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 to preserve,
protect, and defend the constitution
and to enforce,
federal law. You mentioned that you're open to
deporting,
individuals that aren't foreign aliens but are criminals
to El Salvador. Does that in does that
include potentially US citizens fully naturalized in Ukraine?
If they're criminals and if they hit people
with baseball bats over their head that happen
to be 90 years old, and
if,
if they rape
87 year old women in Coney Island, Brooklyn
yeah. Yeah. That includes them. What? Do you
think there's special category of person? They're as
bad as anybody that comes in. We have
bad ones too. Profoundly un American, utterly unconstitutional,
and I'm sorry to say is coming.
Welcome to the daily wrap up, a concise
show dedicated to bringing you the most relevant
independent news as we see it from the
last twenty four hours.
Monday, April fourteenth twenty twenty five. Thank you
for joining me today.
Another somber moment, another chilling moment there from
Donald Trump,
overlapping that with the clip from judge Napoliano.
That is now the fourth time, as I
put the title today, that they have floated.
I mean, it's actually more than four if
you really break down the times they've reiterated
this point. But those are four very clear
times that The United States President has openly
advocated for something regardless of the floated caveat
of, well, we'll find out what we'll make
sure it's within the law. As Napoleon was
telling you, it it's it's it's terrifying not
it's it's terrifying that it's being floated.
But what he's saying is terrifying is the
fact that he either doesn't know that that's
not within the law or is claiming to
try to find a way around it.
What's happening here, whether it's Biden or Trump
or anybody else, is
is terrifying. And as he's saying, appears to
be coming unless we do something about that.
And I just think this is like I
keep saying in this process, this is the
most important thing that I think Americans are
dealing with right now. Just the idea being
floated is is it's it's foundational what we're
talking about. Constitutional rights. And what's even more
unnerving is how many people who claim to
support him are the ones that are mostly
speaking about why the constitution's important and yet
seem to be pulling punches where it applies
to this topic. The weirdly specific claims he
makes about, I mean, I in in at
least one case, I know for sure he's
referencing something that happened.
But it doesn't change the and this is
the thing we talked about before. In any
context, left or right, just government's manipulation,
they will use the things that they know
most people will be okay with even though
it's against the rules, against the law, unconstitutional,
sorta like free speech. No one's really gonna
wanna jump up and defend a Nazi speaking
about terrible things despite the fact that that
is still protected within your free speech rights,
inherent god given rights, which, yes, do apply
to even illegal immigrants. As we've roundly shown
on this show, many supreme court rulings as
judge Napoleonic
will tell you, as justice Scalia will tell
you, and you still have to argue with
people online about this because they're uninformed or
dishonest.
This is legitimately being put forward, and it
is terrifying, and it continues to be floated.
And the idea that they can just throw
out raping grandmothers as to go, oh, well,
we'll we'll ignore it for this case or
that you don't know any better is the
alarming part. Regardless of the severity of the
crime, as I'll point out later, of course,
you still have constitutional rights and, yes, even
green card, yes, even these holders, yes, even
illegal immigrants
repeating it over and over and over because
this is a very important moment in this
country.
We're also gonna talk about some opening points
that get into some things that I a
little bit of follow ups in the last
show as I've kind of been doing lately.
Just some over just kind of a smattering
of points that I think I don't want
you to miss, that are relevant. Largely today,
the conversation, as I said yesterday, will be
focused, I mean, almost entirely around this conversation
and the tangential points around, you know, constitutional
rights, due process.
And, I mean, it gets a lot more
alarming than you think when we get into
this, specifically around what just happened with the
meeting with Bukele from El Salvador.
It's I don't even have the right words
to describe how unnerving it is to watch
them sit there and act like they you
know, like, what do you expect us to
do? Knowing full well that if they want
I mean, in any other context, these authoritarian
entities or just if you wanna pretend they're
democratic entities, presidents,
power structures can do just about anything they
want like we're seeing today and just claim
something different and use their screaming followers to
give them some momentum. And yet in this
case, they act like we're somehow bound even
though the two people in charge of the
situation with specifically Garcia are sitting right there.
He just flew over here that he could've
easily taken him back for. Trump is paying
for that thing to happen, and they both
act like our hands are bound. Okay. Well,
if that's the case, then who actually should
we be petitioning here? Who is the one
respond who can make this happen if the
president of either country says they can't?
It they're lying to you, and they're hoping
that ignorant people carry this across. And, really,
both of them, I think, are invested in
making sure nothing shifts because right now, they
are in a bad position.
If this person were to come back, one,
he'd be able to tell you what he's
been dealing with. And two, then they'd be
forced to actually either do nothing, which would
show their case as a lie, or try
to go after him to get him deported
through the actual legal route and be forced
to admit that they don't have any evidence
because they've already done that in court, and
everyone's lying about the situation, about whether he's
a gang member, whether it's all the claims
they're using are completely baseless other than one
thing that happened in 02/2019, and he was
released with no charge. Everything else they're claiming
is a complete lie, and that's incredible to
say. And they can sit there in front
of everybody in the Oval Office and just
lie right to your face, whether it is
Bondi, whether it is, the what? I forget
the other guy's name off the top of
my head. The the white held white guy
with the bald head, where they're just straight
up they're now claiming that not only it's
a terrorist, but now that nobody was even
accidentally sent away despite them claiming openly that
it was a mistake.
I mean, I think at some point, we
have to recognize that a lot throughout history,
making things diluted and confusing and debated
is an is a very clear tactic to
very maybe even just to give them a
little bit more time. So we're gonna really
flush this out today, and I hope you
can understand from a nonpartisan perspective how important
this conversation is and how I really do
think that even a majority of conservatives are
pretty damn uncomfortable at this. And that's not
a new point, but this is new for
this topic.
It's interesting to see at a conversation
around immigration, to see how many people right
now, conservatives, that I'm seeing stand up and
say, I agree with the point.
These people should be deported,
but what you're doing is a problem. They're
just don't they're not getting talked about. They're
not getting focused on. And, of course, then
also note the higher people at the top
of the circle of the partisan team sport
politics game, all the ones that are out
there leading this conversation, the mainstream alternative media
suddenly seem to forget about the constitution, suddenly
seem to forget about all the theories and
discussions they've been having up until now when
they all start actually coming to pass. So
So let's make sure or let let's get
started rather with the point I wanna make
sure you saw. And I'm really I'm really
proud to see this happening, in fact, because
I've been speaking about, you know, specifically Odysee
and BitChute as platforms out there that that
care
by their actions about your constitutional rights. In
many cases, especially from BitChute's side to your
to the detriment of their financial reality, to
the platform itself, in order to try to
build something
that that is in what I would or
with literally, at least, is in line with
what my principles are, which basically are, you
know, not censoring people in the context of
platforms anyway, of, you know, allowing free speech,
ideological freedom, you know, the things we all
pretend
rather, that they pretend this country is about
or the other platforms.
Literally, platforms that are actively censoring, acting like
they're an absolute free speech platform. So I
wanna start with this, this tweet that was
shared by the CEO of,
BitChute.
And he and I'll I'll I'll let you
play. I'll I'll play for you what he
said, Then I'll I'll just read what I
added to it, which is just I think
it's we should be supporting people like this.
Bitshoot has officially left The UK,
not because we wanted to, but because it
was the right thing to do. The UK's
Online Safety Act forces platforms into becoming instruments
of censorship and surveillance.
These measures represent one of the most oppressive
regulatory
overreaches in the digital age.
And if we do not resist now, this
precedent will spread.
This is our red line.
By remaining in The UK, we would have
not only legitimized
this regime, but encouraged other governments to follow
suit. The stakes are too high.
This is not just about one law or
one country.
It's about whether the Internet remains free or
becomes a tool of state control.
We will not participate in the surveillance of
our users.
We will not enforce government mandated censorship,
and we call on every platform that values
free speech to take the same stand.
If enough companies refuse to take part in
this censorship,
the UK government will have no choice but
to back down.
This is a fight for the future of
the Internet. If you believe in it, share
this message. Let The UK know you won't
surrender your voice.
Hard to disagree with that.
I think that deserves respect. I mean, you
have to understand. You're you're you're I mean,
let's just make a complete overlapping comparison.
What do we see with Elon Musk and
Twitter? Right? Well, they put a bunch of
big statements out there about why they would
stand up for free speech. And then when
the EU and other platforms just barely press
them, they folded and censored for them. It's
not my opinion. That was presented by their
own court documents around the Garm conversation and
plenty of other overlaps. It's been presented that
well over 90 of the times, they've folded
to what the government asked from around the
world.
Of course, we have the ADL involved with
them, open censorship around Twitter, around Israel. I
mean, these are blatantly obvious or, you know,
other weird, tangential things where he kind of
has a tantrum and censors his own people
around h h one b visas or or
or whatever. Many different overlaps.
The difference here
is that they said, well, you know, we
can't a big market. You know? We have
to be financial, and all the people that
swear that it's absolute free speech or that
we have to on the side of our
constitutional rights go, oh, well, it is a
business.
Even though it's not an invalid point, it
just shows you the kind of evolving consistency
where it's like, well, we should do this.
They're absolute. And then suddenly when he gives
you the excuse that you wanna make sense
because you wanna believe in him, you go,
yeah. But but that. But that though.
In this case,
they simply said, bye.
You guys are going to be doing this,
and we're not gonna fold to your censorship
and surveillance tactics, so we're simply gonna pull
out of one of the largest markets in
the world.
Hey. You know, that very well could lead
to a
detrimental
situation for them. So how about we help
them not let that happen and support the
platforms that do not
fold to censorship?
Very important to me. And I simply said,
once again, bit shoots putting its money where
its mouth is and demonstrating what it actually
looks like to fight for free speech and
stand by your principles.
What we've been talking about a lot lately,
we need to support the platforms wherever you
think they are, guys,
that put principles over profit when it comes
to your inherent constitutional rights.
Now some other opening points I wanted to
include before we get into this the main
point of the day.
And and this has been happening a lot.
I mean, David Dyke made a similar comment
about somebody else making a point. I just
think it's important to keep this in your
mind.
Anomaly says, here's the exact moment the Trump
administration lost favor with him
in this term and why.
Them using nearly every branch of government, including
DHS and HHS, to police antisemitism
based off of the unconstitutional
and insane Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, I believe, hate
speech
laws. They've been passing into legislation since 02/2019.
Okay?
Well, seeing as how Trump did that in
his last administration to varying degrees, I don't
know why that's a new thing now. So,
I mean, to me, this is just like
he's doing the same thing from before and
that's why I now don't support it. I
mean, wouldn't that have been an obvious clear?
Well, yeah, it was. And a lot of
us were calling it out before this recent
selection process. He said it's really it's it's
really just a sorry attempt to make it
nearly impossible people in America to be critics
of US foreign policy. Well,
yes. Same thing as it was before with
Biden, with Trump, and and going back pretty
much as far as you wanna look. I'd
argue it's really nothing new at all right
now. It's just that people are now pointing
at it in certain lenses, partisan and otherwise.
It's crazy enough he goes on that we
have to give hundreds of billions of foreign
aid to fund foreign wars. Now just note
that there's no mention of Israel, which is
what he's pointing at. That's a little bit
weak in my opinion, and not just to
it's not just for he's talking about Israel
right there, but it says,
and fund foreign wars that are leaving tens
of thousands dead. It's literally not even possible
for us to vote our way out of
it as the current moment. Well, yes. And
that's another kind of halfway of saying that
their vote I mean, your vote doesn't translate
to the outcome. Let's be honest about this
and stop being children. We all see it
in a thousand different ways when it's just
only half the problem. The democrats cheat. The
republicans work before in government. The point is
either if whether both those are true or
neither of them are, we have to understand
how much evidence we have from Clint Curtis
to the voting machines to every other part
of this broken system, from gerrymandering to whatever
else, to make it a reality to where
this system, whether it's that it doesn't matter
at all or just simply that your vote
truly doesn't really translate to the outcome of
the election,
let's stop pretending.
I'm not trying to say that means it's
irrelevant. In my opinion, if you're forced to
exist in a state of society or even
reality outside of that, even an anarchist society.
There's going to be levels of voting and
rather, you know, chiming in from the community.
My point is, yes, this matters. And in
a
kind of society we pretend we are today,
I believe voting is paramount.
At the very least, having a representation system
where people can actually express their opinions and
those are actually upheld.
The point is we don't live in that
society.
So the re that we can't vote and
change it is I'm just making this long
dated point to say that's what we were
saying before this last election process and got
called a lot of names for it. It's
even more of a slap in the face
to have an administration weaponizing every branch of
government to intimidate and crack down on dissidents
who disagree. Yes.
And Biden was doing the same thing in
different ways, and now Trump is taking it
to a very alarming degree. So to in
my opinion, this was the kind of stuff
that we were telling you we saw. Not
that we knew for sure.
Why does our country have blasphemy laws designed
to make one race, one religion, and one
foreign country a special class? He says, are
we conquered are we a conquered country? Are
we a colony? You know? This is the
idea would be that these are exactly the
kind of conversations that we were trying to
have before we put this person in power.
Now that's not to say Kamala was any
better. They're both a problem. And if if
your response right there is to say, well,
those are the only two choices, then you're
missing the point. If those are the only
two choices, then we are lost. We are
broken. That's a bastardized system that does not
really give you the choice, obviously. So even
right there, I'm not saying that we have
all the answer. You can decide from where
you go from there, but simply to go
back into the problem because you don't know
what else to do is black pill,
not the other way around.
And he goes, this is beyond anti American.
The administration is selling its soul, our constitution,
and our sacred first amendment because it gets
paid hundreds of millions of dollars by donors
who prioritize foreign countries over America. Yes. I
just really wish you I mean, I agree
with most of that. And and most even
what he's saying, I just wish it would
have been Israel is what we're talking about.
Don't water it down, people who are
afraid to put the point where it belongs.
That's not about Jewish people. That's about Zionism
or specifically the Israeli government.
We should care about that. And says, and
they want the IHRA
speech laws in place, which claim that it's
hate speech to talk about what they're doing.
I had very little faith in Trump, didn't
trust him, but but was hoping for the
best.
I find that to be naive. You don't
put all your eggs in a basket of
authoritarians
and go, I hope they'll work out this
time. No. That's you could do what you
want. I'm not criticize you make your own
choices out there. I'm simply trying to continue
to highlight the people out there that were
really hard pushing back on this conversation before
and are now floating it out like we
should consider it after the damage has been
done.
But Trump is worse than even expected. He's
selling out our country, pushing the neocon agenda,
and policing hate speech with every branch of
government like a tyrant. Yep. Just like last
time. Any news pundit but much worse, obviously.
Any news pundit that doesn't talk about this
is either a phony or a coward or
a puppet, well, you could have made the
same point before the selection process.
But here we are, but it's, as Steve
would put it, the dangerous,
what do you call it? There's a dangerous
dangerous, and there's a dare dangerous safe. Whereas
when we talk about things, when it's dangerous,
the dangerous thing at a dangerous time, when
you get attacked by everybody, and there's a
lot of people in the middle ground that
talk about the dangerous thing when it's safe.
When it's now become, it's okay. Now it's
past the time. Now we talk about it.
You could decide whether that's what this is.
My point was it's also worth noting that
many of us tried to call attention to
all of what is now happening, and we
were labeled black pills and said to be
presenting an impossible purity test. Glad it's being
called out. Just wish it wasn't after it
all got ruled out. Seems like an important
point to consider.
Now found ring points out
Epstein list?
No. Didn't happen.
COVID accountability
for Gates and for Fauci and for everybody,
which would, by the way, include Trump, but
we don't know. We don't talk about that.
But, nope, didn't happen either. Deep state arrests,
whatever that would mean to people, it's all
multifaceted idea, but just anything resembling that, nope.
Didn't happen. Not yet anyway.
Mass deportations? Weirdly enough, not even that's happened.
They're deporting people. It depends on your definition
of mass. The point is what they argued
was, like, millions of people and representing the
bulk of illegal aliens. Now we've seen hundreds,
most of which I can prove, or I
shouldn't say most of which. None of them
have ever been charged with a crime. They
haven't been presented evidence for any of them.
So the reality is we don't actually know
despite how much they may look one way
or the other, and I believe there probably
are some in there. But we don't know
because none of it's been proven. So for
all we know, there's already Americans over there.
We don't know. I don't think that, but
my point is unless it is proven, that's
why due process exists, we don't know. So
all we've gotten is a bunch of unnamed,
undefined things, and then we've proven within that,
at least my my personal experience, 10 or
more that are
not criminals, no criminal record here legally,
and have been sent over there because of
speech, because of ideas. And they have now
admitted that despite still lying at the in
the Oval Office or in front of the
press when pushed, despite their court documents saying
otherwise. These are very dishonest people, and that's
just our government left and right. But
what about the mass deportations of all the
other people? Well, we've gotten a very specific
and and selective focus on Israeli attacks or
rather specifically people that call out their ongoing
genocide.
But no mass deportations. You know, the actual
criminals floating around, they're here legally. They're going
after people here legally who just say bad
things about Israel. Free energy, exotic tech disclosure,
that was one that I didn't hear really
pushed, but it was floated. The idea that
because he's here, he's gonna just expose all
of the things they're keeping back from you.
Hey. Maybe it'll happen tomorrow. So far, not
answered, but there's a lot more than that.
But we sure as hell have gotten real
ID pushed. We sure as hell got antisemitism
laws. We sure as hell have gotten trillion
dollar Pentagon budgets. We sure as hell sure
as hell gotten funding and and causing more
gen well, the point is to say that
funding the genocide and causing more to continue,
primary Massey make make,
Israel great again. It's just funny all these
different things that are clearly not the
the Steam Sport politics people are screaming as
if this is already everything's done, promises kept.
Every time some small like, I just heard
to now. Apparently, they're going after another Tesla
person.
He he did bad things to Teslas, and
now he's getting forty years, apparently, which that
seems intense and ridiculous.
Even the worst example we see of arson
and vandalism, I argued, yeah, twenty years seems
like an appropriate one based off the system
the way it is. Not that I think
that makes sense, but I can't even say
it like that.
The reality of the current, you know, penal
code, I guess, says that those things combined
can equal twenty years. So that's just that
is the status quo. But now making it
forty now seems ridiculous. Nonetheless,
the point is that they're going after another
person.
What mean but they he committed a crime.
Good. Arrest him. But, I mean, I don't
think this all makes sense the way you're
doing it and how you're basically mobilizing the
entire justice department to defend Elon Musk's reputation
or whatever this is instead of all the
other things, all the other people, all the
what about the military tribunals and Fauci and
Gates and mRNA people and and any number
of overlaps?
Right? What about all the people what about
all the people that were supposedly stealing from
the USAID? What about all the people that
were supposedly stealing? I can go on forever.
All the claims of Social Security fraud.
So you're making all these claims about things
that you can prove, but yet somehow doesn't
track back to the person doing it, sorta
like the Epstein list claims.
This is a weird overlap.
China twenty four channel shares a video, which,
of course, could simply be manufactured in a
lie, but apparently of a Chinese factory dedicated
to MAGA merch all the way back since
02/2016.
You can watch it for yourself. I mean,
because the point is, obviously, this could just
be a fake. But what's funny about this
is it's see, I looked this up a
second ago, and there seems to be some
pretty interesting background of this. Now that doesn't
have to mean that Trump is involved, but
I find it pretty interesting that of all
the places China is mass producing Trump content,
I just you know, we live in a
false reality, guys. That's, I think, the ultimate
point and the two party illusion.
Adam continues the other point. Tourists will be
arrested. We're already seeing that. Even even people
that aren't from Middle East countries, even people
that are I mean, like, we're seeing like,
I'll go over it in a second. Canadians,
a British guy with the wrong tattoo. Like,
it's just you can tell how frivolous it
is what they're doing.
Now critics of Israel already and will be
arrested. Supporters of Palestine are banned. Social media
will be tracked and includes you despite what
they claimed. And it's our by the way,
we all know that from before anyway, but
now they just basically enshrined the the claim
that it's all about bad guy,
I guess, anti Israel stuff or antisemitism, and
now they're just scanning all of our social
media, which they already were, real ID enforcement,
record military budget, cuts to everything else, and
he simply says America is on a very
dark path.
Now Sam Husseini rightly points this out, and
this is how it this is how I
see it, but more than just two points.
He says much of the, quote, news is
intended to distract you from two things, the
ongoing genocide in Gaza and Lebanon and Syria
and everywhere else they're involved in it, the
US government I added that, by the way.
He just said in Gaza. The US Government
starting a new illegal war in Yemen or
rather continuing it, which he knows. He's just
making the point for people that aren't really
versed immersed in it. It's been going on
for decades. And then he goes, liberal liberal,
as in Democrat,
hyperventilating
about every utterance by Trump is part of
the imperial projects. And if you understand what
he's saying, this is such an important point.
This is the false binary I was talking
about the other day, but more of this
one of the nuanced parts of this. What
we're talking about is, you know, like we
like with Schumer
and and I think it was Elon Musk
or whoever was arguing back and forth about
what she oh, no. I forget it was
that, I forget his name. The the black
representative that was on Fox, and he was
saying that what Schumer said was ridiculous about
the real ID.
Now the point is, they're over here saying
it's all about voter identification,
which it's not because the reality is we
already have laws for that. We already have
ways to do that. Now, yes, there are
Democrat things that stop that for being they
that's my point. Over here are saying, no.
It shouldn't matter at all even though it's
the law, so it obviously should. The point
is, he's over here saying, oh, it affects
women, and it's gonna suppress x, y, and
z. And so the fake argument becomes checking
their IDs or that it shouldn't matter or
that it protects women. Everyone else, including a
lot of conservatives, are saying, what about the
national ID part? What about the sustainable development
goals overlap? What about the idea that this
is a digital ID stepping point?
But, see, none of that gets discussed in
the main conversation, which I don't even believe
is the main conversation anymore, but it's presented
like that. So you think that's the real
conversation. And so you get basically couched on
the things they want you to, the wedge
issues, the lies of the real picture, and
you don't see everything else. That's what he's
saying, guys. His point is that the them
hyperventilating about whatever Trump said that day, which
is mostly in name ridiculous things,
is making you ignore, or some people,
the actual things happening, you know, like illegal
deportations or unconstitutional
acts or ongoing wars or supporting genocide
or on and on and on and on.
But I just talked about these many things
in yesterday's show, but a few points I
wanted just to follow-up on. One about the
Doge fraud continuing. One about the real ID
two a few about the real ID point
continuing. An interesting point about BlackRock, the truth
three media play or share just because don't
forget, the the point is how interesting it
is that BlackRock can basically be invested with
a consortium in buying these main two ports
on ports on either side of the Panama
Canal and in involved with the general transaction
of the US government being involved of the
entire place or just basically controlling US treasury,
it's important. But none of that matters when
Trump's in power. But BlackRock's the evil villain
whenever and a Democrat's involved. Right? But it's
and then Trump's Ecuador election meddling, which I
really recommend you look into that. One small
point added to that, but, guys, it's it's
really crazy to see how blatant this is.
To see how obvious it is that the
the the basically, Trump's administration is rationalizing
blatantly illegal things under the guise of national
security all over the world. Oh, you know,
just like every other president before him. So
it's not new. But it's very clear to
see how they're trying to like, before, it
wasn't done in a way that wasn't meant
to be seen.
That in a sense that if they got
caught, they had a narrative, but it was
really something hopefully in the background. They're coming
out full scene ahead and make and I
think what's happening a large overarching point for
the whole conversation today is trying to normalize
the authoritarian
dictator
mentality
as the only way this is gonna exist.
Don't forget, Marc Andreessen
on on Rogan or or Alex Karp with
his recent book are just quite literally pushing
the idea that we will be happier under
the elitist control structure because we need the
good elites to run our lives. That's the
only time we've ever had peace in our
in the world.
Another way to say that would be you'll
owe nothing and be happy. You know? Different
angles of the same ploy. Think about that
as we go through this today because everything
we're seeing from Bukele calling himself a cool
dictator. That's not a joke. He literally called
himself that. Or the idea that they're literally
pushing these normalization of
disregarding anything that seems,
I guess, counter to what the mass you
call the majority says they want. Even though
we can't prove the majority these days, And
I think we can prove historically they've always
manufactured that illusion and lied to us about
what we want, and you follow suit.
That'll be very important when we get into
Bukele and what he did in in El
Salvador, which is exactly what Trump seems to
be modeling or maybe through the way around.
And now he's following suit with what he
made them do. I don't know. But it
is not what we pretend we are, and
it is not in the interest of Americans
anything, quite frankly.
It is in the interest of controlling us
better as long as you can get a
just amount just the right amount, smaller percentage
than you might think of the partisans to
act like that's what everybody wants. So DOGE
first.
Oh, I'm sorry. I thought I've organized differently.
I I guess it doesn't matter. We'll we'll
do the real ID point first. The red
headed libertarian said this. I am concerned about
the central government mandating real ID to go
between states. Now this is the part that
many people are trying to ignore for obvious
reasons. Acting like it's just about voter identification.
No. This is the national ID. This is
the Patriot Act, nine eleven forward. It's been
pushed ever since, and it's been pushed pushed
back every time until Trump has now actually
made it a real thing. Now it's not
only about it's not that's not meant to
be about Trump because he pushed it back
the last time. But the point is now
they're ready. The government is ready with where
the world is technologically
or at least maybe our willingness to accept
it.
But it is a international ID. Now that
was something that was called out by the
Joneses of the world, by the Republican side
at large,
except now it's completely being ignored when it
actually starts to happen, like the North American
Union and all these other points that they
were calling out, globalism,
all of it.
Is I've never seen a more clear picture
of those things beginning to happen under this
administration, and they're the ones pretending it's not
because they're not honest people
or they're getting compromised or or invested in
the agenda. I mean, I don't know. But
it's clearly not that they cared about those
things when we finally see it happen. So
we can see the real ID
overlap to international IDs to be going between
states, and she's pointing out rightly that it
violates both article four
and the tenth amend tenth amendment while exploiting
the commerce clause. This is how they're playing
this today. Like, we'll get to in a
minute about the idea of the Supreme Court
ruling and saying that they have to facilitate
but not effectuate
and acting like that somehow is some kind
of legal sidestep to where we don't have
to do anything. They're just pretending and and
the if they get enough people on the
partisan side just yelling their narrative, they think
that somehow gives them I mean, who knows?
Maybe it does. Maybe that's enough these days.
