answer for capital. Otherwise,
goes on and on. All things you remember
in the fifth amendment. Then it goes on
to say, nor shall any person be subject
to the same offense twice, double jeopardy,
or be deprived of life, liberty, or property
without due process of law.
Here is law and crime, same kinda thing,
and this cites some of these. I'll show
you. This the the main one I think
is important,
especially around deportation,
is Reno versus Flores, nineteen ninety three. But
there's many examples in this. There's more than
even I highlighted. This just simply says the
same point for the fourteenth amendment. The fourteenth
amendment of the constitution ratified in 1868
after the end of the civil war specifically
states,
quote, nor shall any state deprive
any person of life, liberty, or property without
due process of law nor to deny any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of
the laws. Now realize, it doesn't say I
mean, it is any person. I don't even
know how you could pretend that doesn't apply
to exactly what that says.
This says, the court asserted that and this
is 1886.
Asserted, quote, the guarantees of protection contained in
the fourteenth amendment
to the constitution extend to all persons within
the territorial jurisdiction of The United States without
regard to differences of race, of color, or
nationality.
It can't get more clear than that.
Nineteen ninety three, justice Scalia wrote in Reno
versus Flores that the courts have well established
that this is the quote. Well established that
the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens,
illegal
or otherwise, to due process of law in
deportation proceedings.
Due process is the legal concept requiring that
all proceedings be fair and that an individual
be given notice of the proceedings and an
opportunity to be heard before the government acts
to take away one's life, liberty, or property.
That's what they're right now refusing,
even if they end up going in front
of a judge, to to Khalil Because the
up until today, the lawyer hasn't even spoken
to him. And on top of that, no
one's being seen. This is this is behind
a wall. This is a secret trial, it
seems. And on top of that,
the whole process. There was no warrant presented.
They did not identify themselves. I mean, this
is becoming exactly what we've always pretended we're
fighting in this country,
if not long since been there. The Flores
case gave rise to 1997
settlement requiring the government to release children to
their parents, a relative, or a licensed program
within twenty days of apprehension, an arrangement that
the Trump administration has so far unsuccessfully sought
to modify through the courts.
Now
there's a hundred more examples you could find.
It is the reality, guys. It's patently clear.
The problem is that people like this who
you I could guarantee are smart enough to
know better and probably already do are lying
to you. But I can't tell you for
sure that they don't mean the bottom line
is if they do know they're lying.
But think about how I mean, either way,
think about how embarrassing would be to find
out that Megyn Kelly doesn't even understand the
constitution.
She says, for those wondering what Malmo Calle
did,
he was the lead negotiator of a group
unleashing this lawlessness,
lawlessness terror. Nope.
Provably false. I mean, in every possible way,
we've gone over it a hundred times. From
the evidence of the videos of the central
location they claim was a hotbed of antisemitism,
where you've got holocaust survivors and Jewish people
chanting
on Passover. It is ridiculous.
He said she says, we would have been
the one demanding that university divest from Israel
or they would continue the lawlessness. Not a
free speech case. Yes. It is. I mean,
even if everything you just said was true,
it would still be a free speech case.
That's what's so incredible about this. Then you
realize that they're lying about everything.
This guy says, Maze, who has
471,000
followers, says, no. It's not a free speech
case. Not sure why people are confused about
it. He was the lead hostage negotiator pretty
much.
Think about
that. Hostage negotiator. I mean, you are so
shockingly uninformed.
And I said, you're all exposing either shocking
ignorance or willful deception to the detriment of
of all you claim to be fighting for.
Justice and I just and I cited that
case exactly. Because realize all that's
with what they've done is already proven that
they are ignoring his rights, which means they
could ignore anybody's rights or they choose to,
which I think has always been the case.
Here is fans being trotted out to do
the same thing as the rest of them.
He says American citizens have different rights from
peep no. You don't. I can stop you
right there. Not true.
He's going on to say from people who
have green cards. It's not fundamentally about free
speech. It's literally about free speech. This is
what should be so alarming for honest people
left or right. This guy, whatever he actually
works for, whatever side he's actually on, is
absolutely
either too stupid to know he's wrong or
so dangerous that he's trying to destroy a
foundational aspect of this aspect of this country.
And either way, that should be terrifying.
You realize there's not some separate listing of
rights for people's green cards. It's the same
constitution that applies as we've already proven to
you to anybody present in this country. Now,
yes, there are simple changes in regard to,
let's say, an illegal like, somebody murders somebody.
There are examples of differences in regard to
that law. The point is in especially with
a green card and especially when you can
prove that no crime was even committed other
than if you wanna make it out to
be some kind of a vandalism or or
whatever you wanna claim happened in a building
that they were allowed to go in and
didn't leave, none of that leaches any remote
level to claim terrorism to try to reach
some past precedent precedent of removing somebody for
terrorism.
This is insane.
He's trying to make you think that people
like that don't have the same rights, and
they provably do.
Now this is interesting, guys, and this is
what it looks like to be to show
this is just being logically object or, accurate,
consistent.
This person says, I support the detention and
deportation of Mohammed Khalil. Pass it on. Citing
this Brisberelli propagandist.
And they're all just doing you can just
see it continues like that. They're citing somebody
and passing it on. So the point,
doctor Michael,
Rechtenwald, who I've I've shared before,
you know, very much calling out what's going
on with Zionism. He says, I support the
detention and deportation of all dual citizens and
all Zionists.
Pass it on. Now here it's important to
say. I get what he's doing. It you
could very well argue that he doesn't even
truly mean that he's doing it to make
a point. But my point would be that
that's the same problem in reverse. Right?
If someone is gonna be
arrested, deported, well, then we should prove why.
There should be a crime. There should be
evidence presented. They should be told be told
why they're being arrested. Right? They should have
a right to defend themselves, whether they're an
illegal alien or not because that's what due
process is applied to everybody,
and
that should be flushed out. It should be
public,
Whether dual citizen or not. K? My issue
is dual citizen from any country, not religion,
any country, and being a part of the
government.
That has to be discussed.
There's an obvious point at which there may
come a time where they are are split
between the countries. That's obvious.
It's more obvious when you have so many
Israeli influential people that are overtaking this country.
That's obviously a problem. Not because they're Israeli,
but because that show is a possible issue
for national security. It's basic. Just make it
about China, and you guys will all agree.
It's so insane how obvious this is. The
point is that dual citizens just existing. I
mean, I don't know how to deport them
just because they're dual citizens, I think is
the same problem. That's why I kinda get
the sense he's just trying to make a
point here. But
we have to be consistent about this.
Doesn't matter what country they're from. If they're
breaking the law, they're breaking the law. That's
dealt with. But even if they're breaking the
law, that does not therefore mean they can
be deported because you don't like the way
they did it. There are laws.
Now Insurrection Barbie shows again how much they
don't understand or that they're trying to deceive
you.
She says, will the Ku Klux Klan be
allowed to protest on Columbia's campus wearing white
yep.
Now maybe not maybe in today's context, they
might be the same thing might boil up,
But understand, this is a long this is
actually a very prominent conversation that's been had
many times.
And basically, right now, based on the and
here's the important point to frame this.
Right now, what happened to Khalil should be
absolutely not possible, Right? If we believe that
everything is exactly the way we're told it
is. Clearly, that's not the case. Same point
here.
Based on the way we believe
the law exists right now, then, yes, they're
absolutely allowed to protest on campus. And you
can look up the precedents. You can look
up what the random brave answer says, and
all of them are saying yes. Yes. They
are.
The point is she's just trying to make
a point that she probably didn't even care
to look into because she thinks she already
knows. That can't be possible, so therefore, you're
wrong.
Millions of followers, these people. And it says,
so why would the pro Palestine Protesters be
allowed to protest?
Right there, you're already proving that you don't
believe in the the rights that you claim
you're fighting for. And it says decked out
with their hamas garb, and she means, you
know, kifas and Palestinian flags because she's either
that stupid or that dishonest. And it says
handing out Hamas media office literature. See, toeing
the line.
That's not true. That's a clumsy Tom Cotton
level lie making it out to be because
they said things that we claim are Hamas,
therefore, you took it right from their website.
Nobody proved that, and you can actually prove
that what they're putting on those things they
handed out were just things that you can
prove are accurate based on the conversation, like
the legitimate act of armed resistance, like the
reality of the history of occupation.
But see, those to them, because they're either
uninformed or dangerous,
are all
fake. But, again, to make it as clear
as possible, especially since I said dangerous, they
have a right to those ideas, dangerous or
not.
Acting in a way that is a crime,
those already exist, guys.
What they're doing in reverse is trying to
say that these ideas on the other side,
far less dangerous because they're literally going free
speech, are the problem and have to be
deported because those ideas are violence.
Again, you are the woke right.
I said, you are so uneducated on this
very on the very topics you're screaming about
that it's sad. You're embarrassing yourself.
I I mean that. Like, that wasn't some
snipe. That's exactly what's going on. Now,
generally speaking, the Ku Klux Klan can protest
at US colleges, like literally anybody can. It
says, but their activities are often subject to
scrutiny and legal challenges. The reality, though, again,
if you're just drawing a very clear line
about the law,
this has already been gone over more than
once. And you can read more about it
here or the different examples of the past
cases. The Clue Clouse Klan's right to protest
was actually upheld more than once, by the
way, but in a landmark case on Brandenburg
versus Ohio. Now I'm not saying I think
that is something I support.
Racism is the same problem. My point is
that anybody, whether racist or not, it's just
ideas. If they're going out there and hitting
people, that's arrest them. If they're just walking
out there and going, things I believe in,
I don't care how crazy it sounds, that
is the line we have to draw
Or in the sense of how crazy or,
like, a lot you know, what they're saying
might be bad.
It's the same conversation. As Jimmy just said
the other day, guys, as always, it's about
the worst speech.
If you don't stand on the worst possible
speech, then you don't believe in free speech.
And we're seeing that people like this are
either being paid not to or never actually
did.
But read through it again, guys. This goes
back a long way. I mean, most of
you who actually care about this and have
been following this platform or, you know, actually
educating yourself for longer than thirty seconds know
all of this. It's a foundational case, and
this has gone on for a very long
time. Now, yes, a lot has changed in
the world. Maybe that's a problem that we
recognize whether it's Ku Klux Klan or you
screaming about free Palestine.
They're pretending that they can draw lines right
now. That's what we're standing for right here.
In this conversation with this show, the line
has to be drawn.
We cannot allow the Trump administration or Biden
or anybody else to drive us forward
against our own interests because terrorism or whatever
the excuse is.
It's principles,
guys. Now here is a blog post about
this from 02/2017, the three Supreme Court cases
involving the Ku Klux Klan.
And and it's just it's cemented in history.
You can read through them for yourself. I
just wanna include it for you to do
more due diligence. The obvious answer is there.
It's very basic.
Now Laura Loomer said, and people wonder why
some people have strong views about Jews.
As a Jew, I condemn these people.
These Jews are an example of why antisemitism
exists.
Oh my god. I feel like I do
an entire show on that one ridiculous claim.
I mean, the idea is, obviously, antisemitism
exists because people are driven to hate Jewish
people. Right?
And, of course, ignoring the fact that that's
not even what antis the semite actually means,
but, you know, the game begins a long
time ago. The point, though, is that if
you wanna acknowledge the most obvious example of
driving antisemitism,
that's the ADL, AIPAC, Israel in general.
Now that's what Herets is saying. That's what
a lot of people in Israel is saying.
That's what a lot of people in the
Jewish communities around the world are saying. Now
I believe that's actually close to the majority
at this point. The point is that she
either doesn't know that exists or doesn't care
about their opinion as she jams in her
racist ideas.
Or really the idea is as she's literally
being the very anti Semitic that she claims
that everybody else is doing. It's it's insane.
Because these are Jewish people. This is called
Jewish voices for peace or Jewish voice for
peace. I always do that. And they I
I already told you guys. This is what
I said would happen.
Remember, I said, what are they gonna do?
It's Trump's lobby. It's Jew it's a Jewish
protest,
but get ready for them to call it
in, and here we are. They didn't even
give it forty twenty four hours, and she's
screaming about why they're a problem.
So as always, it shows you that it's
about Zionism,
not Judaism.
I simply said, as we discussed last night,
this Jewish organization is being attacked simply because
they're fighting for what Loomer pretends to fight
for while selling out. It's always been about
Zionism, not Judaism,
as this clearly demonstrates in the show from
yesterday's included.
Here's how somebody responded, James Lee. He said,
I have to disagree. These are peace loving
Jews. Zionism is actually the biggest source of
antisemitism. See? Because he cares, because he's not
an idiot. He looked into the information, and
he's been breaking this down. Even though I
mean, I we disagree on some things. James
Lee, I think we agree on more than
we don't. But overall,
I noticed that he has the integrity to
stand up at moments like this and say
that's not true. I appreciate
that.
Here is
burning orchids
saying,
no. Zionist Jews like you are why it's
dramatically on the rise. A reminder of what
Laura and this, what's his name? Instead of
that propaganda we're just talking about, Elal Elal
Yaqobi,
a reminder of what Laura and he support
and what they're ultimately trying to distract you
from. This was just the latest child casualty
in Israel and Israel's relentless ethnic cleansing. This
is what Laura Loomer
and and I'll I'll I'll I'll I'll I'll
I'll I'll I'll I'll I'll I'll I'll I'll
I'll I'll
This was I think even corporate media was
talking about this. In a targeted attack, not
in that way, but showing you that the
child was killed
in Gaza.
You know, supposedly, while this is not actually
still happening, I mean, no one's talking about
it.
Now the important here thing here is realize
that this these two literally just did a
podcast together about why this is still okay.
What's going on is okay, and, you know,
yay, Israel. That's what it basically was. This
guy is a literal Zionist propagandist.
