Some respects, it's just as bad now, the
authoritarianism,
that is coming, Gerald. I am really, really
fearful for the president of The United States
Of America to suggest as he did on
Air Force One on Sunday night,
that American
citizens could be deported
for his press secretary to say, we're looking
into,
a way to see if this is legal.
We don't know if it's legal or not.
A, it's terrifying.
B, betrays such a profound ignorance of first
principles to which he is sworn in. He
is sworn to preserve, protect, and defend the
constitution
and to enforce,
federal law.
Before we came on air, I was telling
you
about an American
lawyer
on vacation with his family flying back to
Detroit where they, live and stopped at the
Detroit International Airport and held up by border
patrol for two hours
refusing to surrender his phone because, quote, we
know you represent Palestinians.
And, eventually, they backed down and let him
go. But that type of intimidation,
that type of chilling
was actually under arrest, and arrest is defined
as you're not free to leave,
is is profoundly un American, utterly unconstitutional,
and I am sorry to say is coming.
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.
Thursday, April tenth twenty twenty five. Thank you
for joining me today.
What a what a sobering clip to start
with. You know, judge Napoliano being a a
very in influential,
impactful,
long term reporter, and, you know, with his
career before that in regard
to partisan conversations. I mean, he's very he's
clearly Republican, at least conservative,
but has been very, very critical about a
lot of things recently more so than than
usual, but obviously for the right reasons in
my opinion.
But what what are you chilling thing to
hear? I mean, this is you know, obviously,
people try to frame it as we're obsessed
with one thing or the other or partisan.
I I mean, I'm really at a point
now where this topic in general, but, obviously,
the same kind of things we've been saying
from a foreign policy point, you know, genocides
ongoing.
It's these are profoundly important topics that are
happening. And this one in particular for Americans
and how this is going forward.
This is drawing lines in the sand, guys,
and I hate to even make it like
that because I'm I know how much that
kind of sentiment is weaponized.
But to not recognize right now whether it's
about first amendment
I mean, constitutional rights
or the overlap of that with Israel, which
you can't really decouple those right now. It's
the same conversation.
My point is whichever, you know, whether it's
about the genocide going on over there or
the idea that you can watch your government
absolutely not respect your rights,
There your the the line's being drawn. There
are people that like Napoliano
and Celente, they're saying, you know I mean,
you saw there you can see his reaction
in that. Just like it's it that's the
kind of feeling we get when we hear
these stories. You just go, I can't believe
this. Like, how? Even though you know that
there are people that are that dishonest,
that you know
that there are politicians that will lie, cheat,
and steal, murder, and do whatever else.
It's as the I think what it comes
down to, at least what I sense from
that reaction he gave you,
is that we all hope that that's just
not the way the world
is or that as much as you see
these things that you wanna believe that there's
more good that can influence than not. And
I still believe that is the case. But
I as always, we see that the power
structure has been insulated, controlled, you know, whatever
word, whatever adjective you wanna give it has
been it put into a position to where
it doesn't care, if it ever has, about
what we think. And not just that, but
our influence over their potential action seems to
have been so diminished to this point to
where even us screaming,
calling these things out, and half is based
now calling things out around these constitutional right
dynamics or, I mean, any other things we've
talked about that are going in the opposite
direction doesn't seem to change the the trajectory.
It just keeps going.
And so it's just defeating in a way.
But, obviously, for those of us doing this,
that's the last thing we need to lean
into. And, of course, for people like myself,
that actually just motivates me even more. But
you have those moments where you just go,
man,
You know, it's it's a dark time in
some cases. But at the same time, as
I said the other day, it's also a
lot of positive to see in a lot
of this because, as always, I think it
gets this way because we're seeing a shift
in awareness around a lot of very important
things. As I said just the other day,
this this conversation around what's happening in the
Trump administration in regard to your rights.
And let's be clear. Obviously, this is not
a partisan thing for those that are new
to the show. Biden built it right up
to where he handed the baton off to
Donald Trump. It's your government coordinating to put
you in a position where you can no
longer push back. That's what it seems like
to me. However you see it, how can
we not acknowledge what's happening as a fundamental,
like, textbook example of, you know, as always
the word I hate to use in here,
but, you know, the the the removal of
your rights is the way people see
it. Let's not forget, these are inherent god
given rights as enshrined in the by the
founding fathers and the constitution and and and,
really, a lot of intellectual conversation around it
going forward for quite a long time. But
the point being, even as they wrote those
down, they were meant to be inherent, god
given, basically outlining
what you had, whether that was ever written
out, and agreeing that we believe this is
the case, that people have inherent rights. I
mean, that's how you even could debate that
it somehow only applies to people within a
certain boundary means you don't even fundamentally understand
these riots. And that's what's so alarming. And
I think most people truly do, and they've
been manipulated. They've been lied to. They've been
corralled into certain partisan
perceptions on things that make them feel more
attached to the tribal idea that they built
than the things that that tribal idea was
built upon.
It's insane when you think about it, but
the problem is that it's been done so
well that people don't recognize that the foundation
that they believe they're standing on is being
chipped away at by the very people they
think are on their side.
And it's alarming.
To see somebody like like judge Napoliano
make a statement like that, it needs to
shake people awake.
Start standing up and calling these things out.
I mean, if you agree, obviously, if you
don't, say what you believe. But if you
agree with this and you see the problem
and you're afraid to say something or you
think you're the only one, don't be, and
you're not. So let's get I I did
wanna make one more point.
As I kinda said a moment ago, I
think it's kinda funny that, you know, we're
seeing the evolving of these conversations.
And as you know from, you know, before
COVID nineteen, for example, I talked about a
lot of different things, and I always do
in this show. Even when I'm focused as
I tend to be on a, kind of
a major point that I continue to cover
and follow-up on, I talk about all sorts
of other things. Try to include different opening
points I think I don't want you to
miss or other other in, you know, in-depth
stories that we cover. And and even more
kind of continual larger topics that we follow-up
on, like technocracy, digital IDs, or medical health.
My point is that Israel has been an
obvious major focus, not because I choose that,
but because it's undeniably
a central linchpin
in this larger conversation and a lot of
things happening in the world, rather Zionism to
be specific.
But what has been going back to the
COVID point, I mean, I really honed in
on what that was
as a lot of us did. I mean,
the world obviously did. But what's interesting is
you got this crazy pushback for, like, the
first six months. Why are you still talking
about this? I can't believe you're focusing on
this alone. You're such a conspiracy theorist. Probably
all bots now that we recognize how the
world works. But what's interesting is, you know,
then things change and we shift and that
story is still there. We're still covering it.
But after October 7 forward, you know, that
arm of the ongoing Israeli occupation and genocide
of the Palestinian people, it became a clear
focal point. And that's something that I've continued
to focus on because it's still going, which
is absolutely mind blowing, but obviously relates to
what we're dealing with in this country, which
most Americans are finally having the courage to
call out. Not Jews.
That's an overlap for sure. Not just Israelis,
obviously an overlap, but specifically Zionism, but those
things clearly intersect. So too do Christians. There's
atheist Zionists all over the place in Israel.
Herzl himself was an atheist, so recognize the
manipulation within it. My point in all of
this is to show you that now for
the last, I don't know,
so many weeks, more than that, there's been
I've been making a very clear focus because
as I said recently, I find this to
be the most important thing happening to Americans
focusing on this discussion.
Not Donald Trump's administration alone or not just
immigration or deportations, but the meaning, the implications
around that story
for American constitutional rights and the foundation of
what we believe this country is, you know,
should we be forced to live in a
state of society?
And I think it's important to highlight that
now I've gotten people the reason I'm saying
this is just today and yesterday, I was
getting this, where people are going, man, you're
so obsessed with this topic. You're so obsessed
with ICE and deportations and immigration. I'm thinking,
you know what's funny?
Maybe it's just that I'm obsessed with what's
most important in the moment, and that seems
to shift based on what you think I
shouldn't be caught talking about. Now I'm really
only addressing what I think is a minority
of the conversation to make a point. I
don't think you guys need necessarily need to
know about people that are screaming at me
about things I shouldn't be covering because I'm
gonna do what I think is right either
way. But what I think it shows you
is this weird
desperation
of of effort to try to stop people
from doing what I think is the most
important thing to be doing. Now that's obviously
how I see it with this topic, but
I think we see that around, like, for
example, for the selection process. Those of us
that were really trying to ring that bell
about how we don't actually have representation and
how or at least we should be considering
these things or how the two party illusion,
the false binary is meant to drive you
into a very clear choice where you think
you've got options and you really don't. And
we got the most overwhelming pushback. By the
way, thank you for that because it really
led to the Independent Media Alliance.
But I think it shows you that there
is importance there. You know, you get the
flack when you're over the target. So I
thought that was important to include. But let's
start today
quick, with that actual shout out to the,
this was Patrick Henningston that I saw this
from, but it was Gerald Celente who shared
this. Trump's authorization here's the full video to
that clip, by the way. If you wanna
watch the full interview, it's worth your time.
Trump's authoritarian
crackdown on freedom of speech just beginning.
You know, you'd think that this would get
more attention from people on the conservative side
seeing so you have an increasingly growing number
of conservatives
who aren't just going, I don't know. They're
going, this is terrible. What's happening is wrong.
We're being lied to, and it's growing every
single day. That doesn't make me happy. I
don't want to see bad things happening, but
it's important to see that people that have
yet come to understand it start to recognize
what's really happening from a nonpartisan
perspective. It's not like I'm saying jump over
to the Democrat side. That's what people want
to make out of this because they're desperate
to keep you in the two party illusion,
you know, the power structure.
He writes, Trump is way over the line
on this. Let's make this simple. When the
president is attacking our first amendment on behalf
of a foreign government, that is tantamount to
treason.
Interesting way to put that because that's exactly
what that is. But is that what's happening?
You can decide. And realistically, if we're gonna
hold to our principles, which we will, if
this was being something that was actually being
dealt with, well, we would have to present
our evidence. This would be something that would
be put before judges, and we would have
to prove. But you see, when we're in
a system where this is completely broken,
all they can do is drive you into
wedge issues, and we don't even see momentum
around this because all of them back there
are, in my opinion, ultimately trying to make
sure that none of them get accountable because
they're all basically criminals. Now I'm making a
broad point on it
because I think it's easier to understand. But
as always, individual focus is in evidence is
is paramount. And for all I know, half
of them are fighting for us. My point
is I'm I'm obviously a pessimist when it
comes to government, you know, because, you know,
history,
everything we've ever seen, but, obviously, we should
always keep an open mind
proving things matters. But I think this is
important to understand for average people to recognize
that this is objectively
be this is wrong, guys. What they're doing
is illegal,
unconstitutional. Even if you agree with the outcome,
you should be demanding they do it the
way that would make sure that it actually
continues the way you think it should, not
in a way that will guarantee it won't
actually continue
because that's what's happening.
Now I I mean that in the sense
of, you know, whatever policy you think should
be happening. Because, really, a lot of this
is just about continuing to create a lawless
state where the government does, you know, rules
by edict or or,
you know, an authoritarian reality, a dictatorship where
they just basically say this is the reality
and you have to do it. You know,
like executive orders, for example. Biden, Trump, Obama,
it's all the same thing. Now before we
get into everything else, two quick points I
wanted to make.
This is a great article that Derek put
out. And it is funny enough, we always
make fun of the the breaking exclusive kind
of thing from the mainstream alternative media. We
rarely use this. Here is an actual example
of an exclusive story, breaking in fact, of
Derrick Rose individually doing an amazing work
of research for a long period of time,
going after the documents, finally getting them sent
to him from FOIA requests, and now proving,
very interestingly,
that Houston
confirmed to be the largest city in The
US to stop water fluoridation. Interestingly, though, it
looks like it stopped back in 02/2019.
And so his point along a lot of
this is to show you this evolve the
evolving story. And in fact, the reality of
why they know this is dangerous, which we
should all know by now despite it's still
happening in this country.
The point is that he had been doing
a lot of activism work around this for
a very long time per and this is
my point, not his. I personally think it's
an example of how the long term effort
can bear fruit.
And and even if even if it's two
steps forward, one step back, we are seeing
change here.
Now, again, if we see more change around
the country, that's obviously good. Whether Trump or
Biden or RFK do it, guys, it's a
good thing. We should be cheering anybody that
makes positive moves,
not feigning positive moves or giving you half
the move and then giving you something that's
far worse, but actual positive change. And I
do think we're getting some movement in this
direction, and I frankly think it has more
to do with the people like Michael Conant
and Derrick Brose than it does with anything
the current administration or rather just your government
is actually doing around it. But if it
continues forward in a direction, then they give
more, I guess, leeway for this to continue
to happen. I will continue to praise that
because this, guys, is a very positive thing.
The idea in general that we're recognizing these
toxins that have always been toxins that literally
have no benefit for your teeth or for
your body that they're putting in your water
and now fighting to maintain in your water
is insane to me. Remember, that happened from
the last discussion.
Now RFK has been putting put out statements
about allowing them to roll it back, and
he has given that kind of momentum to
it. And I think that's an absolutely positive
thing. But I would have rather I wish
we could have seen something more like, look.
If they're out there making moves that like,
if we know something is deadly or dangerous,
there's no logic to saying, well, let them
decide. The idea is you don't let someone
decide. If you're let's just put it like
this. Freedom is paramount. Liberty is paramount. Okay?
So if it's about something that's up there
for these groups to choose from that they
think is going, If it's a a deadly
concept, if it's cyanide, and you simply have
cyanide along the shelf with everything else, it
shouldn't be like, well, let the children choose
if they'd rather die from that side. It's
misinformation.
Most people don't know that fluoride is actually
genuinely hurting them. So the reality is if
we're pretending this is what their job is,
then that should be actual this should be
instantaneous,
like the mRNA shots, by the way. Same
point can be made. You can go, well,
they should put them out there for the
children. No. These things are deadly, dangerous,
surreptitious,
far more than just something that hurts your
body, and it should not be something that's
allowed to have be presented out there as
a possible choice. And so I think what
we should be fighting for is them to
be pulling this entirely. Not even just that,
but revealing that, yes, we actually have always
known this is deadly, and that's why it's
not gonna happen, in my opinion.
Not really. Because you can prove, if you
truly dig into it, that they know this
is bad, that they know this is dangerous,
and they're making money off the sale of
a byproduct
at your expense. Anyway, plenty more to go
into on this. Derek's gonna follow-up as always.
If you have not seen the larger conversation,
Derek for TLAB as well as before that
for Conscious Resistance has been doing amazing work
around, let me just get the tag for
you real quick, the fluoride trial.
And it goes and he's got six pages
of work going back to where he was
really when this really kicked off, Michael Connick
with the Florida Action Network
was basically responsible for making this happen and
pushing this over multiple reports as the government
continue to push back, by the way, across
multiple administrations left and right as usual,
and did an amazing job showing you the
evidence was always there. Now
as a digital ID point, I'm also pointing
this out in the beginning because, Derek, we
just, did an article
as well as a we just did an
interview, around similar topics.
House passes bill requiring proof of citizenship to
vote in federal elections. Now
on the surface, without
remembering
what this ties to, which is the save
act,
the point is the same from when we
covered the save act the first time. I
don't understand why anybody in any context other
with other than an ulterior motive would push
back on requiring people to verify that they're
citizens to vote in an election for citizens
of The United States. It's ridiculous to me,
and I think that's where you get the
false binary. Right? Where there's there's false arguments
on both sides of it that keep you
in a clear position.
And it's usually cartoonish instead of just acknowledging
the reality because, see, one side is making
it out to be that they shouldn't have
to do that at all. The other side
acting like we should do it, but it's
not just that. Now they're rolling in digital
IDs through the legislation, and that's what this
is really about.
My point is if you understand the sayback,
you do not need what they're putting forward
to make this happen. In fact, the reality
is there's already laws, guys. That's how this
always works. There are already laws in the
books for this exact conversation. You don't need
to create a new ledge piece of legislation
to argue that they need to prove who
they are. This is the game.
Now, yes, you can call if you wanna
make it about the Democrats and their arguments
for why, then, yeah, call it out because
it's stupid. They should not be fighting for
people to break the law and pretend like
that makes sense, whether immigration
or elections.
The point about all of this, all that
aside, is that this is about something different,
and that's how the game is always played.
They give you something that they think you
want, and they hide behind it everything else.
That's like every piece of legislation you could
possibly find in my opinion. But this passed
the house, the Save
Act, not the senate yet. If it does,
I guarantee Trump will sign it. But I'll
include this for you to go back and
understand this. The quick and simple understanding of
this is that this is enshrining what is
called the Real ID compliant identification,
which is the same conversation as ID twenty
twenty.
It is, guys, regardless of what the screamers
will tell you, digital identification.
Real ID and ID 2020, the premise behind
the entire thing is digital identification. I went
over in the show. You can read it
on their own websites.
The point, though, is the act itself includes
other things. We've gone over this many times.
The other side of the conversation from the
democrat pushes the mobile driver's license when they
combine. It basically creates the situation where digital
IDs are all you're allowed to use.
I'm watching it happen. I've been saying it
for months. It's coming. I hope we don't
get there. I just want us to remember
that this is happening. And so the reality
is now you're getting the screens about, yay.
See, we're stopping the people from voting illegally
even though there's already laws that do that.
But nobody's in so
if there are laws there, the question should
be, why aren't they enforcing them? And then
if that's the case, then we should be
going after that, not passing new legislation under
the guise of something that they allowed to
happen for that very purpose, or if if
you can look at it that way. But
John says, ta da, right on cue together
with the EU,
the mafia leader, Ursula von der Leyen, and
British fascist globalist, Keir Starmer. His point is
they're also doing the same things. He's report
he's putting this out on the ninth because
this has just happened. And this is the
digital ID total control society, AKA new world
order, as planned since 1969,
Club of Rome. Now whatever you think about
his framing, I agree. Generally, the idea is
this is happening everywhere, and it is tied
into a larger agenda. So in case you
forgot about the bigger picture of this, ask
your and this and, of course, also
kind of framed around the idea of stopping
the boogeyman with brown skin coming in to
take your lives.
The truth is this is about control,
even if you agree with the other part
of that. The idea is that they're gonna
combine this if you have the digital identification,
the biometric tracking system for in and out,
flying, walking, it's all the same thing. Don't
forget what he said here. This is exactly
what he's still trying to do despite this
being, I don't know, years old. Alright.
We will finally complete
the biometric
entry exit visa tracking system, which we need
desperately.
Yeah. No. We don't. Pretty sure we don't
need that. I'm pretty sure that's only in
the interest of a controlling structure for, you
know, precrime, which we're already seeing roll out
in a lot of ways, for medical precrime,
for just simple track and surveil. Let's not
forget
Kennedy,
which we'll touch on one more time in
a quick second about the MMR vaccine, included
in that tweet that everyone seems to skip
over,
contact tracing.
He literally included. I forget that it was
a different word. It was something a cases
tracing cases
investigation, something like that. It was contact tracing.
It's what it was.
How do you think they do that
with stuff like this, especially today? But just
to quickly go over this, let's not forget
that in The UK, as he was just
saying, they're also doing this. More than 40
labored MPs called for ministers to bring in
digital ID for everybody.
This was this month.
Big Big Brother Watts said the digital identity
system could give the government a blank check
to create massive database state. Isn't that what
they're all saying they want, including the Stargate
project, and it's all for your benefit, though,
and to get the bad boogeyman out of
the way
and then eventually focus on you. Right? Population
ID card systems have been rallied by politicians
under various guises. They've been packaged as a
solution to fight terrorism, to control immigration, even
to protect us from the evil COVID. The
public have fought back each time. Barcoding Britain
is not a solution to complex societal problems.
Instead, this could have a serious bearing on
privacy and equality in UK. As as usual,
The government should drop plans for liberty eroding
digital ID systems now. I agree.
And I'll just I'll just grab one
of Derek's articles on this. Yeah. This one's
a good one.
NYU School of Law, NYU School of Law
literally quoted and saying, digital IDs are, quote,
paving a digital road to hell. And this
is a school of law. They're talking about
your rights and basically showing you why this
will lead to that, and I think it's
pretty obvious.
Again, the the you know, for certain people,
it doesn't matter. And then ask yourself when
you see these things continue, who it is
that's going, you're a conspiracy, or you shouldn't
you're a democrat. And then we watch this
thing come to pass.
Whether it's the, you know, calling out what
we did before this election or the ongoing
genocide or anything else that literally come to
pass. And those are the same people that
instead of going, oh, they were right, they
continue with a news screen
and continue to be wrong over and over
just in just the right way for the
partisan agenda.
Now here is in the EU, same point,
to roll out new digital IDs. So, you
know, this is happening all over the place
is the point.
Now Derek wrote this article on the March
27, real ID, voter ID, and digital ID
right before the say back that passed the
house, by the way, the future of American
identification.
And it's an important article to read because
this is coming, and he makes the important
point about the overlap of the mobile driver's
licenses and how this lead to the same
point. And the TSA
openly telling you that this will be mandatory
at some point before they kind of try
to hide that again. It's all coming your
way.
And this is our interview we had. This
was, on the eighth, I believe.
