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.
Pleasure.
Welcome to the daily wrap
up.
Tuesday, 08/26/2025.
Thank you for joining me today.
Pretty tumultuous day. I mean,
the flag burning conversation has been one building.
We've seen this coming for quite a while.
We've talked about this. I mean, this was
mentioned in Trump's last administration.
Flatly unconstitutional. We'll go through it. We've talked
about it when it was floated the last
time. But other than that, there's a lot
of other things kind of swirling around today
in regard to the national guard deployments
and a pretty I mean, it's a report,
and I really wanna stress that. And it
came through Fox independent,
the independent discussing it. But it's interesting,
especially coming through Fox, of claiming that the
states that they're about to roll out to
are almost entirely Republican states. Now, you know,
you could argue like Texas, for example, certain
states are Democrat states and maybe or city,
excuse me, within those Republican states. So it's
up in the air, but I find things
interesting like Illinois
not even on the list despite Chicago being
such an interesting focus. But that's why I'm
stressing its reports
because for all we know, seeing as how
that's how they play the game these days,
they could have just put out a fake
list to get them to say that and
then do something else.
But my point in reporting it today is
because I think we all recognize
that this is and let me put it
this way. Those that are not, you know,
adherent to some ideological partisan
drive that they, you know, ignore facts because
their team you know, team sport politics. We
talk about it often. But the people that
are at least willing to be objective and
honest about this regardless of whether they see
themselves as conservative or liberal,
it's pretty obvious that this is unconstitutional,
that this is a police state element, you
know, martial law elements to all of this,
and that it is ultimately happening all across
the country or at least the the narrative.
The statements are it's gonna be rolled out
everywhere despite it starting as this place, and
it's because of the crime. But yet now
all the locations they're listing don't necessarily include
the places with the most crime. And are
we out to believe that it's predominantly Republican
states that have the most crime? It doesn't
make much sense. And is there an emergency
necessary
to do all of that? Because that's what
needs to be done to make this all
make sense under the way that they're doing
it. So is there now an emergency in
most of the country under the guys you
know, it's
like people will go along with what they
need to go along with to make this
make sense for those that are desperate to
be right about who he was regardless of
what he actually does.
It's but, this is
becoming real.
Every single incremental moment we see, this is
getting closer and closer to what all of
us seem to be uncomfortable with, but if,
of course, if it was Biden who had
done this. And I said this the other
day that I thought makes this even more
clear and important to hear. Hypothetically
speaking, I'm just as critical as you guys
remember of Biden or Obama, very much so.
And if you watch consistently, we are equally
they're all criminals, and we do hold it
the same way. But, of course, we're seen
today as being, you know, against this person
even though it's, you know, all of them
in the same way. But take a Biden,
for example. Again, my point is I know
they're all criminal. Let's see them the same
way. But, hypothetically, if Biden
had done this exact same thing, I mean,
to a t, the exact same thing for
the exact same reason. And, again, in a
hypothetical point,
he meant it.
Genuinely did this because he wanted to stop
crime.
So you know as well as I, even
if they knew that he meant it for
that reason, they would still call it martial
law. Most importantly, the people that are saying
this isn't regardless of whether it is at
the top. Those ones are going to say
anything they do is the worst thing in
the world even when it's not, and they're
gonna say whatever he's doing is the best
even when it's not. But there's a lot
of people in that middle ground that are
stuck in the spot where they would very
much so be criticizing Biden even with that
justification, even if he meant it, and now
are somehow going along with it. And I'm
just
baffled by
that. And I have a we'll get into
some points around this that I I you
know, and I got a lot of pushback
today on a platform that I know is
not the real picture of what's going on
in the world,
but of I don't have the same opinion
most seem to about what people are like
in this country.
I have a much higher opinion of the
general intelligence of the
the empathy and the compassion of people in
this country. I mean, I think there's easy
ways to see that, but I always get
pushed back from it. My point is I
just don't think at a major the by
and large that we are this easy to
manipulate, that we are this stupid and manipulate.