Now Greenwald,
quote, tweets what this Fox News show had
to say.
This one actually floored me because you have
to realize what Loomer is doing is just
clumsy and gross.
What they're doing on this platform is I
mean, it's look. If you stood back and
looked at this April like, this is what
they would have called the woke left. This
is what they would have said woke about.
If this was a Democrat show talking about
you claiming,
what's the what's the what was the thing,
you know, misgendering or whatever, that it was
remember what they said? It was violence. Right?
Your words are threatening, and so therefore
okay.
Well, here's Fox News for you, ladies and
gentlemen,
which is basically what Cat Turd and Instruction
Barbie and the rest are pushing for right
now, which is that what they're doing is
violence, therefore, get them this is the woke
ride.
So you hear them chanting,
free muck food, free them all. I I'm
wondering, Ari, who are they all? And if
the world is watching our nation right now
and they know us as as, you know,
a bastion of free speech, so on and
so forth Can you not notice, by the
way, how, like, everyone in positions of media
and government, the the free it's like, you
know, free speech, whatever. You know, that the
whole thing. You know? Free speech. Free speech.
Like, all of them. From the borders are
to the media, they clearly, like, despise your
free speech. Like, it's just hilarious the way
it's like a passing point for them these
days.
If the world is watching our nation right
now and they know us as as, you
know, a bastion of free speech, so on
and so forth Yeah. Whatever. When you hate,
when people feel under threat because of what
you're saying,
that's actually not protected speech.
Wow. Wow. Look at some of the signage
in here. I mean, they hate Israel. They
hate Jewish Americans. They are anti American.
Oh my god.
First of all, there's a Jewish group, and
what they're saying is, as you can see,
free Malmo, free Palestine,
fight Nazis,
not, what did it say? Fight Nazis, not
students.
And all they can do is go, hey.
Hey, Jewish people.
I I mean, how do you not see
how dumb that is? And on top of
that, we as Jewish people and on top
of that, the most important part,
if it is threatening,
it is not protected speech.
That's what they're all doing right now.
Violence, terrorism.
It doesn't the it's all narrative. The bottom
line is if you break the law, there's
a crime for there's a law for that.
The crime behavior crime is a law for
that. This is speech being criminalized
because they say it's threatening. Well, isn't that
I mean, here, I should actually play this
again, seeing as how it's so hilarious to
me that either he never actually thought this
or he's probably pretty embarrassed.
Oh, did I did I get rid of
it? Oh, I think I did because it
was the earlier one.
Shoot.
Hold on.
No. I'm not gonna be able to find
it actually. Shoot. That Ben Shapiro clip where
he's basically saying exactly, like, you can't conflate
violence in words because that's a slipper slope,
and that's, like, literally what they're doing right
now. I just simply said, oh, that's the
way to find it. Hold on.
Real quick if I can. Because what's important
about this is the hypocrisy around it. Oh
my gosh. Is Twitter not loading?
Or do we just lose connection?
Let me know in the chat if you
guys can still hear me.
Let me know in the chat if you
guys can still hear me. I'm wondering if,
I just lost connection somehow.
No. It looks like it's on. Okay. You
hear me? How strange. Well, and maybe Twitter's
down again. Wouldn't that be interesting?
Anyway,
now I can't I can't grab it because
I was gonna grab it from Twitter.
The bottom line is, guys, to to come
out and say that
that is a problem. Well, I mean, you
it it doesn't just change because suddenly the
conversation is different. That's why principles are a
thing. Prince it's the same principle.
The point is he either never believed that
or he suddenly changed for his own personal
reasons, which is just gross and dumb either
way.
So for them to say that if it's
threatening, then it's not protected, even though that's
I guess my point from this earlier, that's
literally what is protected. That is ever everything
in that con if you were saying things
out loud, that's protected under free speech.
What they're trying to do is make the
woke right case for why if it's threatening
to us in this context around Israel, then
we'll shut you down.
Glenn Greenwald, who is a constitutional lawyer, says,
LOL, Fox's Harris Faulkner calls a group of
Jewish protesters anti semitic and anti American, by
the way,
even though what they're doing is in in
quintessentially American and says that they hate Jewish
Americans, she says. She also says that hate
speech is not protected speech. The long time
premise of liberal censorship
is now increasingly popular on the pro Israel
Right. You gotta love how dumb that is
even though it's terrifying.
We just need to begin to recognize that
a lot of these people are dishonest, not
just wrong, dishonest.
Here's man Nancy Mace. The antisemitic lefties are
showing themselves.
Right. Again, same point, by the way. Many
conservatives now scream antisemite
the way they complain, the leftist screamed racist.
It's just so obvious.
In a way, I kinda feel embarrassed for
some of these people because I don't know
if they all know what they're doing, but
I'm of the mind that a lot of
them do. Most of them do.
That's my opinion anyway. So here's Laura again,
just couple doubling down on this all day.
Happening now. Hundreds of Marxist.
See, see, that it's it's the way it's
it's like the the evolving lot lot you
know, patching together the narrative all day.
Do you know them all? Are you aware
of their their personal mindset? I mean, here's
the crazy thing. If you go back and
actually, you know, care to look like a
journalist would, do your due diligence, you'll find
that this is not unique to one side.
There's right. There's left. There's people that are
Christian. They're Muslim. They're Jewish. That's the point.
Now that's not because that's it's always the
case, but it's right now, it's about solidarity
around stopping that genocide.
That doesn't mean that some of them might
have that idea or even the idea that
you think Marxist is inherently bad. Like, it's
just it's all very partisan.
I I personally think that any of these
extreme ideas all lead to the same direction,
but the point is she's saying that hundreds
of them from Jewish voices for peace, a
leftist Jewish group that advocates for Palestinians
has just stormed the occupied the lobby of
Trump Tower. Like I told you, they would
hype up. Even though what they did is
they walked in, they sat down, they started
chanting. Now, yeah, is it a crime? Well,
it's an interesting conversation. Right? Because the door's
open. It's a public location. They came in
and sat down. Now if you wanna try
to make in a case that they're trespassing,
well, then charge them with that. Most of
these people are willing to take that charge
for a small slap on the wrist for
their protest.
Right? But, see, to game, the game is
to make it about violence and terrorism, which
shows you they are the woke right. They're
doing exactly what Glenn just said. They're doing
what the liberals did that they all screamed
about.
It's just it's how the partisan game
works. And it says, to protest president Trump's
deportation of the Pro Hamas, no, he wasn't,
Palestinian national Mohammed Khalil.
Leftist Jews are not America First.
The screeching person says, as a Jew, I
condemn these leftist Jews. I support Trump and
deportation of Mama Khalil.
She's just tapping into exactly what you think
she is, guys. And this is what was
interesting, by the way. Somebody in the in
the last conversation said, how long before a
Jewish Israeli
student?
Because they're they're in there, guys. There's people
from Israel. There's people there. It's
everyone in the world, as far as I
can tell, seems to, in as many context,
be able to call this out.
How long until a Jewish Israeli student gets
deported back to Israel for protesting Israeli occupation
and genocide?
Now it's an interesting point, but I bet
it will never happen because that creates,
you know, a a problem for Israel. Obviously,
I don't think they'll ever let that happen.
They'll just
ignore that part of the conversation and go
after the Americans because it's about the American
side of the conversation. But it's an interesting
point, isn't it? There's contradictions everywhere.
Now, Ben, as you've seen in the past,
this is back in October 2023. And what's
even more interesting is this person's post is
now deleted.
Actually oh, so that's right. Damn it. This
is down.
Is Twitter down? Let me know in the
chat if you guys see Twitter down.
Doesn't mean it's not loading for me anyway.
Maybe that means I've been censored.
Let me see. Twitter down.
No. Yeah. It's definitely spiking. Look at that.
So we'll find out, I guess, tomorrow when
they when how they decide to make the
case for this. I mean, like, did they
ever even prove that it was actually from
Ukraine IP addresses? Like, you know, it's just
it's sad how much people take face value
statements from the government,
which is what it is, no matter how
much you pretend they're not.
But my point is they'll use this as
they see fit.
But Ben Shapiro in 2023,
and this is from a suspended account.
Literally, Pope, because this account was calling them
names. Ben Shapiro says it was it was
Jewish voices for Jewish voice for peace sitting
in that, congressional building, sitting peacefully chanting. That's
all it was. Then he goes, useful idiots
for Hamas.
Plus, these trash people don't even know how
to wear a toilet. They they look like
Nancy Pelosi and so you're you're attacking Jewish
people because they don't do what you like
because they have different opinions than you.
It's gross, guys. It's it's it's disgusting.
This is
everything he claims. This is woke right. Same
thing.
You are showing it's about Zionism, and you're
using identity politics to attack people for your
agenda. You are the woke left.
But the point was calling them trash. Oh,
man. Oh, that was the other one. Things
are gonna stop loading for me. So I
called it out as well and simply said,
hey, Ben. Is this person who was a
holocaust survivor, are they trash and a useful
lady for Hamas too, as you call Jewish
voice for peace, simply for calling for a
ceasefire?
It is rapidly becoming clear to anyone paying
attention who the real useful idiot is here,
Zionist Ben Shapiro.
Now this account was also removed.
All of it it's it's think about how
much has been removed as we go forward.
Like, this is cultivating a very clear picture
of our own history.
But on top of that, this is from,
04/28/2024.
This is right in the midst of the
Columbia conversation.
This is working mass, and this is one
of the many things that we're proven in
the midst of all this, despite people like
the Stefanik or Stefanik or whatever you wanna
say your name, lying about this.
Mass working mass can confirm that the anti
Semitic chants were shouted not by encampment organizers,
but by pro Israel counter supporters.
Every one of these things were documented left
and right, but these people are pushing for
an agenda. That's why they're lying about free
speech. That's why they're going after Americans. That's
why they're continuing to support a genocide. How
many more examples do we need to recognize
that they don't support America? Are they supporting
something else? The point,
how many times can this be shown before
it's called what it is? How can you
claim it's about Jew hatred when they're marching
next to major Jewish organizations and Holocaust survivors?
Are you also gonna call Holocaust survivors trash
and useful idiots, Ben? Same point.
You could prove that they were lying about
this.
Now here is another Fox News example of
another member of the Republican party telling you
that your free speech is not really existence,
not how we understood it anyway. He says
Republicans crying about hateful speech, just like Glenn
said. That was the rally call of the
left in regard to
shutting down hate speech.
This is the same conversation.
Now it's a hateful
speech,
but that's not obvious. Right?
A mere image of liberal censorship
cries from the past several years is incredibly
predictable, But ex ex still extra gall galling
after all the free speech grandstanding
they just got done doing on false pretenses.
We
have k through 12, and we have higher
ed. We've gotta treat both of them different.
But when it comes to protesters, we gotta
make sure we treat all of them the
same. Mhmm. Send them to jail.
Free speech is great, but hateful
hate free speech is not what we need
in these universities, and they don't need to
be doing things
that that they're preaching from Hamas about endocinnemism.
So they can't even speak properly. My god.
These guys are ridiculous.
Like, he look. He either doesn't know what
he's talking about or he is fighting against
this country.
You mean, you realize what yeah. Free speech
is great and all. That's the kind of
thing you get from these elitists. They are
desperate to remove this from you. It feels
like that to me.
So
he pushes for you to say, well, it's
great and all, but we can't allow hateful
speech. So meet the woke right.
Now realize, guys, I'm making a point with
that. It's just your government. Your government has
been finding ways to use the two party
illusion to get to this position. Now they
are working to destroy this stuff for you
for them against you. If we can't recognize
by now what this looks like and whether
it's the financial surveillance or the technocratic drive
or the medical fraud or just never stops,
But it just keeps screaming that you're winning,
maybe it'll all disappear.
Now he's, the free thinkers project says, it's
kinda crazy on both sides, and that means
not much of anything. There's a ruling class
and there's everybody else are comfortable
demonizing half of America on any given issue.
And and and this is one of the
things that I always think is I just
have such a little I have such little
respect for it, if any. The idea that
it's like the democrats, the republicans.
Like, you are the child in the room.
You are the you are the the lowest
conversation in this where you just broad stroke,
broad brush, whatever you wanna call it, same
point. Anybody who is on in a disagreement
with you as the other.
You know? It's the same thing they're doing
with Hamas and Palestine. It's the same thing
they're doing with every conversation where they wanna
create a false binary
because they know for century for, I mean,
decades, really. I mean, longer. But, like, point
of context is just, like, in regard to
yeah. Know, I mean, you could make it,
like, the technology forward for what we're really
talking about, but for a long time, they
have been using those to keep you trapped.
The most obvious is the two party illusion.
But he says that they're comfortable demonizing half
of America on any given issue, and at
the same time, gaslighting the people who happen
to agree with them to such an insane
and ridiculous degree.
And he says, and yet, they all they
are all allowed to get away with it
instead of facing a citizenry armed pitchforks and
bread and rope and torches.
Our tweets have done nothing. I may not
disagree with nothing, but I agree. It's feeling
like it's insurmountable at this point. But let's
realize that very well could be how they
want you to feel as this all begins
to collapse
as a desperate cornered animal. But, you know,
the point is we shouldn't stop regardless.
At least not I don't that's not in
me to stop fighting for what I believe
in.
They're continuing to crack down on free speech,
both sides. Republicans just took the baton from
the Democrats. Everyone can see that now. Right?
I'd like to believe that.
And then I'll just play this again since
this isn't, I think, an important clip to
understand.
This is not new. And don't forget, here's
the borders are of Trump's administration telling you
that there's limits on speech. And really making
it about
what they're what's with with Muhammad Khalil, which
shows you it's not about theater and a
fire and a theater. It's about pretending what
you say is a threat to national security,
and then we could boot you at the
moment we make that claim.