And another overlap to Bukele
because the interesting point is that they're claiming
he's got mass support of the people in
El Salvador.
And maybe he does. I find that really
hard to believe for many reasons, but it's
interesting point, right, about whether
like, if you could just mobilize enough people
into believing that removing their rights is in
their interest and they all call for it,
Is that really what we should allow?
Under a point of democracy,
yeah, that's how it works. The mob decides.
But you see, that's why most of us
for a very long time have been arguing
that mob rule is not the way to
go. But, overall, you also ask yourself, is
that actually the mob, or are they just
presenting that
using Gallup polls, for example?
Important to think about. But so in this
case,
state decide real ID as as state decides
abort
basically, she's saying that the state's rights. Yes.
And And back to what I was trying
to say there is that overall that you
wonder whether this is something that is actually
being supported.
The efforts to silence this is as antisemitism
is categorical
well, she just says it's ridiculous.
What's funny to me is that I haven't
I've seen that just a few but think
about how dumb it is to argue that
somehow it's now antisemitic to push back on
the real
ID. That shows you, in my opinion, as
usual, desperation, because that's a pretty far stretch,
but everything is antisemitic if it goes against
the current Zionist agenda, which is being rolled
out through this country.
And she adds, if you're going to throw
labels around to silence policy positions that you
don't like, they lose meaning. See racist, bigots,
and xenophobes, assuming people don't want a federally
mandated real ID to fly because of the
Jews, she writes, and not the founding fathers
is a flex. But the point is that's
not that's ridiculous. I don't know I don't
know if anybody even making an argument that
somehow the Jewish religion has any bearing on
this conversation, but that's why it's a desperate
thing.
The real the patriot voice says Real ID
is just your driver's license. Silly. What's wrong
with you? Quoting people out there pushing back
on what we're trying to talk about. Or
you'll you'll only need the real to fly
Real ID to fly.
Real ID will be used for voter ID,
all these claims. Right? And he says, meanwhile,
the United Nations is literally rolling out a
journey pass. We just went over this in
the last show. My point was you can
see them already pushing to digitize the alternatives,
passports, birth certificates. It's been going on for
years.
So right behind it, it's already happening. But
he's pointing out the the the world conversation,
the UN, rolling out the what's called the
journey pass, which will utilize full biometrics, you
know, like the border wall Trump wants to
build and so does the the Democrats, by
the way, by way of scraping, scrapping all
physical boarding passes. And this will be rolled
out in all airports across the world over
the next three years, and mandatory compliance will
be required if you want to fly. And
I'm gonna guarantee it's more than just flying.
My opinion. But, I mean, the the only
way this makes sense is if you it's
not just a I mean, maybe it starts
like that. But as usual, it develops to
a point to where you can't exist in
the ecosystem if you don't follow suit. And
he says, yes. This is exactly where it
will lead. Oh, this will lead, he says,
directly to digital ID. That's and it's that's
not even about leading there. If you again,
if you look through the background of the
conversation, look through the documentation, we've gone over
many times, Real ID, ID twenty twenty are
documented as
digital
ID direct. That's what it's about. They were
meant to lead you in that direction. That's
what they stated in this agenda.
And it goes, Ann Cummings, social credit system,
you know, like the one they utilize in
China. Yes. He goes exactly where this leads.
A technocratic
NWO police state nightmare.
Funny how the people that have been talking
about that for years don't wanna talk about
it now. He said it's absolutely not a
coincidence that DHS is making it mandatory
to have Real ID to fly starting May
7. Now realize as we pointed out, technically
speaking,
the argument is, based on their documentation they
put out, is you can still use your
passport, for example,
for a time.
And so what's interesting is Kristi Noem, as
I jokingly called Kristi Gremlin, then I just
because Noem is funny. But she stated you
have to have it to fly, which is
what we keep hearing.
So my wonder is whether that is actually
going to be the reality past May 7,
and they just haven't really let that out
yet, or it's a lie to get you
to fall in suit. But either way, the
point is that the passport dynamic as they
keep leaning into is going to go away
if not digitized. That's not my opinion. I've
showed you all the things yesterday from the
government, from even international standpoint as we're highlighting
here.
And the journey pass is directly tied to
the UN World Economic Forum plan.
UN agenda twenty thirty moves on lightning pace.
He says the vast majority of people are
not ready for what's coming. And here's the
article. Boarding pass and check ins could be
scrapped, an air travel shake up.
And Efrenf Fingenson points out, no boarding pass,
no privacy, and the new face of travel.
Big changes are coming to global air travel.
The UN's aviation body plans to eliminate boarding
passes, check ins, even physical passports.
Very clear where this goes. Replacing them with
facial recognition, digital credentials. Okay. So, hypothetically,
they do this, and The US has already
got the the setup in place with the
Save Act if that goes forward, or in
general, in a thousand other ways, we're already
driving the digital ID direction.
And then this happens, and they they feign
resistance and go, oh, you're trying to invent.
That's alright, and then follow suit anyway. Or
they pretend that the wrong side of the
government decided we had to do it, and
they won the majority vote.
Always, they get you believing somehow that one
part of this is salvageable when the reality
is if you look at the history of
all of their decisions, they all want this.
So it's all a game of pretending like
they're the, you know, the ones that are
forced into it. Like the mobile driver's license
save ID overlap in general or save act
when they when they come together is another
way that might work. And I argue there's
plenty of ways they could make this happen.
Very important to understand. But she goes down
and and gives you a lot more information
about how long this has been going and
how it's coming next. It's all coming your
way.
Now on Doge, I just thought that was
interesting. I looked this up on, I one
quick note, actually.
On on I I I actually am getting
mad at myself
because I was looking at this today and
I'm going, god. I've I don't like that
I'm even even in any way more so
using Grok or even Brave, you know, looking
using their AI to ask questions.
But I realized that I'm not using this
as a research tool that I go by,
but more so as like a counterbalance, which
I'm sure you've seen. Where it's like, okay.
We've already investigated this yesterday, but let's see
what Grok has to say if that may
help influence people that somehow think the conservative
platform, if that's even what you think it
is today, is somehow more on your side
or Grok is gonna give you the right
answer because Elon made it. Do you see
what I'm saying? But
feel free to push back on me because
I don't wanna fall into this trap. And
I was I was late thinking about that
today, I was going, damn it. I don't
like that this is slowly becoming something more,
you know, folded in even like that.
But how much money has Elon Musk saved
The US on Doge so far? So you
see my point. It's kind of, like, interesting
to see what they have to say about
it.
Estimates of saving from Elon Musk department of
of the the Doge department vary wildly,
widely, and are heavily debated.
However, these numbers face skepticism, which we know.
The point I thought was interesting is it
says without transparency,
verified data, it's hard to pin down an
exact figure.
Wait a minute. Didn't they just tell us
that they verified it's all transparent and we
have no, Wes. We if you under actually
barely look past the surface narrative, it's about
40% or no. Excuse me. 60%
that's actually on there.
The rest is not. So you can't verify,
and it might even be the re the
reverse, actually. But either way, well, it's about
half or but at least somewhere around that,
I think it was either 60 on there
and forty's not or forty's on there, sixty's
not. I feel like I'm leaning more to
the the former there. But either way, it
was yesterday we talked about it. That means
that we don't have the full picture. So
we can't verify the full amount. So why
do they keep claiming we can? Because they're
lying, guys. Because they know they can mobilize
screaming people online to make it seem like
something's happening. This is a different world we're
in today. This is the we're we are
screaming into the
technocratic control structure in a lot of ways
more than just what we can see.
So they're telling you, we don't have it's
not transparent. We don't have verified data because
otherwise, we would be able to see it
all. So it's because we don't have those
without transparent verified data. It's hard to pin
down an exact figure. Doge's claims suggest a
range
suggest of a hundred to a hundred $50,000,000,000,
you know, when they rescind claim 2,000,000,000,000.
But independent analysts indicate the real impact is
likely far less, potentially negligible due to errors
and unfulfilled projections. That's Grok's answer. Now remember,
we went through this on with provable examples
more than once and have shown you they've
been caught lying. So just remember that even
Grock is going, they haven't verified, but they
keep yelling out loud that they have.
That's wild to me. That's why I believe
most people see through a lot of this
stuff. But True Street Media, on the point
of BlackRock, if you don't remember BlackRock, you
know, the the evil bad guy when it's
a Democrat thing, which I argue is a
bad guy or is a so this dangerous
shadow bank is a problem in every context,
is
involved with the the forced coerced purchase of
the Panama Canal and ultimately
is now the US government through that coercion
is gonna be occupying, building bases, and that's
not what Panama wanted. And they Texath even
prepended they would maintain sovereignty over it in
front of them and then didn't say that
out loud everywhere else.
The point is
that's the BlackRock we're talking about, and this
guy points out something interesting. Now just consider
this. BlackRock is not a company. It's a
control interface.
You were taught to follow money, but BlackRock
doesn't make money. It moves it like a
sorcerer moves a wand. You thought it was
a financial firm. It's an AI powered governance
algorithm. Isn't that interesting?
The thought of that coming off the idea
of what Corbett's talking about called an algocracy
or, you know, rule by algorithm.
See if that pops up. There we go.
Nice. And this is something you should check
out.
As usual, Corbett way ahead of the curve
and is telling you what I mean, he
was the one years ago telling you data
was the new oil. Right? I mean, this
this it wasn't unique in that, but realize
the kind of thing that, you know, the
dangerous dangerous as it were at the same
point.
Algo algocracy, government for new world order. It
means rule by algorithm.
Now my point on this, and we already
talked about this. I mean, let's see if
I can get that one too.
Here we go. Look at that.
This is I think this is legitimately something
that it may be happening or is about
to. This was March 8. The impending future
of AI government. But who controls the AI?
Now wondering whether Doge itself is a simple
test of actually having some an AI program
run the government.
Maybe even something that's become something more than
that, which I don't wanna even flirt with
because I don't wanna give them that momentum.
But, you know, whether it's a sentient AI
kind of thing and they're just testing this
out. The point is that we know what's
happening provably because they're using AI bots all
over the place to basically
automate all these processes, and they're making mistakes
all over the place with human lives, money,
all sorts of things. Because it's not about
the out they don't care if they make
you suffer, if they can get it done,
test on you, like everything else we've seen,
left or right.
I'll include these for you to watch. I
recommend you watch Corbitt's.
But he goes on to say, Aladdin, that's
the name. That's not fiction. It's their actual
system. That's the system, the AI powered system.
Over $21,000,000,000,000
flows through it.
It reads your bank,
your pension, your mortgage. It decides who gets
funded, who gets deleted. Aladdin isn't just software.
It's a sovereign AI
fed by every market tick,
trained on every economic decision, weaponized by silence.
But who owns BlackRock?
That's the riddle. Because BlackRock doesn't own anything.
It manages everything on behalf of those who
never appear on any list.
Private trusts, Vatican vaults vaults, excuse me, intergenerational
councils.
Ownership is a decoy. Control is the payload.
You're not supposed to ask who programs the
programs. You're just supposed to believe the market
is neutral, that capital is blind. But capital
isn't blind. It's ritual. It's blood. It's code.
BlackRock is the black cube.
Saturn Saturnian
finance,
reality of orchestration through portfolios.
Your retirement isn't yours. Your data isn't yours.
Your vote absorbed.
It doesn't need to rig elections. It rigs
the world before the election. That's a very
interesting thing to think about.
And it's exactly what we're saying, but it
from a larger perspective. And it says this
isn't capitalism. This is coded colonialism.
This is technocracy. Guys, we're seeing this spread.
It's alarming.
And now you've seen it. This isn't a
company. It's a a Sigel. It's The Lock.
Sigel, I guess, maybe.
I've heard it pronounced both, but it says,
and we can and we just cracked it,
they said.
Interesting point.
And here is just what True Street Media
said. Because my point is I I'm surprised
I even see their content, quite frankly, but
I wouldn't have seen it because, you know,
you know, this this algorithm the way the
system works is not accurate. But it says,
you thought black rep was found out a
firm? Reading what they said. AI powered governance
algorithm, Aladdin. That's their name. Aladdin isn't just
software. It's a sovereign AI. It says you're
not supposed to ask who programmed the program.
Just reiterating what they said. Very interesting thought.
So just keep that in mind as we
see this continue to happen. Or if you
missed the last many times we talked about
it,
what happened during the last Trump administration?
As I titled the BlackRock coup
or the COVID coup, excuse me, the BlackRock
takeover of the American interest. This also happened.
Not new. It's just expanding in a very
obvious and technocratic way. So I thought these
were important small follow ups. A couple more
here. Brooke Jackson made an interesting statement, and
I'm not I want I'm curious if she
has something happening in fourteen days. If you
have any more insight on that, let me
know, which she says, fraud rigged a clinical
trial
that secured an FDA authorization.
That's this conversation.
The first time that anybody interviewed her on
video, Last American Vagabond, myself, Brooke Jackson interview,
Pfizer whistleblower exposes cover up, calling vaccine data
into question. Course, you can look down here.
The other two follow ups are right there
with Brooke Jackson. The point is that's what
we're discussing. And she says allowing this became
Biden's public health policy because my lawsuit, hers,
could create vaccine hesitancy.
So the transition, the same so that was
Trump's administration into Biden's administration. And now she
says in fourteen days, Trump will confront the
fraud or stand exposed as another politician
willing to look the other way. You know
where I think this is going. He's already
proven that to you with his mRNA platform
he's building. The point is that I'm imagining
that she has reached out to see. She
hasn't got back to me yet before something
that from her side, from her lawsuit, and
then follow-up on that. Ultimately, something's about coming
to head. So I guess we'll be able
to see. And I think we already know
is my point. They that we're gonna get
to the point about the bird flu shot,
guys. That's happening.
This is I think they've already shown you.
She's just making it a very fine point
about what she's proving because her case is
outstandingly
clear. It was clear the first time we
interviewed her. It was even more clear the
second time. They got caught, and the system
absolutely covered it up left and right and
the the the whatever is really controlling everything.
Now I've I wrote I put this show
up February 17. Trump admin reveals new biosecurity
and medication plan for bird flu.
And what we get? A bunch of pushback.
You don't understand. That's fake news. That's and
so you you he's you're he's trolling you.
You know, whatever the the the reflexive pushback
is to pretend it's not actually happening even
though it really is. And they did do
that. And I was ahead of the story
because the next few days, it came out
even more clear, and then it became something
that makes sense even though the very people
that said that were the ones telling me
I was wrong.
It's just paying attention is all it is.
They are doing this.
They are leaning into the same bio big
pharma direction.
Then we followed up, and Trump admin
approves
upholstery jab for avian flu for for for
the chickens. Right?
Israel's, this the other part was what we
already talked about. So
not only and and in both those conversations,
we also pointed out, if you remember, and
that's what it overlaps with today, is that
January 17, if I remember correctly on the
date, a few days before Trump took over,
Biden's administration
rolled out a a funding plan for an
mRNA shot from Moderna. Right?
And maybe that'll pop up. Let's see.
Moderna.
I
think that's it right there.
Let's look.
Oh, no. That's the that was the
one more check.
Yeah. I can't it's not popping up. The
point though is that they funded
a an mRNA shot
for you.
And that was under Biden's administration,
but as I proved already,
it continued and Trump's administration is now funding
it. That's the point. That's the same thing.
I just see if it popped up in
there.
Nope. It's in there, and it we've talked
about it. It's a public conversation, and you'll
see if and even if you don't wanna
believe it now, the point we're getting to
will make it even more clear that it
is happening. The point is that they have
now continued that. So your question is, how
does that make sense? Why would RFK Jr
and Trump continue to fund an mRNA bird
flu shot if they push back on bird
flu, if they push back on mRNA, at
least RFK, because they're not being honest about
this or somebody else is driving the bus.
Okay. So that's both happened. An mRNA shot
for you, a bird flu shot for something
that we don't want in animals, as well
as mRNA shots for animals. Those are all
happening too.
Disclosed reports. Trump FDA has granted a fast
track designation for a self amplifying
mRNA
candidate against bird flu.
I mean, how how how many times this
is gonna happen until we recognize that we've
been played, or at least people have been
played who thought this was gonna be different?
Or are we gonna hear more about the
the whole democrat holdover,
or this happened without their knowledge or, you
know, whatever, even though they continue after those
claims are made.
Here's the actual contract.
04/10/2025.
I think it's arct Arcturus
Therapeutics receives US FDA Fast Track
designation for the STAR mRNA vaccine candidate.
STAR being the trademark name, s t a
r r,
for bird flu.
Arcturus
Therapeutics Holdings Incorporated.
Now I haven't done much deep background on
them. If you I I I will. You
guys let me know what you see. I'm
always interested to see who funds these companies,
where they're tied to. A commercial messenger RNA,
really a mod RNA. Don't forget that. It
is not natural mRNA. It is m n
one methylpseudouridine
modified RNA, at least in the COVID shots,
but it's that's the point. They need to
actually manipulate this, you know, a genetic
organism, a genetically modified organism in order to
make sure it actually works the way they
need it to, which by the way, that
very action to make sure that it gets
where it needs to go is what hurts
everybody, at least in part. And I keep
pointing that out. I have since the beginning
of this, and it seems to just continue
because I think we all know that this
was either meant to hurt you or that
what the point was it didn't matter.
But that's the case. It's very easy to
prove. There's plenty of peer reviewed science on
it. All the trust of science people are
either now hiding from it or have changed
their minds.
Says continuing,
are focused on development of infectious disease vaccines
and opportunities within liver and respiratory rare diseases.
Liver being a huge overlap with exactly the
COVID nineteen shot. Don't forget it showed that
it liver and I think was was it
pancreas were the two focal points of where
it collected. It's interesting as always using their
own problems to make more money. Today announced
that the US FDA has granted fast track
designation. Why would that be the case?
For the self amplifying mRNA
shot, vaccine candidate
ARCT
two three zero four, designed for active immunization
to protect against disease caused by
h five n one subtype.
And they say very clearly that that is
a significant global health risk, except it's absolutely
not. That's what they think it might become.
That's you can't this is deception.
If it's not if right now we have
yet to if it's not
a real risk, if we're seeing animals and
different things, and even then, as we know,
PCR falls positive, the lies around all of
this, how can you call it a significant
global health risk? They say that about anything
they're talking about.
That's all the hypothetical possibilities, which is exactly
what even the WHO people have called out
in the past and they've got kicked out
of the system.
This is not what they promised.
And let's not forget. Now here here's an
important thing to consider.
This
is self amplifying, which by the way we've
talked about quite a bit. I'll come back
to that. Self amplifying mRNA vaccines, 05/02/2021,
or self spreading. Now I'm gonna play this
from the self spreading perspective,
but realize that there is an overlap to
this, especially that we already know that the
spike protein from the original dynamic was already
being
shed and spread. That was a verifiable fact
that we covered many times on the show,
and I'll grab the the links for you.
But let's play this
so you understand where this is really going.
Now to reiterate, this is about the self
spreading overlap, but there there's a very they're
very close in the idea of how this
works, especially when we understand
how it's already working. My point being, if
you have self amplifying concepts
that are continuing to produce the the antigen
as opposed to the one time they claim,
which by the way is already what this
is,
then you have the overlap of that being
able to shed, then I think that's where
you get the problem. I think that's what's
already happening, if you understand my point. So
this is what they already were floating back
in 2020.
Since the outbreak of COVID nineteen,
the word virus has been dominating
media headlines as well as our daily lives.
Did you know that one approach that has
been proposed to virus transmitted diseases
is by releasing a virally transmitted vaccine?
Unlike traditional vaccines,
infectious vaccines do not require any individual consent.
Infectious solutions are also being developed for food
and agriculture
and are currently making their way through the
regulatory approval process.
So, look, you can see as this goes.
This is this is a this was a
huge
it was in, 2020.
Euroscience open forum,
and they were literally floating. We go back
to the image right there for the podcast.
It just shows a pregnant woman being
basically shed on and being what they claim
vaccinated without their knowledge, with no informed consent.
Like, that's somehow a positive thing. This is
the direction they've always coveted. They've always wanted.
That's not my opinion, guys. You can see
it. It's right in front of us.
Now here,
again, back to the the self amplifying is
what they're rolling. I mean, that alone should
be enough to be upset with what Trump
is not following through with.
Also, don't forget that they've declared a bird
flu emergency
under Biden
that very much opened the door to any
flu. They included the actual normal flu under
this emergency. So now anything, whether bird flu
shot or not, it then it opens the
door to all the same games, the emergency
use authorization.
We have been played in so many blatant
ways, and they've just it's like nine eleven
forward Patriot Act. These things never go back.
They don't they continue and consolidate more power,
and there'll be another claim for another reason
why it becomes even more crazy.
It's frustrating and obvious.
So I'll include this for you to check
out. I recommend this show to understand what
this is all about. Now I wanna make
one more point that has to do with
the
Ecuador discussion. And what's interesting is this conversation
about the bird flu being declared, we also
discussed something interesting. And you see the image
right here with Bush shaking the hand of
some the Ecuadorian leader.
What's interesting is we talk about it all
the way back then. And what the conversation
was about was this one of the tweets
we shared was this from Camilla. The The
US Puppet President, remember, this is back in
02/2024. We just talked about Noboa yesterday
in Ecuador, has already declared that his country
will not recognize the results of the Venezuelan
election. So this guy is a player. He
is a he is a diehard CIA Mossad
invested person. Remember, that's not my opinion. There's
provable evidence reported by everybody that he is
they they remember, the Trump administration put out
their,
their report saying that
he is
the leader they want there because it's important
for national security. I'm very clear what that
means. And my point is you can read
the information on it. He has worked with
Mossad, the CIA. They are assets.
And so you can see that when they
just lean into whatever the other foreign policy
dynamic is. Now it says, Deboa, the country
is being governed by the FBI. Whose govern
he said she said whose country is being
governed by the FBI, SOUTHCOM, US embassy claims
Venezuela elections won't be free.
The point is just understand that you can
go back far and realize how people tend
to engage with these conversations as if it's
new that day when there's a lot of
background to understand what's already happening.
And
I'll include this this one this article, but
I couldn't find the the show off the
top of my head. But we've talked about
it many times about the spike t protein
shedding, doctor war Luigi Warren, who is the
expert on the topic who basically admitted out
loud on the online and publicly that, yes,
these things can shed. And then once you
realize that it's producing more than one, it
makes it clear that that's why it continues
to be a problem. And that's not even
about getting into viruses, guys. Let's realize, there's
the nanotech overlap, the bacteria point that can
spread and get you sick. The point is
there's other things to consider, Maybe even something
we don't understand. So don't just
it's valid concern about whether you think germ
theory is correct, but realize don't let that
consideration
remove from possibility what else this might be.
Just consider that we know they're working on
stuff like this. So just consider that. Now
going forward, let's get started with the conversation
of specifically Maum and Khalil.
And I think it's important to start with
this before we get into El Salvador and
Mukiele because of how
this was the first major example in this
conversation.
They literally started with a person who had
a green card, who had no criminal record,
like, to lay the groundwork. Didn't work, essentially.
I mean, I mean, in so far as
that the p I don't think the public
opinion is on their side on this.
But realize this person,
they made all these grandiose claims about supporting
Hamas, and all that was because he was
a Palestinian supporter that they then just pretended
means you are a terrorist, which is the
same thing you got from the screaming idiots
like Laura Loomer. To say that that means
we he's a terrorist and he's a jihad
and even said out loud that that his
wife should have her child taken away from
her. I'm an American citizen, by the way,
because she's a jihad supporter even though none
of them are, neither of them are. That
means it's insane the kind of things we
see from people like this that are the
most disgusting people online.
The US government's flagrant attack on free speech,
Mohammed Khalil is just the beginning, and, yeah,
we turned out to be right, but it
wasn't just me saying that. It was obvious
to see where this was going. So let's
go through this. This is a show we
started on him's discussion.
Before we go into him in particular, though,
there's a couple points that overlap this conversation
with.
Adam pointed out president Trump won't deport illegal
immigrants employed by agriculture, hospitality, or the biz
other industries. Now he didn't say, I don't
think he meant as it could be all
of it, which kinda makes sense. But he
just said that that would be, in some
cases, the reality. And so all you're seeing
is whether it's his hotels or his businesses
or for agricultural, industrial things that they wanna
support, you know, GMOs and everything else they're
working on, that they will they are now
allowed to keep using illegal immigrants.
That's what he says. That they they will
you know, the ones that are the crazy
criminals. Okay. So then now what we're really
coming to see is hypocrisy. If it's about
people breaking the law, why are you giving
a certain pass to certain people?
I mean, I I understand the logic of
people you claim are criminals versus those that
are not, but how do you know that?
People you claim are criminals are riddled people
who are actually are not. Over here, you
have illegal immigrants that you aren't even looking
into because they're in the places that you're
okay with. Maybe all of those are criminals.
The point is it's not about any of
that, and you damn will know it. As
he writes, only criticals critics of Israel are
getting deported.
All of it aside.
To simply start getting passes to certain groups
that you're okay with is just hypocrisy,
because we are seeing this selectively applied to
people that are not criminals.
And I said it just gets more clear
by the day. This is about one thing
and one thing only. And so to build
on that point, realizing that it's a kind
of a selective process,
it's a couple of things that I think
are important to consider.
For example,
so Trump and I made this point the
other day. As president,
it's able, as we just saw him say,
able to wave his hand, right, and just
declare certain illegal aliens
somehow acceptable
even though they're breaking the law, you know,
for agriculture, hotels, restaurants.
But Biden
doing the exact same thing under the context
of whatever the narrative was of, you know,
saving people from foreign policy disasters or, you
know, asylum,
The principle's the exact same. Biden can say
they now have citizenship, and here are social
security numbers even though that conversation is overlap
with people who weren't all just randomly given
a sub that they just broad stroke it
as usual. That's partisanship.
But explain to me the difference.
Or how about the Afrikaners, the people that
he's telling you come from South Africa? Come
on. We'll let you in. Okay. So my
point is what not good or bad or
I disagree or don't. That's not the point
right now. The point is you can tell
that we are somehow acceptable accepted in or
is somehow accepted in some circumstances for the
president to say, wave my hand, and now
you are allowed here.
Okay. So if one is okay, then one
then both are or neither are. It's just
more hypocrisy because what they're doing is saying,
well, he what? That was Tom Homan who
was mumbling through his answer saying, well,
Biden broke the law by doing that.
Well, that that's your opinion. I mean, you
could argue that and make a case, though.
Present your evidence. Let's let's talk about it.
