Welcome to the daily wrap up, a concise
show dedicated to bringing you the most relevant
independent news as we see it from the
last twenty four hours.
Friday, April eleventh twenty twenty five. Thank you
for joining me today. Definitely a follow-up from
yesterday's show. Some important things that I wanted
to add on to a lot of what
we talked about yesterday.
Some interesting develops developments in some
one in particular that I wanna show early
in the show that I think is one
of the best examples of what I've been
kind of highlighting around
a classic tactic and used quite a lot,
but more than I've ever seen right now
in regard to sort of pointing at something
that
the power structure is very well aware that
most everybody knows about in some way or
another,
and basically going that thing and then making
that become some, you know, vehicle through which
to achieve a new agenda.
It's just a really interesting tactic, and I'm
gonna show you this about something Gabbard said
around voting voting you know, this bombshell that
writes basically framing it as the the election
machine voting machines
are not secure.
Like,
I'm pretty sure I don't know. I I'd
be surprised if there's literally anybody in any
realm of the political conversation that is not
aware of that that's not just like a
that both sides have made that claim when
it suits them. So it's a very interesting
thing to see. But it's kind of saying
we're breaking the information and see they're showing
you all the transparency.
Or these weird little displays they have of
them all sitting around the table and announcing,
like, some kind of book report to Donald
Trump what they did, and it's all a
show to let you feel like you're somehow
on the inside when all it really represents
is government saying things out loud, which I
don't know why
anybody who has ever watched any process,
anything political, would pretend that a government entity
saying something means it's true. The problem is
they've convinced themselves that those people are different.
Certainly hope you're right. All the evidence seems
to suggest otherwise, but certainly hope you're right.
But we're gonna talk about some opening points
that I've again, that were, basically follow ups
from yesterday's show that I thought were important.
A follow-up on a a quick kind of
overlap tariff point that I thought was relevant
talking about Gaber, but I wanna start in
earnest with the conversation about Iran. And this
is a great article written by Strategic Culture
Foundation.
And it so, actually, really interestingly ties into
a lot of the points I'm gonna talk
about today. One, just the
war focused peace president, which is, you know,
kinda making a joke in the title, but
the reality is that's it's kinda making a
point about the propaganda versus the reality.
And I'm not trying to suggest that Donald
Trump is any more or less focused than
any other government before president or government before
on these concepts.
They'll they'll go to war when it's necessary
for their agendas or to achieve what they
want at the expense of just about anybody.
But what's interesting is the framing today, kinda
like the point with Gabbard. P the peace
president with I mean, you know, the facts
don't really come to pass
when the narrative has been jammed in by
the people you're supposed to listen to. And
this is more prevalent right now in this
country than I've ever seen. But also the
financial part of it, which we'll go into
in the article, but the idea that just
Yemen alone,
over the last so many weeks, the US
government spent about a billion dollars having apparently
zero effect on the outcome. We'll go into
that.
Actually, I moved it to more toward the
middle of the show.
But think about that in the context of
spending and efficiency.
Of course, the efficiency aspect, which we just
talked about in the last show as well
on the Pentagon point, a trillion dollars for
the Pentagon.
A per an entity that has failed seven
audits in a row, if you wanna pretend
that's what's really happening, and is in contracted
with, like, the five largest contracts of the
spending app aspects in this country,
you all military contractors.
So if we're gonna start somewhere to look
at efficiency, that would be number one. But,
of course, I'm willing to bet you that
never even comes to pass.
The point is
they're not really trying to be efficient. They're
trying to use that as we keep highlighting
to get you involved or get you feeling
like you have the momentum when the reality
is they're spending more as we've already seen
than almost ever. And the reality is that
even the first somewhat I think it was
the first
I forgot how many months it was, but
they did a first kind of review and
said, right now, they're spending more than at
this point in the last administration.
Now, yes, like I said then, maybe that's
a means to an end, like the whole
tariff argument that even though it's hurting everybody
right now, it's going to be good in
the long run.
Maybe.
But that shouldn't be something you just blindly
accept because government says because you feel they're
not government. It's obvious what's happening, and I
can hope for the best while acknowledging the
blatant reality in front of me. And spending
a billion dollars to murder people in an
impoverished country for another genocide committing country is
obviously not efficient
and also
illegal. But I think that should matter more,
but the point is that we're gonna continue
to highlight all the spending around this. But
Iran, which that seems to be sort of
a stepping stone for them to get to,
is clearly continuing to build. Energy secretary hinting
at military action against Iran's global exports. Oh,
actually, I'm glad I did that just now
because it reminded me of something that I
wanted to in,
include.
I'll just pop it up real quick so
I don't forget to include this. A A
clip that you guys have seen many times,
you probably even know what I'm talking about,
around Iran. Just important to remember that this
is something that has been a long sought
agenda left and right and how willing they
are to just, you know, surreptitiously,
secretly
you know, I guess, kind of secretly
carry out false flag attacks. You know? A
sub read may go down. Who would know
why? Patrick Clausen. It's a classic clip showing
you that they're kind of almost in a
joking fashion discussing
open attacks and, you know, acts of war
against
other governments with no legal justification because they
can achieve what they want. And right now,
we're seeing that more than ever in, you
know, again, Israel's agendas through The United States.
This is not an opinion. You can very
clearly see that. So you can argue that
they align. Sure.
But then I'd love for you to outline
the benefits of any of these things for
the American people or even actually the US
government, unless they're invested in some, you know,
conflicts of interest type things around the world.
The reality is on a very basic level,
none of these things are benefiting the US
government. None of these things are benefiting the
American people. They're not they're not making things
safer. And even from a national security perspective,
unless you understand what that really means, which
is not your national security,
they're not even achieving those.
Well, we're gonna overlap with the whole Yemen
point and the bombings that have continued and
the fact that there's
a disconnect between what's actually happening and what
the narrative is in every conversation, including Syria,
which will include one quick point about, or
the lies around Ukraine and the ongoing funding
for Ukraine and Israel that never stopped. And
somehow we're framing that still as he promises
kept.
Or one of the central points today, which
I I'm actually
it doesn't surprise me.
But I'm actually really shocked to see I
guess I'm kinda surprised, like, in the sense
that that it's happening
now or so in your I mean, right
now, I don't think I've ever seen more
conversation or more awareness around Israel's influence over
this country. Not Jews in part in particular,
not Israelis alone, but the Israeli government, the
Zionist structure, and that applies to a lot
of things.
And Donald Trump has now appointed
a an Israeli
in his cabinet in the state department
to specifically
monitor and and,
monitor and what was the word? Make sure
I say it right.
And combat antisemitism,
which is, by the way, something protected on
your constitutional rights. But let's bring in an
Israeli to the state department
to monitor Americans for speech
because that makes sense. Right? Or unless you
pretend like this is somehow the only one
that matters or the only one that's allowed
to be that. This is un American. And
it's not because he's an Israeli. It's because
it's in a it's first of all, because
it is an undermine of your rights, but
because this is working with a foreign government
to do so.
It's pretty insane. But we're gonna talk about
that, and that follows up into the conversation
of couple things about October 7, which I'll
I'll say right now, but we'll get into
more in the show.
There there is it's now been reported by
the chief of staff,
specific well, it's a conversation between a police
officer and the chief of staff in the
IDF and talking about that there were bodies
brought to the NOVA Festival. Now this is
just a report. It's a statement made by
the chief of staff and the information they
have. Very reportable.
But we'll we'll be following up on this,
but think about the importance of that. With
all we know about the foreknowledge of October
7 and the the lack of action, the
the I mean, you could go on forever.
The Hannibal Directive, for example.
And the interesting overlap of that NOVA Festival
and how they moved it and the timing
of it, and it all seems very
set up. And that's that's opinion that's largely
being being
discussed in Israel, by the way. It's not
somehow racist because it's something they don't want
you to talk about. It is real, and
it's worth talking about. And what they're telling
you is that the bodies he's arguing that
it seemed the evidence shows that so were
there were bodies brought to the NOVA Festival.
So you could you could make that about
Hamas if you wanna make sense of it.
The point is it's an interesting data point.
We'll go over that
and how this also overlaps with the conversation
of what Israel is doing in the world
and what they've done to their own people.
And, of course, the latter part, we're gonna
discuss the updates on what's going on in
this country, the constitutional rights violations,
the deportations,
and a very important statement made by Ron
Paul.
Just simply because he's been a champion of
this conversation for a very long time, and
the Trump administration was very much trying to
make it seem as if he was on
their side using that conversation, him and Massey
and a bunch of others, which seemed to
successfully trick a lot of libertarians.
And I'm just glad to see that at
this point, as I expected, no different, that
he's standing up and saying exactly what we're
saying. What's happening with these people, both Americans,
green card holders, visa holders, and illegal aliens
is all wildly unconstitutional and illegal. That's not
to say that we should not be deporting
people who are here illegally. The point is
they're all required
due process. That is an inherent right, and
we'll go over exactly what Ron Paul points
out as well. But
come back to the beginning. Let's start with
the pointing of the article we should we
or the show, excuse me, that we went
over yesterday.
Trump judge blocks deportations. I just wanna make
sure you saw that because that's very important.
And I'm gonna go over this more again
as we get into that section. But it's
important to remember that this is a Trump
appointed judge in Texas, along with others, I
believe it was Boston,
who pushed back on even the Supreme Court
ruling, and that was the one before the
one of today of a five before decision
allowing Trump to continue the deportations.
But and this is the part that everyone's
leaving out, requiring,
which by the way, it's like requiring that
you do what's illegally
it's like requiring the the your it's hard.
I don't know what a better way to
say that. The point is they're requiring that
he give them due process, And it's ridiculous
to even have to say that out loud.
It's like requiring that you do what a
law requires. That's insane.
The point, though, is that they reiterated that.
That, yes, you can keep deporting people, but
you have to do what's legally required. And
no one talks about that, and they just
kept doing the wrong thing and are not
giving due process. And that's why this judge
stepped in and said, time out. The aliens
enemies act can't they can't the the first
ruling was allowing them to continue under that
act, but they need due process, which they're
not doing.
So the the judge from Texas and the
others followed up and said, no. You can't
do that because this is not a wartime
thing. We're not at war. The trendy Iraq
war gang is not a state actor. And
on top of that, they were only labeled
terrorist thirty seconds before this because they because
they knew how this process would go. And
even though they did that, it's still illegal.
And so he's saying, no. You can't use
that. So the the debate is not whether
right or whether the what he's doing is
right or wrong. They're all agreeing that what
he's doing is wrong in this conversation, in
this part of the conversation.
They're now debating whether or not it's entirely
has to be stopped or whether he can
keep simply doing so without the the
let's put it this way. As long as
he gives them due process, that he can
deport them using that act.
So ask yourself, why wouldn't they just give
them due process? Why wouldn't they bring them
well, one, they argue, it'll bog down the
system. Well, okay. So following the law will
bog down the system. That's what they want
you to believe. Even if it will, that's
still the law. So interesting they can just
pretend it doesn't count.
But, also, the reality is because they would
be forced to present evidence to back up
their claims. And the one thing over all
of this that I have made clear that
evidence shows undeniably at this point, they don't
have any.
Yeah. Everything is a subjective claim about a
tattoo that they claim relates, which even if
it does, that's not enough to prove somebody
is. And on top of that, we have
gone over an endless amount of people who
are legally in this country,
legally, either because they were given asylum or
they have a green card like Khalil or
they have a visa
and also have no criminal record and are
some now in El Salvador that may never
be seen again.
If you're okay with that, then I don't
I I what is wrong with you? I
just don't even understand a person who could
be okay with that unless they're just simply
a bad person who does not care about
human life as long if it at all
or if it bumps up against what they
want. But it's important to understand that. This
is an this is a constantly evolving conversation
with Rubio's presentation. They're showing you we don't
have any evidence. We are moving people because
of what they think about Israel. That is
not debatable. It's very clear. That's what they
said to the court.
They just say national security. So we will
come back to that. And I the reason
I'm harping this to start the show,
I I'm I said this for the last
week.
I think this is the most important thing
happening to Americans right now.
It's you it it may not feel as
such for some people, but you have to
understand what this leads to. And that's why
you're getting the judge, Napoleanos, and the Ron
Pauls that are standing up and going, this
is monumental.
And it's weird to me that the people
who have spoke more about the constitution within
the paradigm are are the ones that seem
to be largely ignoring this. And I don't
mean all conservatives, but I mean the team
sport politics.
So we will come back to that. We
also talked about ICE wanting to turn the
well, actually, the administrator of ICE speaking out
about turning in turning
ICE into the Amazon Prime for human beings.
That was his quote.
Turning
stressing
that we need to turn this whole thing
into more like a business. Yeah. So we
can create a profit motive off human suffering,
sort of like the private prison system. Isn't
that we all what we all want in
this country? It's just it's wild how many
things are going against what most people want
in this country, and yet
I don't know. It's it continues. But that's
why I'm of the mind that most people
see this. I think that's quite clear in
a lot of ways. Sal Diagris simply points
out about the one oh, that was the
other part of the show I already pointed
out. A trillion dollar military budget for the
Pentagon
is simply the continuation of the corrupt system.
That is the military industrial complex, which is
the central part of this.
I mean, how we don't see that by
now is insane, and that's why I think
it's important to check out Katharine Austin Fitts.
Pretty much anything financial, I will point to
her. In my opinion, as one of the
best people to listen to, but always make
sure you listen to multiple opinions, come to
your conclusions about it. The bottom line is
a trillion dollars is unprecedented
and is for Israel's wars, guys. That's not
an opinion.
You can I mean, feel free to disagree
with me, but if you look into the
information and you recognize they're literally telling you
it's because these people are bombing Israel, then
what are we talking about? For you to
turn that into some obsession is you flatly
ignoring the evidence and what they tell you
it's about.
That's the that's the insane thing about this.
Everyone wants to make this about some kind
of an obsession. It's like saying you're obsessed
with Germany while you're watching World War two.
What are you talking about? This isn't it's
obvious.
It's real. We watch we're watching what they're
doing. They're having celebrations about how many people
they're killing, and you're telling me we're obsessed
because we're pointing at it?
That's my point about how average people are
like, what?
I mean, maybe we all should be a
little obsessed with this. You know, that's kind
of the craziness of this, but we're getting
that diminishing into the background. Now he points
out a trillion dollar military budget is odd
because we don't really face any imminent threats.
Israel does, though.
Very clear point. I mean, you I'm sure
everyone will make a point. Look. There's clear
things you could point out of threats of
all kinds of any point at any time.
The reality is real imminent threats in regard
to warfare pointed out for me. Other than
the narratives about why these people wanna secretly
wink wink kill everybody, American, where's the evidence?
Israel, United States, even The UK have far
more evidence of them manipulating things around the
world, The US and Israel more than anybody,
for marching into countries, bombing, executing, raping, and
torturing, and stealing resources. That's not even hyperbole.
That's documented information about pretty much every war
you can look in that they've been involved
with.
So what what's the imminent threat? Why is
a trillion dollars necessary?
Israel is a threat. And why? Well, because
they're murdering people, but that's a different conversation,
at least for the moment.
You are spending money for Israel's wars. And
this shouldn't even be a contentious conversation right
now.
We'll come back to that. Other quick follow
ups just to conclude for you. Sayer,
Sayer how do you say his name again?
From GreenMedInfo.
Sayer, first name, says,
new study, vaccine and autism, a dose dependent
link confirmed. Now this is from the IJVTRPR,
and this is, James Lyons Wyler's platform or
at least associated with the platform.
And it's another study showing you what I
think we should all know by now.
It's one of these topics like we've talked
a lot of these we've talked about that
I it's it's weird that it even it's
still contentious, like geoengineering
or things that have, like, literally been accepted
and examined and proven by multiple studies. I
mean, even the US government, like, a decade
ago or maybe a little less, were was
forced to admit they then they were really
stressing. It doesn't prove that autism is caused
by vaccine, but we can show a link.
It's like, okay. Well, it's like, isn't that
the same? Like, yes. You could argue a
link could be, you know, correlate. The bottom
line is there is evidence that already shows
there is an obvious link even according to
the government. I think you can easily prove
that it is transparent.
The MMR vaccine, for example, very clear. And
that's why why it's frustrating to see someone
like RFK Jr start telling you it's the
safe most safe and effective thing against vax
no. It's not. As even the CHD spoke
up recently and said, no. It is dangerous,
and it is not safe. It is not
effective.
It is causing autism, which they RFK would
have told you last year.
So it's frustrating to see as he comes
out recently and says or rather, Betty Johnson
and the rest point at him saying, later
in September, we'll have more evidence to break
the bombshell. Then why? What's causing all the
autism?
Okay.
I mean, if he stands up in September
and says vaccines, we'll go, yeah. Duh. You
already told us that. Or if he stands
up and says something different,
that'll be very relevant, won't it? Either way,
it kinda seems like a a weird setup
when we already know and he's already told
us, and the information's already there. And why
are the Johnsons of the world going, look
out to September, and we're gonna bombshell break
the story? Because there's something else happening here,
in my opinion.
A just published peer reviewed study confirms what
many have feared. Cumulative vaccine exposure is associated
with an increased autism risk.
I think that's fundamentally obvious at this point
with a lot of different peer reviewed studies,
but, you know, trust the science will tell
you not to listen to this for some
reason.
Anyway, important to include. Read it for yourself.
It's a great platform. It's I I think
it's absolutely sound. It's just, basically, if you
remember, what they did is they set this
up to where you don't need this the
government. Why would you need the government and
other processes, bureaucracies involved
with scientific peer review? You don't need them
involved. So what they did is they set
up an actuals, and these are highly regarded
PhDs and experts and scientists involved with this
process
who are now peer reviewing science without the
politics involved.
I feel like that's very important.
Now another example of the yesterday show points,
this one was about the real ID point.
If you didn't see, the house has now
passed the bill, the legislation for the Save
Act, which look. Same thing again. And I'll
always say this so it doesn't get confused.
I don't know why anybody would push back
on requiring somebody proving that they're a citizen
to vote in an election that is only
for citizens. I think that's crazy that we
that's where you get the false two party
breakdown, where they pretend that anybody pushing back
on this is a democrat who doesn't wanna
check for that's not the case.
I think most people are in my position
where we're talking about the obvious nature of
that and the left's the left's crazy about
it. And then over here, the right's also
crazy about it because they're blindly ignoring the
digital ID push that's happening within it.
The Real ID compliant identification is a stepping
stone to digital IDs. That's in the documentation.
So do his ID '20 '20. It's part
of the same thing. So when they pass
this, if the senate does and Trump will
definitely sign it, in my opinion, this will
be that stepping stone as Derek was just
talking about. And on top of that, as
it says, Gary points out for the first
time in seventeen years oh, the point is,
don't forget, the Real ID comes from the
Patriot Act push.
The Real ID deadline is real for the
first time in seventeen years.
Winning. Promises kept and all that. Right? By
May 7, every air traveler 18 and over
is expected to have a Real ID compliant
ID.
Now that, of course, you could they are
right now, at least, you could still say,
here's my passport. Here's my birth certificate. And
I don't even I'm not I haven't gone
into it yet, but there is evidence already
being shown that they're finding ways to push
out even ones that should still be valid
right now.
Minor things, by the way. I'm gonna go
into that in another show. But the point
is that Real ID compliant means you that
you have a digital ID overlap with that
Real ID compliant identification,
even if you can still possibly use this
over here. And the point becomes that once
they then box those out, we're then you
are stuck with your digital ID. That's where
this goes.
And twelve Ball says polishing off the last
little bits of the Patriot Act that never
got implemented.
Thanks, US government. It's not unique to Donald
Trump, guys. It is the US government.
And I'll include this show, the Save Act,
Real ID, ID 2020, using two party illusion
to end the election to usher in digital
IDs,
as well as Derek's conversation we just had
on the tenth, the slow change into into
digital ID, budding technocracy at a fluoride win.
If you didn't see that, he had exclusive
coverage breaking a story about Houston
being the only place that he can really
the one if not the largest, one of
the largest cities that now completely removed fluoride
from the water.
Definitely a positive thing.