I think it's that we are being framed
a different way, and then people fall for
what that framing looks like. And in by
natures,
the human species were herd animals, guys. We
follow the crowd by and large. We should
really try to work away from that. I've
made it my lifelong mission to not be
like that. But the point
is that we need to recognize the framing
like they like during COVID where they made
you all feel like everyone's alone and we're
all into it. Nobody sought but you. We
know that's not true. So right now, stop
falling for the framing. Right? You are in
the majority if you're seeing what this is,
calling this out, aware of the genocide, you
know, the obvious things happening in the world.
But we're gonna talk about a lot today
in regard to,
some
health points that I'm always trying to keep
go keep aware of, you know, the development
of the health tracking systems and what else
is going on. I think that's important to
keep an eye on as well as a
a development of the Maxwell story that I
wanted to make sure we saw that I
did think was interesting.
Obviously, we're gonna talk about the unconstitutional
order from Trump. Now we'll get into the
nuance, which is right to point out that
it doesn't necessarily seem
like that you could frame it that he
doesn't necessarily make it illegal to burn the
flag in that
executive order. You could make it sound I
mean, that's one way to frame it. I
think it's quite obvious that it's about trying
to sidestep the obvious unconstitution
unconstitutional nature of what they're trying to do.
And we already have evidence of people being
arrested for burning the flag. We'll get into
what it means, the way they're trying to
sidestep it by saying it's not about the
flag burning. That's fine. That's constitutional. It's what
it causes. You know? It's the chaos that's
around it or what people do because of
it or, okay. Now we're back to the
same old thing, fire in a theater, whatever
else. Everybody else, the way they do, know,
the way they respond is your fault or
that there's other legalities. Right? You can't burn
things in general in this location. Okay.
Fair play. Smart move to try to make
it about something that's already the reality. But
my point is you know
that it will be applied in ways that
are broad,
like they've been doing the entire time. By
just simply saying that that's the the way
they carve this out, they'll go after anybody
burning a flag and just try to fit
it into that narrative like the left or
the right do all the time. We'll go
through this whole point of an important conversation
that this is and what it's building toward
and already
happening. We'll talk about the continuation of the
Marshall Law Point, and as we mentioned about
the rollout and where it seems to be
going.
We'll also be talking about some updates around
Abrego Garcia that I think are important. You
probably already seen these circulating, but I wanted
you to give I wanted to give you
my take on this and some important points
we've made before with documentation so you have
them in your hand as this conversation
bubbles back up and the insanity
of, like, the White House own Twitter account
posting an MS 13 picture of him, even
though their own evidence they presented now prove
that's not the case, or at least that
the evidence they have does not in any
way show that?
Or, I mean, or the human trafficking claim.
I mean, Trump just personally called him a
mauling, be wife beating monster.
And the only thing they have on that
is that there was a call made about
domestic dispute. They showed up. They then said
there wasn't a problem, and they left. Of
course. Could they be hiding it? Obviously. Anybody
objective could consider that, but that's not the
evidence that they the claim that he is
a wife beater based on that is wildly
dishonest,
especially coming from a lot of people that
probably have a quite a few of their
own domestic disputes on their own record, but
it's all hypocrisy. But we'll go through why
that's important now and how it relates to
the bigger conversation and some other points around
immigration
that are gonna probably blow your mind. Every
day, I see these now. Veterans being arrested
and accosted for simply being in Washington DC
after a certain hour or individuals who are
actual US citizens but have brown skin, They
get arrested and damn near taken away until
somebody you know, it's all and it's every
day, it shows you that they're
profiling, that they're reacting. They're not doing what
they claim, that we're going after people we
know, and we're looking for the worst of
the worst. They're going for anybody and everybody
all the time and then
dealing with what you know, anybody, Brown, for
example, they're grabbing. In most cases, I can
see. And then dealing with the fallout afterward
or, you know, drilling them about whether they're
US citizens. It's pretty alarming. And some points
about Israel and some foreign policy. Some of
these things toward the end, it seem how
much time we take to start. We may
have to push them off to the show,
but all of that hopefully today.
So, let's start with some points that I
do think are very important around,
really, as usual, kind of some table setting
points, but also
partisan stuff and some different things that I
think are important to kind of discuss. Usually,
as I as I have been doing lately,
a lot of these opening points, you you'll
you'll tend to note like, you'll find a
point during the show where you go, okay.
