So the Independent Media Alliance is an effort
by myself, Whitney Webb, and Ryan Christian of
the last American Vagabond
to try to bring together voices that we
think have been sane. It is a a
loose gathering of people that have the same
principles, the same mindset, the same integrity, the
non partisan objective
fact based reporting. Some of the voices are
more new. Others have been around for a
decade plus longer than myself.
And so Derek and Whitney being a part
of that, I think, you know, all of
us together, I think it's profound. I mean,
I think it is it's a it's a
time for this to happen. It's about, like,
showing that these both sides are actually converging
and headed the same direction, you know. Maybe
the Democrats call for digital ID because of
COVID vaccine passports, but the Republicans call for
similar things under the guise of fixing the
elections and fighting immigration and stuff like that.
And so, that's kind of been our larger
goal is to just show people that these
two different factions or what appear to be
factions are not on our side
and and just calling that out. Trying to
show those out there who are maybe feeling
a little bit lost and confused about what's
going on in the world,
how we should be looking at this false
binary. The federal government has been operated as
a criminal enterprise on a financial basis,
period. This network of organized crime and intelligence
agencies that have essentially fused their operations. Like
the British directly put their hand, like one
of those long rubber gloves, right through the
state department into the middle of the CIA.
And that's been going on, like, longer than
I've been alive. He is
convergence between East,
and West. 2 factions of a deep state
competition
take place to steer the,
the military industrial complex in this way or
that way. We've shown you NASA,
artificial intelligence,
Google,
quantum computing.
They are embedded
together.
I don't think we ever faced
anything
as all pervasive
and
totalitarian
in its scope.
And they're going to go ahead and profit
from that until somebody takes that business away
from them. I love you guys. That's why
I make videos because I care. I care
about us. I care about now. I care
about the future. I care about these things.
These are these are the most important concepts
we have as a human race. I very
much think the community is making waves. And
it's not just our community, man. It is
people that are, for the first time in
their lives, finding the courage to call these
things out. And I think the power structure
is afraid of that.
Now what do you actually do about it?
That to me is always the the biggest,
the bigger question. Right? Because we can recognize
that they are there, but unless we choose
to act, then
they've already won.
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.
Sunday, May fourth twenty twenty five. Thank you
for joining me today.
Definitely some important follow ups that we're gonna
get to today on a lot of different
topics that we've been covering. One of the
major kind of overarching topics for today,
not so much as the kind of ongoing
point that I think a lot of people
are we've been calling out or becoming aware
of of the kind of double crossing of
the current of the US government and the
different things that are happening now that weren't
supposed to or the things that were supposed
to go a certain way that were going
a different direction.
But I'll address that opening clip in a
second. But just o in a general sense,
what we're gonna go through today is
an important overlap, I think, around
major shifts. For example, one will start off
early only because of the way I think
it fits together, not necessarily as the most
important,
but a a specifically,
republican driven Texas dynamic around illegalizing
memes.
And it's not that's not how it's necessarily
being framed. It does it is mentioned in
the conversation, but it's about artificial intelligence or
even not necessarily artificial intelligence. It's just imaging
of, you know, satire,
putting things out about people that, you know,
make a joke or you know, we know
how that the angle there, though. We know
how people are more so the people that
are pointing at the average ones on on
social media doing it that are the real
ones doing it, who are making actual deep
you know,
more sinister manipulations using things like that, whether
AI, whether art manipulative
political advertisements that are meant to deceive you
as opposed to make a joke. The point,
though, is it's interesting to see this happening
now.
The, you know, the left can't meme and
the right, you know and as always, when
we get into stuff like this, it's the
team sport politics of either left and right
side that's all just the US government manipulating
everybody. And I don't think the majority is
trapped by that but feels pulled to one
side or the other for large reasons, you
know, that they can't get past one or
the other, but they see many of the
problems. The point is that that kind of
left right paradigm lie was about how the
left was trying to come after that kind
of conversation, not just memes, but that kind
of you know, the point was we all
recognized a few different point, you know, COVID
and after that, even a little before, that
memes were powerful.
It was a new form, not necessarily new
in the sense of that, you know you
know,
how's the easiest way to say this without
going into a long conversation? Memes in general
are an r
a a a that's a not a new
concept, but it's new in the terms of
how the Internet
can proliferate these things. And even the way
we see memes today, it's there's a there's
memes could be called just a certain phrase
that circulates. Right? The point is that memes
through the Internet and social media were very
powerful and seem to have a lot of
influence. That's that, I think, is an important
conversation. So we're gonna touch on how that
is being applied from the wrong side, it
seems. But, again, the real picture being that
it's a two party illusion. It's a power
structure trying to convince us that what we
don't want to happen is ultimately what we
should want or some variation therein. We'll also
talk about a the overlap of that in
regard to Israel that I'm only gonna do
a couple points on today. Tomorrow, we will
be doing a show, and I'm gonna make
sure we go in deep on
the overlap of this topic of Israel,
how many incredibly obvious ways every day that
are new on top of the thousands of
other ways we have showing that Israel is
influencing,
controlling,
dictating US policy. And, I mean, it's coming
from the highest levels of power at this
point, guys. It's coming from people at very
prestigious positions in the media, whether, you know,
that's say we should trust or okay, but
point is, nonetheless, perceived as prestigious, or people
in the government,
very highly regarded pod I mean, all over
the place, people are calling this stuff out,
ex young agents.
Oh, and we'll talk about how that dovetails
with the attack on the flotilla,
which we'll again, tomorrow, I'm gonna do more
of a deep conversation about that and overarching
points, but today, I wanted to make sure
you saw it. But as that relates to
these conversations,
it's
I mean, think about the ability to get
away with something like that as we'll go
into more tomorrow of just attacking a ship
if you haven't seen it. We'll go into
it briefly today, a ship full of people
trying to bring aid, which is not a
new conversation. The Freedom Flotilla has been going
on a long time. We've covered it on
this show. And being attacked, full of innocent
people. Really no pushback from the world governments
fighting terrorism.
Now we're also gonna talk about the conversation,
the evolving conversation around deportations in El Salvador.
Again, sort of like the COVID nineteen point,
there's a lot of people months into that
that were going, you guys are just talking
about this like crazy. Why don't you talk
about something else? This is such an old
story. You're overhyping it. And then,
clearly, we all have come to realize that
that's probably still one of the most important
stories we've ever covered. Same point around this.
Now people disagree about whether you know, there's
all sorts of political holes in this conversation.
What's amazing to me is how obviously this
is connected with core, like, foundational arguments from
either side of the paradigm, and it gets
people dismiss it they dismiss the topic. Act
like we shouldn't care. Well, he's in a
it's and I don't wanna put pulled into
it to start. We'll go into it as
I get to the topic today. But it's
amazing to me how this has just been
stepped on by a lot of people that
should know better and probably do, but how
it's evolved beyond the story, how it's now
kind of cascaded into making
the same thing was already happening in the
beginning.
Using subjective emotional points to make you think
this person was what they suggested he was
even though the evidence really showed that it
wasn't the case or that the evidence wasn't
there. So it pulls into, well, he also
did this and, look, his wife said that,
None of which actually matters to the only
point around Garcia in particular that mattered,
which was he didn't get due process to
prove the claims they had because the claims
weren't true. We can prove that today. And
regardless of whether you think that or not,
that's not even the conversation. It's whether or
not they gate they went through the normal
process, and that's why accusing Americans or threatening
to send Americans to a foreign prison clearly
matters and how this is a stepping stone.
Or Khalil, for example, before this even happened,
where we now know and we can clearly
prove yet again that it was all based
on speech in Israel and targeting him to
be removed and or any number of examples
we'll go through today again. But how this
has developed, and now it's gotten so abstract,
how many different examples we have of judges,
including,
Trump appointed judges or all six conservatives on
the Supreme or at least the first one,
Supreme Court judges, the conservatives included, all of
them in the beginning, clearly highlighting that these
things are problems, due process was not given,
and how this conversation has evolved to a
very dangerous point
to where now we're hearing conversations about paying
foreign prisons more than El Salvador to take,
you know, some bad people from the country
and some weird overlap to that about whether
Americans are included. And especially having an amendment,
which is a core point today, being voted
down by Republicans
that simply said, let's establish that you can't
deport Americans.
If there's no air in that conversation, there's
no wiggle room that you cannot legally deport
Americans, and they all voted well, the the
majority of Republicans voted it down.
And it's let's be clear again. This is
not about a left and right thing, but
these things have pull for certain sides during
certain moments. But maybe it is in this
moment in your mind just a right thing.
But do not be fooled by that because
the left as always or the right as
always will swing around when the time comes
and have a different narrative for why the
same thing should be happening. But this is
really important we're gonna get to. Now the
latter part of that, we're gonna at the
of the show will be around
RFK Jr, HHS,
a vaccine platform that is now coming out
on top of everything else. Basically, another
I shouldn't call it a Stargate project because
Stargate is a much bigger thing than what
it was being presented as, but it's another
platform, a universal flu vaccine platform. Now it
doesn't seem to be mRNA. Now that seems
to be the way this is being put
out, and, hey, maybe that's a positive step.
You guys can decide for yourselves. I think
that what's happening here is, like, more than
likely exactly the way this was supposed to
go.
Call me a pessimist. The point is that
this is happening on top of everything else
we've seen, a continuation of other mRNA platforms,
mRNA shots for bird flu, and MR shots
being called safe and effective. All of this
matters. And of course, the Stargate flu, or
excuse me, cancer platform, which will be more
than that. And the fact that this is
happening on top of everything else is so
damn concerning to me. And of course, on
top of that,
CRISPR and fake pork,
GMO foods being allowed in this administration
despite all of the conversations around RFK and
GMOs, and it's just one more example of
how something clearly is wrong. Now, I could
give you all day what I think that
is and whether I think he's lying or
it was always a ploy, but you need
to decide that. Just, first and foremost, acknowledge
the things we're discussing are happening,
and don't try to just assume into an
explanation for why it must be because of
x, y, and z. Just acknowledge the problem
and then wait to find more information and
hold their feet to the fire. Left or
right, up, down, doesn't matter. It's a government.
It should matter that we hold them accountable.
Now I started with a clip that I
think is important
that you might not have seen. We just
put this out on,
at oops. Let me before I put this
back on the wrong page, I put this
out today that was actually part of
a documentary that T Snyder put out. You've
seen him on I wake up. I think
he's on Thursdays every week.
Really intelligent guy, great guy in general. And
I I wanted to put he he basically
put the a mini doc, which I I
put down here,
that's just about Derrick Rose, which had some
overlap because Teece has been going around filming
for this kind of what he's doing is
sort of sort of I think it's loosely
around the IMA in general or that's kind
of ended up happening that way.
But the point is he's been following us
throughout,
multiple for a while now. And this he's
been filming these that go that go back
months. And as they overlap with the next
person, he kind of gets overlapping coverage there.
Now he recently was here because Steve was
here and the carnival was happening, and he
got some overlap with us as well, which
is where some of this comes from. And
so he cut this in with the part
that Derek for basically Derek's
mini documentary.
Tiese, I think, plans to make this into
a larger like, all of them in one,
like, either mixed or just kind of succession
of these documentaries, so look for that. But
he put out Derek so far, and we
all kinda thought that there was section like
I showed you there to play that was
about the IMA that I thought would make
a really good sort of outline for what
we want and what we think. And I
think he did a just first and foremost,
he did an amazing job on that. He
is a very talented person. And I wanted
to say be sure to support Thies,
who made the and the outstanding mini doc
that we made the clip from. He's currently
working on one of, of myself included that
was focused just on me. We were filming
for a few days around that and a
bunch of others. But he really does a
lot of work on this. Works very hard.
And as you know well, guys, today, doing
the right things for the right reasons really
does not pay. So make sure you support
what he's doing because he's working really hard
just to get the truth out there for
the right reasons. And we're I I believe,
it it's up to him, and I think
he's already said he wants to do it.
I'm gonna try to platform his whole series
on TLAB as well, where he also he
has his website, conspiracy synergy, but we're gonna
try to put it on on TLAB just
so we can help drive more revenue to
what he's doing and support that whole drive
because I think it's very important. But website
coming soon. Just so you guys know, it's
it's I shouldn't even say this because I
I don't not like some other projects you've
heard that constantly go, hey. Here's a thing
that will be here. And it's been, like,
eight years, and it's not coming. The point
is that this isn't genuinely going on in
the background. We keep talking with them. They
keep giving us updates about what's gonna be
coming or what what they're fixing and adding
and so on. And right now, I guess,
he feels really confident that we should be
seeing this coming soon. But as you guys
know, when you build these new websites, especially
the one like they're doing, which overlaps with
it's essentially a new decentralized Internet dynamic, which
is incredible.
We'll be one of the first platforms to
be on there or just, like,
groups, I guess, seeing as how we all
still have our individual platforms and there's no
financial mechanism just for the IMA. It's each
of us individually, and I was adamant about
that. The point is
that that essentially, it's once we get this
up I lost my thread. The point is
that this thing has,
this kind of projects have problems as you're
built like, with Super You, we had as
you're building it, there can be things that
you don't see coming or things that cause
other problems in other areas. The point is
it's a really neat dynamic that is going
to be unique to us, at least for
now, and it will be coming out soon.
And we'll be sharing some new things with
you coming up. And, really, again, to reiterate
what it's gonna be
is sort of a a website
where you'll see the central page will be
the IMA content, our panels, our different round
you know, whatever we're doing that's IMA focused.
And then each time, you'll be able to
you know, if you like what I said
that day or if you like what Derek
said, you can go to the individual platform
and go to Derek's and donate to him
directly. And that's that's the way it will
be. And once we get this up and
running, we'll go back to what we had
you know, I we had plans to bring
new people in, to highlight some smaller creators.
We kind of decided to put a lot
of that on hold until we got the
site so we could really showcase it. So
just, you know, what's going on. I'm really
excited about this, and I just you know,
I like I said, I think this is
powerful. I really do. So thank you for
your support thus far. Here is the documentary.
You can check it out. Here is Tiese's
page on YouTube. Please support him. It's just
amazing work.
Now I wanted to start with a small
thing here.
Just it's it's it kind of relates to
Twitter and some of your points that I
weren't gonna wasn't gonna include, and I didn't
know where else to fit it in. So
I just wanna bang it out really quickly
here that I think is interesting. And it's
it's something that is we we've been covering
and talking about.
The I guess the easiest way to put
it is the kind of the social engineering
kind of algorithmic
experimentation
that's happening on Twitter.
And it's just really, really interesting to me
how clear this is. And so bottom line
is I had this pulled over. I wanted
to I wanted to look back at this
as the many tabs that I saved for
myself over the days. This random account, which
by the way, I'll show you, you know,
doesn't
look at his
his comments and so on, and I've been
pretty, you know,
misguided person. Let's put it that way. But
that's this different put different, aside from the
point. He says nobody has been arrested. How
is he a hero? Now he's responding to
somebody talking about, I think it's Kash Patel
and different arrests. And you look through his
threat his account. I mean, he's calling out
Trump. And even though he's clearly supporting of
the general mission,
is a lot of Republicans are going like,
where are the arrests? Right? And it's not
just, Epstein. It's about all the different claims.
Doge found all this theft. Okay. Why is
nobody in prison? You know what I mean?
Like, it's it's endless that keeps happening, and
it's very clear. And a lot of Republicans
are getting pretty unhappy about it. So point
was I wanted to save it so I
can make a point about it, but I
realized I couldn't see what was above it.
It's a comment to somebody else, and I
couldn't scroll down. And so this person simply
says remind me, and this was the point
I was gonna reference, does he work for
the FBI? Oh, wait. No. That's not his
responsibility. Or, actually, it was about RFK or
something like that. And then the point was
she's making is that, well,
it's not his responsibility even though it's kind
of a sidestep. Right? The idea is that
they're accusing people of things and no one's
actually trying to see the accountability. Now that
that was what I was gonna get to,
not the point for now.
It's not letting me see it. Okay. So
I decided I'm gonna look for it because
I know it's there. I have the tweet.
Right? And I searched to read the word
arrested for his account.
It's not there. Like, you can scroll down.
You can look. There's a lot of comments
about it, but what you'll notice is a
lot of the ones on here are not
the ones that like, the ones that I'll
show you next. There's only so many on
here. The point is you won't find the
one I'm looking for or just more more
in particular,
nobody has been arrested, which is exactly what
that says.
Direct search for it, and it says it's
not there.
Now with the point I'm making is that
the the I think there's a very clear
effort to suppress content that is
leading down peep paths of conversation that that
is not adherent to the current view or
many different suggest aspects of that across this
platform. Or maybe we're all in different little
corrals where they're getting different experiments. I don't
know. But I do think we need to
continue to highlight whether Trump's point tweet about
bringing in the CIA now that you will
not be able to find unless you have
the link, which I've saved, and I still
have it. It's still there. But no matter
how many times you search for it, it
just doesn't show it, Or Elon Musk, I've
made this point a hundred times. This may
be small to people. They just don't wanna
care or they're maybe think it's all a
good thing on Twitter or you're saving free
speech. But it does matter. These things are
important. It shows you that either there's a
mistake on this platform that is not the
so just know there's not always all the
information there, which is not what they're projecting,
or it's being censored, or rather, I guess,
selectively withheld in certain points of the conversation.
So continuing down this,
can't find it.
Here's another example just to show you this
guy is making these comments. This is under
cash where he goes, how many holdovers have
you neglected to fire? Interesting point on that
is that they keep making this claim. Right?
Oh, it's an old Democrat holdover or even
with Brooke Brooke Jackson, who I'll be interviewing,
day after tomorrow,
who at least at one point was her
lawyer. I don't know if he still is,
but it was,
I'm blanking on his name, with Eva Frey
and and Robert Barnes who made the just
kind of stated that that must be holdovers
that were causing that from the DOJ.
Everyone seems to kinda just lurch into that
conversation with no evidence because it gives them
the benefit of the doubt, which as he's
telling, well, how many holdovers have you neglected
to fire? Or why aren't they now in
prison if that's what you guys know? Endeavor
seems to materialize.
Here's another one with this person saying, RFK
Jr stated on live TV, the Biden administration
HHS was complicit in child trafficking. Well, you're
prob probably the case with both sides.
They go, everyone knows that. Where are the
arrests? See, this is an important way to
think of this. How can you make such
major claims about
human trafficking and not have an not even
an investigation
going? At least it were shown. Now what
you get is, well, they can't just all
do it in one day. Okay. Fair enough.
You show me when it happens. And until
then, don't scream that everything's going the way
you want it to because you don't know
that. What we get are statements.
Things are bad. This is happening. I'm gonna
investigate this. This is going to end. Well,
when they do those things, let's talk about
it. That's not to say that I think
they won't. I mean, truly, I have I'm
I don't believe in left or right. I
think they're all against you, so I probably
am doubtful. But I'm a leave it open
because it could, and I know that.
So it's interesting that we don't see these
things.
Nick Sorter says, holy crap. Doge uncovered a
massive arsenal of weapons and payments to the
Taliban. I mean, are these guys actually not
informed, or are they just knowingly trying to
play this one-sided game? Could be both. Are
we really gonna pretend
like Trump's administration and Biden's
and more than that before, we're all not
all completely involved with this whole dynamic? You
can prove this stuff. Now, just because it
happened under like, I guess we have our
housefly memory dynamic, meaning that we don't have
a long memory
in this country where they could just pretend
like the all we know is the last
so many years of Biden's administration, Donald Trump
was involved in the exact same dynamics. They
just inherited it and handed down. So the
Taliban was I mean, let's be real. The
whole idea was that it was the Taliban
was the was the focus.
They were the ones that we went to
war with, but and then Trump was me
dealing with them. They were supplying. Well, the
same thing.
But here's the main point of the point
today,
because they even deleted a vast amount of
financial information. Cool. Where are the rest? That's
his point. Our worthless DOJ won't even prosecute
criminals they see daily walking through the White
House. Good luck with that. You know what
I mean? And so it's funny as you
get this crowd of, like, Nick Sorters and
Benny Johnson's that are just like, yay. Cheerlead
everything all the time. We're winning. It's great.
We're
maybe they believe it. I don't know. But
then you have another layer of these people
that want the same things, but are not
just not paid to to cheerlead every day
and are going, that's not gonna make a
difference, but still want the same things.
Roger Stone says vengeance is not coming. Justice
is coming. Same guy says, not as long
as Trump's president. And he understand. Look at
his feet. He supports Trump. Trump protects the
deep state just like he does Hillary, which
is he's admitted to.
Now it seems like he's getting uncomfortable or
growing tired of it all.
But then, see my previous this you look
through his account. This is the kind of
stuff that people are circulating.
He says, coming to America. This guy this
is a concerned citizen with almost a million
followers, and says, young girl forced to marry
40 year old man against her will is
beyond sick, which I guarantee you happens all
over the world, including places that you don't
wanna pretend it happens. Or, like like Israel,
for example, or The UK. It happens. My
point is that's not what this is. And
this is I've seen this video before. It's
actually where this person was caught. According you
can read about it, and maybe that's the
lie, but this is your grok fact check.
It says, in reality, it involved a shop
employee who admitted to stealing money from her
employer. And when they apprehended, they refused to
sign the confession that they all had you
know, that she'd actually stole and they knew
it. Blah blah blah. But, yeah, if you
put that video out, it looks pretty crazy.
Right? Concerned citizen is one of these republican
sort of influencing types that came off the
COVID nineteen time frame that influences a lot
of conversation.
Coming to America, except it's not real. Right?
Now that's not to say that there's not
an obvious overlap there. Let's not forget about
I mean, even with the European migrant crisis
that's still ongoing but from before,
What what do we hear? Boris told us
ISIS is going to infiltrate through the migrant
yeah. And what is ISIS again? Oh, that's
right. The US is rarely proxy army that
we know they've been funding and arming and
supporting. So let's think about real migrant,
weaponized migration and how they are using these
things, and that does not make the groups
that are being used necessarily the problem.
But that's how this tends to work. Right?
And we're all being driven by these radical
racist maniac, apartheid loving,
fascist technocrat
globalist, whatever you wanna call it. And it's
clear to me that we're being misled to
hate the people that are being used within
it. Now that's not to say there's not
radicals in every culture that you can find.
They abuse them. Trust me.
One more point on this. Now before I
go past that, the only reason I brought
this up again was I want you to
recognize how clearly this platform is so dedicated,
in my opinion, to corralling certain perspectives. So
and and I'll I'll I'll make a note
about my following, but I probably should have
the next, which is happening constantly right now.
Before that, one other point here I thought
was interesting.
I keep getting this everywhere. Now this could
have have something to do with what's going
on. I make certain posts about certain things,
and it's only around certain content. For example,
this Aviva Clampus Zionist manipulator says the masterminds
behind the beeper bomb that eliminated Hezbollah leaders,
which it didn't as far as I can
tell, were honored at Israel's Independence Day ceremony.
And I said, remember, the vast majority of
those killed in this attack were women of
children according to their own statistics, guys, because
it was. It was easy to prove, and
it was markets and ten years of circulation.
And they have masks on. How creepy. Like,
these people are very aware that we all
know what's going on. And, of course, the
point is, every time I make certain comments
about certain things, I get stuff like this,
which they never used to block me first.
This person now has me blocked, which is
interesting.
So what they do is they comment under
your post and go, hey. Come,
invest with this random guy who now look
Twitter's suspended his account. Never came across someone
like this. They're trying to get you invest
in crypto or something else.
And I immediately block the person they're trying
to promote, and I usually block the account.
Nowadays, they are blocking me before I can
do it. This is a coordinated thing. The
reason I bring it up is because I
think this is about the tactics that Twitter
is using or somebody involved with Twitter. I'm
not saying Elon Musk, but some level of
influence that are using things like this to
suppress
you know, like, they're saying if you use
links or hashtags, it suppresses your reach. That's
just censorship. That's all it is. It's it's
suppression.
So in this, I think when you have
enough of those sex bots or enough of
these weird people and then they block you
maybe, I it creates some kind of a
suppression tactic that triggers a thing on this
platform that they created for that reason. I'm
absolutely convinced of that.
And the fact they blocked me ahead of
time, I think, makes it so I can't
see. I don't know. But I wanted to
point it out because I think this stuffing
this stuff is happening prolifically right now.
Very weird.
Now let me do this real quick before
I forget.
What I knew what I try to do
normally is hide them and then block it,
and hopefully that maybe that's what they want.
Maybe that's what's causing censorship. I don't know.
Lastly, I wanted you guys to see this
because this is happening to I mean, I
I see Republicans out there making statements like
this. I did this first one so you
could see the date, April 30. It said
seventy four thousand five hundred sixty four. There
was a moment there where we were going
up pretty rapidly even with all that was
going on. Every single day now despite like,
and I'm watching
tons of people following still every day,
but it goes down every day. Now the
next day I checked, and, oh, look. Now
it's at 05:37.
Today, I just checked, and it's at $574,005
26. Now look for yourself. If you maybe
people just don't like me anymore. Certainly possible.
I'm never assuming one way or the other.
But what's funny is with Social Blade, where
you could track this stuff, suddenly, Twitter doesn't
let it work anymore. Now you can't look
at them. I'm sure there's new ones being
built. My point is I think there's all
of this all of this is about social
engineering. And what they're doing is slowly depressing
and removing, and it's
very important to see. I mean, look. We
have more reach than ever today. More reach
than ever. And our and everywhere else in
other platform. Well, you're telling me on the
plat I mean, it just doesn't add up,
guys, despite all the continue the following that
we continue to get every day that I
can see. Something very strange is going on.
Now that aside, I wanted to go back
to the point about
the
law the, I guess, the double crossing, if
you will. There's many ways you can frame
it. I'll play this clip from David Icke
first, which kinda sets the tone for the
the, you know, the play of the independent
media.
That he says, all those in the fake
alternative media, or he calls the mainstream alternative
media,
that promoted Trump as the savior should surely
apologize to those they misled.
The the reason he's saying this is not
he thinks this and you know that, but
we're I'm not the only one picking up
on this in the field. You can see
it.
Look at their comments. Look at under Jones
or Johnson.
Look at their the comments from their supporters.
They're on the fence right now. They're going,
come on. Where is the where is the
evidence? Even though if you put put them
to a a choice, they would still side
with them, which is my opinion anyway. But
the point is they're really trying to mask
this very weird unnerving, and, at the same
time, trying to go, there's an effort to
to divide the Trump administration by psy ops
and no. No. No. They're just not stupid.