Now on a tariff point,
also something we briefly talked about yesterday, I
just wanted to follow-up on this. This is
today. So I just it shows you how
this cascades, and it happens this way almost
every time. And now remember,
the Trump paused for ninety days all the
other tariffs going on, and that's the only
reason things went back to somewhat some some
normalcy.
If he had held the line, they would
be doubling down like with that, and that's
how this goes. So it's not some, like,
tactful effort. This seems to me I mean,
you can decide how it ends up with
you can decide for yourself. At the moment,
seems pretty clear to me that this was
an effort. Maybe it would've worked if everybody
would've backed down, but it didn't happen because
I don't think it ever really does unless
you're a, you know,
basically putting your thumb on a very weak
nation.
And they retaliated, and it was causing more
problems. Stock market was going bad. I mean,
it hurt basically everybody
except the Trump billionaire friends who made a
lot of money as they point out right
here because they must have known something we
didn't. Maybe that was what it was all
about.
But China has now increased their tariffs on
US goods to a 25%,
up from 84%
after Trump did the same. That's how that
works. And, of course, Trump was saying, I
think he wants to come to the table.
Well, that doesn't indicate that, but maybe we'll
see more tomorrow. I just wanna highlight that
this is what most honest people were saying
was a likely outcome. And that wasn't even
me saying that I I mean, it was
maybe a you could have argued that it
was worth the chance. I don't agree, but
you could argue that maybe he saw something
we didn't and it was worth the shot
to kind of that was a tactic. But
see, the it's not the the I would
argue the appropriate tactic here would be to
try to level to use this to some
kind of pressure or something you want, but
when you recognize that it's gonna spin out
in a, a war economic warfare,
if your actual drive is to make this
better for Americans, then you would stop.
And you could argue, well, it was worth
the chance to see if we had leverage
there. But that's not what they keep doing,
is they they push back like sullen children.
After they do it, we do it harder.
They do it, we do it even harder.
And that creates
resentment at the very least even with your
allies.
And on top of all of it, you
suffer because you pay more for the smallest
things, and we're already seeing that. People are
showing images of random things they're buying online
where you see tariff sales tax or whatever
it's saying.
Now I again, all that's not even to
say, you may still think this is the
right direction. I'm not trying to make this
necessarily a right or wrong. It's just trying
to show you that this is usually how
it goes, and anybody who spoke up and
said, probably gonna happen, were called democrat,
snowflake, whatever the narrative is to dismiss what
they're saying. Black, pilled, you know, the new
conspiracy theorist. But here's what's interesting. Larry Fink,
who Trump is involved in
his
processes, both
now both administrations
during COVID and now again, even though that
the right predominantly seems to call out BlackRock
in any context except when Trump brings him
to the inner circle, which is hypocrisy.
But it says, we are now a global
destabilizer.
That's a direct quote from Larry Fink. Now
that's not saying we should be listening to
Larry Fink. The point is it's interesting to
see somebody who is arguably on Trump's side
in all of this who's now saying that
was a problem. That didn't work. It actually
is a bad thing. It says, speaking after
BlackRock's q one earnings report on the call
with Wall Street analysis
oh, excuse me. Wall Street analysts, CEO Larry
Fink said he was troubled by the size
of president Trump's tariff war with China.
The sweeping US tariff announcements went beyond anything
I could have imagined in my forty nine
years of finance. That doesn't really sound good.
Right? That sounds like Trump went way further
than anybody ever thought they would, which
kinda shows you that they either don't really
understand the process or they thought they had
more leverage. And at the end of the
day, they're shooting themselves in the foot to
stand their ground except when they pulled it
back for ninety days and China's still continuing.
It says, as of Friday morning, Beijing retaliated
against president Trump's tariffs by hiking levies on
US goods to a 25%
from pre prior '84.
The retaliation came a day after Trump hit
China with an effective tariff rate of a
45%
as both The US and China are locked
in a heated once a century trade war.
Yeah. But is this
I mean,
like I said,
historically,
this
leads to war
most often.
And what have we been being told about
China for a very long time? I mean,
this could be a means to an end.
Maybe this is what they want. The peace
president wants another war.
And he says, this isn't Wall Street versus
Main Street, Fink emphasized. The market downturn impacts
millions of ordinary people's retirement savings. Yep.
That's the point. So even if you didn't
even if you believe he didn't want this
to be the case, here we are. And
And now you have outcomes that are hurting
average people like a lot of us said
was probably likely.
And it says, yes. In the short run,
we have an economic that an economy that
is at risk, Fink said, but noted the
artificial intelligence
and rising infrastructure demand presents transformative investment opportunities.
Because he's he's saying, don't worry, though. Technocracy
is gonna save everything, which they seem to
be really pushing on. Now it says to
end the week, there are no indications that
either China or The US is willing to
sit down and resolve trade disputes.
While new evidence mounts
that dislocations
in global trade have begun to emerge.
Amazon cancels orders with Walmart Walmart polls forecast
as tariffs take hold. Chinese sellers on Amazon
panic at the Trump's tariff bazooka, so both
sides, essentially. Tesla quietly removes model s x
order now button from Chinese site. And even
Elon kinda spoke up, kinda poo pooing a
little bit on the idea of the way
it was happening.
Just interesting overall.
And so the same point. Now, I mean,
I've said well before this, and I, you
know, I am not an expert when it
comes to economics. And if you wanna listen
to somebody, I recommend at Catherine Austin Catherine
Austin Fits.
But
I think what's basic about this is what
we all again, if you're just a student
of history, if you've looked at how these
things have gone, whether or not you truly
understand the nuance of of this specific dynamic
or economics as a whole or anything, you
can see patterns. And, historically, we see how
this goes. It's not hard to recognize. So
that's why it was so irritating for people
that simply went, wow, that's probably not gonna
work the way you think it will, and
you got screamed at by partisans, which is
kinda how everything goes right now. And a
lot of the people that got screamed at
decided not to speak up the next time.
It's kind of a self fulfilling prophecy. They're
they're driving people away from speaking up because,
you know, especially if you're trapped in the
sides
in regard to partisanship.
You know, we see that where people speak
up about an unpopular opinion on their side,
and they get eaten alive by their own
people.
Now Trump also urges Mexico to, guess what,
honor water treaties
from 1944
or face possible sanctions and more tariffs. So,
you know, obviously, if you signed a treaty
and that's what you committed to, then, yeah,
you should be honoring that. But it's kind
of insane to see somebody, Trump and especially,
but just the US government at large,
who I mean, guys, they break treaties and
and agreements and resolutions and, I mean, with
a without even batting an eye all over
the world. Whether it's the JCPOA
or
whatever Biden did last time, they just go,
never mind. That's not the thing anymore.
Because they don't like it and agree with
it, or we'll get to the Social Security
number's point about the immigrants in this country.
Some probably are illegal, but not all of
them. And the point is they just make
these sweeping arguments where they just go, never
mind. They did that. It was wrong, so
we're gonna take it away. And even if
you agree with it, it was done wrong,
it's not the the process is creating an
opening for,
in a general sense, the removal of your
rights. In this case, my point is about
them and how they're engaging, and the idea
is if they don't if they violate damn
near any treaty or resolution or agreement they
don't like,
why would you respect expect Mexico to hold
to something that they probably don't even hold
their end up to? Either way, it's a
treaty from 1944.
The bottom line is
sanctions, more tariffs. You see how this starts?
It's not instead instead of going to the
table and saying, hey. Let's talk it's about
it's threat and power. Might makes right. Piece
by strength ultimately ends up meaning war.
Million dollar budget for for the or excuse
me. A trillion dollar budget for war seems
to suggest something, doesn't it? And, also, let's
not forget, I'll include the article about this
or the show. I don't know how I
always do that,
which is
the North American Union,
which is very obviously still on the table
with Greenland and Panama and Mexico and all
these things that really never go away. And
the show is entitled as Israel's as as
Israel's Globalist ambitions become clear, team sport Republicans
like Alex Jones endorsed North American Union. You
know, this very thing they were pretending to
fight the entire time. It's important to remember
that.
Now
it says president Donald Trump on Thursday threatened
Mexico with possible sanctions and additional tariffs unless
it delivers water to Texas.
Trump said that Mexico had violated the treaty
under which it is required to deliver 1,750,000
acre feet of water from the Rio Grande
to The United States every five years.
Under the same treaty, The United States is
also obligated to deliver 1,500,000
acre feet of water from the Colorado River
to Mexico each year. How much you wanna
bet that's not happening? Trump said that Mexico's
failure to fulfill the treaty obligation hurts Trump
far Texas farmers very badly, citing the closure
of Texas' sole sugar mill last year due
to water issues.
To address this, Trump said he had ordered
the government to halt water shipments to Tijuana.
K? Okay. So
as usual, guys, if you dig into the
story, there's more nuance to it. Now you
could argue that there's some I mean, look.
Let's also realize the, like, the GMO point
where the US government is basically strong arming
Mexico to accept GMO corn that literally nobody
else wants, and they have, like, one of
the most,
heirlooms out of corn. You know? Or what's
the right word for it? Their whole their
their whole food kind of ecosystem is based
largely on you know?
Heirloom is the word. I there's another word
I'm looking for, but, you know, not or
not GMO food.
And the US government is saying, we don't
care. What you're doing is not giving scientific
arguments even though they're literally pointing to science
that shows these things are hurting people. So
my point is that you find all these
overlapping points where why would you start pretending
like you're needing to uphold your side of
agreements when they're basically threatening you with war,
which has been happening for a while? Now,
yeah, my point is always about the principle.
If you signed up to it, you should
honor it. But we know as well as
anybody that the US government is not doing
that.
So I just think it's interesting. So overall,
small point is just to recognize that these
are just more, you know, at a time
when you seem to be engaged in multiple
wars more than I mean, this is going
beyond even
they are at more wars now than we've
been at for a long time.
Even though they've always kind of been there,
these are becoming very public points. Now if
this kicks off in an obvious way with
Mexico, I mean, this is almost feeling like
it's designed to bring this country down, but
you can decide for yourself. The bottom line
is threatening Mexico with more of the same
tariffs and sanctions because they don't do what
you want.
Now David Icke points out again to the
tariffs,
is this the most corrupt regime in American
history? I mean, think of the competition, but
it must be right up there already. And
this is Megatron showing Donald Trump was caught
on video explaining that his billionaire friends made
billions yesterday with tariffs and stock market manipulation.
That's that's very simple. Very clear. He goes,
here's Charles Schwab, and they made billions, and
he made a hundred million.
Okay. So you could you could argue that
they somehow just
the bottom line is if they're making money
off the way this is going,
even if it was just because they like,
you oh, okay. They make this very simple.
If Donald Trump is making actions that are
going to affect
the markets
specifically around tariffs
and people around him who have inside information
literally make money on that process, that's called
insider trading, guys. That's crazy. Well, I mean,
there's probably more terms than even that. There's
probably even more specific when it comes to
this insider, like, literally along the president. The
bottom line is it is not just a
conflict of interest. It's a crime.
But I wanna be clear,
they're all guilty of it. Pelosi is one
of the most obvious examples of somebody who
constantly does that, but they all do it
in my opinion. So it's not about partisanship.
It's about criminality.
If you wanna know more about tariffs in
general, Larkin Rose had a great video he
did. Tariffs for dummies.
Given that vast amounts of astounding idiocy currently
being spewed on the subject, he says, let's
review a few bleeding obvious facts about the
government extortion known as tariffs.
Now for for, you know, statists, you're probably
not gonna like it, but it's factual.
Now,
Tollsea,
Zero Hedge reports, dropping two huge bombshells,
which I think is funny since, you know,
we kind of already talked about this recently.
And this was about the the other one,
which they mentioned, that's one of the bombshells
in this article, is about the RFK MLK
files are coming soon down the line somewhere
in a day or week or, you know,
whatever. They're coming. I love that. I love
it. It's my favorite. Breaking news. They said
things are gonna happen soon.
Gotta love that. Now that usually is a
mainstream media thing, but now the mainstream alternative
media is making it their shtick. But here's
what it says.
Tulsi Gabbard drops two huge bomb huge bombshells.
National intelligence director, Tulsi Gabbard, made a startling
a startling
revelation
during an open cabinet meeting Wednesday announcing that
she has evidence
that electric voting machines have been tampered with
to manipulate the results of past elections.
Yeah. So breaking news. The sky is blue.
I've got a lot now let's be clear
about this, by the way. It's not even
sort of like the in your the conspiracy
theorists know that. Like,
at the highest levels of the conversation,
mainstream left and right, when it suits them,
have made that exact argument. From left, Clinton
herself to I mean, they have come up
and said these things themselves, guys. Obviously, you
know that Trump and them have argued that's
the case, but you can point out in
in intervals back and forth where they both
make this case. Kamala herself, right before, was
going, yeah. These things these machines are are
not they're not secure.
So explain to me how her saying this
again is somehow a startling revelation.
I mean, I'm honestly asking. I thought I
kinda find this to be weird. They they
they they expect like, it this is how
dumb they think you are. Or maybe a
zero hit's just not aware that we all
know this or that there's a hundred different
videos or they've had, like, symposiums on how
clearly these things are manipulated,
whether it's Diebold or, now I haven't done
it in a while.
But there's, like, three major ones we've talked
about. And I've done I've done deep dives
on all three of them and how very
clearly that they've been compromised for years, and
they still use them every single time, both
sides.
That's why you're not represented, guys. Now here's
what here's George, one of these, you know,
blind partisan manipulators.
Tulsi Gabbard just announced in the meeting that
they're, you know woah.
Really? Listen to your their self, guys. It's
not some big bombshell. I mean, literally what
she's saying.
We have evidence of how these machines have
been vulnerable to hackers for a very long
time and vulnerable to exploitation to manipulate the
results of the git. Yep. Old news. From
Clint Curtis to every other election since.
And, you know, paper ballots, which, by the
way, with that, I would lean into that
too.
Okay.
That's it. Woah. Bombshell. I just think that's
weird.
And if you go down and look, even
George here is going, look. For years, democrats
blatantly told us it's a weird way to
frame that. Like, your argument is that they
were surreptitiously
telling you that that was happening. It's like,
the whole point is if you have if
you only view this through a partisan lens,
things don't add up. When you stand back
and recognize that it's one government using those
against you, the point is they want you
to hear it from one side when it
suits their interests.
Right? So you can go, they stole this
or they're not respecting that, and it goes
back and forth and back and forth, and
you never solve the problem because you're only
ever looking at half the problem.
He goes, blatantly told us that voting machines
were rigged elections. We didn't listen until they
pulled off the front. Okay. So explain for
me why they would go, these things are
cheatable.
We can manipulate these, and then go on
to do that. Now I'm not even I'm
not even saying that they aren't doing that.
I'm I'm of the mind that there's a
lot of that stuff going on, but from
the real level, that they're very they're aware
that your votes simply do not even translate
to the outcome. I don't know why we
can't see that by now. It seems like
one of the hardest things to sell people
on, even though there's more evidence around that
than damn near everything we're talking about.
But, again, that that that's that's the big
bombshell. Other than the bottom here,
it also adds, as you saw before,
that, Gabbard also pronounced that announced that she
is about to make public a huge amount
of information relating to RFK's assassination and MLK.
RFK not junior, but RFK, his uncle, I
guess, or his
yeah. Just his family. The point is
they've already said that.
That's been discussed already. Those were already supposed
to be on the way that Bondi and
Noam and everyone already told you. So her
saying that again, but saying it's coming later
is supposed to be a bombshell. This feels
very desperate to me. May whether I've forgotten
or not, but the media
Johnson's and the interaction Barbies of the world
who are like, woah. We did it. It's
we won. This is everything.
Every single time they open their mouth. Here's
Charlie Kirk breaking the thing they said, and
we won.
Worthy of ridicule.
Journalists do not, like, do jumping jacks every
time the government opens their mouth about anything
without any evidence.
Here's Betty Johnson.
Same thing. Every time, they're, well, yeah. We
did it. It's over. Here's Libby's TikTok. Wow.
DNI, Tulsi Gabbard confirms the thing that we've
all talked about that you've posted about a
50,000
times that we've all proven, but it's a
bombshell because now we won.
Well, in case you missed it, guys, we've
talked about this for a very long time.
This is the most obvious. Computer programmer literally
testifies under oath that he was coding computers
to rig an election. You know, Clint Curtis.
It's it's everywhere. You find it on every
media platform and probably has a million views.
Here's one quick part of it just in
case you don't know what exists.
Mister Curtis, would you please state your full
name for the record?
Name is Clinton Eugene Curtis. And where do
you reside?
Lassie, Florida. And what is your profession?
I'm a computer programmer. Would you please speak
into the microphone so the audience can hear
your testimony? I'm a computer programmer.
Mister Curtis, are there programs that can be
used to secretly fix elections?
Yes. How do you know that to be
the case? Because in February,
I wrote a prototype
for president congressman Tom Feeney
at the company I worked for in Oviedo,
Florida that did just that. Not that it
matters, in my opinion, since they all do
it, but Republican. Right? So the point is
though that both sides you can prove have
been involved with this going back a very
long way.
And we say did did just that. It
would rig an election. It would flip the
vote fifty one forty nine
Whoever you wanted it go to and whichever
race you wanted to win.
And would that program that you designed be
something that elections officials that might be on
county boards of elections could detect? They never
see it.
Mister That's it again.
Would you answer that question?
He goes on. They said they'd never see
it. And the point he makes is that
they basically do it, and it's it's very
simple. And unless you literally know exactly what
you're looking for, then you'd never be able
to find it. And this goes back a
long way, guys. This is not new information.
Here is the actual article we put out.
Well, actually, this was Matt Agarist, and we
put up from the free the Free Thought
Project. Computer programmer testifies. That was in 02/2016.
Here's the actual post from nine years ago.
Computer programmer, same thing, testifies he coded to
rig elections.
And here's just some other articles we put
out. I I did use this because I
made this as a meme a while back
where it simply said, who did your voting
machine vote for? But largest voting this is
this is 02/2018.
Largest voting machine vendor in The US admits
publicly that its systems had remote access software
installed.
Or this one's 2020. Voting machine fraud goes
much deeper and further back than you think.
This is the one where I go over
the deep dive background of basically all the
it was Diebold and two main others,
all of which have even government reports that
show they know these things are manipulatable, that
they've done it, that it's proven,
and they use them every time. The point
about Clint Curtis is after he he he
testified in that in that state senate or
state congress,
the and proved it, verified with his own
information that he did this, they literally use
the same exact machines for the next election.
I I don't know how you make sense
of that without understanding that at some level,
they kind of want you to know this,
I would argue, or maybe they just couldn't
control his testimony. But the fact that they
still use them shows you that they are
either okay that they can be cheated on
or your vote doesn't even translate at all.
I mean, I it's probably somewhat of both.
And this one, of course, don't forget, August
13, the Israeli election interference in psychological
operation industrial complex, where this guy was caught
by major investigations from Guardian and somebody else
as an Israeli spy literally controlling the outcome
of elections. This was a huge breaking story
that got very little attention. Surprise. Surprise.
Where he was on record saying, yeah. We've
manipulated a hundred and something elections around the
world, many in The United States. He makes
that on record claim. They have bot Arnies
they're using to infiltrate different things, like Twitter.
It's the same conversation, guys.
But don't worry. She's gonna be giving you
information coming soon about something that we all
know. Insurrection Barbie says, Doge found that approximately
9,700
individuals
with birth rates more than fifteen years in
the future have applied for $69,000,000
of welfare benefits. Read that again. How does
that not infuriate everybody? Well, it does, but
it's not unique to one side or the
other. This has been going on like, here's
the thing.
Yes. We should all want these things to
stop. But if they're if we're not able
to rec recognize that this was going on
during Trump's last administration and no one did
anything about it, then how do you not
recognize that they're all that they're at the
very least, they're using something that they had
a part in allowing to happen to to
get to gain your trust, I guess,
or whatever else. The point, though, is that
these things are being stated by people like
Doge or groups.
I'm not even suggesting that they don't exist
or that's not true.
I don't know that. My point is that
neither does she, nobody else because we are
blindly being shown things that they say.
