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.
Wednesday, 05/14/2025.
Thank you for joining me today.
I decided to do
a little bit of a different focus today.
Still gonna be covering a lot of this
the topics that I most of the topics
that I wanted to cover today.
But I was discussing this as I have
been over the last,
probably month.
More than that in general, but really in
earnest for the past month, I've been really
discussing this topic with people outside of the
show or in the sense of, like, you
know, my normal life, going around, talking to
people.
And just trying to decide. And I you've
I've I've even discussed this on the show
before. Whether or not it's important to put
more focus or just any focus, that that's
the scale,
on propaganda,
on attempts to deceive,
on information that's false that I need to
debunk, for example.
And part of it is always important.
It's something I've been really grappling with because
it is an important thing, especially because and
this is my logic for now, even today,
why I'm putting more than I have in
the past focus on it. I see good
people in my life that I know are
falling for these things. You know my opinion
has always been and I shouldn't say always,
but it when I express that, and it
has been for a while around these larger
topics,
that the majority does see this. I think
there's a lot of ways that can that
that shines through. That's my opinion.
My point, though, is that I often wonder
how much of the people are are we
being played by a by an illusion.
Social media,
AI engineered,
you know, kind of construct for what we
think the majority is. It's a very important
conversation to always be having.
My point is I wonder if I get
drawn into that. And I wonder if I
am covering
propaganda that we're all aware is mostly a
lie, and the only people really falling forward
are those that are invested in the agenda
or team sport politics, which I don't think
is the majority. So all that's to say
today, I decided as I was grappling with
this to start, that I I and, again,
because of people that I see are close
to me, that I know aren't part of
that agenda, aren't, you know, paid to do
something, aren't part of some propaganda
political dynamic. They just believe these things, and
we talk about them. And and you and
I just can't wrap my mind around how
they're falling for these things, because I know
they're smarter than that. That's and so I
come back to the point today
where I decided today what I'm essentially going
to do, the larger point, and this won't
be a constant.
More often than not, it'll be diving through
most of what we're gonna be doing today,
which is information around these topics, facts that
you can check for yourself.
But and and it kind of on that
same point, while we go through some of
these things and just start obeying your focus,
I wanted you guys to see some of
these just bombastically
false claims.
Things that
are very easy to prove or wrong that
are being put out there in major ways.
Some of these things that are being, you
know, kind of rapidly discussed on the social
media platforms,
wondering whether they're kind of trolling everybody out.
The same kind of game where are
they lying and trolling, or is it real?
And it's it's it's it's important to highlight
for very clear reason we'll go over today.
But it's also because I want people who
are falling forward to to see that these
things aren't true and have the materials, the
tools to be able to dissect that for
themselves.
And so I wanted to do this in
the context of the things we were gonna
be covering today, such as the, you know,
the conversation of the Africaners, Afrikaners, the conversation
of Israel,
the conversation of the constitutional overlap immigration,
and throughout all of this, how many major
manipulations are taking place, which is always the
case. But I don't know if you agree.
I personally feel that the two party illusion
partisan propaganda is at a level I've never
at least in my doing this, never seen
it before. As I said before,
I'm used to a nuance.
You know?
For so that average people would look at
it and go, oh, I don't detect anything
wrong with that. They just disagree with each
other. Right? Whereas today,
it's not just a small nuance on a
on a point within a larger conversation. It's
just outright deception, and it is not unique
to the left and the right. I'm seeing
it everywhere.
Now now in the moment, and this is
usually how we saw it, like, with COVID
nineteen time frame. It's the the group that
is currently in power. And I just that's
one faction of the government, in my opinion,
not divided, not against each other as we
would people would frame it. But that now
because they're the leading force and under the
spotlight that they're putting out more, let's say.
I don't think it's unique to one side,
and I think it oscillates as they go
through these power structures. But we'll go through
some of these points that I think are
important to highlight that show you just flat
dishonesty or more alarmingly, I think, that they
don't even know that they're wrong or, I
guess, even thirdly, that they don't care
because they just wanna make bit money for
these. They want you know, whatever it is.
But we will be going over some of
these larger important topics to rattle off before
we get started. I'm gonna do another point
on on
big pharma health related topics.
Again, pointing to something Brooke Jackson highlighted to
kind of, again, make the points as you'll
see how this connects of the the partisan
kind of intertwining
of all of these and why that seems
to be the largest block for us. Just
simply seeing the obvious that's right in front
of us as both sides point to some
different version of the obvious truth. And so
people that might not be a part of
that just get confused and just check out
and follow somebody that seems to know what
they're talking about. That's why, you know, whether
whether it's this show or anybody else, you
should always be checking and questioning all the
time. We're gonna talk about a couple overlaps
within that same conversation of the pharmaceutical point
tariffs that kind of interconnect.
And then, of course, some really obvious ones
we as I'm just just telling you about
around claims of different things that are happening
that and one interesting point that we're gonna
highlight that I'm gonna highlight today that we're
gonna talk about tomorrow on a,
in, Independent Media Alliance panel,
which I think will have more, in that
one panel than we've had yet. I mean,
it's, and I who knows what will happen
by tomorrow if somebody decides they can't show
or something,
you know, whatever schedules change. But as of
now, it looks like we have James Corbett
coming. It looks like we have Whitney Webb
and Derek Rose and myself and Jason Burmes.
Patrick Wood, I believe, is supposed to come.
I mean, we I think we have, like,
10 plus. Kit Knightley, you know, put put
up Ian. I or I think he said
he wasn't gonna. But the point is that
about 10 plus people, all people with good
followings, important opinions that we're gonna be discussing
artificial intelligence.
And, obviously, most importantly for the whole thing,
nonpartisan objective conversation.
And we're gonna be discussing artificial intelligence and
how that influences
decision making processes today, research,
how people are blindly trusting what they're seeing
from artificial intelligence or using it entirely for
research without checking elsewhere.
So that's to be said two reason I'm
saying it today so you know that it's
happening tomorrow. Make sure you tune in. It'll
be on TLAB. And it might be also
streamed out in other people's platforms, which I'm
trying to get going. Derek is Derek might
be doing that. I want this to be
not a TLAB alone thing. That's what I'm
building as we get past, when the website
comes up. But the point is for today
is that I have many different reference points
that show what Grok has to say. Again,
that's not because I blindly trust Grok as
I even post now in the tweets. It's
because I'm trying to make a point that
these are people that in this construct these
are the the ones that we will be
caught talking about in large point tomorrow
about trusting AI because it's
Elon Musk's platform or so on. And then
the moment is showing that Grok is not
wrong. Well, Grok's not always correct, which which
is accurate. But it's funny how in any
other context, it's used as a stop gap,
a drop mic drop point. And, really, as
you go through the information, you can look
at the source material as we always do
because it's not only Grock that's showing this
in the context of our conversation today. We're
looking it up first and then using that
as a counterpoint.
The information is also true, and you can
prove it. You have the informational links are
right there, and people don't wanna see things
for partisan reasons.
Now the African ears point, I think, is
very interesting. We're gonna go over again. If
we have time, depending on a few things,
depending how long we take in the beginning,
as well as a conversation of the constitutional
issue, which I think is very, very, if
not,
the most important thing happening.
It is unreal to me how much of
this conversation is getting kicked off by partisan
discussion,
you know, division.
What's the other term we were discussing? Just,
you know, people that are being driven into
partisan conversations so they miss the forest for
the trees, and it's happening every day around
one of the most important things we deal
with. You know, these are the very things
that if at all we have, you know,
any of it left, are holding the powerful
government from just completely running roughshod over everything.
Now, maybe that's gone. Maybe that never existed.
I still think it's important to highlight these,
at least through our beliefs
in this country, what we what they use
to make us think we still live in
what we should.
Even the idea itself, if it doesn't even
exist, is still that going away should matter
to us. And so as we watch this
happening, I'm I can't help but keep seeing
that, of course, it's the administration that you
would expect to count the other like, the
idea is that it's painted as a left
leaning thing and that the conservative is the
one fighting for free speech kind of a
thing. And that's why this is the group
to roll it out because their people are
less aware of how obvious this is. Again,
you tell me what you think in the
chat. Is that most people? Is it
the point o 1% within the partisan game?
I don't know. But I'll start with this
point that I think is important
that I tweeted out today.
It just says, stop listening to what they're
saying.
Start focusing on what they're doing.
Even those who mean their
words can often be stopped or delayed for
a multitude of reasons.
What is the outcome
and do you support it?
Very simple.
Politicians are not your friends. I don't care
if they actually could be trusted.
It is not
it does not behoove you to trust or
pretend these people are like you or the
same even if they are, even if they
could be your friend, because in that position,
they are not that that
is, I mean, almost an incestuous dynamic. If
you were going to act like these people
are on your side as opposed to somebody
that you're supposed to hold to account, that's
how you get taken advantage of. And maybe
not this time, maybe next time, maybe a
year from now, but decades from now when
that builds and people start reali or pretending
like these people are all, you know, your
savior
that fights the other side. Or rather at
this point, just the deep state. Whoever the
other is is the deep state today.
The meaningless nature of all the words they
use. It is the outcome that matters and
team sport politics. And I really do think
most people at least wrap their mind around
this and agree. But then
you get the adults in the room, as
we heard during the last election, that force
you into some broken logic of thinking nothing
else can matter. Or we might as well
do it now since this is all we
have. Whatever the dumb thing is they say
that allows you to think that doing the
wrong thing now somehow makes sense. That's how
I see it anyway.
But regardless of how you think of my
framing,
the outcome, how can we not agree on
that? Whether Trump means it or not, whether
Biden means it or not, what happened. Yes.
And whether they stopped him or not or
whether he did it or not. It matters
what happened. Because then you can look at
the precedent. You can look at how far.
And then maybe you always think he's trying
and always failing. Okay. Well, then still we
can reflect on the problem and say, okay.
Why isn't it happening? Well, then that makes
the system broken, doesn't it? Maybe we should
stop leaning into the same broken system over
and over.
They need you to constantly believe that this
will keep changing even though it always stays
the same.
So Brooke Jackson and I, as I pointed
out recently, had another interview. I think it's
our fourth interview.
Meet the new boss, same as the old
boss, where she very clearly highlights the fact
Donald Trump's new administration is the same thing
in regard to this conversation, who has sided
with Pfizer, who said the shot is safe
and effective. She literally said in her tweet,
Trump side with Pfizer.
And it's his DOJ at this point. Now
what you're gonna see from this point, which
is why I'm bringing this up well, two
reasons, actually. I forgot I included this. This
and,
I think it's Sense Receptor put out a
great clip of our show, of our interview.
And the responses you get are very telling.
Let me try to remember to bring this
up for you guys so you can see
me. So Brooke Jackson said this. And just
another point I wanna highlight that she pointed
out, and this overlap this overlaps with the
AI conversation, which we will be getting into
tomorrow, but I'm also gonna be touching on
probably the day after that in our next
show around Palantir, which is very important.
But she says commit fraud in clinical trial,
you'll go to jail unless you're Pfizer.
Data falsification is a really important point that
she just really nails home that people
seem to not really include. Trial results were
fabricated, undermining the entire drug approval process. Okay.
So if you're taking before you even get
to AI, if you're taking data
from something Pfizer produced,
and then from that point forward acting like
you're scrutinizing everything, but you're taking the data
they provided at face value, you've already failed.
This is a group that's been caught. I
mean, I don't even need to bring it
up again, but I will. The Pfizer tracker,
it's it's absolutely mind blowing how many things
and this this doesn't seem to even change
anymore. There's been so many since this point.
But even on record, a hundred and seven
totaling over $11,000,000,000
in fines for crimes. This is just for
Pfizer and just one of the main ones,
false claims act. They paid out over a
billion dollars, 20 2 different crimes. False Claims
Act.
They're lying about stuff or off label approving,
price fixing, foreign corruption. Yeah. No big deal
though. You know? Same old same old. And
I'm not saying it's unique to Pfizer, but
the point is this seems to be a
central
partner in all this. And Trump just sided
with Pfizer just like the rest of them
did. The point is whether Pfizer or Moderna
or whatever else, that's one of the ways
we were played. And she also points out
that AI was included all the way back
then, rather, all the way back in 2020
and before.
So her point now is simply recognizing that
they're continuing in this same broken model. And
even worse,
spearheading and and wildly increasing the mRNA direction.
That's the US government, but currently, the dump
the Trump administration.
It says FDA was misled. The agency was
fed false data that could have shaped regulatory
decisions. I'm of the mind that the FDA
is a captured agency, especially in this conversation.
But health risks, these trials involve asthma drugs
used by millions, motive, money like always, she
says. But unlike the small fish who get
charged, Pfizer walks away untouched again. And she
includes a link to this that wouldn't open
for me earlier, but I'm sure she said
she checked it. It was opening.
Now she also points out that Yaakov Roth,
he's one of the attorneys working to dismiss
her case against Pfizer. Really, her case which
is currently against the US government, but Pfizer
is the is the main point around it.
And, again, our interview on below, we'll have
the link to the other three we've done
going back to the beginning of this conversation.
And we have the first purse I was
the first person to interview on video and
break down this story following British Medical Journal.
And it is a profoundly important story that
gets lip service from a lot of partisans,
but rarely gets any real
momentum. And I think you know why. Because
all the screaming partisans at the top of
the paradigm aren't really of the they
clearly, either side is okay with this conversation,
or at the very least, they don't recognize
that and don't care as it continues down
the same path. But her point is showing
you who the person is leading the charge
against her case, the current DOJ, which just
in case you weren't sure, is currently the
principal deputy assistant attorney general for the civil
division of the justice department as of February
2025.
Not that that should be surprising to you,
but everyone loves to make this flimsy argument
about some DOJ holdover or whatever else it
is. Right? So if the argument is suddenly,
as even Barnes was saying, it's DOJ holdover
from Trump administration, we'll guess, or from the
Biden administration, well, that seems to not be
true, seeing as how he's the one leading
the case, February 2025.
Either way,
if you're if we're still falling for this
old partisan left hangover dynamic or right, it
is the same government.
And it's just so transparent if you pay
attention. Look at what she's telling you.
But on that note, the real point I
brought it up for today. Here's some clips
that Sensor Schefter is putting out.
But this is what we get.
Now just I mean, here, let's not forget
before I even go into these. Half the
Internet are bots today. Probably a lot more
than that. This platform, I can guarantee you
it's worse than that. So always consider that
it's just a bunch of bots controlling the
way we see the conversation. I I myself
need to be reminded of that because I
fall I get frustrated by these things and
you go, wait. That's right. Half of these
things could be lies today. But DOJ has
80%, same Biden people. That's just flatly not
true. I mean, it let's put it this
way. If you if you wanna pretend 80%
of the Department of Justice are people from
the Biden administration,
which I from my glance at this, and
I've been go, like, deep, like, ongoing name
by name research, does not appear to be
accurate. But if you're gonna argue that that
is accurate,
Trump still made the decision to keep all
these people.
You can't just keep giving everybody a pass
around what you want and pretend that, you
know, if they if look. Even if there's
somehow somebody he didn't know was there, moving
forward, it is still Trump's responsibility.
No matter how you wanna frame this, that's
what real leaders do. The problem is today
that no matter how far you go forward,
it's always some old lefty. It's somebody who
had a grudge against Trump, and they never
seem to wanna prove that. But so that's
the biggest problem, is even her lawyer seems
to be going, woah. It's the lefties.
How about we just recognize that the current
government that is his administration
in every other facet of their conversation are
also promoting what Pfizer is? MRNA shots, MMR
shots, vaccines in general. It's pretty obvious to
see. Here's another one. There are a lot
of leftovers from the Biden DOJ.
So this kind of statement is meant to
say, well, this is a problem. We agree,
but it's probably because of those lefties. And
then what do they do? Do they go
on to share the topic? Do they do
they reach out to their people? Do they
talk to the DOJ? No. They put it
away and go, yeah. The lefties did it.
And they stop talking about it. Oh, well,
but I thought you cared. I do. Oh,
okay. Well, I thought you thought this was
important. We do. But the lefties.
Okay. So we just give up because the
left I mean, I I don't understand the
block there. And you know you see this
too.
Regardless,
even if you're right and it's lefties holdover
of the DOJ, let's solve the problem. Let's
demand that Donald Trump fire or put that
person in jail. Right? No. But it never
happens because, frankly, it doesn't exist. Not to
say that there's not people that are overlapping,
but if they ever had the ability to
put right now, what his whole base is
calling for people to be arrested.
And every day they tell you there's somebody
from the DOJ or from holdover from the
Biden's or whatever else that are committing crimes.
Social Security, and nobody gets marched out in
handcuffs. Nobody goes to jail. Not the Clintons,
not Biden's,
not Fauci.
I don't know how much we can continue
to ignore.
Same point. This person says, you do realize
that just because Biden is gone doesn't mean
people align with him then are all gone.
Wow. What a what a bombshell revelation.
Yes. But this is the statement to get
you to go, well, it's not Trump's fault.
Okay.
I mean, frankly, that's irrelevant to me seeing
as how I see the government as one
thing. How about we solve the problem? But,
no, he's already gone. He's already down the
road. He's not thinking about this anymore because
the DOJ is Biden's.
Now I'm I'm being facetious. I don't know
this person or whether he's doing anything now.
I'm just trying to make a point for
how often this is happening right now. So
another example in this conversation
is the kind is the way that we
keep seeing these kind of statements, which I
hope we see this kind of thing.
Saudi Agra says, craziness wasn't happening all along.
Now this I should for the podcast, Trump
administration to require placebo controlled studies for new
vaccines. And it says vaccine experts are worried
that these rules will make it harder for
the public to access some shots. What a
see, this is the absurdity of the NPR
conversation.
Or rather the mainstream left and right, which
I don't think represents the majority of people.
But every time there's a counterbalance
or rather an argument, whatever it is,
the argument is, we'll see. The the lefties
want you to they only care about it
because it'll restrict more shots. But is that
the lefties, or is that the left team
sport politics
minority?
Maybe you disagree, but think about that. Because
if all you're pointing at is the other
side of the congressional side, you know, the
idiots in congress on the left versus the
idiots in the congress on the right,
Those don't represent everybody, but that's the narrative
and the opinions and the cartoonish things that
the left points out about the right, the
right points out about the left. Meanwhile, the
rest of us are like, what's going on?
These people are out of their minds.
I hope, anyway. I do think that's the
reality. But so in the case here,
to require. Okay. Great. So when it happens,
I'd love to see it. I'd love to
see that in in in action.
I've already seen people like Malone say this.
We're now we're doing this and it's all
happened.
Where? I I can look at studies right
now that are freshly starting that aren't at
least claiming, but who knows? Maybe it'll happen.
Maybe I let's put it this way. I
have not seen an official statement or action
or policy that says from here forward, from
anyone under the HHS, this has to be
the case. No. Maybe it hasn't. I missed
it. But I'm looking for these things, and
I all I see is the statements that
Trump too require this, meaning it will happen
at some point at an undetermined time in
the future or maybe not, as often happens.
And maybe he means it, and it still
doesn't happen, as often happens.
But it's frustrating that we can't talk about
this in honesty and say, well, that'd be
great when it starts to happen. Now second
point
is
we already have this conversation.
We had this during COVID nineteen, and I
pointed out that they do use placebos, but
they're meningitis vaccines or x, y, and z.
So if he just says required a placebo,
will they argue a placebo in these case?
And we look. It's not the same look.
I would argue a placebo does not get
a vaccine
doesn't meet the definition of a placebo.
They would disagree. Sort of like the ongoing
nuance they argue between gain of function and
different we all know they're manipulating, but that
doesn't stop them from doing it. So when
you put this out there and they argue
they do use these as placebos and that's
what they've done forever, like Vauci said, does
it actually stop anything?
My point is we won't know until they
actually happen. So all I'm asking is people
to hold off until we see the actual
change begin before we start pretending we already
have won. But see, that's the whole thing
is there's so many people that are in
this only to, you know,
beat the other side
even if we all lose.
But he's right, though. It's crazy that this
wasn't you know, that they've been using meningitis
vaccines or nothing at all as RFK rightly
points out, which that's insane to me, but
that's the broken system. Now if we know
that, why are they still doing these things
in regard to the same shots, in regard
to the same platforms? It's all or MMR
or anything else. You know? It's it's hard
for me to take him at face value
or seriously when he's already gone one eighty
on some of the most important things that
he's been advocating for or against. I find
that to be pretty damn alarming.
But that point's important for that same reason.
And here's our Robert Malone saying, I'll see
how controlled trials for new vaccines are being
required, including for all new COVID boosters. Now,
again, I I didn't see this. I don't
see where in look. I'll be the first
to say Robert Malone probably has access to
a hell of a lot that I don't.
So he might know something I don't. But
when we see something tangible in front of
us or we see studies that continue to
come out with only
saline placebo shots for the powder balance and
nothing else, then I will say, hell, yeah.
It's happening.
Just I want us to be very cautious
about how we fall into these things. Robert
Malone himself has already been pretty gung ho
about things that I've already shown you aren't
actually happening. That's my that's
numerous examples around the partisan conversation. He says
secretary Kennedy has announced a significant policy shift.
See my point? So, yeah, I heard him
announce that too. Has that now actually come
into play? Are are there already legal restriction?
I mean, is there policy in place? I
don't see it. Now not to be a
dead horse. I just think that's really important.
He says including updated COVID boosters. Oh, okay.
So we're still giving COVID boosters?
What do you mean updated COVID boosters? You
mean they're gonna go through and do brand
new entire
two year trials
on the updated COVID boosters they're currently giving
children? I'd love for you to explain that
to me. I'm not even trying to scream
dishonesty. I don't know. But that seems a
hard thing to swallow. Right?
Including updated COVID boosters.
