Some respects, it's just as bad now, the
authoritarianism,
that is coming, Gerald. I am really, really
fearful for the president of The United States
Of America to suggest as he did on
Air Force One on Sunday night,
that American
citizens could be deported
for his press secretary to say, we're looking
into,
a way to see if this is legal.
We don't know if it's legal or not.
A, it's terrifying.
B, betrays such a profound ignorance of first
principles to which he is sworn. He is
sworn to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution
and to enforce,
federal law. You mentioned that you're open to
deporting,
individuals that aren't foreign aliens but are criminals
to El Salvador. Does that in does that
include potentially US citizens fully naturalized in Ukraine?
If they're criminals and if they hit people
with baseball bats over their head that happened
to be 90 years old, and
if,
if they rape
87 year old women in Coney Island, Brooklyn.
Yeah. Yeah. That includes them. What? Do you
think there's special category of person? They're as
bad as anybody that comes in. We have
bad ones too. Profoundly un American, utterly unconstitutional,
and I am sorry to say
is coming.
It starts with a simple question
and ends in objective reality. 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.
Healthier only. Healthier only.
To stay afloat.
Welcome to the daily wrap up.
Tuesday, 07/01/2025.
Thank you for joining me today. Got a
jam packed show today. A lot to talk
about. But I wanna start with a couple
of notes that I thought were important before
I get into everything and forget that I
wanted to share with everybody.
One is that Bitshoot
is at least from my on my end
or I'm not sure if it's their fault
or my side or what's going on, but
there's some kind of an issue between me
streaming on to Bitshoot.
So I just wanna point that out for
you know, because I'm a a big supporter
of Bitshoot, and I really do believe out
of all the platforms out there. BitShoot and
Odysee are the ones we should be supporting
more than anything because of their principles and
the way they maintain them. But just since
I haven't been posting the link and haven't
been you know, it's just because there's some
kind of an issue. And for all we
know, it's another kind of outside attack kind
of a thing. I'm just it's sort of
like an I'm I'm unable to get into
the account right now, and they're trying to
figure it out. And so just, you know,
still happening on Bitchute. It just hasn't been
able to go there over the last, I
think, three or four shows. They're still trying
to figure it out. On the note of
pirate channels and censorship in the same pot
potentially in the same conversation,
my last Facebook,
pirate account, for those that still remember that
we're doing that, I have really been, like,
failing on the side of the YouTube pirate
accounts only because they haven't really been censoring
me. And, you know, I used to switch
it up regardless for those that know we
just use other people's accounts and sort of
pirate stream through them onto YouTube, Facebook, and
every other platform we're censored on other than
a few that we still have our original
accounts on just because I refuse to continue
to support them, and I'd like to do
it in a way that kind of circumvents
their control. But the last Facebook account has
been,
still, that's still there, but they blocked us
out of it. So if you got a
Facebook account that you wanna let us use,
we can make another Facebook pirate account, reach
out to one of the people, one of
the mods in the chat, or, you know,
directly email me. But just realize that sometimes
my emails get lost in the wind as
it goes these days. But last thing, I
just wanna point out as we get into
everything today.
I was reflecting on a lot of other
just there's a lot of shows out there.
Very few, by the way, that do the
the long term long, you know, long form
deep investigatory,
whether just conversing about things and theorizing or
really going in deep on the details.
I don't know of any other platform that
does it, you know, like, this is this
outside of the other people in the the,
the sphere of, you know, the last American
Vagabond, those that write or that work around,
you know, send all of you amazing people
out there that send content that we can
investigate or those that work with mods. Other
than that stuff, my point is in regard
to the show and what I do every
day, I do it all by myself. I
do the every single thing we're doing here
from what's set up, from controlling the actual
stream, from controlling the soundboard.
That's just me, all by myself. And which
is and it doesn't I don't necessarily think
I think there's a lot of people that
do that. My point is that I think
in the way we do with the amount
of content we put out, any other show
that I can think of like that has
got a team of people back there, whether
they're controlling the actual interface and bringing up
the content, which I all do myself, or
any number of things, guests and, you know,
on and on and on. I just think
that's another point of, you know, demonstrating our
value in this platform or my value in
the context of this platform because I think
we put a lot of work into this.
And to start out on that note, as
you know, we're under a lot of attack
every single day, lawsuits and everything else that
we're still struggling to pay off in regard
to what I, you know, at least as
it stands now, what I feel we won
in the long term. But, ultimately,
that I'm fighting every single moment tooth and
nail to bring this back to what we
have so we can keep building. If you
believe in this platform and all the work
we do, which put it out for free
every day, find the donation links down below
and support this platform because or or rather
any of them out there that you believe
in. I just think today is now is
the important time to find those that you
do believe in and find a way to
support them, whether this platform or any other
out there that you think is doing good
work.
And I think on that note, I wanted
to just kind of overview generally what we're
gonna talk about today, and there's a lot.
So make sure you stay tuned to the
end. Now we're gonna quickly point out some
some partisan overlapping points that I think are
relevant to the larger conversation, but I'm gonna
start with some Gaza overlap right out of
the gate. So I really think it's important
we don't lose sight of just exactly what
that is and what it always has been.
And as I just said recently, it's not
it's not slowing down. It's getting much worse.
Rapidly, rapidly, much worse right in front of
us every moment I look at this story.
And I wanna make sure we don't miss
lose sight of what that is.
Overlapping that conversation with some other points around,
Iran and Syria and different things that are
relevant. Obviously, the Iran point we're gonna point
out, we're gonna go through, you know,
hopefully, reasonably quickly because this is really obvious
stuff right now, and we've already covered 90%
of this. I just wanna get you caught
up on some of the more recent points.
In this case, the weird kind of evolution
of the totally obliterated
conversation,
we'll get into the and, you know, when
I can do it now, we'll leave second
segment to start the show of just the
weirdness about what he's saying and how obvious
it is that we all kinda know that's
not true and what that might mean, and
it's pretty strange. Maybe they're just desperate. Yeah.
We'll get into it. And about the reality
of what we see, expert testimony about what
actually happened on the ground, and other conversations
about how that relates to the seemingly kind
of, you know, the the looming issue with
the that we all know is coming with
Iran, whether it's the continuation of the war,
which we all expect despite the partisan narratives
out there trying to think other, convince you
otherwise. It's been a long sought plan left
and right for a very long time. It's
obvious that Israel is not gonna let this
go and to see where you know, what
we see around that and the claims of
different upcoming things. Now one thing, by the
way, I'm not gonna get into today that
I I I might actually we're gonna be
doing a show tomorrow, so I'm gonna maybe
touch on it then. But the July 4
conversation,
we did touch on that document,
the biodefense document when, was first shown to
me and the scenario that takes place on
07/04/2025.
But all of that is the reason I'm
bringing it up now is in the context
of Iran and the sleeper cells and all
these different things that I feel are swirling
around.
Just think about, you know, the the hype
that's being built around where these things may
go and whether these things are discussed ahead
of time. We'll talk about today oh, and
Yemen as well. You'll point about that. Talk
about the Elon Musk overlap, the bill, all
of which I think very much relates and
how the AI part ties into that.
Good note right out of the gate, if
you don't have time to stay for the
whole show, is that they did
up at the moment, up until now, I
should say, vote down the ten year moratorium.
They flirted with a five year moratorium and
apparently, as of right now, they've removed that
language. It's not done yet though. It has
to go back to the house. And at
this point, you know, it's a lot of
stuff can happen. But don't forget that Lutnick
already said publicly that that's
that was kind of the mindset, and it
seemed to suggest regardless of the bill. But
a good note that that did happen, but
we're gonna go over the other parts of
the bill that are just as alarming around
specifically the surveillance aspects, the biometric surveillance
that did not go away.
Maybe maybe like we've seen in the past,
it was sort of a this terrible thing
and that goes away so you miss the
thing that they always wanted you to accept.
We'll talk about
Trump overlapping with Netanyahu. We'll talk about the
the immigration conversation, the main one of the
main points today about the removal of citizenship.
That's why I started with that clip. It's
interesting that you say that about US citizens
and most Americans seem to only think about
people who are born here,
where a US citizen is the US citizen
regardless of how you reach that point. In
principle, there's no difference. Somebody who gains US
citizenship is no different in principle and law
and every other way other than maybe your
personal perception
than a person who was born here. And
so it's important to think about what he's
talking about, and Trump and the words now
in this context of going after, you know,
denaturalizing
as opposed to taking somebody who was born
here and revoking citizenship, which is very rare,
but I believe this is opening a door
to that, or peep versus people who were
came here, got citizenship,
and now they're finding a reason to revoke
that citizenship.
It's a very important conversation, but you're thinking
thinking about this now being proposed, which it
is, and we'll get to, in the light
of what judge Napolitano just said. There is
no way around that. It is unconstitutional
regardless of, you know, in what they're doing
and the way that they're trying to find
a way to make that happen. So with
that statement,
you must end back and consider that this
new you know, now, like, as if they
just decide discovered that people had legal issues
from before and that's why we have to
get rid of them. No. No. This was
them trying to make what they told you
there happen as they told you they would.
We're gonna find a way and see if
it's legal. Well, they found their loophole, guys,
and now they're gonna be going after US
citizens,
just like we said. Now, again, for people
out there who may think it's a difference
to argue, no. No. No. They're not US
citizens. They are, though, just people that came
here and got it. Doesn't change the fact
that they are, but the argument will be
that they're somehow not the same thing, which
is actually the crux of the point, creating
a difference,
a two tier system amongst US citizens. And
how long until that becomes that you can
fall into that tier because you say the
wrong things?
I mean, it's all right there in front
of you. If you have not begun to
call this out and you still think this
is somehow America first, I just challenge you
to act to look at these founding documents
and ask yourself how in any way, not
what makes you feel good or what you
think it's about or what his narrative is,
but just based on these foundational ideas, how
this in any way lines up with anything
that they were promising, anything that we think
is America first in any context. But let's
start with a,
on the note of two party illusion,
a a tweet from Greg Reese
just to you know, I didn't need to
share this. I just agree with this entirely,
and I think it's important for us to
think about
how how, you know, what two things. One,
that I think a lot of people, as
I've said a lot,
are seeing through this right now and just
don't know where else to go, still fall
back in line with the partisan game because
in their minds, that's all that's the only
way it exists.
But it doesn't have to, and that's the
kind of point we're getting at. But as
Gregory says, well, the the other point was
simply that there's people that use this against
us, but only the lowest IQ bottom feeders
identify with a political party.
Now what do you think about that? Do
you think that's re do you do you
agree with the sentiment? Do you think that
of that most people are beginning to see
beyond the party identification,
that their entire identity is left or right
or republican or democrat or whatever or end
up or or green party. If, you know,
anybody
that identifies with the party is his point,
not just left and right. I agree with
this. The idea that you are somehow, like,
a a a identify was the right word,
that it's part of your identity, that you
think you're a part of this, not just
that you support the ideas or principles if
they have them.
I argue I genuinely believe that we're here
at a point where
most people are beginning to not just look
at it as if it's ridiculous, but start
to call it out, start to feel almost
embarrassed about the show that's put on for
the rest of the world as we watch
the partisan screamers out there tap dance, you
know, these barking seals jumping around, making all
these statements. And it's getting reached and it's
being covered. But it's largely artificial in my
opinion. Now challenge me. Tell me I'm wrong.
I hope I mean, I'd like to believe
that in that that most of the things
we deal with are not I mean, I
started to say it like that. I was
gonna say that most things aren't fake, but
But at the same time, I kinda want
these things to be fake because I don't
wanna believe that people actually feel this way.
But the point is I'd I'd like to
believe our world is not an illusion. Right?
Consider these things. It's all I'm saying. Consider
that this is the prominent opinion, and you're
just not being allowed to see that that's
the way, you know, the majority actually exists.
But on that note of other two party
illusion stuff that relates to something we're gonna
discuss today, Simon Godek simply says, remember this
psyop from four months ago? So do I.
None. Not a one of these influencers in
this photo has called for the release of
the real Epstein files since. Sure makes you
wonder. And we're talking about lives of TikTok,
Jadisce Drano. I forget her name. You guys
recognize her the other there and and they
got and and, there's, Cernovich.
You know, they got these phase one binders.
Funny how phase one never turned into phase
two. So
you'd clearly either post posted that to make
you think there was more coming when there
never was or for some reason they decided
not to release the others. They don't write
phase one if there is no phase two.
It's just so embarrassing
that it's this easy to
well, two ways to look at it. This
easy to play these kind of people or
that they don't care that they're being played
as long as they're on the inside or
it feels that way. It's sad, guys. It's
sad, and it's very clear. Now on the
note here, I wanna I wanted to share
this. Actually, I could this should be technically
after this, but I wanna make the point
first.
This is Mel Aaron Melnick. He's a lawyer.
We pointed out before, but he's had this
pin for a while. And it's not about
his opinion or anything else. It's about the
reality of what he discovered, which is easy
to prove. I went over it when he
first talked about this. The moment this immigration
focus started, rather the deportation focus started, which
was
he said, I testified about how Trump's diversion
of that rather moving thousands of law enforcement
from multiple agencies, by the way, to mass
deportation
was making us less safe. You know why?
Because he moved people directly focused on human
trafficking,
on pedophilia,
on sexual crimes. The the very things that
Republicans very much are charged up about and
should be because they're important in the world,
and they
diverted
in focus away from that and clearly have
gone after largely people who are not criminals,
largely people who are actually here legally in
most cases that I've seen. I I just
wanna point that out. Now, we'll come back
to it. The point is, I told you
I wanted I I pointed this out in
a recent show. This is just an important
thing to consider when it comes to
pretty much every factor we're considering out there
about the the illusion of the two party
dynamic, the
concern about foreign government influence,
or just the problem
of our how the two party illusion stops
us from recognizing the undeniably obvious pattern of
just the government in every possible way. And
that is the overlap with, I mean, pretty
much everything you could discuss. This happens to
be about pedophilia,
priests, and the cover up. Now we've talked
about this in the context of Biden or
other or Obama.
Interesting how Republicans with the smallest amount of
evidence, in a lot of cases, valid reasons
to be concerned, will make an entire argument
about how these people support pedophilia, human trafficking,
you know, Epstein stuff.
If you had a situation where Biden was
trying to create a situation where priests were
not
basically,
where the law said they were supposed to
report
pedophilia or allegations of it, child abuse,
and then the government stepped in and said,
no. You're not we we will we they're
not supposed to uphold that law. Now, look,
there's a point to be made in this.
We'll go through it. From a religious perspective
at the very least about why no matter
what they say, there's not supposed to be
a point in which a priest is can
divulge what you say in a confession.
No. Everyone can acknowledge that. That is the
the belief, the standard, the, you know, the
the,
what's that word? You know, the sacred agreement
between you and and a pastor or or
or a a priest for that matter.
But it's technically, outside of it being religious
thing, the same kind of thing as you
have with a lawyer or or or a
a psychiatrist, right, where they're not allowed to
say. Right? But there are times when that
does open when it comes to crimes, for
example, in certain cases. So keep this just
objective perspective in mind as we read through
this. Donald Trump's DOJ shields priests instead of
children, and the reason why is even worse.
Now it's not fair necessarily to say instead
of children because I think we're still dealing
with the the somebody who goes to a
priest and gives gives confession and says, I
confess to molesting a child. Now that at
that moment is not a proven statement. That
person could be lying. But the point is
that the idea is shields priests
instead well, I guess you could frame it
that way instead of the potential crime of
against a child. Right? I just wanna be
objective
about it. The point is that this is
something that most cases, Republicans would call out
if it was the the reverse situation. That's
what I was saying earlier. In his latest
twist of moral gymnastics, this is how it's
written by We Got This Covered.
Donald Trump's Department of Justice is now going
to court not to protect children from abuse,
but to protect priests from being forced to
report it.
It says, yes. You read that right. In
a case that sounds like satire but isn't,
Donald Trump's DOJ has intervened in a lawsuit
to block Washington state from enforcing a new
law that require clergy to report suspected child
abuse even when it's disclosed during confession.
See, that that's one part of it. There's
plenty of other overlaps. But we've already seen
many things like this. Like, there's an argument
we could discuss about the, what was the
one about a law that was around the
age dynamic. And we were actually just,
I think I was talking about this where
they didn't wake up this morning in a
in a kind of interestingly overlapping way. But
the point being is that there are arguments
within these things where you there's laws that
try to make it to where
a 16
and a 17 and 18 year
old, even though technically that would be considered
statutory rape, aren't charged with it because of
x y because they're
mutual and they've grown they were dating for
four years before that. The point is that
there are also very concerning ways that those
laws are used with using a valid point,
and then, obviously, there's more nefarious intent behind
it. And we always call this out. The
point though is that those kind of things
happen. We try to give you a balanced
perspective over the both, you know, all of
it. But you get the partisan argument that
that they're just pedophiles covering up, but okay.
And there could be. Right? This is not
what you're gonna get from this, from the
people that would usually call it out. Even
though this is a very obvious case, same
point, if this exact thing was happening and
Biden was doing it, you all know what
they would say. So always hypocrisy is important
point to make on it. But beyond that,
this is actually interesting in how this is
going forward. Now here's the tweet from DOJ.
It says the law in question, Washington senate
bill five three seven five, signed by governor
Bob Ferguson in May 2025, adds clergy to
the state's mandatory reportees reporters list,
which, I mean, why wouldn't that be the
case? Aside from the religious concern, which is
should be considered,
which is valid,
that we in every other circumstance, especially with
what we know, just as much as it
may make Catholics uncomfortable, the overwhelmingly
obvious problem of the sexual abuse that takes
place within the Catholic church or just within
churches and priests. It's very common. We should
not even be denying that today. And in
no way is that some of credit some
criticism of everybody who believes in god or
everybody who's a Catholic or a priest. It's
just there is a clear problem. It's like
anything else. People who it's like we just
talked about government and sociopaths. I'm gonna make
a point about that today.
People who are sociopaths will gravitate towards the
positions of power. People who are sexual deviants
will gravitate towards positions where they have power
over children. It's not that hard to recognize.
But
this seems like an illogical thing to do
at a time with what is going on
and what they've said in the past. It
says while most states have mandatory reporting laws
for child abuse, the specific treatment of the
seal of confession varies. And that's what I'm
talking about. Again, that you're not allowed to
say anything that happens there no matter what.
But what do you think about that? Many
states have exceptions for clergy,
clergy, penitent privilege that would allow it to
be used as a shield in certain circumstances.
Washington's law is notable for explicitly removing that
privilege.
The law is designed to prevent abusers from
being from using the confessional booth as a
get out of jail free card, especially after
decades of damning abuse scandals from the Catholic
church. You realize this also works from within.
Right? So if there's priests I mean, we
there's been an
epidemic of priests covering up for priests, even
going as high as the pope.
But instead of backing child protection laws, the
d Trump DOJ filed a 47 page complaint
arguing that b s SB five three seven
five targets clergy.
How would you argue that?
Violates the first amendment. Now that's see, these
you know why this irritates me? Well and
this is and amounts to religious discrimination under
the fourteenth amendment. I don't agree with any
of those points. The idea that you're gonna
claim that this that violates the first amendment,
in what way are you arguing it violates?
This is about the and first of all
or second of all, from a group that
doesn't seem to care at all about those
things, telling you that they're gonna sense you,
which we'll talk about today, censor you because
you say things they don't like about Israel,
deport you because you say things they don't
like about Israel. Right? Remove your citizenship as
a US citizen,
as a singer,
because you say things about the IDF. Like,
it's very clear where this goes. Well, yeah,
but now they care about the first amendment.
Very weird. But then it says,
their main gripe that requiring priestesses to report
child abuse, heard, and confession would effectively force
them to choose between jail time and excommunication
from the church. Now that obviously makes sense.
That was my original point. Now as a
as a
godly man, I would argue that that's not
a hard choice to make. I mean, whether
the church would dis would excommunicate you because
you divulge that somebody was abusing children is
a really hard sell.
But from a principal point, you argue that
that, you know, that's it's not about the
content. It's about the principle. You're not allowed
to say anything about what's in the Catholic
group. You know? But you see the the
dilemma here. I don't get my point despite
the nuance. I I don't get why a
Trump DOJ would even be stepping into this.
Other than some kind of weird overlap with
all the things we're talking about from a
religious perspective or
something much darker than that. But I'm gonna
leave it there for you guys to decide
for yourselves. I just wanna again point out
that you know as well as I that
people that would make a bigger deal about
this will not because Trump is involved. To
be clear, it says, no one is banning
confession or preventing religious practice. The law doesn't
stop anyone from going to church or seeking
absolution. It simply says that when a priest
learns of child abuse, they must report it.
Just like teachers, doctors, therapists do every single
day. Now
my logic
my you know, my sense of logic finds
it hard to disagree with that.
Very weird, isn't it? I just thought that
was important to include in the kind of
we'll ignore anything on our side kind of
a thing. Now and this is
not left and right or rather it's just
your government. It's not partisan, you know, unique
to one side. And let's let's also not
forget that this is not unique. Well, I
guess I just said that for left. It's
all it's simply your government. Funny how my
mind gets ahead of my own my own
points.
This is from 04/27/2016.
We've talked about this many times. Judge sentences
serial child molester as he cites, that's his
quote, Dennis Hassart, to fifteen months in prison,
which is absurd. That's all he gets.
He was he was second in line to
the president, guys.
Alright? The president, vice, and then he was
the speaker. He's second in line to the
president.
And he gets fifteen months as a as
a serial child molester. The Epstein discussion exposed
a whole bunch of this. So it's just
a strange thing to see them do right
now while they're shielding the Epstein files from
being revealed.
Seems a little bit telling to me.
Now again, let's remember that during the event
of the ongoing deportations
dynamic that they've in fact stopped investigating a
lot of these things to go after what
turns out to be, not maybe not the
intention, but people who are not criminals.
Now when we get to Garcia at the
end of the day, we've already talked about
it, but I'll mention it again.
Remember, they're right now using a person who
is a trafficker, a proven and charged trafficker
of people
and who has been deported many times. They're
using his testimony to try to keep to
try to claim Garcia is the person committing
these crimes. So just whether that's even the
truth, which doesn't seem to be, there's a
lot of pushback and even the judges aren't
buying it. The point is that you're now
allowing this person to stay in this country.
That's what's happening. That criminal,
multiple repeat criminal with multiple charges and not
just removing some people to work over here,
but human trafficking and all sorts of other
crimes, just stay in this country.
While Garcia is the one be there building
this case, they can't even prove to try
to get him removed. Does that seem like
what you got promised? That they would go
after the criminals? They would go after like,
right there is a perfect example of taking
the worst kind of criminal and using his
testimony to go after somebody who at best
is less than that.
And the and the the evidence shows he's
not even close to any of them because
they're lying about it.
This is
important. Now we'll come back to that. I
wanna make sure we talk about the overlap
of Gaza
and all the different foreign policy points to
a lot of this. And there are very
clear tie ins to the immigration point, to
the two party manipulation, the tie in with
Iran we're gonna talk about. And just really
just to make sure we don't miss that
this is still happening. I had a really
great conversation with Robert on the thirtieth that
I really think was more informative than than
half what people hear today. I mean, really
just x I mean, and and like I
said on the show
and with Derek, I just spoke to him.
We there's already things in the works from
Derek and Robert and and and others, by
the way. There's more coming from different perspectives
I don't wanna jump ahead of that are
coming out on TLAP.
Like I said, guys, I'm not. If it's
I don't care what happens. I'm not giving
up. Let's put it that way. I'm just
I am absolutely determined to get back to
where we were and continue to grow no
matter what. But more coming your way from
both of them. The point is that he
is just so knowledgeable on the topic. It's
insane. And you listen to him rattle these
things off. And, And, you know, and we
talk about a lot of it on the
show, but for him to just be able
to pull this stuff off and you just
do not hear these perspectives
in mainstream alternative media and mainstream media. You
just don't. And it's very important. Now simply
was what's next
for The US, Israel, and Iran. Then we
go into a lot of it. One of
the main points was the ISIS linked groups
that you'll learn a lot about that Israel
and The US are working with. Not a
secret. And they're literally using them to execute
people in real time and to basically facilitate
their their theft. And, like, like, let's not
forget, these were the groups, as Robert explains,
they were already using before that we've covered.
They were controlling this this area where they
had to pass through. And every time, they
would take what they want, and they would
sell it back to these markets, and they
would claim that was some loss, and it
wasn't. We can prove all of this. This
and this is all working with the Gaza
Health Foundation, which is a Mossad in The
US.
It's frustrating. But watch this, guys. I'm telling
you, you will benefit from it. Now,
Rami Abdul of The U EuroMed human rights
group, in regard to that very point and
the what the Gaza
Gaza Humanitarian Foundation did I say it wrong
last night? That's what the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation,
the GHF,
what they actually wrote. He says this is
an announcement from the American Israeli
Gaza Humanitarian
Foundation
stating that aid distribution begins at 2AM
in the morning
in the dead of night.
Why such an hour? Right? That doesn't make
much sense. Well, because under the cover of
darkness, people can be shot, killed, and disappeared
far from cameras, far from witnesses, and far
from accountability.
What legitimate aid organization operates at two in
the morning?
An active war zone with military forces everywhere,
how can civilians possibly distinguish the presence of
Israeli troops, especially when the army exploits these
conditions to carry out large scale killings?
The only shockingly dishonest people would ever try
to make this make sense, but they're out
there.
They're everywhere.
Warfare analysis
caught, it got a picture and shared a
picture of what is being dropped on top
of Palestinians in Gaza.
This hasn't stopped, and this is what's so
infuriating for those of us that have been
covering this the entire time, is they will
stand up. You're you're grandifying Donald Trumps and
cruises and I mean, anybody that's on the
left and the right will stand up and
scream the virtues of Israel and how they're
fighting for freedom,
And then they will literally drop a leaflet
on top of them that says, go you
know, the the equivalent of go kill yourself.
You're not a human being. You don't deserve
to be here. Like, it's nonstop.
Or, you know, just casually execute them as
they're coming for food that were promised.
Here's what this and this is what they
put out. And this is they've guys, this
is being this is being these things have
been highlighted since the start of this by
groups like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International.
It says, in a desperate move, after announcing
that 20 Israeli soldiers were killed by Hamas
in just this month alone, which embarrasses them,
and following systematic massacres of Gaza of civilians
in Gaza, which is usually their way of
getting back
at Gaza for fighting back against their occupation,
in an attempt to turn them against against
Hamas. But here's what it says. Israel is
now dropping leaflets in Gaza that read. The
tale is over, and the story has ended.
Hamas has become a thing of the past.
Hamas has led you to the edge of
the abyss,
so jump.
That's what they're getting.
The it's just sadistically disgusting.
These people are trying you know, the point
is they just enjoy, it seems, making them
suffer.
And then taunting them as they suffer, as
their children are starving in their laps, as
they're getting arms blown off in the bombings
that don't make any sense. That's what they
do.
Now on top of that,
as they continue to play games with food
and shoot people trying to come for food,
the starvation has never stopped. The cradle points
out,
Abu Al Hussein, 29,
from Khan Yunus, has died from severe malnutrition
under ongoing Israeli blockade and deliberate starvation imposed
on Gaza. This is a grown man, guys.
I don't I mean, it's it's it's har
it's horrifying to see.
