It starts with a simple question
and ends in objective reality.
Through our journey from there to here,
we find one another
and ourselves.
And as the next twenty four hours breaks
free from our last,
we gaze onward in reflection of the day.
Welcome to the daily wrap up.
Saturday,
05/10/2025.
Thank you for joining me today. As we
said, today, we're gonna be focusing on the
constitutional crisis conversation around immigration, deportation.
Today, apparently, habeas corpus,
Due process.
Very important development in this story from Stephen
Miller.
I decided to go a little bit funny
with the with the image for the show
today to kinda reference a classic meme because
let's I I my opinion around this is
not just about the reality of our rights
and immigration and the kind of left right
paradigm.
It's obvious to me that there's a Zionist
overlap to this that is destroying this country.
Put it very simply. Not about Jewish people
other than the overlap that Zionism has with
Jewish people just like it does with Christianity,
like it does with the eight with Muslims,
with atheists,
very clear to see. If you care about
the reality of the story and just don't
couch it in one religion or the other,
the point is
I believe some people like Stephen Miller are
representing something very dangerous for this country where
they are projecting,
you know, America First.
You know, whatever narrative is being put forward
that's supposed to capture the current
zeitgeist, if you will, and
cut to the chase, he does not believe
these things. That's my opinion. And I think
even if he does, what his actions or
and he's just the one example for the
image.
But up to
most of the current administration or the one
before that do not have the interest of
The United States First, in my opinion, or
their actions, whether they realize it or not,
are destroying this country. And I think it's
very important to understand
my perspective. But even if you disagree with
me, how I can see that those how
I can show you that those actions are
very clearly not in the interest of Americans.
Now this shift around habeas corpus is an
is an important
It it and it's it's a precedent that's
made before from Lincoln.
But we're gonna go over why, even under
Lincoln, it was unconstitutional
and go over the reality and the constitutional
reality of the idea of suspending habeas
corpus, which is in the constitution. It is
under two circumstances, invasion or rebellion,
and only allowed to be enacted by the
by congress.
So Lincoln alone, unconstitutional.
So the interesting point of saying back to
that and that that should allow it today
is exactly the problem. It's saying, well, the
left did it then, so why shouldn't we
do it? Well, most of us, I argue
today, are not couched on one side or
the other, are saying
none of you are you know, it's bad
when everybody does it. So let's start pretending
like there's an excuse that rationalizes it today.
We need to start erring aggressively on the
side of our principles, our integrity, our values
because these things are being used against us
in pretty much everything I see right now.
Now
I wanna go through quickly
just what we're gonna discuss today because there's
a lot of really important things we're gonna
go over today. Now I'm gonna start with
a quick overview
of and I might as well just show
you here so you can see it as
we go along. Quick overview of what we
briefly pointed to yesterday because I I just
as it relates to a conversation that Brooke
Jackson pointed out, an AI,
and something that's been going around today around
RFK Jr. We'll start with that. It should
only take a few minutes. I think it's
important for you to see. But then we're
gonna go over Israel and some of the
things that are going on
in a general sense, the ongoing genocide, and
how important that is to two things we're
gonna start with that are now, I think,
straight up
I mean, I think lies
very bluntly.
Whether or not they're complete lies or not,
it is a propaganda tactic, and I'll go
over that in my opinion, I'm saying.
And I'll give you the, the other side
of the story of where I can see
this maybe actually happening and why I think
that might make sense around the claims being
floated
that are seemingly baseless at this point that
Donald Trump is gonna, one, cut ties with
Netanyahu, and two, declare Palestine a state.
Certainly hope those things happen and even well,
I'll get to it all, the nuance of
it. I
I think it's important to see how this
plays into a lot of the different things
happening, but I wanted to start with why
I think those things are suddenly acceptable to
the large conversation. And that has to do
with, you know, the Overton window and the
shift around what people understand around Israel and
why now it's being framed as sort of
the prediction of the day even though it
was very obvious as David Icke has been
hammering in that this was where it was
going, and we all should have seen that.
And the usual grifter step in to try
to act like this is something different. We're
gonna talk about that point right there around
this conversation, but then, of course, getting into
the kind of meat of this, the argument
of oh, sorry. This is the wrong spot.
The argument of
habeas corpus, a really important article around the
lies around Venezuela that I think is important
to start with.
And some of the other things I really
want you to see we're gonna talk about
are some of the different nuances around these
cases that I think are really profound.
For example,
Oztur, the or, yeah, Ozturk from the Tufts
student
is being ordered to be released and what
that shows you around how this is developing.
We're gonna talk about I don't wanna stress
the window. Damn it. Oh, well, hold on.
As you guys can see for the show,
I hate when it changes the window on
the screen. For the podcast, you don't care.
But I wanna get into the habeas corpus
overlap.
And let's see. What some of the other
points here. Let me just scroll back. Oh,
that was the other one I wanted you
to see before we get started, so you
stay tuned to the end. A really important
overlap that has to do with the African
O'Connors, African ears, however you wanna pronounce it,
from South Africa.
And all of this today talking about immigration,
and and and the Israeli influence on that
coming through this country. And then at the
same time,
allowing
about to allow South African immigrants
with basically no really unfettered access, waving your
hand and allowing immigrate allowing citizenship exactly like
they're criticizing around Biden, paying for them to
come here, you know, all of this stuff,
which, again, my point is about we should
be equally applying our resistance to you know,
let's just say people wanna pause immigration. Well,
there shouldn't be a caveat for why some
are allowed and some aren't. If you agree
with it, then you agree with it. Then
it shouldn't happen or it should either it
should or it shouldn't. Or maybe you agree
that some should and some shouldn't. And my
point is, right now, what we're staring at
is an all or nothing kind of perspective
where all this has to stop and then
allowing very specific categories into the country,
which contradict every other point you're making. And
then in doing so, you show us that
there's exceptions
to certain groups. And, of course, I'm gonna
make an important point today as we end
with to show you, surprise surprise, that the
Afrikaners, Africaniers,
the Dutch immigrants going all going back to
I mean,
the timing of the creation of Israel
forward,
you can see the alignment of these groups,
Zionism and these groups we're talking about, and
how now you have a completely overlapping relationship
with the very people he's about to bring
into The United States that are basically part
of Zionism. And that's not my opinion. I
mean, you can go through this stuff that's
been there for a very long time. Here's
Haratz, by the way. Let me just do
this while we're here.
Help me get that line back up.
There we go.
Cleansed by the Torah. Why these Afrikaners converted
to Judaism and moved Israel. Now for me,
it's not about whether they're Jewish or not.
It's about the important understanding of what Zionism
does to people's perspectives.
Now on that note,
let me get this lined back up really
quickly for myself so I don't lose my
mind when
Oops.
Hey. I wonder if you guys couldn't hear
me right there. Anyway, the point I was
saying just in case my audio got cut
off right there,
all of this today
and most of what we talk about does
relate to your life no matter where you
are in the world because the point come
back to this or this article we'll start
with from yesterday's show,
it's important to see that what we're beginning
to highlight or rather what we're getting to
kinda see materialize rather that we've been highlighting
is that this is a global dynamic.
Whether it's globalism, technocracy,
Zionism, I kinda as I see him kind
of as one in the same, whether that
was the starting point or not, that blob
has become one thing as far as I
can tell. Always with multifaceted agendas, and they
would probably drop each other
on a dime. It should interest them. But
the point is right now, we can see
aligned interest. My point is the supercharged biometric
surveillance database
overlapping with Elon Musk's surveillance,
Starlink satellites that are overtaking everything. I mean,
literally everything from cell phones to Internet to
information consolidation,
you know, Pentagon having to go hat in
hand to him to go, please let this
happen in Ukraine. The amount of control with
the influence from the platforms, from the amount
of money he has, it's not about him
in particular. Yes. I find that a problem,
but it's anyone with that much consolidation of
power, control, influence over information,
which is the most important thing in the
world.
Here,
I in the show, rather, we go over
how that's continuing to develop, and it's becoming
something that can't be missed from a globalist
perspective. You know, and the people that tend
to want to call that out in other
circumstances weirdly can't or choose not to connect
those dots. So this show,
gain of function head fake was about the
point they were pretending they were stopping gain
of function. If you didn't see that, they
didn't do that. Despite all the people that
we keep nodding to who acted like it
was the biggest, most monumental thing in the
world, and if you actually read the executive
order, it makes it clear that not only
is it not stopping in The United States,
in in fact, they're gonna become the leader
in the versions that they think are okay
while stopping other countries from doing it or
rather stop the funding that they were always
sending to other countries to do the thing
that they say is bad because they're doing
it even though the US government was the
one funding many of them. It's insane. And
that goes well back before Donald Trump's administration
and through his last administration, through Biden's administration.
Oh, that's right. Left and right. Or just
known as your government.
So this, as well as the Epstein list
manipulation that is yet to materialize
and back to the manipulation
of the growing biometric surveillance database that has
to do with Palantir,
xAI,
those two merging to become one kinda joint
interest as well as the x and xAI
merging into one thing. It's insanely obvious how
well this is happening, and it scares me
that some people choose to not want to
see it. And I mean people that I
know that are close to me, that I
know are not some, you know, not part
of some agenda that just want to believe
in this administration. So I do know that
they are out there. I just have to
hope it's not the majority. I think we
can see that. But
so I wanted to start with that show
that article
and also nod to Brooke Jackson's interview, Meet
the New Boss Same as the Old Boss,
where she highlights that in a recent tweet
that Trump sides with Pfizer, the Trump DOJ
has now reiterated that the COVID injections are
safe and effective
and doubling down in the same direction. So
on that note, I wanted to highlight two
things that one thing she shared and one
thing about RFK Junior, which is important.
She says Pfizer slashed its COVID clinical trial
review down to twenty two hours
using artificial intelligence.
Think about coming off what we just went
through.
The people who more than anyone called for
this to stop, called for them to be
held accountable, neither of which have happened. In
fact, zero accountability, and it's increased in what
they're doing. More mRNA shots,
less accountability.
And now adding artificial intelligence on top of
what they already used last time to increase
the pace?
Is that what people actually called for? In
fact, we're gonna there's gonna be an important
article we're gonna discuss in here around the
that's the point about the lies of Venezuela,
but he broadens this out rather in El
Salvador. He and it's a former kind of
Trump supporter dynamic it's a conservative who used
to support it, you know, calls it out,
broadening it out to just show you the
kind of level of inherent dishonesty that I
think is just partisans,
but he's he's highlighting within the MAGA community.
I'm still the mind that I think most
people in that community
are good people who want good things, who
have been tricked into thinking these things are
what they want.
I really I stand by that because if
you talk to these people, the core reason
for why they believe in certain things are
because they think this is gonna save this
country or bring back, you know, all the
things that we seem to collectively background want.
The problem is
the people at the top who are driving
them into thinking those are the right directions
don't care about any of it, at least
as far as I can tell. And so
it's important to highlight the things just like
this. It's not that the community is all
dishonest. It's that they are tricked into thinking
that this is the step that they wanted
or however that plays out. And so she's,
again, one of the few that I highlight
as having integrity enough to or the you
know, standing by her principles enough to stay
up and stand up and say this is
not okay. Whether it is left or right
or Trump or Biden,
clearly, whoever does the wrong thing should be
called out for it. Right? Amazing how that
has to be stated out loud. FDA turned
the other cheek and said, hold my algorithm
and cranked out product review in just six
minutes.
That's where we are now, by the way.
So her point, as she highlights that, I
call for an immediate suspension of any regulatory
authorizations
or approvals that relied on AI processing data
until independent review is completed. Now we touched
on this to a degree
in,
our recent interview, which I gave you the
inter the link for. And what's interesting about
it is that she wasn't talking about AI
necessarily, but it's the same point. That if
we're so, basically, the FDA, the US government,
they're they're taking the datasets that are provided
and then acting like they're they're diving through
and critical of it and well, okay. But
if you're starting with the datasets that were
given to you by a company that has
been exposed hundreds of times for lying for
those very reasons or about those very things,
isn't it possible that they lied about the
data? Yeah. For crying out loud. Obviously. And
so the problem is that that's still happening.
Even worse, it seems today. Adding AI on
top of that, now they're dumping out AI
process data acting like it's
absolute. And it's no different. They just need
to keep the process continues, and many people
within it know it's not absolute, but they
don't care. And some convince themselves that they
it is okay or that it will work
out further. I don't know. Like, you know,
I could give you plenty of reasons why
I think they might ignore that problem,
but it would be my opinion. Now FDA
published guidance on use of artificial intelligence to
support regulatory decision making for drug and biological
products in January
of twenty twenty five.
Pfizer used AI during the most critical phase
of their vaccine study. The final data lock
and efficiency analysis was in
2020.
So she's tagging doctor McCarrie and and, you
know, the Trump administration. And, you know, the
problem is that they've clearly already shown you
what side they're on. And if you can't
acknowledge that at this point in hopes that
there's some five d chess move going on,
well, you are lost.
I mean, look, it's not look, tomorrow, there
may be new information that comes out that
shows that here's why he always he meant
to do it for the you know, here's
what his secret five g chest move meant,
and here's why it all makes sense. Sure.
I can at least consider that possibility.
But until we get to that magical connection
point, you have to acknowledge now that the
actions are not what you thought would happen.
The problem is that too many people are
afraid to be honest about that. All this
will be more important as we get to
that later article because I think it's important
to connect the dots of why people fall
into the traps of lying about this stuff.
Or rather, you know, lying through a mission
rather or just not calling out the bigger
people because they don't wanna be called out
for not being a conservative or how whatever
the frame is. But here, Doctor. Martin McCary
saying, at FDA, we take vaccine safety seriously.
Just kinda rings hollow with what we're seeing,
the rushing through of more artificial intelligence, rapid
research, or the kind of
exponential increase in mRNA platform technology.
I mean, these are the people that had
criticism before,
but I guess it's only we don't like
it when the other side does it. Sort
of like when the Democrats do go, we're
not gonna take Donald Trump's shot, and then
they all do it and say something new.
Same thing happens in reverse.
Right? These people are playing you against yourselves.
At least that's what I can't stop seeing.
Now one of the people that doesn't fall
for it, Mary Talley Bowden,
says,
will our pregnant surgeon general follow CDC guidelines
and inject her baby with three mRNA shots?
Now points about the surgeon general side, which
we commented on yesterday, her point is simple,
guys. If you don't recognize that the COVID
schedule or rather the
might as well be the childhood vaccine schedule
is the same thing.
Three mRNA shots for children. Is that what
RFK promised? Is that what you thought Trump
would do? Like, it's okay, guys. It's not
okay, but it's okay if it didn't go
the direction that you thought they would.
Maybe they were played. Maybe they think this
is better. Maybe they you know, all the
maybe possibilities. What's important, it behooves you to
stand up and say, this is not what
we were promised.
This is not what I agree with at
the very least. Showing other people that you
have the courage or it's okay to stand
up and say these things Because I get
the sense that too too many people are
afraid to simply say these things.
Meanwhile, I think we all generally agree with
this. I mean, it's hard not to see
that. The data behind the scenes shows you
that everybody's not okay with or most people
are uncomfortable with this direction. Even the Democrats
were crying out loud. So the idea that
we can't stand up and say this is
weird that this is happening under this administration,
they're out there. Some of them prominent, but
it's a small percentage of the people that
were cheering this on for the reasons that
they thought would happen that is now being
proven to not be seemingly even in the
cards.
Last point with RFK Junior. Champagne Josh, he
simply says, it looks like we know who
is derailing Maha. See, and, to be honest,
I don't like the start the framing of
this because
it and it's what we get from a
lot, which is that ultimately
no. This is why it's not happening kind
of a thing. Well, I get this. But
to me, that's more of the like, it's
very possible that this very video,
which shows you that this person basically ham
you know, hamstrung
RFK Jr, it's possible that that's the case,
and also RFK Jr is a liar. And
also he doesn't care about what you think.
And also these things were all lies. Like,
I I again, you know my opinion. I
think that there's something about this that that
I think that there's something more to the
story other than he just doesn't believe what
he always said. That's what my belief is,
but that's not what I can prove. So
I'm not gonna always make that front and
center. But what I what like, when you
get people to go, I know him, and
I don't think he he wouldn't do this,
so he must be being black. I I
hate that because that's an that's a a
a the front and center is the opinion
that you think rationalized why he's not the
guy that did the wrong thing. I I
just think that's not the way to go.
Now that's not what Josh is necessarily doing
here. I'm just kinda using that to make
a point. He says it looks like, fair,
not saying it absolutely is, we know who's
Deepralyng Maha. And it is a fair statement
because what you're gonna hear is showing you
that what they're what he laid out at
the very least gave him the ability to
sort of stop what you hoped RFK would
do. But, again, maybe he never planned to.
But it says, and specifically the mRNA issue.
You know, those experimental injections that seventy percent
of the world took,
the ones that continue which I always question
whether that is actually the the number, but
that that is the the data that we
have.
The ones that continue to maim and kill
people that are recommended for babies by the
CDC, you know, the current administration or the
just
your government, which is the real point to
take from all of it, nonpartisan.
But so the idea is that this is
something coming out. Here's Glenn Greenwald covering this,
and I'll just show you his breakdown on
it,
that it appears that, again, in in one
more of many ways,
we were played.
Now what's important to take from this, guys,
is let let's just even say for the
sake of conversation that Arica Junior would have
done everything he promised, and this is the
reason it didn't happen.
Fine. We can't prove that, but fine. If
then at least use that stepping stone to
call this out and say, it's not happening.
The Trump administration, because of x, y, and
z, is not delivering this, or rather just
say the US government.
So it's not a partisan game because that's
what gets people to reflexively stop and say,
well, I'm gonna push back even though I
know you're right because I'm on that side.
So here's what Glenn, another one out there
who seems to have enough principles to stand
on what's right whether or not it goes
left and right and swings around him, showing
you that this is a big deal because
it really is. And this is the kind
this is the way that government truly works.
Junior's nomination would have failed.
And Bill Cassidy very openly said, if you
want my vote,
you need to agree to an in long
list
of limitations on what you can do,
and you will be required
to meet with me regularly
and to
include me in decision making. And if you
don't, I'm gonna call you before this committee
and there will be repercussions.
And in order to get his vote, Professor
K agreed to these constraints. And here is
Bill Cassidy when announcing his decision to vote
for RFK Junior saying that he got huge,
very extraordinary, and unusual
concessions from RFK
about limitations on his power and the role
that Bill Cassidy particularly would play in all
HHS decision making.
Mister Kennedy and the administration
committed
that he and I would have an unprecedentedly
close collaborative working relationship if he is confirmed.
We will meet or speak multiple times a
month.
This collaboration will allow us to work well
together and therefore to be more effective.
Mister Kennedy has asked for my input into
hiring decisions at HHS
beyond senate confirmed positions, and he has also
committed that he had worked within
current vaccine approval and safety monitoring systems
and not established parallel systems.
If confirmed, he will maintain the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention's
advisory committee on immunization practices
recommendations without changes.
CDC will not remove statements on their website
pointing out
that vaccines do not cause autism.
So, basically, going down the step list, right,
before or or that list of, you know,
and he will not remove this and he
won't say that.
Funny how this I mean, this this is
gigantic.
The reality is
they they ham they hamstrung him. That's the
way you say that. Right? They they, and
then the question is, if you were in
his shoes, would you agree to all these
things?
Keep listening.
Mister Kennedy and the administration also committed that
this administration
will not use the subversive techniques used under
the Biden administration,
like sue and settle, to change policies
enacted by congress without first going through congress.
Mister Kennedy, the administration
committed to a strong role of congress.
Aside from he and I meeting regularly,
he will come before the help committee on
a quarterly basis if requested.
He committed that the help committee chair,
whether it's me or someone else, may choose
a representative on any board or commission formed
to review vaccine vaccine safety.
If he is confirmed, HHS will provide a
thirty day notice to the help committee if
the agency seeks to make changes
to any of our federal vaccine safety monitoring
programs,
and help committee will have the option to
call a hearing to further review. If mister
Kennedy has confirmed, I will use my authority
as chairman of the senate committee with oversight
of HHS
to rebuff any attempt to remove the public's
access to life saving vaccines
without
ironclad,
causational,
scientific evidence
that can be accepted and defended before
the mainstream scient scientific community. The mainstream scientific
community.
I mean, that's pretty clear. Right? So you're
not allowed to change things that we don't
all agree we want changed.
And before congress.
These commitments
and my expectation that we can have a
great working relationship to make America healthy again
is the basis of my support.
He will be the secretary,
but
I believe he will also be a partner
in working
for this end.
Now I find that extremely creepy. And I
don't know if you noticed the
graphic on the right side of the screen,
which is also extremely creepy. I I don't
know if this is a recognizable figure, but
it's like some
green person with nerdy
glasses and, like, spiked black hair circling his
face, almost like he's in the middle of
a black sun
hanging over a dystopian,
city that
seems polluted or whatever. Anyway, just since it
was hovering on the screen for two minutes,
I thought I should note that. That too
is creepy. That's just the
so
now you could easily make an argument that
what you were highlighting there was, you know,
working with the other side of the aisle
and trying to make sense. You know, I'm
not certainly possible. Right? Well, all I'm highlighting
is the narrative that was put forward by
the people who argue that they you know?
I'm I'm trying to
make a generalization. You know? Just people that
believe that RKO Junior was going to bring
forward either MAGA or Maha or whatever the
angle they saw through him. And that ultimately,
what that just showed you was that was
not that. Right? That ultimately, he kind of
at least claimed to align himself to maintaining
their kind of check and balance on the
change that he told you he would bring.
You know? And if you look at what
he said about mainstream science, about about autism,
about any number of these things, the tune
has clearly changed today,
for most of it anyway. I mean, I
I when good things happen, I will point
them out. Not when they speak about things
happening, but when they actually come to pass,
we'll call it out. We'll say, great. That's
a good thing. And I think there's at
least one we're gonna talk about today. But,
sadly, it's also important to highlight the counterbalance
of this. And if, you know, pointing out,
at least highlighting
verbally the concern about certain seed oils and
different which we all should care about, but
I haven't seen that truly ripple through the
conversation just yet.
That's good, though.
But, you know, when you're still giving mRNA
shots of children, when you're still starting a
Stargate mRNA platform program, when you're still making
mRNA shots for bird flu, when you're still
declaring a you know, it's like, come on,
guys. You've gotta weigh the reality of this.
I want to see these positive changes like
anybody does that truly wants them,
but we gotta be realistic.
Now outside of the health discussion we'll get
into more in the future shows, I wanted
to at least give you some overview points
about what's currently happening in Israel. It makes
me I I'm gonna be I'm gonna soon,
maybe even the next show we do, I'm
gonna I'm gonna put everything aside and just
give you, like, a three hour breakdown of
where we where you know, what's the updates
on everything Israel involved.
Because it kills me
that this becomes almost a secondary reality because,
look, we all know what's happening.
Like, my show is not going to change
the mind of a politician. At least I
wouldn't think so because I don't believe they're
honest. Or maybe I shouldn't do that. Maybe
I should, you know, maybe that is gonna
happen. But at the end of the day,
I don't think I need to inform anybody
about how many peep the the murder and
genocide going on. So as long as we're
aware that it's still the reality and I
give you the points that's updating. You know,
I my point is if I did a
long show today just about Israel, I a
a lot of other things that are happening
immediately in this country would fall by the
wayside. And so it's like this balance every
day. My point is that it just kills
me that that is just not always, like,
the only thing everyone in the world cares
about. It is so incredibly important, and it
absolutely has an effect on everybody's lives literally
around the world as far as I'm concerned.
Now that aside,
I'm gonna go over some point to connect
and show you even though we're not focusing
on the ongoing genocide or the continual genocide
in Syria or the continual occupation of Lebanon
or or excuse me, yeah, Lebanon as well
as other places we could talk about,
you can still find the the point is
Israel is still a point around all of
this that relates back to what is happening
in this country. So it's still generally an
overlapping topic. But as Dan Cohen highlights on
the seventh,
this is still happening.
We are still watching children murdered in the
streets as Israel bombs all over Gaza.
So, you know, it's graphic for those that
are watching. People are hurt, and it's the
bombings and shootings, and and there's not even
narratives anymore.