Where's the source material? Oh, let's just be
sure. Here's the actual tweet. Are you expecting
there to be any kind of a link
down there? People with this million dollar follower
account just types things out that Elon says
and gets 400,000
views, and people act like that proves something.
We know this has been going on. But
here's the main point I'm trying to make
from this.
All that's happening, you get statements by people
like groups like DOGE that have already been
shown roundly to keep getting caught lying.
Matt von Swoll, who is,
marketing
215,000
former nuclear scientist for US Department of Energy,
says, I'm just confused why no one is
in prison yet.
Where is Pam Bondi and putting these 9,700
people in prison?
Now whether you want that or not, the
point is very clear. We keep getting these
kind of statements.
Epstein files, JFK files, and, you know, Social
Security numbers being stolen,
Mozambique, you know, whatever, USAID
funding for different media things through the okay.
Good. Fine. Prove all of it,
and then hold anybody accountable?
Isn't it weird that we keep getting told
or find the deep state, and yet they
keep claiming all of these grandiose crimes, many
of which I think are actually true,
and nobody's held accountable? Not one person is
arrested?
Oh, they're sure as hell going after people
that are defiling Teslas.
They're sure as hell going after people that
are speaking about Israel. And why do those
two things connect? I'm sure you can figure
that out. They're not going after Epstein client
list people. They're not going after anything associated
with JFK. They're not going after, at least
so far, maybe tomorrow.
That is objectively
possible to certainly tomorrow. But right now,
it's wild to me that well, you know
why the instruction Barbies of the world don't
care. But that it's though it's wild to
me that this is even still working on
some, but it's interesting to point out, and
I think the most relevant point is that
I see more people like this.
Look through the comments, guys. Like the post
with Vance and Trump meeting Netanyahu
on the White House response account, and 90%
of the comments were
you're compromised. You're fighting for a foreign country.
And now like this, if you look at
these comments and and I argue the kind
of they used to get a lot more
rage on this stuff.
People just aren't buying it anymore because it's
not true. And And not not in the
sense of the what she's stating, but the
reality I I said that poorly for the
point I'm making. Whether the nine nine thousand
seven hundred individuals in this conversation are true,
and I argue it probably is, and it's
a bipartisan thing, The main point is they're
using these things and claiming them, by the
way, with really not much evidence, if at
all, and not really following through with the
major points.
Like, the financial side of this is the
same idea. Here's Elon Musk saying, your tax
dollars were going to pay fraudulent unemployment claims
for fake people born in the future.
Probably.
And you can prove that these things weren't
unique to Biden's administration, so they went back
to Obama and Trump and everybody else. Okay?
So that matters. But the main point to
make is that these things are statements.
And I have already gone over many times
since the just on the last show, in
fact, showing you that they keep repeatedly over
and over getting caught lying. Even the last
big claim they made,
People are done that you I and I
did it myself. You go through the actual
receipts and you can prove that they're misrepresenting
these things.
It's not my opinion.
Doesn't mean there's not some level of savings
or rather
shaving off spending that shouldn't be happening. You
can't call it savings when we're still wildly
spending more than we're pretending we're saving. But
the point is, department of government efficiency says
department of government efficiency says, an initial survey
of unemployment insurance claims since 2020,
okay, that's interesting, right, Reveal the following. 24
thou 24,500
people over, you know, just all this money
they're stating. Okay. Well, I don't see
source material.
Why would you pretend you know you can
prove that? Governments lie, don't they? Didn't RFK
Jr. Tell you that?
Right? Do you remember how many times he
said that? My father told me when I
was young, people in authority lie.
That applies.
My father told me when I was a
child,
people in authority lie.
And we all if we are gonna continue.
That's the main point.
Right. So it's not about only half of
the people, only part of the paradigm,
government lies.
Now you it's that that's the point. So
why would we pretend that we can take
Doge at face value when they've already been
caught lying more more often than not, in
my opinion? But that's not the main crux
of the point. It's the same thing we're
just doing.
Brandon, by the way, this guy who is
the walkaway point is that he was a
liberal, now he's a republican. The point is
that he's trying to show Elon Musk that
there's a a malicious algorithm that is suppressing
content for people they don't like and is
raising content for people they do.
And he keeps trying to haul for it.
He's posted the evidence, and Elon Musk and
Macarena don't seem to care. So what that
shows me is that that's not an accident.
Either way, we've thought we covered that yesterday.
He was responding to this going, who was
collecting on these payments,
and when will they be prosecuted?
Isn't that very simple? Why let's get away
from all the noise. Okay. Give us the
evidence and show us an outcome. Until then,
it's all propaganda.
If you have evidence people broke the law,
why is nobody going to jail?
Maybe it'll happen tomorrow.
And, of course, the larger point we made
yesterday as well that Elon Musk has drastically
dropped the Doge savings goal from 2,000,000,000,000, which
they were really pushing in the beginning. And
by the way, we're already sort of claiming
that they saved a trillion dollars, like, very
early
to a hundred and 50 billion for the
year, which that was the announcement he made
yesterday for the year to date point.
Not the same. And on top of that,
we can also prove that that number is
actually not even accurate.
Because of things like this, for example.
A billion dollars in three weeks to bomb
impoverished country for no real benefit
other than to do so for Israel.
Strategic Culture Foundation.
US I I even say that. You you
or maybe it's how Lindsey Graham says it.
Maybe that's for a reason. Israel.
Israel.
USRAEL.
So, basically,
US and Israel is one word, against Iran,
again.
Now it says, quote, Iran has no intention
of building nuclear weapons unless The United States
forces us to do so. This is the
message delivered by Tehran to Donald Trump, who
in recent days has threatened to bomb the
Islamic Republic if an agreement on the nuclear
program is not reached, which is a joke.
Seeing as how the last one they reached,
the only reason it's not currently in place
is because Donald Trump unilaterally pulled out of
it. And that's what they've been saying, which
is why what I predicted they would say,
which why would we deal with you again?
And so now he goes, well, we're gonna
bomb you if you don't do what I
want.
The same thing happening everywhere you look, and
it's embarrassing to pretend like that's not juvenile.
And also kind of alarming that the juvenile
in the conversation has a lot of weapons.
That's just I mean, the US government, by
the way. Don't take that as just Donald
Trump. The bottom line is that this is
what you would expect
by the long term repercussions of what the
US government has done.
Now it before we go to on, the
point to make as well, this interesting conversation
that I'm I'm I'm seeing develop into that
we just kind of all know that Iran
is likely now seeking a weapon, the evidence
does not back that up other than superficial
statements that that could mean that.
The the IAEA and the state department recently
have already claimed that they're not actually doing
so, which doesn't mean that's the case. My
point is that these statements were put out
by politicians.
Like a Lindsey Graham, for example, saying we're
gonna go bomb somewhere does not mean that's
actually gonna happen. But it's it could for
sure. You shouldn't dismiss it. We've seen statements
from peep Iranian elements that have basically said
that, you know, the logic is that which
perfectly makes sense, by the way, that we
have been driven to do so for our
own security even though it's a it violates
our religious beliefs, and that's why they've argued
this entire time and have yet to actually
do it, that they've never been trying. That's
the claim.
And that the evidence backs that up. And
the only reason they've increased enrichment is because
Trump pulled out of the JCPOA. That's very
provable. And all they've increased has been allowed
within the deal because of what Trump did.
It was a clause included that said, if
you do that, we can do this. It's
very easy to prove.
And they went on going, they're enriching, and
that's why it kinda fell flat because it's
easy to prove. That was a big like,
they literally did that to be able to
pretend Iran was breaking the rules even though
they broke the deal.
The point, though, is that going forward to
today,
you understand the logic, a North Korea example,
or even a Libya point, right, where he
does he Libya does disarm nuke in a
nuclear sense,
and then they murder him, overthrow the country.
Now it's a it's a scattered control. I
mean, is it is it is it even
Libya anymore? That's the map says that, but
is it just a bunch of boring warlords
and people taking advantage and open slave markets?
That's what it seems like. Now I shouldn't
say it that concretely because I'm sure a
lot has changed over the years. Nonetheless, the
point is it was a country with the
one of the highest qualities of life in
all of Africa. That was a provable point.
Free education, free health care. Yeah. And it
definitely has problems like a lot of countries
do.
They then completely destroyed it for their own
agenda and then liberated them into this, you
know, a terrible situation that was worse than
what they had before.
The point, though, is that that showed the
world that if you do what they ask,
then you get taken advantage of. It's a
good lesson to learn. So you can understand
why Ron might say, well, maybe we're just
gonna do it anyway. That's only just to
explain the logic. My point is the evidence
has not been shown that that's really what's
happening, and the the key the higher up
leadership has maintained the reality that we are
not doing it. It's a violation of our
beliefs.
So I just wanna make that point because
I keep seeing this get brought up. I
am in no way saying it's not possible.
I'm open to the possibility, and it makes
sense to me that they would do that,
but the evidence does not show that right
now. So I just think it's important that
we don't allow that to become a narrative
that seems to be pushed by people that
appear to be not on the side of
the partisanship, but, you know, tangential to it.
And it continues to be this growing idea.
And it makes sense, so it's easy to
fall into. But then that will become the
call for why they need to take out
Iran, which is what Trump's kinda doing.
Facts matter. Evidence is most important. Now it
says Trump's special envoy
oh, it goes on to say, this is
the message they sent to Donald Trump who's
threatened to bomb them if he didn't agree
to their yeah. I said that already. Trump's
special envoy for The Middle East, Steve Witkoff.
Remember, that was the person who basically was
re one of the names they kept using
for the justification for why Israel continued to
violate the ceasefire.
Offered to visit Tehran or to meet Iranian
government officials in a neutral country.
Iran outright rejected that proposal,
stating that Witkoff is, quote, an irrelevant person
and that Iran is, quote, not interested in
meeting directly with the Americans.
There's not they're gonna I mean, that is
a slight. And it's it's a justified slight,
quite frankly, because they have continued to show
that they're not honest actors.
Why would you work with Witkoff when he
was the central player, at least on the
record,
for how they completely just double crossed every
aspect of what was happening in Gaza?
Now it says keep in mind that the
total cost of The US military operation against
the Iranian backed Houthis in Yemen
is approaching $1,000,000,000
in just under three weeks, and there hasn't
even been a significant change. The Yemeni resistance
is strong and unstoppable.
Now as always,
Iranian backed is not necessarily inaccurate seeing as
how Iran I would say Iran supported would
be the frame way to frame that.
But, I mean, even then, I I I
take that back because you can see since
all the ongoing discussions that they have done
everything they can to support them in their
fight against what's happening. But it's not the
same as them claiming that they are Iran.
Right? That this is Iran. It's the same
point to make that if you're gonna make
the logic that they're simply supporting them and
even arming them to some degree, which rather
selling them weapons,
then that means literally everyone The US has
that relationship with is The US you know,
The US,
what, in their their argument, controlled entity. So,
you know, every time we talk about The
UK, you would say The US run UK
or The US that's it's certainly could be
the case.
But the reality here is it's a misrepresentation
to make you think that this is Iran
pulling all these strings. When the reality is,
in every one of these locations, you can
show The US, Israel, Saudi Arabia
aggressively
manipulating what's going on on the ground.
The the supposed leader of Yemen lives in
Saudi Arabia. I mean, well, they've given up
on Hadi. That's his name. Because nobody believes
that, and nobody in Yemen wants him anymore.
But they pretend that's the guy. And should
they completely annihilate everyone in Yemen, they'll put
him back in place and pretend
democracy's been saved as he goes on to
become yet another despot destroying people's lives.
It says meanwhile, Netanyahu is and the point
not to miss there is the idea that
they've spent a billion dollars
to change nothing for Israel.
And in an impoverished nation that really, I
argue, has, I mean, the idea that they
would be the only reason they're doing this,
if you don't know the story, is because
Yemen has been pushing back against shipping lanes
that are delivering weapons for a genocide, which
by the way is what the international community
has ruled is your obligation,
The US included.
So they're the only one actually following the
law in this conversation, which is kind of
a kind of crazy. It says meanwhile, Netanyahu
is ready to meet with Trump to discuss
what to do,
including the problem of the new tariffs that,
by the way, have also affected Israeli products
at 17%.
That really blew up in your
face. As former CIA operative Philip Giraldi commented,
quote, it is hard to believe,
but based on the first ten weeks in
power from Trump the Trump administration has actually
made things worse for Americans than Biden would
due to the constant threats to occupy other
countries, impose heavy tariffs on imported goods, and
punish nations like Russia and Iran if they
don't accept the conditions set forth by the
new president.
Now you look. I almost feel like that
was the the way they they frame that
is gonna push people away from seeing the
obvious because people are so desperately tied into
their two party illusion.
Whether you wanna make it about Biden and
Trump, the point is
what he's doing is driving us in a
direction that is simply bad for this country.
And And that doesn't have to be a
partisan thing, guys. That's what the government's been
doing for a very long
time. Just recognize that this is not what
he just listed off is
these are fundamental you could prove these things.
It's right
now, how you can pretend that promises were
kept because egg prices went down or whatever
is a is a stretch at at the
best. It says, as Reuters reported, Iran is
rejecting The US ultimatum
of either direct negotiations on its nuclear program
or being bombed. Why would anybody I mean,
do you think the Trump would respond well
with that? We're gonna bomb you or do
what we say? Clearly not. But it says
warning neighbors hosting US bases that they could
be in the line of fire if involved.
Now you could take that as a threat,
and maybe it is. I read that more
as that look. If you are
basically involved with what's happening, you're next, which
is basically what we've continued to see. That
these these end these these Middle Eastern countries
who are being kind of coerced into supporting
Israel
will be the one next on the chopping
block if they allow this to continue.
This is although Iran has rejected Donald Trump's
US president Trump's calls for direct talks, It
wants to continue indirect negotiations through Oman. So
what's important to re understand is that Iran
is not saying we're not gonna find some
kind of an, you know, accommodation or a,
you know, middle ground. We just don't wanna
deal directly with The United States for this
conversation because they're not honest actors.
I think that's important to understand. Now it
says Iran has issued warnings to Iraq, Kuwait,
The United Arab Emirates, cut Qatar, Turkey, Bahrain,
that any support for The US attack on
Iran, including the use of their airspace or
territory by US military during an attack would
be considered an act of hostility, Saying that,
look. If you allow them to use your
airspace to bomb us, we'll consider you an
enemy.
That makes perfect sense to me. I mean,
that's what we it would show. It's not
I mean, you could even argue that's not
even a threat. We're just saying, look. That's
what you would become if you allow this
to happen, which seems pretty basic.
This is Iran's demands for a new nuclear
agreement with The United States are basically as
follows. The agreement must be an official treaty
ratified by the US Congress, which never seems
to happen anymore so that a future American
president cannot withdraw unilaterally
as Trump has done.
Now the point there is that even if
they do that, they'll still probably withdraw like
they do when they want anywhere else with
the UN resolutions or anything for that matter.
But the point is that at their least,
they can make a case that this was,
you know, illegal or whatever. Before, that's why
the j c o p p c JCPOA
was something they could just back out of
even though that was a violation of what
they agreed to. And that by the way,
don't forget, it's the same thing they're doing
today.
That was Biden's thing, and that's not that's
dumb, and I'm out of it even though
the US government, whoever was in charge, committed
to that. Right now, they're doing that with
Right now, they're doing that with damn near
everything.
No. Biden did that wrong, so we're gonna
revoke it all even though that's what they're
doing. We'll well, I don't wanna jump in.
We'll get to that. The reality being is
regardless of what you think about it, even
if you wanna argue it's actually illegal. The
point is the president of The United States
initiated something like a pardon, for example, and
for them to swing back around and go,
never mind, it just makes nothing means anything.
There's no legal reality to that. Like, if
you're gonna pretend that he did something wrong,
well, then then go after the action itself
as opposed to the people who are suffering
because they don't know who to listen to.
But it says before negotiations begin, The US
must remove sanctions on the Iranian medical sector
and others. Again, pointing out the obvious that
everybody knows but no one wants to be
honest about, They have been sanctioning
average people forever,
food, medicine,
everything.
That's how they're meant to use these guys
or rather how they design sanctions to be
applied. It makes the average people suffer, so
they revolt on their government. It's very basic.
You can look it up in their old
documentation.
So all we're re they're saying stop doing
the illegal thing you've been doing.
After the agreement is signed, there must be
a total reduction of sanctions, which means that
all sanctions must be removed, not just some
of them. In the event of US withdrawal
from the agreement, even though it would be
a illegal action, Iran has the right to
immediately apply a snapback clause. Install advanced centrifuges,
begin a rapid enrichment of uranium, and increase
stocks,
which, by the way, at least with regard
to enrichment, was the thing with the JCPOA.
Same point. If you remove if you pull
back from this unilaterally, then we have the
legal right to increase re enrichment, which by
the way could be used at 90% or
above for making weapons, but mostly used in
everyone's case for research purposes,
civilian programs.
So this game they play with the enrichment
means weapons, that's playing on the ignorance of
average people.
As even right now, as I understand it,
they're they're still quite a bit away from
even getting to the level needed to begin
to make weapons, let alone making weapons.
But, of course, that could all be a
ruse. Certainly possible.
But the point they're showing you is that
if you pull out of this again, if
we do this, then we have the right
to can go back to that, which, by
the way, every government in the world
has the right to. Every one of them.
The idea that they'd say that you're not
allowed to is the same kind of thing
that Israel gets in the reverse. They're the
only one that's allowed to do x, y,
and z. It makes no sense. It is
special treatment.
Iran must be allowed to reconnect to the
SWIFT payment system in order to be able
to carry out international transactions.
Iran will be allowed to maintain its nuclear
program, including advanced enrichment for research purposes.
Because they have a nuclear program, that's not
that's not hidden. It's they claim it's a
civilian program, which the evidence seems to suggest,
including from the state department. There will be
no negotiations, number six, or limitations
on Iran's ballistic missile program
or support for regional groups.
Because it's just because you've been convinced that
these things are evil villains, the point is
every government in the world has the right
to ballistic missiles. Every government in the world
supports people all around them. The US government
more than anybody, and most everyone they support
is probably the worst people on the planet.
That that's again, you could actually prove that
by a u by a US report that
comes out every year that shows that they
support some of the most dangerous people that
are most likely to commit war crimes in
the world.
It's objectively clear. Israel, Saudi Arabia, guys, it's
not hard to recognize.
The point is, number seven, Iranian financial assets
frozen abroad must be unfrozen. Now remember how
this was played last time? How funny this
would be.
If the point last time is that they
unfroze what they the US government had unilaterally
taken from Iran. Okay? And then they continue
to pretend still to this day that Biden
just gave them a bunch of money.
No. They unfroze what was illegally taken from
them. And if they do this deal, they'll
do it again, and I'd I'll be laughingly
pointing out that the same thing will probably
happen to the Democrat. Oh, Trump gave them
money.
It's the game of partisanship, and it's usually
based on lies. It says, if any of
these points are not agreed, the likelihood of
the new nuclear agreement is extremely unlikely. Many
of these clauses are the result of the
mistrust caused by the previous betrayal of The
United States.
It says the effective downsizing of American power
in the world oh, and I wanna point
one thing out about the nuclear agreement. Right?
Do you realize what they're saying here?
So if if if if The United States
agrees to all of these things, which are
basically the same as last time for the
most part, then they'll they will not seek
a new they they'll discontinue their entire nuclear
program. That's the point.
So how in the world could you frame
this as them try I mean, wouldn't you
just I mean, the point like before is
that you agreed and they did stop, and
then Israel was going out of its way
to make up stories about how they were
secretly doing it. They were even caught, if
you remember, trying to sneak in nuclear material
to make it look like they were doing,
and the IAEA,
the International Atomic Energy Agency, caught them
trying to do so in the bathroom. We
this was a huge story that got very
little coverage in the corporate media.
That's how this works. So all you need
to do is agree to this, and they'll
con discontinue their whole program, and then the
IAEA can continue to prove that. But you
see, they don't want that. They want you
to think that's what's happening. In fact, they
even wanna drive them to actually do it
so they can use that as
after Iran, which would be the final point.
