Tell Salvador, the president there said he would
be willing to take American citizens in a
federal prison population. Is that one of the
ideas they're gonna be discussing? Well, I love
that. If we could take some of our
20 time
wise guys that push people into subways and
that hit people over the back of the
head and then purposely run people over in
cars.
If he would take them, I'd be honored
to get them. I don't know what the
law says on that, but I can't imagine
the law would say anything different. If they
can house these horrible criminals for a lot
less money than it costs us,
I'm all for it. But I'd I'd only
do, according to the law. But I have
suggested that, you know, why should it stop
just the people that cross the border illegally?
We have some horrible criminals,
American grown and born,
and if we have somebody that bops
an old woman over the head,
if we have somebody that,
is in jail 20 times and goes back
and shoots people all over the place and
then has a bad judge or a bad
prosecutor that do nothing about him, all they
worry about is politics. They don't worry about
prosecutor that do nothing about him. All they
worry about is politics. They don't worry about
that. I think if we could get,
El Salvador or somebody, but,
to take them, I'd be very happy with
it. But I have to see what the
law says. Okay.
What else?
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.
Monday, April seventh twenty twenty five. Thank you
for joining me today. First and foremost, thank
you for being back here today after about
a week of being away from the show.
I had a really wonderful time at the
Third Eye Carnival.
Unfortunately, wasn't there for the full period of
time because of the the weather and ultimately
actually got my RV stuck there the first
day, which was quite a fiasco. But I
wanted to start out by first and foremost.
I just have to express how wonderful this
community
is. Was at that event, just is in
a general sense. And I mean, it I
mean, it's kind of the end of I
mean, it's not just TLav. Right? Steve's audience,
and we all overlap. But
I I I just I'm feel I don't
even have the words to describe
the kind of community that I felt there.
It really was a powerful thing to to
see the kind of you know, I talked
about it a lot before we went, and
I just I really hope you guys have
a chance to experience that. And in particular,
when I had my RV get stuck in
the mud on the way out, I had
about, there was probably 25 different people that
were there helping.
I just wanna say to all the people
that were there, that helped, that
were laying in the mud to try to
get this out of the way,
whoever you are, reach out. I wanna thank
you personally. A couple of you already reached
out to myself, but what a wonderful event
it was. It it just a really powerful
community building concept. And, you know, Craig pasta
out there cooking for, like, twelve hours throughout
the entire day to feed everybody. It was
a wonderful event. But I'm happy to be
back and get back to you know, there's
it's weirdly enough the thought that I had
before I was getting started.
If you had been watching, and I kinda
tweeted this out earlier, if you've been watching
this show or just kind of like the
Collective Independent Media Alliance work,
even what we're about to get into today,
you guys are already prepped for all this.
You already know most of what we're gonna
get into. It's really just kind of evolving
in the conversation,
following up on certain points that it you
know, what's happened to Muhammad Khalil, for example,
or what's going on with the different people
that were sent to El Salvador. And you
but you guys already understand the basis, which
it seems that most people are still
grappling with. And I think that's a really
interesting thing to point out. So we're gonna
go through a lot of this today following
up. I'm gonna start with a couple of
partisan points that I think are relevant for
you to see to kinda paint how weird
this has become.
But we're gonna get into most importantly
or or, I guess, to start, in regard
to the importance of the health side of
this, you're not gonna be happy about this
in regard to the reverse or the beginning
of the changing of position of Trump's stance
or rather his administration stance around PFAS.
Another knock on the health direction of the
Maha
conversation and even worse, RFK Jr now doubling
down again. I guess that would be doubling
down on the idea of MMR vaccines.
Interesting conversations seeing how the the major push
was. He didn't write that op ed or
it was he didn't write the title. And
he well, now he's coming out and saying
explicitly that MMR vaccines are the way to
treat people.
That's incredibly ridiculous if you've been following his
work in any capacity.
And so we'll talk about that.
It's very disappointing, even for someone like myself
who, despite what I keep showing and I
understand the problems, I always hold out hope
that some of the people just see the
best in them or want the best from
them.
Of course, I hope they're right. Sadly, it
doesn't appear that's the case thus far. We're
gonna talk about Yemen. We're gonna talk about
the bombing of Yemen. The
I mean, I don't even the very strange
response that I got online from simply pointing
out something that's an objective fact, which is
that there's no congressional approval, which makes it
a war crime. And, yes, so too for
Biden. Yes, so too for Obama. It's not
an not a partisan point as much as
everyone tries to make everything partisan. Our government
has been acting illegally for a very long
time. That's the reality, and that's what's important
to frame it. We're gonna get into the
conversation about,
developing on top of the story we talked
about in the last couple shows of the
medics that were killed in Israel. It's become
especially important for a few reasons we'll get
into. And then a larger conversation overlapping with
Israel,
the execution of an American citizen, which to
be clear out of the gate, in my
opinion, is no more or less important than
any other human being being killed in this
ongoing genocide.
But it's important to recognize the lack of
information,
the lack of coverage, the lack of concern
from The United States, the American government, while
an American's getting killed by the Israeli government
that The US is funding to do so.
It's incredible. But we'll finish today the latter
half with the conversation of the updates around
the immigration deportations.
And just, again, if you've been following this
even remotely, you already know the basis. Yes.
Even illegal immigrants have constitutional rights. It's the
supreme court ruling. It's the basis of the
constitution. And from there forward, we can prove
that many of them were even then not
even here illegally.
We're here with green cards. We're seeking asylum.
We're given asylum and then nonetheless removed with
no criminal record. Every angle of this has
been manufactured from absolute lies. And it's,
I like I said the last show, it
pro it's, in my opinion, the most important
thing happening to Americans at this moment. Doesn't
mean the only thing happening, but, my god,
if we can't recognize how rapidly we are
watching the kind of just dissolution,
rather the wrong word, the destruction
of everything.
And I see I even hesitate in the
word destruction because, remember, these are inherent, god
given. They can't take them away, but they're
not responding. They're not respecting them. But we'll
go through the updates of that conversation.
So let's get started today
with some of these partisan points that I
definitely think are
are,
very
important.
And these are in regard
to the overlapping, I guess, just, you know,
the fallacy that is the two party illusion,
the reality of it. Now oh, actually, I
take one step back. I want to include
something about Twitter that I thought was interesting.
There's a couple of these points. Now Brandon
here shared this saying Brandon shared this saying,
I have discovered and well documented what seems
to be a malicious algorithm on Twitter, which
began in 2020.
Find that interesting? Under the Twitter one point
o regime, which suppresses suppresses
account growth
by removing followers from accounts
in direct proportion to the rate the account
is growing at. Now doesn't that sound very
familiar to a lot of people on this
platform? I've been thinking I I've been tracking,
he says, this and documenting it for four
years. And I'm dropping an article about it
either tomorrow or Tuesday, which thoroughly details in
pictures and videos
how this coded suppression algorithm seems to work.
He says, I'm joining a space with a
couple of people he references here. You can
look look in for yourself.
And again tonight and so on. This is
on the sixth. Now he lit he went
with the spaces. He'll be following with information.
Now you guys can take it for what
you will. He he clearly seems to think
he's got something here, and I'm sure he'll
release information. I'm really just highlighting it as
an overarching point that I think we're all
very aware this kind of stuff happens on
platforms. I guess because Elon has entered the
scene and he's the rebel fighting the deep
state or however you wanna frame that, that
somehow that means these problems are no longer
there. That's an assumption. We don't know that.
I think the argument even if you wanna
pretend it's some holdover Democrat, whatever makes you
acknowledge the possibility that it could be happening.
Think about how interesting that is in light
of how many people we see
who are stagnant, people that are doing amazing
work. You know? Again, that's you guys, from
that point forward, you can decide whether you
think there's more
dynamics at play more points. But, nonetheless, I
found this to be pretty interesting.
Because I do believe, and you know I
believe, that they are censoring people, that they're
suppressing content. I think that's a verifiable fact.
What that's showing you is simply the his
under,
investigation around one specific algorithm that goes back
all the way to 2020, showing you the
premise to start was about suppressing certain kinds
of content. Now
on that note, I found this hilarious. I've
this is probably the fifth time I've seen
him do this meme or just text. Here
he is on a video. Doge designer saying
Elon Musk quoted saying, you can tell which
side is the good side. By which side
is the bad side or excuse me, and
which side is the bad side. By which
side wishes to restrict freedom of speech.
Really making sure sides and different sides, the
whole thing's splitting everybody. But, obviously, the ridiculous
part is, well, yeah. I thoroughly agree with
that, Elon Musk, and you are literally doing
that every single day on this platform. But,
of course, the idea, the joke is that
if he's pointing at it, then he's not
the one doing it.
Obviously, that's not true. But this is kind
of the premise for a lot of what
we're gonna talk about today and what they're
doing everywhere. Highlighting the old the problem that
we've all been talking about, but really trying
to couch it on one side of the
paradigm, or simply using basic reverse psychology to
convince you that he's not doing exactly what
we all know he's doing. And I'll include
this old tweet that APAC tracker put out
from 2024
simply showing you one of these examples. All
the 60 different,
flags that were put on the TLav account
in order to suppress my reach, my growth,
my it's very clear. This was very publicly
discussed.
Elon Musk on the fourth tweeted, remember when
you could get canceled for not using the
right pronouns? That was dumb. Yeah. Yeah. It
really was. And, also, what's dumb is the
same exact thing happening under Republicans right now,
which is that they're censoring you based on
other words,
which is really the principle, guys. That's the
point. You can make it about specific woke
left leaning or however you wanna frame it.
It's censorship around ideas and words. It's the
same conversation.
I said either one this is my response
to him and kind of speaking to everybody
listening. Either one of the most tone deaf
and out of touch people on earth or
he is very clumsily trying to convince you
that he isn't currently doing the exact same
thing under a guise of stopping antisemitism
by dunking on Democrats. Maybe both. Two party
illusion. And, of course, note that I don't
get to see the two
comments below. Who knows why that is? Oh,
maybe they're gonna show up this time. Oh,
that was one. Oh, that's somebody else there
that, from a different con oh, that that's
one actually I responded earlier. Anyway, the point
was simply about the idea of
very obviously
pointing to the thing they're doing in hopes
that you don't recognize it or that you
box it out because democrat's bad. Really, again,
partisan bad, either side of the conversation. Here's
another point to overlap with the kind of
the woke side of this, which is the
same conversation. Right? It's not woke because it's
only left politics or pronouns. It's about the
idea of using cancel culture, using, you know,
personal, you know,
hero worship. You know, the idea of censoring
people based on words. Hate speech. That's what
this is.
Lives at TikTok, one of the most woke
people online, says, protesters spotted at Redmond, Oregon
are openly calling for eighty six forty seven.
Then they simply go, oh, 86 means to
dispose of or kill, and 47 means president
Trump. Now, obviously, even that is an assumption.
We don't know what this eight six four
seven means, but, yeah, you could assume maybe
that means forty seven and eighty six are
separate things, or maybe that's one number she's
represent.
Look. I'm probably somewhat accurate to understand this
is a Trump conversation. They're protesting Khalil being
removed.
But I just first and foremost, I can't
stop pointing out the assumptive nature of just
everyone in partisanship. It's it's almost embarrassing to
watch. Secondarily, let's just go ahead and pretend
we know somehow because let's just say they
actually did journalism, which is rare for these
platforms and actually spoke to the person about
it. Do we think 86 always means kill?
I think it's interesting. And I, of course,
went Woke Alert. Always point this out today,
guys. But what I thought was funny is
somebody else asked Grok what does 86 mean.
This is a small point because I think
anybody's ever worked in a kitchen or even
is just objective will recognize that could mean
a lot of things. And it simply said
no, asked whether 86 mean kill. And it
said no. 86 doesn't mean primarily kill. It
means it's slang for getting rid of something
or someone. Well, see, that's obviously the objective
way to look at it. Maybe they didn't
kill them, which they have a right to
do, say, and present what they want through
numbers. Point is that, ultimately, you could argue
it just means get rid of the person.
Now, obviously, you know this has been going
on back and forth, left and right. They
all hate the other side. The partisanship is
completely lost in all this. All I want
you to recognize is that this is the
same kind of childish, petty, small, lowbrow kind
of stuff we're getting from both sides of
the partisanship, where they point at each other
and pretend like the other side's the one
when both of them are corralling you into
a controlling structure. It's simple. And I said,
you're just as woke and petty as a
team sport Democrats you so loathe.
Now all of this is I it's these
are small points.
The rest of the show is gonna be
about things that really matter, in my opinion.
But the reason this stuff is important to
highlight is because these are the people who
are misleading the ones that are honest out
there, who are falling for it, which I
know exist because I see them around me.
And so my point is, my job on
this platform is not to continue to high
five the rest of us that we all
agree and we can see through it, but
aren't we all here to try to reach
those that are still being manipulated,
who are still lost? That's what I see
my job as. So as I was recently
saying with somebody else earlier, if I can
reach just one person every day, just one,
then I'm doing my job. And so my
game is to aim at those people, right,
to reach those people more than anybody even
if that's upsetting largely the people that always
watch the show, if that makes sense. And
I argue most of you are well aware
with what I'm doing. But here is the
inclusion of this conversation
when they're talking about
oh, wait. This is the right spot. I
think I put this,
maybe in the wrong spot. So continuing on
the protests,
this is the important thing about the overlap.
Another conversation about this in regard to the
protest conversation going on right now about the
left versus right dynamic. Right? Well, now you've
got all these people out there screaming and
protesting, hands off, whatever they're calling it. Right?
Well, it's interesting. Right? Because during the the
Israel
October Seventh forward part of the conversation, what
do we see? We saw people around the
world, not just The United States, which even
right there should show you this was not
a left right paradigm US thing. Around the
world, we saw people on different political standings,
different religious beliefs standing up and calling out
what was going on. Genocide.
Sure. You could argue they're wrong, but that's
a very powerful thing to see around the
world. Well, now we're seeing something in a
somewhat similar way. And, yes, even that part
of it, there's always people involved
trying to fund this or manipulate that or
provide signs.
Every single time there is astroturfing, there's gaslighting,
that is how this works. That's not something
I think is okay. We should point it
out when we see it. But to pretend
it's unique to the Democrats, to the Republicans
alone is simply willful ignorance.
The problem here is that now because you're
seeing these people stand up and speak up
about what I argue is a very real
thing,
they are removing people illegally from this country,
people here who are here legally, people who
are here with no record. I'll go over
yet again for the hundredth time.
Even though we get pushed back every time
saying, oh, you're just listening to fake news.
No. No. They were here legally. We can
prove it. They had no criminal record. You
can prove it. And they were deported to
a a concentration camp in El Salvador, and
we can prove it. Also, Guantanamo Bay, by
the way. We're gonna talk about that today.
These people, some of them at the very
least, are standing up and protesting against that.
Now, sure, are there gonna be people there
that are being paid? I guarantee it. Are
there people there being given signs by bigger
corporations? I guarantee it. Are there people there
who are standing up and protesting something they
think shouldn't be happening because it's unconstitutional?
I guarantee it.
So the funny thing is you get people
like this. Kat Turd says, hands off, finding
corruption and theft.
You can't get any dumber than these sniveling
losers. Right? Okay. He's overlapping those the two
things. Right? This is not just about hands
off the firing of the government. This is
about this is largely about, as far as
I understand it, the illegal deportations. But either
way, the point is stop doing illegal and
constitutional things. And both those conversations are riddled
with those even if you agree with the
general direction. We've talked about this a lot.
So the funny thing is you're trying to
bury a real like, I I would argue
a kind of building resistance against this that
is muddled with other things that are dishonest,
and they're trying to make it seem like
something else. Obvious reasons why. Because this is
a problem for their agenda. That's how I
see it. You guys can think what you
want. At least consider that because it's always
whenever you see them trying to frame something
as one side of the paradigm when you
can prove that it's not, ask yourself why
that is. Now this person says, and this
is his opinion, this is not about Trump.
It's about the soul of a democracy that
refuses to be silent. When 1,200 protesters erupt
across 50 states, that's at least the narrative.
It does seem to be generally what's happening.
It's not noise. It's a heartbeat.
The people are wide awake. Now, again, I
it's it's mixed bag. But I do agree
with that in some sense. There's a lot
of people who just recognize there's a problem
that are left and right, that are Jewish
and Muslim, that are Christian and, you know,
whatever else. There are people that are
standing up from all backgrounds.
Now interestingly over overlapped,
here's Alex Jones on the sixth going free
Marie Le Pen.
Breaking. It's happening.
More than a hundred thousand French patriots just
conquered Paris in support of Le Pen. The
globalist have made a massive mistake. Wait. Fact
check. According to police that were there, it's
only been 7,000 people, not a hundred thousand.
But who cares, though? Right? Because Alex Jones
is right, and they're lying. You mean the
Twitter fact check is but, you know, he's
trying to make a joke about it. The
point is simply the idea that his Twitter
should be the idea, guys, is this is
what happens constantly from both sides of the
paradigm. It's not unique, but what's funny is
you're over here trying to make up these
narratives about why these people are dishonest and
maybe some of them are while you're over
here completely lying about something else that for
your agenda. The partisanship
is what we're always trying to show you
is the problem. Not one side or the
other, but people who are lying to you
for a political side. I don't know why
this is the most apparent thing in the
world right now, but this keeps happening to
people like this. And, of course, the idea
is to support what you want people to
think is happening. Interesting timing with the protests
going around.
Now another side of this is this kind
of game, same point, where he says corrupt
and points to Schumer. You're damn right he's
corrupt. These people are, I think, all very
corrupt. But this person says Schumer's annual salary
is a hundred 93,000, which is too much
as far as I'm concerned. His net worth,
85,000,000,
which I didn't necessarily even look into quite
frankly. I just think I'm making making a
point about this, which I think they're all
somewhere in the millions for the most part.
And he goes, Doge, start here. It's like,
well, yeah. I agree with that. But what's
funny about it is we already have mechanisms
that are supposed to be investigating in in
personal finances of people in power. That's not
what DOGE is even remotely set up to
do, but they'll probably do it anyway. But
here's the point I wanna make. Here's Marco
Rubio's net worth is about $14,000,000.
You know, generally the same salary. I think
that's the same point, quite frankly. Here's Ted
Cruz, forty million dollar net worth. Same thing.
Doesn't that matter? Doge maybe start there too?
No. No. No. Not those guys. They're on
the good side, so their corruption is okay.
But here's Alex Jones saying, it's all about
to come out. Prediction. We will see arrest
of high level Democrats for child trafficking very
soon. How often do I tell you this?
You know, long look. I'm the first person
that will tell you that this is a
rampant problem that goes through both sides of
the paradigm. And, really, you can show this
going back a long way.
I'm not it's on both sides, just to
make it the best point for this conversation.
The point is that how often have I
said this, that right when we start to
see things fall apart, when you're getting people
calling him out more than ever, or the
narrative that he refuses to acknowledge, or Israel,
or the right reset, or, you know, the
new world order, in the North American
Union. Oh, pedophiles, Europe, and Muslims, and whatever
else thing. Just look over there, which aren't
things you should ignore. But I think it's
interesting. Now how about we wait and see
how long this takes to come to pass,
if ever? You know how long they've been
saying that? How long we've been told about
mass arrest of high level pedophiles or Democrats
or, you know, military tribunals?
I hope we see that because I do
believe it's a problem, but that
now
seems like a weird lurch.
You could think about it for yourself. Hopefully,
it happens. But if it doesn't,
hopefully, you'll be able to acknowledge that and
move forward accordingly and go, he lied to
us, or he was misled by somebody else,
or it's all a distraction.
On that same note,
of the partisan side of this, I wanted
to update you on something I shared in
case you missed it for the fourth time.
They've been screening about Mozambique Circumcisions and whatever
else they're saying, which aren't false things. It's
insane. It's ridiculous. And, yes, woke from the
side of the left part of the paradigm.