You guys can feel free to dive through
this if you want. The next one's a
little just as hard to look at.
A young man has died of severe malnutrition
as a result of the Israeli blockade of
the Gaza Strip. Forced starvation is an act
of genocide.
Every single day, these people are dying.
I mean, think about the kind of people
that wanna say never again
when and only focus on what they understand
about their history and show pictures of people
that were starved and emaciated and then not
care
about that.
Every single day you're seeing that. I know
this is hard to look at. I know
it's hard to engage with. But if you
care about humanity,
if you care about people, if you care
about the actual, you know, this country for
that matter and care about the direction it's
going in, we have to call it out.
We have to find our courage, our constitution,
and call it out.
It just
weighs on me
every single day to know what these people
are going through and to know what they're
going through for you out there fighting for
something that does actually affect everybody in the
world.
David Camp says, how can is the the
Israeli defenders justify confiscating baby formula
from a doctor?
French Lamonde reports Israel limits and the the
link is right here as always. Member David
Camp is antiwar.com.
Israel limits entry of baby formula in Gaza
as infants die of hunger.
Nothing new, guys. That's been happening since the
very beginning. I've been proving it to you
every single day. Your governments don't care.
Accountability archive points out, here's the real story.
Here's the number of Palestinians killed and wounded
seeking aid
on a daily basis. Now realize we talked
about this before
right around this
late May, June 1, and the the first
time they got the real coverage of people
being shot at the food lines. And they
lied about it 17 times in a row
until it became clear that they were caught
and then paused for, it looks like, half
a day. And then every single day after
that, at least till the fifth, they shot
people in real time. Now I haven't been
keeping track of every day. It's very clear
to me right by this, but by everything
else we're seeing. They have been executing people
in these lines day and night every single
day since, save for that momentary pause it
seems.
Here are the breakdowns.
May 27,
one killed, forty six wounded.
May 28, four killed, eighty six wounded. 89,
excuse me. Now June 1 is where we
saw the beginning of the massacre
in regard to this one
GHF food dynamic. Thirty five killed over 200
wounded.
June 2, twenty four killed. Hundred twenty twenty
two twenty two wounded. June 3, twenty seven
killed. One twenty seven wounded. June,
10 killed. Hundred and ten wounded. Just goes
on and on.
Hundreds wounded every single time, but five killed,
six killed, thirty six killed, fifty seven killed
every single day. Fifty nine killed on June
17.
God, it's just it
June 24, around fifty
killed.
That's where we are.
No coverage of that. Right? You get the
right kind of person in the right context.
The whole country will scream about it for
three days straight. But 100 killed there, 100
killed there, doesn't matter when it's happening with
The US tax dollars in Gaza,
at least according to your governments.
Now as Sal Diagris points out,
today,
US tax chattel funded yet another massacre of
Palestinian civilians. This was yesterday.
This time, the IDF slaughtered over 30 people,
most of whom were women and children. Evidence
every single time.
So you can watch. It's graphic. It's horrible.
Every day.
And, you know, in case you're just confused
about how obvious it is, here's Herets from
the twenty seventh.
Quote,
it's a killing field. IDF soldiers ordered to
shoot deliberately at unarmed Gazans waiting for humanitarian
aid. Yeah. But let's debate it. You You
know? Let's let's make sure I mean, question
everything. Maybe they're lying. But, you know, when
you've got video evidence, when you've got countless
testimony, when you've got them admitting people were
shot, when you've got every single part of
this, and then they come out from their
media citing the IDF saying we were ordered
to shoot people. Maybe we should accept that
they're being ordered to shoot people. Maybe we
should acknowledge what how truly dark this is
and start calling it out.
Glenn Greenwald, citing Peter Dow, says the entire
generation of young people now view the Palestinian
cause as central to their political and moral
identity,
which even that I would argue is dangerous.
Like, the idea is that these things should
not become who you are just as a
matter of, like, healthy mental status. But that
but that same point is like a political
dynamic. Why his point as I'm taking it
is that this has become something that is
monumentally important to the way they see the
world, And no amount of propaganda can't suppress
that. 100% agree. I think right now, what
they're dealing with is the fact that they
feel they either either they
recognize that they shot themselves in both feet,
right, or they don't care, but they're recognizing
that they no longer have control over the
narrative, which is clearly becoming uncomfortable for them.
Glenn says, this is why we're seeing more
extreme censorship imposed against Israel opponents, you know,
from The US Government, against Americans, as well
as everywhere else. Criminology investigating a brand, Criminally
investigating a brand. Deporting his real critics.
Expanded US campus hate speech codes. More US
laws outlining b d outlawing BDS. Oh, yeah.
Not the left as much as you may
feel like. That's what it sounds like. No.
That's the current run for Republican administration,
censoring hate speech,
you know, making BDS illegal.
It's exact this is woke politics, guys. It's
the same damn thing.
Max Blumenthal points out Israel met its quota
by slaughtering a 100 people in Gaza today.
This was on the thirtieth as well. Excuse
me. This was today. Thought this was yesterday
when I was looking at first, so a
100 more today. Among its targets was an
Internet cafe where it kills dozens of artists,
journalists, athletes, and everyday people.
Now The US is rewarding it with more
baby buster bombs.
US State Department just announced its approval of
a $510,000,000
contract to sell the Israeli military more than
7,000
guidance kits for 500 pound MK eight two
and two thousand pound bunker buster bombs. You
know, that they drop on tents in the
middle of the desert.
I'll I'm gonna point this out again as
we go through it in in I mean,
in the in context of the, you know,
not call many different points, in fact, but
they're just absurd.
Is this what you voted for? Is this
your peace president?
The truth is, guys, plenty of people out
there calling out and aren't so childless that
they can't recognize that we're not just going
after one side of the paradigm, that we're
simply saying the government is not trustworthy, and
we're saying, and same thing now with this
one. And plenty of people are honest enough
to go, I agree. They've lied every single
time about every single thing. Look at where
we are. I don't have to keep pointing
out every metric or every deviation from Maha
or every every single thing that is the
opposite of what we're being claimed. People are
calling it out. And there's also the ones
that are tap dancing and going in the
same direction because that's all they've got. You
know who I'm talking about. This person points
out, it's Ben Ephraim, they are putting the
survivors of the genocide into smaller and smaller
spaces,
even according to their maps. That's what this
is. With no food, no clean water, no
medical care. But don't compare it to a
concentration camp or you might hurt someone's feelings.
That's what this is and and, guys, it's
worse than this, in my opinion, based on
where we are right now. 2,000,000 people live
in the in the green areas, and now
they're being bombed nonstop relentlessly with nowhere safe
to run. We've been telling you this for
a long time. You notice how they push
them toward the water edge? There is nowhere
for them to go. They'll get shot if
they go into the water. They've got boats
out there patrolling. They'll shoot them. It's happened
already. They shoot them when they go fishing
too far out.
But let's keep pretending like this is all
normal.
Free Iran Now says, should call them, T
Lab, told you so's. Trump says, this is
just in. Trump admin notifies congress of plans
to provide 510,000,000
in guidance and, you know, immunizations to Israel
yet again right now in the midst of
all of this,
continuing to fund them. That's funny. Adam Green
here says, why even bother keeping score anymore?
The truth is that this is what you
would have called out if anybody else was
doing it. He was gonna stop bringing peace
to the table. That's not what this looks
like.
Jeremy Scahill, in regard to the supposed ceasefire,
in the same light of the supposed peace
president,
he says, this is yesterday, Israel and the
Trump administration
are once again pushing false narratives. Shocking. It's
not like see, this is where you can
go, I called that. I predicted it. Yeah.
Like, everybody effing else because it wasn't it's
it takes a special kind of stupid to
not expect the you know, if they've done
this every time, and literally every time they've
got, like, like, blinking where it's Hamas's fault.
You know, Hamas has to accept it, then
they do, and then they go, oh, Hamas
lied.
Over and over and over and over. What?
Like, 15 times now? And now in the
most uncomfortable moment, when they're caught lying about
Iran and everything else, the whole MAGA team
jumps up and goes, ceasefire. He's gonna save
the president or, excuse me, save Gaza with
the peace fire deal. I can't even talk
right now with the cease fire deal with
the president.
And they to deviate, to get you distracted,
and to make it seem like he was
maneuvering some massive peace deal, and yet again,
it turns out to be false. My point
is simply that an honest person would go,
well, I hope so. But if they've done
it every time before, then likely gonna do
it again, and here we are. There has
not been a real progress there's not there's
been no real progress at all. According to
the Palestinian negotiators,
Israel remains entrenched in its demand that it
will continue to genocide and occupation. Now, of
course, you could argue that they're lying. Certainly
could be. The point is you can look
at the actual process and see the same
things we keep talking about, that Israel is
maintaining a line that is different than what
they claim they're trying to accomplish when it
comes down to it. They and and, of
course, they always go back to things that
they know will be something that no one
will agree to. And the the point is
they don't want their people back, at least
not at all, not at the cost of
what they think they're trying to get out
of this. So the argument that they just
want their people back, and they that's not
true. And they made that clear a 100
times over. They've been killing them the entire
time. Are we still pretending the Hannibal directive
wasn't isn't isn't still in effect as far
as I'm concerned?
The point
is that they want this dynamic to continue
to appear, so it looks like they're trying
and they're always trying to stop it.
Twice, at least as far as I've seen,
they have Hamas has said, look. We'll get
out of the way. We will literally get
out of the way here, and Israel, twice
with The US, has put the language back
in.
So the argument that somehow they want Hamas
out of the way and Hamas goes, okay.
Fine. And Israel then says no and reinserts
the language that like, basically, they remove the
language that says they have to stay, and
then Israel puts it back in. That's happened
twice.
My argument was because, you know, the obvious.
They want them to be the scapegoat. They
want them to be the one that's there
they can always blame so they can keep
their genocide going, their war. And it but
it's not just Gaza, clearly.
Iran, Syria, Lebanon, you know, like all of
us promised and told you it was gonna
happen, and it's clearly actually happening.
It says Hamas has repeatedly offered concessions in
an effort to make the deal. It has
not and also agreed to relinquish governments and
governments of Gaza. Exactly. But Hamas has been
clear from the start that it will not
make an agreement that allows the continuation
of the genocide.
Why would anybody make a deal that would
allow them to continue the only thing they
wanna stop?
It says, what is happening now is that
Trump and Netanyahu are playing their same game
in public, making it seem like there's progress
when in reality, they're just engaging in their
own plots and not directly negotiating with Hamas.
It's clear from speaking to Palestinian sources involved
with negotiations
that with some minor language changes and written
guarantees from the Trump administration
that the ceasefire will continue beyond sixty days.
A deal could be signed swiftly. Israel is
only
their only impediment.
If Trump wants to achieve the release of
Israeli captains, which neither of them seem to,
he knows that he can impose a deal
on Netanyahu.
The US is is well aware of the
minimum terms that will achieve that.
True social post won't make a deal happen.
It's so embarrassing how he continues to claim,
I made this happen, and then the rest
of the world's like, that's that's not true.
It just keeps going. The US, via mediators,
has tried to get Hamas to agree to
verbal, not written assurances from the Trump admin.
At The US before strain Israel beyond a
security agreement. But Trump has engaged in mass
deception against both Hamas and Iran, and Hamas
wants all terms in writing, which that's I
mean, who in the world would take these
people at their word at this point? It
says this is one of the most recent
descriptions from Hamas officials, and you could watch
it for yourself. He says Netanyahu's lead on
negotiations.
Ron Dermer is meeting with Trump admin officials
to discuss a potential Gaza deal. If Trump
draws a line in the sand and forces
it to accept the terms everyone knows will
lead to a deal, then we could see
fast moving short of that
nothing. I'm arguing no matter what happens, Israel's
not gonna let it happen. I don't think
I think
I do agree
that Trump or the US government at large
could force something to happen because of their
control over a lot of factors,
but I do not believe they're the ones
calling the shots. You could decide for yourself.
Now this is drop site news.
Senior Hamas official, and this one is, from
the twenty ninth before that. Senior Hamas officials,
Netanyahu refuses to end the war. We will
not disarm under occupation.
Occupation.
That's a mosque. Yeah. So the point is
that they won't
same point. They won't stop
rather
I mean, just simple as it says. I'm
trying to think of another way that would
work, but they they will not stop their
engagement if there's still ongoing occupation, which that
doesn't mean the game that Israel played, where
they just kinda back away for a moment.
No. We're talking about whether boots on the
ground or, you know, the telecommunications
control, the water control, everything. That's that's occupation.
Like, the UN and everybody else who's honest
has always been talking about. But this is
just them simply saying that
if without without any of the war, that
this won't stop.
But same point. I just wanna include that
when you can read for yourself. This is
what I thought was interesting.
June 3 you know, June 30. And this
is what I was pointing out at the
time. Right? This was an uncomfortable moment for
the most part. Trump,
Nick Sorter reports breaking.
Trump will be hosting Israeli prime minister Netanyahu
at the White House next Monday. This comes
as Trump attempts to negotiate a full cease
fire in Gaza. You mean, like, he hasn't
been this entire time? Like, that statement acts
like somehow this is a new moment because
that's what these guys are their job is.
The peace president never stops.
Yeah. Except that that's not what's going on.
They've continued to Bob Gaza and there is
no deal even on the works according to
everybody other than them screaming that. My point
is they rah rah whatever Trump says. That's
who these people are.
Anything that he points to will be like,
yes. The thing. That what he said is
what everybody should want because we promised you.
It's sad, and I think that's what you're
seeing. It's everywhere. These people, their job is
to just rah rah whatever they point to.
Now chief Trumpster simply says, why would Israel
blow up this blow up this kid? Why
is well, he says, this is why people
despise Israel. This is a Trump supporter. Just
simply to show you, because, I mean, this
is a newer one. This but this happens
every day.
Another video
where you can see them have a kid
walking along and it's it's a younger kid
and he just gets bombed. Right? Well, carrying
almost like a bag of flour or something.
Every day that happens and people are starting
to call this out. Of course, it gets
very little reach because that crowd doesn't wanna
see it, it seems like. But let's not
forget
that overlapping this with other dynamics, we'll talk
about Iran next, Syria
is an important part of this, and I
include this. This is technically
not just Syria.
This article was about as Israel further occupies
Syria, the western backed ISIS patch wearing terrorists
begin executions. All these these are images directly
from Syria post the removal of Assad, and
that's their people. We've all seen this publicly.
Those are literal ISIS patches. I just wanna
include that to understand who we're actually dealing
with here. And then after the terrorists take
over, after they actually begin carrying out ethic
cleansing and murdering Christians in the ground of
Syria, which has been happening ever since, now
Trump signs an executive order finally removing the
sanctions on Syria so the terrorist organization could
start, you know, moving forward.
They held sanctions on Syria the entire time
Assad was there, even after the supposed war
ended even though it never really did, because
they wanted them to suffer the entire time.
They wanted them to continue to suffer, the
people of Syria. Now that they're continuing to
suffer under one of their terrorists, well, we
can remove the sanctions because same thing. Right?
It's just that it's not hard to recognize
what's going on. Is anybody under the illusion
that these people are not obvious terrorists?
You realize they're the people that they had
a bounty on? The people that's Hayat Chir
El Shom, the ones they said they were
fighting? I mean, how is it not possible?
I mean, how is it that there's not
even a headline somewhere? Not even one of
the corporate media platforms are willing to go,
Yeah, but they were a terror. We all
know that, though.
It's because we're being lied to in every
possible facet, in every way. And these things
what this all shows you is the continuation
of a larger agenda that goes well beyond
US interests.
And on that note, the same kind of
idea here with Iran.
Very important to understand what he's saying here,
and I'm gonna play this for you. This
is, Daniel Davis deep dive. I just followed
him today after seeing this video. Iran's nuclear
program obliterated or not? Now it's actually really
embarrassing to see how obviously we know this
is not the case, and I'll come back
to it with, alright, wars
of
the well, it's weird. Did I lose that?
Oh, it's right there.
You know, we saw we showed you this.
There's been a lot of evidence.
First of all, the fact that they knew
it was coming. The b two bombers were
everybody was reporting that. B two bombers were
flying over there. Like, you think they're stupid?
You think they don't know what those things
represent? They knew what was going on, and
I also think it's because they were warned.
I think that was quite obvious. But they,
Iranians,
the government,
clearly removed things from their facility. Now I
think that was part of the plan because
then it can allow Israel to continue and
Lindsey Graham and the rest to go, they
moved it. We can't stop until we figure
it out. Okay. And we'll come back to
the point about the potential forward direction of
this. But what's
interesting is that why then is Trump and
the rest continuing
to, like, not just double down, like, whatever
beyond that would be,
continuing to force in that it's been obliterated
even after the moment where it seemed clear
that everyone was aware that didn't really happen
because of different reports, because of satellite imagery.
But yet now he's, like, forcing it into
every interview, which is almost embarrassing. But why
is that?
You you can decide for yourself. I think
it's very obvious that they're lying about everything,
which is pretty common left and right. But
here is MIT professor Ted Postol talking about
this discussion, and it says the IAA chief
Rafael Grossi,
discussion.
This was no. This was about him and
what he said about the material and the
conversation. We'll come back in a second. Name
so, you know, chiefly that they're claiming it
was, as Trump said in many interviews, so
heavy and they couldn't move at all. It
just wouldn't it's not possible.
He has a different opinion.
MIT professor. Here's what he says.
Indication from US intelligence
that Iran was able to move any material
including No. We just the opposite.
We think we hit him so hard and
so fast. It didn't get to move. There's
public imagery available saying that highly enriched uranium
was moved out of Fordow before the strikes.
Is that accurate? Have you seen that? There's
nothing that I've seen that suggests,
that what we didn't hit exactly what we
wanted to hit.
Yeah. And as as they write there for
the podcast, it says he didn't actually answer
the question, and there's a reason they're maneuvering.
That that his answer could very well mean
exactly what we're talking about.
In those locations.
For certain that the uranium was removed from
the facility before the b two struck. So
I'm not aware of any intelligence
that I've reviewed that says things were not
where they were supposed to be. He's he's
he's so funny. Like, he just got called
out for being, like, a very emotional in
response, like, trying to chastise people for not,
you know, praising what he claims happened. And
it's it's the same thing, like the forceful
emotional argument. How dare you make you know,
not praise the monumental action of our bombers
who pressed a button in a plane. You
know? It's it's
even if it it did happen that way,
this is not some
earth shattering development. It's they bombed something. It's
not that crazy. I just think it's hilarious.
But even the way he responds right there,
they can't stand that they just go, here's
what happened. And everyone else just keeps asking
another question, but that's not what happened. The
evidence shows otherwise. And it's just funny to
watch them get, you know,
people who are megalomaniacs, people that need to
be in control, you know, think they're powerful,
can't stand it when they're showing that's not
the case. Says things were not where they
were supposed to be. And there was no
indication to The United States that any of
that enriched uranium was moved prior to the
strike. From any of the sites? Correct. And
nothing was moved from the site, by the
way. To do that is very dangerous. It's
very, very heavy material. Do you think that
the Iran regime hid some of the enriched
uranium before the strikes? No. You mean did
they take it out of the deep one?
No. Because you were pretty clear you can't
have a a weapon. You're gonna have to
come to the talk. Something's gonna happen. I
don't think they did. No. I think first
of all, it's very hard to do. How
childish is that? I just hate I can't
stand how these are supposedly adult leading journalists
who are literally go, you you made it
clear. You told them what they were allowed
to do. In what kind what do you
in what way does that even make sense?
Why is Trump telling another foreign country what
they can and can't do with things that
are not his decision to make? Things that
every country have a legal right to engage
with.
Whether whatever you think about that, whatever your
hatred towards Iran is irrational or not. It's
just sad. Like, as a journalist,
you know, you're making it sound like somehow
they're they're responsible. They should have responded. Like,
you these are all, like, all paternalism. These
people are sycophants
of the of the statist power structure, to
be clear.
It's very dangerous to do. It's very heavy,
very, very heavy. It's a very hard thing
to do, plus we didn't give much notice.
Yeah. But you did, though. And everybody talked
about it for a long time. And clearly,
it turns out that there was some back
channel communication.
But, you know, clearly, Trump's not an expert
on nuclear material like most people aren't. So
he's repeating what someone told him, obviously.
Iranians
supposedly
have about maybe 600 kilograms.
For the podcast, this is the MIT professor
in the interview. The first part, we're just
showing you the kind of lockstep narrative that
almost always turns out to be false when
that happens.
Highly enriched 60% enriched uranium
hexafluoride.
This is the gas that they would use
in the centrifuges.
Well, you could put that in one canister.
You know, these big drums that they drag
around.
You could put that on the back of
a truck
and move it. It's like moving, you know,
a ton of material on a truck. I
mean, you just have a five ton truck
or, you know, the back of a pickup
truck can almost because, you know, they're they're
trying to describe it, like, was it almost
almost an impossibility for them to get it
out there in a short amount of time?
Ridiculous.
It's just it ridiculous.
It's just trying to play
on the non expert
lack of knowledge in the public.
I don't use the term ignorance here because
there's no reason if you're not an expert,
you should know these details.
So they're trying to play
on the lack of expertise
of an interested
and intelligent
audience.
What are you talking about here? This is
ridiculous.
They have these canisters that they use to
store uranium hexafluoride.
One canister can carry all the uranium hexafluoride,
load it on a truck, drive it into
a a deep tunnel somewhere.
So that's not only plausible, it's likely that
that's what occurred. Likely. I mean, these guys
are out there pouring concrete
days before an attack or weeks before an
attack. You mean they're not gonna move this
stuff where they know we know the location
because the International Atomic Energy Agency publishes
the location data.
And the Iranians
have been following the agreement to keep the
International Atomic Energy Agency informed. They have announced
that they will no longer keep the International
Atomic Energy Agency informed.
Now we know nothing about their program. They
could be right now enriching that uranium
to a bomb at a rate, I would
say, if they only had a small centrifuge,
one twentieth
the site at Fordow,
they could be enriching 60%
to 90% in uranium
to 25 kilograms
of 90%
in uranium
once a week.
Bomb a week at this point with next
to no enrichment capabilities, you know, with a
small fragment of their capabilities. Now who who
understands
the state of the Iranian program
would not advise
a military
group of officers.
It was destined to fail.
Now what's important to point out is it's
the argument somehow it's it's funny how the
argument is always that Iran is super, super
close to a bomb, but then at the
same time, they're backward and not technologically advanced
and so, you know, unaware. See, it's they're
contradictory points. The reality is that they are
one of the most technologically advanced countries in
the world. They very clearly have they know
what they're the point is to make it
simple. Yes. If they really wanted to, they
could they could drive to that end point.
And that's what they've made clear for a
very long time, that if we if we
wanted to, we
could. My the the what I understand, and
I would obviously bow to the MIT professor,
is that the amount that they were reaching
to
was not the level they had to reach,
as he pointed out, to, as I understand
it, 90%,
that's but I'm not an expert, has to
be reached before they can then produce the
material needed to make the bomb. So there's
steps involved well before even getting to that
point.
But as he's pointing out, if they wanted
to, and I argue that makes sense because
of how they're they're not it's not like
they're struggling to get there for the first
time. This is about the the technology that
they've had, that they've been able to and
they just chose not to do it. Now
you can disagree with that. It's certainly possible
they're lying. I've never argued otherwise. But the
facts and the evidence clearly show otherwise even
from our own government. And so what's interesting
is you're simply going, all this has done
is drive them to a position at where
they've never had more reason to do so.
And now when they're not even working with
the group that's supposed to be looking to
make sure, which nobody else is really have
to apply, nobody cares about that other than
you know, basically, that's a group that's abused
against certain people as we've seen for a
very long time. But here we are now,
and now they're gonna use the not the,
you know, the IAEA
not monitoring to the very to say, here
we are. Now we know. Now they're gonna
do it because now they're hiding. The very
group has been lying about it for decades,
saying that we can see it. They're about
to do it, and they haven't over and
over and over. And now when the first
time if now you can't, now that's gonna
be the argument why they are they've lied
to you every time up until now. It's
just it's so infuriating that we're even here
still even talking about this. That's, again, not
even I did already, but that's include as
well
that they have every right to do so
like every other country in this in the
world. It's the obvious reality.
Things matter.
And what you just described a little bit
about what they're doing with the uranium now
has been called an impossibility
by everyone in the administration, basically, from from
a tough one down.
They can have, in a matter of months,
I would say,
a few cascades of,
centrifuges
spinning and producing
enriched uranium
or less than that.
But, as I said,
frankly speaking, one cannot claim that everything has
disappeared
and there is nothing there.
Right.
Same point. Right? That the argument that it's
obliterated, it's gone. It's it's just
no matter what perspective you're coming from, it's
just not true. So why are they so
aggressive about it? I I, more and more
every day, am starting to just think incompetence.
I just it's hard not to continue to
see how
inept most of these people are right now.
I could go off with 15 examples. I've
always said about Trump that he just he's,
you know,
he'll guide by his hubris and will be
put bluster into things that make him look
really stupid. And not to say he's necessarily
stupid. I mean, he's he in some ways,
I find him to be quite intelligent, but
in others, not. My point is just simply
that why are they continuing to double down
on this argument? I think it's because that's
an or I think there's some overlap with
Israel on the foreign policy point that's driving
that or I I don't know. I really
don't. But I think it's obvious to point
out they're lying to you, and that really
does matter in this conversation. Now, again, we
already saw this. This is from June 22.
16 cargo trucks gathered near the entrance to
the Fordow Richford plant. You think they don't
see them? Maxar is like a CIA cutout.
That's the platform that shows this. And they're
gonna pretend they don't. So what do you
think they were doing there? And they haven't
even tried to acknowledge that. People say they
go, no. I didn't do this. It's not
possible.
So there's there's something going on.
Now here's what Trump had to say today
or rather it was posted today. I think
it was either from yesterday or today because
it's around Alligator Alcatraz is where they are.
We're gonna talk about that at the end.
It's you know, we'll get to it. It's
just another example of exactly what we're telling
you and you you should get ready for
Americans to go to Alcatraz. He says, we'll
get whatever we want from Iran.
Okay.
You know, it's it's fun to scream the
things that we want people to think, but,
you know, facts matter, don't they? Pretty sure
you're not just gonna get what you want.
I'm pretty sure that you guys have been
put on your back feet every single time.
I mean, look at the facts. Look at
the outcome. If you stand back and look
at what actually happened, it's clear that Israel
got knocked back again. And and Iran was
clearly standing in the upper they had the
upper hand in that dynamic based on what
they bombed, what they successfully shut down. And
there's arguments that go even further about what
they got. They have headquarters of Assad in,
the one of their main locations in regard
to how they produce their nuclear weapons.
I mean, clearly, what they claim happened in
Iran, if they have to lie about it,
was not as severe. I mean, it's hard
to see. You know? You never really know
what the full picture is because they're always
all lying to you, all of them. But
at the end of the day, to say
we'll get whatever we want is just more
bluster.
I think that shows weakness.
But he wants it too. I will tell
you. He's coming here next week.
He wants to end it too. We had
a tremendous success with Iran.
This morning, happy. Somebody said, when are you
gonna sign?
Said, sign? They are so bombed out.
Did you see the So in case you
missed the first part, they're basically saying, we're
gonna get to the ceasefire. We'll see. We're
gonna, you know, sign.