Or are they just gonna say, well, we
did that the first time, and we showed
you that it was safe, and so we're
gonna use the new platform. I mean, you
know how this goes. He has come out
and been pretty pro mRNA for the future
direction, so I'm worried about that. So have
a few people.
And then John says,
relying upon corrupt trials, and this goes back
to Brooke Jackson's point. Right? Relying upon corrupt
trials and trial operators yet again is a
fool's errand. Okay. So the question is,
is that an accident? Does he not think
about that? Or is that something they're aware
of? Or do they have more information that
shows that something will change? I don't know.
He says, we have a placebo group of
nearly a hundred million Americans and trial groups
of around 200 Americans. Basically, his point is
we can tell you they're hurting people right
now. That's not we don't need a saline
counterbalance to prove that these things are killing
children. He says the data's on government servers.
He knows that too. Just demand data transparency.
Simple, cheap.
He's right.
So to to the other oh, that was
it right there.
Wait. Did I mix one up? Oh, I
think I did. Hold on. Oh, I think
I just lost
it. Not super important. There was another comment.
Oh, it's this one. I'm glad I saw
that.
Doctor Lynn,
Finn, Durla.
Did she change her name? I remember her
from before, but I but anyway,
she points out they continue to use relative
risk for vaccines.
You know what's even you know what's crazy?
I bet you I can pull that up
right now because that's it's,
hold on.
Let me just remove this last one. I've
got too many in here.
Let's see if it pops up. You guys
may not know what I'm talking about if
you're just tuning in, but you'll remember this
if you yep. There it is. Look at
that. This is crazy. So, you know, you
guys know they've been following us for a
while. During the COVID nineteen time frame, you
know, we were knocking these things down as
early as they came around, like, long before
the average mainstream alternative media conversation. And this,
what she's saying, let me read this first
and I'll play this clip for you, is
very important. If you don't remember, absolute risk
reduction versus relative risk reduction. Okay?
You know what? I'll play it first so
it'll make more sense when you when I'll
read what our statement is. First, just remember,
they're they're currently still using relative risk for
vaccines. So even if they use the placebo,
a real Vaseline, which they always should have
been, there's a hundred other ways they can
manipulate these things. And on top of just
lying to you about the results, as Brooke
was very clear about. But watch this video.
This is the difference between AAA, absolute or
ARR, absolute risk reduction, and
r r r r relative risk reduction,
and how they use them to deceptive to
manipulate you about how safe things appear. You
have the right to know the potential benefit
of any intervention. For example, Pfizer reported that
its vaccine shows a ninety five percent efficacy.
That sounds like it protects you ninety five
percent of the time. Right? But that's not
actually what that number means. That ninety five
percent refers to the relative risk reduction, but
it doesn't tell you how much your overall
risk is reduced by vaccination.
For that, we need absolute risk reduction. In
the Pfizer trial, eight out of eighteen thousand
one hundred and ninety eight people who were
given the vaccine developed COVID-nineteen.
In the unvaccinated placebo group, one hundred and
sixty two people got it, which means that
even without the vaccine, the risk of contracting
COVID-nineteen was extremely low at zero point eight
eight percent, which the vaccine then reduced to
zero point zero four percent. So the net
benefit or the absolute risk reduction that you're
being offered with a Pfizer vaccine
is zero point eighty four percent. That ninety
five percent number, that refers to the relative
difference between zero point eighty eight and zero
point zero four percent. I mean, think about
what a wild deception that is. It's, like,
insanely
deceptive. You tell people it's ninety five percent
effective
when all it does is rechange what the
current the static reality
down to 95%
relative difference.
Right? I mean, look at the numbers again.
We're talking about point eight eight to point
o four.
That's the you're yeah. That's the same. And
even if even if all you got was
a bad stomachache, I would argue that wasn't
worth it. Like, an insane small difference, especially
since we know by every metric we have
and all the purified science now that this
was, from the beginning, less than the flu,
according to every metric in The U the
ionitis group.
Here we are still, people still pretending like
this isn't true. So we are literally in
the post truth world if we can't even,
to this day, agree on the basic provable
facts. Even the trust of science crowd is
currently ignoring the science, which we were doing
that during the whole process. But just remember
how important that is. And now when they're
telling you, look, we are we're going to
be requiring placebos for all these things. Well,
what about all the other problems? They're still
putting these things out. They're Trump is still
telling you they're safe and effective right now.
His DOJ to DOJ,
as Brooke showed us, has also agreed with
that.
Point 04%.
That's what they call 95%
relative risk reduction.
And relative risk reduction is well known to
be a misleading number, which is why the
FDA recommends using absolute risk reduction instead, which
begs the question, how many people would have
chosen to take the COVID nineteen vaccines had
they understood that they offered less than one
percent benefit?
Mhmm.
Seems pretty clear to me.
So what she says,
they continue to use relative
relative risk for vaccines. There is no way
to show benefit in something with an infection
fatality rate of point one five percent as
there is only risk since it's a gene
product.
Why do we accept mass vaccinating
with potentially harmful injections bypassing the gut, liver,
etcetera, for illnesses that we that have such
an incredibly low infection fatality rate? Injection should
be more scrutinized than oral therapies and gene
products even more than real vaccines.
Right? See, it's people like her who have
remained consistent through this. Right? Who they're they're
we see a lot of people who were
singing a similar tune who are now suddenly
saying things a little bit different. And, again,
what John points out, Boudin here,
is ultimately that this is an important thing
from the starting point of the data. Right?
That they could lie from the beginning.
And if they then scrutinize it going forward,
which is what they claim they're doing, you're
still accepting a fraudulent entity's information, which is
what Brooke has been saying the entire time.
Now that's where it overlaps with the AI
point. Because let's not forget, as I'm gonna
talk about tomorrow or I I'll probably mention
it tomorrow, but more so in the next
show that I do.
Seven c's put this out.
So there's two things to point out. How
Palantir
is growing into this alarming entity. I mean,
the the I think the main point,
if I can grab this really quickly,
was that, WikiLeaks put out a tweet. It
was basically an open letter released by 13
former Palantir employees
just ripping it going through how clearly this
is something that is basically challenging every ethic
that they ever set out to begin with,
who has the the the every concern we
have is shared by these former employees. Now,
of course, because they overlap and make points
about diversity inclusion that I argue, too many
conservatives and Republicans will dismiss it because left
right politics.
Despite the fact of whatever their political view
is, what Palantir or whatever entity is doing
what they're doing is
it's it's it is literally antithetical to it's
it's counter to what we believe this country
should be. And we all know that if
we're being honest with ourselves because if you
put this in the hands of Biden or
Obama, they would be screaming their minds either
their, you know, their lungs off, I guess,
if you say that right. But so the
point is that pound we could at least
put this out. And And on top of
that, that was the one point we'll get
into in the, the next show. But then
seven seas also points out, which you might
have seen, David Icke and others shared the
same thing, which is that in the budget
reconciliation
bill, which I'll go into more in-depth in
the next show, as he shows you right
here on page two, puts in an important
point that
to modernize it basically it says, we're trying
to jump to cut to the chase here.
Oh, where was that?
I swear it was right there. Hold on.
I'll try to do this quickly and then
I
yeah. That's the same spot.
It says, there is hereby appropriated to the
defense commerce oh, that's what it was. I
remember now. It's further down.
See, I'll just damn it. This is what
I do, and then I should've just done
it in earnest in the first place.
Here is the actual
bill. Now since I bring it in, I'll
include it. But I will be going into
this in the next show, like, in-depth. But
since since we're I want I didn't have
the spot lined up. It's right here.
So the bottom line, I should've just said
this, but I always wanna show it to
you so you guys can see the actual
source material like so few do today outside
of the Independent Media Alliance that is, that
they're basically creating a ten year gap where
there's no restriction
or regulation
on AI.
And Palantir and XAI and OpenAI being, like,
all primarily running through one channel, it seems,
are the point.
Now it says, this is hereby appropriated to
the Department of Commerce for a fiscal year
2025 out of any funds in the treasury,
not otherwise appropriated, $500,000,000
to remain available until 09/30/2035
to modernize and secure federal information technology systems.
Like we've all been telling you was the
only point of this. Doge and all the
rest, efficiency move, it's AI government. It's AI
efficiency
through or rather through guise of that, AI
control.
Through the deployment of commercial commercial artificial intelligence.
The deployment of automated technologies and the replacement
of antiquated business systems. They're talking about the
great reset, guys. That's what this is. They're
reimagining
the world through the AI conversation.
Now it says the secretary of commerce shall
use the funds appropriated under the subsection to
replace, modernize with the department of commerce, legacy
business systems, and so on, everything. They're they're
talking about the great reset. To facilitate within
the department of commerce the adoption of artificial
intelligence models that increase
operational efficiency and service delivery to improve with
Department of Commerce the cybersecurity posture of the
federal
technology systems through modernized architecture, automated threat detection,
and integrated artificial intelligence solutions.
And that means whatever they want it to
mean, and your automated threat detection, it's gonna
be aimed at you.
Now I thought it actually oh, that is
right there. Okay. So I was gonna say
list the 2035 date, but here's what it
says. Except as provided in paragraph two, no
state or political subdivision thereof may enforce any
law or regulation
regulating
artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems, or automated
decision systems
during the 10 period.
I can't even that that is see, what
we're what I'm noticing and a lot of
people picking up on is it seems the
game today is just to come right out
and just on the surface. Like, don't as
somebody's pointing out on in regard to the
foreign policy point, you know, no longer use
shell companies and try to hide it because
that makes you look guilty. Just openly take
the bribes. And it's not unique to Trump.
If you think that, you're not paying attention.
Every one of these people are enriching themselves
in every way they can. So my point
is instead of trying to secretly do this
in some accurate they're just coming right out
and saying, for ten years, you can't regulate
or or
control basically, any you may not enforce any
law or regulation which regulates artificial intelligence models,
systems, or automated decision systems at all for
ten years.
I mean, think about, you know, even Elon
Musk himself was one of the person one
of the people screaming that this could go
rapidly out of control unless we do it
right.
So, really, the point was as long as
he gets to do it and and he's
in control. That is insane to me, especially
with the amount of control we were just
highlighting from the satellite discussion, the control of
information flow. I mean, I just don't know
why people are not moral even if you
believe Elon Musk, it it doesn't matter who
we're talking about. One person, one entity should
not have this much control, this much invasive
surveillance, and, I mean, a hundred other things
we could point out. But so the point
was
that Brooke is pointing out here, and with
those things in mind,
she calls for an immediate suspension. Now, again,
going back to the overlap of big pharma.
Right? The shots that using AI to develop
these things. Don't forget, they just told you
with Stargate, the new platforms, that's what this
is. Their whole point was using AI to
develop drugs. And she says she calls for
an immediate suspension of any regulatory authorizations or
approvals that relied on AI process data until
independent review is completed. Now she's talking about
the the data side, not not necessarily the
actual well, like, you know, I I I
I argue that applies. What I was gonna
say was this would be the AI automated
kind of background data that leads to the
creation of the shot. But the way she
reads that or says that, it applies, I
think, to any of it. The platform, the
data they used to the AI they used
to produce the the, you know, ones and
zeros required to input what they need to
pump out the antigen they'll put in your
body or however the way you frame that
or rather use your body as the platform
to produce it internally, which is a DARPA
program. But it says FDA published guidance on
use of artificial intelligence to support regulatory decision
making for drug and biological products in January
2025. So Biden hands it off to Trump
just like every time before it. Or, you
know, one to the next is the point.
Pfizer used AI during the most critical phase
of their vaccine study. The final data lock
and efficiency analysis
was 2020.
So nothing new. So if you want a
precedent, point out that 2020, the AI involved
to create one of the most deadly things
they've ever given the population, and now we're
gonna keep doing it with less oversight, less
regulation. A wild west free for all for
the people that are currently using AI to
genocide a whole people. Good times.
So Brooke is calling it out, and she
says here Pfizer slashed its COVID clinical trial
review down to twenty two hours
using AI.
FDA excuse me. FDA
turned the other cheek and said, hold my
algorithm,
cranked out a product review in six minutes.
Do you remember when we told you this
was gonna be the con the conversation? Whether
Biden or Trump before, they said we're gonna
get to a point to where we could
just pump in the new data? Plug plug
and play was Moderna's whole thing. Right?
Here we are. She says fast science kills.
This is May 9.
I wanna play this, actually.
Forgot about this one.
I didn't mean to take this much time
on this point, but it's important, as I'm
sure you could tell.
Because this this also leads into
the important conversation of, you know, the overlap
of the partisan manipulation with you know, this
is monumentally important, and yet people are debating
about partisans or, you know, partisan deceptions.
Here is
the clip that is Marty, was it McKay?
It was
McCary, Marty McCary, who's been around. It's funny
how these people seem to fluctuate in and
out of all the the same administrations.
Oh, shoot. I just deleted something.
Crap. Okay. I'll have to redownload something in
a minute. I didn't realize I had that
many videos. Here it is. Well, that's right,
Jonathan. Look. The president has told us to
do everything possible
to accelerate more cures for Americans without cutting
any corners on the scientific
evaluation
of those products. And so
Even though that's quite literally what it is.
Simple. Right? I mean, that that it's the
that's the whole point. We've already seen this.
So you can say that all you want,
but here's the thing again. This is the
central point for a lot of today. They'll
say that, and that becomes the fact. Despite
the actual facts, despite the actual precedent or
the outcome, what we've seen over and over,
the fact becomes what he just said to
the partisan show.
That's what guides the day right now, at
least with the people that seem most con
conversed most forced in front of you, and
maybe that is an illusion. But I know
good people fall for it, and that's what's
concerning to me. The facts should matter, not
what he just told you the facts are,
which is obviously an important difference. This week,
I'm proud to announce that we used the
latest generation of AI to assist with our
first scientific product review. That's Stargate for you.
And the review? That's a big part of
it. Told me that what normally took days
to do
was done by the AI in six minutes,
and that reviewer was very excited. So I've
set an aggressive target. I mean, guys, think
about this. As the Trump administration, you step
into a field where the entire Biden administration
has been being criticized.
And also, it's not let's be clear. The
Trump overlap to that was very relevant because
these shots and the work on it and
everything building building up to 2020
was still happening and then the hand off
to Biden. Okay? Now the point is that
very clearly
or rather to frame it think about being
in the Trump's in Trump's position. And you
know that everybody was saying these shots were
rushed. They hurt people. Of course, ignoring Trump
in that room
talking over Fauci about how we want it
faster than what Fauci said, even though the
point is I think they're all part of
the same game. The point is now think
about being in this position, and instead of
asking for more research,
asking for better research, you make it faster.
Now, sure, if you wanna just pretend that
AI means better even though we have a
thousand reasons to prove that's not true, at
least not right now,
I mean, I just don't get where the
block is.
Isn't this the opposite of what you were
saying before? That we wanted these things to
stop or the child's schedule pulled down, the
vaccines bans entirely, or whatever else the core
of his base was saying.
Now he's saying you'll get more of them,
more mRNA, and we'll do it even faster
using artificial intelligence. And that's somehow not a
flooring statement. It's like, you might as well
just come out and say, we're doing the
great reset Trump style. We go, yay. I
mean, it's kinda what's
happening. Good to get this AI tool used
in this agency wide by the mid, midsummer,
by July 1. And I think we're gonna
hit I mean, midsummer. So not only are
you rapidly doing these, you're gonna rapidly roll
out
rapidly roll out the system before it's even
we're not even gonna give it a month,
a year to see if there's any bad
side effects or see if it's not working
properly. There's no trial period. We're just jamming
this in, running go and running forward.
That's just insane to me. Guys, clearly, something's
wrong. I mean, this is not even logical
in any if you were gonna do this,
you would roll it out and you would
test it. You would see if there's I
mean, that's not what they appear to be
doing. Now look, there has been use of
this, but not in the sense of changing
overall I mean, even the point that DOGE
and the US government. Not in the sense
of changing everything. They're literally just rolling out
all these things and put
and jamming in their new AI program, and
we've seen a hell of a lot of
problems. Clearly not more efficient in a thousand
different ways, but they say it is. And,
again,
the narrative leads the day. That target, and
we're gonna see more deliveries. You know, I
see incredible things in the pipeline, Jonathan.
Treatments for ALS,
stage four cancers.
And as usual, you know, we'll make you
use your arms again. You know? And even
if that happens, that's not the real point.
You know? And maybe that guy gets to
use his hands again, or maybe people do
cure their cancer, but then they also get
heart attacks and blood clots and live to
their and, you know, die in three years.
You know? That that seems to be not
a good change off. Now I'm not saying
we know for sure that's what's gonna happen,
but the precedent is there with what we've
already seen. And I, for one, and I
can guarantee you the majority of Trump's base
does not feel right about anything mRNA, especially
when it overlaps with artificial intelligence.
Neurodegenerative
conditions,
diabetes
treatments. And these need to come to market
once we can establish that they're safe and
effective. Oh, and how do you do that?
Artificial intelligence. Right? We this process is infuriating.
It's like the same thing of saying, we'll
follow the law within x, y, and z.
Well, when the law becomes whatever you decided
is that day, the statement means nothing. So
it's by waiting to see if it's safe
and effective. Well, do you say the shot
is currently safe and effective, and we know
it's not. It becomes meaningless. It is whether
you decide to be on Trump's side or
not.
And I guess that's working to some degree
or maybe not, and that's the illusion they're
presenting for you.
So
here so, again, her point is that they
reduced this as this is very clear and
important to hear.
And then again, the overlap to this point,
which I do think is important, we'll get
into more in the next show.
Just that they're they're basically
I mean, now with let's think about this
overlap right there. You're using AI to roll
out faster drugs than ever.
When it's never been done before. And at
the same exact time, reducing any kind of
regulation or any kind of oversight to the
AI process for ten years.
And, of course, as David I pointed out,
of course, right in the exact ten years
when they plan to roll out their AI
dystopia. No no coincidence there, though.
Wild.
Now Children's Health Defense
comes out and says they tag Donald Trump
and Kennedy and say the COVID shots must
be pulled from the market immediately,
but they're not going to, though. Even though
there's a promise I mean, in my opinion,
they haven't, which suggests very clearly that they're
not going to do that. And so right
now,
this is the main point. So as people
are trying to tell you that they're bucking
big pharma, they're poking big pharma in the
eye because of statements that were made, what's
the action? What's the actual outcome?
Are they rolling out a Stargate mRNA platform
program? Yes. Are they still are they one
eighty supporting MMR shots? Yes. Are they rolling
out multiple mRNA shots and,
rapid,
fast tracking,
self amplifying bird flu shot? Yes. And more
and more and more and more. So think
about trying to frame that as being anti
big pharma when you are their biggest benefit
right now despite the narrative. Right? It's like
coming out, we hopefully get to today, and
saying that
Trump is against Netanyahu, but then you can
look at the actions and everything's still going
in the same direction, and he speaks, stands
up, and says Hamas is the one stopping
everything, and you still pretend like he's somehow
in a rift with Netanyahu. Or if he
is, clearly recognize that he's still blindly supporting
Israel and Netanyahu's on the way out. Either
way,
outcome,
action precedent versus what they're saying
needs to be important. Another day, another study
confirming, they say, what we knew to be
true about the mRNA shots. And I'm telling
you, if you're not following this, guys, every
day. Now the reason I don't show them
literally every time is because we know all
of this already. We've sent we and I
I don't mean one study. I mean, for
example,
contamination
should be a no brainer at this point.
What kinds of contaminants? Now that gets more
interesting. But or the idea that they're causing
myocarditis, are we even disputing that anymore?
So there's been an endless amount of studies
that come out that have just been ignored
by the all the people. Weirdly enough, even
by a lot of the Republicans now because
they wanna support Trump's agenda. See how this
all works? Even though they should be shoving
this in the face of the left they
hate so much, they're all the same in
my opinion. But it says they are in
fact deadly and dangerous. We know that.
And they're still promoting them. He says with
pillars of evidence showing how injurious the shots
are, how is it possible they've remained in
the market? Because Trump and RFK are allowing
that. It's pretty simple.
Now doctor Henry Eli says healers don't care
what people say.
I care rather goes healers. I care what
people say. I care what they do. Scars.
I'm just I'm sorry. I've read it wrong
again.
Doctor he Henry Eli says, healers, I don't
care what people say. I care what they
do. See, this is the point that I'm
trying to make. He says, this is why
I'm shocked that no one is talking about
senator Kennedy's or excuse me, secretary Kennedy's supporting,
this one we already talked about. The Arcturus
two two three zero four star mRNA self
amplifying
next generation vaccine.
It'll probably pop up right here.
And we've talked about self amplifying,
self spreading. Yeah. Here it is. A lot
of these more than once.
This is
a self amplifying
mRNA
influenza bird flu dynamic.
I mean, this is exactly what we were
supposed to be fighting.
And worse, the continuation of the problem to
a crazy degree.
The kind of things we talked about self
amplifying mRNA shots, people said you were lunatics
during the last administration,
and here we are.
And this is his point. Why are we
not calling this out? What are these and
why are they bio weapons? And he goes
through and highlights it for you. Follows work.
The important thing is that people are consistent
with their logic and don't just take partisanship
as the only guiding force. That is a
problem. Now, is it possible Kennedy's got a
long term plan? Yeah. Sure.
Obviously possible, but I'm not gonna guess about
that. Is there any indication? No. Other than
hope. And I can hope, but I'm not
gonna report hope. The the report is he's
doing it, and we can see it. And
that's not what we're promised. Right? Now, the
people are so invested in not being proven
wrong that they don't wanna even point it
out.
Well, that's going to damn well ensure the
problem continues.
Now onto another example of of an overlapping
conversation
of these. Now this is this is just
an important one that I think is important
to highlight that goes into the the main
point from this is that these things aren't
stopping.