They're not blind idiots that are following along
with the screamers up top. They're still on
Trump's side, but they're unhappy with the outcome.
And they're trying to play that as some
kind of a division psyop. Now, of course,
it's certainly possible that's the case, but I
think we can all see if you're objective
and nonpartisan, the way this is going. I
mean, if you were in the middle of
the COVID nineteen psyop and you said what
would happen next, you'd be pointing at exactly
what Trump and the current US government is
rolling out. Do you think he knows that?
Maybe he's being played. Doesn't change the reality
of what's actually happening. He says some are
now criticizing him when they should have seen
all along what he would do. It was
pretty obvious to a lot of us. Others
are doubling down to avoid saying the obvious
as as in I was duped again and
and then duped you. He says, how many
have apologized for being blatant propagandist for a
tyranny so predictable? It was pathologically
easy to call.
He says, and it's only just begun. Politics
is not the answer left or right and
never will be. We are, as in you,
the people.
Always important. Now, again, whether you agree with
everything David Icke has to say, I recommend
you look into his work because he's largely
misrepresented in a lot of ways and does
have some pretty esoteric and and even stuff
that I would say I I'd maybe not
agree with that. The bottom line is he's,
in my opinion, a man of integrity, and
he stands by what he believes in, and
he's been calling this out for a long
time. Look back at what he's been saying.
You know, again, consistency is very important especially
today. Here's what he had to say.
Make a president,
And he told people what they wanted to
hear,
in this election campaign that he was the
peacemaker president, and he was gonna stop wars,
and he was not gonna do this, not
gonna do that.
As we speak,
he's
he's bombed Yemen.
He's bombed Somalia.
He's,
supplying the weapons to bomb
Gaza.
Iran. He's He's Yeah. Iran. He's he's he's
threatening Iran.
He's,
he's threatening,
countries like Greenland.
He's threatening
Canada in terms of absorbing them into the
fifty first state.
Threatening,
Panama, threatening
Mexico,
and saying that
the Palestinians
need to be moved out of,
of Gaza to other countries. Just Just quick
note. Remember all the names he listed off
there. It'll be relevant in the show a
little bit later. And and they're gonna take
it over and turn it into a bloody
Mediterranean resort.
Now none of this
was spoken about
in the election campaign,
which which got him elected.
And, and now he's doing
so much
that he said he wouldn't do. And that's
how it works
because
the MAGA to Trump and people like Musk
and these other people
are simply vote fodder. That's all you are,
ladies and gentlemen, to these parties. You're voting
fodder to get them into office, and then
they do as they bloody like.
And it's what's interesting is you can look
back. I mean, what it's just so again,
the point of, like, the, you know, the
the joke of the the attention span of
a housefly meant to be just, like, erratic,
and, you know, you don't the memory is
not there. The point is that you could
look back very recently,
whether it's UK politics or not, which we,
you know, we look from an American centric
view for obvious reasons. But if you look
at this, these conversations are not new. They
I mean, even like the Boris Johnson, Trump,
like, they're they're emulating each other, and it's
not just those. Look around the world. What's
wild is that they're they've made these cases
before. Right? The the all that matters is
emotion. There's there's leaked evidence of people, I
think, from, I mean, every election dynamic in
this country, UK, where they're basically caught saying,
the facts don't matter. It's all about what
you think and feel. I mean, the the
Newt Gingrich state, point that I make all
I've been making for a decade. When he
the first time I saw him say that
blew me away, and now it's the policy.
And we know that, but yet people still
seem to fall in line because they believe.
Now I'm not saying it's a bad thing
to have faith to, you know, believe in
somebody. Not faith. That's not the right word
when it comes to the conversation. The point
is because that means you're that you're giving
the benefit of the doubt. You believe in
him regardless. That's not where you should be.
But the point is that you need to
start
holding their feet to the fire in particular
when you support them for the worry that
maybe they aren't the person you think they
are. You know? This blind drive to support
them no matter what is the it's it's
their bread and butter. And so things like
this, I think, are pretty interesting.
This is from Revolver. Texas just turned into
The UK,
which is interesting. Because remember, the whole thing
that you know, before and and the beginning
of the of the selection process with Musk
and pointing over at The UK and the
Muslims and everything, you know, everything
interesting,
driving and and creating,
momentum in this Twitter conversation about foreign elections
and all sorts of stuff. And the point
was The UK was allowing that the the
problem
in in a very simplistic way. There's 45
conversations under that. But now the GOP house
passes dystopian bill criminalizing memes. And I'll read
you what we're talking about because it's not
as specific as just memes are not allowed,
but it's important to understand this. Now here's
the actual bill from the Texas, which is
a Texas legislature. It's weird that it just
looks like this, like, type, but you could
tell up here it's capitaltexas.gov.
And it's h b,
numbers 366.
Relating to required disclosures on certain political advertising
that contains to altered media. Now
the they don't really differentiate to where it,
like, a deliberate intent to misinform or not,
which frankly, again, if we're talking free speech,
it does not matter.
That's the thing is they're trying to drive
us into choosing lines around this when if
they frame it about the people you don't
like. That's always how this works. Whether it's
a foreign entity, migrants, or in this case,
the bad evil left who's trying or the
right who wants to attack you. Right? They
they do it to where you then
rationalize what you otherwise wouldn't because either they've
been dehumanized or you've been trained to hate
them irrationally,
which emotion should not play a factor in
any of this stuff. It says creating a
criminal offense. Be it enacted by the legislature
of the state of Texas. Remember, Texas being
in particular one of the large one of
the most problematic areas when it comes to
anti BDS laws, white pro Israel legislation.
We're gonna talk again more today about the
anti boycott law that's happening and it's about
to go forward in this country.
It's it's everywhere.
Republicans are calling it
out. Of course, if you listen to Tim
Pool, they tell you that it's a very
small minority. It's not, guys. Pay attention. Look
at the Republican party. There are people everywhere
who are calling this stuff out, and they
get shouted down or masked or, you know,
suppressed, kind of overshadowed
by those screaming people up top that want
you to think everybody's on their side.
Now it says section two five five zero
zero one five require disclosure on certain political
advertising. And I should've said that's the main
point, is that if you do these things,
you're supposed to put a big
disclaimer on it saying this is altered media.
Criminal penalty. It says a person may not
cause to be published, distributed, or broadcast, which
is interesting to me, broadcast, political advertising that
includes an image, audio recording, or video recording
of an
office holder's
or candidate's appearance, speech, or conduct that did
not occur in reality,
including an image, audio recording, or video recording
that has been altered using artificial
intelligence technology unless the political advertising includes
a disclosure indicating that the image, audio recording,
or video recording did not occur in reality.
Now I'm willing to bet you this is
very it's very broad and opaque, like, as
always, very
undefined because is how what does that have
to be a certain size? Where does that
have to be? This will be a way
to remove content they don't like. Even if
it's like, oh, whoops. We did have a
disclaimer. We didn't see it. We'll get back
to it, and then six weeks later, it
goes back up. Like, this is a f
this is an effort to further the line,
to continue the suppression of speech and conversation
and in in particular around political conversation. Gee.
You think that has something to do with
Israel? I mean, it's obvious. It's very transparent
what this all connects to right now. Now
what's interesting on top of it is what
we're talking about here is just
AI technology manipulating things, but what we'll get
into in a second, it's really they make
a point to say it's not even necessarily
AI. Just it
a meme, let's say, that they you you
make a joke about and say this person
lied or, you know, this happens every day.
But let's realize the most egregious examples we've
seen all come from state actors.
Usually, The US, Israel, The UK, things like
that. And so it's interesting
that they're making this about you. Do you
think this will apply to things that they
put out? Will the US government be called
out for putting out false information or Israel
for being caught lying about videos they create?
I guarantee that won't happen.
My opinion, obviously, but I'm pretty certain about
that thing as how we've seen in the
past unless we see another shift, which I
hope comes. But it says the commission by
rule shall prescribe the form of a disclosure
required by subsection a, including the front font
size. Oh, I missed that earlier.
How did I miss that? So it does
say font size and color of the disclosure.
Let's see. I
I I I have to look at section
subsection a here and see if it's specific
enough. I get the sense that it's gonna
be somewhere where they can
play with the definition, which is pretty much
everything the government puts out. It says the
commission shall ensure that the form of the
disclosure is consistent with other required disclosures on
political advertising. Again, political advertising is not what
we're involved in.
But I'll go into the actual, the numbers
around the two. But it's a person commits
an offense if the person violates this section.
An offense under this section is a class
a misdemeanor, which apparently could be up to
a year in jail
for for a meme. Now what happens if
I share a meme? What happens if I'm
live streaming Twitter and a meme is in
the background that they think like, remember this
from The UK bill that came around where
they were saying if you have they've got,
like, a Coke can in the back of
the back of the shot, they would that
you weren't allowed. They'd take the video down.
These are the same things.
Or the child safety owl all under the
guise of something else around trying to suppress
content.
Now here's a clip of somebody, actually blanking
on her name. I was just reading about
it, and who stood up, who
basically pushes back on this.
So this bill is a class
a misdemeanor?
That is correct. So what are the consequences
for this? Could you explain that to me?
Well, you would have to of course, it
would go to the district attorney's office and
the class a misdemeanor is,
I don't let me see if I have
the actual penalties in front of me.
Excuse me. Yeah. It's up to it's up
to a year in jail. Yes, ma'am.
Up to a year in jail. Correct.
I've been to jail.
What's this case? For three days for working.
Do you think that that's a fair
punishment for someone creating an image or a
meme?
Well,
it's a very serious offense.
Up to a year in jail, sir. Well
That's crazy.
Now, you know, of course, what's interesting is
that you're getting you know, like, right now,
you're getting divide amongst the GOP in this
discussion, which I think is important. But it
just serves to show you that this is
not about partisanship, guys. It's about whatever else
is driving that conversation and then anybody who
has the integrity to call it out.
Now here is Texas scorecard. April 30 this
came out. It says the Texas house
has approved
legislation by former speaker Dade Phelan, I think
who that's who was speaking, I believe, that
would criminalize the distribution of altered political media,
such as memes, videos, or audio recordings unless
they contain a government mandated disclaimer.
Despite tweaks in a I mean, the the
issues with the first with with the free
speech and or just your rights in general,
it's obvious right there that you somehow have
to slap a government disclaimer on things. You
know, the the area of abuse will be
tremendous.
Now it says despite tweaks in in a
recently adopted committee substitute,
the bill continues to face intense criticism from
the first amendment advocates who warn it would
chill political speech and satire. Now just on
an obvious point, people may decide not to
put something out for fear that they might
cross that line. That alone is enough to
point out. And it says originally pitched as
a response to AI generated deep fakes.
See,
whether it's what I've always talked about, which
I still argue is going to play a
role, has to at some point,
or just pointing at that problem they've created
as the rationale for why other things need
to happen. It's interesting how this plays, but
the deep fake was always going to be
a tool in all this.
It says house bill three six six six
is significantly
broader in scope than the original discussion. The
current,
version makes clear that it doesn't just apply
to artificial intelligence,
but also to any image, audio, or video
that, quote, did not occur in reality.
So now you can't even make a joke
meme about something because it's not it didn't
well, the so I guess humor is gone.
Right? No satire whatsoever
because I mean, realize that that that the
point I made earlier, whether it's memes or,
like, a Babylon Bee or whatever the other
platforms are are the,
you know, what's the other ones? There's there's
many of them that that come out and
basically,
you know, make jokes about things and and
and and weirdly almost predicts what what happens
later.
There's a reason that's become more profound and
has more reach, and I recognize that. I
mean, I make I I have a great
interview coming out probably tomorrow or the next
day with Grant Ellman.
Grant Presence Elman is a musician, very talented.
Actually, did a live performance on the interview
where we get into all of that and
about how, you know, basically, the manipulation
it's it's easy to see how the the
industry can manipulate things. I I will go
I'll put that out probably tomorrow, and it'll
be it's important to see. It's really great
conversation about his work, and it's it was
interesting. But the point is the current version,
makes clear it doesn't apply just to artificial
intelligence, but also to any image, audio, or
video that did not occur in reality. A
definition that includes
the basic Photoshop edit edits and parody. Now
it says under the substitute, the bill now
technically applies
only to individuals or entities who fall into
one of three categories. Now this was pushback.
Right? Before, it was wildly broad and now
and still is, but now they've added a
little bit,
arguably trying to give it limits, but it
seems as always that this is easy to
just make anybody fit into these categories.
It says under the substitute, they have three
categories, office holders, candidates, or political committees.
That's obvious. Right? So that's where I think
this would even apply if you were gonna
get into the conversation about people who are
running for office
lying about their about people they're running against.
This is why I don't think there should
be any of this stuff. Put your policies
out there. No political advertising at all. Like,
the or lobbying or the that is where
the problem always starts, but it'll never happen
because these people are I mean, if you
still think your vote translates, then I we're
way down the line. My point, though, is
that that's where it should if you're gonna
do this, it should apply to people doing
it about their adversaries in regard to politics.
That makes sense. But, obviously, the point would
be about just if you're well, I mean,
look. If if you're gonna on the side
of free speech in general, it shouldn't matter.
As long as money's not involved, people can
lie all they want. Right? That that's the
reality of it. But, logically speaking, if there
was gonna be a group it would apply
to, it would be that first one. Now
it says those who spend more than a
hundred dollars, this is category two, on political
advertising during a reporting period.
But so and that doesn't seem to apply
just to people who are candidates or office
holders, to people who spend more than a
hundred dollars on political advertising.
Now I'll let the the article explains that
well enough and how that could be used
against you.
And it says, anyone who publishes or distributes
such content for compensation. Well, I mean, that
is like, when I was in the the
which may there there still may be three
more coming. I hope not. But the lawsuits
we were dealing with,
the argument they were making is about how
much money we we were bringing in because
of an image that was on the on
the site that I was under the impression
was Creative Commons and still argue still probably
was. The point is that I very quickly
broke down how that was just to complete
this representation, that it's my that it was
the the the the money that get the
the t lab brings in is through donations
that largely have to do with people donating
directly because they believe in the platform, not
because I'm generating ad revenue on that website,
the one page. Right? So the same thing
is they could make an allegation about how
if you do any of this simply because
you've got money coming in through anything or
because you, like well, they'll say it down
here. Decide to, like, pay to boost something
because you think it's funny. Like, they could
apply this. I think that's exactly what this
is about. Someone who pays for a boosted
meme or designs politically content using paid tools
like Facebook, Twitter.
Now it says the bill also adds on
intent to influence an election requirement,
which they said that about the Facebook memes
and everything else, easily applied to whatever they
want. This is while framed as a safeguard,
opponents note that nearly all campaign speech exists
to influence elections, making the clause effectively toothless,
exactly, or all encompassing.
Now it says the me the measures, stems
from a mailer set during, Phelan's reelection campaign.
Ah, see, it becomes personal. In which an
outside group depicted him alongside Nancy Pelosi
to draw attention to shared donors.
Okay. So were was the impression that he
was literally I mean, it just seems like
such a a ridiculous effort.
You could make a graphic that showed them
standing in the same shot. Doesn't necessarily mean
they were in the same shot. It's just
if this is a child example of somebody
who didn't like how they were depicted, who
then take it further, and my point would
be there are people that are, you know,
above them that go, ah, this this we
can use and jump in and drive it.
That's what I would argue. Who knows? But
it says, while he claimed the law wouldn't
touch social media, TEC general counsel James Tinley
acknowledged that political content posted online could, in
fact, fall under the bill's jurisdiction. I would
argue the entire point.
Lastly, it says, approved a hundred and two
to 40. So let that sink in. A
hundred and two people in in the Texas
legislature believe
that they should make this pass.
Now being sent over to the senate, which
doesn't seem like it'll probably pass, nonetheless,
inch incremental steps forward.
Now in excuse me. Texas house passes bill
banning Texans under eighteen
from having social media accounts. You see where
this is going? Very clearly related to what
I argue is the I mean, Texas in
particular, which is, like we said earlier, a
very important conversation around Israel's influence, BDS.
All of this happening now seems very, very
telling to me. Now, actually, let me play
this first since I was gonna play it
afterward, but I think it will keep it
in your mind as as important for this
point around
why they may want to do that. Now,
of course, it's always about protecting your children,
or maybe it's about this.
I also wanna point out that we have
a major,
major,
major
generational problem. All the polling I've seen, ADL's
polling,
ICC's
polling,
independent polling suggests
this is not a left right gap, folks.
The Asian United States and support for Israel
is not left and right.
It is young and old.
And so we really have a TikTok problem,
a Gen Z problem that our community needs
to put. The same brains that gave us
Tagli,
the same brains that gave us all these
other amazing innovations
need to put our energy toward this, like,
fast.
As, again, like we've been chasing this left
right divide.
It's the wrong
game. Mhmm.
The real
game as the next generation.
We saw a dramatic change
in the language of the activists here in
America on October.
The language of groups that we belong to
have long been problematic.
What's Students for Justice in Palestine?
Jewish group. Jewish Voice for Peace. Jewish Voice
for Peace. Jewish group.
Right, that they're claiming are problems.
Their Jewish their Jewish community like like all
of us, like Columbia, for example, was a
mix of Jewish, Muslim, Christian,
holocaust survivors, and yet they still tried to
frame them all as radical anti as anti
Jewish, like, insane. And
at to this day, it's insane how obvious
it was not lit not the way they
framed it, and yet still people scream it
online like every other part of this conversation.
But what I says next, she's she's chilling
for those that care, which is that they
with this is Israeli group, which is basically
a spy organization,
has plants inside of Jewish groups in The
United States. They report back to Israel.
The language I could show you from their
toolkits,
because our analysts are in their groups. Mhmm.
We saw this again on October.
It was that fast.
Like the language in their toolkits
was all about the Zionist entities.
Exactly.
I might as well play these since we're
talking about it.
L
is an Israeli spy organization
masking around as a supposed civil rights group
and doing real harm to the Jewish community
writ large in order to run cover for
the state of Israel.
So have the power to monitor social media
activity across all major platforms
and change social media algorithms
the way they see fit. Don't believe me?
Well, here's Jonathan Greenblatt, the CEO of the
ADL. We work with YouTube to have we
to get them to change their algorithms.
We work with Facebook on trying to use
a redirect method. So when you search for
holocaust, you get directed to, like, a Yad
Vashem
page.
We opened
a center in Silicon Valley back in
You get it.
I've played that many times. The point is
great discussion. Make sure you watch James Lee's
documentary. It's a short one on that very
topic.
It's it it is I mean, I mean,
there's plenty of examples coming from US intelligence
that mean people that were there that tell
you this is a spy organization. They're spying
on Americans. And the come play some clips
right now. They're gonna be pretty shocking if
you haven't heard this before. The the US
government knows what this is, and they are
allowing Israel to spy on you. They're allowing
Israel to to at least petition
deportations from this country, including Americans.
It's all right in front of you.
Now this coming back to this point is
why this is happening in my opinion. Now
there's plenty of other overlaps you can talk
about, just suppression, you know, of of in
in yeah. The spreading of conversations
amongst I mean, social media for a certain
generation.
Now I I mean, I shouldn't say it,
like, clearly, there are generational differences based on
if you're older, whether you use it more
or not. My point is that
the new generation
being introduced to what's happening now,
I think, is profoundly problematic
for the power structure. And so I think
that's why this is happening in a in
a you know, along with a lot of
other things. Now what it says, state representative
Jared Patterson, who authored the house bill one
eight six, said the legislation was born out
of concern over the mental health and safety
of young users. Now here's what's fascinating about
this.
Absolutely a real concern,
but they've never cared up until it started
butting up against their chosen l
allies out in the world. Think about how
wild it is that we've known this. You've
got Facebook
founders
decade ago telling you that they they don't
want their children touch this stuff because we
we basically ruined the planet or whatever they
were saying. We know all of this. It
is detrimental
to the but here's the point. The government
should have nothing to do with any of
this. That is for the parents of children
and whoever else to deal with. That's their
responsibility.
Every day, the government finds ways to work
itself in between the family unit, and that's
another example of that. Why they should have
to get create laws to say whether children
are allowed to use something that the parent
I mean, there are parents out there that
let their five year old kid watch radar
movies or whatever, and that that's your prerogative.
So to argue that this is going to
be something that the they have to decide
is never about whether whether it's healthy for
you or your children. That's my opinion, obviously,
but just look back. Look at the history.
I mean, if, like, they care about your
children's mental health, but they'll lock them down
for a couple years and make them lose
their minds because of a lie. Right? They
don't care. It says due to constant social
media use,
self harm rates have skyrocketed or it was
because of the shut lockdowns and social distancing
and math and all of that that that's
what actually caused that skyrocket. We all know
that. Now they're just using this to frame
it somewhere else. And, of course, I would
argue that, yes, this does have a factor
in that probably by design, but what they're
doing is hiding what was caused by what
they did. And by and large, there's plenty
of period science around it. Up 48% for
boys and a staggering a 88
for girls, which also that overlaps with the
obvious transgender psyop that was, I mean, largely
focused on young girls more than anything.
Either way, we've talked about that a lot.
And it says suicide rates for boys rose
ninety one percent, sixty seven percent for girls,
and that's, of course, in regard to the
same conversation. In a recent Pew study, forty
eight percent of teens admitted that social media
harms people their age.
Patterson also cited a recent study by The
Wall Street Journal, which found an Instagram account
for a 13 year old saw three times
as many prohibited posts containing nudity.
1.7
times as much violence and 4.1 times as
much bullying content as users above the age
of 30.
Okay? I mean, the the idea that you
would then make that their like, what you're
telling us right there is that those young
accounts somehow got introduced to these things more
than the age of 30 even though they
both use the platform. Is that the child's
fault, or are you literally die highlighting that
the platforms are the ones corralling in these
ways in social engineering?
Is that so then the idea of steam
is I agree these things are terrible, but
that is for the child or the family
and the parents to make these decisions.
And if you're a good parent out there,
you damn well better get this stuff out
of their hands. That's what I would do.
Yeah. It's gonna be problematic. Yeah. It's probably
gonna make them feel like they're outside. The
bottom line is if you actually care about
what this is doing to them, then you
should. But it's your decision.
Right? And I'm that's nobody should be criticizing.
It's a very difficult time, but I think
very strongly about that. Under house bill one
eight six, social media companies would be banned
from allowing people in Texas under age 18
to create accounts,
banned from allowing you to do that. Like,
just that never feels
right. The government should not be dictating what
you are or not allowed to do in
your time with your phone. I mean, it's
insane.
But it's all being rationalized. Right? Because we
gotta save the children
every time. The platforms would also have to
implement measures to verify the age of users.
And there's another shoe that's dropping. Do you
think they don't know what age you are?
I mean, I'll I'll read what they said
down here and they nailed it. Like, are
we really gonna pretend that they don't literally
know what you're what you're thinking right now?
I mean, kinda joking. What you ate three
seconds ago? They know, guys. The amount of
information
is absolutely mind blowing.
But, yeah, we we need you to verify.
This is about absolve
I think getting more information because cause there
will be ways that you will get some
that you didn't have, but also about
just compliance.
Normalizing this idea that you have to check
with your authority before you can do basically
anything. Now, state representative Aaron Zwelder
expressed concern the bill would also would allow
social media companies to collect even more data.
He says, I don't know what they I
don't know how they can collect more data
on us than they already do. They know
when you're happy. They know when you're sad.
They know when you're hungry. They know when
you break up with your boyfriend. They know
everything about you. They know when you plug
your phone in at night. They know who
else is phones who else's phones are near
you, nearby when you plug in your phone
at night. They know more about you than
you know about yourself. Frankly, I agree with
that. But somehow, they can't deduce your age.
Right? State representative Jean Wu said that he
fears it would lead to people pulling back
on political speech. That's also possible.
The bill would also allow parents to request
social media companies shut down their children's existing
social media accounts. Now there's an interesting conversation
around that is that's the only part that,
like, if that parents have that right.
Now they shouldn't be requesting the social media
company do anything. They should just deal with
that with their children, whether that's the phone,
whether that's the account. And, you know, look,
there's a whole dynamic there for parents to
decide for themselves. That's why there should nobody
nobody else's con conversation,
concern other than the child and the parent,
and that's it. But it says the social
media companies do if they do not comply,
and see this is where this becomes important,
the bill empowers Texas attorney general's office to
take action against the platforms.
The violations are considered deceptive trade practices under
Texas law. Now how long until that gets
abused? How long until somebody pretends
that they didn't do that and gets the
company rather let's just say something relates to
an unpopular conversation that they wanna suppress and
suddenly start acting like there's a child being
abused? And it's easy to see how this
can be used to shut down certain conversations.
While some critics argue that the bill infringes
upon free speech and parental rights, Patterson said
it is necessary to protect children from what
he called harmful addictive behaviors,
and that's the parents' decision and action. All
of that is what you guys have been
cultivating for I mean, when does social media
come around? Decades.
And now you suddenly care when there's an
interest in you doing so. The bill now
goes over to the senate for consideration, which,
again, probably won't pass, but who knows what's
going on these days?
Now
the whole point around this as we go
into a section about the influence of Israel
is to recognize that this is everywhere right
now. And there's not this is not like
some secondary conversation, guys. They're literally telling you
that they are going to censor
you
because you say things about Israel. They're gonna
deport people if they say things about Israel.
Ozturk is still currently in prison because she
wrote an op ed
about Israel's genocide. That's literally it, and no
one seems to care about that,
which is probably why the Garcia conversation, as
much as it is still just as valid
to discuss because you can prove they're lying,
was one that got shoved to the focal
point because they can at least pretend or
even show you examples of his past that
make him seem like a bad guy. And
the whole point is
nobody should be here discussing about whether this
person is a bad person or not in
regard to whether he was given due process
because the idea is that that's where you
could prove the actual allegations and crimes, not
lurch into some decade old conversation because, well,
he's clearly not father of the year. That's
gross. Even if he's the worst person on
the planet,
that that is you being emotionally manipulated because
you probably already don't care or because you're
on the fence and they want you to
look a different direction.
Everything like this comes down to the idea
that they're trying to control your speech for
very clear
political ends,
whether it's about Israel, foreign policy. In this
case, my point is they're making it obvious
that you're not allowed to criticize Israel. And
here we have another example on top of
the recent bill about antisemitism
awareness and it's left and right. It's been
going on for decades.