What's interesting though is I pointed out now
four times,
and I'm still finding new contracts that they're
doing the same thing. No. Not not continuing
them. Many that started in 2025.
And I'm I'm talking about male circumcision for
AIDS prevention in South Africa,
the same exact thing in in Tanzania.
And you this clip right here is twenty
minutes. It shows all of them. It shows
how Trump is funding Trump's administration. The US
government is funding climate change agendas,
studying climate change. I mean, all this is
not a joke here. Watch for yourself. What's
funny to me is how little engagement this
has got or anytime I've shared it. Even
though there should be a huge major contradiction.
The point is that somebody followed up, and
I I was simply pointing out what about
these ones to Insurrection Barbie that doesn't care
about it when Trump's doing it. And this
person said the courts ordered them to pay
for services rendered.
That's my understanding.
And this is the problem with the partisan
field. By the way, that's not true. There's
many contracts that started in 2025, let alone
the other ones that were not they they
don't work no court order came out requiring
them to fulfill specific actions through USAID. That's
very clear. So I said simple. I said,
nope. That's just a circulating claim. It's all
it also doesn't apply to the new contracts
they initiated. I cover them myself. Just call
out the obvious hypocrisy, but that's not gonna
happen. Hopefully, she does. My point is that
this is the kind of thing you get.
You get a narrative that swings through, which
by the way shows you that they if
that's a narrative going through, that means somebody's
acknowledging what I'm covering because I don't see
anybody else making this point, and they're creating
narratives to push back.
It just think about how often TLAB is
very much so pointing at something that's inserted
into the conversation that we never really get,
you know, the the counterpoints, the development of
the conversation doesn't get concluded. It gets buried.
And that's how that's how this tends to
go.
Same kinda thing. What happened to the Epstein
files?
I guess we just moved on from that.
Here's doctor Simon Godek Doge exposed the corruption
in DC.
Not a single arrest.
Pam Bondi had all the Epstein files on
her desk. Not a single arrest. The JFK
files were partly released. Not a single arrest.
COVID was proven to be a hoax, not
a single arrest. Seems to be a pattern.
And then we're gonna rename this to the
gulf of no one not one arrest. I
think that's well framed.
Obviously, I simply pointed out, are you are
are you are you honest or are you
partisan?
It seems these days that is the real
choice.
I really want you to think about that.
That's not some kind of a pithy joke.
That is
think about this. If you right now, it
seems the dividing characteristic right now is whether
you choose to be honest and
side with your principles
or you choose to side with partisanship because
everything I see that's involved in partisanship right
now seems to be inherently dishonest.
So just think about that for a second
on what side you wanna be on.
Now on that same note, in regard to
the Maha conversation,
how many times can we see these deviations
before we start at least asking whether somebody
in the chain or maybe all of them
aren't what they pretend to be?
Trump officials quietly moved to reverse bans on
toxic forever chemicals.
You know we've been talking about this. This
is actually from the fifth.
It says the Trump administration is quietly carrying
out a plan that aims to kill hundreds
of bans
on highly toxic PFAS, forever chemicals, and other
dangerous compounds in consumer goods.
If successful, the public would almost certainly be
exposed to much higher levels of chemicals
linked to a range of serious health issues
such as cancer,
hormone disruption,
liver disease, birth defects, reproductive system damage, the
playing the plan excuse me, the plans opponents
say. All of those things
sound familiar, don't they?
All of these things we're seeing overlap with,
I don't know,
injection side effects.
I mean, even the dioxin conversation. Like, the
point is that this is becoming such a
background noise problem that we just don't ever
get to we can't tell the difference, and
I think there's an engineered plan there.
If you can effectively create the background noise
to be so ubiquitous that you don't see
the actual repercussion of what you're doing, it
becomes something you can't prove.
Either way, guys, recognize that we know well
as I mean, this is just one of
the ones I show because it's so striking.
We've had in-depth
coverage of PFAS in general, whether it's about
East Palestine or any
others. For crying out loud, this is on
today.com.
Exposure to PFAS,
forever chemicals, can reduce women's fertility by forty
percent, says a peer reviewed study. And here
we are as their, you know, MAHA is
walking back the bans that already exist and
making it easier for this to not be
stopped going forward.
If successful, the public would almost certainly be
exposed to much higher levels of chemicals linked
to those problems we listed off. The Trump
environment
the Trump EPA
move involves changing the way the agency carries
out chemical risk evaluations, which would also preempt
state laws
that offer the, the one of the few
meaningful checks on toxic chemicals in consumer products.
I mean, guys, there's really no way to
to to move this.
This is wrong.
Like, I really think we need to be
acknowledged that. Like, what we're talking about here
is them knowing it's a problem, knowing people
want it to be removed, and then just
quietly trying to allow corporations to do it
anyway, and the military because those are both
part of this conversation.
If you're honest about this, if you believe
that we should be healthier, if you recognize
these are a problem, and if you recognize
the Trump administration
knows that,
stand up and call it out.
I just don't know why this this is
one of the most simple points in this
conversation.
It says, quote, this will increase health risks
to consumers
by exposing them to toxic chemicals, says in
an e an EPA employee. Quote, it also
allows the market for toxic chemicals to continue.
Imagine that, a market for toxic chemicals. Right?
That means they know they're bad and they
have a market for them anyway because you
know, and and who what's the byproduct of
that? Your health.
Diminishing of your health. Because it goes on
to say because it maintains the financial incentive
for them to be made for all these
consumer products.
And then it says down here, the Trump
EPA's new rule would require the agency to
evaluate
whether a chemical presents a risk for each
intended use. Now, but you guys know this
already. They did the same thing in the
nineties with dioxin,
specifically with chlorine. Now I think I can
even bring that up.
Maybe
not.
Oh, there it is. Look at that.
Oh, of course. Is it gonna reload for
me?
Look at that. I haven't checked this in
a while. It looks like that that site's
been that that page has been brought down.
No surprise there. Well, I'm not gonna waste
too much time on it. That was an
afterthought. But you guys remember, we've covered CNN
and the dioxin conversation.
Let me do this real quick and see
if this pops up. The bottom line is
in that article in the nineties, I think,
in '93 oh, look. I think we found
it. Look at that. See, the you know
how funny that is? How often on this
show, we go over stuff that we covered
in, like, six months ago, it was public?
An old an old article on CNN was
still public. And since we've covered it, the
article's somehow taken down.
That's I don't find it to be coincidence.
But here's the article on the Wayback Machine.
I'll include it in the show notes as
always. It'll be at the bottom.
Remember, the point is the bottom down here.
What does it say?
It says let's see.
We're talking about hundreds of chemicals, and the
chlorine industry believes
each one should be tested and judged separately.
Well, doesn't that sound familiar? A process that
would take years of research and millions of
dollars. And guess what?
None of it happened. You could prove from
this point forward, they just forgot dioxins existed,
or rather they made sure you didn't know
about it. They knew. They at this very
time back in 1993 not to go into
the dioxin conversation, which you know I will
because it's hard for me not to, where
it's very clearly telling you that in your
fast food, they were finding a 50
times
more more dioxins than the EPA said was
safe in your chicken and hamburgers and McDonald's.
That's legitimately what the CNN article is reporting.
Maybe creating larger problems down the road, it
says. And so what happened? Well, the chemical
industry said, woah. Woah. Woah. We can't just
ban these things that are killing people. We
need to make sure we test each one
individually
even though it doesn't change the fact that
the chemical is so dangerous, whether it's being
used for different purposes. But see, the government
said, yep. You're right. Let's do that, and
then never did it. Okay. I think that's
a very relevant point, don't you? So here
we are. The Trump's EPA new rule, you
know, for your benefit, of course, even though
it benefits nobody other than corporations who will
keep making things that produce this dangerous chemical
so they make money,
are going to evaluate whether each one individually
is bad. So let me ask you something.
If you've got PFAS and regardless of how
it enters your body gets bad for you,
do you care whether it's being sprayed in
the air or put on the ground? You
don't.
That's ridiculous. And it says formaldehyde, for example,
has 63 uses. So instead of just recognizing
that it is one of the things that
might produce this, they need to go through
each one of the uses and prove it
out. This will take forever and probably not
happen. And what happens in the meantime?
PFAS continues to thrive. It says the agency
plans to claim most chemicals do not present
an unreasonable risk.
But see, the difference you can't claim 62
of them don't claim a risk, but one
does. The difference is PFAS is present in
all of them. So that's that's it's that's
illogical.
It says and and because they make up
such a small part of the products. And
so my opinion would not be that you
can say, well, PFAS is okay if it's
below a certain percentage because just like all
the rest of them, that's why they call
it forever chemicals because it doesn't dissipate, because
it ultimately builds up in your body, and
we know this. So this is also
this is them playing on the ignorance of
average people. Now it says industry scored a
major victory back in 02/2016. Oh, look at
that in Trump's last administration. And the rewrite
of the nation's laws around toxic chemicals by
working in a provision that says if the
EPA find that a substance
does not present an unreasonable
risk,
Don't you think if you were told that
your child might be at risk,
you wouldn't care whether it was unreasonable or
reasonable risk?
Personally, I think if it's dangerous, we should
care about that. And it says, then states
cannot write laws banning them if it's considered
to be not an unreasonable
risk. And, of course, who gets to decide?
The companies involved and the government that's letting
it happen.
And it says, quote, they are going to
exclude a huge number of consumer products from
being considered for risk management. So in case
you misunderstand it, they're excluding
a huge number of products from being considered
for risk management.
Meaning, they're not gonna consider whether they're a
problem because they fall within a certain category.
That is corruption
at the corporate level that your government is
facilitating
just like we told you this would go.
Now let's be clear. This is in the
process. So like I always told you, maybe
this will change. Maybe tomorrow, he'll change his
mind. So let's wait and see how it
plays out. But just the floating of this
idea, the fact they're trying to hide it
from Americans,
they know that you don't want this. Now
where's RFK junior, guys?
Where is he about this? This is supposed
to be a big deal for him. He's
written plenty of things about it on his
child's self defense. Well, unfortunately, I can tell
you where he is.
He's over here and I'll include, by the
way, the
tag for PFAS and TLAS. You can check
that out. Well, RFK Jr, unfortunately, is over
here screaming about how MMR shots are the
best thing to fight measles. Maybe he got
distracted.
Now I'm try I'm not try I shouldn't
be so facetious about it. I I I
too am frustrated, to be honest. The idea
that this is even happening, I hoped for
something different. But just to reiterate this,
this is on the 03/02/2025
2025.
And I and this is the op ed
that went out. RFK,
r Robert f Kennedy junior, measles outbreak is
call to action for all of us. And
then the subtitle says MMR vaccine is crucial
to avoiding potentially deadly disease. And what was
the argument? He didn't write it. You're all
being played. You're being drawn. Okay. Certainly possible,
I guess. But my point was he put
his name on it. And maybe they didn't
write the title. Maybe they wrote the op
ed. That's certainly possible, or rather the subtitle.
I know that as an editor, definitely part
can be the case. But if you read
the article, which we did, it's very obvious,
and people started coping. They started trying to
shout back and act like you don't understand,
and you're taking you're fall okay. All that
aside, feel free to read through the comments
if you wanna laugh about how crazy this
is. Same thing I'll get to in a
second with the Yemen Post. It's
the point is you recognize the way they
respond, and I'm talking about just the people,
sometimes real, sometimes bots, sometimes just, you know,
whatever.
And the way you get this waterfall
on a certain point,
it means there's something there in my opinion.
That's how I read it anyway. But I
said and this is today.
Here's the post that Derek shared. I'll I'll
read it to you in a second. But
he put he basically he said, quote, the
most effective way to prevent the spread of
measles is the MMR vaccine.
And I said many in the beginning of
of March were screaming he didn't write it.
Well, hopefully, you have enough integrity to admit
that you were wrong. Here's what he said.
He said, I came to Gaines County, Texas
today to confront comfort, excuse me, the Hildebrand
family after the loss of their eight year
old old eight year old daughter, Daisy. I
got to know the family of six year
old Kaylee
Fur
Fear after she passed away in February. I
also developed bonds with the deep affection
and excuse me, deep affection. I can't read
today. For other members of this community
during that difficult time. My intention was to
come down here quietly
to console the families and to be with
the community in their moment of grief. I'm
also here to support Texas health officials and
to learn how our HHS agencies can better
partner with them to control the measles outbreak,
which as of today, there are six hundred
and forty two confirmed cases, of course, with
PCR test, that's always important,
measles across 22 states. Four hundred ninety nine
of those in Texas. You know, something that
they'll always tell you is rather benign. I
mean, historically, it was something that we treated
as almost like we treated chickenpox in the
past. I mean, Steve recently played that clip
from,
Brady Bunch where they it's it's almost like
a passing joke where we get the day
off school. Right? And even he has said
this before, and even he has said in
the past that it's better just to let
this spread and people to get immune.
Apparently, that logic has changed today. It says
in early March, I deployed a CDC team
to bolster local and state capacity for
response across multiple Texas regions,
supply pharmacies in Texas run clinics with needed
MMR vaccines.
Like, again,
anything like that to me is a joke.
Like, that's insane. If you understand what he's
been saying, what he's been covering about just
this thing, the MMR vaccine in particular, going
back to vaxx and forward just like I
talked about last time, then this would make
you fall out of your chair.
Either he's being look look. And this is
gonna overlap right now. I'll make the point
now since we're getting into it about the
blackmail conversation.
Frankly, it doesn't matter to me at this
point. I mean, it does in the sense
of just understanding, and I would cover it,
understand why it's happening, but it's happening, guys.
So if if your only response is to
kind of manufacture some hypothetical, which is certainly
possible about why he's being forced to do
it, does that really change that it's happening?
It's funny how people are covering this, but
refusing to say he's wrong or what he's
doing. And RFK acting like you're defending him
from being forced to do it. Has anybody
proven that? Last I saw, this was, like,
kind of a a, like, a fact free
argument coming from this idea of people that
were going after candidates that then Ian Carroll
rolled out as some absolute blackmail, except at
the end, he said we can't prove any
of it. And yet from there, it became
we know. We all know he's being blackmailed,
and everyone's saying that. I I I I
floated that as a possibility from the moment
I saw him pretend the genocide wasn't happening.
But it doesn't change the fact that we
don't know that. And either way, back to
the point, he is here promoting MMR vaccines.
So, yes, we should consider that he's being
coerced like any of them, which I do
think is part of the conversation,
but it doesn't matter. Call it what it
is. Hypocrisy, guys. And it says, and other
medicines and supply medical supplies, work with local
schools and health care facilities to support contact
investigations,
which, by the way, means contact tracing, guys.
They're doing contact tracing again. They're using PCR
tests again. They're using masks again. Look around.
This is not a secret, and that's coming
from his HHS department. And it says, and
to reach out to communities, including faith leaders,
to answer any questions or respond to locations
seeking health care. Here's the best part the
worst part. Since that time, the growth rates
for new cases and hospitalizations have flattened. The
most effective way to prevent the spread of
measles
is the MMR
vaccine. I've spoken to governor Abbott. He's offered
you know, governor Abbott, who's written plenty of
anti BDS laws and, you know, you're not
allowed to protest. Israel, you have to sign
this document that says you won't boycott them
in order to get funds after a hurricane.
You know, all that stuff. Interesting overlap in
case it matters.
So oh, oh, this is interesting. Look at
this.
I'm surprised. See, I'm funny. I've I've I
got just a rack of little things, and
I never followed up with this. I was
curious to see how Del Bigtree would respond
to this the last
time because, I mean, it was pretty quiet.
I didn't see him respond the few first
few days that came out. Here he is
responding. Let's read it. It says, your post
got cut off. It says the MMR is
also one of the most effective ways to
cause autism as witnessed by millions of parents
worldwide and covered up by the CDC's fraudulent
study at the heart of this documentary.
Good for you, Del. See, that makes me
happy to see because,
I mean, guys, there's just no way. I
mean, remember, Del Bigtree,
Andrew Wakefield, Brian Hooker, these people were, like,
the the front line for this conversation back
then, and RFK Junior was right there. You
know, he was fighting this battle with the
lawsuits. And
how do you make sense of this?
This is this is a you're you're being
betrayed, guys. Or and maybe by maybe he's
being coerced. That doesn't change the fact that
this is something we need to acknowledge. So
I'm glad to see Del Bigtree speaking out
about this.
Oh, and then I wanna read to you
what what Derek said.
So here's what Derek said in response to
this.
He said and he quoted what he said,
the most effective way to prevent MR. And
he said, many of you made excuses after
the Fox op ed, but now it's clear.
He's embracing and promoting the m MMR vaxx.
I know lots of people want to have
hope in these people, but I can't believe
they fell for it. So many of us
tried to warn about this relationship with Epstein,
his underlying his undying Zionism. And biotech investments
were warning signs. Hopefully, those who really want
to make America healthy again will realize it's
not going to happen through government. Take personal
responsibility for your lives. Now you know one
of the worst hardest things about this is
is the people like Derek and I and
Whitney and the the kind of impetus for
starting the IMA.
Here he is trying to show you what
he's talking about. Right? Like, Derek is literally
saying, like, look. We tried to warn you.
He's not, I mean, rubbing in your face
necessarily. Just simply saying, look. Look. We tried
to show you this was possible.
And instead of pretending like he's somehow on
the other side, whatever that means to you,
recognize that he's always been right there in
the middle of it saying, this is a
problem. I don't care if it's Biden. I
don't care if it's Trump, left or right.
This is something we care about. Just note
the consistency.
Right? The objectivity
regardless of what side says whatever, and yet
people still try to pin it on some
kind of a narrative or some kind of
an objective. Consider those things,
but look at what he's been doing up
until now. Look at what he continues to
do. Look at the president. Derek has proven
to you that he's fighting for what he
believes in in an objective, nonpartisan way. I
think that matters. The track record is there.
Now Clint Russell says, hey, Bobby. Just blink
twice if you're being blackmailed. This is damning.
I just I even this post to me,
it's it's like, what is the point of
this? To show others out there that you
think he's being blackmailed? I mean, you guys
have already been very clear about that. Where
is the evidence for this? If he's being
blackmailed,
then prove that. Or at least the idea
I'm I'm not saying he needs to or
that he thinks that. Maybe he thinks it's
possible. My point is that right now, this
conversation is becoming
that we that
whether you say you know or not, that
somehow the overarching frame is that he's being
forced to do this, therefore, he's not the
one we condemn. He's not the one we
call out. So it doesn't make any it
doesn't matter whether you think it's him being
coerced or not. If you're pulling punches over
Arfka Junior, you're not stopping the problem because
he's the one rolling this stuff out whether
he's being coerced or not. Now the point
he's highlighting here is right, showing the tweet
about MMR and then showing at least a
little screenshot of and I can convert can
agree this is a lot of like I
said, you look at his work going back
a long way. What he's saying today is
absolutely ridiculous.
But it says journalists should have long ago
exposed the fact that children's health defense is
making manifest.
Measles outbreaks have been fabricated to create fear.
How do you go from making that opinion
to where we are now with what he's
saying? Or as it says,
oh, and this is the largest, is they
they then inflict unnecessary and risky vaccines on
millions of children. I mean, this is these
are coming from things that he has argued
and discussed.
So I agree with that, but I just
don't think it's right to pretend that we
know or even suggest he's being blackmailed without
a shred of evidence to back it up.
As you know, I agree. It is certainly
possible, likely even. But I don't see anything
to even a shred of evidence to prove
that's happening other than it this person may
have this interest, and they're accessing they they
have close access to him and are tied
into Israel.
Certainly possible, but I'd like to see some
facts. Now last point on this,
as, Brenton Serkis points out, they're they're highlighting
again this measles outbreak claim. Right? And we
know from the last time, guys, we talked
about this too. They are lying about a
lot of this stuff. Like, we've talked about
this going back a long way with a
lot of things. For example, Ben,
Ben Swann
real, not not Ben Shapiro. Ben Swann
covered the kratom overlap
where they were trying to cover trying to
prove that kratom was dangerous,
like anything. Everything
in moderation is my opinion. But the point
is that they they were trying to claim
it was deadly. In my opinion, it was
because it was being used very productively to
pull people off opioids.