So if you're gonna pretend that RFK and
Trump and Hoover else are actually trying to
buck the big pharma system, why are the
shots still there? Why are they promoting mRNA?
Right? And why have they not dealt with
the blood supply? Because the the re I
get the point that they can't just snap
their fingers and change everything. Sure. But if
you knew these were dangerous, like we do,
you would come out and say, don't use
them.
Feel free you know, you can see, I
I even nuanced the point about the idea
of, like, you can do them if you
want. It's it's like saying you can take,
you know, what I used last time. I
said, arsenic if you want. Now if you
can find arsenic randomly in the world and
do it if that's your body, you can
do what you want. But if the government's
selling it to you with your tax dollars,
that's not the same point of just having
freedom to buy. That's them knowing what they're
doing. They they prove it as dangerous. They
should pull it off the market.
Yeah. If you wanna set them in a
basket out in the front so you're all
welcome to take what you want, that's that
would be freedom. Not what they're doing. My
point though is in this conversation, the blood
supply is
wildly contaminated. This has been going on long
before COVID nineteen,
and it's still being used. No one's brought
it up. If you were going to do
something about this monumentally important problem, as even
RFK has called out, you would immediately say
something at the very least.
To argue it's always playing the game, okay.
That's maybe not not I I'm not I'm
gonna say I know that's not true, but
at least it's disgusting to me that you're
playing the game. Maybe even for a positive
outcome way down the line, maybe, and in
the meantime, hurting children.
But doctor Marble, Ben Marble, who's called this
out in the past, he simply says the
entire blood supply in America and basically the
whole world is contaminated with the spike protein
poison bioweapon. He says we need to quit
accepting blood from people who took the poison
because we're seeing pay I think it's well
too late for that, that get blood transfusions
and are unvaccinated, and suddenly they get blood
clots. And, well, god, we talked about this
in the midst of all this. And I
will highlight again
what we've talked about
here. And this is just the tweet that
I've shown. This is insane to me. This
is still up. 09/13/2022.
American Red Cross says, we don't label blood
products as containing
vaccinated or unvaccinated blood as the COVID nineteen
vaccine does not enter your bloodstream. They literally
still have that up.
One of the most bombastic lies that everybody
should be know aware of by now. And
just in case you don't know, here's one
of four different peer reviewed studies that I
post below that says yet another peer reviewed
study finds that you're wrong. The title is
literally
spike SARS CoV-two spike mRNA vaccine sequences circulate
in the blood of the twenty eight days
after. This is a peer reviewed study. NIH
National Library of Medicine
twenty twenty three. And you you can scroll
down. There's four three or, there's two or
three other studies that I posted,
and they just don't care.
Here's another one. Yeah. Here here we now
have another one. Red Cross. Do you have
the courage to finally admit you're wrong? No.
No. They don't. Here's another one right there.
So it's important to highlight that we know
this. And, of course, to demonstrate our value,
we were showing you this a long time
ago as a lot of other people were.
And now
I'll include this one for you.
And now in this case, Ben Mar Ben
Marbles is just doing saying just calling it
out, saying, how is this still happening? That's
my point again. It's about how that's being
allowed to continue.
There's it's not like this is some hyper
hyperbole. We we have multiple peer reviewed studies
that can prove that.
If there was any concern, it would have
been called out, but it's not. And I'll
include these shows where we talk about this,
faxed,
Red Cross there we go. Vacced Red Cross
blood donations.
This one was from 2024.
Red Cross still claims that it doesn't enter
your bloodstream. They reiterate this in a different
post, by the way. And then just a
a link where you can follow shows that
include the link to Red Cross, which also
go outside the context of of the vaccines
or injections. Now another point about the failures
of the current administration regard to health and
really as I see it, just the ongoing
failure of your government,
left and right, or all of it.
We've already called this out. And Carrie Weather
points out, remember when the new regime was
going to end big government and span seed
oils? Or at least that was the floated
idea from people that knew that Maha wanted
that.
She's like, today, I learned in Mar that
in March, the USDA
expedited
agricultural welfare funds and is offering assistance for
seed oil crops. I mean, people were just
pointing out that old there's this I've heard
this for a long time that,
there's rat poisons that use or, like, infertility
drugs for rats that use cottonseed oil. Like,
you don't need to convince me that these
things are poison. These things are not they
shouldn't even be going in human bodies. They
know that. It's been around for a long
time. That's why they floated the idea that
they would do something about it. Maybe they
will tomorrow. As of right now, as I
think even, who was it that pointed that
out? They they've they've brought on a person
in Trump's administration that was, like, promoting seed
oils. Now they're giving assistance for these crops.
I mean, just and and, you know, it's
not even getting into ending big government. My
god. That's exactly the opposite.
And she goes, note, I don't think banning
anything is the solution or even moral. However,
it seems this is what a lot of
Baha wanted, and they're getting the opposite. Now,
again, I make the argument about something that
if you wanna go
harvest seed oils for yourself,
nobody should stop you, especially not the government.
But if they're the ones producing these, taxing
you for it, then yes, I would argue
that it's their obligation knowing they're bad to
not sell them to you with your own
money. But
the overarching thing we keep getting,
Robert Malone shares this. It's a meme going
around with RFK Junior as a player on
the Bears football team. And so and then
the coach is talking to him saying, look,
Bobby, we're ten minutes in and you haven't
won the game yet. The fans are pretty
disappointed about that. It's just such a disingenuous
post. Like, look. I know there are people
that are also disingenuous from the other side
of the paradigm. Right? Coming at it from,
you know, attacking him for unjust reasons. Fine.
That exists every time. It's that's how politics
works, and we should always call it out.
But what I just went through has nothing
to do with expecting the world to change
in in thirty seconds. He's still promoting MMR
shots. He's still or rather is now promoting
the very shot that he built in I
mean, he's been fighting forever. He's still now
promoting m m r m mRNA shots.
Right? I mean, from
a 16 different ways, you can show the
actions that have taken. Now whether you wanna
pretend he's playing the game or he's been
forced or his hands are tied, he's blackmailed,
I you can
I'd love for you to prove any of
those things. I wouldn't dispute that those are
possible. All we were saying is that this
is not a fair statement to make because
in a thousand ways, we can see, rather,
there's many ways.
It's not that he's hasn't solved it yet.
He's going the other direction.
And that's why I you're gaslighting people, man.
I don't understand that.
I mean, I do. Just frustrating.
Now in the same vein of conversation, outside
of the health conversation, let's talk about
an interesting overlap. I want guests to know
this I've I've this does actually overlap with
big pharma.
Justin Amash says, too long didn't read
in regard to Trump's post about prescription drugs.
You know where I'm going with this, I'd
imagine. Trump supports economically foolish price controls. That's
how he frames it. Now I'm getting into
whether, you know I'll I'll make a quick
point about it. But he says supports economically
foolish price controls for prescription drugs and pharmaceuticals
and will sign an executive order to sidestep
congress and the constitution again, which in every
context we should not be okay with, regardless
of whether the other side did it first.
This we're not in kindergarten, guys. If we
agree that the executive orders, as Trump also
pointed out, are a problem, then we shouldn't
keep doing it. But that's the point is
that you it's it's always a back and
forth that it doesn't just
they're doing it to solve it. They're doing
it to accentuate and continue the problem for
all of their benefit at your expense.
So the first and obviously, the point is
that that's not the way this should be
done because then it will change with the
next write of a pen from the next
person in power,
as I think is the point. But
the the main point for me look. Again,
the the pharmaceutical point. Look. Whether you want
drugs at cheaper prices
look. You can have a very clear argument
for why
the
the astronomical
prices of drugs in this country are in
a very clear
it it's a problem. And what they're doing
is taking advantage of you. And there are
places in the world that have a very
different circumstance.
But that's because of a lot of I
mean, Canada, for example, because they do have
a socialized concept of medicine. So is that
what you're calling for? You know? Because what's
funny is a lot of people in this
conversation are going, guys, that is exactly what
you've been calling out. But now Trump wants
it, so it's a it's a good thing.
And you go out of your way to
make it in something that it's not. It's
somehow a America First
Nationalist idea because he says it. It's
childish to make people respond. But none of
those are my point.
My point is,
how is this in any way
fighting big pharma?
So the idea look. You shouldn't be taking
any pharmaceutical drugs, in my opinion, at all.
I know there are examples where things have
at least arguably helped somebody with some kind
of a problem, But the idea that the
pharmaceuticals
being given to you cheaper or some kind
of a win outside of those that need
them for, you know, the elderly drugs or
whatever else. Guys, that's insane to me. The
whole point was fighting big pharma. And now
go through these next tweets that will have
them being framed as fighting big pharma, but
here are big pharma drugs at cheaper cost.
Now you could argue, oh, because he's taking
the money away from big pharma. Come on,
guys. Are you really pretending because the prices
are lowered here that means that they're not
making the same amount of money?
Like, the reality being just because, like, they're
these things are subsidized, guys. That's how this
works, like, with vaccines or anything else. And
the problem is this incestuous relationship between big
pharma and our government, not one side of
it. Now even if you don't agree with
that, the bottom line is these things are
dangerous in my opinion. And
the idea that we're supporting or praising getting
more of them at cheaper cost, even if
that is a win for you financially,
it doesn't make sense to me.
These things are dangerous, and we all generally
seem to acknowledge that in most cases other
than when your side seems to want to
do it. I just think that's wild to
me. Now on that note,
Shannon Joy points out Trump has surrendered the
tariff war to China. No wonder he's trying
to dazzle everyone with lower prescription drug prices
using socialist price controls, which I mean, look.
It's funny to me. The people that will
now argue that is what they want or
makes sense or that's America First.
I I look.
Outside of the idea that it's promoting or
rather giving,
I guess, easier access to things that I
don't think we should want, there is natural
remedies for everything out there. I'm not a
doctor, but look into it for yourself.
It's interesting to me. But the people that
would then now argue that this is something
that is not what they've always been calling
out, Like, with Biden floated the same idea.
Socialism.
It's just so constantly comical how how clear
people will only argue from a partisan position.
The point is that is exactly what we're
talking about, and that does go against the
idea of the constitutional
dynamic of all of it. But my only
real point in this is about how that's
big pharma drugs
being presented to you as a win.
Sort of like the point in the name
of ivermectin, for crying out loud. Yes. I
also acknowledge the obvious lies around it and
now there were some clear benefits in the
in the conversation what was going on. But
my re my immediate instinct was, I'll let
you decide that. Why am I gonna promote
another big pharma drug? Because that's what it
is. It's interesting to me. But she goes,
art of the deal? Not so much.
Refinance the debt, decouple from China, bring jobs
back. These are all noes that aren't happening.
Get rid of income tax, decrease trade deficit,
increase cost, cause shortages, break supply chains. All
checks. Yes. So the point is,
all the promises,
no.
And overall,
more big pharma drugs. And the point she
makes is that the
sleight of hand,
the
the dangly cat toy, the distraction, look over
here because we people don't The the Trump
administration doesn't want to be seen for doing
something that doesn't align with what they said
they would do, which is what David Icke
is calling out here.
News. US and China agreed to a ninety
day pause on new tariffs after shipping to
US ports plummeted.
So you could argue that's a a loss
in the trade war between China and The
United States.
This is US tariff on Chinese imports will
be cut from one twenty five to 30%.
Chinese tariffs on US imports will be cut
from a 25 to 10%.
That if tariffs are supposed to result in
massive job growth and make The US rich,
why lower them?
It's a good point.
And as David Icke says, Trump is as
is as a package the most incompetent, lying,
corrupt, clueless, and constitution destroying president in American
history. And when you think of the competition,
that is quite a feat. He creates the
problem and then claims credit for partially responding
to the problems and chaos that he created.
He and his Soros treasury secretary
have blatantly caved here in the face of
pending disaster. His Art of the Deal, which
he didn't write, he is incapable of reading
a book, much less writing one. Clearly, he's
unhappy with Trump. And it says, you've been
so had MAGA and MAGA media that you
are stuck with him now. Now all his
opinions aside I mean, this is a joke.
I'm adding tariffs, and people, this will create
jobs. Then he goes, I'm removing tariffs in
the art of the deal. I'm adding tariffs.
This will create jobs. I'm moving tariffs, art
of the deal. So no matter what he
does, he's winning, which is exactly the point
of the partisan game today.
So overall,
you could argue that he did it because
it wasn't working out. Okay. You don't have
to jump down his throat because but it's
not about necessarily that he
decided to go a different path because it
wasn't working. Not everything they wanna do works,
but it's about the way they frame that
that is the case. Right? And it's not
unique to Trump. All of the partisans do
it. The idea being that whatever he ends
up doing was what he always wanted to
do, and we won.
That's politics. And we're gonna make that more
clear as we go through. But what's embarrassing
is that people can't acknowledge that.
And here's Donald, Alec Jones saying, president Trump
announces he is set to sign
one of the most consequential
executive orders in our country's history.
And he's referring to the one about pharmaceutical
drugs.
Really?
You know, this is my point about all
these people. Like, you couldn't have been a
little bit more tactful with that? The most
consequential
in our history? Well, clearly, that's what they
want you to be saying right now. I
mean, does anybody believe that? An executive order,
first of all, which is not going it
was easy to change with the next person
in power,
is the most consequential in our history?
I mean, just it's just I'm embarrassed for
people. Like, this is insanely silly.
Certainly, people will be happy about it in
some context, but, I mean, isn't he one
of the people that were calling this around
Biden socialism?
It's just it's just so silly. Like, I
just don't how do you take these things
seriously from these people? It's everywhere.
Here, Eric Daugherty does the same thing. Holy
smokes, RFK Jr. Just called out Elizabeth Warren,
Bernie Sanders. Oh, so he calls out the
evil Democrats, so we must be winning.
And now he's standing up to big pharma.
Oh, he is, is he?
Can you demonstrate where exactly?
He says he can't be the quote is
he can't be bought unlike of most politicians
in this country, and he is standing here
for the American people. Well, that's also one
of these current narratives that's being circulated by
everybody. Cotton just said on interview, or was
it Cotton or Holly, Josh Holly?
Say, woah. Trump's clearly rich. Who's who's not
gonna be bought off? Well, it's just it's
it's you keep hearing it. I'm sure you've
heard it too. Just because someone's got a
lot of money does not mean they can't
be bought off. That's a stupid argument. Secondarily,
it's not just about money. It's about influence.
It's about being seen as the one winning.
That's how these hubris
laden maniacs act. So the point is, here's
RFK doing the same thing. He can't be
bought.
Says who? I find that impossible to believe,
especially since he was already bought by the
Rothschilds last time they bailed him out when
he was bankrupt. But it says Elizabeth Warren
and and Robert Reich are saying
that president Trump is on the side of
the oligarchs.
He's guys, he's literally is. He's on one
of those sides. We're being run by different
I mean, honestly, I don't you could argue
they're at odds when it comes to who
wants to be in power, but at the
end of the day, I see all of
them in they're okay controlling your lives. They
just wanna be the one running the show.
But it's oligarchs. It is elitists on either
side of this. I mean, are we are
we pretending that the people
stacked in his cabinet aren't exactly that?
I mean, look at what just happened at
this recent meeting. Look at who was that
as inauguration. It is the, like, the oligarchs
of our country.
And it says there has never been a
president more willing to stand up to the
oligarchs than the president Trump. I mean, come
on. That's just these are silly things to
say. You can argue he's doing it for
the right reasons, but for crying out loud,
Miriam Adelson was the 200
or about over $200,000,000,000
or million, excuse me. And that that is
one of the Israeli oligarchs or any number
of Silicon Valley Oligarchs or Elon Musk himself.
It's just silly.
And I'm very, very proud of you, mister
president. Oh, you're so cute.
The point is, guys, big pharma.
How are you gonna stand there? The the
the major point today, those are statements. You
can stand up there and say, say, say
all you want. What's actually happening?
Stargate,
MMR shots, mRNA shots,
self amplifying shots, vaccines all around for everybody,
you know, the same childhood schedule. I mean,
there's a I mean, what about glyphosate? What
about dioxins? What about a hundred other examples
that are under his purview that haven't even
slowed down? In fact, they've increased.
All of this relates to the same conversation.
I don't see that happening, but that sure
is fun to say out loud, isn't it,
Eric?
Here's Carl saying the same thing. Big pharma's
worst nightmare just came true. Donald Trump and
RFK exposed a decades long bleeding scam bleeding
Americans dry. The room fell silent when Trump
revealed why we pay 10 times more.
Yeah. Corruption exists pretty obviously. The bottom line
is it is a win and a financial
sense for people that need these drugs, in
their minds anyway.
Most of this country are being shoved and
forced into things like antidepressants,
antipsychotics,
and that is the the majority outside of
the elderly side of it.
We they don't need or want those things
if you really understand what's going on.
10 times more for Europe than Europe is
the counterbalance. It's about trying to frame it
as the and that in of itself sort
of a false binary. But it says you
won't believe what you're about to hear. You
can read it for yourself. I mean, do
you go into this and understand this the
aspect of it?
Who in this conversation has not been calling
out over the years the astronomical prices of
of drugs in this country? And I could
tell you why. It's because they were taking
advantage of you because your government was involved
with all this. Not one side of it,
but all of it.
And
you can't stand there and tell us you're
fighting big pharma while you roll out the
largest
AI mRNA injection platform in history
from the White House. You just can't.
Or as RFK literally keeps telling you that
MMR shots are safe and effective.
You just can't.
Now here's some other examples of propaganda that
I think are relevant. Now this relates to
the health side of it, and we're gonna
go over there a few more points that
I do think are very relevant.
So this has come to the overlap of
the GROC kind of answer to this, but
as I'll show you, you can look this
thing look it up as you always should
for yourself.
So what's funny about this first,
here's Jim Ferguson.
You'll note very clearly the exact posting.
And I mean, like, literally the exact
icons, the exact statements,
scrap, everything.
So just so it's clear, Alex Jones just
literally copied this guy's post and shared it.
Exactly the same thing. Doesn't that seem disingenuous
and weird and almost a faux pas in
and of itself? Yes. That's crazy.
But the real point or question is did
he even look, or did he just recognize
that that kind of a statement will get
clicks and shares and reach? He says, New
York state is trying to pass the same
law. This is all coming out of the
UN and Bill Gates.
You mean the UN that they're currently aligned
with or the Bill Gates that's certainly working
with Trump right now? Yeah. But I guess
we'll leave that out of the conversation. They
are plotting their next attack.
Breaking. Get out of the Washington state now,
says Glenn Beck, who is just one of
the other people in the same manipulative conversation.
Washington governor signs sweeping emergency power law. Okay.
I of all people in this conversation, I
hopefully hopefully you know by now, but you
shouldn't blindly,
you know, you should always question me and
especially and and everybody else too. But you
should know by now that my point is
if it's about these kind of things, I'll
be the emergency powers, medical
apartheid. We will call these things out.
So first understand that Washington, like every other
state in this country, especially from a federal
level on top of that, have these things
in place already. If you don't know that
by now, you're being played by somebody like
Jones.
The reality is that there are many different
examples of conservative
and and liberal
states with
openings for them to do what they want
should there be a medical emergency, whatever they
call that. What I find so interesting is
that I'll read this directly from the bill,
and you tell me that this is not
a hyperbolic framing of something that otherwise actually
exists.
So, ask yourself how that even makes sense.
But I'll just read through it. Medical mandates
without consent on the table. Yeah, that's already
the reality. It's not a Democrat thing, guys.
We just lived through this.
So first,
this is interesting.
And as I'll show you with all the
rest,
you could you could read these all for
yourself, and I'll go through the actual data.
Right? These are all these the the point
is despite it being from Grock, you should
absolutely
read the source material and then look outside
of what they're presenting and compare the information,
which I will do every single time we
talk about these. The point was simply, did
Washington state governor sign a sweeping emergency powers
law? Right? Just a simple question just to
give me a starting point, that's what we're
gonna talk about more tomorrow, about, like, the
name of the bill and so on. Because
especially today, the Googles and everything else in
the world, even Brave for that matter. It
seems, like, nearly impossible at the time to
get what you're looking for in instead, they
give you what they think you're looking for.
Right? And it never seems to be what
we're actually finding.
So first, here's what Grock says. Now, again,
for you, I didn't hear the beginning of
the show. The reason that I think it's
important to put this in this conversation
is because the people like Jones and the
rest, despite him in his other in in
what we'll get to the whole Coke gate
conversation,
calling out Grok or at least saying that
it's usually pretty good, except this time was
wrong. You know? It it wasn't. I'll show
you.
The point is that the from the conservative
perspective, it somehow holds a lot more, you
know,
influence, gravitas, whatever you wanna call it. Like,
it's respected
because it's Elon's thing.
It should just be another tool, and you
should look into it for yourself every time.
So, he's saying that there's a new bill,
first of all, which there is, and I'll
show it to you. But claiming that it
is
sweeping emergency powers, that you can force you
to do whatever they want, and all this
different stuff, which again already exists.
But here's what it says on Grock. There
is no evidence that Washington state governor Bob
Ferguson signed a sweeping emergency powers law in
2025.
Recent claims, particularly from post on X, suggest
that such a law was passed granting the
governor executive powers during medical crises, including forced
medical interventions based on scientific powers. However, these
claims appear misguided misleading or exaggerated.
Now Grock can be wrong. It has been
wrong. But I find it fascinating that the
same time you have them making these claims,
which many times they are lying, you find
Grock challenging that. So there's only one or
two ways to take this every single time,
and we'll go through it in a second.
Either you have to acknowledge that grok is
wrong,
which means it's being misused.
It's not an accident, guys. That's why even
there's plenty I think it was the seven
seas making that point, like, where it's you
have to force it to acknowledge that it's
wrong and half the time, oh, you're right.