They're not going, oh, well, Hamas was in
the restaurant there. No. They just bombed the
restaurant. People are sitting in the restaurant eating,
bunch of civilians. They bombed the restaurant. They
bombed the school. That's all happened, and that's
almost every day at this point. And you
realize this is on top of places that
are already bombed and destroyed, that they've tried
to rebuild. This is a complete
desolate area at this point. Now I'm not
saying, like, literally ever. There's still little pockets
of things and mostly places they're trying to
rebuild, guys.
As Dan says, the extermination of Gaza is
constant and unceasing.
This is the reality of genocidal euphemisms
thinning out the population
and encouraging voluntary migration. That's the reality he's
saying right there, what you're looking at, that
Israel Leaders use
backed up by the entire US government. Now
these and a couple more points I'll make
are this is why you're seeing this weird
shift in the conversation. It's opportunism as far
as I'm this that's my opinion.
But I think we can see who these
people are. You can see what they've been
doing for years,
well before October 7, and ever since then
have continued to completely align with funding what
they're doing. Now all of a sudden, what
the, you know, their argument is what? That
Trump is gonna split with why?
What possibly could have happened in the last
week that's worse than anything else we're talking
about? You know, it's so clear that this
is about manufacturing.
They've lost control. Even their own people are
not okay with a lot of what's happening,
so they have to reposition us.
I'll go into it more, but I just
want you to think about what that means.
What would they need to do to get
people back online to thinking that what they're
doing is in the interest of you when
everything they're doing is before something else?
Again, that's my opinion. Right? But just but
thinking about it from that perspective, and I
think a lot of Republicans are the ones
calling out this weird shifting away from if
ever there America First direction. Zachary Foster highlighting
something you might not have seen, probably not
because corporate media won't be covering it. This
is a another this is from May 8.
The
the the chairman of the Yirubed human rights
group put out another video that is from
Israeli media reports
that said to you in Israeli camp,
returned to the spotlight
with more surveillance,
showing a blindfolded, shackled Palestinian detainee from Gaza
being brutally raped,
physically, sexually left to feel pain, fear, and
helpless.
You think this is a one off, guys?
They literally debated on live television why this
is supposed to be happening. I don't even
I don't even wanna watch this again, guys.
You wanna watch this again? Please.
It's so frankly obvious what they're doing, and
it's being reported around the world except not
in this country, not people that don't wanna
see it.
As Zach Foster, an ex a PhD in
Palestinian history from Princeton points out, if the
rape is caught on camera, which it is,
by the way, which if you really wanna
watch it all, you can,
and the victim is Palestinian,
Caught on camera and the victim is Palestinian,
The New York Times simply won't cover
it. But if there are no photos, videos
of forensic evidence of the rape, no victims,
but the alleged perpetrators are Palestinian and the
alleged victims are Israeli, The New York Times
will spend months looking for evidence without finding
any, by the way, hire two new staff
members to investigate the allegations, send them to
interview the staff of every rape and trauma
center in Israel, and still find new evidence,
they will publish a front page lie about
mass rape used as a weapon of war,
which is what happened.
But you have video,
literally public debates on mainstream imagine on Fox
News, they debated about how whether they should
rape people in the prisons, and most of
them were like, absolutely. That's our right.
Don't you think that would matter?
Don't don't you think that would give you
an insight into the kind of people that
are leading that country? It should.
Falls by the wayside.
Red Collective, I'm not familiar with, but simply
pointing something out. These are just points to
remind you of. We already talked about all
this. You know, the Hannibal directive? We put
this out on 06/18/2024.
The undeniable
reality of October 7, foreknowledge
and the Hannibal directive.
This video is simply the former defense minister
speaking with Israeli media. And it says, just
to explain, they say, is the Hannibal directive
something you're thinking about at this time we're
using? They're they're referencing back to October 7.
And he says, just to explain or they
say, the Hannibal directive yes. You can see
it.
The Hannibal directive, directives to to kill, shoot,
to shoot to kill sorry. It's going fast.
Where there is a vehicle containing an Israeli
hostage. K? Watch again.
You guys know this if you're watching this
show. Hannibal directive says to shoot to kill
when there is a vehicle containing Israeli hostage.
So you know what's crazy about that? That
is the reality exactly like anybody even remotely
knowledgeable about it was was saying right in
the beginning of this, and yet you've got
a waterfall of the journalist of the West
coming out and acting like you don't understand.
That's not the reality. Here we are with
Israeli media talking to the Israeli minister, and
that's exactly the way it's framed because you
know why? It's exactly the truth. Their own
policy was to kill their own hostages should
it could be possible
that their kidnapping could be used against Israel.
It's the most easy thing to prove. So,
again, they're clarifying that's what it is and
asked, is that what happened?
And here's what he says. You guys know
this. This is not new. To give a
timely operation instructions when everything's happening, he's trying
to go well. It was busy and crazy
things were happening. Then he says, was the
order given for the Hannibal directive? I think
that tactically at various places, it was given.
And the truth is that's even a watered
down point because we know it was given
in a broad sense because it's been admitted
to by colonels. But
the Hannibal directive, literally Israel ordering that they
should kill their own people. On October 7,
they went on to then say every one
of those people that were killed were killed
by Hamas.
And we're still questioning whether we're all being
deceived at this point or whether these groups
might not be able to infiltrate governments and
that's why we don't understand what's going on
or some people don't. Well, here's another example.
Ryan Grim. Point blank execution of a man
with his hands in the air while disguised
as an elder while Israel IDF are disguised
as elderly
civilians. Every day, this kind of stuff is
happening. Eunice Tiroi is breaking this down. His
his information has been brought up multiple times
at the international level of the ICC, the
ICJ about investigations because he literally proves these
things. He doesn't just show a video.
He tracks down who's in them. He verifies
where it came from, shows that they posted
on their own social media, and
nobody cares.
Now to be clear, I know people I'm
I say that in frustration. I know you
guys out there care. You know I care.
But I the problem is that I'm just
trying to get people to react. Not with
a dishonest tactic, but the idea is that
too many people don't care.
Right? So just I want people to feel
that, how frustrating it is, that we need
to recognize how important this is. A a
wanted Palestinian,
after being shot,
surrenders with his hands in the air.
Now, see, of course, the people that are
disgusting human beings out there, if you can
even give them that, would say, well, he's
an evil criminal.
So assuming we take at face value what
Israel says about him, criminal because he threw
a rock or whatever. I don't know. The
point is regardless of the allegations, because I'm
not a monster, the guy who had his
arms in the air waiting. Here's what happened.
They
shoot, hands in the air,
sitting there waiting,
and they open fire on him with the
guy right next to him.
I mean, it's just it's just transparent. I've
never you I don't think anybody I mean,
the question really becomes, is literally anybody in
the world unaware of what Israel is at
this point? Anybody other than people that are
Zionist or governments that are contained overtaken by
Zionists?
Israel soldiers disguised as elderly civilians execute him
at point blank range. That's what happened.
Let's assume Israel can successfully murder its way
to an expanded ethno state with sufficiently few
Palestinians left that they can be controlled indefinitely
with force. Who would truly want that?
At what cost to your humanity?
Well, Zionists, clearly, and people overtaken by Zionism.
So,
even the Financial Times now comes out and
says what we all know.
The US and European countries that tout Israel
as an ally that shares their values
have issued barely a word of condemnation.
They should be ashamed of their silence and
stop enabling Netanyahu to act with impunity. Woah.
Okay.
Interesting tone change. Doesn't that seem to indicate
that maybe the corporate media has got a
sense that they're gonna shift the narrative on
us? Come on, guys. I know that things
like that should never prove anything to you.
These are all just data points and my
perspectives on them. My point is
the so the problem really is that people
do that where they then let what they
believe guide what they say they know.
That's partisanship in one of the most obvious
ways, where they get they put things in
front of you and then cultivate an emotional
response and get you to scream online that
we know something that you know, the old
statement. It's not what you know that gets
you in trouble. It's what you don't that's
what you know for sure that just ain't
so. Mark Twain.
And that is
one of the most important statements of the
day. It's what you know for sure that
just ain't so. It's everywhere today. The point
is,
suddenly, the corporate media
starts going, well, you guys are should have
been calling this out the whole time. So
should have you,
New York Times, CNN, Fox, Financial
Times, all of you.
But my point is when they start shifting,
that needs to at least open your oh,
okay. Maybe something will be coming. Why now?
Why suddenly are they at least giving the
allowance from their editors to suddenly start calling
that out? I think it's because there is
a shift. Now maybe it is a large
one. Now I'll I'll I wanna jump into
it. I'll hold back. Next segment, I'll go
over why I think it very well may
be the case
that maybe Trump will call him out. I
don't think that's the likely example, but I'll
go into in a second why I think
it's certainly possible
for Trump alone, by the way. Like, almost
anybody else, I would argue that it wouldn't
line up. But I can see an opening
where I think Trump, of all people, might
his hubris might guide him to make this
choice. But
Times of Israel, this reports from '8 the
eighth. Trump disappointed with Netanyahu.
Just like they like they think they're being
tactful. Like, again, I know it's my opinion.
I think it's being carefully laid out. But
to me, it's just funny that a couple
days before, Trump's disappointed enough to quote, disappointed.
We'll continue Middle East policy without Israel.
Oh, you mean he'll continue Israel's agenda without
Israel? That makes sense. Let's be clear, guys.
There's no Middle East policy without Israel's direction.
Every single thing that Trump or Biden were
rolling out for the Middle East was exactly
exactly what Israel wanted. Not narrative, but the
outcome, the action, what they fund, what they
drive, what their military does. 100%.
So for him to say, ah, disappointed.
Okay. Then what what in in what material
way did anything change? It did not. The
only thing that I notice is two things
that Israel is becoming uncomfortably aware that Netanyahu
is a monster, and I mean even the
ones that are also monsters.
I mean in the sense for things that
affect them, also on a global scale, but
Netanyahu has, like, four indictments. He's a criminal
even according to his own people. And so
now when the world around
at large recognizes that not only he is
a criminal, but the Israeli government are
sociopaths.
How do you suddenly you start being a
you know, the real point is as the
peoples of every country in the world start
recognizing that and start screaming at their politicians
who in many ways are bought off and
controlled by Israel, at some point, that has
to break.
I think what this is is an effort
to sort of shift away from that obviousness,
and maybe Netanyahu will be the one that
gets thrown under the bus. Wouldn't surprise me.
But
that does not change in any real way
the Zionist agenda or Israel's
controlling over The United States. So this very
well could be a tactic to sidestep the
most obvious problem in Zionism's direction,
Netanyahu.
But this feels hollow to me, and I'll
show you plenty of reasons why. We also
had this on the ninth.
Trump ordered humanitarian aid at Gaza, quote, regardless
of whether a cease fire is reached. Oh,
so kind of you, Donald Trump. Seeing as
how this entire time, they have been, what
what, eighty plus days, they've been
blocking every piece of food that I mean,
everybody's called out. Even Israeli people have called
out, and yet Trump lies about it. And
so that's my point. So suddenly, he's saying,
we're gonna let aid in even if they
don't comply. Okay. Then reconcile that recent statement
with what he said right before that. Gonna
help the people of Gaza get some food.
People are starving, and we're gonna help them
get some food.
A lot of people are making it very,
very bad. What do you, if you look,
Hamas is making it impossible because they're taking
everything that's brought in, but we're gonna help
the people of
lie, by the way.
One of the most easy to prove lies
in all of it. And I mean, like,
literally everybody involved, not just the UN, but
everybody. Human rights groups, sent
doctors out borders. I mean, even Israelis. The
point is you can see it. There's video
of them doing this. They have not allowed
it. They were praising that. Netanyahu and Gavir
were screaming it this last time. We're not
gonna allow them anything in because they're not.
Okay. Then let's be clear. They know that.
Trump knows that or he's the most uninformed
president in history.
So when he's telling you that it's Hamas
stopping the food, then, okay, why are you
saying that we're gonna let food in without
a ceasefire? Doesn't that seem to directly contradict
one of those narratives?
Yes.
So he's just this is just the new
narrative shift, guys. You think Trump can't stand
back and go, wait a minute. I just
said Hamas was blocking food, but now I'm
gonna say we're gonna make sure food goes
in whether or not there was a ceasefire,
which would imply that you weren't letting food
in. I mean, it's just dumb. Now this
is all important
for the for the kind of overarching point
that he's gonna make in a second to
that article about El Salvador and the general
conversation of deportation.
There is a shocking
I mean, let's not even say shocking. It's
It's actually pretty common, but there's an interesting
development in regard to the way that they're
lying. I think he calls it multi multidimensional
lying.
It's an interesting way to think about it.
Not just lying about what they want you
to not see, but lying about everything. Some
things they aren't even necessary to lie about.
So it becomes so muddied
that you don't even know where to look.
It's almost like an Orwellian tactic. Right?
Gaza,
because they're being treated very badly by Hamas.
Thank you very much.
Right. So Israel's narrative is the point.
Everything Israel's always said that we all can
prove is a lie. That's Trump's narrative. And
so now he goes, we're not gonna let
it in either way. Okay.
And that's Gen X girl sharing that clip,
saying for three months Israel's openly declared and
I mean openly, guys, like it's public headlines,
openly declared a blockade of aid, and and
yet here's Trump saying it was Hamas.
That's that's the point that we're gonna get
to. That's, like, blatant.
Everyone will know if they're not just stupidly
lying on so people either that blindly trust
what he says or what their party says,
right, or people that just don't care, those
are the ones that don't know this. Everyone
else with any sense of any kind of
investigator, people that just look for themselves know
that's not true and must know that he
knows that too. And yet half of them
still decide to side with Trump. And it's
the same thing with the left and right
paradigm. They would Biden and Obama. It's the
same thing, guys.
Interesting, though. It speaks to a new level
of dishonesty, a new level of sort of
propaganda we're dealing with today. Now, lastly, just
so you can watch here's even Associated Press.
Last week, children in Gaza
are dying of starvation.
And we should know this since the IPC
and plenty of the rest in the past
have said they're dying. Starvation, famine, a rampant
emergency that's been going on for six months
or more or even I mean, really, since
the first so many months of this since
they started saying people are starving because they
were already food insecure before this started because
they've never allowed the right of return. Never
ends. It never ends. But I want you
to see all that before we get into
this overlap
because this is happening, guys.
It matters. They're human lives.
And, of course, that's not the important part
to the partisan media.
Suddenly, you get the reports that Donald Trump
is gonna break with Netanyahu. Well,
I don't see any evidence to suggest that
at all. Well, I shouldn't say that. I
mean, there's evidence that suggests, like, the our
headlines we saw suggest it could be coming,
but, I mean, there's no real indication, in
my opinion, that that's what's gonna happen other
than
seeming
at least stated differences when, again, the policy
doesn't actually change.
So, again, as to usual, Alex Jones says
sources confirm, which at this point, I I
I mean, based on people that have left
Truth three Media,
Richard Grove,
David Knight,
Greg
Reese, on and on and on and on.
They all have the same narrative, the same
insight
that they at Infowars do not check their
sources. They run with whatever's there, whatever works.
How many people do we need to see
that? How are we building to break off
from them and going, these people are crap
before we start recognizing that this is a
partisan game?
The point is whatever sources you think he
has seem to be wrong all the time,
so maybe we shouldn't even list them if
they exist at all. That info wars report
look. I'll be clear. The guy's influential. He's
got lots of money. Clearly,
there are people out there that would want
to speak to him. The point though is
that either they're always lying to him or
using him or he knows he's lying to
you all the time, whether drones or fog
or Ukraine war supposedly ended three months ago.
Right, Alex?
The point is Trump is completely down with
Netanyahu,
says the sources. You know, you mean after
that narrative got floated online and he said,
hey. My sources said that first. Alex is
right again.
You know, the same old thing is if
you predict every possibility over the week, then
you're probably always gonna get at least one
of them right. Right? If you predict every
possibility, then you're never wrong. Right? Except you're
wrong all the other times. If there's 20
things you project and one of them comes
true, I knew it, except the other 19
were not true. That's that is what we
see all the time with these platforms. It's
not unique to him. A lot of people
do it, a lot of partisan media. The
problem is I don't think this is what's
gonna happen. Now that's not to say that
it it may well happen. I'll get into
why I think if it does, that there
why how I would see that makes sense
for
Trump. All I'm pointing out now is exactly
what David Icke is arguing as well. He
says, take everything to be true the moment
is announced.
No nuance. No context. Never wait and see
how it pans out from here first. Always
an opinion immediately,
which to me, that's just partisan agendas.
Never calmly wait to see why such stories
have been circulated and who benefits in the
context of Trump's upcoming trip to Saudi Arabia,
Qatar, and The UAE. Obviously, $100,000,000
from super Zionist, Miriam Adelson, to recognize the
annexation of the West Bank at some point,
maybe?
A cabinet awash with Israel Firsters, people arrested,
and universities defunded over Israel genocide protests?
Really? I mean, so many obvious examples other
than the floated idea that maybe something will
happen. Removing sanctions on settlers for stealing Palestinian
land and and homes in the West Bank,
unlimited weapon supplies to Israel.
But he's not owned by Israel. Of course
not. Wait and see. We're dealing with two
narcissistic psychopaths after all.
I agree with him.
I real I mean, it it's very clear
to me that there's a lot of interest
in wanting this. But if you just I
mean, look. Let's just even say that that's
what was actually stated,
that Trump actually said to some source that
somehow spoke to to to Alex Jones that
he thinks he's gonna split with Netanyahu.
How can you then just ignore everything else
that's happened and not highlight this major over?
I'm not even speaking about this person in
particular. A lot of the conversation out there
is the jump to, he is gonna split
with them. See, we knew it. Israel last
or whatever. Whatever kind
of the q n on type of narrative
that Israel was always gonna be taking care
of. That it's it's like saying that today
Trump suddenly said the shots and for COVID
shots are hurting people.
Okay. We all know that. Does that then
change the years that he's lied to people
about it? No.
But right now, we're not there yet. This
hasn't happened yet.
So my point is, five days ago, here's
even what BBC wrote. Americans used to be
steadfast in their support for Israel.
Those days are gone.
So it's pretty clear that anybody barely paying
attention was already starting to sense that things
were sort of shifting. So it's funny to
jump out and be like, we knew it.
We predicted the thing that hasn't even happened
yet.
It's a fifty fifty shot at this point.
Right? They said it might happen. So if
you jump out and say, we knew it,
fumbled a coin. And then when it happens,
you go, hey. We knew it even more
so. But
those of us that care about the facts
will wait to see what actually happens.
Those days are gone.
People do not support Israel other than Zionists
and people that are interested in supporting Zionism
or blackmail manipulated. Not it's not ups absolute.
There's always a category of people out there
that don't snow don't care that much, barely
pay attention, you know, only sign you know,
but but the end of the day, it's
easy to look around the world and see
that most people are not falling for what's
happening.
This is just an article about that. The
one thing I wanted to show you is
at the that time, at the time Donald
Trump branded his protesters radical left lunatics,
and the Trump administration is now targeting for
deportation hundreds of foreign students who accuse it
accuses
of antisemitism or support for Hamas.
Both of which, by the way, are not
actually crimes unless you actually have material support
for an organization. It says a move being
vigorously challenged in courts.
Okay. Well, so if you're telling me that
Donald Trump is now gonna break with Netanyahu
and the idea is that the support for
Americans is drifting away,
then that means that you align with the
radical left lunatics then. Right?
I hope that makes you uncomfortable. I keep
making that point lately where it's like, okay.
Let's recognize that you've suddenly shifted all the
way back around if it's actually the case,
which I don't think is actually the reality
that he will split with this group. If
they do, well, then why were you pushing
back against the radical left lunatics who were
saying Israel's committed genocide?
This is funny how interestingly these things shift.
All it really comes to show you over
time is that people who are partisan supporters
will bend over backwards and do just about
anything to maintain that support.
Now one thing I think made a note
for myself here, I think is important,
is ultimately
the larger picture.
Supporting Netanyahu as a person,
right,
is not the same thing as supporting Zionism.
Obviously. Right? So whether or not this is
a split, the point is not everyone's up
in arms because Trump likes Netanyahu. It's everyone's
up in arms because the US government is
supporting a genocide. That's what matters. So if
they think that doing so will give the
bone that, well, he doesn't support the genocide
that he's still funding,
that doesn't make sense. But maybe it'll work
for some people. Right? Supporting Netanyahu or even,
like, the war on Gaza in general
is not the same thing as supporting the
Zionist agenda. So if Trump suddenly says, I
don't think Gaza's war should continue,
I'm glad he would say that if that
happens. It does not change that he still
clearly supports the Zionist agenda, which is taking
place in Lebanon, in Syria, in The United
States.
That's what matters.
This might be another head fake, essentially. Right?
They support the Zionist agenda, the greater Israel
agenda,
which is the greater Israel Globalist technocratic agenda.
Right? I mean, that's that's what I see
this all as, and I think that's the
point to focus on. Patrick Henningston spoke up
about this. Here's what his opinion was.
Breaking. They're saying that president Trump is reportedly
cutting contact with Netanyahu
due to the meddling and attempted manipulation of
Trump administration. So interesting how these narratives have
developed. This is all just, like, weird rumblings
online, guys.
What's funny to me, one argument over here
is that, well, he's he's breaking with Netanyahu
because he doesn't wanna attack Iran. Like, everyone's,
like, inserting their own perspective on this or
what works for their crowd. And the point
is and Patrick's not doing Patrick's just highlighting
what people are saying. Because, I mean, he
has to
for the podcast, he says, my take, I
I will believe it when I see it.
So we're on the same page. He goes,
until then, do not hold your breath. These
people lie for a living, and they get
off on war. Stay vigilant. Absolutely.
But my point though,
one of the things he saw circulating is
the because they're manipulating the Trump administration. So
how crazy would it be for them to
split with Netanyahu
because their government's meddling in our country? You're
like we'd be like, you don't say. Isn't
that exactly what we were screaming that you
guys called us racist for? Like, I think
it's almost
I don't even know how you make sense
of that, if that actually happens. So that's
why, again,
I don't think it's gonna happen at all.
It just doesn't make any sense. And you
know who agrees with me? The Israeli media.
This is the, Jewish, was the, new syndicate,
I think. Is Trump really turning his back
on BB in Israel? Don't bet on it.
Now what's funny about this,
to this to me, this is the, like,
institutional
mainstream perspective, which is
you'll you'll see what I mean. It says
and this is from yesterday. It doesn't take
a degree in political science to sense an
ulterior motive in recent reports about a rift
between Trump and Netanyahu.
The effort to promote the alleged schism isn't
exactly covert after all. So what's funny is
right there, we agree, but for different reasons.
But I want you don't don't want you
to miss that they're because they don't think
that should happen, they're pointing out as well
that it's just an obvious thing. It's right
on the surface. This clearly not covert effort
to at least see the idea they're gonna
be having a schism.
So recognize how clear that is, guys. So
even if it happens, recognize they wanted us
to be doing this right now. And it
says, no. It emanates from two sets of
extremists.
Now this is where we deviate in our
opinion.
Isolationist in Trump camp and the anti Netanyahu
Israelis. So in a weird way, partly agree.
What's funny about this is so they're trying
to frame it as a negative thing. They're
trying to make it up to be
a a a fake argument being floated by
people that don't want Trump rather than people
that want Trump to be America First.
Right? They're lying about this because they recognize
what Israel's doing.
And two, that the anti Netanyahu Israelis
who want this to happen because they don't
want Netanyahu to succeed.
What's funny about that is those things are
clearly, if not the most large parts of
the conversation, huge parts.
And that's what we're talking about. The Republicans
in this country, they're like, this Israel's infiltrating
our country. On the other side of it,
you've got people in Israel that are like,
you're committing a genocide, and we need to
stop from the or, you know, that part
of it. Other other ones don't care about
that but want their people back, but still
recognize Netanyahu doesn't care about them.
So what's funny about it is they're pointing
to the right things, but trying to act
like they're lying about this because they're racist
or whatever.
I just think it's an interesting overlap that
they just
everything
kinda blends together.
He says these particular MAGA Republicans
view anyone who supports the use of military
force to defeat Iran as its proxies and
its proxies as a neocon warmonger.
Yeah. Pretty much. Because committing an illegal war
for the act of Israel was a crime.
But it's funny how they don't even want
us can't even
acknowledge that or care.