Congress
to ban boycotting of Israel.
It's called the IGO Anti Boycott Act.
Noctis Draven says, as combat veteran, I believe
he was, you know, still is a Republican,
I believe. One of the ones I think
is now calling out what they've been been
doing in the administration.
It sounds like something from a dystopian horror
movie, he says, but it's not. Our government
is really trying to force us to support
Israel.
With any other product,
any other country, with any other people, we
have the right and the choice to say
no. But with Israel, they force us.
I can't believe there are still people who
will argue that we are not compromised.
I agree. Now this is just a graphic,
but it's I believe it was, yeah, it's
h r eight six seven. Look it up.
It's it's very prominent right now. House will
vote on Monday
to the, basically, the the IGO anti boycott
act sponsored by representative Mike Lauer.
Finds up to a million dollars. Person sentences
up to twenty years
for Americans participating in boycotts of Israel or
its settlements if the boycotts are endorsed by
international bodies like the UN or the EU.
That that's the addition. They would've got all
sorts of weird things unconstitutional
every way you look at it that argue
you're not allowed to boycott anti BDS. This
is another level because they see what's happening
in the world where now you're getting the
UN discussions and larger groups of government that
are saying, we need to stop with that
genocide. And if we start saying, I agree
or I sign that or I I'm gonna
join your boycott.
Now you can be fined a million dollars.
Welcome to The United States.
Thomas Massie, at the very least, and interestingly
enough, even Marjorie Taylor Greene. Now my personal
opinion,
this is her being an opportunist, which I
think they all are. I I question every
single one of them.
It's simply recognizing that this is not even
popular with I mean, I I would say
in particular with the Republicans, which is interesting.
Right? Because it's directly about a free speech
conversation.
On the left, they may be more so
support
calling out the Israel genocide, but are much
more and this is the left right team
smart politics sides,
much more okay with censoring you based on
certain opinions. Right? So either way, it's interesting
to see that they all recognize
that nobody really wants this. So you even
have people like her who I think are
just trying to win certain points by playing
this side of it even though they all
probably all will agree because even Margaret Keller
Green and the rest are supportive of Israel
when it really matters.
But Thomas Massey said, I agree that oh,
she said, I will be voting no. It's
my job to defend America's rights, you know,
when it's advantageous for you, clearly, to buy
or boycott whomever they choose. But I what
I don't understand, she says, is why we
are all voting on a bill to on
behalf of other countries than not the president's
executive orders that are for our country. Now,
see, that's this is so lame. They're such
children. They're they're cowards in my opinion. Are
we really gonna pretend like he hasn't written
signed an endless amount of executive orders that
are in the same conversation?
Executive orders about things that are absolutely for
Israel's interest or things that are wildly anti
American? Or the fact that we argue or
we know, rather, executive orders apply only to
the executive branch. Look it up. But yet,
we use them to make things happen around
the world, or they try to.
This is just her, I think, very clearly
saying, I still love them, and this is
our administration. Republicans are the best, but this
is bad
to win support. My opinion. Thomas Massie just
says, I agree. I'll be voting no on
this bill as well.
So let's
briefly
make sure we understand
how clear this is. Now these are all
brand new examples.
Every I mean, I could do a show
every single day with new examples every day
showing you the same thing that people seem
to not wanna care about, but I'm of
the mind that most Americans are uncomfortably
aware with this aware of this. Excuse me.
This is something we've already played for you
from the this I think Max aired this
before in regard to a leaked conversation he
got from the CEO of APAC.
He says more confirmation of what APAC's director
said in audio that he obtained from a
private session. Mike Waltz, which tomorrow we're gonna
get more into the overlap of Iran,
Mike Waltz, you know, where that's going, Yemen,
and so on, and the interesting overlap of
Marco Rubio, which, by the way, somebody who
was remember when that first started? Remember? And
and the point was we were like, oh
my god. Here they're pointing at Rubio for
Trump's administration.
Most of the conservative conversations were like never
gonna happen. Oh, he's such a rhino. It'll
never happen. And then he gets it and
he's, oh, he's the best guy in the
world. Now he's got two positions. Right? Now
he's like the the new Kissinger, the point.
Right? Both those positions. This guy is a
very clear Zionist and is not on your
side and apparently hates Trump until suddenly we're
all on the same side.
It's insane how obvious all of this is
that the very least, these people are not
actually what they're presenting. But I think that's
interesting. Tomorrow, we'll go more into the the
overlap of the, you know, the signal point.
I think there's one more tweet in this
little section here that is important around that,
showing you yet again that this that Waltz
in particular
is basically an Israel plant. This is not
hard to see today. It doesn't mean you
hate Jews. It's insane that we have to
walk through all of this. It's about the
Israeli government infiltrating foreign powers.
And, of course, to make to make the
point broad as I was just pointing out
someone's comment, that does not mean in any
way to suggest all or nothing that Jews
are all good and Zionists are all bad.
The point is it clearly overlaps with Jewish
supremacy. That's B'Tselem will tell you that, an
Israeli human rights group. But it's not just
about Jewish people seeing as how there are
Jews all around the world. I'm beginning to
see a massive momentum happening here, calling out
the lie that is Zionism,
the lie that that Israel
represents all Jews. It's not the truth. It's
a political Zionist organization.
But the bottom line here is to show
you that this
is such an obvious
infiltration
that it needs to be called out, whether
it's China or Russia or anybody else.
So my point was we're gonna get into
more of that tomorrow that I think is
important to foreign policy. For today, it's just
about the infiltration. Now
if you can play this clip, it's about
a minute and a half. The point is
he just simply as he he says, Mike
Waltz was groomed by the Israeli lobby to
serve as an asset in the GOP in
in a GOP White House. Now he'll serve
Israel at the UN because now he'll be
the ambassador.
Ali Abudemath from the Electronic Intifada
says the firing of national security adviser Mike
Waltz appears to be part of a the
battle between the ultra pro Israel and the
ultra ultra pro Israel, you gotta love that,
of the Donald Trump administration.
Now I like the way he said that
because my opinion is that none of them
are against the idea of what Israel wants
here in regard to Iran, but there's different
tacts about where they think they should be
going.
And I think one of them is that
they'll just do it because that's what Israel
wants now. Zion is Zion is Zion is
first, though, that are like, come on. We
agree, but we can't look this obvious. Right?
That's that's my opinion.
Either way,
very important to recognize how transparent this is
and how much you could prove.
Drop site news put this article out. On
the day he was fired as national security
adviser, Mike Waltz used an Israeli app to
archive signal messages. Because the point is, guys,
that it's now been clearly shown that Mike
Waltz
essentially was
archiving their conversations for Israel.
We'll go into this more tomorrow. But, I
mean, just think about how insanely obvious all
of this is. This whole signal gate thing
seems to be more than it appears. And
re and, look, if we can't recognize by
now the outright infiltration of not just cybersecurity,
but this country
by a foreign government. It's so I mean,
what you're seeing
is inside the core the core of the
White House, every day you're finding new examples
of what they're doing is for the interest
of Israel, including giving them insight into top
secret
conversations or whatever level it is inside White
House dialogue about things that are about national
security.
And that this is more likely to me
why he might be shuffled aside because he
just is too obvious.
Not that they care, in my opinion.
Here's John, John Kirakowi, former CIA, at least
former in quote as always. But here's what
he says. And he again, he has been
very
prolific about speaking out about what this about
Israel, about the CIA. So just but keep
in mind, in my opinion, there's rarely former
any intelligence. But he speaks about Murav Siren,
who we've already discussed. I showed you a
clip from,
Jeff Sachs and and judge Napolitano, which is
discussing
how outrageous this is. But I'll here's another
example just so we know. This is not
a new conversation.
This is insane. And this is an Israeli
entity that is now an Israeli citizen, a
part of the Israeli Ministry of Defense that
was now inside the national security dynamic of
the Trump administration.
But, yeah, let's pretend like we're totally making
these things up. Right? We're all anti Jewish
or whatever they wanna throw in your face
while we can see what's
happening. News
today
revealed that his new director for Israel and
Iran is Merev Karan, who was previously
previously an employee at the Israeli
Ministry of Defense. How does somebody like that
get a security
clearance? That seems highly unusual.
It's highly unusual.
It's not unique to Donald Trump, although it's
inexcusable. It's inexcusable no matter who the president
is. But Bill Clinton did the same thing
where he named a a dual US Israeli
citizen to be ambassador to Israel, for heaven's
sake. I honestly don't know how something like
this happens unless either the FBI is ignored
or the FBI is told to ignore the
fact that this person may have dual loyalties.
I think it's very, very dangerous because the
Israelis are rated as critical threat for counterintelligence
in The US intelligence community. They're rated at
the same level
as the Russians, the Chinese, the Iranians, the
North Koreans, and the Cubans. And so I
wouldn't want anybody with ties to Israel anywhere
near the National Security Council, let alone to
be one of the deputy directors of the
National Security Council. I don't know how this
happens. I don't know why this person isn't
already being investigated
for espionage
or for Yes. We do. And I would
argue so to see. Right? But I think
there's a line to how far he can
go. That's my opinion. Some sort of violation
of the espionage act, but,
this is the situation we find ourselves in.
And I think people get away with it
because there's no public outrage. To me, this
is huge news. I saw this at drop
site as well. Where I didn't see it
was in the New York Times, the Washington
Post, or the Wall Street Journal. And that's,
I think, part of the problem.
Yep.
Now I include the drop site news article
where you can read that. Here is, what's
it's, Elon Poppe
discussing the same conversation.
And it it is about the infiltration. I
mean, like, the direct purchasing of politicians in
this country, which by the way is what
Israel brags about. Netanyahu has himself two different
leaked videos where he brags about how he
control the US government, but we're all crazy.
New book coming out, which is called lobbying
for Zionism
across The Atlantic, and I show how from
1900,
both in America and in Britain, you target
politicians wherever they are. At the beginning of
their career, you commit them to Zionism and
later to Israel. And at first, of course,
they were not powerful enough to influence enough
people. But, you know, the more they grew
in numbers, they were able to influence more.
So when people say, why does Biden so
automatically
supports Israel? The lobby doesn't need to ring
Biden and say to him, you better support
Israel. He knows the rules of Israel. He
knows the rules. He knows what happened to
anyone who even dare to slightly, like Obama
or Carter, slightly challenged what happened to them.
You read Obama's memoirs,
you can see how he said, I suddenly
understood. Any word I'm saying in Israel can
bring down congress. So I had to be
very, very careful. And, actually, what he says,
he admits, I could not be loyal to
my basic instinct, which was to be pro
Palestinian. I couldn't because I wouldn't be a
president.
God. I mean, think about how wild it
is that we can have these kind of
things come out in their books or, you
know, of course, they could be lying, always
possible,
but it's consistent.
Look at them. It's very regular. I mean,
Kirkhau himself has all sorts of stories about
what they do in the infiltration. This one
being about the agents in The United States,
which are always there, and then we don't
acknowledge it.
Mossad. I mean, it's just it's right on
the surface. Now we got Obama could very
likely be doing that to sort of win
himself some points afterward for some future dynamic.
The bottom line is that we know these
things, that he's openly telling you that he
if we don't, they'll bring down congress, or
at least that's his impression,
but we can't have an honest conversation. Like,
I don't I I don't mean that we
can. I think majority of the world is,
like, all going, yeah. Yeah. We all see
it. But the the the vehicle, which is
the mainstream media apparatus that includes the mainstream
alternative media just doesn't care, lies about it.
Whether they know it or don't know it
or they're being abused or paid to ignore,
there's this major circulating thing that we all
pretend is the main dynamic that doesn't care.
It won't ever talk about it unless it
becomes important to use to talk something else
down, like the release valve or to show
you the problems because they're gonna use your
awareness of it to roll in the new
problem. These are the only times we see
it. And it's
again, look for yourself. The history is obvious.
Now I could be wrong about what's happening
next, but the precedent's there, and we see
it all building the same thing, guys. We
know this. It's already been there for you.
Now here's a clip from this was
on,
Piers Morgan.
And he's and John says, why do Mossad
and Israel have disproportionate influence in The US
national security and domestic politics? Why are they
considered off limits for the CIA?
Here's his conversation. Scott Horton is with him.
Of course, you got Alan Dershowitz, who's just
like the go to defender of anything Israel
genocide, and here's the conversation.
Priyakie, the host of CIA Declassified
on UNIFYD
TV. You said this. We saw what the
Israelis were getting away with in these prisons
that they had in the West Bank and
in Gaza. Nobody raised any objection at all.
So we thought, well, if the Israelis can
do it, we can do it. The president
said we could, and the justice department said
we could, And so we did. You've also
separately described Mossad saying that it has a
negative disproportionate
and widespread
influence of the US national security state. So
you're clearly not a fan of the Mossad.
Why? Now before he answers,
think of what we just talked about. Like,
he's literally being in real time proven to
be correct with what we just talked about.
That's the infiltration of the national security dynamic.
I remember when I first joined the CIA,
and this is going back thirty five years,
there was a declared Mossad officer in the
Israeli embassy and a declared Shin Bet officer,
FBI was able to identify
187
additional Israeli intelligence officers at work in The
United States clandestinely.
I would say, why? Why would they steal
secrets when we give them 99%
of everything that we already have? Doesn't The
United States steal secrets from Israel too? Of
course, they do. No. Actually You know what's
think how hilarious that is. His best defense
is you do it too. Well, doesn't that
seem familiar to every conversation we have? Just
because, like, the point is then you're the
same. The bottom line though is that all
you did is admit
that Israel's got almost 200 spies circulating that
we know about that are undeclared.
And stealing and he's like, yes. He basically
just admitted that, but you do it too,
which I probably wouldn't do. That's probably the
case. But just think about that. That means
your government is allowing a foreign intelligence
apparatus to be operating of its own core
own accord on the ground against you.
We see that more than ever today with
what's going on post October 7.
No. The Israelis were off limits to us
at the CIA. We were not permitted to
complete that for a while. Jeremy played against
you can hear the top the timing of
response there. Doesn't The United States steal secrets
from Israel too? Of course, they do. No.
Actually, no. The Israelis were off limits to
us at the CIA. We were not permitted
to continue to talk about what happened. Believe
that I don't believe that for one second.
Well, Jeff Stein, the great, intelligence beat reporter,
Great logical response there, bud. I don't believe
you.
Oh, okay. He's the you know, what's funny
is that, obviously, the case is he's from
the CIA. He could be lying, but Alan
Dershowitz's response is based it's just I anything
I'm not you know, that's not true even
though he doesn't have any evidence to back
it up, and the other guy does. That's
an emotional response. That's what he's there for.
From Newsweek would report every year on an
intelligence report that the FBI would put out
about the worst counterintelligence threats in The United
States, and it was Russia, China, and Israel.
Eventually, what happened was it it caused such
a scandal after time after time of this
coming out that Dianne Feinstein ended up changing
the rules so that they didn't have to
issue the report anymore so that Jeff Stein
wouldn't be able to report on it anymore.
But they were alleged by that the eye
counterintelligence division to be the most damaging spies
in America only after our supposed adversaries, Russia
and China.
Now notice, by the way, how both the
two Israeli guests or Israel side guests have
the yellow the yellow pin on.
Now you remember what that's for. Right? That's
for the hostages, the detainees.
Well, the
of still wearing that is how many times
we've now proven even from Netanyahu, Ben Gavir,
and Smotrich's
own mouth that they have sabotaged the deal
so they could maintain this war.
Now you may if you're out there going,
that's not true, then you're literally not paying
attention. They're openly telling you now if you
just listen to them, which is pretty much
the way it's been the entire time. But
they've admitted it more times than more. You
go back to the very beginning of the
ninth and the tenth. They had two different
offers for full exchange to end the war.
Israel said no because they wanted to keep
the war and made it clear that Hamas
was the focus, the the hostages were secondary,
and and now they just flipped it on
its ear and pretend the opposite.
Every time, like, the stage two of the
last ceasefire was supposed to release all the
hostages, and that was the end of it.
And they stopped it there and said, no.
They need to give us back some of
the hostages that they'd otherwise get if they
just went through with what they already agreed
with. It's insane.
But they do it because they're supposed to
bring them home and end the war. Nope.
Because Israel said 47 times that even if
we get them all back, we have to
go after Ahmad. They know they're lying, guys.
So just look at them and understand that
they're dishonest people. They're not stupid. They know
that they're lying to you. It has to
be heard.
Now the infiltration
is everywhere. Now this this show was about
a lot of things, but the May one
of the major points was about the Israeli
in cybersecurity
infiltration.
They're really showing you this long term ploy
of getting in
infiltrated to you know, infiltrating foreign governments,
religion, obviously,
and cybersecurity.
I had a great interview with David Icke,
Zionist infiltration of Judaism.
He talks about the Sabatian kind of origin
point to a lot of this, which is
the same conversation.
Here's another clip from John himself saying the
Jeffrey Epstein operation is a classic example
of a foreign government run black blackmail scheme.
Another thing that we all know because Acosta
and plenty of others have outright stated it,
but we still act like it's undefined and
we're not sure.
It's always so infuriating.
There is no reason to protect these files
anymore, he says. Of course, because where's the
files for Epstein? Client list, Bondi, Cash, Bongino,
and all the rest of they're all it's
all coming. Let's talk about Tesla people.
He says, why is the Epstein file classified
in the first place? Why is the US
government protecting this operation? Was Jeffrey Epstein a
Mossad access agent? He said, I discussed this
and more with, this is
Julian Dorey
in the latest episode of his podcast.
About
literally no reason to be classified.
Why would we be protecting a guy like
him? Why? He's a convicted pet first of
all,
and probably way worse than just that. Yes.
I think the evidence is pretty strong that
he was way worse than that. He's a
bad, bad guy. I say it all all
the time, and I'm gonna repeat it here.
I think the reason why even in death,
he's being protected
is I believe Assuming that's the case. I
mean, that's has to be pointed out. I
mean, there who knows this point? That whole
story. I mean, you know, if you wanna
laugh, I hate to even say it like
that, but it really just it really circles
around whether he he was the only one
involved in that story, so you could pretty
much laugh it at this point how dumb
it all was.
You know? To be honest, pretty much like
the Trump assassination conversation. Very clearly something awry.
Right? But the idea that he's in a
place designed to stop even committing suicide, the
cameras all stop working, everyone goes on a
break. I mean, it's it's insanely stupid. It's,
like, it might as well be a cartoon.
And then he supposedly hung himself with sheets
designed to not be able to do that
from a short bed. We it's insane.
I mean, at the very least, somebody did
it to him. You know? Like, it's just
but it's so crazy that we just keep
going along with the same old narratives
even though literally everybody I mean, unless you
are a simpleton or a kindergarten or in
kindergarten, then you know that that just doesn't
add up. It doesn't make sense. Now that's
not to say we know for certain what
actually happened,
but it's like the nine eleven story or
going back to the war report for crying
out loud. Even back then, you understand the
JFK report, nobody bought it, guys. Most Americans
were like, that's not the case. They know
this, and it never changes. We all know
they're lying to us. We all keep pointing
it out, and they just keep going forward
because it seems no one has the ability
or the interest to truly stop them. And
I don't mean violence, but I find that
insane. Pretty strongly
that he's a he was a Mossad
access agent, as do I.
It
it it all points to that. So why
are we protecting him? Look at why the
Mossad might be interested in somebody like him.
Let's say you are the leader of the
Mossad,
and you want
really tightly held, closely protected information from senior
American leaders, political leaders, business leaders.
You can't recruit those people. You're not gonna
recruit Bill Clinton. You're not gonna recruit,
Bill Gates
or, you know, any of the other Prince
Andrew. You're not gonna recruit those people. So
you do the next best thing. You recruit
somebody who has ready access to that. That's
right.
And then on top of that,
you give him an unlimited amount of money
where he's got this private island in The
Caribbean and a private jet where he can
fly his friends down there. You wire the
house for audio and video.
So nothing is, is overlooked.
And you ply them with alcohol and underage
girls,
and you've got them.
You've got them. So you can either do
it the easy way or you can do
it the hard way.
You say to them, look,
You just had
16 year old girl,
and so you're gonna tell me what I
wanna know.
Or
It's also worth pointing out, and not this
is not intended to give anybody some kind
of a pass, that there could be dynamics
where somebody is not willing or not interested
in doing the the gross thing they need
to catch you doing. And so they can
trick you with a woman that is under
age but is made to look that she's
not or so on. Or, you know, who
knows how they can make these or drug
you and have you wake up in a
room full of things. Like, there's so many
ways that they could get you there so
they could abuse the situation even if you
may actually not be
potentially blackmailable or however the term would be
used. I just think it's worth considering that,
that it's not always just that everyone is
always disgusting. I feel like people are entrapped
in the same ways. Because let's be clear,
there's this is a broad category that I
mean, it's it's it wouldn't it's not a
hard sell to convince me that everybody in
politics is is bad. But, nonetheless,
I'd % of anything is rarely the case.
So just think about the other ways this
could be done.
They know what the game is. They know
what they've done.
Otherwise, we wouldn't have people coming out and
saying, well, I kept my underwear on. Remember
that? Uh-huh.
I think that that's what this was. I
think that this is because we all know
that the Israelis spy on us. I mean,
they're they're worse than the KGB or whatever
the KGB Yeah. We're gonna talk about that.
For the intelligence community in The United States,
Israel is ranked as critical threat for counterintelligence.
They are prolific spies.
Think about how obvious that is. They know
that. That's their own assessment.
And yet here we are.
Like, we we we are living through a
coup in this country. I mean, that's it's
not a light statement to make. I don't
know why we can't acknowledge this, whether it's
like a a Zionist coup, a technocratic coup,
a globalist coup, or all three combined, because
that's really how I see it personally. I
think these are the same agenda, and it's
all coming to fruition right now. Just I
don't know why we can't have the courage
to call this out, like, at a core
level. Like, where are the people that are,
like, in the core supporting base of these
larger people? I mean, I know you exist.
I see you out there. But I I
know there are enough people out there that
are choosing to pull their punches that allow
this to continue. So, I I it just
makes perfect sense to me that this would
be an access operation.
Pretty interesting.
Now just wanna include, of course, and I
think it's a good time to replay this
in case you haven't heard it a while.
This long thread I have, all these different
videos of Donald Trump essentially saying something similar
except the last two, which are about the
free speech overlap, the guns and the and
the flag point, but the same conversation because
it's all about censorship of free of speech
about but the first, whatever, eight, nine, 10
videos are Trump literally telling you that he's
gonna censor you for Israel
in in different slightly different ways. But all
in in the most important is where he
literally says on a radio show that Israel
used to control congress and that it should,
rightly so. Think about that with what's happening
right now.
Hold on. Where was that?
I must have doubled over it. Hold on.
When I'm downloading these, I put numbers on
them so I can tell you why I'm
looking for this.
I download them in order, so I keep
them in numbers. And I think sometimes I've
used the same number twice and, like, delete
the one I had before it, and then
I don't realize that. That's what I'm pretty
sure just happened.
There it is.
You know, the biggest change I've seen in
congress is Israel
literally owned congress. You understand that ten years
ago, fifteen years ago.
And it was so powerful. It was so
powerful. And I think you know exactly what
I what I'm saying.
They had such power. Israel had such power
and rightfully
over
Very clear. And, again, I've said this every
time. We've gone over the full clip. We've
shown it many times. It's not out of
context.
But But if you're willing to just disregard
it as it must not be real before
you even check for yourself, then you've already
made your mind up. The facts don't matter.
Here's Jimmy Doerr sharing something of Jeffrey Sachs.
Now, by the way, Derek shared a clip
today just to remind you of this, because
I made this point back when he was
first kind of getting a lot of attention
around points around Israel. He's very clearly, like,
a globalist. He's like he's all he made
a statement recently about wanting
the global government. That's the that's the solution.
Now that who knows if that's because he
the sole
lull you into support for that or maybe
he thinks that is the solution and doesn't
realize it's the wrong path.
Consider that. It very it very much matters.
Doesn't change the fact that what he's saying
here is true. And I said Jimmy says,
of course, Israel's behind the current push to
get The US into war. Let me see
what this is. Hold on. Oh, it's
oh, it's interesting.
That's weird how he's got the link in
there, but it's
that's strange. Anyway, who knows? We're going on
Twitter these days. And And it says, of
course, Israel's behind the current push to get
US in war with Iran. Jeffrey Sachs explains
Israel runs the US government, runs the White
House. We need to know this by now,
guys. These are insiders that are calling it
out.
Let's call it out. Israel runs the US
government, runs the White House. They're run by
Israel. They're serving Israel. They're doing this for
Israel, and that means that The United States
is in war in places it shouldn't be
in. No. We should not be in war
in Yemen, for heaven's sake. We shouldn't be
in war,
in Syria, in Libya, in Lebanon.
We're in war in all of these places.
We have a a group amateur hour in
the White House and deciding where to bomb,
but they're doing it for Israel's behest,
not for American
interest or American security.
Not only is it amateur hour, not only
is
it Israel hour nonstop,
but it's as if we have,
essentially, one person rule.
Yep.
And in addition to that,
then I'm gonna go into this more tomorrow,
but I want to make sure you didn't
you didn't miss it. The freedom
follow the account, actually. Freedom Flotilla Coalition.
They followed me because I was doing some
reporting on it back when it was basically
nobody talking about it other than the ones
that tend to. I'm glad it's getting more
attention now. They've been doing this for a
very long time. Actually, I bet you I
can pull this up real quick. I'll include
this
too. Yeah. There it is. This is this
is when I first caught attention to this.
Now this is Joe Meters. He is a
US
USS Liberty veteran.
He was on the USS Liberty when it
was attacked, and he's been speaking on ever
since,
telling you what actually happened, telling you what
we all actually know, that Israel attacked it,
and the US government covered it up. The
anybody you talk to who was there will
tell you that. And, yeah, we all it's
just every day, all the lies insane.
He was on a freedom flotilla that was
trying to bring help to Gaza, and they
attacked the ship while he was on it.
One before that, they attacked it and killed
people. Now what we're gonna show you today
is that they bombed another one with a
drone strike
recently full of innocent people in international waters.
This is so wild. This is terrorism.
There's literally no legal justification for anything that
seem to be doing, let alone something like
this. But I'll include this for you where
Joe's just saying, hey. Basically, the video was
be oh, that's the main part. He was
on the the freedom flotilla that they they
took over. They seized it. They arrested him.