The slow change in digital ID, budding technocracy,
and a fluoride win, where we cover basically
all the stuff we were just highlighting right
there. It's important to listen to.
But and one last point, by the way.
I find this really fascinating because I personally
let me know what you guys think. I've
seen some really crazy suppression on this platform
to the point to where you know, I
mean, like I say all the time. You
all you can generally expect if there was
an accurate flow of of you know, there
wasn't anything being controlled in this platform, a
general percentage of whatever your following is that
should likely see your post and engage with
it.
And what we're I've it's incredible. Certain content,
you see, I you get you know, I
can pin it to the top of my
my my entire store my my, excuse me,
my account
and and get, you know, 10 likes.
And it's not about whether it's good or
popular. It just doesn't that that's, like, statistically
impossible when you understand how this is supposed
to work. And I'm hearing this a lot
even from conservatives right now. And I just
we pointed to this the other day. This
ties in with the same conversation because we're
in this kind of testing realm right now.
I think that's what Twitter is today. And
that overlaps with all the different things they're
putting together, and this is the I showed
you recently. This guy, by the way, is
a supporter.
And he look. He even says he's a,
a Janu or what or which one was
it? Let me see.
Yeah. Former liberal, you know, that kind of
thing. It's like hashtag walk away. You know,
he's some he's on the side of the
conservative conversation.
And what he's doing here is saying, look.
Hey. I exposed this thing. I found a
a malicious
piece of code that is doing exactly what
I just said, which is downplaying certain content
and rising others and suppressing people's info. And
I guess he's trying to frame it as
we think that's an holdover Democrat or whatever.
And he keeps tagging Elon Musk and Linda,
you know, and he's got a very large
following. And he goes through this tooth and
comb or tooth and nail. What's the what's
the what's the expression?
You know, and go and you can look
through for yourself, guys.
It's hard you know, again, it's it's hard
to know for sure, but I think what's
interesting is I think we all kinda know
this is happening, and a lot of conservatives
are calling it out. Conservative. Excuse me. And
this person simply says, since I commented on
this post criticizing Twitter, I've been losing more
followers than usual each day, and the post
don't get engaged with. You know, you never
know. You know, as always, you probably just
don't like what you're saying. That's certainly possible.
But I think it's worth considering
the kind of aggressively manipulative things we're seeing
today and whether this is exactly what you
know, we're being corralled into a position where
we
believe
the image that's being presented, and it's now
more cultivated than ever. And I know we
all see that. Just worth pointing out.
Now on regard to the
medical overlap, but just really the kind of
fate the failing of the US government and
the partisan game, both sides of it.
These just continue to show you these interesting
things where the people that were supposed to
be marched away and changed and go to
prison are now suddenly on our side because
they said the right thing. I don't know
how you make sense of that. So either
they were criminals that killed everybody and they
should go to jail or they're you're now
I mean, you can't pretend like if they're
the baddest, the worst person like a Bill
Gates, that suddenly because he goes, yay, Trump,
that now we're the unity team.
So that means nothing means anything. Though these
criminals, as long as they go, I'm with
you, that's okay?
Yeah. Because that's how this operates from this
power structure, like with The Sudan and Israel.
You're either a terrorist if we don't if
you're not with Israel or you know, it
we'll call you what we want if you're
not where we want you to be. It's
always how this goes. But I think it's
fascinating to me that so many people seem
to kinda go, yay, even though that should
be in like, if you came out and
said, let's bring her on our team, you
would see them go, screw that. She's Democrat,
and she's dangerous.
I think they're all dangerous,
but some of them speak up.
Rapid response forty seven says, we're honored to
have governor Whitmer
from the great state of Michigan.
He we think she'll be a winner for
Michigan, and he says all sorts of kind
things about her in this video. And the
Patriot voice says, woah.
One of the things I've I've he says,
one it's one of the things you really
have to see to hear and believe
that that witch belongs in jail, he says,
not in White House. Now remember, she's one
of the most aggressive during the COVID nineteen
lockdowns that he tried to pretend was a
partisan thing, and Trump was just trying to
do you know, they're all doing the same
thing. It's the understanding if you actually look
at it, but that's not the point today.
The point is, how does that make sense
to you? Are they all on the same
side?
This person, interestingly, says, I don't agree with
this. Hopefully, it's a keep your friends close
and your enemies closer type of thing. Oh,
well, there you go.
Benefit benefit of the doubt given. Move along.
That's how this game works because so many
people have been trained. By the way, people
that I know are smarter than this, people
that are yeah. I that are close to
me that I see going, well, they must
know something that we don't. And I go,
my god.
Like, even if that's true, it's a stupid
thing to think and say. You can't just
give the benefit of the doubt to a
nuclear weapon wielding maniac government. And I think
they're all like that. The point is you
can't do that because that is the last
thing. I mean, look. This is I think
I have a a statement or a post
that I reference again, the
Theodore Roosevelt statement. Right? That to blindly support
the president is just wrong. Servile, he calls
it. Regardless of whether you support him because
that's how this is supposed to work. You
hold people accountable even more so when you
believe in them. So they don't find the
way they don't get misled by somebody else
or they don't make a mistake.
That kind of mindset is going to guarantee
that this continues in a bad direction
because they know they can get away with
whatever they want. And, frankly, we can see
that happening. Even if, let's just say, they're
the best group in the world, doing that
will allow that to loosen up and they'll
ultimately look. I I you know, I'm trying
to make it clear for people that want
to see it. I think the reality is
these people are breaking the law everywhere you
look, the government, left and right. And if
all you ever do is go, well, there
must be something or the bad thing must
be explained by something we can't see, this
will never change. And maybe that's a bot.
You never know. But, obviously, guys, we need
to have the courage to call these things
out. So good for him. And, of course,
here's governor Whitmer. And here's, of course, what's
funny is, Bennie Johnson, who, by the way,
I swear, this guy seems to be like,
his journalism is whatever they just said, and
it's great.
Right? Whatever the government just said, and we're
all happy about it. Right? Shut up and
follow my lead. It's really crazy to me.
And it's always like this kind of stuff
or, you know, I'll show you in a
second. Elon says we're gonna do something next
week, and it's like breaking. We did it.
It's over. Well, he doesn't even happen yet.
Oh, and a government says something's gonna happen
and we believe it? Aren't or is that
like the Democrats you guys make fun of?
But it says governor governor Whitmer
throws her support behind Donald Trump's tariffs.
Doesn't that that perfectly makes sense, doesn't it?
Or no. Not at all, actually. But it
does when you realize they're all the same
thing doing the same agenda
when you really break it down. I understood
the motivation behind tariffs, she says. We do
need to make more stuff in America. We
do. Fair trade. Cool. They're all on the
same side. Now Simon Godek says, where the
hell was the phase two of the Epstein
files?
And why did every influencer in this photo
go dead silent about the Epstein files? Doesn't
that seem crazy?
Conservatives who are honest out there listening. Cowards
are controlled. Pick one, he says.
I mean, how else do you frame this?
There's you know, you got Libs of TikTok
in there. You've got DC Draino. I mean,
really, guys, the idea that you can that
they've never even touched on this sense. And
the and the phase one was basically I
remember that was a joke I made. They
write phase one because they clearly wanted you
to think there was more coming, like the
Twitter files game they
played. And so, you know, even if it
comes out tomorrow, this is still the point
to make right now. Why if you don't
make these points or call it out, then
you're not being honest with yourself because this
has gone absolutely nowhere. They hope you bite
it. They'd hoped you'd take it. Same with
the JFK point. When they looked around, they
go, do do do do do do do
they buy it? And we were all not
buying it. They go, oh, never buying. We
found the truckload. It's coming later, and then
nothing happened after that.
Jim Jordan, of course, to kind of, you
know, look over there. Hey. Hey. Prices are
down. Illegal border crossings are down. Energy costs
are down. Investments in America are up. President
Trump's plan is working. Well, that is sure
is simple. Apparently, if those are the only
things you care about, apparently, it's all working.
Even though even those you could make nuance
points about that don't actually add up. Egg
prices are down. Well, first of all, the
idea if they went up like crazy and
went down a little bit does not mean
they're down before the high you know, whatever.
The point is the whole egg prices thing
was such a weird fixation, sort of like
the TP during COVID nineteen.
But illegal boarding crosses are down. Now that's
a whole interesting thing, seeing as how if
you're actually paying attention, you recognize that your
government has been engineering this back and forth
for the places we are right now. But
even then, you could point out that that's
grossly misrepresented
in every time, whether they hide things or
don't show them or manipulate numbers to make
the case they want. But, sure, let's just
even say border crossings are down. Energy costs
are down. Again,
plenty of ways you could make that absolutely
false if you really wanted to look at
the bigger picture, but let's just even say,
fine.
Energy costs have been cut in half. Illegal
boarding crossings have completely stopped, and eggs are
a little bit cheaper. Are you happy with
that? Are we winning?
No Epstein files, JFK, great reset, mRNA shots,
MMR shots,
funding genocide, Ukraine still going, but, yay, egg
prices are down.
Investments in America are up, and you know
what that means, guys? That Americans get more
money. Right? Or not at all, in fact.
That means that the elitists get more money,
and the corporations get more money as they
out outsource
off you know, it's just
how are we falling for stuff like this?
President Trump's plan is working?
Well, Tracy Smith says, and not one corrupt
politician has been arrested. Now this is a
bigger point than just the Epstein files, guys.
Think about everything we've been told.
Not one corrupt politician after we're told they
are the deep state. So let me get
this straight. You're working with the deep state
right now? Is that the case? Congress is
half deep state and you guys are just
continuing?
Why wouldn't you arrest them, Donald Trump? Kash
Patel, Bongino, why wouldn't you just go and
arrest the deep state characters? Oh, because it's
more complicated, Ryan. You don't understand. Well, maybe
I don't. Walk me through it. Where is
this gonna happen? At what point do we
see people arrested? I haven't seen a single
one. So if I don't understand it, do
you understand it? You wanna pull I mean,
you get it, guys. This is hilariously
I mean, it's it's alarming
because of how real it is. But in
a way, if this was a sitcom, we'd
be laughing about this. Not one person on
the Epstein list has been held accountable. Not
one person who gave an gave out Social
Security cards to illegals, even though that's kind
of been a wildly unproven claim, even though
we know that does happen in more than
just illegal aliens, by the way.
Agents, intelligence,
or other overlap kind of things. Yes. That
does happen. Or even lower levels
of
enforcement. Trying to give a word that makes
it sound positive.
But none of them have been arrested, though.
So we have all these these major claims
that can prove all these people broke the
law. Where are the arrests? Everyone you seem
to be dumping in other countries are random
people that aren't even criminals
or otherwise PhD students going to Brown or
going to Harvard and, you know, it's just
it's where's the evidence of the actual claim
of the criminal underbelly?
Oh, that's because that's what these people are
building.
Now one person has been arrested for helping
outsiders destroy our country. Right. What about Pelosi?
What about, I mean, all the people they're
calling out?
I mean, you know my opinion. I think
they're all the same, but the case is
that you're you're telling us these people are
all criminals. What about all the people that
you know, you can go on with every
bigger narrative that we got these major claims
about what we knew was coming, about what
they did, and how they did or the
grandiose claims about the Democrat plot with Teslas.
Right? I mean, I apparently, they arrested another
one. Right? But I'm seeing individuals
who
who, in some cases, did some pretty serious
arson or vandalism, some who just scratched some
cars pretty ubiquitously getting a twenty year sentence.
And
what about what about all the evidence you
were screaming about about the coordination, about the
large funding? I'm not even saying it's not
true. Where is the outcome?
Maybe it'll come tomorrow,
and I hope it does.
Well, after all that, you know, Epstein, JFK,
and all the bigger things, don't worry though
because Pam Bondi is going after another Tesla
person. Another Tesla terrorist, they tell you. Now
seeing as how we've already proven that that
almost every single person they've deported that they
call a terrorist turns out to be a
person who was not a criminal, who is
usually not even from the place they claim,
not part of the gangs they claim. And
most of them that I've covered were even
here legally with visas or asylum claims or
green cards.
So if they call them terrorists or you
a terrorist for calling out what Israel's genocide
is, you can kinda wonder why they would
use that term as well. Well, you know
why. Because they're giving themselves legal cover.
But let's let's just even say you agree
with this. Is that what you think is
most important? Why are they only focusing on
things that relate to their personal agendas and
Israel?
Which kinda seem to be the same thing.
He goes breaking. Pam Bondi announces an arrest
of another Tesla terrorist facing at least twenty
years. Now I'm really interested to see what
this one is
because I only know of one real case
where there was massive vandalism and arson, which,
yeah, that's a you could argue twenty year
sentence is pretty
that makes sense for a combination of those
things. Just look it up. It seems to
be pretty common.
But
what about the rest of them? Did they
scratch a car? Did they blow a car
up? Like, what's the claim? Twenty years is
pretty crazy for something other than that one
case.
But, you know, Bennet Johnson, whatever they said.
Hooray.
Cheerleading.
Sycophant.
And he goes, never stops.
Just epic.
And shows Donald Trump digging in the grass.
Right? Because he's just like you in his
$500,000
suit or whatever the joke would be. And,
I said, just meaningless. It seems silly that
this is what people like this want you
to fixate on. And I said, like like
most of what you hype. Meanwhile, you know,
MMR shots, meetings with war criminals, committing war
crimes himself, violating everybody's constitutional rights like it's
his job, the great reset, the North American
Union, Zionism,
m r m m m r, mRNA
platforms. I can go on forever, etcetera etcetera.
But, yeah, none of that matters. Let's make
sure we're screaming about him digging in a
suit because that's super cool based.
Well, Vannie Johnson also said, breaking director of
national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, announces files of the
assassinations
of RFK and MLK will be released. Right
now? Have already been released? Are post online?
No. No. No. They'll come in a couple
more days.
Breaking news. Nothing.
Breaking story. Nothing's happened yet. It's coming in
some days, and we'll wait and see if
that happens. And if it doesn't, I guarantee
you won't comment on it again. Breaking story.
Mainstream alternative media.
And, of course, Cat turns out, art of
the deal, and shows how just in, Tesla
stock increases by over 19%.
Whoo. We're winning, guys, because Tesla is doing
better. I guess I guess that makes sense.
Except it's not. And that's a typical partisan
game, you know, where you can highlight one
weird little shot, which is kind of the
things they call out about the democrats. The
reality is the only number that matters in
this conversation is year to date. Right? You
could look at a number of other fuller
shots and make it look like it's got
it. The point is year to date is
the point. Right? From when they from when
they took power and what's happened since. That's
the only one that makes sense. And the
reality is you can see how much has
dropped since that happened and since he started
doing what he's been doing, and then you
get a little bit of a tip up
in the end. And, sure, maybe it'll go
back up. Maybe maybe it already is. I
think it's hilarious that people like this make
it their job to defend
the oligarchy, to defend the very people they
pretend they're revolting against. It's insanely funny and
sad at the same time,
but it's all over the place.
And he also says, is everybody feeling cool
when Donald Trump put his true social out
that says, be cool.
Everything's going to work out well. The USA
is will be bigger and better than ever
before. And
be cool?
So you have to understand what this is.
They're they see the uncomfortableness of their own
base. Look. If you're paying attention, half of
them seem to be calling this out right
now.
Jack Posobiec says, I am cool, mister president,
and I'm not a filthy,
panicking or whatever. What was that supposed to
do? I don't even know what that means.
Panicking?
What does that mean?
I don't know. Well, anyway, the point is,
he says, is everyone feeling cool? And I
just like and I said, so in other
words, trust the plan?
Like, it's just a weird thing to recognize.
These people are just these these grifting sycophants
that are just, you know, projecting the idea
that everything's fine. Everybody relax.
Stop looking at the man behind the curtain.
And, yeah, this is even crazier. He says
in Ted Catcher says in two hundred years
from now, they'll be talking about the greatness
of Trump.
Everyone who stands against it right now will
be forgotten in five minutes, flat, and never
be mentioned in the pages of history.
Just that's just gross. It's so embarrassing.
And, you know, the point is that he's
trying to frame everybody out here who's calling
things out like this as that category when
the reality is that anybody who I think
is honest and aware of the full picture
is calling out anybody in this government, left
and right. And all of them complete childish
characters like him who just completely purpose you
know, they're supporting the very power structure they
think they're fighting.
And I simply read the quote or posted
to announce that there must be no criticism
of the president or that we are to
stand by the president right or wrong is
not only unpatriotic
and servile,
but it is morally treasonable to the American
public.
Republican Theodore Roosevelt.
And I also included the the long the
reading of a a picture of free prince's
point about him saying I have a %
faith in cash and Bon Jino and making
the point that that's ridiculous.
Like, that's the most dangerous thing in the
conversation.
Not that you you can believe in somebody,
but having blind faith in a politician or
really any human being
is the problem.
And then Bennie Johnson says, breaking. HHS RFK
Jr announces by by September,
we will know exactly what caused
extreme autism epidemic in The United States.
I mean, can we just laugh at this,
guys? Why in the world? Okay. He has
been clear about this for years.
Now the breaking story is he'll tell us
something new in September?
God, we should make fun of this kind
of stuff.
We already know what the reality, and that's
not my opinion. He they've been screaming about
this overlap, guys. We already know the information.
Does Benny?
And the idea that we're he will let
me even reporting that some the government will
tell us something in September is what I
always make fun of. Anyway, I thought these
things are important to understand in my opinion
before we get into the meat of the
conversation today to show you what the partisan
game is talking about while things are, like,
literally
falling under our feet.
Now one more point on health. RFK Jr
pushes MMR jab. We talked about that
on the seventh.
Again, this is the second time, by the
way, and it came out explicitly. I'm sure
you all saw. And that was the post
I was referring to where he also points
to contact tracing.
But I wanted to follow-up on a couple
interesting things.
Children's health defense,
in response to generally that conversation on the
eighth,
simply puts this out and says, the media
is lying
again.
Confirmed.
And this this is you can look into
it. We would've talked about this. Watch for
yourself.
The second measles death
is not from measles.
CHD
has the hospital records.
Then they go over it on the show.
Now the point in showing you this is
that they this is something RFK has alluded
to, that these cases are real. And we
already know that they're PCR's anyway,
but this is showing you that they're
I mean, how do you not think that
RFK is involved in that?
Now whether you think he's blackmailed or not,
quite frankly, it's irrelevant to me right now
because we can't if we can when you
have some evidence around that other than hyperbole
and just, you know, subjective claims for what
you want to make sense of it, then
then show it to me. I'm obviously not
I think that's probably likely.
But even when we find that out, it
doesn't change the fact that what's happening is
still wrong. Just be you can't make it
two conversations,
you know, that we're like, the idea is
that if he's blackmailed, we'll fine, but he's
still then we can deal with that, but
it doesn't then change the fact that what
he's doing is still the problem. So you
still need to call out the action. It's
like people are afraid to call the action
because you feel like you're somehow hurting him.
You know, again, even if he's being forced
to do it, you have to call out
the bad thing that's happening. Just going after
the blackmail side of it doesn't stop the
MMR shot from being used and everything else.
But this is what I thought was really
relevant.
So first, I saw this, and Shell's health
defense says and this is in response to
RFK Jr specifically because this person, this is
the first post. It says, no, comma, the
MMR vaccine isn't safe. It's not, guys. That's
something that RFK Jr has been screaming about
along with Del Bigtree and Andrew Wakefield for
a very long time, not mincing words.
And they say it comes with potentially fatal
and all life altering adverse reactions.
And this person says, did Kennedy's nonprofit go
rogue? Now remember, he's not actually in charge
in charge of this anymore, not right now,
at least as we're told. And they responded
to him saying, our mission hasn't changed. The
MMR vaccine is dangerous and has caused more
death than measles. I mean, guys, you could
argue the MMR shot and vaxxed in the
documentary
were the impetus for why children's health defense
exists today.
And I think they didn't make statements to
that effect in in different events. I've heard
them make these points.
So I said, well, that's very telling.
Glad to see CHD standing up for the
truth. %. Only one thing has changed in
this conversation, guys, and it's not the efficacy
of the dangerous MMR shot. My point is
it's RFK Jr.
Now this person makes a point here that
says,
they still made excuses for RFK Jr by
insinuating and I have seen this, by the
way, so I'm not just referring to what
he's saying. I'm just using this as my
point to continue the conversation, and I'll show
you something next. That they're they're they're still
essentially kinda making the claim
that he
is, you know, that his role at HHS
requires him to take a broader position,
thereby attempting to, like, kinda absolve him of
the responsibility.
And I keep seeing this everywhere. And I
even get why from and I don't agree
with it at all, but I I get
from, like, a business perspective why you might
wanna make that case.
Even if that is the case, though, guys,
doesn't that I mean, like, I'd like to
ask directly if they were willing to respond.
Is is that mean that you agree with
it, though?
I hope not. I hope the point is
that it should be no logic and no
reason even that means that for either two
things, either for his benefit for his career
or that maybe potentially doing more good in
the long run, which is just never what
you should lean into.
Playing the game to maybe do more good
in the long run, you wanna show me
where that's ever actually happened? You hear that
a lot. More often than not, they were
never actually honest or they get pulled back
into the system in ways that they never
fulfill what they said. Look at Gabbard is
a good example of one of those two
things. I think it's the former.