Willing to risk American lives on behalf of
the Jewish state. Right. So they're they're saying,
you dumb MAGA Republicans
lie about this
because you don't agree with using military force
to attack Iran for Israel.
Yeah. Yeah. It's like it's weird they thought
that like, the way they're framing it is
like they're trying to make it sound like
you should be ashamed of that. And then
it goes on to say, antisemitism,
antisemitic
undertones aside.
What?
God, these people are so completely lost in
their own broken worldview. Are you kidding me?
Are you actually saying that it's antisemitic
to say we don't want to invade a
foreign country for another country just because it's
Israel? Yes. That's exactly what they're saying.
And it says Israelis with separate false claims,
among them that Netanyahu is prolonging the war
in Gaza at the expense of the hostages,
which is literally what's happening, that their own
people are calling this out. The hostages' families,
detainees rather.
So they're really framing the two real sides
as the false story and acting like this
is coming being floated because they're all lying
about it.
I think they're trying to cover up that
it's being floated for other reasons or that
it might be happening. And it says, are
happy to echo the schism narrative.
Again, the real point is that the Jewish
media, in this case, the Jewish national sign
syndicate or specifically the Israeli media, are coming
out and saying this is not true.
That's the real takeaway, but I think it's
interesting the way they're trying to flavor that.
And it goes on to say, it preceded
a Reuters dispatch citing two sources with knowledge
of the matter that The United States is
no longer demanding Saudi Arabia normalized ties with
Israel as a condition for progress on civil
nuclear cooperation talks. Oh, yeah. In case you
forget, they're giving nuclear power to Saudi Arabia
while screening at which I I guarantee will
seek nuclear weapons if not already, which I
think is happening or already happened. Meanwhile, calling
foul for anybody else doing an actual civilian
nuclear program. The point,
no longer demanding that they bow to Israel
before you make a deal with them is
somehow an indication that you're gonna split ties.
I think that's telling. Immediately, rumors began spreading
after that simple point. Not that they said
they were gonna split ties, but that Trump
simply said no need to bow to Israel
before you make this deal, or rather the
administration did.
And right after that, rumors started swirling around
of sidelining Israel, if not totally severing ties
Netanyahu.
The Israeli daily newspaper asserted sources in the
president's inner circle report that he has grown
increasingly frustrated with Netanyahu, and that is how
it always works.
This is how they apply pressure.
Netanyahu with Biden or Trump has done this
many times. Trump's last administration, don't forget, he
called them racist, like, three different times. MAGA
hats and anti semitism, and then Trump, like
all the rest of them, would follow suit.
Then they were best friends again. That's how
this tends to work. So I think this
is about trying to kind of give and
take and push and tug and pull where
they want the agenda to go. I don't
take that even for a second as we're
not gonna go after the same agenda.
Now Yair Cozen wrote, quote, what's what is
the reason for the change in tone and
approach towards Israel by the American administration in
the past week? To my point,
where is this really happening?
I've heard a little bit of narrative shift,
but overall, nothing is in fact, it's it's
worse than ever.
So for them to keep seeding the idea
that we're watching a big change gives me
the impression that they want us to be
thinking there's a big change. Just my personal
opinion.
Employing anonymous sources for such consequential topics is
a neat trick to stir up trouble, which
is what they always do, as a form
of lazy coverage that enables Slant to hide
in plain sight by cloaking itself in authority.
Funny how we agree on the point to
how you do it. They just argue for
a different reason. Right? But it says, on
Wednesday with the Hugh Hewitt show, Trump reaffirmed
his steadfast alliance with Netanyahu and expressed alarm
over the surge in antisemitism across The United
States. That was Wednesday.
Right? I mean, what's today? Today is Saturday.
So a few days ago, Trump screamed as
loud as he could on these shows like
he always does. I should I mean, I'm
kinda being facetious. The point is, you know,
the stressing it to people.
Steadfast
alliance with Netanyahu.
And double down on the completely false story
that there's a rise in antisemitism that we've
proven is simply Palestinian support. Even Greenblatt got
caught for lying about that. And he says,
I think nobody's been better to Israel as
a president than me, Trump says, by a
factor of about 20, he he reiterates.
In fact, I could say maybe nobody's ever
been better than for me than me on
Israel. Typical. His hubris is insane. And I
am shocked to see, which actually, I don't
even disagree with that, but he says that
about things that don't even exist. I'm the
you know, that nobody's ever been better than
anything I've ever done on this topic. And
I am shocked to see what I'm seeing.
Because if you look back at the old
days of the holocaust, what does that even
mean? You're seeing the same kind of thing
happening now. He is just
that might as well be in a card
they handed him, guys. I mean,
it's insane.
So that point is simply to show you
that they clearly,
from the Israeli side of this, don't want
you to think that's coming.
Now here's what the scroll points out. There
is no Trump turn on Netanyahu just like
there wasn't a real permanent ceasefire in January,
like we were all telling you. He says
this is BS pretense ahead of the joint
US Israeli war on Iran that is now
imminent. And I agree with that. I think
it's about mudding the water so we stop
paying attention to a few different things that
are happening and giving them the idea that
somehow he's pushing back against Israel so that
he can always pretend like that's going that
shoe will drop eventually.
And we'll be done at the latest by
the end of the next at the end
of the year, he says. This is why
you're only seeing some mild feign anger from
Zionists. It's a good point.
They're usually if you if the if Trump
turned on the Zionist agenda, oh my god.
You would see a waterfall of hatred and
vitriol like we see in the smallest turn.
It says they're path
pathetically trying to establish the element of surprise
ahead of the launch, but you would have
to be a an idiot to fall for
it. And I don't believe the Iranians are.
So he thinks that's about just kind of
trying to muddy the direction for Iran so
they don't think it's coming. He says, when
I said in January the Trump ceasefire was
BS and that the genocide wouldn't continue, I
was right. He said, and the reason I
was right is because main materialist analysis
of Zionist hegemony
dictated it, and it does with the war
in Iran. He goes, if the Trump turn
on Netanyahu was real,
you would see the entire Zionist media and
political apparatus from The New York Times to
CNN, Jake Tapper, Dana Bush, AP, Reuters, Daily
Wire, everyone, every GOP and every Democratic senator,
yes, including Bernie Sanders, with a total war
on Trump. Jared Kushner, Ackman, all of them,
but they're all quiet.
Only a few are doing transparently fake pearl
clutching because they know it's all BS pretense.
I I flatly agree with that. It's opinion.
Right? That's he put I agree.
I think those points are very valid.
Now we heard
this is this is the other part of
it. So Netanyahu cutting ties, but there's also
the float at the same time that he's
gonna
declare Palestine a state, which is just, again,
certainly possible. And this is where we'll get
into why I think he may do this
both after we go through both of them.
But, I mean, it seems a hard sell.
Now remember before that, he came out on
the sixth and said, basically, I've got a
really monumental,
as he said,
a very big announcement to make, like, as
big as it gets, he says, which at
first, people thought that was, like, the trade
deal thing, and then all of a sudden,
it was something. But apparently,
it's coming you know, it may still be
up in the air is the argument. And
I simply said the and this is my
opinion anytime they do this left and right.
When they come out and say, I'm going
to do the thing tomorrow and it's gonna
be huge,
My point is always, this is how you
should read that. This is exactly how I
want you all to frame the announcement we
will make soon.
They get their talking points. They get their
marching orders. Right? When I do the thing,
you're supposed to say this is earth shattering,
which is what they tend to do left
and right. But think keeping this in mind,
maybe there is a big announcement. Maybe it's
going to be something about Palestine or a
deal or a ceasefire. But let me explain
a few different nuances to this for why
I don't think that even if he does
actually make sort of an announcement about that,
that it won't really be a material change.
It'll just be a narrative. Now, of course,
I hope I'm wrong. I mean, how amazing
would it be for Donald Trump or anybody
else to just
flip the table?
You know, literally what they promised that they
were gonna do and have completely just joined
the deep state globalist technocratic agenda and rolled
out the technocratic overload. But the point,
if he came out and said that and
declared Palestinian state and said Israel and and,
really, there's no way to do that without
acknowledging Israel has been occupying this entire time
and, you know,
that would change the conversation.
But how would that possibly make sense?
Right? So there are a few ways to
look at this. Here's Shadow of Ezra. Trump
is reportedly preparing to issue a declaration recognizing
Palestine. Now it's according to a Gulf diplomatic
source, which by the way has already been
watered down. The article's headline has changed. It's,
you know, interesting.
But there's a few ways you could look
at this. Right?
So let me start with the the why
it might make sense.
Because for me, the one thing I've always
noticed about this,
Trump is the is the kind of wild
card element.
He's
even when I think he's still playing the
same agenda, there's times when he's very clumsy
about what he says. You know, we're taking
the oil kind of a thing. You know,
maybe that's always what they wanted. Maybe they
want you to know that. But I kept
come to feel that he is a little
bit, you know, he speaks off the cuff
and he says things that maybe shouldn't be
said.
My point is his hubris really drives him,
and I think that's how they ultimately manipulate
him.
So
what would make sense is if now
you know, I've talked about opportunism. Right? And
one of the ways that we should really
be leaning into people out there that may,
whether they believe it or not, be saying
the thing we think is right. I think
politicians just lean into where they can get
the most influence. And if at that moment,
they feel that they can get more benefit
by going against Israel and getting all the
support of all the
people, even though they'll get negative attacks from
Israel, they think it'll benefit them more. I
think opportunists will go there. So my wonder
is if Donald Trump is suddenly realizing
that they've lost control, that their own his
own support base has stopped many of them
are uncomfortable right now. At what point is
there a tipping point? Right? At what point
would he go,
unless unless we're talking to, like, Epstein blackmail,
you know, life threats to your family kinda
stuff, which is certainly possible, which is one
of the reasons why I think we're not
gonna see the change. But
is it not possible that he might say,
if he just is aligned with the agenda
for benefit, that this is no longer worth
my time, that I will gain far more
in my legacy
by doing the thing that no one has
done. You know that's enticing to him. Like,
I guarantee you he's thought about that. But
then he weighs all of the clear negative.
You know, Miriam Adelson influence and funding, the
Zionist overlap, the infiltration of his cabinet. I
mean, he's got literal biblical Zionists
right in his inner circle
who are, like,
will burn the building down if he talks
about getting Palestine back their land, which they
argue it never existed. Like, it's this weird
overlap. But I could see a world in
which he would make that choice if it
became that painful for him, which I feel
like we might be there.
And to be clear, I I do not
think that's what's gonna happen, but that would
make sense to me. You know, give it
a 5%, ninety five % kind of thing.
Like, in that rare circumstance,
I can see a world in which he
might make that rationalization,
but there'd be a lot of negative consequences
there. Now on the other side of it,
I think there's a thousand different things to
highlight here. Right? That
doing this would would counteract, like, every single
thing they've rolled out. I mean, you realize
right now, the entire argument about Palestine and
Gaza and Hamas
is the driving force for the immigration conversation
for why they need to get rid of
the
the, you know, ever like, rooted around antisemitism.
All these things are are
right back in line with the Israeli agenda
that is
basically,
if we don't stop these bad guys, you'll
be next, which is basically nine eleven two
point o. Right? It's the same kind of
argument narrative anyway. And so
that happening,
I think, would cause his cabinet to collapse
in a lot of ways. I think it
would cause a lot of really negative influence.
I mean, we could even be talking about
attempts on his life. I mean, all sorts
of different overlaps. I just don't think that's
what will make sense. So let well, a
few more points to go into, but let's
talk about this claim in general and show
you where it comes from.
So here is the first article. This is
where it comes from. At least one of
this is Jerusalem Post. One of the places
that cited the anonymous source, which
always, you know, that's where even the the
Jewish News Syndicate pointed out. That's all that's
how they manipulate you.
Donald Trump to announce
US recognizes
Palestinian state.
Gulf diplomatic sources claim.
It says oh, actually, here's what I was
gonna read for this. Funny. So this this
is the updated version.
Oh, wait. Did I is that the wrong
one?
Yo. So, yeah. Here's the updated version. So
that was the original one that came out.
Few hours later, they update the title. Gulf
diplomatic sources debate if Trump will announce US
recognition. Woah. That certainly changed rapidly. What you're
gonna find is this headline, this article, this
screenshot is all that's being shared. So, I
mean, instantaneously,
you basically get the the watered down point
where it's like, well, they're debating if you
might do something. So, clearly, it doesn't seem
already like it's likely, but let's go through
what it says.
The the two main parts of that were
interesting. And, again, you could read through it.
It basically just goes over it's all a
bunch of kind of hyperbole and, you know,
we don't know will he do this and
what, you know, will it matter and but
things just stood out to me.
A Gulf diplomatic source
who declined to be named or disclosed his
position told the media line, quote, president Trump
will issue a declaration
regarding the state of Palestine,
okay, that could mean a lot of things,
and American recognition of it.
So that's the part that's okay that might
suggest recognizing Palestine,
But he doesn't say that he's gonna recognize
Palestine. He says he'll he'll issue a declaration
regarding Palestine and recognition of it.
The announcement could be, we'll never do that.
The announcement could be, that's never been legitimate.
Like, you see my point? So it's a
weird way to frame that, but my point
is that they want you to start thinking
that Trump is always secretly on the side
of good when you can see the genocide.
That's an easy way to trick you.
And he goes, and that there will be
an the establishment of a Palestinian state without
the presence of Hamas. Now, see, you might
think those are together,
but you can easily make the argument that
the declaration
around it could be that you will never
have a state in this area, and then
we will have a Palestinian state in Greenland
or somewhere else in the world or whatever.
So you see how easy the point is
people that are out there screaming this is
happening like we like, the typical people we
point to
because it works for Trump.
We have yet to see if this is
even actually valid. This could be a liar.
This could be the quote could have been
man fabricated by the platform.
But it goes on to say the source
also added, if an announcement if an announcement
of American recognition of Palestine's is made,
so if already suggests that they're not even
sure, it will be the most important declaration
that will change the balance of power in
The Middle East, and more countries will join
the Abraham Accords. Okay. So that for me
is like the obvious tell.
The this is what, you know, the the
kind of Trump will change the world, and
also they'll join Israel. That's what the Abraham
Accords are. To me, that gave them away
personally,
which to me suggests clearly that this is
not gonna be in the interest of Palestinians
if either of those things are in the
conversation.
Now I I wanna point out that this
is not a new conversation even in the
context of decla of acknowledging the Palestinian state.
From a worldwide perspective first, it's happened more
than once. I mean, here, Palestinians win de
facto UN recognition
2012.
So the only real change I guess my
point is the way they try to frame
it on those articles is that some kind
of a worldwide you know, the only change
is to whether the US government recognizes what
we all know exists. I mean, even from
a UN international,
law standpoint.
But then, secondarily,
it's it's worth it's worth your time to
watch this. Robert Inlakash put out an amazing
documentary called the steal of the century.
Remember Donald Trump's deal of the century? That
was his last effort to trick you. It
was a lie, guys. It was literally him
outlining the current
Israel's control of Palestine and just pretending it
was a two state solution,
even though they did not get anything that
the state actually gets. And Israel's control of
everything. But but he saved them. Right? He
framed that as world shattering, changing thing. We're
saving the world and, you know, and he
really tried to force that in. His supporters
claimed it changed the world.
And then it fell away and it didn't
happen. And, you know, and you know where
we are. So, the point is, you gotta
consider whether this is one another one of
those things.
But as as I interview of, with Robert
about his documentary,
and it's I simply said, and normalizing an
openly violent ethnostate.
So watch this if you wanna understand that
the Abraham Accords,
the deal of the century, the conversation of
whether they actually care about helping the Palestinians,
it's just it it's never been more clear.
Now, yes, is it possible that something shifted?
Is it possible that Trump got new information?
I yes. And I certainly hope that's what's
happening. But I'm not hopeful based on precedent,
based on past action, based on the fact
that these narratives are being floated by anonymous
sources from people that give a tell in
the way they say it when if you're
actually speaking to a sort I mean, I
mean, it can get more and more abstract.
We'll have to wait and see what happens.
And when it does, it'll be very important
to not just jump at the statement and
actually look for what the material, the meat
of it is. If he comes out tomorrow
and says, I declare Palestine a state, is
he pointing at Gaza?
Is he pointing somewhere else in the world?
And if he is, that's not what Palestinians
want, and they have every right to not
be displaced or ethnically cleansed from their territory.
That's what matters. They don't want to be
pushed out of their territory. So just because
he declares a state of Palestine and it's
not in that location is not what Palestinians
want. But there will be people that act
like that is the worst shattering thing that
changes the world when he's on the side
of Palestinians.
Not according to them.
Doctor Anastasia Maria Lopez simply says, what's going
on? Pointing this out. Because it is an
interesting thing that's, you know, floated and seeded
in the conversation, and this is the response
they were hoping for, I argue.
Doctor Vladimir Yukov simply says, a damage control
psyop, which is exactly how I feel about
it. They've realized they've gone too far. Now,
I you could frame that differently. I don't
think for them there is going too far.
They've realized that we think that is what
I would say. And people have had enough
of Israel's atrocities. B BS,
because Trump supported
Netanyahu's cleansing of Palestinians in Gaza. Gareth Ike
simply says, it's going to be oh, this
is the this is from February 11. But
highlighting what Trump said a few months ago,
next to Rubio,
that's going to be for the people of
the Middle East. He means Israel. The guy
is a completely effing psychopath. And what he's
saying is we're gonna cleanse
Gaza of Palestinians.
See? It's all right there for you to
look at.
Now this is where it becomes even more
interesting seeing as how Huckabee, who was a
biblical Zionist,
is in his administration.
Right? He is in the administration. And so
despite all the narratives being floated by the
typical grifters,
Huckabee comes out and says, that's nonsense.
But maybe he's lying.
Always possible.
But it's interesting how people kinda see what
they wanna see. Right? He says and this
is his tweet. He goes, Jerusalem Post needs
better sources than this unidentified
source.
My four year old grandson, Teddy, is more
reliable.
Yes. And take it from Teddy. The report
is nonsense. Israel doesn't have a better friend
than POTUS.
Interesting.
That's it. That's it. This article is simply
going, nope. Trump's administration says that's not true.
And I simply said, hey. The Zionist in
chief has spoken. Israel doesn't have a better
friend than POTUS. Almost like they just needed
the positive claim to circulate in the partisan
media. And the partisan grifters, you know well,
jumped up and dutifully obliged.
Typical.
And then, of course, speaking of dutifully obliging
partisan grifters,
Bennet Johnson says, share this if you believe
Trump deserves the Nobel Prize after negotiating peace
with
Russia,
Ukraine, Israel, Hamas,
India, Pakistan,
not starting a war with Iran. It's insane.
Visiting North Korea in peace, reasserting the dominance
of Western civilization. Like, think about even that
last one. What what are you talking about?
You guys are so authoritarian
while pretending to be about anything else. It's
so disgustingly obvious. Reasserting the dominance of Western
civilization.
Guys, these are not this is not the
view of a normal,
you know, compassionate human being. The bottom line
is,
has he negotiated peace with Ukraine and Russia?
That drone said that three weeks. No. That's
still happening. Certainly is not happening, and there's
no end to that right now. Or Israel
Hamas, are we pretending he negotiated peace with
them?
Or is that just the the floated narrative
that you pointed to a week ago and
you're not even following along, man? It's insane.
India, Pakistan? No. Even as somebody points out
right here. Except he hasn't done any of
those things or this one said,
where was it? I think I had one
down here.
And the bottom line was it's and I
agree, which is that ultimately,
that's not the reality even for India Pakistan
as that had basically his envoy might have
been overlapped with that, but they was already
in the process of these people are just
acting like even things that actually did come
to at least a ceasefire.
You you're pretending like he deserves a Nobel
Peace Prize, let alone that he even did
any of those things. Like, you guys, this
is what's so insane to me. I know
you guys are not stupid. I know that
there are far more people out there than
not who are not dumb enough to just
think you can look it up for yourself.
You can look at reports right now of
watching Israel kill people in Gaza. And are
we gonna pretend like he doesn't know that?
Are you gonna pretend like you don't
I mean, at the end of the day,
you must be able to acknowledge that he
either doesn't know what he's talking about or
he's trying to deceive you. And yet, these
people still have wild influence.
And I don't mean just the the fake
numbers you see on platforms. I mean, the
fact that people share and talk and reference
and politicians and you know, it's insane.
All I care about is the average person
and whether you have the right information. That's
what I care about.
These people are deliberately trying to misinform you
or have no clue what they're talking about.
On that note,
let's talk about this important overlap in regard
to not just the right or MAGA, even
though that's the framing for this, seeing as
how this is Richard Henania, I guess. And,
you know, he's a somebody who, at least
as the framing goes, is sort of kinda
frustrated with the fact that he got tricked
by the Trump administration
as a conservative.
So that should at least have some weight
for people that are on that side. My
point is it's the same conversation for people
with partisanship
anywhere,
which is the the most obvious block that
we need to call out in this country.
Right? That the two party illusion is, I
swear to you, the linchpin of holding this
together.
Now, the five big lies he writes about
Venezuelan sent to El Salvador. You've know all
of this if you watch this show. But
I thought it was important to go over
the bullet points, but also the way he
that he highlights some of this stuff that
I think is really important.
Now let me see really quickly.
Yeah. I'll keep going. So now this is
important.
He says over the first few months,
it's become clear on several issues that one
of the things that makes the Trump movement
so difficult to criticize is that it engages
in multidimensional
lying.
Now I am talking about specifically the politicians,
the administration,
and the screaming two party politic people, the
two the the team sport politics players.
I really do believe that most people involved
with this are being misrepresented.
It's easy to feel it's everyone
because of how many fake bots and inflation.
And people that are just too stupid to
see that they're wrong. I agree with that.
I don't believe it's the most if I
mean, remember, it could be 50%,
fifty you know, 49, 50 one.
Right? That's you know, that forty fifty one
percent don't buy it. The 49, there's still
a hell of a lot of people. Or
maybe I'm wrong. But I just I wanna
make sure that's clear. And it's it's far
too easy to broad stroke an entire group
of people and say that all of them
are missing, you know, lying, dishonest manipulators,
especially when you feel jaded about it because
you were, you know, got tricked yourself is
kind of the framing here. But he says
they will lie about the effects of their
policies.
And again, I'm framing as the current administration
and those that are supporting it blindly. They'll
lie about their policies.
Here's what it means by multidimensional lying. And
I think this is a really important thing
to think about. They will lie about the
problem they're trying to solve. So right in
the beginning, not even actually being honest about
what they're aiming at, they will then lie
about the effects of the policies, again, even
though they're lying about what they're even trying
to solve. It's just fascinating dynamic. They will
then lie about the justification for that policy
and its legal basis. They will then pick
examples of the things that they've done to
solve the problem that will also be lies.
Now the question is well, wait. And then
he goes on to say, they will lie
about how the policy is working and even
when the courts have been saying about their
policies.
These aren't misrepresentations
that leave out context. We're talking about bald
faced lies by any definition.
Now, you know we're seeing this today. And
it really has been an evolving thing. It's
a partisan thing left and right. But what's
interesting is we've turned an interesting corner today,
which I would argue that if, you know,
the next left administration will probably carry shoot.
It's not, it's a evolving thing.
But what I think is fascinating is that
you can see
like I said before, like I was trying
to frame, it's not just like the nuance
you're used to where, you know, the left
and the right disagree about what we're framing
and it's like a small nuance point. We're
talking about, like, outright complete lies about what
you know, like, we won the nine to
zero Supreme Court ruling, which is just wild
to me.
Pretty obviously, they didn't. And you could read
it for yourself.
But it's not just even one lie as
he's highlighting. It's like it's almost as if
you're creating entire conversations that are square one
lies, and then you go through the process
of dealing with that lie, and then how
the the policies you enact about that lie,
and then how those policies have affected these,
and they're all lies. Why would you go
through all that?
It's I think it's a very clear effort
to one, completely just people just check out.
It's sort of a brave new world or,
you know, just a or, you know, whatever
the term you think most fits. The effort
to get you overwhelmed with the abstract reality
of it to where you just go, okay.
I'm gonna seek out a Orion or a
Jones or whatever, Whoever you think you can
trust and just listen to what they tell
me, which I hope to I hope you
guys are not doing that. I know it
can be easy to think you can trust
me or anybody else and just listen and
it's because you don't have time.