Yeah. We don't need to sign anything
because we bombed them away. They can't do
anything anymore. It's not true. So that's you
got when you really try to, you know,
doth protest too much kind of a point,
that really
the point is you don't have a deal.
You're trying to make it look like you're
the fast moving dealmaker. It's all about to
fall into place.
Well, every right now, that seems to constantly
be a lie about what whether it's Pakistan,
whether it's whether it's Gaza, whether it's Israel,
Iran. He just keeps claiming all of these
these deals, and most people stand back and
go I mean, almost every time, a leader
of these countries have stood up and said,
that's just not true.
That seems like a desperate kind of, I
need to be the center of attention point.
I mean, that's who Trump is. Let's be
honest about that. The report issued this morning,
the place was decimated.
It'll be years before anybody even gets down
there.
So
that's not a priority, but we'll have a
report, and we'll have a whatever we want.
We'll get from whatever we want from Iran.
And I think and I hope they wanna
have a good country. You know, they have
massive I hope they wanna have a good
country.
So your implication is we'll destroy that country
if we don't get what we want. It's
just these people are authoritarian,
belligerent,
you know, stormtrooper. They like, their mind is
violence. We'll take what we want no matter
what, and that's called freedom.
I mean, there's there's gonna be six of
the points today that show you the same
damn thing. This is not what we pretend
that we represents America.
The idea that we can just threaten entire
countries of destruction or we're gonna get that
that's Israel, guys. And welcome to The United
States Of Israel. It's what it feels like
right now. Sanctions right now. Biting sanctions.
It's gonna be very hard for them to
do anything with those sanctions. And And okay.
And and even on top of that,
they're very clearly admitting to you that they're
using sanctions as a punitive tool. They're they're
using them to force Iran to do what
they want, not because of some human rights
file. Even that, though, would be unilateral
and
illegal has been. I've talked about this so
many times. The idea that one country can
just level sanctions from in a global sense
against they're illegal, but more than just The
US do it.
The point is, guys, that is exactly what
shows you the case, that they're going, we're
gonna just sanction them because they don't do
what we want them to do. He just
said that.
That's just that that is
what's the best word for it? Authoritarian.
It's just it's belligerent.
Right? You're there's no legal mesh mechanism there.
There's no you're not within international law. You're
just go it's it's strong-arm tactics. You're saying,
give me what we want or we're gonna
make you suffer. That's what villains do. That's
what the bad guy does, if you wanna
make it as simple as possible. I look
forward to maybe there'll be a time when
we get along with them and they can
rebuild their country. What is there a point
where you tell where you tell them not
having let you go? What if I I
thought you were saving the Iranian people. As
your argument, like like
Giuliani says, that we we're gonna starve them
to death until we get what we want,
and then that will be them being saved
from what you created?
It's wild. It's it's like pretending that you
saved the ceasefire from something that you started.
You're not a peace president if you just
put a pause on what you created or
allowed to happen.
Just it's just it's wild that people argue.
You gotta end this now. You gotta strike
a deal. He wants to. I can tell
you he wants to, and I think we'll
have it. I think we'll have a deal
next week.
That's what I think.
And if it and if it is a
deal that's made, it
hard not to see that going in the
exact same direction as all the others, which
is that they don't adhere to any part
of it, expect the other side to blindly
accept it, and then they don't, and then
they get blamed for how it failed even
though Israel had violated every day since it
started. That's not my opinion. You can look
at every single example. Lebanon just never even
got discussed. Craig Murray was documenting this every
day. They're bombing things. Nobody even brought it
up. They violated it every single day.
There is nothing sacred to these people. They
will violate whatever they need to to get
what they want. Now what's hilarious I mean,
all horrifying and hilarious at the same time.
Marco Rubio and this is not a new
clip, but it's important to see the way
they frame these things. Khaleesi shared this today.
We sanction this is Marco Rubio. We sanction
Iran
because they believe,
Imam Mandi will lead a excuse me,
a final war
against the West and rule the world.
This isn't politics. It's an apocalypse.
She says, they've lost the plot over Iran.
That's Israel, guys. That that is quite literally
what Israel believes. And right now, most of
Trump's cabinet.
That's not hyperbolic. Heg Hegseth and Maccabee and
Basen these people are Zionist,
bib
religious Zionists.
They are trying to pretend that Iran that
I mean, this might as well be exactly
what Israel is saying. I mean, it is.
That and realize from their Zionist perspective that,
like, I keep talking about, the ideas that
they need like, I I should even just
play this clip. Let me show you the
next one,
and I'll I'll play
a, the clip.
I think I've got it here. Let me
see.
Guess not.
I thought I had it in there.
Shoot. I bet you I can look it
up real quick. It's just a you've seen
it before. It's just an important clip to
to see
different, you know, rabbis and people influential.
Here it is, I think.
Yeah. Let me grab this. And I'll I'll
I'll show you one more, and then I'll
play this really quickly just to get you
to see, you know, in case you haven't
seen it, the mindset about how bringing on
the end times is essentially what Israel
needs and wants.
So let me play this clip, and I'll
play this one too.
Or yeah. This on top of that, I'll
I'll I'll go back to this. I'll make
the I'll make this fit in. This is
something Jones put out, talking about the dangers
of the Muslims world's evil expansionist theocracy threatening.
You know? Yeah. There's elements of that. Sure.
But I think what's interesting is the obvious
nature of what entity is trying to overthrow
the world and control everything. And in many
cases, the most extreme Muslim overlap elements are
being funded, influenced, and driven into reality by
the Zionist entity.
Not a secret if you actually pay attention
to all this, but here's what Rubio had
to say about this concern of Iran
overtaking the world. To their interpretation
of of of prophecy, believe that it is
their calling to trigger this apocalyptic showdown.
And therefore, when they recruit fighters, what they
are recruiting them for is to be a
part of this army that is going to
trigger this final showdown between the West and
Islam, that Islam will win and then the
whole world will be governed under that their
set of rules led by the emergence of
the twelfth imam, the the the Mahdi, their
their messianic figure.
Why is this important for us to understand?
And why is that important for the next
secretary of state to understand?
Because when you understand that you realize these
are not people you can negotiate with. These
are not these are individuals with an apocalyptic
vision of the future. That sure sounds familiar.
But I guess he doesn't have that same
opinion about anybody that has an apocalyptic vision
of the future. Just if just the wrong
country with the wrong skin color. And they
will not stop until they feel they have
succeeded in triggering this apocalypse.
It, by the way, is similar to the
views held by the Ayatollah in Iran. And
so when people that have an apocalyptic vision
of the future
are growing in their capabilities in the case
of ISIS or trying to acquire a nuclear
weapon in the case of Iran,
you understand why it is that in many
cases, diplomacy and engagement does not work. And
in the
Very interesting.
So I'll just play this next and we'll
go to Jones's tweet. So think about what
he just said.
Days. You're gonna need the
iron of
Esav, which represents Edom, which is the West,
Europe, and The Americas,
to get intermixed
with Ishmael, which is basically Arabs and Muslims.
How in the world was this ever gonna
happen if not for this refugee crisis? At
the end of days, you're gonna have this
intermixing between Esav,
Edom, which is the West, and the East,
which is the Muslims and the,
and the Arabs,
making this through this influx into the world.
They're gonna have a a far
larger birth rate than the indigenous people there,
and they're going to sort of conquer by
number. And they're Okay. So on that point
alone,
you must be able I mean, you should
consider
that the immigration
crisis that even even the very argument coming
from the right leaning side of this, they
they will not replace you know, what? And
that's not even I that does not represent
all conservatives. Not even remotely. There's there's a
very clear, you know,
republican leaning argument in a lot of that
that
it is a weaponized migration dynamic to remove
the white people from the conversation.
I mean, isn't that not what he's exactly
talking about right there? Now that's not that's
not to say that it's true or not.
You can consider that for yourself. I just
think it's fascinating from an object kind of
a overview that you have people out there
who are arguing that that's what's happening, and
then you could listen to Israeli leaders, Israeli
rabbi I mean, is rabbis or any number
of people across this conversation that will literally
say that that that's what we need to
happen. That's what we're driving into reality. And
the weaponized migration discussion goes back a long
way. We've talked about it many times. We
can quite literally prove that Israel was involved
with that, stoking this reality. Even the point
we just made, which has now come up
back again, trying to use it about Iran,
of the guy who was caught at the
border claiming he was Palestinian. They just casually
got that part out this time to make
it about Iran,
who was a mess who worked for Mossad,
who got caught in Egypt working for Mossad,
and he keeps coming to the border trying
to pretend to be a Palestinian.
I mean, we have to put this picture
together. Many different sources for this where there
will be many, many people killed and so
on and so forth. So
the idea of having these refugees come into
Europe, it's no longer a matter of whether
it's right or wrong. It's just simply a
fulfillment of what it was meant to be
all along. This is a fulfillment of, you
know, the Rehazad and the prophecies.
This has to happen, and this is just
another sign that we are nearing, you know,
the completion of the stikhood of the entire
world. But we know one thing, right? That
when it comes to the classic Rome,
you know, which is Europe,
they're finished.
And you don't have to be a prophet
or a great analysis for that. You have
to open the view, the the the the
TV or the Internet and see that exactly
what was prophesied then, that the sons of
Ishmael are gonna go and cause cause havoc
around the world.
So France is completely barbecued.
England is next. Now half of Europe is
completely
half dead. Now look what's going on in
America.
So, you know, now in a country
near you. Asking what's gonna be with the
Goyim when Moshiach comes. Will they be destroyed
and annihilated?
Someone asked, who cares?
Goyam being anybody not Jewish.
Okay.
As a nation, they'll cease to exist even
as individuals.
Every individual,
those survivors,
not only as a nation, they'll cease to
exist, even as individual. In modern terminology,
they call
it cultural genocide.
They'll be annihilated as a
They basically learn there's gonna be cultural genocide.
You know what? The goyim is the goyim
as they exist as goyim
that's
done with. Mhmm.
Now imagine
being unwilling to call this stuff out.
Wild.
Now I just think that point is shockingly
obvious. You know? The the reality of what
that is. I mean, I just hope to
be in the point that there's a sentiment
being driven by a Zionist led organization
that is very clearly try you know, about
what is happening
in real time. And then what's interesting
is that the people in this country that
clearly, the government and, you know, the parties
who have been very shockingly obviously infiltrated by
that Zionist entity are now turning around and
saying, Muslims are the problem, and they're the
ones doing what then completely creates the endpoint.
I mean, it just it's very much worth
your time to consider. But the bottom line
is that facts matter in all of this,
and they're lying about what's really going on
in regard to all these foreign policy dynamics.
This is not my opinion.
You can literally prove this stuff. And so
we see a lot of people out there
just deceiving and lying about this conversation.
Jones on the twenty ninth put out, must
watch, a Ronnie woman calls in, which, you
know,
due diligence why I shared it with this
Imit, this clip.
Due diligence matters. Some random person calls in
the show and what tells you about all
the evils of the Iranian government. There are
plenty of people that disagree with the Iranian
government. Very few that I know that want
anybody else to step in and do something
about it. But he says, warns about the
dangers of the Muslim world's evil expansionist theocracy
threatening to subjugate humanity.
Now, yeah, there are plenty of people that
have this mindset, but you have to understand
most of the groups you could point to,
ISIS and Al Qaeda. Yeah. You know, you
already know. They're US and Israeli proxies. That's
the reality, and you hide from these things.
The and I'm not gonna say that there
are not people that believe this or even
drink their own Kool Aid or come to
it their own accord. There are Christian Zionists
who have similar perspectives. The point is it's
not about what what they're trying to force
it into. It is about anybody,
anybody with a evil expansionist theocratic threatening to
subjugate the world. That matters. Right? Weird how
it only gets pointed out in one context.
The point though is about
how obviously if you're gonna make it an
issue about evil expansionist theocracy,
how do you not include Israel with their
public conversation
about what they want to accomplish, about that
exact thing? It's just it's the point is
you don't need to be a brain surgeon
to recognize that it's obviously dishonest to make
it about one side of the conversation. And
I think it's important as,
Keith here, conspiracy
synergy makes you check out his outstanding work,
made a point about this. We we we
know a lot of people that have come
from the from that you know, I've interviewed
David Knight. Greg Reese has been on AM
Waco. We've talked he's talked about this. He
even just recently chimed in. We know of,
True Street Media. We know of Jason Burmes.
We know of Richard Grove. And every one
of these people that once overlapped with Infowars
have all said the same thing. And I'll
let him speak for himself.
Lack of due diligence.
I am going to share a community story
from our friend Richard Grove when he was
at the Infowars studio
behind the scenes because of his documentary that
he just felt making state of mind. And
the commentary that he gave observing that studio
firsthand
was that they don't check their facts. They
basically just run with it, and they do
it way too fast. It's the same reason
that, like, David Knight left the organization because
he's like, yo. Yeah. And the fucking truth
street kids. Yeah. Yeah. So that's the thing.
It's like, it's a nonstop thing. He's been
like this for so fucking long. It's maddening.
It's it's just
ridiculous. For for a number of reasons, but
Yeah. But, you know, after the loose with
what was going on was one of the
reasons Burmas gave for leaving Infowars back in
the day too.
You gotta you have to you know, obviously,
this matters. Or Bill Cooper
saying he's a fraud before he leaves the
scene,
which very clearly happened. You can look it
up for yourself. Now more in the conversation
of Iran and the misrepresentation
of that.
The IAEHE,
the the International Atomic Energy Agency chief,
says Iran could resume enriching uranium within months,
which is I mean, it it's not hard.
So two things this means.
Obviously, that's the case seeing as how they
did not destroy everything that they use. You
know? So and and enriching uranium is used
for civilian programs too. The point is simply
that, obviously, they could resume
their effort to do so, and within months,
be back to doing what they were doing,
which shows you that they didn't obliterate anything,
but also that it's it's not a a
a indictment of anything. It's simply just the
obvious reality that that is the case, that
they didn't destroy it all, and that they
can go back to doing it. Now what's
funny about it is that this has been
turned into things like this.
Irish star. Iran, months from a bomb, which
is not the same thing. You understand? Now,
yeah, even the MIT professor alluded to the
fact that it should they want to, that
they could I think it's always been that
case. I think they've always been in a
position to be able to do so because
they are technologically
able to. They just don't want to and
the evidence shows that they have. And if
you don't understand, it comes from as they
state anyway, question it, a religious perspective that
they don't believe that that's what should be
done. And evidence does back that up regardless
of your personal opinions.
But this gets framed as months from a
bomb even though it does even though Rafael
Grassi from the UN watchdog says Iran could
be capable of restarting its production
in months.
How is that the same thing as months
from a bomb? You see, my point is
it seems that people are interested in trying
to create the dynamic again, which feels very
dishonest to me about creating the narrative that
Netanyahu will use to continue doing what he's
doing.
Now there's a few other examples of this
that just show you the kind of thing
we get from the US government and from
Israel or any other The UK and all
the other governments that lie to you as
a matter of policy. US reacts to calls
for execution from the of the International Atomic
Energy chief. Now it wouldn't surprise me for
a second if people called for this because
that's I mean, Trump or Rubio or Graham,
they do that every day about people. It's
it's obviously not that shocking to see people
who are belligerent do belligerent things. But what
I think is interesting is that you you
get these statements from Lindsey Graham, for example.
Assassinate Kamat like a mini. Like like, that's
not a big shocking statement. And if it
says about him or Trump, it's the end
of the world, which we'll get to next.
What's interesting is that it's obviously
valid to point out from either side. But
when it's clear on one and the other
side, they have to sort of fudge the
truth to make up the case, it shows
you something.
Secretary Rubio has condemned reports in the in
Iran to execute, reported calls in Iran to
execute the,
chief of the IAEA.
Rubio's comments came after Iranian newspaper, Keihan, reportedly
accused Grossi of spying for Israel, which, guys,
it's been pretty obviously pointed out. There's been
evidence of them relaying internal information to Israel,
which is not supposed to be legally allowed,
as well as the fact that they're using
Palantir's program,
which is being used in other ways, whether
it's their fault, whether it's their involvement or
not. Palantir is easily working through them. It's
obvious that they're a compromised entity at this
point, and I've said that for a long
time.
That is but that's not the same as
saying that everybody there is aware of that
and is acting in that same direction. Right?
Because there are individuals that do these things
that had do the point is there's been
report that claimed they're not making seeking a
bomb. So you have to factor the nuance
into it. But it says,
basically accusing him of spying for Israel and
suggested that if he enters the country of
Iran,
he should be tried and executed.
Now, yes, he does execute, but think of
how different that is than saying they're, you
know, just calling to kill the guy. Right?
What they're saying is the same thing you
hear from everybody in this country or rather
our governments.
If you're caught as a spy, you realize
that's treason. Right? Or I guess, well, you
know, in that same wheelhouse and the
crime of the of being caught as a
spy is death or the the punishment.
That's not a new thing. Now, today, we
try to act like we're in some new
part of the society or the world and
that we don't do that anymore even if
Trump's bringing back the death sentence. You know,
it's the point is you can all have
your different opinions, and it's a nuanced conversation
about people who, you know, think that we
should have the right to put someone to
death for murder. It's a it's a debatable
conversation. What I think is interesting is if
a spy enters The United States who is
literally trying to subvert the country,
what do you think they'll do? You know,
to call for it to be tried,
go through court,
and then held accountable for the crime is
what he's really saying. That's what would be
the charge and the crime. But, see, if
if you stand up and make this about
the evil terrorist, Iran, what killed the innocent
person, and don't give all the context, it
sort of makes it sound evil. Right?
You tell me you can't see the exact
thing being stated by I mean, Trump and
the rest are so bombastic about it. They
always try to push the envelope. In this
case, that's
exactly what would be the actual accountability for
that crime.
I just think it's so frustrating how easy
it is to expose these very dishonest people.
Why couldn't Rubio just literally say that he
said that they would try him and put
him in prison because that would suggest that
they're willing to put him through a court
process, which makes it pretty clear that they're
not the belligerent maniacs you try to make
them out to be. I'm willing to bet
you if they had the situation reversed, they
would not be a court process.
Worth considering. We're seeing it right now with
immigration.
Alex Jones comes up and says the Iranian
news is reporting that this news is the
the Iranian news is reporting this news for
those in doubt. Interesting way to say that.
I mean, this is him, like, trying to
not make it seem like he you know,
this is important for my my opinion for
someone like him to push this idea because
this is their agenda, like, their side in
pushing the idea, but doesn't wanna make it
clear that he's blindly supporting the government agenda
and their narrative. So it just kinda says
the thing is being stated.
I'm not saying one way or the other,
but it says top Iran cleric declares Trump
and Netanyahu enemies of God in New Fatwa.
And then here he is saying incoming alert,
Iran issues fatwa against Trump. Iran's grand Ayatollah,
one of the most senior she the clerics,
has issued a ruling declaring that threats against
Khamenei by president Trump amount to war against
Islam.
Now you watch for yourself.
The whole thing is about this is supposed
to be representative of how bad they are
and how belligerent and how theocratic and how,
you know, they're all terrorists, except for the
fact that if you look into it, which
we'll next, and and realize that that's exactly
what your government's saying about them, and they've
already called to assassinate Kamini more than once.
It's just funny how easy people are to
be manipulated by what they want to believe
or that you're somehow superior, that your crimes
are not as bad as their crimes or
your crimes don't even amount to crimes because
you're doing it for freedom. You know, whatever
our childish dynamics are.
But this is interesting. I asked Grock, has
a top cleric in Iran
issued a thought? Were they killed Trump? And
it simply says, yes. Reports indicate that he'd
done that, which it's obvious. And, again, I
will not trust Grock. It's about trying to
use Grock to make a point. The evidence
is clear. We can it's a public statement
you can read, but it says, it was
published by Iranian state media, and there's links
right here, by the way.
To read the full thing, just the top
part says, yes. Reports indicate that that has
happened and issued a FAQA declaring US president
Donald Trump and Israeli Ben and Netanyahu
as enemies of God for threatening Iran's leader.
Now it says the FAQA, published by Iranian
state media, calls on Muslims worldwide to oppose
these leaders
with some interpretation suggesting it permits their assassination,
though the wording does not explicitly order their
deaths.
Oh, wait a minute. So, they came out
and said that they're enemies and that they
they're saying that makes many of God? And
then other people who want you to think
that, they turned it into but they to
assassination, but it didn't explicitly say that? Yes.
Isn't that funny how that works out? It
says it states that anyone threatening the Islamic
leadership is a warlord and that corporation
cooperation
with such enemies is forbidden.
Aside from fatwa and harem and the word
that make you feel like it's a bunch
of terrorists because you're ignorant of the conversation,
How is that not exactly what our governments
are
doing? They're trying to kill president Trump, and
they're terrorists, and we have to take them
out.
You know, if you can't wrap your mind
around how it's like the exact or I
mean, to be even more clear, you have
the US government openly calling for the assassinations
of people who they claim are terrorists. In
many cases, they're just people they disagree with.
On this side of it, you got them
saying they're warlords who are enemies of God.
And and the people who want to interpret
a certain way are claiming it's assassination, but
it doesn't actually say that. Doesn't that matter?
Not the people like Jones, apparently.
And on top of that, we're talking about
those sleeper cell narrative. I just include this
to get my mind on it. Don't forget
how funny it was that they came out
and claimed these were sleeper cells. This guy
is a Trump supporter. It was covered in
a bunch of different conversations,
and he was basically upset that they tried
this they're calling him out as a terrorist
when he's a Iranian guy that used to
work for the Iranian military who lives in
this country and supports Trump. I've made this
point before. Now they can turn like, is
it if there was a ex UK sniper
that lived in this country, would that be
immediately suspect of being a criminal? No.
So why is it this? Because you've been
convinced that Iranians are terrorists. I don't know
why that makes sense to anybody. The point
is that, yeah, it's it's worth I'm sure
that anybody with military background is somehow on
some kind of a watch list or whatever
the our government watch all of us anyway.
Not to say we should disregard it, but
I think it's actually insane that this guy
turns out to be a vast Trump supporter.
And on top of that, their argument is
he's part of a sleeper cell.
He was found with his ID on him.
And I said, we said because it's customary
for these sleeper cell operatives to carry Iranian
military identification?
Seems pretty silly to me, but can question
everything. Who knows? Right? But what's interesting as
as, Orville, I think, pointed out to me,
this is from June 30. A 1,500
Israeli soldiers will attend Jewish summer camps in
North America this year. We must oppose this
normalization of genocide.
Mondo Weiss. Which I agree with. I'm just
saying it's funny that the concern
is about I mean, the bottom line is
these are people
that are Israeli soldiers that have been committing
genocide
every day,
and they're gonna be here in this country
for what reason? What does that how does
this make sense in any real sense? My
point is simply to consider that if we're
gonna talk about sleeper cells, and you've got
a military
actively breaking the law every chance it gets,
actively committing genocide, carrying out surreptitious secret
cyber pager attacks or you know? And they're
gonna be in this country
while we have an upcoming July 4 threat
we're all talking about.
Maybe we should be broadening our perspective on
what might be involved in this sleeper cell
dynamic.
Just something worth pointing out.
Now a couple of other points. Haratz
reports today, the IDF says missiles from Yemen
have been intercepted.
Now this is important. The way Yemen is
playing an interesting role in all of this.
And I think they're continuing to show that
they are not going to back down and
that this is much bigger than one country
and one argument, one propaganda campaign. You know,
Israel has effectively opened up all these fronts
of war. And at some point, it's going
to I mean, I don't see how, at
some point, these people don't get together and
simply argue that it's in their interest to
have a unified front against this, which is,
by the way, what the whole Abraham Accords
and the and the normalization was all about.
They're trying to subvert these countries, rather the
leaderships of these countries, which I'll get into
in another show, appears as if these people
that got the leadership of these countries are
well aware that they no longer have the
majority support of their countries
because of what they're doing. And that's why
they're what? Qatar is where you are, you
know, The UAE. They're they're getting a billion
plus dollars from The US or to the
US government.
There's there's like, these are, like, protection rackets
going on right now, and I think it's
clear that at some point, this is going
to fall against them, and they're gonna try
to turn it into terrorism against the West
when in reality, they have been effectively constantly
bombing, subverting,
carrying out genocides against all of these countries,
and there's no justification for it. Mensah simply
points out, yes, there are missiles being launched
in Israel, sirens incoming. This was this was
today, middle of the day.
So we'll see what continues to happen. I
do believe this is going to get worse.
They're gonna use the Yemen point to simply
no. You know what? On a side note,
it's also worth considering that this was a
a claim that they'll use to spin into
something they wanna do. It's always worth questioning
whether these are being lied about, But it
honestly wouldn't surprise me at all. It makes
sense that Yemen would be stepping into it
like they have been every time before this.
Like, the only country in the world that
seems to be
aware of the of what's at stake, aware
of what the legal international
dynamic is showing, and
regardless of how much they're suffering because of
it, standing their ground. It's commendable.
Now, let's talk about this overlap with, you
know, there's some foreign policy I wanted to
make sure we were covering.
Now the rest of this very clearly does
continue to overlap with all of that. All
that kept in mind. Let's talk about
it Elon Musk's overlap with that very dynamic,
which should not be ignored,
and the bill discussion and how that plays
into it and how that overlaps with the
AI point, which then overlaps with immigration. And
all this is all it's interesting how all
this is connected.
Al Jazeera, this is to get to set
this in your mind. Elon Musk's Israel trip.
What did the what was the purpose? What
did he tell Netanyahu?
Ever since that trip, we all saw something
shift.
You can decide what that means. But clearly,
there's something different going on in all this.
And now with his kind of pulled away,
you know, I'm not sure how to take
what's going on right now. Also include this,
Elon Musk jokes about Nazis after Netanyahu defends
him as great friend of Israel. It's just
so funny. You just can't miss the fact
that out of everybody, oh, the ADL will
come out and say, we have to give
them the benefit of the doubt. I mean,
they never do that. In fact, they'll accuse
people who are not being racist in any
way for being so because they don't like
what their politics are. But Elon Musk will
come out whatever you think about what he
intended to do, it's exactly what it looks
like, and come out and go, no. He
didn't mean it. It's just it's just almost
it's hilarious.
The point is clearly,
they're aligned with their agendas.
So So Elon Musk, and this is what
I meant about not clear not sure how
to place all of this. He came out
on this on the twenty eighth and said,
polls show that this bill, the the big
Trump bill,
is political suicide
for the Republican party.
And I'm gonna get into some of the
more statements, but just right out of the
gate, I'm going okay. So he pulls away
from this. I mean, remember, my earlier thoughts
I just my my thoughts. Not that I
can prove this or even that I feel
that you know, I'm kind of on the
fence to be honest, but my what I'm
leaning toward, what makes sense is that Elon
Musk was kind of
tactically moved aside because he was causing so
much strife and so much focus. Now even
can we all just notice that since he's
kinda stepped away, it's at least to some
degree calm down, like, in that sphere? I
mean, like, in the sense of, like, the
way that the social media like, the way
he the way he was driving it felt,
yeah, like hair on fire. Like it felt
really cray you
know, it just felt belligerent and it felt
kind of like out of sorts. Now, he's
pulled away a little bit. My point was
I feel like that was sort of tactical.
Like you're we can't achieve this with your
face in front of everybody. It's become too
much of a focal point.