But it says the effect of downsizing of
American power in the world, this is strategic
culture writing,
is forcing Washington
to redefine its strategies of control in the
region using the low profile cooperation of other
local players.
Not only Israel with its influence,
but also the Arab countries of the peninsula
that are linked to the traffic of crude
oil with the Americans. Now it's an interesting
point
that we have seen the decline in American
influence in the world, the American US government
rather.
And what they're saying is that because of
that loss of influence that they've now redefined
their strategy in the region and are now
working alongside with, you know, anybody basically, opt
outsourcing
their control mechanisms to other local entities.
Now is the reason that's important is to
show how the diminishing power, obviously, but that
may well explain a large part of why
they feel so desperately
that they have to support the genocide Israel's
committing. Because Israel is a central player in
their agenda for what's going on there,
or the other
dystopian or rather authoritarian governments they work with.
So it's you know, it the point is
always, it's not about what you these people
are not fighting for your interests. They never
happen. This is about what they can do
to achieve their ends, and it's not about
what's right and wrong, what's legal. It's about
what they can do to achieve them.
Now it says the United States Navy has
295
ships. And according to the USNI,
ninety six of those are currently deployed in
The Middle East
and in the Indian Ocean against Iran and
Yemen.
Iran and Yemen? I mean, look at what's
going on in the world and explain
why 25%
of the US Navy is positioned against Iran
and Yemen.
It's just it it they these are the
villains protecting the villainy, guys.
Now that that that's not to say everyone
on the ships, every American soldier, the Navy.
It's the power structure who is deploying their
power to support the worst thing we all
see happening right now. In fact, to go
after anyone trying to stop it. And that's
just specifically in this point, Yemen.
Now as and by the way, you could
point out that I haven't seen much Iran
doing anything to stop this
or Jordan
or Egypt, like, countries you would expect might
have an interest or rather the peoples through
their government.
That's important to point out.
Why not? But it says a move on
such a vast scale is not associated with
simple tensions or limited conflicts. The United States
and Israel are preparing, in their opinion, and
I agree, for a full scale war.
And the first steps and tests of this
process are taking place during the current attacks
in Yemen.
So
25%
of the US Navy has been mobilized, 26
ships have been identified,
and 96 of them are deployed in the
Middle East.
The point is this is not a joke.
That's what they're saying. This is not some
limited test. This is full scale preparation for
war,
and that Yemen is their testing ground for
where this goes.
At least consider that possibility.
Now it says the usual strange American way
of starting peace negotiations, you know, with weapons,
threats, missiles pointed, a curious interpretation of diplomacy,
which we hope will fail definitively.
They're just making a very clear point. This
is not how you negotiate, and that's how
you that's how The US and Israel seem
to do it
almost entirely,
which is to act like you're somehow negotiating
when you've got a gun to their head.
Nobody negotiates like that. That's why you're seeing
the way this has been going the entire
time. Now it says, however, it cannot be
ruled out that this is, in fact, a
huge media driven deception intended to distract attention
from this the heart of the problem.
For The USA, this would be an extremely
disadvantageous
move,
exposing them to a great many risks.
The, quote, hot negotiation style always works,
unlike the way they said that, even in
these cases. So the respective parties to the
dispute will try to provoke each other until
they reach their maximum stress level. So when
you understand the way they said that, yeah,
it always works, which means this is what
they're trying to accomplish. And that's that's my
point about tariffs and everything else too, guys.
You see how these things almost always go.
And if you hold a gun to someone's
head and you say do what I say
or else, it usually causes conflict.
If the history is clear. Now it says
on the other hand, as pointed out by
some Yemeni media, The United States is focused
on a war against the Arabs in favor
of Israel. They are sowing discord, war, chaos,
and conflict throughout the Arab world to fragment
and weaken it,
targeting its armies and nation states to impose
a new plan for the Middle East under
Israeli control on behalf of The United States,
or you could argue the reverse.
The goal is to establish a greater Israel
stretching from the Euphrates to the Nile in
Egypt.
We are in the presence of a new
and aggressive American led phase of con colonization
and settlement to eliminate Arab nation identity, particularly
Palestinian identity,
and replace it with a new political geo
geography called the greater Zionist Middle East.
Revolt revolving around the interest of The US
and its allies.
The question remains, do Arab leaders recognize this
reality, and are they preparing to face it
before they and their countries are consumed?
And will Iran be ready to react in
time?
Now the interesting thing is if you you
know, what we've been talking about, guys,
it's possible that that is you know, these
are elements that are trying to kinda play
it down the middle. You know? They don't
wanna be attacked, but they don't wanna let
you know, that they it's hard to say.
But what I believe, and you can look
into for yourself, and we know what happened
in Egypt, guys. As Trump famously said, where's
my favorite dictator in his last administration, D'Sisi?
That's a regime change. They they put these
people in place. Now all of these governments,
The UAE, all these different overlaps,
just like we're talking about in every other
country, like, we can see more than anywhere
in the world in the US government right
now, it is worth considering whether these governments
that are seemingly undermining their own interests are
simply plants for Zionism.
That's what Zionism has been doing for a
hundred years.
You know? Or it could just be that
they're being threatened, blackmailed in all the ways
we know this works or all of them
combined.
The question is why would anybody be undermining
what they or their stated interests? I think
it's either that those leaders, if you call
them, that the rulers of these countries don't
have those interests, or they do and they're
being pressured not to care about them. But
the peoples of these countries do,
just like you do in this country. And
the vast majority of left and right or
people that realize the illusion of it all
are calling out what Israel's doing.
It's important to think about. And so what
they're highlighting in this article
is that will they stand up, or will
this continue in that direction? I think it's
worth considering how much of that is at
play here, that what we're seeing
are compromised
governments.
Now in regard to the Iran point, the
current energy secretary under Trump has already hinted
at military action against Iran's global oil exports.
Now I figured I'd play this clip here.
This is Patrick Clawson
speaking about what they might wanna do to
Iran, you know, but secretly
in a very public and Jew I guess,
jovial way.
I thought I had it loaded here too.
Oh, there it is.
I frankly think that crisis initiation is really
tough,
and it's very hard for me to see
how The United States,
president can get us to war with Iran,
Which leads me to conclude that if, in
fact, compromise is not coming,
that the traditional way of America gets to
war is what would be best for US
interests.
Some people might think that mister Roosevelt wanted
to get us into World War two as
David mentioned. You may recall we had to
wait for Pearl Harbor.
Some people might think mister Wilson wanted to
get us into World War one. You may
recall he had to wait for the Lusitania
episode.
Some people might think that mister Johnson wanted
to send troops to Vietnam, you may recall
he had to wait for the Gulf Of
Tonkin episode.
We didn't go to war with Spain until
the USS,
until the Maine exploded.
And may I point out that mister Lincoln
did not feel he could call out the
Federal Army until Fort Sumter was attacked, which
is why he ordered the commander at Fort
Sumter to do exactly that thing, which the
South Carolinians had said would cause an attack.
So if in fact, the Iranians aren't gonna
compromise,
it would be best if somebody else started
the war.
Fettle about that. But I would just like
to suggest that,
one can combine other means of pressure with
sanctions.
I mentioned that explosion on August 17.
We could step up the pressure.
I mean, look, people, Iranian submarines periodically go
down. Someday, one of them might not come
up. Who would know why?
We can do a variety of things if
we wish to increase the pressure. I'm not
advocating that, but I'm just suggesting
that,
it it it it's this this is not
a a either or proposition.
You know, it's just sanctions has to has
to succeed or other things.
We are in the game
of using covert means against the Iranians.
We we could get nastier at that.
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Patrick
Lawson.
The point is obvious, guys.
He's talking about,
like, illegal action.
Just, you know, no declaration of war as
ever and just
sinking an Iranian submarine
in hopes that they would then react and
you could blame them for the impetus of
the whole thing. That's how this works. And
if you if you listen to what he's
saying, that's why the claim it it's pretty
hard to dispel at this point that every
major war has been started by a false
flag, goes back a long way. All that
really means is the person who wants to
start the war, carries out an attack, blames
it on the adversary, and then they get
to point it and say, that's what they
did. Now we have to go to war.
Oh, the forlorn hero. Our hands are bound.
Now we have to.
And he talks about the
I always say that funny.
I can't even say that. The the point
is these are past examples
of clear
false flags, and it's very simple. Or Lincoln
or you know? I mean
I mean, really, if you go back through
every single one, you can see the examples.
Like, even like a Pearl Harbor point, guys,
these are not hard to talk about. You
can see the evidence that shows that they
were aware something was coming and, like, that's
the light hot point. Now, anyway, listen to
it for yourself and then go back and
research these things.
It's if you if the idea is that
they needed to wait for the excuse to
do it, that means they wanted to do
it. And the question becomes, did they make
that happen to do it? And that's why
you hear them laughing about this stuff. This
is the understanding if you barely
know this conversation. And I'm not talking about
an assumption, guys. You could prove a lot
of these, and that's why they're so desperate
to keep people trapped in the partisan limited
hangout's infrastructure.
So, again,
energy secretary hints at military action against Iran's
global oil exports.
Right. Well, on a trip to Abu Dhabi
told Reuters that The United States is able
to set up pressure on Iran and stop
its oil exports altogether with force if need
be.
Yeah. So in other words, a war crime.
The acting forcefully to stop their transport of
oil, which which means action, violence, kinetic energy.
There's no declaration of war. That's a that's
an act of war.
Realize congress has to approve these things whether
a declaration of war or an act of
war, which applies whether or not you've declared
war.
They never do this anymore.
That makes it a war crime.
Lusitania.
Thank you. Just like the someone gave me
the phonics spelling down there. It's one of
those words that, you you know, like, for
yeah. I'm sure you guys have picked up
on in the past. For some reason, the
word particularly, I always have it's like the
from reason, it just doesn't roll off my
tongue. It's weird how those things work. So
I'm always say it very slowly.
This is something that's important to recognize.
Energy secretary hints at military action. They're they're
they're they're trans they're they're what's the word,
you know, kind of a foreboding thing. They're
saying this is coming. It's it's coming your
way.
And that great clip from the propaganda and
co outlet, guys, they it was like a
fifteen minute clip where they just laid it
out. You could see that they're already plotting
this stuff.
Now
Trump adviser Sebastian Gorka
pushing for US to escalate war with Somalia.
Now that doesn't mean it's gonna happen, but
I just want you to get see where
this this sentiment is growing that somehow the
peace president needs to start conducting war everywhere
for peace. So, apparently,
the inversion of reality as usual. Well, the
Houthi officials, the Ansarallah movement is their actual
name in Yemen, say that Yemen will cease
attacks on US ships if they simply stop
bombing Yemen,
which I find this really interesting. Because at
the end of the day,
it's about the shipping lanes. Now what they
really say
well, I mean, was it this one? Yeah.
Right here. No. It says the senior member
of Yemen's Houthis of of the Ansarol
Ansarol movement
told DropSiteNews
that Yemeni forces will stop attacks on US
ships in the region if Trump halts the
bombing campaign on Yemen. Quote, we do not
consider ourselves at war with the American people.
Now right now recognize he did not say
the US government.
Now he said, if The US stops targeting
Yemen, we will cease our military operations against
it.
Both president Trump and Pete Hegseth have said
The US would stop bombing Yemen if they
stop attacking ships. So it's always a game
of you have to do it first. Now
it says, however, the Houthis were not attacking
US vessels when The US restarted its bombing.
So that shows you that's not true. Right?
That this is for something else, that they
had already stopped and they bombed anyway. And
so that's the point is now they're going,
well, now if you stop, we'll stop. You
know? That is just and they will always
make it seem like they're the ones who
started it. This is how this game always
goes.
President Trump launched the bombing campaign in response
to them announcing they would reimpose a blockade
on Israeli shipping due to Israeli imposing a
total blockade in Gaza. So, again, an act
that was a clear violation of the the
ceasefire they never fell in the first place.
So they're saying if you don't stop breaking
the rules, the law,
then we will reimpose our blockade on illegal
things being sent to Israel according to the
ICC and the ICJ. Right? And and The
US goes, you can't do that. You can't
do what's legally required. We're gonna bomb you
for it.
And so they continued bombing. Then the the
drone there have been examples of them hitting
their drones and so on. Now remember, as
far as I could tell, there's been zero
casualties. That's important. And they're not stealing and
robbing ships. So let's not pretend like these
are pirates. They're very clearly stating why they're
doing it. They're not stealing. They're not robbing.
They're not murdering. They're not hurting, it seems.
And you they're trying to make this out
to be some ongoing terrorist attack. Do you
know what the terrorist acts are? The arm
arming, funding, and acting against the Palestinian people
that is committing genocide. Now it says al
Bukati
said the Houthis would continue its ban on
Israeli shipping and attacks on Israel until there
was a ceasefire in Gaza, which is and
every time they even had the momentary ceasefire,
Yemen has stopped bombing.
Pretty simple.
Says when does Zionist entity stop its genocidal
crimes, allows food, medicine, and fuel, we will
cease all military operations. Pretty simple. So the
point, as usual, is the US government is
fighting to maintain the genocide.
Now it says they would respect an agreement
that would involve them not targeting US warships
or commercial shipping while they still enforce a
blockade on Israel, but called on The US
to pressure Israel to end its genocidal war,
which they won't do.
And says if Trump truly seeks peace, as
he claims, his efforts should be should have
been directed at pressuring Netanyahu to implement the
ceasefire agreement that they signed, by the way,
which included lifting the siege on Gaza that
was part of it, and allowing food and
medicine to go in and would have released
all of their hostages, which is what they
claim to want.
I'll go over in the next show the
ridiculous back and forth where Netanyahu is now
claiming they have completely annihilated him off. It's
like Trump and ISIS, man. It is the
same thing. Even though that seems to be
provably not the case, and also they're meeting
for new delegations very soon. So it's like,
pretty pretty pretty sure you didn't annihilate Hamas
if they are still at the table and
clearly can prove that they are I mean,
in some arguments,
basically, not diminished at all. Now I find
it hard to believe. Usually, both sides wanna
overrepresent what they have lost and or underrepresented
with the loss and overrepresented what they still
have. But, nonetheless,
I think it's been pretty clear, as Robert's
been highlighting, that that they've really never been
able to do it in past wars example.
Like, the past two times they've gone in,
they haven't even bear they've really not affected
the outcome in regard to Hamas and their
growth and so on.
But the point here is, you know who
what who is on the side of really
seeking peace here. It's very obvious other than
people lost to partisan support.
Dropsite reported that they noted that Houthis have
not targeted an American commercial ship since December
2024.
See how false these narratives are? So they're
out here screaming pirates and attacking Americans.
And even as this continues,
they have not attacked an American ship since
December of twenty twenty four. Now drones have
been happening, but it says the Yemeni group
began targeting US commercial ships in January 2024
in response to the bombing campaign that Biden
launched against them. So look at that. Biden
and Trump had teaming the same agenda as
usual.
Both Biden and Trump's bombing campaigns failed to
deter the Houthis as usual.
The US air assets over the past few
weeks despite the the they've been launching attacks
on them over the last few weeks despite
daily US attacks. From two thousand fifteen to
02/2022,
the US blocked a brutal Saudi back excuse
me, a brutal Saudi UAE war, which was
led by the United States government against them,
which involved air strikes, a blockade, and that's
what most people don't factor into this. A
decade long plus starvation blockade
bombing campaign that left this country as one
of the most impoverished place on the planet.
But now let's pretend like it's only because
they're pirates. It it's just it never ceases
to amaze me how much people can ignore.
Now here's what's important to recognize. They speak
up and say, look.
We'll it we'll make an agreement that if
you stop bombing our civilians, which is what
they're doing, then we will not go after
your ships. And I don't I'm not I
haven't I don't know whether this means even
if they're sending weapons to Israel.
It it's what it seems to suggest.
So they put it out there.
They could literally get everything they want if
they just stop bombing this impoverished nation. Like,
literally, the only thing they're claiming, which is
about shipping lanes. And guess what they do?
Couple hours later, they bomb Yemen again.
That's what your government is about.
Three killed in US airstrikes on their capital
of Sana'a, which is a civilian
packed location.
That seems like the only thing they wanna
bomb. They're not even going it it appears
to me they're not even going after the
Houthis. They're going after civilians
that Israel points to in Yemen.
This is overnight.
Yemeni capital of Sana'a killed at least three
people according to the reports, which, yes, question
everything. The point is, you know this is
happening. They're not even hiding it.
Three citizens were murdered, they say, of you
by US aggression, which just means killed.
It's just so so it's it's disgusting to
me that these people pretend to represent us.
Now in Syria, since we're talking about foreign
policy, Israeli forces have now, again, advanced deeper
into South Syrians as South Syrians struggle under
their occupation.
So, again, if you need any better example
of how obvious the US government fights Israel's
wars, recognize how long the US governments are
putting Americans at risk spending US tax dollars
to go after whatever they claim they're going
after in Syria. And the moment they get
them out of the way, Israel rushes in,
takes everything. Opens bases, deploys people, and The
US just backs out of the way.
That's kinda easy to see. I don't even
need to explain what that is.
Either you Israel stole everything and The US
is too meek to say anything about it,
or they've always been fighting for greater Israel
in Syria, which don't forget
is what this is at least at in
large part about.
I'll include that. I think I've got it
here.
I just had that map or that image
I tend to show. There it is. Weird
that it's all the way at the bottom.
So just recognize that this is it seems
they have designs for more than this, by
the way.
But recognize this greater Israel project has been
on the table for a long time,
and they've been coveting all of this territory.
And then then maybe ask yourself why it
makes sense that they've been in Iraq, and
they've been in Syria, and they've been in
Egypt, and they've been in oh, now it
all makes sense. And the US government has
happily facilitated this illegal operation.
And The US has now vetoed,
because they care about them, right, the Syrian
people,
the Gulf reconstruction of Syria or Lebanon
until Israel is satisfied.
But yeah. But we're not we're totally not
just be doing whatever Israel wants. Right? Or
the US government is totally not. Even though
they have been talking about this forever. And
the point is, we need to get Assad
out of the way before we allow Syrians
to go back to their lives. And so
they've suffered the entire time.
Now, finally, he's out of the way. And
how long has it been? Even though they've
let terrorists take control, they're funded terrorists, al
al Tayhet al Sham, al Musa, al Qaeda,
very clear. And they've gone on to assassinate
Christians and Alawites, rape and torture on plain
in open daylight, on video, on TikTok. Everyone
can see it, but they want you to
believe you're wrong.
And now when they finally go, well, maybe
we can actually rebuild for Syrians, they wanna
know. Is Israel doesn't want that yet. Okay.
Great. Israel let us know when we can
help people. Okay? Even though that's not what
it's actually gonna even translate to.
Syrians are continuing to suffer.
I don't always need to express my disgust,
but it's just hard not to sometimes, guys.
It's like every time, it's like, how are
we letting this happen?
Now on a partisan overlap, you know, because
the Ukraine war hasn't stopped at all. In
fact, it seems to be continuing to get
worse. The point is that you still have
these complete frauds out there saying well, doing
things like this. This person shares it going,
this must never be allowed to happen again
as it's literally happening right now. You know?
Because I guess that doesn't matter, or at
least they don't think that because they've claimed
otherwise. And to them,
Trump narrative is gospel even though you can
literally prove the opposite. What you're looking at
for the podcast is Pelosi handing a signed
flag to Zelensky in the congress.
And Cat Turd says, makes me sick just
to look at it.
I said, totally.
Glad we're finally calling out Trump.
Since the war is not stopping and The
US is still funding it. Right? Cat turd.
Right? Glad we can all agree that both
sides, or more accurately known as simply the
US government,
are the same. And in case you wanted
to look more specifically to a, you know,
whatever whatever you wanna think is more partisan,
the Grok example,
where you can ask Grok specifically, is Trump
admin still funding Ukraine as of April 2025?
Yes.
That shouldn't be a bombshell. It's pretty obvious.
Even though they keep playing this game, like,
we kinda stopped it. We paused it here.
The point was from the very beginning, it's
never actually stopped. Whether it's because they've been
overfunding Israel, which they continue to fund Ukraine,
or they've just deliberately kept dumping money in
Ukraine's hands.