That's that's dishonesty. That's not an accident, in
my opinion. But secondarily,
that or they're wrong. And the grok is
showing you information.
We're in a world today where it seems
to not matter anymore.
But it says the current legal framework for
the governor's emergency powers in Washington state is
governed by RCW
forty three zero six twenty twenty two two
zero, which has been in place since 1969
and was last amended in 2019.
This law grants the governor broad authority to
declare a state emergency, which, again, these are
you look these up in pretty much every
place. They exist,
even in Republican locations. These powers include prohibiting
gatherings, restricting, which I, by the way, do
not agree with in in case that wasn't
clear. The idea is they can just shut
down. Look. It's the same point about the
constitutional issue right now. There is no asterisk
next to the constitution. They don't say unless
there's a pandemic or unless we claim you're
invading or unless we claim you're a brown
person from another country. You always have to
prove those things. We'll get to that in
a minute. Even the idea of an invading
force, first of all, which you can clearly
prove that's not what they're dealing with despite
the broad claim that somehow they were all
led in by Biden, which still would not
make them an invading force. It's insane.
The point is that if you're gonna claim
they're part of a terrorist organization or an
invading force,
they have to prove that. It's the same
point, which then amounts to due process by
them saying, look. He's part of the he's
part of the terrorist organization. Then they can
be deported. Because the argument being made today
is that somehow that is the one of
the it's just funny how the just like
from Israel, the the narrative of all of
us, As you prove they're lying in step
one, they go, oh, well, but step two,
though. It's like, okay. But you just got
caught lying. You know, it just just never
ends. So the point here is I disagree
with all of this. The idea that they
can just circumvent your rights because of some
kind of emergency
is not the reality of the constitution.
Now it says some Twitter post referenced supposed
a supposed new law, ESHB fifteen thirty one,
related to public health measures for communicable diseases.
However, no public available records confirm that it
was passed or signed to law, and the
bill details remain unclear. The claims about forced
treatments or detentions seem to stem from misinterpretations
of existing powers under RCW.
Speculative narratives are, are not grounded in legislative
records. 2025, governor Ferguson expressed willingness to limit
his emergency powers voluntarily.
All of these you'll find if you look
this stuff up.
In summary, says no new sweeping emergency powers
law has been signed in Washington state as
of 05/14/2025.
Interesting.
Now, here is something that I found.
03/08/2025.
K. So what we're seeing here
or is the date on it? In May
and saying that there is no Mercy Powers
Law in 2025.
This says,
engrossed and this is the bill we're discussing,
bill one five three one from 03/08/2025.
And
it says,
an act relating to preserving the ability of
public officials to address communicable diseases using scientifically
proven measures to control the spread of such
diseases. So, obviously, the first point is that
this is,
in my opinion, always what amounts to whatever
we're talking about. Right? That they can do
what's necessary, which applies literally in every state
we have. And it's not let me go
through it. Adding a new section to chapter
so and so, we're creating a new section,
and declaring an emergency.
But it says the legislative find the legislature
finds that communicable diseases remain a real threat
to our communities, and and many are increasing
in prevalence and so on. So just kinda
setting the tone. The h one n one
virus or avian flu remains a nationwide threat.
Remember, these are the shots the current administration
are fast tracking.
Contracting the illness due to exposure. Again, they're
just saying how bad this is. Then it
says, to address these challenges, the ability for
state and local health officials to educate the
public about evidence based measures that use the
best available science is critical to control the
spread of diseases.
K.
So that clearly does not say what they're
framing it as so far, if this is
even the correct thing you're pointing at. It
says, therefore, the legislature
intends to ensure that the public receives timely,
well researched, evidence based, and science driven information
to make form. Nowhere does it so far
say that you have to force in what
they're telling you. They're saying use best available
science to control the spread, which I'm not
gonna say doesn't amount to the idea that
they would force something in, but they don't
need that statement to do that.
So far, it seems to be not what's
being framed. The legislature does not intend by
this enactment to modify, limit, or expand any
existing or establish new requirements for individuals to
receive any vaccine or take any measure. Okay.
That seems to be the opposite. Nor does
the legislature intend by this enforcement to modify,
limit, or expand any existing authority or grant
any new authority to establish such a crime.
Okay. That's pretty clearly not what they're saying.
A new section is added to chapter 70.
It says,
it is the policy of the state that
public health responses to address communicable diseases be
guided by the best available science. The same
thing is set up there. To control the
spread of diseases. Consistent with the policy in
subject one of this section, the state and
local health officials must, within available resources, implement
and promote evidence based, which doesn't necessarily mean
they can't lie about it, appropriate measures to
control the spread, which, guys, is literally everywhere.
Which we know how that we know what
that can be contorted into,
including
immunizations, vaccines.
But it says, any such statute
or policy in place effective to state is
hereby declared null and void.
That's it.
Okay. I mean, I was skimming through it.
Read it for yourself. So, there's two ways
to look at this for me. I will
do this first, actually.
So, you can hear the way that they're
framing this.
So there's two ways to look at
it. Either
Grok
is framing this in the sense that it
is not what they're claiming it is, therefore
it doesn't apply to the way they frame
it, or they're wrong. Which is why I
wanted to show this.
So here is
wherever it was. Here we go. Here's Glenn
Beck.
Living in Washington state. May I just say
get
the hell out now.
I've said that The entire state? The entire
state. Get out of the state. Wow. And
I I'm I'm dead serious on that. You
are
you're living in a state that has gone
absolutely
insane.
First of all, we talked about this before
and nobody's really talking about this.
The the medical thing that they just passed
in Washington state, and they passed it, and
the the governor has signed it. And, basically,
it says, if there's an medical emergency, we
can do whatever we want to you.
Now remember, this is the state that was
talking about building, like, little internment camps from
for people who wouldn't get vaccinated last time.
Okay? They were talking about that. If you
think that they won't do that,
you're out of your mind. You're crazy.
And so it says if the governor decides
that there's a medical emergency,
statewide
emergency,
that the state
based on I love this one.
Based on
scientific
experts,
they will dictate what happens to every, you
know, every individual. What you have to get
if scientific
experts tell you, you have to take this,
you will be forced to take that. What
a gross misrepresentation this is. Like, what's insane
to me is we have so many examples
of very, very obvious legislation that goes way
far. And you read this, and it's basically
he's
you're taking things that basically state that will
take science based evidence and do what it
makes sense to suppress this, which obviously could
be contorted into whatever they want it to
be. But that's what you turn into this
major big, you know, bombastic idea about, you
know, that they'll I I just feel like
it's almost meant to be disingenuous for some
nefarious reason.
Despite the obvious that they could do that
if they want to and they already have,
and the the information is already like, right
now, the look. Let's let's be clear. Donald
Trump has already overlapped with the Davos, UN,
World Economic Forum conversation, which are absolutely of
the mind that the UN should be able
to dictate these things on a global scale.
Now that is not what's being fought right
now. Clearly, they're leaning into the globalist direction
in every way we can see. I'm sure
people disagree with that, but look at what's
actually happening, not the words coming out of
their mouth. So I find it interesting to
me that that's being framed, of course, because
it's Washington, because it's about a left right
paradigm dynamic. Not that you can't show this
exact same language, even worse, by the way,
in Florida right now.
We're talking about lockdowns and and just we
know those are there. So taking one over
here that is clearly less the way it's
written, it seems far less dangerous even though,
again, you know these seem to be used
however they want them to. I just think
that's really interesting to me. Now the part
on top of that
was this being reshared
exactly from Alex, which I don't think any
I I wonder if they even check this
stuff. But again, medical mandates without consent, it
didn't say that at all. No public vote,
unclear lit, didn't say that at all. And,
yes, this is the state that once proposed
quarantine camp.
I just think that's weird. Now please do
not take this as me not being concerned
about how the state and the government can
abuse these situations.
I just think this is a weird poll.
And then the main point is while
the current administration they both support is the
one
rushing forward the very things they might force
down your throat.
We gotta be smarter than this, guys. Paul
partisan politics are gonna be the end of
us.
Now on that very note,
here's Cat Turd saying delusional
because this girl, which I you don't have
to listen to, but she says basically saying
that Trump supporters are regretting their vote.
This person says, this Karen thinks Trump supporters.
Now it's just funny to me, like, just
because they're so desperate to maintain their their
facade,
it's so transparent that many partisans on all
sides are becoming disillusioned with the whole thing.
And especially right now, you know, what people
like Kantor are blind,
like, lock step supporters of this administration as
they've been made clear in response to other
people.
But if you can't call out the Stargate
program, m l m r shots, mRNA shots,
and many other directions that have gone against
what they promised,
And he can't acknowledge that it's just some
people that would be a break. Right? The
Maha group and so on. But no. To
them, there's no way. She's just a Karen
and a Democrat. Obviously, there are people on
all sides that are shifting. But this person
says, and that's what I'm gonna show you,
don't know one person that voted for him
that regrets it
or would change their mind. Well, I I
mean, that's certainly possible. It doesn't mean it's
not true. What's interesting is you know they
exist. You damn well know it. It's everywhere
you talk. My my opinion is more people
than not just recognizing that all of them
are lying to them. And that's what makes
it so difficult for people that are trapped
in the left right paradigm to engage with
that. Because the only thing they can do
is say you must be on the other
side. And that's not the case. But this
person says, well, I don't know any person
who died from the COVID vaccine, but that
doesn't mean it didn't happen.
He says, well, that's not the point at
hand. You know, when he's it's obvious overlapping
reference.
I do not I do know two people
that definitely died from the jab. Sure sure,
there may be a few Trump regrets, but
I have I have yet to find one.
I know a lot more Democrat that are
seeing reality.
The the Democrat party is not the same
party I grew up with.
I was, you know, voting for Democrat and
so on. This is extreme radicals that have
overtaken the party and yeah. I agree, %,
just like on the right. They control majority
of the media, so they still have people
that will just follow. If your eyes aren't
open to all the liberal craziness, you don't
see it as a problem. See, here's the
point.
We do see it, bud. That's the point.
We do see it. I see it, but
you can't see both of them.
Well, it's more likely, right, that don't that,
you know, that both sides say we can't
see the other. And the reality is that
we can see it on all sides of
this because if you're paying attention, you can.
How do you not acknowledge the lunacy taking
place in the current administration? Like, just so
over the top.
It it's such a crazy cartoonish direction that's
been taken. But if you look at what
happened during COVID, it's no different than the
left. It's the same thing.
He says, you are part of the problem.
They are doing everything possible to keep the
numbers for the next census to shift. They
will they are they are evil and will
stop at nothing for power. You're you're describing
the government
on all sides. But this guy says, I
am not a Democrat or Republican. You see,
this is where it becomes interesting to see
how people engage with the person that's going,
look, they're both dumb. And says, I'm an
independent voter, and I voted for Trump three
times. This Trump isn't the same Trump from
the first term. So he's telling you, I'm
one of those people that regrets this. I
voted for Trump, America First, for better economy,
mass deportation. So far, I haven't seen it.
Here's our response.
Oh, and we have a congress that does
nothing either. He just ignored it.
He can only do so much by himself.
That's the response. Right? So the guy tells
you I am what you say doesn't exist.
I don't think he's done what he said.
Well, he can't do it all by himself.
Well, so now you're acknowledging that he didn't
do it? I thought you just said that
wasn't the case. It's just a it's a
it's a it's a goal post moving is
like an art right now. It's just not
even I should call it an art. It's
clumsy. But
if he can't do it by himself, then
you just admitted that it's not actually fully
what you claimed it was. And I think
that's the biggest problem. It becomes, well, he's
the only one man. Oh, I can't all
hop in at once. Nobody said that.
We got both chambers in the presidency. They
bring a lawsuit to slow everything down. See,
the point is, yeah, you've got more
control
than usual, and you still can't get these
things done. And I'm trying through the regular
channels. This isn't the Trump from the first
term. He goes, he's smarter now. I mean,
he knows exactly how these evil people work.
Wow.
This person says, I don't trust Elon and
the tech bros from Silicon Valley. I didn't
like it when they Elon attacked us. I
bought h one b visas, and Trump didn't
defend us from Elon's attacks. Remember, he censored
people.
And I can't I can keep going and
going. I wish everything goes okay, and I
hope I'm totally wrong by the end of
this term. But he goes, see this so
instead of acknowledging
and engaging with the points he laid out,
he goes, brought to you by the Democrats,
and shows you a junky town,
which yeah. Yeah. That's disgusting. And Democrats should
be held accountable for what they've done to
their towns. Yes. But what it's it's
it's it's one half of the story.
And he goes, this is what open borders
gets you. Third world country. This is The
U The USA.
And there are many other cities just as
bad. Yeah. Some of the republican ones too.
Thank god for Trump right now.
You're not gonna win with this. It's not
gonna happen. And he goes, oh, I know
what the Democrats are doing, and that's why
I voted for Trump for mass deportations. By
the way, I don't hate Elon. He scares
me, just like Bill Gates. Watch this video
so you can understand a little bit of
the tech bros.
And here's the crux of the point.
Bill Gates is evil.
Elon is not evil.
Huge difference.
That guy has faith
like it's a religion.
You believe in somebody, so that means it
doesn't matter what he shows you. Well, he's
just not evil. So as long as he's
doing it, I'm okay.
This is the crux of the problem in
a lot of people. I think, honestly, probably
the lowest come the people that are easiest
to manipulate, but you are acting So, as
long as
it's my guy doing it, it's not a
problem because he's not evil. And you know
that. Why?
Because you know Elon Musk? Because you grew
up with him? Most likely not.
Because you've chosen to agree and side with
the person who's convinced you that they are
what you want. You know, sort of like
politicians do all the time and lie about
it. But not this time because he's not
an evil guy.
Or he's a Christian, and I know it.
He's a good person.
Well, not according to their books, but, you
know, what do I know?
I just don't take them at face value
when people say things out loud. I look
for facts.
But this is literally everywhere, but delusional
that anybody might change their mind based on
all the things that aren't happening.
And
this is the only thing they've got.
He says, if Kamala had won, our country
would be over by now.
Would be over by now? What does that
even mean? Is that some lazy
half version of what Elon was saying the
whole time, that the country would cease to
exist if hardly.
Either person that won would take us to
this exact point. That seems pretty clear by
now.
And, of course, I guess now the deviation
is that somehow that Trump's gonna make peace
with Palestine. Well, how about we wait and
see what actually happens again before words are
shouted out? Let's wait to see what he
does. I find it hard to believe that's
gonna be different. But the point is,
if she had won, it would have been
worse.
Well, you can't possibly know that, but that's
the only argument you got. And I said,
this is the best they can do. You
know, sort of like saying, it would have
been worse had I not had the COVID
shot.
Very similar. I said, you are the Democrats
you so that you hate so much. Hashtag
two party politics, hashtag team sport politics. Two
party illusion. Excuse me. I mean, guys, it's
the same if I if I the how
much
he in particular made fun of Democrats for
saying, oh, I would have been so much
more sick or, you know, had many more
problems if I hadn't got the shot. And
we laugh and laugh because, oh my god.
You are that person right now, Catcher. You
are that person. It would have been worse
because we didn't get what we wanted. Because
every you don't say things like that if
you don't know it's going the wrong direction.
You wouldn't need this. If this was the
golden age and everyone was happy and every
Republican loved Trump, you wouldn't need to say
things like that. They know it, guys. They're
in damage control, and that's why they're desperate,
I think.
But
I think a lot of what we're seeing
is
the dredging up old things that we all
know. Now, I shouldn't say all. There's plenty
of people out there that don't someone always
doesn't know something. But in the core grouping
of the people that support or around these
conversations, and Tucker or Manchuria,
or hopefully the honest independent media, the point
is that they're rehashing. He just went over
the World Trade Center built World Trade Center
7, you know, Building 7.
And even his own audience was like, about
time. You know, it's like, what? It's so
obvious. And here we are again. And this
is Adam saying this is, Kurt Weldon, former
US congressman,
saying Gaddafi gave me his resignation letter. The
US didn't want Gaddafi to resign. They wanted
to kill him. They wanted his oil, and
they wanted control of his sovereign wealth. Yeah.
No. Duh. I mean, it's the most these
are transparent
conversations for people that cared to look beyond
the current government narrative at the time.
And breaking news, and here's my joke about
it. I said, so based on this pattern,
we will likely be hearing all about the
Zionist globalist technocratic takeover of The United States
on the Tucker Carlson Show, but in about
ten years, once it's all set firmly in
place.
And it will be a bombshell.
That's where we are, in my opinion. I
think it's quite obvious that this is whether
he knows it or not is the formula.
Where at I mean, ask yourself right now,
like, that would have been monumentally important. I
mean, it's it is either way, guys. Again,
the question is, isn't it still a good
thing that is yes. Yes, always. That anybody
might be introduced to this for an you
know, that had never seen it before. Yes,
that's a good thing. The question is, even
as it is a good thing, is it
still not possible, or you should ask yourself
whether it is happening, that they're using the
truth to trip you into something new
or to pacify new people or to make
you think he's on your side. Whatever. The
answer is yes, it's obviously possible.
So, in this case,
we're talk you know, very recently, like in
the midst of all what's going on with
Syria, for example, it would have been monumentally
more important to understand what they did in
Libya.
Today, it still is, like I said. But
they're on a new arm of all of
this, guys. Syria's taken over. It's they're they're
they're in a new direction. So now it's
okay for them to bait to use this
for something else, or see it however you
want.
It's old news.
Here's Alex Jones.
Breaking news, May 13. Alex Jones breakdown
how breaks down how Netanyahu and the globalist
neocon deep state
were the hidden specters who created Al Qaeda
and ISIS. Oh my god. Bombshell.
I mean, really? Like, look, I'm not I'm
not gonna pretend he hasn't in the past
pointed out two things. ISIS, Al Qaeda US
government connections when it was when it was
against the party he didn't like, ignores it
once the party likes.
Also,
the Israel connection way before. He used to
point that out, now he pretends like it
doesn't exist. Except recently when now suddenly he's
been given the allowance to start calling out
Israel again, for obvious reasons, but not all
of it. Netanyahu in particular. That's the point.
Which makes me think it's about getting Netanyahu
out of the way and that they're making
agreements to basically roll him out of the
way and keep the agenda
going, which he'll support and call it some
kind of freedom 1776
in Israel. Whatever.
The point is two things that the idea
that you're breaking the story about specters of
you know, if you don't know by now
that the Israeli government, the US government are
the creators of ISIS and Al Qaeda, they
go back as far as I mean, the
receipts are transparent.
What's on top of that is the he's
been
calling out the globalist China. Well, okay. For
the first time that I've seen, Netanyahu and
the globalist deep state. So now Netanyahu's part
of the globalist agenda?
How does that make sense with what you
said thirty seconds ago?
Just if you if you pay attention for
half a second and hold them to account,
like any politician, for example, it becomes very
clear these people are shifty. They're lying. They're
deceiving you, or they don't even know, and
they don't even care. Bottom line is, guys,
these things are not honest with what we've
already seen going on. And here is the
guy
that he supports shaking hands with the leader
of Al Qaeda or whatever you wanna pretend
this dynamic is. I mean, point is, this
person
is the leader of Hayatir al Sham, the
Al Qaeda offshoot. This is Al Qaeda. This
is the guy that they had on
a, bounty for $10,000,000
until he took over Syria, and Israel got
what it wanted, and they just took it
off.
And Israel took over Syria, and they're building
bases, and they're murdering. And these people are
ethnically cleansing
Christians, Muslims, people all over the country.
That is what they support. But Alex Jones
wants you to think he's breaking the story
about how Al Qaeda was being I mean,
it's look at this. Just compare these two
shots.
Right? You've got the idea
that Netanyahu and the global's deep state were
the hidden specters, and he's breaking down the
influence on is on, you know, nine eleven,
ISIS, Al Qaeda. Okay. And then you have
Donald Trump shaking the hand of one of
the leaders of that group.
Doesn't that seem a little bit stupid?
But see, the difference is we're supposed to
forget that this guy's not Al Jawani. He's
the leader of Syria now.
It's embarrassing.
And Rachel Blevins, because she's honest.
And just like that, the fake president of
Syria shakes hands with the guy who declared
the illegal occupation of the Golan Heights part
of Israel, which was illegal.
It's now called Trump Heights.
And the guy who claims he defeated ISIS
shakes hands with al Baghdadi's favorite student.
We can't be this easy to fool.
Oh, and let's not forget that we covered
this already on the 12/10/2024,
which was that as Israel further occupies Syria,
Western backed ISIS patch wearing terrorists begin executions.
These were publicly posted.
Check this image for yourself, the main image.
That's duress, a recent image from Syria.
And these are these are people supported by
Israel. Same with on the left. I mean,
you can't hide this stuff anymore. They're openly
doing this now, and they're just leaning in
with guy because that's their new person. It
shouldn't surprise you. Every the masks are being
taken off. You realize they they're I mean,
the whole point about going to Saudi Arabia,
Saudi Arabia is an
autocratic despotic regime and is authoritarian.
It is insane that we pretend like that's
okay, but you're gonna attack Iran or you're
gonna go after people that are far different,
better even in plenty of ways.
Like, just if you're gonna try to criticize
Muslims even at large and not call out
your relationship with Saudi Arabia, it's insane how
obvious that contradiction is, and we all pretend
like it doesn't exist
because there's a very big problem happening right
now. Or here's another bombshell for you that
Dominic wants you to understand. Breaking news.
Matt Gaetz says Israel lobby has tremendous power
over the US government as if you oppose
The US relationship with Israel, it's impossible old
office.
Wow. I'm floored.
I mean, can you not really take a
second to reflect on why
how silly it is for Matt Gaetz to
come out and say the thing that we've
all been screaming at him and everybody else?