Or maybe they did split because of some
debate, you know, or some like, they don't
like each other, which I think was already
the case before it started. Like with Vance
and Gabbard and RFK, seemingly everybody was in
a circle that right before they were best
teammates, they hated Trump and said so publicly
many times. Or Rubio. You know, they called
each other. It's just so weird how that
works. But my point is to question whether
or not this is
coordinated,
even if it does very clearly seem like
they're currently feuding. Just always consider that. Think
consider the the unlikely. Right? But what do
you think this means? Why suddenly are they
at at feuding?
Do you think it is genuine? I really
do want your opinions. Do you think that
this is something that is actually, you know,
a a hindrance to what they're trying to
accomplish? And if that's the case, how does
it make sense? Because let's not forget,
Elon Musk is a massive contractor. Now, yes,
Trump is flirting, which I'll show you in
a second, with the idea of removing all
of his subsidies, which is not the same
as his contracts.
But it's, you know, you're opening a door
to something there.
Whether it happens or not will make a
big difference. But this guy is immersed.
Like, the Elon Musk is
this, you know, the military contractor dynamic. Elon
Musk is this huge part of, like, Starlink
and the the satellite dynamic and the, you
know, NRO and their satellite spy network.
Neuralink I mean, even the AI point, he
is like you can't decouple him, I think,
from most of what's happening, despite the fact
that I think he was pushed away from
Tesla. Like, all these things just seem, you
know, there's so much these things are highly
used mostly not relevant to the bigger point,
which is why I haven't been going into
them. But what does it mean to you?
You know? Like, the the like, it and
also one more point before I go to
the rest of it. Stand back and look
how embarrassing it is. These people, like Cactu
or the rest or Benny Johnson that will
come out and be like, the thing, whatever
they just said. Tesla, test Cybertruck, we're all
behind it. And then now half of them
are like, Elon Musk is a traitor, and
he's not America first.
So were you all just children following along
with whatever you were told? Did you suddenly
change your mind? Why? He's doing the same
thing he's always done. Is it only whether
or not he's blindly following Trump? Then that
makes it only about Trump. Like, it's just
you can't not see
how clearly these people will go along with
everything they're told to do.
Massey said things bad. Now Massey's bad guy.
Like, it's just so clear.
So I just think it's interesting to think
about that and how clearly suddenly you know,
now, like, Tesla was gonna save the world
and cyber trucks are the best thing in
the world. All of a sudden, he's, like,
he's pushed out of the company and the
company's doing it's just
there's something going on. So Elon Musk's polls
show that this bill is political suicide. You
can look at the the dynamics. I think
it's clearly not in the interest of Americans
for a thousand reasons, but that's not in
a unique opinion. Elon Musk says every member
of congress who campaigned, this was yesterday,
who campaigned on reducing government spending, which was
the whole point. Right? And then immediately voted
for the biggest debt increase in history,
isn't that what he hated Massey for saying,
should hang their head in shame. Now also
ask why he didn't really make these points
while he was still overlap with the government,
where there was a lot of ongoing build
building toward this. He started to, but it
says, and they will lose their primary next
year if it's the last thing I do
on this Earth. Now that that's interesting. That's
him now saying he will fight to remove
them from politics,
which is interesting seeing as how he's tech
technically still part of the government regardless of
what they the court the supreme the ruling
actually made that clear. Regardless of you stepping
away, you're you're technically part of this administration.
And on top of that, that
him challenging or trying to work against politicians
with his influence and his money. There's all
sorts of weird overlapping conflicts there.
This says, please support Massey. And then he
says, I will. Yeah.
I'm telling you, there's something off about this
to me. This feels very contrived, and I'll
I'll make my point about that in a
second.
He says, in in and this is all
later in the day, yesterday,
if this insane spending bill passes, the America
party, the America party will be formed the
next day.
And there you go. The shoe drops. Our
country needs an alternative to the Democrat Republican
unit party. How long have I been telling
you this was coming? So that the people
actually have a voice. They tried to do
it with their kinda spin off MAGA movement,
didn't work. You know? And I I think
this is about creating. And, you know, look,
very well could be
possibly that he just is doing this.
That that he genuinely just is mad mad,
which then would argue more of the kinda
split deviation of of what we're seeing today.
But something tells me just history, and we
should at least consider that this was all
manufactured to create the logical next step into
the third party that will change everything,
which, I mean, a lot of us have
been kind of wondering when that shoe would
drop. When will they, you know, drive you
into the new because the point is a
lot of us been asking for a long
time. Why don't people go into another party?
Well, it's not gonna you know, why waste
your vote? Which is always so embarrassing to
me when they're telling you every vote matters.
But why haven't they just created that? You
know, just artificially driven out the new third
party and then driven so you think you've
changed everything.
That's what I think this probably is. Just
it's worth considering.
Now oh, wait. Did I read it all?
Yeah. So here is what Trump said today.
Very, very interesting.
You got a lot of hostages back, but
we're gonna talk about that.
I
don't know. I think we'll have to take
a look. We might have to put Doge
on Elon.
You know? You know what Doge is?
Doge is the monster that have that might
have to go back and eat Elon. Wouldn't
that be terrible? He gets a lot I
mean, isn't this just gross?
Like, just so casually talking about the abuse
of power that you're so and what it
really shows you is that they've been doing
it the entire time. If Trump can just
casually go, oh, we'll just throw out Stoje
against Elon, you know, take his things away.
He's an authoritarian dictator. That's I mean, that
it's it's let's not make this about one
person. This is the same thing that any
other person in this position, left or right,
in my opinion, would be doing right now.
It's just wild. So then we can now
acknowledge that these these the way they were
applying this has been partisan. It's been focused
on what they want. It hasn't been broadly
about anything other than control, influence. You know
what I mean? It's it's just very obvious.
At the very least, even if you think
everything else was the right thing, he's showing
you right there that he's willing to use
it for his personal petty dilemmas or rather,
you know, disagreements.
Of subsidies, Peter.
He says he's got a lot of subsidies.
He gets a lot of subsidies, Peter.
But,
Elon's very upset that the So, wait, really
quickly. So are you suggesting that means that
they're all illegal? Like, isn't Doge only removing
things that are wrong or unnecessary or shouldn't
be there? Or are you simply just saying
you could just arbitrarily remove it because he
made bad mean words about you? I mean,
it's just
very clear to me what he's doing right
here. And it just shows you that he
just either is lacking self awareness of how
obvious it is or that they're just trying
to drive you to a place to where
we're, like, post what we what we think
this country is. Like, I believe that's where
we're going. Incrementally driving us to a place
to where we just get rid of the
constitution. We just you know, it's it's inevitably
coming if we don't fight for this. Mandate
is gonna be terminated. And you know what?
When you look at it, who wants not
everybody wants an electric car.
I don't want Think about that.
How how embarrassing he was shilling four Elon
Musk cars with his new Tesla outside the
White House, and now he's singing a different
tune. I it's just you if the this
takes a special kind of willful like, you
know, a blind follower to just follow along.
And you know them. You see them out
there right now. Thirty seconds later going, no.
They're the worst thing. Don't ever do it.
Despite despite cat turned to the rest, you
know, screaming forever. You know? It's just and
Trump just different. I mean, so was he
lying the first time, or is he lying
now? You guys can decide. An electric car.
I wanna have maybe gasoline, maybe electric, maybe
a hybrid,
maybe someday a hydrogen engine. If you have
a hydrogen car He's such a clown. There's
one problem if it blows up. You know?
So I'm gonna give that one to Peter.
Gonna let Peter start to roll. With with
his ridiculous Gulf Of America hat. I mean,
all these things are just so petty and
small. I mean, it really is beneath
everybody, it seems. I mean, it's just so
childish.
So in case you couldn't hear it, they
said, are you going to deport
Elon Musk?
Because that has become a real conversation.
And it says, we'll have to take a
look. And so yet again, it shows you
how frivolous this is. If, of all people,
Elon Musk can even be in the the
vein of conversation
of potentially being deported, do you really think
that you're off limits out there?
It says, we might have to put Doge
on Elon.
You know what Doge is? The monster that
might have to go back and eat Elon.
Wouldn't that be terrible?
He gets a lot of subsidies.
I mean, how are you
conservatives out there not just calling this out?
You know, I mean, unless you're a blind
team player, if you unless you have no
principles, this should be jarring to you. Here,
50 Shades of Way says this is why
is DHS and Doge putting us all on
a searchable national citizenship database? Now you already
know about this. This is the overlapping point
of the immigration OS, the Palantir database. You
know, this is all being collected and all
being put together, and we've been talking about
it for a very long time. And all
the usual suspects are trying to pretend it's
a small thing. Leftists don't like it.
It's it's we this country is going to
rapidly change if we keep following morons like
that.
He's this guy says this sounds like Adolf
Hitler stuff. Trump officials create searchable national citizenship
database.
So Doge, sacking Doge on him and all
these overlapping points, like, it's pretty clear this
is becoming something I mean, it's obvious this
is getting beyond it's well outside the balance
of what we pretend this country is. And
this is from Forbes today. Elon Musk's net
worth plunges $12,000,000,000
as Trump targets his empire in Feud.
See the kind of power that get me
the power that he has. I was gonna
say it makes him think yet. Trump can
just go no longer and boom, $12,000,000,000
falls off.
That is power.
As petty and small as they may be.
And now and whether this is trying to
get you to think that's the case or
not, you know, $12,000,000,000
is a lot of money.
Now Thomas Massie
comes out and it just talks about the
bill and the overlapping point of all this.
Remember, Elon Musk is calling out the bill,
which is one of the the main reasons
this is happening. Because let's not forget, the
bill is a huge step for what they're
trying to accomplish. AI and a lot of
other things we'll talk about next.
Ron Paul came out yesterday and said, as
was easily predictable, all the carrots they hung
on the big beautiful bill to get house
Republicans to vote on it have been stripped
from the senate version.
Surprise, surprise.
The only thing remaining is the massive increase
in debt.
As usual, Thomas Massie was right.
Will the final vote saddle Americans with this
bankrupt albatross?
It it's about thirty minutes. Always worth your
time. Daniel McAdams, Ron Paul, very knowledgeable.
He says, thank you, Ron Paul, for amplifying
truth and defending freedom as always. Now, seven
seas, for example, was all rightly pointing out
that suspect
connections of Thomas Massie.
It's it's it doesn't have to prove that
people are compromised one way or even you
know, the bottom line is we should be
questioning all of them no matter what. And
that's why I'm my art my stance in
general is just my personal I'm I'm just
not supporting politicians at this point. Like, there
a part a part of me that wanted
to call out all the lies about the
Zirandy, the new politician.
You know, the the they're everyone's all making
the same point, how he's eating food with
his hands, showing how completely ignorant and out
of just completely
how stupid they are, how little they know
about the world and how clear all the
people made the right points. People calling it
out or saying, here you are. It's not
even we're getting into it. The point is
I didn't get into it because I don't
wanna support a politician. I just don't. Not
at this point in time. As much as
he's being lied about, don't wanna I don't
wanna get into it. So my point though
is that I don't I I question all
of them like we should. But and and
even if, for example, all the ties that
he's pointing out end up exposing, he's not
actually honest. The point is the same. I
will support this now and him saying this
now because it is right, because he's what
he's saying is correct. And then the next
thing he says, I will hold against the
I'll hold in the light and I'll question
more than anything.
That's how we always have to engage with
this. Support what is correct and drive people
to start doing the same, even if it's
for opportunism.
Now, I Massey, without question, in my opinion,
the facts show is the most
principled person in congress, whether that's what he
wants to present or not, if it's not
the it doesn't matter at this point. He
is because you can look at his track
record. You can recognize that he is what
they call America first far more than everybody
else in the MAGA movement.
That matters. Question him the same as you
would anybody else. Here, Simon Godox says, disappointing
to see this. Thomas Massie is one of
the few principled voices in Congress. He refuses
AIPAC money, stands for constitutional values, and puts
America first without compromise.
Trump attacking him is a serious misstep. It's
not the first time he's done it, by
the way. Team Massey, team Elon, team integrity.
I don't know why he's saying team all
of a sudden, Elon's on Massey's side now?
Just this is how it's free. This is
crazy how people can just ignore facts right
in front of him. But it says,
new poll. Anybody I endorse beats Thomas Massey
of Kentucky by 25 points. Get
ready. It's just sad. I mean, think about
the president of The United States
doing that.
It's just sad. And it shows you how
petty and small he is. Like, the fact
what Thomas Massie is calling out are easily
verifiable.
Every people even people you pretend you support
Trump are also calling out the reality of
this, even Elon Musk for that matter. Yet
now you're gonna try to get removed? We
all know it's not about the bill. We
know who's trying to get Thomas Massie removed.
Sure as hell
obvious to see that there's many different factors.
APAC has called him out personally more than
once. Now here he is speaking with Theo
Vaughn,
and it's about the AI point. Now we
already said, and we'll get to in a
minute again, that the language is at at
this moment been removed.
And we'll go into that in in regard
to the moratorium, but still important to understand
what it was trying to do, and then
we'll get into what is still there. And
it still very well may come back. Here's
what, Thomas Massie was saying about it.
Out of that big beautiful bill as a
provision for artificial intelligence
corporations
that says no state Ten years. Ten years.
For ten years, no state or local locality
can regulate them. And then it talks about
zoning and routing,
which if you, you know, some of your
listeners may have Which by the way, I
don't believe is under the same point of
the moratorium.
This is important to listen to. We've talked
about this in,
I'm blanking on the city name now.
That place in in,
I don't know.
We talked about that point that it was
at that special quartz dust that was unique
to, like, no ever in the world for
the most part that's in The United States.
It was in that location where the with
the weather, the hurricane hit. And and then
all of a sudden, we everyone focused on
the lithium point, which is still valid, but
it turns out there was this, like, special
thing in that hole, like, the right in
the epicenter, which is about quartz dust and
AI and technology.
And all of a sudden, you know, Microsoft
and Google, it happened with everyone building their
things in the in the area, which is
basically putting the town, like, to death outside
of their, you know, outsourcing companies that don't
make the town any better. That's happening all
around the country. That's what he's about to
talk about.
You know, some of your listeners may have
seen this, like, locally, somebody's some big corporation
wants to put a data center in your
backyard.
Well, that's what the congress is trying to
do. They're trying to say that these corporations
can override local zoning laws, that the local
zoning board should take a back seat and
let this big information center show up in
your backyard that uses all kinds of water
and all kinds of power and puts out
all kinds of RF and has you know?
Oh, yeah. Your fucking cousin's is gonna be
walking down the street just fucking, you know,
just fucking screaming out Amazon orders. You know?
It's gonna be what is happening, man? So
so that's in the big beautiful bill. Okay?
And you can know that's evil. You can
know that's bad. And and Trump never campaigned
on that.
But also in that bill
is to enforce our borders, okay, to finish
the wall. Right. So if you're a Republican
and you vote for that bill, okay, you
supported enforcing the border, but you also let
AI basically take over your local and state
governments. Okay?
And then if you vote against it, well,
then you're against the AI provision. But, oh
my gosh, you're for open borders. You know?
You're for And that's how they do this.
Right? And you will see them. And if
it were to come to a point to
where that was and maybe we'll get there
very soon. Well, they'll come rushing out and
say, you know, you you don't support the
you know, you want open borders when the
reality is they maybe they agree on the
border point. They just don't wanna allow a
moratorium for AI or or the biometric surveillance
we're gonna get to. But that's how they
frame this. And then they get the sycophant
followers out there that only hyperfocus on the
one thing and act like that person's denying
that one thing, and they control the flow
of that conversation. It's very manipulative.
And at the meantime, you've got 16 writers
about Israel that don't want even talks about.
Or you don't wanna support the military. There
was a $100,000,000,000
in there for the military. Yeah. There was
oh, you wanna tax seniors. There was a
tax cut for seniors.
So you can't win for losing.
And so I don't blame a lot of
my
colleagues. Like,
they they come to congress.
They have the best intentions, and you get
there, and you're like, oh my gosh. This
whole game is rigged. How how am I
gonna play it? Right. Am I gonna call
it out?
Will that get will that be the best
for my constituents who elected me, or should
I play along?
And Compromise.
Most of them choose to play along. Right.
I don't know how you could possibly pretend
that makes sense today. Now look, I yeah.
I'm I'm not gonna say somebody who decides
to try that should not be then called
something other than I mean,
people can have good intentions and be wrong
in their intent. Right? Wrong in their, like,
the chosen path, but have good intent rather.
But, I mean, come on.
I mean, are we really so just asking
that question. Am I gonna be honest about
stop. Yes.
Yes. I don't care what the next statement
is. We're at a point now where what
we should demand is brutal honesty from people
who have lied by like, as a matter
of their job.
And we're at a point now where people
are stepping in to a compromise situation. This
is, like, this is the nonsense we got
told before the selection.
Oh,
just so broken and so bad. We have
to get him. He's not as good. But,
you know, they're both bad, but he's a
little bit better. If we if she would
bring, you know, bring on the end of
the world and he'll stop it. Well, no.
That didn't happen. Right? Still clearly going that
direction. Either of them would have done that.
The problem is that we're using the broken
system to, like, like,
rationalize why the wrong step makes sense now.
Adults understand is what I mean,
it purity test and black pill. Yeah. Well,
here we are. Exactly what we told you,
exactly what we worried about, what we all
hope wouldn't be the case. And, yes, we
also, the entire time, were co pointing out
solutions and alternative paths despite the screaming of
the idiots who pretend otherwise. It's obvious.
I mean, it's it's self evident at this
point. So I don't agree with that. And
I think what's very clear is it's a
problem of the the the logic that spin
or spun from, you know, people go through
school and they get they get indoctrinated with
these ideas, and that's how they want they
step into it. And that's like the manufacturing
consent point that they might not even be
consciously trying to deceive you, but they're allowed
in a position. And I think the statement
goes from from Noam Chomsky that they wouldn't
be allowed in a position if they didn't
already have certain beliefs.
Right? So that they're cultivating it from birth
from a, you know, from a long term
thing. So I think that's important to highlight.
Now, by the way, I looked this up
really quickly. This was the town I'm talking
about, Spruce Pine.
I'll include this. It'll be at the very
bottom of the notes, like, the very bottom
the the secondary. It'll under it'll be under
the the part underneath the on the show
on the on the website link that says,
late additions. I'll and this everything I add
in the show after we've started.
And it's a very important conversation to consider.
Right? It was in North Carolina during the
hurricane, and everyone focused on something that was,
you know, also relevant to burn lithium. But
if you look at, like, the epicenter
and you wanna consider whether it was some
kind of, you know,
organized effort using weather, why wouldn't you consider
the thing that was at the center of
it and which had $530,000,000,000
in value for the global AI
revolution. Doesn't that seem like it might be
exact yeah. And now ask yourself why we're
all diverted with things that turned out to
not really be you know, that were not
really fleshed out.
Very interesting. Now the point they also made
was that there as he pointed out, there
was all sorts of data centers. Google and
Facebook and everybody Palantir are all opening up
in this area. And if you talk to
and you read the article, talk to the
people that live there. Everything else is closing
down. Nobody can get jobs. And they all
love to sell you on the idea of
more jobs than they outsource everything or automate
everything. That's where this is going. Very much
worth your time to check out.
Make sure that's in there. Okay.
Going forward,
here is Americans for Responsible Innovation who pointed
out late yesterday, the moratorium has gotten taken
out of the bill and a landslide vote
99 to one. Think about that.
It says thank you to the lawmakers and
their and their advocates and, you know, blah
blah blah. So the point was and this
is somebody asking Grok what was rejected. And
it simply says the senate rejected the provision
in the bill that would have banned states
from enforcing AI specific laws for ten years.
The moratorium,
part of the bill that was that part
of the house bill passed bill aimed to
prevent state regulations on a model AI model
systems and automated decisions like those addressing deepfakes
or bias. On July 1, the senate voted
99 to one to remove that, preserving states'
rights to regulate AI. But see, it's funny
how the states' rights didn't get brought up
even though it's a central part of that
conversation.
But it looks if if I when I
was reading into it, it appears they they
floated a five year
to try to, like, you know, go back
and forth, and that was put down as
well. And as of right now, today, it
seems that is removed. But until it actually
becomes law, we don't know what might go
back and forth. So thank god, if I
wanna be honest about that so far. I
mean, that was insane. But here, the worry
that I tend to have is that that
was about trying to hide something
not as bad. Like, something that let's put
it like this.
If you consider how these dynamics work, it
could be or very well be that this
is what they wanted.
The massive expansion of biometric surveillance.
And they realized you wouldn't accept that. So
they put something even crazier.
Let's let's pretend we're gonna let them do
whatever they want with AI for ten years.
Right? So we all go, what the hell?
Even Theo Bond's like, ten years. Everybody knows
that point. Right? It's been pushing for everybody,
and they remove it. I'm like, oh, good.
Thank god. And then we don't focus on
what they always wanted to pass. It's at
least worth considering that that usually is the
way these things go.
Now yesterday,
Trump's mega bill expands biometric surveillance from biometricupdate.com.
It says officially styled as a budget reconciliation
package, the 940
page bill,
which I guarantee you,
I bet you almost none of them have
read this,
does much more than allocate dollars. It would
codify a vision of the national security state
where biometric surveillance, AI, and immigration enforcement
converge at unprecedented scale. Now this is not
the same point of the AI regulation.
It says the senate now version now reflects
and, again, this was posted yesterday. So there
there might be variation on what happened over
today.
The senate version now reflects the Trump administration's
deepening focus on internal surveillance and deportation
infrastructure, which you could frame it like that.
It just really means surveillance
and infrastructure to be applied however they want.
Although a final vote is pending in the
senate and will need to be passed by
the house. So we're past the senate vote.
Now it's in the house.
What's already in the legislative text that likely
will remain intact, and as far as I
can tell has, is deeply consequential for civil
liberties,
biometric privacy, and immigration governance. At its core,
the HR one dedicates over $175,000,000,000
in immigration related funding
for fiscal year twenty twenty five alone.
A $175,000,000,000.
Now I know they love to scream that
that's what everyone voted for.
Is that the case?
I know a lot of people voted for
the immigration point,
but is that now what is what's happening
now? They wanna pretend everything they do tomorrow
is exactly what you called for even though
we're in a level now which is well
beyond anything they ever discussed. So clearly, that's
just a made up point, And their sycophant
followers will always jump up and go, exactly,
yes, America first.
But out there, the majority of conservatives, is
that really what you agree with? Do you
can you imagine what a $175,000,000,000
could do for this for the individual families
of this country or people that suffer from
North Carolina that still suffer that never got,
you know, they all criticize Biden for helping
them. Did they help them? You know, it's
just it's so obvious what we can see
here that that is an insane amount of
money. That's just one part of it
for only immigration.
And it says, which is by far the
largest such allocation in US history and represents
a dramatic technology build out. That's what it
actually is for.
US history
rather,
US immigration and customs ICE would receive
nearly 30,000,000,000
in funding
through 2029,
earmarked not only for personal and deportation
operations, personnel and deportation operations, but also for
digital modernization
efforts
that lean heavily
on AI and biometric surveillance. So, it's the
same point as Palantir searching for illegal immigrants.
The only way that makes sense is if
they're always monitoring
all of you.
And you know this already. You know this.
So, all they're doing is using something you
care about to circle to kind of segue
to, you know, piggyback on it and create
the thing they always wanted, which is a
massive always, always, you know, a panopticon of
AI biometric surveillance
everywhere you go all the time.
Is that what you voted for? Sure as
hell is not what anybody actually stated out
loud. Here we are.
It says more than two more than 5,200,000,000
within ICE's share is dedicated to infrastructure modernization,
including which is, you know, build back better.
It's exactly what we're talking about, including $2,500,000,000
specifically for artificial intelligence systems,
biometric data collection platforms, and digital case tracking.
Welcome to the great reset, guys. DHS officials
familiar with the bill's intent intent
say the funds are aimed at expanding ICE's
access to mobile biometric tools,
integrating facial recognition into field operations, so applies
to anybody they engage with, and to find
out whether or not you can be charged.
Is that what you want? Is that allow?
I mean, this this might as well be,
you know, stop and frisk with AI buying
other tools.
Automating risk scores for individuals
in deportation proceedings and accelerating case proceedings through
AI driven platforms. Yeah. That's social credit.
Allows agents to perform facial and fingerprint checks
in real time.
Biometric revisions also extend to
customs and border prevention protection,
which is slated to receive $6,168,000,000
for modern surveillance,
which is, which, modern surveillance, biometric, and screening
technologies. The legislative text outlines the development deployment,
excuse me, of auto autonomous surveillance towers,
That's interesting,
AST, and artificial intelligence for threat detection, language
that suggests an operational integration
of facial recognition,
gait analysis, and predictive behavioral models along the
Southern border
or anywhere else in the country. And that's
also not real. Let's also not forget the
whole,
un, what they call it. We grabbed the
link, actually. It'll be easier to point out.
Let's see. I mean, I just pop up
with this. Yep. Look at that. I had
not I rarely even look at the ACLU,
so I type in LCACLU and it pops
up. The constitution
in the 100 mile border zone. Now the
way they frame that is to make it
sound oh, it's not even the best. I
don't have the image anymore. How funny is
that?
Wait. Watch this.
Oh, that's I think that's the one.
Nope. Still same thing. I wanna I'm trying
to look for the picture.
There it is.
That's the one we'll include. Your rights in
the 100 mile border zone. What it's called
is a a,
I forget what you should call it. The
the non constitutional zone. I think of what
they were saying. And the reality, guys, and
this is what it is. It's not a
secret.
There is a 100 mile border around the
country,
which envelops the entire state of Maine, by
the way, where they argue that the constitution
does not apply.
It's not a secret. I mean, other than
people that don't know, which it's public, but
it's not really showing everybody.
That's insane.
So it's also a complete violation of the
constitution. There's no way around that. They just
don't care. And it's been one slow encroachment.
They've recognized that the border has been an
easy way to get you to accept this
for a very long time.
That's wild. So the point
is that
they're telling you that what first is that
this is gonna happen everywhere. But if you
think this about the border, well, then that
applies that entire 100 mile zone, the entire
state of Maine. And and going back to
it, actually, look, just look at all the
other countries. There are other states, I mean.
Every single one of these states. I mean,
that's that's that's 75% of Washington.
There's plenty of it, guys. These things,
these these locations in some of these entire
states are entirely in a zone that will
be living in this world. Where now you've
got
autonomous
surveillance towers with artificial intelligence, threat detection, gait
analysis. They can track how you your biometrics,
your facial scans, the way you walk. That's
gait analysis.
Predictive behavior model. So, pre crime
along the Southern border, which applies to the
100 mile zone. That's the point. The 100
mile zone is for border. It's for it's
for the border protection.
Now, the autonomous towers are equipped with a
variety of sensors to detect activity along the
Southwest Border, enhancing surveillance capabilities and providing real
time information to border patrol.
Since 2020,
300
ASTs have been deployed.
Guess by who?
Anduril.
Of course, it is. Palantir, Anduril. It's the
whole same conversation, guys. So now you've got
Allen
Anduril,
which is just another aspect of Palantir, you
know, kind of discussion,
already deploying surveillance towers all along this set
this area with that are already doing all
of this and providing approximately 30%
of the coverage of The US southern land
border. So Anduril and Palantir, their overlapping connections
to Zionism,
who have all their proprietary information that even
the government seem not have ability to double
check, how how much you wanna bet this
information real time is being relayed to other
people they work with?