I hope you're not doing that. I hope
at the very least you can acknowledge that
I could be wrong too because that is
the reality.
But that's a fascinating thing to look at
because it's every conversation I see right now.
There's a whole, like, layer of it that's
just like lie on lie on lie or
even another way to look at it. You've
got an interesting story that comes out. And
then instead of focusing on the actual forest,
you know, you're missing the forest for the
trees kind of a thing where you focus
on these abstract secondary stories that then balloon
into some fake narrative that's based on nothing.
Meanwhile, we missed the real point. We missed
the criminality you can prove right in front
of you, probably by design.
Now it says one of my failures in
not in not seeing before the election how
bad Trump would be was not grasping the
extent to which moral nihilism
now characterized his movement.
Now, again, I don't think it's just everyone
in it. I think people that are being
led into it being manipulated.
I believe that. But it says instead of
just asserting all of this, he goes, I'm
going to show you how this works in
the example of Venezuelan sent to El Salvador.
It's a good example that we've been calling
out. You can do something very similar with
Doge
and other administrative
initiatives, but the Venezuelan case is enough to
make a general the general point. No one
has the time to uncover and understand all
of Trump's lies, or I would argue just
the US government's lies.
The hope here
is that through a deep dive into this
particular issue, you can understand the failings of
MAGA more generally.
I'm focused on the lies told, he says,
but we should not lose sight of the
ultimate goal of the administration here, to lock
up innocent men in labor camps.
This is so self evidently evil and wrong
that there isn't much left to say. An
article on why this is evil and wrong
seems kinda pointless.
So I focus on the lies told in
the service of that goal
in the hopes that it will change how
people see the administrative administration on every other
issue going forward, as well as its supporters.
The fact that they lie all the time
and the fact that they have evil goals
are not unrelated.
They're both products of a movement that is
morally and ethically corrupt and to its core.
Now remember,
he is a conservative supporter of the Trump
administration until he recognized these things. Now You
could also argue that in of itself is
a ploy.
It's irrelevant for the point that you can
prove these things for yourself. Now in what
we're gonna get into next, that was his
framing, his opinion. I largely agree with it
though, and it's not unique to one side
or the other. And it says they lied
about immigration crime. Now this is an interesting
point because it's so easy to look up.
Now, yes, you could argue the statistics are
slanted and lied about, but what's fascinating is
that most people are not giving you another
set of data. They're just going, that's a
democrat lie, and saying, we know that this
is x, y, and z. You can in
in multiple databases, I've shown you two of
them on this show. It shows you that
the the claim that immigrants are all committing
crime is simply not true. Now my point
was, I guarantee you there's an overlap to
that where there's a section, you know, a
percentage of them that might be committing the
worst crimes. And that's fair. I don't know
how you can prove that necessarily in the
context of the majority.
I mean, maybe you could actually if you
but my point is I do I get
that. But you have to also understand that
the data shows you that most of them
do not. And so what's crazy is to
frame all of them as these illegal rapist
murdering traffickers, and I get caught lying about
people they sent there with those claims. It
begins to show you that they are lying
about a lot of this. But what's interesting
is that
if you think about the logic of it.
Right? And I I said last time, you
know, I work with people in the restaurant
industry, a lot of people. And I know
I you know, we went out and drank
and partied and hang out with people and
people I knew for years working at these
places. Now that's just my one perspective on
it. I'm sure there were nuance levels out
there. The point though is that I in
my experience, that's the way to frame it,
most of these people are so afraid of
getting
deported or sent back that they basically they
drive 10 miles under the speed limit. You
know? Like, they they try not to get
caught. Now, again, there are those that don't.
But in my experience, that makes sense. The
logic is why would they push that boundary.
You know what I mean? Like, it's an
interesting thought.
But regardless of my my opinions on it,
the data does show this. And he says
even before coming into office, the Trump administration
lied about the existence of an immigration crime
wave that needed attention. As I pointed out,
the empirical evidence indicates, the link is right
there for you, that if anything, migration makes
natives safer. Now you can disagree with his
framing there. My point is that the data
shows you that they're not all that the
most of them do not commit crimes. And
it says, I explained why pointing to certain
subgroups or religions
or excuse me, regions
for which the immigrant immigrant crime narrative might
be true did not absolve the campaign of
the charge that they were lying about the
issue. His point is you could probably, like
I said, show examples.
Certain pockets of areas, but the reality of
the picture, they misrepresented.
Now it says number two, they lied about
Trendyaragu's connections to to Maduro. Now this is
an important one.
The re and we we covered this already.
Same with MS thirteen, by the way. You
can clearly see that, for example, MS thirteen
started in LA.
Right? Trendy or Ragu, turns out, is actually
the opposition to Maduro, which is actually leaned
into by, you guessed it, foreign entities like
the US government. And you can even prove,
as we'll go through this year, that there's
examples of them pulling punches where it matters
or Maduro alternatively going after them and killing
them. That's not to say that there's not
levels of both in both countries. I think
it's just interesting how this narrative has been
completely dishonestly created.
And by the way, to seemingly go after
mostly innocent people. And I mean people that
were here legally and had no criminal record.
Now it says in order to provide a
supposedly legal basis for sending Venezuelan migrants to
El Salvador, the Trump Trump invoked the Alien
Enemies Act. This law requires that the enemy
in question be a hostile nation.
As Bruce Feine pointed out from the Reagan
administration and plenty of others that this is
very easy to see,
and that's why they did this because they
were trying to circumvent the reality that they
had no evidence to present about these people
thinking they could claim this was the case,
which is why they then retroactively
deemed them a terrorist organization so they would
claim it. It it it met the the
requirements.
But if we can prove, which we can,
that the group is not, you know, at
the behest of a Maduro and it's not
a state actor and there's no state involved,
then they manufactured it lazily.
And that's why they're getting called out. That's
why their only narrative is radical judges except
the fact that at least half of them
have been Trump judges, especially in the Supreme
Court. Six of them are are are were
rather conservatives.
Some of them have been Trump appointed, and
they also say the same things. So this
narrative that they're all radical activist judges is
just it's lazy. It's not backed up by
the facts.
Again, to be clear, I think all of
them are. Doesn't change the legal reality of
how this works.
It says the law requires that the enemy
in question be a hostile nation. So the
administration needed to declare that the Venezuelan gang,
Trende Aragua, was working with the Maduro regime.
Not that they could prove that or it
was even the reality, but they needed that
to make their narrative work. It says on
its face, this seems pretty ridiculous.
Maduro decides that he will defeat The United
States by sending some low level criminals abroad
to push around a few tenants in a
poor apartment building in Aurora,
Colorado. Remember, I broke that down at the
time.
Yes. There was gang activity in the area,
but guys, you could still to this day
prove that was not true. The framing, they
took over these buildings, they're taking over the
area. Even the police, even the local conservative
people, like, the the politicians were like, that's
not what's happening.
Here we are. Now we see why they
were doing this. And it says it as
it turns out, we now know that the
American intelligence agencies,
with the expectation of the FBI,
did not believe
that the evidence supported any direct connection between
Maduro regime and Trende Aragua while pointing to
cases of the Venezuelan government even killing members
of the gang, which in and of itself
wouldn't prove that they don't support them, but
it just the narrative broke down in many
different ways.
By late February, the office of the director
of national intelligence was circulating a memo to
the effect, which argued that the evidence the
FBI had relied on to take the opposite
perspective was simply not credible.
In part, because it came from sources who
were in legal jeopardy and had an incentive
to tell the government what it wanted to
hear. Sounds familiar, doesn't it? And this is
from the US government, guys. Here, I mean,
this this is one we've talked about.
Oh, I thought that was the link to
so this is spy agencies. Do not think
Venezuelan, direct gangs, declassify. We've talked about the
memo is the point. The links are all
here for you to dive through for yourself.
All this is public information.
Number three, they lied and to be clear,
we've gone over each one of these in
in detail in past shows. This is just
to set the tone. They lied about the
criminal records and gang ties of those on
the flights.
Alright, he says. You might say, the legal
basis for the flights to El Salvador is
absurd. But
surely the administration actually used that excuse to
round up real criminals. Right? In a few
cases, yes. But not in the vast majority
of them. And we proved this as well.
Oh, I think it was over 75% of
them had no criminal record. And, yes, some
of them were here illegally. But a huge
portion of those were in the process of
asylum cases or in the process of seeking
citizenship, which means they had the legal right
to stay here while that happened according to
US law. They don't care about this stuff.
They even revoked them secretly and and deported
them on the way to their meetings.
On top of that, there's plenty of people
where was it? The
oh, so, you know, here legally,
and then no criminal record. But there was
also American citizens that more than once have
almost been sent to El Salvador. There are
people that have been proven to be
the one example I think is the most
startling, a teenager who was standing out front
a building alongside other people, and it's not
even clear whether he was with those people.
And ICE came up and grabbed him. The
guy says, that's not the one. The leader
says, take it anyway. Few days later, he's
in El Salvador. No tattoos, no gang affiliation,
a teenager
Simply because he had the wrong skin color
and was next to people they were going
for. This has become shockingly more clear every
single day. We haven't even got to the
argument of habeas corpus yet, where they're literally
floating the idea of suspending due process. You
know, just like he did in El Salvador.
I wonder why it all comes together.
Point was, most of them were not even
remotely criminals, and most of them were not
gang members at all.
And then a huge portion of them were
not even here illegally. So this argument that,
of course, they're all illegal aliens is just
a lazy self serving argument. Now of 238
men shipped to the a prison camp without
any kind of due process,
and, no, just pointing to an old document
of claims is not due process. It is
beginning the process of sending somebody abroad and
then saying and it it could take half
a second
going to going through being we've seen examples
of this in the past where you have
multiple people in one hearing. Bring them in
and say, here's the evidence showing that they're
here illegally.
Done. That's due process. They're not doing that.
Just because the government says out loud they're
illegals because we can prove that many of
the ones they sent are not, does not
change the reality.
They are required to prove these things. And
my point, if we know they've already sent
people who were not here illegally, then what
are we even arguing about?
It's insane that we keep going back and
forth about this. And my point again is
that there are people out there that already
know that they're wrong and will die on
this hill because they're defending their side,
which really is just the one of the
most grotesque parts of this. We're talking about
human lives here. And then you go, well,
they were here late. Nope. They weren't. No.
They weren't. Round and round the logic goes.
Plenty of people are being take advantage of
here just because
Trump needed to give you some kind of
a narrative.
238
men shipped to a prison camp without any
kind of due process on the grounds that
they were supposedly members of Trinidad and Nicaragua.
Thirty Two had faced serious criminal charges or
convictions somewhere in the world, while the other
206
either may have committed minor violations or had
no criminal record at all according to the
search, spanned multiple countries.
I mean, really, guys, if you could see
right now, the evidence has been shown that
meet most of these people were not part
of the gang.
And the argument they said was they're part
of the gang, and now it's being proven
that they are not. Well, there's where your
due process comes into play. And if they
had not been able to produce the evidence
that proved that they were, none of this
would be happening.
And that's why they needed to lie about
it.
Now it says, how did the administration determine
all these men were gang members? Apparently, by
looking at their tattoos, which we've already proven.
Well, I forget the name of the platform.
Mother Jones, I think, did a pretty good
breakdown of showing you the different information around
the claims they use, the four point dynamic
they created because even Bukele was like, we
don't wanna take people who aren't criminals. And
so they manufactured some point system where, guess
what? If you have a bull's hat on
and tattoos, those alone equal four, which is
enough to send you to a foreign country.
That's it. That's their documents. You can look
it up for yourself if you care, which
is the point.
But it says despite this is despite the
fact that experts say that Trans Arugua does
not identify members by using tattoos.
Then it says,
the administration ended up trying to give El
Salvador Six women in one case who were
sent back because there was no place for
them in his prisons. In fact, Bukele was
apparently uncomfortable with the lack of evidence provided
on the supposed criminal records and gang ties
of the men that Trump sent to him.
Then it says number four, they lied about
the need to send migrants to El Salvador.
All of this brings up the question of
why the Trump administration didn't just deport these
Venezuelans back to their own country.
Officials have claimed Maduro would not take them
back. And as we now know,
that was a lie. You see, all of
this is built on lies that we can
prove.
I'll show you a clip in a second
where Rubio recently reiterated that lie. Now, Maduro
wouldn't let us. But that's what we were
that's what the reporting was in the beginning.
Turns out, that's not even true.
So and and as as we can find
by their own reports,
records records reviewed by even the post show
that two deportation flights to Venezuela were already
scheduled to leave that weekend carrying dozens of
alleged criminals,
including at least one man Rubio's publicly accused
of being a gang member.
Those flights were canceled after Donald Trump invoked
the Alien Enemies Act. Now this overlaps with
an important conversation.
It's about this,
as we've already shown you. We did a
show on this.
There's secret deals between and Donald Trump, or
rather the US government, in regard to sending
back people that he was seeking. In one
case, I argue people that were dissidents that
he doesn't want people to hear what they
have to say. Other cases, it was about
people that are gang members that can prove
that he made deals. His government made deals
with m s thirteen
in regard
to making it appear that there was no
crime.
His own government called this out. The US
government called this out. Treasury department, multiple locations
in the US government said, he is making
deals with MS thirteen in prison.
Bukhale
had requested that those people be sent back
to him.
Beginning to make sense how all this works
out? That's how authoritarians
rule. So what we're seeing is the reality
that they canceled those flights when that I
think that became understood and they invoked the
Alien Enemies Act to cover their butts so
they could send them there without due process
because guess what? They're not actually what they
claim.
It is important to realize that and to
be clear on that, by the way,
the mass of them. There were people, as
we've already discussed, that were techno that were
part of the gang members. That that's what
even the New York Times and plenty of
others were. Some of them were.
I I don't know whether all the rest
of them were jammed in there to meet
a quota, to hide something that they were
doing. The bottom line is that this was
illegal in every possible sense, whether there's no
precedent to send them to any country, whether
illegal or not, without the process of, you
know, in regard to their not their
so let me say that again. It's illegal.
There's no precedent for sending people to a
country that is not their origin
be or rather to send people to foreign
prisons or there's no law in The US
law, international law that that that makes any
precedent for that. It's illegal. It's easy to
prove. Now, had he gone through a due
with due process, the deportation of people that
went back to their home country, like Venezuela,
well, nobody would be crying foul about that.
And that's the point they keep trying to
force in, that somehow, that people won't let
us deport criminals. Nobody's saying that. I don't
even see Democrats saying that. The point is
that you're violating the rights of these people
by not giving them the right to petition
their crimes, to say I'm not an illegal
alien.
I mean, guys, right this moment, it's obvious
to see that if they don't have to
prove that, they could just say Ryan Christian,
an illegal alien, and ship me to El
Salvador before anybody could protest. Because they don't
have to prove it right. Maybe they just
were wrong. And if you can't piece together
how obviously that makes sense, then you don't
care.
It is important to realize that this isn't
a question, he says, about whether the administration
has a right to deport people. The off
made claim that this is the issue being
another lie or the off made claim that
this is the issue being another lie we
could list.
Immigration policy is often arbitrary, and people's lives
can be turned upside down at a moment
when they do not have citizenship.
But, usually,
you're just sent back home. The Trump administration
took the active step of locking migrants up
in a prison camp.
But, again, the point is the idea of
saying that somehow
that nobody has a right to deport people.
They're still doing that right now, proving to
you that they don't need this weird construct
to help whatever's going on with El Salvador.
So there's something illegal going on around this,
and that's why this manufactured thing. And I
think we can see what's happening. Frankly, my
bigger picture view is this is about something
else. It's about manufacturing a decline in this
country, about manufacturing
the justification to create the biometric surveillance network.
I mean, it's multifaceted, but it's all happening.
And none of it is in your interest
as Americans.
This they lied about the legal status of
Venezuelans.
The IMAGA might admit, a Trump supporter, that
one in four of this conversation are lies.
And then say, I don't care. They're here
illegally.
This is what keeps happening.
Maybe you believe that a third world prison
camp is a justified punishment for illegally crossing
a border.
This view, however, setting aside its its repulsiveness,
which I agree from a human sense, there's
no logical reason to think you can send
someone to a foreign prison camp for the
rest of their lives to a country they've
never been to because they illegally crossed the
border. And realize
half of this conversation about more are people
that were here legally. That's also part of
it. And every time we bring it up,
it's just people just la la la la.
Like, they just they won't digest that part
of the story.
But his point is, aside the repulsiveness of
that basic
being okay with that,
it rests on a false premise.
Reuters reviewed the circumstances of 50 Venezuelans shipped
to El Salvador and found that 27 of
them, 27
of them had active asylum claims
before the courts.
In other words, for the time being, they
had permission to stay in The United States.
The Trump administration will claim that Biden's act
actions were somehow illegal or illegitimate, which is
what we get at the last ditch effort,
but it's a generally accepted principle of justice
that people are not punished for following the
law as it was understood and enforced at
the time they committed an
act. So the bottom line is they just
stepping in and just going, never mind what
Biden allowed. They're in the middle of an
asylum case or or citizenship.
And because Biden processed it, they just revoked
them and sent them out of the country.
That's illegal
in every possible way. And we know this
if you care about the constitution. Weirdly enough,
it seems people that are professing more than
anyone to care about America are the ones
most actively who not caring about the constitution.
The last part just goes over all the
stuff of Garcia, which we've covered endlessly on
this show. Or the idea that Trump is
aggressively leaning into the idea that the reason
Garcia can't come back is because he's MS
thirteen, even though of all the claims, that's
the one that has been falling flat because
they've got caught lying about it over and
over, including the knuckle tattoos that Trump seems
to still insist are actually on his hand.
It's it's wild to me.
But again,
secret deals were made.
This is not about freedom, democracy, or anything
else. Now remember that Bukele in El Salvador
illegally took power. The election originally
was riddled with all sorts of allegations of
election fraud, cyberattacks,
like all of the high the high the
hallmarks that the US government would use to
criticize every other government.
Then when he took power, assuming that was
legitimate,
he tried to run again when he wasn't
supposed to. They wouldn't let that happen. So
what they did was take remove judges and
put judges in place that would change the
the legal dynamic of the country. And what
do you know? Now he can run again.
That's why he's in power again now. Then
what he did was restrict civil liberties. He
removed habeas corpus.
Seems like what they're floating in this country
now. Why do you do it? To go
after gang members.
Sure sounds like the same narrative we're getting
here, isn't it? Illegal gang members and in
in immigration. We have to suspend habeas corpus.
I've never been more blown away by watching
people who profess to care about the constitution
rationalize
suspending
habeas corpus. Now we're gonna get into the
constitutional reality of that.
Blows my mind.
Before we get there,
here
is what Marco Rubio said in March.
Backtracks that
basically admitting to you what we've always known,
that the people sent to El Salvador were
not entirely gang members despite the incessant claims
even to this day by Miller and Bondi
and Trump that they're all radical maniacs. At
least they've somewhat watered it down. But in
the beginning, for the most part, it was
incessant all about it. And I've heard them
even recently say they're all bad people when
they need to.
And here's Rubio watering it down again.
Okay.
Secretary Rubio, when you and president Bukele you
mentioned Stranderagua several times. When you and president
Bukele negotiated the deal to transfer The US
deportees to, his prison in Sikkot.
Did you discuss any provisions to ensure that
individuals mistakenly identified as gang members would have
access to legal recourse
or that they can secure the release if
they are wrong and wronged? Yeah. We we
have, the that that list was carefully vetted,
provided to us by Homeland Security. We have
confidence in it. What we negotiated is the
reality that they they,
in Venice in El Salvador
comply with all the national, international requirements
for imprisonment.
So we sent them people with a combination
of people, gang members, people we knew were
involved in activities that were not productive to
The United States,
all of them removable in terms of our
laws, all of them.
I
wanna go back. I'm gonna say that again.
Secretary Rubio, when you and president Bukele you
mentioned Tenderagua several times. When you and president
Bukele negotiated the deal to transfer The US
deportees to, his prison in Sikoth.
Did you discuss any provisions to ensure that
individuals mistakenly identified as gang members would have
access to legal recourse?
Right. So due process.
The ability for them to say,
I'm not a criminal. I can prove it,
which none of them were afforded. And that
they can secure their release if they are
wrong and wrong. Yeah. We we have that
that list was carefully vetted, provided to us
by Homeland Security. We have confidence in it.
Oh, so just skip right over the question.
Right. They know what they're doing. That's not
that's very clumsy.
And lawyers and constitutionalists and anybody with a
brain is gonna recognize. The question was, are
they able to to
petition, you know, what's that? What's the framing?
Are they able to basically say I'm not
a criminal? There's a there's a, you know,
legal framing, the right way to say it.
She asked point blank. And he says, we
got a list and we trust the list.
Okay. So, no, your answer is no. No.
They do not have a mechanism through which
they can show you that they're not illegal
aliens or not criminals or not whatever you're
claiming, not gang members.
That I mean, that that is such a
such a monumental shift in this country, whether
it's ever been actually cared about by the
government. And they're openly showing you a precedent
changing reality where they're saying, when we want
to,
we can just ignore that because fill in
the blank.
Whether we claim it's because of a pathogen
or because of immigration,
right, or because of whatever they do the
next day, whatever narrative they use to justify
why you should ignore your own rights.
What we negotiated
is the reality that they they,
in in El Salvador,
comply with all the national international requirements
for imprisonment. Oh, but they're not, though. Right?
So literally one of the dumbest things he
said, how clearly you can prove that CCOT
is a concentration camp, that human rights groups
around the world have been calling out for
years. It is a horrible place where people
are put for life with no chance of
they're they're not even given the right time
of hearing in front of the like, that
was the point.
At best, they get a TV screen with
30 people in the room where they get
one hearing. The most of them never leave,
and I don't think there's even been evidence
of anybody leaving.
And you're gonna tell me that complies with
international requirements? It's just it's such a stupid
blatant lie, which, again, proves to me that
they know what they're doing. They know that
if this really gets clearly laid out, that
they might actually be held legally accountable.
So we sent them people. It was a
combination of people. Gang members, people we knew
were involved in activities that were not productive
to The United States. Oh, okay. You mean,
like, protesting Israel?
Writing op
eds? Yeah. Just like that. All of them
removable
in terms of our laws. All of Nope.
Nope. Literally provably the opposite. That's what someone's
saying about it. Like, literally easy to prove
that you have people there with no criminal
record that are not, you know, and yet
removable under our laws? No. You chose them
either because you swept up a bunch of
people without any due diligence or because Israel
told you so, which we'll get to next.
Qatar US quite literally
handpicking
people to send to El Salvador.
The court just found that out. Every single
one of them was someone who was removable
from The United States, their respective, and MS
thirteen members, some of them many of whom
are Salvadoran,
that we had identified as MS thirteen members
that they had helped us identify as
well. And, and that so it was a
combination of people that we sent. Yeah. And,
you know,
we may send more. Don't miss that. But
he just made it clear that Boukule did
handpick them and say those I want those
guys.
Those are the people I wanna see. And
well, those are the ones that the article
we just showed you exposed. Even the US
government elements exposed were because they made deals
with them at thirteen to lie about what's
going on. And though and and Bukele did
not want those people to be coming out
in court. Remember, there was the one that
Pam Bondi and the rest of rather the
US government was investigating, had a long term
investigation on, was about to bring to court.
This is well before the current discussion.
He's an actual MS thirteen gang member, a
leader that they were gonna put in prison.
And at the last moment, they dropped all
the charges and sent him to El Salvador.
Why? Because Bukele asked. Because I think when
they went to court, that person was gonna
have a lot to say. This is where
we are.
She also highlights.
He says Rubio can't name a single crime
committed.
This one's important as well. Own people. They
have an obligation. If you are a country
and someone
is illegally in another country, you have an
obligation to take those people back whether they're
criminals or not. Venezuela said they wouldn't take
them back. That's a lie,
Obviously.
Right? So he is reiterating the lie to
keep the narrative going. So if if if
if you can't if every point you stand
back and every single element of this con
construct has been a lie, well, now we're
back to that point of the article.
Multidimensional lying. So we had to find a
place to send them, especially the ones that
had records and or or ones that we
had strong suspicions and evidence that were involved
in illicit activity. Wow. Especially ones that had
records and people that were suspicious of possibly
I mean, listen to that again.