Now
that it's now been become a
near daily constant conversation, even if it's just
to shout it down as anti Semitic. It
is everywhere.
You're so brave, Matt Gaetz. What's funny is
he goes in this weird podcast, which I
don't look at this.
White sheets behind him and a couple of
card tables. This guy with a mask on.
Like, I don't know if it's a parody
or something, but what the hell is that?
And yes, in this discussion, he literally says,
they have tremendous power over the which is
true. Yes.
I think they outright control the US government
at this point. I don't know how we
don't see that. Now I I could be
wrong on the amount of control, but if
we don't acknowledge by now the Zionist influence
over this government, you are lying to yourself
or you're dishonest
or
uninformed.
But what's insane to me is that's what's
being stated now. So now,
overlapping with the Israel point, things are starting
to I mean, not suddenly, or I guess
not slowly, but suddenly shifting. Like, on a
dime, all of a sudden, it's okay to
call these things out.
I don't think it's because anything's actually shifting,
guys. They know you see it. They know
we all do. And the cat turds and
DC drainos are not enough to hold off
the crowd.
So they have to shift it.
Here's another example. Just on an interesting thing
coming back up. Now Mike Benz randomly came
out on the twelfth and goes, I can't
unsee this video.
But no indication that it's new or that
it's an old video.
This video is old.
Excuse me.
We talked about this in a show we
did on the on the in 2023.
And in that point, it was like a
decade. It was years old. Now that's not
the point. It's it's still important to call
out and talk about. But it's weird to
me how these things get re pointed at
by somebody like Mike Benz, which is important
to think about. And then it reverberates through
the conversation.
Jimmy Dore picks it up and makes a
brand new video about it. It's like, I
breaking news. I mean, it's very weird. Lyme
disease came from BioOpen Science. Well, yes. Yes.
It's old information. I'm glad it's been talked
about. Jimmy Dore probably informed to people. I
believe he's talked about it before. But I
just think it's weird, isn't it? How much
this continues to happen.
And to one of the most ridiculous,
Alex Jones
puts this out.
Attempts by Reuters to cover up cocaine gate
has now triggered a massive Streisand effect.
This is wild to me.
Now, I'm gonna go through this.
Where's the videos?
Right there.
You tell me what you think. Now, see,
this is my point from earlier. This may
be meaningless.
Right? I decided to put some time on
it today just because I think it's actually
really incredible to me that somebody with this
much influence
is either this bad at what they do
or choosing to lie to you in such
a flimsy way
for something.
I don't know. But it's wild to me.
And it really is a standout point in
all this. And I've been I've been you
know, I've been calling out this for since
a lot since the recent election because of
how much it is influencing average people. But
so here, I simply said, this appears to
be an IQ test. Let me show you
why before I play this video.
Mike, Michael Tracy points up something that I
I I think this was
see what the date was. Yeah. May 12.
Yeah. Later in the day, he posted this
and says I I saw it on the
thirteenth. He says, search cocaine on Twitter right
now, and you'll see endless stop slop tweets
reporting Macron, Starmer, and Mers were caught with
a bag of cocaine. But if you do
a thirty seconds of of checking and look
at the high res photos, which are easy
to find, by the way, we'll show you,
you'll see it's actually a tissue
or a napkin.
This site's become an algorithmic wasteland. Now it
may be the point though.
Now is it possible they were doing cocaine?
Obviously. I mean, I'm willing to bet you
they probably do. I mean, these people are
not what they pretend to be.
But we'll watch the clip. And the argument,
the game that you're gonna pretend that they
just left this there or it was an
accident. They I mean, obviously, it's possible.
But it seems wildly unlikely. But then when
you just look
as opposed to either being handed a false
image that he takes at face value or
altering it himself, it's very clear what this
is.
And you and we'll we'll go through this.
You can look more yourself. These aren't even
the best images.
And I simply said, I agree.
This person says, the fact is this action
was deliberately staged, his opinion, staged by Mears,
Macron, and his farmer.
It was intended to create precisely this impression,
and that and that's another way to think
about it. Right? And it's a sure win
that the Internet idiots won't understand it and
will rant about how they had a Coke
party on the train. Complete nonsense, he argues.
In Europe, they want to crack down on
disinformation
and hate speech online.
And that's exactly what they delivered. In France
and Germany, the governments have already hinted at
this after the incident,
Using this very incident to say, this is
why we have to censor the Internet. There's
something coming against Twitter.
Think about that. It was a good this
person's good point. All the world's a stage.
So this is when I think about how
so if if you're not willing to at
least consider that,
then you're part of the problem. Right? The
idea is very obviously that could have been
the very point. Then you should ask if
you believe that or if you can consider
that, whether Alex Jones knows that and doesn't
care or is an unwitting tool in this
manipulation.
I think it's the former, quite frankly. I
think we're at a point where this this
is how they're being used, and it's about
creating the next step for whatever they're trying
to do, the technocratic control structure they're building
out. Maybe he pretends that's gonna help fight
the Democrats off or whatever he does. Who
knows?
This is an insane conversation. Now
Here's Alex again. He's he has
tripled down in this conversation.
That picture, as far as I could tell,
is straight up fake or altered. He says,
you can clearly see it's a bag of
blow.
There is another post, developing scandal.
Truth justice says, the picture Alex Jones is
using in the above post is not the
original photo taken in the meeting. Look at
the official press picture on the right and
compare it to the details in the picture
on the left. Alex is digging in because
he's gone too far to say he's wrong,
or the agenda was to lie to you.
That's possible too.
It says,
but he is wrong. The item in question
are tissues and a bamboo knot cocktail pick.
They were just removing the garbage off the
table for the pictures. That's it. Maybe they
do cocaine and they probably do. My point
as well. But this was not cocaine and
that was not a spoon. That they actually
are claiming that's a Coke spoon too. I
don't think these criminals
I I don't like these criminals, but we
have to fight for truth no matter what
it is.
Exactly.
So this is where it gets even more
interesting.
This is the point about Grock. This person
says, Grock, is this real? Here's what Grock
says. And this is he he calls this
out. He goes, and I'm gonna play this
next. He goes, the claim that Macron and
Bernie were caught with cocaine on a train
to Kiev in 05/09/2025
appears to be false.
French media, like Liberation and international outlets such
as India Today, have debunked it, identifying the
white powder as a handkerchief with the spoon
as a toothpick based on high quality images
that you can look up for yourself. The
rumor, fueled by Alex Jones,
and Russian officials like Maria Zakharova, interesting, not
that I think there's anything necessarily to that,
lacks solid evidence and seems tied to a
disinformation campaign. While the viral video sparked debate,
credible sources leaned toward the ad just being
an innocuous highlighting the spread of misinformation on
social media. Oh, look at that. Now, just
whether you agree with whether Grok's wrong or
not, isn't that fascinating to see Grok at
this point when they're the way they've leaned
into this whole thing, and now I just
I just find that interesting.
Now, one thing I want you to note,
and we'll come back to,
is what this reads.
The claim
that they were caught with cocaine is false.
Interesting. We'll come back to that.
Here's what Alex says. And he doubled down.
Right? He he put post this in the
eleventh, and then on the eleventh again,
attempts to cover this up.
Here's what he says.
Something incredible
happened today.
Macron,
Starmer, and MERS were
doing a train tour of Ukraine trying to
draw up support to keep the war going.
And the press gets in Oh, by the
way, the war that Alex had ended a
couple months ago. %.
Buy it into their train car,
and suddenly they look around and start moving
things quickly, furtively trying to hide them. And
when you zoom in, it looks like a
little cocaine spoon, a little
paper of
cocaine.
And all of them look like they're lit
up
like Christmas
trees.
That's wildly subjective. Now the one thing I'll
point out is the way he grabbed that
did seem you know,
it would stand out, but maybe he just
didn't want the napkin on the table because
it I don't I don't know. Or it's
cocaine. I don't know. What's funny is every
other part of this doesn't add up, and
I think it's incredible how this is going
forward.
But regardless of what you think happened there,
where they were hiding cocaine or something else,
maybe just cleaning some
Alright. So the point is that's all you
get.
The bay the basis of the evidence is
that they have something on the table that
he grabbed quickly, and they looked all lit
up, which to me, they didn't at all.
It's just it's just funny how much you
can make of a story. And now as
it goes forward and people dispute it, what
exactly is he using to argue that he
knows that they're wrong?
His eyes in a video that we've all
seen?
This is the guys, this is part of
this this is the mainstream alternative media. There's
something to this, like, muddying the waters with
nonsensical BS.
Like, that is like Orwellian in a very
clear way. Like, they're we are being driven
into this, and maybe he doesn't know that.
I don't know. Maybe he doesn't care. As
always, guys, let's not forget the many people
that have left them, like David Knight and
Greg Rees and TruStream Media guys and David
and Richard Grove, and all of them tell
you the same thing, that they don't check
their sources and that they're, you know, exactly
what we're discussing.
David Knight and Greg Rees call them out
constantly. And it's very clear this person is
not to be trusted based on people that
they've worked with.
But that's that's we should that that's for
everybody. Question everybody.
And if you do that, you'd already know.
Crash up real quickly.
It's the media, the corporate media response that's
really revealing. I just reposted the video four
or five hours ago. It's already got, like,
8,000,000 views. And I noticed that Brock came
in
and said, hey. This has been fact checked.
This isn't even a real video, which they
admit is a real video. They're saying interpretation
is inaccurate. So this is fascinating to me.
Now let's remember it's an AI. Okay? I
just showed you the one that I have
that says that the claim is unreal. Here's
what this the grok responded to this person
who somebody else is asking for. I'm actually
I'm wondering if I can even find that
to show you exactly what it says.
Yeah. That's funny. I mean, okay. We gotta
come back to this. There's a ton of
these below. Okay. So here's what it says.
Oh, the one he's showing you. The video
claiming
Macron, Starmer, and Mers were involved in a
cocaine scandal during their Kiev trip is not
real.
Now you could easily read that both ways.
If you look at every other response that's
given, it it seems to be arguing that
the claim is not real.
But this case, they're saying this is fact
checks show the alleged cocaine was a tissue.
Same thing. These claims spread by conspiracy accounts
or misinformation.
Similarly, allegations about Zelensky's drug use are false,
which certain
I my opinion, that's not true. But I
also can't prove that he's using cocaine. You
know? It's it's my this is about being
objectively honest.
You could argue that's false, but if we
can't prove it, then what then we're just
disputing our opinions.
But it says, the leaders were on a
diplomatic mission to Ukraine with no evidence of
any scandal. So these really fixating on the
fact that their rock is claiming that the
video wasn't even real. I don't believe that's
what it's actually saying. I believe that's just
simply the way the AI put the sentence
out, and it's backed up by every other
post we're gonna see. But, well, let him
continue.
But Rock just says and usually Rock's pretty
good. Oh, no. It's fake. Reuters says the
video's fake.
That's not what the same interpret. That's not
what Reuters said. Nah. That's the reality. So
what Grok is saying is that that's a
false claim. I'll show you the rest of
it. But, see, this is the whole linchpin
of this argument.
Is wrong. Now think about this. This is
Reuters that got caught getting hundreds of millions
of dollars from the Biden administration to target
Elon Musk, his company, his family for destruction
the last Oh, and here we go.
Hopefully, you remember this one. See, this is
it's important that we're on these stories because
this one might have flown to the radar.
We nailed this to the ground when they
lied about it last time. We'll come back
to it. Four years. And then it also
got Pentagon money for widespread
deception operations. Okay. And then Reuters report on
itself on that. So we don't mean that
when we say that. Okay. So let's break
this down. So you start with a claim
that we can show you is false. He's
trying to tell you that it's not, but
his only point is not trying to get
into the nuance of how he can prove
that's even cocaine because he can't do that.
It's that he argues the Grok's response, which
it's just Grok. Right? If the whole point
is Grok is just an AI, we shouldn't
trust it. That's what he's doing. But so
Grok says
that Reuters claims the video is false. And
then from that point, even though Reuters is
not claiming that, he he then goes on
to make the argument that Roy here's why
Reuters can't be trusted, which who trusts Reuters?
It's corporate media. But what he says about
it to make the case is false or
rather wildly dishonest and
manipulated as we'll go through right now and
show you.
First of all, the main point there about
the deception campaign, yes, that was the Thomas
Reuters,
in like, the
Reuters news division is one element of the
larger company.
And we went over all this. And, yes,
does it matter that they gave the Reuters
Thomas LLC or whatever it is that money?
Yes. Of course, it does. But here's what
you should understand, that historically,
more than once and well through Trump's last
administration,
that money was going to that group, and
secondarily, that it was for regularly repeated defense
contracts. So for them to somehow make this
into a current Biden thing and they did
it to deceive everybody, if you're gonna make
the case, then that means they were all
doing it, including Trump too. And they'll never
get into this. But so back to the
story,
you go into an already manipulated story to
try to make the argument that Reuters are
dishonest, which fine. That's no one's gonna dispute
that. Then they make the argument that that's
why Roy that Grock what's what Reuters said
that Grock reported was somehow wrong even though
that was not the case. That's the best
you got?
This is the ultimate
gaslighting,
ladies and gentlemen. Then you have Zelensky. You're
damn right it is. Now just so it's
clear, he then goes on for most of
the rest of the video to talk about
Zelensky.
Where was it?
So Zelensky and and smoke and and, you
know, cocaine allegations.
Everybody to look at and make their own
decision. And that's what broadcast like mine are.
It's punditry. It's analysis. It's appendant. And it's
journalists that we have on that have broken
major stories. And then the public watches us
and does their own research and decides, are
we a credible source that tries to tell
the truth? Was Alex Jones right? Am I
tomorrow's news today? Yeah. But see, here's the
difference, bud. You're stressing this is absolute fact.
You know what? This is the same game
they try to play. This is people trying
to emulate
what honest people are doing out there. Right?
The idea that you can act like you
didn't just scream that this was absolute, and
now you're acting like, well, you tell us
what you think and whether or not we're
for sure.
You're playing you're speaking out of both sides
of your mouth. That's what this is. That's
why
seemingly everybody is calling these people out right
now. You know, David Icke has been calling
them out for a very long time. Don't
forget Bill Cooper called him an absolute manipulator
way back when. And it's amazing these things
don't continue to collect. So, to the point.
Here's what it actually says again,
the one that we were showing you.
And I'll show you the the rest of
it. We can go through. The claim that
Macron and Starmer Mers were caught with cocaine
on a train
appears to be false.
French media, and we read the rest of
it. So
that's the if the best you can do
is try to take out of context what
it appears to be what Grock was saying
if by the way, that was a screenshot.
What he showed you was a screenshot, so
how do we even know that's real? Which
by the way is actually an important point
to make.
Any answer?
This,
all we got was a screenshot.
This has been fact checked. Now I'm not
necessarily trying to suggest that it's false.
For for all we know, it's not. For
all we know, this is exactly,
you know,
what it looks like. But what let's be
clear.
Twitter files got people blindly trusting screenshots. Right?
So
here you can see it.
So let's go to the next one.
Oh, let me play this again real quick.
Oh, good. Okay.
So I was gonna got to grab something.
But so here here is one of the
other ones.
And you can see that a lot of
people are asking. Look at this. There are
all the grocs down there. So let's look
at all of them and compare to the
one he was showing you.
This one, again, says the claim that Macron
was caught on a train is false. Okay?
Let's see what this one says. Based on
the evidence, the object in the image is
most likely a handkerchief, not a plastic bag.
Credible sources like okay. So it doesn't even
mention that.
Next one
says, I appreciate and this one says, Rock,
you need to learn oh, this is also
what's funny. So they're telling you, no, that's
not what it is. Okay. And then it
says, you need to learn to think critically
about the sources you quote blindly as the
truth, or you are actually just not useful
anymore. So if you don't get the answer
you want, you criticize and go, you're not
looking at the sources I like,
which is just funny to me. You know?
It's just so people like this are blindly
accepting this as long as it aligns with
their worldview, and then suddenly it says something
that you don't agree with and you go,
well, I disagree with what you're okay. Here's
our response. I appreciate your call for critical
thinking. The rumor that Macron and the rest
of them with cocaine and a train has
been debated heavily. Credible outlets, which you could
debate whether they're out credible or not, I
don't think so, analyzed high quality footage. And
the point is a lot of them have.
Reuters and plenty of others, the point is
clearly this is not actually what it appears
to be.
And then it says, I've never seen a
handkerchief that looks like a cell phone bag
cellophane bag. That's because either Alex or whoever
gave him the image altered the image. And
this says, I understand your skepticism about the
object in the video. Credible sources, like French
media, have identified it as a rule of
a handkerchief and support so you could argue
they're lying, but it goes on and on
and on. And they just keep trying to
give it and contort it and get more
information as much until they get what they
want from it.
So here
is what I think is important about the
Reuters aspect.
So at the same time,
on the thirteenth, he comes out and says,
global bombshell.
Learn why president Trump banned Reuters.
And Bloomberg after discovering they had a front
group for deep state western intelligence.
Yeah. Probably all of them. Right? Except that's
a problem, though. You know why? But I
said, so so how exactly is that possible,
Alex, if Donald Trump is currently still funding
Reuters, Newswire services? You wanna explain that for
me? Here it
is. At this exact moment,
still currently funding Reuters, new service. New this
is wire services for news stories from Reuters.
Two thirteen twenty twenty five.
Seven hundred thirty three thousand dollars That's Donald
Trump's administration funding Reuters, which is still ongoing.
How does that make sense? How does he
ban Reuters for being a propaganda for the
deep state when they're using them right now,
Alex?
How does that make sense?
Well, here's the clip to go into the
second party he was trying to claim.
And here
where was I gonna show
you? Oh, right here. The link to this.
I'll include this for you so you can
actually look to the actual document for yourselves,
not just screenshots.
Here it is.
Reuters news and media.
Potential end date, 2027.
As of right now,
they've given them $733,000
since Trump took over. That's in February, by
the way. So full month.
And they are continuing providing wire services. Now
I don't find that to be a bombshell.
I know Reuters is propaganda like the rest
of them are, but they're using new services
because that's what governments do. The idea that
you're arguing it's anything more than that would
need to be proven, right? Not when you're
going against the Democrats or going against the
Republicans. It becomes whatever you say it is
because they're the bad guy.
So,
again,
if he's saying that they've banned them, then
it doesn't add up seeing as other still
funding it. But here's the next one.
He's saying that the Thomas Reuters dynamic over
here
was the whole was at least his argument
for why that we shouldn't trust the incorrect
claim he was saying Reuters was putting forward
even though they weren't. But let me play
that for you because that's also a deception.
I'll play I'll just play some of this,
which is important.
But started in 02/2018.
Active social engineering defense, large scale social deception.
Okay. So when the very first thing you
do and by the way, so you can
see it, that's the same amount,
as well as the minus 62. You get
to see them both right there.
Hundred and 62,000, and there's the 9.147.
There it is. Okay. Same contract.
Well, look at that.
So in 02/2018,
right, smack dab in the middle of Donald
Trump's administration, he paid a million dollars
for active social engineering defense, large scale social
deception.
Are is he and Miles Chong and the
rest gonna call that out? Or are we
gonna pretend like it only matters now? Or
02/2019,
another million dollars. 2 thousand 19, another hundred
20,000.
2 thousand 20,
1 point 3 million. Again, in 02/2020, '3
hundred '20 '2 thousand. Again, in 2020, '4
hundred '80 '8 thousand. So are we gonna
ignore the COVID nineteen overlap in all this?
That maybe they were building up for some
social large scale deception program?
Right. Now the point
is to argue what we don't know. Right?
The idea that the point is the Department
of Defense and watch the whole show, by
the way, the link's included,
have been giving that contract to them for
a while, and it went through Trump's administration.
And if they were gonna use large scale
deceptions, well, let's consider whether that was done
through those administrations for what we know they
built. But other than that, it's all hypothetical.
We don't know. So if the claim today
that we know that's what this is, it's
just an abstract it's it's an illusion. They're
trying to get you jumping at Democrat shadows
because
whatever they don't want you looking at right
now. That's my opinion. But I think it's
it's it should matter that people like this
are so egregiously
deceiving
while claiming to be honest.
Here's another example. Now what's funny about this
is he grabbed the the parody account for
Charlie Kirk, but Charlie Kirk literally did tweet
that. It's right here.
He says, these are the there are those
that parrot propaganda,
those that believe propaganda,
and those that know a propaganda is when
they see one. And he's highlighting what Charlie
Kirk did say, which is right here. Doge
has removed 9,900,000
scammers from Social Security systems so far. Is
this what you voted for?
And this is just a thing going around.
And here's even screenshotting Rock right there going,
dad, that's actually not true.
And you can read it right here. And
read the plumbing of different source material, breaking
it down, showing you that it is, in
fact, a deception. And it says, no. The
claim that Doge has removed 9,900,000
scammers from social media system is not accurate.
The do Doge, led by Musk,
has been involved in updating Social Security records,
specifically mark marking approximately 9,900,000
Social Security number holders listed as 820 or
older as deceased. This is part of the
cleanup. Meaning that people had died, they moved
them on, and they're deceiving you with different
things. Now are there scammers? Yes.
But okay. If that's the case, and we're
finding people who are doing so, why isn't
anybody being arrested for that?
I think we all know the answer to
this. But the point is, you could continue
reading, and hopefully, you'll actually check the source
material and not blindly trust Grock. The reality
is that all these people share it because
that's a cocking point that's going around. Here's
Wall Street Mav. Just a reminder, Doge has
removed 9,900,000
scammers.
Well, if they died and they're still there,
they're not scammers. Now sim certainly, that could
be abused. But, yes, we've shown you how
long that's been abused. And also on top
of that, that the Social Security system was
the origin point for the tracking identification system
that's being implemented today. That's where it started.