Nope. That's not how that goes. They just
broadly make a claim and then just act,
deport people with no due process. Even if
he was illegal in that, they would still
have to present evidence. Due process is a
fact
for everybody.
But you see the point? It's insulting that
we can't all see this.
But another thing to consider,
as Asal Rod points out,
if a legal permanent resident
can be deported without breaking any laws. And
let's not forget, both Khalil and Garcia,
the ones that are kind of the central
topic points, both have been admitted in court
by Rubio and the Trump administration to not
have committed any crimes.
Nothing. They haven't presented a shred of evidence
in either case in any way to show
that they're criminals. And they've even made a
point to say we don't need to because
we can deport people because of what their
ideas are. And that's what they're actually arguing.
It's come out everywhere except the conversation on
the Twitterverse seems to be this clouded lost
conversation about things that aren't even really part
of the conversation. That's a two party paradigm,
like personified or, I guess, you know, by
a platform.
But it says, because the government doesn't like
his policy opinions.
It's not free it's not a free country.
It's that simple, at least for some people,
and we already know as we're gonna get
to that he's floating for Americans too.
Khalil isn't accused of breaking any laws during
the protest at Columbia, and he's not. You
can prove this a hundred ways over. They're
saying that out loud, but when it comes
to the actual legal accusations in court documents,
nothing. They're not even trying to suggest those
things in the case because they can't prove
them because they're not real.
Every shred of any evidence we have from
every angle of this other than government narrative
claims shows you that he is not what
they claim. Everything.
Now the problem is an immigration judge rules
that Columbia University activist, Malmo Calleo, can be
deported.
But let's realize all of these points aren't
aren't suddenly removing from that reality the constitutional
undeniable
the inherent right to due process for, in
particular,
people with anybody in this country is the
point. He's a green card holder, so if
you're gonna pretend it's somehow different to illegal
aliens, which is not, he does have legal
citizenship or rather specifically green card. He's legally
here.
So when they say that, the point is,
okay. Then if you're gonna deport him, you're
allowed
to, but you have to still that just
like the supreme court already ruled, you You
have to present your evidence. You have to
prove your claims for everybody all the time.
The fact that we even push back anybody
in this country right now pushes back on
that is insane to me.
Because the next point we're gonna make, obviously,
is that if that's the case, then they
can do this to anybody.
I mean, think about this, guys.
The point is that right right now, what
they're saying is Donald Trump can just say
or anybody, Biden, Trump, the US government can
say that person's an illegal alien.
Get him out of here.
Okay. They they rush into El Salvador.
How do we know that?
I'm not disputing that they they exist. The
point is how do we know that? What
what point did we suddenly just start taking
the government's narratives at face value?
Both partisan sides do it when it suits
their interests?
The point is that they could be an
American for all we know. He could not
be an illegal alien. He could as we
pointed out, in any case, he would still
he or she would still have due process
rights. So either way, if you allow the
circumstance for them to just say we can
kick somebody out of the country with no
process, that means they can abuse that. They
can get rid of anyone they want. At
some point, it will cross over to people
that you might not expect because you've given
them unilateral power with no checks and balance,
with no legal
guardrails.
They're abusing it now.
Who knows what's gonna happen tomorrow?
So think about that. It means the government
can accuse literally anybody of being illegal and
deport them with zero due process even after
they've already admitted to many mistakes they've made.
I mean, think about how chilling that is.
Now
on those points, the idea that we can
arbitrarily change it and they're not, or the
idea that we can prove
that they're creating a circumstance where they can
just kick anybody out of the country. And
the people who defend the constitution more than
anybody are the ones right now that seem
to be ignoring that very
disconcerting overlap.
Let's talk about what he said in court.
Now we already showed you this.
So he got in court.
Was told and let's actually, I think he
mentions it in here.
Yeah. Okay. He mentions it. I'll just read
a statement about where he was moved to
for this reason. So on the eleventh,
Ryan Grim cites what Malmaklil said in court.
When he addressed to the immigration court, he
said, quote,
I would like to quote what you said
last time that there's nothing what you said
last time that there's nothing that's more important
to this court
than due process rights
and fundamental fairness.
Clearly, what we witnessed today, neither of these
principles were present today or in this whole
process.
This is exactly why the Trump administration has
sent me to this court, a thousand miles
away from my family.
I just hope that the urgency that you
deem fit for me are afforded to the
hundreds of others who have been here without
hearing for months.
So the idea is that simply these people
are pretending like, you understand, what they're ruling
on right now is not the validity of
the claims against Khalil. They're ruling on whether
he can continue to be deported without due
process. And yet somehow mental gymnastics trying to
make the argument that somehow that doesn't apply
even though as we understand. And these if
anybody in this conversation understands this, it's the
people in those robes.
The the only job of a judge is
to uphold the constitution.
So they're being so if we wanna look
at an example like we see all the
time on the left of a politically activist
judge, it's right there. Somebody who's going to
argue that due process doesn't apply where it
very clearly does beyond question. It's obvious, and
that's why he made that point. And why
they moved him a thousand miles away to
a court that would be more amenable, a
place that ultimately rules in the favor of
immigration cases like this over 90%. Feels very
Israeli if you understand how those court systems
work.
That's important to understand. Now on top of
that, here's something else he said. Malmakkaleel's statement
from detention that was just published. This was
or excuse me. This is back in the
eighteenth, March eighteenth, but I want you to
hear what he had to say. He said,
my name is Malmakkaleel, and I'm a political
prisoner. I'm writing to you from a detention
facility in Louisiana where I wake to cold
mornings and spend long days bearing witness to
the quiet injustices underway against a great many
of people precluded from the protections of the
law.
Who has the right to have rights?
It is certainly not the humans crowded into
the cells here. It isn't
the Sinhalese man I met who has been
deprived of his liberty for a year,
his legal situation in limbo, and his family
an ocean away.
It isn't the 21 year old detainee I
met who stepped foot into the country at
an age nine only to be deported without
so much as a hearing.
Justice escapes the contours of this nation's immigration
facilities.
On March 8, I was taken by DHS
agents who refused to provide a warrant. In
and of itself, that should anger you as
an American. Whether or not it's an alien,
illegal alien, a green card holder, it's in
principle the same point if you actually understand
the constitution.
And he says it costed and and they
costed his wife, and they were returned from
as they returned from dinner. By now, the
footage of that night has been made public.
Before, I knew what was happening. Agents handcuffed
and forced me into an unmarked car. At
that moment, my only concern
was for his wife, safety.
I had no idea if she was being
taken too since the agents had threatened to
arrest her
for not leaving his side. DHS would not
tell me anything for hours. I did not
know the cause of my my arrest or
if I was facing immediate deportation. At 26
Federal Plaza, I slept on the cold floor.
In the early morning hours, agents transported me
to another facility in Elizabeth, New Jersey. There,
I slept on the the ground and was
refused a blanket despite my request. I mean,
why would that make sense to anybody? This
vilification of people who aren't even here legally
because you pretend they're illegal aliens who are
draining the system while Trump and any other
context, people are allowing that in where it
suits their interests.
It's just insulting. It's embarrassing for this country
because people view this because the only thing
a lot of people outside this country see
is the mainstream presentation that makes the majority
of us that see this as a problem
look like morons. That's probably by design. The
sad reality, guys, is this is not okay
in any context, whether or not they're a
legal alien. That's the whole thing this whole
back and forth was about way before this.
These are human beings.
Yes. And there's plenty of overlapping reasons why
people might end up here and some cases
might sneak in the country, which I still
think is a crime, and that should be
discussed, and they should be charged with a
crime. But the point is there's a whole
part of that conversation of people who simply
come to the border, present themselves, and end
up in this limbo state where they get
a call they get deemed illegal immigrants by
the screaming partisan conversation.
People who are in the process of seeking
asylum the proper way who are currently in
El Salvador.
That should anger you to understand that people
who you were told are bad were the
ones trying to do the right thing while
they ignore people who are actually bad in
this country all over the place, including themselves,
by the way.
You know? I I believe truly that there's
more honest people than not. I believe truly
that people out there who maybe get lucky
enough to see this link because they share
with somebody else, not because you could look
on the platforms and see it because we're
suppressed. But then if they do, they would
go, yes, obviously,
because I care. Because I believe that's most
people. But that is being overshadowed by the
worst of us today.
Craig Mokayber points out, I'm still hopeful that
Madam Khalil, this is on the twelfth, will
prevail on appeal because they are appealing the
ruling.
But the ruling by immigration judge, Jamie Comans,
that's the one who ruled that, that she,
quote, has no authority. Here's the actual claim.
To question Marco Rubio's
false allegations
is a shocking breach of her duties.
See, they're playing this game where they're acting
like the judges. See, this is what the
republican narrative is, that these judges are overstepping
their bound. No. They're literally acting with the
only the exact reason for their existence in
this context
to push back on the of of a
a overstep of power should they think that's
the case. And they could, of course, be
wrong. That's why there's a back and forth
process.
The idea that they're saying you can't dictate
what we do, that's not what's happening here.
You violated the law.
They're they're upholding the reality of the constitution,
and you guys don't care.
But, clearly, she is either politically active
or shockingly uninformed for a position or just
doesn't care.
Because let's let's be clear about that. That
that point is not debatable, guys. The reality
of the constitution, due process, and all the
rest, whether or not the federal government's involved
is undeniable. That's what inalienable right inalienable rights.
That's So it means.
And it goes on to say, immigration judges
are not independent art.
They they but they are still bound by
the constitution
to uphold rights and do to due process,
equal protection, and free speech in deportation proceedings.
As Scalia and Reno versus Flores said in
particular.
All of which have been grossly violated in
the Malmed case or all the rest we're
talking about, whether by fear, favor, or incompetence.
This is classic judicial abdication.
If judges, even immigration judges, do not defend
the rule of law, the next step is
full blown fascism or anarchy, but I hate
that he said anarchy because that's not what
anarchy means. What he means is chaos. That's
a point for another time because I'll go
and do it like crazy. The point though,
guys,
this is an overlapping thing that I'm seeing.
Like, we talked about early in the show,
the idea of this growing kind of authoritarian
justification, like, getting you to actually call for
your own subjugation, to pretend like we want
the dictators because they'll protect us, like this
insane inversion of reality,
is that we're seeing this. Like, we saw,
by the way, in El Salvador before this
where he basically just removed the judges that
didn't agree with him. That's what they're do
that's what they did. Suspended the constitution. Is
that the kind of country we wanna we
we wanna emulate?
That a a dictatorial power just steps in,
says it's now a one party country, we
are in control, your constitution doesn't matter, and
we you know, it's that's insane to me
that anybody pretends that's who we wanna emulate.
Right now, you got the Joneses and the
Elon Musk of the world acting like he
is somebody to to gush over like they
do with everybody, like Malay and all the
rest who turn out to be complete frauds.
You have to con how do we not
continue to see these people grifting every day
using the same lies over and over? Maybe
maybe they do. And and and in that
case, I'm falling for the illusion that's on
Twitter.
Glenn Greenwald said and this is in regard
to this scientist manipulator, saying Chad Felix Green,
saying in regard to Glenn saying, Muhammad Khalil
has expressed hatred has never expressed hatred towards
The United States because he hasn't. To the
contrary, he came to The United States, is
married to an American with an American baby
on the way on a path of citizenship.
He criticized Israel.
This person says, he trapped people in a
building and prevented Jews from accessing campus, Glenn.
No. He didn't. And in fact, even the
people you're pretending did that didn't do that.
And that's what this is how insane this
is. We all I went over this every
time. The the case was even the police,
just to make it clear, because I can
go into this stuff like crazy, because we've
talked about it so many times. Even the
police said that wasn't the reality.
They this is the same thing where you
see them march in the middle of people
and act like I'm being threatened as you
push your way into their crowd. Or in
this case, had people that were in this
building, and all they have are people that
were outside protesting, and they they had the
video of them inside, and you could hear
the protest. But the reality is, as they
prove from the outside, is there was nothing
going on. That was a manufactured
outrage moment for them to pretend like Jews
were being hunted down. And every single time,
whether Stefanic, whether shaking hands, screaming antisemitism gets
proven to be a liar, it just continues
anyway.
As Glenn says, why is it that Israel
loyalists like Chad Felix Green have to constantly
lie in order to justify the punishment and
or deportation of anyone in The United States
who criticized Israel? Mabukkaleel,
quote, trapped people in a building? He says,
okay. I'll give $10,000
to anyone who has video or other proof
of this. You won't find it. You know?
How you just acknowledge those. For those of
you who watch this show regularly, for the
maybe the ones that are new,
you will never it's very rare to me
for me to say this
with the %.
Right? That this you like, right now. That
I'm gonna tell you right now, you will
not find that. It doesn't exist.
So my point is, you rarely get that
from me because even then you go, well,
maybe I missed something. We it's not there.
This has been combed through. It has been
broken down. It's one of the most obvious
parts of this. That's just why I think
it's so interesting that they started with this
case, that he was the first one that
Israel asked for and Trump obliged.
That's what happened.
Now he goes same offer for anyone with
video of Khalil speaking on anything he wrote
where he, quote, literally called for the elimination
of Western civilization, which is the claim they
keep screaming because Rubio and Trump and all
the rest just kept saying that.
As alleged by his neocon, Nepo baby, whoever.
I don't know what that means. Not a
statement by some coalition of a 20 groups
by himself. Right? So the point is that
there's ultimately people that have screamed things like
that that they claim he's connected to, which
we've now proven he's not. He just simply
had overlap with him in regard to the
being the spokesman for everybody that was in
that conversation, which by the way meant the
colleges and the people and the Zionist. Like,
he was in the middle of this being
the spokesman for this ongoing debate.
That's somebody going, he literally called for I
mean, guy and these are people with, you
know, 37,000
followers. Is is he just that stupid, that
uninformed, or that dishonest?
You you tell me. Now he goes on
to say, if you find yourself lying about
someone and fabricating what they did to justify
politician's actions, maybe that should cause you to
rethink whether he the acts are justified.
Rubio admits,
as we already talked about, that he did
nothing illegal and is being punished for his
views.
This is easy to like, and I I
we will get to it yet again. Here
is the actual document. See, that's how we
roll on this show. We have the information.
We don't just scream narratives. Guys, you can
look it up for yourself as we already
went through more than once. The main thing
that stands out is, I hope you'll read
it again for the third time for yourself,
is that they made a point to say
that his actions were otherwise lawful outside of
the claims that he was supporting the anti
Israel claim. That's what it says. That they
didn't break the law, that he had ideas
that are national security threats, that it says
it was they comprise a compelling foreign policy
interest threat.
It's right there to read it yet again.
And yet we are being lied to by
people that either don't know or are manipulating
you. He goes on to say, and there's
the case of the Tufts PhD student. There's
an update to that, by the way. We'll
get to that after the next couple parts.
It's Ozturk was her name, who is being
deported solely because she coauthored an op ed
with three other students.
If you want to argue that people should
be deported for criticizing Israel, just say that.
Stop lying about what they did. But see,
here's the point, guys. They need you to
want this to happen, and if you if
they say it like that, most people won't.
So they you they abuse your hatred for
people that they've manufactured hatred for. That's what
this is. Just like with free speech. If
they they're not gonna come out and say
we want limited speech because they know we
don't want that. But they trick you into
thinking what they point to is actually free
speech.
He goes, meanwhile, a bunch of antisemitic US
synagogues and other Jewish groups are literally protesting
the deportation expulsion of a student who criticize
or protest Israel. Why? Because huge numbers of
American Jews aren't willing to sacrifice the bill
of rights to serve their foreign this foreign
country.
So, obviously, he's being facetious about calling it
antisemitic because that that's how absurd it is
that they would call these groups Jew hating,
antisemitic, you know, self hating Jew when all
you're seeing is a massively growing number of
Jews in the world
who are standing up and going, this is
not okay. And these are American Jews who
aren't the the game that you play that
somehow
that Jewish people like, that Israel is Jewish
people is just so insulting to peep to
Jewish people in particular. It is a Zionist
organization that has taken control of this, who
has basically co opted the idea of Judaism
that now a lot of Jews in the
world are beginning to call out. It's very
clear. You wanna contort that into somehow hating
Jewish people? You're not paying attention as we're
literally standing aside alongside Jewish groups and going
that's that genocide is bad,
or holocaust survivors, for example. Just understand that
they have people that are standing up and
protesting this. You're being lied to about how
they they're basically you basically have neocons and
other or or,
you know, left and right manipulators,
extremists in this country from the government that
are actively pointing to them and saying they're
being threatened, and then you have a lot
of them that are saying that's not true.
Always a game. Now John Kennedy, of course,
one of the many people who are just
screaming the lies,
literally said on the eleventh, if you're not
an American citizen and you support Hamas or
any other terrorist organization, you could be deported,
period. Well, let's be clear.
If that was the case, even
an illegal alien, the government is absolutely by
law, constitutional law, and otherwise required
to prove that.
Obviously. Otherwise, they could just go, you're a
terrorist and put you in prison forever no
matter where you're from. That can't be okay,
guys.
And realize it's not. We can prove it.
But the idea is that even if that
was the case, they're required to present the
evidence and go to a judge and present
he's got the legal right to see his
accuser.
But here's the point. That's not even true.
I said not even the US government lawyers,
as even Glenn is pointing out, are not
claiming that he supports Hamas, you clown. You're
either that ignorant or that dishonest. And, again,
you can look to the document I just
shared or the articles written about this, because
it's directly taken
from what Rubio has presented, which is only
that he has ideas they don't like.
It is the reality. Pressed for evidence against
Mahmoud Khalil, government cites its power to deport
people for beliefs.
That's the reality.
And then Kennedy comes out and screams the
lie because they're invested in the agenda.
Or he doesn't know any better, which is
alarming.
But, of course, that gets 511,000
views because that's how this works today, and
this platform promotes those.
Now, again, here's what Kristi Noem said. Malmak
Khalil hates
The United States than what we stand for.
It's it's gross. Right? These either don't know,
which is disgusting and alarming, or these people
know he doesn't believe this and are so
willing to throw this person away forever and
put him in prison or deport him or
whatever else just because they need to use
him to, I guess, appease Israel,
achieve their goals of censoring you no matter
what.
She claims a lie. He hates America.
The what we stand for. So his removal
should come as a welcome news. Okay. So
first of all,
if he hates America, that's a that's a
a feeling, a thought, an ideology. You can
hate anything you want.
But even then, when you have to prove
that, how are you how are you gonna
you can't just keep making claims without proving
things in any
context. And but they're also lying. Now he
says, it is a privilege to be granted
a visa. Now this is the game that
Rubio and the rest keep doing, and it's
very clumsy.
Nobody, Christy Noem, if you're paying attention, nobody
is claiming that these people like, it's about
that they're already here and they already have
legal status. To claim that it's a privilege
to be given one, sure. Fine. I disagree
with the way you're framing that, but either
way,
it's already happened now. So that you guys
keep lazily pointing back to the process and
saying, had they said they were terrorists even
though we're proven they're not, then we wouldn't
have let him. It's a straw man. Doesn't
make any sense because either way, they were
already given it, which means they have the
legal right to be shown the evidence to
due process.
All they're doing is playing on the ignorance
of the lowest common denominator, and it's a
lot of screaming idiots out there. I don't
think it's the majority.
This is granted a Visa or a green
card to live and study in The United
States Of America. When you advocate for violence,
which he's never done, glorify and support terrorists,
which he's never done, that relish the killing
Americans, which he's never done, and harass Jews,
which he's never done, that privilege should be
revoked. And if you're gonna make any of
those claims, you're required to prove it by
law, which they've never done. And you should
not be in this country. Good riddance, she
says.
Gross.
As Ryan Grim says, you are deeply un
American and unpatriotic.
You hate what this country stands for
and will destroy our set of values to
stand up for the right of a foreign
country to avoid criticism.
I mean, look. You got 11,000 likes compared
to her 39.
You know, I mean, people are seeing this,
guys.
I mean, look at the look at the
below. I mean, that's APAC tracker. You would
expect her them to call her out for
her the APAC get bribing her. Right? But
you go down and look. You find conservatives
in the conversation who are calling this out.
Glenn says, Mahmoud Khalil never expressed hatred, which
I was reading before, toward The US. To
the contrary, he came to The United States,
is married to an American with an American
baby on the way on the path of
citizenship. He criticized Israel,
but because you're drowning in APAC money, you
think Israel is part of The United States.
Now look. This is not some fringe anti
Israel hater. This is Glenn Greenwald, guys, a
constitutional expert, in my opinion. I think that's
what he's proven over the years. Now he
says and this person says, this is also
tiresome.
We don't want people who hate the West
in the West. Who's we? Who are you
talking about? Alright? So even that point alone
let's just say you don't want people who
hate certain things in this country. And by
the way, we're not talking about the West.
We're talking about Israel. So the fact that
they conflate that is embarrassing.
But the idea that you could tell that
you don't want people to have certain ideas
in this country. Okay. Then just admit that
you don't believe in the constitution, which if
pushed, they'd all scream the opposite.
Either too dumb to know they're wrong or
a part of an agenda.
He says, if you are a citizen, you
can burn a flag, which is true.
If we're gathering, granting the privilege to be
here, you can't. That's also not true. It's
a con it's constitutional rights. It's the same
old dumb conversation.
Not dumb, but the fact that it's frustrating
that they're repeated every thirty seconds because people
keep making the false claim.
But it gets you know, I mean, this
is
reasonable engagement. This this account has
look at that. A 20 followers, and this
gets 1,300.
Like, this is we're being asked for turf,
guys. There's no way around it because it's
a false claim.
The idea is that as Ron Paul's pointed
out to the rest of them, as we
if we're now paying attention and we realize
the reality, the provable reality, as I'll reiterate
more in a second, that, yes, even illegal
aliens have constitutional rights and that we understand
that it's been enshrined by the Supreme Court
in every other way that you can burn
a flag because that's your right, then that
would apply to them and anybody else who
has rights. Pretty simple.
But it goes, it's simple. Apparently not. To
take western values or buy. Right? So now
you're now you're forcing people to take absorb
your values. Right? And to but when unless
they or or they're gonna they can't come
to the country? Doesn't that seem like the
opposite of what this country represents?
By the way, I wanna grab something really
quickly because it's so perfect.
Hopefully, it's really quick to grab.
Wait. This is I was just talking about
this in regard to the two party illusion
stuff yesterday,
and I made the point. But you're if
you're you're probably already remembering if you know
where I'm going with this. Exactly what he
just said is exactly the meme that was
just shared, the cartoon. And I think it's
well worth pointing this out because the woke
left and the woke right guys are the
same damn thing.
Okay. Check this out.
Okay. So it's simple. Take western values or
buy. Right? Okay. Here is
cat turd sharing a thing that says
or rather what clown world said, nope. And
it says, you should and it's just the
left. They're framing the left. You should all
change your core values and beliefs so I
fit in. Okay. Okay. So I guess you're
both hypocrites. Right? I said, there, I fixed
it for you and put a MAGA hat
on it, which I didn't realize that I
actually reversed it in this backward. But either
way, same point.
I mean, god, this is insane. Right? And
just realize, western values are that constitutional rights
are foundationally important.
Not screaming partisan morons that don't understand that
and yell at you about not, you know,
not adhering to what they think you should
think, which is the woke left and the
woke right. He says, I also cheer other
countries to do the same, to our our
idiots. Well, at least there's some level of
consistency. Right? But either way, I'm willing to
bet you that should something should, let's say,
Russia send an American citizen to a foreign
gulag, pretty sure this guy would be like,
no way. That's a problem. Yeah. Because it
would be. It's not consistency is a false
claim in my opinion in this context.
But Glenn says, I never knew that loving
Israel was a requirement for being a good
American until parts of the America First Movement
taught me that worshiping this foreign country was
the only way that you can prove that
you aren't a problem.
This is so perfect. That is a well
put argument.
I didn't even see this. I'm not gonna
read all that. I mean, it's you can
I'll I'll include this. You'll see it. It's
in there. This link for yourself.
He just responds saying thank you for the
reply. The point is, guys,
to say that you're anti West because you're
criticizing Israel is such an obvious head fake.
They're lying to you. And overall, everything they're
saying is literally wrong, illegal.
So Daniel McAdams, citing Noem as well, in
her claim that he hates the country, he
says, no. He hates this administration's Middle East
policy. But, you know, you you see why
they conflate those things, obviously, just like Biden
does.
He says there is a difference, and conservatives
used to understand that. Now they've gone full
Stalin, arresting and jailing anyone who does not
support their foreign policy. You can see where
this is heading. Or you could simply say
that don't I mean, look. Even if you
wanna argue that what they're actually trying to
adhere to is western values, it's the same
point to argue that you're not allowed to
exist here unless you adhere to specific ideology.
That's wild.
That is not what we've ever pretended we
are. And that seems to be a threat
of vain that's always been lurking, and now
they're jamming it down your throat in hopes
that you don't recognize that most everybody disagrees.
And I added to what Daniel said, same
what the same thing I've been saying. I
said absolutely agree, and everyone has constitutional rights
despite what the uninformed may say as outlined
in the constitution and backed by numerous Supreme
Court rulings. If Rubio wants to claim they
violated something, it must be proven with evidence
and presented in court. That's the that's the
simplest way to frame that.
I don't know why anybody would push back
on that. It's so it's incredible to
me. And, of course, the you can see
post like that that I put out get,
like, seven likes and it goes nowhere because
that totally makes sense. Right? It's just it's
it's so obviously
clearly that things are being suppressed on this
platform.
But Ryan Grim responding as well says, The
United States stands for or is supposed to
stand for freedom.
Freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of
assembly, freedom of petition to to government to
redress grievances.
It is Noam and people like her who
truly despise our country, our country's founding values.
And I think you know why, guys, because
it is a very clear agenda, and I
think very much to undermine those very things
for the interest of somebody else.
Whether you agree with that or not, what
he said is absolutely true. What they are
doing is exactly what they claim everybody else
is doing. They are destroying this country in
real time.
And this person says, only Americans are assured
on constitutional rights. Did you go to school?
Which weirdly enough, I saw the same fake
account that I think is obviously
a bot
doing this literally
identical statement under what Ryan Grim said somewhere
else or under what I said somewhere else.
I simply said, someone sure didn't. You're verifiably
wrong. How ridiculous it is that we are
overrun by uninformed partisan screamers who are high
on their own false certainty.