He's a US citizen. They held him in
jail for a long time. The US government
never said a word, never spoke up about
it. Israel arrested a US Veteran and put
him in prison, and they didn't even care.
This was six years ago. You know what
administration that was, guys. Let's be honest about
what's happening. And it's the same government go.
I don't it doesn't matter what left or
right position was there. I think they would
have done the same thing. But important to
understand,
he was trying to tell you that. Now
that we covered it, the point is that
they've continued to do this ever since.
Here,
Freedom Flotilla Coalition breaking at basically just after
midnight, Maltese time. A Freedom Flotilla ship was
subjected to a drone attack with full of
innocent people, by the way.
The front of the vessel was targeted twice
resulting in a fire and a breach of
the hull. The ship is currently located in
international waters near Malta. An SOS distress signal
was sent. Now as I understand it, we'll
get into more. I believe everybody has been
safely removed, that they were trying to get
someone to help them. The bottom line is,
yeah, it says everyone aboard is okay, but
at risk. It's nightfall. They were still on
the ship. And, ultimately, they were trying to
get themselves
taken
to where I thought I thought I had
the map on there. I guess not. It's
I'll I'll go over it more tomorrow. Taken
to Italy, essentially. The simple point about this
is that that it happened. They're bombing
international water ships. Now realize
with what's going on with Yemen. Like, if
they're gonna start like, it was just the
same thing that happens every time. If you're
gonna make a case about how Yemen is
pie are pirates, the the Houthis are bombing
them, even though what they've continued to do
is stop every time there's a ceasefire, only
attack ship that are illegally trying to bring
things to Israel, part of the international community,
and never killed anybody, not even any injuries
as far as I can tell, and have
never stolen anything.
And then come over here and bomb the
ship and act like either we're doing it
because they're doing it, which, okay, then they're
both crimes then. Right? Because you told us
it's a crime, but it won't happen like
that. Or they're just trying to get away
with it because they think that that's, oh,
an excuse should they need to use it.
War crimes. Obviously, everywhere you look, guys, that's
what they're doing.
Now Propaganda and Co highlights that according to
Israeli media, Israel
has clearly
openly taken credit for it, which doesn't surprise
me seeing as how they're pushing boundaries everywhere,
but the Israeli the Israeli government admits to
attacking the ship.
And he simply says, this is gonna be
a massive story, but I didn't see a
lot of coverage, to be honest. Tried to
murder 30 humanitarians at sea. And the whole
point of this, guys, bringing food and aid
to starving people in Gaza. That's the only
point.
And here is a disgusting example of a
Zionist who said, over 2,000 kilometers from Israel
off the coast of Malta, Israel, according to
foreign publications, attacked with drones a ship that
was planning to go to Gaza to break
the blockade. You know, aid, food.
Like with the Mavi
Marmara flotilla at the time. Now instead of
reaching Gaza, it is sinking on its way
to the depths.
Excellent.
How could I I am proud to see
this, he says.
That's what this Zionist Israeli said out loud.
See, it's the same as people going, yay.
Deport those disgusting migrants, even though that's a
direct violation of the constitution, despite your ignorance
around the topic. You are cheering on your
own demise, and you don't even recognize it.
Well, in this case, these are people that
are okay with this because they're monsters. The
reality is that's a war crime.
Nothing will happen for the reasons we just
went over.
Here, of course, is a one one of
the many examples of starving children in Gaza
right now,
starving everyone in that country. It's been over
sixty days with zero, not a single thing.
500 trucks a day before this was what
they got to maintain
their food insecurity.
And that's all because of
the refusal of Israel to allow them to
return to their land. That's what this comes
down to. UNRWA was created to to basically
keep track of the right of return. And
then because they maintained this over the last
seventy seven years, well, they became a refugee
agency in regard to keeping track and keeping
them fed because the whole thing is in
in hopes that they were gonna be able
to return legally, which Israel agreed to and
it's never allowed.
Now, Now, of course, the overarching point is
that they've been discussing getting you moved, getting
Gazans,
Palestinians moved somewhere else. And what is their
demand? You have to give up your right
of return. Oh, you mean the thing that
you keep telling us doesn't exist? See, they
know what's going on, and they were hoping
that people's hatred, their blind racism, or their
ignorance will allow this to continue. That is
what they're stopping. Food reaching children like her.
And you can see the image of her
before.
Right there.
And in case you didn't see it,
I said every
day every day, these people show you who
they are,
if you just look.
Hashtag Zionism is not Judaism. Hashtag Gaza genocide.
Here's what she said. And we pointed this
one out before. She's the one that said,
kill the children. There are there's no innocent
children. She's the one that's laughed about I
mean, she is a grotesque
example of a grotesque administration. And she says,
the breaking of the siege was, in my
opinion, a terrible decision, which, by the way,
it didn't even actually break.
Without hunger and thirst, is what she says.
Among the Gazan population, we won't be able
to recruit collaborators. We won't be able to
bribe people with food, drinks, or medication.
Just unabashedly saying what is indescrib undeniably
a crime.
And that's where you end up getting people
that are so their children are dying at
their feet and go fine. I'll I'll I'll
I'll be a spy for you if my
child doesn't die. Or, you know, what this
is how they abuse it. That's how that's
how sanctions work for the US government. They
drive people to a state of desperation to
where, like, you know, we know what you're
doing. We just don't care. Just make it
stop.
That's who these people are. And she's up
there proudly saying this to a group of
people that largely agree with her. It's not
my opinion.
It's disgusting.
So I hope this can I hope that
in general can give you an understanding of
where we are? Maybe you haven't even seen
any of this, but it's important to understand
how all this interconnects.
Now on the more alarming conversation of deportations
of the US government seemingly suggesting and and
voting to deport Americans and voting down to
amendments that suggest they shouldn't be able to,
even though we know that's the reality. The
deportations around Garcia or the the barber or
Tur any number of examples that we are
very clear about. If you if you understand
the facts and aren't being blinded by partisan
media, it's clear what's happening right now. These
are unconstitutional
acts. There are some judges, whether politically motivated
or not, that are trying to stop it
and up adhere to the constitution, and then
they're being attacked for it. That's not to
say there's no political motivation. We know that
there is. You can read the constitution. You're
not stupid. Look at it for yourself. It's
obvious what's happening.
Now whether or not let's just say Abrego
Garcia, and we'll start with that. Whether or
not he is a wife beater, whether or
not he was a human trafficker, which by
the way, neither of those things are definitive
in what in particular, the trafficking point we'll
go over today, which is now circulating again.
There's no charge. There was no crime. He
was released, and nothing happened. But the argument
is, well, he almost got arrested for it.
That doesn't mean anything. Or the idea that
his wife
put something about, you know, a what's the
term for it? But, you know, accused him
of let's just even say she came out
and said he beat me.
What does that have to do with whether
or not he is a member of MS
thirteen or whether or not they ultimately prove
that in court, which none of which happened,
which has been the only point.
The only point anybody honest is making about
this is about whether or not
anything they're claiming could have been proved if
they had the evidence in the process to
deport him. That's it. That's not what happened
before in 02/2019. It doesn't somehow not get
the process today. And, yes, even illegal aliens
do have rights according to the Supreme Court,
according to the constitution. There's Napolitano, judge for
justice Scalia. Over and over, you can see
the evidence if you just you know? I
mean, and and by the way,
I'll include,
like I had before, this
right here, which is the link from Grok,
in case that somehow means more to you
that this random AI that Elon created somehow
tells you what we know, which is that,
yes, illegal aliens have the right to due
process in the constitution affirmed by one is,
Reno versus Flores. This one is Zed how
do you say that again? Zedvydas
versus Davis. All of which affirm in the
Supreme Court that, yes, the obvious, which we
already know, is that they do have rights.
Now going back to this, I'm gonna include
these ones. The unprecedented gaslighting lies around a
burger Garcia,
and that's simply about the evidence that we
have and what they're claiming it shows. That's
not to say he's a good guy. Frankly,
I don't I think anybody knows, ultimately, the
evidence they're showing is very flimsy at this
point. I mean, I know people
you could show examples of people around like,
I know I know people in my
growing up, you know, that have had domestic
what are the terms they use for that?
You know, where somebody gets called because they're
arguing or they're fighting each other. Right? The
the point is that doesn't mean they're good
or bad. The point is that there's
we don't know in your personal dynamics.
Whether or not they hate each other, whether
or not he's a wife beater is something
you should consider in the context of whether
or not they should have a a counselor,
whether she be arrested for wife beating. It
has nothing to do with the main conversation,
which is the point. It's about trying to
get you off onto some emotional discussion about
well and, again, the earliest point about he's
not the father of the year, the only
reason that makes sense is because they don't
have evidence. They need you to be outraged
about something else.
It's very simple. Now I'll go through it
all again because the anc the argument is
somehow that we're all trying to, you know,
make this guy a pillar of the community.
I I don't see anybody doing that. Even
the ridiculous people on the partisan left who
are just as blinded by all this are
not out there trying to make him out
to be some hero. They're making the same
argument that ultimately this is a violation of
his rights, and the best they can do
is go dumb Democrats, which is the exact
same thing the left did when they were
in this position. It's not unique.
But if you care about the right, the
constitution, for example, the fact that Trump literally
got caught
not
claiming that he actually had the letter m
and s and one and three on his
knuckles, which he did not, is absolutely insane
to me that that doesn't change the conversation.
That he's out there stressing we know this
because of those, and that's not true. So
what else does he think he knows that
he does not? What else is he lying
about if that's the way it's going?
It's it should be earth shattering to you
that that kind of thing can happen.
Now I think, let's see.
I still have it right here. I might
just play a part of that because I
think it's important to set that tone. Yeah.
Here it is.
He wasn't a member of a gang,
and then they looked and on his knuckles,
he had MS thirteen. There's there's a dispute
Wait a minute. Wait a minute. He had
MS thirteen on his numbers tattoo. He had
some tattoos that are interpreted that way, but
let's move on. Wait a minute. Which is
the truth. He has tattoos that they're interpreting
that way, which you look for yourself. I
don't you you could pretend that that might
mean that. That's it's it's a stretch. Even
if you think those things stand for what
they said they did.
He does not have the actual letters on
his own. Terry Terry Terry Terry. He did
not have the letter MS13.
It says MS13.
That was photoshopped.
So let me just It was photoshopped. Terry,
you should do that. Hey. They're giving you
the big break of a lifetime. You know?
See, and he gets like show this to
me shows you that Trump doesn't know this.
I think he's being played even though he
will probably go along with certain things anyway.
I mean, who I mean, think about how
angry he must have been when he gets
out of this. He may he may he
looked like a fool.
He may even his supporters know that. That's
embarrassing.
And because he's he's like has this righteous
righteous indignation.
Like, Terry, god, this is why you guys
are bad at your jobs. And he's wrong.
And, yes, I also agree that they are
bad at their jobs and they are propagandists
and they do all lie at the time.
But in this case, Trump is wrong. Simple
as that. During the interview, I picked you
because, frankly, I never heard of you, but
that's okay. So he picked him because he
never heard of him. Right. That's just his
childish
you are bad because you're making me feel
stupid. By this I picked you, Terry. Hey.
But you're not being very nice. He had
MS thirteen tattoos. We'll agree to disagree. I
wanna move on to something else. Terry.
Well, I go show you the picture? I
saw the picture. Well, can you think we'd
just Photoshop. Here we go. Here we go.
Don't Photoshop it. Go look at his hand.
He had m s He did have tattoos
that can be interpreted that way. I'm not
an expert. Be interpreted. I wanna turn to
Ukraine. No. No. No.
No. See? He had MS
as clear as you can be, not interpreted.
Not interpreted. There is literally no misunderstanding that.
So just in case we're still playing this
game where either he
somehow does have those on his knuckles, that's
actually still being stated, which blows my mind,
or that you misinterpret what Trump was even
trying to say. Or even his own administration
trying to walk it back and trying to
make it sound like he didn't really say
that. It's just embarrassing, guys, because the reality
is one or two things in my mind.
Either he was played and doesn't know he's
wrong until now, and now he feels really
stupid, or
there's so many lies swirling around. Well, I
guess three. Two of you, so many lies
swirling around, you know, amongst, like, Stephen Miller
and probably all you know, which is just
a guy a a Zionist who is clearly
driving part of this immigration bus, that he
just ends up thinking those are the cases
without even because they're I the point is
these things are all over the place. He
picked it up, doesn't even realize that's one
of the lies and spakes it loudly.
Or he was doing this on purpose. I
just don't think Trump is willing to make
himself look that stupid for an agenda. I
think he has too much hubris for that.
But I still find that to be absolutely
wild.
So we talked about that
and the DOJ memo allowing ICE to break
the law, which is do kicking your door
if they think there's an immigrant in your
house, despite the fact that even
we have clip numerous examples of US citizens
being arrested or innocent people with no criminal
record or not and being here legally who
are currently in El Salvador. But they'll tell
you, we know they're illegal. Oh, well, how
do you know that? That's where due process
comes in. Because without that, despite all the
claims of how long it will take, they
can literally accuse anybody of being what they
want and remove them like we already have
seen.
The idea that the a child could understand
that logic. That is why the government who's
never supposed to be the on your side,
they're the as the people of America, your
job is to hold them to account, not
to blindly support one side of the agenda.
The reality is that if you don't hold
them to make them prove what they're saying
in any context, then they'll take advantage.
See, this all comes down to certain people
that have decided that he or their side
is not the ones that will do it.
And you're the children in the room, sadly
enough.
But as Nathan here, not familiar with,
editor of whatever that is, current affairs, he
says, let's make this clear.
And this is New York post New York
New York post, which is just a special
post October 7, they really have shown you
what they are.
He bragged. He he basically, they're putting a
post on April 30 that says, kill Borrego
Garcia bragged he could kill his wife and
get away with it. She claimed in a
newly unearthed protective order. Okay.
What what does that have to do with
anything? The only reason that makes sense is
because you want to add to the idea
that you think he is what the other
evidence has already shown they can't prove.
So the old the idea is that you're
just trying to get people to ignore the
fact that you don't prove these things. Because,
well, if he did that, then he's probably
just as bad. That's not a legal argument.
You're you are being played if you think
that makes sense by justifying
the government
just deciding to do what it wants to
do regardless of the constitution, regardless of what
it can prove. Take out the political dynamics
and apply it to any other topic, and
you damn well know this is wrong.
But
she said this about beating this one, so
that means we can ignore everything else. That's
a child.
And I and Nathan says the same thing
I've been saying. Let's make this clear. The
issue is not his character. The issue is
that there was a court order barring his
deportation to El Salvador. That's one of them.
The administration ignored the order. That is what
this case is about. It's not about whether
he's a good person. It's about legal process.
Right? Because the first part is that he
was legally the Supreme Court already ruled he
could not be sent to El Salvador. That's
where they claim they made the mistake, which
they now weirdly pretend they didn't say.
The second part is if you were going
to try to do anything like that, whether
to El Salvador or anything else, yes, due
process, Reno versus Flores, is paramount. They have
to prove what they're saying, as I just
said, because otherwise, they could do whatever they
want under the guise of going after any
illegal immigrant and send Americans wherever they want
or whoever else. Or people who are here
legally, they pretend they're illegal immigrants, which has
already happened.
It's
simple.
The see, when they
say not the the idea is being not
about his character.
Right? What we're talking about in this dynamic
is I mean, look. Do we really pretend,
like, we can decipher somebody's character over the
process of a few points on social media?
You know, easy it is to misrepresent that?
Look. I look. Based on what we're seeing,
this guy seems like a lot of other
people in this country. And, yes, probably has
his skeletons in the closet. Now are we
gonna compare that to politicians who are now
preaching to you about how bad this guy
is? Do you realize how many people have
stood up and told you this guy's a
monster even if he is, who are absolutely
the most dangerous people on the planet, who
are genociding, who are supporting death despots and
censoring you and everything else you could imagine,
giving children shots that kill them, but we're
gonna make a stink about this guy's background
because they want you to go after him
for a foreign government or whatever you whatever.
And I I don't even mean Israel right
there. You're gonna find out some stuff in
a second about El Salvador that I think
is exactly what I was sensing in the
whole conversation.
But are we really that simple that we
can just pretend we now know his entire
life because of a few things we're sharing
on Twitter?
Well, gee. I hope that doesn't happen because
I damn well know a lot of you
out there judging this person have worse skeletons
in your closet.
But as I said the same, exactly what
I have been saying since this started, and
you guys know, every day we talk about
this, as well as the lack of due
process, those are the only points. The most
and that most of the conversation revolves around
subjective info meant to make you ignore both
of those things
shows you that that that they are aware
of the problem here, guys.
Now, of course,
PIM jumps in and says, holy s h
I d. Just does its job rising up
the things that are like, this is the
kind of journalism that's allowed into the White
House press briefings. Right? This this kind of
ridiculous
sideshow act.
This guy says, no. Fox News has obtained
a second protective order. That's what they were
referencing. Filed against the Maryland man in quotes
because he's not from Maryland. He is. But,
I mean, I just the game where they
play, like, oh, no. He's not from Maryland.
He's from El Salvador. Okay. Well, then I'm
from Puerto Rico. Right? I mean or even
specifically, I shouldn't say that. I wasn't born
there. My dad was. My point is you
could find people that moved here when they
were kids, and you're gonna now argue that
they're never where they make their life.
It's all politics.
My point is, yes, he's
he's clearly was here illegally.
That's when he was given the the remove
withholding of removal from Trump's last administration, and
then they move forward.
Nothing else is everything else is
is hearsay wrapped over that has not actually
come to put no charges.
The the point is going back to 02/2019
in the parking lot with bull sat on,
that's all that happened. A corrupt cop who
was later fired, he points to anonymous source
that no one's ever proven that says he
was MS 13, and thus claim has circulated
through now I found three different processes
Pointing back to that saying that suggests, but
not proven that he is this thing. That
is carrying over to this very day.
The bottom line is he was in Maryland
and has been allowed to be there by
the last Trump administration and has built a
life there. He's going to school. He's working.
He's
he's he's kids. He's married a US citizen,
which means he's a US citizen now. They
guess those things don't matter. Put Maryland man
in quotes because they want you to hate
this person.
And it says that by the protective order
in 2020 that his wife filed apparently in
which she accuses him of physical abuse threatening
her and says she has a recording where
he says, even if he kills her, nobody
can do anything about her. Okay. See what
I'm saying? Like, this is just me. This
is embarrassing reporting from groups that are trying
to lay a narrative for the government. Is
that what journalism is supposed to be?
This is how what does this have to
do with the major point? They want you
to hate this person. That's all it's about.
There are people right now, especially politicians, who
are probably telling you that that makes them
a bad person who have worse skeletons in
their closet right now, even around beating their
wives.
It's just very, very sad. And he goes,
holy s h I t. I don't care.
Right now, the point is if you you
wanna well, let's just say tomorrow.
Evidence came out that show that this person
was doing some horrific crime. Would that then
make everything okay?
I mean, it only if you then realize
that it's not about the actual policy. It's
not about the constitution. It's about whether you
hate this person or not.
If we understand the constitution, if we understand
the legal realities of this,
then nothing else matters than whether or not
they prove those things in regard to whether
they deported him recently.
Not a crime they have before. And look.
If you have to appoint to a crime,
if you had the evidence of that and
say this is enough to get deported, you
would still have to present that to a
judge to make the case to deport. That's
the reality. The fact that we're just acting
like it shouldn't be is a different conversation,
guys.
It's embarrassing that people like this are out
there screaming things that have no bearing on
the real point of the conversation. Now this
is interesting from New York Post as well.
Moment, alleged MS thirteen gangbanger gang banger, Kilmore
Abrego, even they are now saying alleged, by
the way, because everyone has taken a step
back from that, and now we're just pointing
at subjective side points because they don't have
any evidence for it, was accused of human
trafficking, they say.
Revealed in a new body cam video. Now
this is being used to claim, see, he's
a human trafficker.
If you actually read the article, even the
New York Post is forced to tell you
that literally nothing happened. Now accused of something
is not supposed to mean anything. Right? If
you were never charged with a crime, people
accuse me of being all sorts of things.
Does that mean forever I'm gonna be listed
as those things?
Yeah. It's just called it's called logic.
Equal application of the logic. Not because you're
supposed to hate this guy, we go, yeah.
Well, that's enough. We'll ignore his constitutional rights
because he was accused of something. Here's what
New York Post wrote.
Abrego Garcia was apparently going too fast, which
is why he was stopped, the trooper explained.
When officers put Abrego Garcia's name under the
National Crime Information Center, a warning came up
that showed he was suspected
of being a gang member. And you know
what that comes back to? 02/2019,
same point we just made.
And accused
was the point. Never actually proven and charged
with it because there was no evidence. It
came back to the fact that he wore
a bull's hat, was in the wrong place
at the right time. That's it. And a
corrupt cop, that was fired right after this
with a source that nobody's ever been able
to prove. That's it.
The deportation,
hearings, now, twice in that process, labeled that
as enough information to keep the process going
that it wasn't proven, and they acknowledge that.
I I think it was judge Zenis recently
made the case. It's all hearsay. There's nothing
here to prove this. And by the way,
they never even tried, and that's why.
Every time right now they're trying to go
through the process, they're being shouted down because
they don't have any evidence.
And then acting like it's all political judges
except, no. We've now we're seeing Trump appointees
making the same point.
And just to be clear about that again
in case you missed it, they're using in
this secondary conversation rather the article is that
why they thought he was potentially trafficking is
because he was already suspected to be a
gang member. So now you have two allegations
that have never been fleshed out that are
being built together to make the case that
we shouldn't care about his constitutional rights.
Now look, if you find out tomorrow that
he's guilty of all these things, it still
doesn't change the point. So don't
get tugged over into the idea that we're
trying to suggest he's not a bad person.
It's irrelevant.
The proof, the evidence, that's what matters. And
all I'm saying is they never even tried
to do it, and that should matter to
you.
After the law enforcement officer asked
the illegal migrant in a and by the
way, even at that time, guys, see, this
is where New York Post is showing their
hand.
He was given a withholding of removal, so
you can't argue he's an illegal alien. The
reality of that is he's being allowed to
be here under that dynamic. That was the
Trump administration, but they wanna make it out
to be illegal because it sells more,
including if anyone else in the car had
a license. He then conferred with the troopers.
He goes, quote, you know what you got
here. Right? One trooper asked, adding that he
thought Abrego was human trafficking. That's the best
they can do. A recording of them going,
I think that's what this is. But let's
jump down to see what actually happened, shall
we?
Ultimately, Abrego Garcia was only given a citation
for driving while expired with an expired license
and allowed to go on his way.
Right. And then weeks later, went on to
go back to them and present himself for
his hearing or rather his checkups every year.
They never missed for fourteen years straight. Every
time showing up going, I'm here to check-in.
You're legally allowed to be here. Okay.
Got my job, my family, married US citizen.
That's the best they can do. He was
given a citation for driving with an expired
license. Gee, I sure hope that's not the
metric by which we're accused of human trafficking.
What do you think? Now, if you can
read the article for yourself, the point is
that he had people in his car, that
they had bags. I mean,
for all we know, he was doing that.
But that's not the point here. The point
is that they never charged that, so you
can't keep screaming that up today. You can't
point back to what you think should have
happened and make up the case. Pam Bondi,
Donald Trump, the rest of them have floated
this completely baseless idea.
Now I will include this clip I went
over that goes back to the main points
just like we said before, fifty eight minutes
long if you'd like to watch it again.
Where and here are all the links to
the court documents that you can't deny that
quite literally make the that break it all
down for you, guys. They are using what
I just said, a bunch of manipulated information
to make a case of why you should
ignore what they're doing that is wrong. Regardless
of whether Garcia is the person you think
he is, what they're doing is wrong in
every way.
Now
oh, this is actually important. So we posted
this when we did the show. This is
the clip, the bulwark shared. This is going
well where Trump is just really embarrassing himself
about being wrong and no one wants to
admit that.
And the above party simply says, holy s
h I t. He actually thought that very
obvious labels were tattoos.
So the now deleted post, by the way
oh my god. He delete oh, no. This
one too.
So he's been deleting these posts, which I
think is funny. We showed you this recently.
Basically said, prove it.
And I simply said, here you go. Now
the real question is, had no one posted
these under your nose, would you have carried
on claiming this was false because you chose
to never look for yourself? And there are
all the links that the images showing you
he doesn't have that on his hand. So
here's the way they responded, which I didn't
get to show you since it hasn't it
was the last show, it was just on
that statement.
He followed up. And look, he has he
or she's got the fight image from Trump.
Here's what he says, and this is exactly
the case I'm making. Right? The claim is
a lie,
and they were on the side going, no.
You're proven. You're wrong. Trump is right. Okay.
I proved them wrong. Here's the response. He's
a wife beater and a human trafficker.
At this point, I could care less about
whether a tattoo is fake or not. Oh,
you mean the thing that you said we
were wrong about? You said prove it, and
then we do prove it. And you go,
well, it's irrelevant because he did bad things.
Now whether that's a bot or not, I
don't know. Or an IDF member, I don't
know. But you know people like that exist,
and that's why we do this. Because people
like that are and I mean, really more
so for the people that might be willing
to hear the alternative. The problem is that
people have been so carved into this that
they ultimately will ignore whatever because they've created
the secondary narrative that allows them to go,
well, even if
right? How about the point where they go,
due process is not required for illegal aliens.
And then when you
prove that it is, they go, well, they
gave it to him anyway. Well, no. They
didn't. But funny how you just scream they
didn't need to, but then when we prove
they do, you go, well, they did any
that's even what Rubio and them have been
doing. Well, we did give a process.
So it's funny how the evolving of the
conversation proves to you that they know they're
lying, and we just can't acknowledge that, it
seems.
It's incredible.
But
it says, what the f is going is
wrong with you people?
Why is a criminal so effing important? See,
this is I I'm convinced this is a
bot, personally. And it's and it blocked me,
is the point. After making this comment, they
blocked me, so he can't respond. And it
says, give us a break and just go
get a job already.