Right? If you were outraged
hypocrite.
Because we're losing a lot of people because
of the Internet. And we have to do
something. We have to go see Bill Gates
and a lot of different people
that really understand what's happening. We have to
talk to them, maybe in certain areas, closing
that Internet up in some way. Somebody will
say, oh, freedom of speech, freedom of speech.
These are foolish people. We have a lot
of foolish people. And I think you should
get a one year jail sentence if you
do anything to desecrate the American flag. Now
people will say, oh, it's unconstitutional.
Those are stupid people. Those are stupid. 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 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?
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?
It it doesn't benefit the congressman for people
to know that, so they're not gonna tell
you that.
Yep. It's pretty simple. No. It's worth considering
that he's doing that to hide something else,
but I don't have any evidence for that.
Right? It's just another possibility.
Be objective about it. Look at the information.
Now here's what Michael Tracy said.
This isn't about free speech.
It's such an absurd deflection in regard to
Khalil.
Admin officials
have made abundant clear, and this is the
point that you can read, actually, I mean,
they haven't even clipped out right here, but
we showed you yesterday directly from Trump's administration's
own mouth and the mouth of the appointee
that was speaking on the record. He said
the allegation here is not that he was
breaking the law.
Very clear.
And then went on to make it about
national security. So you can't make this about
action
or even breaking the law. It's about threats
using speech or rather the claim that they
say you're a threat because of your speech.
This is a
fundamental
clear cut case of free speech.
And he says admin officials have been abundantly
clear that it's has been it that he's
been targeted and punished
for his political speech.
The same things that they attack other countries
for doing, Iran and everybody else.
Hypocrites.
They've openly announced it. Opioid now openly announced
it. Rarely has anything been more obviously about
free speech. I agree.
David Strom says, wait. He's being deported because
he's he he said the COVID virus was
cooked in a Wuhan lab?
I thought I don't even know where he's
trying to go with this because I thought
it was because he, as a foreigner, was
promoting Hamas and the destruction of Western civilization
while occupying a campus, vandalizing, and spreading Hamas
propaganda.
I don't even know what he thought the
COVID point was about, but the point is
he then lays out the narrative.
Like and this is what's so funny about
where this conversation goes into.
And for all we know, these are all
bots. It's hard to tell. But what's funny
is that he lays out the narrative from
the administration, which all of it is false.
Like, the at least unverifiable in regard to
the western civilization. But even if he did
say that, it would still be protected under
free speech. On top of that, it's a
screenshot. It's the best they all can do.
You show me where they presented more evidence.
People like Tracy or Candace Owens have been
screaming about this. The guy yesterday said, I'll
give a thousand dollars to anybody who can
make this claim approve it. Crickets.
It's just it's not there, guys, and they
are all screaming you down for a partisan
agenda.
But then he says Michael says, since you're
so certain that he was promoting a destruction
of Western civilization, whatever that means, why don't
you cite a piece of direct evidence in
which he called for the destruction of Western
civilization? Note, direct evidence does not mean random
Instagram posts or a screenshot of one that
we can't actually verify.
This person says, this boot looking clown is
simply spouting what Fox News told him to
think.
Now he's referring to the guy at top.
But think about how crazy it is that
we're talking about battling back and forth with
two sides regurgitating the same. And this and
this person says, and you are spouting MSNBC
crap that nobody watches because it's all propaganda.
I just think it's hilarious.
Because obviously, I have I've what you know
my opinion. I've laid it all out. But
what I think is so fascinating is you
get the false paradigm binary that I I
mean, both sides, how many times have we
covered this, are either half the story or
both lying to you.
And the point is this person highlights the
reality and simply says, I don't watch MSNBC.
You're just a moron. It shows that the
allegation is not that he broke the law.
But it's not again, it's not about the
in this point, it was simply about the
interesting back and forth of the people online
who both choose to ignore the other side
and blindly trust theirs. And that's the problem.
I really don't wanna believe that's the majority.
I don't think it is. I hope it's
not.
Now
going forward on what's been happening, this is
from, yeah, this is from late yesterday, and
it says DHS agent search to Columbia residencies
as the university disciplines students for ongoing protests.
So as we told you, guys, this is
building into something bigger. Now just like we
told you with the border conversation where we
already had evidence of veterans and Americans being
wrapped up, accosted, arrested without charge out of
the guise of going after legal immigrants,
one of which we focused on, who was
from a, he was a veteran. He's Puerto
Rican. He was American citizen, and he was
arrested, and they refused to acknowledge his rights
until later, they proved he was him and
they let him go. The point is that's
the unaccountability
of this.
It's there's no warrants. There's no process. Just
like with him, they didn't present a warrant.
They didn't address themselves.
So now,
as we already showed you, they have secret
investigations ongoing. They are going after people for
speech.
Ongoing protests.
Now people have lost their lost their degrees.
They've been suspended.
I mean, this is going crazy. All built
on an absolute lie.
This is from New York Times, and I
wanna show you how they change the headline,
which I always think is crazy, posted yesterday.
And it says, Columbia disciplines students who occupied
campus building last year.
But it's the same idea, guys. Like, if
you go back to this conversation,
is anybody gonna actually ever prove what the
crime really was here? Are you gonna show
me that they actually broke the law? If
you're gonna make it about the law, then
at best, it's probably trespassing.
Overall, what we have is a lot of
back and forth and a bought a lot
of narrative.
Is anybody ever gonna prove anything in this
conversation? Are we gonna see evidence produced in
a front of a judge? I mean, when
does that actually happen? Apparently, it might be
happening now behind closed doors.
How we ever trust something like that? But
my point is in the the public conversation.
Everyone's choosing their side. Now here's what's crazy.
This is later. New York Times changes the
headline the next day, which I still just
find wild that it even happens.
Like, all they do is do this. Updated,
March 14.
There's no note. There's no example. That's not
supposed to be how journalism works, but we
know we're well past
actual journalism here. But it says, Trump demands
major changes in Columbia discipline and admissions rules.
A letter outlining immediate next steps arrived less
than a week after the administration said it
was canceling $400,000,000
in contracts. So just as always, like, last
play, whether about speech or anything else, they're
they're they're now conditioning these funding. Now, again,
I'm of the mind that no school should
be getting funding like this.
The point is they aren't required to give
this. The point though is that that that's
their decision. But if they're then going to
condition it on things that then become a
a rights dynamic, then that is still a
problem. So when they made it about antisemitism,
they made it a free speech issue.
But the point in this is that they're
now demanding changes
in regard to people so now they're gonna
go after what they're demanding is people be
removed, be sued, be or rather,
suspended or degrees be lost or them be
deported.
All because
something is demanding that.
I mean, ask yourself how this makes sense,
especially since we should know if you're actually
paying attention or you're actually aware of the
constitutional rights that we inherently have, that everything
they're doing here is alarming. I mean, this
goes back to secret police kind of stuff,
secret investigations,
barely identifying yourselves, rushing into people. Like, what's
the premise here? What's the what's the,
the word I'm looking for? What is the
evidence basis for making these investigations? Why did
you kick why did you go to these
people's doors in the first place? Are we
have the mind now where police can just
come search your home for no reason? I
mean, realize how alarming this is getting, guys.
This is where I think we've always been,
but they're pulling the mask off.
Here is CBS News. Columbia University expels some
of the students who seized the building last
year. But see, that's how they tried to
seize the building,
suspends others. Well, here is a an article
from Prem Thacker. DHS agents descended on Columbia's
campus again to serve two warrants. At least
this time, they had warrants. Clearly, they know
we're paying attention.
Now it says less than a week after
immigration authorities detained Columbia students protest leader,
Muhammad Khalil, Department of Homeland Security agents were
back on the university's campus to serve two
search warrants.
Now I'd love to see what that was.
What is the justification for these search warrants?
I guarantee it's national security, and that's the
problem. That's where we're going, where they can
just claim whatever they want under some foggy
guys of it's the same thing you would
have said about a Biden situation if you
are on the right. If Biden say sorry.
Kicking people's doors and going national security. Would
you be okay with that?
Always the same point to make.
If if so, then that's terrifying, but at
least you have a consistent opinion.
Recognize the hypocrisy.
The problem is that right now, these people
are being it's it's being wrapped up in
the idea of violence or terrorism support when
all these people did was protest against genocide.
Now it says, I am writing broken heart
heartbroken to inform you that we had federal
agents from the Department of Homeland Security
in two university residences tonight.
No one was arrested or detained, which even
more so shows you that it was baseless.
Right? They went there under some guise of
what they whatever they thought they were looking
for. No no reasonable cause, so they left
him there.
So what was so is right there alone.
Somebody should follow-up with a lawyer and call
that out.
Columbia interim president Katrina Armstrong wrote in an
email to the university community late Thursday. Now
she appears to be the one who is
already supporting
the
former Israeli spy who is the current,
deport, the what is she? The dean?
Yeah. Khalil's dean
is is a former Israeli military intelligence officer
used to work on behalf of The US
in regard to in Israel a representative US
for Israel UN dynamics, and then married the
UN representative of Israel.
Now nothing to see here, and she's currently
at the center of this conversation about what
they're doing from the dean's position at Columbia
University. The point is the president
also went along with all of this. So
just keep that in mind
as it's being said. But it says, no
items were removed and no further action was
taken.
Federal agents from the DHS served Columbia University
with two judicial search warrants signed by a
federal magistrate judge authorizing DHS to enter non
public areas of the university and conduct searches
of two student rooms.
Armstrong wrote that the university was obligated to
comply with the warrants
and that university public safety was present at
all times.
We'll see. Maybe that's why something went different
because last time there was no announcement. There
was no notification. There was no warrant. I
think they just went and grabbed and left.
Now there's people paying attention,
which which shows you that they know what
they're doing is wrong.
Now it says DHS's presence on the campus
came just hours after it was revealed that
the Trump administration,
through the Department of Education, the Department of
Health and Human Services, and the General Services
Administration
delivered a letter to Columbia with a list
of actions it demanded
the university take before it would consider reinstating
$400,000,000
in grant funding, that it cut from the
school over what it claimed was the university's
inaction in addressing antisemitism.
And there right there. That is a an
idea.
Are you gonna stop them from having anti
white conversations? I mean, that's a huge push
from Republicans right now. No.
So my point would be it's the same
either way.
It's all an idea. It's all speech. Anti
white, anti black, anti anything, guys. The idea
that that and we have the right to
say you were gross for thinking that way.
The idea that you can't I mean, right
now, that's why a lot of conservatives are
uncomfortable because they're going, wait a minute. You
said America First, and the first thing you're
doing is for Israel. What about the what
about the anti white conversation that everyone's gonna?
That should be a huge red flag. My
point is none of that should be applied
because all of it is protected speech.
But what's happening here is he's making it
about antisemitism.
Therefore, what that is becomes a it's a
it's a violation of rights. It is a
violation of free speech.
Now what's interesting on top of that,
HHS,
GSA,
and educate that's that's the
the, HHS
where was that? Here we go.
That's this. That's what this is coming from.
That is RFA junior releasing this this announcement.
Additional measures to end antisemitic harassment on college.
So why is the HHS even involved?
The pandemic of antisemitism,
guys.
So just realize that's where this is coming
from. So that's what they're all fighting on
right now, to go after people's speech for
Israel.
And they didn't even find anything. Somebody needs
to follow-up on this. What they're saying is
they are they're demanding they change what they're
doing in regard to attacking people for one
idea.
No matter what you think about it, that
is a violation. Now Trump's administration
demands included
other things,
disciplining students involved in last year's protest. So,
see, this is somebody driving. They want people
who stood up and crawled out Israel to
be dealt with.
Why does that sound like something Americans would
support?
You're getting a lot of rabid people who
are caught up in the partisan agenda screaming,
but the majority of this conversation from what
I can see are people that are really
uncomfortable with this because this is supposed to
be what we stand up for.
And it says, Heinz Hall
oh, and it says it says, when students
occupied the building and renamed it,
Heinz Hall, meaningful discipline means expulsion.
Oh, sorry. And I'm sorry. It it's the
way that substack is weird when I we
highlighted it changes the it doesn't matter. For
the podcast, that's why I've read it funny.
That's one sentence. It says, when students occupy
the building and renamed it Heinz Hall after
Heinz Rajab, god forbid, we talk about a
child that was murdered by Israel that you
are all supporting. Meaningful discipline means expulsion or
multi year suspension. They the the Trump administration
said.
Are any of these people gonna be charged
with a crime? Are any of them gonna
be shown to be acting violent in any
way?
They're having them removed. They're forcing this this
school to suspend
or expel
students for speech,
and then giving them $400,000,000
if they do it. That seems like coercive
if you ask me. It seems like a
bribe.
Centralizing
all disciplinary processes under the university president's office,
that's why I mentioned that. There's a reason
for that. And empowering the president to suspend
and expel students with an appeal process only
through the president.
Centralization of power seems to be their thing.
Ban masks that are intended to conceal identity
or intimidate others. Isn't that exactly what the
left was doing? The point here, guys,
why
do we not see
under the guise of fighting what you think?
You're the Democrats with your masks. It's about
it's about a free it's a right. Why
would you be not be allowed to wear
a mask?
It seems pretty stupid. I'm not talking about
a face mask. I'm talking about whatever you
wanna wear. Or now you're what about Halloween?
You can't wear a mask that day? It's
a stupid argument.
The idea is clearly you have a right
to wear what you want. Now, yes, you
can argue if you wear a ski mask,
it's hard to see. Therefore okay. So now
you're just arguing that whatever's in the interest
of the government can, you know, holding us
accountable. Let's make sure we do that. Who
cares about rights?