The point is that clearly
doing that gives them a pass.
I don't think that you can pass for
that at all. Pulling a punch because you're
in a new position, that's cowardice as far
as I'm concerned. Take the honest path, principles,
integrity, or something or or don't do it.
Now I know. The game is, oh, well,
somebody else worse. Well, then call that up
too. What's the the idea that we have
to pretend like we always have to be
dishonest to get somewhere is I mean, it's
almost like this Malthusian, like, Luciferian mindset, like,
do the wrong thing to where we get
to the positive outcome. That doesn't happen in
my opinion.
But
we are seeing this. But I still think
it's I'm still glad to see them make
this point just around the shot because even
that takes courage right now with all the
people well, I mean, they've been doing it
for a long time, so good on them.
But people need to understand this thing's dangerous.
So, again, the point would be if you
think he's doing that for the the the
position,
well, is the argument is clearly that he's
doing that, which will hurt people for that
point. So you're hurting people now for some
potential greater good. That's the argument that Trump
is still pushing the shot for something else.
Well, killing children is not in any way
some kind of medium standpoint or like a
stepping stone to do better good. That's crazy.
Now Kennedy oh, here's the actual tweet, by
the way. No. Oh, that's good. I'll show
you what I was talking about.
Contact investigations,
he called it.
That's contact tracing, guys. He literally pointed to
that. You know? So if you can't recognize
by now that the Trump administration or, again,
just your government, because it's not partisan, are
rolling out all of it again. In other
context, but, you know, MMR platforms are coming
out for whatever they're making them. They're pushing
MMR shots. They're making bird flu, MMR shot
m o mRNA shots that's already been going
on. They already conditionally approved a bird flu
shot for animals.
They're telling you talking they're they're they're, in
some cases, talking about masks and different protection.
Even he pointed to that and now even
contact tracing.
Wild.
But the point in general was the most
effective way to prevent the spread of measles
MMR. He has explicitly, like, exactly the opposite
of that, made that case more than once,
that, no, that's not true. Not safe, not
effective,
more than once.
So that's to me, that's just straight up
dishonesty. That's not that's not some nuance. Now
Del Bigtree says your post got cut off.
The MMR is the one of the most
effective ways to cause autism
as witnessed by millions of parents worldwide. So
over here, you got Bennet Johnson saying he's
gonna reveal the big thing
next September.
You mean that his thing right here that
he promotes is what's causing it?
Like, bombshell.
His MMR push is what caused autism. Is
that gonna make sense in September?
We gotta start being smarter than this, guys.
And it says,
as witnessed by millions of parents worldwide covered
by this documentary that they're a part of.
Now here's what I'm frustrated about.
He says, for all who are asking,
I have worked with Bobby for many years,
and I can confidently say that he has
a heart that is incapable of compromise.
I I
no. I mean, you know him. I can't
say even clearly Del knows him more than
better than most. If not, I that's clear.
More than most people.
But
I don't is anybody incapable
of compromise? Like, if they're threatened, what if
his family's being threatened? That's the whole point.
So I feel like that's a far that
feels like you're trying to lay shade for
somebody. Now I don't mean in necessarily, like,
a dishonest way. He may believe that. I
just think that's crazy when we don't know
for sure, and we are seeing him do
the wrong thing. But it says, I also
recognize that he is at a poker table
with the slyest serpents in the world, which
is true, and the stakes are nothing less
than the lives of our children and the
future of our species. Now, again, that's not
necessarily untrue.
But so the answer is to play the
game?
I mean, you know, again, maybe the reality
is that you can't be in this position
and make those moves without being killed.
Maybe. But, you know, the argument should be
that we would want them to expose all
of that. And I guess the larger ongoing
point is that's what they're slowly doing while
still hurting people along the way.
I just I will never be okay with
that. If it turns out that you're right,
even though I don't like the way you
got there, I'd still be happy to see
positive change. But my god, how many times
in history we can watch that argument play
out?
Just go along. Trust the plan. Right?
Give him a couple years. Let's see how
this pans out.
How many times can we fall for that?
It says we should not ask him to
show his cards for our sake, but we
can demand that he take a little more
time to write a better effing post than
this one. So the argument is that he
made a bad post.
I'm very unhappy about that. I saw Del
Bigtree respond this way, and I said, thank
god. Somebody's
calling it,
and I've got watered down. So, you know,
that made me upset. Not upset, but just
disappointed.
So at the end of the day, I
think what we need to be doing is
hard like, erring on the side of our
principles and our integrity.
Doesn't the excuse, the narrative, especially when we're
guessing at it, should not matter. This is
wrong. We know it's wrong, and we'll we'll
stand on that, which he did say it
was wrong or at least pointed out that
caused autism,
and wait for more information.
To assume whatever makes sense and why that
would add up is
what they expect of you.
Now, some people have are calling it out.
Toby Rogers says, I still cannot believe that
Maha wasted the first hundred days on soda
pop.
Yeah. Got played. And, of course, here's what's
funny.
This person says, I just unfollowed you.
For what? For pointing out that it didn't
I mean, these people are so rabidly protecting
what they think is the you know, this
illusion they have about it, or maybe it's
a bot. But it's just it's crazy. That
that's insane to me because that's what happened.
They didn't what you point to me what
changed happened that we were promised.
And Mary Talley,
Bowden MD says, Maha is a joke. Now
I I I would argue that the
agenda around it, the government part of it
is. But the people that believe in make
America healthy again, I don't I don't believe
that's what she's pointing to. And at least
what I'm not pointing to, but I don't
believe that's what she means. It's about the
government game around it. Hopefully, those that are
screaming make America healthy again will recognize that
and lean into people like her who are
actually doing that.
Now if you didn't see
another example of the deviation,
Donald Trump, at least, has put forward the
idea of a 1,000,000,000,000,
with a t, $1,000,000,000,000
Pentagon budget.
Unprecedented.
Which shouldn't surprise anybody.
Where do you think all that's going right
now? To Israel's agendas everywhere on the globe.
That's not my opinion. That's you can look
and see what they're involved in, guys. This
is on the table.
And the of course, the argument will be
to we have to make peace. Right? We're
gonna do this. We're gonna oh, okay. So
how does that work? You need a trillion
dollars to secure the border of this country?
No? No.
So what are they for? Oh, to go
over there and make sure that they're not
oh, so then war. Okay. No. No. Just
peace.
That's that's the Orwellian world these people are
existing in. Well, a trillion dollars is going
to go to war. Even if you wanna
pretend that that's in the interest of peace,
the idea is so you're gonna control everybody
in the world to make sure we get
that's not what even you guys pretended was
happening.
If you if you realize it would not
take a trillion dollars to make sure that
our country was secure.
What that is for is foreign engagement. What
most Americans for decades have have been screaming
that we don't want more of. That's why
he promised anti war, promised peace, and everybody
screamed that he didn't start new wars, that
we're not gonna do that again.
Ukraine's worse than ever. I shouldn't say that,
but it has continued.
Israel, very clearly. The two central points. What
happened to the whole ceasefire that was supposed
to be the the crown jewel of his
peace presidency? Yeah. That that never even happened.
A trillion dollars is the continuation of the
military industrial complex.
It worst it it I it's this. I
hate to say worse because it's just a
continuation of the increasingly worst agenda from Obama
to Biden to Trump. It just continues.
So it's worse because there's more money and
there's more agenda, but it is the same
linear agenda
as it played once again.
And how much do you think goes toward
Israel's US agendas?
A
trillion dollars.
And and he says, have to be strong.
Yeah. You know, might makes right.
Rampant lawlessness through military engagement as they've always
done left and right, and now they're giving
I mean, here here's the real point to
make. The general point is to simply go
that's such an obvious deviation from what you
guys were wanting done.
But let's go even further.
A trillion dollars. Do we remember the Pentagon
has now failed seven
seven in a row audits?
Listen to Catherine Austin Fitts.
How long will this continue? Seven audits in
a row?
So let's go back to the whole make
efficiency in the DOGE discussion. Right? So how
in the world if you if you're taking
the largest expenditure on the entire budget and
you're giving them more than ever, and the
very group that has failed seven audits in
a row,
how in the world I mean, guys, that
offsets literally everything else. Everything.
You cannot pretend you're saving any money when
you've given more money to the most the
largest black pit of money in the government
conversation.
There's so many points to make here in
regard to all of the I mean, realistically,
the law the Pentagon has the largest expenditures
in the entire like, just under the
military point, all the military spending and Raytheon,
and these are the largest expenditures individually.
So you have the largest general expenditure, and
then in within that, they're spending the largest
amount of all the top expenditures or the
the contracts, for example.
So when you're dumping that much money in
this this direction, you are not trying to
save money. You're trying to slim millions over
here by pretending that's happening while continuing the
agenda more than ever. It's a sleight of
hand, and it's a bad one.
Now this is what I found interesting. This
is taxpayers for common sense.
Why can't the Pentagon pass an audit?
It's from the year February, by the way.
So it's not new, guys. It says, in
fact, no major part of the Department of
Defense has ever passed an audit to this
very day.
According to recent congressional testimony by the nonpartisan
US General Accounting Office well, you can debate
that, but the point is the the General
Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, the
Pentagon admitted that flawed business systems and practices
are common within the agency
and
practices are common within the agency and said
it would take decades to get all the
agency books in order. Well, it's been decades.
It's 2025.
What happened?
Nothing is still the same. So that's all
this is all put kicking the can down
the road. They don't want this to be
solved.
This is broken by design. It says accounting
problems led the GAO in 1995
to put DOD Financial Management on their list
of agencies
that are at high risk of waste,
fraud, abuse, mismanagement. So if you are going
to start with the most waste, fraud, abuse,
and mismanagement,
exactly what DOGE pretends to be going after,
this would be where you start. That's what
Catherine was saying. She was calling it out
for weeks and just got tired of doing
it. When are you gonna look at this?
When are you gonna look at the Pentagon?
They haven't even tried.
I'm willing to bet you it never even
happens. At least not like there's some kind
of a feigned effort. I would imagine that
if they had to, they would do that.
But no real change. No material change. Like
everything else, by the way,
some of their findings in the year February,
about 58%
at the time of the material the Pentagon
possesses,
36,900,000,000.0
worth at the time, are items it does
not need.
58%
in February
were things they didn't even need.
Talk about the most waste you could find
in any one situation. That's incredible. 58%
of the largest expense
you know why? Because this is black budget
operation. The wars for Israel, surreptitious
regime changes,
biological operations in Ukraine. All of this stuff
is being funded through this, and we're not
paying attention,
or rather we're being misdirected to care about
smaller things. Over the past three years, this
is the year February again, the navy lost
track of $3,000,000,000
in equipment. Can you even imagine what it's
like today? It's probably so impossible to track
for this very reason, more nuanced and spread
between multiple agency reports. Like, it's it's meant
to be impossible.
At one distribution center
for the navy, there was a backlog of
over a 22,000
items
that had not been properly processed leading to
the navy to purchase items it didn't need.
Now I argue that's by design. You increase
the you increase the budget of what the
way it looks what you need, or rather
the point would be you spend into it
like any business Because if you don't spend
it, you the budget gets decreased. But I
would argue that doesn't even happen in this
topic because this is a bigger idea than
just people making budgets. This is about much
more than just military spending. But, anyway, you
get the point. You can go on. I
just found this to be profound when you
understand that this is the group that is
being given a trillion dollars.
But don't worry. Elon is now telling you
he just saved a hundred and 50,000,000,000.
We did it.
All these claims about trillions of dollars of
savings that from Doge that are gonna come
to pass. When you're getting a trillion dollars
and you dumped up another 500,000,000,000
into Stargate, another 500,000,000,000.
I mean, they've there there's been many different
projects they've started.
They're so far into the red. It's it's
insane. And the the so it's not new,
guys. Our government's been doing that forever. The
only difference is they pretend they're changing that
today by doing things like this. But here's
what I find even more interesting on that
point.
And this is the here. Let's be clear.
This is a 50,000,000,000
reported on or at least posted on April
10. I think this was maybe yesterday, the
clip.
This is an older post from March 13,
from last month. Doge says it saved the
federal government a hundred and $15,000,000,000.
My point is that every single time we've
seen this, I have personally gone through these
in the past and already shown you in
two different examples that they were lying to
you.
Then the New York Times came out with
a big report, and it's not like you
have to trust the New York Times. You
could look at the links. It was clear.
They were showing you, for example,
contracts from hundreds of millions of dollars that
were canceled before Biden was even in office
that they just included,
or claiming something was hundreds of millions when
it was really just a million or, like,
ridiculous
examples,
or lying blatantly about condoms in in Gaza
or,
circumcision in Mozambique that was real, but they're
still continuing.
See if I can grab that.
This is the one that was happening,
but it claimed they've canceled for all we
know it's not.
Shoot.
Damn. I want to find that.
Forgot to grab that today. Well, I put
out a clip by the way.
I think I could find it here real
quick.
Of that point. And the bottom line is
that you can prove right now,
even though nobody seems to wanna call these
things out,
that the Donald Trump administration is still funding
circumcision
or AIDS prevention in
South Africa, in Tanzania,
that they're actually funding here we go.
That they're funding climate change,
investigation, climate change protection, all sorts of things.
I saw four different contracts. Not some kind
of abstract thing, like blatant funding for what
you would scream was
a woke agenda, which
it is, but it's also larger than just
two party illusion stuff. Guys, this is important
to understand.
So the point is that you can see
and prove that they've been lying about this
stuff. So, again, whether it's lying about them
or continuing in other angles the same things
that they use to make you feel that
there was a problem. Doesn't make any sense
unless you see the bigger picture.
So my point on this
was last month, we had another example, and
this was and, again, you can prove this
stuff. It says the team says the receipts
provided on the website only represent and that
these this was the team from,
where is the guy's name?
Right. The Harry cream Kramer, executive partner with
Madison Dearborn, partners and clinical professor of leadership
at Northwestern University, school of man Kellogg School
of Management.
The the receipts provided on the website only
represent oh, no. First part, by the way.
I'm sorry. It was Doge speaking. The first
the team says that what you can see
on the website right now, or rather last
month, but at the same point today, only
represents 30%.
So you're the most transparent thing in the
world is only showing you 30% of what
they're doing.
How in the world can you take anything
you're seeing at face value when 70%
of what they claim is happening, you can't
even verify?
And it says, and even the selected savings
provided by DOGE for public review have been
unreliable. And that's an understatement, guys. Again, I
have personally done on the show what you
can see. Looking at the contracts and proving
they were lying about them or, you know,
mistaken, which I find really hard to believe.
And it says, he said in his view,
the total savings were this is, again, the
guy from the School of Management
looking through the ones you could prove that
the total savings were overstated by up to
80%.
Now you could look into it for yourself.
If your reaction is to go, he's lying
for something without even looking, then you're already
lost. And why are you even watching the
show? The point is that at the end
of the day, these things have been proven
to have happened in other cases.
Elon Musk has been caught lying blatantly more
than once. And, look, every side you should
consider might be lying or might be mistaken.
Looking to for yourself is the only real
answer. And you can look at the links
are there. You can look at the contract.
You can prove for yourself or watch my
show. I've been going over it many times.
It says, quote, where they've claimed to have
taken up to a billion dollars, some of
the specific items are really like a couple
hundred thousand or a couple million. I've seen
these myself. My guess, it says, would be
from what they've said they've eliminated,
no more than 10 to 20% of the
numbers are actually important. And now that's another
way to point as well that there are
examples of things that are being claimed to
be removed but haven't been fulfilled, for example.
Right? So they shave off 500,000,000,000,
but you look and then they never even
gave them so it didn't actually happen. So
you could argue they save what might have
been spent, but there's no actual savings. There's
a whole game like that, guys. That's not
honest. And it says even if Doge's stated
savings held up under scrutiny, Kramer noted that,
quote, the net savings in all of this
is very, very small. That's something that they
do basically had to admit.
When you look at the big picture, that's
my point about continual spending.
I
think that was it.
And that's that's one from before.
And of course, Charlie Kirk comes out and
says, look at what they did.
Does anybody think for one second that Charlie
actually looked at the source material? You know,
the source material that's not even actually there.
So the answer's no.
So he took at face value what a
government representative said out loud and said, we
did it.
Fire emoji. Fire emoji.
These are not journalists, guys. You a journalist
does not take at face value a bull
a stated claim by a peep person in
the government.
You can hope it's the case,
investigate it, and show the evidence. The claim
has been disproven more than once by what
Elon is saying, and these people just continue
to regurgitate what they're told because they're cheerleaders.
Now a quick overlap of the tariff point
that I just wanna include because I was
gonna talk about it before. It's just so
fascinating to me how this stuff always goes.
Mike Pence, of course, this was from the
second, I believe.
Just think it's interesting. Mike Pence came out
and said the Trump tariff tax is the
largest peacetime tax hike in US history.
These tariffs are nearly 10 times the size
of those imposed during the Trump Pete Pence
administration
and will cost American families over $3,500
per year. Check out spoiling America's golden age.
Now you can disagree with him, but at
the very least, read it and consider what
he's trying to say.
Because it's they have to understand. If you
have any understanding of how this stuff works
historically, first of all, tariffs will end up
costing you more money. Now maybe maybe, which
almost seems to it never seems to actually
happen in my opinion, that will lead to
some kind of a benefit for the country
at large, which really means the government and
that money becomes the elitist oligarchy sauce fund.
It not never trickles back down to you.
But, fine, maybe you want them to have
more money in their pockets. Fine.
Even that is unlikely to happen with the
way this tends to go because the point
is
almost every time it becomes a tit for
tat dynamic, which we just saw. So it
becomes very very interesting to kinda cover this
for the first time or rather just in
this one version of the topic. We've covered
tariffs in the past as it's already essentially,
for the moment, come to a head.
But just recognizing there's plenty of people that
are calling this out.
And what's interesting, and this was from yesterday,
the the European Union
approved the first retaliatory tariffs. Now the larger
point is just that that's what was going
on, exactly like what we told you, that
they would do the tariffs, Trump, acting like
that would push them into where they need
to be, and they would respond with retaliatory
tariffs. And then he would respond.
Everett, did we not exactly predict that? Because
that's how it usually goes. Now look. As
I said, you know, maybe maybe this will
even still work out in the benefit for
him and everybody in this country. I certainly
hope so. The evidence already begins to show
what we all kinda thought would happen. And
there's a back and forth economic warfare, which
almost always, if you keep pushing, leads to
real warfare.
So what's interesting is the, this was from
today.
Donald Trump raises China tariffs
to a 25%,
but pauses
most of the other nations for ninety days.
Now the reason is we'll get into is
because it and here's two ways to look
at it. You could pretend because it makes
you feel better about the person that this
was all the big plan. This was all
the secret plan to pretend to go after
it and not back down, but then know
that they would feel then you back down
because what? What's the benefit here?
Right? We that's the argument being made is
this was all part of his plan. See
how it's all working out even though he
literally explicitly said the opposite. Like, I'm not
gonna back down, and now I'm backing down.
May maybe maybe you're right. But show me
how this is benefiting you, how this is
even working for him.
To me, it seems like he made a
promise, and then it didn't happen, and he'd
fall back. And now he's just trying to
make it seem like this was always his
plan, which he's done a lot, by the
way. But you could decide for yourself. Maybe
you think this is something good.
The point is about China's action still going,
and I think it relates to something much
bigger.
Here's what
they wrote. Amid a global market meltdown, US
brand remember that there if you hadn't been
paying attention, the markets, even crypto, which is
telling,
and the stock market were were doing pretty
bad.
And it says The US President Donald Trump
announced a further tariff hike on imports from
China to a 25
on Wednesday while placing a ninety day pause
on punitive levies aimed at the most, most
other nations. And his argument generally was that
these were going to, you know, basically create
a benefit for their trades and that, ultimately,
he wouldn't back down. He repeated more than
once. Markets surged on the news
that he was not pulling them back, which
tells you something, and it says the with
the benchmark S and P 500 index raising
almost 10% following Trump's early afternoon announcement, reversing
a nearly 20% drop over the course of
the four previous trading sessions, which I didn't
look like that's gone back. You know, it's
still down a little bit, it looks like.
But it says speaking to reporters after the
announcement,
Trump said that leading up to the pause
in his so called reciprocal tariffs, which is
not reciprocal when you start it, some 75
countries had been in in treating
him to make a deal.
So right there, you could argue maybe he
was succeeding. Maybe this was all part maybe
he got what he wanted, and that's why
he backed down. That that's certainly possible.
We'll have to see how this pans out.
But what's funny is about the the however
it goes, as always, whether left or right,
the partisan circles up and goes, that's what
was always gonna happen, and we did it.
You know, it's typical. But it says, and
he predicted that China under President Xi would
follow suit soon enough.
Maybe. Hasn't happened yet, at least not since
I've been live or up until I went
live. It says Trump's latest tariff move postponed
at least temporarily.
What had been the start of an unprecedented
trade war against most of the world, which
is exactly what we told you was likely
going to happen from it, narrowing it to
one between Washington and Beijing. Now it's, again,
to make the point, you could argue that
that was the feigned idea, you know, trolling
the world as it were in in order
to get a benefit. But my point is
always is even if you think you did
it and even if you think that's profoundly
savvy,
there's so many ways that could've spun out
in a very bad way.