Okay. That's why that makes sense. And I
don't often point it out, but I like
that. It's it's important. You know, a lot
of what I try to do on my
show is not just to go bluntly say
the thing that I need, you know, to
hopefully make you connect that dot.
So it's not just you repeating what I'm
saying, but so you understand
why that makes sense. And I try to
do that in some ways. It's not always
as well put together as that, but I
I do my best to do that. And
so some of these points, you'll hopefully be
remembering as we go through the show. I
think that's important to think about. This one
is a good one to start with.
And this is kinda what I was saying
when I was opening a little bit there,
which is, well, first, the sal sal the
agarists. And this is about the intel point.
There will always be people that try to,
you know, brush this off as, oh, he's
just being a businessman or he's just, you
know, doing which is probably what he's doing.
It's probably how he thinks about this.
Regardless of the way you make this make
sense, it is dishonest. It's coercive, especially as
the president of The United States Of America,
especially when you're doing that from a government
position and strong arming a company like Intel
to give you
10% stake in a company. That's just fascism,
guys. We all know that that that's not
how this is supposed to work.
Okay. The point, though, is that the way
he said something to get this position, and
then once he got what he wanted, how
it changed. It's just simple dishonesty, and that
either means one of two things. Either he
lied to begin with, or he doesn't care
about the thing he said now that he
got what he wants. It is I mean,
this is not what should be what's the
best way to say it? It it it's
dishonest, clearly. It's borderline criminal,
but it's also
not what we like, if you're gonna raise
a child, you don't want to give them
you don't want to raise them to do
things like this. You wanna teach them how
to be honest and and and, you know,
I just I can't failing on the word
that I'm looking for here, but we you
just know that this is
the lowest common denominator? This is the bad
this is the kind of thing that we
all would look at in other context if
it wasn't somebody you supported and be like,
yeah. That's a griffy, manipulative person that we
don't have a high opinion of. Here's what
he says. The CEO of Intel is highly
conflicted and must resign. Try to force this
person out of their position regardless what you
think about the bigger idea. So right there,
either he means that or he's saying that
to get something because here's what he says
two weeks later. It's on the seventh and
the August 22. Then he says, it it
is my great honor to report that The
United States Of America now fully owns and
controls 10% of intel, which they had a
slightly different framing of that, which kind of
always seems to be the case with Donald
Trump. But, ultimately, that they, you know, that
they are they, like, promised, which is, like,
the last thing you'd ever want from a
group like this. I swear, well,
that they will you almost always vote with
the board unless extreme circumstances or something like
that. I just doubt that'll ever go their
way, but the point is it seems like
they're just
is this about fixing something or changing something
or just gaining for yourselves and your inner
circle? How does this help America? Right? Of
course, there'll always be any now anything that
they do, well, Trump will then be like,
we did that. It's mine. I I'm better
you know, I brought all the hostages back
from Israel, just lying, lying about everything to
gain credit even when it's a horrible situation.
But he goes on to say,
I negotiated the deal with, what, Lip Buon,
the highly respected chief executive officer of the
company.
Okay. So he's conflicted and must resign, and
then when you get something, now he's the
highly respected because now, you know, it's
it's a small point, guys. I mean, really,
it's not a small thing, but it's a
small point to understand how
willfully deceptive these people are. These are this
is what a sociopath does. Oops. I didn't
do that on oh, I was I bumped
my keyboard. This is what a sociopath does.
I mean, I really wanna stress that. They
did this is
manipulative. Well, anyway, you get the general point.
There's still several words that I'm looking for
that I can't grab right now. But it
says I just I I wrote, I just
don't believe most Americans are this stupid or
this easily played.