And what did they say? Well, it's killing
everybody. And then Ben Swan went through the
actual the the claims. And one of them
was literally a guy who got shot in
the chest with a shotgun
and had kratom in the system, and they
wrote down kratom as the reason he died.
I'm not making it up. Ben Swan's covered
it before. So this is the kind of
thing. If we know that these entities are
manufacturing stuff, and we know in particular that
the measles point has been done before. So
it says measles outbreak claims the life of
a second child. Now I also the the
information that I'm seeing as well suggests that
he didn't die from measles, but ultimately died.
And as he says, the child's family gave
doctor Pierre Kory. So fair to be objective,
this is stemming from what Pierre Kory is
getting from his family, so consider that. But
it says to the relevant medical records that
said he the child died from a mistake
made by the hospital.
The child has already recovered from measles when
he developed a secondary pneumonia. Doesn't this sound
familiar?
Doctor then gave the kid the wrong combination
of anti antibiotics.
Here's as you couldn't see it, here's what
I was showing.
Now, again, guys, you know, this is up
in the air. It's just it's subjective. This
is information they gave. Now I haven't Pierre
Kory may have put some information out since
I saw this, but recognize this is not
new.
And, really, commit that's a passing point for
me because the point for me is that
I think we've definitively proven the MMR shot
is dangerous.
Here we are using it, or they're putting
it forward. Now same kind of a comp
a point about contradiction.
Now this is now we're gonna get into
the foreign policy side of this.
This one
was telling. The response to this, the the
reaction that we got from people.
Now what I did in this post is
very interesting.
Basically,
simply grabbed what was a tweet from Trump
that said, these Houthis gathered for instructions
on an attack
with no evidence to back it up whatsoever,
and then says, oops. There will be no
attack by these Houthis. Now I just have
to comment.
I mean, it's the lack of decorum is
embarrassing.
Just just legitimately
embarrassing. Like, them would going back and forth
with Kele and him tweeting going, oopsie. Looks
like they land too late. Like, these people
are acting like they're juveniles.
And this is a very serious reality. I
mean, this is a war crime. And understand,
whether or not they're civilians,
there's no authorization
for military acts, guys. This is an act
of war whether there's a declaration of war
or not by definition.
Congress has the congressional authority to do that.
Now understand, regardless of Patriot Act or the
Wars Power Act, the point is the constitution.
So regardless of if they if they pass
a law that says somehow that that's not
the reality, then it's undermining the it is
repugnant to the constitution. We have to understand
how many things are like that today. If
it's repugnant to the constitution, it is null
and void. That is
Mayberry versus Madison. There's plenty of others, by
the way, supreme court rulings.
My point is that we can continue to
allow the illegitimate government to pass all sorts
of unconstitutional laws and continue to pretend like
that's somehow the reality. I mean, how long
have we been recognizing this has been continuing?
To and how I mean, even if you
wanna pretend that they somehow have the the,
authorization of military force from nine eleven that
will run to today, despite how none of
this is even tangentially connected to nine eleven,
I mean, it it's just it's an excuse.
So it is regardless
a war crime. Just like it was a
war crime with Biden or Trump or Obama
did the same things. It doesn't change the
fact. This is still one of them.
But the the the way he says gathered
for instruction on attack, I mean, you realize
that even from their information, there is nothing
to back that up. Now, sure, they may
have some secret document back there. Wouldn't you
think they would show that to concert con
convince people that they weren't murdering people in
in Yemen? On top of that, even if
they did show you something, it's funny to
me that we now have the the supposed
rebels who are blindly taking everything the government
says at absolute face value.
Way to push back on the power structure,
guys. I mean, you're fighting the deep state
by literally supporting the deep state agenda.
And then it goes on to say they
will never sink our ships again, except they
never have, which is easily verifiable in any
context.
You see, this is straight up dishonest. And
everything they're doing, they're trying just like when
Trump grabbed the microphone after COVID began and
said, China did everything, and they before we
had any evidence. Why do you think that
is? Because they set the tone, and everyone
will follow suit that knows they're just following
marching orders.
And I think we all damn well know
at the very least that if it was
there, The US was involved from day one.
So there's a reason they do this. I
don't know why we can't learn from this.
Now, I grabbed what Khaleesi shared, which is
right here.
She showed you the, by the way, the
remembering this is not new, and this is
not even just only the two times, the
collateral murder video. Where, yes, the US government
murdered both journalists and innocent civilians
and covered it up, and then they got
caught for it. The point is, all they
ever did from that point forward was go
after anybody that revealed that they broke the
law. Not a single person to date has
ever gone to jail for the crime.
Many have been arrested and a lot worse
because they exposed the crime. You know, democracy.
Right? But she said WikiLeaks had to expose
US war crimes in Iraq. Now the president
just posts them himself. The only difference between
collateral murder and Trump's Yemen strike video, one
was leaked. The other was broadcast.
Then she follows up and says, this is
how tribes in Yemen gather.
They were civilians, and Trump bombed them while
celebrating.
I think it just it's e d I
d. The point
is this is what she's claiming.
Now I'm gonna show you the reports coming
from the ground that are claiming the same
thing. All people screaming on the in the
Twitter conversation, I guess, didn't care that there's
more than just a screenshot. But I guess
in their world, Twitter files world, screenshots are
all that matter. Right?
But tribal meeting in in different locations, and
the point is that this is a common
thing you're gonna see. I mean, exactly like
this. Not Houthis, but just the tribal people
of Yemen who have been starved and suppressed
and attacked for decades by The US and
and Israel and Saudi Arabia. So the point
is simply to consider that that is a
that's obviously a valid point. Consider it for
yourself. I simply shared the image because I
feel like that was relevant.
And I said, this is the only thing
I said, it takes a special kind of
stupid to think this was anything other than
a war crime.
Now I think it's funny that you know
I set these things up for a reason
to make sure the peep you know, there's
a the assumptive nature of the partisan field
is embarrassing today.
So
my point was, it's a war crime. Now
you could assume that I meant because they're
civilians, which meant that would be possible. I
put the picture in there. The obvious reality
is this is a war crime because there
was no congressional authorization for the act of
war that it was.
Just like it was, like I said, for
every past president. It's not unique to Trump,
like people want me to pretend that it
is.
But the amount of response with a peep
I mean, their hair on fire completely flailing
and screaming about how you know, it's a
you don't know what the intelligence they have.
Okay. Well, neither do you.
So the argument that you're claiming you know
it's not is just as dumb as to
claim you know it is if it was
only based on the claim they were civilians.
My claim is it is a war crime
regardless by default, by constitutional
law, because it is. Just like when Biden
did the same things in Yemen, they were
also war crimes, which I said then.
This to me is insane because this is
look. Just so you look at the clip
of he's sharing.
You have a bunch of people literally standing
in one of these kind of, you know,
what what do you call rectangle, circle ish
kind of thing.
Now are we gonna pretend that this is
how the Houthis will gather in his in
instructions on an attack in the middle? I
mean, it just it logically makes no sense.
And if you understand I mean, I've had
many interviews in the past with Hussein al
Bukhadi, for example, from Yemen. Way back when
this was ongoing, you know, when they were
that was one of the largest things we're
talking about, the ongoing starvation of Yemen from
Saudi Arabia with USL.
This is not the reality of how that
operates. Now maybe they did it to hide
something. It's always possible.
The reality is that just because he says
that does not make it the reality,
and we should know that by now. Now
to get into the more of the details,
here, antiwar.com.
On Saturday, now, yes, Yemen's news agency reported
that footage shared by president Trump that showed
a airstrike on Yemen that they claim hit
a religious gathering, not a Houthi military meeting
as the president claimed. Now,
obviously, just like you wouldn't blindly take the
Trump the Trump's word or the president's word
at face value, you also wouldn't take the
group any group that's involved at face value.
That's just objective reality.
Now what would be next then? Seems that
we nobody's got proven it. Right? What would
we do next? Well, we would ask for
evidence. So clearly, Trump seems to know for
sure. Right? So to present the evidence. Now
this is not some the the weird response
you get from Republicans right now is somehow
like that's how dare you? How dare you
demand it that you don't get to know.
Well, yeah, you're damn right we do. This
is American this is we are Americans in
a in a situation where we're pretending at
the very least that these are people acting
with our will,
within the constitution, of course. And what does
that demand that we have the right to
know whether or not this happened a certain
way or that if he broke the law,
guys?
So if they don't show you any evidence,
why would you assume that he's telling me
the truth? Wouldn't it be easy to go,
here's the evidence, see how we can show
you that these were all Houthis, look at
all their gun? They could do that if
that was the reality. I'm pretty clearly convinced
that was not the reality for multiple reasons.
But he goes on to say, Trump added
that the Houthis officially known as on the
Anseral movement will, quote, never sink our ships
again, as I said. And they say, although
there's
have been no in known incidents of the
Yemeni group sinking an American ship. So why
would he lie about that? To convince you
that that has been the case. And right
now, look on Twitter. You're gonna see examples
across the border of people claiming they've been
sinking our ships,
protecting shipping lanes, even though that's not even
remotely been what's happening. Unless you're delivering weapons
to Israel, they haven't been bothering you, and
and particularly
have not had a single casualty, guys.
How are you gonna pretend like they're doing
they're pirates that they haven't stolen anything?
There's no casualties?
And if they have a ceasefire,
every time they've stopped.
But let's pretend like they just wanna steal
everything. No. That's that's the group that are
doing this. That's, you know, that's the groups.
That is The US and Israel who are
rapidly doing that around the world. But it
says in response to the post, a source
said that the the Yemeni agency that the
video showed an airstrike on a gathering for
in a religious gathering, the Muslim holiday that
marks the end of Ramadan.
Quote, the source explained that the video clip
published by the criminal Trump claiming that it
was a gathering of military leaders was merely
an event for for the religious holiday. And
it says the report said and by the
way, so it's relevant to the conversation
specifically in the Hodeida province. For those that
have been following along are very aware of
how important the Port Of Hodeida has been
to this ongoing conversation. So I don't think
that's coincidence.
It says the report said that the source,
quote, emphasized that those present at the gathering
had no connection to the operations carried out
by the Yemeni Armed Forces, which are implementing
the decision to ban navigation on specifically
ships linked to the American Israeli enemy, as
the criminal Trump claimed. The point is they're
not going after just anything passing anywhere.
But it says a member of The US
and Saudi backed Yemeni government in exile.
So to make sure you understand that, it's
a random group of illegal people that have
no connection to Yemen that are being tried
to forced in as the control structure, that
have never been accepted by the people of
Yemen,
who live in Saudi Arabia.
And they go, hey, what do you think
is going on over there in Yemen?
They're killing a bad guy, you hooty terrorist.
So ask yourself
what's in their interest? A group of people
that are are working with The United States
to take over some a group of territory
that they don't have the right to do
take over. His name is Hadi, by the
way. We've talked about it a very long
time. He's the illegal president that they forced
into power, that the Yemeni people did not
take, and the the Houthis are the popular
structure of the Yemeni people largely support, and
it's very easy to prove.
So why in the world you would ask
them? That's like asking Trump what he thinks.
He clearly has an agenda.
But it says and again, it says based
in Saudi Arabia. It says he claimed The
US strike killed 70 Houthi fighters and several
Iranian advisers, but offered no evidence for the
claim.
At the time of the attack, there was
no reports of humanity media of major casualties
in Hudaydah. It says the US military has
shared virtually no details about his bombing campaign
in Yemen and has not offered specifics about
the video that Trump posted. The president shared
the footage on the same day that the
New York Times reported that the daily air
strikes on Yemen, get this, have had limited
success as the Houthis are not deterred and
are not being not backing down, which, by
the way, is nothing new. Biden did the
same thing. They have shown the resilience. They've
shown that they this has had this has
had zero effect on their ability to continue
doing this. And of usual bombastic Trump comes
out and says, you don't, we're gonna bomb
you into forever, kill you more than we've
ever done before. Whatever is, you know, is
a bombastic, completely hypothetical or hyperbolic statements always
are. And and nothing stopped so far.
And then we just move we realized that
this is killing innocent people.
Whether this was civilians or not, that's what
they're doing. They just literally bombed an entire
building full of people in the capital of
Yemen. That's not a Houthi capital. That is
the capital of Yemen. Sana'a is a massively
dissimilar yet packed area. And
Pete Hegseth goes on Fox and says, we
bombed the Houthi capital, and all the mindless
followers pretend like it was some kind of
terrorist stronghold.
Just lay out what they've been doing in
Israel and Gaza. So why not do the
same thing? Apparently, it works for the people
that blindly follow them. But it says The
US Bombing Campaign had a heavy toll on
civilians with at least 25 civilians being killed
in the first week from March 15 to
March 21.
Nothing new.
Now it's not even partisan, guys. Biden did
the same damn thing.
Now what's interesting about this
is somebody was posting this, which I think
is relevant to include today for, you know,
not the way that they think it would
play. But this is people were acting like
in regard to the authorization from Congress. Because,
again, let's be very clear about this, that
they're required to get authorization from Congress for
any act of war.
Not just declarations of war, mind you, but
just any act of war, whether or not
you've had declared war or not. That's what
that would apply. An act of war is
what we just saw.
And they don't have that. Neither did presidents
before this, but doesn't change the fact that
it's a war crime. That's an that's an
illegal act. So what they put forward is
the idea, and this is what I was
saying before about the unconstitutional reality of this.
The president this is from February 02/2001. Think
about how long this has been going on,
and every president since then have kicked this
down the road because this is an agenda.
The president's constitutional
authority, of course, they frame it like that,
to conduct military operations against terrorists and nations
supporting them. Now I argue from day one
this was unconstitutional
because it is, guys. It's very easy to
see why. But I'm gonna go into this
from whether or not this connects. Well, Steven,
say you pretend that this is valid.
How you wanna pretend that this today connects
to this is insane to me.
09/25/2001,
and it says the president has broad
constitutional power, and just because they write that
does not make that the reality, to take
military action in response to the terrorist attacks
on The United States in September
2001.
No. Not even getting into the reality of
what actually happened, that it was not a
bunch of Muslims hijacking planes. We know what
this really was. The reality is that this
is not connected today.
It says congress has acknowledged this inherent executive
power in both war powers resolutions and the
joint resolution passed by congress
has broad authority
to take action
in response to the attacks on nineeleven.
That's the premise here, guys. Now, it goes
on to say down here that whether or
not they're connected specifically to the organizations or
not to support them is irrelevant. The point
is connected to nine eleven. Now this is
mission creep. We've been showing this for years.
This is why they pretend they can move
in any other country because they just go,
well, ISIS is there. Even though they weren't
even connected to the conversation of nine eleven,
we understand where this really ties back to.
So understand that this is a very flimsy
argument even then, by the way, as any
constitutionalist was telling you at the time. But
now we're recognizing that they're just continuing to
extend this out forever. And like we keep
telling you, you give them more power, they
never get it back as you're seeing here.
And ask yourself why these people that are
the rebels are suddenly, like, screening the argument
for why the government should have, like, unilateral
power to kill people wherever they want. Sure
fighting that deep state, aren't you?
Now Glenn Greenwald, highlighting the same tweet, says,
a political movement can spend a decade demanding
no more wars in The Middle East so
resources can be used at home instead of
Americans. His point is that's what the Republicans
have been saying right up until now.
But the minute you show them a video
of 30 Arabs blown up in a dubiously
claim and dubiously claim they're terrorists, many will
say, hell yeah. Kill more. Now I'd like
to believe that's the ignorant people that were
never on any side of truth that are
just the team sport politics.
I hope I'm right because it's becoming hard
enough to see how many people seem to
be at least
not calling it out when they should.
I forget why I had this included. I
feel like this was for a different conversation,
but I'll move this down. I'm sure it'll
pop up somewhere, the the Trump point about
antisemitism,
but
to get into
the overlap of what Israel is doing. Now
recognize what we're talking about here. Right? We're
the the the ongoing
execution of people on the ground all around
the world in the in the under the
the guise of fighting terrorism when all you're
really doing is murdering people that speak out
against what you're doing.
The sad reality here, guys, is this is
Israel is openly committing some of the most
heinous acts I've ever
seen. Not not even just in Gaza. Right?
And in Syria, in Lebanon,
all over the world.
And yet your government doesn't care. It continues
to pull punches. It continues to support them
to the point to where you have to,
as I've said many times, ask yourself, how
is it possible?
They are either on this agenda to the
point to where they are, you know, die
hard Zionists, which we know that's the case
in some of these people, which means they're
not America First,
or they're being they're compromised, threatened, blackmailed, also
certainly possible. The point is you just have
to acknowledge that this is this is counterintuitive
to their stated agenda.
So one of I mean, that's the only
two things that make sense to me. Ask
yourself what you think make make sense. But
so highlighting what we just talked about or
rather overlapping it with what we're seeing them
do on the ground. And this is an
extension of the same story we just talked
about. This one
that we had recently talked about, and that
was the medics being killed in the ambulance.
Now remember, we talked about that kinda right
when it was happening. It's developed quite a
bit since then. If you haven't seen it,
this is a horrifying story. White House says
some this is now the White House's claim.
Now to give you a quick backup,
there was an ambulance,
15 medics that were killed. Israel executed all
of them, then tried to bury the ambulance
to hide what they did. And then as
they were trying to get to to
help them, they killed those people too and
then buried all of it. And now they've
dug up the bodies that were there. I
mean, this has come out left and right.
I mean, this and and they lied about
whether
once it came out and they couldn't hide
it,
they said, oh, well, their lights were off
and we couldn't see. We weren't sure. It's
been definitively proven that the lights were on.
And And so then they go, well, well,
we were wrong, but here's now here's a
no excuse.
I mean, how many times can you literally
see them lie to your face, then they
go, but never mind this one now.
It's it's incredible. And it's it's not even
something to laugh about. We're talking about people's
lives here. But here's the White House. As
we have all this in front of us,
this is from yesterday or excuse me, today.
White House says Hamas,
quote,
entirely responsible
for Israeli execution of Palestinian medics. Now there
the White House is entirely responsible. That's Hamas.
Antiwar is correctly framing this for Israel executing
medics. That's the reality of this, which has
been proven.
The Trump administration has doubled down
on its position that Hamas is to blame
for Israeli troops executing 15 Palestinian medical workers
in Gaza
even after a video show that the Israeli
military was lying about the incident. I'll show
you the clip. The IDF initially claimed that
forces opened fire on vehicles that were advancing,
quote, suspiciously and had no headlights or flashing
emergency lights. Patently false. But a video recorded
by one of the executed paramedics
and their phones showed the ambulances that were
driving and had emergency lights on when they
opened fire.
And he was sadly, it's heartbreaking. He literally
is on the phone recorded saying, forgive me,
mother. This is the path I chose to
help people.
Guys, it's home for me more than you
think. And it says the Israeli soldiers tried
to cover up the crime by burying the
15 medics and their ambulances in a shallow
grave. The IDF has since changed its story,
acknowledging the lights were flashing and that they
opened fire on on our men,
but now claiming six of them were linked
to Hamas while offering no evidence.
Like, how do we even take how is
that not laughing in their okay. They come
up and they say,
we opened fire because they had no lights
on and we were worried about it. Then
you get proven that's not true and they
go, well, no. They were on, but but
now we thought they were Hamas then. Well,
why wouldn't you have said that first?
I mean, this is just embarrassing. This is
like dealing with a kindergartner who stole cookies
and you're you can see it all over
their face. They're like, no. It it's just,
like, embarrassing
to see them blatantly lying. And then you
got the White House standing up and going,
we agree.
It wasn't them.