Obviously, I can acknowledge that masks like that
are probably used more often than not in
ways to conceal their identity for a crime
or for manipulation. It doesn't change the fact
that it's a principle that you are allowed
to wear what you want.
The moment you start allowing them to dictate
these small lines is where they run with
it. You give a cook a mouse a
cookie, they ask for a glass of milk.
It goes on forever.
It's an old book I remember when I
was a kid. The point is they ask
for it it never stops. You give them
an inch, they take a mile, guys. That's
what government does.
And it says, with masked individuals having to
wear their school ID outside their clothing,
formalizing a a a formalizing a definition of
antisemitism
is what they're asking for. And guess what?
Using the IHRA definition, that is the manipulation.
Most Jews in the world are calling that
out. That is them conflating Zionism with anti
with Zionism with Judaism.
That's them saying that you if you say
Zionism committed a crime, that you're you're breaking
the law
or denying the holocaust, which by the way,
there's plenty of us to point out. The
point is you have a right to deny
whatever you want.
That's what Norm Finkelstein has made a case
on for a long time as a person
who can who are has history connected to
it. He's not denying the holocaust. What he
argues is he will defend your right to
forever.
That's called principle, and yet they still pretend
that he's trying to deny it in general.
You should look into it all for yourself
and decide for yourself. That's what we should
all be doing. The problem is Trump's administration
is now saying you're not allowed to think
that,
which may limit criticism of Israel, it says,
and addressing anti Zionism discrimination. So now you're
not allowed to criticize a political group. That's
like saying anti republicanism is a crime.
It's insane, guys.
Transparently insane.
Implementing comprehensive admissions reform. Right? So all they're
doing now is trying to control who is
led into these colleges largely probably based on
some kind of overlap to what they're claiming
is a problem, which I guarantee will lean
into Muslim countries and specific support for groups
they don't agree with,
which is all ridiculous. It's all against everything
we believe in this country, or at least
we pretend to. Placing the Middle East,
South Asia,
and African studies departments under an academic receivership
for a minimum of five years,
meaning taking over the department and installing a
new department chair.
You may be asking why?
I mean, why wouldn't it be about, you
know, any other areas in the world?
Clearly, because the people we're talking about have
a very long term and consistent agenda to
control the way you understand things in those
areas.
Seems no no big deal. Right? Just trying
to control what they teach, control who can
say what, control where you can go, what
you can wear, control who comes into the
college, control what you can say about certain
countries. But, yeah, you know, free speech, guys.
Freedom. Right? We're
winning.
It's really not that hard to see. I
just can't believe so many people can't are
are willing to try to die on this
hill.
Now it says earlier Thursday, the university announced
that it was issuing multi year suspensions,
temporary degree revocations, and expulsions
related to Hamilton's Hall protest, already fulfilling one
of the items on the Trump administration's wish
list.
At least 22 students were impacted by the
disciplinary processes according to the student organizers.
Twenty two people.
Any of them charged with a crime? Not
that I can see.
Welcome to Trump's America, guys. Well, really, the
point is welcome to the United States government
that it's always been. But Trump just seems
to be willing to tear that mask off.
You can decide why.
The shocking move is part of a wave
of crackdowns on free speech against students and
workers who have spoken out and protested for
peace and against the war on Gaza, the
union wrote. It is no accident that this
comes days after the federal government froze Columbia's
funding and threatened to pull funding from 60
other universities across the country. Now, you know,
you can go back to things like the
Rockefeller,
you know, like, the AMA, Rockefeller Medicine, and
how they basically strong-arm these these schools and
you're only teaching their petroleum based medical direction.
That's the medical system we live under today,
despite Rockefeller dying using a homeopath.
Same thing here, guys, for a different reason.
You are now stepping into this and dictating
the next
hundred years of educational direction because of a
foreign country.
It really is staggering to me how many
examples we have of how obvious it is
that something else is driving this conversation.
Now next,
I'll include this for you too.
Oh, and we went over this yesterday, but
the overall point, guys, is to realize so,
again, the dean of the very the central
location of this conversation
is a former Israeli spy.
Al MacLeod, Mint Press News. And the reality
is not just that it was spy, but
she ended up marrying marrying the UN
Israeli representative.
I mean and this is the whole point
about this. It's like, are we gonna pretend
that there's not some obvious interest there that
wouldn't it's just not gonna drive what she
ultimately does? And let's also not forget that
people in these positions have been forced out
because
they weren't censoring people. And now here we
are.
Now this is important that I wanna I
wanna go over to end. Like I said,
we would before. And this is this is
this is about
Doge.
And, basically, everything we're talking about and not
just a violation of free speech, but the
idea of the the rapid,
like, not dissolution, but, like, the the degradation,
the collapse of rather, it's
more so the lack of rep,
of acknowledgement for existing inherent rights,
but it's everywhere. And it's not just the
right situation. In this case, we're talking about
basic basic
transparency. So
So if we're talking about Doge, and we
already know this background conversation. He's an adviser,
but he's not. You know, it's this game.
What they set this up so that this
could be opaque.
No ethics pledges even though he's directly connected
to Israel just like Trump is, but we
don't get to see why. We don't get
the conflicts of interest. Everything about this seems
set up to allow what's happening
without anybody being able to know who's really
driving this, or at the very least, the
possibility that something else is invested in this,
and we don't even know what's happening. And
to have direct access to the largest databases
in this government.
Well, I mean, I don't care if it's
BlackRock, Palantir, or Israel.
Any one of those things should be terrifying
that this is happening without anybody being allowed
to see it. Well, well, why I genuinely
think that they're rolling out and look, it's
not my opinion. They've already rolled out a
GSI,
like, a basically, General Services Administration artificial intelligence
bot. They're already using that. That was a
public discussion. I'm worried how much they're actually
rolling out and utilizing artificial intelligence to make
these decisions today
as a trial balloon. Now we're gonna go
more into that when I go deeper into
the Freedom City, Prospero overlap, which I'm telling
you is building right now. But I'll include
this
right here. We just did this show on
the March 8.
And again, just because I felt like it
was an important time to do it while
everyone everyone's talking about other things. Clearly, this
is becoming more relevant every day. The impending
future of AI government and who controls the
AI or but who controls the AI. Important
conversation.
My point in this though
is here we are.
Well, they're actively
trying to hide, not just who's in control,
who's making the choices, who where the you
know, what's being removed
and getting caught lying everywhere about the contracts
they claim ended, even though no, that one
ended before Biden was ever in office. Oh,
that one actually never ended at all. Here,
they're still funding it. And I made this
claim I made this point last time. There
are clear examples of funding things that the
same side would call woke. Funding the Reuters,
Newswire, Politico even has one example that's still
active. Didn't they just scream about why that
was a problem? It only matters when they
can make a case about it for one
day.
Or things that are related to climate change,
literally say climate change, things were in Africa
that are still being funded.
Now I'm not I'm not saying even good
or bad. I'm just saying it shows you
a willful ignorance when it comes to things
that don't work for the agenda.
Now my point in saying all of that
is clearly something is wrong right now.
That's not a left or right point. It's
an objective nonpartisan I care about this country
point. And the reality here is that this
judge, whether I guarantee that these people all
have their partisan leadings,
if not, like,
maybe, you know, I think everybody today in
these positions
are whether they want to or not are
being, like, wildly incentivized, if not, like, driven
to be politically motivated.
That's just the reality where we are. I
don't think it's good. I think it's horrible,
and it shouldn't be the way it is.
But we all know that's where it is.
Left and right, they all do it. So
the point is even with that,
the system is still supposedly built in a
way where there's a where whether they're all
politically motivated or not, they can all sort
of challenge each other,
which by the way is more likely or
not why we end up never doing anything
because everyone's politically motivated. And so everyone just
kinda dunks on each other and nothing changes
until executive order Israel says.
Different conversations slightly. The point here is that
I you can bank on the fact that
she has political motivation.
The problem is even if she is, she
still has the legal standing to make her
sentiment in this in this ruling. So but
then from there, there are other aspects that
can supersede that. It's like the situation with
congress. Okay? They're supposed to be able to
allot the amount of money to get spent
even though that's not even happening today.
But ultimately, Trump has the power to veto
things at the end of the day. You
know, he can hot fire people. They can
appoint they have to appoint them. Like, it's
there's clearly a way this is built to
at least try to create checks and balances.
So the problem is with even though they're
politically motivated, what's happening today is these judges
are challenging what Trump and Elon are doing,
and so they go get rid of them.
And even if you can prove they're politically
motivated, it is still the wrong direction to
go in. It's still the centralized centralization of
power and removing any challenge to what they
want.
Now even if she's doing this because of
her own petty political view, I'm of the
mind that they're doing it for a much
worse reason.
That's just my personal opinion. Either way, both
of them are doing something wrong if that's
happening. But here's what Nick Sorder had to
say.
Judge Tanya Chutkan
has now ordered the doxing
of of Doge employees.
It's just such stupidity. Like, at the end,
I I don't actually I actually truly think
this is willful dishonesty.
Doxing is the action or process of searching
for and publishing
private or identifying information about a particular individual
on the Internet, typically with malice intent. When
you're a government entity, when you're working whether
an adviser or not, and especially when you've
got your fingers in read and write access
on $6,000,000,000,000
databases,
we obviously have a right to know your
name, and that's all they're asking for.
And the and so they're turning this into
asking for their name really, making it doxxing
so a bunch of the followers online assume
that what they're doing is trying to find
out their address and where they look. That's
not what's happening.
You can read it for yourself. Now, of
course, he doesn't post a link to the
actual thing. He posts a screenshot. I'll give
you the link so you can educate yourself
on the lies that they're telling.
The point here
is she's demanding to see the actions that
are happening.
Now, whether politically motivated or not, how can
you disagree with that? I wanna see what's
happening. Who's changing what? What emails are happening?
What's going on? What's actually going on? And
part of that is the names of the
people involved,
Not where they live or any per not
their social security number, just what their names
are. And the fact that we get so
much pushback about just who they are is
terrifying.
And then they try to make it into
doxxing. And then based on this swatting and
they're coming after everybody, they go, oh, they're
gonna kill them. They're trying to get them
killed.
Think about the how irrational that response is
to saying, I wanna know the names of
people that are involved in changing our government.
Most transparent in the world, except we're gonna
attack you for asking their names.
He says, after all the death threats received
by Musk, which can we prove any of
this? You know what I'm saying? Like, just
people get I mean, I get death threats.
Okay. Are we gonna make the case that
suddenly everything? The bottom line is that we
can't verify any of the stuff that's happening.
And even if he did get death threats,
he's the richest, most known person in the
world. That's probably not that uncommon.
But he goes, and and also shouldn't be
disregarded.
But you can't then claim that means we're
not allowed to know the people who are
making changes in our government.
Again, either such an uneducated
opinion or a dis provably dishonest.
And his personnel and as well as their
terror attacks on his Tesla showrooms. Oh, Oh,
we know that now, do we? Now it's
terrorism?
Do we know who did it? Do we
know why they did it? No. Who cares?
Let's let Nick tell you what he wants
you to think for propaganda purposes.
We are the media, guys. He goes, the
leftists are trying to terrorize Doge and its
employees into submission. Oh, is that what they're
doing?
Do not relent. The American people have your
back.
And Elon and big balls.
It's just I'm just embarrassed some days for
what people see us as.
It's almost like the witch hunt to see
people die. Elizabeth, by the way, has been,
like, just sycophant constantly under everything. Elon and
Nick are oh, yay. We're the same. It's
just it it's gross to me. It's all
over the place.
Well, this person says, they are federal employees.
We all have we all we are all
able to find this is to we all
I guess you just typed it weird. They
are federal employees. We are all able to
find found this isn't doxxing. It comes along
with being a public servant.
He's right.
Their information and salary level should be should
be able to be identified as mine is.
Now to be clear, as far as I
can tell, she's not asking for anything other
than your names. I'll read it directly from
what he posts, and I'll give you the
whole link.
But this devolves in this back and forth.
He goes, okay. So you're post so post
your real name, address, phone numbers, and any
other email addresses.
See? This is not if it's not dishonest,
this is a very stupid person.
Did he say
is that what's happening?
Or are you just trying to make a
very ridiculous point about what you demand about
this guy because he's pushing back on your
point? She's asking for their names. Are you
saying that we don't have a right to
the names of government employees?
That's as simple as the conversation is.
All federal employees are legally supposed to be
on public record, this guy says. Doge is
working specifically, working for the federal government, making
them federal employees. Very simple.
This person says, where's your link? Show me
all your information.
It's a dishonest argument. K? It's it's insane
how this goes.
Now here is the document. Actually, I'll show
you so you can see.
This is what he's showing you. That's all
you get.
It's right there, page eight of 14. I'll
show you first what he wrote or what
he shows you right there. Here's what it
says. Again,
subject to a minor amendment,
plaintiffs have sufficiently tailored their interrogatories
and requests for admission as well. These requests
and this is there's people just seeking information
about what DOGE is doing.
Those requests seek to identify DOGE personnel
and their parameters of DOGE's and MUST authority.
A question central to plaintiff's claims. Now I'm
gonna read the rest of what he posted.
But, guys, that's
it. Their their their personnel and their parameters
of authority.
For them to turn this into doxing or
threatening,
it it just shows you how dishonest all
this is, how desperate, which
really, really raises red flags for me that
there is something here. That there that's my
opinion. But realize what they're why would they
I mean, they must know that honest people
are gonna go, well, you're an idiot. That's
obviously not what it says.
So what are they trying to hide?
That's my opinion. I can't prove there's anything
back there. What I do know is there's
no ethics pledges, that there's very clearly compromising
position. There's conflicts of interest everywhere. They've been
desperately trying to hide all of this stuff.