Now you you'll be it's crazy how many
people below are like, where are you? Everyone's
we all see it. You're missing, so you
pay attention. You know? Everybody's even at least
on this platform, which I'll make a point
about next. But, truly, this is a very,
very, very obvious thing. So my point is
not that people are choosing to be okay
with it, but those that are, like, swayed
or played or go along with it like
something happened,
I don't believe it's happening. I think you're
either okay because you've chosen to be on
his side, the majority,
or you see it, and you think it's
disgusting. You know, you can still think that
and choose to side with him or whatever,
but the group in the middle that, like,
fall for that, I don't believe that's very
large. And I think that says a lot
about what's being framed. But of this person
says most people are not on Twitter.
People on Twitter are stupid and easily played,
which that was a good way to evolve
that. Okay. Maybe it's not the whole world
or everybody in the country, but it's the
way this platform gives you that impression. Ah,
didn't we just talk about that? The way
that everybody else sees the team sport politics
screamers and then pretends that's what all conservatives
are. I don't believe that. I have a
point about that later, about Nick Sarter, but
you gotta start calling out these pretenders because
they frame themselves as them representing all conservatives,
and I really don't believe that's the case
today. But
think about it like this, the framing through
Twitter. Right? And so okay. Good point.
Diehos is the name, I guess.
Dig Day from this year, April 30, it
says with 600,000,000 monthly active users. Let's dispute
530,
650. It's weird how they get different numbers,
but and it's fluctuating. But 600,000,000
generally of active users.
Okay.
Right now, and again, it's always going up.
Current world population, which is what we're talking
about since this is a global app, 8,240,000,000,
give or take. Again, some change.
Yeah. Some change. 2,000,002
more. The point is that that is a
fault very, very small fraction
of the people on the world. And yet
we tend, as a as kind of a
reflexive thing, to look at these platforms or
the media that's covering it as if it
represents
everybody.
I think that's a good thing to think
about. It really, really, really does not. But
they do know that we look at it
that way in some cases, and they play
that.
Whether that's peep corporate interests, whether that's advertisers,
whether it's the government, the people that have
an interest in convincing you of anything,
use things like that. I think that's a
good starting point to think about as we
go forward today.
Now other points I think are important just
to mention,
because right now, a lot one of the
bigger things of today's show is just this
ongoing constitutional crisis, which is insanely obvious right
now, and it's all over the place. Trump
is feeling, like, almost,
emboldened by,
I mean, I don't know, the the the
yes men that circle him and go, whatever
you're saying is the greatest all the time
in his room, in his in in the
Oval Office. Like, people treat him like he's
a five year old in that room. It's
very weird. Even the way they talk to
him is like and I'm not trying to
suggest that they think he's a child, but
it's like it's it's like this they're so
willing to just be like, you're the best.
You're the greatest. It comes across almost like
a like you're like you're
patronizing him in a way. But you guys
can you know what I mean. You can
see the way that they act around him.
It's very it's very different than that I'm
even in other situations. And, nonetheless, the point
is always for me is that they're all
doing the same things.
This is just his flavor of how he
does this, and it was clear from the
last administration. In one way, it's good because
it's very obvious. In another way, it's dangerous
because he's, like, rapidly rushing through things that
usually they're more
delicate with, I guess. But here, my and
my point largely was just that here's an
example of something Bennie Johnson cheering on, another
thing that shouldn't be something we cheer about
about the,
autopen pardons.
Now to be clear, oh, well, again, before
the larger point being all these things, all
of these actions are just him feeling emboldened
and doing things that or, you know, whether
it's the flag burning discussion or, you know,
in that case, arguing he can just dictate
certain
you know, you'll be going to jail or
you'll get death penalty for this if you
do this here. He doesn't have the power
to do any of that.
And whether or not that happens or not
is a different question. Right? He doesn't have
the power to do a lot of stuff
he's doing right now, doing it anyway. And
many people aren't are don't aren't stopping him.
The courts in many ways have pushed back.
Congress seems to be completely checked out. There's
I mean, there's been 15 things he's done
that are impeach worthy, but so too have
there been a lot of other things in
every other president too. But I'm just saying
right now, it's obvious that they're just doing
nothing in some of the most extreme actions
I've seen from a president in the context
of constitutionality.