This is my point that I bump up
in all almost every show now. We need
to acknowledge that we do not influence the
power structure, guys. They do not care what
you think. I don't know how else to
frame that. It's obvious to me that we
don't even affect their decision making process if
we can literally see them lying so blatantly
and and almost the entire country wants this
to stop and they just keep doing it
anyway.
We I mean, there's very prominent people today,
like Jeffrey Sachs, for example, Bill Gerard. I
mean, there's plenty of them. They're saying Israel
is completely controlling the US government.
That's pretty obvious to me right now. Now
it says despite the clear evidence of a
war crime,
The US is still backing the IDF's conduct.
It says Hamas uses ambulance and more broadly
human shields for terrorism.
Can you believe they're still pushing this argument?
Despite the fact that not a single example
of them human using human shields has ever
been shown since October 7 at the very
least, let alone before that, that Robert proved
the UN has tried to prove it more
than once, has never been able to prove
it. Now that's not to say they don't.
I would find it hard to believe that's
not happened.
Interestingly, on the other side of it, you
can see, what, eight examples
just since October 7? I mean, like, on
mainstream coverage from The Guardian, for example, of
Israel being caught using human shields.
Then they even have a new policy. They
call it mosquito procedure, not the neighbor procedure.
That was one of them. They have another
one. This has been covered by Herets, corporate
media, and yet we still can't have an
honest conversation about this. This is my point,
guys. That's cartoonishly
bad. That's in your face and everybody sees
it and we just pretend like it's not
the reality.
How do you deal with that? How do
you engage with that?
Now I could play that clip again about
human shields. I mean, the point is, in
case you haven't seen it, I'll play just
a second of it, that it's transparent. The
evidence goes back a very, very long way.
2,013,
Palestinian children
tortured,
used as shields by Israel per the United
Nations.
Reuters.
Israeli soldiers who use Palestinian boy, a nine
year old, as human shields avoid jail.
Defense for children international,
international human rights group. Israel forces use five
Palestinian
children as human shields. That's 2023.
Now if that clip goes on, guys, for
the podcast, that's a clip from, I don't
know, six months ago. I made that clip
from a show where I go over, like,
eight different examples from Human Rights Watch, Amnesty
International, all of them. And this is before
October 7, guys. Well, before October 7. Just
since then, and I'll actually grab that since
it gives you the picture here.
This is just the this is the show
where I got that clip from,
and it's just just entitled the open secret
of Israel's use of human shields. I've done
a similar show, by the way, called the
open secret of Israel's use of our our
organ harvesting, also very public. Incredible we don't
talk about it. But this is dude, this
is not even that old, guys. This kid
was literally tied with a belt to the
front of their car. We saw the example
of the guy on the front of their
hood in the middle of summer, where it
turned out his skin literally melted off on
the top of the hood when they tied
him to the front of the Jeep that
was running.
I mean, it's just it's just grotesque.
It needs to make you think about who
it is that we're dealing with, whether Biden
or Trump, guys, because they're the damn same
thing here.
Now it says before the video came out,
state department spokeswoman Tammy Bruce was asked about
the executions
and also said that Hamas was to blame.
Every single thing that happened in Gaza, she
says, is happening because of Hamas. Every single
dynamic.
Okay. So when you execute children with nobody
around, that's Hamas. That's what she's saying because
they started it.
Sounds like we're in kindergarten.
Now
Zionism observer
also makes a great point with this, and
it's very public.
Israel does this so regularly
that they even create a category for it
on on their video archival project, Ambulance Graveyard.
Now the links are down here. This is
Zionism Zionism
Observer. I mean, look at the categories, guys.
They've got abducting bodies, air dry these are
in sourced videos, articles. Read it for yourself.
The point is that we've seen this at
Al Shefa. We've seen this I mean, my
from my my memory, at least two different
times where we've seen these massive ambulances be
bombed, killed, shot, or rather people inside it
killed and then buried. We saw the major
example. I mean, there's there's an example where
you can see and I think they might
even yeah. It's called Ambulance Graveyard because you
can see some of these shots
where, like look in this video right here
where you've got, like,
so many ambulances they bombed. They just kinda
scoop them to the side and pile them
all in a in a graveyard
just like they did with all the cars
from October 7 and then pretended Hamas did
it even though they didn't have the munitions
to do it.
That's how common it is. Now, here is
them blatantly lying to you. And we act
like that's not clearly obvious as they've now
changed their story. But here he was yesterday
straight up lying to you.
The IDF did not randomly attack an ambulance.
Last Sunday, several
uncoordinated
vehicles were identified,
advancing suspiciously
toward IDF troops without
headlights
Mommy. Mommy. Mommy. Mommy. Mommy.
Or emergency signals.
IDF troops that For the podcast, you can
literally see juxtaposed next to it all of
the different shots of their headlights, their blinkers,
and also recognize that they didn't the way
you described it, like, they somehow come came
up on them. That's not how this worked
out, guys. These people were tracked and hunted
down and executed in in right in front
of everybody. And the point is that they
were very clearly showing what they were. And
let's let's also be clear on one of
the point they don't mention here. Whether it's
the Red Cross or the rest of them,
the the UNRWA or any of them, guys.
I mean, maybe UNRWA is different today because
of how crazy that focus is, but they
overlap. They speak to the IDF. They say,
look. We're going in this area. We are
going to be delivering we're gonna be bringing
hurt by people. We're gonna go to the
hospital. And they go, okay. Confirm. We know
that you're because in in in most war
zones where there's not a a Zionist
genocide or going on, that they they they're
supposed to be relaying information to the different
forces so they can recognize, okay. You're in
a convoy that we shouldn't bomb. These are
ambulances or whatever, school children. So they do
that. So they're aware that they're going and
what their purpose is, and they go after
them anyway. That's important to understand. And open
fire at suspected
vehicles.
Following an initial
assessment,
it was determined
that the forces had
eliminated
the Hamas military terrorist,
Mohammed Amin Ibrahim
Shumba,
took part in the October seven massacre
Ah, see. With eight other terrorists
from Hamas.
No. Just just so you understand. That's not
true. Guys, these people were medics. They've already
they've already I'm gonna show you the clip
of them digging up their bodies. Like, this
is just desperate lies as far as I
can tell. My my personal opinion, it seems
like this guy is uncomfortable reading this. I
think they're all very concerned about how they
may very well end up in some kind
of a jail cell. I mean, they realize
Netanyahu
is on the precipice. I mean, he is
it's not it's not even just October 7
or anything around this. It's he has been
about to go to prison for years now.
He's got, like, four different indictments. Most of
this country, including his own government, absolutely despise
him. That you just need to if you
don't know that, if you think I'm look
it up, read it in early media. It's
very prominent. So what's crazy to me is
I think they're all very aware that this
is not going their direction. And I think
I've never this guy just gets trotted out
to be the one so he can be
scapegoated, I think. Just my personal opinion. I
just you tell me what you think. I
think the way he's reading this is kinda
like, I don't wanna be here. The Islamic
Jihad.
Oh, this is what I Hold on. He
mentioned Islamic Jihad. I wonder if he says.
From Hamas
and the Islamic Jihad. Oh, that is interesting.
I always think this is a point to
make. Remember in the beginning, they just it
was Hamas. It was the only thing they
mentioned. It was Hamas, Hamas because they wanted
to make it simple. Eventually, I made the
point that, well, at some point, even if
they just got rid of all Hamas,
well, remember, Islamic Jihad
is way bigger than in Hamas. It's a
much bigger organization. Like, twice the I don't
know exactly. I think it was three times
as big, Robert said.
So what happens if they delete go after
Hamas and they remove them, and then they're
just gonna be like, we're done? Well, no.
There's other groups, more than even just as
long as jihad. So my point was always
that this was just a narrative to get
them to the step of well, they were
just go, well, now we have to get
that group because it just is problematic. So
my point is they evolved it out to
start including both of them because that's the
plan. Like I said, it was. Oh, this
is what I will tell you about this
incident.
If you see anybody
advocating for Israel on the TV or radio,
one of their repellent
spokespeople say,
then they will be lying because that's what
they do.
They lie and they lie and they lie
and they lie and they lie and they
lie and they lie and they lie and
they lie and they lie and they lie
and they
lie.
And they lie, and they lie, and they
lie, and they lie, and they lie, and
they lie, and they Let me let me
preface these remarks with I never,
never, ever believe
Israeli figures.
I've been in the government too long to
know that the Israelis are patent liars.
In their intelligence community, in their propaganda community,
certainly, and in their leadership,
they are inveterate
liars. Let me say that again. They are
liars.
So
clearly
and this is and suppressed news just highlights
this as saying, this perfectly sums up the
seventeen months of Israeli crimes. Lies used to
cover them up. I mean, it's it's just
every single time, it's as simple as that
you can literally see them evolve the story
to whatever meets the expectation of the claim
of the day. Robert covered this very well
during the the killing of Sharina Abu Akleh,
an American journalist.
And they lied about, oh, it was Hamas
that shot her. Oh, never mind. It It
was a ricocheted bullet. It was an action.
Oh, never mind. They thought she was Hamas.
Oh, never mind. We point blank killed her,
but it was an accident. Every day the
narrative shifted and the evidence came out. Nobody
was held accountable. Not even the US government
didn't care they killed an American. And guess
what? That happened again.
More than once, this happened. We'll talk about
it in a second. Now in regard to
that again, low key simply highlights oh, this
is how BBC News covers it. Israel admits
mistakes over medics killing in Gaza.
Admits mistakes.
Lies is the reality of that. They can
see the pictures with their headlights and everything
else on. They're just simply lying. Now here's
drop site news.
The Fox and this is it this is
interesting, actually. I'm not sure how to place
this. I mean, because I've
just because people are in the corporate media
does not always mean they're exactly what you
think they are. But just like always, question
everything,
and especially when it comes to corporate media.
As usual, I think in I guess, my
my opinion would usually be that if they're
in that field, they're there for a reason,
but I see it as opportunism.
Either way, opportunists
are what I'm talking or what I'm arguing
we should be leaning into in the sense
of, you know, highlight the work. Don't pretend
you could trust them. But if people start
calling out Israel, highlight it. Right? You know?
So this guy's from Fox News, and he
has been consistently calling this out in Gaza.
So my point is it's worth saying he's
doing good work on this topic. He's corporate
media. Don't trust any of them, but recognize
and so show other people in the field
that there is a benefit to being honest
about this. And so here's Trey Yinx, I
think, from Fox News, reports on the mass
graves of paramedics in Rafa where Palestinian Red
Cross workers were recovered,
and this is them digging their bodies out.
Nicks from the Palestine Red Crescent
dig through the earth of Southern Gaza.
They're recovering the bodies of their colleagues killed
by Israeli forces.
On March 23, first responders
were dispatched to this area of Rafa. When
they arrived, Israeli soldiers opened fire.
Health workers should never be a target, and
yet we're here today digging up a mass
grave of first responders and paramedics.
On March 31, the IDF provided a statement
to Fox News saying, quote, several vehicles were
identified
advancing suspiciously toward IDF troops without headlights or
emergency signals.
Video released five days later by the Palestine
Red Crescent
directly contradicts that statement.
The IDF also claimed in the initial findings
that nine out of the 15 medics were
operatives in Hamas and and Islamic
Jihad. Asked multiple times for evidence to support
that claim, none was provided.
Funerals were held late last week for those
killed by Israeli bullets. Families mourning the dead.
Mothers trying to make sense of the senseless.
He went to save the martyrs and injured,
and we've been waiting for him for a
week. We were told that he was either
martyred or injured, but I realized that they
had killed them from the very first moment.
They had killed them and buried them underground.
As bodies of these medics rest inside white
plastic bags with a photo attached, the face
of Refath Radwan stands out. The man who
recorded his final moments with a final message.
Forgive me, mother.
This is the path I chose to help
you,
he
said.
That one really hits home for me. I
mean, I, you know, I I struggle with
this personally.
Right? You know? I I've I've, you know,
I'm pretty close with my family. And I
know that it's difficult for some of them
to worry about what, you know and, obviously,
I'm not even remotely trying to compare what
they're doing over there to what I'm doing.
But, nonetheless, the point is that, you know,
what the the doing things that put yourself
in somewhat harm's way,
you know, it's it's difficult to be, you
know, like, family members that worry about the
safety of them. And so just to recognize
that he's saying that, you know, putting his
heart out there and saying simply that, you
know, forgive me. I'm doing this because I
care.
You know, it's it's emotional, man. And I
think this is we we need to recognize
how many people are out there literally putting
their lives in the line for you wherever
you are in the world. And sadly enough,
so many people in this country have been
convinced that those people are somehow terrorists.
Now here is the article from the Times
of Israel. IDF acknowledges incorrectly claiming that Gaza
ambulances didn't have emergency lights on.
So Brian Grim simply says, it's helpful when
people out themselves as monsters. He said, here
is one propagandist claiming that after Israel killed
15 medics, they instantly identified some of them
as terrorists.
Raises a few questions. Well, let me freeze
here's what he's saying first.
He's saying, reports that new findings from the
IDF's investigation into the killing of 58 workers.
Of particular note, the IDF has also found
that at least six of them, 15 slain
medics, were immediately identified as MOS operatives.
So I guess I guess we just ignored
the the the, what is it, the other,
eight
that aren't? Just murder eight people? Well, yeah.
Apparently, that's been the acceptable reality in Gaza
this whole time. That as long as they
think they find one bad guy,
they can kill whoever they want. Even though
that's never been the reality and is a
war crime, no matter how you spin it.
It's called collective punishment at the very least,
but there's plenty more around that. But as
he simply says, recognize when people show you
who they are, believe them. And he says,
here's one propagandist claiming that after Israel killed
15, that they just somehow immediately identified them
as terrorists. How exactly does that work? He
goes, raise a few questions. How stupid do
you think do you how stupid do you
think we are? Number two. Generally, is shooting
and killing the medics first and only later
asking questions a legitimate approach to medical workers?
Think about how crazy that is. What is
wrong with you? Number three. It's you know,
just there the people there's so many people
out there that are, you know, whether you
whatever you think about individuals and different platforms,
when you can just, you know, calling it
out, just having no right now, this is
such a contentious topic. But it's important to
just be like, this is ridiculous.
That just because you wanna agree with the
topic or pretend that somehow these people are
inherently bad, it it's the same conversation we're
gonna get into a second about the deportations.
I don't care if you think everything they're
claiming is true. There is still a reality
of due process for these people, and they
just skip right over it and give you
the narrative they think is gonna convince you
that you should ignore it.
Now WikiLeaks highlights this in in another topic.
Two more journalists were killed in an airstrike
in Gaza. This was on the sixth.
One burned
alive in a press tent outside. Now this
is disgustingly
this is a very, very public conversation. This
has been documented. This is a journalist who
was in a tent, who was burned alive
because they bombed this area, which happens, like,
every single day in this in Gaza.
And it says the Palestinian journalists were,
I I don't I don't wanna try to
pronounce their names and in in concern worry
that I might mispronounce them, but the point
is they were burned alive on video inside
the press tent. A press tent. Nine other
journalists were injured in the attack. Israel's war
on Gaza has killed two hundred and thirty
two journalists. Now that is unprecedented, guys, especially
in the time frame we're talking about, and
that doesn't matter, apparently, making it the deadliest
conflict for media workers ever recorded.
According to a report by the West Watson
Institute for the International and Public Affairs Costs
of War project,
Gaza is now confirmed as the deadliest zone
for journalists in two hundred years.
I mean, I don't even know how you
could frame it as not as ever.
Because, like, quite frankly, two hundred years ago,
what we call this field is not the
same thing. I mean, somewhat similar, but the
point is that what we the what we're
dealing with today is a unique circumstance.
200 that's just incredible. 232 journalists. I remember
in the beginning where it was, you know,
that every time something like this happened, it
was like there was a narrative, an explanation.
Nobody even cares now. They just fall into
the background. It says press advocacy groups such
as Reporters Without Borders and the Committee to
Protect Journalists have repeatedly condemned the deliberate targeting
of journalists by Israeli forces. But I guess
that just makes them Hamas. Right?
Here,
just it's it's in Hebrew, but this this
clip that you can listen to if you
want, this is what they're saying. And Furkhan
highlights this as Nazis of 2025 dehumanizing innocence.
He says, God these are the reporters. Remember,
the same corporate media Israeli reporters that were
openly debating why it was okay to rape
people in your prison custody because, you know,
they're terrorists or whatever, whatever the narrative is,
even though the ones they're talking about were
provably not terrorists. That's something that happened. Understand
how real that is. To openly debate and
argue in favor of
human I mean, war crimes, quite frankly. But
it says and this is another report. Quote,
Gaza is a cage inside a zoo,
But totally not an open air prison, though,
guys. Gaza is a cage inside a zoo,
they say. Continuing, it says, quote, a human
being who grows up in a cage inside
a zoo, in the end, behaves like a
human animal. The evacuation of the Gaza Strip
is the right and moral thing to do.
Don't you love using your own inhumane genocidal
acts as the justification for helping people that
you're trying to kill? Lovely. But overall, guys,
I mean, think about what they just said
right there. You're literal. So even if you
think that's even accurate, the argument is we
did this to them, therefore, that's it's moral
for us to I mean, it's just it's
so insane, the level of broken mental gymnastics
you're seeing for people like this. These are
scientists, guys. That's a and understand there is
a big growing movement of people in Israel
who are screaming about how this is wrong,
not just displacing them, but Zionism in general,
orthodox Jewish communities who are protesting what they're
doing, getting beat up by the IDF. It
happens every day.
Now this I just thought was actual. I
I had to make sure
I was wondering whether this was somehow like
the old clip on a different angle. Glenn
Greenwald shared this today. Now his caption tweet
says Israel has repeatedly killed Americans in the
West Bank. Oh, that I'm gonna get into
this in a second. They've recently just killed
an American citizen.
A 14 year old American
in Israel.
Now
we'll come to that. But he says, when
I said below that one day after Israel
murdered a 14 year old American in the
West Bank, Trump would hold Netanyahu's chair for
him like a waiter,
I was speaking metaphorically because he did it
the last time. But, yes, guys,
he did it again. Now like I said
last time, I find this to be I
mean, you know, it matters in a way.
You know, it's it's a gesture that does
it's symbolic.
But in the larger sense of things, I
find it to be largely relevant to, you
know, to whether or not you know, but
it's worth considering, you know, like, the the
the whole point being that somehow this therefore
proves that he's, you know,
beholden to this man. Let's be clear. You
don't need him pulling out his chair to
be able to prove he's beholden to this
man. That that's the important thing. The chair
is just an accessory to that conversation. It's
a tangential point to the provable amount of
money being stuffed in Trump's pockets coming from
Israel. But the bottom line is it just
it you know he saw the conversation last
time. You know he saw what his own
people were saying about why he when he
did that and he does it again. It's
right here for the podcast. Watch the video.
At the very least, pushes his chair in
for him, which, again, I'm not even saying
is the huge deal. But I think it's
fascinating to think about. Even Glenn Greenwald felt
it was necessary to call out.
So bringing this into Israel and what he
was referencing. In case you missed it, Israel
just shot and killed a 14 year old
US citizen. This was yesterday. Okay?
And yesterday,
Benjamin Netanyahu rolls up
to United States. And guess what? They gave
him the literal red carpet treatment. Now you
may not be able to see that because
for some strange reason, Twitter just doesn't let
you see this image anymore even though I
was able to save the image from when
I first opened this earlier. Now I'm not
saying this is a conspiracy. Who knows? Maybe
it's just one of those weird glitches that
seem to be in the favor of Israel
on this platform. But what I think is
interesting
is that you can't see it. Here it
is though.
You know, the literal red carpet treatment for
Netanyahu, a war criminal who is I mean,
the ICC, the ICJ, most countries in the
world, most honest people that have morals are
all calling for this man to be arrested.