And on top of it, even if you
get what you want, you're basically bullying everybody.
That's not how you make relationships, and this
will end up coming back to bite us,
and maybe that's the point.
You know, this whole might makes right, rampant
lawlessness mindset that we're just powerful to take
what we want, which is what they're always
pushing, even though they'll say it like that,
is a problem. It's the it is the
children
driving the bus at this point. You see
that every day right now with the people
that we're watching, guys. I mean, look. You
can go from a a senile zombie to
a bunch of screaming children, and it's you
know, the point is you act like one
is better than the other. They're all the
same problem.
And it says
the, the mo the mo but most countries
other than China will revert to the baseline
10% tariffs Trump announced last week for the
duration of the ninety day period.
Before the latest hike, Trump's effort to bring
Chinese officials to the negotiating table had brought
the comb cumulative total of additional US import
duties on Chinese products to a 4%.
Beijing responded earlier on Wednesday, yesterday, by announcing
that it would impose an additional 50% tariffs
on all imports from United States to a
total of 84%.
Now it says the details of Trump's plan
to ease tariffs on trading partners other than
Beijing were not immediately clear. And concerns remain
since US China trade accounts for a significant
portion of America's total foreign trade.
So maybe that's the whole point that ultimately
that became so problematic that, you know, I
mean, I it's it's it's hard to guess
at this right now.
Because, truly, I mean, I could see a
way this would work out that would ultimately
be framed in which would be a a
win for him as it were. But my
point again is that if you win in
this way, I foresee that being negative
in the long run.
History will show you that. But, nonetheless, you
could see the way he's doing this. Maybe
he'll get what he wants out of it.
Maybe China will back down, and everybody will
end up in a in a kind of
a well, I guess I guess it seems
ended up where they were in the first
place, so it's hard to see that as
a win, but maybe it was all about
China. I mean, it's hard to tell. And
since China was America's Second largest import source
last year in the terms of value,
which was pegged at $439,000,000,000
according to US government data. That was just
behind Mexico, which shipped goods worth 506,000,000,000.
In comments to reporters in the White House
grounds, Trump took a victory lap,
contending that his threatened tariff hikes were an
effective strategy,
including when it came to China. You know?
And that's my point. Was that was that
the strategy, or did he back down because
it wasn't working? Well, who knows?
The pair the partisans will tell you whatever
they want you to hear. He failed or
he this was always the plan is what
you'll get from both sides. As usual, it's
probably somewhere in the middle.
But it says, asked about his sudden reversal
involving tariffs on countries other than China after
vowing not to back down, which is important
to remember, Trump said that the timing seemed
right even as he took obvious pleasure in
the soaring stock market. His administration's and, again,
that that seems to be counterintuitive. Right? If
the idea is that was you know, clearly,
everybody was
the market succeeded when he stopped doing what
he said would help everybody. But as his
administration official said that going forward, they would
look favorably on countries that did not threaten
to retaliate.
Basically saying, we're gonna do if we do
it again, don't retaliate, and we'll look favorably
on you.
Whatever that means. But, I mean, to me,
the the obvious point is that if let's
just say we were in a better position
now than we were before. You could maybe
argue that he succeeded in some way, but
what's not the reality as far as I
could tell.
You know, you get same thing with, like,
the Tesla stock price. It went down a
hell of a lot and jumped up a
bunch today. But if you look at the
year of the date, it is way down
from where they started when he came into
office.
Worth considering.
Saudi Agra simply says
this is funny. It's a meme for the
podcast with a bunch of NPCs wearing MAGA
hats. And it says tariffs are really good,
actually, but it's also good they're paused for
ninety days or if they don't happen at
all.
Exactly my point. Whatever he says is the
point. Whatever happens is the right thing. Whatever
they scream is what we wanted all along.
Hooray. That's Bennet Johnson right there.
Now this I found even more telling, and
this is really the point of all of
it. The rest is kind of just what
they say, what's going on. This is telling.
Patrick Hennings says it's pretty disgusting. And if
you watch this, it's just Trump talking with
these industry elements. He says so obvious
insider trading on a galactic scale.
Here's Donald Trump boasting with his billionaire donors
how they rinsed us all with the tariff
head fake.
He in this basically saying I've made billions
of dollars off what just happened.
Guys, that's insane when you really think about
it. So even if he just took advantage
of it, I kinda find that a major
conflict of interest. You're gambling on the outcome
of something that ultimately hurt a lot of
people.
Or, I mean, however you look at it,
that's a wild reality. He should not be
allowed to be gambling
on this with with in any context of
the actions he's taking.
But here we are.
And maybe that was the point all along
is the point that they're making right now.
Now, obviously, whether the first point we made,
the medical point,
we need to start making sense of, really
just being honest about how clear this all
is.
I'll reiterate yet again that it is not
about one religious group, one group of any
it's it's not about anything other than a
political ideology that is taking,
that is infiltrating,
undermining, attacking,
not just the United States government.
Zionism itself is provably immersed with a lot
of different governments around the world. It is
unquestionable,
guys. You can see it. Now to what
degree we can debate about it. My point
is you can literally see it. It's not
about whether I'm deciding. I think this is
what they're showing you. The influence on the
outcome of policy.
Politicians
in foreign countries being removed from their positions
because they criticize the genocide. That's there's no
way to misunderstand that. Even if you I
mean, and even bringing it back to the
major point today,
American citizens being threatened with removal from the
country because they criticize Israel, people who have
constitutional rights as we all do in this
country. So by principle, it's the same point
as you being removed, being sent to El
Salvador because they, on record, we'll talk about
Khalil, are we're being told by Rubio that,
no, he didn't even break the law.
Basically, we're removing him because of his ideology.
No connection to Hamas. Nothing. He makes it
all very clear. He can't say bad things
about Israel. They're not even pulling their punches
anymore, guys.
My point about this is just to kinda
make that same old joke about where we
really are. As I said for the podcast,
it's the clip of Donald Trump speaking with
Netanyahu. And I said, the leader of The
United States in a meeting with Donald Trump.
And the point is, look at the comments,
guys. Take the time to oh, not this
one. Look at the comments here.
If you scroll through this now realize this
is on Twitter. And this is rapid response
forty seven. This is the White House.
You know, whatever the some tantrum, whatever
the response. Like, it's so funny. They're just
building out their social media presence. Think about
how weird that is. It's not the White
House, but it's the rapid response forty seven
for the White House. Almost a million followers.
And the point is that almost everybody. I
mean, I I I don't even see anybody
down there going, yay. Good job. Or we
agree
so what does that tell you? Now, of
course, it could just be manipulation. Maybe there's
bots the other way. Of course, consider all
these things. But what you need to recognize,
in my opinion, is that you're on a
platform that is so aggressively manipulating
in that direction.
And you have an entire support base that
is screaming about everything pro Trump. But when
it comes to Israel, where are they in
the comment section?
I think we're being gaslit. I think we're
being astroturfed every day. You can see that
these are a lot of Republicans,
and they're saying and they support him in
everything else they do, but they call him
out when it comes to Israel.
You go through it for yourself. It's actually
kind of inspiring to see how many people
are calling this out. Same point here. As
I said with Vance,
one of the leaders of the United States
government meets JD Vance. Same kind of point.
Look at the comments. It is unreal.
Now the point of on top of all
of that, guys, is to remember,
this is a war criminal. We're talking about
somebody who is literally right now supposed to
be arrested with
it when in coming into any country that
is a signatory for, you you know, a
part of the ICC, the ICJ dynamic.
That's The United States. They don't care. So
they're literally violating international law by not doing
that and, you know, also committing the genocide
alongside Netanyahu. The point is clear that they
don't care about any of that. The whole
world can call this out. Most of this
country can call this out, and they will
literally roll out the red carpet for Netanyahu
like I showed in the last show. The
actual red carpet. And welcome in welcome him
into the government that's obviously also committing genocide.
I mean, even from a political standpoint,
even with allies,
historically, you would see them, you know, play
it safe. Right? Because that's what politician this
is the point I make about our politicians
before October 7. What do we usually expect
from a politician?
That they'll tell you whatever they want you
wanna hear. Right? They're they're we are told,
need your votes.
So it doesn't matter whether they disagree with
you or not. They're trying to get your
vote. Right? So they're gonna tell you whatever
that you know, they're gonna try to make
it sound right,
except after October 7 when they said, oh,
you want you'll you're and you'll get away
you're I'm you know, basically,
I support Israel. In the face of somebody
saying as a constituent, as somebody who is
who's gonna possibly vote for them,
what about what's going on in Gaza? I
support Israel no matter what. And then in
too many cases, insulting them. Here, have a
pager.
We have seen this. How do you explain
that? Either their votes don't translate to the
outcome, which we're talking about, or, you know,
many different choices you could argue. My point
is clearly that that shows that there's something
else they're more concerned about. Maybe the only
thing that matters.
It's very clear. And it's the same conversation
we're having in a large sense here in,
you know, in in a worldly sense for
sure.
But overall,
we can clearly see these politicians standing up
or rather just our government at large and
just welcoming these people in. My point going
back to the the the general point I'm
making is that you would have expected them
to maybe play it a little more safe.
If this wasn't something that was
something they weren't able to avoid, you would
say that they might, you know, not make
it a big splashy show or maybe meet
them somewhere else or maybe not do it
at all. They'd be post because clearly, this
is what the world sees as a these
are war criminals committing genocide. To meet them
shows you that you think you're above it,
that you're not accountable, or at the very
least that you are not
or incapable of saying no, which is kind
of what I think the reality is.
Now here
is something that
JD Vance posted.
Today, and this is the April 9, I
met with a group of hostages released by
Hamas terrorists
along with the families of hostages still held
captive. And, yeah, you'll note that they're alive.
Why? Because the Hamas entities, terrorists, or whatever
you wanna call them,
protected them with their own bodies, as they'll
tell you. They fed them.
They let them out. They walked around. They
they definite
everything you've been told is a lie. They
have publicly said this, that they were treated
kindly, that they were protected,
unlike all of the people that are being
killed in Israel, Gaza right now as we
speak.
You don't see them talking to that you
know, it's obvious that side of the conversation.
Anyway, the point is not that that's happening.
The only way it is, but the question
is why.
President Trump is committed to reuniting the remaining
hostages
and their families.
Okay. So a bunch of Israelis.
The US President is prioritizing the work to
reunite them with their families.
Why I mean, good. They I I that's
sad that they're held there. That shouldn't have
happened. In regard to or rather, I shouldn't
say that. IDF members who are taken in
the context of an ongoing war, that does
happen in war. My point is that they've
the idea of it for any human being
to be in a situation like that, you
you know, that's the point.
My point, though, is that that should matter
to the US President
more than the Epstein files, more than the
mRNA shots, more than North Carolina,
more than on and on and on. Well,
that's all they seem to focus on.
Something that should have happened long before he
returned office. Yeah. And you're right. Because Netanyahu
has been regularly pushing that back and stopping
it as they've openly now admitted to more
than once. And they know that, and they
don't care. Or either that they're either being
blackmailed, compromised, or Zionist, or who knows what
else?
Because they know you see it.
And I simply said, why does this make
sense to anyone?
With all The US needs to focus on,
how is this America First? Pam Bondi rolls
out a task force to investigate October 7.
How do you make sense of that?
And not just this one action alone, guys.
Because, again, you know, the idea of
speaking to family members and saying, you know,
what whatever. We feel for you. Do whatever
this you could do whatever you want. The
idea that this is the only thing we're
seeing happen.
Never ending succession of Israel First directives, task
forces, investigations,
legislation,
on and on and on. America First or
Israel First.
This is not an obsessive point. This is
not about anything other than a government agenda
and how clearly this is a problem.
It's amazing we can have legislation introduced by
Massey about dual dual citizenship, and yet we
still pretend like calling this stuff out in
some people's world is unacceptable.
We need to start seeing what this is.
Governor Huckabee,
for whatever reason, April 9.
Then Netanyahu says congratulations to my dear friend,
governor Huckabee, upon his confirmation as the next
ambassador to Israel. Oh, great. Another complete Israel
Blind supporter, Zionist, who is gonna be working
at the UN
to help continue to support Israel no matter
what. And he goes, thank you, Israel. I
look forward to working with you as we
pray for the, quote, peace of Jerusalem.
You know, the place that's supposed to be
the divided capital, not only Israel. You know?
These people are criminals.
In every provable way, you could actually I
mean, everything we're talking about, all the stuff
we whether Jerusalem or the Golan Heights or
the ongoing genocide, it is these are fundamental
crimes. You can prove it.
And not only do they not kind
of
not only do they continue to support it,
they publicly praise these things. They put themselves
out there.
I just don't know how we missed that.
Now Glenn also points out, a member of
Argentina's congress
is being criminally prosecuted
for antisemitism,
for an idea,
for whatever you wanna call it, not an
action.
Criminally prosecuted for antisemitism.
Guess why? For having called the Israeli for
what Israel's doing,
a genocide,
and calling Israeli leaders Nazis.
Criminally prosecuted, a member of the government.
Already has a 10,000,000 peso lien on her
assets, guys,
facing three years in prison.
How do you make sense of that without
realizing what Israel is doing around the world?
That is absolutely insane.
And this is even happening in the country
that seems to scream about how much first
amendment rights matter to everybody.
They do. But, I mean, the government is
the one that always praises all of our
customers, and they're now making this happen in
The United States.
Just to quickly point this out, because I
don't frankly care about the overlap of Tim
Pool, but what's interesting is the whole in
the inviting him to the Chatham House rules
conversation. That's not what journalists do.
They they even I guess somebody points out
below. Even the Chatham House point is not
even actually for journalists, guys. The fact that
that happens in the past around Bilderberg and
whatever is is the whole problem.
But this guy is you know, you guys
know the reality of Pymtoole here and how
he the the role that he plays in
all of this. It's sad.
But the fact that he just did this
with an own war criminal
and then kinda pushes back on people for
trying to ask, well, what happened? What did
you know? Well, I can't tell you.
That well, okay. Good. Then don't pretend to
be a journalist.
And Top Lobster says, and this is actually
important to think about. Just like the earlier
point about treason, He says a major influencer
in The United States met with a leader
of an adversarial foreign government country
under the guise of secrecy.
These are word there's words I have for
this, but they're not legal on this platform.
Daniel McAdams
says absolutely true. Some freaky SHIT here. No
wonder his show was so incredibly well funded.
What's crazy to me is guys, you could
make I mean, do you realize what they're
doing to people?
Even some even people you know,
Americans, but green card holders and whatever else
because of the idea that they simply ideologically,
they claim support a foreign entity even though
they don't, in most cases, you could prove,
or that they simply protested Israel. This guy
literally, under a guise of secrecy, meets with
a genocide committing government, and that's not a
problem. Now look. I'm of the mind that
it you have the right of freedom of
movement, right, not from a US perspective, but
just
inherent rights of, you know, human beings, international.
If he wants to go fly and meet
terrible leaders, that's his prerogative. I don't think
that should be a crime. My point is
that we recognize
how weird that is. And if we're going
to start calling things treason or crimes or
anti American, well, let's make sure we're being
consistent with our logic.
Now Philip Anderson Anderson or Anderson, excuse me,
he is a free speech activist, January sixth
survivor. That's what he wrote down. And so
basically, you know, a conservative.
Hundred eighty thousand followers. He says, I've seen
videos of all of the Trump cabinet picks
worshiping Israel,
including Dan Bongino.
What is this obsession with Israel?
Seriously, what the hell is it?
And this says, I didn't even see this
down here. It's interesting. He says, this guy
says, I'm Jewish and it really pisses me
off. It's America First, not any other country
before us. I don't care. Good for him.
See, there are honest people out here, guys,
and it's not about Judaism, guys. It's about
political manipulation.
My point on this
is I said this is not about racism
or Judaism or antisemitism.
It is about a political ideology, a political
organization
that has infiltrated the United States government.
The reality is that we all see it,
guys.
Find the courage to call it out. Now
here's what's interesting, guys. Look.
Oh, never mind. I was gonna be I
thought it was one of those examples of
some zero on there. Anyway, the point is,
of anything we're talking about right now, guys,
this is something we need to have the
courage to call out. Stop being cowed along
by people who are screaming things that don't
make sense.
The reality is if you can recognize if
this was a Chinese thing, people would be
screaming cry, of course. And there nobody would
well, I'm willing to I'm willing to bet
there'd be some other manipulation around it.
But, the right, for example, would not stop
at calling it out.
Just because there's another government behind it should
not change the obvious same point. If you've
got people dressing up in Chinese uniforms in
the government, I think we would all call
that out. Why it should make any difference
from another government
is the whole point, which really shows you
the point.
And as we talked about on AMWAKUP, a
majority of American adults have unfavorable view of
Israel according to a major poll. My point
is always that these polls tend to, you
know, easily manipulated, but, you know, take it
for what you will. I think it's way
way more than that. I think this has
shifted a long time ago.
But you wouldn't know that by looking at
Laura Loomer. It says, I'm really excited that
we are rallying Americans to be anti China.
She's just so funny and she's so low
it just kills me how
talk about, like, no tact. Right? Like, no
subtleness. Like, she'd come out and just be
like, yay. We hate China.
Screw those gross Chinese. Like, it's just so
funny. I'm like, do you not listen to
yourself? Do you not recognize how disgusting what
comes out? Like, the idea of anti China
is so funny to me.
Is it what what is it that why
would we wanna be anti
China or anti like, the idea is this
is another government
that is in many ways I mean, even
Donald Trump is out here saying that I'm
a good friend with president Xi. You know?
Look. You could be anti whatever you want.
That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying
is to, like, foster this
hatred
for no other reason that you're trying to
hide Zionism. The infiltration of this country is
just lazy and disgusting because what you're really
rooting it in is racism
because that's what Zionist do. That's all they
know. And so she's shifting this over to
some other hatred, and it usually centers around
Muslims because that's their shtick.
He goes, we need to be more anti
c c c CCP energy in our country.
Like, e even if you agree that you're
something you should be against,
fostering
anti thing anti energy is just so funny
to me. It is building the kind of
things they use against us. Now let's just
even take Israel for example. The idea is
that we should be calling out what they're
doing in this country, the turn it around
around to being somehow like, that that is
exactly what Zionist do around Judaism.
They spin it around on you and make
you wanna focus on one group and make
it about that alone. But it says it's
about time, she says, we wake up to
the fact that CCP is our enemy.
It's just funny to me the way that
they're doing this when the reality is that
every one of these governments out there actively
trying to manipulate, so too is our government
every single day. She is just desperately trying
to pull you away from the obvious. And
I I do feel a very
flailing, desperate kind of way. Look at the
comments, guys. Great distraction from calling out Israel.
I mean,
everybody everybody seems to see this even on
this platform. Now
the overlapping point before we get into the
deportations.
Michael Tracy says it will never stop being
funny how Republicans and their media adjuncts made
a living for a decade, viciously mocking snowflakes
and safetyism on college campuses,
only to adopt the exact same emotional manipulation
framework to crush criticism of a foreign policy
and of of foreign policy and Israel.
That's what they're doing. And that's Josh Yolly
just calling them out for hey. They didn't
do say one thing they're doing to keep
Jewish students safe, you know, other than all
of the other things they already do that
keep all of the students safe. But he
what he demands is something special for one
group, which then creates the illusion that it's
about Jewish people, which then creates what Zionism
needs. That's how we do that.
Bottom line, and it's not even about this
image. This is about what is post underneath
it. But this is when I posted this,
it was because the ADL came out and
said this morning, the ADL's leadership summit spoke
about where we basically, a turning point for
American Jews. The numbers don't lie. Antisemitism's
at historic levels. And they got fact checked,
and it says, nope. They lied. Basically, they're
calling everything anti Zionist, Nat, and pro Palestine
antisemitism.
That's been proven by, like, major organizations that
did a breakdown of what the ADL is
pointing to.
If and you look. There's a there's a
forward article right there, which is actually a
Jewish platform. But
I simply said, Elon depicted below discussing the
very high bar the ADL is setting, and
it's fighting against antisemitism. The joke I'm making
is that, you know, that they're didn't criticize
that, and they were, like, bending over backwards
to be like, well, he probably does you
know, we give them the benefit of the
doubt. And who I don't know. Who who
cares whether he meant it or not? It's
exactly what it looks like. And the point
is about how they hide behind that while
calling out anybody else for things that aren't
that obvious.
The point
is that they're manufacturing
what they call antisemitism.
That should not be even debated today.
I'll include the interview with James Lee. We
just played a clip from that the other
day. The true nature of the ADL and
how it spies on Americans for Israel.
And, also, Max Blumenthal, and you can watch
the clip for yourself. This is just the
CEO of APAC making the same exact point
that Massey makes, which as he as he
says, when Massey said every member of congress
has an APAC person,
they attacked him for it. Just like when,
Ilhan Omar, I think, came out and said
APAC's lobbying influences politicians. They were like, racist.
And we're like, wasn't that what lobbyist do?
Like, you just said you just called a
racist for saying that group lobbies politicians.
Oops. You're a little too reactionary. Right? It
was just because they used it.