And or or ones that we had strong
suspicions. So we had to find a place
to send them, especially the ones that had
records. Okay. We had to find a place
to send them, especially the ones with records,
very clearly implying that some of them did
not have records. We already know that.
He's being trapped by his own lazy language.
And then and then And or or ones
that we had strong suspicions and evidence that
were involved in illicit activity. Strong suspicion.
Apparently, strong suspicion of you being involved in
activity is enough to send you to foreign
government. And so we had to send some
to El Salvador because,
because of that. These are some really bad
people. Train dot Agua is one of the
most dangerous gangs the world has ever seen.
Okay. So now we lurch into the idea.
This thing is really bad. Therefore, anybody we
accuse of that thing is also bad.
Unless we you know, even though we don't
prove that.
The same thing they keep doing. You they
they go, this woman was killed by an
immigrant. That has nothing to do with whether
these people are guilty, but they know it'll
get you emotionally outraged. Then you go, oh,
those democrats lie about everything.
Their bread and butter. K. When we when
they were held temporarily in Guantanamo
while being transferred to Honduras, because that's when
the Venezuelans picked some of them up, the
marines at Guantanamo said these are some of
the roughest people we've ever interacted with. God.
What I mean, for all we know, they
just made that up.
But it's not evidence of any kind. Right?
The idea that that's gonna be court will
not say this guy claimed he thought they
looked bad. Do you think that's gonna carry
on it to court of law? That's the
only no one has ever argued that, like,
for example, with Garcia.
In our car, I'm never arguing that we
know for sure that he doesn't have a
record. He's not a bad guy. I'm showing
you the evidence that they have presented and
what we can find suggests that he is
not what they're claiming he is. And on
top of that, the only point is had
they given him the right to due process,
you'd been able to know for sure.
That's it.
And they they
they water this down into 37 different side
conversations that have nothing to do with the
major point because they need you emotionally outraged.
They were worse than the Al Qaeda guys
that were in their jails. Wow. Think about
that. So Again, you know, it's disgusting. It
is that we can literally prove that most
of them were not criminals, and that's how
Marco Rubio is threatening them.
Whether he knows it or not, I think
they do know. I think he knows what
he's doing, and he's doing this like Bondi
and like Leave It to make sure that
they keep those date those people in there
in in El Salvador despite knowing that they're
not criminals, despite knowing that they were seeking
this so called American dream like he told
Venezuelans to come to The United States to
do. Rubio did. So literally, going back to
the last administration, you can prove that he
was coaxing Venezuelans to the country and now
sending them to a foreign prison.
Innocent people.
I mean, think about the monster that makes
this person. They're all the same in my
opinion.
Also, US intelligence agencies contradict Trump's claim in
general.
Main point, declassified memo drafted by US intelligence
agencies. Not that we trust intelligence agencies, but
just my point is that's the US government.
That's Trump's current government.
His intelligence agencies are saying they contradict the
claim that Venezuela's government controls Tran de Aragua,
an argument that has been used to deport
these go these people to El Salvador.
It's all construct, guys. It's all manufactured to
make these arguments.
Derek Burrows highlights a point about Garcia that
overlaps with some important developments as well. He
this is a an article from Courthouse News.
Press pushes back against sealed records as Garcia
returns. I hate Garcia's return hits a standstill.
And this is really frustrating seeing as how
the fact is that this person has been
ordered to be returned
to be returned,
has been proven to not be what they
claim he is with their own evidence or
lack thereof, and yet they still drag their
feet. And it just as if they just
do nothing. Realize the supreme court has ruled
they're required to do this. Well, beyond the
playing with the the word facilitate. They have
gone back and forth, and it's very clear
what's expected of them, and they're just not
doing it. So as as always as as
with before, if
the if congress does not do something about
that, then this is all over, guys. At
least the illusion of what we pretend this
country is.
Press pushes back against sealed records as a
Brendon Garcia return hits standstill.
Now it says in a public hearing nearly
a month ago,
district US District Judge Paul Zena scoffed at
the White House
that the White House had done nothing to
free
Abrego Garcia from El Salvador in prison despite
the supreme court order calling for his release.
Since then, movement on Abrego Garcia's case has
gone dark,
playing out in a series of sealed filings
and hearings. A group of 14 news organizations
claimed that the secrecy in the case prevented
reporters from holding the administration accountable in a
high profile case that has become emblematic of
president Donald Trump's second term immigration policies.
So
in case you missed that, after all this
comes out, after they get caught, there's mud
on their face, they'd you know, and even
said, oops. It was a mistake, and then
tried to walk that back. And then I
said, I can bring them back if I
want to, but I'm not going to.
They just went dark.
They
seal the filings despite that not being the
the discussed with the court
and most people calling it out as a
problem.
Quote, the case raises profound questions of separation
of powers, civil liberties, foreign relations,
such as cases requiring maximum transparency
so that the public can participate in and
serve as a check upon their government.
The Wall Street Journal, ABC News, Associated Press,
Bloomberg, CBS, even Fox News, all a part
of that were among the publications named in
the motion. This is a motion
that is claiming that what they're doing is
illegal.
The Trump administration conceded that an error led
to Abrego Garcia's imprisonment, but has since fought
efforts to remedy that mistake.
Like many other migrants on the flight, Garcia
has not been charged with a crime. The
White House instead add advanced unproven claims that
he was a gang member to justify his
deportation and continued attention. In April, the Supreme
Court rejected Trump's request to block Garcia's return,
stating that a government needed to ensure his
case was handled as it would have been
had he not been improperly sent to El
Salvador.
When the case returns now right there, remember,
for those that are uninformed about it, it's
only because Supreme Court ruled that he was
unable to be sent to El Salvador because
of political persecution. That's it. They could have
sent him somewhere else. They still would require
to give all due process because that's the
constitution.
But the problem is that on top of
that, they also violated the previous Supreme Court
ruling. They just don't care. All of that
was to get these people in front of
ukulele.
When the case returned to Zenith, she appeared
deeply frustrated with the Trump administration's attempted
attempt to slow walk Garcia's return. On top
of mandatory daily updates,
she called for an inquiry into Trump's effort
to comply with the ruling.
The Trump administration's attempt to escape Zenas' ire
backfired when the fourth circuit issued a blistering
ruling condemning the government's evasion of court actions.
Now realize there's Trump appointed judges in here.
There are you know, whether we're talking Supreme
Court where there are six conservative judges in
general or examples where Trump appointed judges have
sided with all of this, you can't pretend
this is some radical left activism despite that
being the Johnson Jones dumb narrative online. The
reality, guys,
is that they're they're calling this stuff out
and saying you have to comply with the
rulings. This is not even outside the scope
of how this is supposed to go.
This is the way the system works.
It's amazing what they're calling Miller's calling it
a judicial coup when it seems that's exactly
what he's trying to initiate.
Not a judicial coup, but a coup.
Try trying to destroy this country for the
obvious reasons of a you know, the the
kind of thing you would expect a Zionist
to try to accomplish.
But since since then, the government provided bare
bones information on Abrego Garcia's condition, most of
which was already public knowledge.
The biggest update on Abrego Garcia came from
a democratic Maryland senator, Chris Van Hollen, I
find this very telling, who traveled to El
Salvador.
Holland is the only one that's been allowed
to see this guy. They gave a public
meeting. They even set up literally put out
as even Mukaiya was caught for doing,
margaritas.
Took a picture of it, and then he
posted that saying, look, oh, how terrible it
is. Oh, yeah. It's a concentration camp and
it's horrible. It's been proven a hundred times
over, but they even went that far to
try to trick the people that were that
stupid.
The point is, why was Van Hoehn even
allowed to do that? Was it for the
Photoshop photo op alone?
Well, don't forget, that's where they announced that
he was sent to a new prison,
which was a prison,
which was very tellingly
not for gang members.
Like explicitly the main point was he was
sent to a prison for non gang members.
They are like very clear in the discussion.
They're not allowed here if they've been accused
of being a gang member. Okay, so please
make sense of that for me in the
conversation that the reason this all makes sense
is because we know he's MS 13. Every
single day, there's more evidence showing you that
they know they're lying about that. Rather, I
should, again, to be clear that the evidence
they present in no way proves that, which
is the same case. It's just that's the
objective way to argue it.
And it says,
the news organizations chimed claimed that the government
began filing sealed documents
in his case without the permission of the
court.
Whatever was in the government's sealed motion to
delay the discovery
convinced apparently Zenas
and their lawyers to agree to a pause,
which is interesting.
We don't get to know what that is.
What did they present that somehow got them
to worry? Was it was it some kind
of a threat? Was it information that changed
the whole story and that's why they paused?
I mean, who knows? The point is court
documents indicated the zenists held a hearing last
week before denying a second attempt for them
to put to delay another to pause again.
So right there, that shows you that whatever
they presented was not enough to keep it
going. So to me,
tells me a ploy. Something that got them
enough to go, okay. We'll give you some
time. They tried again. They said no. No
more. There is no transcript of the hearing,
however, so it's impossible to know what actually
was discussed. That's why they put this dark.
Now it says, this unexplained ceiling of court
records is especially concerning in such a closely
watched case because people in an open society
do not do not demand infallibility
from their institutions,
but it is difficult for them to accept
what they are prohibited from observing.
My point is that people make mistakes. Right?
They that's but we expect that you will
at least attempt to rectify those mistakes, like
bringing him back. And then even if you
want, deporting him to a different country that
would would allow him to be deported there.
But, of course,
proving your claims of why he should be
deported, which is the one thing they can't
do, which is why they don't wanna do
all this. In an interview with ABC News,
Trump said he could call government officials in
El Salvador to release Garcia, but refused to
do
so because of his supposed connection to MS
thirteen. Trump cited a photoshopped image of Brigadier
Garcia's knuckles as evidence of his membership.
We know how this all goes.
The obvious reality here, guys,
is that from the very beginning, they've been
lying. They know that.
And I I do question whether or not
Donald Trump is aware.
Like, the the whole thing with him's knuckles
and the lie was really embarrassing for Trump.
Now it's certainly possible that he allowed himself
to look that stupid for some kind of
an agenda. I don't think that he's even
capable of that, quite frankly, but I wouldn't
allow myself to know that, certainly possible.
But realize if the claim is he's a
gang member, that's why it all makes sense.
And his core point was that they was
tattooed on his knuckles. And I and for
those still pretending that he didn't outright say,
no. No. Not interpreted.
MS 13. Like, really hard.
You didn't even watch it or you're lying
to yourself. The point is he was
either lying and pretending he thought that or
he actually did. And if that's what they're
basing this stuff on, there's a really big
problem here.
Include this one for you.
Now I went over this way back on
April 22.
The unprecedented gaslighting of and lies around Greg
Garcia. Now I go through legal documents, guys.
The the actual well, technically, I go over
a report and cite all the legal documents
because I'd already done this twice before this.
But the point is, in the actual show,
you can go through and you can see
all of the court documents. It was right
at the top, right there. Look at that.
What is it? 15 court documents and literally
cites everything we're saying, which shows you that
they're lying. It shows you that the 02/2019
dynamic, which Trump's administration allowed him to stay
after, was what that they was that they
didn't have any evidence. It was a a
cop that was later fired for corruption who
pointed to anonymous source that nobody can verify.
That was the only thing they had along
with alongside a bull's hat he was wearing.
That was it. To this day, Zenis and
everybody else said that it's hearsay. There's no
evidence there. But it was enough to carry
forward two different deportation cases because they're gonna
say, well, the cops said so, so we're
gonna at least carry this forward. That's not
the end. That's not where you go. We
know. That was a carryover.
That's what they point to as two different
examples. The two judges ruled he was. That's
a bald faced lie, and they know it.
It's so easy to prove all this. That's
why it's so alarming for some of us
to think how many people might fall for
this or how we might just lie because
of their narrative, their agenda, their partisan side.
Everything else about this is that's why they've
they've kind of sidestepped into allegations of other
things that even then don't seem to really
materialize
because
the evidence isn't
there. For all I know, he's a terrible
person. It doesn't change the fact that he
wasn't given due process, and if they did,
you would have also seen they couldn't prove
these claims.
Now
the the the overlap to this is whether
Trump
or the US government rather will decide to
try to make this happen for American citizens.
As I said, this is March 22. Trump
could send Americans to El Salvador.
It's he floated more than once. Five times
now floated the idea that Americans could Americans,
criminals, could be next.
Wild and unconstitutional.
On April 3, we covered the Americans speaking
out about Israel's genocide could be next. The
point being, in principle, it is the same.
An illegal alien, green card, visa holder, American
citizen. All that constitutional rights under due process
all point to yet again.
So if you were
removed tomorrow, it'd be no different than a
visa holder or a legal alien with no
due process. The principle's the exact same. It's
unconstitutional
the same way.
I know people out there still pretend like
that's not true. Yeah. You're wrong. You're a
liar. No. It's It's true. It's the most
easy part of this to prove.
Fourth time, Trump suggests sending Americans to foreign
prison. There's been five of them, but that's
gonna include this one too.
Now starting here, let's not forget, guys, and
this is the main point about the whole
deportation thing. As I said before,
if the US government can accuse
people
of being illegal aliens and not be forced
to prove that, they can do that with
anybody. Right? So Biden's administration could come up
and say, you MAGA supporter, you're an illegal
alien and send you to a foreign prison.
Isn't that what isn't that what you're all
saying is okay because they don't have to
prove it? Like, the whole claim comes down
to how do you know they're illegal aliens?
Now that's the point of due process. If
they do have proof that they're illegal aliens,
well, guess what? You're making my case for
me. That's where due process comes in, where
they would present that and say, this is
how we know. And then they can be
deported. That's how it's been going. And all
these claims that Obama or rather, yeah, Obama
and Clinton, and they deported all these people.
Yeah. And
they were in some cases given due process,
and in some cases,
did not do that. And that is the
same crime.
This is the thing. If they expect people
to side with one left or right, the
reality is they're all criminals.
It's not new that Trump is doing this.
It's an unprecedented fashion,
but it is something that we've seen going
back through many administrations.
Ish, we should call it out all these
times, guys. That's the main point. But we
already know that that's happening, where there's been
Americans that were seconds away from being sent
to El Salvador, had the Supreme Court not
put a pause on it. And then days
later, we're exposed to be actual Americans or
an American that was picked up for on
the border of Texas.
And they arrested him. For ten days, they
held this guy. He's an American citizen, lives
in The United States. He's been here for
years. He can prove it. But they held
him for ten days.
What happens if they just grabbed him on
one of those ships and sent him out?
That probably would have happened had there not
been a pause. In this case, that's the
teen I was telling you earlier. A teen
that was simply out in the wrong spot,
and they grew they even said out loud,
that's not the guy. And he said, take
him anyway. There's witnesses.
That teen is in El Salvador right now,
probably will never come back. God only knows
what's happening to him seeing as how he
wasn't a criminal, and you could prove that.
Nobody cares in the context of the mainstream
conversation.
Now Aaron Melnick, the lawyer here says, remember
how ICE agents claimed that they were looking
for a different person before they smashed this
guy's car window in? Remember this story?
Oh, wait.
Oh, I I swear
I
downloaded
that.
That's Ozturk. Hold on. I I do I
want you to hear this. That's that's one
one thing I wanted you to see.
Like, I did that thing I said yesterday.
So we talked about this. And the point
here is that these this is we already
know.
We already know that this was wrong. What
they did was unjustified.
It was for the wrong person. Okay? The
point is that this is how far they're
willing to go based on
you could argue that they thought they were
right.
I'm of the mind that they just didn't
care. That it was like they're just they
they feel like you know, it's like during
COVID nineteen, nurses and different people were acting
with a carte blanche. They could just do
whatever the that's what you're you're giving these
people who already have authority
the the belief that they're
infallible,
which is terrifying.
And what you're gonna see is one we
already showed you where where what basically, what's
happening is they're burst busting in the window,
Here we get it up real quick. Of
a person
they thought was who they were going after,
or at least they just didn't care and
they were gonna get them and check later.
Welcome to The United States Twenty Twenty Five,
guys. Yeah. What are you? Well, they were
literally there for an asylum here at a
meeting. They were there for an asylum meeting,
and this is what they do.
You get the gist of it. Place the
windows, smash them out, drag them out of
the car.
Okay. So what he says, remember how the
ICE agents claimed they were looking for a
different person before they smashed the guy's car
windows in and how he had asylum already,
so he was here legally.
Well, looks like that might not have been
a ruse. ICE didn't actually pursue his case
in court. They likely had nothing on him.
So the point is, they did this, and
now it's come to pass where they made
all these allegations, and they never even charged
them with anything.
Here's the update. After ICE terrorized this man
and his wife, heavily damaged their car, threw
him in jail for weeks
based on nothing,
They didn't even file a charging document.
Really does seeing the whole thing was an
ice screw up, and they too are they're
too afraid to admit it. I mean, this
is everywhere. Let's be let's be real, guys.
I don't think they're stop they're too afraid
to admit it. I think they just they've
been given such a long leash. They're going
after anybody Brown the wrong moment.
And they know that they have backing right
now. That's that's terrifying.
And it's so obvious. This is so far
outside the realm of anything an American has
ever argued we should be okay with. And
here, I mean, that's too broad, I guess,
that the people that believe in the constitution.
And then to make that make that about
the current administration rather than the conservative side
of this who profess to care about the
constitution, who in many cases are blinding themselves
to this.
So my point in all of this is
if you know this kind of thing can
happen, it's exactly why we should not allow
unfettered action from a government. I mean, it's
the same thing. If you're out there acting
like this is justified because you, Trump, has
a mandate,
If you point if this exact same thing
was happening and it was Bill Clinton, would
you be okay with it?
You all then will know that the answer
would be no. But their answer would probably
be, but Trump's not the same thing. Well,
then all it comes down to is that
you're okay violating rights as long as your
guy's doing it.
Here's Daniel McAdams. Now we unplay this clip
for you too. This is just Bill Binion
from Reason saying, here's your reminder
that remains remains a Ozturk was arrested and
jailed for over six weeks because she wrote
an op ed.
Now the the good news is that she
has been they they ordered her to be
released, and she was recently released.
They're still gonna try to deport her. That
is happening.
Just wanna remind you how this went down.
A bunch of unidentified
police, FBI, DHS, whatever they were, never presented
a warrant, never identified themselves until the guy
screaming out of the window called them out
and they pulled their badges out,
and they arrested her. And she was in
jail for, what is it, six weeks
because of an op ed.
We engage in act in activities
in support of the militant group Hamas.
God. So writing an article that says Israel's
committed genocide is all they need. You're helping
Hamas by calling out their genocide. I mean,
that's what that's what they're basically doing. They
don't actually say that's what the point is.
But cutting this to the chase,
they've now been forced to try to argue
this in court.
Back to the argument we've been making. And
guess what, guys? The evidence doesn't stand because
it's ludicrous.
And that's why they're so afraid to go.
That's why they're trying to get rid of
these people for Israel, which we'll get to
next, without any due process, which means they're
violating constitutional rights of Americans and people who
have constitutional rights in this country for a
foreign government.
That's what's actually happening.
Daniel McAdams says, whatever your politics is the
key part of your post here.
How on earth, he says, can my fellow
right wingers not understand that giving the executive
branch gestapo power
will very soon come back to haunt them.
Are they that stupid?
Some of them, yeah. Others just don't want
they just they're interested in how this benefits
them now.
I'm of the mind that most honest people
in this country, rather just most people who
are also honest,
are not okay with this. Whether they choose
to to muzzle themselves or not,
I guess pun intended, if you wanna overlap
it with what left went through in COVID
nineteen, because
they think they're supposed to. Because they don't
wanna be called out for being on the
left or whatever the only two things they
think make sense in the world.
Now Brent Thacker says, read the judge's straightforward
words today as he ordered the release of,
of Ozturk. There has been no evidence
that has been introduced by the government other
than an op ed. Literally, his quote is,
I mean, that literally is the case.
Can you I mean, do they not realize?
Like, what do they expect? Do they think
like, here's what's crazy is they're all calling
out radical judges, and then I guess leaning
on the fact that they hope the judges
that they like will go just rule in
their favor.
The
point is it's not these are judges that
at least in some level recognize that this
is their legacy. If they rule on these
things, that will forever be on their record,
and they know at at least whether they
care about it or not. I think some
of them do. Their only job is to
uphold the constitution. That's their only job.
Court orders her to be released.
She was detained by the Trump administration for
six weeks
for co writing, co writing. The other two
were arrested.
An op ed.
You know why that happened? You know why
the other two weren't arrested? Ladies and gentlemen,
because Israel asked.
Before we get to that, the very alarming
proof that Batar US is basically
the hand delivering list of the United States
government who are then deporting people based on
that alone,
which is exactly what we were talking about
before based on the evidence.
Before we get there,
reporter asked, does the administration have a response
to the judge ordering the release of Ozturk?
Guess what? Leave it said.
Does the administration have any response to the
news today that a federal judge has ordered
the immediate release of Ramesa Ozturk from detention,
particularly his comments that the government submitted no
evidence other than an op ed that Ozturk
wrote last year. I will have to check-in
on with the Department of Homeland Security on
that particular case, but,
I think our overall feeling we've made quite
clear that, lower level judges, should not be
dictating the foreign policy of The United States,
and we absolutely believe that the president and
the Department of Homeland Security are well within
their legal rights to, deport illegal immigrants. As
for, visa revocations, the secretary of state has
the right to do that as well. It
is a privilege, not a right to come
to this country on a visa. But I'll
They know their talking points, guys. That wasn't
even remotely the question. Nobody
anywhere is arguing that the president doesn't have
the right to deport people.
They act like that's the proper response to
say, do you think that should get deprocessed?
Oh, they can deport who they want. Nobody
said otherwise.
It's it's a it's a it's a bait
and switch or a shell give. They're trying
to redirect you to the wrong answer.
The bottom line is they just said there's
no evidence for arresting this person, and your
answer is they don't have the right to
say that. Yeah. That's literally their job is
to say that was unconstitutional,
and your response is that activism?
I I mean, this guy makes a perfect
response to this.
He says,
no different than having an accused person charged
and tried on a criminal offense
being found not guilty
by a judge. Right? And then the government
saying, we're gonna ignore that and hold them
in custody. A judge can't make policy.
He's exactly right. So you understand the DOJ
prosecutes a case and says, he this guy
committed a crime. Put him in jail. And
then a a appeal comes through and they
go, well, it turns out he's innocent. How
is that any different?
The judge is proving that the evidence is
not and we're not even talking about some
side ruling. We're talking about them, the US
government, presenting its evidence to a judge, and
the judge says that's not enough evidence. And
she her argument is judges can't dictate policy?
I mean, they have completely lost the plot
here.
Again, I hate to keep making this point.
But, I mean, guys, how does that not
show you desperation?
If that's the best they can do, they
know they've trapped themselves in this broken narrative.
And that has to at least make you
ask the question, is this for somebody else?
Why would they make themselves look this stupid?
Is it for Israel? Is it for El
Salvador? I don't know. But can't well hope
you're willing to ask that question because this
is wild.
Here, it gets even crazier.
Shiel Ben Ephraim points out the court shows
that Trump administration decides who to deport, this
is his framing, but I do agree with
this,
based on tweets from Batar.
That is an organization labeled as a hate
group even by the ADL, guys,
and which has called for the slaughter of
Palestinian babies.
The agenda here is to legitimize the genocide.
Look at their tweet. They are basically Nazis.
And I showed you this as well. And
this there's actually many of these
where this person said these remember this went
around where you had the the list of
all the peoples killed in Gaza? Prove it,
like, the names they can prove, people that
have been killed, And the first, like, 20
pages were all under the year one
or whatever it was. A lot of pages.
Insane and a lot.
And this person says, these are the names
of Palestinian babies as real killed before they
reach their first birthday.
Qatar US says, not enough.
We demand blood in Gaza.
K? That is this group as well,
saying,
hey. Join us in Washington as we bring
pagers to normal Finkelstein.
Throwing pagers, which are threats of bombs at
American students in schools.
Literally going around praising more saying that we
want killed children in Gaza, like Randy Fine,
for example. I'm not that's not like a
hyperbolic statement. They're literally saying, Yeah, bombs away.
Kill more kids.
Same thing happening in Israel, by the way,
which we'll go into another show.
Very clearly, literally in front of the Knesset
going, No, no. We want them to starve.