Insane. Insane to me that this is the
real people. They're they're wrong and exposed with
the fact that they're wrong, and that's their
response. What's wrong with you for not wanting
to put this person in a foreign prison
because they did things that we can't prove
that you're wrong about? Wife beater, human trafficking,
fine. Remember that even those are really opaque
because even the wife beating dynamic, the wife
the wife is out there saying that it's
not what it seems like. Of course, she
could be lying because it's her husband. At
the very least, they're still together. They've got
a family. Right? So
you
glass houses. Right? I mean, there's so many
people out there that I know are doing
this. But the point is human trafficking is
the real argument, and that's what we just
showed you. And she's willing to throw both
those things at you to say, who cares?
They just lied about this. Send him to
prison.
Even though none of those things have been
charged with crimes, you haven't proven any of
it, including the fact of the main claim.
That is alarming. Now how long until Casey
Byrd is going, send that American to El
Salvador because, well, he did all the things
Trump said. Here, look at all the how
long, guys? How long until that starts happening?
Fractured badger says y'all are constantly moving goalposts
to inadvertently prove just how desperate and most
disturbingly hypocritical you are. I agree. Then says
the convicted felon 43 times over is okay.
I'm sure you know what that's about. But
this man doesn't deserve the due process. It's
not about deserving. It's the reality. But it's
it's it's static. It is. And they didn't
do it. He says, you all Americans are
pathetic. You should be embarrassed. I frankly agree.
But now, whether you agree with the how
the 34 federal, you know, the the felons,
felonies rather,
because he's talking about Trump right there. Trump
is found guilty on 34 felony counts. Now
I'm one of the people that pointed out
how politically driven this was because it was.
That's not to say he's not a criminal.
I think they're all criminals, guys. You can
prove every one of these people are involved.
I mean, even just from a foreign policy
level. The guy's bombing Yemen, murdering people, bombing
The Sudan, bombing. They are criminals. They are
war criminals. Obama, Trump, Bush, Biden, all of
them. The point though is that on record,
which is the same thing we're hearing right
over here, these claims that not even we're
actually charged, just the floated possibility of human
trafficking. That's enough. Right? But Trump can have
34 felony counts from the court, and that's
not oh, we but we'd like him. Right?
He's on our side. It's just showing you
the the selective outrage
because you're supposed to. Now make sure you
heard me on that, but I'm not saying
I agree that that's actually the reality. It's
just funny how what you could pick and
choose you decide to be outraged about.
Now we also discussed recently on the twenty
ninth that Garcia was already moved to a
prison that's not for gang members.
And in the actual article, it makes it
explicitly clear that they're not even they they
they there is nobody here that even is
accused of being a gang member, that they
do not allow it.
And they move Garcia there.
Okay. And so the point is they make
in the article, well, that directly contradicts the
main claim of all this. They have given
up ultimately on that and now are on
the idea that, well, he's not father of
the year. That's desperation as far as I'm
concerned, and sadly, it worked for some people.
But remember that part about the the new
place he was moved to.
Aaron Melnick, a a lawyer in this conversation,
says the DOJ said it submitted a clear
as a quote, a clear official declaration
under oath that The US does not have
custody or control over the Venezuelans and El
Salvador,
which is interesting. I I mean, I would've
pushed back on it immediately, but it goes
to spite Trump and Noem suggesting otherwise because
we just talked about it. Trump just recently
said, I could bring him back if I
want to, and said he won't. We just
talked about
that. This is the whole, quote, meat of
that declaration, he says. There's a reason they're
losing in court. El Salvador, a sovereign, independent
nation with its own domestic law and international
obligations governing the detention of of individuals, El
Salvador makes its own sovereign decisions including with
respect to detention. Okay.
Here, it says, funny update, in the Volsberg
AEA case, ACLU argues that The US has
constructive custody of the people it's paying Bukele
to Bukele to jail.
The government protests that ACLU cites a handful
of vague statements by a few officials, but
the government has a declaration.
Let's see. A handful of vague statements, that's
what they just wrote.
But it says, so
who are these few officials who have said
The US is responsible for imprisoning people in
El Salvador? Oh, just the Salvadorian president, the
US secretary of state, the White House press
secretary, the US it's just it's insanely stupid
how dumb all of this is. The reality
is they keep telling you that that's the
case, but then let's put it this way.
This reality is that they'll make whatever argument
they need to to make the case at
the moment regardless of whether thirty seconds ago
they said the opposite. What does that remind
you of? Now this is just what my
mind draws parallel to. I can't stop seeing
that throughout the Israel US propaganda
where they'll just throw out whatever.
They'll lie to you completely about something they
just told you ten seconds ago because, well,
they think they can do that. In this
case, it's right in front of you, that
they're literally telling you the opposite. And it's
because either they want you to think they
can when they want you to think that
when they can't or the or vice versa.
Either way, ACLU is making the most the
argument here, which I agree with, if they're
still paying them, which is they are. They're
paying them to jail them, and there's no
legal precedent for doing that in the first
place. They're argue they are the ones in
control of the situation.
We know
this. Now this is interesting too. Isaac Sowell
says the entire article is remarkable, but this
in particular is an extremely under discussed story
on Bukele and the burgeoning US relationship.
Aunt Melnick says one major part of the
deal with Bukele is that that's gone under
discussed. Bukele managed to get The US
to deport several MS thirteen leaders who could
testify
about deals he made with gang members before
the state accept the state of exception, which
is when they removed civil liberties.
Now those allegations won't be aired publicly in
court.
Why? Because he selectively chose the ones they
would send back to him. Now this is
I think there's something much darker in all
of this, if that's not dark enough already.
And I'll read to you directly from two
different articles.
This one is from the from the time.
This one is from, drop site news. The
point,
as this article says in the headline,
behind Trump's deal to deport Venezuela to El
Salvador's most feared prison, new details deepened questions
about the deportation
showing that El Salvador's President pressed for assurances
that he that the migrants were really members
of the threat oh, that that sorry. That's
there's two points in this. That's one of
them. That it seems that Bukele is upset
that it turns out they did clearly send
people that were not gang members. That's not
because he cares about whether they're gang members,
but it's about how this dynamic is working
in his country in regard to his agreements
with MS thirteen.
It, by the way, was started in LA
in The United States, which is relevant, not
in El Salvador. The point is that there's
a clear dynamic of The US involvement with
this group and Bukele. And ultimately here, it
seems as if this person is afraid to
allow them to testify in court in The
United States. Now, we just talked about this.
Remember we just talked about the idea that
they were removing
they were removing a leader.
Let me actually see if I can get
that pop up.
No. It doesn't pop up, unfortunately.
Oh, wait. Yep. I think that was it.
Outstanding.
Yeah. Right there. Okay.
So here,
I'll bring it up for you. This is
important. We just talked about this. And remember
we said, this was twenty four days ago.
Justice department moved to drop case against alleged
top MS thirteen leader.
And remember what I said? I said, why
would they do that? They got the case
that's been ongoing for a while. This person
is about to be charged and go to
prison. Isn't that what we want from, you
know, these actual MS thirteen leaders kind of
dynamic. Right? Assuming that's what he is, but
that's they were gonna go to court and
present the evidence like they're not doing anywhere
else.
Instead of holding this person accountable
for being a terrible person, part of actual
trafficking, drug dealing, all of it,
they dropped the case
and sent him to El Salvador
to a place where these people clearly, whether
or not they're the before even before the
conversation of Bukele dealing with them in the
background.
Clearly, I mean, we talked about the barber
that got sent there, and the gang members
and the and the officers in the prison
were taking turns beating them up. Clearly, there's
more going on there where these people are
allowed to have influence, and you're gonna let
this monster who you have in your grasp
who will have information about that relationship
get dropped case and sent back to El
Salvador.
So now my my what was my question?
What will this be? We'll have to pay
attention to see if this was about, you
know, was there a reason he wanted him?
That does seem to be the case now.
Or were they trying to hide something? Was
it about setting a precedent for sending real
terrorists or real MS thirteen members instead of
the you know, I had always thoughts. Right?
I'll include this for you.
Well, now now we're at the point.
Here's what the article says.
Early on, Trump advisers identified El Salvador as
a promising option.
Mister Bukele, who has called himself the world's
coolest dictator, which he really said, which is
just a interesting over the window change we're
in right now, had come into office pledging
to crack down on gang crime. Remember that
was the whole thing. Briefly, remember the reality?
Oh, and they actually they will list it
off. The point is he took control of
the government
in a way that people argue was was
not organic.
Even the election was riddled with cyberattacks and
and allegations of manipulation and fraud and and
And, of course, he's powerful enough, and he
used his position to shout every the point
is that ultimately took control,
removed the other the all the opposition.
It's now a one party state.
He suspended
civil liberties
and just I mean, it's it's gotten it's
it's a problem. But the the interesting overlap
is that there has been a decrease in
violence, and a lot of people seem to
be okay with that. That's where this comes
into play, where it seems that this was
a deal with the devil in the analogy
sense,
where
instead of actually stopping the problem, he embedded
the problem in the government. Now going back
to Whitney's books and the background discussion therein,
it seems like he's modeling himself after the
actual deep state in this country. Or like
with Israel, as they all screamed, you fight
in the deep state, here's an example of
him building that.
Early on, Trump advisor identified El Salvador as
a promising option.
Coolest dictator he called himself had come into
office pledging to crack down on gang crime.
Matt Gaetz, who late last year resigned from
congress and was mister Trump's initial pick to
lead the justice department, visited mister Bukele last
year. Remember, at the time, what did he
say? We already showed you that. He said,
hey. We can lock up those and Americans
too. He said that on the record. I
believe that was a PBS article.
And toured his new terrorism confinement center known
as Secot, which is a concentration camp. It's
horrible. It's one of the worst. Like, there's
been reports on it for a long time
now. A sprawling facility with eight cell blocks,
each holding 3,000 prisoners, apparently, that has right
now way more than it can actually supposed
to hold. Mister Bukele was okay. He was
willing to let The United States use his
prisons with conditions. He told
mister Rubio and,
Mercutio Claver Caron, mister Trump's lat Latin American
envoy.
He did not want to bring in noncriminal
migrants.
He could not convince Salvadorians that he was
prioritizing their national interest if he turned their
country into a dumping ground for US deportees
from other countries, which is what it now
seems to have been.
He explained this to Trump's aids. Now remember,
we already saw a little pushback on this
where he was calling this out, and it
was background conversations that were leaked out. The
reality is these there are there's a little
bit of discord between this. But this is
typical US government dealing. They will screw you
every way they can. That's how they work.
And that's left and right, you know, just
the government. He says, but he did agree
to take in violent criminals no matter their
nationality
for a fee, which would help subsidize the
country's prison system.
Now mister Bukele had his own request,
and this is where it gets really interesting.
A list of MS thirteen leaders or so
he says, by the way, that he wanted
released from US custody and sent to El
Salvador, where he said they could be interrogated
by his security officers. Now many of these
do seem to be members of this gang
that he seems to have potentially worked with,
but I still point the same thing out.
How do we know for sure? If they're
not even verifying any of this stuff and
there's no process, he could be acute this
could be a El Salvadorian citizen that has
dirt on him. Somebody that ran away because
he doesn't wanna get killed by the government
that's killing its dissidents.
Think about that. That's a chilling reality that
very well could be part of this.
Now it says some US Law Enforcement Officials
were alarmed over the prospect of sending back
leaders of MS thirteen now facing charges for
alleged crimes in The United States. See, even
then they say alleged because they even though
we know these people are the we information
we have on them shows they're part of
the gang. They haven't been brought to court
and the evidence hasn't been presented. And so
even they say alleged, but the reality is
today, they're rapidly destroying this country in a
thousand different ways by using your hatred of
other things against each other.
But the interesting part of this
is that they were outright they're going you're
gonna get they're gonna send back gang members
to a place where they they are at
least far less held accountable? Like, how does
that make sense with even the narratives that
you're putting forward?
And then, of course, the argument is that,
you know, there's a whole different
many different overlaps of how that will come
back to play.
But he says both the Treasury Department and
the Justice Department have accused mister Bukele's government
of making a secret pact with MS thirteen.
So in case you misunderstand that, the US
government, multiple entities of it have said he
dealt with MS thirteen, which does seem to
be the reality,
offering his offering offering the leaders of MS
thirteen that are behind bars
special privileges
to keep homicides down in El Salvador. Ah,
so now
still what I said before. I still question
whether that is really what people think. I
don't know how we can prove one way
or the other, seeing as how it's a
controlled entity right now. So it's certainly that
we're just being certainly possible we're being lied
to about it. Or or let's just even
say that most people are happy. How long
will that maintain? I mean, if you're literally
like, you might as well say, MS thirteen
now runs the country and they're willing to
dial down the crime so it doesn't look
as bad. Or the government working with them
in the same dynamic. I mean, it's the
same point we make about the mafia forward
discussion. Prohibition forward. Is it possible the mafia
just basically took over the government? That's what
Whitney's books are about in part, that the
infiltration, if not the becoming of that same
dynamic. And the reality is that we're seeing
the same thing.
It's just it's it's this is not what
we pretend we're fighting for. Okay? This is
you're dealing with the villains of the world
that just put on a pretty face. That's
what the government of US has always done,
whether it's Saudi Arabia, Israel.
You look around the world, it's obvious.
And it says, of course, Bukele has denied
the claims, of course. But it says, what
Bukele is desperate for is to get these
guys back in El Salvador before they could
talk to US courts, said Douglas Farah of
El Salvador expert who between 02/2018 and 2022
collaborated with the justice department.
Vulcan task force, which targeted MS thirteen as
a US Military Contractor. Now let's be clear
again. I mean, they could be making all
this up too. It could be that this
is not the truth. The point is that
there's a lot of evidence that
supports this discussion. And you can see the
and the bigger point is you can see
the way that they're that they've already abused
this in the past. And it goes before
him. It goes before Trump. So this seems
to be an extension of the same kind
of dynamic.
But it says, nevertheless, US Officials agreed to
send El Salvador around a dozen senior members
of MS thirteen, including a high ranking leader
named Cesar Humberto
Lopez Larios, who had been in US custody,
that's the one we're talking about, awaiting a
trial on narcoterrorism conspiracy charges. Mister Bukele has
so far not received everyone he sought. Interesting.
But US Officials say they still intend to
send additional gang leaders that he's requested. So
it begs the question,
who were all the others?
I mean, we we could literally prove that
most of them, if not all of them,
75% of them didn't even have criminal records,
guys. That they're just average people who have
the wrong tattoos.
That's really what happened, which is just mind
blowing that we don't think that is the
one of the biggest travesties, like, in this
country. The idea of what just happened right
there, that's a scar on this country forever.
I I just I don't know why we
can't be real about that. I mean, I
do for some people's positions, but if you're
in a partisan side, gotta call this stuff
out.
Now next one.
Drop site news.
Now it says
and the the title is
secret Bukele deal lies behind Trump's El Salvador
deportations.
Now it says,
US president Donald Trump and Salvadorian president Bukele
have long presented themselves as crusaders of justice
battling the scourge of transnational criminal gangs. Earlier
this year, the Trump administration declared MS thirteen
a violent Salvadorian gang that originated in The
United States and other Latin American criminal groups
to be terrorist organizations, which, let's not forget,
was a very was attack was a just
it was a tactical move.
He he did it right before he started
this, and then the Alien Enemies Act, and
then we work they they work together. Because
the point is, you need to at least
present the crane the framing as this is
a terrorist organization that's being done or rather,
you know, driven by the Venezuelan government. Without
that,
it doesn't apply to the Alien Enemies Act.
But that's already come out. And even with
their framing that is completely flimsy, it's not.
They it's just that's the one of the
legal pushbacks we're gonna get into a second
around that act that Rubio is now going,
no judge has the right to do yeah.
They do. That's exactly how this works. The
point is clearly that they tried to frame
this as a way to make the case
that Venezuela was invading this country, and there
was an organized enemy state actor. None of
those things are true.
But it says the narrative hit a cinematic
apogee earlier this month when Trump swept up
a clutch of Venezuelans
as he as set he said, excuse me,
were hardened gangsters. Paired them up with some
alleged members of MS thirteen,
sent them down south to be detained in
Bukele's Terrorism Prison. The truth turns out to
be much messier. Not only did Trump deport
Venezuelans who were likely completely innocent, but also
and look. Just to be clear, many of
them were on you can now prove are
completely innocent. Here legally, no criminal record.
But also a specific MS thirteen member who
was emblematic of alleged corruption at the highest
ranks of the Salvadorian government, a man called
Granas,
if I'm pronouncing that correctly. The importance of
Granas whose name whose legal name, as we
just mentioned earlier, Cesar Humberto Lopez Larios, lies
in what he knows. According to a federal
indictment,
and as a leader of US thirteen, Grenache
was invoked
involved, excuse me, in secret negotiations between the
gang and Bukele's government
aimed at lowering gang violence in exchange
for political support.
That's what we're talking about. Bukele denies the
negotiations
ever took place, but has long sought to
get a hold of high ranking members of
MS thirteen who participated in, worked to keep
such figures out of the hands of The
United States before they hack can have their
day in open court. The Bukele government has
also re resisted extra,
extraditing a number of MS thirteen leaders that
were requested by The US.
Interesting.
Has Grenasse
had Grenasse the the Grenasse's case gone forward
in The United States, the sorted links between
Bukele and the gang he is famous for
warring against may have been aired publicly.
Instead, federal charges were dismissed four days before
his expulsion, which just shows you, due to
sensitive and important foreign policy considerations, which meaningless,
according to a recently unsealed justice department document.
The justice department initially requested the document be
sealed because its release, quote, could cause harm
to the government's relationship with El Salvador.
Well, isn't that pretty obvious? So this becomes
really clear what's going on.
Now, under what he knew, it says Grenasse
is an alleged member of the,
how do you say that? Run Runfla,
Nasional,
which is the name given to the MS
thirteen board of directors.
I think it's the something of death or
something. I think it's later down here. Boucle
has consistently denied the negotiations with the gang
ever took place, but explosive revelations from El
Faro, the news organization, showed that starting in
02/2019,
'2 high ranking Bukele administration
officials
secretly snuck into Salvadorian prisons
alongside masked men to meet with incarcerated MS
thirteen leaders, members of the MS thirteen board
of directors met multiple times with Osiris Luna,
the national director of prisons,
and Carlos Merroquin, the director of the Social
Fabric Government Office.
So the links are this is reporting. I
mean, these these are these things happen. What
the reality is about what they were trying
to achieve, you can decide. But I think
the evidence is enough to recognize
there's something happening here. And it says during
the negotiations with Luna and Merriquin, the gang's
goal was to, quote, maintain the power and
influence of MS thirteen and obtain benefits from
the government of El Salvador. So now you
literally have
the US government working with El Salvadorian government
to maintain the power and influence of MS
thirteen.
Now does the Trump administration know that? Do
they care? You have to realize the entire
premise of fighting these gangs is undermined by
the reality that you're working with the person
who's literally maintaining their influence,
whether through prison systems or not, and then
just tactfully lowering the the death and suffering
for the time being or, you know, however
that works.
Now it says they just, it says in
exchange, MS thirteen agreed to reduce the number
of public murders,
quote, which politically benefited the government of El
Salvador by creating the perception
that the government was reducing the murder rate.
Now look at that.
See, a lot of things we talk about
are just kind of my instincts and, you
know, how things make sense. When you just
kinda I I put out thoughts all the
time. Well, you know, this is what I
that makes sense, or this is why I
think this would not add up, or, you
know, something seems wrong about this, you know
and here we go. How often you guys
fall on the show wrecking. Look at that.
That's exactly what we were sensing in this.
But I wasn't telling you I knew for
sure one or the other. Even still, we
should question this. But it says more importantly,
MS thirteen agreed to provide political support
to Bukele's party in the lead up to
the consequential legislative elections in 2021.
US prosecutors allege
in exchange
for greater benefits from the government. So, look,
two things. This is The US Prosecutors are
making this case. Up here, when we talk
about the benefit, you know, the benefits basically
maintain the power of influence about as 13,
that's a Justice Department indictment.
Just think about how obvious all this is.
That means they know this. They they know
that some level people within the government structure
know this too. And yet we're still people
are still being lied to by the government.
Now it goes on to say the treasury
department of the US also alleged alleged in
2020.
Boukoulet's administration provided financial incentives to almost 13
to reduce gang violence in exchange for political
support. Multiple statements like this from the US
administration.
According to
Mendez Dardone, the, from WOLA,
the US sanctions on these two officials are
significant.
Quote, this shows there is enough evidence that
the reduction of violence in El Salvador was
compromised. There was there were political negotiations between
the gangs and the government of El Salvador.
In 2021,
after the decisive legislation elections that gave Bukele's
party a super majority that that he now
calls a one party state, exactly what they
tell you over here we should be fighting
against.
His administration removed the country's attorney general, which
we've told you already, and five members of
the Supreme Court, which we've told you already.
That's called democracy according to everybody else. Right?
After publicly stating
they would engage in ex extraditions to The
US of these members.
Okay. So you have to understand that the
people he removed that allowed him to run
again, by the way, which is why he's
still in power,
were the ones that were trying to remove
these people.
Right? Or rather bring they basically the people
that would then be able to show the
information about this dynamic.
Now it says the Bukele administration also dismantled
a unit of Salvadorian prosecutors that were investigating
the meetings of them and the gang members.
This is all stuff on the record. Like,
this is like what Netanyahu's doing, and we
can't be honest about this. It's so transparent.
But, you know, it it's worth having a
conversation about. Let's just say this country lives
in peace and harmony for the next hundred
years. If that's the case, then we should
reflect on that. But the reality is hard
to think that it's gonna go anywhere other
than another despotic controlled dictator situation because that's
what we can see. And they're working with
the very gangs they tell you they're trying
to stop. That's how this tends to work.
That's how your government in this country works
in The United States. It's how seemingly every
government works in my opinion,
but the evidence is everywhere.
And, you know, just back to the idea
that they removed Supreme Court justices, attorney general,
the the prosecutors investigating, and we don't see
what that is.
Like, this is my point about people on
the conservative side that just go, yeah, because
he's the guy on our side. So do
it. Get rid of the democrats, and you're
acting like that's what he's going after. You're
lost. And I don't think that's what most
people are thinking right now. But those people
are either blind supporters, like the people I
could list off that you know about that
are going, yay, we're winning about everything all
the time, or people that just don't care
because they're bad people.
Then according, it says
to Alphara's reporting, the truce between Bukele's government
and the MS thirteen seems to have collapsed
in 2022.
Now that you that this is interesting because
it seems that this may have driven to
where we are now, and maybe that's why
we've seen differences. But it says, last year,
Bukele announced a state of exception. Now that
was when he removed like, my point is
maybe they use that claim to justify pulling,
removing,
you know, what we'd say constitutional rights, civil
liberties,
suspending the rights of people, which not supposed
to be able to happen, at least in
this country.
And it says, to wipe out criminal groups,
which cast aside due process and led to
a wave of alleged human rights abuses. Okay.
Well, I mean, it it seems he's given
people back that he wants. Seems to be
that has to do with some other conversation,
so maybe there's more going on. Either way,
whether he dealt with them first and now
double crossed them and just pulled all the
people's rights or they used that excuse to
do so, we're not staring at a good
guy here, guys.
It's pretty clear.
So I finally be very relevant. Now Richard
Hanania
points out, and he is,
I can't remember what this what his background
was. He depart you can see his bio
here. Different parties, different groups. He says New
York Times reports that Bukele was uncomfortable with
the Trump administration sending in people who hadn't
been convicted
of of a crime. Now I don't think
it's because he cares, like we said. I
think it's because he wanted this to be
a demonstration that he's going after the bad
guys for the people that he needs the
support of in a public eye. He wanted
evidence that the Venezuelans were actually gang members.
He says, let that sink in. The guy
who calls himself the world's coolest dictator, who
is famous for mass prison camps, thinks that
Trump administration is going too far and locking
people up without evidence. It's a crazy way
to look at it. Trump administration ended up
giving El Salvador, quote, evidence in the form
of their scorecard
that said if you had tattoos and were
and that you were a gamer. Really, that's
too much of a simplification.
It was subjective nonetheless.
It was like a four point thing. And
if you have tattoos, I think it was
two points. And if you have a certain
you're in a certain location, that was two
points. And all you knew was four. So
the proof is, literally, tattoos and being in
the wrong place was enough to get you
sent to El Salvador. That was already covered.
Very clear. And that they made up this
weird scorecard because they didn't have the evidence
that they required.
It says they had no idea who they
were sending. Random people who were picked up
going about their lives. Some of them with
upcoming asylum hearings, which meant they were here
legally.
The administration was so careless that they tried
sending eight women to men's prisons in El
Salvador, but they had to be returned. Yeah.
Real efficient. Money right there. And, you know,
on top of the completely
illegal things they're doing.
Insane.
Then he goes, if this doesn't shock your
conscience, then something then something is wrong with
you. And I agree with that. This is
the article we're talking about. And by the
way, just on a side note, he says,
why do they have why do they have
to fill these planes with innocent people? Because
immigrants commit very little crime. Now, this is
an interesting discussion.
Now, to be to be very clear, whatever
side you think you're on on this, if
you look above if you look into the
evidence that we can find,
pretty much everything I can find suggest that
it's far at the very least,
not more than average people.
Now there's all sorts of debate about that.
But if you really think about it, it
makes sense to me as well.
I mean, I I'm working through kitchens my
entire life. I mean, that's most of the
people that work in the background. And even
I was hiring in the background. I mean,
I there are people that I would I
would want that in half cases because one,
they worked harder than anybody. And two, because
they were worried about the law that they
were always on the up and up. Always
afraid to drive too fast. I I I
knew I hung out with you. The point
is, in my experience, which could be limited,
I agree that it seems that most people
in that position, logically, would probably be less.
Now that's not to say that maybe there's
an extreme part of that or because of
that same logic, they do the worst things.
But I think on the average reality,
you could pretty much logically understand that most
of them wouldn't want to because they don't
wanna get deported.
So then you can look at all the
actual statistics and the research and the studies,
which say that thing too. But yet, we
get all these it's it's like they keep
saying that Democrats wants them all because they're
all gonna vote Democrat. That's not the reality,
as I said I've said many times. At
the very least, it's pretty all over the
place. But yet, they keep screaming the same
old things because they're doing the same old
thing.
Either way,
something about this is off. I think we
can all see what's going on.
Homeland Security said the real story here is
that Biden administration was releasing gangs into American
communities, which by the way is what they
point out when they say invasion.
So you're gonna claim that Venezuela is invading
with a terrorist group, but then say, but
Biden is the one that let them in,
but that doesn't sound like an invasion. Oh,
and round and round we go. It's all
a narrative control dynamic.