So the same thing here. They attacked him
for saying what we all know, and he
comes out and says exactly the same thing.
But here's APAC's CEO in his own words
saying exactly what Massey pointed out and explaining
how it enables them to groom
future CIA director.
That is where we are, and they they're
not even hiding this, and far too many
people are lost in this conversation. So this
brings us back to the opening clip that
I think is well, it's worth playing again.
So funny how it always these things are
always look at that.
For the podcast.
Now it's there.
I just it it shows up wrong for
me all the time for people I'm following.
But Patrick says Trump is way over the
line on this. This is judge Napoleano with
Gerald Celente talking about
the deportations and the threats of removing Americans,
which he had now we now have a
third example.
Twice Donald Trump has pulled per has publicly
said that. Now we've got Kelly and, or,
Caroline Levitt
reiterating the same point. This I mean, for
those that might want to pretend this was
some kind of a passing thing or if
Joe, it clearly keeps going.
Here is again what they said about this.
Respect. It's just as bad now, the authoritarianism,
that is coming, Gerald. I am really, really
fearful for the president of The United States
Of America to suggest as he did on
Air Force One on Sunday night,
that American
citizens could be deported
for his press secretary to say, we're looking
into,
a way to see if this is legal.
We don't know if it's legal or not.
A is terrifying.
B betrays such a profound ignorance of first
principles to which he is sworn. He is
sworn to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution.
Yeah. Ignorance.
I don't think that's by I don't think
that's because they don't know.
Like, that's the argument is that it wouldn't
ignorance to the reality. No. What he says
there is the ignorance to the basic reality
of the constitution, the first amendment.
That, yes, illegal immigrants do have constitutional rights.
Scalia,
Reno versus Flores,
in particular with deportation cases. That's the reality
of the Supreme Court ruling, and
there's more than I can count.
Countless examples showing that's the reality. Visa card
holders, green card holders. That's my point about
in principle,
removing somebody who has the protection of the
constitution.
In principle, it's the same as removing you.
And that's what Trump is floating and that's
what they're discussing.
And to enforce,
federal law,
to enforce,
ignorance of first principles to which he is
sworn. He is sworn to preserve, protect, and
defend the constitution
and to enforce,
federal law.
Before we came on air, I was telling
you
about an American
lawyer
on vacation with his family flying back to
Detroit where they, live and stopped at the
Detroit International Airport and held up by border
patrol for two hours
refusing to surrender his phone because, quote, we
know you represent Palestinians.
And eventually, they backed down and let him
go. But that type of intimidation,
that type of chilling
was actually under arrest, and arrest is defined
as you're not free to leave,
is is profoundly un American, utterly unconstitutional,
and I am sorry to say is coming.
So an arrest. Right? Explain how you can
be arrested
without breaking the law.
That's that in of itself is unconstitutional. They
don't care, guys. They are on a new
path.
That's why this is important. If you don't
call this out now, this is a step
that we will not be able to come
back from, guys, if they if they cement
this in the direction they're going.
That's how this tends to work in history,
guys. You're watching this happen in front of
you. You listen to judge Napolitano and what
they're telling you. A lawyer
is stopped
without I mean, they go, we know you
defend Palestinian. Yeah. That's his job.
Whether Palestinians or whoever else, the idea that
you're
threatening them without
and and violating their rights in the process.
It's very chilling to know where this is
right now.
You know, you make the point we we
our the argument about, you know, just judges,
for example, and how, you know, they're politically
radical or motivated. Yeah. Like, my point is
they all are. It's not just judges.
Every piece on the board is the or
the power structure is trying to put people
in place that will achieve the agenda that
they want.
And so as you're now watching all of
these authoritarian
enforcing brown shirts out there that just seem
to be going along with it, Even though
I'm sure many of them know, I'm sure
many of them are ex military, I'm sure
many of them are ex police, or they
they know that these are violations of your
rights. And I guess they don't care because
Trump's the president
or because these people are brown and we
don't like that or whatever you think it
is.
Whatever the excuse is in your mind, whatever
you think you're going for, you are the
you are ruining this country if you are
allowing that to happen. Stand up. The the
moment the enforcement arm decides to stop enforcing
is when change actually starts to happen.
Now we talked about this
March 22.
The first time he said this, Trump could
send Americans to El Salvador.
We talked about it again
on our April 3. Americans speaking out about
Israel's genocide
could be next.
In principle, it is the same. And now
you heard judge Napoliano tell you that it's
coming.
This is not a joke, and it should
not be treated as a passing agenda. So
I'm gonna play the newest one for you,
but first, I'm gonna play the first two
just in case you would didn't see didn't
hear these the first time. 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
now. 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. You say, when I looked at those
showrooms burning
and those cars, not one or two of,
like, seven, eight, 10 burning, exploding all over
the place.
These are terrorists.
Right.
Tesla terrorists,
most of which, which is the clear reality,
are small vandalism. The ones that were arsoned
more, yeah, that could be twenty years. That's
legitimate.
But you look at the rest, which is
the vast majority, and they're dealing with it
the same. So just the idea, regardless of
the crime, doesn't matter how serious it is.
Again, that's what they're getting to in the
last one.
The worst of the worst is what I
told you they would do because they know
you're gonna be it's gonna be easier for
you to go, oh, rapists? Well, you know,
they suck, so get them out of here.
It doesn't matter. It is the principle.
Everybody has constitutional rights, and the reality is
they're making you okay with that not happening.
It's alarming.
Here's the next one.
He was on a plane.
Tell Salvador, the president there said he would
be willing to take American citizens in 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 then purposely run people over in
cars,
if he would take them, I'd be honored
to give 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.
Right. Okay. So it doesn't regardless, it doesn't
matter, guys. All of it. As we made
the clear point the point. But let's be
clear. He is talking about specifically Americans.
But it shouldn't the principle is the same
for any of it because they all have
constitutional rights. But recognize what he's saying. Just
because they're a bad person, they suddenly look.
The just like with the allegation of terrorist
for Tesla or Palestinian terrorist, we've completely,
utterly proven to you more than once now
that these people that
are not criminals, and in many cases, aren't
even here illegally.
So think about that when he's saying the
worst of the worst. And then they go,
yeah. It's the bad guys. Well, you're now
you're just, again, just taking what you're given
from the government? Isn't that the opposite of
what you guys say you're doing? The point
is clearly that we know there is a
precedent set where they can call them bad
things. Right? And they're not actually those bad
things. Sort of like the people they bomb
overseas, guys. It's not new.
So that's to say simply that they may
call them bad. They may not be bad.
Either way,
even if they're the worst person on the
planet, they still have due process. They will
still have the right to meet and face
their accuser and be in front of a
judge.
It's just as simple as that. And, yeah,
you know what? Doing all that, that may
bog down the system, but so be it.
That's the only way this works to be
able to prove that a power structure is
not abusing its power. And even then, they
do all the time anyway.
It's the meek it's it's a small measure
that we can actually use in some cases
to maybe
maybe nudge back against the power structure. I
say it like that because I think we're
already being cheated and manipulated every possible way.
This is the last string that I think
they're trying to disconnect. That's how it feels
to me. Either way, simply by anybody that
goes, yeah. That makes sense. You either don't
understand your own rights or you're part of
the problem. Time to wake up and recognize
how easy this manipulation can be seen.
It's it's like free speech. It's the same
point. If you do not defend the worst
of speech, you don't believe in free speech.
So somebody out there screaming whatever you can
imagine to be the worst possible, most disgusting
thing in the world,
they have a right to say it.
And that's free speech, just like these people
have a right to, you know, have their
rights.
And what he's doing is creating a justification
for you that may feel a little bit
acceptable to ignore that.
And if we have somebody, 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, Think about that. So you
bop an old woman over the head,
and you get your rights go away?
They suddenly get removed? What if somebody mistakenly
thought you were the guy? Now you're in
El Salvador. Too late. We can't get you
back.
I mean, anyone in the brain knows how
easily like, it's the same games. It it
like, what they already did and sent somebody
there that can't come back now, who is
actually innocent and actually was here legally.
But even again, same point. You bop a
woman on the head. Is that is that
how that works in this country? Because the
president dictates that reality?
This, you know, this is not ruled by
EDIC, guys. They don't get to decide what
happens because that makes sense in the moment
or that sounds good for our partisan game.
Stand up for what you actually believe in
and stop being cowed by these partisan screamers.
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 and don't worry Yeah.
Like all of them and you included. 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. That's such a gross, gross violation
of everything we take hold sacred. I mean,
that's why a judge Napoliano is outraged by
this, guys.
You know, it's it's that that should be
a a sobering moment to recognize somebody like
that is calling this out. He knows what
he's talking about.
Now here's the third one. This one is
is from,
well, this is posted on the eighth from
Friel Isabel. Now this may not necessarily be,
like, right today. The point is this is
a third example of this being discussed, addressed
at the White House press briefing. And here's
what's really telling to me.
The way that she responds to this, like,
this is my completely my opinion.
But I get a very real sense that
she is uncomfortable talking about this. She even
stutters at the word citizens.
I think that is more telling than you
realize.
The president has discussed this idea quite a
few times publicly. He's also discussed it privately.
You're referring to the president's idea for American
citizens to potentially,
be deported. These would be heinous, violent criminals
who Doesn't matter. The fact that they can't
even say that, like, it would make sense,
or we're gonna find out if it's in
the law, that's what Jeff Napoli is calling
out. It's egregious. It's disgusting that they can
even pretend that we have to find out
if it's outside the or if it's inside
the law. They know it's not, guys. That's
what's so crazy about this. I wanna I
want you to watch that again. The way
that she does that, I feel like that's
very telling. Like, I feel like she's just
like, I can't believe. My personal opinion.
Discussed this idea quite a few times. Oh,
and then here she says in private as
well. So that means we've got more than
three examples. So they're discussing this. This is
being outlined.
Publicly. He's also discussed it privately.
You're referring to the president's idea for American
citizens to potentially,
be deported. These would be heinous, violent criminals
who have broken our nation's laws repeatedly,
and these are violent repeat offenders in American
streets. The president has Yeah. And and there's
crimes for that, and there's laws for that,
and there's a there's accountability for that. They
would go to prison. They would just make
up some new thing. And if you were
gonna do that, that's where the congressional dynamic
comes into play. So everywhere you look at
this, every angle, they're violating what we understand
is the process. I said, if it's legal,
right, if there is a legal pathway to
do that, he's not sure. We are not
sure if there is. It's an idea that
he has simply floated and has discussed, very
publicly as in the effort of transparency. Oh,
yeah. True. Love they love the word transparency
despite being wildly un transparent. But what's funny
about it, though, or alarming,
are they just keep stressing this within the
law within the law because that's the buzz
term that the followers are gonna go, you're
not listening. He said the law. Well, guys,
if you're already sending innocent people to foreign
jails and they're not criminals, can you not
suss that out and realize that they just
make things or say things? Your government left
and right,
it's pretty easy to see. Or the fact
that they call people terrorists who aren't, or
their policy people's protesting or being ever I
mean, everywhere you look at this, there's examples
of people, of your government calling people terrorists
that are not terrorists,
of people in prison who are not guilty.
Over and over and over, we see this.
Or the the simple bigger point about the
law being whatever they want to make it.
Or how about even more specifically, Trump tweeting
out that, well, if it does what we
want to do, then it's not the not
against the law anyway. Right? Whatever the statement
was. The ends justify the means, he said
very publicly, that it's not breaking the law
if it saves the country. I think that's
what it was.
Okay. So so then the law doesn't even
matter if they end up end up doing
what you think they should do. Right?
This is so so incredibly
alarming. I just feel I cannot stress enough
how incredibly serious this is. And I'm not
one to belabor the point in the context
of, like, hyperbolic. I mean, there's plenty of
times where I think I go to belabor
the point, but I would say I'm not
one to overhype something in a fear mongering
sense. Just to to, you know, to really
lean into the scare tactic and think we
don't know. This is real.
This is one of the most real even
if it doesn't happen, just the floating of
these statements over and over is changing people's
minds. It's misinforming them in very dangerous ways.
This is one of the realest things I've
covered for American interests.
It worries me.
Now for the overlapping example, here's Maga Voice
with apparently a million a million followers.
Didn't even know know that this is funny.
There's so many of these random account, like,
this accounts that have just exploded since Elon
Musk took over just all because they're like,
MAGA Trump, yay, all the time. And it
says, breaking
protesters
in quotes.
Right? Because they're not protesters apparently. Is there
any evidence to that effect? You know, the
funny thing is it's just it's the narrative
has become that they're all coordinated. Therefore, everyone
we see is now that. That's the media
now. That's how this works. Even though I'm
sure there are in some ways, like, all
of them are in some ways being attempted
anyway, trying to be infiltrated by different political
groups, both sides of it all the time.
But it says, illegally shut down and take
over Grand Central Terminal in New York City.
Okay. Well, what's interesting about this is what's
illegal about people going into a public space
in a crowd?
Think about it. It's illegal because they pretend
that this is some kind of coordinated thing
and do it deliberately. But if they're trespassing,
which is the best you could do with
that, then kick them out.
This is the woke right for you. The
same woke left, woke right dynamic where they're
screeching about getting put them in jail for
what we just don't like.
It's the same thing you see everywhere else.
Shutting down people speaking, going after people for
hate speech. It's the same damn thing. It's
cancel culture. It is using hate speech to
suppress other people's speech or allegations of it.
That's antisemitism.
They're the same thing.
In this case,
says Christian Noem and Tom Hohman need to
be down here as soon as possible. Deport
them all.
Okay. So we're talking about a big group
of Americans in New York City that MAGA
supporters are saying deport them.
Get rid of these Americans because we don't
like what they're saying.
A million followers. If this has gotten weirdly
enough, by the way, look at the low
views for a million followers. I think that's
because
there's a lot of Republicans that are like,
I mean, I hate those people, but damn
it. That's crazy. Right? You know? And they
and a lot of them stay quiet because
they're gonna get shouted down by MAGA voice
types,
cat turd types that go after them for
just not toeing the line.
That's alarming.
You realize that just like every other conversation,
like, okay, if you're gonna make the case
there, then how is it different than January
6?
Now, and that is very different by the
way in regard to the internal building, but
I will never argue that was an insurrection.
And I can prove a hundred ways over
that it was manufactured
by a lot of different factors. Not to
dive into that right now. The bottom line
is that this is a public location, and
they have a right to walk into that
location. Right? And whether they coordinate that or
not, the point is you could there's probably
even, I would argue, especially in New York,
some kind of a law on the books
that argues that once something does like that
happen that you you know, whatever, they have
to dissipate or I don't know. And then
you could try to charge them with trespassing.
But to go any further than that or
deport them out of the country simply for
being there with the or how about this?
If they were all holding Israeli flags, would
Maga Voice even care? I think you know
the
answer
to
that.
Ryan Grim,
First Homeland Security says, there is no room
in The United States for the rest of
the world's terrorist sympathizers,
and we are under no obligation to admit
them or let them stay here,
well, you're you're under no obligation to admit
anybody, quite frankly.
But that's the game they play when they
conflate those two things. Once they are in
this country and they have a green card
or
a visa
or even a legal immigrant seeking asylum or
in any context, the point is they do
have constitutional rights whether you like it or
not. That is a fundamental provable fact.
So, yes, you are required to let them
stay in so far that you give them
due process and make the claim that would
be the justification for the removal. Yes.
And if there's no justification other than you
have a bad idea that you don't like
Israel, then you're a criminal.
It really is as simple as that. And
they are going to town on this. And
it says and look. Don't forget why I
think the left side of the conversation was
so egregiously going in the other direction so
that this would be the the this would
feel like the appropriate counterbalance.
Problem, reaction, solution. Anyone who thinks they can
come to America, they continue, and hide behind
the first amendment
to advocate for an idea?
They say violence, of course, but the point
is all they're saying is antisemitism,
but they go advocate for antisemitic violence and
terrorism. What does that even mean?
Hate so anti Semitic violence and terrorism would
mean a crime that we already have laws
in the books for, whether it's anti Semitic
or not. You're a violent crime or a
terrorist act. You go to jail. So what
exactly are they saying? You're not allowed to
come to this country and hide behind the
first amendment if you say things that we
claim are racist.
The law break breaking is applied in another
context already.
Think again. You're not welcome here, they say.
If you don't like Israel and you wave
Palestinian flag, you're not welcome in this country
is what they're telling you.
And they're just lazily including violence and terrorism
even though not a single example of the
ones they've already done are even close to
that. We'll show you Khalil next. They're that's
it's coming apart at the seams right now.
They've admitted in in court that Khalil didn't
do anything wrong, and not even the Hamas
overlapped. They can't prove any because you know
why it doesn't exist. They lied to you.
This is alarming as hell. And, of course,
The Blaze, immigration agency to scour social media.
We'll talk about that next. They're now spying
on everybody, but only the bad guys. Yeah.
Haven't we been here before?
It's amazing what people could fall for for
the fourth time in a row. Ryan Grim
says anti woke MAGA going full woke immediately
has to be the most absurdly hypocritical flip
in American history, at least by the speed
at which they did it. Predictable, of course.
Very few of you ever meant a single
word that you said about free speech, cancel
culture, open expression on campus, safe spaces, any
of it. Now I don't know if I
agree with that. I agree with the set
the general sentiment, but I'm still of the
mind that I think most people left and
right are just cowed and manipulated and for
whatever reason don't speak up when these things
happen. Maybe I'm wrong. I'm you know, I
I but I genuinely think that. It's not
just hopeful thinking. I genuinely think that. I
see examples that show me that.
But either way, he's right in the sense
that this is hypocrisy, and it is you
need to call it out. Now this is
Arthur Schwartz saying, you just love glossing over
the words terrorist sympathizer.
This is so funny to me because if
this guy wanted to make the point he's
trying to make and do it right, he
would have focused in on the violence and
terrorism,
you know, the actual crimes. Right? What he
focuses in on is terrorist sympathizer.
So you're not allowed to sympathize, which is
in your mind
with somebody out in the world that they
call terrorists, which even let's be clear. They've
called everyone they sent overseas terrorists even though
they're not. They call me a terrorist even
though we're not. They call people who wave
a Palestinian flag a terrorist even though they're
not.
But see, Arthur doesn't care about that. Arthur
just wants to go after what government said.
The sad reality is what Ryan said is
unequivocally obvious. They're doing exactly what the other
side did and people like Arthur just either
don't care or don't wanna admit to themselves
that they are the woke left that they
so despise.
Now we also talked about on the April
1, the Trump deportations were revealed to be
full.
In this, we cover at least 10 innocent
people,
not just because Democrats said they didn't break
other laws. No. No. That's stupid because that
would still be a crime if they came
here illegally.
Legal,
l e g a l, legal immigrants
with no criminal record who have been removed,
and many of them sent to concentration camps
in foreign countries.
In principle, it's no different than you.
And, of course, he's even floating the idea
of sending you.
So
this is important seeing as how a Trump
appointed judge has just pushed back on this.
Now funny how you're not hearing that from
the Republican base. Right? Or rather specifically, I
should say. I didn't mean that the base.
I meant the team sport politics
screening side on whatever. You know, the the
the people way they point to as the
majority, which aren't in my opinion.
US Judges in Texas, New York blocked DOJ
from removing plaintiffs in Alien Enemies Act deportation
case.
Federal judges in both New York and Texas
have blocked the deportation of Venezuelan men likely
to be deported under the Trump administration's
evocation of the Alien Enemies Act. Again, stopping
the White House's attempts to remove
alleged,
where was it, alleged members of the Trende
Aragua gang after the Supreme Court cleared the
way for the deportations last week, which we'll
get to in a second. I think it
was five to four where they said, okay.
You can continue at least for the moment
while we kind of sell some of the
things out. Now what's very important to understand
is the way this process is going, despite
all of the crazy screaming of people that
seem to not know what they're talking about,
this is how this is supposed to work.
This is the way the check and balance
works. Now, yes, it's inconvenient for those that
wanna just see it all go the way
they want, but this is not a crime.
Elon Musk trying to bribe people to remove
a judge and failing
is incredibly
it's conspicuous.
It shows you
I mean, quite frankly, I kinda feel half
the time it shows you that they're concerned,
that they can see that people aren't
kinda
buying
it.
Oh, excuse me. I hit the button.
You know, but the the I think that
it shows a, you know, a a concern
for where where the awareness that's growing. But
the point overall is to recognize, guys, that
this is the way that the the judge
sees what they see, whether politically motivated or
not, and they rule on it and say,
well, I think that's wrong. They can fight
back and raise it up, which they did.
And they took a Supreme Court and they
won. Right? Now there's other judges. The point
is that on a fundamental level, you can
prove that this is unconstitutional. That's what's so
crazy about it. And so that's why it's
important to recognize even though there's somehow we're
able to sweep by with a four five
four ruling from the Supreme Court, they've now
been stopped again, one of which is a
Trump a Trump appointed judge.
I think that's very relevant to the at
least the conversation, the way it's being framed.
Only radical democrat well, clearly not. And I've
been making that point from the beginning.