Now just to reiterate, Alex included
the Reno versus Flores ruling that Eve Scalia
in particular, and it says very clearly the
fifth amendment entitles aliens to due process in
law in deportation proceedings. Now scattered points, and
I'll reiterate one from Grock again, just making
the same point just in case people don't
see it. This is wild to me. I
mean, you could look at these as well.
The The constitution protects all people living in
The United States regardless of immigration status. It's
very fundamentally obvious.
It's kinda scary how much this this fake
narrative is pushed through.
But don't forget,
as I've said many times, but it's becoming
even more clear,
this very dangerous anti American person,
his name is Ross Glick.
He is the,
where is it? The
where was it? Is
he one of the head elements? I thought
he was the leader, but it's I just
wanna say it's wrong, but he's basically one
of the lead elements of the Batar USA
group.
A a dangerous, rabid Zionist organization that has
been going after Americans and everybody else who
say anything about Israel.
Calling for the death of children. And I
don't mean hyperbolically or some kind of metaphor.
Like, legitimately going, I want more blood of
children, like, on the platform. People showing dead
children going, yes. More of that. Just like
Randy Fine, by the way. Very clear.
Z m t says it's disgusting that CNN
featured Ross Glick of Batar and the, quote,
intelligence, his terror organization as they claim, hands
over to d DHS to facilitate deportations. I've
told you this, guys. They're literally handing information
to the Trump administration, and they're following suit
and getting rid of who they point to.
That's a foreign government literally dictating the actions
of your government.
He says, CNN, did you bother looking into
his background? Bator has ties to US designated
terrorist organization,
Khan Chai, or their lack of four five
zero one c three status.
They're they don't even care.
Gen x girl points this out. Ross Glick,
Pitar, yeah, US Director,
arrested for revenge porn. Pager threats against Ilhan
Omar, but same group against,
I'm forgetting his name off the top of
my head all of a sudden. Anyway, a
lot of people, Americans, on the street, just
handing pagers, which is a threat, doxxing people,
having deportation lists sent to people. Here is
Fetterman standing with this maniac. I mean, it's
obvious where this is going.
So Ross Glick responds and says, read keyboard
coward something, learn learn something. Excuse me. I
thought it's backwards. Demand the Trump administration enforce
the FACE Act.
Across The United States, Jewish synagogues have become
the front line of the like, they're they're
mobilizing
a Zionist agenda using the Jewish community when
most I think Jewish people in this country
are pushing back on this.
But this is sounds like a the gestapo.
I can see why you like it. And
interestingly enough, he posts, Shalom, Malmud.
You'll see why that's relevant, which they've already
been doing.
So here is the House Foreign Affairs Committee
majority.
The GOP.
The chairman, of course, of which is Brian
Mast, somebody who's literally in the IDF military,
which makes no sense. That's an un American
concept, in my opinion, that you can be
in any other foreign military and pretend like
you represent this country.
And they write, shalom, Malmoud.
They want you to see this.
Explain for me why the US government would
say something like that, using an Israeli term
to argue
to say to a person, by the way,
who did not break the law, who is
not a criminal, who wasn't who did have
a green card,
and you've been called you've been screaming things
that now everyone has proven you're lying about,
and the judge says, yes. You can remove
him, but still requires due process, which you
still ignore, and you go bye.
But in Israeli, Hebrew.
Shalom, Mohammed.
Wait. Do we need to be is it
does it need to be any more clear?
They're they're nodding to the idea that Israel's
involved with this. At the very least, it's
not disputed that this is about Israel. Your
government is acting for Israel's interest. Pam Bondi
has done set October 7 task forces, antisemitism
task force of the United States. Why is
anything of this make sense to people that
stand up for the constitution anywhere?
It's very clear what's happening.
And here's Ross Glick from before that saying,
shalom, Malloyed.
Louisiana immigration judge has ruled oh, excuse me.
That's the other one. Has ruled that he
could be deported. We're just really doubling down
on the idea.
Shalom, Malloyed, coming from the guys the the
group that got him deported. They got what
they wanted, and I've already shown you this.
They were petitioning Pan Bondi, Marco Rubio, Trump
on Twitter every day going get this guy,
get this guy.
And then they did it, and they said
thank you.
Here's another example going back to March 16.
This is at CENTCOM operations against Iran backed
Houthis continue, and really
just civilians
in Yemen, which is what we can prove.
And it says they murder innocent men, women,
and children in bull cold blood and brag
about it online. Always the same playbook. Yep.
See?
Not left or right. It is the government.
And here's RasClick going, yay. We love killing
innocent people. Shalom. Hooties.
These are the people who are dictating policy
in this country, guys.
Voice of rabbis, a Jewish organization, an Orthodox
Jewish organization.
Right? This clearly, in my opinion, you look
at what this guy does. I don't know
if whatever
you look at the way they act, the
way they respond, the way they treat people
with vitriol. That's not what a religious person
does in my opinion, or at least somebody
who believes in the ideas that could put
forward through pretty much every major religion.
So here is a group of Orthodox Jews
who actively speak out against Zionism, the genocide,
and argue that what they're doing is a
misrepresentation of Judaism.
And they say many Jews are not Zionists.
Most Zionists are not Jews. I agree with
that. That's a provable fact today. That's why
I keep pointing out that it's not about
only Judaism, but there is an overlap to
Jewish supremacy clearly, as even B'Tselem shows you.
Here is what this Zionist pretending to be
Jewish says.
You know, like, shut the f up with
your Hamas propaganda.
Shabbat Shalom from the Zionists.
So yet again, showing you that it's not
about Judaism. It's about rabid,
extremist Zionism,
especially if you're Jewish. They hate you if
you're Jewish if you don't believe in their
Zionist tactics.
Everywhere, this is showing itself, guys.
Here's what the White House put out. This
is what's sick to me. The idea they
put out that cartoon of a of a
of a an I think a brown woman
being arrested and saying, like, shalom or whatever.
The same thing.
It's it's they're they're they're children, guys. These
are this is just like we saw with
Israel, like I said before. People that are
not, like, in my opinion, have not earned
the positions they're in. They're a bunch of
bunch of partisan, uninformed,
manipulated people or people that are a part
of the Zionist agenda who are screaming and
posting and things like this, and we should
be in I mean, I'm embarrassed as an
American. That's hard to say with what we've
already been through. What they're doing is sad.
So this happens. You know it's a problem.
You know they've lied about it. You know
this guy is not a criminal. You know
all he did was stand up for Palestinians.
And they get the ruling they like, and
they and White House account post this.
Breaking news. Malvin Khalil can be deported. Judge
rules.
I put this out highlighting it. Malvin can
be deported with Trump. This is the point
for the podcast. Not that they said that
because you could just say the reporting. Right?
They do it next to a picture of
Donald Trump waving outside of the McDonald's.
You know, let's let's continue to forget that
that's totally maha. Right? Eat all the fast
food seed oil stuff. Yay, maha. Right? But
we'll use it to make you feel good
about it because by immigrant who is legal
in the country seeking citizenship, we didn't commit
any broad crimes that you know, it's just
gross, guys.
That's disgusting. You're a bad person. You're a
child.
Whoever put that together.
This is I mean, even if you agree
with it all, can't you show some decorum?
These are people's lives.
But I guess I guess that's a woke,
you know, snowflake thing to say. Like, it's
the dumb partisanship that stops you from being
a human being. Apparently.
Zachary Foster says, you are taking pride in
ruining someone's life for speaking out against genocide.
History will remember you the same way it
remembered the Nazis' best friends across fascist Europe
during World War two.
And another response from Torah Jews, another Jewish
Orthodox organization that says, don't you think deporting
people for no crime other than criticizing the
Israeli government will actually increase antisemitism?
Ah, and that's exactly the point. Because they
want you to think it's Jewish people doing
this, so then you argue that that's the
problem, and then Zionism can live on for
another thousand years. That's what they're doing.
Please stop conflating Judaism with Zionism, says the
Orthodox Jewish organization. But keep telling me that
it's only about Jewish people. Yes. It's part
of it, but that's the reason that plenty
of Jewish organizations are going. That's the problem
over there. So it's a part of Jewish
groups that are being either manipulated into thinking
in there. Right? Or people that are actually
just Zionist who are pretending to be that
or overlap.
Just understand that there's a massively growing momentum
of people in the world who are Jewish,
who are not buying it.
Now here's what Marco Rubio said.
POTUS' commitment to the president's commitment to security
and the enforcement of our immigration laws is
unprecedented and unwavering, but that's not true. Because
you clearly just remove the old oh, those
guys can stay. That one's okay. Afrikaar, you
come on in. So you can just decide
it doesn't. Okay. It's not unwavering and unprecedented.
Clearly, you can move it every way you
whichever which way you want on top of
the fact
that you can not apply it up correctly.
Literally not even apply your immigration law and
just go get out of here with no
crime, no judgment, no evidence. So in fact,
you're actually ignoring your immigration law. But you
see, the point is scream the narrative
and just hope everybody follows suit.
You have to understand, guys, one that we're
gonna get into in a second more overlaps
a lot of this.
As I said begin at the beginning of
this, the Andresians, the the carps of the
world,
right, who've written books about this or claimed
that you need the elites to save your
lives, that they're priming you for the technocratic
rush. That's why we're seeing Bukele call himself
a cool dictator. They want you to start
thinking that's what you want. They've tricked you
into thinking that you should have rights. Like,
it's clear where this is going. For them
to come out and say this is they
want you to feel that they're doubling down
on what's right when what they're doing is
continuing to get you to support the opposite.
It's basic stuff, it seems, but I don't
know why I mean, I'm hoping that not
as many people are falling for this as
it seems.
Now going forward
one second.
Next one, Fox News.
Secretary Rubio,
why making America safer means revoking visas when
threats arise?
So, again, in case you missed the last
part,
if they're going to revoke a Visa or
a green card in any context,
they are absolutely
required to present the evidence to prove what
they're claiming.
Even illegal immigrants, by the way, that's the
reality, and that's the point. I should say,
by the way, I've said it 50 times.
The point is
that is the case. The Supreme Court has
already ruled that, including, by the way, the
last ruling from nine to zero
that were six conservative judges. Ask you ask
yourself why suddenly they're not screaming about politicized
judges right now. And I'm making this case
about only the radical judges. Why? Because six
conservative judges at the Supreme Court just ruled
that they had to give them due process
despite as we'll get to them misrepresenting that
in an egregious way because they're desperate as
far as I can tell, or they or
at least just think that they can do
it and no one's gonna challenge
them. Here's what it says.
US law lays out clear rules about who
can and cannot come to The United States.
The state department's consular officers are required to
apply these rules to each of the millions
of visa applicants around the world. So, again,
same old fake head fake. We're not talking
about mister Rubio, shouldn't even call mister Marco.
We should not talk about
or we're not talking about the idea of
when they come in. We're talking about people
who are already legally here and how you
disregard their rights. But you see, all they
do is point to the first point every
time. Every time. And I kinda they kinda
say, yeah. Had they told us they were
bad, guys?
But they're not, though, and we're proving that.
It is a complete straw man in every
way. Every way they do this, they're pointing
at the wrong things. They're lying about what's
happening.
Under the immigration and nationality act, he says,
aliens who endorse or espouse terrorist activity,
whatever that means, because they decide day by
day, by the way, or persuade others to
adore or espouse terrorist activity or support a
terrorist organization, such as Hamas, are ineligible for
visas. Okay. First point, again, we're not talking
about whether they're eligible for visas. You complete
moron. Like, it's so embarrassing. But he knows
that, though.
So they are here, and they do have
a visa. So let's address the second part.
Are you pretending that he espoused terrorist activity?
I'd love for you to prove that. And
guess what? He already tried. They can't. In
the court documents, it's already come out that
they literally don't have any evidence for that
because it didn't happen. Or persuade others? Same
point.
Nowhere in this are they even claiming anymore
that he supports Hamas, but understand guys, this
is a new article from op April 12.
So if you understand that they presented the
document
on the ninth to the court and didn't
even attempt to claim he was supporting Hamas,
yet on the twelfth, he comes out and
says that to everybody listening.
That means Marco Rubio is a liar. He's
trying to convince you so they don't go
to prison or so I mean, I tend
to feel that's the way this goes right
now. Like, I don't know how we don't
see that they're losing control of the conversation.
But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it's just that
they believe they can get away with it.
Either way, he thinks you're that stupid.
I think it's the reverse. I think you
all see it. Either way, Martin, Marco Rubio
here is pushing a lie like usual.
Any idea that you can just declare something
a terrorist organization and then, like, by default
then, like, backtrack to where you're like, I'm
at look. Here's the point. If right now,
the US government declared the Democrats a terrorist
organization
or anything like that, just declared a group
that has large support in the world.
Can they then just argue that you're doing
that and kick you out? That's what they're
building right now, that they can just randomly
declare what they want, what they want, and
they'll move you however they feel fit because
they claim national security. It's really not new.
It's just become alarmingly in your face.
And it says, what's more, the INA gives
us broad authority to revoke a visa, but
it's the same stupid thing.
You can look. Whether you agree with that
point or not, the point is you would
still be required to provide the evidence for
the claim, and that's the one thing they're
not doing.
How do you not see this as desperate?
They're floundering in this right now. They're flailing.
Now this is an article that reiterates the
reality.
Thought crimes. Rubio lays out government's justification for
deportations based on beliefs. So over here, he's
yelling through Fox News to convince people that
blindly follow, to convince them that what the
lie is what he said is the truth
even though he's lying.
Over here,
the argument is, you know, trying to play
both sides, but to to make to make
the argument for why you wouldn't even need
that anyway.
There's a reason for that. They're trying to
lay the groundwork to kick people out of
this country, Americans included, for ideas.
That's all this is based on, but they
need a certain faction to keep lying to
themselves about what's really happening. Otherwise, they lose
it entirely.
It says the Trump administration is claiming the
right to deport individuals based on their beliefs
or speech alone
as pressure mounts to release Malmed Khalil.
In a memo obtained by the Associated Press,
which is the one we can show you
right there, and you can read for yourself.
We have already gone through this twice.
Secretary, press secretary excuse me. Secretary of state
Marco Rubio said that the government can expel
legal residents from the country
based on, quote, past, current, or expected beliefs,
statements,
or associations that are otherwise lawful. That's what
I read to you.
They're otherwise lawful.
For cases in which the basis for this
termination
or expected it says past,
current, or expected beliefs. What is expected
beliefs mean? So you now you can assume
on top of everything that you think he
might have a belief and use that? That's
what that says.
Statements or associations
that are otherwise lawful.
So the point as everyone's been saying is
that he they're literally making the case that
you don't have to break the law. You
can just have the wrong ideas
or what they claim are the wrong ideas.
As Ryan Grim and the others are saying,
we we used to pretend this country is
based on freedom of every ideology.
Clearly, they're showing you that was really never
the case, or at least not now.
The memo came in response to a federal
judge's order
to show evidence in the case against Khalil,
and that's what they presented.
It's as simple as it gets.
Now here's Grock, in case that means anything
more to you.
Do illegal aliens have constitutional rights? And in
particular,
the right to due process if accused of
a crime.
The answer is yes.
Illegal aliens have constitutional rights, including the right
to due process if accused of a crime.
It's Grock. The link's included. You can share
it with whoever you want. It's very easy
to prove. It's amazing that we even have
to have this conversation. Now here's Mike Waltz
doing the same thing Kennedy and the rest
did. Kennedy senator Kennedy. Being a guest in
our country is a privilege, not a right.
If you promote terrorism and antisemitism, there will
be consequences.
It's all saying the same thing.
Patrick Henningson says, ignorant statement, Mike Waltz. The
first amendment of our US constitution is not
a privilege. It is an inalienable
right, which fully covers political speech and criticism
of the policies and actions of both US
and foreign governments, including Israel. Read your constitution.
It explicitly restrains government from denying those right
to anyone inside the those rights to anyone
inside The US jurisdiction, anybody,
especially legal residents like Mohammed Khalil.
Over and over, anybody honest and with principles
are calling this out. And your people in
power,
Waltz, another Zionist, is out there lying to
you. I wonder why. I wonder who that's
for.
And while you may still feel safe, among
the current chorus of ignorance on those matters,
you, sir, are guilty of libel and defamation
by claiming Mohammed Khalil is anti Semitic and
somehow advocating for terrorism. Students calling for boycott,
divestment, and sanctions of Israel for slaughtering tens
of thousands of Palestinians with US bombs is
neither anti Semitic nor terrorism,
unless you are reading off of your APAC
TalkingPoints memo. By the way, Mahmoud Khalil is
Palestinian,
Therefore, he is Semitic.
So your disingenuous framing does not even make
sense. But, see, most people don't even know
that even though we bring it up all
the time. Understand that your administration's attack on
our free speech is destroying The United States
from within
on behalf of a foreign lobby.
See, Patrick and I see eye to eye
on this. We've talked about it in the
background more than once. This is such a
big deal.
He says, that makes you, not Mohammed Khalil,
an enemy of our constitution.
All enemies foreign domestic are our
oh, your excuse me. All enemies foreign domestic.
You are straddling both so I think that's
why. You are
straddling both sides of that prescription
prescription enshrined in our your oath. You would
do well to go and read it again.
Attacking our first amendment is un American and
tantamount to treason.
FYI, duly noted by the American people, those
of us who still understand and believe in
our constitution.
Quote from Evelyn Beatrice Hall. I do not
agree with what you have to say, but
I'll defend to the death your right to
say it. Remember when that used to be
what we believed?
Or at least people pretended they did.
So here we are.
Very important moment in this country's history. It's
a turning point, guys.
And so it's important to point out.
Let's say people decide to turn around and
say, Mike Waltz is a is a traitor.
He deserves to be arrested for treason.
You know what I would demand first and
foremost? That we prove that. That we take
it to court, prove the claim, and hold
them accountable
because we have principles
consistently.
So does people like Patrick l Henningsen and
everybody's involved
with. Now here's where it gets especially alarming,
guys.
I just don't this of all parts of
this,
it blows me away that this is not
a more prominent conversation. I mean, even the
fact that most of the right side that
late at least is getting framed in the
fake partisan majority
are talking about this like it's like it's
a almost a thing glowed about. Or the
idea that, you know, like, oh, it's only
gonna be the bad guys. Like, it just
shows you how uninformed,
how shockingly unaware of their own rights and
the reality of the constitution so many people
are. And that's been an organized agenda over
years to convince you that they simply allow
you to have these rights.
And that's a lot of people that are
driving the bus of partisanship right now. A
lot of screaming children that have no idea
what they're talking about.
Aaron Melnick, a a lawyer in regard to
immigration policy. Again, as I'll always point out,
I have no doubt that I mean, well,
I shouldn't say it like that, but recognize
that anybody in this position is gonna have
partisan perspectives like we all seem to in
some way.
The point is if you're willing to dismiss
information that you can check for yourself because
narrative, because Democrat, Republican, whatever it is, then
you are the child in that conversation. Look
at the information, find the source material with
Melnick always includes,
and check it for yourself. And then if
he turns out he's lying, call him out
for it, which I have yet to see.
He's still he continues to follow-up on this
stuff and does good work showing you the
source material and breaking down what seems to
be happening, of which I question every time
like I do everybody.
Here is the fourth time that I have
seen Donald Trump pretty much stress the idea
that this is possible. And re and I
if I haven't if we've done one thing
so far today, it has been clear that
just by them saying the law is basically
meaningless.
Because apparently, the law is whatever they deem
it is that day or whatever they decide
to declare is off the off bounds or
terrorism
everywhere. So when they say it again in
this, well, within the law, it means nothing.
They've already shown you that means whatever they
decide it does that day or whatever they
decide to pretend a definition of a word
is that day, that means they don't have
to follow the rules. It's all over the
place, and it's not unique to one side
or the other.
Here it is again.
That you're open to deporting,
individuals that aren't foreign aliens but are criminals
to El Salvador. Does that in does that
include potentially US citizens fully naturalized in America?
If they're criminals and if they hit people
with baseball bats over their head that happened
to be 90 years old and if, No.
It wouldn't matter.
Because, obviously, that would be something where you
have to present the case, prove the crime,
and they'd be charged for it.
I mean, even then, even if you wanna
pretend they were proven that, you still the
argument that you could send them to somewhere
outside the country, there is literally no legal
precedent for that. There is no law, nothing
that makes that make sense. So if you're
out there screaming along with this, just recognize
that what you're doing is helping these people
destroy this country.
There are laws for what he's talking about,
and people can be charged with those crimes.
They can be sent to prison.
And he but to realize that even then,
they would have to prove that for any
context. None and they're building a pathway to
be able to decide in any way at
any time who is no longer on their
side and then just remove them or put
them in some dark hole somewhere.
Guantanamo
is literally happening right now. I mean, like,
the actual place we already talked about. I'll
mention again in a minute.
If they rape
87 year old women in Coney Island, Brooklyn,
Yeah. Yeah. That includes them. What? Do you
think there's special category of person?
Yeah. It means they have constitutional rights. See,
that's insane to me. A special category of
person? No. We all have the same we
are all equal under the law as the
claim. Right?
So the claim that they're the the exact
point is that you're making them a special
category. You are the one changing the reality
in real time.
You have to understand, guys, regardless and here,
I'll actually just read what I
or was it right here?
Hold on. How'd I lose that? There it
is.
Well, I mean, I'll I'll come back to
it. The point is simply that regardless of
the severity
of the crime, whether it's jaywalking or murdering
a hundred thousand people, it is still the
it hasn't changed your constitutional rights.
So for him to give you the worst
examples, it's because he wants you to be
okay with it. That's the free speech point
we made before.
If you just said, okay. A guy who
stabbed somebody in the street. Do we send
that guy to El Salvador? Like, how does
that make sense? You can realize you could
walk this back to something that becomes more
manageable. That's why he goes with the most
extreme case. So then you can argue that
you're somehow defending a rapist. That's not the
reality here. We're defending everyone's constitutional rights, even
criminals, because they exist.
You think he doesn't know that, or he
is doing it anyway?
Either answer is pretty pretty disconcerting at this
point. They're as bad as anybody that comes
in. We have bad ones too,
and, I'm all for it
because we can
do things with the president
for less money and have great security. He's
pointing to Bukele who's sitting next to him.
And we have a huge prison population. We
have a huge number of prisons, and then
we have the private prisons, and some are
operated well, I guess. Oh, yeah. So for
profit prisons, they maximize your suffering for their
profit. And then they lean into that and
make sure they have the highest recidivism.
More people coming back even though they're supposed
to be helping people.
Right? That's what they're doing right now.
Even the deportation scheme. Right? The lead the
director of ICE made public the claim that
he wants it to be the Amazon
of of of deportation,
literally turning human beings into of products.
We told you this was coming. Like, overlap
that with a great reset and the world
like coming for him. It's another angle of
the same thing. They're turning you into expendable
items.
They're turning a biz they're they're turning what's
happening into a business model. The only thing
that will cause is people leaning into making
this happen more for their profit. That's what
privatization does in things like this.
And, of course, Trump businessman is always okay
with that. Because it's not about morals or
rights or principles. It's about what gets the
bottom dollar
or whatever, I guess, the is the right
way to say that. What what what or
what is most profitable is the way I
meant that. Yes. And some aren't,
but
he does a great job with that. We
have others that we're negotiating with too. Oh,
good. So there's other prisons in the world
that he's negotiating with to send Americans to
is what he just said. But no. If
it's if it's, if it's a
homegrown
criminal,
I have no problem now. Okay.
He just said very clearly, there's no way
to misunderstand that if it's a homegrown criminal,
which just simply means an American. Guys, if
there's an American who does bad things, he
has no problem with that.
That should chill you to I mean,
he's literally telling you he's okay with sending
an American to a foreign prison if they
are bad here.
I feel like I just need to like,
I always want this to I need this
to break through to people.
Where I mean, this is why people are
platforms like us or we don't I don't
even think people in certain circles even know
we exist despite how much we can overlap
people online. It's because of stuff like this.
Because honest people know this is wrong,
and it just doesn't get seen. They see
the Joneses and the Benny Johnson's out there
that are screaming about how cool BeKayla is
right now without it which is completely passing
over what's really going on.
We we're studying the laws right now. Pam
is studying.
If we can do that, that's good. And
I'm talking about violent people. I'm talking about
really bad people. Really bad people. Every bit
as bad as the ones coming in. And
I made the statement when I heard about
this
a long time ago now, four years ago.
When I heard that this guy was
having open borders, I said every single
criminal from all over the world is gonna
be dumped into our country. And that's
Yeah. It's it's all just narrative that who
that whether you agree with that or not,
it does not change the fact that you
have rights that they are inalienable.
As usual, guys, the same point. If this
well, I'll I'll read what I said right
now.
For the fourth time, the Trump administration tells
you they are considering sending Americans to foreign
prisons.
Regardless of the severity of their crimes, this
isn't just unconstitutional. It's illegal.
For the blind supporters out there, would you
support this if Biden proposed the same thing?
Would you support it if Clinton or Obama
put forward the same exact thing for the
same exact reason?
You're gonna get the occasional person that pretends
like they would, but you damn well know
most of them would not because it's crazy.
Because they would then be able to see
through the partisan game and say, well, I
don't agree with that because I have rights.
And we know they're evil, and that's not
the right reason. And they're doing they're not
even that's not even really why they're doing
it. You know, whatever. Whatever makes it make
sense or whatever makes it not make sense.
The point is it's the same either way
you look at it.
We need some
principled consistency here, guys.
Night not night watch Nate says, equal justice
for all. I'm told enough to I'm old
enough to remember when remember during the last
administration when homegrown criminals
were January.
Amazing how fast we forget.
The same exact tools you're using against Democrats
for some of the more naive people in
the crowd were the ones used against you.
You either don't wanna see it or you
can't.
Aaron Melnick says, we are at a dangerous,
dangerous moment in US history where the president
of The United States is threatening to send
US citizens to be imprisoned by a foreign
ally.
And the foreign ally is saying it won't
respect The US court orders to release people
that it's currently holding.
We'll go over that next. So just imagine
for a second that you were the one
that got accidentally sent to El Salvador.
And both of the oh, well, it's no.
We can't do anything now.
Too late. So all those out there that
are supporting this right now, when you become
the next person that accidentally gets sent to
a foreign government that is kinda too late
now,
remember that you made this happen.
Now we talked about this on March 22.
Trump could send Americans to El Salvador,
and we've seen it continue. Talked about it
again on April 3. Americans speaking out about
Israel's genocide could be next. In principle, it
is the same because it is. It's constitutional
rights. In that principle, whether you're a legal,
green card, Visa, or American citizen, the principle
is exactly the same. They're violating your due
process rights and removing you without any
legal process.