I do under I do believe that there's
a weaponized dynamic going on, but it's not
who you think.
Mayor Malik says every time the DHS claims
they've someone they have is a member of
Trinidad and Nicaragua.
He says, remember that they refuse to put
any of these allegations in front of a
judge in court. It's because they know that
when they do,
the allegations fall apart.
Whether it's a left or right judge, which
is continually seen. The point is, here's one
of the judges tearing ISIS claims apart.
And they this is they basically shot it
down and said, you have no evidence
because they don't. You understand? This is not
my personal opinion. They're presenting subjective claims in
a court of law that requires proof.
I
I mean, this is, even when they're trying
to find their way to in front of
a judge that might be more amenable to
their position, and they're still losing.
If all you can do is go radical
judges, they're not even looking at the evidence.
They are presenting things that are even barely
evidence.
In this case, it says they're doubling down
on this professional soccer player, we've already talked
about him, being in Tran de Aragua despite
the fact that their only evidence was a
Real Madrid tattoo,
football soccer,
that they that the guy and and the
guy throwing the horns at a picture. That's
not a joke. That's what they have written
down.
Think about that.
And you realize that's a very popular famous
tattoo. Okay.
And they say, the Venezuelan soccer player in
quotes, like, the Maryland dad, same thing.
Was in United States illegally, he was a
member of trendy, aroga gang. Okay.
The crazier is about you know, the this
this one, if I remember correctly, was somebody
who was in a process.
Didn't he didn't just jump the fence. He
was in the process of either asylum or
going for citizenship, but they still call that
illegal, and it's just a gross misrepresentation.
If you are in the process of seeking
citizenship or asylum,
you can disagree that that they should be
doing those things or be allowed to, or
maybe they're using that as a way to
circumvent whatever crime. Fine. Those are all valid
considerations. That doesn't mean you could pretend they're
now illegal when they're not. The bottom line,
though, is even if he was, all of
these things should have been presented to
a a judge in regard to, at the
very least, sending him to a prison in
a foreign country
or if that's ever even allowed to happen.
But the main crux of the point is
what you should care about, which most people
seem to step right over in their interest
of a political side, is that he's not
part of this game. His lawyers have spoke
up. Everyone's calling this out. And there's
most of the people that are there,
they are now being proven in court to
not be these things. Or the best they
have is what they presented as evidence to
claim they are, which is completely up in
the air.
That should matter to you.
You know why? Because they're doing it to
you too in your life every day.
If you can't see that by now, you're
not paying attention.
And then Billy Binyon of Reason simply says,
here's your daily reminder, or just reminder, that
The US is still jailing
or Ozturk,
the woman from Tufts University.
Think about how crazy that is.
She wrote an op ed. What was that,
a month ago?
The state department admittedly found zero evidence that
she's anti Semitic, and that's admittedly. They don't
have any evidence of anything. Well, even then,
that's even when you can just claim Palestine
supports antisemitic.
They still can't find any evidence.
Yet, she's behind bars
right now.
She was here legally. She was a PhD
student.
This is it's it actually still blows me
away that these things are not, like,
paramount.
Again, I was talking about a Greg Garcia.
Yeah. There's valid points there. But think about
how wild this is. A PhD student who
wrote an op ed who you can read
for yourself. As Glenn Greenwald went over, it
is well done. It's just it's very fact
based about the genocide.
But even that, even if you think that's
enough, it's like we're we're in the twilight
zone, that she can be held without charge
in a prison
for this long.
Legally here, guys. So in principle, there is
no difference than this happening to you. It
is the same thing.
And then, of course, the barber,
same conversation.
The guy was he was in the process
of a of of a legal stay,
which means he was either seeking asylum or
or a or a citizenship.
And on top of that, was not given
any due process in regard to the allegations
against him.
And this is one of the cases that
have now been very clearly shown to not
be that he's a criminal. No criminal record,
not part of the gang. This was the
guy who got abused by the guards and
MS 13 people or whatever the gang members
or people that are there for other crimes.
And I find that to be just it
makes me sick. Makes me sick that the
people that not only can it happen, but
that you got people out there that will
laugh about it because, well, he's a Democrat
or whatever grotesque mental gymnastics they can make
to pretend it doesn't matter.
I forgot about this clip. I
don't think I I forgot. This is of
course, the the point is I believe he's
a Democrat,
which means people will blindly dismiss it despite
the fact that what he's gonna say is
probably right.
Let's listen to it together. I'm just gonna
download it real quick.
Here it is.
There's no issue right now that should concern
Americans more than the elimination and destruction of
due process. Yeah. So he's a democrat from
California,
which, you know, it just it makes me
sick how easy this is for some people
to just disregard that. Oh, democrat just wanna
raise up Garcia because you're listening to some
republican podcaster. Like, you're doing exactly what you're
pointing at the other side because you're both
doing it. The truth is regardless of the
dev left and right narratives,
this is about due process. It's fundamentally easy
to prove. It's vaxxed. It's right in front
of you. You just wanna pretend that doesn't
matter as long as x, y, and z,
which shows you that you are the problem.
Not just now for US citizens,
but for people that are here, whether it's
a legal status or because they've been invited
to this country to apply for asylum.
Now we've heard tonight, and I wanna go
ahead and speak a little bit more. Now
that that point's important.
And this is about Biden. Right? And I
will I I said the same thing. The
same way with Trump randomly saying these aliens
are okay to work at our restaurants because
we want that. It's the same thing. Wave
your hand and just declare something. So when
the next administration comes in and says, nope.
Those are all legal aliens. You're out.
Is that okay?
I mean, it's the same thing we're seeing
today. The point is that you Biden just
basically said, come in. We'll we'll give you
citizenship. Right? We'll we'll we'll grant you asylum.
We're just bringing people in, just waving his
hand. Well, that's what the president does. I
don't I'm not okay with any of that.
But the reality is, in regard to the
president being able to do that with whatever
they want, the reality is that it did
happen. And there were a lot of examples
of them people giving citizenship, asylum, and that
is now the legal reality.
The idea that they come in and just
go, never mind, because we don't agree with
the previous administration is not only illegal. It's
just it's just gross. Like, what they're doing
is creating a circumstance where nothing means anything,
everything means nothing, whatever they say goes. Same
thing Biden was doing in his own right.
So I just think it's frustrating
that we can't be honest about this and
recognize what we're what these people are collectively
doing. Again, I don't know Robert Garcia. My
opinion would probably be that what they're doing
is taking advantage of a moment to present
themselves as the counterbalance.
It's it's opportunism,
you know, or he believes in it. I
don't know. But you can decide. I'm Jaden
when it comes to politicians.
How about Andre Romero?
This young gentleman right here, he's a gay
hairstylist,
makeup artist
who came to The United States
with an asylum
appointment.
The United States government
gave Andre a appointment to show up to
the border
so that he could claim asylum
using our process that we created.
Now, again, that's the point is whether you
agree with that during Biden's administration or not,
that's what happened. So the idea that you
could lull somebody into that or rather that
Biden could do that, and then you could
step in and just go never mind despite
the fact that he's built a a life
here.
Is it just again, it speaks to not
only illegal, because it is. It just speaks
to a a
vitriol, a hatred.
The the the bringing people down to the
lowest vibration and just and and abusing people.
They're human beings with lives and families and
dreams, and you're just going, never mind. Political
pawns. We're gonna use you because we don't
agree with those people. It's just disgusting. And
they're pulling so many people in, but, again,
I think that they're losing control of it.
He shows up
with his appointment,
and what happens?
He gets interrogated through the process.
His initial screening is positive,
and then he essentially gets taken
at the border
from that screening
directly to an El Salvador
prison
in a country he knows nothing about Never
been.
And in a
process that eliminated
his right through the court and due process
asylum system that we've created in this country.
Now, again, the point is about El Salvador.
Like, how the hell is that even something
like, at the the best you could remove,
like, you he's not like he was
gallivanting around the country for crying out loud.
Why won't you just put him back over
the border? The idea is that this was
about, in my opinion, meeting some kind of
demand or maybe his name was on a
list. Either way, there's obviously something wrong with
all of this. That we could ever argue
that you could just pluck him up and
send him to a foreign government. He's never
been to a place that they're gonna rock
him up for life. For what? What crime
did he commit? In any context, he wasn't
there illegally.
Again, I just like it's it that has
to matter. If I somehow find out that
this doesn't matter to half this country, I
don't know why I'm doing this. Because this
I do not believe we are this bad.
What kind of America
is this? Or we are doing this to
people that are seeking asylum.
We're sending them to a foreign prison.
And I wanna note,
Andre's family describes him as someone that is
sweet, that's kind, that's gentle,
and yet we're sending him to a notorious
prison
in a very vulnerable position.
I also wanna note that
folks in an agent said, oh, well, he
has some tattoos.
Yes. He has a crown tattoo
reflective of a festival back in his home,
city, and state in Venezuela.
It has nothing to do with gangs. He's
never been convicted of anything to do with
gangs.
But because an ICE agent who was, by
the way, a
disgraced former police officer
Seems seems like a running theme.
Made these claims. Andre is now in a
foreign prison, and his family and his lawyers
have not heard anything about him in weeks.
That's the craziest thing. It's longer than that
now. No communication.
Obvious reasons why.
I mean, common theme we see there. Right?
Well, there's one other point. He said Sir,
made these claims. Andrea is now How many
Is it the,
the the intercept article? Going back, I think
it was 2019, '20 '18. There was already
making this case back then. If it's not
unique to Trump or anybody, I think it's
just what our government does. But that they
were caught lying
all over. These ICE agents were lying all
over the place to get these people deported
even back then. So it's just nothing new,
it seems.
Speechless, man. It's just insane.
Fifty days since he was imprisoned in El
Salvador with no right to challenge the evidence
against him. The I that that statement right
there, no right to challenge the evidence against
him. That's not how we pretend we are.
And I don't care who you are. No
judicial review. No due process. He was sent
there because an ICE officer thought his mom
and dad tattoos were gang tattoos.
Now the Trump administration is eyeing new destinations
for illegal immigrants. Maybe because the Boukalei conversation's
getting unhappy because they're not you know, as
usual, the US government is not doing what
it says it's gonna do.
So they're eyeing new destinations. And guess what
lovely places they wanna send other people to?
You know, innocent people like we're seeing today.
Libya, Rwanda,
bastions of freedom out there, you know, largely
because of US foreign policy and Israel foreign
policy. May 1, Trump administration eyes new destinations
for illegal immigrants. And, by the way, American
citizens, since they keep floating that point, and
that's not going away. We'll we'll come to
that section in a second about the new
amendment that the Republicans voted down, which says
you can't deport legal
deport Americans.
But first this, the Trump administration is reportedly
considering sending illegal immigrants with criminal records to
Libya and Rwanda. But see, as much as
we and it's like saying deport Americans, but
we're gonna look into the law. Yes. We
can already see that they don't care about
any of this. That, at best, is a
narrative they use to hide what they do.
With criminal records is what they claim they
claim everyone they sent were the worst gangbanger,
murderous, rapist they ever seen, and now we
know 75% of them didn't even have a
record.
They're lying to you. And if you're okay
with that, you're a child. The reality clearly
is that these places are not okay, and
most of them are not gonna have criminal
records if we have any hint indication so
far of what they've done. Because the report
suggests this could be an effort to deter
foreigners from entering US illegally.
Well, gee, you
think? They we'll threaten we'll send you to
a foreign prison forever with no chance of
give even pushing back. Maybe they'll think twice
about coming in this country, which is probably
the point.
I mean and what's what's hilarious to me
is that we do now have a very
clear undercurrent of how that's used in as
Trump even already saw, allowing his hotels in
different places to keep using them because he
got pushed back from people that he higher
ups that need that to keep their businesses
going. So there might be a problem there
going forward. But it says president Donald Trump
signed an executive order in January directing top
officials to facilitate
international cooperation and agreements to send asylum seekers
elsewhere.
So just hear what he just said right
there. Asylum seekers, not people coming in illegally,
people coming to the border seeking asylum from
in many cases, because of US foreign policy
and just going send them to Rwanda,
send to Libya, put them in El Salvador
in prison because they dared to seek what
you guys tell us is the American dream.
Think about that. In addition to sending migrants
with criminal records, Trump officials are also hoping
to enter formal negotiations with Libya
to strike a so called safe third country
agreement,
which would allow The US to send asylum
seekers
apprehended at the border. Think
of how they're framing that.
To Libya.
Apprehended at the border? You mean people are
coming and going, I'm seeking asylum and you're
apprehending them?
Like, they're framing these people as illegal immigrants.
That's not by accident. This I this again,
I know I feel I feel like I
use it often right now. To me, that
seems desperate.
The reason I say that is because if
you stand back and look at it, there's
an easier way they could frame this. You
are literally just clumsily conflating asylum seekers with
illegal immigrants because clearly you need that to
meet some kind of number you're aiming for
or because of somebody else, some other country.
To me, that's insane. Like, that's literally saying
like, you might as well just say sending
American citizens that apprehended at the border.
It's the same guy. Yeah. It's not the
same thing. But in principle, you're talking about
people who are going through a process who
have rights and just arrested them and sending
them somewhere else, potentially to prison, which makes
no sense.
It says both countries have a history of
widespread as Rwanda, Libya. In fact, here, let's
just show you this first.
I said, hey, Grock. Is Libya currently safe
for travelers? Just anybody? And it says, Libya
is not safe for travelers due to ongoing
conflict, crime, terrorism, and kidnapping risks. Most governments
advise against travel to Libya. You know why
Libya is that way? Because of the US
government and it's rather the NATO regime change
the US government led
It ended with the rape of the leader
who gave the highest quality of life to
people in Libya and all of Africa until
they did that. Now it sells open slaves,
or at least it was following that, on
an open market in the place they called
liberated.
And really now, as you can see, it's
just a bunch of warring conflict zones.
We can still pretend it's Libya on the
map. It's not. It's gone. Different people think
they own different parts. It's not. This is
the game they play. That's globalism in a
way. The point is in regard to just
these are the justifications
used to take these things or rather keep
them in chaos until they later need to
use it for something else.
But think of the joke of saying, we're
gonna use Libya as a safe third country
for people seeking legal asylum that we're gonna
apprehend and send to Libya.
You know, you can make us all about
Donald Trump if you want to because that's
easy.
It's lazy to go bad Trump, But in
the same way, by going bad Trump, you
get the other side that goes, oh, that's
all it's about. So never mind. I'm gonna
ignore how gross this is.
It plays both ways. It's not about Trump.
You're being used. It's about US government and
how they don't care about you. So if
you ignore all this because you think you're
defending Trump, you're lost in this. You're being
played. If you think it's all about Trump,
equally, you're being played.
Libya's prison conditions.
That was just both countries have history of
widespread and systemic human rights abuses. Like, you
couldn't have picked a different you know the
reason they choose those? Because none of the
western countries are gonna be in line with
this. Because there's a lot we're all every
one of these countries is dealing with the
same manipulations, influence, occupation,
infiltration.
Libya's prison conditions are often described as inhumane,
life threatening.
The nation's government incarcerates migrants, political prisoners, asylum
seekers. Well, there you go. Now it all
lines up. Who face torture and other types
of abuse in facilities controlled by the state
and armed militias. So people come seeking asylum
from something they're suffering, and Libya puts them
in prison and maybe tortures them.
Libya, whatever that means. Right? Whatever that whatever
weird,
UN kind of overlap thing they pretend is
Libyan government, bottom line is they're gonna send
people there for safety, Trump says.
The same is true of Rwanda. The nation's
prisons are reportedly meet they reportedly meet out
torture
while keeping inmates in harsh conditions. They're often
overcrowded with inmates dealing with inadequate water, food,
and sanitation. There have been several ports of
rampant physical abuse such as beatings, coerced confessions,
but those are your safe third country options.
At least that's what he's considering.
It's a joke. I mean, this this is
profoundly correct. Right now,
what we're dealing with is different than usual.
I mean, I keep saying this, but guys,
we've seen in the past, like, a nuance.
Right? Like, a small deviation,
disagreements on small wedge points. We are seeing,
like,
outright complete fake information
telling you something. And, you know, we're it's
Orwellian. I mean, every day, we redefine how
much that applies.
They're saying war is peace right in your
face.
Ignorance is strength right in your face.
And now Alabama
could send inmates to foreign prisons. Look at
how quickly that happened. This is an individual
state
trying to pass bills to send inmates to
foreign prisons.
Inmates,
not necessarily
illegal immigrants.
Wake up, ladies and gentlemen. This is happening.
Our prisons are too soft, says Alabama.
It says a proposed bill, h b six
one eight, would allow Alabama to send people
incarcerated to the state to foreign prisons.
There's literally no legal reality with this. It's
unconstitutional.
It's illegal. There's no precedent for it.
I just it's I I this is only
happening because they've allowed this to progress.
It says that this bill would authorize the
commissioner of the Department of Corrections to enter
in contracts with foreign nations to confine Alabama
inmates,
American citizens, in a penal institution or correctional
facility.
I'm probably gonna go over this more tomorrow.
Sells said he was inspired,
this is from Alabama, by seeing El Salvador's
prisons, you know, the concentration camps. And he
believes that if people feared
being sent to prisons,
that might deter crime.
Yeah. Yeah. Sure would. But it also violate
the rights and hurt people. Right? And torture,
you know, whatever else we're talking about. The
bottom line, it's not legal. It's unconstitutional.
I don't care what benefit you think you'll
gain or what negative you think you'll throw
at the other side. That is insane.
Now he goes through and says very clearly
that he's, I don't think it's gonna pass.
I'm doing this to send a message. It's
irrelevant.
It's real. The bill is real. It does
happen so that whether you are doing it
to send a message, it could pass.
And it is normalizing the conversation, and he's
pointing to El Salvador and Trump for why.
I just hope people can see this. Make
a clip. Get it out there.
Now we talked about
Trump sending Americans to El Salvador. Right? That's
been floated five times at least from Trump
directly. More than that, if you count everybody
else. We also talked about the general point
of it in, you know, Americans speaking out
about Israel's genocide or whatever else they claim
being sent.
That in principle is the same thing. It's
what's happening right now. It's a violation of
due process rights or just your constitutional rights
or whoever's in this country, be it illegal
aliens, green card holders, visa holders, or American
citizens. The principle is legally the same. That's
why I think in one way it's happening.
We're beginning to set the precedence and that's
alarming.
Now house Republicans
kill amendment to stop ICE from deporting US
citizens.
Very real. Okay? Here is that this is
that was from a reporting on this from
Black Information Network. Here is
Newsweek.
Republicans vote against move to stop ICE deporting
US citizens.
House Republicans have voted down an effort
to block immigration enforcement enforcers from using federal
resources to detain or deport US citizens.
One amendment introduced, of course, by a Democrat,
and that's how this game is always played.
Right? So almost driving you to be okay
with deporting Americans because, well, Democrats say we
shouldn't.
Like, I honestly think that's step one of
this game.
That they might just get enough people to
go, yeah, because Democrats think we shouldn't, therefore,
we should. It really does feel like it's
becoming more simplistic right now. But
representative Pramila
Jayapal, which again, I've criticized many times already,
the the democrat from Washington state. I mean,
you can see her picture right here.
I mean, she she said plenty of ridiculous
partisan nonsense like everybody else in this position.
Sought to make it clear immigration of the
ICE cannot detain or deport US citizens under
any circumstances.
GOP lawmakers killed the amendment. Now, who's to
say whether they
didn't wanna vote for it because it undermines
Trump's agenda or because she didn't wanna side
with the Democrat, or maybe because there's a
nuance to it, they argue with something else,
which always happens.
The idea that, you know, you could like,
for example,
the this is actually a terrible example. Gabbard
had the stop arming terrorist act,
and everybody voted against it, which is insane.
And really what they tried to argue was
about limitations that it would be applied to,
like, Israel, for example, which was like, yeah,
exactly, because that count. But you see, the
game is
creating a nuance that you argue, they're using
this to hide what they're really doing.
The reality is you can look at it
for yourself.
It says, Trump, well, just this is about
and we don't we shouldn't I you know
what I hate about this? We shouldn't need
a new law
or a new bill that that outlines what
we already know.
It kills me. That happens all the time.
And I almost wonder sometimes whether this back
and forth is designed to make it in
to to, like, give the impression that it's
not resolved when it is.
You can't deport Americans. That that that's even
what they're saying is we're we can't believe
we're even having this conversation. So why are
you introducing the bill? We don't need a
new bill or a new law when reality
is the constitution and precedent has already made
that case.
So I I honestly think it may be
about watering it down to make it seem
like we're debating.
But Trump and April floated the idea of
sending US citizens convicted of violent crimes to
El Salvador or whoever they claim are convicted
of violent crimes, seeing as how the process
is what we skip over when this happens.
The new Trump administration has also been accused
of flouting court orders, flouting, directly ignoring, deporting
migrants with due without due process following campaign
promises of mass deportation. The administration has denied
the accusations, which is like denying that you
didn't get all the point is those things
happen. There's no denying those things. It's obvious.
They've told you that they don't even need
due process, but then they go, it didn't
happen because we give it to them after
you're realizing people are catching on to the
lie. That's the joke I made earlier.
They don't get due process as legal aliens.
Well, they do, here's the proof. Well, they
did give it to him anyway. It's like,
well, pick a side. You know? You can't
play it, but well, that's what they always
do.
Any such moves risk a clash with US
Supreme Court, which said the ruling last month
that any deportees
should first be given due process. So whether
you agree with it or not, the Supreme
Court ruled yet again
consistently that that is the case and always
has been the
case. So before we go forward, let's let's
play this clip again. Now, actually, I'll I
can only find the one with with judge
Knapp saying things at the beginning and end,
but I'll play it anyway. It's important.
The middle part is where Trump is telling
you we are thinking about sending
Americans. I'm respect. It's just as bad now,
the authoritarianism,
that is coming, Gerald. I am really, really
fearful for the president of The United States
Of America to suggest as he did on
Air Force One on Sunday night
that American
citizens could be deported.
For his press secretary to say, we're looking
into,
a way to see if this is legal.
We don't know if it's legal or not.
A, 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. 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 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.
Now as I said before, the reason Trump
uses extreme cases is because, like, everything else
we're seeing,
those have no bearing on whether or not
they have the legal right to do that.
But if they convince you that the raping
grandmother people, well, I don't care about them.
They're bad.
In principle, it shouldn't matter what the claim
is or what the reality is. It's about
whether or not they are legally able to
do it. And this is how this game
works. And and we just went over how
Alabama with their new legislation, we have different
examples of them trying to make agreements with
other foreign prisons of the guys that own
illegal aliens. We see where this is going.
I mean, even judge Knapp says himself right
there. This is it's even the consideration, the
claim that we're trying to see if we
can
displays a profound
either ignorance or violation.
He's a judge. Was. I mean, he knows
who he's talking about and has a lot
of sway with the with people on the
right.
Now it goes on to say on April
5, Trump told reporters on Air Force One,
and I think that was the third time
he did it,
we have some horrible criminals, American grown, born,
and that's the that's and he says in
that, he is all for sending them to
prisons like El Salvador.
I don't know what the law says on
it. Yeah. You do. The law is very
clear. That's the that's what's crazy about it.
There's a pretending they don't.
Either way,
like, as judge said, it's it's
profoundly it's oh, even if he doesn't know
that, that's what's alarming,
that they don't know that.
It is illegal and unconstitutional to deport, detain,
or for deportation or recommend deportation of a
US citizen, a recent judge said.
Now it says this is the, the what's
her name? Pramila, the the Democrat, says, my
amendment is simple, and I hope that it
has bipartisan support. It simply states that none
of the funds in this bill may be
used by ICE to detain
or deport US citizens.
Simple.
Whether you're a Democrat or Republican,
I hope we can all agree that US
citizens should never be detained by ICE or
any agency conducting civil and immigration enforcement.
They certainly should not be deported.
And this says, Supreme Sonia Sotomayor, the Supreme
Court Justice says the government's argument moreover implies,
and this is about the ruling last month,
that it could deport and incarcerate any person,
including US citizens without legal consequence so long
as it does so before a court can
intervene. That view refutes itself.
That was before this. But, of course, she's
a radical judge, which I again, all of
them are driven by politics, guys. We know
that, but that is still the proven that
is the
legal reality.
And again,
Republicans voted this down. They vote against.
Now, I forgot if I highlighted the,
the vote.
I mean, the the point is, I was
I usually, they give you kind of breakdown.
The point is that the majority of Republicans
voted to stop this.
I I just think that's profound,
and it shows you the the slow moving
change in this country.
I guess slow moving is the wrong way
to put it, but, yeah, that this is
where it's going.
Now a couple of other overlaps that I
think are important before we finish with the
COVID nineteen
flu pandemic platform and which we they don't
that won't take that long, but a lot
important to end on.
Richard Hanaana says, huge victory for the rule
of law. Fernandez Rodrigo junior, Trump a Trump
appointee. Now this is the this is the
funny thing is how there's so much momentum
to make you think it's all democrat judges.
I mean, Elon Musk was really the one
driving a lot of this, and it seems
like he's now somewhat taken a back seat,
which is probably good for the truth to
get out at this point. But he rules
that Trump exceeded his authority in specifically the
Alien Enemies Act proclamation.
And this is, I guess, I'm Bruce Feiner,
our our podcast with Bitshoot. I mean, this
is exactly the reality. You can't make the
case it's a state actor. It's not. You
can't make the case that this is a
Venezuelan state behind it. It's not.
Even Trump claims Biden let them in.
He's disproving his own claim.
And it says he has issued a permanent
injunction
against future actions. That this happened on
where's the date on it? May 1.
He has issued a per permanent injunction against
future actions. No more Venezuelans to El Salvador.
Now bring them back, he says. Important.
Now, this is where they come in and
and do things where,
you know, JD Vance says, no judge can
decide exactly what the legal reality is exactly
how this is supposed to work. Now, you
could disagree with that. Sure.
Right? And you could take try to, you
know, appeal it. That's how this works. The
bottom line is they're not wrong. K? You
can very clearly see that what they're doing
in their own statements prove they're lying, and
all they have is sort of a partisan
screaming match about
that we're not wrong, or we can do
what we want because we're in power, you
know, whatever weird arguments are coming around. The
truth is
that what they're using this for is illegitimate.
