It's unquestionable that the Epstein business was
heavily influenced, let me put it that way,
by Mossad.
And so that's somehow emblematic on these huge
geopolitical issues?
Yes. I I watched Assad
take over the Pentagon
in 02/2002.
The Pentagon was infiltrated
by Assad.
They
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.
Sunday, 06/22/2025.
I'm gonna start with a note right now
for those of you listening as you notice
the difference
in the audio that I'm switching to right
now. Literally happened as I was going live.
It's incredible the stuff that we have to
deal with. This fly from everything else.
There's an often random switch that happens when
there's a glitch. I had to open my
audio again that change or rather my my
video that changes the way my audio sounds.
If you're out there listening and you follow
the show regularly, if you're in the chat
and you notice a shift in the audio,
please let me know. Especially for those that
only listen on podcast, that's probably very frustrating,
but just one of those quirky things, one
of those glitches that we deal with so
often on this platform.
Now today, guys, we're talking about obviously some
some very, very important developments around geopolitical events,
what's going on with Iran.
You know, it's if you guys have already
been watching this show, if you had been
watching this show over the last decade, and
in particular, over the last so many weeks,
there's nothing
other than, like, the immediate like, the updated
points on what's currently happening, what munitions were
used, what the arguments were, what moves might
have been made before. The point is you
you already knew what you needed to understand
to realize what was going on in this
event. Not that I somehow know everything or
I've given you all the things you need
to know. I mean, I argue in the
sense of
there's always more to know. But what you
would need to know at the bare minimum
to understand what just happened, what the moving
parts are, who's likely involved,
you already knew these things. And those of
you watching the show, you're probably like, exactly.
I already knew what was going on despite
all the mania because you listened to myself
or other independent media who've been breaking this
stuff down for a very, very long time.
So today, we're gonna talk about the developments
of The US
joining in, which, again,
you already know that that's not really the
reality. Now, yes, the difference of US,
you,
personnel,
US, you know,
using their own munitions and their own equipment
to
take it to carry out an attack on
Iran is different than what we just saw
from Israel bombing Iran.
But in a material diff like, from Iran's
perspective,
they already know very well that The US
is involved in all of this. Just like
they know around they they're just like Russia
knows that The US is involved in Ukraine.
That's not a
secret. So if US decides to as the
US government decides to carry out a a
visible attack in, let's say, in regard to
Ukraine, which they've already done in plenty of
ways,
the point is from Russia's perspective, is that
that much of a difference than Ukraine doing
it with their munitions? Not really. But it
does very clearly cause and effect in regard
to how they might need to feel public
facing. They have to act a certain way
or respond and save face.
Or just that it does show an increase
in regard to what they want the people
to see, which means
escalation. So either way, it doesn't matter. This
is obviously a serious war. There's obviously a
lot of comp, of potential, you know, human
life at stake. There's a lot of moving
parts here, and this very much is and
has been in the context of whatever we
call this a global conflict.
But people have been hyping the idea of
what is about to be or has been
World War three for a very long time.
Even though, again, metrics wise, you could have
been saying that since Syria. So it's about
how people manipulate this. The point is what
just happened is obviously a major shift from
the way that maybe the average person who
doesn't know about this stuff watches TV, may
you know, sees that and goes, oh my
god. We're in the middle of World War
three. And, yes, it is an escalation.
But it's important that we we
we come at this with measured discernment to
understand
what these moves mean and what it means
to Iran. And we'll go through all of
this because the reality is this is, in
my opinion, only
the
stated visible rather, since it's stated, but the
visible representation of what Iran, I think, is
already aware of what's been going on the
entire time and well before these current bombings.
So now that they are The US, Trump's
administration is publicly stating that's the case, well,
that's gonna change their reactions. But it doesn't
necessarily, in a material sense, change what's going
on. Now in regard to what they bombed
and whether or not that had a very
serious effect and has is unprecedented based on
previous attacks, it's a different conversation, and there's
also evidence showing that that's not necessarily the
case. We'll go through all that as well.
But the reason I'm starting with this is
just to kinda walk people off the ledge
a little bit to understand
the hair on fire hype of the corporate
media, the mainstream alternative media, and the lies
they use to push it all
is not exactly where we really are.
Very well could be because if if Iran
decides to respond in serious action, would that
be an would that be illegal? Would it
be unexpected? Not really. But I also think,
and this will be the last starting points
here, there's so much to get into, that
it's very possible that this very well may
have been like a tactical
stand down in a way despite how it
doesn't look that way. And I'll go into
why I think that. Only in the sense
that it already appears that there was coordination
as there always are in back channels about
you know, remember, Trump moved his people away
from Iraq already. He already you know, they
they already sort of told them that in
many ways this was happening. We already saw
Iran pulling things out of that location. Like,
there wasn't a secret here. So
it's possible that there's already been an allowance
to a set what we've seen before where
Iran decides to bomb in a a base
in Iraq that's already been, you know, mostly
date removed
and act you know, and says that that's
the response, which then allows them to say,
okay. We're strong, and they're weak, and they
didn't respond well enough, and we're in control
of the situation. And really what it would
represent is Iran's
showing restraint
as they have in every other circumstance. That's
not good guy, bad guy. It's just objectively
looking at what's going on. The difference is
whether Israel,
which we all seem to be aware, is
truly driving the bus, which appears to be,
and decides to take this even further, which
already feels like what their hype is. So
these are two separate things, but they're both
driving the they're involved with moving this forward.
If none of that makes any sense to
you, tune in. We're gonna go through all
of this. Probably gonna be a longer show
as usual, and we'll go through all the
different moving parts. The majority of today's show
is around I mean, the vast majority, all
the moving parts of this. We're gonna go
over yet again the part about the the
nuclear discussion about what's really going on there.
Not in-depth. We've done it so many times,
but enough for you to see what's going
on. We're gonna talk about the over the
the lies about Iran, the lies about the
hijab and the history and what's going on
in that country right now, and all the
lies from our government, the lies of Israel
and all the different parts around it, and
some and some, starting things that we're we're
gonna get into, excuse me,
around,
some interviews I just did, the lies around
the independent media, and how the the reason
I used that title,
the way I framed it, the title.
Kinda like I talked about you in the
last show, the split of MAGO, but this
is interesting to see even more so how
specifically this act in Iran has has completely
exposed
to other people in MAGA the false America
First element, which is interesting and always how
clumsy this is to see the Laura Loomer
Zionists out there to act like that the
ones that are fighting back against Iran have
exposed themselves as as not America first. The
people literally saying we should care about this
country first and not get into foreign wars
for a foreign country are the ones that
are exposed as not America first. It's just
it's typical because their their reaction is to
go, you're the one. You're the thing that
we're showing you we are. Typical Zionist propaganda,
but we'll go through all of this and
all the different parts and end with some
interesting things that I think are important. So
please stay tuned today. I really do think
this is gonna be, you know, this will
elucidate a lot for people that may not
have been following this entire time. And and
really, as always, with all of the source
material for literally everything I'm showing you on
this show, which is already pulled aside and
even things I add during the show, I
add as you see live on the show
to add to the source material so you
can research it for yourself. And even the
ones that are, let's as you can see,
for those not on the podcast, that are,
you know, on on Twitter, for example. This
is only usually because that's where I I
saw it first and typically involves a source
link which is also included.
So understand that. That's why this platform is
different or anybody doing that is different than
the false independent media because you don't need
to trust what I'm saying. You don't need
to trust me.
Why would you? You could look at the
data for yourself. You could consider my opinion,
and you can and you can weigh it
on how often I've been correct and how
many times I followed through and how many
times we followed back up with things that
weren't correct. And you can weigh that and
go, well, look at the history there. Look
at the long term accuracy
of this platform. Not bombastic claims of being
right based on throwing out 75 possible options
to one thing and then claiming you got
it right on that one day out of
77. You know, that's how that works everywhere
else for the most part.
But
this is based on information you can verify
for yourself.
Why would you want anything else? But I'll
start with a point here in regard to
an interview I just did, which I was
gonna put out the day before and for,
multiple reasons, just timing. Honestly, I wasn't able
to get it out, which was with, Brian
Young or rather the used to be Hyunpack
Flix. That's how a lot of people still
know him as the name on the, the
Twitter account.
But, again, as you watch the interview, it'll
be out tomorrow, 99%
tomorrow.
He's just one of the most genuine,
consistent people in this entire field. And we,
you know, we we we I I'm really
I I really want him to be part
of the IMA. So let's let him know
that everybody else wants him too too and
that he deserves to be a part of
it because he he is outstanding. And I've
been saying that for so long because his
consistency in his principles, it's just like a
it's what we keep talking about. It shouldn't
be something that's that shocking and shouldn't be,
you know, praiseworthy to just be consistent, but
it should be today because of how wildly
unique it seems to be in this field.
So check out his work if you haven't
already. A lot of really great commentary.
He's very educated when it comes to constitutional
rights and and history around people and government
and statism. He knows what he's talking about.
And so we had a great kind of
just catching up interview because we haven't connected
in a while about a lot of stuff.
So it'll be a good one for you
to check out. He just simply posted that
that, you know, let me know if you
can see this because we're both shadowbanned. I
use this just to remind me to talk
about it. Make sure you follow his account
there and look forward to the interview coming
out tomorrow. On a few points related to
to, Israel and Gaza, which we're not gonna
talk about today other than these points that
I just wanted you to see because it
is not even
what's so disgusting about this is the is
the I said this more than once. The
the the struggle of what we choose not
to cover when this is all so insane
and the ongoing genocide
should be the only thing we really I
mean, it's just so obvious that this is
such a pair a earth shattering event. And
it just kills me that at any moment
we're not screaming from the rooftops about what
this is, which is why I always include
it. My point is it's not even slowing
down. It's actually getting worse, if you can
believe that. As Ryan Grim points out, apparently,
there were there well, first, Drop Site News
says Israeli snipers shot and killed a young
girl as she was playing in the sand
near a displacement camp. Not new, by the
way, but just brazen at this point. Knowing
people are paying attention, knowing they're trying to
hide that they're even doing that, and now
they're just casually sniping people off in plain
daylight in front of everybody because they know,
I mean, what's happened?
The world has called it out. Every mechanism
we ever used to think would ever actually
cause a change or influence on governments or
people in power. Human rights groups, the UN,
every one of them have come out and
told you what they're doing. And they look
around and no one constrains them. And The
US goes, keep going. And Trump says, we're
behind you. And
they keep going.
This was the twenty first yesterday.
Journalist, Ibrahim
Asiladi, reports the child was directly struck by
the bullet.
And as a Grim Ryan Grim says, apparently,
there were gloves on previously. What Israel's doing
now is in Gaza defies all description.
Kills me.
That is not going away, and it's only
expanding if we really understand what's happening right
now. Also, on the twenty first, Harrat's Israel
strikes killed 202
Gaza people in Gaza at forty eight hours.
Nothing new there either, shockingly enough. But why
we're not focused on that insane amount of
people every day, the 60 plus children that
die every day in Gaza right now.
That's the side story today. That should make
you sick.
Abby Martin simply points out, you can kill
a 100 gozans in one night. Nobody in
the world cares, was a direct quote from
a Knesset member on live TV. And she
should be pointing out, he was right.
Right there in front of you.
On top of that, Iraqi Christian Foundation, just
to overlap this with the lies about The
Middle East and everything else, or from Syria
to Iraq to anywhere else, the lies they
spun about why these countries were the problems.
And then when Israel used The US to
go in to destroy them, focused on the
Christian population like they do everywhere. Literally every
conversation we're having, Syria had the third largest
Christian population of all of Middle East until
Israel and United States. Same with Christian.
Saddam Hussein's inner party was the Ba'ath party,
largely Christian or a good portion. And the
point here
is or rather the large point first is
that how often that seems to be the
focal point. Using people who think rather using
people who know they're lying, who then convince
Americans they're fighting against some evil Muslim terror
group, and then they turn around and go
after the things that they actually wanna focus
on. I'm talking about the Zionist entity.
Here it is again. This is from today.
As they're all talking about the evil Muslims
out there to kill all the Christians, right,
or the false narrative, the loomers of the
type of the world are shoving down everyone's
throat because we're now talking about Iran. Even
though they don't even seem to understand the
difference between what we're talking about here between,
you know, the difference in general. Like, it's
people right now conflating all sorts of things
like sheiks with with with Shiites and Sunni
and all the people just act like they
think it's all one thing. And,
I mean, these are people in the highest
levels of the conversation, which makes it really
does make me sick. Anyway, different conversation. The
point is that they're always out there trying
to make average people think that they're the
boogeyman.
Well, the reality is it's quite the opposite.
During Sunday mass, a suicide bomb explodes at
Saint Ilus Greek Orthodox Church in Damascus, Syria.
15 people have already been killed. The terrorist
groups in Syria are literally affiliated with The
US and Israel. I mean, on the surface,
guys, it's not hard to recognize. You know,
recognize. You know, that group that was twenty
seconds ago at a $10,000,000 bounty on this
Jelani's head specifically, but the Hayat Shalshan group,
they were telling you they were fighting the
whole time, who they now allowed to take
control of Syria because Israel wanted that. They're
literally bombing churches in in Syria. As Syrian
Girl points out,
these churches were completely safe under Assad the
entire time. And now the moment they don't
have control, guess what gets the focal point?
Or the ongoing ethnic cleansing that they're carrying
out, The US Israeli backed ISIS main I
mean, here, this in case you think we're
somehow being
hyperbolic.
I always show this just because these images
were taken I mean, use the use the
Wayback Machine or the the, you know, TinEye
or image reverse image search. That image as
well as this one are directly from post
in,
Assad
in Syria when US and Israel let them
take over this country. Those are literal ISIS
members literally wearing ISIS patches in both executing
Syrians and we're to pretend like this was
them liberating the country. I mean, think about
this in the context of what they want
you to think they're doing to Iran. Even
if you believe everything we're saying about Iran.
Is this what you want for the people
of Iran? Is this saving them when you
allow this to happen? Like, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan,
Syria, and on and on and on every
single one of the places we could talk
about.
Oh, wait. Make sure I include that. See,
that's what I was saying before. Anything I
do that, I'll try to mention in the
show. That'll be at the bottom of the
links because it'll be added at the bottom
after the show has started.
Okay. Some other opening points I just think
are interesting because this overlaps with a lot
of stuff we're gonna talk about. One of
it is the, you know, what they're trying
to say. The regime change for Iran and
what that really will mean. These points are
to show you how insane it is that
all these talking head blind
trying to be so mean these days. These
corporate media stooges and mainstream alternative media hacks
who wanna want you to believe that they're
the rebels fighting the deep state. Right? Which
is funny because aren't they're, like, on the
same side as Fox News at this point.
Like, they all would they're anyway you look
at it. These people that have once told
you thirty seconds ago that they're fighting against
the power are literally the ones that are
just the power at this point. Or literally,
as I said, funny how the rebels by
the deep state seem to just repeat what
the FBI says these days. That seems a
little strange to me. And this this is
Benny Johnson reporting what Fox News said. And
just like that, the story gets more disturbing.
Minnesota assassin
and Tim Walz appointee Vance Balter, which I
guess we're just pretending we know for a
fact that was him now. Good job, Benny.
You're on top of it. Despite the fact
that they're you know, the the mask and
the fact I mean, everything about this seemed
to be a false story. The moment that
it could be framed in the first place
as a Democrat bad thing, they all jumped
on it and they dumped the story out
with no no due diligence. Then it suddenly
got a little uncomfortable because, wait a minute,
he's a registered Republican. Oh, and wait a
minute. There's all these different signs on his
LinkedIn page read like a Christian right page.
You know, those could all be lies. Right?
But they all got uncomfortable about it. They
started going, it's a it's a psyop and
they framed us. Then it kinda swings back
around. They go, oh, now we're back to
that one again. Democrat stupid maniac because he's
killing the people they told him to. It's
just my my point is, can we not
see how ridiculous these people are?
He goes and basically says that he was
appointed by Tim Walz
and wrote a letter to the FBI claiming
the military trained him in secret, which only
makes our point for him if that's even
correct, and that Walt instructed him to take
out Klobuchar.
You know, Walt, he was also on his
list, but we'll pretend like that was some
some part of a head fake or something.
My point is any of those things could
be true. You think Benny knows that? You
think Alex's secret squirrel sources know that? The
bottom line is, guys, they'll just tell you
whatever they want you to know. We haven't
even seen the story flush out, and they're
just bearing it back on the idea that
it was a Democrat effort. Just like the
assassination attempts that we all just know were
lied to about, but now because it went
the way they liked it, they just go
forward with it. Iran did it and his
bad guy stuff. These people are children, and
they're out there trying to deceive you or
they don't care. That just needs to be
acknowledged. If you wanna go through the facts
on this that we know, here's the show
where you can check that out. Minnesota suspect
was security contractor tied to Gaza West Bank
and and
and Middle East, Africa.
That's the reality, by the way. This guy
literally was a security contractor for the most
dangerous places in the world, including Gaza. You
don't get into Gaza just because. They barely
let anybody in Gaza. In order to pretend
this guy was just going around security contracting
and he's just a random guy that worked
for some Democrats, We can't be this stupid.
It's and it's nonpartisan as far as I'm
concerned. This is them using both sides to
drive us where they want. Here's Betty Johnson
saying president Trump's approval rating has surged to
56%.
Historic.
Okay. Well, let's see. Historic.
Historic means
famous or important in history or potentially so
of concerning history. You know, basically,
what's the best simple you know, it it
is something that you have you don't you
rarely see. Right? Historic isn't every other day
or every other president. Right?
Cue the leftist meltdown, he says. I just
thought it was funny that I said and
this is just a small important unimportant thing
just to show you that these people will
take the most benign nonsense and turn it
into a bombastic
historic point. I said, despite no reason or
to ever trust government numbers from any side,
this is so clearly historic, Bennet Johnson, or
maybe just your usual grifty hype on common
things when Trump does them. Either or. Your
choice. I just simply looked at Grock and
I said, hey, Grock.
How many US presidents over the past have
reached 56% or higher approval rating?
Franklin Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford,
Reagan,
George Bush, Bill Clinton, George Bush again, Barack
Obama, Donald Trump, Joe Biden.
Yeah. But historic.
I didn't need to include that. I just
think it's ridiculous to me that these people
are out here screaming things that you can
prove are just ridiculous, but it's apparently historic.
Let's talk about crowd sizes for twenty five
minutes. You know?
Well
oh, this is different. I don't know. I
forgot. I think I opened this earlier. We'll
come right back to that, actually. The gabbard
overlap to the point about
the new nuclear conversation as well as the
two party illusion stuff. Now let's talk about
the reason I included some of those is
to segue into the two party illusion around
all of this, which is really about showing
not just that the mainstream alternative media left
and right are ridiculous,
but that ultimately
right now, it's important to see who is
towing the line at a time when it
is historically
unpopular, to use the the word correctly. And,
I mean, in Eve, especially in the MAGA
movement, which is actually really easy to see
right now.
James Lee says, traditional media, independent media, politicians
around the world, they are all controlled. But
by who is the question? And he simply
shows all these. We'll go over them in
a second again. And all and and Paul
and all the politicians towing the line exactly
the same way. This one's always very they've
seen this one already. This is from before
the last time. The we stand with Israel.
But I added, not independent
media since clearly they're not independent by the
definition of the word. They are mainstream alternative
media, the VAM, m a m, the counterpart
to mainstream media. Indeed, they are controlled. That's
important. That's a difference. Right? But just to
use his point, you know, Gunther Eagleman, Vowell,
Barry Baron Trump, Geo Donald Bruno, they're all
saying the same thing.
It says,
if you're no longer MAGA because Trump wiped
out Iran's nuclear sites, you were never MAGA
to begin with.
That's what a purity test actually looks like,
ladies and gentlemen. Not telling you what was
going to happen and then having to actually
happen and then being attacked for that, like
David Icke has been screaming about because he's
right.
This is what a purity test looks like.
You are we we we draw a line,
and you're not allowed to feel otherwise. If
you do, you're not part of us anymore.
And just to be clear, they're trying to
frame it as the binary. There's plenty of
people that are saying, I'm not going, I'm
no longer MAGA. That's the stupid thing. That's
like Gabbert jumping the other side. You don't
say, I'm no longer the thing that your
principles align with. You come out and say,
you're no longer the thing. I am still
what I think. I I still align with
the MAGA principles. But the way they're trying
to frame it is as if it's people
just leaving because we're not there. That's what
they're creating. In fact, that's what they are,
showing you that they're not real, that they
do not believe in America first interest. They
care about whatever Trump tells you to care
about or Israel cares about or whatever the
narrative that that's what we're dealing with here.
If you're upset Trump took out Obama's nuclear
facilities in Iran, you were never MAGA. If
you're no longer MAGA because Trump like, exactly
the same. Somebody hands them a sentiment, they
all put it out every time.
And, you know, same thing with politicians. I
don't need to convince you all of that.
Threat to global security.
You know, the things that we can prove
at the very least using their data that
didn't exist. That's not the same as saying
it didn't. I will always be objective like
that. It's certainly possible it's out there and
we don't know that. The reality is their
evidence and what I can see, what I
can research shows us that that's not the
truth, that they don't have a nuclear bomb,
that they're not apparently not even trying to,
and we'll go over that yet again coming
up soon as while it could be the
possible, that could be the reality.
Here's an example of one of the politicians.
Trump says, we have completed our very successful
attack. We'll come back to that. That's his
successful attack on, you know, an illegal attack
on Iran with no congressional approval.
Just texted POTUS to congratulate him, says this
Zionist,
Greatest president in American history.
Unspecious. He's done what no one else could
ever do. I mean, what does that even
mean?
What no one else could do? You mean
bomb things? I'm pretty sure they've all done
that, Nancy, but maybe you're trying to do
what Benny did and just go, the thing,
whatever it is, is amazing because Trump did
it. That's what they do.
We realize that any one of these presidents
in the past could do and all of
them have had, you know, flirted with the
idea for the exact same reason. Clearly, using
Trump, like we all predicted, was what was
was the like with COVID nineteen and Trump,
it's the same exact logic.
He's there to pacify you, and you know
who I'm talking about.
Charlie Kirk showing you the example of these
kind of just follow along, go wherever Trump
points kind of people, which is exactly what
we talked about as as freeze,
was it free?
Prince was the name of the account, called
out cat ter for the same thing. Let's
say, you you don't say you have faith
in a politician. That's insane. You guys are
children. This is not a religion.
Here's Charlie Kirk using trust.
With the weight of the world on his
shoulders, president Trump acted for the betterment of
humanity.
You see, like, is that possible? Sure.
Like, the idea that you just put your
feelings on him as a supposed journalist, that
you know that he acted with this intention.
Guys, I always point it out. It's just
so childish.
You don't know what he felt, Charlie, when
he decided to do something. It's just insanely
stupid. You guys are proving that you are
a
you're a follower. You're a religious follower. You
have chosen, as you write next, to believe
in him,
not hold him accountable for his choices, which
is what we're supposed to do, what journalists,
which you're not, are supposed to do. It
says for the next few hours, spare us
the armchair cord backing. You mean what Americans
are supposed to do in every other thirty
second comment that you tell us we're supposed
to be going, we want this, we want
that, and they carry out our will? It's
funny how when we actually try to do
that, they go stop telling him what to
do.
But I thought that's what we were supposed
to do. But it says, and instead, trust
our commander in chief. Trust.
Did you trust Biden, Charlie Kirk? Oh, no.
Because he was a liar.
Okay. Well, then why would we trust any
of them if you just get to arbitrarily
decide when you don't trust the commander in
chief?
You see, I don't need to go with
this extent. You all know this. It's just
really cartoonish to show you how these kind
of people are ridiculous,
like, on a very basic level. Then look
at the comments. It's not only me saying
this. It's just really obvious that these people
are desperately trying to get you to blindly
follow a politician, acting like that's somehow logic.
And no look no further than this account.
Cat Durden says, I'll always support Trump. He's
never let me down in ten years.
Okay. Cool, man. Thanks for sharing. Maybe go
back to your circle and keep crying about
it. Like, the it's just wild to me,
guys.
Always supported him? I mean, what about any
number of things that you've called out? Didn't
you guys start calling? But then but you
like, I can show you and I should
have probably done this, but this is some
not the important stuff of him telling you.
I don't agree with what he did right
there. I don't think that. Well, he'll just
argue, well, I support him anyway. Well, yeah.
We know that. But he's never let you
down. I mean, come on, guys. It's just
silly.
Clearly, this was not what we promised. So
when he makes a mRNA platform that what
you wanted that, Cat Tur? You you you
were saying that? No. You guys said the
opposite.
But see, they're not here to push back.
They're here to blindly gather support.
Betty
Johnson. He says, I've said it on the
live stream. I'll say it here. Donald Trump
has earned my respect and trust. Okay. Well,
then you're you get
gently put aside as one of those. You're
a child. You can go sit in the
corner and say, I love Trump. The rest
of us are gonna be constantly watching whether
we support him or not and being honest
about it and holding him accountable and say,
well, maybe he believed that, but he was
played. Right, Benny? Is it not possible that
he could be manipulated even though that's what
you guys say every time it suits your
interest that he was manipulated by the Democrats?
Here was a a holdover from the DOJ.
Well, then you would trust him. That means
you trust the people who can also manipulate
him. Right? Have you thought this through? See,
again, I'm joking. They don't care.
They just want you to trust trust him
too because that's their job. No one can
make the case that Iran should have nukes
even other than the law and every other
country or Israel's secret one, the idea that
everyone has the legal right to do that.
And they're not seeking nukes anyway. But if
they did, they have the right like anybody
does. And it says, I don't have the
intel. Trump does. I trust his team. You
mean Israel? Because that's where it comes from.
His team would be Tulsi Gabbard, who literally
said it's not true. But now Israel says
so, and he that's who he points to.
So let's be clear. That's not even something
to discern. He's making it clear
that he trusted Israel over the Gabbard
group anybody like Gabbard and his team. So
when he says I trust his team, what
he means is Israel, whether he knows that
or not. It's embarrassing.
At the same time, no one voted for
a forever war or regime change. Oh, and
here comes the fake walk back. And you're
all doing this right now. I'll show you
one later that goes, this is terrible. Unless
she trusted the neocons, but I still support
him because
whatever silly thing you try to make sense
of when you say that you can't do
that. You can't say, he just got played,
and this is terrible. World War three, but,
you know, he cares, and he's the right
guy for the job. That doesn't make sense,
guys. Heg, Seth, and Vance, who were strongly
at Trump's side tonight, fought in those idiotic
wars and hate what you mean despite them
both coming up and saying that bombing Iran
was what everybody wanted, and we're gonna you
better stop. We're gonna go after you.
If this remains a a strategic strike like
ISIS elimination or Soleimani, you mean the illegal
attack on Soleimani in an airport that killed
innocent people that was under the guise of
of peace talks?
Do do you think he knows any of
these things, or he's or is he just
that blind?
Strike like ISIS elimination. I yeah. Because they're
they were 100% defeated. Right? Like, seven times
over?
I can keep going. It's silly.
Most importantly, I wanna keep the winning MAGA
coalition.
That's what it's about. It's damage control. And
he says,
he earned your trust fighting for a war
for Israel. And we well, I I think
I have this up here next somewhere. All
the different times he called up Barack Obama
for flirting with the same thing he's doing
right now.
You think Benny cares about that? They don't,
guys. Here's another alternative to this too. Is
the people so Benny is lockstep. Same with
Jones. They're like, we're we are hardcore supporting.
We'll give you the momentary, but this is
kinda bad, but we still support them.
That's what they're just lockstep.
Some of peep people like Ian have been
strongly, you know, calling this out now in
another direction,
But not yeah. Whether you believe it's genuine
or not, it's hard to say. Something tells
me it's not. He says, so do I
just send my tax returns to Tel Aviv?
Not sure exactly how we do taxes in
Israel. He's trying to make a joke of
it. David Sy David Eich makes a point
and says, but Trump was your man, Ian.
I warned you and everyone else that Trump
had owned was owned by Israel and would
which we'll talk about next. And would you
whatever they the cult told him to, sorta
like a lot of us did. But as
always, you knew best
even though you have no idea what's really
happening. Like but now like the rest of
the vote for Trump MAGA media, you say,
who? Me? No. I didn't say that. Others
will even double down and try to say
America in to say America in yet another
war is a good thing. Fighting for peace,
as they're all saying now. But Iran was
always Netanyahu's wet dream, and Trump made it
happen. The point is whether you believe maybe
maybe maybe maybe Ian's finally seen the light.
It's up to you to decide. The point
is that a lot of them out there
were the ones that were shouting us down
from saying that this exact thing was going
to happen.
One of the many, by the way. Another
example is Laura Loomer
From a different side of it now. There's
multiple angles to this, where now she's interestingly
drawing lines around the Maha
movement. You know, and the point to take
away from this, guys, it's okay to be
manipulated.
We don't want that. I shouldn't say, you
know, okay being that it happens to us
all. We all fall into traps here and
there. The important thing is to acknowledge it
and to call it out so others don't
fall for the same thing. The point is
that the MAHA thing was so obviously a
manipulation.
We said the same then, but I get
why you wanted it. I get why you
hoped it. I get why you still do.
But there's many of you, like Mary Talley
Bowden and and Brooke Jackson, who are calling
it all out right now, saying, we still
hope for the best and the people involved
seem like they wouldn't gonna have good intentions,
but my god, Stargate
for bird flu shots. I mean, on and
on and on. MMR shots. I mean, come
on, guys. Or or allowing,
PFAS to continue or or pulling back on
restrictions for other things we don't want. I
mean, or CRISPR pig meat. It just goes
on and on and on. And so the
point is, here comes Laura to say, can
someone please conduct a wellness check on Tucker
Carlson, Dave Smith, Candace Owens, and the entire
Maha crew?
Oh, so, apparently, literally anybody who doesn't tow
the line blindly is suddenly kicked off the
team just like we keep telling you. Because
it's not about information, it's about ideological purity.
And the Maha crew, you just you just
pretend you're all just not on the team
anymore because you dare to say the thing
everybody else is thinking.
People like Loomer are blind followers.
Here's Gunther Eaglman.
We are not at war with Ron. Oh,
cool. You decide policy now? I guess when
you have over a million followers, you just
decide that you can dictate the policy,
or he's a blind follower like the rest
of them. And microaggression Charlie Robinson says, I
didn't think it was possible for MAGA to
be more delusional than the woke gender
morons, but here we are.
This is the woke right, guys. Remember, we
it's almost like I'm tired of even saying
that. It should it's it shouldn't they defend
it so aggressively because we're not the left,
but, yeah, no one said you're the left.
You're just the woke right. You're exactly the
same thing, and you can't see it, which
is even more embarrassing. It's culture it's culture
politics. It's identity politics. It's censorship based on
pronouns
or racism or whatever the current thing is.
That's you guys. It's all the same thing.
Censorship I mean, or thousand it's culture poll
identity politics.
That's really what they're leaning into. So the
agriist just simply points out the same thing's
happening now. The the the the, basically, the
lying about WMDs
is exactly they don't have any new material.
02/2025.
It's the same damn thing. And we're gonna
go over it again. On another point, on
the this the the illusion of the partisanship,
you might have seen this report, which is
just perfect New York New York Post b
s. Rogue states, Russia, and Iran attempting to
destroy MAGA movement with disinformation bot army. Well,
you know what? Probably. Probably in a thousand
ways like every other country is, but what
they're trying to cover with that story is
the reality
that MAGA movement is completely breaking down because
people aren't morons.
You can't tell them we don't want war
and then start war and say, but it's
but this is what you wanted. They're not
idiots. They're gonna go, but it's not though,
Trump. We didn't want war with Iran. I
don't care how you try to massage it.
That's still war with Iran. You literally campaigned
on the opposite of war with Iran. I
mean, specifically with Iran.
And now you do it? Or no mRNA
and then you do a platform? These people
aren't children. They see it. And then you
get the man narrative managers, the like we
already called out, they try to coax this
into place. Now this is to just give
you you may be on the fence. You
really wanna believe in what they're saying, but
you just it doesn't make sense. They gave
you that and you go, okay.
Fine. I'll pretend it's all a big ploy
and we'll just fall back into line. It's
what they want. James Lee says a recent
New York Post headline citing a bombshell report
claiming that rogue states like Russia and Iran
are sowing dissent within MAGA when amplifying antiwar
voices, but a close examination of the report
exposes some very familiar and very suspicious players.