So here,
he's talking about the auto pen thing. Now
my point is that, clearly, you know my
opinion about people like
Fauci and the rest. These are these are
criminals. And, frankly, I think it's insane that
you can give somebody a pardon for the
things that may happen in the future. In
fact, that's not valid. I would agree with
that in that context, but not because of
what he's pointing out here. I think this
is creating, again it's pretty much the the
thing we've been talking about since COVID, that
if they they're building us to a point
to where everything means nothing and nothing means
everything in any point in time, meaning that
it's up to them. You you don't know
because it's what they say that day that
challenge. There's no consistency.
Most people in that position just go they
check out. Well, maybe I'm not a politician.
Maybe I don't understand. Same thing I did
to people with science and COVID nineteen. Usually,
they're wrong, in fact. Usually, you do understand,
but you're being manipulated away from understanding something
that's pretty clear.
So So in this case, it's about the
autopen, which again is constant it's supreme court
backed it up many times. The idea that
you can have, like, a not what it
means, just like a stamp, for example. You
know? So you could but that is not
when somebody else does it. Now remember,
they have yet to prove, which shows me
they don't have it because they would if
they had, any example where that's been used,
where somebody else has used his pen. They
keep insinuating that because, well, we know Democrats
are dishonest. So and then everybody goes, We
agree even though you haven't proven anything. Based
on the simple idea that we hate the
other side, you guys march into anything, the
ones that are blindly following.
The point is, though, an auto pen was
used just like Trump has used it before,
and that's and easy to look up. So
now he's saying all those pardons have to
get some very bad people, very unpatriotic people,
very evil people. Look. Plenty he's done. Plenty
of horrible people he's pardoned because they're partisan.
Many examples of people, whether Israel related or
things in this country, I'm not even talking
about January 6. I'm talking about plenty of
people you can discuss that are very bad
people. It's the same thing. They're all doing
the same things. Right now, it's about trying
to undermine
anything that's protected by the constitution, it seems,
or the law where you can just go,
I'm doing this because I agree and you
all support because mandate even though that's probably
not the case in most
things, and pushing it forward.
And, of course, the big other point is
the screamers going, woo hoo. The thing that's
wrong, we cheer for it because Trump did
it. If Biden did the same thing, yeah,
every time, you know the answer.
Even if it was the right thing for
the right reasons, you know they would be
like, Biden bad, and it's not it's the
same thing every time. And this is all
over the place. This is about warp speed
to do a few points about health that
I think are important. He again came out
yet again for, what, the fourth time and
even just since he's been elected again and
says or put in the position again?
Operation Warp Speed, one of the greatest achievements
ever in politics
or in the military.
Oh, there's a different point to it. Let's
hear what he has to say about that.
Despite COVID,
which was very unfortunate
situation for the whole world, we did a
great job with it. Never got the credit
for the job we did. You do you
ever notice, by the way, that he is
incapable of doing anything without praising himself?
That's not my opinion. Watch.
He'll say so he'll be asked about things
in regard to Israel, and he can't help
but pray. Like, the we'll get to at
the end if we have time. The bombing
of the Nasir hospital,
again, for the eighth time.
And he asked about that. Not even sure.
But I did all I got all the
hostage out. It's all me. We need the
credit.
You ask about a genocide and people being
murdered. No. And then your next thing is
to go, I did good things.
That's what sociopaths
do. Pay attention. But here's what he says.
Which was very unfortunate situation for the whole
world. We did a great job with it.
Never got the credit for the job we
did.
Operation Warp Speed, people say is one of
the greatest achievements ever
in politics or in the military because of
So note,
always hyperbolic.
People say whatever he wants you to think
that day. Usually, they don't say that, like
in this case. Plenty of examples like that
today.
People like everyone in Chicago is telling me
they want this. Probably not. They just lie
to you all the time.
It was almost a military procedure
ever
in politics or in the military because it
was almost a military procedure.
Mhmm. But,
everybody,
including Putin, said that operation warp speed, what
you did with that, nobody can believe it.
How much you wanna bet Putin didn't say
that? I mean, just for just for fun.
I'm not saying I know that for sure.
Genuinely would get you you wanna actually bet?