And they've even tried to patch it together
to make the case with the terrorist designation,
and then most of who they're accusing are
even part of this, which makes it even
more flimsy. So they stepped up and said,
you can't keep doing this.
Melnick points out a quick threat on why
this Trump appointed judge ruled the way he
did. Says, first, look at the actual text
of the Alien Enemies Act. Now this is
what we're just going over.
It can only be used during a declared
war, as Bruce Line brought up, and or
any invasion or predatory incursion.
Just because he claims Biden was doing that,
which which be like, by default became an
invasion is not what that means. If you're
gonna make an argument, you would make the
argument of a verified, like, organized invasion from
a state actor. That's now look. That's there's
other things they could try to enact, but,
specifically, the alien enemies act has to have
those things. That's what the point is. And
it says it says, especially by a foreign
nation or a government.
And it gives you the text right there,
50 US code, 21.
And it says Trump's and then, well, this
was, let's see.
Yeah. Just the same conversation with different links.
He's using that as to back up what
he's saying because there's no declared war, no
invasion, no predator incursion. This is exactly what
Bruce was saying week a week ago, more
than that. But he says, Trump's evocation of
the Alien Emmys Act claimed that, one, Trinidad
and Nicaragua is a foreign nation or government.
It's not. Because it's controlled by Venezuela. It's
not as best we can tell. And two,
that the gang was perpetuating an invasion of
and a predatory incursion against The United States
with its criminal acts. I mean, that's that's
an stretch
of the reality at best. It's not like,
you'd have to be this is the case
of a lot of these things. This would
have to be proven in regard to being,
you know, if congress decided to hold these
people accountable, which it never will,
being Venezuelan driven. Now let's realize if MS
thirteen was founded in The United States and
over on top of that, to the people
they've already sent were a mix of of
what they claim were trendy, or
rather than a 13. So they can't even
have equally apply this to show you there's
some kind of organized trendy, arrogant invasion. That's
the only one they claimed.
This is, however, the overwhelming weight of historical
evidence as cited
by the judge in this case on May
1, makes clear that when congress wrote the
enemy aliens act in 1798,
invasion and predatory incursion referred specifically to military
action.
Here are some of the examples cited by
the judge. I mean, it's this is all
very clear. So So what's funny is it
becomes some, like, Democrat attack on Trump's authority.
That's all they can do.
That's not the case. I mean, you can
look for yourself. If you could if you
can acknowledge that these the information of the
act itself is invalidated by what they're saying,
then you're not an honest person.
And JD Vance simply steps up and says,
no. A judge can't decide that.
And I I highlighted it. It's it's the
president's decision, he told Brett Baer on special
report, laying the groundwork for a constitutional confrontation
over American authority.
His declaration followed the ruling earlier Thursday by
Trump appointed judge, Fernando Rodriguez,
that it was unlawful, that was his word,
for the administration to use the eighteenth century
wartime law to detain the port alleged trendy
Iraq war members.
Quote, if you tell the president he can't
deport illegal criminals, you're saying he can't be
president, and here we are yet again. This
lazy old back and forth. Who is saying
he can't deport criminals?
Nobody. Literally, nobody is saying he can't do
that. He can't use this act from 1798
to deport them without due process. That's what
the whole game was. If you wanted to
go through the normal process of which you
then go, oh, that will take too long,
Making our point, then he has that option.
But all if the best you can do,
little Marco Rubio, is to try to conflate
these into saying, you're trying to say we
can't deport illegal aliens. No. No one is
saying that. Then that then that shows you
that you have no argument.
He says, We all reject that and so
will the Supreme Court. And you're wrong because
every time the Supreme Court has continued to
back up this argument.
Nine to zero, seven to two, mostly conservative
judges.
But how insane is that? The best he
can do is try to conflate those two
things.
You realize they've been deporting people behind all
this. That's already been happening.
So he's lying to you and he knows
it. That's desperation in my opinion.
Now,
to finish
with a point about, you know, more lies,
more broken promises as we're winning and promises
made, promises kept. It keeps getting jammed down
everyone's throat.
The reality is this is not going a
good direction.
David Icke highlights what you know, same thing
I see. Mario on message as usual, Mario
Notfall just being like this PR agent for
the new mainstream alternative media propaganda arm. He
says now because now we want rid of
cows and chickens for synthetic meat, and we
want to justify another fake pen vaccine pandemic.
Right? How can we do that? Well, here
comes Mario.
Bird flu leveling up, and The US is
not ready.
A killer flu is spreading through cows, chickens,
and now he well, gee, this sounds exactly
like what Republicans used to call out coming
from the corporate media. Right? Weird.
Well, it's it's the same thing. It's the
same story. It's the same flat argument about
the bird flu invade. Well, the we've gone
over this many times.
The evidence around this does not show what
they're claiming. This is a corporate argument. Now,
look, I'm not saying you you could take
your own responsibility for your health. Wash your
hands. Be sanitary. But the idea that we
need to start killing animals is exactly what
the Trump administration before this was pushing back
on. RFK Junior, we can't kill all the
chickens. Well, here we are floating the idea
of doing exactly that. Hasn't happened.
But my point is this is coming out,
now being leaned into by the mainstream alternative
media that we have a potential problem.
Realize after they just put out the idea
that, oh, well, COVID was a real thing
and it was China, so here we go.
Get ready for the next game. I hope
not.
But it does begin to feel like there's
some laying out the table for this. I
I just think it's worth laughing at that
this is what you're getting from people like
this.
And they're basically doing the hype for them,
which is exactly what we always talk about.
Well, here's an interesting overlap. This is a
report from April 30.
This is from,
wired.com.
RFK Jr. HHS orders labs studying deadly infectious
diseases to stop research. Now, what's funny about
this, I saw this being framed on Twitter
as sort of like, See? He's shutting it
all down, who didn't clear who clearly didn't
read the read the article.
This is a little bit more interesting. This
is being framed that way when in reality,
it seems like there might have been a
problem. Well, if you don't if you remember,
Fort Detrick, which we're talking about here, is
a central part of this ongoing
either, I'd say, ploy
or they're really this incompetent.
Remember, it was I think it was seven,
phenomena. I forget the actual statistic.
Like, it was something like one time every
I'm gonna say it wrong. We cover this
a lot during this time frame. The point
is Fort Detrick is riddled with examples of
having mistakes, like, every single week for a
long period. That was the government statistic.
Even with,
anthrax, they this is where they claim it
came from. I think they use this place
as this kind of dynamic. But COVID nineteen,
people bringing things out on their shoe in
a wastebasket, that's what we're talking about. This
is a BSL4 lab.
Ebola, coronaviruses,
the highest level, and we get this many
things. So it's just wild to me. But
as we see the direction going forward, as
we'll show you in a second, more mRNA
jabs, more vaccine platforms,
shutting down this lab, even if that's actually
what's happening just because we think Fort Detrick
is bad, to me seems like an after
effect. Sort of like pointing at all the
problems as you build out the new technocratic
prison. Well, if you point out the problems
that you no longer need, are you really
being honest? In this case, shutting this down
when we're now beyond the, you know, the
gain of function building. We're we're well beyond
this. We are now at a level of,
I mean, it's all it takes a whole
conversation to explain where I think this is
going. The point is, this may be
bringing something down that's no longer necessary for
the idea of showing you that we're stopping
those things. But reading the article, it gets
very interesting. It says,
an email by Michael Hallbrook,
associate director for the high containment at the
integrated research facility says the lab is terminating
studies
on Lassa fever, SARS CoV-two,
and Eastern Equine Encephalitis,
or EEE, a rare but lethal mosquito borne
disease. Well, here's what's interesting.
They don't mention SARS CoV-two, COVID, or anywhere
in the rest of this.
It's also worth considering that as we become
more invested in this, that the the awareness
around who is responsible, which, I mean, is
the US government along with who China, whoever
else involved. That's why everyone laughed at that
report they put out. It's the evidence is
shockingly obvious that at the very least, they're
involved with it from the very beginning. The
point is
maybe they're covering up what people are seeing.
Maybe they're shutting this down because it did
start there, as we talked about right in
the beginning of this, and circulated around the
nursing homes with the ground grasopacity and the
vaping illness or the beginning of the military
games, and then cascaded everywhere else. Or it
was done by deliberate in a deliberate fashion.
The point is or it was nothing at
all, by the way. The point is that
by shutting this down, you may very well
be hiding one of those points. China responded
to or the proximal origin point that Trump
put out saying, we can prove many ways
over that it started. You at least there's
evidence of it everywhere else before
that, which is very obvious with the reports
like this 10 times over during the COVID
nineteen illusion
showing you that, oh, it was Canada, France,
Taiwan,
Japan.
I mean, many of them did their own
studies that say, look, we can verify this
being here in 02/2019.
And nobody cares about that. That's it. You
could still argue that China did it and
they just started it earlier. The point is
the evidence got ignored, which tends to show
you they needed these starting points for propaganda
reasons.
Either way, interesting that's included. But it says,
the email says, representatives from the Department of
Homeland Security were padlocking freezers in biosafety level
four labs, those with the highest level of
biosecurity,
safety, excuse me, containment it used for studying
highly dangerous microbes.
Pad blocking freezers?
Kinda seems like a little bit of a
cover up, but it says, in an email
statement provided to Wired, Bradley Moss, communication director
for the Office of Research Services at NIH,
confirmed the halt in research activity.
He says, quote, NIH has implemented a research
pause
referred to as a safety stand down.
That sounds a bit different. At the integrated
research facility at Fort Detrick.
This decision follows identification and documentation
of personal issues, personnel issues involving
contract staff that compromised
the facility's safety culture.
Uh-oh.
Promoting this research pause.
Wait a minute. So that's not even that's
not shutting down a place because we don't
want the research. That sounds like a leak.
At least that's what they're framing it as.
During the stand down, no research will be
conducted.
And access will be limited to essential personnel
only to safeguard the facility and its resources.
Do you remember what happened right before COVID
nineteen time frame? Fort Detrick was shut down
because of a safety issue.
I'm telling you guys, this could be nothing
or this could be them building another repeat
narrative. I don't wanna hype up any conversation
because I know it will not do their
job for them, but it's right in front
of us. I mean, these things are relevant
in the time frame of last time. Now
we see they're telling you they just had
a compromised facility safety culture.
That's exactly what we got before.
Now it says, Moss did not elaborate on
the nature of the personal issues and said
he did not know how long the research
pause would last. Staff have not received an
anticipated reopening date.
Well, that's wild.
Now, here, let's play this really quickly and
see if I still have that in here.
Yeah. Let me play this one really quickly.
Now, this is a little bit longer one,
but it's important to see this. This this
goes back well before the COVID nineteen illusion
time frame. This is about, like a documentary
done at Fort Detrick, and this is what
we're dealing with. Now I think there's a
sort of like we've seen in, like, in,
like, Georgia, the country. People call out about
The US lab there that just tests all
over these people and you can prove it
and no one cares. I I think that's
what this is. And I think now I'm
worried about how that will play into the
next conversation. I visited the town of Frederick,
Maryland,
which is just outside of Washington, DC, and
met a lot of people
who were suffering or had family members who
had died from rare illnesses.
And one thing they all had in common
was a theory that the source of these
rare illnesses was a local army base called
Fort Detrick and some of the secret activities
that have been going on there for decades.
I lived on Elm Street, and on the
side of the road that I lived on,
just counting the six houses, everyone had cancer.
So my daughter,
at the age of 28 years old, was
diagnosed with brain cancer. Then my second daughter
gets sick
and has tumors in her womb,
and he said that this was not genetic,
but environmental.
About a year after that, my wife then
gets renal cell carcinoma
and dies a year later after that.
We have over 1,300
documented
cancer victims right now just in a one
mile radius. I'll be quite honest with you.
It's changed my life so radically. Sometimes I
don't even know who I am.
1,300 people in a one mile radius.
And what's causing so much sickness?
It turns out all these victims have one
thing in common. They live next to a
military base called Fort Detrick.
In this story
oh, dang it. Hold on. I visited the
town of Well, crap. I don't wanna play
it again. I thought I thought that was
gonna be the opening. It goes on to
play a little bit more, but that that's
enough. I mean, it's it's just insane how
obvious that is, how long that's been talked
about. And then we have this weird thing
right before whatever COVID nineteen was and nobody
talks about that. I covered that extensively for
the first year.
You know? But
now now we have the proximal origin. You
know? It's it's just so lazy how easy
it is to pull people along with political
narratives when they need you to look. Now,
the point about all of it, guys, I
only showed you that because it's it's interesting.
Right? The the the wired article, that's just
in case something happens, keep that in mind,
and we'll remember that. But what's happening in
the administration just shows you that this is
business as usual. And some of us have
the integrity to call it out, like Mary
Talley Bowden.
We have opened Pandora's box, she says. These
are all the mRNA products
in the pipeline according to Grok.
Look at that.
I mean, there it's it's the amount of
mRNA platform mRNA shots,
let alone platforms,
are exploding.
Estimated mRNA products,
310
plus around one dynamic. That's one company. Moderna,
forty eight.
BioNTech, twenty nine. CureVac, which is
Elon Musk,
nineteen.
Pfizer,
ten with an asterisk, whatever that means. But
the point is oh,
maybe uncertain ten, eleven, Sanofi, g. I mean,
these are all mRNA.
That includes the one that the US government
is currently putting forward on burn flu or
all the others that were already working that
have not stopped, like the Ferret Nanotech universal
shot for flu. All of these are very
real.
I thought he was gonna stop all of
this. Isn't that the promise?
RFK Jr. Well,
we've talked about,
Stargate.
Trump partners with technocrats, remote mRNA injections, AI,
transhumanism. Right? That was Stargate. That was $500,000,000,000.
This is a new one, not the same
one.
Arca Junior bets $500,000,000
on universal vaccines
in shift from COVID nineteen funding. Now, again,
you may see the headline and go, yay.
See? He doesn't like COVID, except what he
does in this, which if you actually read
it,
is simply pivot that money into universal COVID
shots along with flu.
That's what this is.
So it didn't really change anything. Now the
mRNA point, maybe that changed, or maybe they're
just hiding it from you at this point.
I don't know why we would trust any
of this.
I mean, you have to realize that if
the whole plan was to get this stuff
in everybody and ultimately push back,
what would be the best way to fool
you into trying it again?
Taking the person who was seen as the
one pushing back and letting him roll out
something that's different this time. Now, I'm not
saying that's the case. Who knows? If you're
not willing to question that, then you should
reflect on that. But what's fascinating to me
is that we know, as a matter of
fact, that we were lied to 40,000 times
over. That'd be, you know, a lot in
that conversation.
And now they tell you we're gonna shift
away from that? Still COVID. Still universal flu
shots, which that's what Fauci was going towards.
That was all this was sort of built
around,
but just on mRNA.
How do we trust that? How do we
know?
Or even if it's not,
isn't this supposed to be a problem that
we're giving people shots for something around COVID-nineteen
that half of his base doesn't even think
exists? Or the idea that we're building universal
shots in general that are based on multiple
antigen that in and of themselves cause different
problems that we've already talked about. I mean,
it's not just the mRNA, guys.
But let me read through this.
In a shift away from next generation COVID
nineteen vaccines, so next generation being the point,
the Trump administration is investing $500,000,000
in a vaccine project championed by two scientists
who were recently trapped tapped to serve in
roles senior roles within the NIH
according to emails received by Wall Street Journal.
Now
remember that Arica Junior has been highlighting problems
in injections long before mRNA,
Like, MR, for example, which he now tells
you is safe and effective even though nothing
has changed. That should weigh on your mind
right now. Because if you're telling us that
this is all okay because it's just not
mRNA and you're making these things in the
same style they were before, the only thing
that changes is that you trust him.
And if that's where you are, then I
think that's the biggest problem in the conversation
even if you can trust him. That you
allow yourself to think the same thing is
different because he says so. That's how we
all get played.
Now to reiterate again, even if he's right,
you can't allow yourself to
hope for the best
and expect the worst.
Verify it. Right? Don't just take their words
even if you because maybe he's being played.
The unusually large sum comes as the nation's
health agencies are cutting budgets, shrinking staff, and
terminating hundreds of active research grants.
The pro the project involves producing vaccines from
chemically inactivated
whole viruses,
which that is slightly different than some of
the ones from before we've talked about. This
is a throwback to how flu vaccines were
made decades ago.
The goal, one that scientists have chased unsuccessfully
for decades, is to make, quote,
universal vaccines that protect against multiple strains of
viruses at once. Now, I don't know how
you think you can do that
with one whole inactivity. It it right? Well,
unless what we're talking about is many, many,
many, many, many different because there there's
far too many variations of this if we're
to believe what they say.
For them to have that many antigens in
one shot that could apply to every possible
flu strain or, as we'll get into, also
COVID nineteen and also everything else. There's no
way that's possible, as I understand it, unless
we're using something genetically modified, some kind of
mRNA direction.
I guess we'll wait and see who I'm
what I'm hoping for is you're gonna get
people out there that we know in this
field that have the integrity to call this
out, who are experts, who will rip through
this through the studies, to the information, and
tell us what we're looking at. My point
is even if it's not mRNA, that dynamic
has failed
incredibly
over and over. Fauci has been trying to
do the universal flu shot for a very
long time, and it's hurt people every time.
That's why we don't see them. And that's
why they stepped into the MRA direction claiming
that was the new step. Now whether we're
being played and it's all the same thing
or not, this is not what we should
want in my opinion.
Now, I mean, look, if we understand what
even RFK has been saying before, even the
flu shot itself is a problem. The flu
shot itself before this was increasing metaviruses,
increasing coronavirus risk, thirty six percent increase in
illness according to the Pentagon study that RFK
talked about. And now we're gonna I mean,
it just seems like we're going in the
wrong direction.
As we understand that, as even it tells
you, with measles and the rest, people get
sick, they get immunity, they get better. That
is the direction he was telling you before,
and now it seems we're leaning back into
the vaccine direction.
It says the shift appears to be a
makeover of the Biden administration's project next gen.
Oh, look at that.
Every single time.
So if it's the Biden's plan they're taking
over, does that mean they're the deep state
now? That mean they're working with the Democrats,
or are you gonna open your eyes and
recognize that it's just one government using the
same agenda? It says a $5,000,000,000
effort
to fund new COVID nineteen vaccines that HHS
calls we call wasteful.
Several of the projects within NextGen received stop
work orders in recent weeks. But before you
jump on that I'm wrong, they've repurposed it
is the point.
It says the project also includes research on
a second universal flu vaccine and
universal coronavirus vaccines.
So all I did was pull in research
money from the COVID nineteen
plot direction that Biden was aiming at and
just repurposed it to the universal direction, which
by the way was always what they were
aiming at. Look back. I was I was
making statements about this in the beginning of
COVID. It was all over the place
according to HHS. HHS aims to begin trials
of universal coronavirus vaccines by 2026,
Quote, with FDA approval targeted for 2029.
Oh, they're giving us three years now to
make that seem like like what that's I'm
glad they're getting more time instead of jamming
them through. So ask Donald Trump then why
he's okay with that when he was the
one telling you last time that we can
do it in three months.
Nothing lined up here if you're being honest
with yourself there's a new
narratives are what we're getting.
Our commitment is clear every innovation in vaccine
development must be grounded in gold standard science
and transparency
It's a nice statement. We'll see what happens.
That's my point from before, is that just
saying those things does not make them real.
Saying them or what they all do, including
the ones that don't do them. We should
know that by now. Whether it happens or
not is what matters. But if we have
gold standard transparency, what does that even mean?
Like, again, it's about what ultimately happens. And
I think just the direction of universal flu
shot vaccine is what most of Maga Maha
thought he would not do
or any of them. Many of them thought
he was gonna pull the entire schedule. None
of that happened.
He's and to be clear, that's RFK statement.
So he is in support of all this.
This is his direction. Universal flu vaccines aim
to protect against novel flu strains that could
spur a pandemic and potentially seasonal flu viruses.
Let's not forget
that Biden administration passed an emergency that put
the regular flu under essentially a emergency dynamic.
So, that allows EUAs. I guarantee they're rolling
this through. So, my point would be when
they roll this out, they probably won't need
that approval. They'll say it. They want it
now. When it comes to pass, it'll be
rationalized from some new thing. And maybe RFK
doesn't want that and he gets overruled. You
don't know.
All of this is the same establishment with
the same thing, the same NIH.
It's the same thing. In fact, the guy
they're using,
this guy, was part of Fauci's NIH.
Now, yeah, there were different parts where he
pushed back against what the what Fauci argued,
but he's part of Fauci's NIH. That means
that at the even if he disagreed, he's
still a part of this dynamic where they
lied to you and knew that they lied
to you. And now he's helping RFK build
this platform. And that's the thing, guys, to
jump in quickly, it's a platform.
That's this is May 1.
And HHS, NIH launched next generation universal vaccine
platform.
So explain to me how you have a
platform without mRNA.
I'd love to I'd love you to break
that down for me.
Coming back to that.
It says universal flu vaccines aimed to protect
against novel flu strains
and seasonal flu and everything else have for
decades been the goal of scientists, including Anthony
Fauci, but no one has succeeded. In fact,
they failed is the point over and over
and over.
The primacy the primary vaccine that are that
is part of generation gold standard. It's so
funny. The gold standard, the golden age. Excuse
me.
All of which have these weird overlaps with,
like, Zionist propaganda. There's so many weird things
happening around this, but here they are.
They're calling this the generation gold standard.
BL BPL one three five seven, that's one
of them. That's these are the shots they're
working on, the ones they're telling you about,
has so far completed one preliminary safety trial
with 45 participants.
An HHS official said further trials
are under development. The other vaccine,
BPL twenty four thousand nine hundred and ten,
has been tested for toxicity according to the
contract issued by HHS, but didn't appear to
have any clinical trials listed in national registry.
BPL one three five seven is the universal
flu vaccine that consists of four types of
in vac inactivated flu virus. Well, how is
that a universal flu shot if it's only
addressing four of what they claim is out
there, assuming any of those even really exist?
That, to me, seems like an interesting point
because that wouldn't be universal. It would be
I mean, even they're the ones that tell
you that every year there's an an endless
amount of these different possibilities, but those ones
that tend to kind of circulate, but they
they change. So that means they would have
to change this every time based on new
I think the point is, in my opinion,
is if you're using even four, as we've
already talked about, it's even Fauci and others
have made the case. Four different antigen. Those
those things act differently in your body. They
they don't respond. That's why they failed in
the past. Is that you then have your
body creating antibodies for different things that you're
not actually fighting with, and that causes problems.
In fact, I bet you I still even
have that clip.
Let me see.
Because this is this point, we were making
a lot during COVID nineteen. This was specifically
around what Fauci was saying about one dynamic
around this early in this, but also the
doctor who talked about
the different vaccines
regarding cats and coronaviruses, if you remember that.
There's one of them right there.
I think it was right here somewhere.
Oh, I know I know what it is.
It's right here. Yeah. There it is. They're
trying to train the body's immune system to
target the right part of the virus because
getting it wrong can be dangerous.
We know that historically with coronaviruses
that if you do vaccinate with the wrong
kind of vaccine, for instance, in domestic cats
who have a similar viral infection,
that you can make the disease more severe.
There's another element to safety,
and that is if you vaccinate someone
and they make an antibody response
and then they get exposed and infected,
does the response that you induce
actually enhance the infection
and make it worse?
And the only way you'll know that is
if you do an extended study,
not in a normal volunteer
who has no risk of infection,
but in people who are out there in
a risk situation.
This would not be the first time
if it happened
that a vaccine that looked good in initial
safety
actually made people worse.
Now what's incredible about that is you could
make that statement and then go on to
deny, deny, deny, deny forever that that's what
actually happened. But what he's saying is the
same point that applies here. Right? So your
vat so, essentially, if you're giving it a
shot that has four different produced antigens that
can create antibodies that froze things, well, then
in essence, three of them will be fighting
the wrong thing. Now, I mean, I went
through this with other people that are much
more knowledgeable on this. Doc, you know, people
that are in this field where the argument
is kinda and this is in the past.
Like, I've shown you why they failed.
So what changes?
I mean, I I I get the sense.
My gut's telling me that this is not
a shift.
This is about trying to give you another
explanation for why we're really still using the
same platform. And again, I'll go into the
article. I mean, we'll get we'll we'll finish
the article. We'll come back to the platform
point. Because it's the same this is the
same shots.
BPL one three seven five. Okay. So it's
a platform though. And understand the platform is
the plug and play Moderna point about a
platform where all you need to do is
enter in the new antigen, it creates a
new shot. That to me is the mRNA
platform.
Now, maybe there's a way you could do
the same thing with that mRNA. Again, I'm
not the expert, but I do see all
the same points in all of this, and
I worry that this is just another ploy.
It goes on to say make sure you
got screen. Okay.
A universal flu vaccine that consists of four
types. The whole virus cocktail is delivered in
the oh, and this is interesting as well.
The whole virus cocktail is delivered in the
nose or by injection. Now, you realize going
back to the whole version, they claim it's
in fact activated, but there's all sorts of
evidence of the past ones where people do
get sick. They even admitted that whether it's
by mistake or something else where you take
the shot and then you get the thing
that you're getting the shot for because it's
a whole virus.
If you believe now again, I'm not saying
I'm buying all the narratives. Yes. Consider whether
we even have the wrong dynamic around this,
the theory, but overall is what they're claiming.
I find that interesting.
And here on this just really quickly
is one of the ones they're working on.
It says inhaled COVID vaccine
are just being made in general. Now it
says when a vaccine is inhaled, the body's
immune system responds in a different way than
when it's injected.
Now there's many overlaps to this. There's just
like a nasal spray, but there's also ones
that are like an aerosolized,
like, nanotech dynamic. The new vaccine, this one's
called
chyre, however you pronounce that, targets three different
proteins in SARS CoV-two virus
to improve the vaccine's ability to protect against
new strains. Same thing. Now, then you jam
those together with some other flu overlap. Like,
if they're telling you they're gonna make one
that applies to all of them,
including including, excuse me, coronavirus,
which is what they are saying, eventually, then
that means at the very least, if you're
talking about the old styles, it has to
also produce antigens for that. I just this
sounds insane. And our bodies have already shown
everybody that these things are not okay.
I mean, well before COVID nineteen. An AeroVax
trial is a phase two clinical trial funded
by Canadian Institutes of Health and Research.
The AeroVax trial will evaluate if this new
COVID nineteen vaccine is safe to give by
aerosol
inhalation to people who have been vaccinated with
at least three doses of the original one.