We want kids to die. I'm not making
that up.
Here,
the point
is, Aaron Melnick says an update. The judge's
decision on the case came out last night
and it's a doozy.
It exposes how the Trump administration stripped a
guy of a student visa
because Batar
tweeted about him.
Then issued an ICE arrest warrant for him
based on an outright lie from Batar
in forty eight hours.
Now we need to really understand how alarming
this is, especially since that is exactly what
happened with Khalil.
That was the number one starting point. And
you know what, guys? I mean, this is
what's so infuriating for those of us that
do this consistently
and are just very, very often correct about
what we put together based on the evidence
and very rarely see any kind of growth
and influence because of that. Now, look, I
know T Lab is influential in its own
right. Trust me. I get it. We have
built this into something despite all of the
effort, like, in in in spite of the
efforts to keep us down.
20 times harder than anybody you know, that
we all know this in this field. It's
we do not have a fair shake in
this. My point is, it's insane to me
how many times we can be and this
is just I'm I wasn't saying that we
I mean, in fact, no. My point was
going at the beginning of it, I I
considered. I pointed this out and I said,
look at this. Here's Batar pointing at Khalil.
That's pretty telling. I wonder whether that was
the whole reason. Right? And then it developed.
Then we got more evidence that showed that
they were literally tagging Rubio and Bondi. And
I said, well, look at that. Clearly, you
can see they were petitioning these people, and
then that was the first person they go
to. And it developed again. The point became,
it's pretty obvious. Qatar USA is handing lists
as they were parading around online to the
US government, and then you can see the
people on those lists are being deported.
Nowhere was that story outside of a few
of us that were connecting those dots.
I just wanna point that out, that you
can go back to the beginning of the
conversation, and you knew this before anybody because
we were showing you information that we could
prove.
Just wanna demonstrate our value here and there
for people that still need to see that.
Or the ones that will never see this
because the algorithm never let them see it.
But the point is the same, that overall,
we were right in pointing out that Batar
US was literally handpicking people for Israel, that
the US government,
America First, were deporting for a foreign government.
Here's what the actual post said from the
court.
It says, during this time, a profile for
petitioner appeared on the website for Canary Mission,
one of the overlapping parts of the same
dynamic, an organization that claims its mission is
to quote, document individuals and organizations that promote
hatred of The USA.
Or as that category for them includes people
that call out crimes of the government, who
argue what Israel is doing as a genocide,
That same thing. Hatred for Israel means pointing
out their crimes. Right? But hatred of The
US, Israel, and Jews on North American college
campuses and beyond.
So an Israeli group, a Zionist group that's
even called
terrorist level by the ADL,
is going around The US and and making
lists of Americans
and handing it to the US government.
How is that not alone enough to make
you feel uncomfortable? And it says, the profile
of petitioner discusses the events of November 3.
On 10/08/2025,
Batar Worldwide, that's this that's this group right
here, that's Batar Worldwide,
an organization that claims its mission is to
empower Jews to stand strong, speak out, and
defend their heritage in Israel against all threats,
tweeted an image from petitioner canary message profile.
Along with the image, the tweet claimed
to, quote, have submitted petitioner's name for deportation.
Wow. It appears that petitioner's name had, in
fact, this is from the court, recently been
submitted for deportation.
On April 9, just a day after the
tweet, the department assistant secretary of state for
visa services sent a memo to ICE regarding
revocation of that petitioner's visa effective that same
day.
On April 10,
Homeland Security issued an administrative warrant for their
arrest, claiming, quote, the execution of a charging
document
to initiate removal proceedings against the subject on
a basis for arrest. The charging document, you
know, like they didn't give to the person
they broke the window in.
They did all of this because Pitar asked.
That's it.
That's absolutely chilling.
And he goes on to give more information.
Judge Kelly found that ICE's arrest of mister
Ersalek
was intended to punish him for pro Palestinian
advocacy.
Now, Now, yes, you could argue that that
kind of a perspective could be influenced by
political leanings.
But are we actually gonna pretend that we
don't know this is happening?
The DHS warrant issued forty eight hours after
Bator's tweet said it was because he had
been placed into removal proceedings. That wasn't a
lie. It didn't happen until fifteen days later.
It says the judge found that mister Ehrlich
was arrested and detained by ICE because of
Batar's advocacy in support of the porting students
who have engaged in pro Palestinian advocacy. Advocacy,
that's not a crime.
It says respondents' pursuit of detentions
seems to have been almost exclusively
triggered
by Qatar worldwide.
Insane.
It says mister Ehrlich wanted to leave on
his own after the visa revocation by flying
home to Turkey.
ICE wants him to be deported and sent
home in handcuffs instead.
See the point here? This is not about
what even Trump want or what the administration
want. This is about what Israel wants. Because
the reality is even Trump is saying, hey,
self deport. Just leave the country. He goes,
fine. I'll go. I'll leave, like they're calling
for, and they push down. Judge Kelly found
that this was clearly intended to punish him,
citing known support for the idea of self
deportation. That's known. That's part Trump's administration.
ICE has, quote, the judge says this, done
nothing to disabuse the court of the most
obvious conclusion.
Prolonging his detention was intended to be punitive.
In the name of discretion,
respondents asked the court to close its eyes
to reality. The guarantees of the constitution allow
no such thing.
Full decision is here. As always, you always
give you the links for you to check
for yourself.
Judge Kelly orders ice to release mister airlock
so we can go home on his own
without having to be detained for months by
ice and then deported back in handcuffs and
shackles.
How much you wanna bet he gets arrested
again.
I I mean I don't I mean that's
completely
that's based on nothing but my instinct.
Let's keep an eye on it and see
what happens. Because you have to realize that
these people are lunatics,
and they want what they want, and they're
forcing the government to get what they want.
And so if the point was they want
this guy to suffer, I'm willing to bet
you anything, they'll find another way to manufacture
that to happen again and put them to
the process again and maybe make it work
this time. I just need this to sink
in for people. This is insane. This is
the US government being dictated by a foreign
government.
And look, that's not the only example. That's
one aspect of a larger picture we've been
building for a long time.
It is obvious what's happening, I think.
And I simply said exactly as we've been
reporting since they arrested Khalil. Not because we
were guessing, but because we did the research.
The US government is arresting people, many of
them Americans, because Israel asked them to. But
of course,
something like that, you'd imagine it would be
a bombshell. No, no.
Shockingly restricted on this platform,
like everything else.
And of course,
it'll include
I mean, just take a little look through
their their
profile. I mean, these people are lunatics.
I I just don't know anybody with a
with an
an empathy, compassion, could care, could act like
these people are not openly showing you that
they're detestable, that they're willing to hurt people
because they have different opinions.
Yeah. Look. That's actually a good point. That
it's changed, but 70,000 views, now it's at
a 11.
Look at the engagement.
I mean, guys, it shows that people don't
agree with this stuff. But guess what does?
The platform.
The government.
Now to end with two main points that
I think are very important, which I'm sure
will reiterate as this continues, because right now,
this is just being floated. Right? So, obviously,
this might be more grabbing for people to
want to hear about, but I put it
at the end because frankly, I think it's
the most right now, it's just a narrative.
It could just be maybe said it just
to scare people.
But it's important because it could come to
pass.
And of course, guess what? DC Drano comes
out and says, and there it is. Stephen
Miller confirmed that president Trump is considering suspending
suspending the writ of habeas corpus.
There it is? I said, there's what? The
final shred of your credibility falling away? Imagine
cheering on the suspension of habeas corpus, due
process,
while pretending to be America First. Are you
pretending that suspension would be in any way
constitutional
or apply only to immigrants?
I mean, I'm blown away. Now
I was gonna go through this first, but
I thought it was important to kind of
dispel some of the usual responses before we
go through this. And read it directly from
the constitution, from different Supreme Court rulings.
This is the kind of response that we've
become accustomed to. Okay? This is seemingly constant.
So this is what somebody said. Now, again,
I I don't know whether these are,
genuine or not. You can decide. But I'm
let's treat them like they're just a genuine
concern.
This person says so again, I remember what
I said.
Now this is let's be clear first.
Suspending habeas corpus,
I'd see that's why I was gonna go
through it first around, you know, there's a
as president Lincoln, and I'll go I'll go
through why that was our unconstitutional at the
time. It's congress that has the power to
do that. Nobody else.
And so even in this clip, which I'll
play first,
Miller lies to you and claims that that's
all we need to do is claim this
rebellion or invasion. No. No. It's the it's
congress, not the executive branch.
So he he he either, again, is proving
his ignorance on the constitution or is trying
to deceive you. That's my point about the
image today. This is I this is a
Zionist who I think is hell bent on
destroying this country. That's my personal opinion. You
can decide.
But the point is that there is an
overlap to this that's interesting.
But what we're gonna hear
is that this is somehow allowable or that,
you know, that this is this the suspending
due process under the argument
by the executive branch, which there is no
context by which that is allowed. It's congress.
But in any context, doing so,
an invasion or rebellion. Are we seeing either
of those things? I know they've really lazily
and desperately tried to paint this as an
invasion. It's not. There's just no logical reality
to that. So even by their own argument,
it's not the reality.
And yet, nonetheless, people that are claiming to
be America First are pretending this is the
the, you know, there it is.
Promises kept kind of things. It's wild. So
here's what Steven had to say.
And
I gotta be honest, man. This guy gives
me the creeps. And I don't mean that
in some weird partisan, I hate the other
side kind of way. I I mean that
from like a ghoulish kind of way. This
guy just exudes the the the
you know, this kinda guy you walk by
on the street and you and you kind
of you wanna there's something weird.
And I don't mean that again in like
kind of like JD Vance is a weirdo,
like, this whole weird back and forth. There's
something about this man that gives me the
distinct feeling that he
had you know?
I don't know. Try to think of the
word that's not like, the idea that ultimately
what he's doing is not in your best
interest, that he's doing it for a nefarious
reason. Like, that's just my instinct, though. I'm
just trying to make this be some kind
of approval point.
I just I feel like it's important to
give you that thought for how I feel
about it. When you watch the way that
they conduct themselves, when there's kind of this
smug, blithe disregard to things that are foundational
for this country and are conditioning
Americans to be to ignore things that have
been important our entire lives,
It's there's something really, really wrong about what
this guy is doing. Let's not forget the
overlap to how clearly these people are, I
mean, showing you
that they care more about a foreign country
than they do about America. Here's what he
had to say. This is one of those,
by the way.
On the ICU, quick questions first. You know,
president Trump has talked about potentially suspending, his
corpus
to take care of the illegal immigration problem.
When could we see that happen, do you
think? Well, the constitution is clear, and that,
of course, is the supreme law of the
land
that the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus can be suspended in a time of
invasion. So it's an option we're actively looking
at. Look. A lot of it depends on
whether the courts do the right thing or
not. At the end of the day,
Congress passed a body of law known as
the Immigration Nationality Act, which stripped
article three courts. That's the judicial branch of
jurisdiction over immigration cases.
So Congress actually passed what's called jurisdiction stripping
legislation.
It passed a number of laws that say
that the article three courts aren't even allowed
to be involved in immigration cases. Many of
you probably don't know this. I'll give you
a good example.
You're familiar with the term temporary protected status
or TPS. Right? So
by statute,
the courts are stripped of jurisdiction
from overruling a presidential determination
or a secretarial determination.
It's funny how he starts with supreme law
of the land and then argues that you
can somehow dictate those things by lower court
rulings. Like, he's almost undermining his own point
by making that case. But my point is
not about any of that stuff. My point
is about the main idea of suspending habeas
corpus. All the rest of that is to
try to insinuate or give you the impression
that there's
judges doing things they're not allowed to do,
which is even if you disagree with the
ruling, it's that's not the case.
What they're doing is the only thing they're
supposed to do whether or not they're guided
by political leanings or not, which they all
are. On TPS, when the secretary of homeland
security makes that determination. So when secretary Noem
terminated TPS for the illegals that Biden flew
into the country
Yeah. Right. So here's what's insane about that.
We're not gonna get into that today, but
this is the same thing. We're gonna end
with the point about the Afrikaners,
which is the same dynamic.
If you think so if you're telling me
that Biden is not allowed to give them
citizenship, then Trump's not allowed to give the
Afrikaners citizenship.
I don't agree with either of them. I
I don't neither of them should happen. But
the point is nonetheless, as we just read
through, that they did leave that administration by
saying they are now here legally, whether it's
for seeking citizenship or not. And for them
to come back around and say, now they're
all illegal because we don't like Biden is
not only childish, it's illegal.
They just don't care about these things. Right?
So they're trying to make that into the
invasion. But even if you wanna claim that
was all done by Biden, it's not an
invasion.
That's not even by the legal reality of
what they're trying to claim. The idea is
about an actual state actor invading this country
or a rebellion from within. Now the clear
reality is I can point to one gun
entity clearly doing both those things. They don't
care about either.
When courts stepped in, they were violating
explicit language that congress had enacted, saying they
have no jurisdiction. So it's not just the
courts aren't just at war with the executive
branch.
The courts are at war, these radical rogue
judges, with the legislative branch as well too.
So all It's just such a lazy art.
Every time, it's about the rat okay. What
about the jump Trump appointed judge? What about
the Supreme Court conservative judges? Like, you just
can't keep making this argument. It's been roundly
held up that you guys are wrong over
and over about what you're doing, and it's
simply unconstitutional. Now all the rest of the
nuance in between is worth considering. My point
is always is about the core reality of
this, and all I've been talking about is
whether they can suspend habeas corpus.
Right? So let's get into that reality. That's
the core thing he says right in the
beginning.
And that, of course, is the supreme
the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
can be suspended in a time of invasion.
So to say that's an option we're actively
looking at. Okay. So when he means we,
he's talking about the executive branch. He's talking
about government and Donald Trump's administration claiming they
can suspend that, like Bukele did because that's
clearly what the emulator rather what they're all
driving toward. That is not true.
Let's go over it.
Oh, that's right. So, you know, here, I'll
just do this. I'll do it last then
since that's clearly what feels like the right
way to do it. I will go over
some of these responses, though, that are very
frustrating. The idea that it's just basically,
you know, the same old thing. That Americans
don't or rather, you know, the idea of
the
I'll go over it later after this little
segment. So the point is
citing the constitution itself and understanding this. As
Patrick here says, the president lacks the power
to suspend habeas corpus under article two. The
power is exclusive to the congress under article
one. You can read this all for yourself.
The first part clearly says, all legislative powers
herein
granted shall be vested in congress of the
United States, which shall consist of a senate
and house of representatives, which then goes on
to dictate what those things are. K? This
is the constitution of The United States.
Secondary part, which he highlights both. Oh, actually,
I'll go over some of these in a
second. I have other things that stood out
to me I thought were interesting.
His point though, just to make it consecutive
for his points. First, which is clear,
that all that is it is
congress that has that power, not the president
alone, not the executive branch alone. That's the
part I was gonna go down to, section
nine, after making it clear that congress is
the one that has these powers. The privilege
of writ of habeas corpus shall not be
suspended unless, when in cases of rebellion or
invasion, the public safety may require it. Now,
yes, that is original. So even going back
to Mabry versus Madison,
the idea that if it's republican to the
constitution, it's null and void. The argument is
still that that is the original document That
they just saw their their opinion that there
was a a a circumstance in which that
might be necessary.
The only time this has ever happened is
under Lincoln, and I'll show you why that
was unconstitutional. I mean, it's already very clear
at this point.
You can see right here the points, the
obvious reality is all of these powers, they
then go on the list, here and granted
shall be vested in a Congress of the
United States.
That's the point. And then goes on to
say that that privilege can be suspended, not
by the executive branch. That is
basically it's
it's very clear.
And he says, honestly, it's a little alarming
when you post a highlighted screenshot of the
constitution and 500 people respond with wrong, I
disagree, which is probably half bots, half people
blinded by partisanship. He says there are plenty
of things in the constitution that are textually
unclear.
The power to suspend habeas belongs to congress
is not one of them. Now even AskRack,
which again, the main point that we're gonna
have an upcoming, I believe it'll be on
the fifteenth,
a IMA panel about this,
Is it just because AI research shows you
something does not mean you should blindly trust
it. But it is a useful tool in
certain circumstances. The way I play it or
see it is basically
people that seem to think Grok is some
conservative
oracle. Right? The the the the Elon thing
will tell you the truth, and weirdly enough,
when you show it to people that think
like that, they go, well, he's not always
right. Okay. Funny.
I agree, though. You should not blindly trust
it, but it's still a point to show
you that they're pointing to what they claim
is not the case. He says, for all
the people having trouble with the plain language
of the constitution, many people in this thread
have tried to get America's leading legal mind,
Grock, he's joking, to be telling me I'm
wrong, but even that agrees with him. No.
The president, Grock says, cannot unilaterally suspend habeas
corpus during an invasion.
Implies Congress holds that power.
Very clear. It's not clear because Grock says
so. It's clear because it already was. Grock
is simply just acknowledging that point.
So here, again, I'll go through some extra
points as well, is the constitution.
Same point, granted,
shall be vested in congress.
And then just to jump to that part,
I will show you the in betweens.
It says the privilege of oop. Don't go
back. There you go. The privilege of
the writ of habeas corpus shall be suspended,
shall not be suspended unless when the case
is of rebellion or invasion.
Now, it's worth understanding what those things mean.
You can't just be you know, you can't
just claim an invasion and make that make
sense that neither of those things are currently
happening,
at least not by the definitions we understand.
Now, this
has a couple of things I wanted to
point out.
Again, this is just the constitution
on senate.gov.
Number on number on section eight, it says
the Congress shall have power
to regulate commerce with foreign nations
and among the several states and with the
Indian tribes.
Now I just think that's interesting to think
about in the context of how we're basically
living under rule by dictate by executive branch,
which is not the way this works. But
that's the way the government is trying to
convince you it should because Trump has a
mandate. And it's not about left and right.
It's about trying to convince the American people
and, you know, using each party's narratives to
convince you that we should be okay with
it.
The interesting thing is Congress has the power
to co regulate commerce with foreign nations.
And clearly, the executive branch does have all
sorts of influence and and power over certain
parts of this. But it seems that every
day, we're finding more and more consolidation of
a lot of these things that they're claiming
are just you know, basically, everyone else has
to do what the president says. They're trying
to create the sort of king dynamic
and claim its democracy, as if we should
even want that. And then it says to
to declare war,
To raise and support armies,
but no appropriation of money that that use
shall be for a longer term than two
years.
Again, declare war.
Yeah. Exactly. Something that hasn't happened since World
War two, even though they've been to war
many times. So kind of the reverse point,
but just showing you that we have very
rapidly lost connection to this even though people
still wanna talk about it. And again, I
argue within a state of society, this is
important.
But if if we're not really adhering to
half of this, we have to realize that
I shouldn't say half, but a lot of
demonstrated points where this is already being violated.
It shows you that we're a long way
from where we think we are.
Then here it says, no title of nobility.
I thought this was just interesting. No title
of nobility shall be granted by The United
States. And, again, we've gone through this stuff
over the years. If you haven't read through
this, it's worth your time. But just these
things stand out today in kind of new
context.
Shall be granted by The United States. No
no title of nobility. And it says, and
and no person holding any office or profit
or trust under them
shall without the consent of the congress,
except any present,
any emolument,
office, or title of any kind, whatever,
form any king, prince, or foreign state, or
from them.
Now, I think there's a lot of examples
of that happening both left and right. You
know, of getting given a a foreign or
like even Israel calling him a prophet, interestingly
enough, or funding them through government apparatus, claiming
it's because of something else or a pry.
I've seen this going back plenty of administrations,
emoluments in general,
simply meaning a salary fee
or profit from employment of office. Well, there's
a lot of examples of that overlap or
even just I mean, you there's a lot
of weird points. And these are all just
interesting things that stood out to me in
the context of today. But it's worth your
time to read through this and realize how
many ways we just ignore a lot of
this stuff. I think that was generally it.
And then, of course, Lincoln.
Now again, it's not because Grock said so.
This is just an easy starting point for
you guys to recognize that even Grock will
point out the same. And I simply said,
was it unconstitutional when president Lincoln suspended habeas
corpus? Now if you already understand the reality
of it, the congress alone, and that's he's
not congress, then you understand why that makes
sense. But it said yes. Brock responds, yes.
Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus was unconstitutional.
The constitution,
article one section nine, allows suspension only during
rebellion or invasion,
but it implies congress, not the president, has
such power. Lincoln acted unilaterally.
Violating separation of powers, the Supreme Court later
ruled against such executive overreach in ex parte
Merryman nineteen eighteen sixty one. So
it's probably already happened.
I didn't see it yet. But I if
it hasn't already happened, I'm willing to bet
you anything that Trump administration is going to
nod to Lincoln and act like that's why
it's okay when and if and when they
do put that forward.
Just the idea of floating suspension of due
process.
I mean, it's it's if I would have
said this a couple weeks ago to the
people telling me I was crazy for defend
for pointing out what Trump's doing is wrong
rather than the current US government,
and then said, well, what happens next when
they say they're gonna suspend it in general?
You guys would have called me crazy.
I it's just it's
clear where this path is going.
So even then, that was wrong. And that's
an important thing to think about. And in
case you guys already forgot, Reno versus Flores
Supreme Court ruling, the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens
to due process
in
deportation proceedings.
So there's still these people that wanna argue
that somehow these rights don't apply to illegal
aliens or Visa card holders or green cards.
Yes. They do. And you can't it's one
of the most important parts of this conversation.
Because
if we know that, well, then that means
that when you're dealing with these people and
not giving them their rival, that is just
as important as an American citizen in the
same way.
And that's the way this was written is
the point. And here's the fifth amendment.
No person
shall be held to answer for capital or
otherwise infamous crime. No. Nor shall any person
nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property
without due process of law. Any person. And
this has been roundly upheld by the Supreme
Court and is argued I mean, it's everybody
other than people trying to defend Donald Trump
seem to be very aware of this.
And then again, another rock example, not because
he said it, but because or it said
it because we already know this. And it
cites a different case.
Do illegal aliens have the right to due
process
the same as Americans? That's important.
And it says, yes. And illegal aliens have
the right to due process under The United
States constitution as affirmed by the Supreme Court
in
Zadiv how how is that's such a weird
name.
Zediv
Zediv does versus Davis, two thousand one. Reno
versus Flores. I mean, there's there's actually many
of them. All
say the same thing.
Now here's an example
of Melnick pointing out a powerful statement from
judge Volado
on why due process matters,
even if deportation is the likely outcome of
that process.
Quote, how can we pride ourselves on being
a nation of laws if we are not
at least willing to ask before we look
we lock you up? Do you have something
to say?
Here's what it says. It may be easy
to say that we want noncitizens who are
in this country illegally removed immediately.
It may be popular to say that noncitizens
who at least allegedly are members of violent
gangs should be deported without a hearing. But
how do we know
that someone is who the arresting officer say
he is? I mean, it's the most obvious
point. That's what I've been saying.
How do we know that a correctly identified
noncitizen is a violent gang member and not
a family man working hard to put food
on the table and his wife and kids?
Or that he's even illegally here in the
first place.
Unless they can prove that, which is the
only thing we're asking for. Not
holding it up and waving it in your
face, but presenting it to an authority who
can say, yes. I confirm that's accurate. Yes.
You can deport them, which is the only
way it's ever worked. Not to say that
other presidents have also violated that because they
have. Because don't forget, they're all the same
thing. The left right game is how they
trap you. The point is they're all criminals.
See, that's that's why it's so hard for
so many people to make the argument against
this because when you show them that you
see them all the same and their only
response is they're used to saying, well, because
you're on the other side, well, they recognize
hopefully that they're trapped in a lie or
not. But
clearly,
how do you know these things if they're
not required to verify them? And he goes,
how can anyone feel safe from being swept
up and put in jail or deported
simply based on being targeted by the government?
More to the point, how can we pride
ourselves on being a nation of laws if
we're not willing to extend the most fundamental
right of all? If we're not at least
willing to ask before we lock you up,
do you have anything to say? The answer
is simple.
Due process.
Everyone,
citizens, noncitizens, the innocent, and the guilty
is entitled to that sacred right. Yep. Yet
again.
Did not get that here. That's the person
they're talking about. And for that reason, even
if ICE regulations
did not give him the right to an
informal interview, he still would be released.