Let's do it. I'm willing to bet you
anything he didn't actually say that. But it
doesn't matter. Right? Because it's it's something Putin
says he didn't, they're just no one's gonna
talk about it. It just doesn't matter. But
that's what they all do. Right? Maybe with
the exception of Biden because he couldn't even
tie his own shoes because he was so
checked out. But the point is they all
do. You look back as far as you
want, but I just think that's hilarious. The
same thing like when he first got there,
they all said, please, Trump. Please make a
deal. And then it turns out he lied
about all of that. I brought that up
many times because it's easily proven.
And,
we did a great job, but it was
still it was a horrible,
horrible poll over our country. We had
a a very dark cloud over the world.
That was a very, very bad We had
a very dark cloud over the world.
All over our country. We had a
a very dark cloud over the world. That
was a Interesting framing.
Very, very bad thing that came out of
Wuhan,
which I said it came out of Wuhan.
That's where it came from. Yeah. And China
suffered greatly, but everybody did. But we,
we did a good job with that as
good as you could possibly do, and we
came back. And now we're
stronger than ever before. Yeah. Great. Stronger than
ever before. Everyone everywhere says that's the greatest
thing ever. All my base loves Operation Warp
Speed. It's the best thing ever. Now the
point that you should pick up on, we
already hear hear him do this little tap
dance, which is embarrassing,
because I don't know anybody outside of the
very people he claims he's fighting or the
very people the Jones and Johnsons of the
world are telling you they're all fighting. The
deep state, the powers are right? Those people
tell you Warfury's great, don't they? So funny
how you can't be like, wait a minute.
The only people telling us that liar, the
people we're fighting, and Trump.
That's weird, but he's a good guy. They're
all the problem. The point though is that
the military.
Right? That is very interesting.
Alien Vader says, is this Trump trying to
find a way of taking the of
out of taking the blame for warp speed?
I mean, he you get it. You must
know he knows what people think. He knows
what his own base thinks. He knows they
do not agree with this. He knows that
they somehow secretly think it's all gonna work
out where he exposes something, and it's all
been forwarded to chest. Maybe that's maybe this
is a work to kick it off to
somebody else after he already come took credit
and continues to claim his legacy around it,
but then eventually go, but the military really
did it. You know, I was only good
famous for the things that made it all
work, but I didn't know it was bad.
You know, you could totally see that coming.
Like he's done with everything else. With USAID,
it was always while it was happening, it
was, that's Rubio's thing. It's Rubio's thing. But
now he takes credit for it. Or, you
know, it's always how that works because I
think he's a weak person in that regard.
He's afraid to take credit as a leader
but wants all the benefit from it. Overall,
I can see that working out. Is is
he going to put the blame on the
military once they pull the jabs off the
market?
Maybe. Because you have to realize that's also
being driven from their side. I agree with
it. It should happen. Completely get rid of
those things. But they're sprinting in the direction
of self amplifying shots, which is the reality
now. So I think what might happen,
they might shift into that direction and while
claiming it's not the same thing and then
remove the older ones that they can while
still allowing our, Arcturus and Amplitude to make
them. They're lying to you.
But then simply claiming that they're now they're
but it was their fault. You see how
that might connect. Just interesting point. And I'll
put this together or in in the show
notes. Trump admin leans into self amplifying.
And here is five times August just he
given his disappointed face for Trump doing that
yet again. And it's it's good to see
people who are honest about this. Now overlapping
that point,
the real point being that Warp Speed is
still being praised. He still praises the shots.
They're still giving COVID shots. They're still making
COVID shots, including regular one. We are we've
gone over this.
And I mean, I could even if you
for those that don't know, I won't I
won't have to go over all it again.
But just to I'll show you very quickly
from their own page. This is the page
about winding down mRNA. Again, it says very
clearly that specifically, Arcturus and Amplitude
will be allowed to run their course, And
they're working on multiple self amplifying COVID shots
and bird flu shots. That's those are happening
as well as the fact that other uses
of mRNA will be not impacted by this.
So, RNA in food, RNA in all sorts
of other ways. So, it's clearly not stopping.
It's a it's a head fake, like the
gain of function head fake, like the USAID
head fake, like everything else they're using to
pretend they're stopping while actually keeping it going.