Wasn't that the primary promise of the peace
present to start that these two would be
done within twenty four hours? Well, here we
are, and now they're continuing more than ever.
You know why? Because that's what Israel wants.
But, of course, they're not you're not gonna
see any response to
that. Oh, and by the way, just recently,
Zelenskyy's confirmed that Ukraine troops are now in
Russia's Belgorod region. You know? Because it's totally
ending and not happening anymore. Like you like
the like, Alex Jones, like I told you
at the time, said we did it. The
Ukraine war is officially done, and it didn't
even stop.
But everyone still listens to him, apparently.
Now just in case you forgot,
this is what's really going on.
Who has done more damage to America
than any of our miserable presidents
have done in all of their failed policies
because Netanyahu
has used America,
misused America
repeatedly
because the
Zionist lobby
is so powerful
that Netanyahu basically has had control over the
Pentagon
to fight wars
on behalf
of Israeli extremism,
and
the war in Iraq in 02/2003
is a Netanyahu
war.
Right. The attempt to overthrow
Bashar al Assad in Syria starting in 02/2011
and continuing
fourteen more years of war is a Netanyahu
war.
Right. The overthrow
of Muammar Gaddafi
in 02/2011
unleashing instability,
not only in Libya, but across Africa,
is a Netanyahu
war.
Netanyahu and his friends
in the US government,
these arch Zionist so called,
have had
effective control over the US military.
They have cost you and me and the
rest of us as taxpayers
trillions
of dollars. It's quite a
dandy deal that
the Israel lobby or the Zionist lobby puts
in,
say, a hundred million dollars into campaigns,
and it gets trillions
trillions
out.
Not billions, trillions
out. And so when Netanyahu speaks, it's it's
it's bizarre to me. It's not who
Trump is, appointing or naming.
It's that The United States Of America has
let itself be used
by a band of extremists
on serial wars
that have been disastrous
for America's interests.
Fighting
Israel's
wars so that Israel
can maintain its extremism
and its occupation
of Palestinian lands and its apartheid rule over
Palestinian
lands is not in America's
interests.
And president Trump, who speaks for America,
should be saying to Netanyahu
first day,
I am president of The United States. You
no longer run our country. Right. That's
what I hope.
Yep.
And you can see this going back a
long way.
Now to to a more specific point on
how this continues,
the infiltration of this country at the moment,
Donald Trump has posted on Truth Social that
I am proud to nominate
Yehuda
Kaplan on The United States special and as
The United States Special Envoy To Monitoring Combatantism,
Ambassador At Large. Yehuda is at the state
department. Yehuda is a successful businessman and staunch
advocate for the Jewish faith and the rights
of his people to live and worship free
from persecution,
which I I don't you know, it's not
a unique thing for Jewish people to not
wanna live persecuted. It's, you know, it's amazing
how we can watch some of those persecuted
people on the planet right now be done
so under the guise of protecting Jewish people
even though we're really talking about Zionism.
What's crazy to me, the
I don't have any concern about people, what
religious faith they're this is about an Israeli,
somebody born in Israel,
being appointed to a high level position. Well,
high level is debatable in regard to an
envoy, but the point is a position at
the state department. And given the mandate of
combating
and monitoring
antisemitism,
which is a
protected concept, like anything anti anything, anti America,
anti China, anti Israel, Anti Zionism,
whatever.
That's your right to think and feel. That's
what we all know constitutional rights.
Inherent, god given, not that they can remove
by legislation.
So that worries me
for obvious reasons. So do not misrepresent this
as being against anything other than the fact
that there's another,
a dual citizen.
Israeli, Chinese, Russian, whatever, who is in a
point in the in state department and been
given a mandate to combat and monitor your
speech.
It says he will be the strongest representative
for Americans and Jews across the globe.
Okay. Do we want someone to represent anything
across the globe, or do we want people
who represent American interests?
Isn't that America First? Why are we even
including a religious point in this? Because we're
talking about antisemitism.
Obviously, they wanna make it about Jewish people
alone. But do we have an envoy for
anti China sentiment or anti Russian sentiment?
It's not you you don't need a specific
envoy. If you're gonna make an envoy in
this conversation, it would be about combating hate
speech, wouldn't it? But you see, they don't
wanna say that because that's too woke even
though it's the exact same thing.
And at gen x girl says, so Trump's
appointing Israelis to his administration.
What the f is even going on?
And that's the reality. As she highlights here,
born in Israel.
So, again, it's not to say that that's
inherently evil, guys. There's plenty of people born
in Israel right now who are calling out
the genocide. The point is about the dual
citizen dynamic, but that's why Thomas Massie is
introducing that. And by the way, not even
to stop it, which we should eventually go
to, and that's everyone's opinion, including Massie, it
seems, it's starting with just making sure we
know. And it's amazing to me how much
pushback that gets.
Why wouldn't we be allowed to know if
you have dual citizenship? That's all he's asking
for. I think we get to understand we
I think the point becomes clear when you
recognize how much of a conflict of interest
that can cause for anybody from any other
country who might come to a point to
where their decisions might have to be split
between two countries' loyalties.
It's very simple. The only time that seems
to become a problematic thing or maybe borderline
racism is when it's about Israel.
Explain that.
Now David Icke, in regard to this post,
says, Israeli owned Israel
owned, Chabad owned, Trump nominates, Yehud Kaplan.
Chabad rabbi as US, quote, antisemitism
envoy, which, again,
over over all of it, why is it
even this should be something that specifically the
right calls out.
That is woke politics, guys. And it says
Kaplan was initially connected with Trump by his
Jewish, mega donors, Miriam and Sheldon Adelson.
You know, Israeli oligarchs, specifically
Miriam,
who are funding his campaign right now.
Laugh or cry, either would be appropriate, he
says.
Jenna Janice Gurel also points this out. Now
just before we miss the obvious point or,
you know, go past the point, it's incredible
to me that that's not being completely screamed
about right now. I mean, imagine if you
put you appointed a Chinese citizen to be
in the state department. Wouldn't that be a
problem?
It just in in and of itself, it
begins to highlight how much of a problem
this is.
Now she also points out
another part of this this clip. The list
has been going out. This is, like, basically,
a leaked conversation
of the CEO of APAC.
Gray Zone is the one that posted this.
And there's many clips of it. This is
one of we showed you one the other
day where, basically, he's saying
exactly what Thomas Massie said about an APAC
guy when he got attacked for it, and
he's on the clip basically saying that's the
reality, which we already know. This one is
even in more interesting.
He's and he specifically as she frames it,
Elise Stefanik, or however they say she says
that Stefanik is our spy. Gallup and peer
reviewed peer research report 53% of Americans oppose
Israel.
Stefanik calls out 53% of Americans anti Israel
Terrorists.
Think about that. And since if you're wondering
why it's because Elise Stefanik is an Israeli
foreign agent, she says, listen to the CEO
of APAC explain. Now watch the what he
says here, guys, and here she is screaming
about this stronger standing against anti Semitism.
This is the CEO of APAC. Now it's
a little bit low. I won't jump in
for thirty seconds here. Listen to what he
has to say about the fact that they
got these people in their position, and these
are three people in Trump's current administration.
So I mean,
the people
who will
To recognize well, let me go back to
it actually.
How they can you can clearly
they all served in congress. They've all got
relationship with APAC. Look. That is Rubio,
Waltz, Estefonic.
I just think that's really
since we can prove that APAC is an
Israeli entity that simply changed its dynamic. And
that was
after the JFK assassination as and and he
was on the record trying to get them
to register as a foreign agent.
Think about not acknowledging that provable fact and
acting like we're somehow obsessed with a country
despite how clear that information is. That's just
one example of a thousand different points, and
these people scream that you're somehow just trying
to make stories up.
The people who are pretending this is not
obvious are the people that are lying to
you, or they don't or they're bad at
their job. Now here's another clip
of the person you just appointed. And this
is kind of overlapping the same thing we
keep seeing from all of these different the,
you know, the claims of the biblical right
to own to take people's territory. Or, you
know, these are the things you're seeing from
the Zionist pact administration.
This is the person who was just appointed
as the anti Semitism envoy, an Israeli citizen
who is now being tasked with combating and
monitoring American speech.
That when people are chanting death to Israel,
they forget that they realize the second part
of that chant is death to America.
And from the river to the sea, Palestine
shall be free. They don't even begin to
know the history. There was never was a
Palestine.
Speaking of not knowing history.
So I think it's it's important for people
to understand
that they're uneducated. These people are literally uneducated.
These are our college students on campus chanting
death to America. The land that they're actually
studying
in, they're chanting death to. Defacing monuments of
American history of people who came before them,
history has taught us that we need to
respect history and learn from history and not
make the same mistakes.
Unfortunately, in 2024
right now, we are making these same mistakes
by allowing this type of antisemitism
to go unchecked.
Yeah. I mean, I just can't make the
point enough.
That I it doesn't matter what you think
about antisemitism. It doesn't matter if everyone in
or half this country
just hates a certain religion. It is your
literal right protected under your constitutional right, your
inherent god given rights to be anti or
for anything you want, to think anything you
want and say whatever you want. And The
fact that we're now somehow pretending, just like
the left was doing around pronouns and everything
else, that they can just go, well, if
you say that, what you really mean is
you wanna act violence against these people. It's
the same exact thing,
the woke dynamic on the left and the
right driving you to support something entirely different
than what we think we're fighting for.
We're really just the undermining your rights to
get to the foreign point of it, but
some for a larger agenda.
How we miss that? And, of course, somebody
who's literally trying to pretend that Palestine never
existed despite provable evidence. So that's that is
the kind of people we're talking about.
Those are the kind of people we're talking
about.
Now Propaganda and Co also points out just
an interesting side point. Don't be fooled by
the pro Israel engagement on Twitter.
The evidence is clear. Israel has lost support
in America, and that's but not just the
last poll. It has been a growing reality.
That's why this conversation is in the corporate
conversation.
The algorithm has manipulated in their favor, especially
on this platform. They are using bot farms.
That's c h e q. We've already covered
this. That's an Israeli entity or Authentix, by
the way. You Israeli intelligence completely immersed with
what's going on on Twitter. That's public information.
Their accounts are boosted while our accounts are
suppressed. This is documented. He includes links you
can look to.
Now to overlap with this, we'll come back
to in a second. The don't forget, the
DHS is now going to be screening
basically social media content for act activity for
antisemitism. Let's be clear. They're they're framing this
as going after aliens,
which by the way doesn't mean all illegal,
but that's the assumption they want you to
make.
To do this or to look at the
bigger narrative about combating antisemitism or what the
envoy just said, that's not aimed at only
aliens. They're trying to trick Republicans into thinking
that's what it's aimed at because it's aimed
at you, guys. It's aimed at everybody, anybody.
It goes a foul of what
the reality is that this is unconstitutional.
I was just simply gonna say in regard
to Israel, but the point is that if
you you may not even think that.
It doesn't even matter if you agree with
that. If you can't recognize that this is
an a clear violation of your constitutional rights,
then I would argue you either don't understand
them or you don't care about them.
And if this, about and where aliens are
not, which the rights apply, it is still
a violation. But then you stand back and
look at what they're saying everywhere else or
stefonic, they're telling you you're not allowed to
hate Israel. You're not allowed to speak out
against Israel. That's what she said explicitly more
than once, not even mentioning the word violence.
And as Patrick says, the Trump administration is
basically functioning as a sock puppet regime for
the Israeli lobby. The fraudulent application of the
term antisemitism to decry any and all legitimate
criticism of Israel is its policies, actions, human
rights violations, war crimes, or apartheid ideology is
extremely misleading and is now being used across
Western countries to abuse and deny pop people's
inalienable rights.
Now realize you could point out Human Rights
Watch, Amnesty International, Betteil, and going back decades,
telling you that these people are committing genocide
or rather specifically war crimes at that time
or that they're an apartheid state.
And, again, oh, you're just obsessed with Israel.
Okay. Okay. Let's pretend that let's give that
some thought for a second.
Think about all the evidence we're seeing and
that you literally have half the conversation going,
here's the proof. We know they're doing this.
Fine. You they may be wrong. But think
about the narrative that you're obsessed.
You're obsessed even though you've got multiple human
rights groups documenting their crimes, even though you've
got them celebrating how they do this on
their TikTok channels. But we're obsessed.
As they continue to literally break the law
by starving people, by withholding in for the
the goods and the
resources they need. But we're obsessed.
As they continue to work with US government
to occupy other people's territory in Syria and
Lebanon, but we're obsessed.
It seems pretty silly when you continue to
stand back and look at how things are
really obviously on the ground taking place, but
we're pretend they're all you're obsessed with Jewish
people.
That's again, in its own right, that's why
this has collapsed because even average people are
going, come on. I mean, even if you
believe that's part of the conversation, they're going,
but look at what they're doing. I just
saw a child's head blown off.
It becomes impossible.
Job site news reports leaked data reveals, this
is what we've been telling you, massive Israeli
campaign to specifically remove pro Palestinian posts on
Facebook and Instagram. But we already know it's
happening on Twitter. That's the overarching point. What
we're finding out is this is a massive
Israeli government agenda to suppress the speech of
Americans,
and the people that scream about the constitution
the most seem to be supporting it.
Now this is a quick overlapping point about
October 7 that I wanted you to see
before we go into the main point about
rather the latter the main one of the
main points to finish around free speech, constitutional
rights.
Now this is an article
from Israeli media.
Nova investigation revealed senior officer recordings on the
dramatic hours the night before the massacre and
the morning of the attack. There's plenty of
things to read in here. The one that
I think is important to highlight, which is
really wild,
It says the subtitle, the body is, quote,
brought to the party compound.
Now the main point to read, it goes
over a bunch of stuff, but, you know,
first bullet was shot. And because there was
quite a few vehicles out there, they were
forced to fill. The main point starts right
here where it says there was also the
tank event, which is still going around there.
It's also a delusional event. They say, in
fact, from 09/10,
the whole business opened. They could go inside
the compound, and they slaughtered the complex, leaving
220
to 230 bodies.
This is the order of the size we
cleared
out of the compound itself,
associated with the party a little less, which
means a lot of bodies during this day
have been lowered into this space.
I have no idea why.
And it goes on to say the police
officer asking the chief of staff, what are
you telling us? Or what are you telling
us is that some of the bodies found
there do not belong to the party?
And he goes as if they were brought
there.
The chief of staff says brought.
So
they're telling you, at least in the opinion
of the chief of staff, that you could
prove bodies were from somewhere else that they
but the he believes they were brought to
this location. Now, of course, you I'm sure
the are the argument's already being cultivated that
this was just Hamas who put them there
for some reason. That's certainly possible.
But with everything else we are seeing and
all the foreknowledge and all the manufactured lies
around this entire story,
This is one more element that begins to
add to the fact this was some horrific
event that they manufactured.
At least consider that, seeing as how a
lot of people like someone like Effort Fingenson,
for example, who was in the IDF, who
has been speaking about this right after October
7 to this very day, that she's convinced
that they knew about this.
It's just it's just another data point. And
what's crazy is the same kind of thing
where people wanna act like you're taking part
in some grand
I'm not saying anything other than what the
Israeli chief of staff says to the police
officer in this interview.
Do you know to make it out to
be some effort to highlight things? It's not
just pointing at what they're telling you, and
they're telling you it seems to them that
these bodies were brought there. You know, in
the concert that was so so was suspiciously
moved to be in the wrong location right
before this takes place, or the videos we
have of them being trapped behind the cars
where the Israeli officers are using them as
human shields, on and on and on. Just
worth considering that. Now I wanna point to
this account that I'm not familiar with, but
there she's the one that I saw this
link from, so thank you for that. It's,
JP.
And then here, don't don't forget, by the
way,
this is from October 7, coverage from 12/03/2023
from the cradle.
Border surveillance footage from October 7 just disappears.
We already saw this from before, but I
just want I thought it was relevant to
include in the conversation seeing as how we
are continuing to find more evidence that shows
there was something pretty weird that happened. And
back on December 3, back when people were
super distracted, oh, we guys, we just lost
all the information, sorta like the you know?
I mean, a million of the stories we
could add to where they go, yeah. Well,
we just don't have the we lost it.
Accidentally burned it. Looks like we destroyed it,
and we can't do it again.
And here, just in case you wanna see
it from Israeli media, which I I'm glad
you would wanna see both, Senior officers wonder,
where did the recordings for October 7 go?
It's a mystery.
Hardly.
YNET news, don't forget this one. Also relevant
to the same conversation.
I can't believe this didn't get more coverage.
This is right after October 7. Mass music
festival massacre survivors
involuntarily
committed due to mental breakdowns,
or at least that's what we were told.
You know, people that probably were privy to
things that we really weren't allowed to see.
And, I mean, either way,
involuntarily
committed people who were just I mean, that's
like The United States taking everybody involved in
a shooting and forcing them into a mental
institution. It's exactly what happened. I mean, this
is the kind of I mean,
add into the long list of examples of
what this government really is.
Now to give you a to end
final
an update on the arching point that I'm
really continuing to drive home about the unconstitutional
actions of your government right now.
I wanna start with a great post from
it's an activist post. Shout out to Charlie
Robinson and this great platform and posting from
the Ron Paul Institute. Free speech is worth
fighting for.
Now I do find this important for many
reasons because he's right
and because what he's highlighting is what's going
on, but let's not take let's stand back
again and recognize that this was an entity,
a person who was
they tried to
make you think was gonna be part of
the fold,
when in my opinion is that was never
even on the table. They just wanted you
to think that.
Massey, same point.
And even Ron Paul said, yeah. I'll work
with you, which I was worried about. I
mean, but I he probably just you know,
I would argue from what I under believe
about Ron Paul's that if he would maybe
try to work with them in the moment
he realized they were not doing what he
thought, then he would call it out. Probably
why they never actually tried to let him
in the group. But this is what he's
saying right now about what the current US
government is doing.
We do not have free speech to talk
about the weather.
Our so we we do not have free
speech to talk about the weather. Our found
our fa our founders,
particularly James Madison, who drafted the bill of
rights, understood that our rights are not privileges
granted to us by our government.
No. It was understood at the founding that
these basic natural rights
outlined by Madison were granted by our creator,
and thus no mere mortal could take them
away.
And first among these is the first amendment,
which recognizes the most basic of our natural
rights, the right to express ourselves in any
way we wish.
Now that first line is simply saying it's
not just about the weather. Right? It's about
anything and what's important.
The reality is, first and foremost, that as
we keep pointing to, as Scalia ruled with
Reno versus Flores or 14 different Supreme Court
rulings or the reality that you can just
simply read the fourth, fifteenth, other amendments that
the reality,
as he's pointing out here, that these apply
to people
as the fourth, and it says very clearly,
any person.
Some of them apply specifically to American citizens
in reality the way you can read the
the breakdown for as it applies specifically to
the point.
But the general idea,
specifically due process, that's Reno versus Flores, Scalia's
ruling, that especially with deportation cases,
illegal aliens have the right to due process.
The point is that expressing yourself,
wanting to speak about Israel, wanting to speak
about Russia, doesn't matter.
You have the right to do so. Illegal
aliens, visa holders, green card holders, American citizens,
the principle is the same. And so the
reality is that first, we're talking about them
speaking about what they want, and your government's
going, nope. You can't do that.
And then not giving them due process rights
because they're claiming they're breaking the law somehow
and kicking out of the country. So that's
a double violation of their rights,
if not more. Probably more. Now it says,
unfortunately, the US government has not always been
in accord with this sentiment and has many
times in our history been at war with
our freedom of speech. See, it's not about
right now. It's about an ongoing process of
left and right, really just your government.
From the alien and sedition acts at the
beginning of our republic to Abraham Lincoln's war
on speech, to the jailing of antiwar activists
during both war world wars to to Kent
State.
The political class is all for free speech
unless it's threatening the political class.
Recently, a new front has been opened in
the war on free speech and is it
is one that Americans must take seriously.
On university campuses across the country, students,
both Americans and foreign guests, have taken to
protesting US support for Israel's actions in Gaza,
you know, a genocide that the world can
clearly identify,
legally, where tens of thousands of innocent civilians
have been killed.