And he just told you for the fourth
time that that is what they are genuinely
looking into. Here was the first time. I
won't play it again since I've played it
many times. Trump float sending Americans to American
citizens to El Salvador. And this was
specifically about Teslas.
Not saying that people were vandalizing
Tesla. Now look, I I even then, I
thought this was probably just a a big
threat to scare people using immigration,
but it's it's not a joke. We've already
seen that. These threats or feign things or
trolls seem to continually become real.
This is an attack on all you believe
you're fighting for under the thin veneer of
fighting Democrats, guys. There are already laws in
place to hold these people accountable.
Here, Donald Trump says he loves the idea
of sending Americans to El Salvador prison. That's
the I couldn't find my clip that I
shared, but it's out there. This is just
the video of him speaking on Air Force
One. That's what that's what, Leavitt was pointing
to. Same point. He literally says, yeah. I
like that. You know, we'll look into the
law. Well, you know the same point. K?
Here she is saying the same thing.
That what he said on there is, you
know, we we'll look at we're basically acknowledging
that we are looking into this idea. We
wanna get rid of the bad criminals in
this country and send them to foreign prisons
despite their constitutional rights because, you know,
whatever you wanted to make sense.
Yeah. It's crazy. She says, don't really see
anyone talking about this, but the nation's highest
court has decided it's legal for the administration
to kidnap citizens and sell them to the
concentration camp in El Salvador.
It's insane.
Now, again, the fourth time,
it's right in front of your face.
Now, in case you haven't seen it, I
I cut it with the opening clip today,
but just hear this again. Because I, you
know, I know sometimes it's redundant for some
of those that turn out every time. Just
recognize that every single day, we've got new
people in these conversations or new people that
will see this show tomorrow,
and they may just need to see this.
They may miss it. They may catch this
right now live. They just need to recognize
that there are people like like Gerald and
and and judge Napoliano.
You know, conservative who are literally telling you
that this is a major thing, and we
need to call this out. Or simply a
a a
a a, justice like Scalia who is conservative
telling you the same thing that, yes, they
should have rights or any number of overlapping
people who are screaming this right now.
I think it's important to hear again.
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.
No. I I don't tend to lean, you
know, things like that where even just kinda
like the the the threat. You know? I
tend to not really I I don't want
people to get scared even though sometimes you
need to be. But
it's important to what he's saying right there.
Clearly, it's not a joke. You can see
it. They're building this towards you. So it
is coming, and it's important that we step
up and make this stop.
Melnick points out what Patrick is saying here,
the government arguments against returning Garcia.
Right? Garcia is the one that was sent
to El Salvador,
who was the ruling before this was that
he was not illegally allowed to be sent
there.
He was not a criminal. He was not
part of the gang. He's not a human
trafficker like their own evidence shows,
and that he was in the process of
seeking asylum. But on top of that, that
they already gave him essentially some legal limbo
because of the threat from El Salvador, and
they didn't care about any of that. And
so their game here is to to patch
together some false narratives despite what their own
legal documents are saying and scream that to
the world. Before we get to that, the
point is that right now, what they're doing
is creating the argument for why they can
go after anybody.
The government arguments against returning Garcia should make
your blood run cold, he writes. This is
a civil rights lawyer litigator.
The government claims that if it can ship
a person to a foreign jurisdiction,
they're gone.
There's no limiting principle. It can make these
arguments for inton
intentional renditions of US citizens.
It's the documents you can read for yourself
would be consistent with the care council by
the Supreme Court. The discovery included the presentation
of live witnesses. Where's the page here? In
addition to plaintiff's request for documents.
Oops. Not that.
Forget where it was. It there's but there's,
like, six pages down below. The point is
that overall, you can see that they're building
this narrative as what they present to the
courts. And to be clear, this is a
reiteration of yesterday because we already went over
what they argued. That's the case from the
AP's article. That's from what the documents we
showed you. They're openly telling you, like we
just showed you, that its actions were otherwise
lawful. They were simply arguing we can just
decide you're a problem and kick you out
of the country, and as we're gonna show
you next, that they're telling you that that's
too late now
despite the Supreme Court ruling.
It says, Justice Sotomayor noted this in her
statement, and I think this one right there,
but it's worse than she warns. The theory
of art to power here is is what
is that? Here isn't limited to
extra extraterritorial
acts.
Article two. Excuse me. The government could easily
argue a court enjoining them it from sending
a citizen to a foreign prison would interfere
with diplomacy.
He says, so even if you want every
noncitizen out of The US, are convicted Garcia
are are convinced Garcia is a gangbanger,
all of which aren't true, or rather say
that's not true, like the peep like the
people currently in power,
or like like he said, or like the
people currently in power. Think of this precedent.
Think of the precedent this sets and how
your enemies could wield it against you. See,
it's always the way to think about it.
Because you may somehow convince yourself that they're
on your side, but what happens when the
next the the bad guy side gets into
power, which is really just your government. Same
point. He says due process and judicial review
are important. They're not important. They're important, but
such as that. They're
guaranteed.
And you can read from the fifth amendment.
No person shall be held to answer for
a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on
a present presentment or indictment of a grand
jury, except in cases rising in the land
or naval forces, when an actual service it
goes on. The point is, nor shall be
compelled a criminal case to be witness against
itself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law. That's the
point. That you are required
no person, not just American citizen, but no
person
as has been upheld
by Supreme Court rulings over and over and
over. One more thing shouldn't be lost in
discussion. The government makes a subtle dig at
the court. It could
beat Garcia back if it wanted.
If it weren't motivated by set to to
set this precedent,
Bukele is meeting with president today.
One word, and Garcia would be back. Yet,
they didn't do that, which is very important
to understand that I've been saying that since
the beginning. Here's Rubio adding to the point.
He said this back on February 4, by
the way. Rubio says, El Salvador offers to
accept US deportees of any nationality,
including violent American criminals.
See, this is not new, and they're this
is just building right now. They're openly telling
you this is at least being signaled to
you.
Now here's an interesting overlap.
Hours ago, Politico revealed that DOGE is working
with DHS on automating mass deportation efforts like
everything else. See? All these agendas are converging.
The artificial intelligence, the techno technocratic agenda, because
it's it's one and the same in a
way. Using artificial intelligence, biometrics, and all sorts
of surveillance under the guise of all of
this, and they're building out everything at the
same time. The point is they're using that
same
efficiency movement direction to
automate all of this. And it says which
likely explains why US citizens,
green card holders, even Canadians in Canada,
got threatening emails terminating, quote, your parole and
telling them to leave The US in seven
days.
Point is people that are not that are
are they these are mistakes in a sense,
or it's a threat.
You can decide for yourself.
We'll go over some of these examples.
It says, well, this morning, 1AM, my US
citizen wife received an email notice revoking her
never applied for parole and instructing her to
immediately leave The United States.
It's insane. Like, this is the same kind
of stuff we're seeing from Doge and all
the rest where they're just making all sorts
of mistakes. They're splashing around. And maybe that's
the design. Like, that's what I think when
you think about the Israel overlap.
This is destroying this country. The things are
falling apart for the interest of, I guess,
at least ignoring what they're doing, but plenty
more than that.
Oops. Hold on. Back there.
So
that was it right there. So the point
is
this kind of broad sweeping effort that ends
up sending all these letters threatening to leave
the country to people who aren't even in
the country or people who are here who
are American citizens. So you see how weird
this starts to get? Maybe they let it
out too soon. Because these are all every
one of them are people either like immigration
lawyers, people involved with the conversation, who they
identified as problems, probably because they said something
about Israel online, probably because Israel and Batar
are the ones dictating these conversations,
and they get letters saying get the hell
out of the country. Here's where it gets
even more alarming.
DHS told her to leave the country.
She's American citizen
and an immigration attorney.
This is from today
when Massachusetts resident, Nicole
Metcheroni,
received an email on Friday
from the federal government telling her to leave
the country. She was baffled.
See how real this is getting? Quote, at
first, I thought it was for a client,
but I looked really closely, and the only
name on the email was mine.
So it said my parole status had been
terminated. She's She's an American citizen, and I
should leave the country within seven days.
But the but the 40 year old is
a US citizen, born in Newton and and
Newtown New Newton and raised in Sharon.
Quote, probably, hopefully,
sent me an heir. Right? She's hoping. Right?
But it's a little concerning that these are
going out to US citizens.
It's also concerning when you realize that at
the same moment, they're screaming about why that's
gonna be happening or that we're thinking about
it. It says the language in the email
is very threatening,
and it looks kind of like a sketchy
spam email. It doesn't look like an official
government notice, but it is. In a statement,
a senior Department of Homeland Security official told
NBC ten Boston that Customs and Border Protection
is issuing notices terminating parole
for individuals who do not have lawful status
to remain. Clearly, that's not with all that's
happening, if at all. And, quote, CBP
used the known email addresses of the alien
to send notifications.
If a non personal email such as an
American citizen contact was provided by an alien,
notices may have been sent to intended recipients.
I don't buy that. You can decide for
yourself. CBP is monitoring communications and will address
any issues blah blah blah. But we already
see them screaming about, you know, every which
way talking about how even Americans can be
sent. The constitutional rights don't apply.
I mean, does it make you really think
that the ultimately, the argument is that an
like, that so a ran an immigrant out
there randomly give an email? I mean, it
would make sense. They would might suggest point
to their lawyer,
but she the point is she's not claiming
that she has any overlap with anyway, it's
unverifiable at best. So she could be lying.
They could be lying. The point is it's
chilling to me that the claim is, well,
it was a mistake is the point. Because
they didn't say that's what they what happened.
They just go, well, her email is on
file. So they're they're manufacturing something that might
make sense that, well, if they happen to
give her email, that's why it might happen.
You know, maybe.
Or you can stand back and go, she's
being put on a list like people with
Qatar USA are doing. And that these lists
are being handed to the government. Those lists
are then being used. We know that's happening.
So which one makes more sense to you?
I mean, both of them are simple. So
Occam's razor in a way, but the the
both I think what is more simple is
that what we could already see happening, that
they're being handed lists from Zionists that they're
then acting with and getting and sending out
letters. Or even worse, that we're doing this
is an AI automated thing that's being run
by somebody who isn't in this country.
It says, I think this it's really scary
that this is going on, she says. I
think it says that they're not being careful,
at least. That's why I had that. She
says, I think it's a scare tactic.
I think they want people afraid of immigration.
I think that's what makes the most sense.
I agree with that. Because then people don't
speak up. Then people don't say Israel's committing
genocide. They water down their claims, and we're
back in the Iraq war dynamic.
Miss Sharoni says she won't be reaching out
to Homeland Security and figures this is an
administrative error. Well, let's keep track.
What, you know, what like, this is the
think about this. If tomorrow, she ended up
in El Salvador,
okay, and they simply said, oh, well, she
endorsed a terrorist organization because she supports Hamas
or or rather support somebody who's a terrorist
who supports Hamas, which is what they just
said. You can't support a person who does
so. Right? That's what Rubio just laid out.
And they're telling you American citizens who are
doing that could be removed, but, you know,
we're looking through it. If tomorrow she got
moved to El Salvador,
what would everybody say? What would all the
people screaming this makes sense say? Well, she
defended terrorists is what you're gonna get from
a lot of very dangerous people.
And who knows if she ever comes back?
You have to understand this is what's happening.
Even if you don't think that's what they
really want. This is half a second away
from being real. I mean it's real right
now for people that have constitutional rights. I'm
talking about the idea that Americans being sent.
But my point is that's I mean that's
important as from an American perspective. But from
a human perspective. All of this matters. It's
all happening right in front of us.
Find the courage to speak up about this.
Wait, hold on.
Yeah. I did read it all. Make sure
I didn't miss something. Okay. Yeah. Okay.
Now
this is interesting to me. This gets into
Bukele in particular.
This is just asking Grock again.
And the first question, which is it telling
to me, how was Bukele elected to office?
I was just curious what their argument would
be because I've read into this. I've looked
into the I'll read to the article as
well about the the back and forth about
how this all went.
Here's what it says. Bakayla was elected president
on February,
running as a candidate for the Grand Alliance
National, you know, for the Ghana party, won
53.1%
of the vote. You know, seems pretty benign.
The the void to run off,
saying he he campaign leveraged on, you know,
basically, we're getting rid of all the corruption
of violence, which even then you should ask
yourself whether that was something that was sort
of a manufacturing consent dynamic, even whether or
not the even majority point is real. As
and that's not just applied to this. It
should always question these things. Amplified by a
strong social media presence, which I do think
is very relevant to the today point. All
these leaders or all these people that are
not just politicians or, you know, even feigning
to care about people but are like social
media heroes.
And it says, Bukele previously expelled from the
party that he was previously in, couldn't run
with his new party,
which is called, Nubea's ideas due to registration
issues. Interesting.
So he joined Ghana. Voter turnout was 51.
He was reelected in 2024,
though it faced controversy. It's funny that that's
that statement
is so there's a lot to that, which
I found that that's the argument they get.
If you if you ask how do you
get elected, to leave out what I'm about
to read for you seems pretty damn deliberate,
but you know my opinion about all this.
But then I asked, okay. Explain how and
why he faced controversy over constitutional eligibility.
Doesn't that seem like exactly what I was
kinda I want the, you know, not just
I mean, maybe you guessed it. Maybe you
could argue that's just a simple, but here's
the one it's important.
The highlighting went away. Here it is.
It says, Michele faced controversy over his constitutional
eligibility
to run for reelection.
We just talked about Trump telling you he
wants or rather
floating the idea that he would, but Bannon
saying he's going to in at a recent
interview, running for a third term even though
there is no error in that conversation. It
is completely unconstitutional.
Whether inconsecutive or consecutive, it is not the
reality. I believe what? Twenty second amendment?
Look it up. Very ear very clear. So
maybe that's a troll, but worth considering seeing
as though there's a lot of overlaps, whether
it's the prisons, the the judicial
dynamic, the
the suspending rights. I mean, they're they're all
emulating each other right now.
It says
controversy over his his eligibility
to run for reelection in 2024, the presidential
election, because the country's constitution explicitly
prohibit prohibits
immediate
reelection.
So you may be going, well, how did
it happen then? We're about to find out
because what they did is they changed everything
to make that happen.
So right there, as you you understand,
suspending the constitution,
kicking judges out, these are what dictators do.
He's literally calling himself a dictator, and yet
they claim he's got popular support. Maybe he
does. We'll get into that in a second.
It's an important philosophical question, really. But I
I think I've gen I think square one
is to ask if that's even the reality.
Because all they're using is mainstream polls like
Gallup and so on. We get lied all
the time in this country about stuff exactly
like that. Lied to about the COVID shot.
Lied to about everyone. Everyone's rushing to get
real ID. No. Look at the numbers. They're
not. They want you to think that. They're
lying. If you look at the polls that
are selectively applied.
Here's what it says. Under constitutional prohibition, it
says specifically, article one fifty two states that
a president cannot continue in office for one
day beyond their term. And article 88 prohibits
reelection for at least ten years after leaving
office.
So clearly, before they altered all this, he
wouldn't be allowed to run again. Now you
wonder why how that got set up to
make sure he was here right when Trump
is so they can all make this all
happen.
Supreme court ruling in 2021. It says, May
in May 2021, Mukherjee's allies in the legislative
assembly
controversially
replaced all five justices
of the Supreme Court's constitutional chambers with loyalists.
This is from Grock, remember. This move was
widely criticized as a power grab, which is
exactly what it obviously was, undermining judicial independence.
Now, of course, the argument could be made
that they were all the bad guys. They
were the deep state. There's all the radical
leftist, and he just got them out of
the way for now we're free.
You could pretend all of that. Sure. There's
no evidence to any of that. And the
reality is what they did was basically
violate their own legal system to remove them
and put people that they liked in place.
So even if you wanna pretend that's a
better circumstance now, they did the wrong they
broke the law to do it.
And there's Trump's point. And it's justified the
means. Right? Like, we're all being contort we're
all mentally being they're at least trying to
mentally force us into accepting what's happening under
a guise that it's the right way to
do things because that's all that matters. They're
all as long as we get the right
thing. Is that what even happens? I guess
we can all hope that you let them
break the law however they want, that it
might work out in our interest, but when
has that ever happened in the past?
And I think pretty obviously, we can see
that that's not what's happening. You don't need
to look any further than the support for
genocide and ongoing warfare that murders people every
day to realize these people are not fighting
for anybody's interest other than their own.
On 09/03/2021,
the newly appointed Supreme Court issued a ruling
reinterpreting
the constitution
to allow a president to run for a
second term. So realize it's not it's very
clear. It was very clearly stated, and this
is just like they're reinterpreting
whatever they want today, or definitions mean what
they want them to mean, or, you know,
whatever else, or just screaming out loud that
we can do the thing we know they
can't. Same thing here.
They had the power. They took power, and
they basically just say, well, we're gonna interpret
it this way.
And people were scared because this is a
dictatorship. He told you that himself.
You'll be disappeared, so they just shut up.
Now it says his candidacy on 09/15/2022.
Bukele announced his intent
to run for reelection, of course, citing the
ruling that they manufactured in 2021.
Hey. It all worked out.
Bukele registered as a candidate with the Nervais
idea on Feb the party on February 4.
The election went therein. The Supreme electoral
tribunal approved his candidacy
through one, though this is the important part.
One magistrate abstained
publicly citing death threats and fears of imprisonment.
So, you know, maybe he's the liar or
maybe the other ones were falling in line
because they don't wanna go to prison forever
when you live in a dictatorship and this
guy was the one that had the courage
to point it out.
You can decide for yourself as we go
forward. Now it says Bukele won the twenty
twenty four election with approximately
85% of the vote. Now with everything we
just went over, and that's just a limited
overview. There's so much more to this.
Is it not possible that one, that's not
even true, or two, that people are terrified
because they see what's going on? Now, yes,
you can show at least a stated
metric version of them claiming violence has been
diminished. And I look. My point is you
could argue that always happens. In a situation
where people in the country, criminals included, know
that if you do anything that causes attention,
they'll just murder you. Most people are gonna
go, oh, jeez. At least we're gonna do
it a little bit more quiet.
That's not to say that that's not the
case. Again, we'll get into it more in
a second. Maybe people just were like, you
know what? We've been struggling, by the way,
because of foreign policy manipulation like by The
United States and others, it for a very
long time in this country. So now somebody
steps in and basically just arrests people they
don't like and gets peep criminals off the
off the streets, and suddenly we're how there's
less crime. And, you know, to an average
moment to moment thing, you may feel like
that field maybe maybe that that's what what
they want. Maybe that's maybe that's what Karp
and Andreessen's argument is. Give us a dictator
that creates
safety,
and that's what we should all want.
You know, but what happens when you want
something different? What happens if your values don't
align with the mob?
Right? What happens
if you suddenly go, I don't know. Maybe
I wanna think something different. Maybe I suddenly,
you are the problem. You're the terrorist. You're
the criminal because there is no legal reality.
He's a dictator.
I just think you need to understand how
easy it could be to fake that or
to basically show that people who are scared
to push back are support,
or he does have it. But it says
according to his claims and preliminary results wait.
Right there is a point on that's grok.
That's the number according to his claims and
the preliminary
results or Gallup polls. It says though the
process faced allegations of irregularities,
including cyberattacks and manual vote counting issues.
Oh, so the same old things with the
same old problems and cyberattacks. Like, you know,
you wonder why we didn't hear about all
this? You wonder why they weren't there weren't
large claims or why the US government wasn't
standing up and saying, no. We're not gonna
allow you to do that. We're gonna step
in and force our guy because you broke
the law because that is their guy.
So as usual, they only care about, quote,
democracy when that is an excuse they can
use to put who they want in power.
But it says his reelection,
solidified his group on power. So one step
to the other, you can see how the
illegal actions have led to them solidifying power.
And it gets even more interesting when you
realize that he says,
it's now going to be a one party
system
after they win, and they did.
So So is it funny how they're going,
Democrats are gonna turn it into a one
party thing, and they're going, you can't allow
that. And he accepts it and does exactly
that. They're like, yay.
Yeah. That's called hypocrisy. That's called a double
standard.
It goes on to say, under controversy, why
it arose
and says Bukele's reelection bid violated at least
six constitutional articles.
But that doesn't matter because he's in control
and has all the power, so nobody calls
it out. And it says 2021 Supreme Court
ruling was illegitimate because it stemmed from an
unconstitutionally
appointed court, lacking impartiality.
This all sounds familiar? It should because it's
exactly what they did in Honduras with Prospera,
where they wouldn't get they didn't get the
allowance for the special zone they wanted, which
is right out of the sustainable development goals.
Teal is the one funding that, in part,
at least, majority.
And so they just removed people from the
judges positions and got people in there they
wanted, and, hey, we got the constitutional mandate.
This is the world they're building, guys. They
know you need to feel like this won't
lines up, but they're playing everybody. They're literally
rolling out a technocratic dictatorship and acting like
it's all freedom and democracy
even as they, in every other way, tell
you that's not even what you should want.
Judicial manipulation. It says the replacement of supreme
court justices in 2021
was widely condemned domestically and internationally. Okay. So
if we have a massive condemnation throughout and
look this up in particular in the country,
how do you then pretend that means popular
support?
Now, but but get it. Maybe that changed
to now. Maybe now they feel it's all
good. But it says The United States called
it, quote, clearly contrary
to the Salvadorian
constitution. It's funny. Why did they say El
Salvadorian?
Is that just I've I've it it should
be
maybe that's just because the El I don't
know. That's I thought I always say El
Salvadorian. I guess that's wrong.
But the point is that is contrary,
and that was the previous administration. But, of
course, you know, Democrats are bad. So even
though we said the thing we know is
reality, that it that doesn't matter. And I
think that's part of this. As Sam Musseini
pointed out,
when you get the bad guy side in
the view of the partisan screamers
saying the thing that is true,
then you're gonna pretend the opposite is true,
which is then you undermining your own ideas
to fight against evil Democrats, even though it's
not even really what's going on. They're all
part of the same side. But it says
Human Rights Watch and others described it as
part of a broader erosion of democratic institutions,
accusing Bukele of packing judiciary to serve as
interests. Same thing they're doing in Israel, same
thing they're trying to do in The United
States, happening all over the place.
Now under backsliding concerns, it says Bukele's actions,
including the judicial overall by the way, going
back to the remember what they said?
This was the response first.
All I asked was, you know, give me
how why you face
all this information. It's just funny that that's
feels like that should have been included in
the first question.
Question. Bukele's actions, including judicial overhaul,
a state of emergency
since 2022.
Realize that's what we're calling the the ally.
They've had they've had a state of emergency
suspending civil liberties
since 2022.
So, again, they may feel like crime has
gone down, but what happens when they suddenly
want to do something they're not told they're
allowed to do? Like, I don't think Americans
understand what that is, what they're trying to
do here, or even the illusion of your
freedom,
your freedom of movement, freedom of thought, everything,
freedom of speech
is restricted to the idea that they can
decide based on whatever narrative because they can
suspend your rights under the state of emergency,
which by the way is already in a
lot of ways happening in this country.
But the larger point,
how does this align with western values, what
they're telling you everybody has to align to?
Right? Isn't it funny how the screaming Khalil
does not understand western values while he is
literally acting through them and embodying them? And
over here, you've got an entire country that
they're supporting to to take care of the
bad guys who don't who support Western values,
who doesn't support Western values.
Or maybe they just want them to conflate,
so we think this is Western values. But
it goes and control over legislature.
Raise alarms about authoritarianism.
Right? So the manipulation of the court, suspending
of the cons of their constitutional or their
civil liberties, states of emergency, removing judges.
Yeah. That's why he calls himself a dictator.
He's not even hiding it.
And it says they've even
critics even pointed to his use of a
loyalist legislature to pass reforms, like, for example,
reducing the number of legislative seats from 84
down to 60
to to consolidate his power. Like, that's like
them deciding they're gonna kick shave off a
quarter of the congress because they want all
the democrats. Right? And let's pretend like that's
legal.
Now it says this created a paradox.
While Bukele's candidacy and this is in regard
to the the main point about or the
point about support.
While Bukele's candidacy was seen as unconstitutional by
legal scholars, I mean, it was let's be
it is, and it was. That's not even
debatable. But it goes his public support framed
it as a democratic mandate.
So they tell us the same thing they
claimed about Trump. Right? He got a mandate.
Is that what happened? Does your vote even
translate?
It says complicating the narrative. Critics argue that
popularity doesn't justify breaking the law. That's interesting
to me. That that deserves its own kind
of philosophical
conversation.
While supporters saw the constitution as outdated compared
to Bukele's results. Now that's what they're claiming.
You understand?
I would love to hear from somebody on
the ground in Ecuador or, El Salvador. Excuse
me.
So why this is so fascinating to me.
Right?
So clearly, I'm I I even floated this
idea because it's interesting. Right? Like, even with
Trump. Okay. Let's say we live in a
world where the deep state is taking control,
and the only way you could take it
back is to break the law.
You know, it's it's it's interesting and it's
it's a it's a hard conversation because it's
certainly possible. Right? But then when you fold
in everything else, like the obvious reality that
what they're doing is not it's not even
just doing that to they're basically enshrining the
same problems they claim they're fighting in a
little different way. But the but the philosophical
point or rather just the maybe it's not
even philosophical, but just the, you know, it's
the idea that you might make an argument
for why that has to be the only
way you can save the democracy. Break democracy
to save democracy. You know, the the main
argument or the main kind of problem there
is that you you got to bay you
have to lean in to the break democracy
or break when whatever we want
in the hopes that they then bring it
back,
whatever you want. And even if they genuinely
mean it, maybe it just doesn't happen. Maybe
they never find the time. Maybe they always
fighting the Democrats. Like, the point is that's
kind of a clear setup to me. Right?
So the car the conversation here, again,
we know that these numbers are easily fabricated.
And we already saw that in the early
stages of this, that most people were calling
this out until they just completely consolidated their
control, and suddenly popularity rose. So to me,
that seems a little bit that's a red
flag. But then going to the other side
of it. Right?
Let's say, and I have a hard time
verifying this outside of government information,
that they rapidly decreased violence, that people's lives
were better.
It's worth considering this. Right? The idea that
and I you'll just to be clear, I
will never lean into that. If the outcome
is there afterward, I'll call it out. I'll
point at it and say, well, that's interesting.
Right? This is something to consider.