I just I can't it's very, very obvious,
which is one of those moments where it's
like, look. This is not opinion. They are
lying, and many people are out there lying
for them like the people we always talk
about. So what that shows you is that
they are knowingly being dishonest.
So that has to reflect on the rest
of the conversation.
But keeping this in mind, here's what RFK
Junior just said. And this is wild to
me. Only by points afterward, thirty nine seconds.
RFK Jr says the 60 largest tech companies
will permit Americans to access their
personal health data. How very kind of them.
Similarly, we've made another historic agreement
with,
personal health records.
The 60 biggest tech companies in our country
have all agreed
to allow Americans for the first time
access to their personal data, which they own,
which these companies have been monetizing without permission.
You're gonna be able to see by next
year, all of your health records on your
cell phone.
It's gonna save lives. It is gonna fuel
an infusion of technology
into that space where people can access those
records. They can compare their diet to what
they personally need,
and we'll have personalized medicine.
Yeah. Is that what you that sounds exciting,
doesn't it? Now this is one of those
moments where it this this is this is
very clear to me.
You could argue as always that RFK Jr
is doing this so he gets what he
wants later or whatever the weird thing we
think is okay in this broken political game.
Right? Where everyone compromises and then hopes to
get what they want later and usually don't.
Right? It's just it's so gross and broken
all the time.
You you could argue that that's what he's
doing here, but my I don't think I
think what's obvious is that he is knowingly
miss
like, misleading you. Or rather, I no. That's
not even a hard way to frame it.
It is, but he he's he's the way
he's setting this up is to make it
sound like you're gaining something here.
Like, we're we won, and we got this
back from you. Only play it through, and
I'll make my points.
Similarly, we've made another historic agreement
with, personal health workers.
The 60 biggest tech companies in our country
have all agreed
Okay. So 60 biggest tech companies. Like, in
general, the idea that their incestuous relationship with
all of big tech in every single part
of their administration, I don't know why that's
not the like, this is like having all
of them sit at Trump's inauguration and pretending
like that's not a like, that that's a
great thing. Right? All the people we've been
telling you for four years should be in
prison are now on Trump's side, and that
just shows we're winning.
That's so stupid it makes my teeth hurt.
People fall for it. My point is just
continuing to work with them. Not it's not
like they're strong arming them. Okay? They're making
agreements with them. That's not the same thing.
But let's just pretend like they're forcing them
somehow against their will. Okay. Keep going. To
allow Americans for the first time
access to their personal data, which they own.
Oh, good. Great. Okay. So you're
for you're working with 60 biggest tech companies
to allow access to our data.
Again, very kind of you. Thank you. Well,
good. Okay. I get it as he says
that that Which these companies have been monetizing
without permission. Right. Okay. Which, by the way,
was allowed during Trump's last administration and the
Republican one before that and the Democrat ones
before that. Right. So it's been going on
for a while, and both sides of the
paradigm have allowed this the entire time.
Okay. Fair. Maybe maybe Trump just didn't know
what to do last time or however you
wanna give him the benefit of the doubt.
The point is that it was going on,
but maybe now he wants to deal with
it. Okay. So you're telling us that you've
made agreements with them.
You've allowed them all this time to steal
or you've given our health data to them,
and they've monetized that. And so now you're
gonna have them give it back to us.
Okay. You could just that alone,
you might argue, is some kind of a
win, that they're gonna give us this data
that we or you're gonna give you access
to what they have on you. Okay.
But the way it's happening is the biggest
problem for me.
Watch the way you finish this out. We
are going to you go give it to
you get your phone, you get your health
app, and you're gonna go through the tracking
app, and we're gonna give you all that
data that you can use through the app,
and we're then it's gonna drive technological
so all this really seems to be is
them giving you what they stole from you
to get you to, like,
manipulate you into the very system that we're
all calling out.
I I it's it's just almost lazy to
me, and we we've talked about this
many times. This is the one we just
recently covered in regard to
in regard to his, you know, the
Trump's new big tech health led or tech
led private health tracking system on top of
the other one they did about the wearables
and the push there with, by the way,
Gleason from Doge, which makes no sense until
you remember that it's the digital services, not
actually Doge. And so it's all about wearables
and and digital IDs, which it always was.