That's not that's not a conspiracy theory. That's
just provable fact.
Here is another 200,000
follower account
saying, Doge has removed 11,000,000 scammers.
So never shift. Right? Number shift around. This
went up. Now it's 11,000,000 because I guess
somebody that she follows said that, and no
one checks facts anymore.
Holy smokes.
Now, what's important around this, Seven Seas points
out. I'm gonna look more into this. I
actually asked him if he wanted to write
something about this for TLav.
Look at that.
How funny.
This platform is so so manipulative for the
podcast.
I'm definitely following him, but it just doesn't
show that.
Oh, now it does.
Gotta love this manipulative platform. So the point
is,
what is MN two s?
He says, there's a talent agency that lets
you book everyone from pop stars to politicians,
and nobody's talking about it. Connecting top talent
with global opportunities.
Interesting.
Hold on. Did I go too far?
There it
is. He says there is a talent agency
that lets you book everyone from pop stars
to politicians, and guess who's a part of
it? Peter Thiel and Alex Jones.
No. Maybe that means nothing to you. Personally,
I think there's more to this than you
realize,
and we're being played.
Now I'll reiterate this.
Stop listening to what they're saying.
Start focusing on what they're doing.
Even those who mean their words can often
be stopped or delayed for a multitude of
reasons.
What is the outcome?
And do you support that outcome? It's pretty
simple.
Politicians
are not your friends.
And this person says, no. But they said
Trump stopped talking to Netanyahu.
He's mad at him. But he's really gonna
stop giving them money for real this time.
Because several people on this app reported that
for real. He's just making a joke out
of it, but that's what we get. Right?
Like, the absolute certainty of something that you
can prove is wrong.
Now,
there's some important stuff to go over that
are some pretty alarming contradictions here. Now, I
wanted to start with this. It may feel
they'll start to be a little bit, you
know, you'll see why this connects. And I'll
I'll I mean, I'll tell you right now,
but I'm gonna play a clip this clip
about a minute and forty seconds of of
what is he again? The
Israeli spokesman, David Mensah.
And just
the the content's important. I mean, you're gonna
obviously see why this is frustrating. But the
the point is that he refuses to actually
answer the question
and just
pivots back to the o the overarching talking
point that doesn't even remotely address the question
that's asked.
And at the beginning, that was just ignored
because people were afraid to be called racist.
Sky News has always been kind of, in
some cases, pushing back, but now it seems
everybody is being allowed to do so. But
what I want you to compare is the
way that he
responds to the question.
And instead of answering the very easy question
that, you know, and and acknowledging that what
he says is, you know,
verifiably true. And he knows that. He instead
makes it about how you're supporting a mosque
by saying it or whatever. And consider that
with what we're gonna do next in regard
to Kristi Noem and the way that she
responds around the trap the immigration conversation.
I don't think it's coincidence
the commonality, the common thread between
how the the way that they're conducting propaganda.
Now I don't just I just mean the
US government and Israel. In a very, very
clear way, they've
the US government has now basically shifted
into doing the same style of propaganda. And
that's what I mean about the nuance versus
just the outright lie. And I don't know
why. It seems to be clumsy and obvious,
but maybe I'm the only maybe they maybe
it's tricking people. I don't know. But consider
this before we go to the next point.
It does seem
that there's a pattern developing. America has done
this deal
without Israel. They've done a deal with the
Houthis.
No Israel. They're talking to Iran.
No Israel. Isn't this all humiliating
for Benjamin Netanyahu?
Yeah. That's, again, the story which Hamas want
you to share, but this war will end
when the hostages come home and Hamas are
gone. Simple And even if we don't get
to it, by the way, that's always a
lie. Because right now, Netanyahu and the rest
are saying that even if we get the
hostages, the war will not end because Hamas
has to be defeated. We've been telling you
that since day one because they said that,
and he still lies about that. All the
screamers online still lie about that. John Fetterman
still lies about that every day.
But the point obviously now is that he
asked to he just point blank he said
that you're you're not involved. Right? Isn't that
embarrassing?
Well, the obvious, yes, they're not involved. No
one can deny that, but he refuses to
engage with it.
For Benjamin Netanyahu.
Yeah. That's, again, the story which Hamas want
you to share, but this war will end
when the hostages come home and Hamas are
gone. Simple as that. A minute before. Misleading
facts and asking you questions. You can't No.
They're not facts. They're opinions. They're opinions. We
won't rest until America's opinion. Is, Mark. And,
Mark, you've been wrong about this war in
every single moment. And we've had this discussion
over the last nineteen months. You've been wrong
at every single,
point. You want to capitulate. You want Israel
to capitulate, Hamas, and we won't we won't
do it because we're a democracy.
I'm happy to be honest with you. I
appreciate that. Completely appreciate that. Ask me a
decent question and I'll answer it. Well, please
do. Tell me where this is wrong. Did
the Americans
have any involvement in the release of this
the Israelis have any involvement in the release
of this hostage?
Have the Israelis had any involvement in the
deal with the Houthis that the Americans have
done?
Are the Israelis talking to Iran at the
moment? That's where where my questions. Where am
I wrong on that? Please tell me because
it'll be interesting to know.
We are closer than ever
with our American allies. That's it right there.
What you're sharing is, a view which Israel's
enemies would like to,
share it to the outside world. It's Yeah.
These are these are
line towers, guys. This is Sky News. And
and they're just like he says, this guy
is gonna be fucking kidding me. Like, you
can't like, you could you could make up
a better narrative that would sound more honest
than that. It's insane to me that that's
what we get. And I'm I'm gonna show
you something that is look. I'm gonna be
clear right now, not even remotely unique to
this administration or one side of the paradigm,
but it's just
crazy on the surface right now. And but
we've seen in the past. You know, it's
it's what we laugh about when they're in
congress, and they just don't ever they refuse
to answer the question and just repeat the
same thing. It just it's getting really
it's more important to me now because
the topic is about something that immediately affects
every American no matter your view.
My point is this is what we're getting,
and I think the overlap is very clear.
It's not just wrong. It's morally backwards. Let's
not confuse
the arsonist
with the firefighter. We're fighting
to defeat Hamas in this war. You realize
again, the thing was, were you involved in
these processes?
That is his response. Because you see, he
knows that what the if the answer in
the question will make you look bad. So
then you attack him for asking the question
or rather just stating those facts
as you're disreceiving or misrepresenting that he's not.
It's basic information.
So keep that in mind.
And we're and whether we get to it
today or not, we're gonna talk about eventually
the point about the
whether they're actually splitting with Netanyahu. I think
it's completely a facade.
But here is
Christiano.
Aaron Melnick says this is a master class
in bad faith testimony. Now, again, don't mishear
me on this. I've seen left and right
do this forever.
To me right now, it's important because, one,
I think she's bad at this. I think
quite frankly, a lot of the people that
have been picked in his administration are because
they're blind order followers, but not the that
which
to me suggests they're not as bright as
others.
I think you can plainly see that quite
frankly. But the way that they do it
is just it's this smug,
like, blithe court of, like, righteous indignation.
So, again, it's not unique to this administration
or this partisanship, but what's crazy is how
the
obviousness of it, let's say, and how it
relates to constitutional
rights.
Right? So if you had had these kind
of things in the past about I'm sure
I'm sure there's some overlap about things that
were that consequential.
I think it would have had more impact.
Today,
I just think this stands out like a
sore thumb. It says she literally refuses to
answer a question for three minutes straight and
then claims without any credibility
that she somehow hasn't ever previously seen a
photo that Trump posted and has no knowledge
of it. That's like the leading law enforcement
entity. The poster that the image that he
says they used and was the claim for
why they sent him there. Like, there what
I think is it shows their lack of
foresight or just ignorance
that when they do this or when they
go in front of the Supreme Court, for
example, and say something that contradicts what their
lawyer said, you guys, that's not that's that
will end up hurting them.
That shows you that they either think they
they have impunity or they're just not smart
to see that they're contradicting themselves or they
can't control everybody's words. I don't know. But
that's the kind of stuff we get right
here. This will come back to bite them.
Adam secretary,
you have an important job. I think you
have one of the most important jobs in
the cabinet.
Thank you for doing it.
I want you to have
credibility and and be taken seriously as you
do the job. And so I wanna put
to rest
this question about
mister Garcia in this photo that the president
posted on April 21.
Madam secretary, you agree that
the letters m s and the number 13
in times Roman numeral
font
that they are doctored
on this photo. Right?
Congressman
Abrego Garcia. No. No. I'm I'm just asking
about
this photo. Wasn't based off of tattoos. It
was based off an entire piece. And I'll
accept It was, though. %. We've gone over
it. I won't jump in now. But it
was I'll I'll accept that. Against him. And
for the purpose of this question, you agree
though that this is doctored. Is that right?
The same protocols that are I'm a secretary.
Every I want you to have credibility. Enforcement.
And I want you to be taken seriously.
Is this doctored or is it not doctored?
Taken quite seriously. Is it doctored or not
doctored? The importance that the president has given
me to I understand. Is it doc No.
No. You you clearly take yourself very seriously.
But the question, I don't think personally,
I find it hard to take you seriously.
I find it hard to take a lot
of people seriously left and right in the
government because you all seem really, really out
of
I mean,
I was gonna say the circle, but, like,
you know, these are I think my opinion
is always these people are the ones that
are being played by the power structure while
being given the allowance to think that they're
in the know. That's how I see it.
Frankly, this is embarrassing.
You know, the the risk the react the
choosing to not answer, like, think about why
you wouldn't answer that.
This and this is my thing. This is
not this is not about some nuance about
some foreign policy. This is a fundamentally
obvious point. Yes. We all know that's doctored.
And now the argument is not about whether
it is or not. It's about whether Trump
believes that, which he obviously did, and I'll
play it for you next.
But the sad thing is because they're so
desperate to just, you know, tow the line
that they she won't even look at it.
She won't even respond to it. And she
act eventually, when forced, won't even say that
she knows what it is.
And instead, it keeps going back to how
we did used everything we could. And the
point is she lied about that. It's been
proven in court, in in the very things
they present. They use the point system, and
it was based on, I think, two points
for the bull's hat and two for the
tattoos,
which then amount to four, which was enough
to get him deported. That's on the record.
Everything else was circumstantial hearsay that even the
judges have admitted.
We've talked about this endlessly.
Two
deportation courts where they used hearsay from a
from a a cop who's now been was
fired right afterward for corruption, who pointed to
an anonymous source who claimed he was MS
thirteen.
And they said, well, we're gonna take the
cop at face value for the deportation case,
put it down in the notes, went the
second thing did the same. None of those
were proving he was part of it. None
of them were criminal cases. None of them
were actually saying this means MS 13. And
then when it actually went to four went
went to something that would mean something, nothing
happened.
He got dismissed. Then Trump's administration in 02/2019
allowed him to stay under withhold withholding of
removal because of political persecution from El Salvador.
All this time forward, the same Trump administration,
rather Trump and his new administration, comes back
and says now something's different even though it's
not and points to those same two documents
that cite what the cops said. That's all
it means.
No source has ever no one's ever found
out who the anonymous source is. The cop
was fired for corruption.
And judges to this day are saying this
is based on the bull's hat and the
tattoos and being in the wrong place at
the wrong time. No one has proven these
things. And to this day, they hold by
they say that proves it. And then they
also just add on human trafficking
and wife beating, neither of which have actually
been confirmed. Yes. There's domestic abuse calls. The
wife
says nothing happened.
Of course, she's probably she could be lying.
I don't know. Neither does Kristi Noem. But
they're so desperate to make a case, they're
willing to lean into circumstantial things that don't
even have anything to do with the claim
that they're making.
The human trafficking claim was that he got
arrested. He got pulled over with a you
know, people in a car. I just went
over this.
They suspected he might have been doing something
wrong. Why? Because of the same notation about
MS 13 they had their files, but they
themselves
released him because there's nothing there.
It was something notated. They looked into it.
They had nothing to charge him with. They
gave him a ticket. He went home. And
to this day, she says human trafficking.
You can't actually be this dishonest and this
verifiably wrong and think that you can win.
The point is that they need the blind
followers like the people we're talking about today.
Otherwise, they have nothing.
Stop falling for
it. I am taking quite serious enforcement. I
don't want you to be taken seriously. Is
this doctored or is it not proper? I
am taking quite serious. Lady. Is it doctored
or not doctored? The importance that the president
has given me to I understand. Is it
doctored or not doctored? The thing that's important
to remember is that every single time a
case is built Madam secretary, I have a
seven year old, a six year old, and
a three year old. I have a bullshit
detector. I'm just asking you, is this doctored
or not doctored?
Sir, the protocols in the case built against
Can you answer the question? Were exactly the
same Madam secretary. Have any knowledge as to
that photo you're pointing to. Okay. Wow. Wow.
Okay. So she clearly felt like she had
to answer right there.
You don't know see, you know what? That
that was see, if I were her,
I would have never stopped saying that because
they they I've seen this so many times.
And, yeah, it makes you look really bad,
but you could always argue that you just
like, they do. We know what the democrats
are doing. He's trying to trick me into
this. He's gonna use that out of context.
Maybe. They're all politically motivated. All of them.
But what's interesting is that she could've just
kept going, I just keep doing this with
protocol, whatever she was doing. Instead, for whatever
reason, she decided to go, well, I've never
seen that before. Whatever's you know, I'll I'll
play it again.
Which is absolutely mind blowing. Seeing as how
this is the thing that Trump posted, which
are we really gonna pretend that she doesn't
see that? I think I can literally prove
to you that she shared it. But what's
funny is that she is the person leading
this case. And he's telling you that was
the core reason that we were deported to
them, and you don't know about that?
You're either lying or that's alarming how completely
out of the loop of your job you
are. So that's embarrassing.
Answer the question. Where exactly the same Madam
secretary. Have any knowledge as to that photo
you're pointing to. Okay. Wow. I don't, sir.
The photo. Walk walk her the photo down
there. No. That's that one.
Yeah. Just take a look at this. This
gets wild,
like, childish to where she refuses to look
at it.
But it was tweeted by the president on
April 21. It's been hanging out there for
about a month. So what is your point?
My question is the numbers and the letter,
m s thirteen. Could you look at the
photo, please? It's right in front of me.
Are you saying Abrego Garcia is not a
wife beater? No. No, ma'am. Not a wife
beater?
I mean, like, even this is my point,
guys. In a year this is not a
smart person.
That that is a reflexive answer that goes
into the worst possible direction.
The subjective claim does nothing to do with
whether or not like, if let's just say
he's the worst white speeder in the world.
That has no bearing on whether or not
he can be deported based on the claim
that he's a he's a MS thirteen gang
member. It's just it's insane.
Like, I would have laughed out loud if
I was in that room. Like, I feel
like, really? Did you say that? That's crazy.
Realize that even those things though are based
on circumstantial
evidence, and none of that has any bearing
on the actual case at hand. And that's
what they have to do since there's nothing
to back up what they've been saying. But
he's not a criminal. Ma'am. He's not a
human trafficker. Ma'am. He's not a member of
MSU. You vouched for mister She said human
trafficking again, by the way. Of all the
claims,
no they haven't even tried to present evidence
to that in any court. And she still
has the nerve to say that right now.
So have all of them, Pam Bondi, they
repeated ad nauseam.
I mean, like, if this was there was
any honesty in this world, that somebody would
hold them for libel,
for slander. That's an insane thing to say
about somebody with nothing to back it up.
They don't care.
Garcia, when your team said ma'am. So what
is your point? My question is the numbers
and the letter, MS13, could you look at
the photo, please? It's right in front of
me. Are you saying Abrego Garcia is not
a white man here? No. Ma'am, I not
a criminal. He's not a human trafficker. He's
not a member of MS You vouched for
mister Garcia when your team said ma'am, you're
you vouched for him when you said he
was mistakenly deported. I didn't vouch for him.
I did not say that he should have
been deported. Absolutely. It's it's so tender and
you won't look at the photo. And we
will not be bringing Was it doctored or
not? If if in staying here, if Can
you look to your right at the photo
in front of you? Madam secretary, can you
look to the right at the photo in
front you? I have seen this photo as
you held it behind your head. Thank you.
She's so obviously lying in my opinion. I've
seen the photo when it was behind you
a second ago. Oops. That was, you know,
see, she's flustered. That's my opinion. But I
mean, think about what she's saying right there
and everything like that. To the right at
the photo. Look to your right. Not be
bringing Was it stop. You said he was
mistakenly deported. I didn't vouch for him. I
did not say that. He should've been deported.
I did not say it. Like, okay. So
you have to understand.
From her position to argue that
her administration
or her you know, as as the leader
of the law enforcement direction, that she is
not aware that they argued
that he was deported mistakenly because he was.
That was their argument because it was not
not again, to be I'll give you their
nuanced argument that she clearly can't even wrap
her mind around, which is that
he should have been deported,
but go El Salvador was the wrong place.
That's what their actual argument is because they
are the supreme court had already ruled that
he wasn't allowed to be sent to El
Salvador.
In any context, anybody being deported is supposed
to be given due process. That is the
constitution. Yes. It applies to illegal immigrants, regardless
of how uninformed you are. The point though
is that they could have sent him anywhere
else and given him due process, and that
would have been legal.
They didn't though. They sent him to the
one place where the Supreme Court said they
weren't allowed to. And so they said that
was an error. That was an administrative error,
and they filed that. Her administration,
her position filed
that. And she sits here and says that
she didn't do that. So either she has
no clue, either she is a paper
puppet
and somebody else is running her position, which
wouldn't surprise me,
Or she's just really bad at lying.
Dean said, ma'am, you're you vouched for him
when you said he was mistakenly deported. I
didn't vouch for him. I did not say
that he should have been deported. Wow. Absolutely.
It's so tender, and you won't look at
the photo. And we will not be bringing
Was it doctored or not? And that just
despite the Supreme Court ruling that that they
have to, and they just don't care. Here
in Can you look to your right with
the photo in front of away. Madam secretary,
can you look to the right at the
photo in front of you? I have seen
this photo as you held it behind your
head. Thank you. Wow. And the letters m
s and the numbers 13,
are those
doctored or not? Testimony today is on a
doctored photo? You don't wanna talk about the
facts? Okay. The importance of our national security.
You She just admitted it was doctored by
accident. We acknowledge it was doctored. Make sure
that The United States is protected. Madam secretary,
this is not a hard question.
Are those
doctored or not?
Is that is that actually on his hand
or not? I mean, you have to realize
that for her to go, you just wanna
make this country unsafe and hurry the border?
Like, maybe. Probably. But that has no bearing
on what's going on right now. You know,
she's like, they're asking the basic question of
is this what's actually there? Because she knows
that's gonna make Trump look bad. She'll probably
get yelled at if she makes him look
bad. You know, whatever it is. That you're
so willing to just go out. You're attacking
him for things that aren't even relevant
because they know the people that will support
her no matter what will go after whatever
they can to go democrat bad, and that's
why he's doing all this despite and and
maybe doesn't change the fact that she's also
wrong and that she refuses to highlight the
what's that that was a
a false impression that was used to argue
that they sent him for the right reasons.
And that even Trump still thinks that or
at least he dated before that very embarrassing
interview.
This is unbelievable to me that you're focused
on It's unbelievable to me that you can't
look at the photo and tell the American
people. Photo, but I don't have any knowledge
as to this photo. Okay. So it's been
hanging out there for four weeks. You are
one of the chief law enforcement officials in
the country. What have you done to investigate
whether the president misrepresented
the reason that that person
has been detained?
Have you have you done anything to try
and figure out whether that was doctored or
not? The mission of the Department of Homeland
Security
is to secure our nation and to make
sure that we're out there going after those
that are the worst of the worst, the
criminals, the bad actors, Abrego García. The the
answer is you've done nothing to correct the
precedent. Of MS 13.
Right. So you're what you did is go
after people that you can't prove are criminals.
Meanwhile, there are plenty of criminals that you're
not arresting, like the Epstein list, like the
Clintons and the Fauci's and the and the
Gates and all that. Or, you know, how
about all the other things you keep telling
us? All the different people that keep breaking
the law, the Doge exposing. No. No. You're
just going after children
and and people in in a colleges that
scream about Israel and people you manufacture lies
about.
For all I know, he's a terrible person.
It doesn't change the fact that they have
not presented actual tangible evidence that proves that
he's anything they're claiming. Or how about Trump
waving his hand and saying all these illegal
aliens in restaurants and farms that we like
are allowed to keep doing that. Illegal aliens,
many of which are probably also criminals based
on their own logic. But that's okay, though.
Imagine being in her position and being so
smug and so absolute when you can quite
literally prove that she is
walking a knife's edge here.
A wife beater and a human trafficker
that should never have been in this country
to begin with. So so she ends with
the two things you can prove for sure
or rather, the the two things that are
based on nothing but hearsay. Well, I guess
that's all of it, really.
I mean, the thing is is that you
have the the possibility
in the background of whether or not they
were able to prove that he was a
gang member. Right? Then maybe that's the case,
like anybody. Maybe I'm a gang member. You
don't know. My point is that what they
were able to put forward has never actually
proven that, and they're lying about it. On
the human trafficking part of it, that's just
that's nothing. That's built on one possible statement
made from a cop looking at the same
flow to the MS 13, the,
deport the deportation case notation that wasn't ever
actually a charge, and then using that to
go maybe there's more happening here and then
letting them go because there wasn't.
And that's it to this very day. And
they've said they keep screaming human trafficking.
I'm just that's just you gotta be such
a such a disgusting person to be so
absolutely
to be leaning in so aggressively on things
that you must know are not actually provable,
or you're a very dangerous well, I mean,
like, look.
Dangerous in the sense that you could be
lying to people, but more so dangerous if
you don't even know that you're being used.