My god. And I just wanna include the
point.
This is just one of the many articles.
This is an MIT study.
New dual use. New aerosolized mRNA delivering nanoparticles
can vaccinate or they can eliminate.
That's what they went into.
That's dual use tech. That's a bio weapon,
guys, if you use it in a different
way. So let's not forget where this is
going.
Now it says whole virus vaccines can be
produced quickly, which makes them potentially useful in
a pandemic context.
Now we're now we're back to, like, floating
the idea of pandemic preparedness. I mean, it's
strange to me. How much you can highlight
the business around that and then still do
the same things. They're also provoke a good
immune no. Look. I'm not saying in regard
to the idea that look.
I believe based on many different things from
the past that I've shown you, both from
HHS employees and the WHO
that say this is a racket.
Like, I'm gonna see if I can even
pull this one up. This is the one
that usually pops up.
Damn. Keep typing it wrong. There it is.
Oh, no. That's not it.
Let's see.
Damn it. Is that it?
It's so weird how that happens.
Nope. Wasn't it? Was it more than influenza?
There it is. Got it.
So, also this, make sure you read it
for the hundredth time. I won't do it
again. The point is you could read through
this, And I've even gone over what these
two have done since. The point is, they
make it very clear. It's about
a
culture of fear, that they're using
worst case scenarios to hype up fear to
drive vaccine sales. And the HHS document that
I've used, and it's a statement from people
that are, you know, on HHS website,
that they're just simply using this to push
more injections. I mean, they make it very
clear talking about disease experts like Fauci pushing
this for their interest. It's obvious what this
is.
You know what I mean? And so if
the point is we can look back and
see that, then we have to recognize that
they've constantly I mean, even the lies about
most of these things we've seen. Even going
back to the Spanish Kentucky flu is what
it really was. The proof showing you it
started in The United States and the US
government lied about it. There's so much lie.
Everything we have root in this conversation are
based around lies.
So I just don't know why we should
keep going forward with the same dynamic even
if it's a pivot claimed away from mRNA.
However, it says the trade off is that
they more frequently, the ones they're producing, produce
mild side effects.
Think about that. So literally comparing this to
the mRNA shot, saying we're doing this with
whole virus the old way. Right? But the
difference, the trade off, is that the whole
virus one has
more frequent
side effects.
So you're telling me that we're comparing so
this in reality, this is coming from the
administration for the most part. I mean, this
is this is,
Wall Street Journal writing about it, but they're
using the arguments coming from the NIH. So,
the point is you're literally trying to pretend
that one, the mRNA shots didn't have that,
which is insane that we're still pretending that
we're lying about that. And then saying that
the problem is this one will have more
side effects.
But it's hard to read that because they're
saying
more,
mild side effects. But in the comparison that
the mRNA didn't have the same thing, so
it's hard to read that. To me, it
seems to suggest that this will have worse
side effects
in the context of the old verse like,
basically, that they're claiming this has more likelihood
to cause the mild side effects is what
they're saying.
Now, whether it's the mRNA by itself that
causes that or whatever, it's the multiple antigens
or even just the lipid you know, whatever
particles they're using to make this happen, The
information shows us that all the different pieces
to this, going back to MMR and everything
else, are all part of the problem.
Or the glyphosate they find in them, or
everything else we've seen. So, my opinion
is that's an alarming statement. And I think
we should be very careful about these things
going forward. You take your own you know,
do your research, talk to your doctor if
you think that's gonna make a difference, and
then and educate yourself on these things.
Because I think what we're dealing with is
is either a continued captured agency here through
him or not,
or it's always been the same thing.
I hope I'm wrong, obviously. I mean, I
this is this this
entire thing is terrifying.
The money is to come from the Biomedical
Advanced Research and Development Authority. Of course, it's
BARDA, a center within the HHS that funds
measures to protect the public from so it's
the same thing. All these broken things that
were shown to lie to you and used,
and now we're just all still using them.
Just different face in front of it. Former
and current h HHS officials who requested anonymity
told the journal they're startled by the size
of the award.
NIH labs are typically funded with their respective
Indus institutes with money appropriated by Congress.
For fiscal year twenty twenty three, the NIH,
or rather, the NIAID,
where Momoli and the people working on the
current project conduct their research, had $856,000,000
budgeted for more than a 20
staff scientists.
A $500,000,000
transfer seems like an astronomical number for this
one thing. So it just shows you and
that's Rick Bright, by the way, the one
calling out the dark winter and, you know,
as we've talked about, he seems like he's
all part of the same thing. A flu
vaccine expert in he's the one talking about
the universal flu shot back then.
And for barter director who left in 2020
after clashing with that HHS leadership.
So he's just kind of pointing out that's
a lot of money for this one thing,
which shows me that it is likely about
this.
So HHS,
NIH launched next generation universal flu platform.
Now it's saying
the universal development of the next generation universal
vaccine platform,
of course, called generation gold standard. That's what
it's called. The platform is called that. Think
about that.
Using a beta, how do you say this,
propylactone
inactivated whole virus platform. Now this is what
I'm gonna do more research into in general
just to get more educated on what these
things mean, the differences within them, how it
might be overlapped. That's what I do for
you coming soon. But the point is that
this is the same,
you know,
health kind of health what do you call
it? Like, a a consolidation
of the same problem.
Now candidates 1357
and 24910,
although we just talked about, these vaccines aim
to provide broad spectrum protection against multiple strains
of pandemic prone viruses. See?
Like H5N1,
avian flu. They're already they got an mRNA
one going too. And coronaviruses
and MERS.
I don't know how the world how in
the world do you think that's possible without
the that something like mRNA?
And again, I'm not saying I I'm just
asking that question. I'm I'm looking forward to
understand this more, but I think that doesn't
make sense to what I know, but I
could be wrong. Our commitment is clear. Every
innovation in vaccine development must be grounded in
gold standard science and transparency and subjected to
the highest standards of safety and efficacy testing,
says Arfke
junior. We'll see. I certainly hope that's the
case.
The BPL platform is fully government owned and
NIH developed. Now what's interesting is they're framing
that as, like, a a positive change, which
maybe it is, in regard to, like, the
Fauci
personal enrichment dynamic we saw from the NIH
during COVID, where they have, like, personal patents
and they were all making money. Now which
is better?
I mean, obviously, that individual part is seems
seems more corrupt and and I think just
by default is. But
if the government owns this, is that just
not a transfer of the same problem to
or, I mean, there's two ways to look
at it. The government dynamic is, like, the
what worries more than anything. But, secondarily,
that ultimately,
you have the government right now is in
a weird position where you have people enriching
themselves like crazy through the government.
I mean, the entire Trump administration right now,
and I don't think it's any different. I
just think right now it's been very very
public
that they're all I mean, Trump and his
crypto things. I mean, there's so many weird,
very obvious. Like, for example, his son started
some kind of executive club branch where it's
it's like a club where people can get
access to executive branch. That's a debt I
thought that was illegal, quite frankly. But my
point is that if it's the government right
now, that doesn't necessarily mean they're not gonna
profit through that just the same way. Put
it that way. But in addition to influenza
and coronavirus, the BPL platform is adaptable to
future use against respiratory
RSV.
All the same things they've been aiming at,
or metapneumovirus,
which we've talked about, which what they were
giving caused an explosion in that just the
same. Para influenza, another point.
Unprecedented capability to protect against ADN influenza.
Here it goes.
Now, I wanna just add this point again.
02/2019,
or well before or after as well, many
studies have come out from the US government
saying things like this. Compulsory
moral bio enhancement should be covert.
Now I argue the same thing could have
been said about the last time, and they
just got caught. But what I worry about
is just because they're saying that's not what
this is, doesn't mean we should blindly accept
that, whether you support the administration or not.
Because they have roundly argued that when these
things should happen, that we shouldn't be told
about it. Now it says this is just
one of them, but look it up. It's
a very prominent thought process along the elitist,
like the Andresans and Tieles and the rest.
It says some theorists argue
that moral bio enhancement
ought to be compulsory. Now, bio enhancement could
be any number of things, but in this
case, like an mRNA, genetically altering dynamic, that's
one of them. He says, I take this
argument one step further, arguing that if moral
bio enhancement,
the moral word they're using, ought to be
compulsory,
So in their mind, if it should be
forced, then its administration ought to be secret,
covert rather than obvious overt.
This is to say that it is morally
preferable
for compulsory moral bio enhancement, forced
genetic manipulation,
to be administered without the recipient knowing that
they are receiving that enhancement.
His argument for this is that if moral
bio enhancement ought to be compulsory, so they
set that tone apparently,
then its administration is a matter of public
health according to their set narrative.
And for this reason, should be governed by
public health ethics. Insane
to say that that's ethics,
ethical to secretly do something because you've decided
it's in our best interest. That's government for
you, ladies and gentlemen, and that's where we
are. He says, I argue that covert administration
of a compulsory moral bio enhancement program better
conforms to public health ethics than does an
overt compulsory pro well, yeah. Because in other
cases, you're you're publicly forcing it down their
throat, whereas over here, you're secretly doing it.
So we all at least don't know we're
being lied to.
Insane. So think about that in the context
of whether this might be the same thing
called something else.
Lastly, a few points here.
Holden
says, JRK Junior just revealed that all new
vaccines will require a placebo test. So it's
the same point, the gold standard direction.
But it it we're saying things is not
action. Now, frankly, I think a lot of
these will happen. I get the sense that
a lot of this is either what he
needs to do to appease some of these
people or maybe he still wants to. Maybe
he's being blackmailed like we talked about. He
really wants to change things. Like, I I
I get the sense that part of that
is something going on. Because this is what
Maha voted for. Now Maha did not vote
for him to say things out loud. The
frustrating thing is that they're just going along
with what they're saying or like we said
earlier that the emotions are what drive you,
not the facts. Right now, it is so
obvious that in partisan politics, whatever they say
last is what they think is happening
or pretend is happening.
When he does that, in one part, that's
what they're voting for, but I haven't seen
it happen yet. This he says that none
of the vaccines on the CDC's childhood recommended
schedule were tested against inert placebo, meaning we
know very little. Okay.
I agree with that. Now, explain for me
why if that's the case and he says
the case, which is why he's claiming we
need to do this now, he's still allowing
the shots right now to be given to
children. Explain that for me. Explain how it
makes sense to allow the schedule to be
the same, which they have
to increase to say MMR shots are safe
and effective, to be okay with mRNA shots
being exploding
if you know they haven't been tested along
real placebos. Now we made this case during
COVID nineteen where we said, look, that's a
meningitis vaccine. They're not even using saline. I
got so much pushback for that. The point
is they haven't been doing that for a
long time.
Is HHS is now building surveillance systems that
will accurately measure risks of vaccines.
Good. How long will that take? How long
what about all the children right now still
taking COVID shots as Trump said they should?
What about all the other shots that'll be
giving by the eighth time they're one year
old? I guess those ones are the suffer
I mean, you get the point. I I
don't get it. I just don't. I mean,
even you it's always the argument you give
that's which you don't know for sure. It's
like, well, they can't do it all at
once. Well, well, well, they can't x, y,
and z. Well, you don't know that. But
I also know that if you were honest,
had integrity, you would say these things. Well,
we can't stop it because of x, y,
and z, but I don't think you should
take these. They're dangerous.
Do you hear that? I haven't.
It's insane that we can't see how clear
that is.
Now, lastly,
Betty Johnson, mister cheerleader, says, Tulsi Gabbard is
investigating doctor Fauci for perjury and his role
in funding Wuhan gain and function research to
COVID. Oh, you mean, like, like everybody in
the US government did publicly along with Trump's
side, Biden's side, Obama, everybody? I mean, it's
just such a these people are so ridiculous.
But here's what I said.
Well, that sure feels highly reactionary and tactically
timed, doesn't it? Seeing as how everybody was
calling these things out and saying, Where are
all the arrests? And where? No, I'm investigating
Fauci all of a sudden. Okay. I hope
it's real. And I said, How about we
follow through
any of the other ones first?
You know, the Epstein file, JFK.
No, no. We'll keep sporadically jumping around. Now,
we're looking at this one. Now, we're thinking
about that one. And every time it's like,
see, we're winning. We did it because they
said we're going to.
You know how often, even when they mean
it, those things don't happen?
They know that. They don't care. This is
a grift.
He's I I said, I'll cheer it if
when it truly happens, and I will. Until
then, it's just more US government noise.
And I and I sit down here and
blind cheerleading of government promises by the likes
of Bennet Johnson.
Right? I mean, that's that's what this is.
And of course, Alice Jones, same thing, bombshell.
Tulsi's going to investigate Fauci. I mean, have
they even officially started an investigation?
Do you really think that's gonna happen? Do
you think Donald Trump is going to allow
that to happen knowing that he is equally
complicit with everything that happened?
Come on, guys. We can't be this easy
to manipulate.
I mean, you can't you just can't let
people like this
mislead you when it's that simple.
Again, if there's investigation, I will cheer it
on. Now what I said, despite still being
logical, maybe there's a reason she doesn't care.
I don't know. Nonetheless, it's about action, not
words, and all they do is cheer on
the statements of the day. You know, like,
the Ukraine War is over. How'd that work
out, Jones? How'd that work?
It's not just two. Just he's a very
glaring example of people who are out there
misleading you, whether they even know it or
not, which I find almost impossible not to
notice than he does.
But we'll see. But everything else we're seeing,
you know, you there I mean, Donald Trump
literally still tells you the shot is safe
and effective and good for people. And yet
here we are acting like he's the only
one responsible. What did I tell you before
that he was the scapegoat?
It seemed pretty clear to me at some
point, and maybe that will be the case.
Maybe they think they can throw him under
the bus and act like he was the
only one that did something even though Trump
still pretends those shots are helping everybody. Even
Fauci, in his article, whom sell Com, argued
they didn't, they failed, and yet they still
use them.
Now lastly,
on on top of everything else, adding to
one more example of how we seem to
be going in the wrong direction, The US
has now approved CRISPR pigs for food. Now
this is a huge difference from what we
were being told before. I mean, in particular,
RFA junior was calling out GMO foods, which
this is one of them, genetically modified organisms.
Pigs whose DNA makes them resistant to viruses.
And who knows what that cascading what that
could cause down the line. Like, this is
the problem is that we are playing they're
playing it's like Frankenstein. They're playing god with
this, and the ultimate point is that we
don't know what the side effects will be
with everything else we keep seeing. All of
the wild side effects. Look at the COVID
shot for crying out loud. We have, like,
a I mean,
you just you name it. And these injections
in some way overlap with causing. Like, you
know why there's such a wide I almost
I argue this is part of the design,
but why it was such a wide spec
spectrum of possible side effects because it was
just like a genetic modification that was causing
people's bodies to go all crazy. And we
and many of which you could see pretty
consistently, but some people had different reactions to
it. And then that becomes like this impossible
thing to prove because it's all over the
map.
Overall,
regardless of what you think of any of
that,
this is not what he said he would
do in my opinion. Hopefully, you can decide
for yourself. Now, personally, I don't want any
of this because this is
I mean, we've talked a lot about the
fake meat from
Gates.
Maybe the reaction was to get you to
accept this.
Problem reaction solution is always worth considering.
The pigs will join a very short list
of gene modified animals that you can eat,
they're telling us. The US
took about twenty years
to approve transgenic salmon
with an extra gene,
that let it grow faster.
But by early this year, its creator,
AquaBounty,
has sold off its fish farms and only
has four employees.
None of them selling fish.
But what does that tell you, US government,
That we don't want your gross genetically modified
food, but they're gonna do it anyway because
that's what they want.
Now, of course, they try to make it
sound like that's because regulations and no no
nobody there is so much pushback against that
fake salmon.
People don't want it, but that's not not
the point. Right? They don't care what you
want. That's the point.
And says regulations have eased since then. Now,
also worth asking why that's happening when most
Americans don't want that, especially around gene editing.
That's why. Which tinkers with animals' own DNA
rather than adding it to it from another
species as is the case with the salmon
and many GMO crops or the shots they
jam down your body or down your throat,
but in your body.
Genus edited pig embryos
to remove the receptor that the PRRS virus
uses to enter cells.
No receptor means no infection. Okay. Well, ask
yourself something.
No infection, as we were well versed on
during the COVID nineteen lie, does not necessarily
mean not not infectable.
Right?
So what happens if we get in this
comment? Now, again, I'm just theorizing. Don't jump
down my throat about germ terrain theory here.
The point is the idea based on their
argument,
playing from the side of the germ theory
column, arguing as if, remember this point during
COVID, the point is that if we're talking
about this being something that they, you know,
basically, they don't have the ability to become
infected by nonetheless the thing that's in their
body,
Well, they're not showing anything, but does that
mean that it's not that it still could
be in their body? Whatever that means. Let's
just call it nanotech or whatever you wanna
think it is. So, when you then don't
see the problem but then use that pig
and break it down, does that then end
up in the food you're eating? Because they
never were aware it was there. And how
would what if it becomes a mass spread
thing where they all have it now because
nobody gets sick and nobody dies and nobody
fights it off? Now all of a sudden,
every piece of food you eat has the
in pig has that in it. I mean,
I'm not saying that's gonna happen, but doesn't
that seem like a logical overlap to this?
This is my point is that they never
think these things through in regard this is
the experiment as opposed to seeing what will
happen in the experiment and then going forward,
every time.
It says, The pigs appear entirely immune to
more than 99% of the known versions. Oh,
also not entirely. So now you've got a
1% overlap, which guess what happens when that's
happened in the past. Whether it's the mosquitoes
or other points, it becomes the opposite.
It literally creates this, like, resistance dynamic that
causes us to explode in a new way.
Or what if you that drives the virus
itself, if you believe that, to become a
new version of itself. And what's it called?
What's
it called? Leaky vaccine point. You know, what
caused it to become a new thing and
more dangerous? I mean, these are all basic
ideas.
And if I can just rattle these off
knowing that this is a possibility, we should
be considering these things.
But, oh, you know, certainly possible that they
have a something they've done to make sure
that doesn't happen. So, all I'm saying is
that I don't want this, and I think
most Americans don't as well. And I'm adding
on the point that we don't know and
neither do they what the long term consequences
of this will be.
I sure don't wanna find
out. Now, it says research is ongoing to
make pigs as well as other livestock invulnerable
to other infections. So, that means, they're genetically
modified pieces of animal.
Now, that's the largest point. Whatever you think
the real side effects, if any, are,
I don't want fake, genetically modified anything in
my life. I think most people feel the
same. They're using CRISPR
to make these animals
or to, you know, add this gene edit,
which my point will be eventually, they'll be
making them, which we already know that overlap
is there. But there is still a way
to go before oh, and then the point
is
if they're making them, which we know that
possible, at least they tell us that, how
is that different than Gates with fake meat?
Right? I mean, just because they're not making
a lab does not change the fact that
the whole animal was vague and made from
so
maybe there is a backdoor here in getting
you to accept the one that comes from
the side you like.
But it says, but there's still a way
to go before gene editing bacon appears on
the shelves in The US. And hopefully, like
the salmon, we push back on it. But
it says, before it makes its sales pitch
to big pig farms,
Genus, which is the company, says it needs
to also gain approval in Mexico,
Canada,
Japan,
China, which are big export markets for American
pork. Now, in the beginning of the show,
I just remember those names he rattled off,
which now you guys all know the tariff
overlap and the deals. Isn't that interesting? Now,
suddenly, you've got this other overlap with most
of the same countries, they're all dealing with
forced trade dynamics where they need them to
accept this dynamic for them to succeed. Now,
it is a company, I understand, but these
companies almost always have backing by somebody who
has power, influence of the government, or is
part of it themselves.
Culberson
says the gene edited pork could appear in
The US market sometimes next year. He says
the company does not think pork chops or
other meat will need to carry a label,
Identifying it as bioengineered.
There comes the largest point to me. We
aren't aware of any labeling requirements.
Well,
hopefully, you're recognizing the contradiction that now, just
because he said this, as always, because we
are objective, I'm not gonna say we know
it'll happen. Maybe the time comes, and he
says we can't do that. You're required to
label it. But the reality is right now,
they're already saying that based on and they
you know, they're dealing with the administration. They're
dealing with government law. They're they this is
a big step. And they're saying we have
no indication that we need to label any
of this. Well, that should matter to you.
Seeing as how Point Blank asked on this
direct question about should producers be required to
label these kind of foods, he says yes.
Consumers have a right to know. So remember
that.
If it happens, I'll be glad because he
stood by what he said. If it doesn't,
you've got to remember that he claimed that,
and that should be alarming to you.
Now this is also just grok.
What is RFK Jr. Stands on GMO food?
Rob our RFK Jr. Is critical of GMO
foods, advocating for stricter regulations. That's not happening
right there. Transparency,
kind of, and a potential ban due to
health and environmental concerns. Well, clearly not.
So maybe something changed. Maybe he got new
information or maybe, just maybe,
he's not what he seems.
I'm actually I don't know. I genuinely don't
know where I stand. It's in a way
because if he's, let's say, blackmail, for example,
which is a hot seemingly likely,
that you could then make the argument that
he's not the person that are forcing him
to be. But, you know, it's it's a
whole nonetheless, it's about what is right or
wrong, what you believe in or don't. The
rest is noise and possibility.
That should be called out if you don't
agree with it.
Now lastly, PolitiFact or whatever the point is.
Arf k Jr posted on Twitter that effectively
on January 20, all GMOs were banned. Of
course, that wasn't true. That was a fake
post put out by the people on the
Republican side, I think, that wanted people to
think that's what's gonna happen, like, leaning into
Ron Paul and Thomas Massie and all these
claims of what was gonna happen, ending the
war in Ukraine, Israel day one. You know?
None of that. None of the real things
actually happening. And even mostly outside of that,
I don't see very many examples of real
positive anything, quite frankly.
But overall,
remember how much they wanted you to think
this was the case. And now it's about
watering it down and going, well, at least
it's not m or an a. Well, that's
not the point, though.
We are not going in the right direction,
in my opinion. And even the ones, if
you wanna say that's a small increase in
benefit, are overshadowed by the worst things that
are happening right now. Whether it's about the
Israeli infiltration, the ongoing support for genocide, the
wars elsewhere that are continuing, the peace president,
exploding mRNA shots. I mean, everywhere you look,
guys.
And what's so frustrating is that this so
often gets framed as somehow of, you know,
Trump's strange derangement syndrome or hating one side
of the other. And it's just such a
lazy argument,
especially since we clearly are been
roundly calling out administration after administration going back
as far as we've been doing this, left
or right, about the same things. But the
problem is that by pretending the other side
or whatever, you know, I or whoever you're
looking at just doesn't like Trump,
How does that even invalidate the point you're
looking at? All that means is you've created
a reason to ignore what's in front of
you because you've been primed with a reason
to. It's how this game works today for
so many people in this field.
They're all well, the democrat or radical judge
or whatever. Yeah. Those things exist.
Did you even look at the information or
did you just reflexively push away? That happens
on left. It happens on right. Happens outside
of that.
It's it behooves us today to be as
critical and as open to possibility as we've
ever been.
Right? Critical in in regard to the government
information, but open to it. That's the whole
point of question everything, but be open to
all possibilities.
It's not as fun of a tagline. Right?
But that is the full picture.
I believe you're there. I mean, I do.
I say it all the time, but I
really do believe that most people are seeing
this, and that's why most of this is
happening.
And as we continue to grow and reach
and people see the information,
every day, we see one more reason why
they're trying to suppress this and stop this.
And, you know, it's it's very clear to
me. But thank you for having the courage
to call this stuff out. I mean, it
it just it
truly, in at least in my experience,
in doing this for as long as I
have. And I'm sure there's points before this
that probably felt the same. But in my
experience,
truly, this is the never seen and more
important time to stand up and do that.
Now I've only ever said that kind of
thing a few times in my process of
all this. And, you know, COVID nineteen. Right?
Israel's genocide.
I think we're seeing an escalation, and that's
my point is that I don't say these
things half heartedly or to get clicks and
be bombastic about it. I genuinely think there's
a real threat with this.
And, yeah, I mean, I've tried so hard
over the years to be very careful about
even making statements like that because I don't
want people to
react in a crazy way or to or
to
believe something is absolute when I'm only worried
about it or considering these things. But right
now, guys, this is a definitive problem. You're
watching it happen, whether it's a constitutional crisis,
whether it's in Israel infiltration, to what degree
is the only real debate here.
Time to stand up.
It truly is time to take a stand
in this and push things back. Now I'm
never talking about violence, but unless we are
willing to stand up and put our name
out there, our face, and say what we
believe, we're not gonna see a real change
here. And we need to do so in
a public and and and support each other.
Share these things whether it's unpopular or not.
Make groups of your own. Make a podcast.
Go out and speak. Go to protest. Go
to talk to your politicians. Call people. Stay
mean. Whatever you think is gonna change, every
single thing you can do could have an
effect.
As always, I think the least politically active
thing you can do is speak to politicians
or vote,
but they have they have some level of
effect in some way. I just don't really
think they translate the outcome. My point is
always is you can't just stop there. Pretending
you just have to wait for the next
presidential election is insane.
Now is when the stuff is happening. So
now is the time to do something about
it.
As always, TLAB needs your support, guys. As
we said, what's incredible on top of everything
else is as we get more reach, we
seem to get less and less revenue. Now
that's not because you guys are not still
donating. It's because every day I see more
people that get boxed out. People that reach
out and say my bank has declined my
my recurring donation or that I'm unable to
do this to or I get kicked off
by Stripe or to buy me a car,
everything.
And I'm gonna keep doing this because I
believe in it. Even if I'm like I've
said before, can't do any of this because
we can't fund it. I will still be
doing this and speaking about what I believe
in because now is the time to do
it. If you'd like to see TLAB continue
and you believe in what we're doing,
show us. Whether that's a nice a note
saying thank you for your work, which means
more to me than you know, or a
dollar a month, which is all I ask
for people out there to keep this platform
going.
You know, as much as all of you
out there who continue to decide to go
out and donate more, it means the world
to me. You're what keep this platform going.
But what we need are the new people
out there who see something in this, who
believe at the very least we're doing this
through with integrity and honesty.
Show us a dollar a month on a
recurring platform.
We will grow.
Thank you for tuning in today, guys. Please
make a difference.
I love you all. As always, question everything.
Come to your own conclusions. Stay vigilant.