As I said before,
the only way right now to go forward,
in my opinion, is to completely on the
side of your principles and your integrity. And
right there, that's that's a violation of your
principles and integrity, or at least I see
it as arguing that you should break what
you believe in to maybe save what you
believe in. Like, that's I will never lean
into that. I just think that's the wrong
direction and will always be taken advantage of
like we're seeing now. But it's interesting though.
Right? Because if they if their lives are
fundamentally better and all of them are going
good and the only downside is for anybody
kind of outside of that, which I find
hard to believe, but just as a theoretical
point, it's worth it's worth having a conversation
about because then you break down the point.
Is is it more important basically, let's put
it this way. If let's say 90% of
the country or a %,
we're okay with them killing, you know, murdering
innocent people. Does that make it okay?
It's it's I get and it's kind of
a philosophical point, right? Because
legally speaking, it's not.
From a moral perspective, I think we all
know that it's not, but that's a democracy
point and this goes back to the idea
of why mob rule is not the answer
but maybe you disagree. So, that's at this
point. There's no, that's a a debate that
we're never really gonna be able to solve
because it comes down to a a personal
opinion but I think that's a I think
it's interesting, but it's also I look at
it as a very well crafted
manipulation because that's where you have to end
up if you're being honest about it. And
it opens the door for people to go,
well, they're happier. Who are you to say?
Fair point. Same thing you'd say here.
But, again, on the side of principles and
integrity, and at the very least, we should
verify
that that's actually what they think. And I
don't think that's the case. My personal opinion.
Now, again, this is the kind of stuff
we've seen since then.
Exactly what they call cry foul about when
it comes like, it's the same point right
now. Like, let's just you could argue that
the Democrats or the Trump administration
fought off the deep state, right, and beat
the Democrats. Now he's in power. Okay.
If he then went on to go, now
the Democrats are gone and it's a one
party system.
Anybody honest would say, well, damn. That's exactly
what you said they were gonna do. So
why is it okay in reverse? That's it's
basically what he's doing right here. He boasts
that the country would be a one party
system after the win.
Okay? That's the opposite of what the people
claimed or what they what we claim we
support.
Now here's Seaford excuse me. Citizen Free Press
posted this on the twenty February fourth twenty
twenty four.
It says, Bukele claims victory in El Salvador
in the SES, what I thought, El Salvadorian
presidential election with an estimated 85% of the
vote. Remember, that's his information and things that
we can't verify.
But he says he this is a really
interesting overlap.
He jailed more than 75,000
MS 13 gang members. And we talked about
this briefly at the time and other suspects
during his first term in office.
Okay. Maybe.
Just like we're seeing now, there was no
due process here. There he suspended civil liberties.
So for all we know, that's 75,000
dissidents,
people that simply disagree. Now, again, I find
it hard to believe. I think it's you
can clearly see that there's some even like
the prisons you can see, that people always
look like they're not average people, but then
maybe I don't know. They why you can't
judge people based on their appearance? That's how
we end up here. But either way, the
point is you can clearly see that there's
no way to verify it is, and maybe
that was a huge sweeping dissonance clean.
And then everyone's like, well, jeez. I'm not
gonna say a word. We all support you
now.
I can't prove that. It's worth considering, though,
and I think it's interesting when you overlap
that with what Trump is doing now. Right?
Or the argument that it's all focused on
MS thirteen, Trende, Nicaragua, gangs of the new
terrorist thing we're fighting. It's very interesting how
this all builds. This is from April 14.
What to know about El Salvador President and
Trump ally, Bukele, and his visit as he
visits The United States?
This is important.
Since March, El Salvador has accepted
from The US more than 200 Venezuelan migrants
immigrants
whom Trump administration officials have accused, never proven,
of gang activity and violent crimes and placed
them inside the country's notorious maximum security gang
prison
out just outside of San Salvador.
Now realize, I've said this before, it's worth
looking into for yourself. We've done it once.
This is probably one of the scariest prisons
I've seen. It's like a it's like a
Guantanamo Bay. These people in some cases, never
see the daylight. If they if so, they
get a small, tiny, little window. They they
almost never get out. They I think there's
no outside area.
They're forced to do labor.
And if they get any kind of legal
process, there's hundreds of them in a room
with one small TV, and apparently nobody ever
leaves. This is a concentration camp. That's exactly
you mean that means every definition.
Goes on to say, it is also holding
a Maryland man who the administration admits. Remember
this as we point to the rest of
these people lying about it. And it's not
just because they said so. We've proven this
ourselves, and it's a very public conversation. Admits
that it was wrongly deported, but has not
been returned to The United States despite court
orders to do so.
And realize
they they called it an administrative error. And
I'll tell you right now what their little
nuance is. They're claiming
that ultimately,
it's not that the deportation was a problem.
It's that they sent him to El Salvador
because the sub court had already ruled that
was illegal.
Even though they're not trying to correct it,
which is literally a vile it's an illegal
act in this country. Not that that
taking it back a step, though, even the
deportation
would have to be proven with evidence. That's
due process. So they violated all of these
things. They're just trying to pick one part
at a time.
But the reality is they're trying to pretend
like he's okay to be deported because he's
El Salvadorian because
well, no. It's it's an illegal part that
because the court ruling, and secondarily, they never
proved any of the things they're claiming. And
he was here technically, legally because of that
past ruling and given the allowance to stay.
So they're just basically lying to
you. And we'll get to the point where
both of them act like it's not it's
beyond their control somehow, like somebody else is
in in charge of everything, and maybe that
is the case.
Offer little evidence for its claims that the
Venezuelan immigrants were in fact gang members nor
has it released the names of anyone they
deported. That's obviously a re there's a reason.
They don't want you to investigate this.
He's taking care of a lot of problems
that we have, this is Trump speaking, that
we really wouldn't be able to take care
of from a cost standpoint,
which is, by the way, back to the
point about the immigration overlap that we told
you back then. All these grandiose claims of
mass deportations, and we said that's functionally financially
pretty much impossible, and they go, no. And
here we are.
Partisan screamers always lose the day. And it
goes on to say, and he's doing really
has been amazing.
We have some very bad people in that
prison. People that should have never been allowed
into our country. Yeah. I guess we'll take
your word for that seeing as how you've
proven none of those things, and the ones
we can prove are not criminals at all
or even here illegally.
So they just keep doubling down on that.
He called he called them barbarians
in his true social post.
Even though he knows we already know some
that the ones we can prove are not.
That's how do you not see that other
than desperate? That's an attempt to kinda just
scream over the cover up.
It says since secretary of secretary Rubio's first
visit in February, Bukele,
whose government has arrested more than 84,000
people
as part of its three year crackdown. So
that was 75,000
back then. That's up to 84,000 now.
Has anybody proven these people are criminals? Does
it even matter in that country?
It doesn't. That's the point. They've already suspended
civil liberty. So they just get to throw
people in a dark pit and never look
back. That's where your government is threatening to
send you and is already sending people who
don't are not criminals and we're here legally.
I I just feel like I wanna repeat
that a hundred thousand times. I don't know
why this is not earth shattering for some
people.
People as part of this three year crackdown,
it says he has made it clear he's
ready to help the Trump administration with its
deportation ambitions.
Bukele struck a deal under under which The
US will pay about $6,000,000
for El Salvador to imprison the Venezuelan migrants
for a year.
Right? So same point we'll come back to.
If he's paying for it, then he could
easily say I want him back because we're
paying for that. Or once it runs out,
you gotta keep doing it if he doesn't
pay you. The game where they're acting like
it's somehow outside of control is is not
just insulting your intelligence. It's insulting to humanity.
I I mean, it's gross what they're doing.
And the point was that even when the
judge had ordered the planes to return, which
I'm of the mind they hadn't even left
yet, quite frankly, about that small point about
it was in the air and we couldn't
do anything about it. Now see that that's
kind of their stated talking point in any
context. Well, it's not our fault. Well, as
they landed, he Bukele wrote on Twitter, oopsie.
Too late.
How blithe and disgusting that is to make
fun of people who are suffering. Now we
know many of them are innocent. Not here
here legally innocent over and over. Oopsie.
Oopsie. We'll shove you in a dark hole
and put you in a prison camp with
rapists for the rest of your life. Oopsie.
Though other judges had ruled against the Trump
administration, this month, the Supreme Court cleared the
way for Trump to use the Alien Enemies
Act,
an eighteenth century wartime law to deport immigrants,
which they did.
The justices did, though, and this is what
everyone's missing, insist the immigrants get a court
hearing before being removed.
So here's a really crazy overlap that pretty
much proves to me, which I already knew,
that they are doing everything they can to
not to avoid having to prove these things.
Because now,
because of that ruling, and in some cases,
they've already violated that through the aliens' enemies
act, is that they're now just going, okay.
Well, we'll just deport them then.
So now because they've all they said was
if you're going to use the alien enemies
act, you have to give them due process.
They okay. Well, then we won't use it,
which shows you back to the original point,
they never needed in the first place. Now
they're just deporting people out of other countries,
which Rubio just did again
with no due process. And so, like, well,
we did we're we're in compliance because they
only said that act. As if you don't
have a due process anyway, they know this,
and they're trying to enshrine this in the
the partisan mind out there.
They're playing games with people's lives as usual.
The justices didn't insist that they require due
process. Over the weekend, as we'll point out
in a second, ten more people
who the administration claims are members of MS
thirteen without proving a shred of evidence to
back it up or even giving them any
time in court or any due process, as
well as Trinidad And Tobago, by the way,
just arrived in El Salvador. So not only
are they keeping, they're sending more to El
Salvador,
just scooping people up despite how many people
we've already been shown to have been proven
to not be part of these gangs,
and then also be here legally and also
not criminal.
Quote, we've also found cooperation in other countries
that are willing to take some of these
people, some very dangerous criminals.
Yeah. Keep saying it as many times as
you want, Trump. People see through it.
Rubio said during the cabinet meeting sorry. That
was Rubio. Same point.
Bukele, Rubio added, has really been a good
friend to The United States in that regard.
These are some of the worst people you'll
ever encounter.
See? That's that's, that's desperate. You don't need
to keep screaming that unless you know people
aren't buying it.
If you haven't proven any of them and
we know most of them are innocent,
that is terrifying.
Some of the worst people, that's why they
pretend they're human traffickers and they're rapists, and
they keep framing it that way. So when
we come up and say that's a crime,
they go, you're defending rapists and murderers.
You know, you see it online just like
I do. They're wrong.
Trump has said openly that the that the
he would also favor El Salvador taking American
citizens,
Time Magazine,
Who have committed violent crimes, although he added,
I'd only do it according to the law,
which is a simple it's a small caveat
that changes nothing.
The law to them is whatever they say
it is. Just like every other day. The
genocide,
the removal of people, no due process. I
mean, these are all laws, guys. They don't
care because they just claim otherwise. So that
is a meaningless statement from people that don't
follow the law.
Now it says it's unclear how lawful US
citizens could be deported elsewhere. It's not unclear.
It's literally easy to see that it's there's
nowhere in any context that makes sense of
that. Or or even for dupe illegal aliens.
Like, the whole thing is wild. There's no
law in any regard that makes sense of
this.
Leave it said such critics citizens would be
heinous,
violent criminals
or such citizens, excuse me. Heinous, violent criminals
who have broken our nation's laws repeatedly. Okay.
It doesn't change the reality. They still have
due process and still there's no legal reality
in which you could just decide to send
them somewhere else.
Again, it's either really alarming that these very
uninformed people are in power or that they
know they're wrong and don't care.
Meanwhile, supreme court has called for the administration
to, quote, facilitate the return of Garcia,
a Maryland resident and Salvadorian citizen who had
an immigration court order preventing his deportation
to his native country over the fears of
gang persecution.
Right. But he's a gay member, though. Right?
It says Levitt said the administration job is
to facilitate the return, not to effectuate it.
I called this exactly.
The days this happened, what did I say?
They're gonna play on these words. Because they
said to publicly that that they just we
won essentially because they just said facilitate.
And everyone's like, well, okay. Well, good. That's
what the judge ruled. And then facilitate it.
Get it done.
And they just did
nothing. And then they came back and said,
what are you doing? I said, we haven't
done anything. And then, okay, we'll come back
tomorrow. Show us what you've done. And now
we're that's what we're gonna catch up to
today. And they came back again and said,
what are you talking about? We we don't
we don't have to do anything. You told
us that. It's like this insane inversion of
reality. We'll come to them entirely. Well, Kele
goes, like, that's not I can't do it
either. So all they're pretending pretending is that
they just are there in case he needs
you. If he decides to fly him over
here, we'll be there with it. That's not
what facilitate means, you morons.
You can look it up for yourself. It
doesn't mean just stand there and be ready
to take him when he comes in. You
facilitate the process. We all know what that
means.
And regardless of the words, they were they
required them to bring them, bring him back.
Because they it's not about the immigration point.
It's about the violation of their own laws.
That's why this comes back to that.
But Trump is it not it indicated later
Friday that he would return. He would yes.
It's not the not it says, but Trump
indicated later Friday that he would return Garcia
to The US if
the Supreme Court said so. He said that
publicly, guys.
He says, quote, I have great respect for
the Supreme Court. Clearly, he does not. Trump
told reporters traveling on Air Force One, and
then double back on that and said, no.
Now it's not gonna happen. Bukele's crackdown on
gangs has popular support. Again, they claimed that,
but I don't believe we can prove that.
The country has lived under a state of
emergency that suspend suspends civil liberties for three
years. He built the massive prison located just
outside San Salvador in the town of, Toculuca
to hold those accused of gang affiliation accused.
That's insane. Part of his effort to receive
the Venezuelans
was there was that The US would also
send back some Salvadorian gang leaders. Now that
gets interesting with the overlap there. Are they
gang leaders? Or are these people that Bukele
is trying to hunt down because they've got
information, because they're speaking out about what he's
doing?
Think about that. No one's proving any of
this stuff. These are all words and narratives
being floating around, and this guy's not proving
anything. No one's charging him with crimes. No
one's presenting evidence.
And basically, he said, look. We'll house your
people for cheap if you send us back
those people.
I think this is so wild.
In February, his ambassador to The United States
said on a radio program that having gang
leaders face justice in El Salvador was an
issue of honor.
Sure wish you could prove that, though. Bukele
could also seek relief from the 10% tariff
recently imposed by Trump using the argument that
it weakens the economy Bukele's trying to bolster.
Ah, okay. So now we get tit for
tat too. Now it says just before Bukele's
arrival in Washington, state department up updated its
travel advisory for El Salvador to level one,
of course, which is for countries that are
considered the safest. You know, a dictatorship where
there's no law, that's the best they're gonna
get safe for you guys. Sure they say
the same thing about Israel.
It's not the reality.
I'm willing to bet you anything that you'd
be far safer in Russia that you'd be
there or even Iran.
Despite the ridiculous narratives people scream about, I
guarantee I'll get pushed back for even saying
that. But what's insane to me is that
we had their look at the overlap, not
the screaming errors of the government, but the
reality on the ground.
There's no he suspended civil liberties for three
years. That people said he's calling himself a
dictator, but we're gonna pretend places with at
least some limited democracy is more dangerous.
It's just it's just incredible to me.
Now, of course, I could be wrong. Obviously,
my point is that to to move it
to level one is not based on anything
other than you you're doing what we want,
so we'll make that elegant. We'll make that
claim. We'll give you that. Like, with the
claim point I make with The Sudan.
You could be a terrorist if you don't
work with Israel. We'll take you off the
list if you do. It doesn't matter what
you do. You could be a terrorist. We'll
call you otherwise if you work with Israel.
They don't care.
The advisory notes that gang activity and the
accompanying murders and other violent crimes has declined
in the past three years, and so they
claim. But, again, you could argue that makes
sense in any sense when you're just everyone's
scared of you.
Now Bukele, mates with Trump,
says at the White House that El Salvador
simply won't return him, which is so stupid
seeing as how he just flew here, which
he very easily could have brought him back.
Both of them have an investment in this.
They don't have evidence, which we've already proven.
There's a peep anybody out there screaming otherwise
is literally uninformed or just is lying to
you. We can prove it with their own
court documents, guys. They don't have evidence for
these claims.
So
if he was to return,
they would either be forced to just not
just pursue deportation in the the legal way
because they don't have any evidence, or they
would try and be forced to present what
they have, which is nothing.
So it's gonna expose they're just violating everything
sacred in this country with the dictator
for their benefit,
like everywhere else. And so they just put
their foot down and say no. Even though
they know that looks bad, even though they
know everyone will start to see it, it's
better than the alternative.
To me, that's why I say it's desperate.
And so now then he flies in and
goes, no, I can't.
Even though we told you it was a
mistake, even though we should have done it,
even though he's not a criminal,
that's where we are.
Now Milczyk points out, Roger Greg Sargent here,
says don't overlook this. Trump is leaving Abrego
Garcia to rot in a foreign gulag even
though the administration can always bring him back
and simply retry him for deportation in the
lawful way. But my point stands. They don't
they don't have evidence.
That they don't
what they won't do this shows their case
against him is nonsense.
Or
throw the evidence out. Right? Display it for
us and claim, look. He was a criminal.
And and back up your logic for why
you don't have to prove that. But they
don't because it doesn't exist.
And Eric Melnick says very important to emphasize
that they have a procedure they could have
put him through if they really wanted to
deport him legally, but they didn't do that.
Now this was the other one from the
twelfth.
Trump DOJ flips off the Supreme Court and
brazen update on deported dad. Now this was
one we already this we basically already touched
on. After declining to provide any information on
how it would facilitate
his return, the first time they came back,
remember, they they said come back tomorrow with
steps
that that show what you're doing. They go,
okay,
knowing they weren't going to do that. Then
they came back and they said, what were
the steps? And they go, we don't we
didn't do anything. Like, it's just it's such
a waste of everyone's time. They know how
they're playing everybody, and it's not even slippery.
It's not even smart. It's clumsy. We all
see it.
But it says on Friday, senior state department
official Michael g Kozak signed a declaration on
Saturday swearing that he was alive and and
secure
in El Salvador. And maybe maybe there's a
reason. Maybe he's not. Maybe that's maybe that's
maybe that's even more so why something's going
on because maybe they can't produce him. But
it says he's also detained pursuant to the
sovereign domestic authority of El Salvador.
Right. The sovereign dictatorship of El Salvador. Now
it says in addition, president Donald Trump posted
a message on his truth social. These barbarians
are now in the sole custody because he
knows his screamers will back that up. It's
right here.
Barbarians. You realize, as they've already admitted, he's
not there. He he's look. If you wanna
pretend he should be deported,
the claim is ultimately that they're saying that
he should be deported, but he just shouldn't
have gone to El Salvador.
Okay. Then that's then, obviously, you could produce
the produce the evidence if that's the claim.
They know he's not the person they claim
he is, and, nonetheless, they want to scream
out loud that he's a barbarian, that he's
a bad guy, he's a terrorist, he's a
human trafficker. These are all these buzz terms
to get people to think he's the worst
thing they're all looking at.
If you're honest with yourself, you have to
realize what a disgusting thing that is. And
that these people, whether Trump or Rubio or
Pam or everyone in that room are disgusting
people,
bad people
who are willing to throw somebody under the
bus, an average person, just because they need
to pursue an agenda.
If you think that means he's worth he's
just like Biden. He's just like Obama. He's
just like George Bush. It's the same damn
thing.
And they're all willing to throw all of
you under the bus just to get what
they want.
And, yeah, well, you know, the rebels are
fighting the deep state while they pandered the
very clear deep state.
It says this is despite Trump stating on
Friday that he had the power to facilitate
Garcia's return, telling reporters in Air Force One,
quote, if Supreme Court said bring somebody back,
I would do that. I respect the Supreme
Court.
Okay. So either he doesn't have that power
and Trump's not in control, or he lied
and chooses not to.
What is it, Trump? Are you are you
emaciated or rather not emaciated.
What's the word?
Anyway, are are you showing everybody that you're
not in control? Are you demonstrating that you're
not the one making decisions?
Or are you just violating supreme court ruling
even though you said you would abide by
it?
Now Melnick points this out in regard to
this meme.
It says, I don't think people who do
have a criminal record should be disappeared to
El Salvador in prison either. Just trying to
make a principal point. Look. It doesn't matter.
At the end of the day, this is
wrong.
What you're doing, even if someone's here illegally,
which by the way, that's not even getting
into due process. They're not doing that for
anybody, which is always the main point. But
even let's just say they did.
The argument to send somebody, many people who
aren't from El Salvador, to a concentration camp
that is disgusting.
Every human rights watching all of them called
it out. It is not up to it
is violating human rights internationally.
So why are we using it? There's plenty
of prisons in the world that wouldn't that
don't violate human rights. They don't put people
in a cage. They don't let them outside.
It's wrong.
And you know that if you're not blinded
by your hatred for one side of the
paradigm.
He says, this is your daily reminder that
the Trump administration has never offered even a
single piece of legal justification
for what they're doing in El Salvador for
anybody.
There's not a single law in United States,
the entire United States code, which authorizes paying
other nations to imprison people in any context.
It is illegal.
Now he also writes on Friday after judge
Zenas ordered the Trump administration to provide basic
information
about
what they're do what they were doing to,
quote, facilitate the return. Again, this one was
on the thirteenth. So the next day,
they came back. That's what I was saying.
And they said, okay. What have you done
to facilitate the return that we ordered you
to do?
So he and it says, the Trump admin
is seemingly refusing to follow that order.
Accordingly, it hereby ordered.
The defendant shall file daily before 5PM. Basically,
what they've been doing to bring him back.
The current physical location, on and on and
on.
They're just ignoring that. They're not following it.
They're they're continuing to push back.
This one was back on the fourteenth and
thirties. Well, it says the Trump administration doubles
down on noncompliance.
Today's status report, again, fails to provide information
about steps they're taking. But you know but
you now see why. Right? Because now they've
let the cat out of the bag and
they're just going, well, we're not going to.
So all they've done is drag this out
in order to make a big display,
wasting everyone's time, you know, and money, by
the way. What happened to all that government
efficiency we were talking about?
Now he says the Trump administration thumbs its
nose to the Supreme Court saying that there
is nothing the judge can do to order
them to bring back Garcia.
They also refused to provide any information on
the deal with Bukele, a clarifying it's classified.
See how that works?
And maybe also a state secret.
It's right. It's it's in their own documentation.
So the point
is that what's this really about? How is
this somehow oh, is either something darker going
on or it's just everything under the guise
of national security, which is nothing new. They've
all done it. It just shows you that
they are the deep state or whatever you
wanna think this is. They have the same
power structure using the same arguments to achieve
the same goals, and you're all pretending you're
fighting something else.
Today's filings are a defiant screw you to
judge Zenas, she says. They say that they
can't facilitate anything. Why? Because mister Abrego is
in Bukele's custody.
They threatened to appeal any order she makes
requiring further steps, and they refuse to tell
her anything.
A mistake they've admitted to making, and you're
actively fighting to make sure it doesn't get
corrected. That's exactly what we keep seeing. That's
how I frame this on day one.
Now, here is the response from Bukele.
This kind of blithe disregard
act like insulting your intelligence, frankly.
And I'll read you what Mellon said afterward.
This is what the White House posted.
Yep. I'm supposed to have not suggested that
I smuggle a terrorist into The United States.
Right? It's probably how How can I smuggle
how can I return him to The United
States? It's like I smuggle him into The
United States or what do I do? Of
course, I'm not gonna do it. It's like,
I mean,
the question is preposterous. How can I smuggle
a terrorist into The United States? I I
don't have the power to return him to
The United States.
I mean, do they really think we're this
stupid?
I know some people are.
I I will stress every day that this
is not the majority of people.
I mean, my god. You don't have the
power to do that? So who does then?
Are we really talking about some other power
controlling all of this? I actually don't think
that in this context, but it certainly is
possible. He is a Zionist. They're all openly
about that. But overlapping this, the point is
they're just playing everybody.
It's outside of our control.
Okay. The two presidents in control of the
situation are both there. He sent them. He's
got them. And they both say they can't
do anything about it. It's so dumb. It
makes my teeth turn. It makes me angry.
So what they need to oh, shit. I
can't we're gonna smuggle a terrorist?
The guy is not a terrorist. You guys
are morons, and everyone's proving that. So they
just keep doubling down on the argument. And
even if he was a a suspected terrorist,
he'd never proven the evidence for that. The
point is the same, that they're requiring to
bring him back to go through that process,
bring him back and charge him with the
crime.
Not that you are smuggling somebody in. It's
a court it's a supreme court ruling to
say, yes. Bring him back. To pretend like
that's smuggling somebody is to play on the
ignorance of average people. But guess what? You're
hearing all those narratives out there from all
the mainstream alternative media laughing at Democrats who
are gonna smuggle terrorists in. All of them.
All the big dumb guys we talk about
all the time. All saying the same stupid
thing because they act like it's funny and
smart.
It's overwhelmingly stupid.
Here is what Aaron says about this. Let's
break down how preposterous this response is. Mister
Abrego has not broken any laws in El
Salvador.
He is being held in CCOT on US
request.
They're paying for it. Bukele could release him
at any time. Obviously, so could Trump. There
are in any context in reverse. It's they
could just do what they want. We know
that. And then no one needs to smuggle
anyone. The US could just parole him as
in they do routinely.
It's just stupid.
Now
as this with a longer oh, this is
a oh, same clip, really.
And he says, what an absolute joke. Everyone
here is pretending.
Michele is pretending that he's incapable of releasing
someone in his own jail, is holding at
US expense, and Trump is pretending that he
can't just ask Michele to release the guy.
And meanwhile,
he rots in prison.
This should infuriate any honest person out there.
He is suffering an innocent person because they
don't want to engage with what they're doing,
or there's something much darker happening here, probably
both. But, of course, here's Bennie Johnson sharing
all this like it's wonderful.
These people are disgusting.
President Trump has has has administration and El
Salvador's President torched CNN. Of course, that's all
it takes, guys. Look at how he dunks
on the Democrat. Ignore everything else.
Children.
It's embarrassing.
Ask about why an alleged MS thirteen member
was deported to El Salvador.
Yeah.
I mean, is I mean, he's acting like
that's a gotcha moment. Yes. Why was an
alleged anything deported anywhere without any due process?
You don't believe in the constitution or you
don't care. Own that or shut up.
Bloodbath. Just watch, he says. Okay. Let's watch
this. Because you're gonna get to see one
after another all of these complete morons or
complete liars tell you things that we can
prove aren't true.