As the Homeland Security Secretary,
these people are alarming.
I think we're watching a time where more
people are being used than we realize.
And I said, this is the sad reality
of partisan politics in The United States. They
have turned this country into a laughingstock.
And if you're pretending right now that this
is unique to one side or the other,
you're part of that embarrassment.
Of course, it gets so little engagement because
nobody likes that.
But here is Trump,
I guess, pushing back on this idea. And
it's just, still to this day, people act
like this is not obvious. Poor has ordered
you to facilitate that. I'm not the one
making this decision. We have lawyers that don't
wanna do this. You remember the buck stops
in this office? No. No. No. No. I
follow the law. You want me to follow
the law? If I were the president that
just wanted to do anything, I'd probably keep
him right where he is. Court says what
the law is. Listen. Hardly. I was elected
to
take care of a problem
that was it was a
a unforced error that was made by a
very incompetent man, a man that turned out
to be incompetent that Now you one thing
you wanna note that he has never I
don't think he's ever actually stated in one
sentence that Biden
manufactured an illegal invasion of our country using
illegal aliens. That is the the kind of,
like, the fuzzy argument they're making without really
textualizing it
because they have to make that argument. Without
that argument, everything falls on its face. But
even if you actually believe that Biden was
initiating an invasion of illegal immigrants to win
elections, I guess, or whatever you wanna argue,
even though that's not what happened, despite the
claim of 20,000,000 illegal immigrants and that's not
even true,
it's funny how often these things just never
connect. But what's crazy is that you're, you
know, you're you're basically
arguing that that's an illegal invasion so you
can argue that through the alien enemies act
that these people are an organized state actor
from Venezuela. But wait a minute. You just
said Biden was the one that was doing
it, but you're now Venezuela is the actor.
You know, it it on its face is
completely incongruent.
To use the Alien and Earnings Act, you
have to argue that it's a state actor
and that it's an organized military force. That's
not my opinion. That's what it states. So
that's why they turned him into a terrorist
organization right before this, and that's why they
declared a state of emergency. Every move they
did was in order to try to manufacture
the the legal justification for what they were
already planning to do for El Salvador and
for Israel, in my clear opinion.
And they're getting caught.
Alright. So at this point,
if it is a state actor, then Biden
didn't do it, or you can argue Biden
worked with Venezuela. If that's the case, then
you somehow need to prove to me that
these people are acting in unison as a
state invasion
because that's what it will require. And on
top of that, if you are gonna argue
that because of this and because they said
these are terrorists, that where they don't need
to give them due process based on some
argument that in or like the argument they're
putting forward is if the you have an
Russia invades the country.
You wouldn't argue that you would be giving
the Russian invaders due process.
Even though I would argue that is what
we would argue from a state of we're
we are better. We're changing the world. The
play we put on. Right? That we're spreading
democracy and freedom and our liberal values in
a sense of liberty rather, not liberal. But
the point is,
it would still make sense to me that
we would give people their rights and not
just throw them in a dungeon because we
think they're on the other side of a
line. Right? But we know that's not how
most people think, at least what the narrative
shows you. My point though
is that if it's not Russia
and it's a bunch of scattering different people,
or even if it is, you would still
have to prove that it was part of
the Russian army. Right?
So as these people come through the country
and you're claiming they're part of an organized
force, you still have to prove that.
That would be due process.
Right? So, even the argument that an invading
force doesn't get that, you still have to
verify that they are an invading force. And
you can't do that seeing as how it's
all just one muddled group of immigration.
It is so transparent what's happening today. I'm
just so infuriated that we have to keep
going through this because I do see people
honestly falling for it. You always said was
wonderful, great genius. Right? And now you find
out all of the media, but it was
pretty close. Right up there. I campaigned in
that issue quickly. Wait a minute. Said you
couldn't do it. And we're doing it. And
I'm trying to jump ahead at the park.
You'll pick out one man, but even the
man that you picked out, he's got a
he said he wasn't a member of a
gang.
And then they looked, and on his knuckles,
he had MS thirteen. There's there's a Right.
They just they just looked down and what
do you know? He happened to have it
on his head, his knuckles, and now we
proved it. Like, are you really that simple?
I mean, come on, guys. Like, it's when
you think about the way hey. They look
down and went, no, he had it on
his fingers. He didn't, but
it's I I've I've increasingly finding it hard
to he was
played, tricked, used.
I mean, I just don't believe he would
do that. He's stuck. I don't think he
has it in him to make himself look
that stupid on purpose.
That's my opinion.
Wait a minute. Wait a minute. He had
m s 13 on his not his tattoo.
Oh, he had some tattoos that are interpreted
that way, but let's move on. Wait a
minute. Terry Terry Terry. You You did not
have the letter MS13.
It says MS13.
That was photoshopped.
So let me just It was photoshopped Terry.
He had He had hey, they're giving you
the big break of a lifetime. You know,
you're doing the interview. I picked you because,
frankly I never heard of you, but that's
okay. And I picked
you, Terry. Hey, but you're not being very
nice. He had MS 13 tattoos. We'll agree
to disagree. I'll move on to something else.
Terry,
do you want me to show you the
picture? I saw the picture. We'll we'll look
into this. Photoshop. Well Here we go. Here
we go. Photoshop it. Go look at his
hand. He had mister He did have tattoos
that can be interpreted that way. I'm not
an expert on them. I wanna turn to
Ukraine, sir. I wanna get to Ukraine. No.
No. No. No.
He had MS
as clear as you can be. Not interpreted.
Not interpreted. That's the point. There's no way
you misunderstand that. He's pushing back on that.
They were interpreted to mean that. He says,
no. Not interpreted. MS 13. So anybody out
there trying to tell you you didn't think
that is either lying to you for per
partisan reasons or is,
I guess,
I don't wanna say necessarily stupid, but the
kind of person that will listen to what
the DC drainouts of the world say and
without checking for themselves.
That's what it is. People no longer believe
Well, I the news because he was photographed.
In Elsa and and And here's the problem,
though. Am I saying that there's not fake
news or we can trust the liberal or
Fox News? No. Obviously not. That's my point
from the beginning. They they have to couch
you in one of the two false narratives.
Otherwise, it does they just ignore you. And
the point is that very clearly, most people,
I think, are beginning to go, look. They're
all lying to you.
That's what's happening. And you get the the
screaming partisan people at the top who who
frame it as if, you know, the Democrats
always say x, y, and z, and all
they're doing is pointing at the idiots in
congress.
Is that what every democrat in the conversation
thinks? Usually
not. But they keep the cycle going by
only framing it as that's all that matters
when that's the minority of even people who
vote today,
if you still think that makes a difference.
So here's another clip.
He says oh, Aaron says, will you give
Abrego Garcia, he's quoting it, the due due
process Supreme Court has required.
Here's what Noem has to say. This will
frustrate you. Ignize
mister Magaziner for five minutes. Madam secretary, on
April 24, a woman in Louisiana
That's the wrong one. This one. Stop filibustering.
By gang members of the MS thirty Will
you give mister Abrego Garcia
the due process that the Supreme Court and
judge Wilkinson
has required
you to give Sorry about the crackling. I
can't fix that. Him. Rico Garcia is consent
has required you to give him Rico Garcia
is an El Salvador resident who is in
his home country. If he were to come
back to this country, he would be immediately
removed again. How do you know? He has
received and been a treat treated appropriately So
he and he is not How can you
say he's been treated appropriately
if the supreme court has ruled nine nothing?
Nine nothing that he hasn't been treated appropriately.
And see, this is the whole problem is
that this is people that are just choosing
a side and acting like that. If she
just repeats the narrative
and hopes that everyone supports her, that that
that somehow will win the day. Maybe it
will. I I certainly hope not as that
seems to be like the end of everything
we are. But recognize
that the Supreme Court has ruled that they're
wrong. They admitted there was an error. They
admit they said the facilitate point. Remember, if
you follow us when we were talking about
that, remember, the first ruling was facilitate and
effectuate. And they floss their minds about somehow
claiming effectuate meant they were controlling executive power.
And it was just it it was an
insane argument.
And so they said, fine. Fine. Since the
word facilitate, we all know what it mean.
And clearly, they did clearly, they used that.
And they were not pretending like that's not
what it means. And they've come back and
said, no. That's a verb. It means you
have to, which I think it mentions here.
They're just pretending. Guys are playing a game.
So they have ruled that they have to
facilitate his return. So even that though, if
they pretend like, well, fine, then we wait
for them to do something and we're here
if you need us, that's still acknowledging that
you're accepting the ruling that that needs to
be corrected, whether it's them or you. And
And what she's arguing shows you that she
either doesn't know
that or she's just lying.
And every single time in this conversation. So
you're standing bold faced against the Supreme Court
ruling. Six of conservative judges
and many other Trump appointees at lower courts
that have ruled in the same way. Now
we'll we'll probably end on the last point
about the recent judge Trump appointed that ruled
in favor, sort of, of using the enemy
the Alien Denimy Act, but as always argued
that even if they do, they still have
to use due process or apply give them
their required due process.
But it won't be applied that way. They
take the ruling and they say what they
want it to mean, and all the the
blind followers
screamed that's all it means. And that sadly
seems to trickle down to people that don't
know any better.
Why is your opinion
better We had have more authority than the
Supreme Court? Investigators, two judges,
and immigration court. She's going right back to
02/2019. That's not the point. And I don't
even think she doesn't understand. I don't I
don't think she knows that.
Regard that that all of that has been
taken into consideration by the Supreme Court. Here's
the ruling. That's the end of the story.
Now you can disagree with that, but the
idea they can just disregard what they say
is insane. And that's what everyone that's the
point this has risen to. All she does
is point back to the things that, one,
we all know they're misrepresenting, and two, that
the Supreme Court has already taken into effect.
That all said he was MS 13 No.
He didn't. Was removed to the from this
But did you understand that is you saying
that? That is you saying that. It is
them saying that. This is the No. No.
No. Dictators in law enforcement is you making
that determination.
Against him. If you don't trust the law
enforcement officers has considered all So just so
you can't you can't hear what she's trying
to scream in the background. They're, well, if
you don't trust our law enforcement officers, then
you should do something. It's it's it's an
invalid argument.
It's not about whether he agrees with the
original arguments or what they put forward or
knows that you're misrepresenting all of it. It's
the supreme court has looked at all of
it, and they've ruled that you need to
bring it back. That's it.
That's why that she and, I mean, you
can call it filibustering even though it's not
technically what this would apply. But there there,
she's just trying to talk around the conversation
and never actually engage with the facts.
It's all emotional
sidestep, distraction, division.
But the judge is considering that determination. Against
him. If you don't trust him,
has considered all that. The judge has considered
all that, miss madam secretary. Trust if you
don't trust him. If you would be quiet
because I'm reclaiming my time,
you are not following this court order. But
let's focus on the court order because this
opinion also says
that to facilitate, which the Supreme Court is
retire requiring,
is an active verb. It requires that steps
be taken.
What steps have you taken
to
return
mister Abrego Garcia to allow him to get
due process? So, obviously, that's a very simple
question, but we see this all the time.
You know that you can't answer that because
you haven't taken these steps. They're playing this
game with the court and acting like we
don't understand. What do you mean? I thought
facilitate meant something else. Even though the whole
world knows the back and forth and knows
that the argument is that that's not the
they I mean, the supreme court has made
it clear. We expect results from you. And
they just keep dragging it out and ignoring
it or suspending or, you know, elongating the
process. So her response
is about trying to distract from that, knowing
that she doesn't have an answer or rather
knowing that the answer will make her look
I mean, will show that they're breaking the
law. Abrego Garcia is in his home country.
What step home
have you taken? If your continued advocacy for
him were to I'm not advocating for him.
I'm advocating for a court or There you
go. He took the bait. Right?
She accused him of something.
If you're gonna do this, there's nothing you
you took the bait.
The question. Ask the question. Answer the question.
Right? That I mean, at least that was
crafty well, you know, to distract from the
point, but this is emotional misdirection.
Murder, madam secretary. Mad for this meeting. The
court order
says that you must take steps
to follow the court order. You are here
under oath. What steps
have you taken to return mister Abrego Garcia
pursuant to this court order? It's gotta be
extremely
discouraging to be one of your constituents. Wow.
To see you fight for a terrorist like
this and not fight for them is extremely,
alarming to me. I'm fighting for due process.
A terrorist like this. Now you're calling him
a terrorist, which they've been doing. Right?
But the only reason you would say that
is because they declared that gang a terrorist
group, and they've yet to prove he's actually
part of the gang. It is absolutely shocking
where we are right now. At the highest
levels of power, either are completely co opted
by something destroying this country or are on
their agenda of their own and they literally
couldn't care less about this country.
Either way, guys, the core point is that
this is hurting this country in such staggeringly
obvious ways.
And you're, how dare I Well, I can't
imagine what it'd be like to be one
of your constituent.
Look, it doesn't matter if you agree with
everything she thinks or not. Due process applies
whether or not you have a side.
That's the simple fact. And if anybody out
there is trying to tell you otherwise, maybe
you should reflect on how smart they are
because they're wrong. And it's one of the
easiest things to prove in this conversation.
Now there's a couple of examples here. Let's
see if I wanna play this one.
Yeah. We'll play this one too. And then
I think we're gonna end with this clip,
and we'll get to the rest in another
show. So this, he says, the Trump admin's
position around all these cases is that everything
a DHS officer says is a % the
truth, and everything an immigrant says is a
% a lie.
And they maintain that position when even even
at when when evidence, excuse me, keeps piling
up confirming that what the DHS said was
in fact not true. This goes back well
before the current administration.
Biden's and before that to Trump and before
that even. The inter the intercept wrote one,
I think, an article from 02/2019 that talks
about how the DHS was just manufacturing excuses
that you could prove were lies.
Nothing new. In this case, it's just a
little much, much more important larger scale.
But we've talked about all this. We've talked
about the American citizens that were seconds away
from being sent to El Salvador if they
hadn't been stopped by the Supreme Court. And
in that process, we're able to convince and
prove somebody that they were an American citizen.
That's that's not even getting into the children
we discussed, is that are in fact American
citizens. And the evidence now proves that in
a court of law, it was shown that
the family was trying to keep their kids
here. That the mother tried to call the
father and they took the phone out of
her hand and deported her under the claim
that she wanted her kids with her. They
lied about it.
You could prove it in court. And yet
people like Noam and the rest will always
maintain, Rubio and the rest, that, hey, she
won. We're not gonna take the children away
from their parents.
That's, think about how grotesque that is. Again,
that they know that they're lying and they're
appeasing. They're they're they're tapping into your your
compassion
in order to trick you into allowing them
to do this to this person. I mean,
it's it is the worst of the worst.
It along with her seven year old Now
I recognize mister Magaziner for five minutes. Madam
secretary, on April 24, a woman in Louisiana
was deported along with her seven year old
daughter and four year old son, both of
whom are US citizens. The four year old
son had stage four cancer. Now you just
stated under oath that the mother consented to
having her US citizen children removed, but I
have spoken with the attorney for that US
citizen
child with stage four cancer.
She has also made numerous statements to the
press in which she stated unequivocally
that at no time did the mother consent
to her US citizen children being removed. What
evidence do you have to support your claim
that she did consent?
Now just in case it's not clear, like
I said, on the record, the court documents
has been shown that the officers took the
phone out of her hand when they wanted
the and the father says the same thing
in regard to that he was waiting and
trying to get the kids to stay, and
the mother wanted that. And their argument ever
since has been that she wanted the kids
to stay because they thought that was a
swaying argument.
Now he's telling you, look. We've spoken to
them after the fact, and they're confirming that.
Here's what she says.
Congressman, we followed the same policies and procedures.
What evidence do you have? And we What
evidence do you have? We have documents that
she what documentation do you have that that
mother consented? Get that to you, sir. I
don't have it with you. Please do. I
understand it's hard to keep them all straight
because you've deported multiple US citizen children, but
I'm asking
specifically about the four year old with cancer
who was deported on April 25. For the
record, that family was also not given access
to legal counsel before they were deported, even
though their lawyer was in the same building
at the time. I'm holding in my hands
here I covered all this. A document called
ICE directive one one zero six four, interests
of non citizen parents and legal guardians of
minor children.
This is the policy
for how ICE agents should handle situations like
this. It states unequivocally
that parents and legal guardians should have the
ability to make alternative care arrangements for minor
children prior to their arrest or detention,
and that ICE must afford parents the opportunity
to consult with legal counsel. So, did the
ICE agents
working on this case who deported this four
year old with cancer
of their own volition
fail to follow ICE policies or were they
directed to by your office or anyone else
in DHS leadership?
Sir, this mother chose to keep her child
with You have not produced any evidence to
say so, but I'm asking you again. Have
you directed And that is Have you directed
DHS officers keep families nor altogether. It's very
different than the previous administration. The previous administration
On October on That's all you got. Right?
We're better than Democrats, and that gets it.
All the dumb people cheer. That's as easy
as it is. The bottom line is that
the policy is clear. It's certain. It's right
now current, and you can prove that's not
what they did. And you can prove the
evidence that's been produced to court by every
other everybody other than their statement
is that they lied.
I mean, and and do we I mean,
do we really need to convince? I mean,
the evidence is spectacularly
clear. Every single one of these conversations, they
are outright lying to you
around people's lives.
And so, important to understand
for people chatting about this, what we're talking
about here is so you have a father
who's still here as as as a he's
legally here.
You have a mother who didn't have citizenship.
You have the children who are born here
who are US citizens,
who wanted to stay with the father, who
is legally here. So, the only thing that
happened was they refused to let that happen
for, I guess, a few more metrics on
their scale. That's the reality of it. So
to argue they should have been removed with
their family, that the argument about if it
was just the mother, that would make sense
to me because where else they gonna go?
They're gonna put them in putting them in
foster care is the last thing we should
want. But they had a father who was
still here in this country. That's the point.
And they did not allow him to take
them even though they both wanted that, and
they wouldn't let him call. They wouldn't let
the lawyer speak to them. Guys, you can't
miss how dishonest that is. That's every part
of this whole conversation. It is dishonest. Now
I'm gonna skip these, but the point is
Kristi Noem literally on the record says due
process does not guarantee guarantee
a hearing.
Guys, I actually think she's this stupid. I
don't think she even understands the the fundamental
topics we're discussing or she's trying to confuse
people.
But I don't think that makes sense to
me. If you don't understand by now the
due process I mean, the hearing is one
part of it, by the way, but it's
one of the most important
to for to face your accusers.
Right? Regressive grievances to be able to present
your own evidence. I mean, that's exactly the
point. To argue you don't guarantee hearing means
you don't understand the constitution
as the secretary of the Homeland Security.
God, it's terrifying.
And, of course, this one was about the
point she's making. She's saying, you know, this
was this was an important point. I'll probably
go over it the next show, which is
that look. Same thing I keep saying. If
we do know,
if there's no if if you are trying
to ignorantly argue that people who are being
accused of illegal aliens don't get rights, or
even if you are here illegally, that you
don't have due process, which you do, easy
to look up, many Supreme Court rulings. The
main the easiest way to understand that's wrong
is to think about it for a second.
If the government's able to come and say,
you're an illegal alien and send you to
a foreign country without proving that, what what's
to stop them from sending me or you
or your mother or your sister?
Nothing.
Now maybe it's because they don't know any
better. Maybe because you're brown and forgot your
license. It doesn't change the fact that that's
obviously why for anybody's circumstance, they have to
prove their claims.
It's amazing that we got to point to
where the people arguing to be constitutionalists are
the one arguing that this makes sense.
Wild to me. Right? But in this case,
what she's pointing out is that, well, right
now, you can see that on Etsy, you
can buy a a an ice jacket for
$20.
And apparently, they're all wearing she makes a
point. They're wearing masks. They're not identifying themselves.
They're not producing warrants. You know, all of
which are egregious violations of the ark rights,
but nobody cares about that apparently.
Simply pointing out, well, look, if you're not
identifying yourself, you're not following procedure, anybody could
put a mask on, an ice vest, and
go pretend to do and I bet you
that's happening.
Nobody's there's no accountability. And all she can
do is push back and say, we followed
every regulation. No. But we they've identified themselves
every time, you know, despite the easily
I could pick you up four videos right
now that prove they didn't. How about Ozturk?
One of the most famous where we can
see them. The guy in the window is
like, why aren't you identifying yourselves? Where's your
warrant? None of it ever happened. And Kristi
Noem has the gall to sit there and
tell you
lie to your face or that she doesn't
even know she's wrong, again, which is terrifying,
that they followed everyone, and they've everyone's been
given a warrant, and everyone's been notified
she's wrong or lying.
Just it's just it's alarming. Now
we'll end with this.
First judge approved Trump invoking Alien Enemies Act
to deport Venezuelans. Now this is interesting for
two reasons. One, the main point
is that they all agree that they have
to give them due process.
That's the one thing that they're not doing.
The one thing to me has been the
central argument from day one. I've never tried
to argue that I know what this person
is because I don't think anybody really does
other than what we can prove, and that's
not enough. That's all circumstantial and subjective and
hearsay.
The point is had they been given due
process, they would have been able to prove
whatever they wanna make the claim about, let
the judge decide, and then take action.
That's the only thing I've ever argued.
That the fact that they try to learn
to derail this into human trafficking and being
his wife, and he's not the father of
the year is all emotional and obvious because
they have nothing.
And that guy is still in prison. Right?
Same with the barber who is proven to
be an innocent person with no criminal record
here legally. He's in El Salvador.
Same with a teen, 18 year old, caught
with no tattoos,
no criminal record,
have the wrong skin color at the wrong
time. That's the guy where they caught him
and they said, that's the wrong guy. The
leader says, take it anyway. He's in jail
in El Salvador.