They refuse to show their names. They won't
even announce the administrator until it's forced through
court. Something is going on.
Now, maybe it's just because they just don't
want you to see because they think it's
all secret deep state stuff. I don't believe
that because I'm convinced that they are absolutely
part of what this is. Either way, it's
something.
This is not normal. And that's my problem
with people like them, like Nick, who don't
acknowledge that. Like, at the very least, like
I said before, stand up and say, yes.
Yes. This is problematic.
It raises red flags, but we all believe
he's doing the right thing for the right
reason, so let's just see how it plays
out. That will be an honest response and,
really, the only one you could give
because you don't know. Nick doesn't know Elon.
They are not
hanging out every day whether they've ever met
each other. They don't he doesn't know what
he thinks and feels even if they're best
friends. He's telling you what he's told Elon
thinks and what he's told they're doing. Because,
obviously, you can't see by now, they are
tapped into high fiving the agenda
to know their personnel and the parameters of
their authority.
It goes on to say, please,
it's referencing dismount x blah blah blah. It
says, defendants
argue that the inner workings of government
are immaterial
to an to an appointments clause claim,
which, quote, turns entirely on the authority for
certain outward facing acts.
The court is not convinced, but that but
that is a legal issue appropriate for resolution
after fulsome briefing.
They're just simply trying to argue that the
any look. Are you of the mind
that the the phrase inner workings of government
are ever
not supposed to be shown to you? Like,
my my even the idea of national security,
I push back on this forever. It simply
creates a level of opacity that they can
put anything behind.
So they're just they're they're claiming we don't
have to show
you. But it says at this stage, it
is sufficient that plaintiff's discovery request intend to
reveal the scope of Doge's and Musk's authority.
Defendants also attempt to refrain plaintiff's interrogatories and
request for admissions to encompass mere advice and
casual conversation.
The court does not read them so broadly.
For instance, plaintiffs ask defendants
to, quote, identify all federal agencies for which
those personnel or Musk,
one, canceled or directed the cancellation of federal
contracts, two, terminated employment or placed on leave
or directed the termination or placement on leave.
So where does it where does it end
here for him? After
that said
right there. Okay. So continuing.
Or was it right here? So it goes
on to say casual advice would not be
responsive.
Nonetheless,
the court will alter plaintiff's fourth in territory
to avoid any confusion.
As written,
it asks
defendants to identify federal agencies where Doge personnel
or Musk recommended cancellation of federal contracts. All
they wanna know is where he gave the
so called advice to make these changes.
Whether what they're seems like they're getting at
is the reality of the lie that he's
not an adviser. This guy is running the
show, which technically is a violation of the
law.
The reason they made him an adviser is
so you wouldn't be able to actually he
wouldn't have to divulge conflicts of interest. He
wouldn't have to show ethics pledge. He wouldn't
have to show anything, which is terrifying seeing
as how he appears to be the most
powerful person in the government. That's the whole
point here. It's not partisan. It may maybe
for them. But the objective reality is that's
terrifying. Who knows what's going on behind the
scenes? And if you're willing to just accept
that you trust him, that's your choice.
That not everybody's choice that you make for
us.
But they're all they're simply saying where and
how these choices were made. And it says,
as written, it asked to identify those choices.
The rec where he recommended the changing of
these contracts.
And when such action occurred, pursuant to the
recommendations to Doge or Musk. You see where
they're going with this? And it says the
court will strike recommended and recommendation and insert
directed and direction.
Meaning, where he they're getting to the point,
obviously, where this is him making these things
happen. And it says, that said, defendants may
not creatively
interpret the interrogatories
to circumvent their discovery obligations. That's where his
screenshot ends. Now, you wanna show me where
it asks for anything other than their names.
And on top of that, you can read
the whole thing as I did, unfortunately, which
is most of the rest of it is
legalese.
It is about exactly that.
And you can see again,
seeks to identify personnel. You know, it it
doesn't even necessarily say their full name. It
just seems to say, who are they? That's
it. Who is the person that is working
in the parameters of Doge's authority?
If you pretend in any world that that
is a violation, a stretch, a doxing,
they are just mudding the waters for everything.
How many times have we been saying this
for years now? They get to a point
to where everything means nothing and nothing means
everything. So, whenever they make a claim and
it is what it is, no matter what
the evidence, no matter what you could prove,
because Twitter files, because people have been convinced
that they're following
the people changing the world. I sure would
love if that was the case, but it's
clearly not based on a thousand reasons. And
even if it ultimately ends up, which I
think is obviously not, what they're doing is
going to guarantee that it never stays that
way.
That's probably by design, just in case they
accidentally drive it in. My opinion.
Oh, that's right. We just went over that.
So going forward,
here's what somebody else has to say. Liz
Churchill. Wow. She belongs in prison.
Think about that. Think about saying someone go
belongs in prison
just because they're a democrat, because they wrote
that we do we should know who these
people are and what their authority is.
It's it I mean, it is kinda chilling,
isn't it?
Of course, they call me a woke democrat
or whatever because I'm simply being objective when
the re as as always, that same thing
David Icke said the other day. It's funny
how you look at my opinion. It's been
wildly consistent for a very long time and
how this kind of happens. During COVID, right,
we were the Republicans were largely in support
of me and the Democrats were calling me
a dangerous Nazi, and now it's the other
way around. And it's just it's just objectivity.
Well, this is clown world. What the f?
You know, it's crazy.
Whether they read it or not, it doesn't
matter. Now here is what Newsweek had to
say.
Judge Chutkan strikes blow against Elon Musk's Doge.
And then I'll show you from Guardian or
the Gateway Pundit.
It says,
on Wednesday, judge Chutkin granted New Mexico and
13 other states the right to obtain documents
and answers to questions about DOJ's plans to
trim federal agencies.
Pretty simple. Can't believe anybody would argue that
shouldn't happen. Right? And again, I include the
document. You could read all the way through
it. No more than what we just showed
you in regard to the names of the
people we're doxxing.
Now it says the states are seeking a
preliminary injunction against Doge and to have its
actions declared illegal under the appointments clause, the
section of the US constitution that mandates how
people should be appointed to high office. Now
isn't it interesting that that's not what they're
focusing on?
Seems like a mush I mean, it is.
It's the bolt it's actually the thrust of
what they're doing. They're trying to make this
be ruled, which is a fair case there,
especially when they're not proving anything to anybody.
You have to realize that this is not
just a if they want you to believe,
like, if we live in the world, we
pretend we do. It's always complicated because I
don't even believe that.
Then that means that there's not just one
person making a decision. That's not how this
works. As much as they're all loving to
pretend that Trump's the one, you know, the
democracy dictator,
there's supposed to be a balance here of
how this works.
So what we're seeing though is that's not
what they want. So they're gonna do it
all themselves and act like you're somehow breaking
the rules by asking for information.
But they wanna declare what they've been doing
illegal. And technically, you could argue it literally
already is. The section of the constitution that
mandates how people should be appointed.
Now it says in their lawsuit, the states
argue that Musk was illegally appointed
and to call for the court to stop
DOJ's drastic cuts against the federal government. Now
this is the first part that matters, which
is why I think they're so most of
them aren't making a point about this because
I think that whatever the marching orders are
is, like, don't don't even mention this.
Because the reality is that's the biggest central
problem because they tried to make it to
where they could make him an adviser and
and what was the other part? They basically
so not only are they hosting him out
of personal locations and not using those transition
offices or the servers.
There was another aspect I'm blanking on right
now where basically they set it up to
where he would not be accountable.
Even though they give him all the power,
they just pretend like he's only advising, and
it's a it's a game it's a shell
game.
That's been very clearly shown shown. It's not
a partisan thing. And but, look, you could
argue that they did that to avoid the
deep state. You know? If you wanna play
that game, it doesn't matter. At the end
of the day, it is still a problem,
especially since you're assuming that that's why he's
doing it based on what he told you.
It says the lawsuit states that Musk will
was illegally appointed
and calls for the court to stop their
cuts. The lawsuit states that Doge has spread
chaos and confusion across The United States and
describes Musk as an agent of chaos.
Chuck Chutkin and has denied
that request on February. So did you hear
just make sure make sure you heard that.
The judge that they're calling out for doxxing,
even though that's provably not what's happening, actually
denied that request on February 18, writing that
she could not issue a temporary restraining order
against Musk and Doge, quote,
without clear evidence of imminent irreparable harm to
the states. So she literally erred on the
side of Musk and Doge because they weren't
presenting enough evidence. And this is the person
you call a radical per I mean, I'm
sure she is in some cases.
But if she was a radical going after,
she would have been like, good. Do it.
Because everything is right. No. She stood up
and said, I can't do that. I deny
it because not of evidence.
I'm not trying to defend anybody. I'm just
pointing out the obvious that they're trying to
hold make I think trying to hold hope
that you don't even see.
Or now that you point to news with
the go out of Newsweek, Republican Democrat. Now
it says, if
it is this potential evidence that the states
are seeking to obtain with the discovery request.
They asked Chutkin to compel Elon Musk and
Doge to comply with five requests for document
production, six interrogations, six requests for admission, and
two dep depositions.
In her Wednesday ruling, Chutkin noted that the
disclosure request, quote, generally concerned DOJ's and Musk's
conduct
in four areas,
eliminating or reducing the size of federal agencies,
terminating or placing federal employees on leave, canceling,
freezing, or pausing federal contracts, grants, or other
federal funding, and obtaining access using or making
changes to federal databases or data management systems.
Yeah. All very relevant, especially if there's more
happening than just them trying to change the
government, You know, outside influence.
Now imagine you only read what Nick Sorter
wrote and act like you know what's going
on. Right? We are the media, and you
read this really, I mean, blatantly dishonest, and
one small part of what's actually being discussed.
That's what you get in the partisan field,
guys, and that's even corporate media half the
time.
Now it says, she noted that the plaintiffs
do not seek emails, text messages, or other
electronic communications between Doge staff.
So she's saying, we don't we don't even
want the emails and exchanges. We want who's
being done and what their authority is.
Imagine pay claiming that shouldn't be discussed.
And here is the same document. You can
read it for yourself. Here, I'll even show
you this.
So just think of the difference of reporting
there. And it's not Newsweek is better. It's
just it's just this is basic. This is
like the bare minimum of reporting. And even
then, I could point out ways that I
think Newsweek was kinda slanting in their directions.
They always do. But comparing it to what
Nick did is just like a cartoon versus
at least you know, it's it's wild to
me. Here it is right here. Again, subject
to the minor, it's the same thing.
So here is what the Guardian says. Judge
orders Elon Musk and Doge to produce records
about cost cutting operations.
Elon Musk and his so called department of
government efficiency
by the way, on that note,
Derek, I think, just finished an article specifically
about the efficiency push and whether that's simply
a,
like a pipeline to trend to technocracy.
That's gonna be coming out tomorrow as along
with the another up, part two from Zoe
Smith, by the way, about the medical,
thrill kill cult as she calls it with
her book.
Tomorrow. Coming out tomorrow.
Goes on to say,
have been ordered by the federal judge to
turn over a wide array of records that
would reveal the identities of staffers and internal
records. So their names. That's what they're talking
about. To end efforts to aggressively cut federal
government spending and programs.
The judge ordered forces order.
The US District Judge Tanya Chutkin's order forces
Musk to produce documents related to DODO's activities
as part of the lawsuit brought by 14
democrat states' attorney generals and alleges that Musk
violated the constitution
by wielding powers that only senate confirmed officials
should possess.
Now so
here's this do you disagree with that or
not? Right? This is a core point. Do
you disagree with the reality,
whoever's behind it, that that is what's happening?
The senate does have the approval on certain
concepts, and whether they're confirmed or not is
up to this of the the the congress.
For them to jump in and remove somebody
based on their opinion would arguably be a
violation of that process.
But look, I'm not saying that's the case.
This is actually an important conversation to have
because the reality is executive branch does ultimately
have a check here.
But it's the way it's being done through
the advisor, right, through the opaque background. Like,
there's a fair case to make here. I
mean, all they would have to do would
come out and just give them what they're
here's the names. Here's the authority we're acting
under.
Okay. Oh, well, now we can see it.
Now it looks like it's all in line.
Now they probably wouldn't do that since they're
also politically motivated, but the rest of us
would look and go, okay. That's where I
would jump in and go, well, I think
he's part of the problem, but that he
is correct and that's why he's okay. That's
what objective and,
you know, fact based people would do.
My feeling, as you know, is that there's
more behind the story, and it's not just
about showing that what they're doing is just
Trump executive power.
So
ask yourself why we wouldn't just lay the
case out and show that that I think
it's because there's more behind the story.
Chutkan, in her 14 page decision,
said that she was allowing that the state
state attorney generals to obtain documents from Musk
to clarify the scope of his authority.
Seems pretty simple, which would inform whether he
has been operating unconstitutionally to the extent that
Doge's activity should be halted. That's exactly what
I was saying. It's very clear.
This judge also suggested the so called discovery
requests, which she limited to only documents and
not even depositions, which they were asking for,
could include the identities of Doge staffers in
order to establish the scope of the Doge
operation.
Simple.
Not personal identifiable information in regard to your
personal life, but knowing your name and your
position. That's what they're talking about. Like any
other government people.
Now it says, Chuckkin's order does not apply
to Donald Trump.
And it goes on to say for weeks,
Musk has taken great pains to conceal how
Doge operates,
starting with his own involvement in the project.
Musk himself has a special government employee, which
the White House has said means his financial
disclosure filing will not be made public.
I guarantee you that was one of the
earlier points in all of this, you know,
with Sean Diddy Combs in the background of
Twitter, Saudi Arabian oligarchs, and who knows else.
Right? BlackRock.
But,
obviously, more. Those are generally public.
Why would they not I mean, this is
important to think about.