I mean, legally, from the international community, he
is required to be arrested by people who
are part of this community, and they don't
care. They just straight up don't care. And
they not only don't care, they literally give
him the red carpet treatment while he's at
that moment murdering people in Gaza.
That's just absolutely mind blowing to me, but
I think it's worth noting that this image
just doesn't really show up. Now the point
is an American citizen. Now
it's important to understand
that this is not the first time. An
an American citizen in the context of what
we're talking about is no more or less
important than any other human being killed. But
it is important for the conversation of how
completely beholden your US government is to a
foreign government to the point to where they
don't even speak up when an American is
killed,
let alone about the other Americans that were
trapped in Palestine and Gaza from October 7
forward. All they ever focused on were the
the Israeli Americans that were taken, which all
of them should matter. None of them deserve
to be suffering in this situation. So what's
funny is they only seem to care about
one side of that. That's not an opinion.
That's objective reality.
Sure sounds like the opposite of America First
to me.
But, Glenn, as I said, Israel's repeatedly killed
Americans in the West Bank. They have.
They killed a US Journalist
and first denied
it, then video proved they did, so they
admitted it. We just talked about that. And
that that's the that's this one. I'll grab
it for you.
And he wrote Robert wrote a couple articles
on this. This one was specifically the ones
important.
The Israel covered up the murder of Shireen
Abu O'Clay with US help. The US government
helped cover up the murder of an American
journalist in Israel because Netanyahu said.
It's really as simple as that, guys. It's
not this is an old story. You could
look this up. It's provable.
But as he said as well, they admitted
it. They did.
Now they just shot a 14 year old
American.
Today,
Trump will hold Netanyahu's chair again.
And he was right. He literally did that.
Trey here showing you on video.
An American citizen was shot and killed by
Israeli snipers overnight in the West Bank. That's
a Fox News correspondent, guys.
This is not even being disputed.
Here he is.
There's now four Palestinian children, by the way,
all holding American citizenship. This part this this
is Ilhab Hassan reports, were shot by Israeli
settlers and soldiers in the village of Termusiah.
One of them was killed, and the other
three were injured.
According to witnesses, the Israeli settler opened fire
first,
followed by Israeli soldiers who arrived and began
shooting at these children as well.
This is a photo of adolescence, more accurate,
but 18. It was 14. So, I mean,
it's you know, you guys can make your
distinction on what you think as a child
who was shot and killed. From a legal
sense, that's considered child, but realize that that's
adolescent. Still matters, guys, regardless of human life.
And what's crazy to me is that the
idea that you can diminish between these like,
there's a point in which you can argue
that there's a dishonest way to frame somebody
as an American who might just have citizenship,
who doesn't live in The United States, or
who's only recently given so for other reasons,
intelligence connected kind of things. I've covered those
in the past around Iraq, for example, where
they claim an American was killed after a
bombing when it turned out to be somebody
who is, I argue, was intelligent that simply
had the citizenship. Doesn't doesn't change the fact
that they are still technically an American. So
the point in this case is this person
being killed by Israel in principle is no
different than any other American being killed.
Same point as everything else, guys.
Now ask yourself why your government hasn't said
a word about that. Where are they? Do
they not care when Americans get killed by
their chief ally?
And
EC Brand says someone who has US citizenship
is an American.
They executed an American teenager.
In this video, you can watch it if
you I mean, it's graphic. I don't want
you to necessarily have to show it.
Now what's important, guys, is the Lemkin Institute.
Remember when Netanyahu, right in the beginning, tried
to to nod to the Lemkin Institute as
if the or even reference Lemkin in, like,
a quote? And then the the point is
this is an a genocide,
it's Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention. That's what
it's called.
Now it says the Lemkin Institute this is
from somebody, this is
a international relations global development president of independent
Jewish voices speaking out about this,
saying the Lemkin Institute named after Polish Jewish
intellectual, Raphael Lemkin, who defined,
quote, genocide
after witnessing the atrocities of the Nazi Holocaust,
issued this statement against against Israel's complicity in
Gaza's genocide.
Every single one of these is us, means
meaning people I but I don't know if
it means Jews or Israelis,
should be ashamed. Here's what the Lemkin Institute
says.
The Lemkin Institute condemns Israel,
Europe, Canada, and The United States for per
per,
perpetrating genocide in Gaza.
It is a moral wrong that should haunt
these countries for eternity.
How do you ignore stuff like that?
Literally, an institute built on the I mean,
this is on the idea of of genocide
prevention,
a group that Netanyahu has pointed to, a
group that is literally named after a Polish
Jewish intellectual after calling out the Nazi Holocaust.
They're literally telling you what they're doing is
the same thing, and everyone should call it
out. And we can't wrap our minds around
that. At least the people I'm trying to
reach in this conversation, guys, it's right in
front of you.
Here's where it's. Trump and his
Whit it says Trump and, his Mideast invoice
Steve Witkoff
made a big miscalculation,
now hear this, guys, by not pressuring Netanyahu
to respect the ceasefire,
the agreement that he signed himself.
Yeah. Just like we're all telling you. They
signed.
It was supposed to continue. Israel deviated.
Blame them like they always do. Every I
mean, anyone with a brain and a an
objectivity and honesty is very aware of how
this has been going every time. Blinken continue
to lie, and now we see the new
ones continue to lie. It's the same thing.
All I'm just gonna show you here is
that this is a dishonest element, and your
government is either taken by it or part
of it. Now
on top of all of that, yes, they
still send them more money. All the promises
kept. Right, guys? Ukraine stopped. Right? No. That's
still going. They're still funding that. Oh, what
the the war on Gaza? That's been done.
Right? No. They've continued to fund that too.
Plenty of things. Right? This is 15 senators
on the fourth have voted against
$8,800,000,000
to Israel.
More on top of everything else. I mean,
we're like, I don't even know anymore. I
have to look back and keep the the
running Cali. You know, tens of billions of
dollars flooding into Israel's hands on top of
the $30.30
point $3,800,000,000
a year we give them already.
Now
the US Senate overwhelmingly, apparently, and this was
just I was just trying to get, like,
the latest update from this today, has apparently
overwhelmingly rejected
a bid to block
those arms sales.
Surprise surprise. The completely compromised is congress
voted to not stop those funds. You know,
despite that being a crime internationally and domestically
in every possible way, the majority of the
senate voted to not stop those funds. Now
I don't know whether,
Bernie or the rest of them actually cared
to stop it. They just wanted to pretend
they did either way. This it's not hard
to see that almost everyone left and right
will blindly support Israel at the expense of
Americans
everywhere you look.
As Sal Diagris points out, 3AM, and you
and the boys just sent 28,000,000,000
to Israel, and you can see Kamala and
Trump and Biden and and, I mean, I
have a Vance and Elon and and and
Obama drinking beer. That's the meme anyway. The
point is that they're all on the same
side, guys.
Now Philip Giraldi, where I got this image
from, by the way, and this is real.
This is a shot in Israel.
Trump, make Israel great again. They clearly know
what's going on. And he professor Jeffrey Sachs
of Columbia University has described the current Donald
Trump regime as, quote, Israel first administration
packed with Zionists at all levels. That I
mean, guys, it's an objective reality. They tell
you that. It's amazing that we can have
to debate these things. The state department press
secretary Tammy Bruce has already said that, quote,
anyone who tries to touch Israel will wind
up in hell.
Otherwise, known as El Salvador where they're sending
people to concentration camps. That's what they're referencing,
guys.
Anyone
who tries. Well, to reference back to the
point about the constitution and due process, the
same thing. Any person,
that means illegal immigrants too because that's the
reality of constitutional rights. It applies inherently inalienable
rights to anybody in this country in regard
to the fifth and fourteenth amendment and due
process. That's a fact. Reno versus Flores, even
Scalia said himself that it is it is
important, especially in deportation cases. The point here
is when he says any or rather when
Tammy Bruce says anyone
who tries to touch Israel will go to
wind up in hell, Pretty sure you can
factor in that that means anyone.
We'll get to that. We're gonna end on
that point again because I showed you in
the beginning. He said it again. Trump has
said again the idea of sending Americans to
a foreign prison. There is literally no precedent.
There's no legal reality.
There's no legal reality for what they're doing
right now. That's why it's concerning.
But in regard to a few more points
over Israel, let's not forget what's going on
in Syria. That hasn't stopped either. I recommend
either either Eva Bartlett or Vanessa Billie's coverage
on this because they're more immersed that than
anybody. I mean, it's just so grotesque how
clearly that is a problem that almost
seems to be not a it's not even
part of the conversation anymore. So they basically
funded no. I shouldn't even say that. They
literally funded terrorists in Idlib and all the
rest around the conversation, moderate rebels and all
that, left and right administrations.
You know, Al Qaeda becomes Al Musa, Al
Musa becomes Hayat al Sham, and they act
like you don't know that. And then they
protect them many times throughout the process. And
then finally, whatever the real outcome was, got
Assad out of the way, and then boom,
all the terrorists that they were fighting become
the leadership of Syria
on a dime. Like, they literally shave his
beard, take away the bounty, and go, he's
our guy now, even though he always was
is the point. I don't know how that's
not jarring for people. I think it is.
That's my point. I think we're all being
fed this false picture of what the majority
is as we all see what's going on.
Don't worry. Technocracy is coming soon. They'll put
you all back to sleep. That's the plan.
Israeli troops detain civilians,
block roads
as they move deeper into Syria. Gee, who
didn't see that coming? Well, anybody saw watching
the show already saw it coming, seeing as
how on day one, Israel floods in Syria,
starts taking over areas, starts building bases, starts
naming new areas for settlements.
But I can't that's none of that's real
if you listen to the corporate media or
the mainstream alternative media. Guys, it's literally
US government fighting wars for Syria's benefit on
the surface.
And now they're detaining civilians,
blocking roads, moving deeper in because this is
the Greater Israel Project. Guys, it's very, very
clear. On top of that, in regard to
the other side of this, you have the
Iran conversation. Well, The US has deployed a
second THAAD missile system to Israel.
Amid Iran tensions. You know, the tensions they're
manufacturing for the very benefit of what we're
dealing with here. Problem reaction solution, sort of
self fulfilling prophecy. The point is, guys, this
is continuing.
Propaganda and co had a great clip showing
you that this is already in the works,
guys. They already have plans laid out. It's
not hard to see. Now whether that's a
high a a feigned threat, I don't think
so, but it's up for you to decide.
The reality is even these, as we've seen
already, just since Trump's second administration, even the
floating of an idea can have repercussions.
They are pushing this into reality.
Tucker Carlson, of course, chimes in and says,
whatever you think of tariffs, which I didn't
get into today. I was gonna make some
points around that. I mean, it's the same
point. Anybody with a brain already knows what
they're doing is gonna be catastrophic. I mean,
even if you get everyone to fall and
get a cave to your bullying tactics, which
I don't know why anybody would respect that,
that is not the that will not create
a positive outcome in the long run. It
never does. It's economic warfare, and it almost
always leads to real warfare. That's historically reality.
But, regardless, I mean, I one quick note.
The whole push on China. Apparently, just before
I went live, China pulled back and said,
okay. We'll bow to what you said. So
they're they're gonna and rightly so. Maybe he's
right. Maybe you think he's on the right
of it. Maybe he is. The bottom line
is it is not the way to conduct
international engagements or international
cooperation
or in any context, working with other countries.
You're you're just doing this with allies. Anyway,
I'll go into that in a future show,
I'm sure, because the tariff thing doesn't seem
to go away. But, guys, we know this.
Tariffs are taxes on you. The people that
if anybody benefits from this, it will be
the the, the
upper echelon.
And I gave we forgot how trick
what's,
trickle down economics, you know, bragging. It doesn't
work, guys. It just doesn't work. The powerful
will never go, here's your cut. It's not
how it works out, even by default. But
the point is,
whatever you think of tariffs, it's clear this
is Tucker's car Tucker Carlson's tweet. It's clear
now that the worst possible time for The
United States to participate in a military strike
on Iran, you know, or or ever for
that matter. And it says, we can't afford
it though,
or we can't afford it, period. It says
thousands of Americans would die. We'd lose the
war that follows. Nothing would be more destructive
to our country. I agree. And this is
and that we're closer than ever, thanks to
the unrelenting pressure from neocons.
This is suicidal. Anyone advocating for conflict with
Iran is not an ally of The United
States, but an enemy. Okay. Here's what's so
fascinating to me. I mean, you you can't
miss you can't read this and not think
that he just called Trump an enemy of
the country.
Trump is actively promoting the idea of going
to war with Iran, so is Vance and
so is the rest of them. But, of
course, like all the rest of these people
making these points, you're never gonna see him
go, Trump isn't doing the right thing. He
has to go, it's all the neo cause.
It must be tricking him. I I mean,
it's just so lazy. Can't you guys have
the gumption, the constitution to be like, that
guy is doing the wrong thing, but I
still support him. Fine. Make the point. But
it's like owing out of their way to
make sure we don't criticize RFK Jr. Or,
or Trump because they're on our side as
you're literally saying the thing they're doing is
an enemy of the country.
How do people not see through this stuff?
I just don't get it. The bottom line,
yes. Going to war with Iran would be
catastrophic for this country. It always has been.
Honestly, frankly, I don't think this country would
even win something like that. Now that's maybe
I'm as wrong. Maybe I don't understand the
dynamic. I think it's obvious historically that we've
seen that this is not I mean, whether
it's all the rest of the countries getting
involved,
we've already kinda seen how this plays out
with what they're doing in Gaza, but the
bottom line is this is not in anybody's
interest other than Israel.
There's nothing that benefits this country by doing
any of this other than to do it
for Israel. Maybe Tucker sees it. He's not
saying that, though. But either way, I'm glad
he's at least pushing back on that, but
I get the sense this is about trying
to
justify what's about to be a turn because
then nobody's buying the direction. That's the sense
I get. And then ultimately, it's about blaming
somebody else other than Trump because that's gonna
continue. But, of course, I could be wrong.
Now in case you need any more evidence
to highlight the reality that, yes, Zionism and
Israel have been actively manipulating this country, and
Tucker and the rest of them have to
know that, or they're hiding it, or they're
part of it. I don't know how you
can miss obvious this is with what they're
pointing to. Here is yet another clip I've
shown before. Netanyahu has been maliciously influencing the
US government for decades, all while pushing for
Americans to die for Zionist agendas. None of
these wars have been in the interest of
Americans.
If you take away the Soviet Union and
its chief proxy, the PLO,
international terrorism would collapse.
If you take out Saddam,
Saddam's regime, I guarantee
you that it will have enormous
positive reverberations on the region. Obviously, we'd like
to see a regime change, at least I
would, in Iran, just as I would like
to see in Iraq. The question now is
a practical question.
What is the best place to proceed? It's
not a question of whether Iraq's regime should
be taken out, but when should it be
taken out? It's not a question of whether
you'd like to see a regime change in
Iran, but how do it Are there any
other nations that you would recommend that The
United States launch preemptive attacks upon at this
point? The answer is categorically yes. The,
the two nations that are vying, competing with
each other, who will be the first to
achieve nuclear weapons,
is Iraq and Iran. But,
a third nation, by the way, is Libya
as well. Libya is,
trying very rapidly to build
an atomic bomb capability. So you have here
now three all stand together to stop Iran's
march of conquest,
subjugation,
and terror.
I know that
no matter on which side of the aisle
you sit,
you stand with Israel. Yeah. That's true.
Oh, standing ovation.
For the podcast, we really gotta see a
face in this.
And, of course, Alan McLeod points out this
cartoon is almost 20 years old, but it
could have been published today.
And it shows a picture of the Earth.
The Earth is holding up a piece of
paper that says Israel's crimes against Palestinians,
and you've got a person with a star
of David, you know, a Zionist symbol, not
a Jewish symbol, who is rolling out tape
around the Earth's mouth that says antisemitism.
This has been going on for as far
back as you can look, guys, and this
is why you have people in the IDF
or or Holocaust,
academics
who have spoken about this stuff, who are
actively telling you this government uses these claims
to hide its crimes. That That doesn't have
to mean that the that there's not relevance
or importance to other parts of the conversation
or that there are very clear aspects of
antisemitism or racism.
Obviously, it is to highlight that regardless of
those things existing, that this is also happening.
It's very simple.
Goes back a long way.
Now to finish with a and we got
a little bit more to cover. But to
finish in general, we're gonna talk about the
overlapping conversation of the weaponized deportation. Now that
means what this ultimately is as far as
I can see. I mean, it's it's it's
a crime. The
the ongoing
lack of acknowledgment of our constitutional rights, the
the removal of them, if you look at
it that way, even though it's not possible.
And how clearly this is setting the table
for something that's coming next. But in the
weaponized idea of this, clearly, this is suppressing
speech. People are afraid to speak up.
So this started at least in this kind
of current part of it with Malmoud Khalil.
Now I wanna give you an update on
where he is because I I wanna make
sure we knew what was going on there.
But just starting it's March 13, we covered
this. Now remember the case with just Malmoud.
K? He was here legally in the country,
which I think is very relevant. Right? He
was in the country legally. He had no
criminal record. They have still, to this point,
never charged him with a crime. They're not
even claiming he committed a crime.
So the very first point that started that,
because don't forget, Batar US, a
Zionist,
like, seriously,
a rabid organization who's publicly calling for the
blood of children. I mean, like, explicitly, literally
saying we want more blood in regard to
the children list of zero under zero that
was posted on Twitter. These are the people
that are going after normal Finkelstein and saying,
here's a pager, who are the ones that
literally gave the name of Khalil to Bondi,
Rubio, and Trump
over and over and over across the week
until finally they got him first. You just
can't miss how clear that is. And so
the point is that this guy was not
a criminal. He was here legally. They never
tried him with a crime. So this whole
argument that, well, they're illegal immigrants. Well, that's
the second part of this we're gonna talk
about, but the first part was a very
clear,
massive deviation. And the the again, whatever you
think about him, he obviously still has due
process like anybody else in this country. They
can't just revoke. I think they were hoping
we would just let that happen. It was
at the table for them revoking anyone they
wanted. Now people, hopefully, are becoming more aware
that constitutional rights are not unique to simply
US citizens. That's not the reality. You can
prove it. I mean, ask Grok if that
makes you happier. It'll tell you point blank.
But here,
with Khalil, it set the tone.
Now what happened right after that, of course,
was where they went into the conversation of
El Salvador,
Venezuela. And what's weird is it kind of
combined these two things. One of them was
more about protesters and Israel and and Colombia.
This one went over to the idea of
the border.
Kings and MS 13 and and Venezuelan,
you know, Tri, Nicaragua, Trinidad, you know, all
these different overlaps, which weren't really the same
story, but weirdly enough, same solution. So the
interesting point here is that this is how
they're using this to build your support for
this. But what did we find out? Well,
that
most of these people were I mean, I
I literally, as far as I could tell
at this point, none of them had anything
other than subjective claims. If you have a
tattoo and you're in the wrong place with
the wrong skin color.
Nobody and look. I I actually believe that's
exactly what happened. And most of what we
now show proves that. But there's still a
few examples of somebody we don't know. I
thought I said in the beginning, it's probably
likely at least one of them or some
of them are part of these gangs. But
think about how crazy it is that they
have yet to prove that, which pretty much
shows you that they never even tried to
prove that, which means they don't have the
evidence, which they're just banking on the ongoing
narrative to drive this thing. But the point
is they send a bunch of people. Turns
out the vast majority of them that we
can prove have no criminal record. And here's
my important point in this.
Even if they were here illegally, even they
do have due process rights, and that was
a violation. But on top of that, we
proved, and we'll show you again today, that
at least, if I remember correctly, it was
at least 10 of them were here legally,
whether it was a Visa, a green card,
were seeking asylum,
or had been given asylum.
All of those things are legal realities, which
they can't just if you wanna jump in
and say, wait, you can't, you have to
then present the evidence of why, due process,
go to court. That's how this works, guys.