And this this has been going around. The
bottom line is this ties directly back to
all sorts of groups that are tied to
the ADL, to APAC.
It's exactly what you'd expect. That's where the
report comes from. You can go through the
report. There's more information. I just think it's
important to understand that that is very clearly
happening right now.
And, of course, what's interesting is you get
Trump
coming out and saying as we just played
for you the last show that, you know,
b b Netanyahu is a good guy, and
we support him, and and he deserves more.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is one of the
main reasons that this this partisan side is
fracturing
Israel, and you damn well know it.
I'll I'll I'll I'll play the clip first,
but the point is this is goes back
to 2024.
'66 according to Times of Israel, according to
them,
66%
of Israelis
want Netanyahu to leave politics. 85%
support a probe of October 7.
Nobody buys it. More Americans are falling for
this than it seems anybody else.
Here's what Trump had to say, and then
understand why it's splintering this group.
Can you share some of what you've told
Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu?
He said, keep going.
What do I say? Give it every day.
Speak to him every day.
He's a good man. Doing a lot. Been
very unfairly treated by his country, I think.
Very unfairly treated. You know, for all of
his documented crimes. How unfair.
Have you given him an indication that you
may
seek to aid them more than you have
already? No. He hasn't done
it. So far, he's done a good job.
He has been treated very unfairly. I
mean, in their mind,
he's the president. Right? He's at war. So,
yeah, he's a criminal, but, you know, he's
fighting for you. So he should just ignore
all of his crimes. Right? I mean, I
think these oligarchs really feel that way. You
know, he's a wartime president, and he's going
through this nonsense? A genocide president. Ridiculous.
I'm not kidding that. Like, you don't think
he's informed by his people that everyone sees
this? They all know it, guys. That mean
to me, that's compromised.
I don't know how else you understand that.
And so this goes beyond. This is for
the next one. This is from 2025.
Still, after all the propaganda,
poll shows Netanyahu blocked sinking right now, with
60% of Israelis wanting him to resign.
This is who Trump's supporting. His people don't
want that. It's not hard to see what's
going on, guys. And I'll include this amazing
documentary
called The BB Files. If you haven't seen
it, we played some clips from it. I
mean, guys, it's it's it show people like
Miriam Adelson
literally speaking with people about Netanyahu and saying
that she will die if she says the
wrong thing. I mean, this this is a
despotic,
oligarch, like, authoritarian country. It or it's it's
exactly what we're all outlining. It is a
colonial project that has gone completely haywire, and
it start it stems from apartheid,
racist ideology, supremacy. It's what it's all really
about. And they're simply showing you that people
like this are allowed to to
to not just exist, but to flourish in
a place like this.
Now Thomas Massie, of course, being one of
the lone voices calling this out, has now
been attacked by Trump, which is another example
of why this movement is fracturing. I mean,
what you're you're seeing the line pretty clearly.
You're seeing the blind Trump supporters, which is
a large number,
blind complete moron followers that will go after
whatever they say and contradict what they said
yesterday based on what Trump said today. Embarrassing
style. And then you got everyone else, I
think, that is able to see, discern, have
questions. And that may be fifty fifty for
all we know, but it is clearly a
star sharp line. People like Massey, who are
telling you what we all know, whether or
not you wanna trust him or not. I
don't trust any of them. He's showing you
what the APAC involvement, all this different stuff.
Let me actually,
let me play this first, actually.
Right there. The APAC guy point, then we'll
play his clips from today. This is when
he was on Tucker, and he makes the
point that everyone's got an APAC guy except
him, apparently. Republicans who come to me and
say,
that's wrong what APAC is doing to you.
Let me talk to my APAC person.
By the way, everybody but me has an
APAC person. Like mean, an APAC person? It's
like your babysitter, your APAC babysitter,
who,
is always talking to you for APAC. They're
probably a constituent
in your district,
but they are, you know, firmly embedded in
APAC.
And Every member has something like this?
Every rep I don't know how it works
on the Democrat side,
but that's how it works on the Republican
side. And when
I mean, think about Tucker. I I don't
I his whole, like, gee golly thing every
time is like, I how does he not
know that?
I've been talking about it for a decade.
Right? Because of a lot of people before
me were talking about it for a decade
before that. You know? And and is he
not I mean, Massey's not the only one
that says these things. He in in in
that stature or that position, especially today, but
you tell me that he couldn't piece that
together? I just think it's, you know, it's
it's a it's a sort of a
coordinated release
to get and I think he's just being
played like he always has been. Let's not
forget, I can play that clip again of
Tucker Carlson screaming about how Iran is they're
just a bunch of monsters and all of
them should be destroyed, like the whole country.
He said that before. How do you just
shift your opinion? I mean, it's just it's
so strange to me how obvious this is.
But so here is Massey today telling you
that APAC is a very persuasive group, and
that's largely why this is happening.
What he promised us was we would put
America first. And I and I think there
are still voices in this administration.
You still got JD Vance. You still got
Tulsi Gabbard.
You still
RFK Junior. You still got calmer heads that
could prevail. They were not which I don't
agree with that at all, just to be
clear. I don't none of the people he
listed off in my opinion are the calmer
heads in any regard. We've already seen them
blindly pro Israel, so just put that aside.
But what he says next? Persuasive in this
case, clearly.
Well, somebody was persuasive. APAC is very persuasive.
For instance, the Israeli lobby in congress,
if you if you look at my colleagues'
feeds now, there's they all look the same.
They're all tweeting the same message that we
See. So whether or not support
Israel, and we've gotta do this. Mike So
whether or not that is him saying that
to gain himself position or whatever, which, yes,
we should always consider that. That's the opportunist
point I'm making. It does not change the
fact that you should go, he's correct. He's
pointing out something no one else is saying,
then still question him, then still wonder whether
his ties make him corrupt. I mean, always.
It's just so funny how we throw the
baby out with the bathwater in every context
these days. I I get it. It's a
protective measure. I get it more than anything.
But we gotta stop walking that back. Be
open to different things. Consider different things. Question
everything,
including always whether these people are honest. I
don't it's gonna be a hard sell for
me to ever accept any politician for the
rest of my life no matter what because
of how much I've seen going forward or,
you know, just been doing this this long.
I always consider it. I'm always open to
it, but it's a hard sell for me.
It's gonna take a long period of consistent
follow through. And even then, I'll always wonder.
Right? That's just how I am today. So
just understand that. It's not about trusting this
person. It's about recognizing he's pointing to something
we can prove. And very few are doing
that.
Point to it. Say good. Support him in
that moment. Everything else will continue to question.
That's what that's what you need to do.
So recognize
that Thomas Massie comes out. Did did he
say Trump's a moron? Did he say that
he's a liar? No. He simply says that
in his opinion, this move is not America
first.
And, of course, it's like we said before
about other things where Massey has a problem
with the bill, and Trump comes out and
calls him, you know, uninformed that a a
grifter. It's like, he just is such a
petty person. He didn't even call Trump out.
He simply said, I disagree with certain parts
of the bill, and this is what you
get. And so it just shows you how
desperate, how vulnerable it feels to me. But
he says, APAC is a very persuasive group,
and that he's implying APAC is why are
is why all these people are supporting
the the movement.
You know, the efforts against Ron rather. Trump
James Lee says Trump just called called on
MAGA
to disown Massey
for being a, quote, loser.
Speaking of you're like you're like you're a
kindergarten, guys. Now remember, even Tucker Carlson, a
major leader in this movement, came out and
said the exact same thing about Iran, and
Trump basically disowned him until he tried to
patch it up because, clearly, it was too
large of an entity, in my opinion. But
same thing, he came out and said, I
decide what MAGA is or what America first
is. Like, he invented it? I mean, how
stupid is that? And literally says that it's
not about what America first, it's about what
he says. So he gets to decide what
that means.
So I as I said exactly that, it
means Trump first.
Not America first. It's whatever he says it
is, so it's Trump first. Many people in
this movement don't agree with that, even the
ones who support Trump.
And James Lee says, I hear I'm here
to unequivocally state, America would be infinitely better
off with 435
fake MAGA massies
than even one more of these real MAGA
grifters.
I agree. It's not about people or choosing
sides. It's about principle
and whether they mean it or not. It's
about picking between what they're stating their principles
are. And right now, you've got one person
at least feigning to care about what actually
is important for this country, and the rest
telling you it doesn't matter what you want.
It's what he says it is next.
He says congressman Massey of Kentucky is not
MAGA.
So what he means by that, he's not
part of the team.
Does he want America great again? Well, that's
clearly stated.
And also his actions are far more in
that direction than anybody else that I can
see. And he says even though the likes
he likes to say he is. Actually, MAGA
doesn't want him. What is that? So he
he's circling the wagons, guys. He's saying, remove
this person from our team because he didn't
do what I wanted.
And he goes, doesn't know him and doesn't
respect him. See, that's just stupid.
The vast majority of his team,
people that are in his inner circle,
love Massie. And I've said that from day
one. And the only ones that are trying
to push him out now are the ones
that are ideologically blind to only go after
what Trump wants. The vast majority of the
rest of them, by principle, know that. They
like Massie. There's a reason they try to
pretend he was gonna be a part of
the team to begin with, as I told
you it was a pretend. Same with Ron
Paul and all the rest of it, guys.
Now it says he is a negative force
who who almost always votes no. Oh, you
see? So he should just vote yes even
if he doesn't agree with that, Trump?
I mean, how is that not the most
transparent thing in the world? He votes no
because he doesn't agree with it, Donald.
And he goes no matter how good something
may be,
in your opinion, bud. And he goes, he's
a simple minded grandstander
who thinks it's good politics for Iran to
have the highest level nuclear weapon. No. He's
just not a moron. He realizes the facts
don't back that up.
Simple as that. But stating it as fact,
well, the blind followers have decided that's already
the case.
While at the same time yelling death to
America at every chance they get.
Nope.
I mean, guys, these are old, tired arguments.
We're gonna go through this and dispel it
for, you know, the fifty thousandth time about
the lies about Iran and what they actually
think. They they the vast majority, as Peter
Santanella will tell you as well,
really like Americans. That's a very common point
you'll find from anybody that's been there. They
hate the government.
Like, a lot of them hate their own
government just like in this country. It's weird
how much similar there's far more similarities between
these countries than you would than anybody in
the partisan field would ever want you to
realize.
Most importantly, that governments rule our lives, and
we all don't want that. Now it says
Iran has killed and maimed thousands of Americans.
And see, even that's is a vast misrepresentation.
If you wanna point out what's killed like,
the idea of how many people have been
killed by others, I mean, the starvation tactics
alone of this country have killed far more
people in that country or the many, many,
many, many hundreds of millions of people that
have been killed post the war of terror.
But even then, the point is what we're
talking about is never defined. In what way
have they killed these Americans? Are you talking
about illegal invasions that were fended off? Are
you talking about groups that you claim are
part of Iran?
Yes. On both counts.
Now it says Iran has killed the main
thousands, even took American embassy in Tehran under
the Carter administration. Yeah. Again, there's a we're
not gonna get into that today, but there's
a whole look at the look at the
history of all that's been going on. All
of the illegal actions, the regime changes.
There were crimes committed on all sides of
this, guys. I don't support the Iranian government.
I don't support any government whatsoever.
So it's not to say good guy, bad
guy. We're simply defending facts. And what you
what they argue about what they did then
is in response to all sorts of unilateral
legal actions that other governments were carrying out,
including Israel and United States. So just understand
there's far more nuance to the reality, and
none of this changes the legal standing of
what they're doing right now. That's this is
just getting you upset about things they've done
before. That doesn't change the legalities of whether
you're rather go into all of it.
But it goes on to say,
we had a spectacular success yesterday, which doesn't
appear to be the case to and, maybe
on by design, maybe taking out the bomb,
which I'm of the mind that they don't
even actually think is the case. It's all
narrative to to maintain what Israel wants
right out of their hands, and they would
use it if they could. Okay? Well, based
on what a lot of people, including Jones,
wants you to think, which we'll get to
later, is they've always had it, and Trump
knows that. Okay. Well, then what's then why
did if the argument is you think they're
going to use it and you just basically
tried to wouldn't the argument be and they
would have used it if that was the
case? I mean, you know, it's all clearly
falling apart in front of them, I think
is obvious and has been for a long
time.
This and this is going back to Massey.
But the bomb but but but as usual,
and despite all the praise and accolades,
this lightweight congressman is against what is so
brilliantly achieved last night. No. He's not stupid.
He doesn't want it to happen without congressional
approval,
which is the constitution
that you always love to talk about but
clearly don't believe in or care about.
He's disrespectful to our great military, hardly.
I'd I'd love to see an example of
any of that anywhere.
In fact, almost all of them are are
very pro military in every possible way. And
all of them this is him trying to
outrage people on his side. That's all it
is. And all they stand for, not ever
not even acknowledging their brilliance and bravery in
yesterday's attack,
not ever doing it in that one thing
that just happened.
You know, if you follow along and you
pick up the points I make, some people
these things fall on the wayside for some
people, but that's just lazy writing and shows
you that he's conflating, you know, like he
said, I was always doing the thing that
only just happened. It's it's about it shows
you that they're making things up,
genuinely.
He says he he,
Massey should drop his fake act and start
putting America first.
See my point right there? His fake act
well, I guess you could argue both, but
his fake act meaning America first. So if
he's pretending to be America first, he says,
but he doesn't know how to get there.
He doesn't have a clue.
He'll he'll undoubtedly vote against great, big, beautiful
bills. He hates that.
The point, though, is that he's he disagrees
on on policy,
and this is how this child responds.
To grandstander child, dumb, uninformed,
rage attack, attack, attack, petty, petty, petty. Well,
all he said was he has a different
opinion.
Do we not recognize how embarrassing that is?
He says the good news is that we
have a wonderful American patriot running against him
in remer Republican primary.
Okay. So he's just trying to get somebody
in there that believes in Israel.
Look it up for yourself, guys. Every other
I mean, every one of these locations, the
people they support, they are a blind,
rabid,
Randy Fine type,
cheering on the death of children because Israel
says so. I agree with with James Lee.
100% would would rather have four to 35
or plenty more than the people that he's
pointing to.
Simon Godek says, say what you want, but
Thomas Massie has never sold out. He votes
based on principle, which I agree with.
With it, what I believe are his principles,
I can never know for sure, question everything.
But when he votes and you look at
his track record, he's very, very probably one
of the most consistent in congress.
And he says even when it's unpopular.
Exactly.
Attacking one of the only Republicans who won't
bend the need APAC or support endless foreign
wars doesn't look like strength. It looks like
being blackmailed.
I'm telling you, guys, these things are very
popular with the MAGA pooping right now. And
then Simon says, I hope everyone realizes how
effing insane it is that the president is
gearing up to campaign
against a single congressman from one tiny district
in Kentucky
just because he's the only Republican in the
house who won't take money from the Israel
lobby. Totally normal. Right?
Telling you guys, people aren't dumb. They see
this stuff.
And this, I think, speaks for itself. Trump,
way more than 230,000,000
in my opinion, from AIPAC,
or rather just really specifically around eight, but
Israeli funding. And then Thomas Massie, zero.
And then we can talk about Tulsi Gabbard.
I think it's the same conversation.
So just to be clear, which is funny,
I've been taught bad at pushing back on
people all day about this.
Anyway, it's not everybody, but people that actually
follow me. Like, you're aware that how many
times we've discussed Tulsi Gabbard. Right? About what
she's done and what she's how frustrating it
is for her to claim one thing and
then side with Clinton. I mean, we've we've
talked about it quite a bit, in fact.
So So when I come out and I
say, what happened to you, Tulsi Gabbard?
It's it's an odd thing to assume that
I'm suddenly going, what changed? I don't know
what happened. Clearly, I'm trying to spurn
to drive that thought to other people, trying
to get average people to look at that
and go, yeah. Why is this different now?
Not that I'm going, Help me, everybody. I
don't know what's happening. I think that's funny.
Sometimes
I don't. There's plenty of things that I
don't know, and I will ask the community.
But I think it's funny that the responses
are like, How do you not know? You
you see? It was just funny to me.
Look at the comments. You'll laugh. The point
is I did that to ask people to
think about it. Here's what you said in
2020.
We do not seek regime change, in quotes,
Trump declares, as he escalates his regime change
war against Iran. This is Tulsi Gabbard 2020.
Neocons like Graham Bolton, who both support what
Trump is doing, like, screamingly proud right now
of what he's doing, he says, to all
who voted for Trump because of his anti
war rhetoric, it's time to realize that he
lied to you.
Stand with me against Trump's Iran war.
So
what happened to you, Tulsi Gabbard? Alright. I'm
I'm aware. I know of the WEF points.
We'll get in all that. But I'm hoping
average people can go, yeah. You know what?
That's really starkly different.
Same thing. What happened to you, Tulsa? Here's
a clip that may
trigger those thoughts.
President Trump says that he doesn't want war
with Iran,
but that's exactly what
And this is 2020 as well.
Says that he doesn't want war with Iran,
but that's exactly what he wants because that's
exactly what Saudi Arabia, Netanyahu,
Al Qaeda, Bolton, Haley, and other neocons and
neolibs want.
So how can you possibly not see that
now, Tulsi Gabbard?
But you get the point. She does. She
was either either always a fraud
or something has changed. And I'll get into
what I think those changes may be. I'm
I'm genuinely of the mind that this might
have always been the case.
Very early in this conversation, I lost a
lot of respect for her when she framed
herself in a very clear different counterbalance type
of way and then leaned in with the
very person she was telling you was a
monster, Hillary Clinton. It's the same thing Bernie
did. You know, they're just not to be
taken seriously if that's the way they think
it works. And here we are with not
just, like, a nuanced change because of her
stance, but the 100%
difference. Now you understand whether or not you
think they've got a nuclear weapon. That does
not change the legalities of it. That's not
change the reasons of who's driving this or
the reasons and who's driving this. That's what
he puts first,
not America.
Yep. And other neocons and neolibs want. That's
what
he
puts first, not America.
Look at that. Of course, this is when
she's running for something different. Right? When she
has seen the presidential
endgame in her mind or whatever else she
thinks she's driving towards.
Don't you find that pretty stark star
striking, pretty stark? I do.
So on that note, it's worth revisiting Derek's
article on Tulsi Gabbard and her World Economic
Forum connections, which you might have seen.
And this this is both an interview where
he kinda caught her on the on the
street and was asking her questions about it.
It's all included. It's I think Derek recently
shared it as well.
How has Tulsi Gabbard adequately addressed her World
Economic Forum young global leader question? Now I'm
not rehashing this all again. I know all
of the arguments that everyone's gonna throw out.
It's all addressed in this article, every one
of them. And, in fact, all the different
points where she thanks them. Look. I'm honored
to be selected by World Economic Forum. Whether
whether you think it was not by her
choice or not or whatever the narrative is,
she stood up and said, thank you, World
Economic
Forum. I'm honored to be part of what
you're doing. And down here, congratulations, Gabbard, on
being selected. Young Global Leaders. And she goes,
thank you.
You can't just pretend like this was not
something that she leaned into at the very
least, but the article goes into much more.
And and and she is listed, and the
whole point is the all of this, guys,
or the connections in a lot of different
ways to a lot of things in this
conversation, but specifically this one, I think it's
important to consider. And here's what he said
here. This is his post. Yes. It's truly
surprising how someone who worked with the Council
on Foreign Relations and the World Economic Forum,
despite denying it, turns out to be a
liar. Why didn't anyone warn people this would
happen? He's obviously making a joke about us.
But what's funny is and you've seen this
clip.
We'll come back to it in a second.
Where she's claiming they took a dishonest testimony.
How do we literally listen to exactly what
your report was and prove that what you
said before was the opposite?
So the question is, why is she so
why is she willing to prove that she's
a liar to people that are paying attention
for an agenda?
It's a very important question.
Well, one reason might be
blackmail, funding,
infiltration,
as she's literally standing next to Schmolly and
and Miriam Adelson,
which is just a picture, could be anywhere.
Right? But the point is there are a
lot of clear influence and overlaps, and the
narrative has shifted. Now suddenly,
she's in lockstep with Trump, who she just
told you a second ago for all the
same reasons and all the same people was
a fake
war because of Israel or people funding him
in neocons.
Well, I don't know how you could possibly
pretend like now is different.
It's the same agenda, same people, same funding,
same everything other than the narrative.
See, Squirrel points out, this is how Trump
began his political career.
Quote, the war in Iraq was a big
fat mistake. They lied. They said there were
no WMDs. There were none. And, see, this
is how they use the information that we've
already come around to, that they pretend they're
still denying, but they bring you a guy
like this that goes, that's not true. Here's
the bombshell. And then people that have been
saying that for fifteen years go, well, come
on. We've been trying to tell you. It's
happening right now, guys. With the Tuckers and
everything else, it's happening right in front of
you. The things that we've been screaming about
in any number of topics or people well
before me are now whether COVID or whatever
else are not being picked up and carried
over,
being presented like some new bombshell in front
like, or like
the Ted Cruz and Carlson interview.
Yeah. There was a lot of things in
there that you probably heard of this platform
a 100 times over, but it's being pointed
to because it's a large conversation with people
that you know.
Alright? That they're famous, and everyone talks about
it. And, yeah, you can still reach people
with it. But the problem is they know
you already kinda knew that already, and they're
willing to let new people see it
in hopes that you then can use that
Tucker or crew well, Cruz, or but anybody
to then trick them next time. Right? Maybe
they go, oh, Tucker's a real one because
he's telling us the truth and they or
whoever it is. Question them, question me, question
all of them. To realize that this is
what always happens is they take someone like
him, they throw him in there as the
anti establishment candidate. He tells you a couple
things. 09/11 was May. Hillary Clinton, lock her
up, you know, whatever it is. And the
Fed, none of that happens, and they jam
him in. Now you can see why.
Here's what he said.
Obviously,
the war in Iraq was a big fat
mistake. Alright?
Now you can take it any way you
want, and it took it
took Jeb Bush, if you remember, at the
beginning of his announcement, when he announced the
president, took him five days. He went back.
It was a mistake. It wasn't a mistake.
Took him five days
before his people told him what to say,
and he ultimately said it was a mistake.
The war Okay. Well, if it's a mistake,
what's the difference?
Is it that they now we know they
lied about WMDs? Because if the argument is
they've got weapons of mass destruction,
and the case is they went in there,
it was a destructible, then this is the
same exact mistake. Right, Trump?
Not when he does it apparently. Or in
Iraq, we spent $2,000,000,000,000,
thousands of lives. We don't even have it.
Iran is taking over Iraq with the second
largest oil reserves in the world. And there
you go.
So he swings in, uses that narrative, takes
over a we're taking the oil. Hell, we'll
take Syria too. And now he's pivoted to
Iran because that was always the plan. He
probably knew that all the way back then
for all I'm concerned.
Obviously, it was a mistake. So George Bush
made a mistake. We can make mistakes, but
that one was a beauty. We shoulda never
been in Iraq. We have interesting point right
there.
Did Did you catch
that? We shoulda never been we can make
mistakes. It was a mistake. So George Bush
made a mistake. We can make mistakes.
Ah, so does he mean we as in
the country, we as in people in his
position, the oligarchs, the leaders, the rulers?
I think it's interesting. Of course, you can
argue he just means the country, but maybe
there's more, you know,
foreshadowing there than you realize. But that one
was a beauty. We should've never been in
Iraq. We have destabilized
the Middle East. But so you so I'm
gonna so you still think he should be
Yeah. See, and that's a oh my god.
Did Trump just say that? He's an outsider
and doesn't know. You're damn right that he
stabilized the Middle East. That was the whole
point. The Balkanization of Middle East, Zbigniew Brzezinski,
this goes back to the seventies before. This
is not a secret.
He knows this. I think it's my turn,
and then You do whatever you want. You
call it whatever you want. I wanna tell
you. They lied. Okay. They said there were
weapons of mass destruction. There were none, and
they knew there were none. There were no
weapons of mass destruction. Alright. Got it. I
have a book.
Oh, see? And and and the main the
the normie crowd was like, boo, that's not
the narrative.
There's a reason for this, guys.
How do you just how can you laugh
at how silly it is to see this
now through him? And as the scroll points
out, and he and his his Zionist owners
use the pretense of him being anti war
to deceive The US into another neocon war
for Israel.
Everything Trump has done since his first term
in office was set to set the stage
for war on Iran. He's she's right. He's
right. Look for yourself.
Every one of them. And that really, if
you could argue just because that's how Israel
has been guiding them, I think it's obvious.
The wet dream of neocon Zion is the
final country on their list. They needed a
perfect salesman, someone who pretended to be against
the Iraq war, and he then took every
step necessary to lead to their coveted Iran
war.
The breaking of the Iran deal,
very important part we're gonna get to in
a second. We I've gone over extensively in
the past, but how that leads to the
Iran's the actions Iran took that they turn
around and point to as the violation despite
being legal within the deal they agreed to.
And it says the recognition of the annexes
the annexations of Jerusalem, Golan Heights, the Abraham
Accord, Zionist normalization project, the assassination of Soleimani
with the Israelis
after luring him to Baghdad under false pretenses
of a peace talk, the fake Witkoff negotiations.
There's a great clip, by the way, she's
watching it. But the the this is breaking
down what we're talking about. But there's and
that's the,
my John,
I forget his last name. I forgot. Search
for the name. The point is
continuing. And then the clip here, by the
way, of seven countries, five years, important.
And it's also not accidental that the salesman
they chose for this task of leading The
US into war their Iran war is a
serial pedophile Epstein rapist as are all those
around him like Bill Ackman and pal Peter
Palantir Teal. Now you can decide if you
agree with that or not. There's a lot
of evidence to back up the overlap.
Now, of course, what's also important to realize
where was it? Oh, I thought there was
oh, they come back to it then.
The bottom line, though,
the salesman
convincing you to go in this direction. And
you I mean, think about someone like an
Elon Musk. How does he fit into this?
You know, I I these are all just
the considerations,
but it's the way that ended up, it
very, very well may have been one massive
big look over here movement. Now they're clearly
doing AI, an AI government. That's very clearly
part of it, but they didn't need Elon
doing tap dances and backflips for you to
to to be able to fall in line
with that. So think about what a bombastic
thing that was, and here we are. It's
worth considering that that was part of it.
And Elon being very clearly tapped into all
of the Israeli overlap. And of course, you
know, the same thing here with these tweets.
In order to get elected, Barack Obama will
start a war with Iran. You know, basically
just calling out exactly what he's doing right
now.
Now, Solomon Solomon Ahmed, I haven't listened to
it, but he had a a
pod, spaces about Israel and Iran and and
the ongoing discussions. I just wanna point this
out. You saw this clip already, by the
way. It's it's actually really we we got
censored on Instagram all of a sudden, which
is not new. But it's a weird statement
he says right here. I really do think
this stands out in a really odd way
for, like,
uncharacteristic
response. Simply, you know, there could be another
reason this you can explain why that is.
I think it adds up with, you know,
where this all goes. It was an uncomfortable
moan for him. And this the the insinuation
of the question is whether or not you
think he's being blackmailed by Israel or that
he's just so in line with their agenda,
he doesn't care, he's willing to counter American
interest.
I I think as I think it's possible
for both. Maybe actually both. May he clearly
is very clearly pro as as Brian, from
Impact Flix mentions, and we'll probably play that
tomorrow. The whole Zionist
Rothschild bank buyout from Trump back in the
day, it's not new. So he's been tapped
into this a long time. But, also,
maybe they had to nudge him a certain
way.
These things all matter. So ask yourself why,
if the statement here is suggesting that he
asked or warned Israel not to do this,
they did it anyway, and now he's involved.
What does that show you? And this is
the response when asked whether he asked them
not to. In Iran, did you warn, prime
minister Netanyahu
against taking some sort of actions that could
disrupt the talks there
in a phone call last week? Well, I'd
like to
be honest.
Yes. I did.
Next question, please.
See, by the way, I just had to
switch my audio back. No one told me
because it sound it was off again. I
this is so frustrating, and my camera gets
all funky. I have to switch that back.
The podcast doesn't matter, but now you can
see it on the side there. It's just
strange. This stuff
welcome to Technocracy, guys. But isn't that a
weird way to respond?
Since I could disrupt the talks there
in a phone call last week. Well, I'd
like to
be honest.
As opposed to what?
Not being always? Yes. I did.
Next question, plea. Next question, plea. He he
sounds old right there for some reason, like
an elderly man. But what's funny
is that's a very weird response from him.
He's always so blustering and bomb you know,
and just carrying on answering forever with nonsense.
Yes. I did. Next question, please. It just
feels weird to me. Can't really even articulate
more than that. It just seems off. And
and it seems to me that he's almost
caught off guard. Right? Like, so he basically
had to say that I asked him not
to and now he didn't. I think it's
because it makes him look weak.
You can decide.
Next,
Jason Baster simply points out the obvious.
Bankroll by Mary Matlson,
allied with Palantir's Peter Thiel, Marco made Marco
Rubio secretary of state, filed filled his cabinet
with Israeli war hawks, extended Obama's $38,000,000,000
military aid deal,
approved $54,000,000,000
in new armed deals to Israel. Gee, who
could have seen this coming?
There's a lot of connection there that we
all that people were calling out.
Now Max Blumenthal had a report recently, and
this all overlaps to the point of, you
know and, again, we've probably done, like, a
thousand segments like this over however many years,
and some of the shows have been, like,
really hyper focused on the different parts. But
it's just, you know, you you it's some
of it is redundant. Like, the point is
we could, one, sit back and do, like,
a two hour video of just, like, nonstop
evidence of the infiltration of this government, and
you would probably have another hundred hours of
content. It's so obvious is my point. So
these are just additional points to what we've
been covering for years now. Max simply points
out, in April, he published audio, which you
guys have seen, we've played on this show,
APAC's director privately boasting of Israel's influence
over CIA director John Ratcliffe.
Relevant.
Now a Trump official confirms to them that
Israel's Mossad is using Ratcliffe to launch a
US regime change on Iran.
The details we gathered here are shocking. There's
the report. A Trump official tells Grayzone that
CIA director John Ratcliffe is a Mossad stenographer,
pushing Trump to bomb Iran with cooked intelligence
furnished by Tel Aviv.
It's wild, guys. And here the actual, this
you've seen, this is included.
That this is the actual leaked information. I'll
I'll include that for you.
APAC leader boasts of influence over Trump officials.
This is not new, guys. It's everywhere.
Mel points out, so apparently, Susie Wiles has
isolated Trump within the White House, and he's
receiving intel, quote, exclusively
from John Ratcliffe
and general Eric Kurilla.
Ratcliffe,
as you just saw, is the CEO of
APAC described
as our lifeline inside the administration.
Now that's different from their report. That's APAC's
public facing statement about him. So you have
to recognize that that is Israel's man. And
last October, Miriam Adelson's newspaper, the one that
funded Trump,
called general Kurilla a, quote, vital asset
to Israel and Israel's favorite general after he
visited the country at least five times in
six months from April to October.
This is the current administration, guys. The point
is, if you know that Ratcliffe is the
guy, now he's the one exclusively advising
we see what's happening here. It's not hard
to recognize that this is being
placed,
like, being coordinated,
put into place.
Here is Glenn Greenwald
showing you just another additional point to this.
I saw it circulating. 37 American states, mostly
red states, but not all.
It's required
if you want a contract with the state
that you sign a loyalty oath to Israel.
People seem to just wanna reflexively dismiss this
because it seems so crazy. It's one of
the easiest things to prove. I tell you
every time, in in hurricane Harvey, in Texas,
one of the worst, they made people sign
a a a I will not boycott Israel
pledge to get aid from the government that
they pay taxes to because of the terror
the the the hurricane.
How in the world have we ever let
that happen?
Because our government has been taken over by
a foreign government. Let's be honest.
Identified, like, ten or fifteen years ago that
one of the main threats to their to
their their ability to dominate and and and
repress their neighbors is that there was a
growing boycott movement centered on American campuses that
they were afraid of because it was modeled
after the one in South Africa in the
eighties that was driven
by campus activism and that took down the
apartheid regime. And they set out to decide
we have to put an end to this
whole idea of advocating a boycott. They got
the EU to criminalize advocacy of boycotts as
antisemitic. They got that expanded definition of antisemitism,
and now they're doing the same thing in
The U. S. 37 American states,
mostly red states, but not all.