You can look all these things up. These
are very public cases. And the best you
get is people arguing that you're supporting terrorism.
You're destroying this country, and you probably don't
even care.
In this case,
they all argue the same, but they have
let they say that you are able to,
remove people using the act. And I'll go
through the nuance on why it's important, because
I get the sense that this is let
me put it this way. Regardless of what
you agree with, this is how the set
the case how this is supposed to evolve.
What's funny to me is they're the ones
acting like judicial coups and and then they
get a ruling they sort of like, and
they go, yeah, that's how it's supposed to
go, and they lean into it. It just
it shows you that it's they're the ones
abusing the system. Whether these are politically motivated
judges or not, let's not forget, many of
them have been Trump Trump appointed,
and they still go with this radical activist
narrative when it's someone they don't like or
ruling they disagree with as long as it's
not a right leaning judge. Let's not forget,
six of them on the Supreme Court are
conservatives,
and they've roundly ruled against what they're saying.
Now it says the federal judge ruled Tuesday,
that was, yesterday,
that president Trump can invoke Alien Enemies Act
despite, again, that many of them have already
ruled they can't. So it's one to four
at this point in regard to how many
rulings, but it says to the one to
three actually, but it says to remove friendly
Iraq remembers that but determined
the administration has has provided insufficient
notice
before carrying out the deportations, and it gets
more than that. That's the due process point.
US District Judge Stephanie Haynes' ruling contrast with
several other federal rulings who have ruled Trump
illegally invoked the wartime statute,
which is so transparently clear.
And when you go through this, you'll see
that basically what they're ruling here is the
discretion of what the government's claiming,
not that they necessarily believe it. I'll read
you directly from what the ruling says. She's
very clear. This does not mean this, does
not mean that. And, nonetheless, people are claiming
it does. I'll read it for you. The
point is, I think what she's doing here
is saying, look, the discretion will
give them the power to claim these things.
But if people wanna prove them wrong, that
needs to happen. She's not gonna dictate the
like, the bottom line is if you're gonna
claim this is an invading force, for example,
it's not her place to just dictate that
truth. She'll rule based on the presented evidence.
The argument is if we wanna go further
and decide that he is violating this, then
we have to prove, which I think was
easy to do, that's not
a military force.
It's a scattering of individual immigrants they're claiming
is an organized invasion. And so that would
it's easy to prove
should somebody want to. But she goes on.
And then on top of that, the idea
that, well, the last rulings made it clear
that they have to get due process. So
she says that and then says they they
they're failing to give them the time required
to do it. So, everything's basically the same
other than ruling that they're allowed to keep
using the act as long as these things
are actually what's going on, which I think
we can prove they're not, if that makes
sense. Now it goes through and says she
says Trump is within his rights to deport,
this is important, members of a foreign terrorist
organization,
a designation he has made for them.
Not that she's saying that she agrees that's
the case, and I'll read through it very
specifically.
Haines, a Trump appointee, which I think is
relevant. Right? If it's relevant for them to
say it on one side, it's relevant in
the other.
And emphasized her, quote, unflagging
obligation
is to apply the law as written.
Having done its job, the court now leaves
it to the political branches of the government
and ultimately to the people who elect those
individuals to decide whether the laws and those
executing them continue to reflect their will.
Interesting way to write that. Like, to me,
I think that's we have to pretty clearly
acknowledge that does not seem to be, like,
glowing, like, I support what's happening, but rather
that she is siding with what the law
states in a very objective way, which I
actually agree with. So what she's saying
is congress, guys. And that's the point we're
all making, is that right now, it's not
her job to dig that Congress is supposed
to have already dealt with this by now,
and they're toothless.
It's interesting.
So you'll see more as we go through,
but I really do think this is gonna
end up being,
the this is the right way to do
this, I would argue. It says the new
split comes as the American Civil Liberties Union,
which has filed a wave of lawsuits across
the country challenging Trump's use of the the
act, calls on the Supreme Court to immediately
take up the issue and swiftly provide a
nationwide resolution, which they probably will,
which will mean that then they'll rule on
top of this and make the case one
way or the other whether they're allowed to
continue using this. Now it says the which
which doesn't matter seemingly because they're ignoring the
last one. But it says the 1798
law enables authorities to
summarily deport migrants
amid an invasion
or predatory incursion, both quotes, by a foreign
nation.
Is very specific, none of which is actually
happening in the context of what they're pointing
at. I say that way for a reason.
All three times the law was invoked previously
were in times of war, which is required.
But Trump has looked to use it against
alleged Venezuelan gang members
that they deemed a terrorist group right before
they use this. It seems really clearly patched
together.
Now it says, Haines said she wasn't resolving
whether the president can use the law to
remove gang members.
One of several consequential legal questions the judge
took care to avoid. But by focusing on
Trump's power to use the act,
like, the enemy aliens act against foreign terrorist
organizations,
her ruling put her at odds with several
other judges
who weighed on the matter. Now you could
argue that they ruled, which I I agree
with, and from my perspective,
that it's obvious this is not a terrorist
organization in any metric. They're using that to
make this all fit together. So you could
argue those judges were ruling on their interpretation
of that, which I would argue that's not
the judge's purview. They should be arguing what,
you know, the evidence presented and what they
can prove in the constitutional law.
Even though I agree that they're lying to
them, right? But so this I get where
this person's coming from, but it may You
get what I'm saying? Because I think that
this was like right down the middle of
the law. But
it will be used by them, which is
probably something that the judges were thinking
like they already have by saying they're siding
with us. I mean, for crying out loud,
Matt Miller said a nine to zero rule
against them was them winning. So, it doesn't
mean nothing.
But I still I still think this goes
the right direction. It says judges in three
other jurisdictions have found Trump does not have
the power to use the act to target
gang members.
See,
even though that's what they keep calling it's
all about MS thirteen, Trende Aragua. And by
the way, they only declared one of them
terrorist organizations. Right? MS thirteen was not the
one that declared a terrorist organization. That's important.
So she's saying they have no right to
use it to remove gang members, which that's
the whole premise. So in effect, she's calling
them out too.
And it says saying the law was not
meant to be used outside of an invasion
or incursion. Very important. US district judge Fernando
Rodriguez junior,
a trouble pointee in Texas,
said the rarely used law can only be
invoked when an organized armed force is entering
The United States. He's right. He wrote that
Trump's in in invocation of the act, quote,
exceeds the scope of the statute and as
a result is unlawful. A Trump appointee in
Texas,
which they all happen to ignore while calling
out the judicial coup and any democrat speaks
up, of course, because they're all dishonest.
The proclamation makes no reference to and in
no manner suggests
that a threat exists of an organized armed
group of individuals entering United States
at the direction of Venezuela
to conquer the country or assume control over
a portion of the nation, all of which
is required to meet the requirements for using
this act. That's the point. It says, thus,
the proclamations language cannot be read as describing
conduct that falls within the meaning of invasion
for purposes of this act.
He wrote that in the earlier decision this
month. It goes on to say early under
those other court's rulings, the act cannot be
used against migrants
detained in Colorado and parts of New York
and Texas. That's the standing.
But Haines' ruling lifts a temporary order that
she issued last month blocking the government using
form from using the act to deport any
migrant detained in Western District Of Pennsylvania.
The government can now proceed so long as
they provide twenty one day notice to migrants
in both English and Spanish,
and then acknowledge the Supreme Court ruling of
the past that says within that time, they're
required to give the due process. I'll show
you this right now. Now here's what's crazy.
They're gonna ignore that latter part.
And ultimately,
if they can move everybody into Pennsylvania, which
is probably how they'll try to funnel this
in, they can manipulate that situation too.
But realize that that's why the Supreme Court
would come in because they can rule across
from a national perspective and say no, which
is pretty clear where that would go.
And so here, let's go through the actual
bill.
So there's a lot in there you can
read, four to three pages, but the main
part of it
is where it says not.
So it says this case
poses significant issues that are deeply interwoven with
the constitutional principles upon this nation's government is
founded.
In approaching these issues, the court begins by
stressing the questions
that it is not resolving at this time.
First, this court is not resolving the question
of whether the president may direct the removal
of certain individuals
when he acts pursuant to provisions of law
other than
this the enemies aliens act, namely, the immigration
and nationality act.
So they're basically just saying they're not resolving
whether he can use others. It's just about
the the act. Second, the court is not
resolving the question of whether the president of
The United States may revoke, remove,
under the Alien Enemies Act, individuals who have
simply migrated to the country as opposed to
individuals who have entered the country and are
members of a foreign terrorist organization. Now, even
that is debated on whether you think this
is provably a terrorist organization, or they could
just arbitrarily deem anybody terrorists and then make
that make sense.
But you have to realize that you can
prove right now that there is immigrants that
get caught up in this. They're making that
case, guys. They've told you that they're just
mass deportation.
There's been plenty of individuals that were caught
up that weren't accused of being gang members
that were you know, you have a traffic
violation, your visa's revoked, and and they're still
using the act. So right within all of
it, you can see how flimsy all of
this is if you're actually honest with yourself.
And even the judge that is appointed by
Trump who's given them somewhat of a positive
ruling is telling you that they're what they're
doing is technically wrong,
but while maintaining like, the point is,
like I said before, it is not
her position to dictate the reality of the
like, the the evidence that was presented, she's
applying and she's ruling on it based from
a constitutional perspective, which is
that they're not allowed to do these things
if that's the case. They're claiming something else
is the case. That's what somebody else has
to dictate. Right? If the lawyers in this
case had been able to dive through this
and prove to the judge they were lying,
it wouldn't matter probably.
So I think that's really important. Like, she
seems to have teed this up for the
next court to just knock this down, hopefully.
That says, and third,
this court is not resolving the question of
whether individuals who are subject to removal under
the act are entitled to sufficient notice as
will allow them to actually see KBIS corpus
in proper venue before such removals occurs. It
says, the supreme court has already found that
they are entitled to such notice,
and this court has every intention of requiring
reasonable notice as it explains in more detail
below. So very clearly,
the court she goes on to explain that
the timing needs to be enough. But what
she's reiterating and citing it right there is
the previous Supreme Court ruling that they are
required because that's the constitutional
reality to give them due process.
Mark my words. They're gonna argue that this
gives them the right to ignore those things,
that they've lied about every other thing. To
me, that seems pretty clear.
It says instead, the question that this court
is answering is this.
So long as the government provides sufficient notice
and due process,
may the president issue a proclamation pursuant to
the act directing the removal of Venezuelan citizens
who are 14 years of age or older
or within The United States who are neither
actually naturalized nor lawful permanent residents, both of
which they have removed, by the way, or
rather just people that have been here legally,
and who are members of Trinidad And Nicaragua,
which is a foreign terrorist organization after and
with a with a question mark. After extensive
consideration and for the following reasons, the court
answers that question in the affirmative.
Therefore So basically saying that it can, but
here's the point. And never mind, that question
mark is accurate because it's a longer question.
The point is,
if they're Venezuelan citizens who are older, over
14,
right? Who are not legally here. So right
there, they're violating this already because there's many
of them that did have legal realities, but
who are members of the gang?
Who are tort terrorist organizations? Okay. So that
means they are absolutely required to prove that.
That's due process. That they are part of
the gang with evidence that makes that case
very clear.
And if they do so, then, yes, they're
able to deport them.
But how much you wanna bet? Steven Miller
is already pretending this means they can do
what they've been doing.
Because these people are shockingly dishonest.
Therefore, because the court finds the president may
issue the proclamation pursuant to the act directing
the removal of alien members of the gang.
Where does it end right there?
Under the act, the court denies in part
petitioners motion for a preliminary injunction. So
arguing they should hold this until that's been
clarified. So right now, though, I think the
important part to really take away is that
they're required to give due process.
Every single time that's been upheld and every
single time they ignore that.
So when they're screaming over here, which is
what you're gonna get, these are the talking
points,
defiant L's,
one of the most hypocritical accounts that never
find these things in themselves but points down
the other side. This is DeSantis, of course.
How did Clinton deport all these illegals? Hell,
even Obama. Because this is the talking point
going around.
Well, don't you know Obama
suspended APIS corpus? Well, technically, no.
Very clearly, they
absolutely
violated the rights of people that they did
in some cases removed without due process. I've
never argued otherwise.
That is not the same thing as suspending
habeas corpus. There is a nuance there. If
you wanna say that he's he removed the
rights of individuals, half a %.
What they're currently discussing is a way that
will apply to everybody as we already went
over, despite their narrative.
And even when Lincoln did it before, that
was unconstitutional.
Now as Bruce pointed out in a recent
podcast, he then went on to get that
ratified by Congress. But nonetheless, when he did
it without Congress to begin with, it was
unconstitutional.
It is only Congress that has the legal
reality, the right to nullify that in two
positions, invasion
or rebellion.
Both of which are legal terms which require
more than you just claiming people are invading.
And that would be Congress and a vote
and a public discussion. Miller just floated the
idea recently of suspending habeas corpus because they
want to.
So as Milnick says, all of this is
wildly wrong. Immigration courts do in fact hear
millions of cases despite these claims circulating. They
do. This year, they'll decide 400,000
cases on merit.
The Clinton Obama numbers are mostly migrants
turned away at the border.
I already mentioned this. So they keep arguing
this big these big grandiose numbers. And yes,
as I pointed out, in some cases, I
can prove they because this is the main
point.
They're all criminals.
That's the key from the beginning. Right? They're
all yes. I agree. He did it. Does
that mean that somehow because Obama did it,
then you could do it too? But didn't
you just argue that you weren't doing that?
That that's very Israeli of you to argue
that I'm not doing that, but if I
was, they did it first.
Yeah. Exactly.
The point though is that they turned a
lot of people away, which then gets counted
as these numbers, which aren't actually people coming
in and being deported. But regardless of that,
they do actually have a lot of these
cases, and most of them are, in fact,
given some level of due process.
The arrested in the interior
they those arrested in the interior during Clinton
Obama did get hearings. Now but I I
don't say that flatly. I could I think
I can easily prove in some examples that
was ignored as well. I don't think these
people actually care about your rights, but it
is clear that where we're at now is
unprecedented.
And that's why they're all putting these narratives
out. Millions of people, we can't do that.
Look. DeSantis
literally
says
where do you say that? Oh, I guess
in the clip. I won't play it. It's
just he literally says, oh, it's right here.
I guess I'll play it. I have it
right here. A Simpson trial for every illegal
alien, which That's what it was. You can't
do. Right? It's just an plausible. And I
think An OJ Simpson trial, you know why
he did that? Because he knows everyone will
remember how long that took.
Like, we're gonna give years, like, you know,
months and years long trial for I mean,
it's it's they're they're playing on the ignorance
of ignorant people.
It's it's just it's insulting. It should you
should feel insulted that they're lying to you
so egregiously. DeSantis is not stupid. He knows
he's lying.
And so the point is they're trying to
get you to think
this. You see, Drano? President Trump is now
calling the 21,000,000
illegal aliens. That number is false, by the
way. 11 at most, as far as I
can tell, an American invasion.
This is true. It's also the constitutional basis
required to suspend the writ of habeas corpus.
These people don't know what they're talking about.
In that if congress were to do so
and declare an invasion, you could argue that
that would make sense if it was an
actual invasion, which you would have to then
verify as a state actor invading the country.
What he's saying is it's it's I mean,
I feel embarrassed for him for two reasons.
One, Trump is not now calling this an
invasion. This guy doesn't even understand the basic
premise that they built to make this argument,
which has been there from day one, which
you've been hearing me tell you, which is
declare it a terrorist organization, use the act,
and then claim it's an invasion because of
Biden's,
immigration
that then justifies the use of the act
to remove everybody under the guise of the
terrorists.
It's clumsy, and it's been the case from
day one. But now because he just saw
another tweet, he acts like Trump's now making
the case. These people are reactionary propagandists.
They don't even know half the time that
they're wrong within their own narratives. What I
mean, like, the narratives that are false, and
they can't even get those straight.
Setting up legal dominoes. Can you imagine being
America First and trying to argue that suspending
habeas corpus based on immigration is America First?
Some constitutionalist. Right? You are literally the fool
or part of the lie.
It's embarrassing.
Our country has been invaded by illegal aliens.
Right? So but wait a minute. Didn't you
just say that it was Venezuela? Or at
least that's what you argued in regard to
the act because it has to be a
state actor? So are you arguing bet Biden
was working with Venezuela?
Or is that Rubio? Oh, sorry. It's just
it's just insane. I can't believe people fall
for this stuff.
Meanwhile, you've got tried and true rabid Zionists
destroying this country from within, but they wanna
point anywhere else but that.
I think I'll leave it there for the
next show. But the point that I was
gonna point out again, don't forget things like
this,
that that was the other part of the
show that it's now been proven in court.
Things again that Drano and the rest will
never point out to you that Khalil
was deported
or, you know, it was apprehended and
potentially still about to be deported
because
Batar
USA
single handedly pointed him out, and that was
all they had.
That's what the judge called out in this
grueling you can read for yourself
that they literally
got a tweet from batar.
They they took from Canary.
Right there. Batar Worldwide.
And the judge is saying that it based
it seems based entirely on that one tweet.
So how long have I been telling you
that Israel and the Zionist organization they use
single handedly pointed to Khalil and the US
Trump administration
jumped?
Responded instantaneously
and didn't check anything. We've seen this many
times already where they removed people based on
allegations from this group,
and that's it.
Now, just to be clear, this is about
not this is about the example
after that. Right? This is about one where
it's showing you this my point is I'm
trying to rapidly go through this. This is
the case where you can see that they
used that tweet,
and then that tweet was proven to be
false. And nonetheless, the guy was arrested for
forty eight hours based on a lie because
they single handedly used one tweet from Batar.
My point is that's why Khalil was arrested.
We can prove that. That they were tagging
QAnom and Bondi and Trump going, dig at
this guy. That was the first one they
went after.
Nothing. They've got nothing. They've got ideas.
They're censoring this person for Israel and trying
to deport him. Is that America
First? These are destroying our country. These are
fundamental American rights.
And people like John Rich going, yes, suspend
the constitution because
immigration.
I mean, it's it's alarming.
Even if you thought it was an actual
invasion, like this idea that what you're doing,
it never gets put back together. How do
we not learn that by now? Look at
the Patriot Act. Look at any number of
examples so far. You give them an inch,
they take a mile every time.
And his point that Melnick makes here is
that, look, every single time that they've actually
had a case where they were forced to
give evidence, due process, every single habeas cause
against them have lost. Because every single time
it turns out they don't even have evidence
to back up what they're saying. And that's
why they're not going through this process.
It's very easy to see.
Stephen Miller says, every single violent Trump Nicaragua
whose deportation has been frozen by the courts
is an illegal alien.
So after what we can prove, which is
that the vast majority of the people they're
trying to deport are not, or at the
very least, they've got no evidence behind it,
the Zionist comes out and says stuff like
this.
There, it says, the illegal alien terrorists now
get more due process than illegal alien non
terrorists. Oh, so you mean none?
Pretty hard to see that none is more
than none. Right? Because if you're claiming they're
illegal tail arrow alien terrorists and no one's
proven anything to to
no one's given anything to present that or
prove that, then you're just screaming the narrative
just like Noam did in front of everybody
because you all know what's going on.
Yes. Is this Mike seems to be going
after him every I don't know who this
is, but every time I see Miller posts,
this guy's down here going, you're an idiot.
But guys, I mean, it just is nonstop.
Are we really gonna let these people just
scream at you what they want, what, you
know, the bad guy Democrat side, and they're
they love immigration and terrorists. I mean, it's
just it's just
it's flimsy.
It's lazy.
And now, again, somebody who you can literally
prove is not
a a gang member, has no criminal record,
was here legally. It's been two months since
this man was sent to El Salvador, and
he is innocent. No due process, no trial.
He's gone.
We really hope we can reflect on how
serious this is.
So we'll be doing more.
I probably won't be doing tomorrow based on
time. You know, I take that back. Our
our panel tomorrow, I really hope you'll tune
in, is gonna be really important.
I we're set for 6PM central, seven PM
eastern.
I may be able to do a show
tomorrow during the day depending on time. So
I it'll be up in the air. If
not, after that, the day after. But we
got plenty more to get to.
Trying to get trying to get back on
a regular track here. It's difficult with a
lot that's going on in the background, but,
you know, that just we'll get there. Just
gotta get back on track. We gotta find
I try you know, really, for those that
are following along,
I'm trying to generate more revenue in in
general ways, but I'm also trying in the
background to
find ways to to generate revenue without just
constantly
I hate even pointing out the donation model.
As much as I believe in it, and
I know and this is what built this
platform,
I feel like we just end up leading
in the people that are already there. So
I'm trying to find ways to generate that.
If you know somebody out there is interested
in supporting us, you know, spread the word,
guys. But my point is just taking a
lot of time away from this. If you
guys don't know by now, it takes me
most of if if not more than one
day, the entire day to put together
a show. Just the research, the time. I'm
not just, you
know, gathering a bunch of pieces of paper
and yelling at you. I mean, I'm we're
doing the background, giving you all the source
material. It takes a lot of time. So
my point is it's just been taking time
away. I'm sure you guys have noticed less,
you know, in the overall coverage. But, also,
we're doing other things on the sides. I
mean, we have different shows we're doing. I've
got the regular shows that have been popping
up lately, the IMA panels. But, nonetheless,
my goal is this show. That is my
focus, and I'm gonna get this back to
more consistent, if not all the time every
day. We'll see if we get the time
for that. But end of the day, thank
you for your ongoing support. This platform is
not going anywhere as much as we will
always be attacked and will ebb and flow
as we have two steps forward, one step
back our entire career.
But I'm here because I believe in you.
Thank you for being here. I love you
all. As always, question everything.
Come to your own conclusions.
Stay vigilant.