That is the legal reality. If you don't
like that, you can argue to change it.
But what they're doing is illegal, whether you
agree with it or not.
So first, with Khalil,
he was taken from New York
by ICE on March 8. Now what it
says is the agents were acting on orders
from the State Department to revoke his visa,
even though no evidence was presented, no due
process, never happened. When the agents were informed,
and this was so embarrassing, and we remember
we talked about this, when they were informed
that he actually was a permanent resident,
well, they said that would be taken as
dead. This is to show you how how
I mean, it was fly by the seat
of their pants. Like, they they just they
went after this guy because they were directed
to go after this guy. I mean, how
wild is that? They didn't even know what
actual documentation he had. So I don't know
how any other that, in my mind, completely
shows you that this was directed by somebody
else who said, take that guy, and they
just went after him. Didn't even have the
wherewithal to be like, let's build a case.
They just grabbed him and got rid of
him. And then even they were still saying
Visa well after when, no, he actually had
a green card.
That's very different, and it's wild to me.
But
it says that when the agents were informed
that he was a lawful permanent resident, they
said that would be revoked instead, and he
was transported to LaSalle
Detention Center in Louisiana.
Now his arrest was a direct response that
says of his active act advocacy for Palestinian
rights. He faces no criminal charges and has
not been convicted of a crime. They don't
even try to pretend he committed a crime.
They're literally telling you his ideology, his words,
his thoughts are why he's being deported. That
should be alarming for every American.
But his lawyers have asked him to be
released from the jail in Louisiana while he
challenges the government's efforts. It says he's argued
that the well, sorry. I'm jump jumping quickly.
It says, he's a lawful permanent resident who
is authorized in The United States to live
and work in the country.
The Trump administration argues that it's the Khalil's
challenge to this should be heard in Louisiana,
where he now it's detained. Now why they
do that? Because they feel that they have
more influence in Louisiana.
And most of these cases in these courts,
especially in these areas,
are very it's it's like the courts in
Israel for Palestinians. It's like a 90% in
one direction.
But he goes on to say where he
now he is now detained and where he
any appeals would be heard by the fifth
US Circuit Court of Appeals, the most conservative
in the country. That's why. Cavill's lawyers have
asked for him to be released from the
jail while he challenges it because let's realize,
he's not a criminal. He has no criminal
record. He's here legally.
This is an allegation based on the idea
that he's working with something that you can't
prove.
Why would you keep him in a jail
cell if all you have is the argument
that you think something? Like, that's just it's
just not how this country is we're told
it operates, but we know the reality it's
different.
But it's saying to deport him and says
in a separate case in immigration court, they
argue that Trump's administration improperly targeted him for
his political views. It's obvious.
US District Judge ordered the Trump administration
not to deport him until
the a judicial review.
So that's where we are. So he's literally
being held in a Louisiana prison until they
can just figure this out. That's not due
process. That is not how this works. This
is an abuse of power.
It's very simple.
Now we also followed up on the first,
Trump deportations
reveal
to Trump deportations reveal to be full of
innocent people, and I made sure to emphasize
this, and I still got pushed back. Legal
immigrants with no criminal record, like I just
said. Very important. And we went through this
is an important one to watch. We went
through a lot of these cases where you
can straight up prove that they were here
legally. Now I'm gonna go over some more
additional points to that. So this that show
right there was important to watch before when
I go into all this. And the reality
is that we can we can prove. Visas,
green cards, any important overlap, guys. And this
is something I really want you to hear
before I go into all this.
There the way that they're playing this game,
there are people that are coming to
a crossing somewhere,
not trying to sneak in, not jumping the
fence, but walking up there and saying, I'm
presenting myself
because I want to seek asylum.
Okay. So they take them into custody, and
then they have to be set up
a date and a hearing, assuming they, you
know, check them and they're not criminals. Right?
And so that's where a lot of these
people were, either in the process of doing
so, which they then call legal they call
they I'm gonna make a point about this
for specifically Garcia, where they go, he was
here illegally
as the basis for why he should be
removed, but he wasn't here illegally.
In his own court documentation that has been
confirmed, he went and presented himself so we
could go through the process and was in
the process of seeking asylum. And he was
the one that was the judge ordered before
all of this that he would not be
allowed to go back to El Salvador because
he was at risk. They sent him anyway.
And that's the guy right now, we'll get
to in a second, that they're saying has
to be returned. That's one of many. There's
the gay barber guy who shouldn't be there.
That's a terrifying story. Apparently, he's suffering right
now. None of these people are criminals. No
criminal record. Everyone we're gonna mention were here
legally
and are some of them are currently rotting
in a prison that seems they'll never be
able to come away from. It's it's pretty
terrifying. And so remember that, that we have
these examples of people. And the point I
was making is that they're playing that limbo
where they come up they come up and
present themselves, and there's a period of time
before they are even given a date to
apply for asylum where they pretend they're illegal
aliens. I mean, that's not the truth. I
don't I don't know why you would call
yourself an illegal alien or they would call
them that other than political manipulation when somebody's
trying to go through the process.
If you're filing a green card, does it
make you an illegal alien until you get
it? I don't I I think that's a
manipulation. Now if you wanna pretend that's the
case, at least make the distinction to say
that people are in going through the legal
process and in the limbo are that. The
problem is that people are hearing that and
pretending they broke the law. Well, no. He
didn't break the law. He tried to go
through legal process and you abused that limbo
to pretend he was a criminal and used
false evidence to back it up. And we'll
go over it again.
It's insane how obvious this is. It's these
people are I think it's obvious that the
Trump administration is aware that they are breaking
the law and they're just they're gonna double
down. Why not? Because anything else is gonna
get you in trouble.
Now Jared Holt here for this is,
not familiar with his work, but he posted
this link from CBS.
Sixty minutes, quote, could not find criminal records
for seventy five percent of the 238 men.
Now first point, guys,
whether or not you think that every one
of them were here illegally,
which I can prove to you that mo
that at least many of them that I'm
seeing that I can prove are not, which
makes you then question whether maybe any of
them weren't. But the point is we don't
know because they never presented any evidence. So
why would you assume in the favor of
the government? That seems pretty historically unsmart.
But my point is that
even if you think they were all here
illegally,
how are you gonna rationalize,
one, sending people who are in this country
to some foreign prison that they've never been
to in a country they've never been to
for people that are not criminals?
Like, again, whether you think they snuck in
this country or not and or or they're
abusing the limbo of some of them who
are actually trying to do the right thing,
The point is the same, that you don't
this is a con this is a terrifying
prison with some of the worst people on
the planet. And not only are Americans paying
for you to send them there, paying for
them to stay there, they don't deserve to
be there. I mean, it's just it's just
so this is this is human nature, guys.
This is about whether you're a you care
about human life or not.
And now it goes on to say, of
the 22% of the records that the, quote,
vast majority are for nonviolent offenses. Right? So
the other group, most of them aren't even
they're, you know, smoking weed or stealing things.
You know, nonviolent crimes. Trump admins still insist
that they're terrorists.
That's the point. They're just calling them all
terrorists, even though it appears right now that
it seems like most of them, if not
all of them, simply are not.
Here's the article.
And this this one is specifically and that's
the guy right there. He's a barber, a
gay barber who was sent there. And it's
I mean, the tattoos are like a I
mean, it's
the the we the nuance of this is
important, but the idea of whether the tattoo
the tattoo point is important because you can
prove that they're being wildly opaque broad about
it. A bull's hat becomes well, bull Michael
Jordan was on the bulls and Michael Jordan
twenty three, and '23 relates to that Venezuelan
city. So, therefore, the bull's hat is that
he's a criminal that they've done that. I'll
show you the document.
But this is The US sent 02/1938 migrants
to Salvadorian mega prison. Documents indicate most have
no apparent criminal record. Now it says they
are now prisoners.
Among them, a makeup artist, a soccer player,
a food delivery driver. We've talked about every
one of these. Every one of them were
here legally being held in a place so
harsh that El Salvador's Justice Minister once said
the only way out is in a coffin.
Now it says Andre is a 31 year
old Venezuelan.
He's a makeup artist. He's a gay man.
He loves to do theater. He is part
of a theater troupe in his hometown. It
says he does not have a criminal record
in The United States or Venezuela. He says
he left his home country last year because
he was targeted for being gay and his
political views.
Last May, Andre made the long trek in
based,
Daring Gap in New Mexico where he eventually
got an appointment
to seek asylum in The United States. Now
you can prove all this. I've gone over
the documents, guys. So when he got the
appointment for the asylum,
as he presented himself to the to wherever
he crossed,
he then was in the legal process of
trying to get asylum
from a country that's been destroyed by the
United States government. So there's very clear reasons
to think that's the very the very least,
the United States government should take some responsibility
for that. But it says at a legal
border crossing,
legal border crossing in near San Diego, he
was taken into custody while his case was
processed.
So the bottom line, guys, is there's countless
examples like this where they're abusing
the ignorance of the conversation.
Now here is Aaron Melnick,
Aaron Rushland Melnick, who is the lawyer in
regard to a lot of this immigration conversation,
and he's been posting a lot of again,
whatever you think about him or his political
views, you can prove what he's showing you.
He gives you the court documents. He makes
it an objective point that you can verify
for yourself. So if you ignore those things
because you don't like him or where he
comes from or his political views, then you're
the dumb one in the conversation. It doesn't
matter in the context of if you can
prove the information who says it. This is
tonight we learned that it was indeed Andre,
a gay man, sent to El Salvador because
of his mom and dad tattoos, who an
American journalist saw sobbing as guards slapped him
repeatedly.
He's an innocent, and Trump sent him to
the torture prison. Bring him back. Now you
can see this in a report that came
out,
sixty minutes, and we already basically highlighted this
a second ago. And the point is you
can see in this breakdown of one of
the people that has been identified by a
family member is him being basically roughed up
by these guards. And this is a very
common thing we're hearing here, guys. That these
people are abused. They're beat up. One of
the guys that came, from before all this,
who spoke about what he dealt with in
the prison, was telling you that they basically
just they they beat him up. They tried
to get him to to confess to being
a terrorist, then they kicked him in a
room with guards and other prisoners who then
beat him up for days. That's this is
a common understanding. It's a place where they
have no they have one small window, if
any, of sunlight. They work they they are
outdoor labor or excuse me. I mean, I
I
forget it was outdoor. And I I think
I would imagine it's probably not. So the
point is labor, hard labor. When you're inside,
you're trapped inside no matter what, if you
get out at all. You know? And this
is a
a place that the argument is you never
leave. That if you ever get any kind
of a,
hearing, it's hundreds of people in the same
room with one TV screen and one judge.
You realize if you're an innocent person like
most of them seem to be who are
sent there, the argument that you have any
way to get out seems almost impossible.
Assuming a judge or without a judge saying
that guy has to be sent back, which
is what we'll talk about next. Even then,
it seems the US government is saying, sorry.
We can't do anything about that, which should
be insulting to all of us.
Now, here is another example. I know that
this is another person that was sent there.
We sent and this is based on this.
You could read it from CBS News. Photojournalists
witnessed Venezuelan migrants arriving in El Salvador.
And it says
the title was, they had no idea what
was coming.
Now he says, we we sent the I
I hate the way they frame that. The
US government sent this man to rot in
a prison in El Salvador because he had
tattoos that said mom and dad with little
crowns over them. He grew up in a
town famous for the Three Kings Day pageant,
which, you guessed it, features crowns.
That's just that's how subjective this becomes. Now
this one, we're gonna go to this clip
at the end. We already played at the
beginning where Trump yet again reiterated that sending
Americans to a foreign prison is something he
would love. Of course, within the law, of
course, he says, which is a meaningless statement
when you realize that everything they're doing right
now is illegal because they just claim, well,
they're terrorists, therefore, it makes it legal. No,
it does not. That's the point though, is
they say within the law, which allows a
lot of the followers to go, well, he
said he would do it legally. So we
can ignore the fact that he's threatening some
Americans to a foreign prison. As long as
it's legal, then it's okay. Right?
It's just absolutely ridiculous. A reminder, it says
the Trump administration has revealed no details
of its pact with El Salvador, which is
kind of alarming when you think about it.
We literally know nothing about this other than
we're paying them $6,000,000
apparently to house a bunch of innocent people.
No long United States authorizes the United States
government to pay another country to imprison people,
and yet they're doing it. And even saying
that we can extend from there and maybe
do so with Americans.
Outrageous.
Now, we played this already. I'll play both
these very quick because this is one of
the examples we've been highlighting. Mister,
Abrego.
It says, this is wild, Aaron writes. There's
no accusations in court, and we hired this
one already, that he was involved in human
trafficking. That was something that Leavitt put out
because I think she was told to say
it. They've only ever claimed he was a
leader of MS thirteen, even though he was
picked up in a Home Depot parking lot
in 02/2019.
They picked him up with a bunch of
people, released him with no charge, and just
wrote down MS thirteen on the piece of
paper, but never charged him. He never got
it. And they later today claimed that means
he's a leader of MS thirteen.
But it turned out that all he had
was some kind of, you know, paraphernalia or
a hat or I forget what it was.
I'm trying to remember the exact details. There's
so many cases we've gone over. The bottom
line is that you can clearly show that
the documents I I have the tweet right
here.
It was a bull's hat. That's the left
one I was thinking of. So he wore
a bull's hat.
Here's Aaron saying the evidence they submitted.
He had a bulls
Chicago Bulls gear. A confidential informant simply said
he was part of it. That's it. Now
you read their own documentation and the court
document is included, you clearly see that they
released him with no charge. How in the
world that comes to today and they claim
he's a leader of this gang?
Secondarily, that they just happen to include that
he's also human trafficking. Because I think they
know that will resonate with a certain crowd,
that there is zero evidence to back that
up, and that's what he's saying. He was
involved. There there's no even they're not even
presenting that to the court. They're not saying
the the court evidence they're presenting, they're not
claiming he's human trafficking. So why are they
saying that to the audience? I think you
know why. ICE and DOJ have said nothing
like that to the judge. In fact, he
writes, no one has ever even accused him
of that outside of them presenting this to
the media. This entire claim appears to be
involved in invented by the White House. So
here's the most recent claim. People should know
who this individual is. He's not some Maryland
father as the mainstream media will make you
believe. He's actually a member of MS thirteen
who was involved in human trafficking.
It's unbelievable
the framing of this. Whether this man is
in El Salvador or or in a US
detention center, he should be locked up and
people God, it's it makes my skin crawl
to think about how disgusting this is. This
woman is repeating this because she was told
to repeat it or because leave it, said
it, therefore, we know it's true. None of
the let's be clear. That's not backed up
by evidence. So all the people screaming this,
repeating this, are simply repeating a thing they
were told is true. I'm willing to bet
you most of them don't even know that's
stupid. They just they they are convinced it's
real because Trump said or Biden said, whatever
partisan narrative. That's what these people are, or
they're knowingly lying to you.
And and the idea that he's not a
father well, he's a father regardless of what
you claim about him. And arguably, somehow, Vance
literally said because he had traffic tickets and
other things, he's not really the father of
the year. They're saying that for a reason.
They're trying to dehumanize a man they know
they illegally sent to a prison does not
belong
and that they now know shouldn't be there.
And now they're admitting it was a mistake,
and they still are pushing narratives like this.
It is disgusting. These are bad people, guys.
The the lowest of the low in my
opinion. Here's Leavitt saying it before that. Yeah.
It is. Vice president
convicted member of MS thirteen. What evidence is
there Now, again, convicted. See, they're lying all
over the place. Even their own information proves
he was never convicted.
So they're they're caught. It's just like Netanyahu
or the Israeli government going, no. No sirens
were on. Oh, you have video of that?
Oh, well, then they are, but here's another
reason. They just jumped down the line. They're
doing this right in front of you. Have
the courage to call it out. To back
that up. There's a lot of evidence. And
the Department of Homeland Security and ICE have
that evidence, and I saw it this morning.
Oh, oh, okay. Great. There's a lot. Great
answer. What's the evidence? Oh, there's a lot
of evidence.
Understood.
Moving forward.
I I guess that's enough for people in
the Twitter Twitter files universe that we live
in. But the reality is that they're very
clearly stressing the idea that this is somebody
who is a gang member, a leader, and
a human trafficker,
just to get people leaning into a certain
direction. Now here's what's crazy. The Hill writes
the article that says federal judge in scathing
decision calls Trump deportation in El Salvador or
of of of El Salvador man wholly lawless.
Now, of course, they've gone out of their
way to frame this as radical judges, which
I think all of them are probably radically
motivated for one political reason or another. It
has not changed the reality of the dynamic
that they can obviously challenge anything they're doing
from a legal standpoint, and the Trump administration's
executive branch has the right to challenge it
back. Take it to supreme court if you
want to. That's how the system works. The
and the fact that Elon is out there
bribing people to try to get judges out
of place even though they just failed, by
the way, I didn't end up going into
that because it's it didn't work out, but
it's worth covering at some point. How we
literally tried to bribe people to sign
petitions to get rid of judges. I mean,
it's it's after they just got done telling
you Democrats are bribing everybody to vote. They're
probably all doing that. What's crazy to me
is this is lawless regardless of whether you
think that judge is politically motivated. It's provably
lawless. What's funny is this guy goes, understand
the judge didn't get his way, but the
history of this El Salvadorian man is not
that of some innocent person randomly selected.
Oh, and this is guy this is Jeffrey.
Not a huge account, but simply highlighting this.
And what is his evidence? Yeah. A screenshot.
A screenshot of a document that simply reads
out what the government said. I'm not making
that up. And it literally says,
he was caught and detained back in 02/2019
and was subject to jail and deportation. No.
He was not. Because technically, he was picked
up and never charged or even actually arrested.
He was simply picked up and released, never
charged with a crime. And even then, if
that was the case, he would still have
to go have due process. It's just insane
what we're dealing with. But mister Garcia asked
to be released on bail in the meantime,
prompting a deeper inquiry of the man. They're
just this is the narrative they're spinning even
though you can prove this is not true.
Hold on. I just lost my screen. There
we go. The bottom line, it kinda jumped
to the end here as he says, his
attorney, they claimed asylum for Garcia using a
particular argument. They said that he had credible
flack of a fear. Okay. So you just
admitted that he had asylum. They did give
him that, and they sent him back anyway.
That's a crime. The judge considered the asylum
application and offered a shocking ruling. They granted
a repeat reprieve from deportation. Now this is
a gross misrepresentation of the entire situation. The
bottom I mean, really, the point to make
is that how crazy it is that you
can just highlight and cite a screenshot
of the written the typed out narrative that
the government says. How do you think that's
evidence?
I mean, how do you think that's proof?
Evidence? Yes. A data point. But it's actually
terrible evidence because it's not even anything you
can prove. It is simply what they said.
And this person says, literally, the only evidence
the government offered was an unsubstantiated
allegation from an informant and a picture of
him in a Bulls jersey. See, they this
is easily proven directly from the court documents.
Jeffrey here seems to think just whatever the
White House said that day is more important.
That's where we are right now. Now Melnick
also point this out. This was what they
said
in response to this. A federal judge ordered
The US to return the Maryland man mistakenly
deported. That was on the fourth.
The White House says, we suggest the judge
contact president Bukele because we are unaware of
the judge having jurisdiction or authority over the
country of El Salvador.
I mean, that's about as gross as Bukele
saying, oopsie, when they landed the plane and
the judge told them to send it back.
Like, they think this is a game or
a joke. Like, this is not like, if
they can just I mean, the reality is
they do think they're on account that they're
having,
what's the word?
That they just they're not accountable. They can
get away with whatever they want. The word
that fits in there. The point is that
re the re the clear reality here is
that they're taunting them. They're acting like we're
above you. You can't do anything to us.
Sorry. You can check with them. I mean,
this is so insulting on so many levels.