They only picked out the one they could
make a case about. Most of them don't
even have, like, very public examples of whether
the left or right. They really just go
to who appointed them. Right? But I keep
showing you that many of them are not
even calling out because you can prove, you
know, plenty of right leaning decisions, and they
just don't like to make the case about
it. But now we have a very clear
Trump appointed judge, and I don't think that's
even the first one.
It goes on to say, after their arrest,
both men were first transferred to an ICE
detention center in Texas before being removed or
moved to New York. One man, who's 21
years old, came to The US to escape
trend to Iraq violence, and the other, who
is 32, actively protest the regime event of
Maduro. The point they're trying to make is
if this is one, how these asylum cases
tend to work when they're fleeing violence, but
most importantly, violence manufactured by the US government.
Or in the second case, you could argue
that he was running for the violence of
Maduro. Whatever you however you see that situation,
the point is both are valid arguments
for why people see
ask for asylum.
Now, of course, the US government is not
required to give asylum, but the reality is
that they have and they do. And now
Trump is just, in many cases, just removing
that with no process. No. That's not how
that legal process works.
But on top of that, recognize that most
of them, including these, it seems, are not
actually members of this gang.
And as always, do you know how we
would know for sure?
Due process.
Introduce the evidence you have. And we get
to Khalil and the rest, you'll are you'll
begin to see that they don't have any,
and that's why this is so important.
Now it says the new case in Texas
was brought on behalf of the same Venezuelans
who challenged their potential deportation
in Washington DC, where the initial block of
the deportations was entered by US Judge, Boseberg.
That's the one they were really focusing on.
It says before, it was lifted by the
Supreme Court,
on Monday in a five four decision.
Now the Texas judge overseeing the petition we're
talking about now,
Fernando Rodriguez junior, was appointed to the federal
bench by Donald Trump during his first term.
In a brief order shortly, which you can
read right there, after the habeas petition was
filed, Rodriguez blocked the Trump administration from transferring
or removing from the El Valley detention center
in the,
the three Venezuelan men or any other Venezuelan
citizen held in the Southern District Of Texas
who are subject to deportation under Trump's proclamation.
Now recognize how scattered this is and how
clearly dishonest it is that they're using different
jurisdictions to try to continue this process because
these people only have jurisdiction over certain areas.
And so this what's interesting is he's making
it about his area, but he makes a
case, I think it says right here, also
includes that they can't just move them somewhere
else, which they've been doing. It says the
temporary order also prevents Trump administration from unilaterally
transporting these migrants
outside of the county where the detention facility
is located or neighboring camp, counties in Texas.
Right? Simply just to get them in a
place to where that no longer applies, which
is just in and of itself very dishonest.
And it says the temporary restraining order from
Rodriguez will remain in place until April 23
or until he weighs in further. He is
set to consider
whether to extend his order or issue other
forms of emergency relief at the hearing set
for Friday.
Rodriguez wrote in his decision that absent emergency
relief, there is a substantial
likelihood that federal immigration officials will remove the
Venezuelan migrants who face deportation under the act.
So basically saying they're gonna remove them unconstitutionally
if we don't do something about it. Quote,
in the present manner, the court finds that
the removal of the three people they're discussing
or any other individual
subject to to the Alien Enemies Act
make sure I'm not saying that wrong. I
always say it wrong. Yeah. It is Alien
Enemies Act.
Saying
this any or the the people present or
any others subject to that act by The
United States would cause immediate and irreparable injury
to the removed individuals
as they would be unable
to seek habeas relief. So what that means,
that that to say that they couldn't be
deported, for example, if they were breaking the
laws or that was proven, the point is
that's not what's happening.
If they are moved to Venezuela
and then they they you know, basically, there's
no there's no ability for them to have
any kind of due process. Right? There there
there's no ability for them to petition the
claims, say, that's not true. My lawyer has
different evidence.
It's referring to habeas corpus. They don't have
the ability to ultimately fight back, which is
their right under the constitution.
It says, furthermore, if The United States erroneously
removed an individual to another country based on
the proclamation,
a substantial likelihood exists that the individual cannot
be returned.
So, again, that only applies in the context
that, well, they would be returned if the
argument was that this was done wrong. There
was no and we know that's done wrong.
That's the whole point because they're not even
given any ability to meet their accusers, see
the evidence presented against them, fight back. That's
due process.
So what they're making the case about explicitly
is that just making it a a fundamental
thing. If we know that they have no
ability to do that, then clearly this is
wrong. This is Rodriguez referenced the ongoing case
brought by a Maryland man,
Garcia, who we've referenced more than once. He's
the one with the bulls in gear and
basically
provably basically got picked up in 02/2019
in a Home Depot,
accused of being MS thirteen. They released him
under no charges because there was nothing to
back it up and have later even proven
that he has no connection. But because they
wrote down MS thirteen on a piece of
paper, today, the Trump administration is claiming that
he's a leader of MS thirteen and a
human trafficker. Human trafficking, they haven't even tried
to present evidence for. That's been a topic
going around the the White House press briefings.
Sort of like we're gonna get to about
the things they're claiming about Khalil, yet when
they present their documents, they don't even make
those allegations.
We are being aggressively gaslit right now by
the government.
More than I've seen, I think, ever, to
be quite honest.
Garcia is an innocent man and including both
legally here and has no no the record
no record, but also not even
connection to what they claim in regard to
the TrendAroga
MS 13.
Let's not forget that they also claimed that
they were all TrendAroga until they were like,
oh, wait. No. It's different.
Or Khalil, for example, when they said Visa,
and then it goes, well, oh, it's a
green card. Oh, well, then that too.
That's not how that works.
Rodriguez referenced the ongoing case brought by, by
by Garcia, who was arrested by immigration authorities
last month and sent to El Salvador where
he's currently held.
Who there, they said, you gotta bring him
back. And they said, well, we're not, we
don't know how to do that. It's not
our responsibility.
Even though it literally is and has happened
more than once in the past and it's
not even that complicated. They're just clearly playing
a political game here with people's lives.
It says the Trump administration official acknowledged Garcia's
removal to El Salvador was an administrative error.
That's their quote. But the government has said
he's now in the custody of El Salvador
government.
Gosh. Just think about that. Knowing knowing that
they know they made a mistake and that
he's not what they claimed and then still
not even trying.
It's disgusting.
Both sets of plaintiffs are attempting to convince
judges
not to
not to not just to block the deportation
of the men who filed suit, but to
block all future deportations of any Venezuelans under
the statute. Now it's important to understand.
Now actually, first before I get to that,
don't forget that Garcia
was here under asylum because he he went
he presented himself and and was in the
process of asylum, and that's why that's illegal.
And even if he wasn't, the point is
they are still required to present the evidence
due process. It's the same conversation. But this
is important to understand.
This does not mean that they're not they're
telling them not to deport them. That's how
this is being
dishonestly represented.
What they're saying is you're not allowed to
use or they're trying to make it the
case where you're not allowed to deport any
Venezuelans
using the a the aliens enemies act.
Because you don't need that. If they're already
here illegally, you can deport them with the
laws and the books. The difference is they
have to prove it. You see? They know
with this claim, they they have to prove
this too. They think that gives them political
cover by saying they're terrorists because we declared
them terrorists, and this act is a wartime
thing that we deport them. It's done. It's
over. National security.
The only reason that construct was put together
is because they know they don't have the
evidence to point to these people, and that's
required in a deportation case. You see, it's
very simple.
So when they say they're trying to make
it so no future deportations can happen, they're
talking about just in that way, not that
under the act, not that they can't be
deported if they're breaking the law. That's always
the case. It says, they argue that Trump
administration's evocation of the law
of of specifically the alien enemies act is
unconstitutional.
Why? Because The US is not at war
with Venezuela and despite despite, and dispute the
government's categorization
of the plaintiffs as gang members. So one,
they're not in the gang, and most of
them have proven to not be part of
the gang. They've never once proven that any
of them were, by the way. Not one.
As I said before, it would would surprise
me if they didn't have some, but not
a single one that they've already sent have
been proven to be part of the gang.
Or at the very least, they have been
presented evidence for any of them. Again, not
even disputing that some of them are, but
it's interesting to think about that.
And and so that and then also that
they're not at war with Venezuela. So how
are you gonna declare a wartime
alien enemies act?
Of course, you can argue war on drugs,
war on whatever we say, and that's how
that game works. So that's always why the
reality is whether or not you think they
can use that, that they're still not giving
them their rights regardless of what thing they
claim they're using.
Trende Aragua says a criminal organization is not
a nation
or a foreign government and is not part
of the Venezuelan government.
Very telling. It says the compliment filed by
in Texas says adding that the government's evidence
for Trende Aragua membership,
quote, relies
heavily on physical attributes like tattoos, hand gestures,
symbols, logos, graffiti, and manner of dress, which
even if are clearly evidence points are not
proof.
None of which the attorneys argue are reliable
ways of identifying gang members.
Oh, I would even say I wouldn't even
disagree with
that. They're clearly reliable ways of potentially
identifying gang members. But in a court of
law, it does not prove that you're part
of the gang simply because you make a
similar hand gesture or wear a certain hat.
You know that.
Same way that they say, oh, look. You
put this certain gesture up. That means you're
part of x, y, and z. But it
says attorneys in the New York case argued
in their habeas petition
that the two men, quote, and others similarly
situated to them are now all at imminent
risk of removal
under the Alien Enemies Act, adding that since
Monday, quote, the government is resuming its summary
removals of Venezuelans who are in ongoing immigration
proceedings, including petitioners here without any judicial review.
That should matter to everyone who cares about
the constitution.
The new cases were filed after the Supreme
Court allowed the Trump administration to restart, for
now, deportations of migrants it claims are members
of the gang. But the court specified,
this is what's important, that any migrants facing
removal
under the Alien Enemies Act are subject to
due process.
They've already violated that. And said that as
of Monday night, detainees must
receive notice that they are subject to deportation,
which they were not doing. So understand,
you got two sides of this. Even the
Supreme Court basically said you broke the law.
They just basically said you keep doing it
if you want, but you have to follow
the constitutional
law. And they still aren't doing that. On
the other side of it, you got a
Trump Trump appointed judge who's going, no. No.
No. No. They they can't keep using the
act in general. And so that's what's being
sussed out. Realize it's being misrepresented
right now,
That this is them. They're allowed to keep
doing what they're doing. That's not true.
They're disputing whether or not they can keep
using the act. Either way,
they're required to give these people constitutional
rights. Alright. You know, saying it like that's
wrong.
Acknowledging their existent inerrant rights, but they're due
process is the point. Presenting evidence, going to
court. And, yeah, that's gonna take a while.
That's why they don't wanna do this. And
that's and also because they don't seem to
even have the evidence, and it seems they're
deporting people that
protest Israel who have no criminal record.
It says supreme court said in an unsigned
opinion that, quote, the notice must be afforded
in regard to giving them you're gonna be
deported
within a reasonable time and in such a
manner as will allow them to actually seek
habeas relief in the proper venue before such
removal occurs. Now, of course, what they're gonna
say is, well, that means that they're gonna
run.
Well, maybe.
The point is, well, are they illegal? Are
they actually criminals? Are they even here illegally?
You should have to prove that. Right? The
the idea that we're just erring on the
side of the power structure is insane to
me, especially from the rebels fighting the deep
state.
But, yes, clearly that can happen. But the
point is they still have the right to
defend themselves
and do it and giving them that notification
is like you being given a notice to
say you have to appear in court. That's
how that works.
Now it says the court also specified that
any claims brought by migrants that the administration
says are covered by mister Trump's proclamation
belong in habeas corpus proceedings,
be brought in the district where they are
confined. So not jumping to whatever location is
most likely to help you deport them.
Everything about this is so gross that you
could tell what they they know what they're
doing is wrong.
It also ruled that those subject to removal
under the law are entitled to judicial review,
obviously.
There was no just judicial review multiple courts
found for over 230
migrants who were sent to El Salvador in
March, where they remain detained
at a maximum I wouldn't even call it
a max. It's not a it's it is
a concentration camp. By every definition of the
word, look it up for yourself.
It's wild. Right?
Everywhere you look right now, if you're an
honest person, you can see that the reality
is showing you what they're doing is wrong.
Unless you just don't care about the law
and so far as your agenda gets carried
out, which means you're part of the problem.
Now this is the next one. This is
the next day, in fact.
Judges block on deportations
to third countries
will remain in effect through next week. So
it's just the next day following up in
reporting, and it says a federal judge in
Boston said elements of the Trump administration's policy
of deporting migrants to countries other than their
own, that's the point here, without being able
to raise concerns about their safety was very
troublesome.
So you see, each individual judge seems to
be coming at it, you know, like, basically
this point, and they're all valid points.
This is about people that are claiming asylum
specifically.
Like, the other one that was basically I
think that was the gay barber guy who
said, look, I I fled this in Venezuela
because I was being persecuted.
And that's why you gave me asylum. And
now you're sending me back to one of
these countries. Actually, the
I'm I thought probably conflating one. One I'm
I'm thinking of is the one about El
Salvador. There was one guy, and I don't
think that was the barber, who was here
in this country given
asylum, and the judge even ruled previously that
he had to stay here because he was
at threat at risk in El Salvador, and
they tried they're sending him back.
And so this is them going, look. You
have to consider these realities. That's the law.
You could change the law if you wanna
try to do that. That's how you think
that works. But at the moment,
people can claim asylum, and these people have
been given asylum. And you what you're doing
is breaking the law. It's just one more
angle of how obvious that is.
The US District Judge Brian Murphy said his
recently issued temporary order blocking such removals will
remain in effect for another week while he
considers issues issuing a longer lasting preliminary injunction,
which has the potential to stall the frequently
used deportation approach taken by Trump administration.
It says, if someone is picked up tomorrow
morning at 6AM
and taken to a country where they could
be killed based on an individual danger, they
have no way to raise that.
That's again, all of this falls under due
process, guys. If they simply just went through
the basic motions of what we understand our
rights to be, none of this would be
happening. And that's what they didn't because they
don't have the evidence to remove these people.
It's very simple. And so what they're saying
is that if somebody was gonna be removed,
they would have that right to raise this
with some authority and say, look, I can't
go back to this country. And, hey, even
then, maybe they could get sent somewhere else
if they actually had a crime they were
committed and that evidence was presented.
What they're doing is sending to a place
where many of them are actually at risk.
And it says, deputy assistant attorney general Drew
Insigne pushed back on the criticism arguing that
delaying removal so that migrants could raise concerns
about their safety would backlog the courts.
Potentially years of delay. Well, yeah, yeah, that's
insane. That's like saying, well, we can't give
the constitutional rights to Americans because then they'd
all they'd all back us up in court.
It's the same argument, guys, because in principle,
it's no different than you.
Regardless of whether that would delay the court
process for what you want to see,
it's they still have inherent rights. They're still
afforded those rights to be able to great
to go no. That's not.
It's just so infuriating that we have to
even argue this stuff.
Again, to be clear, saying that is the
same as saying that you shouldn't be afforded
your rights to, you know,
to same same conversation, to due process
simply because like, think of January 6, for
example. This is actually a perfect example.
Everyone there was charged with all these crimes.
Right? If they had simply said, my god,
we can't just give them all due process
because that would backlog the system forever.
It's the same argument, same principle. It's no
different.
Would you be okay with that? Because, well,
yeah, the system can't get backlogs. No, guys.
That's not how it works. The system is
the system. The reality is your rights are
inherent.
Shall not be infringed.
Same with everybody.
Both sides also disagreed on whether judge Murphy
has the authority to return one Guatemalan man
who was already sent to Mexico without being
able to raise concerns.
And because he faced fears of prosecution, torture,
it says Ramudo urged judge Murphy to order
the man to be returned to The United
States where he can exercise his due process
rights.
Lawyers at DOJ disagreed.
God, it's so insane to think about this.
So literally, they're going, look. He has due
process, but you can prove he does. The
lawyers
for the Department of Justice Department of Justice,
did we disagree?
So you're literally disagreeing the fact that people
have constitutional rights. That's the only way you
can make sense of that. You can't start
splitting off and say, well, they don't know.
If you look at the reality of the
law, which I guarantee you they know, it
applies to everybody. So what they're saying is
we don't care. We don't care about your
rights, and we will stand up and argue
whatever well, nothing new. Right? Your government doesn't
care about you.
According to the plaintiff's lawyers, one of those
men is maker Espinosa,
Escalona, who entered The United States last year
with his partner
and their one year old baby.
Here's the important part.
After
the three turned themselves into immigration authorities,
right, so crossed,
presented themselves,
they were separated.
One of them has been detained at the
detention center in El Paso. Their baby has
been given is in government custody, so horrifying.
Probably being abused at the moment. I'm not
being that's just the reality. If you look
at the stats,
it's not good for children. It's the worst
possible situation in my opinion.
And and the
the, the the man is detained at the
in El Salvador now.
So you come into this process. I mean,
how else is that supposed to work? Right?
So they're trying to conflate the idea of
people who are in the process of presenting
themselves
with people that are sneaking into the country.
It seems as if they're see going explicitly
after just people that are literally going through
the right process and happen to be in
the middle of that process and ignoring all
the people that are actually out there breaking
the law.
In in a broad sense, I'm sure there's
overlapping examples, but think about that. They presented
themselves, and now he's in El Salvador. How
was that supposed to how else was that
supposed to go?
The Trump administration alleged that he is a
member of the Venezuelan gang. Oh, there you
go. That's all it is. His family denies
that. The lawyer says it's not true. Guess
how we would know?
F in due process. What he is legally
afforded because it's an inherent right.
Even for illegal aliens, guys, it's so impossible.
Quote, for them to be sent to El
Salvador, you have to investigate and prove that
they are what they're being accused of. We're
distraught. I don't wish this any wish this
on anyone, they say.
That's the reality.
If you if they were a member of
the gang, you could easily prove that then
just present the evidence. But, nope, Now this
guy is in El Salvador probably for the
rest of his life because he's not anyone's
get who's gonna advocate for him? Simply because
he sought the American dream. Isn't that what
we're told? Literally came to the gate and
said, let me in. I want I wanna
apply. I wanna become oh, get him out
of here. He's a gang member because he's
got a tattoo. Now his kid's in
some foster place where he's probably being abused,
his mother who god knows where, and he's
in El Salvador. Because that's the reality of
what just happened there.
Here is what the ICE director wants to
do.
Run deportations like Amazon Prime for human beings.
Now this is where it gets especially chilling
if that's even possible to go to be
worse.
This
completely dovetails with the technocratic agenda, which by
the way is what Derek has been telling
you was gonna happen all along.
Amazon for human beings.
The head of immigration, head of ICE,
said he would like the agency to implement
a system of trucks
that round up immigrants like the dog pound.
Right? For deportation in a system similar to
how Amazon delivers packages around The United States.
Now you even may agree with that.
The idea of efficiency, even though I think
the whole premise is disgusting, you might make
sense of. Right? But this is what really
gets me.
He says, quote, we need to get better
at treating this like a business.
Does it how does that make sense to
anybody?
As far you know, probably to the corporation
of the people like the US government continue
to facilitate.
You know, like the private prison system that
is a disgusting
like, the end of the day, what this
does is creates an incentive it incentivizes people
to put people in this position.
If you turn private prisons into industry, well,
then it incentivizes you to put people in
those prisons. It incentivizes you to actually
try to make them more to increase recidivism,
which means the rate at which they return.
I talked about this years ago. Private prisons
were literally promoting. We're proud
of their high recidivism rates.
So I guess we're not reforming people. Is
that the game? So it's all the idea
is we're we're helping. We're reforming them and,
you know, teach no. No. We're we're punishing
people in most cases for non violent crimes.
But not even that anymore. Right? It's just
about getting them in the system so we
can continue to keep the wheel going. Profit.
If you're gonna start turning illegal immigration based
on people who are not given their rights,
in in many cases, people who are not
even here illegally, who are not criminals, in
some cases who were trying to go through
the system, if you're gonna turn into a
business, those people will never be seen again.
Especially as you see the US government, you
know, the ones sending freedom around the world,
working with the most dystopian,
dark,
genocide committing, authoritarian governments in the world.
You think that's not provable? Look at Saudi
Arabia. Look at Beccalia himself. Look at El
Salvador. Look at all the countries they actively
work with. Look at Israel. And you tell
me they're not the problem.
But, yeah, let's turn it into a business
for us to snatch up people off the
con off off the ground and send them
to foreign prisons where they'll never be seen
again. That can't go wrong.
Todd Lyons is his name, acting ICE director.
He said that the he wanted to see
deportation process, quote, like Amazon Prime with be
but with human beings. That was his exact
phrasing.
His comments were first reported by Arizona
mayor. Other speakers were Trump's border czar, Tom
Homan, you know, that very intelligent gentleman who
calls Spanish Mexican, and the secretary of the
US Department of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem. You
know, both very clear Zionists who are actively
either uninformed of everyone's rights or don't care.
Now, the Aliens Enemies Act, it says Nome
promised to expand
on its use
to more efficiently deport immigrants.
Oh, yeah. Because it's just a temporary thing
because, you know, bad guy. No. No. No.
That's just like everything else. Patriot Act was
temporary too, guys.
Now it's gonna be expanded to help do
the bad things worse.
Lyons also spoke highly of other new technology,
and here's the point, being potentially implemented in
the deportation process. Oh, who didn't see this
coming?