It is a requirement if you want a
contract with the state that you have to
sign a loyalty oath saying you do not
support and have never participated in a boycott
of Israel.
You can boycott American states or other countries,
just not Israel.
And now this
that law was the basis for what Trump
did in the 2018, which is he said,
it's now a felony
if a company
participates in a boycott sponsored by another country
that the US government doesn't support. So let's
say like Iran wants to boycott Israel and
some company participates in that boycott even though
the US government isn't, that's a felony
to do. And now this new bill would
expand it to include
not just
led by or advocated by foreign governments, but
also international
organizations. And it would include people who are
boycotting Israel out of conscience
and conviction, and it would turn them into
felons.
Yep.
It's very easy to see what this is.
That this is textbook unconstitutional.
It doesn't matter what the boycott is. You
could boycott whatever you want. And they hit
to his point. You can literally boycott everything
in The United States, the government, everything. You
can boycott every part of every other country
in the world,
just not Israel.
But let's let's keep letting the loom or
the rest tell you that it's all about
China. Right? Because clearly,
you you get you get arrested for criticizing
China. Right? You get you get deported for
daring to write an article about China. Right?
China clearly funds all of our politicians. Right?
I mean, it's just lazy. Now, yes, we
should also be on the watch for anything
else. It matters if China's doing those things
or Russia or The UK,
but we can literally prove what this is,
and they want you looking elsewhere.
Here is Kash Patel. You've seen this one.
It's the short one. Simply telling you that
we need to prioritize Israel. Right, guys?
Wise by Hamas and Iran's Hezbollah mercenary forces.
We need America to wake up and What's
in the middle? We will shut off the
machinery that feeds money into Iran. We will
no longer have a 100 hostages
still in You realize this is not new.
This is from before. So they were all
hot on the Iran topic right in the
beginning of the administration.
It's not right. It's easy. Despite all of
them trying to water it down and walk
it back, they came out hot saying, well,
j JD Van, Donald Trump. You remember, for
the first week, they were screaming about Iran.
In captivity, Israeli and American and otherwise by
Hamas and Iran's Hezbollah mercenary forces. We So
now, apparently, he wants you to believe that
Iran's Hezbollah forces were involved in October 7
despite floated claims of all sorts of things.
Never has that flushed out. But he's clearly
on American side. Right? We need America to
wake up and prioritize Israel and bring home
Israel forces. We need America to wake up
and prioritize Israel.
We need America to wake up and prioritize
Israel.
It just, you know, it's embarrassing how much
this is in your face.
And how many people wanna pretend it's not
there. And you know why?
Here, we just played this to start. We
played the last show, Colonel Wilkerson.
Right? A colonel in the military. Also, not
forget, we're gonna come back to it in
the future show. We just discussed the detachment
two zero one.
Palantir, Meta,
OpenAI
are literally people from these companies are now
part of the military. They're lieutenant colonels.
Not a joke. That I would talk about
it. I called it technocracy in uniform. It
is legitimately where this goes. So that's why
I'm talking about this all as one. It
is where globalism, technocracies, Zionism, it's one blob
that's happening right now. And maybe because they're
all the same thing, maybe because they're all
taking advantage of each other's because it's but
either way, you can't miss it. So here
is Wilkerson telling you yet again that Mossad
in 2002
took over the Pentagon.
I don't know how we can dismiss things
like this for especially from someone like him.
And it it's unquestionable that the Epstein
business was
heavily influenced, let me put it that way,
by Mossad.
And so that's somehow emblematic on these huge
geopolitical issues?
Yes. I I watched Mossad
take over the Pentagon
in 02/2002.
The Pentagon was infiltrated
by Mossad.
They did not need any identification
to get through the rumor entrance to the
building. They went upstairs to Douglas Fife, the
undersecretary
of defenses
for policy,
the third most powerful man in the defense
department.
Occasionally, they went to the second most powerful
man, Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense.
And they had run to the Pentagon. Donald
Rumsfeld, the secretary of defense said to my
boss one time, hell, I don't run my
building.
Mossad does.
Now, obviously, you know, you can argue he's
being facetious. Right? But even the joke about
something like that clearly implies
overwhelming influence. Like, the joke, if that's the
case, means Mossad has far too much run
of the area or whatever it is. And
I think it's actually more than that as
we've seen a 100 times over, including from
Wilkerson himself. But just to in case you
don't know, former chief of staff at the
state department, right, very clearly. And, again, Donald
Rumsfeld said to my he said, hell, I
don't run my building, Mossad does. How do
we ignore stuff like this? I'll again include
the show where we go in-depth on this,
the new Trump administration and this technocratic Zionist
coup of the United States. It's what this
is. I mean, that's I'm very, very
convinced of that, but I will question everything
as always. New of evidence comes to pass,
we'll look at it. We'll consider it and
adjust our opinion accordingly. But on that note,
Palantir, as you all know, and we've showed
this many times, has a strategic partnership with
Israel. That's an important part of this that
I wanted to overlap with one point here,
showing you that it goes into it's it's
a whole of government dynamic now. But the
reason I'm including this is to show you
what we told you we'd come back to.
Just a few parts that are very relevant
to where we go right now, including,
I mean, everything we can discuss, in fact.
So this is, this is an article, DD
Geopolitics, about Palantir and the overlap
of AI through the government, but as it
pertains to Iran and recently.
It says on June 12, and the the
title is the AI that triggered a war,
How Palantir and the International Atomic Energy Agency
fueled Israel's strike on Iran.
On 06/12/2025,
Israel launched Operation Rising Lion, a sweeping air
campaign that bombed Iran's,
Nantat's nuclear facility,
scorched
Esfahan, and attempted to breach the fortified Forto
bunker.
Hundreds died.
Among them, commanders in the in the military,
nuclear scientists, more than one apparently in the
long sense of all this, and numerous civilians,
easily proven.
But what if what if the intelligence
fueling this war came not from Assad or
Pentagon
satellites,
but from a UN agency software?
So as they're all talking about how the
UN is Hamas or we shouldn't listen to
them or, as we'll point out in a
minute,
Ted Cruz laughing about how, you know,
the UN belongs in Iran. Like, these people
are so
like, the the the the point is out
of touch. They the we'll get to it
in a minute. His arguments are somehow of
the like, this using Israel's failed effort to
make the UN some other countries run the
and just lazily applying it to Iran now
because I don't think they even recognize how
people see through them. But the point is,
if while they're all telling you that, they
also
use the UN when they want to or
the resolutions or you know? And that's the
bigger point. But it goes on to say,
the UN agency software is what they use.
It says since 02/2015,
the International Atomic Energy Agency has relied on
Palantir
and what they call the Mosaic platform,
a $50,000,000
AI system that sifts 400,000,000
data points, satellite imagery, social media, personal logs
to predict to predict
nuclear threats
or lie about them. On June 12,
Iran leaked documents that they claim showed the
International Atomic Energy Agency chief sharing
Mosaic Mosaic outputs with Israel.
So we showed you that. The cradle covered
that. The point is they're simply going, look.
The Palantir software, or rather the UN through
it, are
they're giving it to Israel, which shows you
an Israel infiltration of even the UN dynamic.
And as they wanna make it about everybody
else, like, they're always calling out other people
for what they're doing.
And it says,
effectively turning the agency into a tool for
aggression.
The charges echoes the charge echoes a pattern.
Prior to 02/2015,
Mosaic data helped shape sanctions and even UN
aid decisions despite the risks of bias.
It says Palantir, cofounder
cofounded by Trump Peter ally Peter Thiel,
powers IDF targeting in Gaza, as we've shown
you, and Ukraine's battlefield AI. Same point I
made about the drones and all the talk
and all everyone hyping what like, isn't it
funny to begin to look back at the
Jones, the rest hyping that that back and
forth between is Russia and Ukraine as the
beginning of World War three? It seems a
little bit ridiculous now, doesn't it? And of
points, of course, since that wasn't really that
much of a change for what was already
happening. My point was, as always, was not
that we're not obviously in a very serious
multi war dynamic, and we have been for
a long time, but that they'll hype something
that's not what we're watching
as if it's already there or about to
be. It's just funny. They'll use whatever they
can. The point here
is that the UN overlap with Ukraine and
Palantir as well have played a very clear
part in this, and that's the same people
we're talking about, Trump and overlap. And it
says it's the International Atomic Energy Agency role
meant to ensure compliance
now teeters toward militarization, if not a long
time ago, as Iran halts monitoring and threats
to expose Israel's nuclear secrets at their obvious
military installations with nuclear weapons. The stakes are
apocalyptic, they ride. This investigation asks how Mosaic
became a war pretext,
why Israel needed a cover story, and whether
privatized AI now threatens global peace.
Obviously, where this goes. Since 02/2015,
the International Atomic Energy Agency has quietly, by
the way, who currently and and before says
that they're not seeking a nuclear weapon, which
is interesting, the people that work there,
have quietly used Palantir's Mosaic platform to monitor
nuclear activities across Iran, the software originally built
for US counterinsurgency.
So the US government, Palantir,
have built this to be manipulate countries, and
and Israel has access to it. I mean,
you cannot see where this goes. It says,
but unlike traditional monitoring tools, Mosaic is not
a passive system. It runs predictive analytics.
So, basically, nuclear precrime. And it says, assessing
not just what a state has done, but
what it might do. Isn't that perfect? Bethlehem
doctrine and, you know, credible threats and what
all the nonsense they play. You know, they
we we tell you that they're we think
they're going to so we can preemptively strike.
Like, that's the kind of nonsense they're pushing.
But it goes based on behavioral models derived
from counterterrorism
doctrine. That's what they're using this to base
on, to claim they have the evidence for
this. It says it's like a minority
report for uranium.
It says some nuclear experts raise alarms.
Quote, predictive AI and safeguards don't mix,
or rather I would point out they can
be manipulated.
That this is according to a former senior
IAEA analyst.
It turns monitoring into pretext,
which is what they wanted.
The problem? Mosaic's lineage screams bias. Of course,
funded by In Q Tel, the funding arm
of the of the of CIA, the CIA's
venture arm, Palantir
they're basically funded by by CIA. Palantir powers
IDF targeting in Gaza, Ukraine's drone strikes. Mosaic's
black box algorithms,
unauditable,
and pry proprietary
risk turning the IAEA from neutral inspector into
data proxy for preemptive war. So you're telling
me, in what world would a would a
supposed independent
UN agency
or
atomic energy regulatory
body use an unauditable
software
from a private company that has direct ties
to Israel?
The point is they can't go this is
what Palantir you're not allowed to dig through
this and look for problems. Palantir says, don't
worry. Everything's fine. As the the service is
telling you, they're doing this or gonna and
what's interesting is that's not what's ultimately happening.
The the at this point, they've I've already
said that that the evidence does not show
this. But what is interesting is this number
that has come out, the 60%, which we'll
go into why that is within the re
the law, the current deal, the reality of
what every country is allowed to do, and
how far away that is from an actual
bomb. The point is that for one whatever
reason, this data slipped out, got the hands
of Israel, and they're pointing to that claim
as the impetus for all of this. And
so what it turns out to be
is that Palantir, yet again, is the choke
point. It's showing you the AI infiltration through
and with Israel involvement is allowing this information
to be handed back to Israel, which is
used for a pretext for bombing Iran.
Despite the fact that the evidence doesn't back
that up, there's a whole article you can
read. There's important stuff in this that breaks
down all the different pieces of this. But
the general point that I'm making
is the information showing you that Palantir
could just as easily make informa
pretend.
Lie.
Give information. Should that start to happen, we
need to remember that this is the Palantir
database that's being used to tell you whether
or not there's a violation. And up till
now, that hasn't happened
because the evidence shows you they're not doing
that. But nonetheless, there was still a secret
leak of information from the internal things that
are only supposed to be for the IAA
that went to Israel's hands. I find it
to be very, very important in telling.
Now let's talk about Iran,
the alleged threat to national security.
Hold on. Let me actually grab this. I
wanna save this away.
The the article itself for for a later
show.
So I think that's very important, and I
guarantee you, you know, in my opinion, but
I I feel it very strongly that that's
gonna come back to play
very soon. I I don't think for one
second Israel wants us to go away from
what's currently happening.
Now Kashif
Shaundry points out, and he he's a,
I've followed different posts he's made that I
that I think are are solid,
an electrophysiologist,
human rights activist.
He says, let's break this down.
And this is really important. We're gonna go
through a few parts of these.
1953.
And this is all accurate. Timing, you can
easily look up. The US government with Israel
and other other players involved overthrew Iran's democratically
elected government,
which is easy to prove, to control its
oil, which is one part of it.
We installed the US government installed a monarch
they called the Shah
who ruled brutally,
backed by the CIA run secret police, the
Sabah,
that tortured and disappeared dissenters. You know exactly
what they want you to claim this is
today.
Not in any way claiming that the government
is you know, there's clearly problems. I don't
support any of these governments, and these governments
in every place, in my opinion, are acting
to control your lives at their benefit.
That's not the but that regardless of that,
and maybe I could be wrong about any
of them, the point is the facts matter,
not the narrative of what they want you
to think. And the facts
do not prove everything they're claiming. All these
big claims about, you know, that they would
just kill remember, I mean, we just talked
about the woman on Fox News, claiming that
should they make a deal, they're just gonna
execute everybody. You know, anything's possible. But the
evidence that we have roundly shows you that's
not true. The lie about the hijab and
how everyone is forced to or they're gonna
kill them in the streets, it's not true.
We'll go over the nuance there, but the
lies are so bombastic. As somebody recently said,
a lot of these people are back there.
Some of us don't even know they're wrong,
are are still fighting the Iran of of
the nineties, which was The US Israel manipulation
of the country.
Right? The idea of or rather, excuse me,
not the nineties, but before the post '79
is what I meant to say. The lie
about the prospering Iran, which was only for
a very small group of people. Right? And
then the bottom line is from that point
afterward,
there was a lot of very clear religious
influence, and it got very you know, people
responded as a a
response to what they did. And we'll go
over that briefly yet again about some of
the many people who simply lean back into
the other, you know, the more religious culture
because they were pushing back against the West
manipulation.
But the bottom line
is that what they think they're fighting is
either a manipulation of narrative they're framing or
areas of the of the time that don't
exist anymore.
And Robert's been covering this for the longest
time. The evidence on the ground and all
these pieces we'll go through today.
Just keep an open mind about things. How
many times we would like to about what
our government says Syria is doing, what our
government says Iraq is doing, what our government
says
Afghanistan is doing, what our government says Libya
is doing, or what our government says.
Period.
And yet, here we are with another WMD
overlap and we can't so some people just
seem unwilling to ask whether they could be
lying about this.
The point again, they overthrew the country.
Up until 1979,
the Shah and The US Western oligarchy ruled
with an iron fist, and people suffered, were
tortured, were starved to death, and the oligarch
Western elitists lived like kings.
In 1979,
Iranian people rose up and overthrew the Shah,
also very easy to document. In the chaos,
angry students took American embassy staff hostage. An
illegal act, but notably not a single hostage
was killed. Now this is the point about
what we were pointing to earlier. Now there's
a bunch more nuance to get into. I'm
not gonna dive into this today, but the
point whether there's overlaps to who they were
and what they were tied to. The point
is, guys, you're watching
a country get
regime changed. And then you're watching people fight
back against an illegitimate entity that's caused their
lives to be a horror show for decades,
and then people responded. Like, it's the same
point when you have things like with South
Africa. No one should be okay with people
responding in violence for any context, but you
understand
why a people who have been
suppressed or,
who have been under the boot of some
kind of apartheid racist regime
might then act out in violence against who
they see as their oppressors.
Nobody should be going, yay. That's what they
get. That's just not I I don't believe
that. I think that's the wrong minds at
the take. But you can understand. And so
in this case, why people might respond in
a certain way, it's not to say it's
okay. The crime should be held accountable. But
you understand why people respond in certain ways.
In this case,
you are responding to an illegal occupation of
your country that made your, you know, the
so your family get executed in front of
you. And then to act like them doing
this is the, you know, the it's what
the Bolton's pointing to now. They took this
embassy and killed all these Americans. Okay. Well,
maybe counterbalance that with what you did to
them first. Doesn't make one okay or the
other, but it makes you fully understand the
situation. Now it says in nineteen eighties, The
US supported Saddam Hussein as he invaded Iran,
and they gave him chemical weapons to use
to wipe out entire villages. That's very publicly
proven at this point. A million Iranians were
killed.
The chemical materials were shipped from The US
and were funded that came from the CIA.
Okay. So cannot counterbalance those two things?
How dare they take the embassy? Fine. It's
a crime. Call them out for it. But
what about the million people you kill? What
about the chemical weapons you use? What about
the attempt at another regime change? Those things
don't matter.
All because you think they're gonna because at
the time, guess what? They were this close
to a nuclear bomb
Or whatever else they were saying.
1988, The US shot down Iran. And this
is we've talked about this so many times.
In fact,
I might have that article to come up.
I'll look for it really quickly as we're
doing this. I know we've talked about this
many times.
They shot down air flight six five five.
A civilian passenger plane killing 290
innocent people.
Very public at this point. Now there's a
narrative around it, but it's it's like it's
like The US's liberty. Literally something that almost
everyone was aware of if they're if they
ever try to look into it beyond what
the narrative is.
The flight had just taken off from Tehran
and was flying in Iranian airspace.
The US never apologized for what it later
claimed was a mistake because they did.
No one was held accountable.
In fact, the ship's captain received a medal
the following year for his service.
That's not a joke. We covered this explicitly.
Let me see if I got that to
come up.
I I know it's in an article. I
just don't think it's in the title. We've
covered it more than once on the show
on on the daily wrap up.
It's just but think about that, guys. You
know? And then this you know why this
came up? It was in the context of
Syria and the many different times that Israel
tried to use their you know, get them
to attack their own ship planes or potentially
try to bomb one of them and blame
it on somebody else. I mean, there's many
times this came up.
Nineteen nineties.
After that came crippling sanctions
and covert operations to sabotage their economy like
they did in Venezuela and plenty of other
places. They caused an endless I mean, actually,
here's a good point to play this. We
played this with Brian the other day.
Same thing
about whether it is,
hold on. I forget.
Oh, come on.
Matt,
mc,
there it is. Madeline McCain.
Or Albright's McCain. Albright. The point about Iraq
and whether it's worth it.
It's the same conversation.
At the time, for whatever reason, we're willing
to publicly admit that 500,000
Iraqi children they starved to death were just
worth it.
Well, that's why it's worth it for them
to murder everyone in Gaza and worth it
for them to murder everyone in Yemen. It's
the same point. And everywhere else they do,
and apparently, now they don't want you to
think it's worth it. We pretend like it's
not happening.
But the same point, just and my point
is, and the nineties and the start the
stanctions that went on all the way to
basically today, they starve people to death.
They knew they were doing it. In fact,
I'll play the Giuliani clip after that where
Giuliani
praises the starvation tactics because that's what makes
regime change. That's who these people are.
We have heard that a half a million
children have died.
I mean, that's more
children than died when when in in Hiroshima.
And and,
you know, is the price worth it?
I think this is a very hard choice,
but the price we think the price is
worth it.
Okay.
So that's the US government.
They want you to believe that the price
it's 500,000,000
children. There are Thousand. Excuse me. 500,000 children
killed
by something something they did. That's the direct
question. Right? That the this resulted in their
deaths. Was it worth it? We think it
was worth it.
Okay. Well, let's flash forward to Iran or
any number of other overlaps where they did
the same thing. Here's Giuliani,
years back,
speaking to the MEK, which is one of
the groups that they will probably come in
if we get to a place of regime
change, I certainly hope not, they're gonna be
one of the groups on the table. They
are a religious extremist cult to the highest
degree.
Like, it's so so funny how they're the
ones they work with while they're calling Iranian
a, you know, religious extremism. I mean, look
at Israel for crying out loud. It's very
different than what they want you to think
is happening in Iran. We'll show you next.
Here is Giuliani praising the starvation of innocent
people because that's how you create regime change
or good revolution. They do I don't think
they expected people to be able to see
this as much as they do today.
So now tell me that you're not a
serious threat.
It's the regime we're trying to overthrow sees
us as a threat.
You are a threat.
It is a reality. The protests are getting
worse. I don't know when we're going to
overthrow them. It could be in a few
days, months, a couple of years, but it's
gonna happen.
They are going to be overthrown.
The people of Iran obviously have now had
enough.
The sanctions are working.
That's the point. They that they they do
the sanctions to cause their lives to be
chaotic. They they know who's doing it, but
it gets to a point to where they
just don't care. Fine. You could take over
the country. Just stop my children from starving
to death.
They know that. That's what the point was.
You can go back far enough to look
at documents, Kissinger and otherwise, well, that's what
they state.
They just want you to pretend it's for
freedom today because they think you're that stupid.
The people of Iran obviously have now had
enough.
The sanctions are working.
The currency is
going to nothing.
They're where Russia was. They're where Poland was.
We see signs of young men and women
saying, give me some food. We saw a
sign of a man
trying to sell his internal organs for 500
American dollars,
probably a fortune in Iran today.
This is truly pitiful.
These are the kinds of conditions that lead
to successful
revolution,
and, god willing,
nonviolent revolution.
Yeah. Of course. Well, but in a sense,
we're not gonna kinetically go on the ground
if if we don't have to. We'll we'll
sure as hell nonviolently
starve your children to death.
That's I mean, you guys, you understand. This
is not secret. That's literally what he's discussing.
Caitlin Johnstone did an article about this, or
rather that's one of the videos she put
out. I think that's what we covered here
was her her post.
Rudy Rudy Giuliani celebrates starvation of Iranian civilians
at a rally.
Here, going on forward,
after
the eighties came crippling sanctions and covert operations
to sabotage their economy, scientists, and sovereignty, tactics
that continue to this day.
2011, The US toppled Saddam Hussein, who was,
you know, an ally of them until he
wasn't like everybody else. A million Iraqis were
killed. Post Saddam Iraqi leaders and militias resisting
The US occupation build close ties with Iran.
Now whether that's what really happened or not,
it's hard to say. I mean, there's different
nuances to get into about whether that was
all leading to this endgame or not. But
point is they're not they're not
all encompassing.
These people are quite clumsy if you really
look through the history. But it says 2010
to 2012,
six Iranian nuclear scientists are assassinated. Now this
is important, this goes into today.
In what world does that make sense to
anybody? I don't care whether you believe out
all the claims or not. Why would a
scientist ever be fair game
in any context? They they're not. Let me
answer that for you. They're not. They're in
no other part of the world and no
other conversation, no other government, no other situation,
unless it's Israel bombing Iran, is it justifiable
to target scientists because they're doing something you
disagree with.
Look, it's it's one of the most prom
prominent parts of this that nobody ever talks
about. Not the corporate media. They're
assassinating
scientists and they're proudly telling you. I mean,
here, I'll come back to it.
Israeli media themselves report 17
Iranian nuclear scientists have been killed in their
recent attacks. 17. They're probably bomb they're probably
embellishing it. But think about publicly praising and
asking for praise about targeting scientists
and killing them. Especially when you understand that
the evidence shows that they're not working on
anything but a civilian program.
Even if they are, it does not change
the reality.
That's why so it's like it's like Israel
saying they can bomb whatever they want because
of human shield. They just make up a
narrative.
There are military rules of war that they
are not following of everything they do, and
they know that, and they laugh in your
face. And then Trump tells you that they're
being taken advantage of, and we support them
no matter what. Keep going, he says.
2015, Iran signed the JCPOA nuclear deal agreeing
to international inspections and limits on uranium enrichment,
which they did. Why they would ever do
that? Because, you you know, the idea that
if they're this despotic, monstrous
regime that's gonna get away with everything can,
why would they make a deal in the
first place?
Trying to trick you. Sure. Except the evidence
went on to prove that they were not.
So at what point do we ever get
evidence other than Netanyahu saying things that we
can prove the case?
Everything they've done in every situation right up
until now has consistently shown you that's not
the case, including Tulsi Gabbard and the IEA
or the previous administration.
The fact that we have to always circle
around these things despite how clear is just
exhausting, but that's the point. And we're gonna
do it for you no matter what.
02/2018.
Oh, and then, of course, the UN confirmed
they complied, but, you know, the UN is
Iran now. We're past Hamas now. The UN
is Iran. Now it says 02/2018. Trump unilaterally
withdrew from the deal, which he did. Iran
is punished despite playing by the rules. Sanctions
return, harsher than ever. So in case you
forgot, I believe it's article 36.
In the JCPOA,
the joint comprehensive plan of action, the Iran
deal, it said very clearly, because they knew
this was coming, that should The US pull
out of the deal that they're allowed to
increase enrichment until they force compliance.
Here we are.
So think about how insane it is for
them to do the things they know will
cause them to do that, and they point
to them doing that as the excuse for
why they're breaking the deal, The deal that
Trump violated, knowing that and round and round
it
goes. This is my point all the way
back then, is they're playing on the ignorance
of the average person. They knew what people
would assume. They knew what blind partisan followers
would do. So they said, you know what?
Just force it.
And they did.
Gave sanctions, star people to death for Iran
following the deal.
Just insane.
Iran announces it will 02/2019.
Iran announces it will enrich uranium beyond the
limits set in the deal, not to build
a weapon, but to gain leverage for relief
from the crippling sanctions devastating its economy. Now
this is where you get to the overlap.
Now the point is the deal does say
they can increase enrichment. As far as I
remember, it wasn't some arbitrary number drop off.
So then I I argue still, the point
is this point, the deal's done. Trump left.
It's over. The deal's gone. So it's not
like, at this point, they can even come
back to it. And maybe around 02/2019,
but at some point, it just became null
and void. So at that point then, there
is no arbitrage line, and then you're just
back to them enriching uranium, which was kind
of the point.
But my point was that, first, they were
within the deal regardless because that's what caused
it. Second, there's no legal reality where they're
not allowed to produce rich uranium either for
civilian nuclear program or a war a weapon,
like every other country in the world.
I just don't get why we can't acknowledge
that. Like, if you think they're evil villains,
then then make the case. But the case
isn't just because they have a bomb. That's
what's so frustrating. You point at all the
other evidence.
Compare it to just a fraction of what
The US and Israel are doing on a
daily basis,
and ask yourself who the real villain is
here. It's not about good, bad. It's about
facts.
Now, twenty twenty.
The US assassinated Kasem Soleimani,
a blatant assassination, terrorist attack
under the guise of a diploma diplomacy
in a in a in a in an
airport, for crying out loud, in a country
The US occupies, for crying out loud. Iran's
top general,
and it it killed him in a drone
strike on Iraqi soil. He wasn't launching an
attack, but was on a diplomatic mission carrying
Iran's response
to a peace offer from Saudi Arabia, according
to Iraqi prime minister.
And yet, nothing. Who cares about the facts?
That's accepted as the exact reality at this
point because you can prove it, but no
one cares.
Which has to show you that any of
these mechanisms, even the UN, why wouldn't anybody
call that out?
Because we're being lied to in a very,
very egregious way. 2023 to 2025,
Iran's allies,
and this is allies, understand, which they are,
Houthis, Hezbollah,
the PMU, PMF in Iraq,
begin resisting Israeli regional aggression, especially in response
to its genocide in Gaza.
And this is just a response to actions
that are both illegal in their territory,
whether in Syria, Iraq, or in Yemen. Every
one of those places, they're breaking the law,
they respond.
And then also we have the international
condemnation of the genocide.
And what they're the enemies that point. 2025,
Trump bombs Iran following persistent lobbying from Israel,
no congressional approval, no evidence of an imminent
threat, no regard for ongoing diplomatic talks, nothing.
Like, the most my point in that is
that was like the most loud, clumsy thing
you could have done. Israel, I think, did
it to make a point.
Why wouldn't you
pretend to have the talks explode? Iran isn't
listening. They're evil. And then do it because
they want you to think see that even
while Trump claims he's negotiating, Israel does what
it wants. We're really in control. They wanted
you to know.
No congressional approval. Well, that's always there, but
it's important because it really is a again,
you could have tried to play this in
a way that gave you at least a
narrative, a nuance, but nope. You waited when
there was no attack, there was no justification,
there was no authority, no act, nothing.
So there's not even a way you could
make this in, even the War Powers Act.
We'll go over that in a second. So
meanwhile, The US military bases surround Iran. In
every neighboring country,
Iran has none outside of its own region.
That matters.
Iran has consistently fought ISIS and Al Qaeda,
yet it has branded the world's top sponsor
of terror. You know, despite Iran
Israel, ISIS attacking Iran
every time it suits Israel's interest, but apparently
they're the state sponsor of terror.
We need to be honest with ourselves, he
writes. We have wronged Iran. That we being
the government to be clear, he says the
government has wronged the Iranian people, not just
once, but over and over again.
The government invaded, they toppled, they assassinated, they
bombed, and yet we call them the threat.
I don't know how it gets much more
clear than that. Comes down to just your
desire to not go along with it, then
you're just you get honest about where we
are.
Now
one of the things I really wanted to
spell, which is just so lazy, is this
constant lie about the morality police, which does
exist.
First and foremost, recognize regardless of the circumstances
that Iranian people decide these things. Not some
government
who claims they know what they want or
fake protesters or activists who are clearly not
on Iranian side, you know, and I mean,
literally even a part of their society who
are working through some US Israeli, you know,
bunker somewhere, whatever it is, that they decide.
Not them, the Iranian people.
And there is a process. There is a
democratic overlap to this. They are ultimately, as
Robert's proven, 50 times over, having an effect
on that. And most of them across the
board, despite being unhappy with their government, will
tell you plainly they don't want any of
these people involved. They know what they want,
and it's not their interests.
So what's important to understand is that there
is a difference. But morality police in in
general, for example, is something that we may
not agree or understand with. It's not our
decision to make. It's what people in Iran
want. And we'll go over briefly the point
again about what that means and where it
comes from. And I'll that's in this article
here.
Iran's protests are no longer about women's rights.
There's a couple of these. This point is
simply that if you go through so I
won't read it all again. But just the
idea is that when they overthrew the country
using Western manipulators,
when when when they fought it back, wearing
the hijab was sort of a symbol of
rebellion against the West and a form of
defiantly
preserving Iranian culture. And there was sort of
an overreaction to that direction because for the
obvious reasons. Not everyone agreed with that, but
it was organic. And it says,
one of Iran's leading philosophers behind the revolution
explained why this reaction inside Iran occurred. This
is in a book, religion versus religion identifies
the instinctive desire for a return to the
culture of the past in defiance of western
modernity.
Something that we we it says we still
see is still a prominent way of thinking
in Iran today.
When one simply looks at Iran's enforcement of
the hijab without historical context, it would seem
illogical, yet it makes a lot more sense
when placed in its proper context. There's a
bunch more that he makes the arguments for
in there. The main point being that The
US doesn't care about women's rights.
They don't care about Saudi Arabian women. So
it's just it's all hollow, guys. It's about
using them. And I'm gonna make a point
in this very overlap about Israel
and women in their Orthodox culture being forced
to wear head coverings, and no one seems
to care about that. And there, yes, it
is a very clear overlap. Before we get
to that,
I wanna show you some of these videos.
Now, Lord Bebo did a great post about
this. And this is from
June 20. This first post says Iran today.
Now, actually, I can play this while I'm
reading this.
So as you can see here, he says,
Iran today, just watch the short walk through
in Tehran.
Count the women that wear a headscarf and
those who do not. He goes, now tell
me, is this what you expected?
Iranian women can wear a headscarf if they
choose to, but if they don't, then they
don't.
He said it's a modern Muslim nation.
Now the point, guys, is that, yes, there
are places where that will be enforced. And
should the government want to?
Now I'm trying to certainly give a better
example of this earlier, but because obviously, I
don't think jaywalking is a good overlap. This
this is, you know, could be more extreme.
My point is there are laws like that
that aren't roundly enforced, that people violate all
the time. Some of which are weird and
some of which could put you in jail.
Right? But the point is
are enforced.
And you can prove this roundly as somebody
types on there, just go search in Tehran,
you know, walkabout or whatever. Yes, many of
these things you should consider that they could
be manipulations.
The whole like North Korea analogy. Right?
But it's just there's so much evidence. It's
insulting to your intelligence to pretend that, you
know, that basically considering a possibility is not
the same as blindly accepting one. The possibility
of those lies are obviously there again, but
the body of evidence shows you one direction.
All the claims of this repressive thing are
just claims.