It's not my opinion. You can look rather
in that case, it's my opinion. But in
every other context, this has been the reality,
guys. They've been caught for doing so. We
literally just found out that Palantir was allowing
us
what? I forget the name of the actual,
actual program that that the the agency was
using in regard to the nuclear conversation, and
that has been relayed to Israel, like, through
that. This is not a secret. You have
to understand how these groups are simply a
part of this larger kind of globalist technocratic
apparatus.
Now the point is that this is already
being done.
This is an expansion of that. This is
a rapid expansion
of what most everyone, if you ask them
specifically in a broad sense, would declare that
they don't want. Right and left.
Gain and I'm talking about not like the
border about this, but a broad sense of
deploying these things in the country in any
context.
It says, gain broader authority to deploy facial
recognition tools at ports of entry,
long transportation corridors,
which very much then apply to the 100
mile border, but anywhere they argue is a
corridor for transportation throughout the country. So this
will become your country. Everywhere, this will be
done to protect you from whatever they claim
is the threat that day.
While framed as anti terror, anti trafficking measures,
you know, while they're letting a trafficker stay
in the country because he wants to lie,
I argue, about Garcia,
critics argue the systems normalize
mass biometric
surveillance with minimal oversight because that's exactly what
it does. In addition to these biometric expansions,
the bill's AI related language introduces a ten
year moratorium, which again has now been at
least pulled pulled away for right now.
But just to make clear that this is
that all of that before was not the
same thing.
Here
is the we had Andoril overlap. Right? Palantir
obviously already started with the immigration OS.
That as the biometricupdate.com
reports fuels Trump's, immigration removal agenda.
Just trying to show you all of these
people, all these moving parts. It's all going
in the same direction. No matter the shift
of the narrative, you realize all of these
things were trying to be done under the
guise of fighting COVID nineteen.
Here's the new narrative today. Funny how the
people that called COVID nineteen out more than
anybody can't seem to reflect on that.
And of course, the overlapping point of Palantir,
as Derek wrote very clearly, and their, like,
objective
infiltration of this government.
Very clear.
And the massive as he says, welcome to
the Palantir world order.
Now just to end on this segment,
it's worth hearing this I just saw this
today. This insane, like, sociopathic,
borderline psychopathic statement from you you know I
think sociopathic is the best
way to put it. What he says right
here is sociopathy.
You know, just just blithe disregard for like,
there's a moral level to this. There's a
criminal level to this. And you could act
like he's just joking. The point is this
is he he doesn't these kind of people
are megalomaniacs. And and what he's saying here
shows you that there's no moral line for
them, that if he perceives you as his
enemy,
there's no hold barred, guys. And that's what
we have to understand. And these are the
people that are running Palantir,
essentially, in some ways, running your government.
This account says Palantir founder and CEO Alex
Karp would love drones to spray fentanyl laced
urine on people that oppose him. You know,
so those out there protesting, it's Israel, he
would call out, and he has relentlessly.
Here's what he said.
Need a higher purpose, and I also think
you often need a lower purpose.
Now you can do it before he goes
on.
A lower purpose.
So he he say he wants you to
lean into your baser. He wants you to
go out and be mean to people and
attack them because you disagree with them. That's
what he's talking about. That's a lower purpose
as he very clearly outlines.
Aren't we all collectively at least taught growing
up that that's not how we're supposed to
be? That that's that is falling to your
baser nature? That is the lowest common denominator?
Well, here's the multibillionaire who's influencing our government
who wants you to believe that we can
just go out and do what we want
if they make you mad.
Chris, and I also think you often need
a lower purpose.
Like, the higher purpose for me What kind
of what's a lower purpose? Well, I love
the idea of getting a drone and having
light fentanyl laced urine spraying on analysts who've
tried to screw us.
But you don't realize how insane that is,
first of all? Like, the idea that, like,
fentanyl on your skin, like, you could die.
But the joke being, like, what's what's the
what is the idea of late urine? And
and, like, is that just a because it's
urine, could you not use something else? Like,
it just seems insane.
Like, that is an insane thing to say.
And clearly, it seems to me that's not
that's not like it just randomly popped into
his head. He's thought about that. That's what
it seems to me.
So that's my lower purpose.
And,
yeah. God. But and others.
But the higher pro purpose for me
was to get
this nation
to be the preeminent
power in the world. Alright. Okay. Even that
is insane, guys. What are you talking about?
You're like, this guy is a statist authoritar
he wants the the he wants to as
a company,
he wants to fight for the preeminence of
one government in the world? That just seems
wild to me. That is supposed to be
a like like, at least, I mean, there's
so many points to make about a conflict
of interest or the idea that that's supposed
to be antithetical to what they've always claimed
they're doing. You could have your opinions, but
the idea is simply that you're fighting that
shows you that what you're doing with this
company is
militaristic. It's government interest. You're doing so for
the interest of a political outcome.
You may not you may be okay with
that. That then shows you that they're willing
to do, you know, for instance, things like
aligning with a genocidal government who they politically
agree with and allow them to use their
AI to murder children, which is happening.
Because whatever faults we have, they're nothing like
anyone else's.
Oh, okay. Right. Because we're better than you.
It's his point.
Whatever faults we have, we're not as gross
as the Chinese and the Iranians. Like, that's
that is what he's saying right there, that
we're superior to you. Do you not see
where this comes from?
I mean, it's just it's so right in
your face.
He the the this guy is a proud
Zionist, and it's obvious where the supremacist mindset
comes from in my opinion. But let's not
forget,
from a alarming technocratic stance, we just played
this for you. Here is Peter Thiel being
point blank ass whether the human species should
survive.
You might not like his response.
For the human race to endure. Right?
You're hesitating. Well, I yes? I don't know.
I I would
I would,
This is a long hesitation. There's so many
there's so many there's so many questions in
question. Should the human race survive?
Yes. Okay. But but,
Even after it was clear that he was
kind of on the spot and was weird
that he waited, he waited again. There's like
a like, how will you get a what
is your thought process for debating about whether
the species should survive? Well, that speaks volumes
about
transhumanism,
about tran technocracy,
about, you know, the idea of putting yourself
in a cloud, like this whole technocratic mindset.
Eugenics, quite frankly, when you really break it
down as well. It's insane to me that
these people are
might as well be in charge.
I I also would,
I I I also would like us to
to radically solve these problems. And, and so
Wow. Radically solve them. Okay.
So that might not mean the same thing
it means to you,
solving it. Right? Radically.
You know, with violence and and murder and
genocide or, you know, whatever else it is
that's radical enough for him to solve the
problem the way he thinks it should be
solved.
Can we vote for
him? Guys, this is we have to be
real with ourselves about how the alarming
all of this is.
And realize that we can stop this if
we truly find the courage to stand up
and do something about it, and I don't
mean violence.
I'll just include this as always, that both
of them, Teal and Karp, right here standing
next to the Israeli military,
proudly endorsing the genocide in 01/12/2024.
Teal's Palantir Israel agreed strategic partnership for BattleTech.
They're using their AI to kill people right
now.
Oh, did I include that? I'll make sure
you got that one too. Okay. Good.
So talking about the overlap of Israel and
the discussion of
I mean,
there's a lot of points to wrap this
around. Netanyahu, Trump, the idea of the lie
around whether or not they were gonna break
the the infiltration
of the overlap, you know, and there's a
lot of points to this. I think it's
obvious to see that this government has been
infiltrated. I don't think it's even hard to
point that out today. It shouldn't be contentious.
We just gotta be honest about it and
do something about it. But on top of
that, there's been people that have been trying
forcefully to convince you that somehow that they
were about to split. We always knew
right before we just saw what happened. Worth
pointing out. But as for Iran Now says,
another TLAB told you so. Trump comes to
PM Rescue
to help end trial.
You know, the ones that apparently have already
broken and are no longer working together according
to people that were right every time. Trump
comes to his rescue. Well, he's out he's
now out there saying,
you cannot go out for Netanyahu.
Right? The US is not gonna stand for
Netanyahu being charged for the crimes he's committed
that everyone knows about.
It's not it's not hard to recognize what's
happening right there.
Here and and on top of the Trump
sub swinging in to save the criminal government
or rather the criminal Netanyahu from within the
criminal government, let's not forget that Trump has
also continued, as we just said, to fund
Israel
despite the claims of the opposite. And, yeah,
it's all I can tell if the Ukraine
war is still going.
US approves $510,000,000
sale of bomb. That was that was today.
Well, we also go back a little further.
Here's March 1. US to fact track fast
track 3,000,000,000. It actually turned out to be
4,000,000,000.
That was March 1.
Here on February 8, US State Department informs
Congress of 7,400,000,000.0
arms sales to Israel.
You still support all of these conservatives? You
still think this makes sense since they're committing
genocide that most of you see?
Going back even further this is to January
4 US plans $8,000,000,000
in arms sales to Israel.
Over and over and over and as David
Ike rightly points out. He's owned.
Yesterday, Trump threatened to cut US aid to
Israel unless Netanyahu's corruption trial was halted.
Think about that.
So they're gonna try to contort this into
he's trying to he this is his secret
way of trying to stop aid. There's all
these the the cue mindset will to torque
anything they want into making what they want
to happen.
The reality is that he's trying to continue,
like, Netanyahu in power to continue the outcome
of their agenda.
And now he's threatening,
I guess, other parts of the government that
wanna get him out of the way probably
for their power to just keep him in
power.
And as David Icke goes on, remember all
those alternative
influencers told you at least twice that Trump
and his psychotic mate had fallen out?
Hilarious.
Really?
And this person adds an interesting point to
it. And this is, like, kinda Q perspective,
I think. He says Donald Trump wants BB
to stop the genocide. Because we know that.
Right? Because you know what Trump feels and
thinks because that's intelligent. BB is pushing for
sixty day ceasefire while the people trying to
put BB in jail doesn't want the killing
to stop.
So now you're pretending that Netanyahu is one
like, there is no part in this that
they want to stop going to Gaza, in
my opinion. And on top of that, that
they're trying to put him in jail because
they don't want to stop. So there's so
he's the good guy he's framing it as.
Then it says, so it's in Trump's interest
to keep BB out of jail for peace.
Wow.
That's some cue and some cue logic right
there. So the point is that Netanyahu
is, I guess, the worst of the maniacs
in Israel. So let's keep him out of
jail to make sure that he gets a
little bit of a pause instead of just
continue it's like, how about we don't let
any of the murderers continue the fight to
be a genocide?
It's just it's insane the kind of mental
gymnastics people will do to make it make
sense with no facts, by the way. That's
all personal opinion about the intent, but that's
what drives their bus sometimes.
Well, here was the obvious. I made this
point four times already. And still to this
very moment, tomorrow it could shift. As always,
the point is that I've I've like I've
been saying for a long time, it's obvious
to see, and it's not just my opinion,
anybody with a brain can see this coming,
that Netanyahu is, you know, going in a
bad direction. People don't like him. Most people
in Israel have called him out for a
very long time if you just look at
Israeli media, all of it, Times of Israel,
Jerusalem
Post,
harrats.
They For years, they've been covering how he
will start wars to keep himself out of
jail. It's actually not contentious at all other
than US politicians who are compromised who wanna
call you a racist for pointing out the
facts, like we're talking about today.
The point is that I do see a
world in which in a near future, they
should throw Netanyahu under the bus because and
then pretend like everything's okay. He was the
one. Now, we can keep going. Right? Like,
I see that being a last ditch effort
for Israel and The US to continue the
agenda without Netanyahu.
So, that's why these things happen because he
tries to jump ahead of what we all
kinda feel coming to act like he was
the one that saw it all. So, he
came out on May 9. Now Jones says,
Alex Jones' prediction that President Trump would completely
cut ties with Netanyahu comes true, but it
didn't, though. And if you think this is
the only time this has happened, you are
lying to yourself. It happens every thirty seconds
as far as I can tell. I'm being
hyperbolic.
When the heat comes out and with Jones
is right meme turns out to be a
complete misrepresentation,
this is important report. Jones exclusively reveals the
backstory of what turned him against him and
of the things that didn't happen.
So, I said today or yesterday,
worth reflecting on those partisan influencers more than
him who desperately tried to get you to
think Trump was turning on Israel right before
their long sought illegal attacks on Iran. And
then use that lie to bolster their position.
Worth questioning that.
Now as I said, Trump is saying US
is not going to stand
for you for Netanyahu continuing to try.
So now Trump is somehow in control of
the Israeli judiciary process?
I mean, do we not can can we
not honestly just step back and acknowledge how
belligerent this is? How, you know, what's the
right word? You know,
god, there's a word for it in particular.
That he's just acting like he's in control.
He's the emperor of the planet.
Angry people don't just do what he says
around the world. Like, realize
there is no world in which the US
government can stop the Israeli
judicial process from going after anybody, let alone
the president of the country. Well, so that's
why he's going, well, I'm gonna strong-arm you.
I'm gonna stop this or do that if
you don't so you have criminal oligarchs protecting
criminal oligarchs.
It's not secret. He's very clear. He's not
even trying to hide it, it seems. On
the same note, by the way, you've got,
Francesca Albanese, who has been just
hardcore
maintaining her principles. From the moment this starts,
came out knowing she would get ripped apart
by the lying Zionists,
trying to turn her into this Zionist racist
anti semite
because she called out a genocide. And she
has stood her ground. I I you know,
peep everybody I'm sure people could find things
to criticize. And for all I know, she's
not to be trusted. It's not the point
for me. She's correct. And she has been
about this topic from day one. And I
only stand to be objective. From my perspective,
she seems to be very principled.
Trump administration
is now demanding
that the United Nations, which he somehow has
control over apparently, fire Palestinian rights envoy over
virulent antisemitism and support for terrorism.
Now I'm pretty sure she's not a Palestinian
rights envoy, but either way, she works for
the United Nations,
and she is
where was the point? I I like, oh,
hold on. I thought it highlighted. Trump administration
also knows that she that Franchesca Albanese has
claimed to be an international lawyer, but has
not passed the legal bar examination and been
licensed to practice law. These are all very
gross misrepresentations.
The bottom line is that she has been
aggressively calling this out from day one, and
this is what it looks like to get
the US government of Israel trying to weaponize
everything they have to remove
you from power.
It's just one more abuse of power right
in front of you. I mean, realize that
they're trying to go after her not because
of a crime, not because of anything other
than her calling out Israel. She has never
once made some statement about how she supports
Hamas or supports any other group. She's calling
out the crimes.
And then they spin that into support for
terrorism, so calling out Israel's crimes is some
backward way of supporting Hamas. That's what they'll
make the argument of. It's obvious what's happening.
This is the US government fighting for Israel's
agendas at the expense of everybody else, most
importantly Americans.
Sarah Abdallah points out on July 1, in
a damning new report, Franchesca Albanese accuses 60
companies of enabling apartheid, ethnic cleansing, and the
mass murder of Palestinians all for profit. Quote,
Israel's genocide in Gaza continues because it is
a it is lucrative for many. Well, funny
then how this all of a sudden becomes
a focal point on July 1.
Yeah. That no connection there. No. No. Because
she's relentlessly and successfully
getting people to recognize what Israel is and
what Zionism is doing.
So
the elements and, you know, little action figures
of Zionism get put into place. And Trump
and Netanyahu come marching, and we're gonna go
after you. That's what's happening.
I think it's shockingly obvious
that somebody like her, somebody who has very
clearly demonstrated just un like, you know, unparalleled
adherence to her principles
despite the pushback.
It's there's nothing sacred.
They will try to turn I mean, it's
like trying to create something like Roger Waters
or, you know, calling them racist. It's just
so insane. And yet yet, it's spite most
everybody with a brain going, that's not true.
It still had momentum within the blind following
mainstream apparatus, which some people seem to care
about. I don't.
That's why, you know, they they try to
call me whatever they want. It doesn't matter
to me. And unless you're tapped into the
mainstream structure that they can box you out
of, doesn't really matter much. But, see, there's
also there's ways that we get, you know,
these lawsuits and censoring out platforms. It happens
too.
Here's the ambassador to the Israeli Ministry of
Defense, the order of the foreign ministry,
saying Francesca Albanese must be fired immediately.
She's breached every possible norm of the UN.
No. She hasn't. She is not impartial or
neutral. Yes. She is. She's an antisemite. No.
She's not. She's spreading hate. No. She's not.
She's a disgrace for the UN. No. No.
Nothing. The idea that anybody could Anyway, you
get the point. These people are coming into
this and going, get rid of her. She's
racist. She's gross. And,
hopefully, it doesn't have any,
sway anymore, but it might within these groups.
But if she gets removed from her position,
it's just gonna show you who's actually driving
this show. I mean, the Trump and the
Israeli government are now waging a war against
her because she's calling this stuff out. I
mean, you can't miss the fact, you know,
the ambassador comes out and says, go after
her, and then
The US goes after her. Guys, it's not
hard to see what's happening. They are being
given marching. Don't forget, Khalil, for example, was
was they were told to go after him
by
Qatar USA.
You could look at the time the timing
for yourself. They were go they tweeted two
of them, to Bondi, to Rubio, to Trump,
and said, get this man. And then within
a week, they arrested him. And clearly, it
blew up in their face because he didn't
have he didn't commit a crime. He didn't
do anything wrong.
But they're willing to do that for Israel.
Now Abir points out, you know, another example.
Here's Randy Fine. Shouldn't he be convinced is
completely working for Israel?
This is a sitting US congressman, and she
says, yes, boss. Anti Semitism,
talk calls out bad villain.
Legal
name, Pascal Robbins, whatever. It says, called for
the death of the IDF yesterday at Glastonbury
at Glastonbury,
the the the concert at the at the
play at in Glastonbury.
The main point to make, we're gonna get
into that next,
is
whatever your thoughts on it. It's not debating
whether or not he meant Israel or whether
or not it's antisemitic.
It doesn't matter.
He has the right to say what he
wants.
And whether it's a US free speech I
just think from a global perspective, you have
no right to tell me what he can
think and say. And the point is you're
now creating legal,
bastardization to the law to go after a
person who simply expresses opinion.
I mean, it's just it's insane to me.
Can you come out and say death to
the police? Yeah. You really can. Can you
come out and say death to the British
military? Yes. Can you come out and say
death to the American? Yes. But you cannot,
no matter what, call out the Israeli military
in Britain.
Guys, it's just it's, like, cartoonishly obvious right
now. And so South antisemitism comes out and
says, Bob Dylan, he's coming to The US.
This fall is part of the tour.
The antisemite must have his visa denied. Congressman
Randy Fine says, on it.
And guess what?
They almost instantaneously
revoked his visa or his his, excuse me,
his US citizenship,
which is exactly where we're going with this
conversation.
His US citizenship,
as far as I can tell, with no
legal process, no lawyers involved, no that which
we're gonna get into what appears to be
one of the most obvious right now, which
is somebody who is seems to be a
criminal.
And even that, it seems they tried to
circumvent this process, but it doesn't appear to
me that there was anything that actually happened
here. They just yanked it. What you have
to understand, guys, we'll go through it in
a second. There's a very clear legal reality,
constitutional reality
around any of this, around naturalized
or born in this country. Like, the re
they it's required.
And yet, you are watching Israeli entities call
on US politicians to yank citizenship, and they
go, yep.
On it.
And realize because he said something they disagree
with.
That's it,
guys. How I mean, if you're a conservative
and you are still supporting this or anybody,
if you are left or right or, you
know, a human being in this country and
you're going, yay. Get him because I disagree
with his ideas.
And then later acting like you care about
free speech and care about the constitution. You're
either too stupid to see that you're wrong
or a complete hypocrite.
Call these people out.
Here is what,
what's his name? Oh, Leo Leo Carroll,
head of the DOJ antisemitism
task force.
Yeah. Going after words and speech and ideas
just like the left. No different.
We're going to eliminate antisemitic conduct.
We've got marching orders from Trump, Bondi, and
the rest he says.
Eliminate antisemitic conduct. So they're literally
there's no
way to turn this into, you know, national
security or if they do it with, you
know, lying on their visa when they do
no. No. This is anybody.
Even US citizens, maybe with the exception of
those naturally born in this country, but the
point is in principle, it's the same thing.
So it's one small deviation away from it
being that. We'll go into where that I'll
explain that if you don't know what I
mean
in a second.
And now simply saying that you cannot act
or say what we argue is antisemitic.
Despite constitutional realities, despite the laws in this
country,
this is the destruction of everything we believe
in.
I don't know why you can't call it
out.
Let's listen to this clip.
Manager,
Effie
Zionist.
This is a person who is calling for
basically
the destruction of Israel and Jewish America.
Okay. First point, calling to, you know, f
Zionists.
You cannot and isn't maybe he meets somewhere
in his brain feels this way, but you
can't keep pretending that saying Zionist means Jews.
It does not.
Orthodox Jews in the country, in the world,
in Israel will tell you that
regardless of that very clear and important DV
nuance of the conversation.
If somebody says f Zionists, listen to what
he says again. This is a person who
is calling for basically
the destruction
of Israel and Jewish America.
So by saying f Zionists, you're calling for
the destruction of a of of a country
and you're calling for the destruction of Jewish
America? Now explain to me how Jewish America
is in any way connected to the state
of Israel or the idea that that is
Zionism. See, that is the lie that they've
spun about that you can go by saying
this political ideology
is doing bad things somehow means you wanna
destroy all of Jews in America.
Think about how insane that is. Or the
destruction of anything for that matter but the
country of Israel.
Certainly, there could be in there, but you're
just, like, in a very aggressive way, broadening
out a very clear statement to just make
into whatever you want. You know why? Because
they
had
legally required, had to create the idea that
this was a national security issue.
And it I mean, do you realize how
flimsy that is?
And we've this is the same thing with
Garcia, with Khalil, and it's failing.
And yet here we are doubling down
in a moment when a lot of Americans
are going, is this because of Israel?
Yes. It is.
The Trump administration is not gonna allow antisemitism
to exist in this country. And Okay.
New sentence. Yeah. So just not allowed. You're
not allowed to say or think these things.
Where are you guys? Where are you out
there who care about the constitution? It doesn't
matter what the content is. It doesn't matter
whether you think it's racist or not. You're
allowed to say and think what you want.
And now they're telling you that's not true
anymore if it goes after Israel. We've been
making this point for years. I'm just hoping
maybe the right person will catch it today.
You know? Maybe this will spin into one
of the shows that actually gets allowed to
reach people. Maybe. That's all we really want
on this show. Things will change. Positive outcomes.
As head of the Department of Justice task
force, you can guarantee I can guarantee you,
Martha, and the American people, we're going to
eliminate
anti Semitic conduct. We got marching orders from
Pam Bonny, Harvey Dillard, and president Trump. That's
clear. They're ordering them to violate the constitution.
You know, one of many ways right now,
but that's one that's very obvious. And that's
why I'm here today. I'm telling you that
anti Semitism
is not gonna happen, and people who wanna
come in this country on a visa will
not be allowed
to enter this country if they have antisemitic
mindset with the with the intention to incite
violence.
How Orwellian is that?
And by the way, it's let's not pretend
like they don't, without question, mean Palestinian flags.
Akifa,
supporting Palestine
or Hezbollah
or, you know, Hamas, the group that Israel
funds. You know, that's a kind of a
conflicting thing, isn't it? Realize
I'm just kinda being facetious with those last
points. The simple idea is that you you
cannot support a
a a Palestinian
flag. As the ADL says, nope. That's racist.
So now you have a country telling you
you're not allowed to support this flag, but
you can waive that flag. Right? If you
support this flag, we're gonna not allow you
in the country, or we will remove you
if you ever support that flag because we're
gonna say you lied to us on the
application. Even if you just develop that belief
the last weeks you were here because you
saw the right video. No. You lied to
us like Rubio will always pretend.
It is
beyond the pale, guys.
I I really am, like, just flabbergasted why
we're not seeing a massive, like, watershed moment
from the Republican side.
Again, maybe we are, and it's just we
just live in a world where we don't
even ever see these things anymore because everything's
controlled. I don't know. This just seems over
the top.
Dang it. And people who wanna come to
this country on a visa will not be
allowed to enter this country if they have
anti Semitic mindset with the with the intention
to incite violence. I wanna thank the secretary
of state department for moving so fast on
this because we were on this over the
weekend, Martha, and we sent that letter immediately
to the secretary of state's office this morning
at 08:00.
Thank you, Mike Tyson Junior. Listen to the
way he's talking.
Look at the he's got he's got the
yellow pin on. Like, are we are we
not aware that we're, like, two year like,
you realize how far we are from that
event? How much genocide and occupation and destruction's
happened in all over the world? How I
mean, I mean, just it doesn't stop a
pager attack or the bombings, occupation of Syria
and Lebanon and Gaza. But, yeah, but wear
the pin for the day when the IDF
killed a lot of people. Right? The reality
of what actually happened on the it's insane
to me. Now that's not to say that
there weren't people killed by Hamas or Palestine
Islam with Jihad or others. But you have
to be honest with yourself about what actually
happened that day, that even Israelis are calling
out. But, nope, he'll support that pin because
that's the political agenda that gives him power.
That's where we are right now.
And, of course, I have to include this
like I always do because you need to
realize
this was this was
fork,
what's the word I'm looking for? It was
forecasted to you. It was it was displayed.
This is what's coming
over and over and over as he literally
did his campaign with Israeli flags behind him.
You know, look, I tried to show this
to people. This was not just one event,
guys. It was constantly done this way with
the Trump Vance banner in front of him.
He constantly had Israeli flags, but these are
different events, guys. Some of them were Israeli,
like, APAC or IPAC. Some of them some
of them weren't.
And they were literally constantly showing you the
Israeli dynamic the entire time. Every one of
these clips show you what he's telling you,
that he will sacrifice your interest for Israel
over and over and over. And this one
he says that you they use to control
congress, and rightly so. I mean, how do
we ignore all this stuff? Like, truly, how
do we look beyond
how simple this is? Just to make the
point from today,
how point blank says,
again,
whatever the hater is, whatever the first word
is, to say you're gonna remove somebody that
hates something
is textbook unconstitutional.
But he told you. He promised he would.
We will remove
the jihadist sympathizers
and Jew haters. We're gonna remove the Jew
haters
who do nothing to help our country. They
only wanna destroy our country.
Okay.
Now, again, let's let's remember that they call
them Jew haters when they, you know, maybe
just,
like Palestine,
you know, call for the end of the
genocide.
You're you hate Jews. We've everyone's seen it.
Now maybe, yeah, always, maybe possible, but that's
not what the statement says. And so here
he is going, we're gonna remove that which
mean we're gonna remove people that say things
about Palestine.
How how you can make that into something
that's constitutional, I do not know.
It's it's mental gymnastics at its worst.
And then on and on and on and
plenty more clips. Oh, and then by the
way, here's a couple down here where he
talks about shutting down the Internet with Bill
Gates and says you're stupid for thinking that's
unconstitutional.
Or this one about burning putting in jail
for burning the flag despite the enshrined obvious
constitutional
reality of doing that in any case with
any flag. And here he is saying you're
stupid for thinking that's against your against your
rights. I mean, it just never stops. And
there was another one too that recently happened
that so many of you guys.