The political class in The United States is
determined to defend Israel from its critics and
has responded to these protests
by threatening and blackmailing the universities if they
do not crack down on speech that the
powers that be do not like.
Both presidents Biden and Trump have used the
power of the US government funding to demand
a crackdown on speech they don't like, with
president Trump recently pulling $400,000,000
in federal funding from Columbia University if they
don't silence the protesters.
The real scandal is that nearly every US
university,
both public and private,
is government funded in the first place.
For the politicians to use the power of
the purse to deny students the right to
express themselves
as long as peaceful
just adds insult to entry.
Last week, a Turkish PhD student at Tufts
University was arrested on the street in plainclothes
government
by plainclothes government agents for reportedly
simply writing an editorial, and that is the
reality.
In every in every piece of documentation they
present, that that's what's going on. And they
didn't present their names. They didn't present a
warrant.
This is extrajudicial at this point. They're breaking
the law.
And the the the university editorial
at the newspaper was simply expressing views on
Palestine and Israel, at which we showed you
and linked to, and you can read for
yourself.
It's it's about as I mean, you I
I wanna say the word benign in the
context of the way they're framing it. It
was benign. But she was calling out Israel's
genocide. Right? I mean, it's contentious in that
sense, but in no way, even a side
point was somehow could even be misconstrued
as anti Jewish or violence or terrorism, not
even remotely. Their game is to pretend that
if you support Palestine, therefore, you're a terrorist.
And, I mean, that seems to be, like,
right on the surface right now despite when
you push at it, poke you highlight that,
they pretend it's something else. No. It's about
violence. Well, show me the violence.
Now she faces deportation from the country, and
she is not alone.
Marco Rubio has openly bragged about sending hundreds
of students home because they express a political
position he disagrees with.
It's just it's crazy that we're even saying
this out loud and we don't all agree.
Others, including American citizens, have been expelled from
their schools and have even had their degrees
rescinded. Now we don't talk about that enough.
Now, yes, we have yet to see American
citizens removed from this country, which they're they've
now floated three times
to El Salvador
for wrong think.
But let's not forget that you've had American
students for speech
expelled from school,
had their decree degrees rescinded
even though they paid for this, even though
they didn't break the law. Now we're talking
about people that were not charged with the
crime, guys,
for peacefully expressing, Ron Paul writes, a political
position that powerful people in Washington disagree with.
You may also agree with the political position
of these students,
but to cheer their punishment
by the US government is to turn your
back on the founding principles of this country.
Freedom of speech is a natural right not
reserved for American citizens, but for all of
humanity.
And it has been a natural right worth
defending for nearly two hundred and fifty years
until now, apparently, for some people in this
country.
First, they came for foreign students expressing controversial
positions, and many Americans cheered because they were
not foreign and did not like the opinions,
but make no mistake.
This war on speech will not end with
only foreigners being punished.
It never does.
Well done, Ron. That's exactly what people need
to hear because it's the truth.
Now in case you didn't see it in
yesterday's show, I wanna play this again. Because
yet again, it's another influential person on the
right who is absolutely calling this exactly like
it is and in not even remotely mincing
words.
He says this is very terror. He's I
think he even uses the word terrifying.
I agree with him. This is not a
joke, and this should not be passively cut.
This is, I keep saying, is, in my
opinion, the largest current problem. This is what
Americans should be focused on more than anything
right now.
Now that's, you know, that's that you can
decide what you want. Even myself, I'm focusing
on what's going on in foreign policy, in
some cases, more. The point is, though, if
you wanna understand my opinion about what Americans
are most threatened by right now in the
context of the immediacy of what your government's
doing, it's right in front of you.
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. 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.
I agree, sadly, unless we do something about
that. Now here's an interesting overlap to this.
I mean, I almost don't understand why he
keeps doing this unless the agenda is something
much I mean, more like we're talking about
about kind of the just just breaking down
of this country. But it's insanely funny to
me in one part of this that you
keep having Elon Musk do this, where it's
like Obama was doing the same thing. And
I'm like, are you thinking these things through?
This is this is him saying make sense
about something Clinton is saying. You know why?
Because Clinton's supporting the idea of deporting people
without due process. And my boss's like, okay.
Like, I don't think this is okay. There's
only two things to cut take from this.
Either so the yes. All of our government
is breaking the the undermining our constitutional rights.
Yes. I agree. Secondarily,
that you're all doing the same thing, left
and right is the same. Right? If if
your point is to somehow argue that what
we're doing makes sense and it's trying to
get, like, left people to think that, how
do you not recognize that Republicans are gonna
go, wait a minute. Now now we're doing
what Clinton does? That doesn't feel right. It
just it just seems like they're so desperately
trying to kinda mash this altogether, I think.
I mean, you take you think what you
want. I just think it's funny to me.
I don't think it's a point that's taken
well by the right to point out that
what they're currently fighting for is exactly what
Clinton was calling for before.
And my only point, as you'll see, is
exactly you're all the same, using the two
party illusion to control our lives. The rest
is narrative. Here's what Clinton had to say.
Oh,
I think we gotta have tough conditions.
Tell people to come out of the shadows.
If they've committed a crime, deport them. No
questions asked, they're gone.
If they
if they've been working and are law abiding,
we should say, here are the conditions for
you staying. You have to pay a stiff
fine because you came here illegally.
You have to pay back taxes,
and you have to try to learn English,
and you have to wait in line.
Right. Or none of those things, and you
have the right to do whatever you want.
You know? Like, it's it's just wild. This
is the same conversation.
Now you you can argue there's a level
of, like, decorum or respect that you might
expect from people that you're going into somebody
else's country, and you don't you know, that
by the way, the opposite of what most
Americans do around the world. But what's interesting
is that the main point to start with
here about the deportation point. I think we
gotta have tough conditions.
Tell people to come out of the shadows.
If they've committed a crime, deport them. No
questions asked. They're gone.
Well, that's not how that works. Okay? If
they committed a crime, then you present the
evidence and that you see it's the same
conversation. But I just want you to recognize
that your government, as far back as you
wanna look from both side of the paradigm,
have been trying to undermine these things because
your constitutional rights are a a thorn in
their side.
But they always want them, oh, the other
side is the one doing that. We're trying
to protect it when it suits their interest.
And it flip flops back and forth. And
as Corbett tells you, the stepping stones of
the two party illusion continue to progress the
agenda until we're about to see Americans deported.
Well, you can pretend the evil Democrats are
the one that wanna do that while you're
literally doing that as long as you wanna
you
know, not to make it too stupid. The
point is clearly, guys, it's the same thing.
They're doing the same things. They're on the
same side. You are being played if you
don't recognize that in my opinion.
Makes
sense.
So Elon Musk is is agreeing with Clinton.
Do you agree with Clinton? I thought Clinton
was the bad guy.
Well, here's where we are now.
Press secretary.
All foreign nationals present in The United States,
longer than thirty days, must register with the
federal government.
Okay. Maybe you agree with that. You realize
that doesn't say illegal aliens. That says foreign
nationals.
Okay. Now look. If you look this up
specifically,
that there's the general the overlap is clear.
Foreign nationals, specifically,
means a person who is not a naturalized
citizen of the country in which they are
living.
Right? So that doesn't necessarily
I mean, the point the the the overlap
is the one the point I'm trying to
make is what we keep seeing with this
conversation, where you have people that come into
this country who are not immediately citizens but
are going through a process.
And that's not even the same as the
point we're gonna get into with
this with Biden just basically waving his hand
and making people not illegal, which, by the
way, is an important point to make, though.
This is about people who are literally coming
up and saying, I I wanna seek asylum
or even just, I wanna go through the
process. I wanna become a citizen, And and
presenting themselves to the border patrol. And then
they have been deporting those people in the
middle of that process, acting like they're here
legally because they don't have citizenship.
But they're not here legally if they're trying
to you see, it's it's infuriating.
And on a even on a more broad
sense,
the entire conversation from those that don't wanna
talk about this honestly, who are
aggressively partisan, are just the default is everyone's
illegal.
If they're they're pointing, oh, they're must they're
MS 13 criminals. They're all here illegally even
though the ones you're pointing to, you can
prove aren't either of those things.
So I wanna highlight that first. Now secondarily,
even if you're an illegal alien in this
country, don't forget, you still have rights. As
Ron Paul told you, as judge DePauliano told
you, the reality here that what they're saying
is that you just have to register with
the government
even if you're not necessarily here illegally or
breaking the law. And doesn't that feel wrong?
Don't we have a history of putting people
on lists?
I mean, you have to realize that what
this really comes down to is categorizing, tracking,
monitoring the American population or just people in
this country,
which they're already doing to you.
Now I think this whole thing becomes problematic
when you recognize what they just told you
we talked about yesterday, whether home or the
rest. We're gonna use artificial intelligence. We're gonna
use technocratic measures to be able to control
all of this. And you get the Republican
right. They go, yeah. Because bad illegals, except
that's the exact thing was proposed for COVID
nineteen.
Same thing proposed for shootings before that.
Almost like they just use whatever's in front
of them to get you to agree to
what you might otherwise dismiss.
Here's what she said.
Line for registration under the Alien Registration Act
is today.
All foreign nationals
present in The United States longer than thirty
days must register with the federal government. Oh,
and the other point to make, by the
way, is because there is the overlap we
just showed you that would include illegal aliens
in that category.
Okay. So if you illegally
and surreptitiously get into the country,
same thing really. So they don't know you're
there is the point. You're living in some
small town somewhere working, you know, whatever,
and they don't present themselves,
how do they know they're there?
So, effectively, what you get out of this
is the people who might otherwise want to
comply,
not the real criminals that who would just
hide no matter what until you catch them.
So it just seems it seems like they're
going for the lowest common denominator, which we're
gonna get to more in a second, where
they're just basically getting rid of literally any
immigrant here legally or not here legally or
not who have, like, traffic tickets
or small like, we'll get to an example
in a minute where there's a woman who
was the guy was trying to rape her.
Now she literally punched him in the face,
and that's on the record, and they deport
her for for some violent act. Not because
it just happened, because it's an old something
that happened before. The and that that's not
to say that everyone that's deporting is not
or rather that, first of all, again, they
all have due process rights.
Seems that none of them are moving forward
to that. So no matter how or what
the conversation or how bad of a criminal
they are, yes, they still they should still
have evidence presented and go through that process.
That being said,
I guarantee there are people that who are
in that process, whether without due process, by
the way, but still might be criminals. Not
denying that. But I'd love for them to
prove that, wouldn't you? So you just don't
have to take the government's word for that
as we already know many examples of people
who are here legally, who don't have criminal
records, who are rotting in El Salvador prisons,
matters to me.
Must register with the federal government.
Failure to comply with this is a crime,
punishable by fines, imprisonment,
or both. As president Trump and secretary Noem
have both said, if you register
and you leave now, you choose to self
deport. You may have the opportunity
to return later
legally.
Now, of course, the point is that they
also have this overlapping conversation with the Social
Security point we're gonna make in a second,
which basically is people that were there's an
overlap. People who were here legally, who were
given this, people who were given legal status
by Biden's administration, the point is they were
given Social Security numbers. And Biden and
and legally are here
are on the record here legally now. Whether
you agree with what Biden did or not,
that is the reality.
And you and, look, I agree. I don't
think what Biden did was I don't think
that should have happened. I think that's an
abuse of power. It doesn't change the fact
that he's the president of the country, and
they dictated these people would be allowed in
the country. Okay.
We'll come we're gonna come back to it.
The point is that there's a whole category
in there of people who they just they
just yank their Social Security numbers despite legally
being in the country and are now saying
they have to remove themselves because they're no
longer allowed to be here.
Even though there's I mean, it's it's just
unilateral, and they're not following any
anything,
especially not constitutional rights. And so what they're
saying there is that you have to self
deport yourself, and that that's really what that
conversation was. That's the large port. They're telling
those people you gotta get out of the
country.
So they have lives. They've got families. They've
been living here for years in some cases,
and now they have to go, you know,
where? In some cases, back to countries they
were fleeing from for persecution
or from countries the US government was destroying.
These things absolutely matter.
Now, overall,
do you think they're gonna just let these
people back in at this point when they
have already got them listed on the record
as people they've kicked out of the country?
I mean, it just seems like a trap
and a trap for people who would otherwise
be willing to work with the authorities.
You think the people who are out there
breaking the laws are gonna run up and
go, okay. You got me. Take me out
so I can come back in legally even
though I'm a criminal. I mean, it's like
it's like the same thing with the gun
conversation.
All you do with those is go after
people who are legally within the people that
are willing to abide by the laws. The
criminals break the laws already.
It's just infuriating that we have to make
these kind of points with how obvious this
stuff is.
But if not, you will be arrested,
fined, deported If they find them, which they
won't, if they're criminals and they're hiding never
to return to our country again.
The Trump administration will continue to enforce our
nation's immigration laws. We will not pick and
choose which laws to enforce. Well, the laws
were already there. So that's not what they're
doing. The laws have been there the entire
time. They don't need the aliens enemies act
to deport people, but they did anyway because
they're using that to circumvent the rights. That's
what's really happening. They're pretend they're pretending this
guise this guise of a process and acting
like we're following the law, but the process
itself is what's allowing them, they think, to
circumvent the law, both constitutional
and
national, I guess.
That's what's so disgusting about it. Is there
just like every other piece the government does,
they present themselves as the moral authority while
the one most undermining it. We must know
who is in our country for the safety
and the security of our homeland and for
all American citizens.
Yep. And, guys, that means you too. But
don't understand that's already part of the process.
You're already being monitored. That's from COVID nineteen
and a thousand other ways. So just recognize
what they're normalizing is the idea that you're
that you agree with that. Do you agree?
They need to make know everyone in the
country and monitor everybody to make sure we're
all safe.
You may you have may you may have
been convinced that that's what the world needs
right now.
But at the same time, at least acknowledge
that's a that is a contradiction of the
way this country was designed, the way that
we believe that we're supposed to exist in
this country with privacy and rights and, you
know, protection under the from the law and,
you know, search and seizure. I mean, everything.
We could go over a hundred different points
of why what they're talking about violates those
things, whether it's because they're spying on you
in your home or monitoring what you buy
or any number of things or telling you
you can't think and say things.
These are fundamental
principles, foundational
ideas that we're still arguing are part of
this country while literally what they roll out
undermines
those
things. Now here is the article, one of
them, around the conversation of the Social Security
numbers. Now it says pressuring migrants to, quote,
self deport, which is a weird thing in
its own right. White House moves to cancel
Social Security numbers.
So obvious point to begin with is they
already have them. Now this weirdly, I mean,
by design, dovetails with the argument that they're
giving out Social Security numbers to illegal aliens
or that they're rather these are all fake
numbers or whatever, which is a whole different
conversation that I guarantee overlaps to some degree
of people that are abusing the system, right,
whether politicians or not.
What this specific conversation is about, and they
really want you to blend those two conversations,
is about a situation where the Biden administration
gave these people, in some cases, numbers when
they didn't have citizenship or other cases where
they were applying and so on. There's a
it's a mixed bag, and they always want
it to be about one specific thing. Now,
again, in case you forgot, I'm a I've
never argued that people who are here illegally
should not be charged with a crime if
they've, like, broke into the country.
That's not the same as somebody who has
presented themselves as a border patrol and is
trying to seek asylum or citizenship.
Just because they haven't reached either does not
then make them in limbo illegal aliens.
The overall, though,
I will never argue that somebody if you're
if you're here illegally, that's a crime and
that you should be charged for such.
If you're an illegal alien or not citizen,
you should not be voting. That's simple, guys.
These are basic realities. That doesn't mean that
the wild you know, extreme part of that
is the same,
which is that there's a whole middle ground
of people who are here on asylum who
are,
in some cases, illegal aliens
who have been granted citizenship by the last
president.
And I said already, I think that's ridiculous.
Like, just to wave your wand and say
these people are the point is citizenship was
a process.
Now you may disagree. I mean, frankly, from
a nonstatus perspective, which is where I would
rather be, none of this means anything.
They're all imaginary lines. But, again, since we're
being forced to exist within this society, that's
something that that is the reality of it.
And my point is that, overall,
you can't just disregard that the previous president
has said these people are granted citizenship. It's
the same as Trump waving his hand and
saying, you no longer are a criminal. It's
the same difference.
So continuing going into the article, it says,
the admin the title is pressuring migrants to
self deport, White House moves to cancel Social
Security numbers.
Subtitle is by placing migrants in Social Security's
death master file, which is supposed to be
for people who are dead so they can
keep it on file. The Trump administration is
seeking to cut off their access to credit
cards, bank accounts, and other services, by the
way, which are theirs.
Credit cards in their name. Bank accounts with
their money in it.
Yeah.
I mean, if if you're really trying to
be objective about this, this is just wrong
in a lot of different ways. There's a
way to go about this if your aim
is actually trying to remove illegal aliens who
are here illegally, who are breaking the law,
who are criminals,
as opposed to just anybody brown who you
can jam into that category surreptitiously so you
can meet some kind of metric for your
radical base. I don't mean even the majority
of conservatives.
Now it says the administration is taking drastic
steps to pressure some of those immigrants and
others who had legal status
to self deport by effectively canceling the Social
Security numbers that they had lawfully obtained. Now
I get it. I understand that they believe
and eve and maybe you even wanna argue
that what Biden did was illegal.
And maybe you're right. The point would be
then you need to go do the process
and prove that. Present the evidence, make the
case, but that never happens.
They just unilaterally act under a political argument,
and that's not enough, guys. That's why we're
rapidly going the wrong direction.
So if you believe what Biden did was
illegal, then make the argument, make the case,
present the evidence. Otherwise, what happened was, what
and I disagree with the two. He allowed
these people legal status for a multitude of
reasons,
some of which were fleeing. You know, I
already went over it.
And so that is the reality. Now, also,
don't forget that other than that too, there
were people who were in other positions, like
I said, fleeing from countries seeking asylum who
were also included.
But that's not the same thing as another
as an illegal alien, for example. The point
is, like I already said, they're seeking asylum.
So just understand that before we read the
rest of this. Because right now, you're gonna
get the argument that these are all the,
you know, fake Social Security numbers, people who
are illegal aliens trying to rob the system,
and it's all just to make sure you
don't understand that that's that these are, in
many cases, people who are, you know, as
we keep being told, seeking the American dream
and went through the process the right way
or were granted such by the president. Are
you gonna tell me that if Donald Trump
decided to allow the Afrikaners in this country,
would that they would be illegal no matter
what, even though Trump said come on in
and you're okay?
That's the same point, isn't it? Oh, but
it's okay because they're South Africans, so we
don't care.
How is that different?
He's gonna let them in? He's gonna grant
them citizenship? Do they you know, that that's
what will happen. He's already said that.
So it's a hypocritical thing if you are
actually being honest with yourself. Now it says
the goal is to cut these people those
people off from using crucial financial services,
bank accounts, credit cards, along with their access
to government benefits.
The effort hinges on a surprising new tactic,
repurposing Social Security's death master file, which for
years has been used to track dead people
who should no longer receive benefits to include
the names of living people who the government
believes should be treated as if they are
dead.
Like, to alive people here legally who they're
just deciding to make dead on paper.
The initial names are limited to people the
administration says are convicted criminals and suspected terrorists.
Oh, we played this game before, the documents
show. But officials said the effort could broad
me to include others in the country without
authorization.
So as we've already proven that many, many,
if not if not the majority of people
that they've already deported were not criminals, in
some cases here legally, who were not part
of these gangs, and they just said terrorist,
m s 13, rapists, murderers. They they just
go the they go as hard as they
can.
In this case, they're simply saying
suspected terrorists.
Now look. Convicted criminals is a whole other
conversation.
You know how many Americans are convicted criminals?
And I mean, people, like, whether it's a
cannabis charge. The point is that they doesn't
revoke your citizenship. In some cases, they try
to make that the case, which is also
unconstitutional.
The point is that either way,
the Biden administration
gave them legal status, I which I disagree
with, but you don't just pretend that doesn't
exist. So they don't get to go back
and go, but they broke the law ten
years ago. Get them out of here, which
is what they're doing.
Go through the right process. Prove that it's
a crime. Present the evidence. Same argument.