Derek clearly called it out, screamed about it,
in fact, rightly so. No one seemed to
listen. He expressed hopes that the agency could
utilize artificial intelligence
to, quote, free up bed space and fill
up airplanes,
allowing ice to deport immigrants at a quicker
pace.
This is just I mean, in so many
ways,
disconcerting.
These are human beings we're talking about,
especially when we realize how many have been
misrepresented
And that he's floating you next.
He expressed hope the agency could utilize artificial
intelligence.
The ICE director also said that he has
been working on with Elon Musk and Department
of Government Efficiency
for access to Social Security numbers, to look
for voter fraud.
Several speakers, Holm included, echoed the opinion of
having a deportation system that runs like a
business,
you know, which means profit, by the way,
off of people suffering, Which is with assurance
that the Trump administration is depending on the
private sector for completion of its mass deportation
agenda.
Many representatives from the military industrial complex were
in attendance.
I wonder why.
Couldn't factor that. I can't figure that out.
It's not like they have some great reset
technocratic agenda being built around you, and this
absolutely rushes that forward with digital identification, biometric
scans, and, you know, all the stuff that's
totally not happening.
And quote, it says, quote, let the badge
and guns do the badge and gun stuff.
Everything else, let's contract
out. Sure. Could be some 80 unit 8,200
startup police force that's now roaming our streets.
It could be black you know, Blackwell Academy
Blackwater, which is the same damn thing in
my opinion.
This is getting bad.
I mean, it's bad.
It's getting worse.
Quote, ICE's fantasy of becoming Amazon Prime for
deportations. I mean, can you even imagine that
that was that's not some analogy someone used.
That's actually what they said.
It's like they're trying to push this and
desensitize us. That may be the point.
The fantasy of becoming Amazon Prime for deportations
exposes the infrastructure behind Trump's deportation agenda. This
is what they wrote. Mass removals powered by
big tech and data
or
mass removals to
drive the agenda of big tech and data
to make an excuse for
to
flesh out.
This is Cynthia Rodriguez, national organizer for the
Latinx,
stupid. I hate that word. Advocacy group. Quote,
over the years, ICE has contracted with tech
companies to automate policing,
relying on the dehumanization of immigrant communities.
Now, obviously, what's funny at the end here
is, like, you could all this stuff is
it could be the it doesn't matter. This
is happening.
They're doing this.
It is a violation of your rights. But
of course, because the word Latinx is included,
they're gonna go, oh, Democrats, you know, that
kind of thing, which I am of the
mind is a rapidly decreasing number.
But it's funny to make it's still worth
pointing out and ridiculing people that are that
stupid. But the bottom line is that the
information is important whether or not it's coming
from partisan or not. And it's obvious what's
actually happening.
Now, Melnick from the
was it again? The American Immigration Council is
a lawyer who's been fighting for some of
these people. And again, same point applies. Whatever
you think about him or whatever side, whatever
partisan, the information is verifiable for yourself.
In this case,
in Baltimore, ICE is arresting people so quickly
now that it can't transfer them out fast
enough. Now there could be a combination of
the fact that they have nowhere to move
some of them right now because of these
court filings, but it says forcing people to
stay in squalid cells for days. Cells designed
only for a short stay, twelve hours or
under. No beds, no bathrooms, privacy, no showers.
Here, one this is a a report about
one grandmother
who experienced this.
Now
in this were overall report, so far, this
is about just what she suffered.
I can't verify whether or not she got
due process. It seems like most of them
are not, which I think is pretty ubiquitous
right now.
So the point is, was she and is
was she does she have a green card,
a Visa, a silent? The bottom line is
a lot of these people, no one's even
trying to find out.
And that for me is terrifying.
And all this really gets into is if
you read it for yourself,
basically saying is they were in small cells,
no hydration. They weren't they weren't given tooth
toothpaste, toothbrushes, or anything they needed. They had
to sleep on the floor, you know, all
these different things. Now, you may not care
because you think they're all criminals. That's that
is the stupidity of the conversation.
Certainly could be. The reality that we're not
you know, why we don't know because they're
not be given not their rights are not
being acknowledged.
So for all we know, this is just
a green card holder's grandma that's being forced
to do all this might end up in
El Salvador like plenty of others that are
innocent.
The bottom line is this is being done
for agenda,
violating even their rights by shoving them in
inhumane conditions.
Don't forget, though, this is what Ken Bruce
said about this before we got here.
Whether this was a stupid slip of the
tongue, then you can decide. But we know
this is what's happening.
But that will revoke the visas of whoever
it is that fits within the category of
of what it is we're we're deciding is
going to get your visa revoked.
Yeah. Right. So whatever we decided is is
what's going to get your vote. It's not
self fulfilling prophecy.
What'll get your vote is whatever we decide
is what will get your vote. Sound good?
How stupid.
Well, as he writes and points out, and
this is a very provable reality we've already
gone over. Bloomberg covered this about 90% of
migrants sent to Salvador lack criminal record. Now
that is just about the background criminal record.
Some of them do appear to be illegal
aliens.
My point is you can prove many of
them were here legally and then also had
no criminal record.
238
accused of being trendy, Aragua,
just a small fraction have ever even been
charged with a serious crime. So that's important.
Even if they were here illegally, the claim
of them being trendy, Aragua was how they
used this act and didn't give them due
process, which even then was still a crime
to shove them in this prison.
So even if you're just, well, now they
were here illegally.
How does that make sense to anybody? Even
if that's the case, there's already laws to
deal with that.
You're shoving somebody who in many cases were
just actually trying to go through the process
into a concentration camp, and all you can
say is they were here illegally because the
government told you that?
Sad.
He says the overwhelming weight of evidence which
we've already gone over shows that Trump administration
rushed likely hundreds of entirely innocent people, many
of which literally were here legally into planes
and sold to El Salvador literally sold they're
paying them to house them from your tax
dollars for potential lifetime imprisonment.
Trump administration has provided zero evidence to the
contrary.
None. That was yesterday.
Update on the Khalil case.
Mohammed Khalil,
And and this is the here, I forgot
to grab that.
Wait. How do you spell that again?
There it is.
This was the report we did on that.
On the thirteenth, the US government's flagrant attack
on free speech, Mohammed Khalil, just the beginning.
Now at his first immigration court hearing,
the government didn't even have any evidence ready,
and the judge was giving them until Friday
to submit it. That was on the eighth.
Publicly discussed, Very obvious. They didn't have any
evidence to present. Now at the time, what
they said was, well, it just doesn't mean
they don't have any. Fair enough. Seems like
a weird thing to do, but fair enough.
Okay. So we jump forward to two today.
And there's he says there's one thing this
memo against mister Khalil makes clear. Well, first,
he posted this. This was on the ninth,
I think, or this tenth as well. He
says, wow. This is the full document
submitted by Rubio against mister Khalil
invoking the enemy's alien the enemy the aliens
enemies act.
The standard is extremely differential differential. A judge
must accept this so long as it is,
facially,
facially, yeah, is that that facially factually
reasonable and and bona fide. But this is
so threadbare that it might not even satisfy
that.
Now I'll show it to you. He says
there's one thing this memo against mister Khalil
makes very clear. The Trump administration is openly,
which is what we already told you, saying
that his conduct was lawful
and that he didn't break any laws. You
can read it for yourself, and I'll show
it to you. And that they are trying
to deport him for his speech
and his beliefs.
This is very it's what they're claiming.
They're simply saying that it's a national security
risk because he's anti Israel.
How does it not apply to everybody else?
Again, in principle, it does.
Now this is, Janine Eunice,
Palestinian American civil liberties speech attorney.
He says after the immigration judge in Almaglio's
case ordered the government to provide evidence to
justify deporting
him. This is what they filed. He said,
I've been a lawyer for fourteen years and
a criminal defense lawyer for nine of those
years, and I have never seen anything like
this.
He says totally nebulous, vague allegations about involvement
in antisemitic protests
and disruptive
activities
without any specific attributions of unlawful activity or
even antisemitic in, quote, speech to Khalil himself,
which in any event
is protected
under the front of your constitutional rights.
The US rightly does not have hate speech
laws.
In this in The US and all civilized
societies, if government if government is going to
punish someone under the law, it had better
provide evidence of specific forms of unlawful activity
by the individual it's targeting.
Not only has the government entirely failed to
do that here, but it's obviously, its case
is predicated on punishing first amendment protected speech
and protest.
Then you have to understand how crazy this
is.
There is only one explanation here, guys.
This is for Israel.
I mean, I shouldn't mean you could simply
argue, I guess, that maybe the US government
has their own interest in in undermining our
rights, so I do think is part of
that. But, I mean, the if you were
gonna do this, you wouldn't do it this
clumsily. And this like, remember, Khalil was called
out by a Zionist organization by name.
Many times on Twitter, you could look for
yourself. And they were going, get him. Get
him. And then they got him alone.
It's obvious that Israel
this is not my opinion. They're telling you
it's because of Israel. They're saying it's because
he criticized Israel.
So you need to recognize right now, they're
doing this in a way that so dramatically
changes things or, you know, the way we
perceive this shows that they're violating the law
and don't even care.
And the only thing that makes sense to
me is that's for a foreign government.
Maybe it's because they want this to fall
apart.
You explain it to me.
Here's the actual document. You can read it
all three for yourself.
Here's Marco Rubio's signature,
right, to inform you upon the notification of
the Department of Homeland Security.
Says under this
act, is he's he's this alien is supportable
from The United States if the secretary of
state has reasonable ground to believe that the
alien's presence or activities in The United States
would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences.
I
mean, that's a crazy
word salad of just, you know, whatever we
think.
But whatever, fine. The same point applies.
You would need to present the evidence that
shows
what threat,
what potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequence he
would potentially bring and how that you can
prove that. That's due process. It's the same
conversation no matter how you cut this. It
says for cases in which the basis for
the determination of the alien's past, current or
supposed belief statements or associations
that are otherwise
lawful.
It says it right there.
They are deporting him for things that are
technically legal.
The security secretary of state must perturbially determine
that the aliens present or activities would compromise
a compelling US foreign policy interest.
Guys, this is the same old thing. Going
back to war war on terror, it never
stops.
Pursuant to these authorities, I determine the activities
in the absent the presence of these aliens
in The United States would potentially
would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences.
Same thing. It's nebulous. It means nothing. These
determinations are based on information provided by
DHS, ICE, and so on regarding the participation
and roles of somebody and Khalil in antisemitic
protests.
It's right there.
None of that violates the law, guys. You're
allowed to protest whatever you want.
And you see, that's why even the d
the Homeland Security makes the post, they say
antisemitic
violence and terrorism.
They're not even claiming that.
We're being gaslit from the core right now
guys they know what they're doing.
That's terrifying.
Which farce thought what so protests and disruptive
activities
which foster a hostile environment for Jewish students.
That's
it. And guess what? Make the claim. There's
laws right now that you if you if
they broke a law somewhere in that word
salad,
making people uncomfortable, whatever you think that translates
to in the law, then charge them with
that crime. This is the weakest threadbare thing
I've ever seen. And how do you not
see that make sense for something else?
You think this is the best they could
do?
I mean, my god. If it is, that's
pretty pathetic.
Now it goes on to say the public
actions and continued presence of Khalil in The
United States undermine US policy
for what?
To combat antisemitism around the world. Yeah. So
they're telling you it's US policy because they're
not hiding that
to, combat an idea
around the world. How is that American interest?
How is that America First? How is that
even within American law to claim you can
combat what people think if it's against Israel
around the world? Because realize, we're not talking
about anti Jewish sentiment here. We're talking about
people that call it Israel, which they make
clear, and they call that antisemitism.
You know, some days you just do this,
you're like, my god. It's just so frustratingly
obvious. And I that's when I think, well,
maybe we're all just understanding this. Everybody sees
it, and all all we're trying to do
is convince the screaming people that already know
they're wrong and don't care.
I don't know how people can't see this
stuff.
Now here's the actual article presented from AP
saying pressed for evidence against McAleel.
Government cites its power to deport people for
beliefs.
Straight up.
Here's what it says. Facing a deadline from
an immigration judge to turn over evidence, which
they drag their feet on. Remember, because they
didn't have it, which is clear. This is
the second time they were requesting it, and
this is the best they can do.
Khalil, the federal government has instead submitted a
brief memo
signed by Rubio,
citing the Trump administration's authority to expel noncitizens
whose presence in the country damages US policy
interest, and otherwise known as whatever Israel wants.
Realize,
just like before when Trump tried to throw
it at Rubio and Rubio tried to throw
it back at Trump, Rubio is the one
signing this.
I'm starting to smell a little bit of
a scapegoat coming on here. Now it says
the two page memo, which was obtained by
the Associated Press does not that's the memo
we showed you. Does not allege any criminal
conduct. A legal permanent US resident. He was
here legally, did not break the law, has
no criminal record.
This was the way they started this.
And a graduate student who served as a
spokesperson for campus activists and everybody for that
matter. He was the middleman for the whole
conversation because everybody respected him. That's not my
opinion. That's been publicly discussed.
Now it says, Rub rather Rubio wrote, Khalil
could be expelled for his beliefs.
He said that while Khalil's activities were otherwise
lawful, letting him remain in the country would
undermine US policy to combat antisemitism
around the world and in The United States.
In addition to efforts to protect Jewish students
from harassment and violence in The United States.
Yeah. Laws already exist for all of that.
And to claim we can't that you have
to combat
an idea in The United States doesn't need
to be explained.
Do we need to combat anti China conversations?
Anti UK? Anti American?
How is it possible that you can understand
that you're allowed to be anti American, but
you're not allowed to be anti
you know, Israel is the point.
It's insane. Or whatever. Even if you wanna
pretend it's only about Jewish people, you have
a right to be and think and do
whatever you want,
except when it comes to what Israel doesn't
like.
That's not my opinion. You can see it
for yourself.
Condoning antisemitic conduct and disruptive protests in The
United States would severely undermine
that significant foreign policy objective, right? So, what
he's saying is the objective is combating antisemitism.
How do you how do you not see
what this is? Israel's objective. So, they're doing
that for Israel. Okay? And he says, condoning
conduct,
which will be protected under the constitution,
would undermine that objective.
I mean, I don't even need to break
this down. That's he's saying what Israel wants
from us to let him be in this
country would undermine that objective.
Pretty easy to understand.
Attorneys for Khalil said the memo proved the
Trump administration was, quote, targeting his free speech
rights about Palestine. Pretty obvious.
Quote, after a month of hiding the ball
since Malmo's late night unrest, a month he's
been in prison,
lock up.
After that, a New York
and after a month of that and taking
him away to a remote detention center in
Louisiana,
immigration authorities have finally admitted they have no
case whatsoever against him.
That's the attorneys.
Quote, there is not a single shred of
proof that his presence in America poses any
threat.
The US government has also been revoking the
visas of international students
who criticized Israel
or accused it of mistreating Palestinians.
You could the link it's included. This is
not a secret. That they now that they've
set that tone, like I keep telling you,
they're just going get rid of all of
them then. That's what they want. That's what
Israel wants. Get rid of any student who
is currently here on any kind of a
visa or or green card who is speaking
out about Israel, which every single one of
those in principle is the same as removing
you from this country.
But the government has not produced any evidence
linking Khalil to Hamas
and made no reference to the group whatsoever
in the post they just sent to make
the claims to the to the court.
But I thought the whole premise was that
he was working for Hamas. At least that's
what all the screaming talking head said.
Now,
Jen s girl
points
out US immigration and customs enforcement, ICE. Well,
first, actually, start with this post. This is
recovered by this is from Huffington Post.
ICE says it will stop ideas
from coming across the border illegally.
This was real.
They posted this. ICE enforces 400 federal laws
to ensure public safety and national security.
It says if it crosses The US border
illegally, it's our job to stop it.
Month
people, money, products,
ideas.
Guys, they're they're not even hiding it, except
they know they went too far, and they
pulled it back, and they deleted it.
In a now deleted Orwellian social media post,
ICE announced it will stop ideas from crashing
the border. Talk about un American, guys. This
is for a foreign country.
But she says police state policing thought.
Today, Marco Rubio admitted deportation of students is
not due to anything illegal but because of
their beliefs. Earlier today, ICE posted this now
deleted tweet.
Where are all the honest conservatives, guys? I
see a lot of you. I think it's
becoming the majority. I wanna see more.
I wanna see more people have the courage
to stand up and call out what you
damn well know is a problem. That's insane
to me that we can't that's why they
deleted it, guys.
Now he also points out, just quickly go
over a couple more cases, yet another story
of a Venezuelan man ripped away from his
family in The US. Why? Because of tattoos.
A tattoo of a rose in a crown.
That's it. Which, sure, you could argue might
mean that. You know, while we don't know
for sure, same old point. Because they didn't
even try to give him due process, present
evidence. They just said, tattoo, get him out
of here. Venezuelan, get him out of here.
It's been three weeks and his wife and
his kids have no idea what happened to
him.
El Salvador is holding him incommunicado.
He's in El Salvador in a concentration camp.
Her husband is trapped in El Salvador prison.
She has no idea how to get him
back.
It's the same conversation.
These are people living in this country. Understand?
And we're not talking ones we're talking about
here, guys, are cases of people who are
either seeking asylum, who have asylum, have a
green card or a visa.
There's other examples out there that are kind
of up in the air, some of which
might be more likely to be criminals or
or gang members. The same point applies, though.
Why would they have not even tried to
present this evidence?
New York Times reports that Trump administration is
moving to strip hundreds of thousands of immigrants
of Social Security numbers
that the got they that they got when
they were granted work authorization,
repurposing of a, a death master file to
try to erase their previous legal presence in
The United States.
Evidence is very clear. Now we start to
understand how the Social Security part plays into
all of this. Something big is happening, and
it's not about what you think.
What what we're talking about here is people
who are here legally
and now trying to kind of fold this
into some master list where they just delete
their Social Security numbers. And then through that,
argue they're illegally here, deport them anyway.
These people are here legally, you understand. Now
also recognize the interesting claim
about how all these people are just all
draining everything from the society and, you know,
we're draining all the systems and all of
the programs.
Well, some of that clearly exists. I'm I'm
willing to bet you that that's probably far
more Americans doing that to which, by the
way, feel like rightly so these days. The
government's always screwing us too. Then the point
is that these people were going through this
process. We're filing taxes. We're I mean, there's
actually happening as well. There's a conversation about
them
using the IRS to go after some of
these immigrants.
People that are literally paying taxes. And it's
just so silly to argue. Even in the
case of illegal immigrants, like, the point is
not about people who are in fact engaging
with the system. Now, I always make the
point, if you're here legally
trying to avoid that recognition, that's a crime.
It should be regarded as such.
A lot of these people are in a
point in which there's some other limbo going
on, and they're just broad stroking the whole
damn thing.
Now sec Noam.
What's her first name? Christy Christy Noam? The
secretary Noam. And this what's the rest of
it here? It's, yeah, Christy
Noam. Oh, that's funny. That's a parody account.
Not that's not the point is still the
same for the post. That's just funny. Secretaries
SEC Noem, just remember that's a parity account.
I wonder what a real one is. Anyway,
so sec so Christy Noem said yesterday that
the Venezuelans and Trump administration
is paying El Salvador
to hold the no. The pet that the
the
the Venezuelans that they're paying to hold in
El Salvador should be detained for the rest
of their lives.
She says, I think she it says, I
think I can't think of anything more un
American
than life in prison with no trial.
75%
of them have no criminal record, and many
of which I've shown you already were here
legally. And yet they might spend the rest
of their lives in a foreign country, in
a foreign prison of which there are neither
a citizen or have ever been and do
not deserve to be there. My retainer should
be in El Salvador prison for the rest
of their lives.
She that's quote no unquote by in saying
that.
Just just to clarify for the podcast, this
wrong tagging has nothing to do with the
prove of the relevance or the fact that
that was something she said. Here's the article
right here, quoted by Axios.
That's just it's what the rest of their
lives? No. It's the same point. They're just
trying to make they're trying to go so
far over the top because that's not all
they can do. They're locked in.
Even if someone is in this country illegally,
that we know that some of them were
completely innocent in every other context, then still
to why would they then spend the rest
of their lives in prison?
These are gross, bad,
wrong people.
I don't know how else you understand this.
Anybody that could make sense of that, that
means you're willing to hurt these people so
you don't lose your agenda. That's disgusting.
Now an interesting overlapping point, this is from
today. Justice department moves to drop a case
against
what seems to be an actual case of
an MS thirteen leader. Now this is not
the same person. Not not the Garcia guy
that they're lying about and claiming as a
leader or or human trafficker without any evidence
to back that up. I've this is my
opinion.
The case is simple. They're now dropping the
case against him to deport him to the
same thing. Now, as you read, you'll see
that they
they dropped the case against with East Coast
leader, they claim, of an MS thirteen gang
after two two weeks after he was charged.
You see, so there this is an actual
case of a gang member that they were
going through the process of the their laws
already exist. Charge them with a crime. They're
going after him. Okay. You have an actual
case here, and instead, you drop the charges
and try to deport it. Why does that
make sense?