But let's talk about Bob Dylan or, villain,
who I was even familiar with before this.
To me, it's not about supporting this person.
It's about highlighting that whoever it happens to,
it's unconstitutional. Or rather in the sense if
it's and you could just it's simply,
acting
from an American perspective with a violation of
your rights. And I'm only saying it like
that because I'm I'm not super versed on
the the the I know they're very similar
in some ways about the rights in The
UK versus here, but the point is about
doing this for Israel
at the expense of
anybody. And I realized this is an American
citizen.
At least he had American citizenship was the
same point. Right? This is what I was
saying briefly saying earlier. Once you have that
citizenship, that's supposed to be a barrier. Like,
there's not supposed to be outside of specific
crimes and different things. We'll get into in
a second. It's not supposed to be something
you could just readjudicate. You could go through
and say, well, we're gonna look through that
again. Look what you did way back here.
We're gonna yank that. That's what they're doing
right now. And this happened because of this
concert. And, of course, this and I call
him a fake human rights lawyer of the
guy in Israel, same thing. This fake judge
who's supposed to pretend to care about, you
know, oh, you know what? I'm thinking of
the wrong person, actually. This is Bridgette Gabriel.
Oh, she's the one for Fox News. Yeah.
Not surprising. Fox or CNN. It's all the
same stupid nonsense. But she says, great news.
As this guy is
removed well, like, go on. It says, British
punk rock duo, Bob Dylan, had their visas
revoked by The United States
after leading death to IDF Chan. Now I'm
pretty sure he had US citizenship, one of
their festivals. We do not need this anti
Semitic garbage. Either way, the point is you're
simply
attacking somebody
because of its words and statements and sentiments.
And this is a person who's cheering that
on.
You're you're I mean, the idea that you're
taking that away from a person who is
in this country, whether
illegal immigrant or anything. Right? It's constitution matters,
and they know that and don't care. Or
worse, they don't and don't understand it.
Terrifying.
But you have to understand how textbook this
is. And and and they're using this because
he got a lot of momentum.
And this is, Brenton Serk is simply pointing
out the woke right got Bob Dylan fired
for saying death to the IDF.
Kid Rock went on Joe Rogan and expressed
unapologetically
genocidal rhetoric. We remember
killing everybody in Gaza. I mean, that didn't
matter to anybody, did it? He he his
record label didn't drop him nor should they
have. Talk about leaning into the stereotype. Good
point.
Well, let's return to that breaking news. Sky
News understands the rap duo Bob Dylan has
been dropped by the United Talent Agency. It
comes after the BBC expressed regret
at not pulling the live stream
of the rap duo's performance during the Glastonbury
Festival.
Think about that.
We're expressing regret that you didn't censor it
in real time because he said something you
disagreed with? Goddamn it. This is this is
so obviously counter to what we believe in.
The corporation said anti Semitic sentiments expressed by
the group were utterly
unacceptable.
Isn't that interesting?
I just don't know how anybody could argue
that's not shockingly unconstitutional. Right?
Daniel McAdams. Oh, sorry.
Here you go.
Daniel McAdams?
Oh, let me play the clip first. RT,
this is them saying, why ban Bob Dylan
from The US over speech?
Because death to IDF is a national security
threat. See?
Is it?
How you how can you possibly work it
into
the,
a saying death to a foreign military is
somehow a national security risk. Well, maybe that's
because their their national security is about a
different nation.
It's not hard to see where this goes.
Awesome, Barry. Just getting to the decision to
revoke the thesis.
Members of this administration, particularly the vice president,
have been very vocal about free expression, saying
that even if things are are hateful, particularly
if the vice president took to task Germany
and to a certain extent The UK saying
that their laws that prohibit hateful content
and insults that those are inappropriate. What's the
difference here? I mean, I'm not justifying, I'm
not
supporting the law of terrorism as a ban,
But why is it that, that this siege
is out of law and while you have,
there's at the same time a push to,
not to outlaw free expression elsewhere when it
comes to it. Sorry. Before she answers, I
wanna point out. I I actually mixed up
the we're gonna get to the story in
a second. I've got three or four lined
up about The US citizenship point. So Bob
Dylan has a visa, not a citizenship. The
point well, I'll get to it again why
the principle is the same. But the point
is that there was another one we're gonna
get to where there has been a US
citizen where that's been revoked.
Right? And we're gonna there's a whole section
we're gonna get to. That's why it's I
got mixed up in my head. I've used
this as a starting point, but we're gonna
get into the naturalization point and the memo
the DOJ just put out about focusing focusing
on revoking US citizenship. And that's why I
started with that clip. But just to clarify,
that was my mistake. I'm just mixing it
up. There's a thousand things we're talking about
today. But as before we get when we
get done with this, I'm gonna go into
the point about visas. Right? It's the same
as the illegal immigrant point, guys. The rights
and the constitutional rights are the same. And
all they're simply saying is that because they
have visa, they can revoke this because he
said the wrong things. In principle, it's no
different, guys. Just like I said before.
Why is it that, that this speech is
out of law and while you have, there's
at the same time a push to, not
to outlaw free expression elsewhere when it comes
to insults. Right. I I think that, again,
this is not
about the nature of, a concert, I suppose,
but it really is about our standards, about
who we let in the country. That we're
not telling people what they can sing about
or what they can say. That does it's
not involved here at all. They obviously felt
free to say what they were saying and
chanting at Glastonbury,
and they can do that. And we can
do what we do. So it See, that's
such a lazy you know what that comes
back to? That's like same thing we saw
before. It's like, well, then we can do
that, and then we have right to call
you out. Well, it's not the same point
as the government. Right? As the government who
is bound by rather the constitution binds everybody,
but the reality is that those are inherent
god given rights that they are not supposed
to challenge.
So, by you saying, we're just doing what
we wanna do. Well, yeah, what you're doing
is unconstitutional.
It's it's just this is why I get
so frustrated that none of these clowns in
this room can piece together that response or
don't want to. It's so stupid to argue
that we're we're just doing what we want
to. Well, yes. You
revoking this because of what he said is
taking action because of what he stated, which
then makes it unconstitutional
because you're not allowed to revoke somebody's visa
based on speech, first of all. But secondarily,
that if you are going to allege that
they're a security threat, well, guess what? Now
we're back to the same point. Due process.
You're supposed to convict you the charge is
presented and the merits of that supposed to
be weighed.
You know, these peep this is what scares
me more than anything, that maybe they don't
even know that.
Like, no. I'm not knowing what habeas corpus
is. I think that's where we might be
at the very or they're lying to you,
you know, but I find the the former
much more alarming.
Really is about the issue of national security,
about issues of violence,
the increase certainly of antisemitism,
but of terror Oh, right. Okay. So violence?
You said something out loud. Well, so antisemitism,
you rapidly push to the middle of those
things. Violence, antisemitism, terrorism. Yeah. So neither of
those first or last things actually apply, but
it's just about the words he said.
So the way that she tried to smash
that in there shows you that they know
what they're doing, guys. Listen again.
And we can do what we do. So
it really is about the issue of national
security,
about issues of violence,
the increase certainly of antisemitism,
but of terrorism in general.
That dynamic, the crime in The United States,
what happened with the open border. So what
see now, this is what they do.
Terrorism and the boogeyman and pedophilia and trafficking
and people get in their chain or just
these broads. How does that apply to him
saying that's in a stage?
What does the border have to do with
him saying, hey. I killed the or, death
of the IDF? What they're doing is trying
to wrap your mind into these larger topics
that somehow he's responsible for illegal immigrants killing
your family.
It's just it's insane, and it just continues
to show you that they have no standing.
The transnational
gangs that are here. This is Every time.
Kind of wanton
dynamic,
that has ruined American lives, that has created,
cities that are unlivable.
Okay. So we're still talking about Bob Dylan,
by the way, who said something on stage.
And every American deserves better. They deserve to
know they have leadership as we do now.
Okay. And that's why they voted for Donald
Trump. Ah, here we are again. Simple basic
law and order
with respect Except you're violating that, though. But
who cares about the facts? You know? For
your neighbor. And if you're coming to this
country, respect for the people who are here.
No. No. That's not required. You're not required
to feel or think anything. You complete moron
or you complete unconstitutional liar.
You that's not how that works.
This game they're playing where they're trying you
have to respect what my what what Trump
said or you can't have a meme about
Vance on your phone because we're gonna
everything about that is just grotesque. It is
the opposite of what we pretend we are.
But the sad part is there are a
bunch of screaming children out there that love
it, who are being framed as what we
all want.
So as Daniel McAdams says, because death to
the IDF is a national security threat, the
state department's Tammy Bruce says.
This is the same US State Department Spokeswoman
who recently said The US is the greatest
country in the world
next to Israel.
Very clearly said that more than once. Houston,
we've got a problem.
Pretty easy to see, guys.
Now here,
Laura Loomer
pointing out that that, you know, the point
about the Kifa. And I just wanna I'm
just trying to highlight how ins how, you
know, clear this is, that this is about
this is a person who wants to profess
to be a constitutionalist, who cares about free
speech and rights, and then turns around and
says, that
guy at the airport is not allowed to
wear Akiva. Not allowed to wear a scarf.
Now realize that I have a scarf that
is just a black and white checkered scarf
that I bought from that has nothing to
do with it being but people oh, it's
Akiva.
And I I also have Akifa, by the
way, that I would happily wear out. What's
funny to me is that ignorant people like
this will make anything they want out of
anything. And the bottom line is regardless of
whether it's Akifa or not, for you to
argue that he's not allowed to be in
this country, in fact, that he's a national
security threat
because he wears a scarf?
I just I don't even know how to
articulate how stupid that is. These people are
a problem, but yet I would defend their
right to be that problem every day of
my life.
3,000,000 views and 40,000 likes, she says. Americans
don't want more Palestinian activity in America. We
don't want airline workers wearing these rags. Oh,
we. Isn't it funny we just went over
this? So now Laura Loomer can speak for
the nation? Oh, excuse me. That's funny. I'm
thinking of the morning. We were on on
a and wake up, we talked about this.
A and wake up, he played a clip
from Patrice O'Neil and this this woman on
her old Fox News show. And the point
was, she was trying to say people are
tired of of racist jokes or whatever it's
about. And he's like, you speak for the
nation now?
You realize how ridiculous that is for her
to pretend that she somehow represents the the
view of our country?
We don't want it's just people don't want
more Palestine. What are you talking about? The
vast majority of this country, in any poll
you look at, are calling out Israel's genocide.
And also you, it seems now, repeatedly,
when she says Southwest Airlines should be investigated.
It's just it's in I don't know how
people like I mean, I should I I'll
stop saying that. I do. I know exactly
how morons like this get put in these
positions put in these positions
to say that now you should what context
are you claiming Southwest Airlines should be investigated
because the guy was allowed to wear a
clothing, a piece of clothes?
That's irresponsible,
and it's really just to try to get
some kind of, like, lash out momentum going,
to get people screaming and outraged. This is
like outrage machine kinda stuff.
It's a national security threat. Now why do
you think she's saying that? Because that's the
talking point. That if we pretend that it's
not just speech, it's a national security threat,
we can kind of side sidestep the look
the constitutionality
of it all.
And she posted on thirtieth. So this is
a picture of this guy that somebody sent
me that I'm sure she did a due
diligence. Right? I'm sure she made sure it
wasn't AI or something else. Right? Sort of
like when she ate dog food for being
paid a $100 and was lied to about
what it was, turned up to be Purina.
We covered that when it first happened. All
of a sudden, it's made its rounds again.
It was proven, guys. I've been over this
myself. She got tricked into eating dog food,
Purina, from a vacuum sealed bag somebody sent
her, claiming it was some specialized food that
was human grade, and it wasn't. And it
was a $100 that they paid her to
not and you have to understand that somebody's
not doing their due diligence
for a $100 to randomly eat something somebody
sent to you, they don't do any
anything. It's the same point with Alex. You
guys, they don't do any so my point
is that for she got a picture that
she was like, oh, that's gonna get people
outraged. That's gonna get momentum going. So I'm
gonna scream about this and say, let's investigate
anybody ever there. Look at the guy who
knows him, his neighbor. Investigate him too. Take
his children away. That's the kind of insane
stuff we're seeing people like this. She did
it with Khalil and the rest. Try to
get their children taken away from her because
of their lies.
I just wanna show you that this is
supposed to be a constitutionalist. That's what she
pretends to be. And on top of that,
3,000,000 views and 40,000 likes.
I don't think she's
she's
not very bright.
4,000,000 views with 40,000 likes is not a
good ratio. And it shows that with how
much influence and reach you have, that the
vast majority of the people that saw this
were not liking it.
But she doesn't care. Facts don't matter to
these kind of people.
Open source intel just simply said, Bob Dylan
holds a concert calling the death of the
IDF.
Now realize we'll get it. The point again,
my point was not about the context or
whether or not we're defending him or the
the point is that he can say whatever
he wants. He come out and say, if
you come out and say death to the
is the British military, death to the American
government, which everybody seems to be no problem
in the world, and you but you can't
say the IDF. It just shows you the
real issue. But the point was, if you
look at it, clearly, it was a it
was talking about the context of the ongoing
genocide and what they're doing. I mean, are
is anybody gonna bock at death to Nazis?
So if, you know, that's not to say
that you think through the same thing. Maybe
you don't. My point is to make a
re an obviously logical point that everyone knows
what happened in regard to the ethnic cleansing
of the Nazi party. So
what's the difference here? Everyone also knows what
the IDF is currently doing in Gaza. So
how how is it that much different? The
co but again, it's not about defending the
content. He has a right to say what
he wants. But they go on and say,
Bob Dylan's talent agency dropped him, which they
did, very rapidly, by the way. Bob Dylan's
US visa revoked. Bob Dylan twenty six show
tour canceled.
So who's crying now? Because he posted this
saying, while Zionists are crying on socials, I've
had late night vegan ice cream.
So this supposedly source intel platform is like,
who's lying right now, Bob Dylan?
So not somebody you should listen to objectively.
Right? Because they're emotional, you know, incur like
like, I just it's funny people that try
to prevent present themselves as, like, you know,
intel and, you know, data. You're that's an
emotional argument. And that you're cheering on the
fact that this massive violation of his rights
because he said something you disagree with.
You can't people like that are going to
mislead you when it matters to them because
they have a clear emotional agenda.
That, guys, is insane.
To and, also, think about how rapidly this
took place.
So to be clear, there's a the Zionist
effort is to try to make people believe
that Jews are on the world, even though
it's Zionism through all sorts of things. But
here's how they make that work. Right?
Because there right now, you got Zionism
upset with this. And in a matter of
moments,
you get a worldwide response. You get him
canceled in Britain. You get him removed from
his agency. And in The US, they revoke
his visa. They cancel his entire trip.
How does that not prove that Zionism is
do is completely able to dictate what they
want in the world? But see, the problem
is they then get that people that don't
know the information or they you you fall
into the trap. You then make you take
that as proof that Jews are doing that,
and they're not, not in entirety. Yes. There
are Zionist Jews involved. There's Zionist Christians involved.
You could disagree with me, but please do
your due diligence because I think it's very
obvious.
But think about what that shows you. Zionism
is able to snap its fingers and boom,
worldwide response.
Not like we don't all know that already.
Now what's interesting, just to make another point
that I do think is very positive, and
how long have we been talking about this?
They have lost control, they being the power
structures. They can't control the narratives anymore, and
we all see that. That's why a lot
of this is happening. And this proves that
in my opinion. It says this is why
they tried to ban TikTok. Now you can
decide if that's the case or not. They've
lost control.
The BBC censored kneecaps performance, different group,
but it says of the performance at Glastonbury,
the same concert location, but a lady named
Helen
streamed
the whole thing
to 1,700,000
people from her phone.
So they tried to they appear to ban
it, shut it down,
and 1,700,000
people tuned in through her phone livestream of
the event. It says, last year, BBC's broadcast
of headliner Dua Lipa averaged only 1,400,000.
They have lost control. Legacy
mainstream legacy media can't control the narrative anymore.
We are the media now, he writes. Dangerous
thing to say, you know, for the people
out there that are also juvenile about their
coverage, don't check their facts. But the point
is,
as it always has been,
you're you are a journalist if you wanna
be. This this kind of controlled, like, access
journalism has been a way to control the
narrative for a very long time. Supreme court
has ruled many times over. You don't need
to have a license or credentials to be
a journalist.
But it says, we have all the TV
broadcast studios in our pockets. I agree with
that.
Use it, he says. Spread the truth. Now
this is what's interesting.
Somebody tried to push back and says, stream
the whole thing to 1.7. That's isn't this
isn't a fact, however.
And I did look at there's lots of
articles about it, and that that that proves
it either. But the point is that generally
accepted reality is this person had a streaming,
that says one says 2,000,000.
This one says reached about one point, 1,700,000.
And the point is, it's all the same
conversation. This woman decided to stream her phone
from the concert and got, at the very
least, more than BBC did with their last
major, you know, mainstream push. And he says,
all these news outs outlets would beg to
differ. It's not possible to verify after streams
end, but the screenshots with people watching it
with 1,500,000
tuned in partway are public and public and
ready readily available.
Any post down there for below for this
for the podcast.
So excuse
me. So the point
is that it's obvious to me that they're
not enabled they they really wanna channel this
in directions to make you think that's what
everybody thinks,
but they don't.
That's why these, you know, mainstream alternative media
people are, you know, they're trying to they're
making they're like like a loomer. They're they're
look at how big they are. They're following,
and they're reaching everybody. And behind the scenes,
it seems like everybody knows it. Even, like,
Tucker and everybody else are kind of she's
it doesn't she's a special case of insanity,
but
I can see as well as anybody can
that chooses to look that this has shifted
dramatically. And people are very much seeing through
it, and they are in a desperate like,
I think a truly desperate effort to try
to make you think otherwise.
And that's failing
too. At least consider it. I think the
evidence is very clear.
Now, speaking of the sycophants that wanna maintain
the illusion, I think this is a huge
part of it. This is a such a
this joke that I made about this is
such it's exactly what I'm talking about. And
this is the kind of person that is,
like, lockstep,
maintain whatever we're told to do. So Nick's
order come out came out, this was yesterday,
and says, breaking, like everything else they post
even though it's already been discussed. The Trump
DOJ has begun to prioritize
has begun to prioritizing
stripping naturalized citizens of their US citizenship
when they're charged with crimes per a recent
memo, except it's a it doesn't it's crimes
are one part of it, but, you know,
misrepresenting
indirection of what they want you to think
is what their job is. But he goes,
yes. Democrats have handed out citizenship to way
too many people. That's the way you counterbalance
it. Democrats did it. So even though it's
wrong, we should cheer it on, and it
says strip citizenship and deport. Well, here we
are. Now you've got the next source of
the world calling for US citizens to lose
their citizenship because that's what it is. US
citizens, whether or not they were naturalized US
citizens.
Didn't we all tell you this was coming?
Didn't we all warn that they've been constantly
telling you they're going to be next?
We have yet another clip of Trump doing
that today.
US citizens will be next.
I mean, guys, it's it's a I mean,
it is a nuanced
semantic point, really, when it comes down to
it about becoming
anybody who's a US citizen. Because in principle,
like it is with visas or illegal aliens,
it's the same thing.
So here he is literally cheering on a
shockingly unconstitutional thing. We'll go over it all
tooth and nail. This guy doesn't care about
that.
And as I said,
in a basically like framing it as a
back and forth, Trump says, today I'm announcing
something, and it will be better than anything
ever created ever.
Nick Sorter says, hooray for something. Something is
exactly what we voted for. Something is America
first. If you don't blindly cheer for something,
you hate America.
Trump the next day, something was never a
good idea, as I've always said.
Nick Sorter, thirty seconds later,
Only Democrats support something, and Trump fighting something
is exactly what we voted for. Rinse and
repeat. I mean, do we not all see
how dumb and obvious that is? And every
one of these certain people, it doesn't matter.
They will jump in and be like, the
thing is the thing. And we always knew
and he always said, and we voted for
it it every single time.
Let's be clear again, and we're gonna go
through it right now. To remove citizenship
in in in for from a US citizen
for what they're telling you it's for in
the memo they released, which is in one
case criticizing Israel,
is
textbook unconstitutional.
And it is a very small move away
from you as well.
So here is Trump,
and I believe this was today, if not
yesterday,
calling for deporting US citizens.
This shouldn't be shocking. I mean, how long
we were here here it is on April
14.
Trump admin suggests sending Americans to foreign prisons
for the fourth time.
There was a fifth time after that.
Kelly,
leave it did said one. Bondi, I believe,
said one as well.
I talked about this on March 22. Trump
could send Americans to El Salvador.
And then again on April 3, Americans speaking
out about Israel's genocide
could be next. In principle, it's the same.
Here we are.
We're trying to warn everybody, but you get
the typical people that don't care about the
outcome and just care about their immediate benefit
will scream over you and get raised up
because they're promoting the right narratives.
Here's what Trump said again.
This makes what the sixth time that Trump
has casually floated the idea of removing American
citizens from The United States for any reason
should be alarming to you.
You know, a little controversial, but I couldn't
care less.
We have a lot of bad criminals that
came into the,
into the this country, and they came in
stupidly. It was an unforced error. It was
a incompetent president that allowed it to happen.
It was an auto pen maybe that allowed
it. All this all the same narrative narrative
narrative. May maybe was
well, if it's maybe, then why do you
keep repeating it without knowing it for sure?
Because it's just it's what keeps the conversation
going. I made the point about the auto
pen. Nobody can ever really prove like they
never
to because I don't think it ever existed
they had any proof that Biden let somebody
else do it. Wouldn't surprise me. The guy
was senile.
But they've never had that evidence. All they
have evidence of is that it was used.
So did Trump use it. And it's actually
been protected. They
ruled more than once that it is allowable.
So what are we talking about? It's all
about trying to suggest to you without evidence
because that should clearly is what guides their
mindset that Biden somebody else was doing it
for him, and it's all been some surreptitious
well, maybe Israel then. But no. No. No.
We don't go that direction. It's just it's
ridiculous. But here's where it gets into the
overlap of Americans. Happened. And it did happen,
but we also have a lot of bad
people that have been here for a long
time. People that whack people over the head
with a baseball bat from behind when they're
not looking and kill them. People that Same
narrative. Same talking points. Knife you when you're
walking down the street. All those are crimes
they could already be able to count before.
That has nothing to do with you know,
he's giving you bad examples to somehow
rationalize why people who might say bad things
that is real are the same thing. They're
not they're not new to our country. They're
old to our country. Many of them were
born in our country. I think we ought
to get them the hell out of here
too if you wanna know the truth. So
maybe that'll be the next job that we'll
work on together. But I think getting them
out, you know, we forget about them. We
have some very bad we had some bad
accidents in New York, and they're not accidents.
Did you miss the most important part?
But,
Night View when you're walking down the street,
they're not they're not new to our country.
They're old to our country. Many of them
are born in our old to our country.
Many of them are born in our country.
Old to our country. Many of them are
born in our country.
Oh. Oh, you mean
born in this country, American citizens.
Okay. So let's pretend let's not let's not
keep pretending like he only means people that
came here and got citizenship.
He just explicitly stated
people who were born here who did bad
things.
I don't know how much more clear this
can get, guys. It's obvious what he's doing.
I think we ought to get them the
hell out of here too if you wanna
know the truth. So maybe that'll be the
next job that we'll work on together. But
I think getting them out, you know, we
forget about them. We have some very bad
we had some bad accidents in New York,
and they're not accidents.
My god. Well, let's play this again. We
started with it. Here's what judge Napolitano has
to say. And and you guys, this is
realize,
in principle, which he clearly demonstrates,
this is about
anybody
who is a US citizen. Doesn't matter how
that came about, a US citizen. And that's
his point in this.
And realize that to just again to be
clear, he just made it both. He made
it clear that it's about anybody even those
that were born here that he has a
I just I've just I'm honestly floored about
this sometimes, how this is actually happening.
Some respects, it's just as bad now, the
authoritarianism,
that is coming, Gerald. I am really, really
fearful for the president of The United States
Of America to suggest as he did on
Air Force One on Sunday night,
that American
citizens could be deported
for his press secretary to say, we're looking
into,
a way to see if this is legal.
We don't know if it's legal or not.
A is terrifying.
B, betrays such a profound ignorance of first
principles to which he is sworn. He is
sworn to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution
and to enforce,
federal law. You mentioned that you're open to
deporting, individuals that aren't foreign aliens but are
criminals to El Salvador. Does that in does
that include potentially US citizens fully naturalized in
Ukraine?
If they're criminals and if they hit people
with baseball bats over their head that happened
to be 90 years old and
if, So the point is the same thing
was discussed right here. Both he the guy
rapidly says it, but he mentions both. People
born here and people naturalized.
Says the same thing.
If they rape
87 year old women in Coney Island, Brooklyn,
yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That includes them. What? Do
you think there's special category of person? They're
as bad as anybody that comes in. We
have bad ones too. Profoundly un American, utterly
unconstitutional,
and I am sorry to say is coming.
So, again, he said it many times, and
I will include these for you in discussions
of where that's coming to. So let's get
to the actual memo. This was put out.
This is just James Lee highlighting it. We
already talked about the general point saying you
can be denaturalized, which applies to those who
were came here and got citizenship. It's the
same principle
for criticizing Israel, being critical of the war
with Iran, or sharing information the Trump administration
deems to be against US national security interests.
Pretty clear. All and what let's just go
through it. All this all of this is
a massively unconstitutional step. Eric Mahadi,
Mahdi Hassan simply says, told you so. And
this is the we're gonna read the NP
article here. DOJ announces plan to prioritize
stripping Americans of citizenship.
As it says, the justice department is aggressively
prioritizing efforts to strip some Americans of their
US citizenship. Department leadership is directing its attorneys
to prioritize
denaturalization
in cases involving naturalized citizens who commit certain
crimes. Now we're gonna go over what that
is with the actual information. Here's the actual
memo, by the way, if you wanna actually
read through it yourself.
Denaturalization
is a tactic that was heavily used during
the McCarthy era. You know, what we we
all recognize like a stain or history of,
like, the, you know, the red scare, you
know, of the late nineteen forties and which
everyone was accused of of communism and, you
know, it's a whole thing. Russia and, like,
this whole basically,
political enemies used it to go after their
enemies, which is exactly what we see today.
And the early nineteen fifties and one that
was expanded during the Obama administration
and grew further during president Trump's first term.
It's meant to strip citizens from those citizenship
from those who may have lied about their
criminal convictions. Right? So somebody who comes in
on and that's what that's how they're trying
to conflate this about somehow, you know, you
later supporting Palestinians means you lied on your
visa application. That's why they're doing that.
Being able to support Palestine is not the
same thing. Then what they're saying is, well,
you you have a murder charge from a
foreign country and you come in and lie
about that. Well, that would event that anytime
later would be able to be used against
you to say, well, you lied about it.
You are you're a murderer. That that revokes
that. And it
says, or membership in illegal groups
like Nazi party, which is funny because that
becomes the other way they're trying to make
it into, you know, even pretending people have
connections to groups that they therefore clear are
the terrorists. Meanwhile, you're allowed to be a
Saudi Arabian, you know, mercenary or you could
be an an Israeli IDF member murdering children,
but those things don't account. Or it says
communist during McCarthyism on their censorship application. That
included with the same point being, you know,
during that era, if you were communist, that
would be allowed to be revoked. Well, that's
where that's where they're they've studied this and
they're building into the same momentum right now.