And there are some truth to it, but
there's no, you know, there's not the body
of evidence that we have on this side
showing you that they're that you're being lied
to. There's a bunch of these. Here's another
one.
Because,
let me read these real quickly.
I'll show you a couple of those in
a second. I'll show you the rest of
this thread.
He goes on to say, Kamini
lectured the men in the country and urges
them to help their wives in the household.
Just a funny point. He goes, cooking, washing,
cleaning is not a woman's job. Some people
think that working at the home is a
woman's duty. He says, no. It's not a
woman's duty. Cooking, washing, cleaning is a woman
is is not a woman's job. He says,
men and women should agree on household chores.
Some men help their wives with housework. You
know how funny it is to have republicans
claiming that wives are supposed to stay at
home and do the work, and you have
the guy that they want you to believe
is this repressive anti woman regime who literally
is
a I guarantee there's nuance to this. The
point is it's just not what you're being
told. That's the only point here.
He goes, one of the reasons why the
regime change operation Iran is stupid, Iran developed
past their comical propaganda version. He goes, or
Israel and the West gets it wrong. They're
stuck in an old view. He goes, Israeli
you might have seen this. Israeli hackers, I'll
bring it up in a second if we
go further,
recently hacked TV stations before they bombed them,
apparently, in in to motivate women to protest
for their freedom. He goes to cut their
hair and remove their hearts their headscarves. And
so they played all this old content. Right?
But he goes, what's funny is, here's here's
one example of Iranian woman literally chanting.
It says,
death, Israel, victory from a wall, which, of
course, don't forget, as they'll happily tell you,
means the governments and in his location, it's
a translation.
No. But they may mean the opposite, but
the most of them will clearly tell you
that that it's about the governments like most
of us have already come to understand the
point.
F you Netanyahu, she says. See, the government,
you understand?
The point is, liberal Iranian women
who do not wear the hijab, f you
is real. It says, see, so she is
the target of their regime change propaganda.
Seems she is not falling for it. The
point is up here, they're they're pointing back
to a world that doesn't exist anymore, and
they're using propaganda they think reaches people in
this country that aren't falling for it anymore
because it's not real.
They are clearly not being dragged away into
some prison, but you're being lied to about
that.
Now it says another Iranian liberal woman who
doesn't cover her hair demand the atomic bomb
now and to close the Strait Of Hormuz
to choke off oil trade. Now, yep, clearly
there are a multitude of opinions.
Now, whether or not they want that in
that country is divided. There's people in the
government that say that they should at this
point because of what Israel's doing. That's that's
a logical point. In fact, I think they
want that. They'll just be like, see, we
told you they always have. I doubt it's
in their interest to do that at this
point, at least right now. But if they
did, it's legally allowed. That's what every country
can do. But these are people talking about
this. You know, imagine like, in Israel right
now, if you come out and speak out
against their actions on October 7, they'll drag
you to prison. They'll they'll beat you up
in the streets. Just think about the con
to contrast that. It says,
Israel count counted on them to protest and
overthrow the government, but now they want to
be able to nuke Israel. Just funny. Now
it says, watch this walk through in a
market town in Tehran. This is what I
was showing you.
Iran is developing and has trajectory trajectory towards
towards more freedoms. It's obviously not perfect. This
is what he's writing. But it's not the
radical Muslim country the western warmongers have portray
it to be, which essentially is the problem
for them. A moderate developing country becomes a
problem for the unipolar
globalists.
If it is sovereign,
what Iran strives to be. To the point,
like we've told you many times before, guys,
they need these countries to be on the
border of collapse. They countries that can challenge
their preeminence in the world are suppressed.
That's why they're pushing back on Russia and
China because at some point, eventually, they could
challenge, which it seems where the role is
going. The US Government is losing its control
and its influence,
but just like every other country, they need
to keep their foot on it. Any place
out there, Libya, for example, or any place
like that that might start to challenge what
they want, that's what they do. And they
destroy it under the guise of freedom.
This goes on forever, guys.
This is in Iran. Right? All these videos
are in Iran right now.
It's it's it's sort of like the videos
we show you about everywhere else. The lies
we showed you about Syria, the lies we
show how many times do we need to
lie about?
Alright. That's the the the video voice just
saying probably up, you know, like and share.
But it goes on, guys. It goes on
forever.
Some women wear them. Some don't.
It goes on
and says there is even a big Jewish
community,
surprise surprise, with active synagogues
in Iran.
Make sense of that for us, propagandists.
It says that Iran, in reality, is not
the caricature
the warmongers presented to be. It says Iran
has a big Jewish community with active synagogues,
watched the Hanukkah celebration at
this synagogue in Iran. It's sort
of like proving that there are churches in
Gaza, by the way. The same ones that
got blown up by Israel despite them pretending
they didn't exist. They're dishonest, guys. They're monsters.
Lord Bibles says people who fled in the
nineties still fight the Iran of the nineties.
That's that's where I got that that jump
number jumped to my head. Now the both
those matter, but my point was about pre
'70 you know, pre,
or the the pre before '79
and after '53 when they existed as the
control structure, which for the western elitist, the
top was wonderful. But for the vast majority
of Iranians, which they all remember, it was
horrible.
They lived in suffering
at the expense of the or rather, they're
at their expense for the benefit of foreign
powers. It's what they do. Ask Libya, ask
Iraq, ask Afghanistan, ask Syria, ask all these
peoples. Make sure they're gonna scream the the
the wonders of how you know, scream the
the benefits of the US government. Right? Clearly,
ask any Syrian. Ask any Libyan. Gonna go,
they saved us from the open slave markets.
No. They created them. But it does not
exist anymore, he says. The country moved on.
Thirty five years have passed.
He says the there's just other people he's
adding to.
A lot of people seem confused that Iranian
women achieve change in policy from their government
through protest. That's literally how continues develop. That's
how progress has happened in western countries too.
And I, yeah, agree and disagree.
Sometimes they can have an effect, but there's
enough. The point is that you can see,
as Roberts covered, that they provably have an
effect through their government on the outcome policy.
Feels a little different, doesn't it, than what
we're used to? But it says, go on
YouTube and type in street walk of Tehran,
hundreds of videos. Here's one of them at
the end.
There will always be the people out there
that want you to believe it's all fake.
Certainly consider that, but prove that if you
want that to be the case.
I'll also include this interview yet again, my
interview with Peter Santanello,
the truth about Iran and its sharp contrast
with the mainstream media narrative. I I interviewed
about this in 02/2019.
Again, demonstrating our value, been way ahead of
this stuff. Now I'm not saying we're always
right about everything. I'm saying that we have
covered this stuff in-depth with the source material
for you to research
a long time ago and continue to for
to this day for you.
Oh, a Syrian girl shared another another video.
I think it's one of the ones he
had at the end. He said he said,
the Karens from The View are lying to
you about women in Iran. But she also
says, but Whoopi Goldberg didn't correct her either.
You guys saw that clip. Whoopi basically pushes
back on, you know, what it's like in
Iran. She's really trying to kind of call
herself out as the victim in this country.
The point though is that she didn't call
out the lies either. They're trying to act
like it's not, you know, basically just,
like, Trump, her, victimhood in Iran. Like, it's
just so funny how that that's the thing
in the left. The bottom line is that
it's being lied about. And even on the
propaganda they want you to think is actually
trying to show you the other side of
it, it's still on the same side of
the argument. That's what all this it's a
false binary within a false binary almost.
Now here is just an article you can
read for yourself from, a an overlap in
Germany, but it's a Jewish thing. Why do
women have to cover their hair with a
wig or scarf? Now wig is an adaptation.
Probably for this very conversation, right, where they
a wig is sort of serves the same
hair covering, but it doesn't look like a
head covering. But at at for it it's
actually gone far more back to you seen,
like, the ones in the settler movement wear,
like the wraps on their head, but that's
what it comes back to. And it says
once they're married.
Question of the month. Now it says, Orthodox
women do not show their hair in public
after their wedding. They're not Jewish, guys. With
a headscarf or a wig referred to as
Yiddish as a chedal.
They signal to their surroundings that they are
married and they comply with traditional notions of
propriety.
Yeah. Does that sound like exactly the same
logic? Yes. Now especially since you can understand
that not every Iranian woman is forced to
do so.
So, ladies and gentlemen,
what's the difference?
It's a good question.
Narrative, apparently.
Well, here is an overlap I've shown you
many times before, and it shows you the
extreme version of this in Israel, which is
funny seeing as how Tommy Robinson is pretending
this is
Muslims.
But you've seen this. I've shared it many
times. Here's the actual article.
This is from a Jewish platform called Forward,
Jewish independent, nonprofit.
And the article is about this woman that
appears to be in this whole head the
whole body covering with her daughter
wearing the same. Now, if I just showed
you the picture, nobody would believe me that's
a Jewish woman in Israel. And we deal
with this every time, but it is.
It says, introducing the fromquois,
Jewish women under the burqa.
And it says, no. Let's cut to the
chase.
It says, this isn't even, as you were
more likely to expect, a Muslim woman wearing
a burqa.
This was in fact in a place called
it's a photographer
in a place called Beth Shemesh in Israel,
a Jewish woman and her two daughters.
I just think that's wild. And the reality
is, if we can't if we condemn this
in one place, but don't ever care or
even even refuse to accept it when it's
in another place, then clearly it's not about
the thing. It's about the place. It's about
the agenda, the narrative.
That's the point about this where you got
peep Zionists like Tommy Robinson who tweet this
out and say, this has no place in
the twenty first century,
which is funny seeing as how he's talking
about a Jewish person right there and either
doesn't realize it or knows what he's doing
for some long agenda. I said, hey, Robinson.
Are you still gonna call will you still
call this out as having no place in
the twenty first century when you realize it's
actually a picture of a Jewish woman in
Israel?
Of course, I also laughed about it online
seeing as how Elon Musk then didn't censor
it because, of course, he's calling out the
one you're allowed to call out, except when
they know he actually made the mistake. Like,
they're they know what he really meant was
the
Muslims want, so we'll ignore it. That's not
what he said. He pointed to a Jewish
woman and said, there's no place in this
world. Right? What's funny is the platform
leaned into the context and said, well, he
knows. He meant the Muslims, so we'll let
it slide. It's it's just ridiculous, guys. That's
where we are today.
Now, here's Insurrection Barbie,
who it's funny how, you know, these people
have gotten, like, shockingly exposed, even their own
side called them out at this point. And
then they make it even more clear when
the Jenna's come around. I feel like she's
been somewhat quiet around some things.
Suddenly, we got the Iran conversation and she
jumps to and gives you the classic talking
point. She goes, this is crazy.
This was Iran before the Islamo Marxist revolution
occurred in '79. What she's trying to get
you to think is that Iran looked like
this before.
Or rather, you know, forever until the Islamists
took over in '79.
The ignorance of these people to ignore the
fact that they
that
in 7053 to '79, it was taken over
by US and Israel.
And before that, it was the Iranian country.
After that, it was the Iranian country. And
the reality of what they're trying to show
you is the
very small group of elitist that existed inside
of Iran during that time, ran by the
Shah that was allowed by the West. The
rest of Iranians lived in abject poverty, suffered,
and were tortured.
It's very documented. But this person wants you
to
all these women in bikinis and stuff. It's,
oh my god. It looks like what they
lived on. You know, basically trying to make
you this big argument how wonderful it was
during that time.
They're lying to you guys. And it's what's
even funny is that somehow she doesn't wanna
include the fact that before '53, it was
also ran by other than them.
The lessons for the western world is what
happens when poisonous ideology isn't stopped. Well, you
know what? You're right about that. Except Zionism
is the real problem here. Overall, you're simply
pointing at Muslim culture like that's somehow the
problem.
They can't even hide their, like, unbridled racism.
It's over everything. That's Zionism.
They're lying to you is the point, in
case you missed it. This is a false
picture of a of a, you know, painted
picture they want you to think is what
happens when we robbery. We save them from
themselves.
But if you knew the full picture, they
lie. And you can see that by every
other country they want you to think they
saved.
Now this is an article I put out
or a show in 02/2018.
One part of it was Operation Ajax.
Now I I included some text to this
and, of course, the actually, I think I
updated it.
Yeah. I added I added the oh, no.
I didn't. Did I forget to do that?
I guess so.
How did I do that? I'm gonna come
back to that.
Updated this so you can include the bit
shoot video because this is back from a
time when
all I have you know, the YouTube has
been censored. It's all gone. But this this
is a discussion of operation Ajax. That was
the regime change that The US and Israel
carried out in Iran.
Now, this is what I wrote then.
Yesterday, and this was 08/20/2018,
so August 19 was the sixty fifth anniversary
of when The US, in conjunction with The
UK and Israel, carried out a coup in
Iran,
wildly destabilizing the country by design, overthrowing the
country's democratically elected leader, Mohammad Mosaddegh, and installing
a CIA groom dictator. In 02/2018,
the CIA just calls that Monday, yet the
country of focus may vary.
What was once considered a wild eye conspiracy
theory is now a verifiable fact. As the
and think about that in the context of
everything as well as today. You know, the
lies we've been told now suddenly,
you know like, being they told us a
lie about that at the time. Then eventually,
we look back and then, yeah, here's what
actually happened. So consider the lie we're being
told right now about what they're doing.
But it says, as the government has since
admitted to carrying out operation Ajax,
That was planned by the CIA in cooperation
with MI six and The UK to exploit
the Iranian people and steal their oil as
well as other things on behalf of the
Anglo the Iranian oil company, the Anglo
Anglo Iranian oil company, the
AIOC,
the British state owned oil company, established in
nineteen o eight with this objective in mind
and the forerunner of today's global oil conglomerate,
BP.
So that was one major part of this.
And the bottom line was, this is now
the actual understanding of this, guys.
Despite the close, I realized that they did
this, and they, oh, we saved them. It's
all freedom. And they really just took what
they wanted to destroy the country.
Last year, a state department released a trove
of documents that give insight into the CIA's
role in the fifty three coup that led
to the overthrow of their leader. The newly
declassified documents entitled foreign relations of The United
States, all linked right here,
tell quite a different story from the original
9089
state department version of events,
which, of course, left out any involvement from
the American British intelligence.
This, yet again, shows us just how willing
our government officials are to lie, manipulate, and
obfuscate the truth when it suits their political
agenda.
Always under some foggy claim of a threat
to our national security. Funny how it's the
same thing today. All while being nothing of
the kind.
Operation Ajax in 1953,
Iranian regime change effort was justified
at the time,
nothing new, by the stated goal of stopping
a communist takeover
and, as always, the ever present threat it
posed to our democratic ways, among others.
This is hauntingly similar to what we are
seeing again today. This was, like, 02/2018, mind
you. Same again today. A threat to our
democracy.
It is very important that we make the
clear connection to what is going on in
Iran
then and also today in all all three
senses, originally, in 2018 and again today. And
how the very same tired efforts and manipulations
are being deployed yet again.
I mean, realize, guys, they made the story
up. They'd sold you the lie about a
communist takeover, then they later admitted it was
all about oil. So you have to realize
they lie to you every single time.
The memorandum from the CIA dated 03/03/1953
detailed the, quote, capabilities of CIA clandestine services
in Iran,
which could be used to, quote,
prevent the assumption of power by by the
by the,
communist party in Iran. They outlined how they
could carry out, quote, rumors spreading,
street riots,
demonstrations,
and mobs.
Sound familiar?
I mean, we just saw the
the
Mossad cell that was inside of Iran that
they used to carry out the recent attack.
They praised that.
These people are they're literally creating what they
point to in Syria, in Afghan. Every one
of the times we keep talking about this
where you get the demonstration, they want freedom,
and they shoot people and blame it on
their government. They do it every single time.
They stated that, quote, the CIA controls a
network of numerous press, political,
and clerical contracts, which has proven itself capable
of disseminating large scale anti propaganda.
That just and they won't tell you that
now, but they're simply telling you we have
and over the years, that's the point. From
'79 forward is Iran started to try to
insulate itself and defend itself against these infiltration
of USAID and the news channels. Of course,
they yell censorship, which there's an argument you
made there. But they understand what the outside
forces are trying to do to them. They've
done it before, and they're simply admitting that
we are influencing politics, religion,
everything. In other words, lying to you about
it.
Consider the unfettered mainstream media support around the
aggression towards Iran today and ask yourself if
the CIA had numerous press, political, and clerical
contracts
in '53,
how many do you suppose they have now
that are capable of disseminating large scale propaganda?
Or do they even need those anymore?
The idea that the CIA would meddle in
a sovereign nation, work to overthrow its government,
and then influence public perception is nothing new
in 02/2018,
02/2025.
And yet, despite years of revelations, regime change
wars, and failed proxy governments, there's still a
perception among many Americans
that the government interfering with countries that have
done nothing to The United States is all
in the name of freedom.
I I feel like it's diminishing number, but
you know they exist.
Looking back, we now know that Mohammad Mosaddegh,
the leader of '53,
was a huge fan of the idea of
democratic society. It's actually very easy to prove
today. Even had pictures of himself next to
the Liberty Bell. Easy to look up. And
was actively striving to build a free and
independent Iran, yet this did not work for
The US imperialists. They did not want a
country that could raise in power and have
a functioning society and grow economically. They wanted
a country they can use, and that's not
the way you use them. You put them
in a place of desperation and you take
over. That's what they do. And and they
destroy the lives of these people in order
to get what they wanted, like in Yemen,
like in Syria, like everywhere else. The fact
that I even have to convince people of
this is insane.
The evidence has been there from day one,
and you all know it in some way
or another.
So they overthrew
a democratically elected leader. One, by the way,
that was publicly leaning in the direction of
way the West was going. And his place
put the Shaw.
Right? The Shaw who then insta instituted
more iron grip control.
And in fact, in a lot of ways,
the opposite of what they claim they're fighting
for. And then beyond that, the overreaction which
drove them into a more repressive position, which
they've grown away from. But then on, I
think, a quick segue to another conversation.
Beyond this,
it's important to understand that the Zionist entity
then began to and had been already, I
think, but began to literally fund and radicalize
elements that they would point to as the
evil Muslim threat.
And this is what Dave Ruppe, Dave Smith,
and plenty of others have made points over
the years.
They radicalized
or rather funded The US and Israel,
the most
radical elements of Islam that they could get
their hands on. And they kept doing this
in every location and then would lean in
with them to replace the people that were
more moderate in every country they were fighting.
And now look, and then you get the
rumors of the world will point to these
people as all Muslim culture that was literally
bastardized and manipulated by the very people that
she's siding with.
It's just
shockingly obvious today. And so
knowing that he was leaning a direction away
from what they would point to to rationalize
their control,
they couldn't allow that it seems. Got rid
of him.
The person before him, Mosaddegh, was not someone
who would lay down and let them rule
the country, so they got it out of
the way. The Shah was an absolute despot
who squandered Iran's wealth to his benefit and
that of his political allies,
which by the way, they do everywhere. Do
you remember what Guaido was saying he was
gonna do to the country the moment he
took over? The same thing at the expense
of Venezuelans.
Didn't happen though.
It says chief among them at the time
their allies was of course The United States.
America has created and maintained far too many
friendships with autocrats and war criminals
for anyone to remain under the illusion that
its agenda has ever been about anything but
wealth and dominance.
Very important.
Candace Owens points something out. Quick jump ahead
briefly, but Donald Trump Donald Trump said today.
It's not politically correct, he says, to use
the term regime change.
But if the current Iranian regime is unable
to make Iran great again, why wouldn't there
be a regime change?
And
then he literally says,
MIGA,
M I G A.
Make Israel great again.
Is that not exactly what we've all been
pointed to? I'm arguing that he's probably even
using that to kind of water down the
influence it has. There are people all across
this movement that are going, no, it's about
make Israel great again. What he's doing is
not about American interests. And now he literally
combines all these things. And, of course, tries
to narrative correct about the regime change point.
How long have I been making that point
about the way they take over these terms
and turn them into something they use? Candace
says, and just like that, regime change. We
were simply being politically correct before by not
using the term. Why are the conspiracy theorists
right about everything?
Looking forward to the real Macca explaining to
the traitors how resisting regime change is actually
woke right.
There's so many weird overlaps to that that
even I would look at differently, but that's
just the point is that they're fracturing
because it's clear that this is insane and
it takes a special kind of stupid to
not see what Israel's doing in this country.
And that they're literally driving you into everything
they told you was never going to happen
unless Kamala won. And you know my opinion,
they're both the same thing with a slightly
different flavor. Well, Tracy Michael Tracy points out
the same thing and says MAGA influencer pivot.
Trump was not involved with Israel bombing of
Iran. He was involved, but that's good. He's
pursuing diplomacy and peace. The diplomacy was fake,
but that's good. He's bombing Iran, but no
regime change. He's doing regime change, but that's
good.
That's that's literally how this seems to go.
And that's why honest people in this movement
are just fed up at this point, and
I get it.
But make Israel great again seems to be
quite a bit relevant today, doesn't it?
Well,
I'll include the previous two shows we did
when we talk about this, leading up to
now. The the expected false flag of justify
the Iran war, which is still on the
table, but the conversation was not that this
show was not about whether I expected that.
We all knew that was a possibility. But
because of the conversation
that was interesting, on the surface of it,
the expected false flag, the Nimitz, was an
interesting point. It still seems to be possible,
but I've even they even wrote a major
article. I think it was The Atlantic
about James Lee and saying like and the
title was literally, no.
I think I might be able to pull
it up.
I think it popped up when I searched
the name.
Yeah. It's just funny. Like, the tie like,
the fact that they wrote this title. The
title literally says, no. The USS Nimitz will
not be destroyed in a false flag operation.
It's like how embarrassing to be a person
where your job is to go, you know,
to wag your finger at completely possible things.
Because, obviously, guys, it could be. Right? I
mean, are you are you is Atlantic count
are they Atlantic are they pretending
that it's literally outside the realm of possibility
that somebody else could attack it and blame
it on somebody else? Yeah. That's just insanely
impossible. Right? Or completely not. A very benignly
obviously possible. But it's because their job is
to control their narrative, and maybe it's because
it is gonna happen. I mean, who knows?
I just thought that was hilarious.
What is yeah. What a thing to say.
How silly.
Shows you what their jobs are, and I
don't even think they know that. But the
expected false flag, and we talked about Iran's
regime change two step. They're just going through
the motions, guys, and it's they don't care.
It's like the same old narratives. No one's
buying it, but they're not stopping.
So
we saw this, and this this is a
really important point to start with this segment
for people that believed that Trump was telling
the truth. I think what's most,
like, striking about this next part,
I think it's important to average people that
believe that you're being led in the right
direction by the MAGA move, by Trump, whatever.
You need to absorb right now that you
were the one that got played. Not in
the sense that we're all being lied to.
That's true too. But that Trump and the
rest of them knowingly lied to you
in order to sidestep this, in order to
lay to make it lead to I mean,
you could look at a lot of ways.
I don't my opinion would be to get
to let people think it wasn't gonna happen.
Right? Because he came out and he said,
two weeks.
Right? Three days ago, he said, in two
in two weeks, I'll decide.
And then immediately after they bomb.
So, they lied to you guys. Trump either
either Trump tricked you so they could do
that or Israel tricked him and he's not
in control. I don't know which one's more
alarming.
And it seems like the second one might
even be more possible at this point, seeing
as how they just Trump tells them not
to do it, they do it anyway.
Right? He says, we'll tell you in two
weeks. They bomb right away. They're they're, like,
trying to show you that Trump is inept
in all this, and they're in control. Or
he knew it in his control, and they're
and he's lying to you. The point is
Seymour Hersh came out and told you. We
showed you this on the show.
June 19. Seymour Hersh has reported that heavy
American bombing will begin this weekend.
So well, there's two points in all of
this. One is that the idea that killed
Assad in two weeks
hid the action that Israel immediately fought. Now
look, my point is that I know the
narrative is that's not The US, it was
Israel, which is true. But The US was
involved. We know that. They're both in lockstep
with this agenda. So when they responded,
I the feeling was that what this was,
it was like, we'll just in two weeks,
we'll make a decision, and they bombed right
away. Right? Then
Seymour Hersh came out and said that The
US bombing will take place this weekend, and
he nailed it as he said as usual.
And he was right, despite the different claims
coming from the administration. So they lied to
you guys. They tricked you.
Now here's what Trump said.
Oh, wait. Did I forget to grab this?
Hold on.
This Trump video is very interesting.
So this is a commercial
that somebody caught on live TV.
And this was, I think, yesterday. Now the
point made, which I agree with,
you know, that that they and I don't
need to sell this because the next few
points we're gonna make prove already that they
knew and lied to you about what they
were gonna do. Even from Marco Rubio telling
we already made the decision in March they
were gonna bomb Iran. Like, they're just playing
you all. Right? But this my point is
that they they had this prepared. They knew
what they were gonna do to the point
where they made a commercial about the fact
that he wasn't gonna let this happen, but
while he was telling you that it wasn't
gonna happen. Not evident here what it is.
From day
one, president Trump has been clear. We like
to talk, but
they should have done that before.
Sometimes you have to take a stand against
evil, and that's what president Trump understands.
And we appreciate,
deeply appreciate the help we're getting from The
United States Of America. Iran is not winning
this war. President Trump's strength is making the
world safer.
God. How gross.
Standing up to our enemy.
Right? I mean, it's just such gross propaganda.
I mean, you know, it's it's respect whether
you agree with it or not, what's the
point of that? Why would he need to
sell you like he's in the middle of
an election on what he just did? How
does that not show you that they know
that nobody wants this, that it's not popular?
That's why they do things like that. So
here is the point to prove to you
that you already probably know that this wasn't
a secret despite him, I mean, more than
anybody, tricking the MAGA people that believed he
was being honest with them, which I'm not
trying to insult anybody. Just let that reflect
on who these people are. And they're all
manipulators. That's the point. I mean, nobody's taking
sides here other than us and our and
and then exposing the government that's lying to
you.
Trump tells the post, I always knew the
date for when Israel attacked despite him pretending
like he wasn't involved or asked him, asked
them not to do it. Now he could
be lying about that, trying to save face.
Either way, it shows you how dishonest all
this is. And then, of course, we get
oh, well, this was hold on. Did I
mix that up?
Oh, did I move that somehow? There it
is.
So I'll play this next and probably come
back to it. I moved it for some
reason. According to Marco Rubio, the decision to
bomb Iran was made on 03/07/2025.
At the latest,
when Trump said an ultimatum letter to the
Ayatollah. So literally sends a letter to them
saying, you do this or we're gonna bomb
you, and that they made that decision and
then carried on with all the rhetoric and
all the lies, all the side steps,
and they're admitting this to you.
Asked why Iran would negotiate with The US
after being sneak attacked twice,
Rubio rants about Beirut bombing in '83. The
bottom line is in the midst of so
called negotiations,
they were bombing. And twice now, Iran had
to say, why would we deal with this
while we're being bombed by Israel?
That's an obvious point. Do you think Trump
would deal with anybody with their bombing Florida?
That's ridiculous.
But he's the main takeaway is that they're
now trying to they're acknowledging that they always
knew this was gonna happen. So yet another
mark for those of us that were telling
you this was always the plan.
At home who are going,
where are we at war? You know? I'm
trying to suss out some of the facts
here. So
why would
why would Iran agree to any peace deal
if The United States has already pulled out
of one that they had as president Trump
did in 2018
and now launched two surprise attacks, both Israel
and The United States have done so? There
is such a massive trust deficit there.
How could you possibly come across that started
with Iran.
I know. Well, the trust deficit, the ones
that shouldn't be trusted are the Iranians because
they're the ones that sponsor terrorism. Did they
forewarn us before they blew up the embassy
in Lebanon
built IEDs and blew the legs and arms
off of American servicemen in Iraq? I mean,
these are the people that are doing this
forever. They're the ones that no one should
trust. They're the ones that have lied about
their nuclear program. They're the ones that have
hit
we have to address this.
I mean, this is the most
he is such a small little child.
They're the ones like, that's exactly what he
says. Like, so it's not about whether or
not like, you have to realize how childish
this is to try to make the argument.
So there she's asking a point blank question
about the so you did this, why would
they trust you? The answer is not they're
the ones that are trustworthy.
Even if that's true, how does that answer
the question? It's a side step. Right? It's
a flail. It's going there, look over, look
at Arora, and they're the bad guy. Okay.
Now back to the question. Why would they
trust you? Whether or not they're villains, why
would they trust you when you kept lying
to them? So it just shows you how
vulnerable.
Like, that is such a silly response. And
Marco is just flailing.
But but let let's listen to it again.
There's some important parts in all this. Thank
you.
So it was what Trump did in 2018
and now launched two surprise attacks. Both Israel
and The United States have done so. There
is such a massive trust deficit there.
How could you possibly compromise that started with
Iran.
I know. They're my first point. Yeah. Yeah.
I know. She's that's she's almost laughing. I
know. I know. That's not the point, though.
It just keeps going. Well, the trust deficit,
the ones that shouldn't be trusted are the
Iranians because Apparently, not the government, by the
way. Iranians.
All of them. That is how they think.
Because they're the ones that sponsor terrorism. Did
they forewarn us before they Okay. So again,
let's take a point. So sponsor terrorism. Okay.
You mean, like, Hamas? You mean, like, ISIS?
You mean, like, the moderate rebels? You mean,
like, every group you Saudi Arabia? Every group
you're involved with? All the people you find
and all the Islam groups you take?
So it only matters when they do it.
And the reality is the evidence that they
fund terrorism is pretty shoddy. Like, I've I
mean, again, people love to respond to these
things like, oh, you're such a propagandist. Yeah.
Present your evidence, bud. I'd love to see
it. I'd love to see anybody make a
compelling case about how they fund terrorism.
It's always gonna be some abstract argument about
Hezbollah, Hamas, or the Houthis.
None of those things are terrorist organizations, not
even Hamas, by the way, despite the framing
of it, but we also have to recognize
that Israel has funded Hamas up until October
7. This it's just insane.
Meanwhile, you've got US and Israel publicly funding
terror groups in Syria, in in
I mean, everywhere. Literally every location to the
point to where they just had to admit
or even going back before, they
gave treatment to Al Qaeda in Syria. But
they've had to admit this 50 times over
on top of the general reality that ISIS
and Al Qaeda are actually proxy groups of
these two groups.
So that's the point of they fund terrorism.
Because they're the ones that sponsored terrorism. Did
they forewarn us before they blew up the
embassy in Lebanon and killed over 200 American
servicemen? So, again, all these over so each
one of these, you could dive into the
reality of the narratives and around it. The
bottom line and let's just take it face
value like I always say. So let's pretend
like that's exactly what happened. The reality is
how many times has Israel in The United
States bombed all these different locations that killed
innocent people? Now the honest point is to
say both should be criticized.
Both should be dealt with the same.
The point is that you're highlighting something that
is dubious in the first place, but the
larger picture being that overall, they're only we're
they're the only ones that ever get called
out for things despite us doing it a
100 times over. So if you only had
two examples,
your the response would not be like, well,
there you did it first. That's stupid
ever in any context. But if you stand
back and look at the fact
and both should be still be called out,
but that one side has done it 50
times in a row, and they're the ones
criticizing you for doing it once. That's a
fair point to make to say, well, look
at the background of this. Both should still
be held accountable, but the reality is you're
setting an a a ridiculous bar acting like
we're the only ones that are held accountable
for things that everyone's doing. These things all
matter, but the reality is them lying up.
Did they forewarn us before they built IEDs
and blew the legs and arms off of
American servicemen in Iraq? Oh, you mean the
illegally invaded Iraq where you guys burst in
for no justifiable reason, lied about WMDs like
you're doing now, and overthrew the country and
stole everything? Yeah. How dare they fight back?
Like, this is how stupid this is. The
same point about what they claim with Soleimani
and the Americans he killed. You mean while
they were fighting off an illegal invasion?
In what world do you get to call
yourself the freedom fighter while you're illegally invading
the country, and then you go on to
destroy it and it still is in a
state of, you know, unrest? I mean, however
you wanna frame it. Like, Iraq, Syria,
Lebanon, like, these just are or excuse me,
Libya.
I might have said Lebanon early and I
meant Libya. The point though is that all
these places are, you know, does Libya even
exist anymore? I mean, in more than any
of them, Libya is the best example. It's
a fractured area with war tribe war leaders
with different tribes. They'll I mean, I argue
forever, they'll just keep the Libya look because
they won't they don't want you to think
they just balkanized everything. But realize how many
things they've destroyed utterly.