The idea that you are pretending that you
can't just be like, hey. Send that one
back, the one that we're paying for you
to hold,
And they go, okay. Here he is on
a plane. Like, this is not some some
deep
these are people acting
unilaterally,
illegally, from both sides of this, in a
national sense, in every sense, to pretend like
they have some kind of system they have
to apply to. Like, they're playing everybody and
people are falling for it. But he says,
can't get over how egregious this response is.
This is a lawyer speaking. He understands the
law around this because it suggests a world
where they can send anyone to El Salvador,
even US citizens, because they've said that, in
total violation of law, so long as they
get people out of the country before a
judge can stop
them. Think about how wild that is. It's
a dangerous path to go down. Now, I
agree with that. My point on top of
it is that are we really gonna pretend
like that's true?
Like they just can't deal with it? Oopsie.
It's too late now. I mean, that's insulting
to everybody. They're making fun of us. Now
BBC says US Joel judge scolds Trump officials
for failing to return man deported in air.
This was yesterday.
It says a US Judge issued a scathing
opinion against Trump administration after immigration officials admitted
to having mistakenly deported him. Now here's what's
insane to me, is that we've now gone
from that I'm completely wrong or anybody covering
this is a liar. Glenn Greenwald, even though
he's a constitutional lawyer, doesn't understand the constitution
because he was an illegal alien and he
was breaking the law and blah blah blah.
So now, oops, we made a mistake and
we shouldn't have sent him. Okay. Let's take
a beat before we continue and let's reflect
on the fact that that's what we were
saying, that this was a mistake and they
didn't you know? Guys, if you can acknowledge
that they that they made a mistake even
though we don't that's not the reality. I'm
not on screen, but those were air quotes
you heard right there.
The idea is that simply that we that
you have to consider that there's others that
they were mistaken about or that they never
checked any of them, and this is the
one they're trying to give you to kind
of release the steam valve.
Because I've proven this with other examples. This
is not the only case.
So, again, if you're an honest person out
there and still believe you're supporting trial, you
do what you want, but just have the
honesty and the integrity to call out that
you know this is wrong. You know it.
If you're an honest person, you know it.
And it says the opinion
issued by the US Judge, and this is
what's in the judge Paula, I think it's
Zenis for the next.
I mean, do you remember the whole portion
in the beginning? Also, radical judges look there,
but, you know, what's funny is you have
seen examples from judges on the left and
the right who have continued to push back
on a lot of this stuff, whether it's
deportations,
USAID.
Funny how they only wanna highlight the one
they could Loomer can make some claim about.
This is the guy that tied to this.
Well, sure. They're all politically radical. I think
they're all like that. But you fail to
acknowledge the ones that aren't leaning left when
you don't want you know, it's just dishonest
everywhere. Now this one, I believe, was appointed
by Obama, but my point is the same.
The legal reality is clear, and they have
continued to see it on all sides of
this. Now it says on, the opinion issued
by that judge on Sunday reaffirms
her earlier ruling that demands
Garcia be returned to The US by Monday
night. Now, technically,
I believe it was Monday today.
Maybe I got the maybe it was Monday
mid like, Monday midnight. I well, like, right
now, as I understood it, they were already
supposed to have him back by today,
middle of the day. But that does say
Monday night, so maybe there's different they change.
But it says, the judge says mister Garcia
was seized, quote, without any lawful authority, easily
proven and true, and held without legal basis,
easily proven and true, in, quote, direct contravention
of US law, easily proven and true.
Whoever says it, it's easy. I've gone over
this extensively, guys. It's very easy to back
up with the law, the constitution.
Trump officials argue that they are unable to
return him because, get this, they lack the
authority to remove him from a jail in
El Salvador, a man that they're literally paying
to house there.
So stop paying him then. Maybe he'll just
send him back anyway. Like, it's so insulting
to pretend like they're just their hands are
bound. We're gonna break the law to do
this, but we can't do it back. I
mean, it's just it's it's incredible to me.
The Justice Department has asked an appeals court
to dismiss the judge's order. Now that's what
happened
last. So So right up they were coming
right up to the timeline when they were
supposed to get the guy back, and then
they reached out to an appeal
in regard to this taking the Supreme Court
to argue that they, basically to dismiss the
judge's order. The appeals court is expected to
rule by Sunday. Oh, wait. I thought hold
on. Make sure I didn't get this wrong.
I believe well, let me go through the
rest of the articles. This is still kind
of developing. This article is from yesterday. I
thought there was a mention of the supreme
court in the last one. Either way, to
be clear on this article, it's saying
that the appeals court was is expected to
rule by Sunday evening. So you know what
kills me about this, guys? Is it we're
talking about this being now I well, I
mean, I can't tell if they're talking about
this from yesterday as in yesterday evening. They're
supposed to rule on that or not. We'll
go through the other articles. The point is
that they pushed back, and they're supposed to
rule on whether that's the case or not.
Now I believe this has gone higher. Let's
keep going in the articles. And this is
from the the today. Trump administration asked Supreme
Court to block order returning the man. Now
really take a second and think about how
crazy that is. Like, to think about how
insane it is to admit that you did
this wrong. Right? We made a mistake. This
guy shouldn't have been sent to the torture
camp we sent him to.
Then not only not trying to get him
back, but fighting to maintain that wrong thing.
Like, going out of your way to not
just like, you could say, well, our hands
are tied. That's one thing. But for them
to go after them and try to they're
like, again, look at the article, guys. Look
what it says. Trump administration asked the Supreme
Court. That's what I was saying. So it's
gone so just to be clear about the
rapid fire information there, it seems that yesterday,
they tried they put it to a appeals
court and they got denied. Now they're asking
the Supreme Court today, right before the deadline,
to to stop this.
Why would you do that? Why would you
go to Supreme Court to be like, please
stop them from rectifying the mistake we made?
I mean, it's
dishonest, illegal,
corrupt. I don't know. You decide for yourself.
Why would you ever do that unless it's
because you want that person to stay there
whether or not they deserve to be there?
Why would you think that makes sense? Think
about it for a second.
Now, what the article says,
the Trump administration on Monday, that's today, asked
the Supreme Court to block a court order
requiring it to return a Maryland man, Maryland
man, who was sent to a notorious prison
in El Salvador.
I I honestly genuinely think they don't want
him to come back because it'll be a
huge legal problem for them. That means they're
willing to put a man in a dangerous
prison he does not belong in for the
rest of his life just to stop you
from having a problem.
They're honest people, clearly. The justice department argued
in an emergency appeal to the justices that
the US District Judge, and this is the
only argument they're making,
overstepped her authority when she ordered the person
to be returned.
Even though they said they made a mistake,
even though that's the legal
that's the legal rectification. Right? Well, how do
you make that better? Well, you bring it
back.
And they stand up and go, you don't
have the authority to tell us to rectify
our mistake?
Well, that's exactly your authority. That's literally the
authority of the check and balance of how
the system works. I think they're desperately trying
to misinform average people to think that somehow
this is Democrats abusing their power because that
seems to be the best argument they have
these days.
And the reality is they're all doing that.
But it says the administration has conceded that
Garcia, his last name,
should not have been sent to El Salvador.
Okay? Because an immigration judge found he likely
would face persecution by local gangs. That was
the original point before they ever sent him,
and that was the original idea of asylum
that he was granted.
That's the reason that they broke the one
of the many reasons they broke laws around
this. But he is no longer in US
custody, and the government has no way to
get him back, they argued.
Totally. They can't just call Beccahle and say,
send him back. We'll stop paying you. Quote,
the district court's injunction, which requires Garcia's release
from the custody of a foreign sovereign and
return to The United States by midnight oh,
so it is Monday, Monday. So tonight, which
I seems to be that they're not gonna
do that. We'll see what happens.
Is patent is patiently patently waiting, it says.
Now, what's interesting to me,
if it turns out that he does make
it back by tonight,
what is that gonna show you? The fact
that they went out of their way to
try to stop this, but clearly could have
done it the entire time. I kinda don't
think that's gonna happen, but if it does,
that'll be an important point to make. Clearly,
they always could have, and they dragged their
feet in every way they could to make
sure he stayed in danger. That just shows
you how what bad people they are. But
I kinda get the sense that he's not
gonna return. They're gonna take this as far
as they can. It seems like they're pretty
much committed to this illegal direction.
But it goes on to say,
a federal appeals court in Richmond, Virginia, that
was what we were saying earlier, denied their
request for the stay. There is no question.
The second court p ruled that the government
screwed up here.
Obvious.
Now here is the last one, and this
is from the seventh, but later in the
day, judge asks why Trump administration has made
no attempt to fix mistakes.
Kind of the point we're making here. Right?
It seems like a logical point to make.
It says, in a unanimous decision, the panel
of three judges agreed
that the original judge and the order requiring
him to be brought back,
basically was legitimate and should not be stayed,
and it needs to be before midnight tonight.
The United States government has no legal authority,
they write, to snatch a person who is
lawfully present in The United States off the
street and remove him from a country without
due process. Oh my god. It's almost like
exactly what we've been screaming for a week
and a half. It's true and easy to
verify. All these people acting like because
some judge says it, therefore it must be
the Democrats. You're lost in the partisan game.
They're using it to play you even if
that's a real consideration. It always is.
It's like like, the same point about the
due process. If you can look go to
Grok and say, is that the case? And
he goes, yes. Clearly.
Why would you keep ignoring this stuff? Like,
I think it's clear that there's a lot
of people that have a political agenda.
So it's important as always to question everything
and check everything for yourself, guys, because there's
a lot of people in political fields, most
of it, as far as I can tell,
who are desperate to deceive you.
It says the government
the government's contention otherwise that they are allowed
to do this and its argument that the
federal courts are powerless to intervene are unconscionable.
Better way to put that is simply
wrong. It's just simply not the reality, but
it is unconscionable. And I says, if it
is truly a mistake,
I would agree with that starting statement. How
this does not seem like a mistake to
me. If it was truly a mistake,
one would also expect the government to do
what it can to rectify it, right?
Most of us attempted to to undo
most of us attempt to undo to the
extent that we can the mistakes that we
have made. But to the best of my
knowledge, the government has not made that attempt
here.
Exactly. They're not even trying to make this
better, so it speaks otherwise. In a concurring
opinion, The US Circuit Judge Robert King and
US Circuit Judge Stephanie Thacker said if the
government wanted to prove the Maryland man was
sent to El Salvador was a prominent member
member of MS thirteen,
they had ample opportunity to do so, but
has not even bothered to try.
The same point about Yemen and all the
rest, guys. If they had the evidence that
would make it a slam dunk, it would
have already been shoved in your face. It
says the government has made no effort to
demonstrate that Garcia is in fact a member
of any gang because the evidence is pretty
clear that he's not. And that's where they
leave it, in hopes that their sycophant followers
will carry the narrative for them.
Now,
Melnick also points out, and this is going
back to the idea of the statement again,
when they said that they, you know, I
don't know. You don't have the jurisdiction to,
you know, want to speak to Bukele about
sending this person back. It says, wrongful deportations
are not new. This goes back before this
conversation. It's a good point to make.
Just in general, in the past, there's been
mistakes.
I mean, you could argue in the past
they were on purpose, but let's just say
we could prove there was an accidental deportation.
We know that's happened. Somebody gets picked up
in the wrong context, happens to have the
wrong, you know, whatever it is, and they
get sent. It's happened before. His point is
that there has been examples and precedent set
where they have brought them back.
So why is it not as simple as
as that today? He says in most cases,
ICE and or the Department of Justice acknowledge
the mistake and work with the person's lawyers
in their home country to reverse the error.
Simple. Right?
Here and it goes, here's a whole list
of cases where they've done it before. So
this is very common and very clear the
judge does have that authority. They're They're just
trying to convince people otherwise for very obvious
reasons. Now,
Good Good Morning America put this out. DOJ
places senior lawyer on leave
in the case of mistaken deported man. Now
this is actually so incredibly telling to me.
It says that the the Department of Justice
has placed in on indefinite paid leave the
attorney who argued on behalf of the government
just to make sure this man stayed in
Venice in in in El Salvador.
And it says the sources the acting deputy
director of the Office of Immigration Litigation was
told by officials of the DOJ, get this,
that he was being placed on leave over
a failure to zealously advocate for the government's
interest.
It's just great way to develop loyalty by
just getting oh, you didn't do you didn't
win, so you're fired. At the end of
the day, I get my gut tells me
one of two things.
Either this guy is not a terrible person
and realized that this was gross what he
was doing, but still did his job. And
maybe they sense that and didn't like that
he wasn't just blindly advocating for the government
narrative, or he just tried and didn't win.
That's enough. It just it's just we're dealing
with some pretty gross people. I think it's
important. And it's not left and right. It
is simply the way our government's operated for
a long time.
Now,
in regard to Garcia
and where he is, and And this is
just simply what Brave said, so take it
for what you will. But I was just
curious. Right? So this is and I actually
thought this was of the mindset that I
thought it was noon today. I misread that.
The point is that right now, it's 7PM.
It's supposed to be midnight tonight. And
And even depending on where you are, I
think that's still within the realm of, like,
so it's not there yet. And I I
said within the last hour, Garcia remains in
a notorious mega jail in El Salvador. So
on the fall tonight and see what changes,
I get the feeling that's not gonna shift.
Now last two points here. There's a couple
interesting overlaps in regard to people that went
to Guantanamo Bay. Now I thought that this
kinda floored me today. I didn't even know
that was I heard that floated,
and I I didn't think it was even
happening. But apparently, since February, there's been a
bunch of people sent to Guantanamo Bay for
these same conversations.
Why didn't we talk about this? It's just
kinda crazy to me. Now, David says,
here's the declaration of a man who entered
The United States legally
and was sent to Guantanamo Bay
explaining
the cruelty with which the Trump officials treated
him. Now I would be clear to say
that this is not unique to Trump.
Clearly, everyone's got their political leanings, but the
point is this has been going on for
a very long time. Obama signed the NDAA
in regard to a definite detention of American
that Trump and Biden have continued that and
all of them signed it forward, but recognize
it's a nonpartisan thing. But here's what I
found most important.
Here's the actual and this is specifically about
Luis Alberto Castillo Rivera. Now all of these
people, same conversation, guys. That's what we're talking
about today. People that were legally
let's put it this way. Illegally removed from
the country, no criminal record.
Now this is declaration of Luis Alberto Castillo
Riviera. The point I think is important,
I entered The United States on January 19
with a c a a border patrol appoint
one appointment.
This is all this is in court doc.
You can verify this stuff, guys. The reality
is they see set up an appointment.
This guy was not trying to break in
the country. He set up an appointment to
bait to claim to either start, the process
or, in this case, claim asylum. It says
despite following the legal process and having family
in The United States, I was detained and
never get a chance given a chance to
see a judge or present my asylum case.
That's against the law. That's against US law.
Whether you agree with it or not,
somebody who's trying to enter the country legally,
trying to set up an asylum case is
not an illegal alien. That's not a reality
of that, even if that is what they
call them in limbo. My point is it's
not the way that people are dealing with
this now, acting like that means he broke
the law. Clearly, he did not if he
tried to go through the process.
That's very important to me. So my point
is this is somebody who was sent to
Guantanamo Bay
and is currently still there. And, of course,
you can read this and recognize that they
were treated like you might imagine, like everything
else we've discussed.
Now here's his story. Family of a Venezuelan
man sent to Guantanamo.
And his family's you know, again, just like
the rest of them, maybe they're lying. But
you know how we would find out if
they were lying? If he was given due
process and evidence was present presented which it
never was. My brother is not a criminal,
they say.
Now it says, Luis Alberto Castillo, a father
of a father of one from Venezuela, entered
The United States on January,
'1 day after Donald Trump became president for
a second term.
By February 4, mister Castillo was on a
plane to the to a US Navy base
at Guantanamo Bay. Talk about overkill for crying
out loud. I mean, especially since there was
a process underway. It says that that day,
the Department of Homeland Security declared that those
who had been transferred to the island represented,
quote, the worst of the worst
And we're all members of the Venezuelan criminal
group, Trende Aragua.
By the way, the same exact claim they
made about people sent to El Salvador. Even
now they've kind of watered down oh, no.
Maybe MS 13 or maybe not even at
all or maybe not criminals or maybe they
were here legally.
They're lying to you.
That's a
fact. So, if we hear this worst of
the worst and we recognize this guy was
arguably not part of that and was set
in that group, then there's something to be
questioned here. This is her brother. Her brother's
his brother was not a gang member, she
says. Rather, an everyday Venezuelan, just like the
rest, who seems to have been fleeing the
country because of The US attacks on this
country. The economic crisis, she writes. My point
is that's because of the US government.
Says my brother is not a criminal. This
is all discrimination and xenophobia just because he's
Venezuelan.
Given that and let's be clear again. We
know that's the fact in some cases that
we already saw. So it should you could
argue that's not true here, but you know
it's already happening because we can prove that.
So fifty fifty as far as I can
tell. Given that mister Castillo had spent such
little time in The United States, she questioned
how the US government could have determined that
he was a member of this gang or
was worthy of such a harsh treatment. Because
both those things are important different. Right? Just
because you might be part of something does
not mean you justify sending you to a
concentration camp.
That says after he entered The United States,
Officials suspected Castillo of being a member of
the gang because of his tattoos.
According to two people familiar with this case
who were not authorized to discuss it publicly.
Now look, tattoos are a data point, Something
you can consider in the investigation. But to
claim somebody's a gang member or a terrorist,
you damn well better have evidence to prove
it. Not just, that's a tattoo, get rid
of him because he's brown. That's what we've
been seeing. That's already been proven.
Now it says he did not admit to
being a part of the criminal group.
Later, officials assessed his tattoos
and interviewed him, and they found that he
did not appear to have ties with Tran
de Aragua. That's this is this is on
on the record. In an email, a spokeswoman
for the Department of Homeland Security said that
mister Castillo was in The United States illegally
and had filed deportation orders issued by a
federal judge. But you you know the story,
guys. He was trying to go through asylum.
Now it says during now this is what
we've seen, like I said, the limbo, where
the Trump administration seems to be just trying
to reach some kind of quota and are
just getting rid of people that are here
in that limbo process even though there's plenty
of other people wandering around the country that
are that did hop the fence or sneak
in who they don't know are there. They're
going after people that are trying to do
the right thing. So you're essentially getting rid
of the people by and large that are
not the criminals by going after it that
way. That shows you that it's not even
about any of the narrative they're trying to
tell you. It's about trying to convince you
of something while doing something else. That's my
opinion, obviously.
Says during further assessment, intelligence officers could not
definitively determine
whether he was part of Tranday Aragua or
not. That's their quote.
So they got rid of him anyway, just
to be safe. That's not how this works,
guys. It says, in the interview, mister Castillo's
sister shared a screenshot that indicated that he
had not tried to evade authorities
when he entered the country. That's on the
record in the court documents. The image included
details of an appointment that she he had
already made with the border control to seek
asylum.
See, they're abusing the situation, guys, and all
these rabid followers make every one of them
out to be, as they claim, terrorists and
monsters, the worst of the worst. Now these
are average people who are suffering because of
US foreign policy, who are genuinely trying to
go through the right process, who are being
sent to concentration camps. Meanwhile, the people that,
you know, you can go in those so
many directions. The weaponized migration elements or the
Mossad agents or the they're all flooding through
this country while they're going after people that
are trying to do the right thing.
It says over the last week, The United
States Government has sent more than 80 people,
eight zero, to Guantanamo Bay. How is that
possible? As part of a larger plan by
the Trump administration to hold as many as
30,000 migrants
at Guantanamo Bay.
So far, all detainees
detainees are believed to be Venezuelans.
There's something to that, guys. That's not an
accident.
As is the Pentagon has described the first
few Guantanamo arrivals as high threat
illegal aliens,
except that he wasn't illegal and he wasn't
high threat. So the question is,
have they proven any of these? Or is
it just a floated narrative of getting the
bad guys while you're simply scooping up brown
people and getting rid of the or anybody
calling out Israel, by the way? Mister Castillo
is believed to be among the first ten
men who were sent there.