But officials said the effort would broaden to
include just others without authorization,
which remember, they're claiming that means these people
who all did have authorization.
Just, you know, like, this is like them
saying within the law, which means nothing today.
What they're doing all over the place is
a violation of all sorts of laws, but
they say it out loud and that their
supporters pretend that's absolute.
The move, it says, is the latest in
an extraordinary series of actions by the Trump
administration
pushed by Elon Musk and the Department of
Government Efficiency
to to harness personal data,
always the central part in this, long considered
off limits to immigration authorities in order to
advance president Trump's vision for a mass migrant
crackdown.
This week,
several top officials at the IRS
moved to resign
from after the tax agency said it would
help locate undocumented immigrants.
So, again, that's that's the Trump administration.
You can if it makes you if it's
easier to ignore all this stuff, if you
just wanna secretly pretend they're all Democrats somehow,
you're lying to yourself, but go ahead and
lie to yourself. The point is that you
keep seeing examples of people, but even within
his administration,
suddenly getting uncomfortable with things like
this. We saw I mean, we just saw
Trump point the judge.
I'm gonna point out that in a second
again. Stop him from doing what he's doing.
This is the current IRS
under the Trump administration, and you got people
resigning because of what they're doing.
The new enforcement role for the Social Security
or for Social Security is raising fears that
faulty data
could result in people, including American citizens, mistakenly
or improperly being placed on the list,
upending their financial lives according to interviews with
current and former employees, you know, or being
rushed off on a plane to El Salvador
before you even know where you are.
Because that seems to be their thing right
now. And maybe they don't even recognize that
you're actually an American citizen.
That would be a good way to get
it started.
Not to be, you know, blithe about it,
but that seems like what they're getting what
they're getting into. The list included so the
the people they're talking about don't forget. The
point was
convicted criminals and suspected terrorists.
And the list included a 13 year old
and a seven a a 13 year old
and seven other minors,
raising fears inside the agency that it was
overly broad. Yeah. You think? A 13 year
old, probably not a convicted criminal, probably not
a suspected terrorist,
but we already know they're lying about this
stuff, guys. They're getting caught left and right.
And this is according to one person familiar
with the list who spoke on the condition
of anonymity. So this is another person from
within the establishment who's speaking about the list
that only the government has access to, who's
saying it's being overly broad.
A lot of that's happening right now. Don't
forget that. The White House official said that
nearly a thousand of the migrants
had received federal benefits worth a total of
this is actually pretty interesting to me.
The the White House official said that nearly
a thousand of the migrants, which it seems
like a pretty small number in the law
the context that we're talking about, had received
federal benefits.
You again, people who were given legal status,
so that's not that shocking,
worth a total of roughly $600,000
before their parole was cut off, including Medicaid,
unemployment, insurance, and federal student loans.
Now remember, I disagree with the entire thing
that was done here. But the point is
that now that they were here, I don't
see if you could disagree with what Biden
did, go after him for that. The point
is that they were given status, so these
things shouldn't be that shocking. But then it
says, an average of $600 per person.
So try to wrap your mind around them
wanting you to be outraged, the Trump administration,
for $600
a person for people who are legally in
this country, but we don't care about a
trillion dollars for a group that has failed
audit seven times in a row. We don't
care about tens of billions of dollars for
a government committing a genocide. We don't care
about the Trump administration continuing to promote mRNA
shots or I mean, on and on and
on. But $600
a person for people who are here legally,
whether you agree with how it happened or
not, is what you're supposed to be outraged
about.
The in a memo addressed to doctor Dudek
on Monday, Kristin Noem, the homeland security secretary
wrote that the plan
would, quote, prevent
suspected terrorists
who are here illegally
from having privileges reserved for those with lawful
status. Okay. Let's make sense of that.
Prevent
suspected terrorists so you don't even know for
sure whether they're even criminals
who are here illegally. So how do you
know they're there and suspected terrorists if they're
here illegally? If they're here illegally, go arrest
them and put them in jail.
You see how weird and this is this
is a self fulfilling prophecy. These are things
that are being constructed in many cases like
we saw with those that you can probably
aren't even real.
The bottom line is if they're here illegally,
then they should already be in jail,
especially since you're claiming the suspected terrorists, which
means you know who they are. Right?
From having privileges reserved for those with lawful
status?
I mean, you wanna explain for me how
people who are suspected terrorists who have no
citizenship are getting privileges reserved for lawful status?
I know that does happen. My point is
that's not what otherwise is being pointed to
here. They're pointing to people who have legal
status. They're just trying to confuse everybody
for the interest of, I mean, obviously, undermining
your rights.
But you know what this all ties back
to, guys. There's only one government out there
who is screaming about this being the most
important thing when most Americans don't agree. I'm
not even talking about immigration. I'm talking about
the focus on people who are calling out
Israel. You don't need to miss out. You
don't need to look further to understand what
that ties back to.
And realize, suspected terrorists,
according to the Trump administration, means people who
support Palestine, people who've been to a Palestinian
protest, people who think Israel is committing genocide.
They've stated that.
So when they say within the law, that's
what they mean.
Meaningless.
Now a associate pro press, excuse me, on
the tenth reported Social Security lists thousands of
living immigrants as dead to prompt them to
leave, associate press says. Now that's just to
follow-up on the story, showing showing you that
they're just simply saying that we're just gonna
move you onto a list of dead people
to say you gotta get out of here.
Does that sound legal to you? Just because
you don't agree with what Biden did, you
just do something else illegal? It it's the
same thing. There's just one entity
trying to confuse you in my opinion. Now
we are this was oh, this is the
one I thought I was getting to. We'll
come to that in a second.
This is CBS News. I wanna make the
point about the overlap to this. And I
haven't gone into this in-depth, but the whole
Social Security dynamic, there's been a huge amount
of disruption despite them swearing that wouldn't happen.
So right now, as we've already seen them
going after just whoever they claim is, you
know,
actually here legally, but they go, but but
Biden, so they're technically, we don't agree with
that, so they're legal.
And by the way, in that pursuit of
a a nebulous thing they can't bear they
can barely define, they've also folded in people
who are Americans who are getting
their,
benefits.
Social Security wrongly told disabled people and some
seniors that the benefits ended.
See my point now, whether this is because
they're just pulling strings they don't even know
what's attached to, which seems to be a
Doge's thing right now, or these are people
that are swept up in the whole claim
that they thought they were illegal even though
they had legal status.
The point is this is constantly happening.
Here's another example. Oh, I thought I had
one more.
Oh, I hope I didn't lose that somehow.
Oh, well. I'll I'll skip it for now.
This was the nice thing. There's there's if
you just take the second to look it
up, there's a lot of examples going over
the last so many a month, really,
where people are going, look. My I was
told my benefits have been canceled. They didn't
show up this week, like, all over the
place. Now whatever your thoughts on that, and
I have plenty of thoughts on social benefits.
The point is that that is the current
reality, and they promised it wouldn't be affected.
And now as they're in their kind of
sprawling effort to go after anybody who might
be connected, they seem to be taking down
Americans too, maybe by design.
Now Bad Kitty Unleashed points this out. Tom
Homan says, yes. They will take away the
Social Security numbers
that were wrongly given to illegals.
As my point, though, is even though you
can prove that not everyone was illegal, some
of them were in the process of seeking
asylum. That's the game they play, but it
says and they get deported to boot.
Pat Geddy at least says this answers this
answers a huge concern of mine. Now I
I don't know exactly how he sees that.
It's hard to say based on what he's
pointed there, but the point is I'll play
you what Tom Homan here says
and why I think this is a problem.
Now here, as we look at this again
from the rapid response 47,
let's take a listen to what this obviously
very intelligent man has to say.
Legal taking away their Social Security numbers.
Absolutely. Because they're released in United States illegally.
The pro program was unlawfully used,
and, we'll make sure these people are removed
from the country. They didn't make a legal
entry. They didn't come in here under legal
entry. And we've been I've been saying, the
last couple years that the Biden administration, we're
bringing thousands of people a day in this
country
by abuse of the pro statue.
See, first of all, just, you know, can
you at least enunciate for us, man? I
mean, like this like, I think at the
end of the day, I think these people
are chosen for a very clear reason.
I'm embarrassed by and it's not just this
current administration. Look at Biden stumbling around, guys.
Think about this stuff. My point, though, regardless
of of the the criticism of this very
clearly intelligent person, I think the point is
he's basically already told you in this for
opening response
that you so you disagree with what Biden
did, but you just made it clear that
he went through a process. Right? And so
the argument is the president of The United
States has dictated through a process these people
are granted citizenship
or legal status as it were in some
cases.
Like I said, if Donald Trump, who he,
by the way, has already floated the idea
of bringing the Afrikaners from South Africa into
The United States and giving them citizenship, you
wanna explain to me, Tom, why that's different?
It's it's the president waving his hand and
saying, come on in. You have citizenship now
because I said so. Granted. Well, I disagree
with that on either side of it. But
you understand the reality of how our, you
know,
our apparently rule by dick edict situation in
this country is, and it's been that way
for a long time. So the fact that
they're just going instead of going after Biden's
choices or the system in place or kinda
doing that too, they're going after the individuals
who were granted this status by the president
at the time.
That should outside of the partisanship,
you know that's wrong. What they're doing is
wrong whether or not it was abused by
Biden, and now it's being abused by Trump.
Overall, these people have been granted that status,
and all he's doing is revoking that. Now
listen to him again. Even though they're their
Social Security numbers. And, again,
it's not just illegals in this conversation which
you can prove. Some of them, yes.
Before Biden granted them status, which would then
make them by legal status not illegal.
But even before it, there were some that
weren't. Just like the conversation of the deportees
that that were seeking asylum, had visas, green
cards, and so on. In this case, we're
talking about people that were seeking asylum.
Absolutely. Because they were released in United States
illegally.
The pro program was unlawfully used,
and,
we'll make sure these people are removed from
the country. Yeah. So the program, not by
any action of their own. Right? So Biden
said, come on in. We're gonna give you
this status. So he is the problem in
that conversation.
Biden illegally used the program, he's claiming. Why
are you going after these individual people, by
the way, who don't have criminal records? What
what's going on there?
Is that what we all thought this would
be about? Well, if you're sharing about it,
it's because you just wanna go after immigrants,
which I think says a lot about you,
regardless of whether it's justified or legal,
which just seems to be a lot more
than I would expect, by the way, but
I still don't argue as the majority.
They didn't make a legal entry. They didn't
come in here under legal entry. And we've
been so I've been saying, the last couple
years that the Biden administration, we're bringing thousands
of people a day in this country by
abuse of the pro statue.
Even a district court judge in Texas said,
not only were they ignoring the law, they're
actually violating the law. Well, we're gonna enforce
the law in the Trump administration. Okay. Except
these judges right now are saying the same
thing about you guys, literally.
Both Trump appointed judges just said the same
thing.
Holy lawless is what they called what you
did to El Salvador.
But you see, they just love to point
back at the evil Democrats to make you
just pretend like everything they're doing is okay.
That's how the bipartisan
illusion works.
They're currently breaking the law in in just
as many ways, if not more.
You can literally scatter
Alright. That that was an accident. Where was
I? On the Trump administration. Okay. Are you
going to use IRS information to find the
illegals?
We hope to. I mean, this is about
protecting the American taxpayer,
protecting their Social Security information.
And we we know for a fact illegal
aliens use American Social Security information
to apply for jobs. And I don't disagree
with that. I mean, there's a whole ecosystem
of fraudulent activity, guys. That's very clear. Quite
frankly, I believe that it's sort of, you
know, facilitated to some degree by just left
and right, but about more of a manipulation.
But overall,
these are different conversations, especially since what we're
talking about is people that have been granted
legal status.
Security information. And we we know for a
fact illegal aliens use American Social Security taxpayer
protect
we hope to. I mean, this is about
protecting the American taxpayer, protecting their Social Security
information.
And we we know for a fact illegal
aliens use American Social Security information
to apply for jobs.
And and plenty of people with citizenship use
your Social Security information to rob you. That
happens too.
Myself, my wife's Social Security number was stolen
by illegal alien that affected her My wife's
Social Security number was stolen by by illegal
alien.
And I know these are small things, guys,
but you keep it's it's crazy to me.
The kind of people that are representing us
right now who are I I just I
don't find to be smart people. Credit rating
takes a long time to get it fixed.
So this happens a thousand times across this
country. We're protecting Social Security
for the people who deserve it, for the
people who paid into it for decades. We
need to protect it for those that need
it and those who are authorized to receive
it. Yes. But what is conflating very clumsily
is the idea of people who are here
illegally without citizenship, who are abusing that and
robbing people. Yeah. That exists. Just like US
citizens doing the same.
No one should deny that. What he's pointing
to while pointing at that to conflate the
two are people who are not doing that,
people who have jobs, people who have careers,
or have just got here. They're set. And
the point is they've been given these things
and are paying taxes even. That's all that's
in the conversation.
The Social Security is the whole point. They're
paying into it, not robbing you. That's why
they were given legal status. Like, you can
look through all of this.
Now, like, there's probably some point some overlap,
but the reality is what they're revoking in
large, by and large, are people who are
actually
in the process, not abusing the process other
than Biden abusing the process to get them
legal status.
You know, I I get why this can
be confusing for some people, but it the
core is about the misunderstanding,
the deliberate deception by people like this of
your rights, or maybe he doesn't even understand
it. He does call Spanish Mexican, so, you
know, maybe he doesn't grasp it. At the
end of the day, this should be alarming
for every American.
Now here's another clip when she was asked
specifically about the same same press conference about
Garcia.
Right. And so as we recently went into
and I'll play this clip next.
So the Supreme Court had ruled, as we
said before, that they could continue deporting people,
even using the Alien Enemies Act, as long
as they were giving them due process, which
they aren't doing and don't care about. Seems
like they just pretended that wasn't part of
the ruling. Now the judge that was appointed
by Donald Trump in this article,
he stood up and rule he ruled that,
well, no. You can't. Because, technically, that act
is a wartime act. Technically, it's supposed to
be against a state actor. Neither of those
exist. And you just unilaterally declare them a
terrorist organization, which is what makes you think
you can make all this happen. Either way,
they're required to have due process. That's the
point that doesn't change whether they're saying keep
deporting or not, that you are they are
afforded constitutional rights by default.
So the point is not one saying he's
doing it right, one not. They're both saying
what they're doing is wrong, but you can
keep deporting people through the normal legal processes
you currently have or the Alien's Act as
long as you're giving them their rights. The
other judge is just simply saying, no. He
disagrees with that entirely that they have to
go through the normal channels of deportation.
Either way, they're supposed to present evidence, guys.
So coming forward from this, we had another
Supreme Court ruling, I believe it was nine
to zero, we'll get to in a second,
basically arguing they are absolutely
required to bring back Garcia. And the way
this has gone even since then is just
insulting.
But the point
is that they're now saying that they're going
to bring him back or that they're gonna
help facilitate it. They're nitpicking about the different
terms, which is very interesting to me. But
I wanna highlight,
Bukele is now coming to The United States.
As somebody asked right in the briefing, well,
is he gonna be bringing Garcia?
It really would be that simple, especially since
this is not a criminal who was here
legally.
That's important. He was in seeking asylum. And
the point is that he was not even
remotely connected to the gang as they've now
proven.
And that's what they want you to believe.
And they're going, well, it's not our responsibility.
You're damn right it's your responsibility.
But here's what she has to say when
asked about that. The oh, the point the
there's two the point is to her response,
but also just to recognize that they could
just send it back as soon as they
wanted to. But seeing as how the American
government, the US government is paying them to
hold him,
they're just playing everyone for a fool who
believes that they're telling you the truth.
If president of El Salvador is coming to
the White House on Monday, does president Trump
want him to bring Kilmar Abrego Garcia with
him? The Supreme Court, made their ruling last
night very clear, that it's the administration's,
responsibility to facilitate,
the return, not to effectuate the return. I
Which, by the way, they push back on.
So they're pretending like they got what they
wanted like they usually do when the reality
is they push back on all of it,
and the judge just simply folded on half
of it knowing that this would get it
done. I'll show you in a second. So
the point was to facilitate as opposed to
facilitate and effectuate.
It's just it's just legalese nonsense. The point
is you have to return him, and they're
acting like they want something here. It's the
typical it's very childish in my opinion.
Courts, made their ruling last night very clear,
that it's the administration's,
responsibility to facilitate,
the return, not to effectuate the return. I
believe the Department of Justice just filed another
brief in the lower court. I would defer
you to that, for any updates. But as
you mentioned, president Bukele will be here at
the White House on Monday to talk about
the cooperation that is at an all time,
high. And we very much appreciate president Bukele
and El Salvador's cooperation and the repatriation of
El Salvadorian gang members who the previous administration
allowed to infiltrate our country.
Right. So just narrative, narrative, narrative, narrative. Like,
just then he may ask the question.
Oh, and you mean all those people that
are provenly not part of the gang, who
have no criminal record, who are illegally, you
know, are evil terrorists committing human trafficking.
Gross.
Like, it's just whether they even know it
or not. And I I you know, I
I'm of the mind that they know what
they're doing. And I mean, like, even her.
But recognize what we just did right there.
Yes. Point blank, are you gonna let is
he coming back with him? Because the court
just ruled that, yes, you have to facilitate
that. Now they're acting like, oh, it would
not effectuate.
Facilitate is your responsibility
is to bring him back. And if all
of a sudden he's flying into the country
and they don't bring him back and you
act like there's some ongoing,
they're playing everybody.
I I mean, they're just straight up disregarding
this in hopes that their screaming audience allows
this to give them some kind of pressure
or rather some support in just ignoring supreme
court rulings. So ask explain this to me.
Well, again, I'm I'm a little bit jumping
ahead because maybe they will bring him back.
But
assume and what we've seen so far, but
assuming they don't,
think about the process of going in and
presenting your case, taking it to the Supreme
Court, presenting your information, and then not abiding
by the ruling. It just shows you the
way this government operates everywhere.
The only thing they agree with is what
gives them what they want.
Now going forward,
again,
Trump judge blocked the deportations. I just I
this was just to remind me of the
the starting point,
and this was the conversation we had about
the Trump judge doing so. I'll include this
for you in case you wanted to read
through it. And we also know that even
with Khalil, Mao and Khalil, it was now
proven, and here's the actual document from from
Rubio
that point blank admits that he did not
break any laws, that what he did was
literally otherwise lawful.
Right? So didn't break the law.
No. Not even a claim that he supports
Hamas.
No evidence of anything other than they think
what he said,
his ideas
compromised US foreign policy, which was, by the
way, Israel's committing genocide, which is what the
world is calling out.
Pressed for evidence against Khalil, the government cites
its power to deport people for beliefs.
It has never been more clear in this
conversation.
It's exactly what you might have called out
on the right, what Obama was gonna do,
or Clinton might have done, or Kamala and
Biden were about to do. The moment it
happens in earnest on your side, it's funny
how nobody wants to call it out.
Now here's an article
from today. US Supreme Court tells Trump administration
to again, that's what she was citing to
facilitate the return of Salvadorian Man
deported, who they told who they have claimed
was an error. They admitted a mistake, and
now they're not taking responsibility for
it. You you know, these are the small
messages that trickle down into society, guys. The
average people that are, well, jeez, if the
president of The United States is not taking
responsibility for what he made a mistake on,
why would I?
Even subconsciously.
Rampant lawlessness. It that you know, money doesn't
trickle down. That does. But it goes on
to say the US Supreme Court directed president
Donald Trump's administration on Thursday, this was yesterday,
to facilitate the return
of the of of Garcia to The United
States.
The court's decision came after the justice department
asked the justices to throw out an April
4 order
by judge Paula Zenas
requiring the administration to, quote, facilitate
and effectuate
the return. His name full is Kilmar Abrego
Garcia. Now here's what's funny about this. So
facilitate means
make easier
an action or process. Right? Schools were located
on the same campus to facilitate the sharing
of resources. Right? So you could argue that
they can try and do construe this as,
like, just
do what we can. It's not what it
means in a legal sense here. As you
can continue forward and recognize that overall, especially
from a legal definition, like, your responsibility is
to be in the process to facilitate this.