That's what I believe. Trying to build this
into, well, they're secretly antisemitic, which is national
security risk. That's what they're doing.
Same point then, guys. It's no different. It
was also unconstitutional. Now it says attorney
assistant attorney general Brett a Schumet
wrote in the memo that pursue pursuing
denaturalization
will be among the agency's top five enforcement
priorities for the civil division.
And we're gonna get into the civil versus
criminal, which is important in this.
All civil division employees.
It says, but immigration law experts expressed serious
concerns about the efforts constitutionality.
The DOJ memo says the, that the federal
government will pursue denaturalization cases via civil litigation.
An especially concerning move, said Cassandra Robertson, a
law professor. Now if you understand, it's as
far as I can tell, it has at
least for the last for the long time,
like, you know, last few administrations been applied
as a civil investigation as opposed to a
criminal. And that changes dramatically the burden of
proof. It changes whether you get a lawyer
afforded to you. These things greatly matter, and
I'll show you why in a second. And
I think this is why it's being applied
this way. In civil proceedings, an individual subject
to denaturalization
or in any really is not entitled to
an attorney.
There is also a lower burden of proof
for the government to reach. In criminal, it's
it's, you know, beyond a shadow of a
doubt, or it's not the same for civil.
And is it is it is far easier
and faster to reach a conclusion in these
cases, which is why they're doing that.
Robertson says that stripping Americans of citizenship through
civil litigation violates due process and infringes on
the rights of guarantee rights guaranteed by the
fourteenth amendment. I will look at that in
a second. Hans von Spakovsky,
with the Conservative Heritage Foundation supports the DOJ's
denaturalization efforts.
Quote, I do not understand how anyone could
possibly be opposed to the justice department taking
such action to protect the nation from obvious
predators, criminals, and terrorists. Well, that's
if you pretend that's all that's happening, yeah,
sure sounds like that makes sense, except it's
not, though. In the vast majority of cases,
you can quite literally prove that's why Trump
goes to rapist and hit the grandmas and
then goes after the guy who just said
bad things about Israel. They're trying to play
you. It says, as for the due process
concerns,
Von Spakowski
said, nothing prevents that alien from hiring their
own lawyer to represent them. Right. And spending
what? $100,000 they don't have? Like, if this
is the whole, like, you know, debitor's court,
we're in a position where poor people, that's
the that's the same. Poor people go to
jail, rich people get lawyers.
They are not entitled to have their government
and thus the American taxpayer pay for their
lawyer. Why not?
That's the right of anybody else in these
situations, but you're creating a circumstance where you
know, it's not just it's all civil, but
the point is you're, I think, putting something
that shouldn't be in that suit in a
position where people who, you know, are are
clearly like, let's put somebody who is a,
you know, struggling or from running from foreign
crowd. The people that are refugees, for example,
any other dynamics don't have the money and
resources to do that.
I think that's why that's happening. And so
the argument and realize this applies to people
that also might be US citizens is the
point. That's the denaturalization.
So you're a US citizen,
and yet you're not being allowed to defend
yourself properly because they claim what they're trying
to create as as they talk about here
is, like, a second tier process to where
you're a set US citizen, but not really
though because you're from a foreign country. That
that's what they're doing.
It says that is not due process.
Or that is that is not a due
process violation, he claims, since all immigration proceedings
are civil matters and no individuals, including American
citizens, are entitled to government furnished lawyers in
any civil matter. But that's the point.
And it's it's
arguably, it was not always I mean, the
history does seem to show that there's an
overlap with that, but there's arguments made that
there was a major shift in the past
Trump administration.
According to this new memo, it says the
DOJ is expanding its criteria
of which crimes put individuals at risk of
losing their citizenship. We know how that's being
applied.
That includes national security violations, and there you
go. Like, that's all they need to say.
That means whatever they want it to mean.
So if having a Palestinian flag makes you
a national security threat or a Kifa, for
example,
then then all then that's enough for them
to deport you if you're a US citizen.
The construct's already there. And we all know
this is where it's going, guys. I don't
think any People who are trying to act
like it's not are the ones that are
secretly cheering for that to happen. That's my
opinion. It says that includes national security violations
and committing acts of fraud against individuals or
against the government,
like paycheck protection program loan fraud or Medicaid
or Medicare fraud or many other things like
the many different Saudi Arabian manipulations.
There's a bunch of points you can make
about things we've proven over the years that
don't get included in that. My point is
that there are different or how about, actually,
I'll hold that off in a second. There's
a point I'm gonna make directly from the
actual citations
that overlap with
being in a foreign military.
Nah.
Like a Brian Mast kind of character. So
you can all point out a very clear
choice
to not apply it where it obviously should
while trying to apply it to people where
it doesn't seem like it actually fits.
Quote, to see that this administration is plotting
out how they're going to expand its its
use in ways that we have not seen
before is very shocking and very concerning. I
mean, how how do we not agree with
that?
The idea that in this the only way
that that's not concerning is if you just
convince yourself that they're doing it for the
right reasons
because they believe believe in them. Well, maybe.
But an intelligent person through history of the
world and our government would it would go
well.
One, maybe I'm wrong about what they're trying
to do or their intentions. And two, that
power will be there when the next administration
takes over.
See, we can't think that far ahead when
the partisan game, it seems. Quote, it is
kind of, in a way, trying to create
a second class of US citizen. I agree
with that. Other immigration experts point to another
part of the oh, well, actually, I wanna
take one step back.
Right now, that's about the
nat naturalization, like becoming a US citizen, moving
here versus being born here.
But because, again, it comes down to a
very small principle. Like, the point would be,
how long until
you were born here, but you wore the
kifa or you supported Palestine. Therefore, now you
get knocked into that second category where you
can be deported.
I believe this is where it's going.
Other immigrant experts point to another part of
the guidance, which gives US attorneys broader discretion
to determine other eligible denaturalization cases.
Quote, these categories do not limit the civil
division from pursuing any particular case, the mammal
states. So they're basically giving themselves carte blanche
in a lot of ways and prioritizes
for denaturalization
can include, quote, any other case referred to
the civil division
that the division determines to be sufficient important
to pursue.
So whatever I wanna do, whatever we that
that's ridiculous.
They've given it this opening to go after
whatever they want.
Steve Lubet, professor emeritus at the Northwestern University
Pritzker School of Law,
said that language appears to grant the federal
government wide discretion
on deciding whom to target.
While pretending like there's a small scope that
only applies to crimes, they're playing us, guys,
like they always do left or right.
Quote, many of of the categories are so
vague as to be meaningless.
Like national security risk, for example, it is
even clear that they relate it isn't even
clear that they relate to fraudulent procurement
as opposed to post naturalization
conduct. That's exactly the point.
Like, for example, taking part in a protest
against Israel. To claim that you somehow planned
that six years ago when you became a
US American citizen is just stupid. Certainly possible,
but it's also protected under your constitutional rights.
Everything they're doing is clearly a textbook violation,
guys.
Von, Spakovsky argues, when we entered the opportunity
extend, excuse me, we extend the opportunity for
naturalization
to aliens,
which
as far as I understand it, is the
only way that is a way to frame
that. We are granting them a great privilege,
he says. The privilege of becoming a US
citizen. He says, quite frankly, I don't think
it matters
whether someone was a human trafficker or drug
smuggler before they enter the country, while they
were applying for citizenship, or after the naturalization.
He says he he continued, quote, anyone who
has abused the privilege
of the opportunity of becoming a US citizen
should have that citizenship revoked
when they engage in such such behavior. You
don't see how this is being teed up?
No. You wanna make the argument that it
just means that if they were naturalized and
they later break the law, then it shouldn't
matter. Well, no. In principle, that's a
US citizen that you're just so by that
same principle, you could have your citizenship revoked
because you broke the law, which is what
Trump is openly saying might happen.
But the other part of that is you're
being teed up to make the argument that
this it doesn't matter
whether they did it before or whenever, that
anyone,
he
says, who's abused that privilege, you, anybody,
should have that revoked when they engage in
such activity, you know, like criticizing Israel.
This just couldn't be more clear.
Now, this is an interesting overlap.
Just like we talked about with the, you
know, what was the example? I can't remember
now. The the point is it's not about
defending the person
or defending their acts. It's about the principle.
You're defending the principle, and they always use
a case that makes it easy for you
to ignore the principle. Right? If somebody who's
a a murderer or, you know, villain, it's
you go, wow. You know, he's a bad
guy anyway. You don't want it. But that's
the time when you should defend it the
most
because that's where they'll they'll always abuse it.
So in this case, there's already been one
example
of a US citizen being revoked. This is
interesting. His name was Elliot Duke.
They revoked his citizenship. Now it says in
02/2012,
while serving in Germany,
who, he's an army veteran, by the way.
Originally from The UK, but moved to United
States and became a US citizen. It says
in 02/2012, while serving in Germany,
Duke began receiving and distributing child sexual abuse
material, which is abhorrent, via email on the
Internet, according to the DOJ,
which this is in my opinion, this is
exactly why this case was chosen because nobody's
gonna stand up and say his rights should
be defended because they're gonna say you you
defend child sexual abuse. No, not at all.
Obviously not. I'm defending the principle of rights
that apply to anybody. But you see the
child the children in the room are gonna
wanna rush out to try to make that
case because they either like it, they wanna
attack you, they get funny, or because they
genuinely don't understand they're wrong.
But the point is that this guy has
rights like anybody else. Now there's a nuance
into whether they were violated, but I just
wanna make this case for what comes next.
It says,
in January the following year, Duke became a
naturalized American citizen, but revoked The US citizenship
to do so, which is I think how
that generally works for the most case. The
DOJ file or in some cases has to
be, but it says the DOJ filed a
legal case against Duke
back in February of this year in Louisiana
seeking Duke's denaturalization. So it's interesting that they
started with this case
before they made this public sentiment. Like, this
feels very coordinated to me.
And it says,
based both on the conviction for child sexual
abuse material and the failure to disclose their
crimes during the process. You know, this is
my point.
Based on the law, I you don't need
I think the argument of the crime is
enough. We're we're gonna go into the actual
breakdown.
But by orbiting into the idea of not
divulging this, which I mean is clearly he
is a a a,
you know,
what's the you know, he has disgusting proclivity.
This is a this is a bad person
who deserves to be held accountable for the
crimes he's committing. But
the argument of making it about somehow like,
is it impossible that he started doing that
when he was here? The point is they're
trying to work that into the lying on
the application. So then if any point down
the line you do that, then you claim
that, well, you plan to or that you
always were. I think that's what's happening here,
but follow along. It says, in the months
it took to get a decision to the
case,
get a decision on their case, Duke tried
to get a defense attorney.
This is this is where I'm getting to,
to help fight the case to no avail.
They told NPR he wasn't able to to
get a lawyer.
Duke was also unable to travel there for
the proceedings. Now I've double checked this in
other reports.
He did not have a lawyer, and he
wasn't even there.
Now doesn't this matter to anybody? Like, I'm
not trying to defend this person. This is
a criminal. He should be in jail, especially
for the crimes against our most vulnerable. I
will always take that line, but
it doesn't matter what your crime is. Are
we pretending this person does not have the
right to have a lawyer? Or in this
case, he couldn't afford one, he couldn't find
one, and that's the case of why it's
in civil because people and whether you know,
I'm not gonna wanna defend that this guy
is the victim. My point is in other
cases
where
an immigrant
who does have a real who just said
the wrong thing about Israel according to them,
who doesn't have the money or the time
or the resources because they rapidly run the
process to get a lawyer and therefore you
go, it's not our responsibility. Well, that's why
it's being done that way. But the other
part of that I think is the most
important. How in the world are you gonna
be
sentenced to anything, whether in civil or not,
and not even be present in the courtroom?
The point is that this is where they're
going with this, guys. And I think this
case was set up so no one wants
to call it out. So nobody wants to
go I mean, set up he deserves to
be in jail, but used in this way
to to make it into a case where
nobody wants to point out that you've already
set up the process to where you can
just go boom, boom, boom, right? Without even
them there and claim it's their fault for
not showing up or whatever, just thirty seconds
later, boom, show them out of the country.
I think that's already gonna start happening.
It goes on to say regardless of the
crimes due committed, the situation sets a dangerous
precedent, said Laura Bingham, executive director of the
Temple University Institute for Law, Innovation, and Technology.
If the government continues to open the question
of censorship
or because of citizenship up for people
open the question of citizenship up for people
who have already received it, this creates a
slippery slope for everyone.
Hard to see the logic there. Citizenship, quote,
is not supposed to be something, excuse me,
that you continuously open up
for some people.
You can't and you can't for others.
It goes on to say, in the McCarthy
era,
denaturalization
was wielded
frequently as a political tool during the red
scare type McCarthy era. The Supreme Court stepped
in and issued a ruling in '67
that said that denaturalization
is
inconsistent with the American form of democracy
because it creates two levels of citizenship.
Oh, okay. So now we go back to
Supreme Court precedent that already ruled that what
Trump's doing right now is inconsistent with what
we're told we have.
Yeah. So, maybe we just don't have we
have, and then it all works out, right?
That's the point we're making is that we
don't we're we don't we are not where
we think we are. So, there and just
there's so many precedents that show you that
we are either being driven to this point
from somebody that wants this country to collapse
or somebody who is driving to drive us
there for absolute control. Those are the two
things that make sense to me, probably both
at the same time.
The reality is that if they've already ruled,
this is a, you know, contrary, it's contradictory
to, repugnant to
our democracy, if you believe that's what we
still have, or should in ill. It simply
shows you that they're going away from what
they're telling you they wanna build. Now it
says, quote, so The United States went from
having 20,000
some cases in '67 before
of denaturalization
a year based on many cases alleging that
you're a communist, whether or not they can
prove that.
It went to 20,000 in a year to
having just a handful, like one, two, five,
six, very small numbers for years
after '67.
That is until
Obama.
How interesting is that? Which which an Obama
administration
used new digital tools
to find potential cases of naturalization
fraud going back decades. Oh, I see. So
Obama handed the baton to Trump. I see
how that works. So, yeah, as always, left
and right mean nothing. The real agenda carries
out across multiple left and right administrations.
Obama started this, opened the door to seeking
out more cases. Why would he do that
if it had to do with I mean,
the the partisan narratives of what they are
don't make sense and they never did. It's
all about getting you
lost in the ideology
of your back and forth between you, Americans
fighting Americans while they all achieve the larger
agenda while you're fighting each other.
Obama
using new digital tools, also relevant today,
finding potential cases going back years
about fraud. Right? So same thing, accusing you
of lying about x, y, and z because
of what you're doing today.
Under operation Janus, an initiative launched by immigration
and justice officials in the Obama era, they
claimed a national security interest
in examining potential cases of immigration fraud that
could be tied to terrorism. Guys, this is
exactly what they're currently doing. So Trump is
initiating an Obama policy. So you support Obama's
policies.
Have fun with that. Then Trump's first administration
sought to significantly
expand the government use of denaturalization
and chose to file denaturalization cases against individuals
in civil courts rather than criminal.
There's the deviation. So now they're all arguing
like that is somehow the precedent even though
it seems that was the shift. You see
my point? And that's because they don't want
you to have a lawyer. They don't want
you to be able they want it to
be minimal. And there were already in that
case, I think, set the tone.
But Obama literally handed this to Trump. Trump
continued it. Biden continued it despite the narratives,
and Trump is now seemingly walking it to
the end point.
Quote, the thing is there aren't just there
there just aren't very many cases that fit
within the Trump administration's framework of priorities for
denaturalization, said Roberson.
So if they're really intending maximal enforcement,
I think what they're going to end up
doing is focusing on people who have not
committed any serious infraction
already happening
or maybe any infraction at all, which is
already also already happening. Oster, Khalil.
But people for whom there's a possibility
that there are grounds to revoke citizenship.
That is exactly where we are right now.
Right? The threat the you know, what you're
saying and thinking and what they may do,
that's the threat. That's the national security threat.
The what you might do,
it's insane where we are. It fits in
with the other ways that we've seen immigration
enforcement happening under this administration.
Alright.
Crazy.
Oh, wait. Did I include that for you?
Hold on. Forgot I opened that. Here we
go.
Remember down at the bottom for the dip
for the memo?
Okay. Now here's what Grock had to say.
Well and and again, to make the point
as always before, I here's the immigration and
nationality act, which is what which is what
most of this comes from, or the actual
immediate citation within it, or the fourteenth amendment.
These are all my point is
never take these platforms, the AI is at
face value. They lie all the time.
But it clearly can line it up in
a way that I think reaches more people
that might be open to it from the
public inside.
What are the legal requirements for US government
to revoke a US citizen's citizenship?
The US government can revoke a citizen citizenship
against their will only under specific narrowly defined
circumstances
outlined in the immigration and nationality act, primarily
this right here.
US USC one four eight one.
We'll go over it. It says now specifically,
grounds for basically, my point is that when
you read into this, most of the points,
as you'll see right here, a person who
is national, national,
which is also right here, obtaining naturalization in
the foreign state upon their application,
taking an oath and making information. Like, the
point is choosing to do it are most
of the points. Right? Choosing to do so,
like we said about, you know, going to
The US and revoking The UK citizenship. There
there is many ways in which this happens.
So aside from the that's why I specifically
asked against their will. Right? So
involuntary
revocation is what we're talking about.
Very, very narrow.
Fraud or misrepresentation in the process. That that's
what they're trying to put the bulk into.
But see, the main thing is that you
have to prove that
in a understand. That's why civil oh, and
that's the other point I left out as
well. Civil versus criminal changes the burden of
proof. In a criminal case, it's beyond a
shadow of a doubt. In a civil case,
it's not the same thing. So now they've
effectively rolled back the burden of proof. They
don't require to give them a lawyer. They,
like, they apparently, they don't have to be
in the room.
And that's why they're trying to roll it
into that.
But the point is fraud or misrepresentation and
naturalization process, well, even under civil, you're supposed
to have a process, prove those things, but
they've watered it down to such degree that
it's insane.
But
protesting Israel is enough to say that you
came here with the intention to do that
and you lied to us. They've already made
that case. So that's one big thing right
there. And so that right there is a
huge like, it is a violation of your
rights to simply argue that without verifying those
facts. But the point that comes into is
what they're saying today.
Viol voluntary acts indicating intent to relinquish citizenship.
Now,
first of all, as far as I could
tell,
these are the only things they can argue,
That you somehow lied or misrepresented
what you were.
Or in extreme cases, some kind of crime
that you committed that surpasses a certain level,
but that's why Trump's administration is kind of
broadening it out to whatever they feel makes
sense.
It's all being bastardized.
But But when it comes down to here,
it says voluntary acts indicating intent to relinquish
citizenship.
This is really interesting to me.
One of them is taking an oath of
allegiance to a foreign state.
Okay. Well, there's a ton of people here
that overlap with the Israeli and US administrations.
More
specifically, serving any foreign government or military.
There's Brian Mast. It's an obvious example. So
by the law by the reality of this,
they should have to relinquish
their citizenship
or plenty of people that overlap with the
UK military. Or, you know, there's plenty of
points like that. I my point is to
see how, you know, selective it becomes. Committing
treason or attempting to overthrow the US government,
isn't it funny that that's what the Democrats
say Trump tried to do? And yet somehow
he's president?
I don't I don't know. I don't think
they believe it most of the time. I
think it's more about narrative, but I still
think it's interesting. There's all these different points,
and they're going after people that are flimsy
at best.
Members of subversive organizations. Now this, I think,
is one of the biggest parts of it.
Citizens can be citizenship can be revoked if
a naturalized citizen within five years becomes a
member of an
or affiliated with an organization,
communist or terrorist groups. That would preclude naturalization.
Okay. So the point is if you five
within a five year period,
join
ISIS, then they can revoke it.
But they're trying to broaden that out like
everything else.
Like, you make it about supporting Palestine, you
see. But you see, that's that's why the
court matters because no judge is gonna say
you joined an organization by supporting a pal.
You have to prove these things. You can
say you might, but there's no provable evidence
that you joined Hamas or whatever. And that's
why they're trying to water it down as
well. Legal process.
It says the denaturalization typically requires a civil
proceeding in a in a federal district court.
That's what Grok is saying today. The reality
is that this was that's now the reality,
but that was altered in Trump's last administration.
The government must file a lawsuit to revoke
citizenship, and the citizen has a right to
a trial.
Legal representation
and due process under the fifth amendment.
So let's remember that, guys. So right now,
even Brock is telling you that what happened
with even that pedophile guy
was a violation of his rights. He didn't
he he no dupe. He wasn't there. He
wasn't there was no process for him to
be present. They just together ruled, you know,
amongst themselves what he was doing. Didn't even
have a couldn't even find a lawyer.
It's it's it's obvious. The government must prove
its case by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence,
quote, a high standard established in specifically what
is it? Schneiderman versus United States. So we
even have a Supreme Court precedent
that says that it's not the normal level
of civilian case ruling. It is clear, unequivocal,
and convincing evidence, which almost feels like, I
mean, beyond a shadow of a doubt is
maybe a little bit more extreme. But the
point is, that's not what we're hearing today.
Lastly, it's limitations. It says the government cannot
revoke citizenship for reasons like
political
beliefs, minor crimes,
lifestyle, which doesn't apply to this first guy,
right? That's, you know, sexual material in a
childhood. Very big deal. The point is that
that's opening the door with the other processes
to go after people. As the memo even
says, they just criticize Israel, aren't happy with
the war against Iran.
That's political beliefs, guys. And it says, or
lifestyle choices unless they fall under specific grounds
above, which is what we already listed off,
which simply criticizing Israel does not. But they're
trying to make it the national security overlap.
There's your complete circle. It says revocation does
not automatically lead to deportation.
A separate removal process is required with its
own legal protections.
That, I could promise you, is not gonna
happen. So they're gonna try to
remove their citizenship and then just throw them
on a plane. You're so you understand. The
point is, if you then remove them, you're
supposed to get it processed from citizenship.
Then
there's supposed to be separate
legal process for for deportation. What you're gonna
get is all these people that act like
somehow the process itself is now too
it's too much, and it takes too long.
They've effectively got you to argue that the
very thing holding the government at law at
bay is what you don't like anymore. The
constitution is too restrictive. We can't have checks
and balances. It takes too long.
It's wild what they can get people to
to cheer for when they don't know what
they're talking about.
Now here is the immigrant oh, I'll include
this. Now, I see this is the one
that they've the law the largely relates to,
eight USC fourteen eighty one, which I'll include
as well, which is right here.
And the fourteenth amendment, since it's mentioned, is
important to read. All persons, all persons
born or naturalized
in The United States and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof are
citizens
of The United States
and the state wherein they reside. Pretty So,
this is the Constitution, guys. This is unequivocal.
So for them to try to work this
into something different,
it's very clear to me. And so all
these deviations going as far back as you
want have always been repugnant to the constitution.
Therefore, based on Mayberry versus Madison or others,
repugnant, therefore, null and void.
That's simple enough to me right there. So
this is where we always need to come
back to, like a hardcore
constitutional line because all the rest, legal realities,
it's all warping it if we understand the
core point. But it says no state shall
make or enforce any law, which shall abridge
the privileges or immunities of citizens of The
United States, not different, whether naturalized or other,
nor shall any state deprive any person
of life, liberty, or property. Any person, illegal
or otherwise,
without due process of law.
Very clear.
Okay. And then the last two things I
wanna discuss before we wrap up today. This
one is very important, I think, around the
I mean, these are some kind of abstract
points that connect to things we talked about
and what we're talking about today in a
general sense. But the main thing we're gonna
talk about next,
the new moves
that expose the Bukele MS thirteen connections. We
just talked about this. First was the actual
great continue. I always wanna include this. The
drop site re report, the secret Bukele
deal lies behind Trump's El Salvador deportations. If
you don't remember,
Bukele, even according to our US government in
the past, argued that he made a deal
with MS thirteen to make it look like
crime was reduced.
That's who your governments are working with right
now. The cool dictator, he calls himself, who
basically took over the country.
Oh, he's a Zionist too. He's a proud
Zionist. It's obvious. This is the one one
part of the technocratic Zionist control structure. It's
very clear to me. Realize that he manipulated
this. He cheated, which was called out by
a lot of different people. He then removed
people from the judiciary system and that basically
removed it entirely and has now suspended civil
liberties
indefinitely.
And that's what you're cheering on? Well, clearly,
if you support Trump because that's what he
says, he's driving you in the same direction.
But the point was this,
Trump admin moves quietly to drop charges against
MS thirteen
leaders.
Cities, other national secure sites, other national
security priorities.
So you're gonna tell me you've started an
entire, you know,
direction against going after MS thirteen and using
them as the basis for going after people
like Garcia, and then you drop the charges
against the leaders?
Why do you think that is? Well, we
discussed it in this show. It's because they
already made an agreement,
and Trump is trying to get these people
out of the way and back to El
Salvador before they have to testify in court
where they will then probably publicly admit that
Bukele made a deal with them.
This this I mean, either way you look
at it, think about dropping charges against the
leaders in this country while going after people
who you can't even prove are part of
the gang.
Secondarily, here's what Pam Bondi just publicly said
on the twenty eighth. They listed a bunch
of stuff they're doing in this press conference.
This one says, the terror gang numbers. And
it says, Pam Bondi's enforcement update. 2,711
arrests of terrorists and gang members today. T
Trump, the, Trende Arago, MF thirteen, cartels targeted.
Oh, you mean other than the leaders that
you're working with?
Outstanding.
I just think it's insane, guys. You can
literally prove that they're dropping the charges and
it's public information, and it's now becoming clear
that Boukule made a deal with them.
There's so much more going on here, and
as they stand up and pretend like they're
going after these people. No. It seems like
they're arresting people with brown skin and saying
that.
That's what the evidence seems to show.
Now, also, this is just this weird development.
Now this started where Trump had said that
hotel restaurant and farm workers wouldn't be targeted,
which was just a shocking hypocritical
stance based on what they've been doing. The
ones we like that work at our farms
and our hotels, they're not gonna go after
them while claiming that we're gonna go after
the evil ones while you're going you're you
know, as if you could somehow know that
everyone that worked at these locations are not
it's probably the same you know, if if
they exist anywhere, they exist in any of
these crowds. And the bottom line is he's
going after people you can prove are not
criminals
and ignoring the ones that might be in
the group they like. But then Tom Homan
stood up and said, I don't know about
that at all. I have to stop them.
We're going after all of them. And then
Trump then walked it back and said, Wait,
no more, not for a second. Then, this
is literally how it went. Now we're coming
back around and saying, okay, well, there's gonna
be temporary pass for some of them. Now
I'm not I won't be surprised if Tom
Homan comes up tomorrow and says, I have
no other thing about that. It's just this
weird dynamic that keeps happening. The point is
the same thing. Either, you know, for whatever
reason, Tom Homan or him are on the
same page. Maybe it's about keeping you thinking
things might change, but this is hypocrisy.
If you're gonna give temporary passes to the
ones that work in your places and then
go after people that aren't criminals,
It's just a gross violation of power like
everything else we're seeing.
Here's a clip
about people pretending to be ICE agents.
Obviously, this is continued continuing to happen because
of the, you know, the the
illegitimate nature of the way they're conducting this.