A sport or Trump or Bondi are different
examples of the the lack of ethics pledge
as it shows you that there is something
they don't want you to see. Now it
doesn't have to be Israel,
but it's just obvious there's something that's being
hidden
here. And it says the White House then
subsequently said in court filings that Musk was
a senior adviser to the president,
a designation that it claimed that Musk had
no actual or formal authority to make government
decisions
even though it contradicted how Trump had spoken
about it publicly and, by the way, in
front of congress, saying he was in charge.
The issue at the center of the lawsuit
is a provision of the constitution
that says government officials
who act and wield power as heads of
departments are principal officers,
in quotes,
who can exercise that authority only
if first nominated by the president and confirmed
by the senate.
That's how they're playing this game, guys.
And if, you know, if you wanna try
to die on the hill of just defending
them because you're on their side, at least
be honest about that. The reality is that
the legalities of this seem pretty cut and
dry. Now the argument comes down to whether
or not
I mean, there's two things really. It's about
whether or not,
the, you know, firing people would fall under
their purview in the context of senate confirmation
as well as the fact that he being
in this position,
whether or not he has authority and whether
his decisions have been made without people like,
if he's alongside somebody with actual authority, whispering
in their ear and they're calling things out,
that would be reality
or what we claim, what we or what
it's supposed to be and what they claim.
If he's walking in with this group of
20 and just ripping things apart, it's I'm
not I think everyone's been calling this out.
And there's a very clear legal boundary being
broken there.
Okay. Now let's look at oh, and then
just to include this, by the way, I
I mean, how many times did I say
well before this ever came to pass that
this was going to be important?
Watch it again for yourself and realize that
this never changed. And also, weirdly enough, I
think not actually. I think it tells you
everything.
The Democrats did not stand up and scream
about this.
Why wouldn't they?
Probably because they're also compromised by Israel. The
point is that you're literally have a low
hanging fruit.
You're supposed to tell us that you're you're,
you know, spent your life is dedicated to
fighting the Republicans of Trump, and you have
the law the obvious example that they are
basically breaking the law, that they're not divulging
whether they have conflicts of interest before taking
the lead power, and nobody said a word.
I mean, very few people.
Think about that. And the main thing I
said before, as the guy in the position
said, they could be funded by a foreign
government, and we wouldn't even know. Pretty on
the spot.
Now this, I just have to say this
I referenced this in the show yesterday. I
didn't get to it. I mean, guys, it's
like it's you know, I'm not saying for
a second that we should give credence or
trust any of these platforms. Oh, independent media,
mainstream alternative media. That's the point. Question everything.
Consider everything.
No way am I saying The Guardian or
the rest are better. They're all propaganda in
their own way. What's funny though is that
at least you could look at some of
these other platforms and see that they at
least put they they try to give you
that semblance of credibility. Right? At the very
least, give you the breakdown. Well well, I
often point out, like, oh, here's where this
is this is all true, and here's where
they're trying to deceive you. That's what it's
most the most of the best deceptions are
have mostly truth, and they lead you astray
right where it matters. Right?
This is how just think about what we
just read,
and now read what gateway pundit writes.
Now they're one of the more kind of
bombastic cartoonists out there, but realistically, it's just
this is mainstream alternative media for you. And
it's left and right. This just happens to
be this conversation right now about this judge,
but it is really a partisan thing. And
I gotta tell you, like, this is a
this is like a sore thumb standing out.
Here's how the title reads.
Judicial tyranny.
Radical judge Tanya
Chutkin allows state's attorney general to unveil the
names of Doge employees.
Radical judge. Right? That's not pretty objective. Right?
On top of that, that that's a government
employee, and we have a right to know
their names.
It's very stupid that they're that they're making
this case. But here's what the article reads.
Corrupt
US District Judge
Chutkan
has unleashed a legal assault on Elon Musk
and the newly formed Department of Government Efficiency,
greenlighting a fishing
expedition that threatens to expose those employees to
the wrath of left wing bureaucrats.
On Tuesday, radical left judge Tanya Chutkan, a
disgusting,
dishonest Trump hater who believes she was elected
to lead this country and take down Trump
issued an order today in the state of
you get where this goes.
Now there's a point to make here.
And you're if you're breaking down a report
on something that's important like this,
clearly,
that is a slant of your very clear
personal opinion.
Now I, all the time, express my personal
opinion, especially about people that I think are
disgusting.
But to be clear, if you watch the
show, when we're discussing the facts, we're discussing
the facts. And I'm not talking about radical,
disgusting, dishonest people, and whether unless I'm in
the point where I'm saying this is my
opinion or how I feel about things. What
I'm trying to highlight here is there's a
very clear line that has to be drawn.
This is propaganda.
This is radical, dangerous, dishonest. And then, oh,
did you prove any of those things? On
top of that, secondarily, what I'm highlighting for
you what is disgusting and what is dishonest
and going on to prove to you why
it's actually a lie, very different. This is
taking this out of context in order to
argue that basic just because
you are asking for information which we just
showed you, this is a radical I mean,
she probably probably knows she is a radical
left person, whatever you think that means. It
does not change the fact that that's what
they're using to argue that what she's doing
is wrong, even though technically it's not even
illegal. It's not wrong at all. Maybe partisan
driven.
But on top of that,
it's asking for information that we all have
a right to.
I mean, I really just think this we're
in a really dangerous time in this country,
guys. And it is people like this who
are acting like they're fighting for the things
that we're talking about while what they do
in the moment is more destructive to these
conversations than things I've seen in a long
time.
And it's getting out of hand.
It goes on to say,
demands that Musk and Doge cough up sensitive
documents and data within a mere twenty one
days, all to appease coalition democrat led states.
I mean, she's such a dishonest way to
frame all of this. Whether it's partisan driven
or not, she's asking for simply and even
I just showed you. She first turned it
down because there was enough evidence, then went
to say no, not depositions, not even emails.
I just want the scope of their authority
and the names involved. And this is how
they frame that. They that means they either
didn't even read the the the document
or they did and they just choose to
bombastically lie about it.
Chetkin's order mandates that Doe disclose sensitive information
and internal documents to
to the court, by the way, to the
court to verify the authority for other government
officials. This is not some they're just trying
to manipulate people to see this as some
kind of attack on the very things that
they're actually trying to hide from you.
Ruling sufficiently targeting parameters of Doge's authority, an
issue central to plaintiff's claims.
Why would we not know the parameters
of their authority?
Why is that a problem for these people?
I think it shows you something huge.
The decision dangerously opens the door, he writes,
for politically motivated activists and partisan actors to
weaponize personal information. Their name?
I mean, think about that. If you're gonna
claim that your name being public and your
position is somehow putting
everybody
Everybody has that. Even average people do have
a Twitter account, especially government employees who are
required to do so.
It says, what a sick and dangerous woman.
That's my point. We do not we do
we do why do we put up with
this lawlessness
by these judicial
insurrectionists?
They're all the same, guys. And then he
cites Nick Sorder's tweet, which shows you that
that they're just basically sir handing off the
baton. He shares a tweet. He makes an
article about it. It's all based on the
same misinformation.
Now a judge, according to Politico, orders the
urgent release of Doge records, citing unprecedented power
and unusual secrecy. Now there's multiple judges in
multiple context right now.
It says US District Judge Christopher Cooper, it's
a different example, said that the vast and
unprecedented
authority of Doge, formerly known as the US
Digital Service, that was the other example by
the way. They basically took an old ex
an old group and didn't create a new
one in order to basically high pass high
get, supersede
the process,
combined with unusual secrecy, which is patently obvious,
warrant the urgent release of the internal documents
under the Freedom of Information Act. Now they're
all focusing on Chutkan, but this is a
different conversation. But you realize this is pretty
obvious,
and they're simply asking for information that we
have a right to. It says, quote, the
authority exercised by the USDS across the federal
government and the dramatic cuts it has apparently
made with no congressional input appear to be
unprecedented.
And and his he writes this in his
37 page opinion. It's the first significant ruling
in a growing legal push to pierce Doge's
secrecy veil. I mean, it's so funny how
yes. These are political platforms,
but it's obvious that they're not being transparent.
And then for them to stand up and
say the we're radically transparent,
it's just insulting that anybody can't see through
that.
And it says a decision that undercuts Musk's
repeated insistence about the operation's transparency.
And the White House is refrain
that
Musk
is simply a run of the mill presidential
adviser with limited decision making authority. I don't
think anybody believes that. Cooper said this representation
is undercut by the weight of evidence that
has trickled out of the courts in the
news.
This is the rapid pace of DOJ's actions
in turn requires the quick release of information
about its structure and activities.
That is especially so so especially so given
the secrecy
with which DOS is operated.
Now, look, this stuff gets mired in court
processes.
I'm gonna get to next the one of
the most alarming parts, which is that they're
literally ordering people to shred documents to the
USDA or the I'm sorry. US USAID.
That's happening right now in Trump's administration.
It's it's this is
I mean, everything.
This is
I mean, for me, I can't even think
of the best example. You know, they're calling
something that it's not. Or they're they're as
you're calling a spade a spade. Like, this
is them calling a spade of hearts. Like,
this is just the opposite.
No matter what you can all see.
Just saying, well, because Trump and Elon, therefore,
it's good. Even if every single thing they're
doing, even a fraction of it, you would
scream foul if it was a Democrat.
My problem with this is that right now,
because the process and the legal they they
they could go forward
to where they finally rule, okay. Show us.
Oh, too late. It's all gone. It's been
deleted. It never happened.
Because they're not keeping records.
They already made that clear.
I remember when Hannity
asked Bondi,
are the FBI using, I think, it's a
privacy act in regard where they're they're supposed
to be documenting the actions they take, what
they delete, what they move.
And she said, oh, yeah. They better.
And no one seems to be asking that
about this monumental change in a $6,000,000,000,000
database that's one of the many.
That they're not required to show you what
just happened and where things moved to. I
mean, my god.
Gosh. Just every time I think about that,
it's so insane with all of the possible
conflicts of interest you can't see and the
obvious,
obvious problem.
Goes on to say, however, the judge also
noted that the executive order that Trump signed
creating Doge,
coupled with the public statements by the president
and Elon Musk, reinforced the notion that the
cost cost slashing operation
was doing much more than simply giving advice.
The Trump administration has housed the Doge operation
within the executive office of the president, that's
also on purpose, in what appeared to be
an attempt to shield it from FOIA requests.
Why all this effort to hide everything around
Elon Musk?
That's such an obviously valid question. The Trump
administration has also asserted that Musk himself isn't
part of the Doge apparatus, but is simply
serving as a direct adviser to Trump
every day at some new whatever they can
say in that moment to make your attempted
transparency
not apply to the most transparent agency in
the government.
Cooper also offered some criticism of the way
the Trump administration litigated the case, noting that
its all lawyers offered virtually nothing in the
way of evidence about Doge's operations or management.
See, that's where Chuckin over here is saying
we demand to know what's going on, which
we all have a right to.
Now here, here's that one too, by the
way, 37 pages. This is there's there's a
lot of this.
Here's the hill.
Judge finds Trump unlawfully fired head of Federal
Employee Labor Board. Now Now in no way
am I saying that these things aren't all
of these are probably in their own right
politically motivated. I don't think anything isn't in
this country.
The point though is that you should still
read these things left or right and consider
what it's actually saying and whether there's validity
to it.
As it says here, a federal judge wins
ruled Wednesday that president Trump's firing of the
head of the board that resolves disputes between
the federal employees and the government was unlawful.
I mean, this is one of the most
obvious examples. I mean, obviously, if it's if
it's the person who is the head of
the group that's supposed to resolve
disputes between Trump and his administration and the
executive branch, federal employees,
and the rest of the government,
and then you don't like what he does,
you get out of here fired. Like, that's
the whole point of how this is supposed
to be a problem.
Like, that is that's the same as them
getting rid of the people or going after
the judges and getting removed because they ruled
against what they want.
It's authoritarian. It's a dictatorship. It's what they're
trying to show you here.
Now I'm not even saying you could argue
that what the person did here
was somehow illegal, wrong, motivated, like, if then
show us.
Make the case, lay out the evidence, and
and let us the most transparent government should
very easily be able to make that case.
Or is it just that you're firing people
that stop what you want,
which kinda seems obvious?
It says the government arguments paint with a
broad brush and threaten to upend fundamental protections
in our constitution.
But it but ours is not an autocracy.
It is a system of checks and balances.
Again, I I I can prove to you
a thousand ways in which that very system
breaks all the time. But,
obviously, you can see in ways that it
does still, even if they're all driven politically,
I mean, that seems like the only way
it works anymore. Not that that's how we
should want it, seems to be stopping people
from taking more power.
But if you get rid of it all,
everything will rapidly centralize under this administration, which
is what the team sport politics people want.
But that's not in the interest of freedom
or liberty or constitutional rights.
Federal law protects FLRA members like Grudemann from
termination without cause. The White House did not
and this is what's even more interesting. So
does everybody for that matter in the context
of this. They have a right to be
know why they're being fired. It's pretty common
in this country. And it says the White
House did not purport to have cause when
it fired grunt Grudman Grundman
in a two sentence email last month. And
instead,
like it has in other cases, contended the
removal protections are unconstitutional.
Basically, saying the protections from him being removed
without cause is unconstitutional.
It's just it's great they're using
the very argument in reverse. What's crazy though
is that you didn't if you get a
two sentence email saying you're fired, well, that's
not even remotely meeting threshold of of what
we're talking about here. But this is the
kind of thing that they they're almost getting
off on. It's Elon Musk and I'm going,
get out of here. I'm in control now.