In the middle of and this is at
the White House, guys, with two leaders of
countries who are literally beginning like, he is
I don't know whether you think Trump is
beginning to emulate him or he was put
to this by these power structures. What we
are driving towards in this country is exactly
what he's doing.
I mean, and I'll just show you right
now. Where was that?
Somewhere in here. Basically, the point is that
he called himself the, was I think it's
one of these articles.
You'll come we'll come back to it. He
calls himself a cool dictator.
Talk about trying to normalize things that we
all I mean, Hitler was a dictator. I
mean, all of the plenty of people that
were dictators out there. I quite frankly think
what we're living under is dictatorship. Same with
Venezuela,
despite how they have multiple people involved, it's
still an authoritarian control structure, and one person
can sign edicts and just hand down demands.
We need to be honest about what this
is.
These people embarrass me.
Those are not suggesting that I smuggle a
terrorist into The United Oh, that's that's the
that's the earlier one. Hold on.
I'm gonna maybe even grab this.
Hold on.
It's important. I just wanna see there's one
really that I want you to see in
this, and it's the way that it's about
five minutes. I wanna watch through this. It's
about specifically the way that he kinda passes
the buck around, and I think that's important
for many reasons, but just how they all
tow the line and just say exactly what
they're told to say or rather, you know,
maybe they think it all, but it's they're
wrong. % without question, these people are all
wrong about what they're saying. How important is
the reason?
Let's hear the question from this very low
rated anchor at CB. Thank you. See see,
they do that per yeah. They all suck.
So just the the the republican media right
next to them are just as dumb and
and and and misinforming.
Oh, what's funny is the same thing. You're
literally sitting here with a self professed dictator
talking about things that are violating our constitution,
but they they protect Bennett Johnson goes, yay,
because he goes, dumb CNN.
That's what they care about. The woke right,
by the way.
Do you plan to ask president Whitley to
help return the man who your administration says
was mistakenly deported?
The man who was mistakenly deported to El
Salvador? Well, let me ask Pam, would you
ask to answer that question? Just to be
clear, in no way did he push back
on the mistakenly deported because that's verifiably for
correct. That's what the courts have said. That's
what they've admitted to. But watch as this
guy
I'll show the white the guy with the
bald head. I forgot his name. Well, as
he continues to stress, that's complete we've we've
gone through a a hoax, he calls it.
It's a hoax.
That I guess that will resonate with some
of the more uninformed people.
Sure, president. First and foremost,
he was illegally in our country. He had
been Nope. Incorrect. Illegally in our country. And
before that's true. But, of course, after the
ruling,
it was
they basically ruled he wasn't allowed to be
returned,
had been seeking asylum, and was given the
allowance to stay by the courts. Just it's
the same as like with Biden saying that,
well, he said it. We don't agree with
that, so it's illegal. That's not the reality.
Then she goes on to lie again about
what happened in 02/2019
in Home Depot where he was picked up,
never charged the crime, never even technically arrested,
and released.
And they wrote down on document MS 13.
And by the way, the claim of human
trafficking, they seem to have just dropped off
now. Because it wasn't true to begin with.
None of it is, but it's funny how
they just keep evolving what they claim. It's
just about gotcha moments to get people to
stop listening to the reality.
And in 2019,
'2 courts, an immigration court and an appellate
immigration court ruled that he was a member
of MS thirteen. Incorrect.
100%
incorrect. Easy to prove. Gone over it four
times. Listen to everybody talking about this in
line. Grant Glenn Greenwald and everybody else. It
is not true. It is I've gone over
this using the court documents they're pointing to,
and you could literally prove that it was
no charge. Nothing. There are people involved they
picked up. The whole thing was about going
after MS thirteen. That's why they got labeled
as such. He was let go.
He's not a gang member. This has been
their lawyers and their families and everybody. It's
it's absurd
that they're so desperately locking into this.
Now watch as they don't use all the
good claims.
And also watch as as they never produce
their evidence to make that claim and wonder
why they don't do that. Don't you think
they'd be waving in your face?
And he was illegally in our country.
Right now, it was a paperwork. It was
additional paperwork had needed to be done.
That's up to El Salvador
if they want to return him. She's just
not good at this, by the way. I
don't know why. I think that's she's struggling.
You're trying to make sense of this. Obviously,
what she's trying to say, pay the the
paperwork mistake error, she tried not to say
that and moved on. That's not what this
was.
There's more than that. But what they're trying
to claim is that they shouldn't have sent
him to El Salvador. That was the official
statement she can't really articulate. That they did
they did they couldn't they sent him in
the wrong place. He should have still been
deported.
That's what they're actually claiming.
But how then if that was the mistake
you made and the one thing we know
for sure that you're making sent that you're
making sure to claim, there's more to it,
but that we weren't allowed legally to send
him to El Salvador, why is it now
El Salvador that's only the one able to
solve that?
I mean, the Supreme Court is, like, screw
this is ridiculous. They're, like, the one thing
they're stressing is that that one thing was
illegal. You have to correct it. It's not
about immigration. It's about the one thing.
They're just trying to patch over it, guys.
It's not up to us. The Supreme Court
ruled president
that if, as El Salvador wants to return
and this this is international matters for She
already lied. She didn't there's no if in
there. They didn't say if they want to.
They said you are required to facilitate his
return and show us what you're doing. You
see how dumb this is? Like, do you
think she doesn't know that she's wrong, or
do you think she's lying to you? It
doesn't matter in the case of how alarming
this is, but just recognize that. They're lying
to you. I can't stress that enough. Affairs.
If they wanted to return him, we would
facilitate it. No. Meaning, provide a plane. No.
And that's not even actually what that fully
means, but that's not even what they actually
said. It didn't say if he does so,
then you do that. That's not looking for
yourself. I've gone over it twice.
So will you return it? And you are
doing a great job. Thank you.
Good job, Pam. You did so good. Wait
a minute. Can you just also respond to
that question? Because, you know, it's asked by
CNN and Yeah. Right. Right. So now somebody
else jump in because I don't wanna have
to be deal with this because I don't
wanna be the one responsible. They always ask
it with a slant,
because they're totally slanting because Okay. Okay. Right.
The question of will you return the guy
they called you to return?
That that's the slant, apparently. And I'm not
saying they don't. They all do. But it's
funny that the one time you see a
real question, they go, oh, slanted.
That's because people will follow suit. The Johnsons
and Alexes are gonna go, yeah. They're slanted
because they asked the question and they're lying.
No. They're not. And that's the crazy things.
They're actually asking a real question right now.
But I think as somebody else pointed out,
you get the partisan game in this. You
I guarantee the leftist media is leaning more
into calling these things out because they wanna
make Trump look bad. They're all petty and
small or, like, willing more to call out
what Israel's doing because they think it makes
Trump look bad, it doesn't change that it
is actually what's going on. That's the point
about falling into the partisan perspective. You lose
touch with the reality through what you you
know, even just questioning whether they look, if
they're using the truth to manipulate you, it
doesn't make the truth not real.
That's important to think about. They don't know
what's happening. That's why nobody's watching them. But
would you answer that question also? Yes. Gladly.
That guy. I forget his name. Let me
end the name of the chat. So as
Pam mentioned
A proud screening Zionist, by the way. Illegal
alien from El Salvador. And he wasn't. That's
the point. Not not with the point when
they arrested him. So with respect to you,
he's a citizen of El Salvador. So
it's very arrogant even for American media to
suggest that we would even tell El Salvador
how to handle their own citizens. It's the
same with the visa conversation in reverse. Well,
if they had told us they were terrorists,
we never would let him in. Well, that's
not the point. It's already here. He was
already here, and you removed him without the
legal reality. Now that changes the situation. You're
not just going, that random guy in El
Salvador, send him over here.
They're just playing on the ignorance or they're
stupid themselves.
What he's saying is wrong.
And the whole every the way it's set
up, the whole damn thing. And either way,
they yes. They really could. It'd be that
easy. And it's not arrogant to say, send
somebody back who is legally required to not
be sent to a place where he will
be persecuted. You have to realize they're pointing
at the same system. He will be persecuted
if you send him to that country.
That's all they're saying. It's a starting point.
As two immigration courts found that he was
a member of MS thirteen.
See, this is it's just the same repetition
of lies.
The reality is the legal information is not
there. There is no evidence to suggest that
he is part of this gang in any
way. Like, let's just even say they wanna
concoct some narrative where somebody claims that, a
court or otherwise. Where's the actual evidence?
Think about that for a second. Just because
someone makes a statement doesn't mean it's real.
And I'm not even I'm not giving that's
not true. But even if it was,
the reality is that there's no evidence to
back it up. Otherwise, that would have been
presented.
When president Trump declared MS thirteen to be
a foreign terrorist organization
Ah. That meant that he was no longer
eligible under federal law, which I'm sure you
know you're very familiar with.
That he was no longer eligible for any
form of immigration relief in The United States.
That's not even remotely the same thing as
a supreme court ruling saying he's not allowed
to be sent back to a country where
he'll be hurt.
But even then, that's my point about the
law they want to cite. Well, if they
can just arbitrarily go, this is now a
thing. Now, Les, it is a gang.
It's not the point, though. It's about declaring
it a terrorist group, which that's clearly not,
and just going now that changes my reality
of how I can enforce the law with
you.
It's not the way this works. So we
had a deportation order
that was valid, which meant Only valid because
of what they just claimed they set up.
That's not that that is Bukele style. That
is, we'll change the system and then say
because the system lets us do it, that
that's the right way to do it. These
are authoritarian leaders. That under our law, he's
not even allowed to be present in The
United States
and had to be returned
because of the foreign terrorist designation.
They said they that they created to make
that make sense. That's not real in the
first place. Issue was then by a district
court judge
completely inverted, and a district court judge tried
to tell the administration
that they had to kidnap a citizen of
El Salvador and fly him back here. You
see how stupid that is? Like, that's such
a hyperbolic
bastardization of the reality.
No. They simply said, talk to the guy
you're paying to hold him and bring him
back so he can go through the legal
process, which may be resulting in being deported
if you have actual evidence.
But all they can do is try to
scare and scream big. They're trying to make
you think it's about them breaking the law,
when all they're actually doing is upholding the
law. Yeah. Crazy. Right?
That issue was raised with the Supreme Court,
and the Supreme Court said the district court
order was unlawful,
and its main components were reversed nine zero
unanimously.
This is so insane to me. They said
what was unlawful was what Trump's administration was
doing. Look it up for yourself. Secondarily, the
nine to zero ruling that we've been citing
is six conservative judges to three liberal, all
of them ruling
that what they had to do was give
them due process. I keep telling you that.
So this guy is either that uninformed or
that shockingly dishonest that he knows. I mean,
you don't think the judges are gonna hear
this? You don't think that anybody, the lawyers
and everybody's aware of this is gonna listen
to him and go, he's he's just lying.
Yes. They just don't care. So that either
means that their interest is for something other
than this country
or they're, like,
they're driving us into a position where it
doesn't even matter what any of us ever
think in the first place. Probably both.
I just I really think that's insane. I
mean, this guy is a problem. Stating clearly
that neither
secretary of state nor the president could be
compelled by anybody to forcibly retrieve a citizen
of El Salvador from El Salvador Nope. Who
again is in That's not even remotely what
they said. That's the facilitate effectuate point where
they basically just fell back and said, fine.
Facilitate. If you're gonna make it a a
quibble about the word defining the challenge of
federal law or of of the executive power,
which they seem to think is everything.
So they said facilitate it then. That was
in no way saying you won and you're
right and what you're doing is correct. These
they said the exact opposite.
Member of MS thirteen,
which is, I'm sure you understand, rapes little
girls, murders women, murders children. Okay. So now
this is the straw man argument. Right? They
do this over here. Therefore, the guy we
accuse of being this with no evidence is
the same thing.
Very smart people apparently. Is engaged in the
most barbaric activities in the world, and I
can promise you if he was your neighbor,
you would move right away. So you don't
A
a a noncriminal
who has a family, who is not I
mean, it's just it's so gross what they're
trying to do to this man
because they know they're in trouble, I think.
But the Supreme Court's asking you is that
What was the ruling in the Supreme Court,
Steve? Was it nine to nothing? Yes. It
was a nine zero Yes. In our favor.
In our favor. No. No. Not even remotely.
Against the district court ruling saying that I
thought Leavitt was trying to frame it, and
it's simply not true. Okay. Here's what's funny,
guys. I went over this with you two,
three shows ago, well before they manufactured this
framing. And I told you, I predicted this
is exactly what they would do. This is
wild. No district court has the power to
compel the foreign policy function of The United
States. As Pam said, the ruling solely stated
that if this individual at El Salvador's sole
discretion
was sent back to our country, that we
could deport him a second time. Well, I
No version of this legally ends up with
him ever living here because he is a
citizen of El Salvador. That is the president
of El Salvador. Your questions about it per
the court can only be directed to him.
Factually incorrect. Like everything else he said. Right?
They're just bastardizing what they said and trying
to contort it into being in their favor.
The bottom line is the same. I'm not
claiming he'd end up in this country. That's
see, that's trying to manipulate you by using
something no one's actually claiming. They're simply saying
bring him back so we can go through
the process legally, which may result in him
being deported, which may result in him going
to jail if you claim he's actually a
criminal and you can prove he is.
See how simple that is? But all the
rest of the word sour they're spinning around
is based on absolute they're manufacturing
this.
I
asked Can president Bukele weigh in on this?
Do you plan to return him? Well, I
can't I'm supposed to have been suggesting that
I smuggle terrorists into The United States. Right?
So he's not gonna be the How can
I smuggle how can I return him to
The United States? Like, could I smuggle him
into The United States or whether I do
it? Of course. I'm not gonna do it.
It's like,
I mean, the the the question is preposterous.
How can I smuggle a terrorist into The
United States? I I don't have the power
to return him to The United States. Of
course, you're releasing inside of the world. Yeah.
But I'm not releasing I mean, we're not
very fond of releasing terrorists into our country.
We just turned the murder capital of the
world into the safest country in the Western
Hemisphere, and you want us to go back
into the we're leasing criminals so we can
go back to being the murder capital of
the world. And that's good. That's not gonna
happen. That's Well, they'd love to have a
criminal, you know, with these people. I mean,
I mean, there's there's a fascination. They would
love it. Yeah.
They're sick. These are sick people.
Mark, could you have something to say about
Yeah. Right. Let's all have a good laugh
at people asking about the rights of these
people. Right?
That I mean, this is the whole idea
in general about the about the kind of
rampant lawlessness being people are being trained, trained
to be helpless in the face of government
power and trained to be
desensitized to to to murdering people, to ruining
people's lives on the base this on a
flimsy political agenda.
I mean, guys, there are people right now
laughing about this. People online joking about how
we care. Oh, they're all liberals who care
about people. No. If you if the only
way you wanna frame it as liberal because
you care about people's lives, then you are
a broken person. The two party illusion is
stupid, and all of you are lost in
it. The reality to try to make one
side either, like so if you're
too manly on one side, then you're a
republican. If you're too caring on the other
side, you're liberal. The point is a human
being exists in both of those fields where
it matters, where it makes sense. I care
about human lives regardless of what country they're
from or what skin color they are or
whether these two absolute authoritarian monsters decide to
tell you they're terrorists.
It seems like a basic, like, bottom like,
bay it's like the most simple idea of
what human beings should be like.
But politics
changes people's minds.
I mean, Steven Eitland, it's just I don't
understand what the confusion is. This individual is
a citizen of El Salvador. He was illegally
in The United States and Now look, I
mean, it's I don't even point is Rubio
the little Rubio here is gonna repeat exactly
what everybody else said, acting like he's got
some, you know, righteous indignation with it. It's
the same thing.
Now this is the oh, actually, first, before
we get to that, I wanted to show
you this. This is what we went over
last time.
I think it's just it's insane to me
that this is this stuff is so clear.
Here's the actual court. I'm gonna include this
for you. This is the actual document.
The Supreme Court, United States, Christine Ohmes, secretary
department versus
Garcia.
K?
First of all, this is just the breakdown
whether and whatever platform it's from, you can
straight up prove this stuff, and it's just
the first one that came up when I
searched for it. Supreme court has ruled unanimously
that the Trump administration must try to release
the Maryland man who was mistakenly deported. The
nine to zero ruling, the justices declined to
block a lower court's order to facilitate bridging
back Garcia, but they also said judge Paul
Zinis may have exceeded her authority. Okay. So
they did not
side with them in the argument that they
were that that they were trying to block
that they had to return him. They, in
fact, lost this case. The order the order
was you have to return him, but they
did say that she might have overstepped by
using the word effectuate, which is such a
ridiculous thing. Hey. Maybe you even agree with
that. Well, the so the I I made
this case very clear at the time.
They then said, but you still have to
facilitate his return, and you have to give
these people due process. On the judge, Zena
directed Trump administration to provide her with daily
updates, which they've never done. The government has
conceded that Garcia was deported on to an
administrative heir.
One of the dozens of alleged gang members
of migrants police we're just kinda jumping, trying
to skim through real quick.
Yeah. In a two page filing, government lawyers
called their deadlines impractical.
God god forbid it should be impractical for
you when somebody's suffering in a prison they
shouldn't be there that you admitted you did
wrong.
During, at times, tense hearings, says I'm not
here for state secrets. I said she said
I'm asking a very simple question. Where is
he? See, at the time, they were trying
to make it sound like they were not
so national security.
No. They were basic
questions about where he is and why he's
not back.
Let's see. I'm trying to find just some
of these specifics. We're gonna go through the
document next.
So here's the actual document that you should
I'll include this too.
K?
To this day, the government has cited no
basis in law for Garcia's warrantless arrest, his
removal to El Salvador, or his confinement in
a Salvadorian prison,
nor could it.
The government remains bound by immigration
judges
two thousand nineteen order,
expressly prohibiting his removal
because he faced clear probability of future persecution.
I mean, that alone shows you they're lying.
That's saying they've literally no basis legally for
what they're doing. And he literally stands there
and screams at you that the that they
won the case.
This is just straight up insane to me.
This is inversion of reality in a point
where everybody who even barely looks can tell
that they're lying. How do you not see
that as desperate to take a loss and
go, we won because I said so?
A nine to zero ruling that they have
to do what they they're not doing and
they I mean, it's just wild to me.
I'll include it. Please, read through for yourself
and go through everything he just said. We
did it already. I went through this whole
thing.
So here, El Salvador's bouquet lay meeting with
Trump says he won't return migrant wrongfully deported.
This may be redundant. Let me skim through
it. It says I don't have the power
to return to The United States, he says,
which he clearly does.
How could I smuggle the terrorist to The
United States? You know, ridiculous.
Repeating the lie that he was a terrorist
and that, you know, that which is and
this is a is that he's a terrorist
and a gang member, which is not claimed
in in the court battle. It's just like
Khalil.
So in the actual documentation, they're not even
claiming that. Why? Because there's no evidence. But
she sits there and says, two different things
have ruled that we know it. Then why
didn't you present that to the court?
That's so that's that answers itself, guys.
Now Garcia's family and lawyer have denied that
he has any affiliation, which maybe they're lying,
but the point point of due process is
that we would get that to be verified,
wouldn't we? And the evidence has flushed out
my opinion to show that he was not.
The administration as well as, by the way,
the fact that the people that arrested him
in that time they point to decided themselves
that he was not and released him. But
it says the administration has not publicly presented
evidence that Garcia is a member of the
gang or a terrorist, and he has not
been charged with any crime.
And yet they sit there with smug faces
and tell you you're wrong for disagreeing with
them. Garcia
was sent to El Salvador's infamous prison following
what the government said was an administrative error
despite 02/2019 court order banning him. Again, what
I just showed you was nine to zero
Supreme Court ruling saying that they are bound
by that, that that's the only thing this
is really about, and they're all manufacturing lies
about it. His attorney says he can escape
El Salvador in 02/2011 due to political violence.
Now political violence, by the way, is government,
guys.
We're talking about the same government that they're
that he goes send him back. I want
these other guys too. Doesn't that sound weird
to you? I think something's going on here.
I think they want this he's probably I
mean, that's the point about whether he's even
alive. Maybe there's a reason he fled from
El Salvador,
political violence, and the political violence met him
when he got there.
That's possible, considering all possibilities. Bukele and president
Trump are both incentivized not to bring him
back, says one of these, I believe it
was the lawyer speaking. Yeah. The attorney for
Garcia. If they bring back Garcia,
it's going to be a media frenzy, and
the guy's gonna be all over the news,
and then we'll know about his experience.
Clear?
The Supreme Court last week ordered Trump
the Trump administration to facilitate the return.
Trump said on Friday, if they said that,
then we would oblige, and he then didn't
do that. Trump changed course later that day
instead suggesting the fate was in Bukele's hands.
It's always kind of, but somebody else's responsibility
with Trump, isn't it? On Monday, Trump ignored
a question on his statement that he would
abide by the Supreme Court ruling, instead attacking
the CNN reporter who asked because that's how
that goes. Because then you get all the
screamers that go, yeah, dumb Democrats, and ignore
the fact that he just lied, didn't do
what he said he would do, and also
is against breaking the law.
His top officials repeated his claim that what
happens next is solely up to El Salvador
and that the courts can't direct how the
executive branch engages, which no one's trying to
do that. It's up to El Salvador if
they want to return him, Pandy said. Quote,
I don't understand what the confusion is, Rubio
said. This individual is a citizen of Salvador.
These these are
they're irrelevant to the real point that's being
made, but they're muddying the waters because they
all have an agenda.
Rubio, Bondi, Stephen Miller. That's his name, Stephen
Miller. Trump's homeland security adviser, that's terrifying, all
pointed to the Supreme Court order last week
as a win.
It's insane
for the administration.
Administration is due to give daily updates what
they have failed to do. Miller falsely claimed,
falsely claimed, the court ruled nine to zero
that, quote, neither secretary of state nor the
president could be compelled by anybody to forcibly
retrieve a citizen. Nobody said that.
Now, again, it's all it's certainly possible that
Miller himself is listening to some podcaster and
doesn't know that he's wrong. That's how dumb
this all is right
now. That's why we're being led by naive
children, being led by a foreign government. My
point, though, is that you can prove he's
lying. It's that simple.
It says, but in fact, the Supreme Court
held, quote, the government should be prepared to
share what it can what it can concerning
the steps it's taken and the prospect of
further steps. Meaning, you don't just sit there
and wait for him to do it something,
bouquet lay, that you're being ordered by the
Supreme Court to take steps in the interest
of facilitating his return,
which you all know what that means. Supreme
court also said, quote, The United States acknowledges
that Abrego Garcia was subject to a withholding
order
forbidding his removal
and that the removal was illegal. Right? So
that's even if you wanna pretend they can't
bring him back, the point is the Trump
administration straight up broke the law,
and they don't care.
The administration has deported hundreds of migrants they
alleged to be Venezuelan gang members to El
Salvador, though have done so with seemingly
see, I hate the way they even said
that. Have done so with no due process
is the right way to read that. Rubio
is a social media post in a social
media post on Sunday, said the efforts continued
with another 10 alleged criminals associated with MS
thirteen, which we'll point out in a second.
Rubio wrote that the, quote, alliance between Trump
and Bouquet has become an example for security
and prosperity in our hemisphere.
See?
That's what you're gonna hear from the screamers
online.
The truth is you're basically turning us into
a dictatorship if we aren't already there and
pretending like we're saving the world.
Not like pretending to fight the deep state
while building it out.
In addition to deporting alleged Venezuelan gang members,
Trump and several officials have floated sending US
citizens convicted of violent crimes to El Salvador.
Something legal experts have said would violate the
constitution. Yeah. Crazy. Duh.
I'm all for it, Trump said. If it's
a homegrown criminal as an American citizen, I
have no problem, he says. Now we're studying
the last of laws right now. We can
do that. It's good.
Outrageous.
Well, here we are.
Keep that off to the side. That court
ruling, because I know they're gonna keep lying
about it.
Now here is
Miller
on Fox News. So this is the crazy
part, guys. Where are these supposed I mean,
we all know these are not real journalists.
At the very least, not what it matters.
But where are these people pushing back on
this? Right? Where where's the guy here pushing
back on all the things that Miller screams
about right now that we can prove aren't
true? Do they do any due diligence before
they ask these questions, or they just stay
or they're just stenographers for the power structure
to tell you what they want you to
think?
Here, Eric Doudna goes boom. Trump advisor
goes berserk for three minutes about Fox News.
The whole point. This guy completely supports the
completely unconstitutional
destruction of this country because bad guy Democrats
or illegal immigrants, even though that's not this
case, and he's not a criminal.
And DOJ said a federal court cannot compel
the executive branch to engage in any mandated
act of diplomacy
or incursion upon the sovereignty
of another nation. So your argument Just so
it's clear, what they're referencing right there is
a, it says a filing from the DOJ.
A federal court they're just that's a statement.
Right? They're they they he made it sound
like that was from the supreme court. That's
not the reality. And that's a general point.
That's not about any that's a general statement.
This is where federal courts in general cannot
compel the executive branch to engage in any
mandated act of diplomacy. That's not what this
was. They're conflating that idea with them correcting
their legal mistake and simply saying, bouquet le,
send it back so we can go through
due process. If he was sent there in
the first place, that's the violation of the
law. This is a correction of it. They're
using this like they're doing everything to kind
of give them political
shade, essentially.
You don't have to bring him back home.
So your argument is that you don't have
to bring him back home,
but will you?
So I wanna correct I hate to do
it, Bill, but I gotta correct you on
every single thing that you said because it
was all
wrong. First, we won the Supreme Court case.
See?
Clearly, nine zero.
I I just can't I don't know why
I can't get beyond that.
Think about the braze, the gall to come
out and just lie to everybody when you
can easily prove it. But see, here's where
we get into the whole Orwellian world that
we live in.
Everyone's gonna continue screaming that because that's the
way they've set it up. Even though you
can read the document where they literally tell
you the opposite, and you're gonna debate people
online. They're like, you're an idiot.
I can just nine to zero. They won.
And the point is, those are six conservative
judges
and three liberals, and they all ruled in
favor of what they're doing in reality that
what they're doing is wrong. So you can't
keep claiming all these radical judges. Those are
six conservatives.
So they just pretend it's a nine to
zero win.
It's just it's a it's a testament to
where we are in the world right now
where they can just make up the lie
big enough and repeated enough to where it
becomes a reality, which is an old thing,
but I've never seen it like this.
To me, that's something for another reason.
You can decide for yourself.