You know, the idea of what they're pushing
is just complete lies. I mean, these are
the people that are doing this forever. They're
the ones that no one should trust. They're
the ones that have lied about their nuclear
program. They see. So he and now he's
using things that we are taking at face
value. Like, the lie that he's using justify
this is the lies
I'm just so exhausted by having to like,
I these are the kind of things that
it's it's cartoon. This is like a Saturday
Night Live skit.
You I mean, is this really the best
we can do? That this is your statement?
You can't, like, manufacture like, why wouldn't you
just make up fake evidence your intelligence showed
you like you used to? At least that
has some gravitas to it. You guys are
just flailing right now.
The arguments don't make any sense. The ones
that have hidden things to make international organisms.
But that sounds like we're headed towards regime
change where the desire to get these people
out of power. No. No. No. Are are
you No. No. A serious foreign policy is
one that's focused on identifying what our national
interest is. You don't have to like the
regime. There are a lot of regimes around
the world that we don't like. Okay? But
in this particular case, what we are focused
on is not the changing of the regime.
K?
Despite Trump just saying the opposite. You gotta
get on page here,
Rubio. That's up to the Iranian people if
they wanna do that, but that's not what
we're focused on. Our national interest is about
one thing, and that is Iran not getting
where any anywhere near
the capability to weaponize and and have nuclear
weapons. And you see that that's a walk
back now because they know everyone's becoming aware
of the facts, And so they're going, well,
they can't have ballistic missiles because they could
eventually be used from it. So eventually, they
can't have rifles because those could be used
to build you know, they're just walking it
back day by day, basically saying, you know,
eventually, they can't have Iranians in there because
Iranians could make missiles and missiles could be
used to carry nukes. So get rid of
all the Iranians.
You know, it feels like kinda where it's
going with with
pick Palestine, where the the narrative shifts all
the all the time, but what the real
goal was is just get rid of the
Palestinians. That's what this is. They're not gonna
add anywhere near that capability. The president is
make Like the legal reality being that they
are and everyone else can.
At what point did the US government be
the arbiter of the world? When when they
become the the legal arbiter who decides who
can and can't do what they want? That
clear from day one. Our preference for solving
that problem, that very specific problem is through
diplomacy. We've said that. We've given it every
opportunity. They played games. They tried delay tactics.
They're trying delay tactics now on the Europeans
because of the snapback provisions. When did the
president make this That was a crazy deal.
When did the president make the That's the
best they can do. Crazy deal does not
mean illegitimate.
You can't just go, we didn't like it.
And so, therefore, the the realities of it
don't apply. It's like they do every time,
and they just know that their blind followers
will follow suit. The fox talking head morons
will come out and say whatever they're told
to say like they're doing x in space
right now about Iran. It's so infuriating to
watch what these idiots are saying on TV
right now. This decision because he said he
was giving two more weeks of diplomacy on
Friday, and on Friday, these jets took off.
Yeah. Exactly.
Well, the president retains the opportunity to pull
up You gotta love that. Like, just look
at the look at the face. It's so
funny. The JCPA?
That was a crazy deal.
When did the president make this decision? Because
he said he was giving two more weeks
of diplomacy on Friday, and on Friday, these
jets took off.
Yeah.
Oops. Yeah. Okay. You can't you the point
is
there's a a that that's a valid question.
You're telling us he wants diplomacy. He says
we want this much time for diplomacy and
then instantly takes jets off. And obviously, we
now know the bombers were used to bomb,
so they already knew. And now we're gonna
come back to the point where we knew
back in March. So
let's let's backtrack here, Rubio. You've stressed diplomacy,
but then you end with the argument that
you were always gonna bomb. I'd love for
you to work that out for me, guys.
Good have a good time with that.
Well, the president retains the opportunity to pull
out of this at any moment, including ten
minutes before. But the president ordered options. The
president look. The decision in my view was
made when he wrote a letter to the
supreme leader, and he said over the next
sixty days, we wanna do a deal with
you and solve this problem of nuclear weaponization.
Yeah. We wanna do it peacefully.
If after sixty days Which they know they
don't have and they know it's a lie.
Right? So in Iran's position,
where the facts back up, that they don't
have this, they're not seeking it, and everything
they're saying is you have to stop the
thing that you're not doing. Imagine trying to
engage with that negotiation with a straight face.
They know what they're trying to accomplish. They
know they're lying about this. So yet, they
still try to give some back and forth,
and they just go, stop the thing. And
they're like, we don't have that thing. You
know, I will prove it to you. Here's
what the here's what your own government said.
And they just don't care because the agenda
is not about a bomb. That's the real
thing to take away from this. It is
about the justification to achieve their ends. And
it's the perfect excuse if knowing that they
can't solve a thing that doesn't exist.
We don't see progress or it isn't solved.
We have other alternatives.
He made that very clear. I think what
some people are struggling with here is that
we today have a president who does what
he says he's gonna do. And that Yeah.
Except never, though. And every other we're we're
gonna end the wars. We're gonna go to
the wars. We're gonna stop mRNA. We're gonna
make mRNA. We're gonna, you know,
every single day. But the Rubios of the
world are narrative managers. That seems to be
their job today.
So
funny how you're gonna start by saying diplomacy,
but then end with the reality that you
always knew was gonna go to war. You're
a child. I mean, these people are losing
face. Let's not forget that Rubio was the
that'll never happen from the MAGA crowd until
suddenly he's the best guy there. Those are
the liars. The real MAGA people were like
that, he's a terrible choice, but he picked
him, so we'll side with him. But now
he's not, and they're not dumb. And that's
the real split. It's not that they're not
the people in MAGA
are splitting because they're not stupid.
Now Trump says, this is yesterday, we have
completed our very successful attack on the three
nuclear sites in Iran, including four and the
immediate point people make is like, okay. But
if you're telling us these are nuclear plant,
wouldn't that be dangerous?
Didn't you guys just start screaming about the
attacks on the nuclear facility in a in
a Ukraine?
They're like the the breathless hair on fire,
like they're gonna kill the whole world if
we keep letting Russia bomb the thing, and
then all of a sudden they took over
and then Ukraine started doing it and they
stopped caring? And Ukraine was bombing the thing?
Oh, so now it doesn't matter because it
might happen when Russia's in control? Funny how
childish and stupid you are. The bottom line,
guys, is that that obviously suggests either that
there is no actual threat or that they
they didn't really do what they said.
Now I don't I don't know. I don't
really think either of those things. I just
think it's interesting. Well, I mean, I do
in one sense. I I think there is
a threat In a lot of ways, I
don't think it's about a nuclear bomb.
My point is that this very clearly shows
you that they were either trying to create
nuclear fallout or are very aware that they
don't have a nuclear bomb.
All planes are now outside of Iran airspace.
It says a full payload of bombs was
dropped on the primary site. You know, this
is the same actions he's not involved with
until he is. All planes are safely on
their way home. Congratulations to our great American
warriors.
I mean, it's hard to call someone a
warrior when you drop a bomb,
But, you know, that's the illusion we love
to tell ourselves. There is not another military
in the world that could have done this
except literally every one of them that has
nukes. But, you know, that's that's the Betty
Johnson historic for the thing anyone can do.
Now is the time for peace. You gotta
love that. Thank you for your attention on
this matter.
It's funny how there's and it's almost
cowardly, if you really wanna break it down,
for them to bomb people. It's like somebody
who bombs and then runs behind the skirts
of their mom. Right? So, we're gonna bomb,
bomb, bomb, and kill everybody, and then run
back and go, Peace, peace, peace negotiations. Right?
Yay. Let's all get on the side of
peace after we just murdered your families. Right?
It's just embarrassing.
Now here's what Trump had to say.
A short time ago, the US military carried
out
massive precision strikes on the three key nuclear
facilities
in the Iranian
regime,
Firdo,
Natanz,
and Esfahan.
Everybody
heard those names for years as they built
this horribly destructive
enterprise.
Our objective was the Yeah. In what way?
I'd love to see a demonstration. Destructive in
what way? Show me one. Where have they
used the oh, that's right. Because they haven't
done that. You sure have, the government of
the United States, Israel.
Then realize tactical nukes even. You can pretty
much easily prove that Israel's done the in
Lebanon, Beirut, in in examples in Gaza.
There's There's really evidence for that, but it's
just people don't wanna talk about the the
way they've been testing tactical nukes in a
lot of places in the world that Trump
is one that really led the full the
forward focus to.
Enterprise.
Our objective was the destruction of Iran's
nuclear enrichment capacity and a stop to the
nuclear threat
posed by the world's number one state sponsor
of terror. They just can't even let go
of the narratives they spin. Like, you can't
keep saying that when you guys have ISIS
bombing them
all the time.
You can't keep saying that when you can't
prove in any real context that they're funding
anybody for that matter, but even if your
best allegation are groups that aren't even terrorists.
And one of them, the one you really
like to point to is one that Israel
has been funding up until October 7. It's
just
insanely stupid.
The US and Israel are shockingly obvious in
regard to how they fund terrorism in the
world everywhere. And Iran, you just can't make
the same case. There is not the same
amount of evidence. And the only thing they
have are allegations about who they say they're
funding. And then even then, you can't make
the evidence they have about whether Hezbollah or
the Houthis have carried out terrorism. I mean,
look at what the Houthis are doing in
Yemen. They're every moment, they're proving that they're
the opposite of what they're dealing with, not
taking not taking people, not casualties.
I mean, actual restraint.
Does it sound like a terrorist organization?
Just think about how silly it is for
them to still say that. And do you
know who wants them to say that? Israel.
Tonight, I can report to the world
that the strikes were a spectacular
military success.
Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely
and totally obliterated.
Which is what they would say regardless of
what actually happened, whether they did them or
not, whether they actually bombed, they missed. You
know this. Every time you know this. One
side's gonna say it was more than it
was supposed to be. The other side's gonna
say nothing happened. Usually, somewhere in the middle.
But it's just so lazy that we always
go to these games and we know what's
going on. The truth is, the evidence we're
gonna get to in a minute, at least
suggests that they didn't really get what they
claim they did. But the narrative is to
say that anyway.
Iran, the bully of the Middle East.
I'm sorry.
I mean, it's just so just so ridiculous.
Yeah. What countries have they overtaken, Trump? Who
are they bullying? Show me where they've done
this and hurt people and overtaken countries and
starve people to death. I'd love to see
the bully tactics you're talking about. You mean,
like, in in invasive economic sanctions?
Oh, I guess not that either.
Are we really here? Like, do we really
have to do this? Like, it's so frustrating.
The whole world can see this stuff. Must
now make peace.
If they do not, future attacks will be
far greater and a lot easier.
Right. Right. Because you're just so strong. You're
so tough.
So
make peace now.
Is this what strength peace through strength looks
like? That's what he wants you to believe.
How does it actually work? When's the last
time you ever saw somebody other than bombing
them into submission, like literally destroying everything? Do
they then just go, fine. You got us.
You're strong. We won't respond.
I've never seen that actually happen. They know
that, though. They're not seeking peace. Guys, they're
seeking control.
That's what they want. They want you to
know, look. We're gonna keep going no matter
what. We'll bomb your families. We'll steal, kill
your and we'll we will torture, maim, and
kill anyone we can. We'll we'll call it
freedom, but you know the truth. And if
you decide to try to stop us or
push back, we'll go even harder. We will
bomb. We will nuke. We will chemical weapon.
We'll do whatever we need, and we'll call
it freedom. And if you bomb us with
a regular bomb, we'll call you terrorists. And
we everyone knows that, and we'll keep doing
it anyway.
Most people cower.
Some people
lose either way, so they keep fighting.
And it's really not good guy, bad guy.
It's just stating the reality of where we
are. And some countries that are arguably bad
or the governments that aren't seeking positive things
are still being taken advantage of and still
should be called out for in regard to
The US and what they're doing.
For forty years, Iran has been saying death
to America. Death Death American government. To Israel.
Government. They have been killing our people, blowing
off their arms, blowing off their legs with
roadside bombs.
Are you kidding me? You're gonna have the
nerve to say that, well, what we're seeing
in Gaza is just about the most unprecedented
thing in history.
I I don't even wanna get into the
amount of children you can see with missing
limbs and arm eyes and just it's everywhere.
But on top of that, that the IED
discussion that we're talking about literally stems from
their counterterrorism.
Like, the the they exist in all plenty
of exam examples, especially in places where they're
illegally invading. So to call that any kind
of like, for you to be invading Iraq
and for them to put bombs out and
you blow yourself up and you claim that's
terrorism
is absolutely insane.
But on top of that, a lot of
the terrorism we talk about, whether the bombs,
the vests, stems from Zionism.
And the funding of the people that they
I mean, even is even Saudi Arabia has
admitted more than once that the groups they
funded, the radical Muslim groups that they fund
to carry out actions with, in many ways,
they've lost control of.
Or in many ways, the leaders parts of
these groups don't even believe the religious sentiments
they use to manipulate others. It's it's almost
like an emulation of Zionism, guys. It's what
they're doing. All this is proven. I've gone
over this a thousand times over.
That was their specialty. We lost over a
thousand people as they illegally invaded Iraq. And
hundreds of thousands throughout The Middle East and
around the world have died as a direct
result of their hate in particular.
Uh-huh. So many were killed by their general,
Qasem
Soleimani.
Soleimani meaning a few 100 that he's talking
about only in regard to when they were
invading Iraq and they fought them off. That's
the truth. And this is the Syria and
the same conversation.
It's, you know, if you wanna really understand
why other people decide to hate this government,
it's because of these egregious lies they tell
about things that everyone knows are wrong. Everybody.
Like, literally an entire conversation out there other
than people blindly following this government are very
aware of Soleimani, of the reality of who
he was and what he was doing in
the world. And they murdered him under guys
at peace talks. And that's the terrorist? That's
the evil villain who came to speak about
peace and you killed him?
The person you're staring at is a monster.
Just like Biden, just like Obama, just like
BB Netanyahu, it's all the all of them
standing there. These are absolute villains.
You just have to be real about that
and understand what they're actually doing. Now maybe
they're not in control. Maybe their families are
being threatened. I don't know. It doesn't change
the reality for me that what they're doing
right now is wrong.
And if it's a wrongdoing, if it was
anybody else doing it, I wanna say the
same thing.
Point it out for me. I'll call it
out.
I decided a long time ago that I
would not let this happen. It will not
continue.
I wanna thank and congratulate prime minister Bibi
Netanyahu.
Right. The guy committing a genocide in multiple
countries. We worked as a team like perhaps
no team has ever worked before. You gotta
love his his hyperbolic nature.
Like, no team has ever worked before in
the history of planets and countries we've ever
seen ever.
It's just that why would you need to
say something like that? That you somehow been
a better team than any team before?
I mean, I'm willing to bet you that
wasn't written down. That's Trump ad lib, and
it's ridiculous.
And we've gone a long way to erasing
this horrible threat to Israel.
I wanna thank the Israeli military. Oh, okay.
Wait a minute. Only it's a threat to
Israel, apparently.
That's it. So
that was The US fighting Israel's wars. It's
what he just said. Very for the wonderful
job they've done.
And most importantly, I wanna congratulate the great
American patriots who flew those magnificent
machines tonight
and all of the United States military on
an operation the likes of which the world
has not seen in many, many decades.
Dropping a bomb
or some bombs? I mean, you have to
realize that, yes, you could argue that the
bunker busters and then, you know, that we
haven't used, though. But you're flying planes and
you're dropping bombs. That's what happened.
Pretty sure that's almost benign in the context
of US foreign policy, but, you know, call
me crazy.
Hopefully Oh, wait. Wait. Wait. I forgot.
I forgot.
There is something unparalleled in all this that
we knew we knew was gonna come to
pass.
The woke right.
White Reed says it's finally real.
They say the next ones will be sent
by a woman.
This is in Yemen and then it goes,
really makes you feel like you're part of
history as we get bombed by a woman
flying a plane. Right? That was the joke
about the woke left
and saying it's better when it's a it's
a it's a woke plane. Right?
Well, guess what? That becomes real
through the right.
At least one b two bomber pilots who
took part in Iran mission was a female,
says Fox News.
They're literally create becoming the memes, and the
woke right is the one to carry it
out. Isn't that just perfect? This is exactly
what we're talking about, guys. It's the same
nonsense being driven from the other side.
Will no longer need their services in this
capacity.
I hope that so.
I also wanna congratulate
world has not seen in many, many decades.
Hopefully, we will no longer need their services
in this capacity.
I hope that's so.
I also want to congratulate the chairman of
the joint chiefs of staff, general Dan Raising
Caine,
spectacular general, and all of the brilliant military
minds involved in this attack.
With all of that being said, this cannot
continue. There will be either peace
or there will be tragedy for Iran far
greater than
we have witnessed over the last eight days.
Okay. Great. So you're gonna take it even
further. He does this every time. Now whether
he means it or not is irrelevant. Half
the you know, he he say more than
we've ever done in history, which can only
mean bomb, nuclear bombs, and chemical weapons, and
biological, but that doesn't happen. So he'd lie
he says this stuff all the time. He's
a bombastic manipulator.
The point
is that, real quickly Will be tragedy for
Iran for Yeah. It's a peace. So if
Iran doesn't make peace.
Right? So Israel attacks them with no justification,
other than that they're working on things everyone
else can work on and it's also a
lie. Then you tell them they can't respond
or they'll be terrorists. And then you bomb
them again and bomb their nuclear facilities after
they bomb or Israel who bombed them first.
And then again, you tell them that you
better not do anything that you're legally allowed
to do or we're gonna carry out even
more attacks on you. So you're just continuing
the escalation. Is this what it looks like
to seek peace?
Do they not have a legal right to
respond as Israel's been bleeding about for two
years?
Apparently not.
Are greater than
we have witnessed over the last eight days.
Remember, there are many targets left.
Tonight's was the most difficult of them all
by far See, that that's one of those
things people overlap with, like, an Obama version
to Trump version. Like, the lack of sent
like, the he just has no decorum.
There's many like, you've just basically threatened. We're
gonna you don't need to say we're going
to bomb more locations. That is what a
weak person does. You don't need to bound
your chest and go, we're so strong. That's
what weak people do. I don't mean that
they don't have munitions. Clearly, they do. I'm
talking about a weak, insecure entity. You don't
need to pound your chest and say we're
but you just you are strong, and people
know that.
This piece through strength is not screaming you're
strong at the top of your lungs.
Are and perhaps the most lethal.
But if peace does not come quickly, we
will go after those other targets with precision,
speed, and skill.
Meaning that if you don't do what we
want, we're gonna bomb again. And we'll call
that peace. We'll call that negotiation. But you're
holding a gun to their head and saying,
do what we want
or we're gonna force peace down your throat.
It's just it's it's nobody takes this seriously.
Everyone knows what's happening. They're strong arming them.
They're threatening through military force. Iran, do what
we're telling you, and let's name that peace
and go forward like we all made friends.
Most of them can be taken out in
a matter of minutes. There's no military in
the world that could have done what we
did tonight.
Except every other one of them that has
bombs and planes. Not even close. There's never
been a military that could do what took
place just a little while ago. He just
said the same thing twice, and, yes, there
are other places with bombs and planes. Tomorrow,
general Kane, secretary of defense,
Pete Hegseth, will have a press conference at
8AM at the Pentagon.
And I wanna just thank everybody, and
in particular,
God,
I wanna just say What a weird God,
that felt so weird.
It felt really forced.
I'm just being honest. Like, the way it's
it just felt wrong right there. I'm not
even speaking to somebody who is a Christian.
I'm just saying the way he did that
felt really strange to me. Very forced.
I don't know. I mean, you could place
on what you want. Watch again. It felt
like he didn't know what to say. I
don't even know. It's something wrong about that.
Whether it's that he feels somehow conflicted,
if he believes in God, that this is
wrong and he's claiming it's about God. Right?
Or or I don't know. Watch again.
Oppressed. By the way, the reason I say
that is because you can read his books.
You can read about him. He all the
claims of being what he is today, it's
a character. And he's spoken about these publicly.
He's written about it in the past. He
does not believe the things he claims he
does today, unless he's completely changed. That's possible.
I don't believe it. It's at 8AM at
the Pentagon,
and I wanna just thank everybody. And
in particular,
God,
I wanna just say we love you God,
and we love our great military. Protect them.
God
bless the Middle East. God bless Israel, and
God bless
America. Thank you
Just, you know, like he's trying to be
speak. Right? You know, I I I might
got opinion.
It's about trying to reach the religious fanatics.
The the Zionism, the the Christian right that
blindly trust Zionism, like, that, you know, that
he somehow is sent by god. He's going,
god, I know you, and you're with me.
That's what he's doing. It makes me sick.
You can't stand there and murder innocent people,
starve children, and promote genocide, and then act
like you're somehow a godly person. It offends
me.
So as Glenn Greenwald adds, Iran just became
the eighth Muslim majority country that The US
has bombed in the last fifteen years, from
Obama to Trump to Biden to Trump. Afghanistan,
Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Pakistan, Yemen, Iran. You
know, that sounds familiar, doesn't it?
Oh,
gee, I think I've got this in here.
I should've just grabbed it from the other
one, but I found I've the the same
old
seven countries, five years.
I probably still had it in here. Still
have a bunch in here.
Let me see.
There it is.
So just interesting, like, thinking about the list
and then hearing this again. For 09:11.
About ten days after 09:11, I went through
the Pentagon, and I saw secretary Rumsfeld and
and deputy secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just
to say hello to some of the people
on the joint staff who used used to
work for me. And one of the generals
called me and he said, sir, you gotta
come in you gotta come in and talk
to me a second. I said, well, you're
too busy. He said, no. No. He says,
you we've made the decision we're going to
war with Iraq.
This was on or about the September 20.
I said, we're going to war with Iraq?
Why?
He said, I don't know.
He said, I guess they don't know what
else to
do. So, I said, well, did they find
some information collect connecting Saddam to Al Qaeda?
He said, no. No. He says, there's nothing
new that way. They just made the decision
to go to war with Iraq.
He said, I guess it's like we don't
know what to do about terrorists, but
we've got a good military and we can
take down governments. And,
he said, I guess if the only tool
you have is a hammer, every problem has
to look like a nail. How did I
not learn from this? So I came back
to see him a few weeks later,
and by that time, we were bombing in
Afghanistan. I said, are we still going to
war with Iraq? And he said, oh, it's
worse than that. He said he reached over
on his desk. He picked up a piece
of paper. He said, I just he said,
I just got this down from upstairs, meaning
the secretary of defense office today. And he
said, this is a memo that describes how
we're gonna take out seven countries
in five years,
starting with Iraq and then Syria, Lebanon,
Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and finishing off Iran.
Well, take a look again.
Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Pakistan, Yemen, Iran.
Hashtag, why do they hate us?
You think all you think these are just
organic?
They've I mean, look. We have to understand.
We can prove that they've
manufactured excuses about every one of them.
The lies about every one of them. Iraq,
the most obvious, W M B, Syria, the
chemical weapons, the shooting of protesters. I mean,
Libya. I mean, we've gone through every one
of these.
It's
just blatant.
Scott Ritter adds an important part of this.
Now this comes into whether or not they
actually bombed what they claimed they did,
or rather that really successful is the point.
Scott Ritter, remember, he's a, former UN weapons
inspector.
He's an expert. He knows what he's talking
about. An act of theater, he calls it.
Trump's big mouth had boxed him into a
corner.
Iran wouldn't play his game, so he had
to bomb Iran to save face. He bought
now it I don't know. He's heard I'm
not sure about that because at the end
of the day,
Israel was already bombing Iran.
So why I mean, other than unless Israel
forced his hand, which is would make sense
to me. But he says he bombed two
empty facilities
that had been previously stuck struck by Israel,
which does seem to be the case. Now
that's not to say that we know they
were destroyed. The argument is these bunker busters
were used because they couldn't get down deep.
Well,
maybe not. So it very well could be
that this was and this is why I
come back to the point about whether this
was like a tactical effort to you know,
in the past, we talked about this where
they want you to they want the narrative
out there to be that we're strong and
we attacked last and they had to respond
weak to there and we won the back
and forth. When in reality, it was them
behind channels going, Look,
we'll we'll give you you bomb this oak
over here. We won't respond. You know, we're
gonna call you weak, whatever, but we'll we'll
walk this back. And that's restraint. And that's
that's come out after the fact over the
years that there has been examples there has
been examples like that. And so in this
case,
the idea that so suddenly he had to
save face because he looked embarrassed about what
was happening and decides to bomb locations that
were already bombed.
And then ultimately
allow them. He's already pulled out of Iraq
or at least removed a lot of troops.
At least that was publicly stated. And so
then maybe he's already gonna maybe if if
we see an attack on an Iraqi base,
that'll
sell say a lot to me. Still wouldn't
know for sure. These are just opinions.
But so he says they bombed two empty
facilities, and he bounced six bombs off an
indestructible
facility.
That's the the one of the other,
Frodo, I think. Claiming destruction
despite the oppose the opposite being the case.
Now this this is just a statement. We're
gonna get to some other points around this,
but this does just backed up by evidence.
Not proof, but evidence. Now it says, that's
it. A contained strike, a nothing burger. And
this is the man whose supporters call the
greatest leader in the world. He's a national
disgrace.
That's what that's what Scott Ritter said. Now
here's Fox News talking about this. Satellite image
shows Fordow nuclear facility after massive bomb strike.
This was today.
New satellite images
of Iran's Fordow Nuclear facility reveal the aftermath
of a massive bomb strike that the US
military launched as part of its operation midnight
hammer. The US launched a surprise strike using
b two stealth bombers. Right? Again, are we
gonna pretend like that's a secret?
Pretty sure the whole world reported that these
bombers were sent over there. You don't think
Iran sees those reports?
Yes. They they might not know for sure
that was gonna happen, but literally, the bomber's
going. Everyone's like, oh, no. Here we go.
And Iran did the same thing. So the
real and this is where we get to
the point about this,
where they're claiming they pulled out whatever from
the facility. Now, the evidence again does not
support that this was anything other than a
civilian facility,
but doesn't mean that there's not
nuclear material
for civilian or otherwise. And so what's funny
is that they may well may have been
them removing things to stop these belligerent maniacs
from causing the fallout that they wanted to
create so they could blame them for some
nuclear bomb.
I mean, think about that. Let's go through
the whole article. My point is that
building a possibility that they were given heads
up. Right? That they see the bombers going,
they see the conversation, so they were prepared,
which takes a little bit of the of
the attack off of it. You know? Well,
it goes on to say,
all three sites sustained extremely severe damage and
destruction according to The US, which they would
say either way. Don't also note Maxar Technologies,
which is basically a CIA cutout. That's important
to remember. Now it says the International Atomic
Energy Agency said off-site radiation levels have not
increased following the strikes, which may not may
or may not happen depending on the circumstances.
Now it says Fox News Digital reached out
to the IAEA
via email for comment on whether nuclear material
had been moved from any of the three
sites ahead of the strike,
which the argument clears it. Again,
this creates the allowance of Iran,
if that's the case, like a walk back
to not have to get to escalate.
But at the same time, it gives Israel
the allowance to continue the narrative.
See? They just moved it over there, and
this is the reality. They got Iranian sleeper
cells. They're moving this over here. Like, the
point is we need to continue, which which
is what Israel was already saying,
which they would say either way. That's my
point because they do want this to continue
at the expense of everybody else. But this
I'm just, you know, pointing out some of
these points as this comes together. The operation
employed advanced deception tactics,
says Fox News, and used more than a
125 aircraft. So what they're telling you right
there is that they knew they knowingly misled
the American people.
And more than 125
aircraft to carry out the success of the
mission, 125.
So think about that for the next point
that we don't even factor in how much
it costs to use a 125
aircrafts, the the fuel, and I mean, the
manpower,
which is a huge part of it, but
we'll come back to that, including seven b
two stealth bombers, multiple fourth and fifth generation
fighters, dozens of air refueling tankers, a guided
missile submarine, and a full array of intelligence,
surveillance, and reconnaissance aircraft
for this for this recent bombing.
US forces launched approximately
75
guided munitions according to one of these platforms,
including fourteen
thirty thousand pound GBU 57 massive ordinance penetrators.
The first operational use of the weapon, which
they're all gushing about, which I find quite
irrelevant, frankly. Not that it happened. It's it's
just it's one of these glowing you know,
it's like what's his name's report about the
the beauty of rockets in the night air.
Like, this this military industrial complex trying to
romanticize
murder.
The point is we're only I'm gonna look
next at the ones you can prove. 75
guided munitions, what they used, and how much
that cost.
Let's factor in a 125
aircraft to produce all of this. And as
well as that, the
a dozen air free fueling tankers, guided missiles,
submarines, full array of intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance aircraft
on top of what they used. So think
about that from millions and millions and millions
of more dollars. I just simply ask Rock.
Give me the exact cost of the things
they used. And I just listed what they
just what Fox News wrote. Now, yes, it's
all estimates because of many factors. Generally speaking,
it says, oh, this was actually hold on.
This was the first one.
The the the point is well, actually, I'll
I'll do this first. Just on the munitions.
The the the state they used, not the
aircraft, not everything else.
Approximately,
they say, but it's still an estimate, $86,000,000.
So just that alone. Can you imagine what
$86,000,000
could do for tons of people in this
country?
But so we're gonna pretend like that was
worth it. You tell me,
aside from the civilian casualties, which we'll talk
about next, which or in at least in
part, which were part of this,
$86,000,000
just for the munitions used. If you had
told Americans you're gonna spend $86,000,000
in tax revenue just to to do what
you just did, do you think they'd be
okay with that, Donald Trump? You damn well
know that's not the case. Even your supporters,
which is why they tried to trick you
or they did or they lied to you.
But take it a step further,
based on all the reports that we have,
what what's the estimate of the total cost
to Americans?
$800,000,000.
That's an estimate still. But you have to
realize, and this has taken in a lot
of the I I went through this and
looked. It's not really including some of these
extra parts.
Right? The discussion of the 125
aircraft, the full array of intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance.
So we're probably easily over a billion dollars.
Just my personal opinion. But the ones we
can prove, 800,000,000
estimate, it could fluctuate from there.
I mean, really take a second and factor
that in.
$800,000,000
for what they just did.
Are we more safe right now? I know
he really sold the idea that it was
brilliant and America,
team America, f yeah. Right? That's really what
they're pushing.
But what changed? What's the material difference right
now? Iran's still there. They're still fighting. Israel's
still bombing them. They're still committing genocides.
Nothing changed
other than killing a bunch of scientists and
a bunch of innocent people and and other
people in the in like, as if
any other country bombed a bunch of military
places and killed a bunch of military generals
that weren't involved in anything. And you go,
oh, god. Good success.
Is that is that okay with you guys
if it was a bunch of American generals
that that
Somalia killed because they claimed you're doing something
wrong, would you be okay with that? Even
if they were doing something wrong, would you
be okay with that?
I mean, it's just incredible where we are
right now. $800,000,000.
Imagine what that could do for Americans, but
nope. They spent that. And,
I mean, that could go in a bunch
of different directions on the money, where that
goes, the different places. Israel itself benefiting in
plenty of ways for that very point.
So antiwar.com.
Trump announces successful attack on Iranian nuclear side.
So spending $800,000,000
on this attack,
you dead well better hope it's successful. Right?
Well, a lot of people are saying otherwise.
Iranian state media downplayed the success of the
strike, but, of course, it's Iran, which like
I said before, they're always gonna play it
both ways, or rather both sides play it
their own way.
But saying the personnel and nuclear material were
removed from the facility
before the attack, which because like I said,
everyone saw this coming.
Everyone.
And then the bombers went and everything else.
And they and then they've got their back
channels. Something tells me not only that. I
think they knew.
So they started removing everything, which they apparently
allowed. And it says Fox News reporter, Jennifer
Griffin, spoke with a well placed source who
did not believe
the facility was destroyed.
Quote, there is no and it goes on
to say oh, yeah. It is quote. There
is no way they got in that tunnel.
It's deeper than Fardow
and Harder Rock.
Meaning so and then arguably, they didn't even
get Fardow entirely. And so the point is
that this one was near impossible.
And this one's this is her right there
saying, I'm told by experts that the underground
tunnel is much harder than the other one.
It's not clear whether the tomahawks were able
to destroy it. Says there's no way they
got in that tunnel.