Like, you couldn't have just taken a little
bit more time to make it more fleshed
out. Here's what's going on. Here's why. Because
everything's under the guise that we're fighting the
evil Democrats, so who cares? Law doesn't matter
as long as we feel like we're dunking
on the other side.
A straightforward reading of Supreme Court precedent thus
resolves the merits of this case, says the
judge.
Arguing it, that's not true, what they're saying.
Now here
is a recent one from today or a
little late yesterday, actually. Two judges in mass
firing cases ordered Trump administration to rehire probationary
workers for now.
See, they're they're sticking their fingers in the
spokes all over the place.
Oh, we have to oh, look at this
this little this article. Jewish protesters flood Trump
Tower lobby. Looks like they dragged them out.
Which I mean, again, arguably, that is what
you would expect in some cases if, like,
if you're disrupting the like, if you own
a business and people sat in the way,
I think I think you're within the law
of saying they're trespassing, remove them. Right? Then
charge them with trespassing. That is what most
these protesters are willing to accept, but that's
kind of the most you can get if
you're peacefully protesting on the ground. They're now
calling domestic terrorism. We just showed you that.
It's dangerous, guys. Now this one
is especially concerning.
This is from a Republican platform, The Daily
Beast.
Under red flag, Trump admin tells some US
Aid Staff,
start shredding classified documents. Now I'm gonna show
you the email. I'll even show you where
the woman behind it defends this under the
guys that, oh, no. It's just all procedural
stuff. Well, how do we know that?
Especially when it says it should be marked
top secret.
Daily Beast writes, a top official with the
USAID
has asked some of the organization's employees to
start shredding classified documents.
And if the agency shredders become overburdened, to
burn them instead.
Literally not a joke. Here's the actual email.
We'll go over in a second.
That's it's absolutely crazy.
Can you imagine if this was a Democrat
and what they would be saying?
Because neither side knows. We don't know what
they're back there hiding. That's why objective people
go, wait. That's not supposed to be happening.
Not my side can do it. Now, it
says on Tuesday, an email from Erica Carr,
the agency's acting executive secretary,
reportedly told employees to destroy, and we have
the email right there we just showed you,
reams of sensitive documents
and thanked them for their assistance, quote, assistance
in clearing our classified safes
and personnel documents.
Sounds like something classified to me. And it
says according to NBC, which first reported the
news, USAID employees were told to first shred
as many documents as possible and then put
them in burn bags, which the shredder became
unavailable when it became unavailable.
The order is an unprecedented
deviation from the agency's standard procedure, which has
long been that documents are only shredded when
the embassy is under attack or during serious
emergency scenarios. I'm willing to bet that's never
been followed. I'm willing to bet that whatever
side of the government or just your government
is there, that they would do that or
they want to. The point is not about
only Trump or only Biden. The point is
that at this moment, your government is shredding
information and acting like they're doing the right
thing.
That's why it's always so infuriating for people
to try to make it about part.
I'm not one side or the other. That's
why I can objectively say that anybody doing
this would be a problem, which kinda that's
why most of these people have a hard
time pushing back on it because they look
stupid.
Like, when you try to engage with this
and you go, well, you're all being played
by the two parties. They don't know what
to say to that. The reality is it
shows you that objectivity is clear here.
Why would you think it's okay? Do you
know what they're shredding? Did Trump call you?
And if so, you trust what he told
you? The bottom line is we don't know.
And all that we know is that they're
shredding documents
of information at a place that's been a
massive transition of power.
Doesn't that scream red flag? I mean, it's
exactly what it is.
Choosing to trust them is your prerogative.
But it's not an honest stance. It is
a willful ignorant stance even if it turns
out to be right because you didn't know.
The order is an unprecedented deviation. It says,
but deputy press secretary Anna Kelly said in
an expo that's what I just showed you.
The documents involved were old, mostly courtesy content
from other agencies, and the orig original still
exist on classified computer systems, which as far
as I can tell, hasn't been verified. And
even people in this conversation
have pushed back on that. Like, the reality
being, the idea is clearly that we can't
I mean, well, I actually take a step
back. The point is that right now,
these documents represent something that can be like,
the digital side of this is, at this
point, far harder to keep accountable. It's very
easy to manipulate that background.
I think what they're doing is getting rid
of information that proves,
this is my opinion,
that not only that there are like, this
is a whole of operation here. It's a
left and right all through Trump's last administration
that they've all been using this for the
same things.
They need people to think this is a
one-sided game, so they don't want this information
getting out. Because, look, there are still people
back there that might leak some of this.
That's what I think.
Either way, nobody should be okay with this
rapid destruction of evidence without any without knowing
what's really going on while there's no transparency
and people aren't even doing what they're supposed
to do in most context.
And while there's very obvious influence of foreign
countries. I mean, how do we not know
that's exactly what this is? Highlighting the USAID
regime change engine for Israel or for China
or for Russia. I mean, obviously, these things
could be possible.
And it says some foreign policy experts were
suspicious that it could be that Trump was
simply trying to evade the law.
Many of the documents show how funding was
authorized and appropriated,
likely making them crucial evidence in a number
of court cases challenging Doge's draconian cuts.
He added that the under numerous procedures, the
documents, quote, should be preserved until the funds
are fully expended.
Okay.
So what's different now? Why wouldn't that be
the same case? That's the point. There's a
deviation here. Why?
The American former, Foreign Service Association also noted
that it was alarmed by the order, adding
that the documents are important to ongoing litigation,
quote, regarding the termination of USAID employees and
the cessation of USAID grants. So exactly what
they're doing
seems so they're destroying relevant evidence to what
they're doing right now. I mean, are you
really gonna believe that it's because they're just
running out of space?
Seems a little convenient, doesn't it, at the
exact moment when they need to hide what
they're doing?
Now it says these are not the actions
of someone looking for true waste, fraud, or
abuse. Said
was that Kell McClan McCullanahan?
A director of the law firm focused on
national security called National Security Counselors.
This quote, this is slash and burn mode
and not leaving any evidence behind that could
disprove their narrative.
Now that's what anybody objective would say. If
you didn't if he was apolitical
and you didn't even know who was involved.
If all you heard was a government is
destroying all the paperwork in their office, you
would go, they're just cleaning cleaning up to
get ready for the next one. Right?
Everybody know you'd go. That's pretty suspicious because
it is.
But not if you're Republican now in the
MAGA movement or other team sport Republican.
So here, Anna Kelly,
White House deputy press secretary,
says the USAID building will soon be occupied
by CBP.
This was sent to roughly three dozen employees.
The documents involved were old, mostly currency content.
That was what they were saying earlier. More
fake news hysteria.
Well, she didn't prove anything.
She pushes back. So evidence shows they're burning
documents, and we're concerned about why. Not that
we know for sure. And her thing is
to go, it wasn't what you think. Fake
news.
Isn't that what you guys made fun of
on the Democrats for doing the same thing?
Always hypocrisy. The point is we still don't
know. And why you would take a government
official's word who has an interest in whatever's
going on is beyond me.
But you can see here,
USAID staff have been instructed to clear out
classified safes. I'm gonna read you directly from
the document.
And this this is USAID email that the
secretary of the Bright House just confirmed is
accurate.
It says, thank you for your assistance in
clearing our classified safes and personnel doc personnel
documents from the RRB. The event will take
place all day tomorrow,
March 11. So arguably already gone. Right?
Please meet at the RRP Fourteenth Street lobby
at 9AM. However, if you cannot be there
at that exact time, your badge will be
programmed for access to your work area. It
says shred
as many documents at documents first
and reserve the burn bags for when the
shredder becomes unavailable or needs a break. That's
crazy.
Then it says, if you need to use
the burn bags,
do not overfill
and ensure that the burn bag can be
closed with staples at the top. Here's what's
important, I think. The only labeling required
on the burn bags are the words secret
and USAID,
and that looks like b slash I o,
and dark Sharpie if possible. If you need
additional burn bags or Sharpie markers, please let
us know. Let the SecInfoSec
team know.
I mean, guys, it's secret, non, you know,
non important classified secret documents. Right? I mean,
this is so silly. What people are willing
to buy. Now I'm not claiming that I
know for sure. Right? There may be they
use those words and they're wrong. But the
point is clearly that this is a red
flag, like a thousand others right now slapping
you in the face.
Swamp says, understand
trust is in short supply. Now I get
the sense this person is a, you know,
in support.
Yeah. Who is MAGA, Trump? Right? This is
important. He says, understand trust is in short
supply.
We've become accustomed to acts of treason being
committed by government workers and not being prosecuted.
Yes. From all sides. And he goes, that
will improve when and if we start seeing
justice served. So here's my point, guys. This
is a person who's clearly MAGA,
patriot, but has I mean, based on this
post at the very least, seems to be
pretty balanced.
Whether or not they support Trump, they're going,
god. Look, until we get clear justice served,
then we're not gonna
to one of their own administration's people. But
as
not 2,000 followers,
so these are the people that don't their
voice doesn't make it into the majority conversation
that the partisan people want you to think
is happening.
I just think it's important to think about
because that's the truth right there. Why? We're
not gonna take your word for it. That's
just stupid.
Here's another one. P r PT Ward says
you need to understand that this is mostly
Republicans that care that it that this is
mostly Republicans that care about the information held
in this building.
Right? Because right now, what about all the
evidence of what they've been doing?
You're gonna burn all that? What about the
evidence of Ukraine and the Bidens? Right? I
guess we don't get to know anymore, but
just take your word for it.
He says, this was an agency that stonewalled
Congress for years and resisted every bit of
accountability that was demanded of it. Can you
understand why this would be a concern for
people? And I realized also during Trump's last
administration, it's not a partisan thing. But his
point is still the same.
These are people that are on their side.
They're going, guys, do you not realize why
we can't destroy? Good. I'm so glad that
I'd be I I this is why I
think most people I don't often show these
points. That's why I think most people see
this on all sides.
Now, here's an interesting overlap. On the March
11,
very suspicious about this accountant general,
Mike Benz
says oh, it goes back even more. This
is a five alarm fire right now as
we speak today. USAID
is shredding burning documents, citing Politico.
He says the key information needed to reconstruct
history
is the information they're shredding.
Oh, so right. That's Trump's administration shredding documents.
This is not this this is a person
they appointed at the head of the agency.
It's not hard to see. Yet people are
trying to make it about somehow a secret
Democrat or some a deep state. Okay. Fine.
If you think that, then why Trump appoint
these people? Why is that under their control?
Why is Rubio overseeing this?
It's willful ignorance.
And he says, I'm trusting political here, which
I don't like to do. It's just funny.
Why would you trust Politico? Question it. Consider
it. Same point as always. There's an interest.
That's why. He says, so the current acting
executive secretary of USAID who ordered the mass
shredding and burning of papers
today worked in the Obama opiate. Okay. There
we go. It's all because it's tied back
to some connection to democrat administration.
What is that even relevant when it's been
up under the Trump administration? You guys can't
keep sidestepping the reality of what's happening under
their authority.
I just think it's wild how easy it
is to just go democrat.
Same thing they do in reverse.
It's all of them, guys. Your government. It's
a whole thing. The reality is no matter
how you spin this, this is currently under
his administration. Are they jumping in, stopping it?
No. I that this was the eleventh. As
far as I can tell, this has continued.
Where why isn't Rubio and the rest going,
we've been screwed. They're not on our side.
They're shredding documents. It's a crime. I'm not
seeing that.
Don't you think that's strange? Clearly, you can't
just pretend it's some secret democrat if that's
not even what the administration is saying and
if they're behind the action.
Also, it says Erica Carr does not have
a Twitter account. So unlike virtually every other
senior Trump official,
Trump admin official,
there's no way to directly petition their accounts
for answers.
And Sam Hosseini logically says, why was Erika
Carr allowed to do this?
Heck, why is she still atop the USAID?
Hard to believe it's not with tacit approval
of Rubio and the White House. This is
on the thirteenth. It's now the fourteenth.
I mean, let's let's let's
let's pretend I mean, what, are you gonna
give them a month to make a case
about this? The reality is clearly
there is an effort right now to hide
stuff from every angle. That can't be unseen.
It's everywhere you look. Whether you wanna pretend
it's to fight it in the deep state
and hide what they can do, fine. Make
up whatever narrative makes you feel better. Still
acknowledge that there's level of secrecy that shouldn't
be allowed.
Anyone serious parse this out, he says? It's
crazy.
Sam always on the pulse.
The libs of TikTok says John senator Josh
Hawley calls for investigations into the dark money
groups funding violent protest across the country.
He's talking about the campus conversation yet again.
Now none of them can acknowledge that these
are Jewish organizations or why they call them
antisemitic Muslim terrorists. But what's crazy to me
is that this is so lazy.
We've gone over this forever.
Whether it's the sorrow side of things or
like, the point is that there's funding on
left and right that do the same things.
This has been documented for so long by
honest independent media. The self this self serving
game where team sport politic grifters pretend this
isn't an obviously whole of government manipulation
is just juvenile and dishonest.
Both sides of the US government or to
be objective critically thinking people, your government,
do this regularly.
But they want you right now to get
on this bandwagon about going after the people
they direct you at. They sic you at.
Look at these people
screaming things they're allowed to say with free
speech. My bad guy.
Shut it down.
Financial Times
reports that Elon Musk cuts failed to stop
US federal spending hitting new record. So to
put a cherry on the top of it
all,
the evidence currently doesn't mean it won't change
in a month. But right now, despite all
the hype and claims about what they've been
slashing left and right, they hit a new
record
for federal spending.
Elon Musk's hyperactive efficiency drive failed to prevent
US federal spending rising to a record of
the 603,000,000,000
last month.
Well, pretty sure we can point out the
obvious spend expenditures there, whether they shave off
a million and a million there and pretend
like they're saving the world. The reality is
they're still dumping money in Israel's hands. They're
still dumping money into their mRNA and AI
projects. Clearly,
this has to matter.