Right. So they're telling you, high threat illegal
aliens. We can prove he's not. So if
he's part of the group they claim, then
we should question whether the rest of them
are as well.
Very simple. It says, like many Venezuelans, mister
Castillo had left his country years ago and
was living in Colombia washing cars. His sister
said he was barely scraping by and left
for The United States in hopes of making
more money to give everything to his son.
And remember, Rubio, who's currently in power, was
one of the ones back in the last
administration going, come on, Venezuelans.
Come over here. We'll give you asylum.
Right? He was very he did that. He
posted about that more than once.
Not only did they completely leave a lot
of them in limbo left stranded,
but the point is many of them have
followed after that when he invited them, and
now they're in in El Salvador.
It's pretty messed up.
Now last two things to cover here, guys.
Here's another example, by the way, of how
completely
unconstitutional this is. And Marco Rubio seems to
just be sprinting down this direction even though
people are calling him out. So this is
actually pretty crazy to me because we've been
talking about The Sudan
for for for a while now, right? Here's
one of Robert's articles, The US Israeli hand
in Sudan's horrifying civil war. The US and
Israel are I mean, in
in on the ground involved in what's going
on here. We've proven this for a very
long time. So what's crazy about this is
now because the suit the basically the the
the argument in the beginning, we've said this
many times,
is The Sudan in general,
they were just broadly called, you know, sub
supporters of terrorism
because they didn't they were at odds with
Israel. And the US government came in and
said, look, if you align with Israel, if
you normalized Israel, we'll take you off the
list. And the only way you can read
that is either they were never terrorists,
and they just did it to coerce them,
or they were terrorists and they were okay
with that as long as they work with
Israel. It's pretty simple. And so what's because
but the point was you could prove that
they were no different than when they first
did that. So my point now is that
I think what happened, the only difference is
they've lost control of where it's going. And
the people of Sudan are not allowing them
to take over, not allowing Israel to take
over the country, and so they're doing this.
Marco Rubio, on the fifth, says I'm taking
action to revoke all visas held by South
Sudanese
passport holders
and to restrict any further issuance to prevent
entry into The United States, effective immediately,
due to the failure of South Sudan's Transitional
Government to accept the return of the repatriated
citizens in a timely manner. Oh, I see.
So they're gonna dump people in the country,
and they're simply saying don't. This is them
trying to abuse their power. Now whatever you
think about what this is,
it's the same conversation.
These people have visas. So if you're going
to revoke their visas, you have to present
evidence, guys. It's simple.
It's the same conversation. It's in principle no
different than them kicking out of the country
for no reason as an American.
That's how this works. But Marco Rubio is
doing this, and I'm willing to bet you
anything because Israel asked. That's my personal opinion.
Either way, it's unconstitutional and illegal. And it's
another example of the government not respecting constitutional
rights, due process in this case, which verifiably
applies to even illegal immigrants, let alone people
with visas and GERD card holders despite the
claims bipartisan screamers.
Now, here's some responses to Marco Rubio saying
this. It says this decision directly contradicts the
temporary protected status. By the way, that's what
Marco Rubio is offering these people. Clearly, they
don't nothing is sacred to them. They'll promise
the world and then pull the rug out
from underneath you. It says,
directly contradicts temporary protective status that The United
States has previously pledged to provide to these
individuals
due to the security conditions in their country.
They now realize they were trying to use
that to make it seem like Maduro was
hurting them. Maybe he was. You can decide
for yourself. But realize what they were doing
to the country is why these people were
suffering.
It says, this move marks a formal abandonment
of the humanitarian principles that have long set
The United States apart from others, which, frankly,
I don't agree with that. It's the claims,
yes. But, for a long time, this government
has not been what they claim,
signaling a renunciation
of the values that have historically supported the
vulnerable in times of crisis. They don't care
about any of that. Here's another answer
or response rather. He says, so South Sudanese
who have never had the right to vote
for their leaders since 02/2011, that's because of
what they're doing in this country, The US,
Israel, and The UK and others, and many
who fled during the civil war after 02/2013
are being punished
for the actions of the two unelected leaders
who keep derailing elections and the economy.
Yet another venal MAGA policy. I mean, whether
you wanna make a MAGA or not, he's
he's accurate. You're punishing people for what you're
doing to this country. That's who these people
are. Now, again, read this, understand how blatant
this is. The US and Israel are the
ones manufacturing this.
Lastly, just to show you the other side
of the conversation, secretary Rubio makes a completely
unconstitutional
pl a pl a plea to remove passports
from people they don't like, and Jack Posobiec
jumps in and says, I love deportations.
Yeah. Some good people here, guys, clearly. Objective
journalists who care about the constitution. Right? No.
It's it's a for cheerleading the government.
You know, otherwise known as the rebels fighting
the deep state. Right?
Now, Qatar
US, in case you missed that part of
it, is still actively supplying names to the
government to remove from this country. An Israeli
Zionist organization
is giving names of Americans
to, as well as anybody in this country,
legally or otherwise, who are simply saying things
about Israel and saying get them out of
this country, just like Mahmoud Ghoulia.
This is forty eight hours ago, the CEO
of World Bataar was in New York helping
Bataar US compile dossiers to deport pro Palestinian
students.
Today,
this is the fifth, I believe, or the
sixth.
Today, yesterday,
he's in Gaza fighting and killing Palestinians with
IDF.
This is not a youth movement, guys. This
is not some small group. This is this
is a apparatus tied directly into the Israeli
government. It's a global fascist network, she writes,
building blacklists in the West and pulling triggers
in Gaza. Think about a wild that is.
Here he is,
literally
in New York City fighting to deport Americans
and others who support Israel or excuse me,
support Palestine.
Here he is in Gaza killing
children. Pretty clear. Now here, Melnick also points
out
in regard to the undocumented well, rather Jacob
here says scoop, DHS is asking IRS, and
this is the Washington Post reporting this, to
locate 7,000,000
unsuspected
undocumented immigrants using confidential tax records.
It's a massive escalation by the DHS to
use tax system for mass deportation.
IRS officials are aghast,
say, say it's likely illegal.
I'm sure they won't stop. They'll show they'll
still comply and do what they're told like
most government agents do.
But he says this is incredibly bad. What
the IRS would be saying to millions of
people if they caved to Trump's extraordinary demands,
which I'm pretty sure they will, is don't
file your taxes. Because if you do, we'll
use it against you.
One of the best arguments I've heard to
not file your taxes, but it says it
would undermine and blow up generations of trust
building is madness. Now see, I disagree with
that.
The point is he's, I guess, arguing that
the government in some way is, you know,
trust building. I think that's I think I
don't think you truly understand what they've been
doing with the IRS. My point though, guys,
is this is insanely the violation of your
privacy. This is, in my opinion, a foreign
entity using US information
like Doge and the trillion databases with their
AI models
to go after you,
To go after people who are calling out
Israel.
Now, we talked about this in their most
recent show on the third. Americans speaking out
about Israel's genocide could be next.
In principle, it is the same because it
is.
Now, I hate to say it again, guys,
but I definitely did forget to put the
links on this. So, I apologize for that.
I did the show on the fly, like,
right before we were leaving for the carnival.
And so, I guess I didn't say the
link. So, I'm sorry. That doesn't that rarely
happens, but it seems to have happened a
few times
over the last I think, well, I think
twice over the last couple weeks. So again,
I I if all as always, if you
just watch the video, you can still see
the URL in the shot. But that's still
my mistake, so I apologize for that because
I always include the links for you guys.
But the point is, if you can't see
the principles the same, I don't think you
understand the constitution.
So we have to realize that what they're
already doing is chilling.
And it already indicates that if they just
decided to, the same legal groundwork applies, which
I argue is absent, but they'll make the
argument if they want to.
So
here, again, just to end, and I'm gonna
actually end with a quick reading of something
I think is relevant from,
Jack O'Bin.
But here's the first clip he said this
on the twenty sixth, the twenty fifth. I
forget exactly the day. It was right around
here. And I'm gonna show you the clip
he just did again.
Just in case you thought this was a
one off. It's definitely not.
And I just wanna thank him. He's going
through a lot,
what they're doing to him.
And these people are gonna be caught, and
they they're gonna be caught, and they're gonna
be prosecuted.
And from what they tell me, I see
this just by watching your programs
and reading the news. But from what they
tell me, they could get twenty years in
jail, and they'll get it. I'll tell you.
There's gonna be no leniency, and there'll be
no pardons. I can tell you that. Right?
And you said this morning twenty years in
jail, and then maybe they get you said
this morning twenty years in jail, and then
maybe they'll go to one of these prisons
in El Salvador. Do you think with the
way that the judges have been issuing injunctions,
it would be easier or harder to send
these Tesla domestic terrorists to a jail in
El Salvador than these MS thirteen or Trende
Arago guys. Well, I view these people as
terrorists just like,
others. He's a when I looked at those,
showrooms burning
Clearly,
Tesla terrorists. K? And what's funny, it's Ducey
again in this next clip. So I feel
like there's more con con coordination here, but
simply going, you know, what about sending Americans
to El Salvador? So, I mean, you could
argue simply that it's just a threat. It's
just floating the idea to scare you into
place, but it's the same difference as pretending,
you know, Greenland and all this. Oh, he's
just trolling you guys until we start to
see legislation passed. Right? Maybe that was never
the plan. Maybe the legislation
took on a life of its own. That's
not what they intended. It doesn't change the
fact that it's now happening.
It is in principle the same thing. We
are watching them at least build the narrow
I mean, how about this? How about Trump
is just saying this to scare people into
place, and then a Democrat administration comes in
next and uses it?
We have to realize why this is such
a chilling step. And now you could have
maybe he just said it one on nope.
Here he is again.
Again. Now this time, a little bit more
reiterating the idea, well, within the law. But
look, if you have we have not made
a good enough case today, that I'm not
doing my job for how clearly this is
already outside the law. That he is literally
pretending because we, you know, declare Trunde Arago
terrorists, therefore, that they're that means they can
apply some foreign policy to this and say
you could just deport you with no reason
because national security
Well, even though they
have unconstitutional,
I would argue,
illegal laws in place, if that makes sense
to you, it should. Doesn't change the fact
that it's still repugnant to the constitution.
But overall, the point is that within the
law simply means whatever they say the law
is. And we see that right now where
they're literally talking about they're a terrorist because
we named them terrorists. Therefore, we don't have
to give them due process. But, yeah, they
do. It's simple. That's what the judges say.
That's what the reality is. That's what the
Supreme Court says, and here they are. So
when he says now that within the law,
that is pretty meaningless, I would argue.
The point you should hear is I would
love that sending people to El Salvador, Americans.
To El Salvador, the president there said he
would be willing to take American citizens in
federal prison population. Is that one of the
ideas they're gonna be Well, I love that.
If we could take some of our 20
time
wise guys that push people into subways and
that hit people over the back of the
head and Okay. Let's just start right there.
Okay. So somebody's a terrible person. Right? They're
still an American citizen. They still have rights
and due process. And the idea that there's
any precedent in if any kind to send
them into another country,
let alone to a horrifying prison that does
not even remotely try to honor the the
human rights that the international community has said
are absolute, that are necessary, that are required
for something like this. They don't care about
that.
There's no precedent for this. They argue that
you could just go, they're bad. Send them
somewhere else.
I my opinion on this is they're starting
this conversation. I mean, this every day feels
more and more like this is beginning to
be the next thing they do. The idea
being that they could start with the people
that most people won't bock at. They're they're
rapists. Send them over there. People are gonna
go, well, they're pretty gross.
You know, you can't this is how this
game works. They'll open that door to arguing
that this because we may and next thing
you know, well, yeah, they're all those Palestinian
terrorists that are doing they're all beheading children.
Right?
Or they aren't, and they're making lies up
about this is how this always goes.
That purposely run people over in cars.
If you would take them, I'd be honored
to give them. I don't know what the
law says on that, but I can't I'd
be honored to give over American citizens to
a foreign country because they did it they
committed crimes.
Crimes. It's incredible. Imagine the law would say
anything different. If they can house these horrible
criminals for a lot less money than it
costs us,
I'm all for it. But Oh, saving money.
Right? Who cares about constitutional rights and legalities?
You know, save a couple pennies.
You oh, no. No. Not you, average people,
but Trump will. I'd I'd only do, according
to the law. But I have suggested that,
you know, why should it stop just the
people that cross the border illegally?
We have some horrible criminals,
American grown and I mean, even the idea
that you're suggesting floating idea that you because
you cross the border illegally that you should
be sent to a Guantanamo Bay style. So
I mean, in in this case, actually Guantanamo
Bay, but also El Salvador.
I mean, where are we in this world
right now? Where the hell are all the
good people in this country who just believe
I mean, there I am of the mind
that most people that support the Trump administration
or any part of the paradigm are just
convinced that they are doing what they think
is right, that they're not bad people. Otherwise,
what am I doing here? So where are
you out there? How do you see this
and go, yeah. That makes sense. It's obviously
a problem just because he convinces you that
every illegal alien, even though I'm already showing
you that most of them are even illegally
here, are somehow a problem. That is not
human, Nate. You don't send them to a
concentration camp of which the two from which
they will never return because they're an inconvenient
to you. We are better than that, and
I know that.
Porn. And if we have somebody that bops
an old woman over the head, if we
have somebody that,
is in jail 20 times and goes back
and shoots people all over the place and
then has a bad judge or a bad
prosecutor that do nothing about him while they
Ah, okay. And now we're setting the important
part. Right? So, oh, if it's just a
democrat judge that just didn't really do what
they're supposed to, well, we'll set in El
Salvador.
That's What he just said. Don't worry about
Or at least insinuated that. His politics, so
don't worry about that. I think if we
could get,
El Salvador or somebody, but,
to take them, I'd be very happy with
it. But I have to see what the
law says. Okay. What else? Right. Right. So
that's what they're gonna fixate on. Well, he
said the law. Well, we can already see
right now that that's not the reality. The
law is whatever they say it is. That's
what a rampantly lawless element does.
Well, here's an interesting part to end with.
Jacobin, this was written on where was the
date again? A few days ago. They are
on the fourteenth.
And here's what it says. Trump's pro Israel
McCarthyism is already boomeranging.
Now it says neocons are taking advantage of
the neo McCarthyism
Donald Trump has stoked against pro Palestinian activists
on the left to go after more anti
war voices on the right in his own
administration.
Gee, who could have seen that coming? Right?
The idea that this is not about left
and right, that's about using those narratives, but
ultimately, it's about anybody that's saying the thing
they don't want you to say, in this
case, about Israel. It says such win witch
hunts never stop at their original targets. Now
it says the trouble with McCarthyism is that
once it once it gets going, it has
a habit of ensnaring figures who were not
meant to be its original targets. We're seeing
this with the Donald Trump administration and broader
right wing crackdown on speech criticizing Israel, which
yesterday was used the thirteenth to fire one
of the administration's
own foreign policy picks.
This on the thirteenth, the news
that, lieutenant colonel Daniel Davis has been dropped
from his planned appointment as a deputy director
of national intelligence
came as swiftly as the news that he
had been offered and accepted the job in
the first place. Davis, a senior fellow at
defense priorities and a prominent conservative commentator on
the pro restraint side of the foreign policy
divide, and you see why he's not liked,
came under attack by pro Israel voices.
Right. So people there
advocating for a foreign government, and they didn't
like him here. And so Trump pushed him
out. That's kind of easy to see. Right?
And it says, as soon as the news
of his hiring went public focusing on his
record of criticism of Israel's war on Gaza,
you know, the genocide.
The Anti Defamation League, an organization whose mission
is meant to be combating antisemitism, that's not
what it actually does, Spy Organization for Israel.
Very easy to prove. Warren that Davis' appointment
would be extremely dangerous,
and pointed only to his views on Iran
policy. You know, not getting into a war
with Iran.
And US support for war in Gaza. Not
anything antisemitic at all, but that was enough.
And they kicked him out.
I mean, you just can't misunderstand this, guys.
Now
to end, I'll actually play
something I'd since we mentioned the ADL,
I'll play you a couple of clips from
the ADL,
interview
that we had with
James Lee,
which is a good interview. And the point
is, guys, this is not secret.
The ADL is a spy organization
that is literally infiltrating this country as one
aspect of Zionism.
And I'll play these for you to end.
But I hope I'm hoping in general that
the information here is
easily accessible. It is. The links are below.
That it's understandable, that it clear. And if
you are simply an objective person who cares
about the truth, you can see that what
they're doing is wrong. Now Now maybe you
still support Trump or conservatives and you think
they're being played, maybe they're all being blackmailed.
Whatever makes it make sense for you. Just
acknowledge that this is a problem. What's happening
is not what we were promised. It's very
simple. Now if we can do that, we
might be able to pressure this to maybe,
you know, continue banning PFAS, maybe stopping the
mRNA shots, maybe not murdering people in foreign
countries. You know, just continue the positive momentum
that we want, not
screaming that what they're doing will lead to
what we want and ignoring all the bad
things that are happening around it. That's just
willful ignorance. That's hope.
You know, you could have hope, but don't
let that guide the conversation. Acknowledge what's happening
in front of you. So thank you for
being here, guys. Appreciate your support.
Now, tomorrow, the plan ultimately, I'll be filming
this documentary with Tice, and I believe we're
gonna be out most of the day. If
I get back with that time, I'll try
to put something out.
Either way, we day after that, we'll back.
More to come. So thank you for tuning
in as always.
Oh, shit. And I'm gonna leave you with
these ADL clips. Oh, actually, before I leave
that,
I wanted to include
this. Hold
on. Oh, I need to show it to
you since you've already seen it, but I'm
gonna include James Lee's interview. It'll be in
the show notes at the very bottom, a
very important interview discussion simply entitled the true
nature of the ADL and how it spies
on Americans for Israel. I mean, it's
airtight, guys. Very easy to see. So I'll
end with these clips. Thank you for tuning
in. I love you all. As always, question
everything.
Come to your own conclusions.
Stay vigilant.
Still have the power to monitor social media
activity across all major platforms
and change social media algorithms the way they
see fit. Don't believe me? Well, here's Jonathan
Greenblatt, the CEO of the ADL. We work
with YouTube to have we to get them
to change their algorithms.
We work with So have the power to
monitor social media activity across all major platforms
and change social media algorithms the way they
see fit. Don't believe me? Well, here's Jonathan
Greenblatt, the CEO of the ADL. We work
with YouTube to have we to get them
to change their algorithms. We work with Facebook
on trying to use a redirect method. So
when you search for holocaust, you get directed
to, like, a Yad Vashem
page. We opened
a center in Silicon Valley back in 2017.
And the woman who runs it, she's the
next Facebook executive.
I have software engineers and data scientists working
at ADL.
We're monitoring
all this stuff, and we're working with all
the platforms, by the way. Google and YouTube
and Meta and Twitter and Reddit and Steam
and Amazon, all these companies. From, like, Apple
to Zoom, we work with all of them.
Some might call that a conspiracy fact.
Just saying. And if their ability to influence
big tech and media isn't disturbing enough,
the ADL also partners with payment platforms like
PayPal to monitor online transactions and cancel payment
processing for those whose speech they disapprove of.
Just to understand this, is this simply a
research effort or is the ultimate goal, I
imagine, to effectively defund them, which is to
say that PayPal would effectively turn off the
spigot
or at least turn off the ability for
them to fundraise using PayPal. That's correct, Andrew.
The investigation was done by the San Francisco,
district attorney's office. Among the data that came
out was that they would
spy on organizations
that were critical of Israel, spy on organizations,
that were critical of South Africa.
And they would pass that information on to
Israel, and they pass the information on to
South Africa.
YEL is an Israeli spy organization
masking around as a supposed civil rights group
and doing real harm to the Jewish community
writ large in order to run cover for
the state of Israel.