And that's the point he's making here is
even if that means bringing them back to
prove they should be deported and then deporting
them anyway. The nobody's trying to stop the
actual legal right to deport people who are
here illegally other than radical morons. And I
don't think that's the the majority of the
conversation. Just like you have the radical people
on the right saying the same they're saying
that this shouldn't matter. Those people exist, and
they're not the majority. Most people are very
aware that this is simply about the process
there.
And this is Kyle Chen Cheney.
Oh, I think I got that right here.
Simply saying, more another judge has sounded the
alarm on the Trump administration's alleged violations of
due process in immigration proceedings. Judge Lawrence Vilardo
said the administration view of due process was
downright
frightening.
And this is what Tara m Banks had
to say. Not somebody I'm familiar with, 26,000
followers, clearly a Trump supporter,
says deport that judge.
Yes. Let it be on the record. Okay.
So just so we understand what we're talking
about, we just went through the case.
K? The discussion is not in any way
radical. They're simply saying the obvious Supreme Court
backed up by precedent ruling in the past
that you can read the constitution, that these
people should get due process.
Not that they shouldn't be deported, but just
that if you're going to do that, that
you should be required to do the most
bare bare basic, you know, prove your claims.
Give them a right to seek, you know,
a redress of grievances. Right? The basic basic
fundamentals.
And she says, deport the judge. And guys,
this is not a joke. And Tom, whoever
this is, says, why? For what? And who
are you to say? She says, I'm American.
As American, I support safe America away from
radical left judges.
The president was given the people mandate.
You get the you start to catch on?
Your BS talk is part of the distraction.
Go back to your global village, losers.
This is so this is a very clear
ongoing thing that's happening. Now certainly possible that
Tara m. Banks is a completely uninformed support
supporter of the current administration.
It's it's actually alarming that people like that
do exist. Now I don't think that's the
case here.
Usually, you can get the indication, this is
just my opinion,
of the bots that are running this conversation.
I'm American. It says, as American, I, lowercase,
support safe America, with two spaces, away from
radical left judges. The president was given, with
capital g, the people mandate.
Okay. Okay. Maybe there's a language barrier there.
Maybe this just a lazy copy of its
voice. The bottom line is we do know
that these people exist.
What's so alarming is that peep that this
is being so astroturfed and manipulated that there
are good people out there that are being
driven and scared into thinking that this is
the right way to think about things. So
you're scared into thinking that this is the
right way to think about things.
So you're to deport not deport, not even
just call out, but deport an American judge,
in many cases appointed by Donald Trump because
they call out your illegal actions of not
giving due process, which is enshrined by the
constitution.
And you say your right to do that
is because you're an American and support
away from I mean, it's just I do
I even need to frame it like it's
just this is so
they do exist. And here's an example of
that. Matt Gaetz says, do Democrats expect us
to have 20,000,000 trials? That number is false,
first of all. The number that I see
seemed about half, 11, something like a million.
Still, same point though. It's a lot. The
answer is yes.
Are you expected to give due process? Yes.
Don't even finish the sentence. Yes. The answer
is yes. No matter how difficult, no matter
how complicated,
the reality is that was the excuse given
during COVID.
Right? Well, as a pathogen, we can't be
expected to yes. You can. And that's exactly
what the Republicans were saying at the time.
There's no asterisk in the constitution that says,
shall not be infringed except with a pandemic.
Funny how that logic flies out the window
when it's something they think they want or
that their people say they should.
It doesn't change, guys. I get it. May
just because it like, this is the same
point. There's not an asterisk in constitution that
says, shall not be infringed unless it gets
difficult,
Unless there's too many cases to deal with.
Are we really playing are we are we
pretending like these people are real and honest?
I mean, or that they should be regarded
with
taken seriously?
Wild.
Martha says,
not having due process is absurd.
You swore out the constitution.
Thank you.
It's it's cut and dry, guys.
And and mostly peaceful masculinity
says, what's absurd is thinking somebody who broke
the law, and here we go. Right? Already
out of the gate. Entering the country illegally
as citizen citizen rights of due process. Well,
they do. They do, moron, and it's provable.
But the point is, how do you know
they're here legally? And round and round we
go. Right? And they make the case for
you, but they don't I don't I don't
even think they realize half the time. Martha
says, everyone with the jurisdiction of the US
government is owed due process. That's true and
easy to prove. Try reading the constitution sometime.
Right? The people that are acting like they're
supporting this and fighting for this country are
the ones destroying it in these cases. And
he goes, I've read it many times.
Or if they if you do, then you
have no reading comprehension or probably haven't. And
he says, you're creating your own interpretation. No.
No. It's very cut and dry with many
Supreme Court rulings backing it up. But he
goes, for your own purposes.
Assuming that's a Democrat probably,
just opinion. That's not how it works. Yes,
it is. He goes, come here illegally. Get
deport okay. How do you know?
Get deported without fair fanfare immediately. Okay. Masculinity.
How do you know they're here illegally?
Are you just going to pretend that, or
you're gonna blindly trust what the government tells
you? That sure seems pretty un non
anti conservative. Right? I mean, it's just insane
that they can't put this together. Martha says,
can you point to where it says that
in the constitution?
He says, can you point out where it
says what you're asserting? And there's where I
come in. Including how the constitution covers noncitizens?
By extension, do the rules of the constitution
cover everyone on the planet? Technically, yes. That
is the the reality of this.
Humans.
Any person. Now, obviously, that's not going to
be applying to somebody in China in a
prison. The point is, unless they're an American
citizen, the government wants to get involved, which
they should in the context of what's happening
to you like they haven't ever done with
Israel. But
the bottom line
is, yes.
When they wrote this, it was about inalienable
rights to people.
I don't even know why that's hard to
wrap your mind around when we understand what
that actually means. As in previous examples, even
Republicans have argued the same thing.
Regardless of whether that last point makes any
sense to you, and it should, it's not
like they're telling you that they should be
expanded out to cover the world. The point
is they're simply acknowledging human beings have these
rights. That's what the point was.
Inherent, god given. How do we not understand
what that means?
You think God only gave them to Americans?
I mean, it takes a special kind of
willful ignorance to not acknowledge how silly it
all is. But to the first point about
whether it applies to non citizens, here we
go. I said, yep. So will you now
block me or admit that you were wrong?
And I showed him the
Reno versus Flores
because easy to see. I showed him the
first the fifth amendment showing you that, and
I showed him Grock because it seems like
that has more influence for certain conservatives,
saying yes.
He says, here's your due process, pimp.
Do you have documentation
proving you're here illegally? No? Okay. Bye.
What?
I said, that's he goes, that's it. Not
complicated.
So they're not even parroting the talking points
properly.
Do you have documentation
proving you're here legally?
So the argument being, I'm supposed to always
be like, so right now, that means that
if you're walking down the street, you've got
brown skin, and you've lived in Texas for
fifty years, and you don't have a way
to prove that, you're gone according to this
guy's logic.
Think about how stupid that is.
Whether it's an American citizen or people being
wrongly accused, it's the same argument that's why
they are required, and we'd have to go
through this a hundred times over. But here's
the point, as I said, yes. We're all
aware of the talking points that you were
instructed to blindly repeat. Now if that's all
you have, clearly this is over since even
your grok says
same as Americans.
Stop being a child. Then I said open
borders? Oh, that was a different yeah. He
says pound sand open borders kook. You know,
again,
blindly assuming that I must be the Democrat
alternative to a you know, what do you
mean open borders? That's in the our first
of all, from a non statist perspective, borders
don't even come into play. My point is
within the world we live in. I shouldn't
even say that. Technically, that's not even accurate.
But within the world we live in and
we exist within this state of society and
the constitution is in some way having an
effect on holding them to account. Yes.
I do not. I should've I said that
funny. I do not agree with the idea
that we should just, who cares about it?
The law is there, and yes, I argue
these people should be deported. I've said it
a hundred times over.
We see the assumption is you must be
on the other side.
But no response is the point. That's it.
Right? So the answer was yes. I guess
ignore me. It blocked me or it's it's
ongoing that this happens. Here's Stephen Miller.
Michael Shearer, Schreier says the Fifth Amendment says
no person.
And this is in response
to Stephen Miller.
I think this was
what he simply says, the right of due
process in quotes, I already covered this earlier.
Why is it in quotes exactly?
There's a lot of very clear insinuations here.
It's to protect citizens from their government,
not to protect foreign trespassers, already wrong.
Again, Stephen Miller does not dictate the constitution
perspective. The reality is you can read it
from the constitution that shows he's wrong. The
reality is you can ask rock, as I
pointed out right down here, shows you're wrong.
You can look at the Supreme Court rulings
that shows he's wrong. You have to understand,
Stephen Miller knows what he's doing.
Whether that's because of the interest of the
United States government for Trump or for a
foreign government trying to destroy it all, you
can decide.
But this this ghoul is a very dangerous
person.
And Michael rightly goes, you're wrong.
It says it right there.
Here's how he responds. Michael, a deportation is
not a state punishment.
Okay? It does deprive an alien of life,
liberty, and property.
It mere and, you know, I think he
meant doesn't, just for the record. It merely
removes a trespasser. Again, it's the same roundabout,
basically broken logic.
How do you know they're a trespasser?
This is why it exists. So if they
accuse some person randomly walking down the street
of being an illegal alien, they're required to
prove that.
He goes, this is a well established legal
doctrine. He's making all this up. The homeowner
does not provide due process before ejecting a
home invader. They love this false excuse. The
same thing they tried to do around COVID
nineteen around the walls.
Somebody breaks on your door, are you gonna
kick them out? It's guys, it doesn't this
is not the same point. Now even if
you let's just even say you agree with
the logic of the home discussion about whether
or not I'm allowing somebody to come in
my door.
Is it relevant to whether the constitution says
what it says. It's irrelevant to what the
Supreme Court has many times over upheld the
reality that what he's saying is wrong.
So, Stephen Miller, if you'd like to change
that, then feel free to go after that
from a legal perspective. Currently, you're either ignorant
about the facts or you know you're lying
about it in order to cover what you're
doing.
He's wrong.
Simple as that. You can read it for
yourself. You can look at all the same
precedents we've been showing you, and all he
wants you to believe is that it that
doesn't apply to exactly what the Supreme Court
has roundly upheld that it does.
Down here, he says, furthermore, the constitution protects
We The People, as in the actual poll
what does that say? Politean citizenry of The
United States. This requires the president to exclude
the entry of those who are not members
of the national community and enforce okay.
That's not what we're talking about, bud. And
he knows what he's doing. We're talking about
people that are here and that you're accusing
of being illegal aliens.
Round and round we go.
This person, Mike Young, says, Steven, let's break
this down with some basic constitutional literacy. Since
you seem to be struggling, the fifth amendment
says no person can be deprived of life,
liberty, or property without due process. Not no
citizen,
no person. That includes undocumented immigrants as the
Supreme Court has affirmed for decades, and he's
right. And he cites Reno versus Flores. Justice
Scalia, as I pointed out, a conservative, hardly
a bleeding heart liberal, wrote that aliens are
entitled to due process in deportation proceedings.
And guess what? Deportation often starts with detention,
which is a textbook deprivation of liberty.
The court, and this is the other one
we just talked about, Zadvedis versus Davis, made
that crystal clear. Your claim that deportation merely
removes a trespasser ignores the messy reality, the
tension, family separation, and sometimes life threatening returns.
Now, again, I feel like he that that
pulled it to a wrong point. The reality
is
your claim that they removed the trespasser
rests on the idea that you have to
first prove they're a trespasser. It's very basic.
But he goes, like Garcia and the deportation
deportation to a foreign prison, supreme court had
to step in because due process was violated.
They try to make it about stopping people
being deported. It's simply not true. If they
have to lie from the base of the
conversation, then they're they have nothing.
So he goes, your well established legal doctrine
is about as real as a unicorn.
Maybe stick to policy rants and leave the
constitution to people who've read it.
You know, not Zionist trying to sabotage it.
And he goes, oh, and that homeowner analogy,
it's a swing and a miss. I agree.
A homeowner isn't the government. Stephen, the fifth
amendment constrains state action, not private citizens kicking
out in invited guests. Deportation is a government
act complete with badges, detention centers, and life
altering consequences.
Comparing it to a private eviction isn't just
legally wrong. It's intellectually dishonest, and that's the
case here. The constitution isn't a choose your
own adventure book. I love that reference. Where
you get to rewrite the rules when they
don't suit your agenda. If you're going to
throw around terms like trespasser, let's his let's
get historical.
The pilgrims were undocumented too. Should we have
deported them? No. Then maybe stop using dehumanizing
labels to dodge the law. The framers wrote
person for a reason because rights don't apply
at stop at the border. Stop reading the
document you claimed to defend or start try
reading the document.
Now whether you agree with the pilgrim point
or the, you know, any of these these
these references that get used by partisans,
the facts
are undeniable.
So it is infuriating that we keep having
to bump up against people not who either
don't know what they're talking about or are
lying for obvious reasons like this. So Stephen
Miller, again, comes out. Because he this is
a very clear agenda. Like, Elon Levy in
Israel, like, these people have an their mandate
is to force in this square peg in
the round hole.
Stephen Miller says, the correct process for illegal
aliens.
Are you here illegally?
Deport.
It's what's so lazy and funny about at
the same time.
Okay.
So here you are going, are you here
illegally?
Explain for me, Stephen, how you have to
ask somebody if you're claiming you have evidence
about that. What if they say no, stupid?
Deport.
Because you already claim you know. And it
you basically prove our point. This you what
he does, I swear to you, applies to,
like, the like, below the lowest common denominator.
Like, the dumbest of the dumb. The people
that are just want to agree because it's
that agenda.
What he's doing is actually hurting anybody with
the smallest amount of intellect. It's like, that's
just a dumb argument.
Speaking of that, here's Sons of Liberty saying,
anyone else find it comical that they're saying
Trump is illegally deporting the illegals?
Yeah, clearly that missed a whole hell of
a lot of new, that doesn't miss nuance,
that misses the conversation.
You know, like the people who were not
illegally here or the people that were sent
who are, you know, every point we've already
made 45 times over. But he's got a
funny meme, so he must know what he's
talking about.
Or Patrick Giacomo rightly saying,
so if it's so easy,
why are you using the alien enemies act?
Right. Exactly. Because they did that to try
to circumvent the part they claim is easy,
which was presenting evidence that they they don't
want to do. And even this is blowing
up in their face, and they're trying to
revert back to the original, which shows they
didn't need that in the first place other
than to hide what they did with El
Salvador.
Mike Young also comes in and says, Steven,
I forgot the constitution comes with an ignore
me button. Newsflash, even illegal aliens get due
process. Fifth amendment, buddy. Look it up. Or
is reading too elite for you now?
Frank says, deportation orders are the due process.
Simple, clear, and constitution. Nope.
Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb.
Everywhere. And some of these people are real,
guys.
The idea that somehow a government writing on
a piece of paper that you're here illegally
is your process.
Do you really believe that? Or are you
I mean, that's terrifying
that people can actually believe that.
Here's another one. In regard to Mike's comment
about reading the fifth amendment, Deep South Judy
says the constitution is for US citizens, period,
and you're wrong.
Nowhere in our constitution,
and you're wrong. Says it's just the same
old thing. And I said, okay.
When you realize you're wrong, will you, a,
block me, b, move the goal post, or,
c, ignore me entirely?
Answer was c, apparently.
Chris chimed in and said, this is a
deceptive post as the due process, in quotes,
is the immigration courts which are not the
same.
You're wrong, man. You're wrong. And I said,
incorrect.
Same thing. Now, again, pointing to Grok is
just because it's the easiest as you're going
through all this because people can look at
it. They can look and on top of
that, it does have links in there. The
point is that's not the only reason I'm
saying that.
Despite the people that you know? Anyway, it's
ongoing. This keeps happening.
Now here is what even this is what
Fox News said. The dumbing down of the
work this conversation has gotten insane.
And if we haven't if we can't see
by now the CNN, Fox News, like, they
they are, like, the
sideshow of it all.
Like, they are the most uninformed of the
conversation. I think genuinely think half the time
that they know what's going on. Here is
what even Fox News had to say. Now
first of all, the article from Zero Edge
says, White House chief of staff says, due
process for for deporting illegals in four words.
Like, they think that they're so so, you
know, clever about all this.
And that's this is,
Steve Watson, of course. White House deputy chief
of staff.
It's not complicated.
And that that's that's what they're claiming is
is, you know, intelligent post. And then a
bunch of uninformed people go, yeah. Exactly. That's
what I think. And then here's what Fox
News said. It's hard to take people in
good faith when they're talking about due process
and the rule of law when they didn't
care at all
about due process and rule of law when
the border was completely open to bring in
tens of millions of legal oh, okay. So
your argument is the other side didn't care
when it was broken, so why should we?
Are we in kindergarten?
Or is this is this actually real life?
Are these people on Fox News
arguing point blank that they didn't do they
didn't care, so we don't have to care?
I just this this can't be real.
This influences a lot of people.
That's really what her argument was.
So you're just as bad as them? Okay.
But the point is overall,
yes, both sides have violated the constitution. Yes.
Yes. Nobody's disagreeing with that who has any
brain cells. The problem is that you guys
frame every conversation as in we're fighting the
people in congress on the side of the
aisle. None of you guys care about what's
going on. But if she goes on to
say, that's why that's why there's this nationwide
injunction case before the Supreme Court, and it's
so important.
She goes on to say, you had an
election. Donald Trump was very clear that he
wanted to shut down the border, and he
wanted to deport people who were here illegally,
and people voted for that. Oh, here's the
mandate argument. Everyone's got their same old talking
points. Yes. Some people voted for that. That's
not even remotely the same as saying you
can violate you know, suspend habeas corpus, deport
American citizens, remove people who are here legally.
Deportation was always part of the conversation, guys.
Even I mean, look. One of these weird
circulating videos are people going, here's Obama and
Clinton saying we should deport people. Here's Clinton.
See, gee. What changed? Elon Musk shared some
very uninformed young girl saying that we did
clearly just woke up today and thought she
cared about politics. The crazy part about it
is there's been deportation arguments going back a
long way.
It's not about whether or not they can
do it. All sides use these things for
their work. This is about whether they can
prove what you're doing. This is a step
in the direction of what they've always been
trying to accomplish.
Slowly removing your belief that they
that you have any ability to stop whatever
they say they should be doing. Constitution, whatever.
It doesn't matter. They'll come in and say,
we don't like what you're doing today. We
will shut you down. We're gonna send you
over here. And did they we can do
whatever we want as long as we claim
you're the bad guy. Of course, it depends
on what side's in power. Right? And really,
it's just your government using that illusion against
you. She goes on to say, and now
you have all these rogue lower level judges
ignoring for the the moment the six conservative
judges in the Supreme Court, the many different
Trump appointed judges in middle and lower courts
who have all argued the same. Yeah. But
they they that don't let the facts get
the way of your narrative there, lady.
She goes, now we see all these lower
rogue judges, frankly, embarrassing the Supreme Court. You
mean the Supreme Court that also ruled in
the same way?
Is she dumb and uninformed? A liar? I
don't know. With these temporary restraining orders and
nationwide injunctions where they're saying, we don't care
who won the election, has nothing to do
with this. When the election is on a
carte blanche to do whatever you want that
day. And she goes, we're going to pretend
that Joe Biden is still president or that
Kamala Harris won the presidency.
You know, what really scares me is that
these people act this is the conversation.
Now I'm of the mind that most Americans
are not this dumb. I think this has
gone in a very dangerous direction where a
lot of us are feeling ostracized by how
crazy, like, just ignorant this is. But these
people think they're the top of the top
at this point, and they're arguing some of
the most surface level, I mean, uninformed narratives
you can possibly imagine.
Suddenly, she wants you to think that because
so by that logic, wouldn't Biden have been
able to do whatever he wanted? But you
guys tell you he you keep saying his
immigration things were illegal.
Well, by your logic, it shouldn't have mattered
because they voted for him so he can
do what he want. Right?
Insane.
And, of course, speaking of ignorance, here's Cat
Turd saying, when 50 illegals were sent to
Martha's Vineyard, we saw exactly how leftist elitists
treated illegals
when they were placed in their neighborhoods. I've
made points about this many times as you
remember. They called the national guard and had
them immediately shipped the hell out.
So you liberals can save your virtue signaling
and shove your fake outrage where the sun
don't shine, of course, as if there's not
others that aren't left and right who also
have a problem with what's going on. Right?
The only way they can apply what they
do is by aiming at one side or
the other. The only way their world exists.
But here's there's two points to make here.
Yes. That was disgusting. The people that put
them there and the people that move them.
Both sides playing a game with people's lives
were disgusting, as I've made I've said many
times.
Be clear.
Because and I'll go through this and even
what Grock says and what DeSantis had said.
The argument is that they deported them, even
though that's not true.
He doesn't say deport, but my opinion is
that he very clearly insinuated
that what they did was deport them, or
at the very least, get them out of
Martha's Vineyard, which is also not true for
all of them. So I just wanted to
highlight this, That my point first was I
was done like I was just saying,
all of them are wrong.
Left and right, the idea that any of
them are doing this or
they're they're all I don't think any of
these people care about half the things they
profess to care about. So if your argument
is they did it first and you didn't
care then, you're you're netanyahu with the genocide.
Well, you didn't care in Iraq when they
were yeah. We did though. So it's not
a fair argument. And even if we didn't,
your argument is I can commit genocide too
or I can violate the constitution too.
How are we pretending these people have any
influence? Or rather, you know, should have any.
So my point,
I said, incorrect.
But clearly, the facts are an afterthought for
you. And here's what Rock had to say.
I said, were the 50 illegal immigrants sent
to Martha's Vineyard later deported?
And I says, no. The roughly 50 migrants
sent to Martha's Vineyard by Florida governor Ron
DeSantis in September 2022 were not deported. They
were relocated to a temporary shelter at Joint
Base Cape Cod in Massachusetts within a few
days where they received humanitarian support. So first
and foremost,
it's not about a left and right thing
to be clear. My point is if his
argument is,
look at what they did to make they'll
stop stop with your virtue signaling, like, you
care about these people. Well, if you're gonna
try to compare right now what's going on
from this administration versus what they did here,
you're losing that argument. Okay? It's very stark
very stark differences to how they handled illegal
immigrants.
But that's not to be that's expected with
the way they're they're at least professed
perspectives are. But it goes most of these
migrants, primarily from Venezuela, have remained in The
United States with many pursuing asylum claims.
So given due process, what do you know?
And applying for you visas and potential victims
of crime due to circumstances. So going through
the process,
which is what typically happens when people are
allowed to go through the process. And it
says attorneys and organizations
such as Lawyers for Civil Rights, ACLU,
have confirmed that none of them
were known to be deported.
Some have settled in Massachusetts, including a few
who actually returned to Martha's Vineyard. So even
that point is actually incorrect as well, while
others moved to places like New York and
so on. But it says,
claims of deportation, including by DeSantis, have been
rated false and aren't true.
So that is what they're pointing to. The
argument is, well, look at what they did
and they did the they're the same. So
again, these childish argument that because they did
it, we're allowed to do it, insane.
But
that's the partisan media for you. As Rob
Dull points out,
every election, guys, every single election is the
same story. People without structured analysis, education,
get emotionally charged to vote against their own
interests.
Only too late do they see that they
have been that they they excuse me. Only
too late do they see they've been had.
Wait. I didn't vote for this, they shriek.
But four, eight years later, they forget,
fear, and repeat.
Hatred voice, pointing out something we've talked about
recently.
ICE can now enter your home without a
warrant. Right?
This was April 26. ICE can now enter
your home without a warrant. Look for migrants.
We talked about this as well. Yeah. An
American home without with the allegation that we
think somebody's in there, which has already happened,
and burst your door down.
Oops. We made a mistake. Oh, yeah. Who
cares about your constitutional rights?
People like Kat Jordan and the rest are
acting like this makes sense. Because they don't
care about your rights. They care about the
agenda, their team, team support politics.
Every single time, all they need is for
you to act against your interest, guys. It's
never stopping.
And then it's like this is one of
the points I was gonna show you in
the beginning.
So this Zionist here is telling you that
we might suspend habeas corpus. That should be
clearly the red line
for people that profess to pretend to believe
in the constitution.
Mikhail here says, I don't understand, Ryan. Are
you for unlimited
legal
unlimited illegal migration?