I can tell you why I think it
makes sense. Because right now, you've got people
that are claiming are MS thirteen members. I'm
over here going, they haven't proven a single
one of them. Right? Whether it's trying to
Nicaragua. Okay. So now they take a case
they're already working on that's an actual game
member and go, woah. Drop the charges. Let's
kick them over there.
That way, it all muddies the waters. One
of them go, there's a hey, guys, m
s 13. They're gonna think, well, that won
it.
That's what I think.
I think this is a callous, disgusting move
to try to hide the fact that everyone
else you sent there is not a criminal
or not even part of the gang. By
finding someone who already working at a real
case that might have already gone to jail
and deporting them somewhere else,
You could think what you you you think
you can decide what you want about this.
It think about every angle. Whether or not
you what I think is the case, why
would you drop a case against somebody who
you were already working on to put in
from putting you in jail?
A criminal.
Instead, you wanna drop it and move him
somewhere else.
I mean, that doesn't make any sense whatsoever,
especially since I think it will muddy the
waters, and they will start saying he is
a part of MS 13, and we're thinking
about the wrong guy.
Lastly on this this point this came out
yesterday.
The Babylon Bee.
And it says cruel
this Mexican crime Lord was deported by Trump.
Now, yes, this is what they do. They
make, you know, you know, but this is
the the satire. Right? But see, this is
not this is bad humor, bad comedy in
my opinion, because the point is what you're
this is politically oriented. You're trying to make
the argument that people are going, oh, so
sad. They're sending evil people to jail. That's
not what's effing happening.
They're literally sending people who are innocent to
prisons for life, and many of which were
even here legally, none of which were afforded
constitutional rights that are inherent.
All the people making these videos are the
ones that anywhere else will speak forever about
the the importance of the constitution, but you'll
make a bunch of videos undermining the fact
that the most obvious example in I've ever
seen of that being undermined.
It's just a partisan it's a gross partisan
thing we're seeing everywhere. It's a joke. You're
taking some guy that's, you know, dangerous with
tattoos and he's part of he's a gang
leader and oh, but he just wants to
have flowers and live in the country.
You know, as opposed to a grandmother with
kids who's not a criminal, who has a
visa, or, you know, a random gay barber
who's now being raped in prison or being
beaten up by the guards, which by the
way is being reported just because he had
the wrong tattoo and is not part of
the gang and we could prove that and
was also here legally.
You know, not those things though. We're gonna
pretend they're all evil criminals because that's what
Trump wants us to think.
Followers.
Well, on top of all of that,
the US government will now be scanning social
media posts for quote, anti Semitic activity.
Now they say for visa applicants, you understand,
just like every other conversation of the NSA
or whatever else that probably that we know
never stopped,
that's never how that works.
This is a foot in the door to
scan everything
under guise of that, which will probably be
used against people like us to argue that
we're now break now suddenly, they're passing laws
that say that's a criminal act. Now all
of a sudden, I'm a legal criminal. Suddenly,
I could be sent to El Salvador because
I said Israel's committing a genocide. It's happening
in Argentina.
It's a real thing. This is not I
mean and this is
I mean, a lot of people in this
position would stop talking about this because of
how real that is.
I talk about what's important.
Today,
the USCIS will begin considering aliens' antisemitic activity
on their social media platforms
and the physical harassment of Jewish individuals as
grounds for denying immigration. Yeah. So in other
words,
two things that are legally protected as speech
and one thing that's already a crime regardless
of this. And we mash it together and
go, yeah. Those are the same
thing.
Lazy.
Physical harassment of anybody, whether they're Jewish or
not, is already a crime and would already
be something they consider. It's just clumsy.
That's the best they can do, guys.
And Nicholas Lavin says, the less immigrants, the
better, which, you know, just bought could be
a bot. Probably got you, yeah, for all
we know. Or also people that are in
the partisanship that actually think that way.
Derek says, idiot. Wait until this is focused
on Americans too.
Here's the actual post. DHS to begin screening
alien social media activity for antisemitism.
So you don't need to this is not
debatable.
They're telling you we're going to look at
their social media for ideas. That's exactly why
ICE posted that. That's exactly why what they're
doing with Kaleo and the rest are clear
about ideology.
This is not what we pretend this country
is. Whether it's for visas or not, that's
not what we pretend.
And frankly, it has been that way for
a long time, guys, but that's what we
can make it if we believe, if we
stop allowing government to lie to us like
this and stop leaning into the partisan screamers.
This is wrong.
Ideas should not be the point.
Because it's not because frankly, it's not a
crime here. Why would it be a crime
to come into the country? This is this
is what Israel does.
That's important to understand. Now here is what
Jeremy Scales says about it. Right? Drop site
first says, The US did an eye visas
and green cards based on antisemitic social media
activity.
Targeting specifically, this is what's important, support for
Palestine.
So it's not actually antisemitic activity. I'm willing
to bet you there are people out there
screaming negative things about Jewish people they don't
care about. It's about protesting against Israel. It's
about supporting Palestine.
And they're making that clear.
Starting today, US Immigration Officials will begin combing
through social media posts. Oh, meanwhile, they're taking
time away from social
trafficking
investigations.
Right? Drug investigations or whatever else you think.
Frankly, I'm glad the drug investigations would stop,
but human trafficking investigations have already provably been
wildly diminished to go after protests, to go
after anti Semitic post. That is a provable
fact.
Funny how the people that are screaming about
that topic don't care
the new crackdown announced by the department of
homeland security will affect individual applying for lawful
permanent residents
Jeremy says the Trump administration is using the
term antisemitic as a placeholder
for, quote, opposing our wars and criticizing Israel.
And it is a grave threat to the
very premise of free speech.
Glenn about the same post. This is effective
immediately DHS surveilling social media of millions of
non citizens to intimidate pro Palestinian speech. Glenn
says after years of conservative grievances.
This is the best part the best point
in the conversation in this point.
After years of conservative grievances about Biden's DHS,
monitoring social media to eliminate and punish dissent
or to go after hate speech, guys.
Same thing.
Trump's DHS now doing the same
to see who should be deported or denied
visas
under the guise of stopping hate speech.
But don't worry, he says, virulent anti black
racism arguing Muslims should be killed, LGBTs
put to into camps are fine.
You just can't express antisemitism,
I e criticism of Israel, which is often
equated with being pro Hamas.
Very simple.
Now lastly, just a quick point, as Anomaly
points out, Christians are getting brainwashed into supporting
legislation that deems the bible
antisemitic hate speech. That's so that's it's legitimately
not a joke, and it's so this is
what's so incredible for so those of us
that are seeing this built. You have the
the the Republican right,
the religious part of this, the the Christian
right who are blindly supporting Israel even and
supporting the agendas like this even though literally
in this conversation
is making the
passages of the bible considered antisemitic hate speech.
It's very public. Candace Owens talked about this,
and you can read it for yourself. I'm
just gonna quickly go through this. Here's a
larger post about it, and it's specifically about
adopting the IHRA definition of antisemitism.
That's what we've talked about in the past.
That's like saying that Judaism and Zionism are
the same thing, and you can't criticize Israel.
You can't even make any, like, what is
the point they made? You can't,
undermine Israel. Something like that. I'll play a
clip from,
from, Walsh in a second.
He also posts this saying, I asked Grock
to tell me how many US states have
adopted
the IHRA
definition of antisemitism.
And it said,
oh, look. Almost, oh, this was, let me
make sure.
Have adopted
oh, okay. This was how many states? One,
two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine,
10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17,
19, 20. So it looks like maybe like
30.
And then he says, ask me how many
cities have. Same thing. So the point he's
showing you. And then he asked Rock how
many countries in the world have adopted that
definition. You just look for yourself.
That's insane.
And as he shows here, here's just a
few of the rules.
Making mendacious, dehumanizing,
demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews, such as
the power of Jews as a collective, such
by the way, I mean, I would call
you grow I would call you ignorant, I
guess, for making the argument without understanding Zionism,
but you have a right to do it.
I would protect your right to say whatever
you want, including that. And it's just such
as, but not exclusively the myth about the
world Jewish conspiracy, but it gets into accusing
Jews as people of being responsible for real
or imagined wrongdoings. What's what's incredible about this
is the argument we make all the time
about the idea that Israel is telling you
this is the country of the Jews.
And then does things as that, and then
when people turn around and make that point,
they go, you're racist. But that's the whole
game. It's a very lazy or it's it's
becoming clear to people. It's Zionism using all
of it.
But this just, the other
I'm not even oh, this is from oh,
you know what's funny? This is from the
state.gov.
The one you should be looking to is
the actual posting from, like, the holocaust, you
know, definition or the Israel posted stuff because
they make it very clear that you can't
criticize Zionism, for example.
But this is the clip I wanna play.
The the overarching point
is if anybody's trying to tell you that
you're not allowed to say a certain thing,
then that is a violation of your constitutional
rights. And here we are. Where you all
of these countries every one of these states
every one of the cities have all leaned
into something that undermines what they swore an
oath to violates
it. So like the anti BDS laws or
everything else we're talking about or the anti
Semitism awareness act all of it.
And here is
Matt Walsh telling you the obvious. As we
talked about yesterday, if you go to the
IHRA website to find out what their definition
of antisemitism is,
the first glance won't be very shocking. According
to its definition,
antisemitism
is basically hatred of Jews. That makes sense?
The trouble really starts however, when you scroll
down the page a bit and you get
to examples of antisemitism
that this cadre of foreign governments has provided.
And there you'll find a number of examples,
examples which will have the force of law
under this bill,
including the following.
Quote,
these are all examples of antisemitism.
Accusing the Jews as a people or Israel
as a state of inventing or exaggerating the
Holocaust.
Okay. See, that's what's interesting. You notice how
that this Israel as a state part was
sort of left out from the US government
state department post?
That seems pretty obviously interesting. The bottom line
is that you conflate those things, and that's
not the same thing. The state of Israel
is a country.
If you live in Israel, you're an Israeli.
You're not Jewish by default because you're in
Israel. That's not how that works. Or born
in Israel. That's not how that works. It's
not a it's not a nationality. It's a
religion.
And you can ask Orthodox Jewish communities, guys.
This is a problem. They are angry about
how Zionism has bastardized this concept.
The star of David is a Zionist thing,
and it's not an the the,
what's it called? The menorah, the, you know,
the the candle what's it called? Damn it.
I forget the name. That that is the
symbol classically for Judaism.
The reality is when you conflate those two
things, like Zionism and Judaism or the state
of Israel and Jews itself, that's how you
create this illusion.
And but, again, the point is always is
regardless of that, even if it's not the
case, you're allowed to say what you want.
That's free speech. He's simply highlighting you even
from a maybe, like, post daily daily wire.
I forget if he's even part of that
anymore. That imploding thing that it is.
The point is that he's somebody who's also
calling this out.
Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to
Israel or to the alleged priorities of Jews
worldwide
than to the interests of their own nations,
denying the Jewish people that No. Sorry. I
have to that one more point there is
that that that's the overlap of the dual
citizenship point. Now, again, using Jews right there
is the way you manipulate that because there
are Jewish people who live all over the
world. I'm not concerned about people who have
a religious practice of Judaism being in anything.
No different than being Christian or Muslim. Those
things can influence people to do all sorts
of things. It's consideration
at the most.
But the point is about being an Israeli
citizen and having that interest towards another government.
But, of course, the the point to be
made is that you yes. There's a lot
of Jewish people in the world that are
convinced that they are acting for Israel because
they're Jewish, and that does play a factor.
You have to consider that. The important point
is always is to make it clear that
it's not just about broad stroking one group
of people. At religion is my point. It's
not about all Jewish people or all Christians.
That's I just can't make that point enough.
It's very important.
Right to self determination, e. G, by claiming
that the existence of a state of Israel
is a then to the interests of their
own nations,
denying the Jewish people the right to self
determination, e. G, by claiming that the existence
of a state of Israel is a racist
endeavor,
applying double standards by requiring of it behavior
not expected or demanded of any other democratic
nation,
using the symbols and images associated with classic
antisemitism, e. G. Claims of Jews killing Jesus
or blood libel to characterize Israel or Israelis,
drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that
of the Nazis.
Holding Jews Right. Like, think about that. So
as you're committing genocide and your own people
are calling you out for being doing the
same thing, like saying never again to you,
you can't say that. Which, again, his point
is all where this was gonna get to
is that these are all just things that
you of course, you're allowed to say these
things.
You're allowed to say them in any context
in this according to the bill, except when
it comes to Israel.
Right? Right? It's the old saying, if you
wanna look who you know, who rules over,
you look to who you're not allowed to
criticize. Collectively responsible for actions of the state
of Israel.
Now
there are a number of very serious problems
here. The first is that most of these
examples of antisemitism,
statements that the bill would legally classify as
hate speech against Jews,
are actually criticisms of the Israeli government. Mhmm.
And whether you think the criticisms
are fair or not, whether you think they're
true or not, it should go without saying
that American citizens have the right
in any and all contexts to criticize foreign
governments in whatever way and using whatever language
they want.
You should be able to say anything you
want about a foreign government, including it's evil,
it's terrible, it shouldn't exist, it should be
wiped off the face of the earth. Right.
Now I'm not saying it's right to say
that,
but of course you should have the right
have have the right to say that about
a foreign government as an American citizen. Are
you kidding me?
We have the right to criticize foreign government.
We have the right to criticize our own
government.
So we must certainly then have the right
to criticize the governments of other nations.
Now, keep in mind, it's not just one
or two opinions about the Israeli government that
you're not allowed to have under this bill.
That would be bad enough.
Dictating the viewpoints that Americans can have or
express about a foreign country is pure madness.
It is evil no matter how limited the
rules might be, but these rules are actually
incredibly wide in their scope.
After all,
it says that applying double standards
to the state of Israel is antisemitic. That's
what I was looking for earlier.
There are hundreds of opinions you might have
about Israel that could be classified as double
standards.
And who determines which opinions are double standards
and therefore forbidden? Zionists. Well, apparently, the International
Holocaust Remembrance Alliance gets to decide. That's the
definition we're referring to.
Think about how wild that is.
Double standards?
I mean, it's it's just a catchall. It
means whatever you want it to mean. And
now especially when they start doing things, you
know, like literally poisoning wells in the West
Bank or in areas of Gaza. And then
when people say that, they go blood libel.
Even though you can literally look up the
old conversation. I I'll just do that since
we're making the point.
This is horets. I mean, almost every one
of these old claims, the people that make
it out to be and realize was Zionist
at the time, not just only Jewish people,
placed in the placed the material in the
wells, the title reads. Docs point to Israeli
armies, 1948
biological warfare. That's for
you. And what's it talking about? Poisoning the
wells in for exactly the conversation they claim
as blood libel or any number of other
points like that. It's it's just that's how
insane this gets. And so the point is
they can just start turning things that you're
they're like, right now,
for beheading for embedded babies, then they go
on to massacre and literally behead babies by
bombing everything or doing so on their own
on the ground.
But you claim that they're, oh, yeah. That's
blood libel.
It's a classic thing.
Now just to end with a couple points,
you recognize what we're talking about. The squirrel
points out an article from the BBC, in
fact. Chemical burns, assaults, electric shocks, Gaza and
style BBC of torture and Israeli detention.
It says Israeli systemically raped Palestinian hostages, forces
them to perform sex acts on each other
as they watch and tape it. The BBC,
which fabricated the rape hoax that enabled this
internationally
buried
enabled this, intentionally buried this deep in their
article. It's in their article. You could read
it for yourself. The links are included. The
point is this is the kind of stuff
that's now being publicly reported by the largest
malt mainstream alt platforms. How do you make
sense of that?
We could prove this is happening. Every human
rights group that you can that is has
any standing has already called all this stuff
out for years,
and this is who your government's working with.
This is a smaller thing in the context
of what's all happening, but I figured it's
worth pointing out because this is the kind
of disgusting,
unnecessary torture.
They do this
constantly.
What you're looking at here
is a truck driving down the streets in
the West Bank spraying sewage
all over their buildings, their streets, their cars,
in their windows
that make people get sick.
This is what you're seeing is a synthetic
sewage being sprayed all over Palestinian neighborhood. This
is well documented
in East Jerusalem by Israeli occupation forces. The
Israelis have a name for this noxious chemical.
It's called skunk. You can look this up
on Israeli media, guys. They literally concoct this
disgusting combination of draw sewage and, like, feces
and urine and whatever else they've rotted together,
and they'd spray this all over protesters.
This is what they're dealing with.
This is a very public conversation. There's articles
written about this. Oh, this is the BBC
article right here.
Imagine having this much evidence over a hundred
year period and nothing ever changes.
Antiwar.com,
Israeli strikes, this is from today, on Gaza
killed 40 Palestinians over twenty four hours.
Same old, same old has been never stopped,
not because of some fake ceasefire. All these
governments are involved. This is an ongoing genocide.
If you wanna stop it, do something about
it.
Israeli military raised Gaza perimeter land to create
kill zone. Now you'd be mistaken for thinking
this is an article from a year ago.
No. No. This is new. They're doing it
again because that's how this works.
Publicly reported
a a kill zone where anybody that crosses
the line
will be shot, even children, even Israeli hostages,
which happened.
But that's okay, though, because it doesn't international
laws apply to Israel, apparently. They'll tell you
that themselves.
Another kill zone in a location that has
been absolutely decimated. There is no logical reason
other than torture, suppression, and displacement, and ethnic
cleansing.
Just to cut to the chase of the
article,
here are the statements from IDF members on
the record with with The Guardian.
It says some got away with their food
and their lives, the officer said, quote, the
thing is that at that point, the IDF
really is fulfilling the public's wishes, which state
there are no innocents in Gaza.
It says, quote, a lot of us went
there. I went there because they killed us,
and now we're going to kill them. And
I found out that we're not only killing
them, we're killing them. We're killing their wives,
their children, their cats, their dogs. We're destroying
their houses and pissing on their graves.
That's how the article ends.
These are officers
speaking on the record
to the Guardian.
Are we gonna pretend like this is not
happening?
Where are
we? This is the kind of frustration.
This is obvious. They're proudly telling you we're
murdering everything. We're killing their animals.
They don't deserve to exist. And you got
Trump and Biden and every partisan element
riding this forward.
Do something about it.
And, of course, Trump threatened to attack Iran
again. No big deal. Suggest that Israel could
lead the way
like we didn't all know that was where
this was already going.
It really is time to wake up, guys.
I know you all see it. I know
you're all here, and I know this could
be tough. It's, you know, it's I mean,
but that's that's life. Things are hard.
Things can be tough.
Never with something like this is the answer
to hide from it. You know? Yes. I
mean, in general, like, if that's not something
you have to constantly immerse yourself in, I
know that can be hard. For those of
you that are here trying to get this
out there and waking people up, you know,
it's okay to take a minute. I take
time, days to clear my head.
We can't let this fall.
And the reality is that this is more
important, and it's not just this one part
of it. I mean, I'm gonna end with
a clip yet again about
what's happening in this country and the reality
of where this goes.
Because they're going this is where the there
this is building to a point to where
you're next.
And I just don't know why we can't
see that.
If we weren't making a difference.
In in regard to what the outcome would
be, even if they circle back around to
it later,
and this would have already happened in my
opinion. I mean, the the way this is
going is showing you that this is a
a rapid rush for some objective.
But overall, regardless of what you think,
you know this is wrong. You know what's
happening is wrong. And this I mean, this
is straight up on American. I mean, I
don't I I feel like that term is
so wildly overused. This is probably one of
the most obvious examples of that phrase that
term that I've ever seen in doing this
in decade plus. This is quintessentially
un American,
and all of them are doing it. The
whole damn government left and right, it's rolling
out in front of you. Find the courage
to stand up.
Thank you for tuning in. Thank you for
continuing to fight when this is, you know,
pretty unpleasant.
I mean, this is stuff that will sit
with me the rest of my life, whether
it's because we're just having to look at
it, or because you wonder whether you could
have done more.
But I'll tell you what,
you're doing something. And those of you here
in this chat, those of you here how
sharing information, those of you out there doing
your own shows, talk you know,
you're the reason that, you know, every single
day that people, whether it's from COVID or
this or every other discussion, you're out there
doing that when you're showing people the information.
You're helping people,
potentially saving lives. That's all you can do.
Thank you for being here. I love you
all. As always, question everything.
Come to your own conclusions.
Stay
vigilant. Some respects, it's just as bad now,
the authoritarianism,
that is coming, Gerald. I am really, really
fearful for the president of The United States
Of America to suggest as he did on
Air Force One on Sunday night,
that American
citizens could be deported
for his press secretary to say, we're looking
into,
a way to see if this is legal.
We don't know if it's legal or not.
A is terrifying.
B, betrays such a profound ignorance of first
principles to which he is sworn. He is
sworn to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution
and to enforce,
federal law.
Before we came on air, I was telling
you
about an American
lawyer
on vacation with his family flying back to
Detroit where they,
live and stopped at the Detroit International Airport
and held up by border patrol for two
hours
refusing to surrender his phone because, quote, we
know you represent Palestinians.
And eventually, they backed down and let him
go. But that type of intimidation, that type
of chilling
was actually under arrest, and arrest is defined
as you're not free to leave,
is is profoundly un American, utterly unconstitutional,
and I am sorry to say is coming.