Axios reporter, Barak Ravid, who is, you know,
a Zionist agent as far as I'm concerned,
said and and let's be clear. He is
very clearly an intelligence operative. He says an
Israeli official confirmed that Tel Aviv was informed
of the strike before the operation,
in regard to Trump. And it says, he
added that Trump had called him following the
attack with the message, quote, we had great
success tonight. Your your Israel is much safer
now.
Ravid is an Israeli who served in the
Israeli army intelligence unit, which is my point,
now posing as a journalist. The
point, Trump lied to you.
Right? You claim you've elected him despite the
reality of that. You believe you supports you.
You support him. You're part of the same
team. He's fighting the bad guys. You know,
all the mag what you believe he is.
Right? But he lied to you. He convinced
you that that wasn't happening at that moment,
but made sure
Israel knew.
He called me. He told them what he
was gonna do with your tax dollars, but
didn't tell you. I feel like that's important
to think about.
Reuters reports
speaking with a US official who confirmed b
two bombers were involved in the attack. Earlier
on Saturday, six b two bombers departed The
US Air Base in Missouri with officials saying
they were en route to Guam. So So
if this was a secret operation, pretty sure
they wouldn't have announced that or people wouldn't
be reporting that the day before.
But it says shortly after announcing the attack,
Trump posted an image from the open source
Intel x account, Twitter account, that claimed Farda
was gone.
The owner of the account says he's based
in Israel. So okay. So easy to understand
where the all the reports stem from. Doesn't
mean it's false. But it says following the
attack, the Pentagon began warning US troops in
the region that the strikes likely put them
in danger of Iranian retaliatory attacks.
So immediately spinning this into ongoing. So peace
through strength looks like more fighting, more attacks,
more bombing, which is always how it goes.
Immediately afterward, before they even know what's gonna
happen, Israel is already hyping the retaliatory action
that they will probably make happen whether or
not it's the reality. But
which they've already said they would. Now Ken
Klippenstein reports obtaining a briefing
that said the strike on Iran, quote, will
likely result in counter strikes on US bases
and facilities, said the, you know, Ken Klobenstein,
somebody who I think is just used whether
he knows it or not.
Now, yes. Could it? Of course, it could.
But likely respond? Like, the idea that you
know for a fact that Iran's gonna start
bombing US installations
seems like a very self serving argument from
people who want this to escalate.
But we know it's possible. Likely is the
thing I take issue with. I think what
we're gonna see, if that is the case,
in something like in Iraq, unless
Iran legitimately chooses to take this further.
And if they decide to take it further,
I have no idea in my mind why
they wouldn't go much further, which I really
hope is not the case. But if it
does happen, it's because Trump drove this into
reality. Clearly, they were not doing this before
Israel and Trump made this the reality.
My point though, well, I'll go more into
in a second. And you know what I
just said? That ultimately, if this is something
they want to walk back, which Trump might
possibly gave them opportunity for, it's gonna be
something like an Iraq base. If not, the
alternative is them going way further. Because why
wouldn't they if they're gonna go in any
direction
further because they it will be used against
them. So that worries me. But it goes
on to say, oh, yeah. And this is
this is the interesting part about this. It
goes on to say, will likely result in
counter strikes in US bases in The Middle
East and this is what really stood out
to me as the propaganda,
likely activate Iran and other foreign terrorist organizations'
cells abroad, including The US to conduct strikes
against US personnel and facilities.
If that was the case, guys, this would
already be happening, in my opinion. Now, look,
it's obviously possible that every country might have
something like this.
But to see how much this is being
seeded through Israel narrative, through
the same old people we always see pushing
whatever they're told to say, Nick Sorters of
the type like that are all saying that.
Nobody's presenting any evidence.
So why would you take it at face
value? It's certainly possible, yes. But possible is
not reportable as fact, yet all of them
are stating this is what their secret sources
are telling them. Even though that's what they
said last time. Or before the the drone
fog conversation. What was it? Iran, sleeper bombs,
and everything in the country. Weird how they
jumped the gun a bit right there, didn't
they? Remember that? The fog and the drone
became sleeping,
sniffing for bombs from Iran.
That wasn't
the case. And I think clearly they were
just beginning and, oh, wait. Pull back. Pull
back. That's what I think. The American strike
follows Israel requests for The US to enter
the war that it started last week with
Iran.
Meaning, again, doing Israel's bidding.
Now back to this, that's why that's actually
why I moved this.
So oh, not back to it, but we'll
come back to this in a second. The
people,
GOP interventionists, never wanted to genuinely negotiate.
I think it's important to think about that.
So and and also about Iran. Right? The
point is about Iran not wanting to come
to the table and all these narratives they
keep making. Right? So the argument is everyone
they're pushing back against doesn't want to really
negotiate. Remember that.
And I just think this has to be
reiterated again. Like the idea that you can
assassinate
17 scientists and act like that's not
the
alone in of itself enough to wage a
war.
Can you imagine if they had killed 17
American scientists?
Whatever the context, think about anyone in the
world that would make that okay. Well, they
were working on things that Iran didn't like.
Okay.
Insane.
These are the
villains. They're targeting innocent people, scientists, doctors, nurses,
everywhere you look.
And they're
the ones they're working with. They're the allies.
The people that are being given a hard
time as a wartime president who are literally
assassinating innocent people.
Then The U Antonio Antonio Gutierrez from the
UN says, I am gravely alarmed by the
use of force by The United States against
Iran today. This is a dangerous escalation in
a region already on the edge and a
direct threat to international peace and security.
Obviously,
there's a growing risk this conflict could rapidly
get out of control always with catastrophic consequences
for civilians that are already happening. I call
a member states to deescalate.
It's a perilous hour. Okay. The bottom line
is obviously. I mean, it's just like there's
there's whatever is narrative and why he didn't
say it about Israel is obvious. The point
is the way Ted Cruz responds to this.
Did they attack first? No. Okay. So you're
bombing a country that didn't attack you first.
No declaration of war, no congressional approval.
And this is the way he responds.
He goes, of course, the UN sides with
Iran.
Just falling right into the lazy Israeli propaganda.
The only thing they couldn't decide is which
chant they agree with more, death to Israel
or death to America. Remind me again why
they why we pay their bills. They think
I mean, if he'd come out and said,
Iran's the good guy in the conversation. The
US is breaking the law. Well, maybe you
could frame it that way. But for them
to simply just go what The US did
is
a
use of force, and it's it's alarming, and
it's an escalatory move. He didn't even call
it illegal for crying out loud. And this
is how he responds. It just needs to
show they they're moving it over. They're moving
the goalpost.
The UN is Iran now. Okay? And Iran
the bad guy. And if anybody's you're now
working with Iran, and Iran's value everything they
were doing with Hamas or whatever before now
becomes Iran. Because it was always an extension
of that anyway. That's what they tried to
secretly tell you before. It's lazy.
And people like Ted Cruz don't aren't aware
how stupid they look right now to most
people.
Now Trump
says Iran must make peace or future attacks
will be greater, as we told you before.
So basically, it's threatening more attacks after you
attack them because that makes sense. Right?
Now I'll just include this. The following unprovoked
US attack on Iran, former CENTCOM commander, Jen
McKenzie or general McKenzie tells CBS that Iran
must avoid a significant loss of American life
in their response to what they just did,
which killed Iranians,
as that would put us up the escalatory
ladder.
He says with zero irony, we want to
save Iranians from themselves.
I mean, it's just insane. Like, it's always
zero restraint, which is always what ends up
being. Iranians show restraint as they're being bombarded
by belligerent attackers.
Every single time throughout history, we look back
and request and say, you know, in the
context of the current reality where you have
let's just say post '79, where they've been
berated, attacked, and undermined, and
and false flagged, and yet they in Syria
so many times over
or or any number of situations. And and
I should say Syria is the same point.
And Russia and Russia in that regard where
they just don't respond the way The US
and Israel would.
Now here is what
Rubio says, and this is times of Israel.
Iranian retaliation to US strikes would be the
worst mistake they ever made.
Just I can't you'll be laugh. No. I'd
I'd take them seriously. They will do ridiculous
belligerent things, but it's just the way they
have to, you know, like, it's it's the
weak tough guy.
They better not. It'll be the worst thing.
They they're not stupid. They know this is
for everyone listening.
And so their legal response, they better not
because they'll they'll fight more. Every time you
respond, we'll fight we'll fight more. Respond back,
we'll fight more again. And it's always your
fault.
I'm just trying to make this feel as
cartoonish as it really is because it is.
It's silly.
Now here's JD Vance.
Oh, maybe I didn't grab this.
Oh, no. Here it is. Most importantly, we
trust what the intelligence was telling us about
the Iranian stonewalling the negotiation. I I think
that is really the hidden story here and
something Hold on. That has actually jumped ahead.
There was a clip, I guess, I'm not
gonna play here.
Oh, no. That's the one we're gonna get
to, this one. So it says, if Iranians
attack us, they're going to be met with
overwhelming force. We did not attack the nation
of Iran, he says. Think about this distinction.
This is from the White House account. We
did not attack any civilian targets except you
did though. We didn't even attack military targets
outside
of these three military facilities.
What are you trying to say here? So
you we only attacked a few military locations.
So what I'm not just starting that sentence.
We didn't even attack military targets except these
three military targets.
I mean, he's just trying to water this
down. That's a weird thing to do.
And if you do anything, we're gonna be
overwhelmed. So, we're gonna respond with overwhelming force
if you respond normally.
Who's the belligerent here? And it says, we
did not attack the nation of Iran. Yeah,
you did though. We did not attack any
civilian. You did though. It's just lazy. It's
what they're doing. But here is a flashback
of what RFK Junior had to say about
him. Oh, you know what? I did think
I missed. I missed both of these. That's
what happened.
So check this out. And this is an
interesting point to make about all of them.
It's not just RFK about him.
It is literally all of them. What RFK
had to say about Vance, what Vance had
to say about Trump, what RFK had to
say about Trump himself, what Gabbard you know,
they all hate each other. At least they
all hate Trump, and Trump hates them, at
least how it was before. Rubio calls him
a grifter and a mania, a moron, and,
you know, he says, Ruby I mean, I
I can go on forever of how many
times they've undermined each other until suddenly they
were all on the same team, and now
they're friends.
So here is what RFK had to say.
If I could find it real quick. Hold
on. There it is.
As vice president
is a salute to the CIA
and to the intelligence community and to the
military industrial complex,
their gravy train is gonna continue.
Yep.
That's pretty clear, isn't it?
Then we just played we just gave, you
know, CIA.
Well, that's not Trump just told us before.
We need to get the CIA involved now.
It's clear.
Iran now here, what's funny before we go
to the next segment.
What you're getting from corporate western media,
Iran delivers new furious threat to Trump.
As always, they try to frame it as
they're the belligerent. Oh, you're gonna get we're
gonna kill everybody. Death to everybody. It's not
really what's happening.
What's funny is if you here's the he's
the Associated Press.
Yeah. I'm glad I got a screenshot of
it. Stupid thing is updating on me. It's
right here.
Iran says and you could look look up
their actual statements, not what people like Lindsey
Graham tell you they mean. There's always.
Iran says The US, quote, decided to destroy
diplomacy,
and Iranian military will decide timing, nature, and
scale of its response. Then it's almost always
the way they respond because they're not children.
I'm not saying good guy, bad guy. I'm
just saying they're not the point is we
have a bunch of very childish and petty
people in this country and and disposed of
rulership or the the rulership, disposed leadership.
The point is that you get these people
that respond like the the bombastic Trumps and
Netanyahu's. They go, we'll we'll we'll go so
far over the top. You better not. That's
how they respond to everything.
In this case, Iran, just like in the
past many times they've been attacked by these
people, they say, well, we're gonna respond and
it will be severe. And we're gonna do
it measured and in our time when we
decide.
Such a shocking counterbalance to the absurdities of
what Trump and Netanyahu were doing. Here's an
article about it. Iran says US decided to
destroy diplomacy, which they did. They were in
the midst of speaking about a deal when
they bombed them. And now they're saying you
better come back to the table.
They were in the middle of discussing a
deal when Israel bombed them. So I don't
know why we can't be honest about this.
I mean, I do know why. An Iranian
military will decide timing, nature, and scale of
its response according to Associated
Press. That's where we are. But it's funny
to watch how people frame this who don't
know what they're talking about.
Now
let me see where we are. I didn't
wanna go over three hours today. We're already
pretty long. I'm gonna be doing
a show tomorrow.
Alright. So let's keep going.
See if we can't get through this. Just
I know it's gonna there's gonna bunch more
I wanna get to today, and I didn't
want I think sometimes I try to stop
because I don't want these things to get
buried at the end of a super long
show, but it's important either way. So this
one is important around the War Powers Act.
So Trump this this is an article from
the Daily Express. Trump or calls for Trump's
impeachment gather momentum as president falls back on
War Powers Act. Now this is important because
I mean, look, the reality of bit of
whether Trump or any other president being impeached
needs to come to pass at this point.
We are losing touch with the reality of
the constitution in, you know, being forced to
live in the state of society
and how there seems to be no in
in any way, no mechanism to control where
this is going unless they start pushing back
from the congressional side against the executive branch.
And it's just not happening. It hasn't for
a very long time. And so the overlap
now comes into play where Massey and the
others are pushing forward something around the illegal
act that was carried out against Iran right
now. But the War Powers Act is an
interesting overlap to this. We've talked about this
going back to to,
Ron Paul.
And the main point that it seems that
like, okay. Right now, you understand that you
don't need the War Powers Act
to highlight that congress is the one that
author authorizes
acts of war. That's already in the constitution.
It's already real. So the War Powers Act
arguably was made to address the possible, like,
the unilateral actions of the power in the
executive branch. But all it did was give
them an opening to do that,
but, you know, with its limitations, but now
that's abused. And so it's just I just
the point to Ron Paul was how often
the US government claims they're gonna deal with
a problem.
And so so in this case, the peep
people of the country come out and say,
you know, the executive branch is doing whatever
it wants. Or like we've talked about in
the past about, like, the Smith Mon Modernization
Act. The the concern is, I mean, the
government's spying on Americans or rather propagandizing
Americans. So they go, okay. We hear you.
That's a problem you don't like. Right? So
we're gonna deal with it. So they go
to legislation, and then
they legalize propaganda.
And they go, okay, problem solved, right? It's
not a crime anymore.
And they don't really address it that way,
but people that see it go, well, wait
a minute. We didn't want you to legalize
the thing. We wanted you to make sure
it didn't happen anymore. But problem solved. Right?
Now it's not illegal, so it's all good.
So same thing here. The War Powers Act
created a loophole which allowed them to essentially
be able to unilaterally act. But as long
as they do within, you know, within sixty
days and they or I think it was
basically I'll get into the the metrics of
it. They have forty eight hours, sixty days
to officially, you know, give a report they
have to give within forty eight hours. We'll
go through it. And the bottom line is
that that allowed them to
unilaterally act, which they were already doing. But
instead of trying to actually stop that, they
cemented the reality of it. And then beyond
that, it continues anyway. They have a tactic
or a a tendency to legislate into reality
the things that Americans don't want to be
the case.
So this article says Donald Trump's decision
to launch air strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities
without congressional approval
sparks and let me clear first of all,
for we that's not new. Since World War
two, it seems that that's never really happened
again.
There's been some overlaps with the authorization of
use of military force that's been manipulated as
well in Syria and otherwise post 02/2001.
It's all really the same conversation with different
manipulations of it. We'll go through some of
that today. The point though is that regardless
of whether Obama or Biden or anybody else
did exactly the same thing, the argument shouldn't
be, well, they did it, so it should
be that let's fix the problem.
Yes. They did it too. So let's let's
go back and hold them accountable for it.
Put them in jail. I'm okay with that.
They're all criminals. But let's deal with the
current reality of this power. Let's recognize that
Trump is unilaterally acting, and that's a crime,
as Massey is calling out, which is largely
probably why he's being attacked right now.
But without congressional approval, sparked swift condemnation on
Saturday with leading lawmakers declaring the move a
violation of the constitution and grounds for impeachment.
It literally is regardless of how common it's
become.
The, quote, the president's disastrous decision to bomb
Iran without authorization is a grave violation
of the constitution and congressional war powers.
The he has impulsively risked launching a war
that may ensnare
us for generations. It's absolutely and clearly grounds
for impeachment. Now these are Democrats. Whether or
not they're only saying that because they wanna
attack Trump and are okay with it when
it's their side is irrelevant to me. I
I know they're all manipulators.
The president described the strikes as a historic
moment for The United States, Israel, and the
world and said Iran must now agree to
end the war.
This is so stupid. The war that they
created, they started, they're driving. But it says
the administration has defended the operation as a
necessary measure to safeguard national security, always what
they go for, and support Israel's campaign against
Iran's military capabilities that they're lying about.
But see, national security is one of the
only side steps out of this, which is
one of my points about the loopholes that
were created. But that's not what's that's not
on the table right now. We're gonna go
through the actual act and show you that
there's literally no way they can make this
work. They're through trying, just like they're trying
with the immigration point, which we will come
back to. There's plenty more to talk about
on that field. This is just too pressing.
But critics argue that Trump's unilateral actions sidestep
Congress' constitutional role in declaring war.
Quote, Massey says, no president can wage war
unilaterally without congress, which really is the premise,
the main starting point, that they're required in
every way to work in every way they
can with congress. And should that not be
possible for x, y, and z, that's when
the war powers overlap comes in. In. Right
out of the gate, you can see he
hasn't met that. He didn't even try to
talk with Congress about this. Now, it says,
with there's plenty of other Democrats that are
supporting him too or supporting the effort to
stop this.
Now, here's the actual War Powers Act.
I'm just gonna read the first part of
this, which I do think is very important.
Now, this is from 1973.
Concerning the war powers of Congress and the
president. Now first, just
remember that the very clearly, article one and
two, like, goes over the the the delegation
of powers, and it is without question, congress
power the congressional power to declare war. And
that's not just war in general, but acts
of war, the bombing of Syria, the bombing
of Iran, as opposed to declaring war publicly.
They're both the same conversation.
The joint resolution may be cited as the
War Powers Resolution.
It is and this is the first important
part.
It is the purpose of this joint resolution
to fulfill the intent of the framers of
the constitution of The United States and ensure
that the collective judgment of both the congress
and the president
will apply
to the introduction
of United States Armed Forces into hostilities
or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities
is clearly indicated by the circumstances
and the continued use of such forces in
hostilities or in such situations. So when the
point is the the collective judgment, right? And
so this it does include include the executive
branch, but the official declaration
is Congress's alone. But it's the executive branch's
right to carry these things out and dictate
the outcome.
Under article one, section eight of the constitution,
it is specifically provided
that the Congress shall have the power to
make all laws necessary and proper for carrying
into execution,
not only its own powers, but also all
other powers vested by the constitution in the
government of the United States or in any
department or officer thereof. The constitutional powers of
the president as commander in chief introduce
US forces in hostilities or in a situations
where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated
by the circumstances are exercised
only
pursuant to,
one, a declaration of war, two, specific statutory
authority, authorization, or three, a national emergency
created by attack upon United States, its territories
or possessions or its armed forces.
Let me grab one thing really quickly. See
if I can I I forgot I wanted
to bring this other one up?
Is that the one?
No. Damn it.
There. Is that it?
Shoot. Oh, well, I there was one I
forgot I wanted to grab too to counterbalance
with. But so the point continuing, the president
in every possible instance shall console this is
another the
the premise
that really kind of absorbs everything else. It
says the the president in every possible instance,
which is obviously subjective at this point, which
is how they play this. I mean, it's
not really subjective, but they'll make it into
being, you know, they they every possible instance
means literally every possible opportunity they can try
to work with congress.
They so the president, in every possible instance,
shall consult with congress
before
introducing
The US forces into hostilities,
though, which is what just happened, or into
situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly
indicated by the circumstances.
And after every such in the introduction shall
consult regularly with the Congress until US forces
are no longer engaged
or moved.
So right there is what is is basically
one of the main things that that Massey
is is pointing to,
which is that they have is required through
the constitution
to try to work with congress at every
possible turn.
That's not what happened. There's no involvement. They
weren't even met. They're not discussed about what
was happening. It was secret in conjunction with
the foreign power. Now it says reporting, in
the absence of a declaration of war, in
any case in which United States Armed Forces
are introduced
into hostilities
or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities
is clearly indicated by the circumstances,
two, into territory, air sports, or waters, or
foreign nation, or numbers in which substantially enlarged
The United States forces. The president shall submit
within forty eight hours to the speaker of
the house of representatives and to the president,
the the pro,
temporary of this of the senate, the leader
of it reported
a report in writing setting forth the circumstances
necessitating the introduction.
Now this has yet to happen as far
as I can tell. The constitutional and legislative
authority under which such introduction took place,
which doesn't exist,
the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities,
which I guarantee is as long as it
takes, whatever they would that's what they would
say. The president shall provide such other information
to congress, may request, and the fulfillment okay.
So unless you've seen otherwise,
we are, I believe, beyond forty eight hours,
especially since you realize they've been planning this
for a long time.
Now it goes on to talk about congressional
action. And and the bottom line is,
say for certain circumstances,
this is still the reality of the constitution.
Now and I also wanna take a step
back beyond the War Powers Act
and ex and and make the main point
that we make about this every time,
which is
that just because congress passes an act,
if it is repugnant to the constitution, it's
null and void. That's Mabry versus Madison. There's
plenty of other precedents that say the same.
So the reality being is that if the
legislation creates an a a situation where they're
able to circumvent congress,
I would argue that's repugnant to the constitution.
So that's that's a point that's the real,
you know, constitutionalist
standpoint that I think everyone needs to make.
But seeing as how everyone's gonna go, well,
the actor's there, and that's what they're gonna
point to. Secondarily, you could point to the
lie around well, that's what Massey's really going
to.
So here is an article
written by Kevin Gonzalo in 04/23/2018.
The senate and this is overlapping back to,
you know, the same Iran at the time
to some degree, but Iraq and and Somalia,
a lot of different overlapping points. The senate's
new war powers bill actually expands
perpetual war. Now this overlaps with the what's
called the authorization for of use for military
force.
Now it says a new authorization for the
use of military force, the a a u
m f, proposed by the Democratic and Republican
senators would further entrench The United States in
endless war. So this explains why where we
are now. So first, you have these the
the first step of the act. Now this
extends it. It would also streamline the ability
of president Trump at the time and future
presidents, which is where he is now, to
expand the war on terrorism or the war
of terror to additional countries and broaden the
list of associated forces
that are co belligerence
of Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Islamic State. You
know, the one thirdly, the last one where
Trump says been defeated six times over, the
Taliban who they make deals with and have
now allowed to run set you know, run
where they've left left over, and Al Qaeda
who you can prove they're literally working with
in Syria. Make sense of that. And they're
still using this. They're still currently using this
broadened out of the definition, the mission creep
that goes all the way back to nine
eleven to claim that they're still fighting terrorism,
and now they can extend this out to
wherever they claim is connected. And imagine trying
to make the case that is with Iran
is working with the people that The US
is currently supporting.
It says under the proposed U A AUMF,
was it PDF four right there, which was
drafted to replace the 02/2001, 2002
authorizations,
still in effect, military force against the Taliban,
Al Qaeda, ISIS, and designated associated forces is
renewed.
On 01/20/2022,
and every four years after, which happened in
the last administration, will happen again in 2026,
the president in which I guarantee Trump will
continue it,
the president is to submit a report on
the use of military force. This is different
than the War Powers Act, which includes a
proposal to repeal,
modify, or leave in place the current one,
which, guess what, they always seem to leave
it in place or modify it to allow
more powers, which is what we always know
they do. When the president determines that a
new organization, person, or force in an association
force covered,
their report should be submitted to the appropriate
congressional committees and leadership. A similar procedure is
to be followed, so basically just expand it
whenever they want. A similar procedure is to
be followed when adding new foreign countries to
the list of places where The US is
at war. So realize, right there, every one
of these guys, what they did was simply
sidestep the reality of congress even being involved.
And so and so now they can just
extend these countries out. There's no declaration of
war. They're just broadening out the original, which
I argue was an original sized up of
their powers in the first place.
Now it says, new countries
or any country other than Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria,
Somalia, Yemen, Libya,
Iran. Now it says the authorization of use
of military force proposal was put forward by
Republican senator Bob car Corker and Democratic senator
Tim Kaine. Of course, bipartisan as always.
In '73,
congress passed the war powered resolution as a
response to the Vietnam War. The resolution was
intended to ensure that the president of The
United States could only deploy military forces abroad
through declarations of war,
statutory authorizations,
or the case of a national emergency. So
none of those apply right now, to make
that very simple from before.
There's no declaration of war, either from him
independently
or from the from congress. There's no statutory
authorization. There's no acts in place. There's not
this is simply them unilaterally acting for Israel.
There's clearly no national emergency, which I guarantee
that's where they're gonna lean into, national emergency,
national, you know,
national security threat, and emerging of the two.
It says what the proposed AUMF would effectively
do, at the time anyway, and still to
this day, is cement congress as the war
clerk for the executive branch, simply filing what
they say. It would represent a complete abdication
of responsibility over matters of war
as granted by the separation of powers in
US government.
The president would come become would come to
leaders of congressional committees with a report that
is reviewed, filed, and updated accordingly. With congress's
only task to make sure they can fit
the latest war making into the parameters laid
out for perpetual war, that's where we have
been.
Trump's latest strikes, this is back in 02/2018,
against Syria
renewed attention on congress's failure to assert authority
over war making by the executive branch. Several
Democrats, like representatives Nancy Pelosi, made process critiques
and argued there must be a UAMF,
see,
for Syria before Trump could pursue our war.
So we we made the case at the
time. We don't care about you authorizing war.
We just need you to file it for
us. File down that that's an extension of
this, and we'll go along with it because
that's the main point.
And it says, yet the proposed UAMF,
the authorization for use of military force, does
not really deal with the use issue of
military action against sovereign
countries. See, they're they're pretending like this expanded
out of the the terrorists they're fighting within
those countries. And, of course, they broaden that
out to being, oh, well, the countries are
working with the terrorists. Right? So but now
it just becomes they're overthrowing countries,
and you've just mission creeped this into absolute
war.
It does not provide authority for the president
to use military force against any nation state,
but it also does not contemplate
what congress should do
if the president is engaged in actions like
the strikes of Syria or like we just
saw in Iran, which senators of representatives never
approved. Biden did the same thing, guys.
It says Republican senator Rand Paul also outlined
his opposition at the time to the AUMF
while he was on CNN 04/17/2018.
He says, quote, it is a good idea
to debate whether we should be at war
or not, which is what we've ignored. Maybe
that doesn't happen anymore. Unfortunately,
the authorization for the use of military force
they're putting forward actually expands the president's ability
to commit war.
Quote, he continued, quote, for the first time,
it will list six or seven groups that
we're at war with without ever declaring that,
you understand. It says, if you remember after
09:11, we were at war with those who
attacked us, they claim anyway, and who aided
and abetted them. But now, which would in
and of itself, by the way, was was
evidence free
broadening out of this, which just became whoever
they aimed at. But now, since this is
for the first time going to codify six
or seven groups, maybe 10 to 15 countries
that we can be at war we could
be at war with. Really, it's limitless.
That's what Rand Paul said. Here we are
now.
Quote, if we detect any of the groups
having any activity in any country, the president
can go to war there. He just has
to submit a notice saying, hey, guys. We're
now at war with a new country. And
that, to me, is a is not a
limitation.
It's an expansion of war making, and I
think it's a huge mistake. So I completely
agree with that. The difference today, which if
you can believe it, is now they're not
even using the authorization of East military force.
Trump just bombs Iran and says, you know,
powers or whatever.
It's the same thing he did with immigration.
I don't know if they're just that stupid
or just that brilliant.
Just blindly ignoring this and it seems to
work. I don't know. I think it's ignorance,
quite frankly.
Efforts to repeal and update the authorization for
use of military force have occurred multiple times
in the past decade.
Most prominently, in 2015,
Obama provided legislation for the use of author
the authorization for use military force that would
cover strikes against ISIS, wherever they may be
or wherever they actually are,
the
Israeli US group that they are. The proposal
lacked limitations
like this recent proposal.
Why? Because then they could go, well, I
says anywhere. That was the point.
Congress never voted on the authorization, and Obama
continued to rely on the a u m
f to claim authority for military action.
So it just seems like these are all
tools. Now we're beyond even that. They're going,
look. We can do what we want. Prove
me wrong.
Quote, the last thing says, over the last
sixteen years, remember up until 02/2018, we have
witnessed the consequences of unfettered executive power
in matters of war.
I get this is a congressman saying this.
Instead of further endorsing perpetual war, we need
to insist
on a use of authorization of military force
that is narrow, clearly defined, and respects congress's
constitutional duty to debate and authorize military action.
That's senator Lee, who's no longer in congress,
I understand.
But what's crazy to me is even that
is going, we just need to better the
use of author no.
We don't the the authorization is wrong. The
war power is wrong. We need to go
back to the central point, which is the
constitution, which is not debatable.
Donald Trump or whoever's in power does not
have that power. Congress does. And he's required
to go to Congress to debate the reality
of what needs to happen. We're debate the
you know, whether it's good or bad or
gonna hurt our interests or whether Americans even
want that, but not anymore.
That's where we are right now, and it's
only gotten worse ever since.
Now also include this, by the way, just
an article to read, Caitlin Johnstone.
Silence from the resistance
was left at the time as senate votes
to maintain Trump's war powers. So just really
trying to show you as far back there's
never been a binary. This has always been
the government who will happily hand over powers
back and forth as it suits the one
main goal, war,
control over your lives. So that's the the
image for the show, for the podcast is
Mick resistance.
It's not real, just like it's not real
today. There are plenty of real people that
want to resist. There's plenty of real America
First people right now, but the game, the
manipulation, the Mick resists and the Mick resistance,
that's the current MAGA group that doesn't actually
believe America First. It's the Zionist controlled entities.
It's always a game. They're handing more power
to the power.
Now inside our paper, at least one of
the b two bombers was flown by a
female we showed you earlier, just showing you
how weird this all is, how it's just
one thing. And on top of that,
this is an interesting point to make, this
contradiction, which I think is a funny point
for two reasons. One, because it's obvious that
nobody should disregard how obvious the contradiction and
logic is about Russia and Ukraine or whatever
else, and now they just unilaterally bomb Iran
and no one makes the same argument.
But on top of that, what's funny about
it is because of this account, which I'm
not familiar with, starts with the caucacity,
which is I'm I've newly under now I
I didn't know that before, looked it up.
Apparently, it's like the audacity of, like, white
people, which is just ridiculous. The idea that
it's only, you know, the the white privilege
and all of that, which, you know, clearly
there is an overlapping point to be made
about people that feel that they can do
what they want because of skin color. Zionism
is all over that.
Point though is that I'm all I never
wanted to lean into the racially motivated argument,
them versus them. But what's funny to me
is I just like to make the point
that everything other than that one word is
absolutely exactly what she she's correct. I mean,
mostly, her point's about the hypocrisy.
But what's funny,
and probably how this works is that because
it comes from a certain side about certain
thing, people disregard all the other information.
That's partisanship for you. It's just breed stupidity.
Have you seen the posts of this chicky
liver cowards who have fallen over themselves to
praise Trump for the very thing they condemn
Putin for?
America has just done to Iran what Russia
did to Ukraine, which the west did not
hesitate
to condemn Russia for. It's an illegal and
provoked attack. It's a declaration of war, a
violation of international law.
All of which I also said, but at
least I'm applying the same standard to America
while these bloody hypocrites
are singing a different tune.
Now that is one nuance of a different
different I would feel different on.
It's very important to understand that this is
not the same thing. The the what happened
with Russia and Ukraine was not even remotely
an ambushed attack. That's insane.
The the long term flooding it's the same
with Syria. It's like trying to pretend that
Syria responding to the groups that US and
Israel were funding in their country is their
terrorism, or the Soleimani and them pushing back
against the legal invasion of Iraq was their
terrorism. It's the same stupid argument.
They were seeding terrorism and not the neo
Nazis in Ukraine for since the forties, guys.
It's very provable. It goes back to CIA
operation called Operation Aerodynamic.
It's very provable.
And Israel, it gets involved with that. They
were funding the Azov movement provably in 02/2018.