Musk's so called Department of Government Efficiency claims
to have already made more than a hundred
billion dollars in savings, but only a handful
of departments registered any decreases in the first
full month of the new administration.
Spending rose by $40,000,000,000
compared with the same month last year
on a like for like basis, a 7%
increase.
Now the links are all in here. Check
it for yourself. Doge savings are so small
as not to be identifiable in monthly spending
totals,
said the neck Jessica Rydell, economic policy expert,
says Marco Rubio, the secretary of state, oversaw
a cut in spending at the USAID,
whose monthly outlay was revealed to have been
halved at $226,000,000
compared with 547,000,000.
So right there, they have been cutting contracts
from USAID. I pointed that out as well.
But I also showed you how things are
being shuffled around and new contracts are going
out. New spending is going different places. On
top of that, they're still funding things that
you claim were stopping. But the real point,
if we're talking about billions, if not trillions
in debt,
and we're trying to tout 200 something million
dollars as the the end all be all
of change, you're being played.
Now overall,
like I said to begin with, the real
point is we don't know. We have to
wait until at the very least, give them
a year to see how this plays out.
At the very least then, four years, we
know at the end point whether this was
even real. I'm not saying I would never
say that before an election process. See if
it works out. Challenge it every way every
single step of the way. Ask for evidence
every single step of the way. My point
is that once it gets to a year,
there will be plenty of time to then
be able to say, okay. They're either actually
slashing funds or not. That's what I'm saying.
Right now, I already think it's clear that
that's, at the very least, a game that's
being played.
But, of course, I could be wrong. It
says, however, this saving was dwarfed by the
consequences of a mere 3% rise
in monthly health care spending, which costs an
additional $5,000,000,000.
Right? So here's $200 million dollars saved, but
just a small aspect here in one section
raised $5,000,000,000.
A 6% rise in Social Security outlays cost
another $8,000,000,000.
On Monday, the Tesla boss said he would
seek to intensify Doge's efforts,
doubling
its current staff and taking aim at large
sources of expenditures such as Social Security.
The Treasury's own direct spending soared by $29,000,000,000
since the same month last year,
largely driven by a $10,000,000,000 rise in monthly
debt servicing to $86,000,000,000
and a $14,000,000,000
rise in tax credits and associated payments. Trump
has moved in recent days to restrict some
of Doge's activities,
telling Musk in front of the cabinet that
individual agencies are ultimately responsible for personal decisions
within their departments and urging the billionaire to
use a scalpel instead of a hatchet. Personally,
I think that's just making a public statement
to add to the court document conversation. Right?
So, see, I publicly said that he's not
actually in charge. It's what matters is what's
happened
and the actual evidence of, like, what he's
directed, what they've done, and where it came
to pass
so far. Even if they now go forward
acting like he's just an advisor and make
sure they legally do it right, there's already
a lot out there that can prove that
they broke the law.
But maybe Trump is just realizing that it's
not in his interest anymore. Maybe he's realizing
that Elon's not doing the right thing. Who
knows? So he said that publicly. That's all
we know. And it says the move came
after several Republican lawmakers criticized the speed and
breadth of DODES cuts, which have led to
employees at various agencies having to be rehired
for critical projects, including nuclear safety. We've seen,
like, four examples of that, guys. So at
the very least, you know that they're being
haphazard if they're letting people go and then
rehiring them, which is wasting resources.
Overall,
honest, objective people can recognize that right now,
it's not looking good for what they promised.
I mean, there's a thousand things. Well, speed
let's be accurate. I mean, I can point
out probably 10 different things that we've already
seen them not follow through on. And I
mean, things that I've gone the other direction.
Israel, things like that. Funding of the wars,
many different examples.
Even the people in his administration, for crying
out loud. But the point is
to try to I mean, look, what they're
doing, if you believe in them, could ultimately
end up positive. I always hope that's the
case.
The amount of red flags clearly indicate there's
a problem here.
Now to end, just a couple of things
over the larger conversation that shows you that
this is going still and I think a
very dangerous direction.
This was from, this is yet today, actually.
Enough is enough. Greenland
flatly rejects Trump's calls for annexation.
So we'll see what happens there, but realize
this turned into you're being trolled, it's all
a joke, to
actual action. And let's also I'll include this
as well.
What was it?
Oh, that's where it was.
As Israel's Globalist ambitions become clear,
team sport republicans endorsed the North American Union.
Now this is important because that's what this
ultimately is from Canada and Greenland and Mexico
and Panama. It's all part of what the
this comes from the sustainable development goals, the
United Nations plan, and the new world order
map. I don't mean that like just one
map, but the point is, like, you can
see these discussed in the past about what
people have projected to be this new world
order outline of these different sections. That's what
this is. People like Alex Jones used to
call this out constantly until it actually started
to happen, and then they started pretending like
it wasn't there. Very telling if you ask
me.
The point
is that this is not going in the
direction it seems that they at least claimed
it was, but who knows? Maybe this was
maybe it really is still a troll. You
know? Like, maybe it's all meant to make
you look over there. The point though is
that these things have real world consequences. Like,
we're gonna show you with the Canada part,
but ain't wanna keep you updated on whatever
this is.
Now this one is it says, from c
b NBC. Trump White House has asked US
military to develop options for the Panama Canal.
Now see, even right there, if you wanna
say, oh, he's just trying to make them
respond, and he's doing this to get them
to do okay. Fine. Maybe you're right. But
realize that this is threatening to people. It's
bully tactics.
Right? It's it's honestly pretty childish. You got
my honest opinion or even in an adult
worldwide sense, what you're do it's people laugh
at this stuff. Even if you have power,
it makes you look weak when all you're
doing is strong arming and in many cases,
not even getting what you want. But it
says potential plans
range from partnering more closely with Panama Security
Forces
to a less likely option of US Troops
seizing it by force. Imagine just right like,
imagine saying that
as if it's a banal by an election.
Yeah. You know, maybe just taking it. Maybe
just robbing them of the things or maybe
making a deal. You know, we'll see how
it works out. Just just rampant lawlessness, guys.
Might makes right.
That's it's insane. I mean, this is imperialism,
naked imperialism. It's all over the place.
The mayor writes that various Trump declares state
of emergency
and doubles tariffs on Canada. Now, apparently, this
went, like, rapidly through this couple of days
period.
Went on a a bull NSA, Canada in
a ballistic 338 word rant.
The point though is
case of emergency declarations are like nothing today,
and it's just everywhere you look. But this
was about the back and forth.
Now it then went to, and this is
on the twelfth, Canada to impose 25% retaliatory
tariff on $21,000,000,000
worth of US goods. So this is my
point. Even if it was a bolt a
tactic to get what you wanted, it's spinning
out of control because it's, the game is
being played. And who suffers? Can Canadians and
Americans.
Never the elitists, never the oligarchy,
the average people as they battle back and
forth with their economic warfare.
Then this is on the thirteenth. Trump threatens
200% tariff on EU. Wine and liquor says
the world is ripping us off. Yeah. Maybe
they're right.
Maybe we're all being screwed, but the point
the way he's doing this is just trying
to be it's boister is loud. It is
clumsy. It is threatening. Instead of trying to
make deals with people or just simply I
mean, aren't
aren't isn't aren't the support base of Trump
the ones arguing that we should go back
to America First instead of trying like, everything
about this is not about trying to make
it's about trying to control the international dynamic
for your benefit.
Now many people argue, yes. Good. We should
just make it into we should, you know,
make it work for us. Now I get
the logic of thinking that you should get
your site. But if you stand back and
look at the bigger picture, this is not
asking for some kind of balanced situation. Quite
the opposite.
And everything he's doing, you could look at
the over again, look at the way they
respond. It's their responding to it like you're
a bully.
And with the let's go into the foreign
policy part of it. And here's Iran, as
we told you, right? Trump says, if you
don't do that, we're gonna mill go after
you, which is it's like, okay. You're it's
why would anybody respond to that?
Trump would say why would he respond to
threats? He wouldn't. He he would say no.
So why would you expect them to? So
Iran responded to his threats of do what
we want or else. And they said, Iran
says it will begin nuclear talks with China
and Russia and tells Trump, do whatever the
hell you want.
And they did. Now they've met with China
and Russia, and they're discussing their nuclear talks,
boxing out The United States.
I mean, it's it's and I'm sure they'll
make that into whatever they want it to
be. That probably was the whole point.
Russia sets us ready to discuss peace initiative
on Ukraine with The United States as early
as today, so the thirteenth.
Oh, no. Another situation that rapidly boiled out
of control.
K? Then
the aid for president Putin dismisses what was
presented, which was a short term ceasefire,
which is exactly the game they're playing in
Gaza. We just give us a a small
pause
saying that it was nothing but a temporary
respite.
Alright? Why would we do why would we
give you a small pause so you could
regather? Because the point is it's not going
to go away despite Alex and the rest
telling you it already ended like we defeated
Isis because Trump said.
The evidence clearly seems to suggest, I don't
know for sure because it hasn't happened yet.
I wouldn't be stupid if the claim we
know without happening, but
the evidence close suggest this is not going
away
with their mineral deal, which is far bigger
than a mineral deal, which shows you an
interest in forever
occupation.
But then it goes further.
President, Russian president Vladimir Putin agrees that fighting
in Ukraine must end, but says the plan
has to lead to long term peace and
remove the root cause of the crisis.
Okay. So if Trump
actually wants to make this happen, it's just
not that difficult to make an actual lasting
peace negotiation, which would clearly, in the eyes
of probably more Democrats, benefit Russia to a
way that I point is, obviously, this all
been
criminally manipulative towards Russia from these powers, including
Israel, United States, and The UK. But my
point, though, is remove the root cause.
So you I don't know exactly what do
I mean by that, but you could argue
Yazov movement.
So that would be whether or not they
want to remove their player from the area,
which I doubt they'll want to. Israel won't
let that happen.
So I don't think this is gonna happen.
That'd be that'd be my argument, but this
this is from four hours ago.
Then
Putin rejects the ceasefire.
Now, but again, this is an ongoing thing.
This is three hours ago. So for all
I know since then, they've made another agreement.
But the reality is it shows you
that it's ultimately about the interest of The
United States at the benefit of the expense
of everybody else.
And so they want something that gives them
some interest, which I think shows you that
ultimately, they mean they don't want this to
end,
but we'll have to see what happens. But
what I wanna show is that the way
if you negotiate from a stance of of
of force
all the time,
there's no respect there, first of all. Secondly,
if you're not even if it's all kind
of an illusion, then people don't take you
seriously.
Now I'm not talking about kinetic power. Clearly,
the US military has a lot of kinetic
power, but there's a much different world taking
place today.
Now lastly, this says CBS News reports the
Trump administration is placing more restrictions on the
oil, gas, and banking sectors of Russia. Okay.
So now you see where this begins to
happen. So this is now being coerced, right,
as always. Now why would they respond to
that? Why would they make an agree a
mutually beneficial agreement
to end something they both want to end
if that's really the case? If all you're
doing is going fine, we're gonna sanction you
until you give us what we want.
It's economic terrorism.
But, of course, don't worry though, guys, because
Trump put on true social, our economy will
boom like never before. So we're all good.
Right? Everything's fine because Trump said so.
I mean, therefore, I am says, let's go.
I mean, you're literally watching a lot of
really bad things happen, but, you know, he
said so. That's always the point. It's a
meme world we live in apparently, and people
in the partisanship
only look, I mean, I guess, as far
as their phone.
But lastly, of course, to bring it all
the way back to Tesla from the beginning,
this is from yesterday. Tesla warns it could
face retaliatory tariffs, which I just think is
hilarious how this all swings around and bites
them in the butt because it's not really
there's not even much forethought to all of
this, which me, I bring it back to
the reality that there is clearly somebody out
there that wants to see this country fail,
that wants to see this country collapse for
a larger agenda that clearly they think Trump's
a part of. And you just wonder whether
all this chaos, all this destruction, all this
dismantling of foundational American ideas might just be
in the interest of somebody else.
But maybe it's in the interest of the
people that are doing it for their own
short term benefit. You know, you never know.
The reality is if if you're honest about
all of this,
this is not what you were promised. It's
as simple as that.
Thank you for tuning in today, guys.
Shorter than some we've had, but, ultimately, glad
it didn't take as long as some of
them had in the past, but
important to talk about. Right? I mean, I'm
sure this is not gonna be over in
the conversation of of whether it's it's Khalil
or or other
green card holders or visa holders
being, you know, from ignoring their constitutional rights
or when this seems to inevitably move on
over to an American.
I mean, I I don't see how that
doesn't happen
unless we stop it, unless we stand up
and do something to stop it. And that
that requires
Americans
left and right
standing together saying that we don't care what
side you're on. We demand that you acknowledge
and and and respect
our inherent god given rights.
Simple. I mean, it really is the most
simple part of this conversation, and this is
cut and dry. And I almost think that
they're using something like that instead of, like
Candace said, going after somebody that that actually,
provably, did a violent act
because this is about destroying these things. This
is about not just destroying it, but showing
Americans
whether or not our government says so, that
that this is
that so we it's like we they it's
as usual. It's kinda like the revelation they
want you to see
that that's control that they have. And they
are they're just bringing this down, holding the
reins of these politicians and bringing this down
right in front of you in ways that
you're going but, obviously, that's free speech, and
you have the very people pretending to fight
for that going, it doesn't matter.
You can't say these bad things. No hateful
words.
Just like the left was saying. How do
you miss this?
Thank you for tuning in, guys. Please share
this with other people. Clip this out. Tag
me. I'll share it myself.
Thank you for tuning in. As always,
question
everything.
Come to your own conclusions.
Stay vigilant.