Maybe is the one that has to bring
him, but you're the one that's supposed to
be petitioning him to make it happen, to
even pay for it to come back,
effectuate,
to put into force or operation. Right? So
all their base all they're trying to do
now is act like because they're abusing the
definitions of these words,
pretending like they don't know what that means,
saying that no. That means that he has
to be the one to do it. We're
just supposed to help where we can.
That's not the legal ruling. That's not the
reality. But that's how the Trump administration's playing
the game when it comes to human lives
even though they know what they did is
wrong because they admitted that.
It says in court is in an unsigned
decision, said that the judge's order, quote, properly
requires the government to facilitate
Garcia's release from custody
and to ensure that his case is handled
as it would have been
had he not been improperly sent to El
Salvador.
The administration, meanwhile, quote, should be prepared to
share what it can
concerning the steps it has taken
and the prospect of further steps.
So you see, they're they know what they're
doing here, guys. They made
the calculated decision, it seems to me, because
there was pushback from within the court to
say, okay. Fine. We'll take away effectuate. Because
I'll it'll get to what their argument is.
Oh, you're stepping on executive authority. It's just
it's just funny how this is playing out.
The point here is they're saying, okay. Fine.
You have to facilitate the process, but you're
also required to give us the steps you're
taking to do so. How much you wanna
bet that doesn't happen, which is what they
keep doing?
Now it says Zenas in an order late
on Thursday, yesterday, after the Supreme Court's ruling
said The United States must take all available
steps to facilitate
the return of Garcia to The United States
as soon as possible. So all available steps
and as soon as possible. Neither of those
things seem to be happening. The supreme court
upheld the district judge's order that the government
has to bring Killar Killar home. But that
is the ruling, understand. Now they need to
stop wasting time and get it moving, said
the other judge.
A justice department spokesperson said the court's ruling
recognized that it is, quote, the exclusive prerogative
of the president to conduct foreign affairs.
So they're basically just trying to muddy the
conversation here, acting like by the judge saying
that you're required to correctify your mistake, but
because they use the word effectuate, that somehow
that's the judge dictating foreign policy.
I mean, it's I mean, legally, I guess
that persuades some judges. And it's not necessarily
wrong, but it is an abuse of the
way this is working because reality is that
it is their responsibility, and there's precedent for
that. There's been many cases in the past
of either deliberate, but it seems wrong deportations,
mistaken deportations where the Supreme Court ruled they
had to be brought back and the previous
presidents complied
because it was a mistake. I mean, it's
very simple.
But this is, like, you know, it it
shows you the same I already made the
point. They have no interest in correcting their
mistakes even when they're hurting people.
Now it says justice department lawyers in a
Supreme Court brief had argued that the judge's
order
hold on. No one just skip one.
Yeah. It says, quote, by directly noting the
difference, the deference owed to the executive branch.
This ruling once again illustrates that activist judges,
this is their this is the White House
spokesperson,
do not have the jurisdiction to seize control
of the president's authority. None of that was
happening.
Like, that's it's just such a gross overstatement
of what we're talking about, which is why
they were like, fine. Then facilitate it and
show us what you're doing. Because it just
it's clear they're trying to make this into
the politicized version of this, which I guarantee
all of them are politicized, but the idea
that the judge is somehow trying to overtake
their authority. Look. You admitted you made a
mistake. The judge is saying correct the mistake,
and your effort is to try to make
it out to be a political manipulation.
I don't know why anybody falls for this
stuff. Even though there very clearly is political
manipulation,
that's not what that is to me.
Justice department lawyers and supreme court,
make sure I did I skip that too?
No. I said I read that. Okay. Justice
department's lawyers and a supreme court brief had
argued that the judge's order,
by requiring the Trump administration to specifically, in
the word, effectuate
his return, had impermissibly encroached on presidential authority
on foreign relations on the violation of The
US constitution's
separation of powers between its judicial and executive
branches. Oh, lovely. So now we care about
the constitution when it suits their interest, But
over here, we don't care about it because
you don't like what Biden did or because
these people have the wrong skin color because
we don't like what they're saying out loud.
How many different ways can we recognize the
blatant hypocrisy,
the double standards of our of government in
general, but specifically the US government?
So you're gonna point to the constitution to
make your point, but you're gonna ignore it
everywhere else where it suits your interest. Is
anybody gonna call that out?
The United States does not control the sovereign
nation of El Salvador, it says, this is
their quote, nor can it compel El Salvador
to follow a federal judge's bidding. No one's
claiming you can, bud. No one said that.
What they're claiming is you have to do
what you can to correct the mistake. And
how simple that would be to go, hey,
man. Bring him back. We will we'll fund
it.
Is that he's gonna go, no.
Then you're gonna say, fine. Then we won't
pay for it anymore. So now you're paying
for the guy that you wanna keep. This
obviously,
if you're paying for him to be held,
then we'll simply go fine. Here he is
back. It's a transaction.
They're just playing people for fools.
The Supreme Court has a six to three
conservative majority, which I think is very important
to understand, especially with the rulings we're seeing
right now as they want to make this
about political activism when you can see that
Supreme Court even just rule nine to zero
about them having to bring him back. So
what about that? Are we still pretending it's
all political activism now or only when it
suits your interests?
It's the it says it's the three liberal
justices on Thursday issued a statement agreeing with
the court's decision, but said that they would
have denied the administration's request outright.
To this day, the government has cited no
basis in law for Garcia's warrantless arrest. They
have not. His removal to El Salvador or
his confinement in El Salvador prison, nor could
it.
So in case you're still not understanding,
all of them, all six conservative and all
three liberal judges agreed that they have to
bring him back. The simple the point is
liberal judges simply said they would have gone
even further, which maybe makes sense to you,
but don't miss the margin the main point
there that they all agree that what Trump
did was wrong or rather The US Government
to be specific or, I guess, accurate.
Now it says, so Sotomayor added that the
administration
had requested,
quote, an order from this court permitting it
to leave Garcia
in El Salvador.
A husband and a father without a criminal
record in a Salvatore in prison for no
reason recognized by law. I mean, just this
is my point, guys. On the record, they're
going, k. Will you will you let us
just ignore it? Can we just leave him
there forever,
please? I mean, not only does that show
a lack of morals, a lack of concern,
or even a lack of in interest in
rectifying your proven mistakes,
It's just it's just shows you the kind
of people we're dealing with.
Thank God that they stood up for it,
even the conservative judges.
Now it says Garcia is married to an
American citizen
with whom he is raising a US citizen
child. Now far as I understand it, marrying
somebody gives you US citizenship. Right? At least
a green card.
That's the point.
They're just desperately trying to frame them all
as evil villains and not and illegal aliens
when most of the central cases that even
they're pointing to are nine of none of
those
things. It says he had never been charged
with or convicted of any crime
who have and this is the, his lawyers
have pointed out who have denied the justice
department's allegation that he's a member of the
gang. Now look. This has been round this
has been put forward. The information has been
discussed. The lawyers have put it out there.
They have presented their evidence against him, and
the best they can do, as we've already
showed you, is an old arrest of 02/2019
at a Home Depot where he was picked
up and released without charge. And because they
notated that it was about MS thirteen, they've
used that to claim he's a leader.
They presented no evidence to back it up.
And that that's what the Supreme Court just
ruled, that they have no evidence. And now
I have now they haven't tried and nor
could they.
And just or whatever for good measure just
tacked on human trafficking. That's what Leavitt said.
They never even tried to make that claim
in court. Certainly circulating the social media first.
Right?
Now it says the dust the justice department,
a supreme court filing on April 7, said
that while Garcia was deported to El Salvador
through an administrative error, if they're, quote, his
actual removal from The United States was not
an error.
The error, department lawyers wrote, was in removing
him specifically to El Salvador despite the protection
order. So what they're trying to pretend, and
nobody agrees with this, not even the Supreme
Court because they've already ruled against they've already
ruled that even if you're gonna use that
act, you gotta give them due process.
That they're simply saying we just sent them
to the wrong country. Because that was the
main point is he had an order that
was they he was legally the the judge
gave him asylum because of what was happening
in El Salvador.
You know, a place where bad things are
happening, but the country your leader freedom you
know, leadership, freedom of the world, they're working
with those people. Same with Israel, same with
Saudi Arabia, same with, you know, pretty much
all the worst people on the planet.
The point, though,
is that they're claiming that just sending him
there was the mistake, so they're gonna probably
bring him away from there and send him
somewhere else. I'm willing to bet you anything,
that's actually what happens. And, ultimately, they just
send him to another country, and they act
like that rectified the mistake.
That's not what any of them have ruled.
He is required to be they need to
present evidence that he's even part of anything
they claimed
because he's not here legal illegally, and he's
not a league no criminal record.
It says Garcia received a 02/2019 judgment in
The United States granting him protection from removal
to El Salvador
after an immigration judge determined
he would face prosecution from gangs in that
country.
It's almost like a common cosmic joke that
he's now put in a prison with people
under the guise that he's part of those
gangs.
Now it says Zenis in her ruling found
that in 02/2019,
this is what I'm referencing, and we've this
public information we've already shown you with source
material. You can look at it for yourself.
Hopefully, you already did. That
he she found that in 02/2019,
order prohibiting Garcia's removal to El Salvador was
still in place. She found that his removal
ran afoul of federal immigration law and likely
violated procedural protections granted by the US Constitution.
Clearly,
Garcia's detention appears wholly lawless, she claimed,
and that there were no legal grounds whatsoever
for his arrest, detention, or removal.
The Richmond, Virginia based fourth US Circuit Court
of Appeals on April 7 rejected the administration's
request to freeze the judge's order.
So all over the place, guys. See, there's
you're just not hearing this in the mainstream
alternative media.
One after another, they're they're losing a lot
of ground on this. It says on Monday,
it let Trump pursue deportations of alleged Venezuelan
gang members using the seventeen ninety eight law
that historically have been employed on wartime but
with certain limits. That's the point they're all
ignoring. That would they're not with limits, really.
Just they have to abide by the law,
which is due process, evidence presented, and so
on, which they seem to not care about.
Now this is a little bit of a
repeat. This is just the next day. Judge
this is today. Judge orders government to lay
out steps for return of wrongly deported man.
And I think really the main thing in
this, we already told you that. They're simply
saying you have to prove what you're doing
when they're not not really
complying.
So Zena said the government must also outline
steps,
his return by fry that's by today,
this morning at 09:30, which I don't think
they've done.
Says to this end, the court hereby amends
this order to to direct the defendants, take
all appropriate available steps to facilitate his return.
Lastly, the Suffolk imposed Trump administration won't give
up info on location of the Port Of
Maryland man. So see, there's something very wrong
happening here. Now it says the Trump administration
must begin providing daily updates about the location
of Coursera,
which they're refusing to do, apparently.
Now since The US the judge, Zeena, expressed
frustration with the Department of Justice during a
short hearing today after they flatly told her
after we're being told they were required to
give information,
that they did not have any information.
So this is what the frustration is for
Avid. They're playing games. They could have said
that last time,
but they agreed and said okay and came
back to court saying we don't have any
information.
Quote, the Supreme Court has spoken quite clearly,
and yet I can't get an answer, she
said. Zenith directed the justice department to provide
daily updates, not just about where Garcia actually
is, but about what efforts the government has
undertaken, which is exactly what she said last
time.
They're wasting everybody's time. They're wasting resources, you
know, while being efficient apparently, and just basically
lying to the world.
Now Katie Bueller,
this is the the ref they were ruling
we were talking about. This was yesterday. Just
so you have the documents. You could look
here for yourself as we do on this
platform.
A nine two zero.
Six conservative
justices, nine two zero court upholds the order
of requiring Trump administration to return Garcia.
And now they're publicly dragging their feet and
going, we don't know what we don't have
any information.
You mean, aside from having a phone call
to Bukele who's coming here, that's not you
you know, it's insulting to your intelligence to
pretend like this is not obvious.
Now Melnick, a lawyer in the conversation, says
the board of immigration appeals has been reduced
apparently from 28 members to 15.
An action, which coincidentally, he says, purges every
single board member appointed by Biden.
Now my point in this is the same
as every other conversation.
Every single administration tries to appoint the judges
that they think will be amenable to their
agendas.
It's it's no different from any side of
this.
So my point in this is it's not
just Trump bad Biden and the rest or
Democrat Republican. They're always doing the same things
in this case.
If you're if you if you're trying to
understand this from a legal perspective,
there's a situation here where you have an
appeals court which will be very relevant as
these things come to pass, where they've just
kind of purged anybody they think won't blindly
agree with what they have to say. That's
not how this system is supposed to work,
but they clearly are telling you that's how
it's going to work.
And you should care if you care about
constitutional rights, if you care about the law,
if you care about what this country pretends
it is.
Now he also points out that over 650
known cases so far.
K. This is six universities in Georgia, international
grad students
in the STEM's fields,
and I believe that's what, you know, it's
a high level science field. What is that
again?
It's not coming up immediately.
Just give me the chat if you remember
what that stands for. Have you so basically
people that are going in university,
high level grad students have had have in
the STEMs field have had their visas revoked.
The school, this person's, say this is a
MSNBC
I'm told is shocked and figuring out how
to respond. Now, yet again, guys, these are
people who are legally in this country
who have,
you know, according to their own documentation, not
broken the law.
They're simply people who are supporting is reporting,
you know, pro Palestine protests calling out Israel
x, y, and z.
Or in many cases, we're finding is just
like they sell. They have traffic tickets, for
example. That's what he says here.
650 known k. Now, by the way, my
point is I'm willing to I'm willing to
bet you that you could find most every
one of these have some connection back to
speaking out about Israel or speaking out about,
you know, pro Palestinian information. But it says
over 650
known cases so far.
Most have nothing to do with advocacy
in regard to the the the conversation. The
admin seems to be engaging in a breakneck
effort to kick out every foreign student who
has had even the most minor interaction with
the police possible,
including things like traffic citations. I mean, even
JD Vance tried to tell you that Garcia
had traffic tickets, which makes him not father
of the year. Are you kidding me?
Like like, not every American in the country
has had traffic tickets?
Funny how that comes back up. Right? There's
a reason they point these things out, but
also jaywalking tickets.
That's not a joke. You could
he's got it linked for you right there.
Now this is another lawyer
speaking up,
and it is Houston based immigration attorney.
And he says, talk to the the talk
to a lady who was arrested for simple
assault.
She broke the nose of a guy trying
to force himself on her. Cops arrested both
to figure it out. Got a letter saying
she was the victim,
but she was removed anyway.
And there this is the well, I'll make
sure I didn't go too far.
That's weird. Twitter is so wonky, man. Anyway,
so
he captions this and says, here's another example
of a foreign student the Trump admin is
trying to kick out. A woman who was
the victim of a sexual assault, who had
a letter from the cops confirming she was
the victim, and the arrest wasn't proof of
anything.
And yet they're trying to deport her for
that crime. Now my point is the same
as I genuinely think this is for one
reason.
And I think that if you really dig
into these, that you'll find some association with
them to some group they claim is speaking
up against foreign policy at the very least.
But this person responds by saying, wow, in
regard to what he said. Lauren Riley's killer
is an example of an illegal alien. The
Biden ad was trying to allow in legally
to avoid legal crossings. A man who was
a criminal
something has nothing to do with this conversation
in regard to the person we're talking about,
which is what he says. What a ridiculous
and insulting comment. You take the name of
a woman murdered by a heinous monster and
use it to justify literally anything that might
be anti immigrant, no matter how utterly irrelevant
it is to the person's case we're talking
about.
That is disgusting.
And he also adds to this, which by
the way looks like this was removed.
That's interesting. That's probably because he captioned it
and says, what what we're talking about people
with student visas. And the point was they're
saying they're all here illegally is what it
was saying. That's why the the at the
very least, it shows you the person recognizes
they were wrong and deletes it. But he
go and the guy that's he says, we're
talking about people here on student visas. My
point I was gonna make, now, of course,
they deleted it, is that everybody's response from
the from partisan side of the they're supporting
this
is that response.
They're here illegally anyway, and they're you're like,
look. You're not even listening.
That's not some kind of, well, they're here
illegally, but they're no criminal. It's that they
are here legally, and they have no criminal
record
in many of the cases we're pointing to.
And it's just infuriating that we have to
keep banging our head against this wall.
Oh, look. Here it is right
here. And it it there's already the the
page was up from before. It says the
correct term is anti illegal immigration.
We need to use the correct terminology. Immigration
is a legal process. These are there there
are very few immigrants. That's very untrue.
The point is he's talking about student visas,
so they have legally gone through the process,
but that's the response you get from people
that are screening that Trump's doing the right
thing. And now it's gone.
Lastly, an update on this very point. He
simply points out it's up to 770
cases. So this is the a lawyer confirming,
however partisan you may think he is, which
certainly probably there's probably some truth to that.
The point we all have our leanings. The
point is that he's giving you links to
prove this stuff for yourself as always.
And he's telling you that they've recognized 770
cases in the country
of people who are falling into these they're
falling I mean, I wouldn't even call it
falling between the cracks that are being targeted
for unjust reasons who are having their rights
completely disregarded
while basically ignoring the actual criminals in this
country, the ones you think they're going after
just because they scream rapist and point to
a brown person.
It's pretty disgusting that we're even pretending this
is not as bad as it looks. But,
hopefully, people are gonna pay attention, listen to
people peeking up peeking up, like judge DePauliano,
like Jeffrey Sachs, like any number of people
who are telling you this is wrong. What's
happening is wrong. Not even to say that
the outcome you want to happen is necessarily
wrong. That's a conversation to have. But the
the way they're doing this, like from the
beginning to right now, is almost designed to
make this fail, or at the very least,
designed to make this
a kind of a collapsing moment for this
country where the outcome is still the same,
where they just rush in some authoritarian justification
for you know, because bad people that are
being facilitated by them and their foreign allies.
Just please take the time to look through
the information.
Look at the information, the source material, read
these for yourself, and I don't mean the
articles themselves.
Look for the source material of the articles
we're highlighting, which I've already gone through. Many
cases I've already included for you, like the
court documents.
Right? For those that are screaming
about specifically Garcia or other or even Malmo,
that which was the one that Rubio put
forward, that they're illegal aliens breaking the law,
and you can then literally look at Marco
Rubio's signed affidavit that says the opposite
and still believe that, then you're just a
dishonest person. But the point is most of
them aren't even going to that point. They're
just going with the narrative that Marco Rubio
yelled over the top.
So in other words, trusting the government over
facts that you can verify for yourself.
You know, sorta like what you guys used
to call about the democrats. You know, it's
a two party illusion.
Thank you for tuning in. Thank you for
continuing to question
everything.
Please, I've had a couple people who have
continued to make some of these clips that
I've been tagging. If you like what we're
doing and you wanna clip out parts of
the show, make a clip, put it on
your platforms, whatever it is, tag me on
whatever platform it is, I'll share it. I
mean, really, the point is to help get
this information reach out there. Include the source
material is what I recommend is what I
request so people can know where to look.
At the very least, the link to the
show so they can go back to the
source material, which I add right after the
show every time, unless the rare occasion I
make a mistake, which does happen in regard
to, like, either not saving the links or
so on, but that's very rare. But thank
you for tuning in today.
I appreciate you all and all that you're
doing out there to fight for this because
it is important. I love you all. As
always, question everything.
Come to your own conclusions.
Stay vigilant.
But this starts, and it's it's really fascinating
to go back. It starts in 1996
with Netanyahu
who wrote a book called Fighting Terrorism.
And the thesis of the book is quite
straightforward
and
and very dangerous.
He says, you know, there are there's Hamas,
there's Hezbollah.
They oppose Israel. It's not good for us
to fight them directly.
That that won't work.
What we need to do is topple the
governments
that that back them. So what we need
is regime change throughout The Middle East. And
he actually gave a long list of seven
countries,
that included,
Syria,
Libya,
Iraq,
Iran,
Somalia,
Sudan, and Lebanon.
And systematically,
The United States has done Netanyahu's bidding for
almost thirty years now, going to war with
every one of them except for the big
one, that Netanyahu
so much longs for, which is the war
directly
between The United States and Iran.