You you see where this guy that's like,
where what? Why would you blind because there's
two sides. For some people, there are only
two arguments here.
He says, What if people start coming into
your house? And, Oh, well, gee, we've heard
that argument before, and invite some people. Would
you be able for that?
I said, Why would you assume that?
Start by not assuming. Then just address what
I actually said. Feel free to watch the
show where I regularly address the nuance engineered
off this platform.
If one commits a crime,
charge them for it, which requires evidence.
Pretty damn simple. That's it.
You could tack on all sorts of, well,
if that's the case, then this will get
more difficult. I don't care. I we can
have the conversation about it. The point is
all I'm highlighting is that they're violating what
we should hold sacred or what you in
other cases argue is absolute unless it comes
up against your team's narrative.
This one's more important.
The Appalachian American said, TLav, I'm with you
95% on issues, maybe more.
But unfettered massive illegal immigration, again, not which
I'm arguing for, in the tens of millions
never crossed the founding fathers minds. Now, I
don't know why how do you know that?
How do you possibly pretend you know that?
That is a partisan narrative. Now, certainly, a
logical thing to consider that things have shifted
to a degree, which but let's remember,
that's the same argument the government makes about
the second amendment.
Well, you know, things may never imagine that
to be this kind of weapons.
That's why this is a and this
is something that the way it was written
is clearly, it applies forever. It is principles.
It is not about if this don't exist
or if this many people come in. It's
a principle that is easy to hold up
if you simply remain steadfast in your principles.
Yeah. It could be difficult. Yeah. Things that
matter usually are.
So first point,
crossing the founding father's mind is a cop
out, and that's what's used by the government
to get you to convince yourself that somehow
we shouldn't, you know it's funny how shall
not be infringed, inalienable,
when it makes the right case can be
like, well, except for this one.
These people were moments ago making the same
argument during COVID nineteen. Well, I'll read my
response about how that should apply. But it
goes on to say, barring true immigrants trying
to escape their country for safety reasons, so
now you carve out a caveat within it
anyway?
And he goes, about 1.6%.
Hardly. I don't know where that number comes
from. There is a massive amount of immigration
that our people or at least claiming to
be, by the way. And I do agree
there are people that abuse that. Doesn't change
the legal reality of it. Or there are
people that are fleeing violence in Venezuela caused
by the US government, fleeing Syria, Gaza, wherever
else because of foreign policy.
So it's way more than that. So barring
those people, he says, do we need an
amendment discouraging illegal immigration? I don't even know
what that means.
Realize,
it repugnant to the constitution, null and void.
So if you're gonna try to add an
amendment on, if it's an anywhere plug into
the original constitution, it's not legal. But if
you're gonna write an amendment that discourages illegal
immigration,
we already have that. There's already a law
exist that says you'll go to jail. It's
illegal. The point we're making is proving that.
Right now, they could come up and say,
the Appalachian American. You're an illegal immigrant. Shove
you in prison. Go send you to El
Salvador. If they don't have to prove it,
then it doesn't matter.
The point is all they have to do
is verify what they're claiming. That should be
every American everywhere with what we understand should
be like, absolutely.
Because governments have never really been on our
side. That's what we used to understand. That's
what this bunch country was founded on.
Holding them to account.
But
it says,
where we send them back immediately back to
the the amendment well, guys, that's the point
right there. If you make an amendment that
says, if you're here illegally, we send you
back immediately.
First of all
well, here's what's interesting about that.
That would still require due process. You know,
this is insane. Like, they just can't wrap
their mind around how simple this is. If
you're trying to claim they're illegal, the only
way you would know they're illegal is if
you prove that they're illegal, unless you just
choose to trust the government's claim, which is
ridiculous. But But so the point would be,
let's hypothetically say you make an amendment that
says that you could deport them without due
process. Well, that would be a violation of
the original constitution. It would be repugnant to
the reality of it. So it would be
null and void per Mabry versus Madison, supreme
court ruling.
I argue most people that make these conversations
don't even know half this stuff. But regardless,
it says,
not to mention
the millions we have that who have invaded,
so you see where this is coming from,
with no desire to assimilate. How do you
know that, bud? Have you spoken to every
one of them? Or are you simply repeating
what news shows have told you?
Right? I mean, come on. How do we
possibly know that millions have invaded with no
desire to assimilate? There's some of them, sure.
And remind me again why it's their requirement
to assimilate to a country?
That's not. There's no law that says they
have to do what you think they should
do in this country. That's why we we
used to pretend it was a free country
where you could come and live out your
life the way you wanted to. Apparently not
in this current world
where unless Trump says you're not allowed. You
know, it's like this weird mindset that suddenly
you have to do what we think you
should do. Otherwise, you're not American. It's like,
we lost this real fast.
He goes, is this what you're cheering for
under a guise of somehow being a constitutional
purist?
These people like this, I I I don't
know whether this is a genuine statement or
not.
A constitutional
purist? What does that even mean? So are
you arguing that some of these things should
not be abided by? So what happened to
shall not be infringed? Inherent rights. Does that
only apply when you like what it says?
On top of that, under a guise, like
you like I'm trying to manipulate everybody by
going, I'm cheering on immigration under like I'm
secretly lying about being the the the insinuation
is that I'm trying to create illegal immigration,
flooding this country, and I'm pretending to care
about the constitution.
It's like,
this just wait, I'll respond. But it goes,
or based off your perceived convictions
again, there's such a clear insinuation that I'm
a dishonest person. Perceived convictions? No, no, bud.
They're my convictions, and I laid them out
every single day. Some of us are just
consistent in those convictions, principles.
They don't let them shift because of one
day's narrative or what person said in politics.
But I he says, time to get real,
bro,
or we will turn into Europe quickly.
Whether this wasn't an an honest person or
not, they have now been taken over by
the partisan narratives.
Now look. I'm look. I'm the first one
that will point out the illegal
weaponized migration.
Yeah, that's obvious. That doesn't change. The point
is no matter what the circumstance, you don't
then alter a shall not be infringed inherent
outline of your constitutional rights because of Israel
flooding your government with freedom. That's the truth
and I can prove it four times over.
The weaponized migration coming from a foreign government
regardless.
And by the way, same with Europe. You
can easily prove this by the way. That
does not then still give you the excuse
to pretend these things don't apply.
The law is already there, Right? The you
know, the reality is you could argue Biden
could let it happen, but that's still not
the answer. It's still go through the process
to get it solved. The problem is that
we've allowed this to begin with, not one
side versus the other. I know it's really
tempting to fall into that lazy trap. It's
just the government allowing the problem to get
you to fall into the solution.
He says, no assimilation. Neighborhoods
where whites can't go. Put your ideology aside
and think.
Wow. Somebody has been ideologically trapped, that's for
sure. So, here I am talking about the
constitution,
regardless of the narrative or the ideology that
is absolute, right? That's clearly what our point
is.
And yet, he comes in with the ideology
and says, Put aside your ideology and think.
Very weird. Here's what I said. I I
put a screenshot because ultimately, I wanted people
to see what I wrote. And I said,
nowhere am I calling for or support unfettered
illegal immigration.
Not a great starting point. Regardless of how
the world has changed, arguing that because narrative
that the constitution should be ignored even momentarily
is exactly what we all called out during
COVID.
And plenty of them still believe that makes
sense. Democrats, who have argued that we needed
to because of whatever, and we don't agree
with that. Right?
It's principle. And if you can't see they're
the same thing, you don't want to. And
it says, my point in saying that they
still think that is that they genuinely believe
that. Doesn't make it any less unconstitutional.
It goes now. Alright. Okay. Then I I
say,
now the US government is tricking you in
the same way. Again,
is this what you're cheering for under a
guise of? Nope.
And that point, nope, you're wrong. That's not
the case. Just care about the inalienable rights
that moments ago,
you two argued shall not be infringed,
regardless of the current narrative.
Right? That's it. I care about your inalienable
rights regardless of the narrative, like we all
should, like you were saying moments ago.
It says it is about consistency of principles.
Lastly,
the whole put your ideologies aside and think,
it's an interesting thing to say to me
as I stand firm and consistent on my
principles,
while many do not do not, due to
the very ideologies you suggest, I'm letting guide
me.
Nope. Just the constitution.
What's guiding you?
Fair question.
Now ending,
Melnick says the Trump administration has ended refugee
settlements from war torn regions where people are
in horrific scenarios
and has cut off support mandated by law
to those settled resettled in the last year.
Now whatever your thoughts about that. And now
they're chartering a jet
to fly white South Africans here as refugees.
So regardless of your thoughts around what he
just framed to begin with,
the point is what's different here.
Right? So if you think those things should
have been ended, why are you now suddenly
okay with these refugees,
with these
immigrants?
It's a very obvious answer here, guys. There's
only one real point.
I mean, if you're gonna make the the
bottom line is that these people
are,
in regard to assimilation, very different.
They're South Africans. They're they're Dutch immigrants in
South Africa.
They speak a different language. They're I mean,
they're they're ever in the world, they're most
people in the world and somewhat overlap with
English because we force that. The point though
is that this is different.
You You could argue there are people that
are plenty of places in the world that
they push back on that would be easier
to assimilate.
The point overall
is that this is a contradiction.
And I'm gonna make it very clear, at
least one reason why I think this makes
sense.
Now we talked about this back in February
9.
Trump to resettle Afrikaners in The United States,
which a lot of conservatives said, you're crazy.
Fake news.
Here we are.
US plans to receive and aid white South
Africans granted refugee status as soon as next
week, documents show. The Trump administration is planning
to soon receive the first group of white
South Africans, it says, deserve a safe haven
in The US. Why? Because of alleged racial
discrimination
and
post apartheid South Africa, government documents obtained by
CBS show. Racial discrimination. Gee. Where else is
that happening in the world?
The initial arrival of the South African nationals
who have been granted refugee status could happen
as early as next week. Okay. So when
Biden does that, it's illegal. But when Trump
does it, it's okay. Got it.
It says
which describe the effort as a stated priority
for the Trump administration.
So another America First policy, right, right out
of the gate or not. Americans excuse me.
Officials have planned a Monday press event at
Dulles International Airport in Virginia to welcome the
group.
Although sources familiar with the effort told CBS
News the timing of the plan could change.
In February, Trump issued an executive order directing
officials to use The US refugee program to
resettle Afrikaners African ears, whichever way it goes,
an ethnic group in South Africa made up
of descendants of European colonists, mostly from The
Netherlands.
So they refugee programmed to resettle them. It's
weird how you just canceled a lot of
that
under the guise that it was being abused
and then basically used the same thing for
groups that you like.
The president claimed that Afrikaners faced government sponsored
race based discrimination.
Again,
almost like that's happening somewhere else, right? It's
almost like there's an obvious example of that
that they wanna ignore while claiming that this
one's more important. Now, look, you can dictate
your own decision about what you should care
about. The point for me is the same
argument. That if you're gonna pretend that this
is something that we wanna stop in this
country and then allow it when it comes
to a Zionist organization,
what we're talking about, or simply another group
that aligns with what you perceive to be
the different as opposed to the other that
you're making half the world, then realize that
you're a dishonest person.
This is the same point. Or that you're
okay as long as they're not brown, which
makes you a racist person.
That that look. You can that's your choice.
You're allowed to be whatever you want, but
just acknowledge what this is really about.
It says, the president claimed that Afrikaners faced
government sponsored race race based
discrimination,
citing a law in that that US Conservatives,
like South African born Elon Musk, have said,
allow racially motivated seizures of land owned by
white South Africans. Really? South African government has
strongly denied any land confiscations. Oh, again, pretty
much exactly you could swap out Israel with
that, and it's the same thing happening.
Race based occupations of land, and I'm not
even talking about Gaza. That's that too. I'm
talking about the ongoing West Bank annexations, the
ongoing taking of land in Lebanon, the seizure
of all of Syria,
all illegal, all with many obvious racial overtones
and supremacist mindsets even according to the Jewish
B'Tselem
organization that calls this Jewish supremacy in Israel.
All very easy to see,
but that's okay. We don't we're actually well,
they'll support that. They'll fund that. But over
here, we'll support the minority
in the conversation. Remember, you'll almost be clear
about this, by the way. Israel
was directly involved, which we're gonna do next,
with South Africa's Apartheid and building nuclear weapons
or at least they're going that directions and
ethnic weapons. All this is on the record.
Created a racial cesspit of, like, of discrimination,
aligning themselves with the same discussion about the
Palestinians.
Okay. Now that was then overthrown or rather
ended because people called it out as apartheid.
And since then
and let's be clear, horrible things happened. Since
then,
there has been a somewhat of a response
back in the other direction, but not even
a fraction of what we were seeing all
those years with the apartheid.
And yet people like this are highlighting that
as the victim.
But in some cases, you could argue, yes.
There is any racial based violence is wrong.
But to pretend like these people are the
only victims of this conversation, it's this is
about racial politics, and I promise you this
ties back to Israel.
It says the hastily arranged initiative to welcome
Afrikaners stands in stark contrast to Trump's move
to ban most other refugees from entering The
United States.
The processing of Afrikaners granted refugee status also
has been
unusually fast. What do you know? Funny how
you can fast track what you want. Before
mister Trump's second term, the state department said
the refugee process, on average, took between eighteen
to twenty four months to complete due to
background checks, medical screenings,
other interviews.
Right? So worries about whether, you know, illnesses
or, you know, foreign government infiltration,
you know. But guess what? The Afrikaners ready
to travel to The US
have gone through that process in a matter
of months, even weeks.
Great. So you just forego background checks and
medical screenings. Why? Because
somebody wants this to happen.
Here is the
e executive order
addressing egregious actions of The Republic Of South
Africa. Pretty sure I haven't seen one of
these about Israel,
but here's what it says.
In shocking disregard now again to the point,
that's not to say that we shouldn't call
this out, but the point is about
hypocrisy of the government and whether they care
about either of these things. It's about what
they can use for their agenda. That's not
unique to left or right. That's your government.
In shocking disregard of citizens' rights,
south the the South Africa had recently enacted
expropriation act 13 of 2024.
It says to enable the government of South
Africa to seize ethnic minority Afrikaners' agricultural property
without compensation. Now, yeah, they're arguing that's not
the full picture. That's not what I'm getting
into today.
We're talking about people seizing with
property without compensation.
I've never seen a more obvious conversation about
exactly that than what's been going on for
seventy seven years in Israel.
The reality that they are seizing property illegally
from Palestinians literally every day.
Adelson paid Trump hundreds of millions of dollars
so they could take land in West Bank,
which is exactly the point.
All on the record.
I just think it's insanely dishonest and just
hypocritical for them to act like this is
enough to remove I mean, they're refusing to
take refugees from damn near anywhere, which is
not necessarily something we should always be. It's
I agree. It's not something we or right
now, especially, like with funding foreign anything, these
things should be paused and stopped until we
understand what's going on. Not the ones you
don't like versus the ones you do. Like,
it's a a consistency.
This says, this act follows countless government policies
designed to dismantle equal opportunity in employment, education,
in business, and hateful rhetoric, and government actions
fueling disproportionate violence against racially disfavored landowners. Yeah.
You're you're basically describing the Gaza people. In
addition, or rather Palestinians.
South Africa has taken aggressive positions towards The
United States and its allies, including
accusing Israel, not Hamas, of genocide.
Well, here we go. Now it becomes clear.
South Africa, remember, was the leading entity in
the case against Israel in the international court.
So now you start to see where this
all fits together. Now you also understand why
these people have been focused on because ultimately
you're going to find a very clear overlap
between Afrikaners
and Israel.
South Africans in Israel, home away from home
for white colonists.
Brothers in arms, Israel's secret pact with Pretoria,
which was South Africa.
We'll go through
it.
But so the point is they're they're saying
that they are
basically
where was the term they used?
Taking aggressive positions
towards The United States, which I don't even
know, by the way. I don't see that.
They're talking about their claim that Israel is
doing what we all know they're doing, and
that that's somehow aggressively wrong.
But and reinvigorating
its relations with Iran.
Okay. They're not allowed to have agreements with
foreign governments. You know, it's about what is
what The US and Israel want from them.
And if they do something else, you're terrorists
now is the way this goes. It is
the policy of The United States that as
long as South Africa continues these unjust and
immoral practices, But we don't care if Israel
doesn't, though. Right?
A, The United States shall not provide aid
or assistance. So isn't that already supposed to
stop anyway?
B, The United States shall promote the resettlement
of Afrikaners, refugees escaping, government sponsored, race based
discrimination, including racially discrimination. You get it. So
we're gonna jam these people into The United
States despite the argument being we're gonna end
immigration, but only the ones we like are
okay.
Here,
Middle East died. South Africans and Israel, a
home away from home for white colonists.
Here's what it says. The immigration this immigration
should be seen as in the context of
the long history of collusion and collaboration
between the two settler colonies,
The Netherlands
the Dutch immigrant South African colony and the
illegal occupation of of Palestine.
The Afrikaner Jan Smuts,
South African prime minister,
two different times, 1919 to 1924, '19 '30
'9, '19 '40 '8, interesting timing,
was a major supporter
of Zionist colonialization of Palestine.
So much so that socialist Zionist colonists in
Palestine
would name would later name a Caboots,
the major institution
of master race socialism after him.
It's always funny how the Republicans who plan
to support Zionism don't recognize those very clear
political leanings. But what's funny that it's alarming.
So now it becomes clear that the is
the basically, that
the overlap of these things is what I
mean, you could even argue that it started
with this driving the other. But either way,
the radical settler, colonialist,
apartheid, racist mindset
was why they came together.
These are the same that's that is the
origin point of the same group we're talking
about bringing to The United States. You just
can't keep missing this stuff. It's literally everywhere
and everything we talk about. Zionists believe, it
says, that the Palestinians were not unlike black
African natives,
and especially those from the former German colonies
such as Namibia,
who Smuts had insisted
had no rights to self determination.
That's the Afrikaners.
That these black people don't have right to
self determination. Yeah. You see where the overlap
comes into play? These people were, Smuts said,
barbarians who who who to whom it would
be impracticable
to apply any idea of political self determination
in the European sense. So in other words,
these black people don't are too dumb to
get self determination or too unable
Excuse me.
Just disgusting levels of racism.
These African leaders, settler colonies would function as
a model
for Zionist and Palestine.
That's the historical context. Here's The Guardian.
02/2006.
Brothers in arms, Israel's secret pact with Pretoria.
That's what it was called before.
During the second world second world war with
future South African prime minister John Vorster
was interned as a Nazi sympathizer.
Three decades later, he was being feted in
Jerusalem.
In the second part of his remarkable special
report, Chris McGreal
investigates the clandestine alliance between Israel and the
apartheid regime in South Africa,
cemented with the ultimate gift of friendship, a
a bomb technology.
They worked on bombs, both ethnic and potentially
nuclear bombs.
And they were high fiving about their colonial
settler project and how they hated people who
weren't white. That's what we're talking about, guys.
And I'll go I actually wanna go through
this more in the future.
Here's one from Horetz. Cleansed by the Torah.
Why these Afrikaners converted to Judaism and moved
to Israel.
Here's just basically, I think these are all
just overview. Here is what Brave had to
say. The connection between Afrikaners and Israel has
roots in shared histories of apartheid and settler
colonialism.
Many Afrikaners
have converted to Judaism and moved to Israel,
often settling in the West Bank settlements. You
know, the illegal occupied settlements.
Historically, South Africa and Israel had a close
relationship during the apartheid era. Israel provided military
and technological support to apartheid South Africa, one
of the worst examples of the racist apartheid
regimes. Israel is the worst today,
including collaboration on nuclear weapons.
In recent years, the relationship has shifted. President
Donald Trump's administration has prioritized
the resettlement of these very Afrikan refugees in
The United States, citing racial discrimination.
However, South African officials have criticized this move,
arguing that the claims of discrimination are unfounded
and politically motivated.
Well, that's for you to decide. The point
today is the obvious overlap to
I mean, the same thing we're seeing damn
near everywhere.
That whether it's Trump's decision I mean, think
about why it makes sense for Trump to
make a big stand against any immigration. Right?
And then allowing a very big claim
of of immigrants into this
country because of an Israel overlap as as
I see it. I mean, just my point
would be why would he allow that? Why
wouldn't you just wait? I think it's because
that's what somebody wants.
NBC News says a group of white South
Africans will be arriving in Washington DC on
Monday by way of a state department chartered
plane to be resettled in The US as
refugees.
Melnick points out, normally, refugees have to pay
for their own travel to The United States
by taking out travel loans, which have to
be paid back. So it kind of an
indentured servitude kinda starting point. However, Trump has
fully suspended the refugee program for all other
people in the world,
except for white South Africans,
who he's flying here at taxpayer expense.
Can you imagine if this was, you know,
Obama,
Bill Clinton doing this with a group that
you didn't like?
They would be losing their minds the same
way that it this is hypocrisy.
Lastly,
AF post, Trump's daily deportation numbers lag 10%
behind Biden's despite the White House's PR campaign.
Read about it right there. Fox News reported
the same thing. Numbers show no mass deportations
of migrants. Federal data shows there has not
been a significant jump in immigration's deported since
Trump took office. The numbers show
removals are lagging behind levels during the Biden
administration. Now, of course, you could argue it's
because they've tried to stop it. The point
is, had they just deported people like normal,
which they were allowed to do and they
still are, this wouldn't even happen. But the
point is they wouldn't be able to remove
the people that they don't have evidence for,
and that's the whole point. Just simply trying
to highlight a basic statistic that if you're
arguing this is the different time, well, then
explain to me why at this time in
Biden's administration, he had deported more than this.
Or are we just gonna pretend those are
all lies?
Super. It's easy to do that, isn't it?
Just to go, well, that's just a lot
of Democrat lie without any evidence to back
it up.
We'll leave it there today.
I just think it's very, very, very clear
that that we're being gaslit to a degree
that I've never seen before.
The evidence is there. I'd like to believe
that most everybody out there listening are honest
people that care, and that they're
doing their best to convince you why you
shouldn't.
You know better.
Stand with your principles.
On the side of that. Make sure you
recognize that there are people out there trying
to create kind of, you know, well crafted
arguments, some of them really clumsy and dumb,
but some of them well crafted in order
to get you to think that this is
what we should be supporting.
Don't fall for it.
I mean, I'm gonna end with a clip
again that I think is very important just
because I do think this is where this
is going. You know? I mean, I I
I feel very strongly
that based on what's already happened or what's
continued to happen,
the the escalation of this, that this is
going to get to a point to where
if we allow it,
Americans will be next.
And I mean, I wouldn't I wouldn't even
float that if they hadn't said it five
times,
five times.
So thank you for tuning in today, guys.
Please continue to call this stuff out and
recognize how much of this is with with
Zionist groups literally handpicking people to be deported
that they they deport without any due diligence
and turns out they're wrong about. I mean,
it's or Americans almost being sent or innocent
people with no criminal record who are here
legally being routinely seeming sent to foreign countries.
There's a very alarming thing happening right now.
And the constitution itself pretty damn clear shows
you that they're doing what they're doing is
wrong, and that the Rubios and Bombondis and
Millers either don't know that, which is alarming
in its own right, or are willing to
lie to you about the foundational document of
this country
for sir for reasons that are worth your
consideration.
I tend to think it's for obvious foreign
policy dynamics, but I'll leave it there today.
Thank you for caring about this. Please find
ways to support this platform if you believe
in what we're doing.
Plenty of links in down below every video
at the website, thelastAmericanvagabond.com.
I love you all. Thank you for tuning
in today.
As always, question everything.
Come to your own conclusions.
Stay vigilant.
Some respects, it's just as bad now, the
authoritarianism,
that is coming, Gerald. I am really, really
fearful for the president of The United States
Of America to suggest as he did on
Air Force One on Sunday night,
that American citizens could be deported.
For his press secretary to say, we're looking
into,
a way to see if this is legal.
We don't know if it's legal or not.
A is terrifying.
B, betrays such a profound ignorance of first
principles to which he is sworn. He is
sworn to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution
and to enforce,
federal law. You mentioned that you're open to
deporting,
individuals that aren't foreign aliens but are criminals
to El Salvador. Does that in does that
include potentially US citizens fully naturalized in 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 am sorry to say that Profoundly
un American, utterly unconstitutional,
and I am sorry to say is coming.