So they created this. Those people then started
ethnically cleansing people in the Donbas and Crimea,
and they rightly fled to people that would
protect them. So the bottom line is you
can't say her point is she she probably
thinks that. The thing is, I said the
same thing then. Well, you were wrong when
you said it then, in my opinion. Now
that's not to say that Russia did not
commit crimes. There's plenty of examples of them,
you you know, doing all sorts of things
governments do. But that's not the same as
saying that what happened there was some unilateral
act of aggression. It's just not what happened.
Ask the people of Donbas how long they've
been pleading with Russia to defend them against
these people.
Why? I'll tell you why. The standard is
always different for the West. The hypocrisy is
staggering.
Because how do you have the capacity
to demand that Iran deescalate
while you
endorse the escalation
of Israel and America? How do you have
the temerity
to demand that Iran
negotiate
without acknowledging that Iran was always at the
negotiation table before Israel bombed it?
Did you condemn Israel for bombing Iran? No.
All you did was parrot the usual
Israel had the right to defend itself. From
what? A no nuclear weapon Iran?
Make it make sense. And when America goes
ahead and
attacks Iran, what do you do?
Iran must not have a nuclear weapon. But
Iran has no nuclear weapon. So there was
no legal justification
for the attack
from one sovereign state to another sovereign state.
You know all this.
But because a different standard applies
to white people, white nations, white interests,
you think
Now see, that's the point.
Now she's trying to make it only about
race. Now you have to be honest that
that does play a factor here, but I
don't think it's about racial. I don't in
fact, I think that's just one overlap.
I think this is far more about supremacy
that doesn't apply only to white overlap. But
either way, you guys can cite for yourself.
It's very obvious that these groups
are, you know, like a again, you could
point out the different,
like, racial differences even that they don't care
about in some context. It's more about the
supremacy of the ideology.
But there is a racial overtone. Even people
like Avu Shlaim, the Israeli historian, will absolutely
tell you that. His statement is Zionism is
racism. That is what it that's exactly what
it is. But, nonetheless,
I don't think it's I think the important
part is to highlight the crime being committed,
not necessarily the the racial overlaps because I
don't think everybody involved has the same opinion
about those things. I'm just pointing that out
because don't let that that's why I'm showing
this the first place,
disregard the main point that they are simply
being obviously hypocritical. The double standard is everywhere.
That we will buy all of your lies,
gaslighting, and obfuscations,
hook, line, and sinker. You must take us
for fools. You must think we lack critical
thinking skills. Well, I'm here to tell you,
you're wrong. Because history has taught the world
a valuable lesson
that the West doesn't want to learn.
You think you're all powerful,
Invincible,
untouchable,
impenetrable.
Okay.
Carry on. There will be a day of
reckoning.
I agree. I think it's already happening. But
what's so interesting though is, you know, you
have to look at the different place in
the world and the and the, you know,
the majority of different countries that are just
not one category. You know, the idea is
clearly there is a supremacist mindset to a
lot of this, and I don't think it's
about white versus everything else. But it's about
cultural differences, which very clearly are drawn around
racial lines for a lot of people. But
it's an important nuance, but it's just important
to see the blatant hypocrisy
of what they did. Just the best right
there comparing it to Russia. It's just insane.
The the willingness
to just blatantly miss misrepresent. Now, Katharine Fitts
points out that any confirmation
that this is accurate,
evidence Iran has been given advance notice as
US insisted attack on nuclear sites is a
one off. So who knows? That's why I'm
not gonna go any deeper on it because
it's just it's a it's a possibility. It's
stated as their insight, their resource their sources
say. But I think there's a lot of
evidence to suggest this might have been how
this went. The bombers were publicly discussed. Clearly,
Iran was moving things around. They knew so
they I think they were told. Maybe that
was The US going around Israel. I don't
know. All possible.
But what I do feel in this is
there's some level of trying to walk this
back. There are people in this that I
mean, look. I think other than some of
the most maniacal Zionists in both sides of
the government, US and Israel,
Most of these people don't want nuclear war,
guys. They don't want this to spin out
because that hurts their interests and their businesses
and their control over your life.
So I get the sense that this might
have been partly what happened. So just consider
that as it goes forward and wonder what
that might cause.
Now here is the Iranian,
ambassador to the United Nations.
It's interesting what he had to say here,
and it's important to listen with an open
mind objective because you're being lied to, guys,
about Iran, about Israel's in in what Israel's
doing, what what they're claiming is happening in
the country, the nuclear conversation. I mean, it's
the whole damn thing. So let's play this
clip from Decentral News. He says, Iranian ambassador,
Amro Saeed,
Arab Irani
calls out Israeli nukes at the UN Security
Council. So one thing we all know that
it's just becoming, you know, impossible to ignore
at this point that they have nukes. Condemns
US and Israeli aggression, hypocrisy, and asks security
council and the IAEA
to uphold international law.
Dear,
Iran's look Have you seen
school. Sorry about that. Under the world's most
extensive IAEA inspections,
Iran has long advocated
for a nuclear weapon free zone in the
Middle East.
Israel is the only possessor
of undeclared nuclear weapon in the region.
I mean, I've said that so many times.
It's easy to look up. It happens every
time.
They and they put forward a very well
put together and articulated that everyone in the
everyone in the region agrees
to to get rid of all nuclear, you
know,
progression as long as Israel does it too,
and they refuse.
While meanwhile, claiming they don't have it, you
understand. So if they don't have it, there
shouldn't be a problem. But then they refuse,
so The US says no. And so they
put they turn down what they're asking for,
which shows you that it's not really about
what they're claiming.
It's refused to accede
to the NPT and block regional disarmament efforts.
We are alarmed
by credible report that The United States,
as a depository of NPT,
may be joining this war.
Any such support violate NPT and undermine global
security.
His point is the the the nonproliferation
treaty. And so with The US joining this
in their attacks, there are there he's claiming
they're already violating the but they don't care
whether it's UN resolutions or their own packs,
their own agreements.
The US, there's nothing sacred for this government.
They've they've shown that with everything they do.
They will violate agreements with anybody
if it suits their interests, which is what
and you know, just to be clear, that's
not just my interpretation.
That's, like, pretty much a global understanding at
this point, which people readily lay out. They
will not hold to their agreement, so why
would we make deals with them? So they
strong-arm.
They force. They they use violence.
The selective
invocation of international law by US France
using it when convenient,
discarding
it when it constrained
their allies
is a form of institutional
hypocrisy
that gravely undermine the credibility of this council
and the international law.
So just because it is is reading, I
I'm just gonna it's probably hard for some
people to understand, and it and I'm I'm
gonna kinda get through it. So I'm just
gonna read the rest of it. So he
simply says, let's be clear. Iran's nuclear program
is peaceful and out of the world's most
extensive
infections. Iran has long advocated for a nuclear
weapons free zone in the Middle East. Israel
is the only possessor of undeclared nukes in
the region. The regime committed war crimes, crimes
against humanity and state terrorism. The attacks on
safeguarded nuclear facilities
sets a dangerous precedent. See, that's the thing,
guys. These are things that have been in
investigated and are in compliance with the international
community, and they bomb them. It's just there's
just nothing sacred for these people, and they
know what they're doing.
And they're just because they state what they
want the narrative to be is not then
make that the truth. They have to prove
these things, and that's why they go UN
is Iran because that's where they would need
to do that.
The already dire situation has been exacerbated by
mounting
an irrefutable evidence of direct involvement by The
United States in this illegal war of aggression.
The so called preemptive attack and existential threat
claims used by this terrorist regime, Israel, and
its allies to justify aggression have no basis
in international law.
These are false excuses for Israeli aggression. And
I gotta understand, even if they could prove
those things, they then there is a process
to this. There's not some unilateral attack. But
and and even though what they're claiming would
not justify an attack in the first place.
It says Iran has never initiated any war,
while Israel, as an occupying and terrorist regime,
has a long and dark history of illegal
use of force. They do. Violation of all
legal international norms. They do. Assassination. Yep. And
nuclear secrecy that destabilized the entire region. All
verifiable.
Iran has and, again, you can claim Iran's
lying about that they have initiated wars, but
prove. Make your case. Lay out the evidence,
not what Israel or intelligence says. Iran has
exercised its inherent right to self defense under
article 51 of the UN charter. Our response
has complied fully with international law, including humanitarian
law. I'd love someone to try to prove
that wrong.
Iran will continue to ex and you you
know what? All you get are the arguments
like Rubio.
They're the ones that do bad things, and
we shouldn't allow it. That's the kind of
emotional,
non, you know, fact free argument you get
when if he really wanted to prove this
in a legal sense,
they've never even tried.
Iran will continue to exercise its right as
long as security council fails to discharge its
primary responsibility
and until the Israeli aggression is fully and
unequivocally terminated.
Here's a great clip, by the way, as
I responded to, who was that? I think
it was Alex Jones when I said, here's
somebody who actually knows what he's talking about,
Scott, Horton
on Piers Morgan Show. I said, Scott really
breaks down the blatant lies being told about
Iran. Some of which I've been stressing specifically
about the JCPOA, the Iran deal, primarily that
Iran's actions are not a violation of the
very deal. Let's say, in fact, exactly within
it. But the but Scott is just so
well knowledge on this and very, you know,
in in in important specific nuance details.
The bottom line, and as as as Scott
adds a ton of expertise to you regularly
here, it's that they're lying about the nuclear
program in the first place, guys. And
Aramates in this clip as well. You know,
the evidence
is all there. If you listen to knowledgeable
people with evidence to back up the claims,
not emotional partisan screams.
Here's what he has to say. Question everything,
guys. Plus the Iranian regime,
as far as he could throw them when
it comes to potentially
creating a bomb.
It it doesn't come down to trust at
all, and I'll beg the rest of the
panel's forgiveness. I'll try to stay quiet later
on in the hour here and let y'all
talk. But just real quick so you understand.
We had a deal in 2015
under which Iran exported every bit of their
enriched uranium
stockpile to France who would then turn it
into fuel rods and then ship it back
to Iran to use in their reactor.
They now the new So all of which
can be proven with multiple processes and foreign
governments involved, like France.
Reactor produces plutonium waste, but they don't have
the facility required to reprocess plutonium Mhmm. To
get all the impurities out to make weapons
fuel. So they had no plutonium route to
the bomb. The Russians would come and get
the plutonium out of their reactor when it
was full. Now the point is you could
argue, that's not true. They are. Okay. Then
prove that. This is what's frustrating to me
is everyone loves to make these claims, but
there's no evidence to back up the idea
that, let's say, for example, they do have
the facility to make that happen. Well, they
don't as far as I can tell.
But if you have evidence otherwise, I'd love
to hear it, not just Israel and Trump
say.
And time every couple years or whatever.
Now their uranium route to the bomb, because
they were exporting every bit of their enriched
uranium out of the country,
was they,
have this arbitrary,
timeline breakout period. They call it the breakout,
point that it would take them one year
if they decided to withdraw from the treaty,
kick the inspectors out of the country, and
begin to enrich weapons grade uranium. It would
take them a year to have enough to
make one bomb with. Now that's weapons grade.
Now this is the point. That has to
be over 90%.
That's why I always say that. So the
point is to do that, you'd first have
to get to that point, which is why
the argument of enriching uranium increasing is what
they use to scare you because the point
is that would be a step you would
need to eventually get to that point. But
60% is not 90%, and they haven't even
made the material arguably to make the bomb.
That's the point. And yet they're still they're
they just attack these facilities based on these
lies. Now the new report that came out
said that on top of that, it'd take
another couple of years to have an actual
warhead ready to do anything with it. Right.
And I'm sorry this is complicated, but I
know people can follow on this. If you
know anything about the history here. The let
me explain real quick now that the the
Nagasaki bomb was a implosion bomb, a a
plutonium
implosion bomb,
which is the type of bomb that can
be miniaturized
and fit to a missile. But the the
Hiroshima bomb was a simple gun type nuke,
a uranium nuke, which is a humongous thing.
You could Iran could never fit that on
a missile or deliver it to Israel or
The United States in a million years. The
point is that's what they're capable of doing.
If they're if they're ever and then which
they're not there yet. If they were to
get there, that's what they could produce.
So even if they could, even if they
had, how the his point is how would
they then be able to then use that
against Israel or The United States? Now, again,
the evidence is there to back up what
he's saying. Certainly, we could disagree with that.
But no one I see is presenting the
evidence to claim and prove that the opposite
is true.
And so if they had a single gun
type nuke or two, it would essentially be
to test off a demonstration round in the
desert to show that they have one, but
still would not make them an offensive threat
to anyone. And as the CIA concluded in
o seven, they abandoned all research into a
weapons program, even bothering to look into it
in o three when America got rid of
Saddam Hussein for them. And so,
the fact that they've had now I'm sorry.
Get to the your your point. Donald Trump
left the treaty or the the agreement in
02/2018.
Now, Pierce, it's complicated, but according to the
agreement,
Iran is allowed to stop abiding by some
of the restrictions in it Yep. If America
breaks our side of the deal. They actually
are still within
the larger agreement even while ceasing to abide
by some parts of it. Despite the fact
that the it's long gone. Right? I I
don't I as far as I understand, it's
not even possible to bring back unless they
make something. Like, it's not like they could
just rejoin the JCPOA. I mean, I guess
it's possible, but our arguably, that's been put
to bed. So but his point, I agree
with. If you look at the deal as
if it was still in existence, then they're
still within the deal. That's the whole point,
and you can literally prove that. The only
one ever violating it was The United States
for the interest of Israel.
Now that 60%
enriched uranium stockpile that they built up is
clearly, just as it was in the Obama
years, is clearly simply a card to play
in negotiations
to deal away. That uranium is there to
give up if they can get America to
back down and lift the sanctions. That's all
it is. If they wanted to make weapons
grade uranium, they could have made weapons grade
uranium. They weren't doing that. They're getting closer
because it's a card to play in negotiation.
Closer in the sense of the the percentage.
Right? But his point is that they could
have made that this entire time aiming it
in a different direction, and they were not.
And you can prove that as the US
government has said, including this current administration, as
well as the International Atomic Energy Agency.
I just don't know how much more clear
we can make this. The evidence all points
in one direction. The only you got is
narrative from manipulators.
And now to your and one last point,
and then I swear I'll stop, and you
made this point. Nothing changed. Tulsi Gabbard, the
director of national intelligence, says nothing changed. They
did not break out toward a nuclear weapon.
There was no cost of spelling here. Even
if you accepted the premise that you could
launch a preemptive war to prevent them from
getting a nuke. His point is they don't
have a justifiable the cause like, the the
the legal justification to initiate the attack. They
don't have that. Even if they their, you
know, their claims are real. That's what's so
crazy about this. That's my point about the
rest of it is Trump and them are
acting in ways that are confound like,
they must be certain
that they will not get in trouble
or maybe they're desperate. I or or maybe
Trump's being forced and he's gonna go to
private. I mean, I don't know. But the
point is that it for them to just
do this without con without congress, without the
national emergency, without the authorization for use military
for I don't it seems insane.
But then and they still haven't gotten in
trouble for the previous bucking at the Supreme
Court, so maybe there's maybe we're just being
shown that we don't exist where we think
we do. Which is a whole other argument.
But even if you accept that premise, nothing
had changed in Iran other than the the
timeline the arbitrary timeline of Trump's demand had
expired, and you hear Trump and the rest
of the hawks trying to conflate having a
nuclear program at all with being on the
verge of achieving a nuclear weapons capability. And
this is what George w Bush called shorthanding
it. In other words, they just imply a
bunch of lies because they can't explain what
they mean. Yep.
Every time.
Trust you. Having a nuclear program at all,
the arbitrary timeline of Trump's demand had expired.
That's what it was for my around myself.
So that's why people the argument before is
that Trump felt like a fool.
Because he laid out this timeline and acts
like everyone responds to his demands because he's
so tough and then they didn't do anything.
And so, argument was he felt like he
had to save face by bombing a country.
It's crazy, but certainly wouldn't surprise me.
Now, Laura Logan says Iran believes it has
the right to have a nuclear weapons, which
it does, by the way, like everybody else,
and has never stopped working towards that goal.
It kills me. Like, I'm of the mind
that Laura Wells knows well that's not true.
You can make of that what you will.
Charlie Kirk says vice president JD Vance explains
why president Trump ultimately decided to strike Iran.
Here's what he had to say.
Most importantly, we trust what the intelligence was
telling us about the Iranian stonewalling the negotiation.
I think- Meaning what Israel said. Everyone else
said otherwise. What Israel said over Americans, right?
I mean, whether it's about gathering the bomb
or what people were telling you about the
so called negotiations.
You know, the ones that Israel were bombing
them while it was happening.
But Vance is telling you that we listen
to what Israel said. That shouldn't be shocking
to anybody.
That is really the hidden story here and
something the media has got to report a
little bit more here is that the Iranians
stopped negotiating
in good faith that Nope.
I mean, are we new to this?
Are are we is this blinking again telling
us it has to it's only Hamas that
has to do so? Guys, it's very clear
what's happening. Everyone was paying it's ridiculous.
They were clearly in negotiating despite the fact
that they had already said, why are we
dealing with somebody who is not acting in
good faith? You are the ones acting constantly
without good faith, where you're pulling out of
deals, you're lying about what's happening, but regardless,
they still decided to try to deal with
you because they saw it as clearly what
was in interest of de escalation.
And in the in the midst of this
conversation, as your argument was do something you're
not able to do, which is stop doing
something that you're not doing. And they know
that, and they say that in the deal.
And then in the deal, they're like like,
the point is imagine how this must be
going.
Like, you're at a table with someone and
you go, look, man, you know we don't
have the thing. Right? So let's just get
past that. We we can't not do something
that we're not even doing in the first
place. So then, you know, I I I'm
willing to bet you that there's a lay
a level of that on the table. My
personal opinion. But the point is he comes
out with this argument. Right? The idea that
they are not acting a good faith, and
that's why we responded. But the point is
right up until that point, they were at
the table.
The only difference was Israel attacked them.
They then came back, and Israel attacked them
again.
And they said, finally, they said, look. We
can't keep having the conversation of negotiations while
Israel is bombing us, and that's where it
basically stalled. But, yeah, that's clearly their fault.
Right? I mean, it's just this is the
best they can do. Let that sink in.
It was the real catalyst, I think, to
what the president ultimately decided to do. If
we were having a productive negotiation,
I think that this could have gone in
a much different pathway.
Unfortunately, the Iranians decided to stonewall us, and
we saw the consequences of that last night.
Right. Right. So
how about how about even you ask yourself,
had they just been like, we don't agree.
Okay. Like, we're done we're done negotiating. Okay.
So your response is to just bomb the
country with no justification?
No unit with no congressional approval? Like, how
does that make sense? Like, even let's just
say they said, screw you, America.
Why would the response be immediately go today?
Because that was always the plan. The rest
is nuance. The rest is narrative. Israel wanted
that, so they did it. I mean, this
this has to start becoming clear to everybody.
Here is CNN talking with Iran's deputy foreign
minister. Now the question being asked, this is
what this is CNN doing the same
left and right, told the same thing as
far as I'm concerned. There's specific ways they
play their side, but they're all about toeing
the line. Because why did the government surge
production to 60% uranium? Well, we just you
just heard that. But let's listen to let's
look at the way she frames it. Why
did you surge
production of 60%
uranium
to the point that you have right now
between Trump's inauguration and now. Back then, you
had maybe a five to six weapon capacity
if you had decided to. Now a 10
weapon capacity with these 400 kilos
of 60%
uranium. Why did you do that?
That was such a grossly misrepresented
look. This guy has a a language barrier.
She just very clearly
misrepresented the reality that having 60% enriched uranium
allowed them to have certain amounts of nuclear
weapons. That's flatly not true.
I mean, the the point is that they
like, as we just heard, I've told you
many times over, I mean, you can ask
rock for all you want. The if you
you have to to produce the kind of
thing they're discussing, you have to have generally
over 90% enrichment.
And yet she's framing it as they have
so they right now, they've got the potential
to make all these different weapons. As Far
as I could tell, that's simply not true.
But here's how he responded. You know, we
we were acting based on our rights.
We then within the NPT,
we didn't have anything anything wrong. Right. IA
inspectors,
were present in Iran. So he's simply saying
that the I the International Atomic Energy Agency
was there. We enriched the 60% because that
was within the legal deals of both the
JCPOA broken and the National Proliferation Treaty.
That's what he said. So he didn't even
address the the I guess, he probably didn't
even understand what she was trying to glu
blend together with the idea of whether they
could produce these bombs. The point is they
acted within the deal. They acted within the
legal requirements and had been checked the entire
time. I mean, it's it's amazing how you
can make a mountain of a mohail with
this information. You know, different reports of IAEA
testify the fact that,
we have been
very, you know,
straightforward in our next year,
program. So there is there is no ban
on on 60%,
enriched,
uranium, which are being used, you know, in
different places for peaceful purposes. Yeah. So a
civilian program, which is the point. Now you
don't need to revert to that point for
that. The reality is like we just discussed.
Whether it's a negotiation tactic, regardless, it's within
the parameters of the deal the US government
agreed to. And should they want that to
stop, they knew how to stop it. They
can reenter a negotiation
to reach that deal, which Trump is not
trying to succeed at, guys. He's simply going,
which I'm gonna come to in a second.
Now after certain things they've done, for them
to walk it back to the square one
point, which is what they're already doing, which
is civilian program. But realize before this action,
their argument was nothing. You can't add anything
nuclear. Otherwise, we're gonna bomb you. That's not
negotiation.
That's not a deal. That's them screaming what
they want and forcing response.
So they didn't respond, so that's why they
bombed him. That's the ridiculous nature of all
this. The point here is he's simply reiterating
that. We were just doing this because it's
win the deal. There was no problem there.
You know? And and her argument that is
already bomb worthy, that's back, not back been
so very, you know,
straightforward in our next year,
program. So there is there is no ban
on on 60%,
enriched,
uranium, which are being used, you know, in
different places for peaceful purposes.
But to use that as a pretext
to to, you know,
to to use aggression against Iran, that is
something that we that we use to see.
Okay. But even the IAEA says, and they
put out a public statement shortly before these
strikes began, that they had never before seen
that amount of stockpile of that much enriched
uranium by any country that does not have
a nuclear weapon. Right. So this has already
been very well established. And just to be
clear, for the third time, regardless of that
that metric they make up, which I make
up, but they weirdly make in a way
that sounds like it. They haven't reached over
90% to be able to make the stuff
needed to make the bomb.
Anyone can look this stuff up. So the
crazy part is you're trying to frame this
as, you know, well, they no one no
non weapon seeking countries ever reached that. Well,
they've already made clear why this is happening
as he just explained because it was within
the deal and it was a and as
Scott points out, a a negotiation tactic.
We okay. So if we know it's legal,
which it is,
it is. Which we and we know it's
within the deal they made. And and the
International Atomic Energy Agency has always been there
monitoring everything, and both the US government and
them tell you they're not even trying to
seek the bomb. What are we talking about?
I mean, really think about that for a
second. The rest is just the scaremongering narrative
created off the actions that were within the
agreements they made.
Doesn't that just seem cartoonish? It is cartoonish.
And so and then the last part is
so the IAA puts out a statement that
we already overlap, by the way, is clearly
immersed with Palantir in Israel now, which has
had been that way for a while, I
think, since Amano, the previous director, was weirdly
I mean, arguably killed by Israel. That's the
that's the state sentiment that he got rapid
turbo cancer and died within a, like, a
month. Very strange to me. And he was
the one that had said in the past
that he felt they were trying to, you
know, assassinate him essentially.
That they put out a statement that says,
no other countries ever reached this level with
not seeking nuclear bomb, which does not state
that they are seeking nuclear bomb. In fact,
they stated otherwise, as well as the fact
that they forgot to mention that that was
allowed within their agreement. But that statement alone
without all the facts makes it sound like
it's suspicious, doesn't it?
That's all they
do. Now, of course, shouldn't you stand here
and go, but Ryan, couldn't they? Of course,
they could. Have I said any different this
entire time? Of course, it could be happening.
Of course, that might be the reality. Where's
the evidence?
All I care about. As Aramati points out,
Tulsi now says that America has intelligence that
Iran is at the point that they can
produce a nuclear weapon within two weeks to
a month.
That's what she's now saying. If they decide
to finalize the assembly, which is just flatly
false as far as I can tell with
everything we're looking at. She did not say
that in her March testimony shown below. I've
shown you this 50 times over. This is
her speaking where she literally says that they
are not I mean, in fact, let's just
play it real quick. Why not?
Even though we've already done it with three
times in the past few shows.
The point is to show that she's lying,
guys. And that's what's so incredible to me.
Like the basic overlap of what she
what she had said, what she said now,
she's lying. And that really the the question
really needs to be why. You know, why
would she so blatantly lie, put herself out
there?
Iran continues to seek expansion of its influence
in the Middle East despite the degradation to
its proxies and defenses
during the Gaza conflict. Even by the way,
even those things she's called out in the
past, you know, the proxy elements, the lies
of the US government creating forever wars,
She's part of the team now. Iran has
developed and maintains ballistic missiles,
cruise missiles, and UAVs. Like every other country
in the world that's, you know, has the
ability to. Including systems capable of striking
US targets and allies in the region. Like
anybody else. Iran has shown a willingness to
use these weapons, including Like like everyone we're
talking about right now, especially The US and
Israel. A 2020 attack on US forces in
Iraq. Yeah. When they were illegally invading Iraq.
Right? Or continuing to illegally occupy Iraq or
any number of variations therein, which is the
truth. And in attacks against Israel in April
and October
2024.
That's after, of course, what you know were
attacks on Iran and on back and forth.
And the same ongoing discussion, it's so frustrating
to frame it one-sided like that. Iran's cyber
operations and capabilities also present a serious threat
to US networks and data. And all she
means is the fact that they're capable of
doing that is a threat. That's what she
means. Like every other country that's capable of
doing that, but there are only threats when
they decide to make them into threat. The
IC continues to assess that Iran is not
building a nuclear weapon, and supreme leader Khamenei
has not authorized the nuclear weapons program that
Okay. So they're not doing it. They're not
building weapon, and he has not authorized the
program to do so. Seems pretty clear to
me. He suspended in 02/2003.
Has not continued the program he suspended
before the j before the deal. Seems pretty
clear. The IC continues to monitor closely if
Tehran decides to reauthorize its nuclear weapons program.
Right. The international community, the intelligence community continues
to monitor
if they should do that.
I mean, how are we missing this? You
pretty clearly just said that's not what's happening.
In the past year, we've seen an erosion
of a decades long taboo in Iran on
discussing nuclear weapons in public,
likely emboldening nuclear weapons advocates within Iran's decision
making apparatus. Sure. And you know who's doing
that more than anybody? The US government and
the rest who are literally proving to them
that the only way you're gonna get away
from this is if you just make them
anyway. We'll blame you for say, see, we
always told you. But just like with North
Korea, it creates a situation where now you
are, you know, arguably no longer able to
be bullied around.
But they continue to show you they're not
doing it. They continue to stand by that
religious mindset that they don't believe it's within
their religion to do so. But there are
people within the government that say we should.
And it's not it's completely understandable to get
why that may be the case. And even
when they didn't say that, they go, see,
we told you. It's like, that's the best
you can do is them going, we really
should do that because you made it. You
forced us in the position, and that proves
that they've always done it. I mean, that's
so lazy.
Iran's enriched uranium stockpile is at its highest
levels
and is unprecedented
for a state without nuclear weapons. Right. That's
where that comes from. And it's not that's
because the IAEA said that, but it does
not prove any way that they're doing that.
In fact, they said explicitly that they were
not.
Iran will likely continue efforts to counter Israel
and press for US military withdrawal from the
region by aiding, arming, and helping to reconstitute
its loose consortium of like minded terrorist and
militant actors,
which it refers to as its axis of
resistance.
Although weakened Which is just the people they're
working with to fight off the occupations of
an illegal regime. It's pretty simple.
Right? I mean, it's you can prove this
thousand times over to try to make that
into the to Iran.
Is just not true. This collection of actors
still presents a wide range of threats, including
to Israel's population,
US forces deployed in Iraq and Syria, and
to US and international military and commercial shipping
and transit.
Right. Okay. So that was that's the clip
that Tulsi Gabbard posted
as if that somehow contradicts what we're hearing.
Right? And here's what she said. The dishonest
media is intentionally taking my testimony out of
context. You just heard it. That's the video
she posted
as a new as a way a new
as a way to manufacture division. America has
intelligence that Iran is at the point that
it can produce a nuclear
are you kidding? Is that really what that's
not even close to what she just said
right there. She very clearly said, again, no,
they're not. And that they're the best she
said there was that they were producing 60%,
which no country ever had that's not new.
Well, we know why. And even if you
wanna argue that's another reason, then prove it.
This this insinuation
game they play. I mean, think about her
knowing we can watch the video she posts
and pretending that it says something it doesn't.
That's sort of like
Steve Stephen Miller telling you they won a
Supreme Court ruling, they did not. That's where
they're at right now. You can call it
desperation.
Maybe you just maybe you we see that
they're just able to get away with it
today. I don't know. But so back to
Aaron Mate, she did not say this in
her March testimony as you just heard. That's
because it's not a US intelligence conclusion, but
in intelligence
provided by Israel.
That's what's going on. No US intelligence assessment
endorses the Israeli claim that Iran could produce
a bomb within weeks.
He says, I've I've been told this by
an insider source, but it's also just the
basic reality of the evidence we can see.
And it says it's obvious that the way
Tulsi words or statements below. If Israel tells
America that Iran, quote, can produce a nuclear
weapon within weeks, then, yes, America now has
that intelligence.
Seems to make sense. It's dishonest. That doesn't
mean it's true, which it's not, or that
America even believes it, which it doesn't. More
not even half of this community, guys. Moreover,
let's pretend for a moment that the Israeli
lie of weeks is correct.
Note Tulsi's caveat.
If she's acknowledging that Iran has not decided
to build a nuclear weapon, that's because Iran
has said it doesn't want one and is
willing to commit to that in a binding
deal, the one they were negotiating until Trump
and Israel sabotaged it and not for the
first time.
What Iran says it what Iran says it
won't do is compromise
its sovereignty right to peaceful enrichment and to
self defense.
Trump and Israel insist, by contrast, on unconditional
surrender.
How simple this is.
Iran won't surrender, and the question of surrender
actually applies in internally.
Beyond Trump and allied Israel firsters, does the
rest of America, from the Tulsi overseeing intel
community on down, want to surrender its sovereignty
to Israeli leaders and their pro war lies?
That's the paramount question in these dangerous days.
Well said.
Now this is also this, again, her post.
Here's what Dave Burr Brenner or Benner post.
He said, you're a 100% compromised. Here is
your actual testimony regarding the nuclear program in
case you forgot. The IC continues to assess
that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon,
and Comenity has not authorized the program.
You just heard it yourself. But, I mean,
how do it's just very unnerving that people
like Gabbard are at the point where they
have to lie about what you can listen
to them say because are they being blackmailed?
I mean, I've never seen a better thought.
Like, I have no evidence to be fact.
But for someone to do this
after they just made a huge long term
effort to fight against these things, I mean,
that that screams blackmail.
But, again, this is my personal gut because
why would you make yourself look that stupid?
Now Hegseth, of course, claims the new Iran's
nuclear ambitions were obliterated after the strikes, which
is what you keep hearing, the narrative, the
narrative. But just to show you now that
recently before I went live, Khamenei, the leader
in Iran,
adviser, says Iran's enriched uranium remains despite US
tax.
I mean, you they were warned.
In fact, there's evidence that claims they were
warned way ahead. The bombers were publicly discussed.
They moved these things out of the way.
They probably did it on purpose so Israel
can say, they moved it. Now we have
to keep bombing probably what they wanted.
Now we're gonna I think let's see. There
wasn't much to go over in general, but
the Iran's parliament has now voted to close
the Strait Of Hormuz. Now I haven't seen
if that's actually taken effect. Arguably, I don't
think it will really be seen until tomorrow.
But I I you guys tell me in
the chat if you've seen any indications of
this. How long have we talked about this?
How long have we talked about the war
with Yemen and the Ba'al Mandeb Strait and
the ability to try to find another route
for the oil and different shipping because they
always knew Iran could shut this down? Should
they act the way they're acting, which is
always the point?
And so now they're voted to do so.
Now as far as I could tell, I
haven't seen it actually take effect just yet.
So let me know if you see anything
in the chat, but we will be coming
back to this because that my point is
this is a major move.
This will dramatically affect everybody in the in
the context of shipping, oil prices,
the fact that even the statement has already
caused prices to go up.