Not identifying like, I mean, blatant violations of
procedure and the law. Not by not identifying
themselves, not presenting warrants. I mean, these are,
like, foundational items that are supposed to invalidate
everything they're doing, but yet weirdly doesn't seem
to matter right now,
at least in the current power structure, which
is our government. It's not left or right
as far as I'm concerned. But Chris Webb
says this is exactly why ICE agents should
be required to identify themselves, and they are,
though. They are already required to. They're just
ignoring that.
ICE but the simple point is people are
pretending to be ICE and carrying out all
sorts of crimes. I've got many examples now.
Here's a report from this looks like, channel
five news.
Someone impersonating a federal agent is raising new
fears among undocumented immigrants here in Southern California.
This is a man who had federal looking
official papers in his car. He also had
a loaded fire up weapon and at one
point even claimed to had worked as a
federal agent. Of course, none of that was
true. He was actually wanted for drunk driving
and at one point had been arrested for
human smuggling. Fake federal agents. It's a new
worry for city officials in Huntington Park after
police arrested this man, 24 year old Fernando
Diaz of Los Angeles. During a press conference
Friday, police unveiled key evidence that led to
his Tuesday night arrest,
including the suspect's vehicle, a gray Dodge Durango
seen here filled with copies of passports, federal
enforcement style documents, cell phones, red and blue
lights, and a loaded firearm parked on South
Alameda Street in a handicap spot. It was
enough to almost fool police who initially thought
Diaz might be an off duty officer. When
further questioned, the individual claimed he previously worked
for customs and border protection. However,
he could produce no valid
credentials to validate that. Instead, the man was
wanted for drunk driving and previously had been
arrested for human smuggling.
Isn't it interesting?
And see, you you have a, you
know, a person who is actually
guilty of of human trafficking.
A person who, I mean, appears I mean,
arguably might also be an illegal alien. The
hilarious part about this is not only is
this person is acting as an ICE agent
and all of this going on, and it
just shows you that there's
this is not about going after the people
you think they're going after.
This person is literally acting through all of
this, and they're going after people who aren't
breaking law or people that say things about
Israel.
That's not the only example.
There's plenty of these. Here's from the Guardian.
USC spec a spat spate of arrests of
civilians
impersonating ICE officers.
I mean, this just keeps happening. Why? Because
they're allowing it to, because they're not doing
their job. They're not they're not forcing them
to
follow the law. So then other people become
rampantly lawless because why wouldn't they? And now
you're gonna get people that rightly and this
is what's so interesting about it. They're trying
to say, by the way, Pam Bondi said,
what, 500% increase in tax on the I
I I think it's 300. I think that's
the report number. It's just typical for them
to embellish these things. I could be wrong.
But my point is,
when you actually look at the way this
has gone, or even Meldick pointed out, well,
you are breaking the law. You are arresting
people who aren't breaking you're you're, in many
cases, arresting people who are US citizens and
taking weeks to find out and releasing them.
People are acting out about that. Now whether
you think it's legal or not, you can
understand why somebody might be frustrated or might
act out. So you but through your illegitimate
illegal actions are driving people to take irrational
action. But whether allowed or not,
the the bigger point is that people as
a as a member of congress has called
out in Kabandi where she lied and pretended
like she'd never heard they weren't identifying themselves
and had masks on. She's lying. Everyone can
prove that.
That he even said to her, why would
they assume you're an officer? Somebody comes up
in a mask and tries to grab your
arm, why wouldn't you fight back? And then
you're gonna be charged for a crime because
you fight back. That, I guarantee you, is
a huge portion of these numbers. Sort of
like the ADL tells you a Palestinian flag
is antisemitism,
they're taking a book note from that book.
You fight back against somebody you don't even
know who it is, and then you're accused
of fighting a a ICE agent. Or plenty
of examples where people are stepping in to
try to stop them from something that's illegal.
Whether you think it's right or not, the
point is they're sort of manufacturing
the numbers that rationalize why they need to
do more of the illegal thing. Typical US
government.
USC spate of interest of arrests of civilians
impersonating ICE officers. It's not gonna slow down,
and this only gives you more reason to
doubt whether this person in front of you
is actually law enforcement.
I mean, there are people being stolen from,
people being raped, people being, you know, dragged.
It's there's this is rife for obvious corruption.
Right. Which makes sense. A corrupt situation is
rife for more corruption. Right?
Here's the one Eric Meldman pointed out on
June 9. A man pretending to be an
ICE agent went into a business, tied up
the woman working there, and stole a thousand
dollars from her. But nobody cared about that.
Right? We only care about going after innocent
people, same to El Salvador.
Now we've talked about this many times. We
just talked about it on Pine Points.
Star witness against Kim Al Abrego Garcia won't
be deported.
I just I just wanna include it. We
already mentioned it. You can read the arc
for yourself. This is insanely hypocritical. You're taking
somebody who is a multiple time offender, who's
been deported many times. It's all in here,
my public information. He who is literally charged
and guilty of human trafficking,
not accused of smuggling people who work for
somebody and not being able to prove that,
but human trafficking.
A real criminal. And he is the one
they're using to accuse Garcia of something he
did in 2022, which I don't even know
how you could make that make sense.
And that he has every reason to lie
about this because they're letting him out of
jail. And they already now they and they
are. They're letting him out. He's gonna live
in The United States. That's what they just
said for at least a year. So now
you're letting a proven criminal exist in this
country who's guilty of trafficking
around your families, your children, while using his
testimony to put somebody in jail or deport
somebody who you can't prove is actually guilty
of those things.
That's only a win to people who don't
care about the facts, and they're plenty.
Now we also have this, Daily Beast, Trump
frees felon to keep deported Maryland dad locked
up.
Conservative platform, it's obvious what's going on. Now
here's a couple examples I wanted you to
see before we wrap up. Purple heart veteran
forced to deport after green card revoked.
Now there's this this gets into the same
overlap as the point of, like, the crimes
and different things.
But it really does have to matter
about you know, this guy fought for The
United States. Now, look, and you know me.
I'm not I'm I'm of the mind that
that was a mistake, very clearly. Not necessarily
that what he did. You know, many of
these people believe they go into this with
the best of intentions. They believe they're fighting
for freedom. They believe they're saving people from
destruction. You know, and most of them, as
I understand,
very rapidly recognize that's a lie. Just talk
to veterans. You'll easily find that out. We
talked about that this morning as well.
My point, though, is not to support that
the war or the being you know, if
the act is the action. My point is
we as we all look at this, you
know, the especially this government,
they can't stop screening the virtues of our
veterans and then abusing them every way they
can because they don't care about them. They
they like them they like you to think
they care about them,
like this case.
But my point is a purple veteran or
a purple heart veteran, somebody who sack risked
their lives to save others is what that
means and also fought for this country is
deported.
When you're telling us you're going after the
worst of the worst,
doesn't this mean anything to anybody? I mean,
it does to a lot of people that
think that they believe in this stuff.
Clearly, they don't. And it goes on to
say United States army veteran who was forced
to self deport to South Korea has told
Newsweek that he will only return once Donald
Trump leaves office.
Purple heart veteran,
his, Sejun Park, has lived in The United
States for forty eight years.
Forty eight years.
Was told by immigration authorities that he had
three weeks to leave the country.
Now it gets more nuanced than this. Trust
me. There's there's down here parts where he
apparently broke law with the jail, but you'll
see. I wouldn't assume I could be dishonest
about this, but there's be I never would
be. This is not not by choice, as
you know. My point is I should say
other people could easily misrepresent this to make
it add to their case. I want you
to see the real picture of this. And,
nonetheless, just like the point of the pedophile,
that it it's a principle thing. Right? It
matters about whether or not the rights are
there, not whether you're defending the guy. But
this is a more nuanced and I think
important case to where they're going with all
this. It says the Trump administration has directed
immigration ICE to hit 3,000 arrests a day,
which I mean, that's in and of its
own point, guys.
You're guaranteed if you're getting a quota,
you're going to arrest people that are not
guilty, which we've seen more than not. The
facts back that up, guys. But that's why.
As we all know, I mean, if you
make a for profit system, their people are
gonna bend it like we see with the
prison systems, like we see with Alcatraz,
Alligator Alcatraz, all the rest of the things
they tell you are coming. It's privatized, guys.
It's exactly where we always fought against.
But now Trump did it, and it's okay.
Trump has said that most attentions
and deportations
oh, it says 3,000 arrests a day as
part of an aggressive, vast deportation policy. Trump
has said that most attentions and deportations would
target individuals with criminal records.
However, in recent weeks, and I argue it's
when not just recent weeks, it's pretty much
the entire time, there have been multiple reports
of people with valid documentation being detained for
deportations.
As well as from the very beginning, it
has not been the most criminal.
Park
immigrated to United States from South Korea at
seven years old. Originally,
orig obtaining legal permanent residency through a green
card. At 19 years old, he enlisted in
the US army and served in nineteen eighty
nine Panama conflict during the Norie Noriega War
Noriega war. He was wounded twice in combat
and received a purple heart in recognition of
his bravery.
Park was honorably discharged from the military and
returned to his home in Los Angeles. Honorably
discharged. Now this is what I think is
where it comes becomes important
Because we all know what they suffer through
when they come back from these horrible situations
where they they're tricked into thinking they're fighting
for freedom and end up doing things that,
you know, aren't humans aren't supposed to do.
And at the end of the day,
struggling because of it. And then because of
how he struggles, they deport him. It says
Park was honorably discharged
and sent to Los Angeles where he experienced
severe post traumatic stress disorder.
It says to manage symptoms,
like nightmares and sensitivity, loud noises, PTSD, he
used marijuana.
In 1995,
he relocated
to Hawaii
in search of a better quality of life.
However, he said that he later developed an
addiction to crack cocaine.
Drugs had be had a big control throughout
my life, and that's what eventually got me
into trouble with the law and everything. In
02/2009,
that was his quote. 02/2009, Park was convicted
of drug and with drug of drug and
bail related offenses and served two years in
a and a half two two and a
half years in a prison.
After his release, ICE agents detained him and
revoked his green card. This is back in
02/2019.
So right there,
the argument is similar to the same. Like,
you know, this guy served The US. I
mean, it seems like an or, like,
at the very least, give some like, he's
struggling through trying to cope with PTSD
for fighting for the US US government. It
feels over the top for me right there,
just as a personal opinion. But he goes
forward. He contested his deportation
in court.
And and as a Purple Heart recipient,
see, this is the the judge
felt same way I do, and was granted
deferred action, allowing him to remain in The
United States under the condition that he regularly
checked in with immigration authorities and maintain sobriety,
which, apparently, he has ever since.
Park has two children in their twenties and
helps care for his elderly parents and aunts.
Not anymore, though, since they deported him.
These last fourteen years have been great, he
says. Like, really proud of myself, proud of
my kids, how I've been acting and how
I've been living my life.
And this is who the Trump administration's taking
advantage of. Then this month, officials terminated his
deferred action status and informed him that he
must leave the country
voluntarily, or face detention and forced deportation. He
was issued an ankle monitor and given three
weeks to make arrangements.
Doesn't that just make you sick?
This man who struggled through this process, which
most Americans struggle through, addiction, drug use, that's
reality.
Let alone, you know, with through PTSD,
fighting for the US government,
which is the way I should say that,
the government,
then goes through a process where he, you
know, falls into bad way
and goes in front of a judge. The
judge sees something, lets him go, and he
makes his life right. Fourteen years where he's
with his kids and been here for forty
eight years, takes care of his family, his
grandma, or was his what is his aunt?
His elderly parents and his aunts.
And on the record, has checked in regularly
ever since then with the court, and this
is who they pick on? I mean, how
do you not see what's happening here? They're
going for the lowest possible hanging fruit and
letting MS thirteen gang members go free, letting
a trafficking, human trafficking, deportation, repeatee, whatever you
would call it, live in the country because
he accuses Garcia of something else.
It takes a special kind of willful ignorance
to not recognize
this is an abuse and not the other
way around.
Now here is
breakthrough news pointing out this guy's name is
Narcy Narcyco
Barranco,
an undocumented
landscaper in Santa Ana, California,
was repeatedly punched, pepper sprayed, and pinned to
the ground by masked US border patrol agents
outside of an IHOP. The father, in fact,
of three US marines was then forced into
an unmarked car.
His family said Barranco suffered a dislocated shoulder
during the June
and has received no medical treatment while being
in in the ICE facilities.
Realize that's a very common thing right now
is they're wildly overpacked way, like, 10 fat
tens of thousands of people over, as well
as the fact that people are dying seemingly
regularly right now in ICE facilities.
That's not a secret. I mean, I don't
know how as Americans we can pretend we're
okay with this. And it says, oh, you
know, I guess, unless you just hate Democrats
enough to pretend that's what that's what it's
about. It says, well, DHS claims he swung
a weed trimmer at agents, which remember, they've
been caught lying
repeatedly
to cover up their actions. And I mean,
provably caught lying.
This case, it says, while they claimed that,
no evidence has been provided. His sons are
now seeking legal help to fight his deportation.
Interesting.
Now David Icke says this is Trump's moronic
brain donor, Gestapo, violently arresting the landscaper father
apparently of three US marines. MAGA, you are
sleepwalking into fascism while shouting we're winning. To
some of you, like Charlie Kirk, Benny Johnson,
and other Trump arse kissers,
this really is winning.
But not all MAGA is like them.
I agree with this. Other vote others voted
for Trump believing what the gen the generic
genetic liar told them. But now is the
time to stand up and face the truth
of what this man represents. In my opinion,
what any of them represent, left or right,
Biden or Trump, how do we not see
that by now? Think about it for a
second. He says, why do you think he
could care less about you when Elon Musk
gave him $250,000,000
to get elected and now gets cast aside
and threatened for having the wrong opinion on
the big ugly
bill, which may very well maybe the case.
Tucker Carlson played a major role in getting
Trump elected, but the moment he pushed back
on bombing Iran, he's called kooky and cast
aside.
It's wild.
Musk is part of the club, and Carlson
was a Trump insider.
So what contempt Trump must have for rank
and file voters like you?
You are just ballot fodder to him. Even
extreme sycophants like Kirk and Johnson would be
out the door the moment they say something
the god king in his own mind doesn't
like. Time to wake up to the true
nature of the man in the White House
imposing a gathering tyranny for his masters as
planned all along.
You've seen nothing yet.
I just hate that I agree with that
so much only because it's just terrifying where
it's going. Now, guys,
with all that we've shown you today, with
all the facts and the provable information and
just, like, I mean, textbook examples,
This is what Noam has to say.
This is something Orwell shared that's just it's
it's insane.
I'll just play it first.
So, again, with all the information, all the
facts,
outraged
narratives, things they can't prove.
By thanking our ICE officers and our border
patrol officers
for what they do every day, they are
out on the streets, and violence against them
has increased over 500%.
Oh, I'm sorry. I jumped ahead. That's in
my mind. So that's that's what I was
referring to. Pretty sure that at least and
again, this is I don't trust any of
these numbers. Like, these what they use, what
they show, but from what I saw, I
believe it said 300%. But it's irrelevant to
my point.
That claiming that number is absurd when you
understand
why it's happening and that what they're doing
is textbook illegal. They're not report they're not
they're not
identifying themselves and not presenting warrants. I mean,
how do we not acknowledge that that's shockingly
against the law? And then people either react
not knowing or react because they're upset, and
then you turn around and claim that's some
vigilante violence and that's why we have to
do more of the same thing?
It's exactly what you always expect from the
US government.
Since
Trump has gone back into the White House
because he's upholding the law and because a
bunch of liberals,
socialists, and Marxists
are out there lying about what president Trump
is doing. Oh, that's it. That's all that's
happening. Right? Not that you can literally prove
facts and show he's lying or show no.
And from an from a nonpartisan perspective. No.
It just gotta be the evil Democrats and
the medieval Marxists because that's what the people
wanna hear who are blindly
following this. That's what they go. Yeah. The
Democrats.
The ideology.
Despite the fact that they don't care about
any of that as long as they can
control your life. As long as they can
work with the people who actually embody those
things to control your life.
It's just it's just it couldn't be more
cartoonishly comical at this point. But it gets
gets more it gets crazier.
President Trump is upholding freedom by what he
is doing. The Despite violating your constitutional rights
and, you know, locking people in prisons that
don't deserve it or US citizens, but freedom.
Freedom to live safely in this country and
to do things legally and to have justice.
Unless you have wrong skin color or say
the wrong things about Israel or don't like
the the Iran war or or or And
because those liberals, and I'm calling out you,
CNN,
I'm calling you out because you lie every
single day about what these operations are. Right.
They're so so salty about them going, they
didn't bomb these things all the way. How
dare you insult our pilots?
You it's just it's just wild. I get
it. You know, I think it it's comical
in only in so far that it's just
so ridiculous.
But when you realize how much power they
have and what they're doing with it, it's
wildly terrifying. But you gotta admit how stupid
it is.
We are going after murderers and rapists See?
And traffickers and No. No. No. You you
mean the trafficker you let go to pretend
to go after a trafficker or the MS
thirteen leaders that you just released
or dropped the charges?
You're not
though. Fast, vast majority
are provably
here legally
with no criminal record.
The easiest thing to prove in this conversation.
Drug dealers and getting them off the streets
and getting them out of this country because
Joe Biden let the worst of the worst
come in here. The other day, I was
talking to some marshals that have been partnering
with ICE. They said that they had detained
a cannibal and put him on a plane
to take him home. And while they had
him in his seat, he started to eat
himself.
And they had to get him off and
get him medical attention. These are the kind
of deranged individuals
that are on our streets in America that
we're trying to target and get out of
our country
because they are so deranged they don't belong
here. And they don't go they shouldn't be
walking the streets with their children, and they
shouldn't be living in the commune Right. Right.
So get Garcia out of here because that
guy ate his arm. Right? Khalil shouldn't exist
because that guy's a cannibal, you know, assuming
we can even prove that that ever happened.
Most likely not, though. But but but they
rape and everything. And in the world, there's
bad things, so he should get out of
here. He should be it's just so stupid.
What does one thing have to do with
the other? Are you suggesting that because that
guy did that, that every illegal immigrant eats
their arm?
Well, that's stupid. Or that somehow because he's
a cannibal that we have to I mean,
you can it's just it's so stupid. That
and, honestly, I think that's what she thinks
is a a a shifty play. Right? I'm
I'm working the situation. You know, you're looking
like a fool.
Like, I think about how stupid this is.
And even though it was really quickly,
remember this.
We already talked about this. As we talked
to Dan Cohen and plenty of others that
just I mean, this was them when they
tried to lie about Haiti.
And the the report, this was, Jason Baster
posted at the time, our Haitian cannibal gangs
terrorizing the country. Remember all that about the
cannibals that we went up create? And, the
Jones and Benny Johnsons all rushed out to
scream these things, and it turned out to
not be the reality. It says, we dug
up the source and weighed the legitimacy of
these claims. Is this sensationalist narrative a distraction?
Watch it for yourself.
You know, you mean they the the reason
these things are used is because they're shocking.
This point, they've already accused everyone under the
sun of being rapists and traffickers. It's becoming
benign at this point for the narrative. So
now they go, he's a he's a cannibal.
Eating and he didn't he what what? He
ate his arm at a protest or he
ate himself? I mean, look. Is it not
possible that somebody is just a lunatic? Sure.
But then what's your argument here, Noam? Are
you trying to suggest that that's the level
of insanity of people that are from other
countries? Are you trying to suggest, like, it's
just if that's real, the guy's a lunatic.
Hardly a I mean, the point is he's
probably a schizophrenic who just, you know and
and then you're hurting him by the bottom
line is that is the dumbest thing ever
heard. Not whether real or not. That is
about trying to cast the bay you know,
baby with the bathwater. Like, just go after
anybody that they point to because, well, cannibals.
I'm
just continually blown away by how stupid all
this is.
And we'll end with the point of this.
I'm not gonna go into deep, but just
to highlight this on the way out. We'll
probably talk about it more as we go
forward. Greg Stoker says, marshals
martial law soft launch.
National guardsmen, as they report in this clip,
this is from today,
from the judge advocate general to be deputized
as immigration judges
for the new alligator Alcatraz. Welcome to the
new not the you know, unconstitutional American country.
You know, whatever you wanna call it. The
the reality of this country that is rapidly
shifting into a unconstitutional
direction.
How does that work? First of all, National
Guard are now becoming deputized
judges of immigrants. How the how does that
even make sense? It says, remember, all of
this is for profit.
Become fascism.
It says, because fascism.
Then Ron DeSantis, who I thought of, didn't
they hate each other? Apparently not when you
know, of course not. Not. This is about
building out the the infrastructure for where this
is going. You think the whole ICE focusing
on illegal illegal immigrants is slowing down?
They're they're rapidly shifting this into the open
door of Unext
and building out prisons in multiple locations as
they say right in this clip. Not just
not just Florida, multiple nuclear they're popping up
all over the country.
Great.
All the moron people scream because they don't
understand this that you're in the crosshairs right
now.
Greg Stoker also points out Trump's new alligator,
Alcatraz,
looks very reminiscent
to Cicotte and El Salvador. How weird. Almost
like this was coordinated. Whatever whatever violence and
dirty work we do overseas always comes home
to roost.
That's your future right there. If you dare
speak out about the wrong people in the
wrong time.
Derrick Rose simply says, as Benny Johnson cheerleads
this out, as always, yay, whatever Trump said
today. Yay. Derrick says, sometimes I think Trump
supporters can't be any more statist.
Boot looking authority worshipers, and then this dude
speaks.
Exactly. I don't think anyone realized how impressive
Alligator Alcatraz is. Oh my god. It's the
coolest thing ever.
I just I I genuinely get embarrassed in
some of these times. Like, in I'll I'll
play this for you right now. As Charlie
Robinson says, cheerleading for the state is gay
and retarded, Benny. And he goes, guys, I've
just been handed official Alligator Alcatraz merch.
This guy's a child. I just want everyone
to know that there's official Alligator Alcatraz
merch.
There it is.
Provided
to us by the
state of Florida.
Incredible.
And,
yeah.
Would you rock this drip?
Look at that.
Wow.
Yeah. That's what it's all about. Right? Being
on the inside, getting a cool hat. You're
so cool.
Makes me sad
that anybody thinks this is worthy of praise.
I mean, for f sake, guys, how how
were these people leading others?
I'd like to believe that they're not the
ones that are you know, that that's the
illusion of what's really happening. I think most
people are truly seeing through this.
As Nick Sorter writes in multiple other states
are already working on their own versions. Yay.
It's so cool because that's what they're all
being told to say right now. Look at
the thing that we're all supposed to cheer
because it's so fantastic. It's like I said
earlier. Trump says to something, and they all
jump up and know what they're supposed to
say no matter whether it contradicts what they
just said thirty seconds ago. Orwell simply says,
any American cheering for this needs to know
that you too may end up here. Don't
let the guise of immigration fool you. And
she cites to an article,
what to know about the DOJ revoking citizenship
of naturalized Americans.
Lastly,
Melnick
pointed something out. And this is a long
thread you could read for yourself actually about
the whole thing, about what's going on in
Alcatraz the out in in Florida in this
prison. But he made an interesting point here.
Somebody people are responding to him, and this
is he posted this. Literal cages, not even
metaphorical ones, literal ones.
Now because people can only see through the
partisan lens, right, and the the ones we
took, the partisans that do so, that's a
lot. It's the the the partisan field. That's
how they are. And it's not the majority
of my opinion anymore, but it's currently strong.
You know, it's being it's being, you know,
jammed down our throats is what I mean.
He there's a lot in here. He's responding
to people. The point this last one, this
guy goes, this was Obama and Biden's cages.
Maybe
shut the shut the hell up is what
he
says. Okay. So what's your point? That are
you assuming that he's okay with it when
Biden does it? Because that would be dumb
because he's not. Here's what he says. Again,
we literally sued Obama
over these conditions. There's a reason that I
followed. I like I appreciate this guy's opinion.
He may be partisan. I don't know. I
think there are points where I feel the
same, but he clearly seems to have principles
in the conversation. And he simply is pointing
out that I we sue sued Obama because
it's not about the side. It's about the
principle of this being wrong.
But you see, they can only assume that
he must be, you only don't like it
because it's Trump. Well, that's your broken world
view. You have Trump derangement syndrome. Or the
you know, people can have the Trump, whatever,
both sides of it, left and right. The
people that are falling into that that accuse
one side of only going after Trump, the
other side accused of not carrying
He says, I personally was counsel on the
lawsuit against Obama,
their administration,
that eventually forced them to provide basics like
soap and toothbrushes because it's not left and
right.
Obama and Biden, they all did the same
things.
He goes, also, that second picture is from
Trump.
Of course. But but that's the point. The
point is that they will he'll go after
anybody doing it.
But people don't wanna admit that this is
not partisan.
Because if they lose that,
right, they're somehow
not able to convince themselves thoroughly that it's
only about one side where their whole worldview
collapses.
And I think that we need to get
there. I think they need that, quite frankly,
to get over the hump of recognizing where
we are.
But everything is changing.
People are truly beginning to question these things.
We all see it. It's self evident as
far as I'm concerned, but even just we
pointed out today.
So it's more important than ever to continue
to push this stuff out, to call it
out, to present it, to get in groups,
discuss it. Right? Make it's important
to it's it's important that we think this
is important. You know what I mean? Like,
I'm not everybody doesn't have to
engage, like, be as immersed in it as
some of us are. But it's important that
you recognize that this is
foundational. Like, what what they're doing
is a slow incremental change
to normalize
no longer believing in what I believe is
the last grasping effort that, you know, the
tendrils that are holding some
element of the government in check.
Clearly, they don't care about it, but it's
still a perception that it matters. And so
there's still some level of needing to keep
you thinking that that matters, and we are
moments away from that just no longer mattering.
And that they're already telling you that American
citizens are next. Naturalized or otherwise, as Trump
made clear twice,
rather five times or six times, but in
the conversation today we showed.
I don't know why that's not enough. Please
show everybody else that we
do care.
That as as the human species, as the
American people, that we do care.
Thank you for tuning in. As always, if
you support this platform, if you support what
we're doing, the content is for free.
Show us that you believe in it. Show
us why show help us continue to grow
because we're not slowing down no matter what.
Thank you for being here. I love you
all. As always, question
everything.
Come to your own conclusions.
Stay vigilant.
Some respects, it's just as bad now, the
authoritarianism,
that is coming, Gerald. I am really, really
fearful for the president of The United States
Of America to suggest as he did on
Air Force One on Sunday night
that American citizens could be deported
for his press secretary to say, we're looking
into,
a way to see if this is legal.
We don't know if it's legal or not.
A is terrifying.
B betrays such a profound ignorance of first
principles to which he is sworn. He is
sworn to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution
and to enforce,
federal law. You mentioned that you're open to
deporting,
individuals that aren't foreign aliens but are criminals
to El Salvador.
Does that in does that include potentially US
citizens fully naturalized in Ukraine?
If they're criminals and if they hit people
with baseball bats over their head that happened
to be 90 years old, and if,
if they rape
87 year old women in Coney Island, Brooklyn,
yeah. Yeah. That includes them. What? Do you
think there's special category of person? They're as
bad as anybody that comes in. We have
bad ones too. Profoundly un American, utterly unconstitutional,
and I'm sorry to say
is coming.