District court judge
said, unconscionably,
that the president and his administration
have to go into El Salvador and extradite
one of their I never said anything like
that. You see, now we just cartoonishly making
it like they tend to go in there
and grab him and no. They didn't. They
said simply facilitate his return, and that's what
he says.
This is a very dishonest person. They're citizens
and El Salvadorian citizens, so that would be
kidnapping. But we have to kidnap an El
Salvadorian citizen
against the will of his government and fly
him back to America,
which would be an unimaginable
act in an invasion of El Salvador's sovereignty.
Wow. So we appealed to the Supreme Court,
and it said clearly,
no district court can compel the president to
exercise his article two foreign powers. Yeah. See,
they're conflating the idea that no one's disputing
that they're the the the that's what the
second back the the the pushback was. That
may that the effectuate part might have been
a little bit over with. But then when
she leaves out, you are still required to
facilitate the transfer, and you have no legal
basis to do this in the first place,
and it violated the first ruling in 02/2019.
Okay. He leaves all of that out and
acts like they said we were right. He's
lying to you. I give you it's not
even it's the same stuff. I don't wanna
make it too ridiculously redundant, but you have
to recognize how prolific this is right now.
So going forward,
Melnick points out this is openly defiant of
the Supreme Court, which specifically upheld the nine
to zero decision and order that, quote, requires
the government to facilitate the return.
Here's this one of the statements right there,
which was just what we've been saying. It's
obvious.
Trump administration claims Scottish ruling doesn't compel it
to actually seek
they're just claiming the opposite, which is what
they seem to be doing everywhere.
Who do you think benefits from this? Like,
let's just let's just pretend it's not even
Israel. Don't you think foreign governments can recognize
how destabilizing this is and go, hey. Maybe
we can now infiltrate them? Maybe we can
manipulate their policy? Maybe we can attack them
somehow? I mean, think about that. Isn't that
always what people talk about? But right now,
with the most obvious moment where things are
completely falling, nobody cares?
Because I think it is happening.
Just not the way we described it. Stephen
Miller lies, he writes, and claims that nobody's
take been mistakenly taken to El Salvador.
Can you realize see, this is this goes
even further. Not just lying about the ruling,
but now literally claiming that you you they
never even claimed it was a mistake despite
all of them saying that, because the ruling
saying that, their own paperwork saying that.
He's just resetting the tone. That's what they're
doing. That's Orwellian. Is Gitmo still open?
Are there any illegal immigrants who have been
taken to Guantanamo Bay today, or has that
prison been closed?
No. It's it's wide open. Gitmo is open.
There are a number
of foreign terrorist aliens that are being housed
at Gitmo. Nope. Also false. We've already gone
over this. Same conversation. I'll give you the
document again. Oh, awaiting final removal to another
destination.
But what I wanna be very clear on
me how many?
No. I cannot. That's operationally sensitive information. Or
more?
It's it's a it's a large number. The
exact number is operationally sensitive
to do with military
and other considerations relating to the security of
those who are there and the security of
those who are operating the facility.
It's just it's that's just a narrative. I
mean, obviously, this is a base, so there's
some point to that. But realize it's the
same everywhere else when that doesn't even apply.
They're not giving you the names of anyone
they're dealing with, not in El Salvador, not
anywhere else because they don't need they they
know people can then verify things.
It's just straight up dishonest. But I wanna
be very, very clear about this bill. We've
been living through a hoax.
A hoax.
Nobody was mistakenly sent to El Salvador. He
was ordered deported from this country in 2019.
He's an illegal alien. Mhmm. His home nation
is El Salvador. That is where he belongs.
They they he's just straight up lying again.
02/2019, the judge ruled he was supposed to
stay here because of the political violence he
would face. Right? Okay.
So the argument that nobody was mistakenly deported
is directly contradictory to what they argued in
court or rather what they were forced to
say in court.
Insane.
And yet you will still see screamers online
lie, or rather not even know they're lying,
which is how this game actually works today.
He says Stephen Miller lies and claims that
nobody was mistakenly sent despite his own administration
saying repeatedly
that he was sent there as an administrative
error, which should not have happened. You can
read it for yourself.
Then just quit. It's right here. ICE was
aware of the grant. Oh, made
removed.
Or was it was it was an oversight,
and the removal was carried out in good
faith based on the existence of the final
order. The point is,
verifiably,
a admit the air the administrative air. Like,
watch this.
Oh, I thought that would maybe grab something.
Let's see this.
Now this is New York Times, we shouldn't
blindly listen to. Oh, that'll be something to
watch here. Hold on.
Everything behind a paywall these days.
I'll go back one, two.
I submit to administrative error.
Administrative error despite not I mean, it's it's
all all the same documents, and you could
literally look at this stuff for yourself.
Damn it. That's wasting time. Sorry. I don't
like to leave that gap. But the bottom
line, guys, is you we this is a
roundly discussed conversation.
The obvious reality is they have continued to
put that out. I mean, the point is,
I'm just trying to give you more documentation
so you can shove it in people's faces
that wanna say you're lying. The point is
we just, in this show, have already played
where they said that. They have admitted it
was administrative error, but their point, as I
think it was Rubio, was that, well, it's
even even regardless, he was still supposed to
be deported. Right? That was what he said,
which is the idea that we would just
send him to the wrong place. But that's
not what you just heard Miller say. They
are straight up trying to create this illusion
to hide behind.
That means oh, this is what I wanna
show you. That means that they're, I think,
aware that they could
have repercussions.
So this was the one we already went
over before. Family of Venice with a man
sent to Guantanamo. My brother is not a
criminal. And you can read it for yourself.
There's source material, his claims, and, again, the
main point,
no due process.
A guy that is not being shown to
be a criminal was being sent to Guantanamo
Bay.
Welcome to America Twenty Twenty Five.
But here's what Alex, a l x, you
know, with this massive account with almost a
million followers. And, of course, Bennie Johnson reposted
it where it says, they really want us
to bring a terrorist named Kilmar back to
The US. Yeah. I'm all set with that,
bro.
These are the media now. These are the
massive influencers on Twitter that are ridiculously informing
people.
Not a terrorist. No one's even presented an
allegation that he's a terrorist. They're simply claiming
he's a gang member that they turned into
terrorism, and all of it is actually proven
to be false. But these kind of people
are the ones that influence it. Benny Johnson
is supposed to be a journalist, and he
shares that. Why? Because it's funny that his
name is Kilmore. Yeah. But Kilmore's rotting in
a prison and probably being raped. But that's
all funny now. Right?
The reality is it could be you next.
But, of course, that would matter because,
you know, I just I'm so disgusted by
these people. I mean, look, he calls himself
an American supremacist. It's just so funny. Like,
you're being played out there. These people are
leading you into your own demise, and I
just can't stop seeing it. Now what's interesting,
by the way, and I see this as
the opposite. Like, this this is gonna demonstrate
my obvious pessimism for pessimism for government or
just that I don't I think, like, jaded.
This is Chris Van Hollen requesting a meeting
with the Salvadorian president, which he probably won't
get in the first place, and basically says
if he's not returned home by midweek, I
plan to travel to El Salvador this week
to check on his condition.
I I hate my point is I don't
believe this is genuine. I think none of
these people actually care about any of this
stuff, and this is his opportunity to make
himself look like the guy fighting for good
things. Maybe I'm wrong, though. Maybe he just
cares about this. The point is it shouldn't
matter the political dynamic. If anyone's going to
try to rectify this, I agree with that
because it's wrong. It violates our own rights.
It violates our own understanding of the law.
It violates everything,
including people in El Salvador who currently have
no civil liberties. This
is interesting because it's gonna it's in a
way, I get the sense this is meant
to make it the Democrat Republican thing, right,
where the Democrats doing it, so therefore, it's
okay what the Republicans are doing. It's very
simple how this works right now. But either
way, if anybody's gonna go over there and
get some information, I wanna see it.
Now,
few points to I mean, let me make
sure I I'm joining another show here in
I don't think it's live. I'm not sure.
In about forty five minutes, make sure I'm
not running long.
So to confirm I think we could finish
this up to to,
Jeff Stein here writes puts this out,
saying days before mass immigration customs. And now
this is about other dynamics beside Garcia, which
by the way, that's just important to focus
on because it's such a clear case,
both Khalil and the rest, but some of
these we've already covered. And it's much bigger
than even just this, guys. That's what's so
alarming. If we've been able to uncover this
many, imagine how many are actually suffering in
there.
But don't assume that, but just think about
the pot I mean, obviously, if we're every
every every chance we get to see more
information, it turns out they're not criminals and
they're here legally.
What what else are they hiding is the
point?
But it says ICE agents detained Tufts University
student,
Ozturk, to deport her. The state department determined
that Trump administration
had not produced any evidence showing that she
engaged in anti Semitic activities
or made public statements supporting a terrorist organization
as the government has alleged. The finding contained
in a March memo that they didn't show
you until now that was described to the
Washington Post said that Rubio did not have
sufficient grounds for revoking her visa under the
authority in power to the top US Diplomat
to safeguard foreign policy. See, the state department
of the US government said that's not legal,
and they did it anyway.
Sure. Sounds like he's working for somebody else.
The memo written by an office within the
state department raises doubts about public accusations made
by Trump administration as it has sought to
justify Osterholm's deportation. The Department of Homeland Security
has said Osterholm engaged in activities in support
of Hamas. She didn't. A A US designated
terrorist organization because they claimed that even though
Israel supports them, and we don't care about
that. But neither that agency nor US percs
prosecutors have provided evidence for that claim like
everybody else. They yell, you're a Hamas supporter
just like Israel does, and then never try
to claim prove that even in court, which
shows they don't have the evidence because in
this case, it doesn't exist.
Now when I say support, clarify the point,
if you don't know, that is Israel funded
Hamas right up until October 7. It's one
of the most obvious and easily proven points
as Netanyahu has been quoted by her ex
as saying exactly that. So to,
Ibu Barak, former prime minister, former head of
Shin Bet, on the record saying they funded
Hamas with billions of dollars.
That in no way invalidates the act of
armed resistance by any occupied territory. It just
simply includes that I think there's more manipulation
going on here. Now Billy Binion,
reporter at Reason, says before ICE arrested Ozturk
for writing an op ed, the state department
said it found no evidence that she was
anti Semitic or supported to Moss. They arrested,
jailed, and deported someone for writing an opinion
that some officials dislike.
That is the I mean, that is the
best way that is the reality of where
we are right now in this country, And
I don't think it's even unique to left
and right. I think it's just the reality
of our government showing us what they really
are.
Washington Post, no evidence linking tough student to
antisemitism, state department office found.
Days before mass ICE enforcement agents, I just
read that part,
As they alleged, the fine and contained in
March memo was described in the Washington Post
said that Rubio did not have sufficient grounds.
The memo written by the office of the
state department raises doubts about the public accusations.
I think that was all I read in
general. Yeah. That's all I had highlighted. It's
the same thing.
This is a state department memo,
but you can it's it's right here. You
can look for yourself.
The point is that they are telling you
they didn't have enough evidence. Now realize the
important part of this is that that they
went out and found more.
They just did it anyway,
which means they don't care
or somebody else is driving this.
Patrick Jacamo,
civil rights litigator, says reporting from, John the
woman just showed you, Anwapo, says there's no
evidence as we just talked about. She's just
coauthored an op ed that will be protected
by the first amendment, obviously. Was Trisha lying,
but that investigations found that she engaged in,
Hamas activity?
Yes.
This person here,
assistant secretary deputy of homeland security, like all
the rest of them, just lie.
There was no other investigation as even the
state department found. They she is a person
who wrote an op ed that called out
Israel's genocide. Israel is apparently hand delivering directions
to the US government, and they're absolutely carrying
it out as we've proven more times than
we can count. And she just comes up
and says, they investigated and found, and they
did not.
Yes, sir Ali. Oh, really, all I wanted
to include this for was this is the
video. If you don't if you wanna watch
what happened, remember, she was walking down the
street, they walk up, grab her, don't identify
themselves,
and then with and no warrant, and then
just arrest her, and she's never seen again.
Think about that in this country. The idea
we have about this country. Right? Is it
is this, you know, communist
USSR dynamic or is this Nazi Germany? I
mean, these are the things we pretend this
is where they come from, guys,
as they're calling out foreign governments in Iran
and everybody else, which certainly probably happened in
some way, but why don't we see it
in ourselves?
I think most do. Now overlapping this with
the gay barber conversation,
I I I'd even describe it like that
because it's a very serious thing, but it's
just the the best way to people to
remember the differences of my argue. The cop
got this cop. So first of all, Paul
Graham says, if anyone's wondering why we need
that boring sounding thing called due process, it's
because if you don't
if you don't have it, you're depending entirely
on the word of the guy on the
left, at least in this case.
And guess what? As Danielle Mills points out,
disgraced liar cop blamed for sending innocent gay
Venezuelan makeup artist to hellhole in El Salvador.
The point is they they're just
either they are
choosing people for specific reasons, which I do
think is part of this. People that like
him just said the wrong thing about Israel
online, and we're not we haven't even got
to that yet.
Or they're just so broad that they're just
grabbing anybody, and no due process, no claims,
which I think we all see happening.
Says the cop got fired for drunk driving
his car into somebody's house, and my guess
is that that was the least of it.
Now he's writing paperwork to send people to
a foreign dungeon with no review. I think
he's suggesting that they might have blackmail on
him, but you can decide.
Melnick then points to secretary Rubio yesterday doing
the same thing. After all we saw, the
court rulings, the reality that pretty much everyone
seems to be calling this out, he comes
up and says, last night, another 10 criminals,
but we don't know that because they never
presented evidence, from MS 13, same point, we
don't know that because they've already been caught
lying about others
to El Salvador.
Still to El Salvador. How I mean, the
the Supreme Court ruling nine to zero that
they claim was a win, the one of
the main points was that they were required
to give due process.
And that realized even if that under the
aliens enemies act, but realized due process is
already the reality whether or not they enact
that law. So either way, they're violating it
the same way, and they're still doing it.
The alliance between POTUS and Bukele has become
an example for security and prosperity.
So 10 more people suffering in that prison
system without even proof that they're criminals, and
we know many of them are not based
on what we already understand. And Melnick says,
once again, the administration sends people to an
to be imprisoned abroad, potentially for life based
not on any crime for which they were
convicted,
but on unproven allegations of gang membership with
no due process. No authority in The United
States law permits this. Nothing.
That's dict that is authoritarian, dictatorial type action
right now.
Where are all the lawyers in the world?
You see all these
partisan lawyers that are just showing they don't
care about what they do when it comes
to their agenda.
But there's plenty of lawyers out there that
I think are afraid to speak up right
now. Like the lawyer getting a letter saying
get out of the country because she's fighting
for immigration, you know, but that was a
mistake, we're told. Certainly could be.
This person says, doesn't this go against the
recent Supreme Court ruling that they need to
be given,
proper notice and due process? He's right, but
that he makes the point only for the
deportation of the act. But the point is
that they don't need some kind of guidance
to understand that everybody
does has due process. That's already been ruled
by the Supreme Court many times more times
than I can count. So the point is
either
way, they're still breaking the law. This says,
should El Salvadorian citizens also have an opportunity
to seek protection under the constitution or the
convention against torture? And he says, yes. Mister
Abrego himself had won a similar protection, and
they then deported him while while he there
illegally to deported him there illegally to the
to to the only country it was illegal
to deport him to. But this is the
point. You could anywhere else, argue it'd still
be he's required to be given due process,
but the deportation would have been in some
way like, after due process, you could have
sent him any other country.
But El Salvador, even with due process, because
that was already mandated from the Supreme Court.
Drop site news shows another example.
Motion Mada Madawi, a Palestinian born green card
holder, so here legally, and a student at
Columbia,
deeply involved in pro Palestinian activism,
has been arrested by HSI agents in Vermont
in the middle of his appointment to become
a US citizen.
Magawi grew up
excuse me. Magawi grew up in a Palestinian
refugee camp in the Israeli occupied West Bank,
where his childhood was shaped by the second
intifada. He experienced significant personal losses, including the
death of his best friend during a confrontation
with Israeli soldiers when he was 10 years
old. He later studied computer engineering at biz,
Birzeit
University in Palestine. That was in 02/2014
before enrolling at Columbia University in New York
where he pursued studies in philosophy in school
in the school of general studies. At Columbia,
he has organized protests and events which is
completely within law addressing the Israeli genocide. But
that way, he has also emphasized empathy
and dialogue as pathways to justice and peace.
You see, that's the main point here. Most
of these people are advocating for a peaceful
solution, an actual two state solution, despite having
every reason to want violence because of what
they did to them. Not that I I'm
okay with that. The point is you understand
why that is logical from somebody who watched
their best friend get killed in front of
them by people who are illegally there.
He says he has participated in initiatives fostering
cross cultural understanding between Palestinians and Israelis on
campus.
And it says, exclusive footage, Columbia student
was just arrested during the visit
to get citizenship. So here's the point again.
No criminal activity here legally, said the wrong
things about Israel, participated in protest against Israel,
and they removed him.
This needs to start becoming real, guys.
Drop site news is the fight for freedom
of Palestinian and the fight against antisemitism
or for Palestine
go hand in hand because injustice anywhere is
a threat to justice everywhere. Of course, because
that's something chanted by certain Democrats, people are
gonna make it only about Democrat stuff instead
of just human reality.
It's
the same thing, guys. Like, you could argue
that supporting I mean, anything you wanna argue
republican support and that just because they support
it, therefore, the democrats can argue that it's
an agenda. It's just stupid because the reality
is it could be and the truth could
be. Doesn't make it not the truth. Right?
The idea that this is against the law
or that we should care that people are
being forced to have to be put through
injustice
should matter to people that pretend to fight
for justice, shouldn't it?
Or because you put a blue hat on
it, suddenly it's like that doesn't matter anymore.
That's the way this seems to be working.
Now a quick overlap. You can look into
it more for yourself.
A British man
has a tattoo that they're claiming is a
Venezuelan gang tattoo. And apparently, the image that
they're even using in their own documentation is
that guy's arm, a British man.
It's just just so stupid. It just gets
dumber by the day. It says a BBC
news interviewed Pete Belton, a British man whose
tattoo appeared on an ice trendy airbagua tattoo
guide. He joked that he might cancel a
planned trip to Miami this year because he's
worried he might go to might get a
six month in all inclusive holiday to Guantanamo.
Now what's what's it's funny in a way,
but it's very not even a joke.
I mean, realize that we've already seen people
who were not even from an from a
Middle Eastern country, but swept up in all
of this.
So here we are. Where there you you
could read it for yourself. And finally, the
clock tattoo
was first posted on Instagram by a British
tattoo artist in 02/2016,
and now it appears on the arm of
a British guy, and they claiming this is
about trendy Arugua.
Disgusting.
Now just to end rapidly here,
I think it's important to understand how I
think how clearly you can see. You know,
whether you think Israel is dictating US policy
despite the obvious,
you understand that they're doing this for Israel.
That's not an opinion. They're stating that. They're
saying this is our ally, and they're calling
and they're, you know, antisemitism. They're going after
Israel. They're trying to say Israel shouldn't exist.
It's all about Israel. They're literally telling you
that.
So it's important then to highlight what Israel's
doing if you haven't seen it. How that's
even possible, I don't know. But just a
couple of points to show you that these
same people don't care when their greatest ally
commits the worst atrocity you've ever seen. So
on top of that, pretend to be Christian
even though they're Zionist, and then realize that
ultimately, they don't care when things happen to
Christians.
So if you didn't see it, on Palm
Sunday, which if you know this show, you
know that happens every time. I say it
every time. Every Christian holiday, every Christmas, every
Easter, every single time, look for yourself. Israel
bombed something Christian.
Usually in Syria, that's in my experience, but
now in Gaza, anywhere. Well, on Palm Sunday,
as this person says, your handlers bombed churches.
They did. The only Christian church in Gaza.
Saudi Agriasis on Palm Sunday, Israel bombed the
lone Christian hospital in Gaza. He says, I
threw my TV out years ago, but I'm
willing to bet Fox News hasn't mentioned this.
Propaganda Go and Co says Gaza's only Christian
hospital, the same one Israel claims it didn't
bomb on October 17,
has just been destroyed by Israel.
It was founded in 1882, the Al Ali
Arab Baptist Hospital.
You can watch the video for yourself.
Right? Does that matter to Christians?
Should.
Of course,
bombing the Al Ali hospital,
assault rod, points to what Clinton said.
If Russian leadership would rather not be accused
of committing war crimes, they should stop bombing
hospitals. Well, sure enough.
And, of course, BBC says Gaza hospital hit
by Israeli strike, Hamas says.
And she says, when you repeatedly get community
noted, you're not doing journalism right. And, of
course, even Twitter says misleading. Israel itself has
admitted that it targeted the compound.
You know, the same one they pretended they
didn't bomb before because that would have been
a crime, and now they're doing it because
it's not a crime.
Even though nobody's presented any evidence of any
kind, we know they've bombed every single one
and none of them are actually being used
by Hamas according to the doctors in The
United States that are actively there and telling
you that's not what's happening.
Here
is a former,
what's his name? A former it's it's Yari
Yari Yari Yair Lapid,
former
Israeli prime minister.
You're not gonna believe what this guy actually
just said.
Actually, I don't think I grabbed that.
So what what this guy wants you to
believe
and I mean, talk about Orwellian. Like, this
is a perfect way to end such an
Orwellian issue with all these lies spinning around.
This is really
politician. He wants you to believe that if
your objective and I mean, this is quite
literally what he's saying. If you're objective,
then you support Hamas.
Right? If you tell both sides of the
story, he says,
you support Hamas.
You think I'm kidding?
National media is objective.
It serves Hamas.
If it just shows both sides, it serves
Hamas.
My argument
is that the media can't just claim to
bring both sides of the story. If you
do that, you are only bringing one,
Hamas's side.
So the point is only show what Israel
says, and then you're being then you're showing
the full picture. I mean, but that doesn't
even make sense with the way he started
if you're being objective. Objective is very clear.
He literally said objective. If you're being objective,
you support Hamas.
So if you're considering all perspectives, the point
is that you're not being honest somehow. Even
though that is the definition of I mean,
it's so wild. This is the inversion of
reality.
Now I gotta I gotta actually rush here,
guys, but
last two things,
I just said find the courage to call
it out. Right? This is we live in
1984.
This is a person on Israeli media saying,
quote, we have still we still have the
the we still have not revenged in a
biblical way. You know, like, Amalek is the
point.
We did not burn Gaza to ashes immediately,
create a tremendous humanitarian crisis, level the entire
area, he says. This is mainstream media in
Israel.
Do not leave a stone upon a stone
in Gaza. That's a biblical reference. Gaza needs
to turn to Dresden, another reference of of
of genocide.
Annihilate Gaza now. That's Moshe Fenglen, a politician
on mainstream media in Israel.
Liberty Maniac says, did Americans vote to have
their tax dollars fund this?
Some did.
Here, and we I I wish I had
more examples that I could've grabbed. I've got
three different parts we've covered on our on
our show
about this. The one with the boot on
the guy's face and plenty of others. They've
literally carved the star of David into so
many people. It is an easily proven reality
at this point.
And Khaleesi says the world stays silent.
Scarred with the star of David. Freed Israeli
freed Palestinian details, Israeli torture. And guess what,
guys? You don't need
to do anything other than look at his
head where he's got a scar of a
star of David
carved into the top of his head
as he gets released from a prison in
Israel.
It just can't I mean, that's insane to
me how we can't be honest about this.
Here, Brian says, pro Israel groups in America.
IDF does everything it can to minimize harm
to civilians.
And then Israel,
we annihilate every city just like the guy
just said. Here is a post. Popular government
backed push news outlet
posted this caption. The annihilation of Rapha is
complete.
See, out here, they want you to believe
that it's all about pinpoint targeting like ridiculous
Rabbi Shmueli.
You even wanna pretend he's a man of
God. I say that because of his actions,
not because of anything else. He's literally acting
in ways that are not in any way
synonymous with any whether Judaism,
any of them, guys, any of them. But
the point is they say that and then
they in Israel, in Israeli media, in in
in their circles, they go, yay. Good. Kill
them all.
It couldn't be more clear.
Lastly,
footage shows, and this is from yesterday,
the moment Israel bombed tents and an unreflowered
distribution point
in Al Raqab Al Gharib neighborhood of Bani
Shihuly
Shihuly? How do you say that? Shihuly? East
of Con Yunes.
The point here is just
nothing new. Sadly enough, how disgusting it is.
This is just you might go, what was
that the same one from we saw from
two days ago? No. Every damn day, they're
bombing tensile people because that's all that's left.
We're still pretending these are tunnels and human
shields. Guys, they're just murdering people.
That is what they're fighting for. That is
what they're fighting to protect
as they deport people who dare to call
it out.
I know you're better than that.
I know that we're better than that.
It just kills me that people out there
wanna present to the world a different picture.
Stand up.
Thank you for being here.
Try to get this out there.
It just kills me that we're watching this
happen in, like, rapid succession.
And I I I I believe strongly, and
you may disagree,
that the majority of people in this country
are better than this. And they're telling people
that, and they're just not being seen because
there's the Johnsons and Jones out there that
just actively fight against that and pretend that
they're representing all these people when I think
that's rapidly diminished quite a long time ago.
Whatever it is,
stand up for what you believe in, and
don't let partisanship
sway you one way or another.
Principles, integrity. You know what's right.
I love you all. As always, question everything.
Come to your own conclusions.
Stay vigilant.
Some respects, it's just as bad now, the
authoritarianism,
that is coming, Gerald. I am really, really
fearful for the president of The United States
Of America to suggest as he did on
Air Force One on Sunday night
that American citizens
could be deported
for his press secretary to say, we're looking
into,
a way to see if this is legal.
We don't know if it's legal or not.
A is terrifying.
B betrays such a profound ignorance of first
principles to which he is sworn. He is
sworn to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution
and to enforce,
federal law. You mentioned that you're open to
deporting,
individuals that aren't foreign aliens but are criminals
to El Salvador. Does that in does that
include potentially US citizens fully naturalized in America?
If they're criminals and if they hit people
with baseball bats over their head that happened
to be 90 years old, and
if,
if they rape
87 year old women in Coney Island, Brooklyn,
yeah. Yeah. That includes them. What? Do you
think there's special category of person? They're as
bad as anybody that comes in. We have
bad ones too. Profoundly un American, utterly unconstitutional,
and I'm sorry to say
is coming.