And, of course, they'll blame Iran for that.
But why wouldn't they take advantage of tool
they have in front of them to to
coerce you to stop being a belligerent terrorist?
You realize they're just bombing their country right
now, and the point is they're they're they're
you know, the idea that they're like, this
would be the equivalent of the of China
shutting down their their, you know, the waterways
right around their country and The US claiming
they're, you know, restricting pathways. This is a
story. If the US government decided to straight
shut down the Gulf Of Mexico
or any other way and control the flow,
do you think they would call that anything
other than their ability to control their area?
It's just there's always so much hypocrisy. But
this move is a huge move.
If it fully takes effect. Now I'm willing
to bet it probably wouldn't, more so in
the way that they'll dictate who can come
and go, which which would be kind of
a Yemeni point about the the flow. But
again, I'm I don't wanna speculate too much.
We'll have to wait and see if it
even happens.
But this will be a if this happens,
The US will use this to carry this
into something more serious.
Mark my words.
Because it is very important to their agendas.
Now funny enough, I went back look. This
is back from 02/2016.
This might have well even been one and,
look. I I couldn't find the video. It
it was gone. But this might be one
of the very first video compilations I ever
put together.
And the the title's breaking news. Iran may
have shut down the Strait Of Hormuz. That's
02/2016.
Just showing you again how long we've been
doing this. And it's it's simply social media
observers had raised concerns about the the waterway
potentially being shut down. The argument being that
no ship had passed within fifteen hours. It
didn't turn out to be anything, I don't
think, which is interesting to think about that
all the way back then, we were watching
this and and concerned about Ergo. Here's a
website traffic website you can look at.
But interesting just to point out,
of course, The US now and this is
where I think it spins into reaction. Right?
So the they they threaten to shut this
down, and all of a sudden, you see
a narrative change. The US urges China to
dissuade Iran from closing the straight, which is
just funny to me that you're gonna petition
China to to step
in, as well as the fact that,
insider paper reports, The US would allow Iran,
this is today, to operate nuclear power plants,
but not enrich its own fuel.
That's one step. Right? So we'll we'll send
you enrich uranium. But what what is the
this is so funny to me. Like, this
is a water right now is what they're
already doing despite them making their own.
So for them to go, we'll give you
what you're already doing is just a game.
Acting like what they'll do think about it
like this. What if right now they go,
we'll give you all this and really they
present with what they're already doing. And Ron
goes, okay. Fine. Well, so we'll just keep
doing what we're doing.
They will frame that as we won. We
bomb them into submission and they cave to
our demands and now they're only doing civilian.
Isn't that exactly how it will go? That's
right. The fact that that's literally what they're
already doing and they're not I I I
get the sense that that will be what
they're claiming
to make it look like they won when
ultimately, you know I've seen this happen before.
But let's wait to see how this develops.
But here's the Hindu saying US willing to
negotiate on Iran nuclear energy.
Funny how they only start negotiating once they
we start seeing actual movements by Iran, which
is like shutting down the Strait Of Hormuz.
Actual things that they might worry about.
And then, of course, this is also today,
US ready to return to talks.
Just think about how dumb this is.
So you and going back to the point,
wasn't Rubio just telling you that they were
not willing to negotiate?
That they didn't negotiate in good faith, that
you bomb them and they go, now we'll
go back to talking.
Well, you just told us before you bomb
them that they weren't willing to negotiate even
though we were.
So we're now gonna pretend because you attacked
them and killed people that they're now going
to decide to negotiate, but you just said
they weren't in good faith. Why would you
do it now?
They're lying about everything.
I'm not gonna tell you I can suss
out every lie and every truth. The bottom
line is either they lied about it first
and they're just playing this game now. Wait.
Why would any country go back to speaking
with them after they just did this? Why
would they then negotiate while Israel still bombs
them and The US still sanctions them? Why
would they do that? It just doesn't make
any sense. And so this is only them
trying to frame themselves as the mediator when
they're the ones killing.
Nick Sorter, president Trump has proposed a new
deal
with Witkoff. Now this is before us on
the nineteenth.
It's very simple and straightforward. No uranium enrichment,
bar Iran from working toward nuclear weapon.
Well, guess what?
That was the JCPOA.
I bet you Nick doesn't even know what
that is. This is the the Iran deal
that Trump said is a super bad deal.
It's the dumbest deal in the world, and
now we're gonna offer you the same deal.
And take the deal, Ron. Last chance. I
swear we're dealing with kindergartners, guys. These people
how in the world we got to a
place where a bunch of children are at
the place of the mainstream media? It's just
so funny to me. The the bottom line
is, guys, again, to reiterate, to think that
you're gonna tell us for this whole time,
Obama and the stupid deal and the JCPI
ruined it. It was such a bad deal,
and then you go through all of this
to simply represent the same concept.
You that either that either shows how utterly
stupid they are or that they're just simply
all of this was about creating a circumstance
for Israeli agendas that have nothing to do
with the facts on the ground.
USA Today from yesterday. Donald Trump promises far
greater attacks if Iran does not, quote, make
peace,
which basically means do what we tell you
or we'll keep attacking you, and no one
will hold us accountable.
It's just it's just so blatant to me.
Now Wyatt Reed simply points out, here comes
the massive wave of evidence free war propaganda,
which happens every time. Next week, they'll be
telling you Iran has hypersonic missiles aimed at
your grandma's bingo hall. Here's Reuters. Iran used
drug traffickers to stoke trouble in France.
I mean, they're it's just coming out the
woodwork. It does it happens every
time. Now here's an example of something you
might have seen. There's many things you're seeing
right now from attacks on the infrastructure
and sleeper cells and all the different things
you've already heard without evidence that come from
Jones and the types like that. But here
is one thing you're seeing. About to show
y'all a video of an Iranian man and
what he has to say about the evil
regime and how they are in support of
what Israel is doing and taking out this
evil Islamic regime in Iran. Yeah. Right. Okay.
So here's a a video I'm gonna share
from TikTok that I can't verify that you
can't see because I'm the one sharing it
of a guy we say is in Iran
who believes that everything Israel wants you to
know. Okay. Get ready for a really strong
Iranian accent. Sup, my people? Just wanted to
share with you all that the Islamic regime
in Iran, the Islamic government, shut down the
Internet for over twelve hours right now, so
we haven't heard anything of our families and
friends. And remember, this is not America. This
is not Israel doing this. This is a
fucking government in Iran. This is an Islamic
regime.
Yeah. Certainly could.
Certainly could be the case. I wouldn't be
surprised if Iran decided to take an action
like that seeing as how they know what
these allied forces are doing. I would criticize
it. I don't like the idea of suppressing
the flow of information to people in the
country, which I've criticized in the past. I've
also criticized the fact that The US and
Israel have actively shut this government's Internet down
many times over the years. But let's just
list perfectly English speaking Iranian who you know,
which certainly could be. No. I just think
it's hilarious to me that this is the
regurgitation. This thing I saw, I'm gonna share
as as if we know what's going on
here.
Typical TikTok nonsense, but here's what's funny.
You already saw this. We talked about it
earlier. Right? This was on the eighteenth. Iran
and by the way, should this is Ynet
news, but it's now or Israel has claimed
this themselves.
Hacks TV station
to air what we showed you earlier.
Regime footage of them going resist the Iranian
regime. Two bunch of people that already know
their line. But, you know, it's it's funny.
But that means they hacked them to do
that.
Okay. So we have evidence already of Israel
infiltrating their cyberspace and infiltrating their infrastructure. That's
not hard to see. They've done this many
times over the years and been caught for
it. Okay.
So it's not possible that you know, here
is statement from Department of Homeland Security.
Pro Iranian hacktivists are likely and cyber actors
affiliated with Iranian government may conduct attacks in
The US. So hyping the idea of actually,
technically, that should be further over here.
But the point of just hyping the idea
that they're gonna be doing this and attacking
and hacking and okay.
Well, here, Israel, according to channel nine,
on the seventeenth,
has launched a massive cyber attack on Iran's
digital infrastructure.
Okay. Do you think maybe that might have
caused the Internet outage? I don't know. I
know. It's crazy. It's a crazy abstract thought
to think that their attack on their cyber
infrastructure
would maybe cause an out an outage of
the Internet.
No. That's a that's insane talk, Ryan. It's
gotta be they're doing it to themselves because
that makes sense. I mean, it could.
But every time I've seen this in the
past, it's it's already been proven this is
an attack on them to suppress the flow
of information
as they attack Iranians because the point is
they want Iranians to believe they're under some
revolution as opposed to Israel
creating it.
Because Iranians do not want this. That's actually
one of the clearest parts of this. So,
they need to create the momentum, but if
they allow you to see, they're gonna see
shows like ours. They're gonna see the information.
They're gonna go Israel, so they break it
down.
And guess what? Here's Times of Israel.
Iran reports major Israeli cyber war as Tehran
restricts Internet for citizens.
Right. So the point is, Iran is telling
you Israel's attacking them and the world goes,
Israel, Iran shuts down the Internet. Now, again,
it could be the reverse.
But the evidence is what matters, and historically,
that they've been lied to or we've been
lied to about what's going on. And it's
obviously in the interest of Israel to do
this, like, every other time before it. And
why ask yourself if you're not hearing the
argument that they're being this is being done
to them? Well, this person just makes that
same joke.
Israel launched a massive cyber war against digital
infrastructure in Iran, according to media, and then
NetBlock confirms a significant reduction in Internet traffic
in Iran. Gee. It's almost like the two
things are connected. Right? That's the point is
you're hearing this only from one side of
a that they shut down the Internet when
you just saw Israel tell you they carried
out a cyber attack against them. It's just
it's painful that this we even have to
go through all of this. And then Sam
Tripoli points to an old a report from
the nineteenth.
Former CIA hacker warns that The US will
likely face massive cyber attack from Iran
within the next thirty days, or they're seeding
a a false flag setup. As as Sam
says, sounds like the CIA is going to
do a giant cyber attack. Exactly my point.
And then you get the start to Homeland
Security. Pro Iranian activists are likely well, maybe.
But ask yourself, what would be the point?
Like, legitimately, what is the who benefits from
Iran taking down random things in The United
States? Now if that was
followed by an attack, well, yeah, that'd be
really hard to not think it was Iran
involved, and that would benefit their attack. But
if we're just seeing these things that happened
that shut down social media or, you know,
then they go, Iran is hacking us. Well,
maybe we should just ask whether that's not
Iran.
I know. Crazy possibility, right?
Well, let's finish
with people who are out there trying to
convince you of the absolute nonsense.
Now, I'm not gonna go too in-depth in
this. There's plenty more I could have included.
But I shared this and it got a
really strong response. Let me actually refresh it
and we'll see.
Yep.
So I simply pointed this out. Here's a
clip from Alex Jones. And he says, Trump
knows Iran has the bomb.
He says that on June 20.
Think about the timing, guys. So he he
seeds into his gigantic audience the idea that
Trump secretly knows Iran has a nuclear bomb
and then gets them
right before
they attack Iran,
before they specifically attack nuclear. So so the
I'll tell you, these as I simply said,
this man is deceiving you.
They are out there trying to convince you
of exactly what suits the deep state interest.
Like, are we still pretending these are the
rebels fighting the deep state? Guys, these are
you're literally using the highest levels of power
through the highest levels of through government to
attack a foreign country. Now is that is
that
so if they're not the deep state, why
are they doing exactly what this guy told
you the deep state was gonna do? That's
a good question. Didn't he tell you that
this person would save you from over the
run? How many times they told you that?
It's just painful. And John here says, Alex
Jones along with Tulsi Gabbard have tossed MAGA
under the bus. Question, what happened and why?
A lot of people are calling this out.
Nightwatch Nate says, so basically, Alex Jones was
priming his audience with BS narrative that Iran
already had a nuclear bomb the day before
Trump bombs them. Convenient timing, don't you think?
Everybody take note. This is what a traitor
patriot LARPer Mockingbird show looks like.
The, the o ongoer says Israel has the
bomb as well.
It's true.
Target them next with p two bombers destroying
their illegal nuclear weapons capacity.
Okay. So the point the point is your
argument is that them hiding this is what's
illegal,
then wouldn't that make Israel's illegal? Of course
it would. One of them hasn't. You could
prove that. But seeing the funny how they
don't care about that side of the conversation,
even as one of them commits genocide in
multiple countries and ethically cleanses in others and
yeah. But that's okay. Let them have nuclear
bombs. That's okay.
You don't think these people know this stuff,
guys? That's insane.
This person says, if he's lying to us,
then who then
if he isn't lying to us, then you
are. Who do we trust?
Time will tell. I just think that's such
a perfect point to make about the way
partisans operate. I simply said, as I said
in the beginning,
we don't need nor am I asking you
to trust me. I provide all the source
material and back up the claims I make.
That's the difference.
It's very simple.
Why would you trust anybody in this context?
That seems insanely stupid to me. Look for
the facts.
But if you feel like you need to
trust somebody, maybe ask if you've been cultivated
to feel a certain way.
Let me see. I don't think I was
even gonna get into this that I haven't.
Yeah. I mean, I'll I'll play a little
bit real quick.
I've had enough of the ignorance.
How many times have I broken news before
anybody else? How many times have I been
right? Yeah. I started with that. Right? I'm
right all the time, and I know everything.
It starts to seem like a grift, seeing
as how it's just not true.
Ask Dave Knight, Greg Grease, TrueStreet Media, Dave
Burton, James Burmes, Bill Cooper.
Funny how all of them spin off and
go, he's a liar that lies about everything
that makes up information and, you know,
Virgil Grove.
They'll all tell you that,
like, literally.
I told you fifteen years ago,
I learned directly from the people that saw
the evidence
in
CENTCOM
that they've got ground sensors.
Let's just leave it at that, that are
in Iran.
They can drive around and fly around and
scoop up everything in the air. So in
other words, he's listening to what the government
tells him. Are we not of the mind
that the government can lie to you like
we've heard many times in the past about
the CIA giving you false stories and giving
you some that's real?
So is it not possible that you've been
lied to, Jones, about them sensing nuclear material
despite everybody everywhere else telling you that's not
true and all the evidence not backing it
up? I don't know. It's crazy. I don't
know. And know what level of uranium enrichment
and other things are enriching
other radioactive
compounds,
physical material.
And then I make calls
and talk to them over the years, and
they're like, yeah. How do you know that
you're not supposed to know that?
So you got Netanyahu
twenty five years ago saying they're two weeks
away. They weren't really two weeks away, but
within fifteen years ago, they got it. Okay.
That's the real point.
Jones is convincing you that they have a
nuclear bomb.
That this is somebody not on your side.
I mean, unless you're gonna present the evidence
right now, Alex, that makes the case, not
some secret background narrative that comes from the
very government you claim you're fighting, but facts.
Other than that, then everything else you have
in front of you, including the current government
you support, has stated many times that's not
the truth. Trump is listening to Israel.
Who are you listening to?
And now you see the CIA going, oh,
mister president. If you go to full war
with them, they'll go ahead and
their bomb. Then Masad said today,
they're two weeks to get out.
So the Iranians didn't go the route of
North Korea bragging they got nukes and showing
off. They've had them for a long time.
And people And you get the point, guys.
No. Look. Consider it. Right? Don't disregard question
everything. Consider all possibilities.
But ask yourself if this rings true with
everything we've seen. All the evidence we presented,
or is this sounds like exactly what the
very government he says he's fighting would need
you. Or at the very least, whether it's
what they want you to think. Ask yourself
how the outcome looks.
What does that lead to? What does you
being convinced that they have a nuclear bomb
lead to?
War. It leads to US action with Israel
against yet another country for the interest of
the Israeli agenda.
Even if it's for the right reason, that's
exactly what we're talking about. So is US
going to war and killing Americans for an
Israeli war? Is that America first? Is that
what is what is that what people in
MAGA voted for?
Hey, as I said, this man is deceiving
you.
Now here he is going, Israel reveals,
this is the nineteenth, secret contingency plan to
raid uranium enrichment facilities of Iran in Iran
with boots on the ground if The US
doesn't strike with bunker busters.
So here he is literally driving the narrative
that that might have actually driven people to
call for the bombing. Like, he's saying that
if if the US doesn't bomb them with
the things they ultimately did, Israel's gonna go
in anyway. I mean, this guy might as
well be just just dropping massage talking points
in front of you.
Michael Tracy,
imagine being told here oh, here's this is,
with senior White House correspondent.
A White House official tells me the contents
of this report are false, that the US
military has no doubt about the efficacy of
the bunker busters in eliminating the site at
Fordow, which they apparently did not. Also denying
that any options including tactical nukes have been
taken off the table.
And she says he says, imagine being told
that tactical nukes are an option on the
table and transmitting this information like it's just
another normal, unremarkable news update. The point is
they've been doing that for a long time
and normalizing that push. And now this is
oh, I've I moved this to the front,
which is simply Trump saying there will be
either peace or there will be tragedy. Trump
lays out the reason for Iran bombing and
calls for peace.
Imagine trying to pretend that's what this is.
He says, I'm sad to see that Trump
drank the neocon Kool Aid and attacked Iran.
Right. The thing he told you was what
Kamala would do, what the deep state wants.
Right? It's globalist. That's what they're all trying
to accomplish. Then he convinces you to put
Trump in power. We told you this is
where it was gonna go. Now he does
that. And the best you're gonna get is,
I'm sad that he fell for the trick.
So, he's just getting fooled.
Dumb old Trump getting fooled again, but trust
him though. Right? Then he goes on to
say, That said, most people see through the
gaslighting and the age of globalist war bongers
is coming to an end. What?
Literally, as you're
I mean, for crying out loud. This is
but it goes on to say the insane
war must end now. Right? So the thing
Trump's doing. Okay. He goes, regardless,
Trump is doing a great job on domestic
issues, trade well, and then, you know, I
first America first policies, and so I will
not throw the baby out of the bathroom.
Cowardice.
Or just lockstep,
blind following.
So you're going, he did the deep state
thing, and he's on that seat. Now he's
bombing the but but he's doing good, though.
America first.
I mean, I I I guarantee you got
David Ike out there ripping him a new
one right now for how stupid this is.
That's what he's trying to convince you, to
keep supporting him either way though because America
first, despite him doing the thing we told
you was not America first.
Embarrassing.
Well, just in case you I'm not gonna
play it all, but Adam Green has been
going showing you what this guy is for
a long time. And he says here on
June 18, twelve minutes of Alex Jones shilling
for Netanyahu. Shouldn't surprise you.
And, again, whether you love Netanyahu or hate
Netanyahu,
Israel has done things politically that aren't anything
compared to other people in the region. Why
are they held to a higher standard? That's
my only issue. I try to be fair
here. They they're surrounded by people that wanna
kill them,
who say they wanna overthrow them. They're supposed
to have a one state or a two
state and open the borders up. The fact
is that there is an ongoing admitted coup,
and they're saying they're involved in a coup.
It's a high-tech twenty first century coup.
And the exact same type of coup is
going on against Benjamin Netanyahu,
whether you love him or you hate him,
it's the same globalist interest. God.
George Soros, the Vatican, the globalist, who are
openly
directing it, and that's in mainstream news, Jerusalem
Post, Reuters. Yeah. Really. And say what you
want about it. Alright, guys. I mean, it's
just so it's he's been doing this a
long time. And if you look at the
real consistency, it's always been in one direction.
Benjamin
Netanyahu, the facts are there's been a decades
long leftist Soros campaign
to demonize
Benjamin
Netanyahu. And I'm not saying Israel is perfect.
Israel's got big problems,
diverse politics. They're trying to indict Netanyahu and
his wife right now. Oh, that the the
problems are trying to put a criminal in
jail who everyone can see is a criminal.
That's that's the problem he wants you to
believe. Let's jump ahead. So they've got that
new resolution ready. An actual one saying that
Israel's illegitimate,
and and it should be overturned. The UN's
already voted on that before.
Ladies and gentlemen, that's what I said last
week. I said if they kill Netanyahu or
something, you know World War three is about
to happen. Well, here it is.
Wow. And I told you they're really That
was, what? Three minutes in? Let's jump to
six. In prison.
And you know what that means.
The minute they take down
Netanyahu, they're going after Trump. Jeez.
It goes on. Here's ten minutes. Country.
And again, I'm proud to defend Netanyahu. He's
got his own problems. God. I mean, I'm
just randomly jumping ahead. I did not pick
those space, guys. I just
please wake up out there. Please, please, please
take the time to wake up to this
stuff and call it out. I a lot
of you are doing it.
He says and this is Michael Tracy. He
says, you can't make this up. Colonel Douglas
McGregor, the serious speaking at this rally,
rescued the republic is what it was called.
And you remember the people that were there.
He spoke at the September 2024 Trump Maha
rally in DC and urged everyone to vote
for Trump because US soldiers were, quote,
preparing to fight a war against Iran.
And by voting for Trump, you'd be voting
for peace instead.
Same thing Tulsi Gabbard said. Same thing RFK
junior said, and here we
are. Here's Alex Jones. Breaking North Korea
is willing
to provide nuclear weapons to Iran in order
to secure lasting peace. Didn't you just
tell us that they had it already?
Yeah. This guys, this is today.
I mean, recognize the stupidity of him literally
telling you that they already have the bomb.
Trump knows that.
And then saying, but but North Korea will
give them what they already have because that
will lead to I mean, what are we
talking about here? This is my point. This
guy will say something different every thirty seconds,
and then any one of them happens even
remotely, even partially. And we were right the
whole time, all the time. That's that's these
are grifters.
North Korea and by the way, I'm gonna
get into the North Korea overlap and the
possible, like, you know, what the there's a
lot going on there about whether it's the
CIA kind of stand like, you know, cut
out or, you know, whether we're talking about
the manipulation they're in from either
side. There's a there's it's like this there's
something very weird going on in North Korea
that it's not this is like an anomaly
to the the larger conversation.
And let's see whether you wanna ignore all
that and just look at the fact that
the argument is that they sought a nuclear
weapon. They were the biggest threat toward democracy
for a moment there, right, until suddenly they
weren't anymore.
The only numb the only difference is they
claim they got a nuclear weapon. So that
could be the only point to evolve. But
his point is they're gonna now work with
Iran. He's making this for people.
North Korea made the announcement hours after, Russian
leaders said many countries ready to supply nuclear
warheads to Iran.
So you got a random Russian leader who
says that. That's like Lindsey Graham making statements.
It's meaningless in the context of real of
the or it could it's likely meaningless.
What the policy and the outcome is what
matters, not what random people say.
Lindsey Graham says nonsense every day, and it
never comes out to be exactly what's going
on. But there's nuance to it. There's truth
in some way. So the point is you
have this random guy going, we'll get you
nuclear weapons. Well, what does that do? That
leads to the the logic of saying they're
trying to do it. So maybe they don't
have it now, but they're gonna seek it
out, so we have to stop them regardless.
That's what Israel's already doing.
He says, we're already in World War three.
The question is only in will it escalate
to a planetary thermonuclear
war? Imagine trying to one up nuke World
War three. See, he's been lazily selling selling
you the idea that everything you've seen, every
moment, every action is World War three. I
mean, Russia is World War three. Over here
is World War three. And like I said,
metric wise, we've been in a multi government
war for a long time, but that's not
what he's doing there. But here, he says,
we're already in World War three. So now
that we've established that, I've said it every
twenty seconds for five years. Well, guess what?
That maybe it'll escalate to something beyond that.
Planetary thermonuclear war. Well, isn't that kind of
a World War three point? That's what you
mean?
He's one upping his World War three statements.
So now every day, we're gonna flirt back
and forth with that apparently.
The bottom line,
this is exactly, in my opinion, what the
power structures would want to be seen in
front of you to justify whatever they do
next.
Nick Sorter says, Justin, Tom Hohman warns of
Iranian sleeper cells in The United States, which
I would never discount the possibility of sleeper
cells of any kind from any country.
Never have they prevented it presented evidence for
any of this.
And we already showed you this is stemming
from other arguments coming from other intelligence related
to and it's it's Israel, guys. It's what
this is. And next order tell it reports
this without
any comment without any context. Joe Biden let
millions of unknown
getaways across the border. We don't know who
they are. So now you're conflating the immigration
conversation with this because that's Homan's whole thing.
But so you're saying they could be sleeper
cells or are you saying we know they're
and if you know that, then why would
you conflate it with a bunch of people
you can't verify? So they're making it clear
that we're just floating ideas,
but making sure you're scared. What gives me
comfort is that we now have Christopher Way
or we don't have Christopher Way. We have
Cash Patel. You know, the guy who said
wake up and prioritize Israel. That's the guy
he wants you to think about.
This is where we are or or Christy
Noem, who doesn't know even know what habeas
corpus is.
Sleeper cells. It's everywhere. Here's g DC Draino
taking the cues from the government. You know,
the very thing he wants you to think
he's fighting. Shooting at the Crosspointe Church in
Maine, Michigan. So apparently, there was a sadly
enough, a shooting at a church.
It says the shooter drove a truck into
the church before opening fire.
You can bet you can bet he meant
the shots are here. He meant here are
the shots in this video before everyone evacuates.
He says, have the Iranian sleeper cells already
been activated?
What an irresponsibly stupid thing to say. Now
look, if you wanna look for anyone that's
targeting churches, there's a lot of examples of
Israel doing that if you wanna try to
pick something out of it. My point would
be, it's an event. There's nothing to back
up any connection to anybody, whether Israel or
Iran, other than people wanting to use it
for their agenda like this Epstein manipulator.
How's that phase two binder coming, bud?
Well, Marjorie Taylor Greene says reacts to Trump
bombing Iran, quote, says pray we are not
attacked by terrorists at home.
They're all part of it, guys. They're all
stoking the agenda to drive you to the
idea that we're gonna somehow now be like,
ask yourself this. If we are somehow attacked
by a terrorist at home, is that because
it was always gonna happen or because they
literally drove it into reality by belligerently bombing
every country they can?
This is from recently Iran sent a message
to Trump
threatening
to activate sleeper cell terror inside The United
States if it's attacked according to NBC News,
which by the way is so insanely stupid
it makes my teeth hurt.
Think about this for a second. You know
where this comes from. This is straight up
intelligence overlaps that are rarely if ever rooted
to anything real.
But think about the logic.
Okay. So Iran has taken time to carefully
and secretly place sleeper cells that we don't
know about. Right? That they can then usually
want. Then they go, Trump, we're gonna use
them next. Get ready.
Because that makes sense. Right? You know, let
the enemy know that you're about to use
the thing they didn't know was there.
Logic.
You see, Israeli Zionist US propaganda rarely cares
about the logic. That's how dumb they think
you are.
I'm gonna do this thing. I just think
it's so embarrassing to me. The idea that
they would ever report to you that we're
about to use the secret thing. I mean,
can we all just laugh at how ignorant
these people are?
Now realize that, again, I would never deny
the possibility.
Evidence is what matters.
It's happening in The UK too. If you
wanna see some kind of ascent an organization
to the Israeli driven narratives in these countries.
Iran already carrying out holding unacceptable actions in
The UK. And what's that?
Abstract.
He says,
Iranian activity in The UK is already substantial,
and it would be naive to think it
will not escalate.
I'd love to see some examples. He warned
of unprecedented pace and scale of plots posing
potentially lethal threats.
He said there's not a week that goes
by without some sort of an Iranian cyber
attack on a key part of UK
or anybody else. Right? What about
Vault seven?
The evidence we know of the CIA and
Assad and all their allies being able to
use cyber attacks and leave the footprint of
anybody else?
Or how do we know these? These are
all we can even made up for all
we know. But it says, there is an
Iranian activity on the streets in The UK,
which is wholly acceptable. He says, it's already
at a significant level.
But again, there's a choice for Iran. Oh,
I see. You're not gonna elaborate on what
those are. I get it. Iran's everywhere.
But we won't go into it. We're just
gonna let you know that Iran's all over
the country. Are you kidding? Like, you know,
I keep pointing this out. Like, can they
not do better than this? Am I crazy
to think that I mean, you could at
least you could lie better than that.
But let's end with this. Even as this
is still going on, Israel is already aiming
elsewhere, which is the point.
This is a colonial project that is, like,
drooling, overtaking whatever they can, and the US
presidency is allowing that with everything.
Or really just the West, it seems.
But as Allan McLeod points out, this was
on the twentieth.
Unbelievable. Israel is currently bombing five countries,
but some are already planning for another war.
Times of Israel, Qatar, Israel's next real enemy
after Iran.
Probably because they have all the receipts, because
they know how they've been funneling through them
into Hamas and everybody else. Bottom line,
you know this is obvious.
There's so many people out there trying to
aggressively manipulate you in real time with things
that contradict what they just told you thirty
seconds ago.
All I'm asking for people out there is
to question what you're looking at. Question the
information.
Right?
Look for facts.
Show discernment.
And if you can't prove these things,
the last thing you should do is lean
into some partisan narrative or any narrative for
that matter.
Everywhere you look right now, there are people
trying to drive you into a certain outcome
for a very clear agenda.
Ask for the facts. When it comes to
something like this, that's what I say that's
what I keep saying to people. When they're
trying to present you with some kind of
a narrative,
don't push back with the other side. Just
be like, okay. Make your case.
And most of them don't know what to
say after that. Like, what do you mean?
Like, well, make your case.
You're telling me they have a bomb. Make
your case.
What evidence do you have? Well, the TV
channel said, okay. That's not what I'm asking.
What is your case? What what makes you
believe that? If your argument is because I
was told, then we don't then then we're
done with this conversation and you're a child.
Right? That that's where most of these people
are. But if you they don't even think
about it. If you push it to them
and say, lay out your evidence for that,
most of them look like they're like a
deer in headlights. And many of them haven't
even factored in or thought about the fact
that maybe they actually don't have any evidence.
That's how wild it is right now. But
I I'm of the mind that most people
out there are beginning to see this. I
mean, I've been seeing that for a lot
of conversations for a while, and I mean
it. Every time this progresses, I see it.
Right now, look, you know I'm I was
right about the Israel point, but it wasn't
that hard to see. A lot of both
us were pointing it out was that that
people saw it. As I said, Israel lost
the information war within the first week. Same
thing with COVID. We all begin to see
it. Now we could look back and we
can see that. It's continuing.
That's why this whole MAGA thing is so
stark. It's so vivid because it's obvious.
They're just not stupid. And I don't believe
most people in this country are stupid or
naive. I think that we're beginning to see
that and that they need some other level
of propaganda. That was like the Zionism threat
of racism. It's just not working anymore.
So thank you for continuing to fight for
the truth. It's a it's, you know, if
not it's, like, the most important time in
me ever doing this. In my experience in
doing this, for people to stand up,
to truly take a stance on this even
if it it affects you, even if there's
negative consequences. This is bigger than us in
our individual lives. This is such an obvious
lurch into something darker.
So please,
stand.
I love you all.
Thank you for being here. As always,
question everything.
Come to your own conclusions.
Stay vigilant.
I frankly think that crisis initiation is really
tough.
And it's very hard for me to see
how The United States,
President can get us to war with Iran.
Which leads me to conclude that if in
fact compromise is not coming,
that the traditional way of America gets to
war is what would be best for US
interests.
Some people might think that mister Roosevelt wanted
to get us into World War two as
David mentioned, you may recall we had to
wait for Pearl Harbor.
Some people might think mister Wilson wanted to
get us into World War one, you may
recall he had to wait for the Lusitania
episode.
Some people might think that mister Johnson wanted
to send troops to Vietnam, you may recall
that he had to wait for the Gulf
Of Tonkin episode.
We didn't go to war with Spain until
the USS,
until the Maine exploded.
And may I point out that mister Lincoln
did not feel he could call out the
Federal army until Fort Sumter was attacked, which
is why he ordered the commander at Fort
Sumter to do exactly that thing which the
South Carolinians had said would cause an attack.
So if in fact the Iranians aren't gonna
compromise,
it would be best if somebody else started
the war.
But I would just like to suggest that,
one can combine other means of pressure with
sanctions.
I mentioned that explosion,
on August 17.
We could step up the pressure.
I mean, look people, Iranian submarines periodically go
down. Someday one of them might not come
up. Who would know
why?
We can do a variety of things if
we wish to increase the pressure. I'm not
advocating that, but I'm just suggesting
that, it it it it's this is not
a a either or proposition of, you know,
it's just sanctions has to has to succeed
or other things.
We are in the game
of using covert means against the Iranians.
We we could get nastier at that.