You know, it just exited states left, and
we never actually saved any money. But, you
know, it's all good. Ignore all the facts.
Keep sticking with the plan. You're gonna be
able to save my next year, all of
your health records on your cell phone.
On your cell phone. Great. How to do
that? Gotta get the app. Right? How to
do that? Gotta have an ID.
I mean, maybe not, but I think that's
where this all goes. Right? And so you
need to work with them
to just to get your personal information they
monetize from you because your government allowed it.
All the ones sitting in this room.
It's gonna save lives. It is gonna fuel
an infusion of technology
into that space where Yeah. Right. Because they
want that because they're using their tech health
tracking system. That's all they're building their wearable
technocratic
health tracking monitoring game for your benefit.
As as I mean, look. Will it save
lives? Maybe. Maybe in some ways, gaining the
information they have on you might help you
in some ways. Just like maybe the tech
they're using might help people work better, faster,
but it'll also completely lead to a liberty
free world that they're building for you for
your safety.
You know, it's always like there's always some
level you could argue that might work out
in our benefit,
but it's rarely the full picture especially when
your government's involved. People can access those records.
They can compare their diet to what they
personally need.
Compare their diet
to what they personally need? Okay. So what
he's saying is you can compare what you're
eating to what the data from those companies
think you should be eating.
Great. So now we're gonna align our actual
life with what they think we should be
doing, and let's assume that means it's in
our best interest. How is this coming from
this person who's been so critical of this
very thing the entire time?
You realize these aren't, like, new companies. These
are the same people he told you not
to trust. He said we're criminals and help
manipulate all of this is crazy to me.
Well, now he's part of the team, and
so now it's all good. Does that feel
familiar familiar? It certainly should because it happens
every damn time. You wonder why I'm jaded
about politics? It's this right stuff just like
this. And we'll have personalized medicine.
Yeah. Personalized medicine. Right? That and you know
what that is, guys? We've talked about this.
Personalized medicine.
Hey, Stargate.
AI created personalized drugs
and vaccines. That's what they're talking about.
Using their platform
and Stargate and artificial intelligence with Larry Ellison
Oracle who wants you to be in a
world in the future where everyone's monitored so
everyone's safe,
meaning nanotech and everything else. He's already talked
about this stuff, and so you're gonna use
Stargate to build out AI created drugs for
personalized medicine.
That is mRNA. That's what they've already told
you.
So I still don't understand how the ending
of phasing out mRNA plan
works with Stargate.
They haven't mentioned that, and Stargate is provably
not stopping. It's still at least right now,
it's still in effect. They haven't really done
anything that you can prove just yet, but
it did not go away. I don't understand
how you could go away from a $500,000,000,000
thing that you've already begun to roll out
with OpenAI,
Oracle, and SoftBank, and everyone else involved. So,
again, I'm of the mind that we that's
a major manipulation right there.
This, this,
oh, that was it. Yeah. Just you're going
to be able to see by next year
all of your health records on your cell
phone. I just think that's hilarious to me.
Sasha Latapova
rightly says, no. Thank you. I don't wanna
see my health records on my cell phone
because this means
Palantir, among many other agents, can see my
health records too. Now the reality is I'm
not sure if she means that because it's
on her phone or because that means they
already have the access, which I would argue
is the truth, is that ultimately, they already
have all that. Right? So they because they
already scooped up all of their we we
went over this. On the health side of
it,
I knew I should have saved that article.
There was an article that I was looking
at
that was
about all the data just on the health
side that they have access to through HHS,
and it's, like, seven different agencies and all.
It's insane. But the we what we now
know is is more if the specific point
is more important now, but the broader point
is that it's just everything. Right? All the
data. The what the government has on you,
they have access to.
And so does Israel because of the memorandum
of understanding around older AI training, which is
just over the top for me. But that's
the truth.
Oops. Forgot this. There we go.
So I agree. No. I don't want that.
I don't want this to be I don't
want to recognize that they you know? But
I get I think the way that this
is showing it is that it's already too
late for that. But her point is we
shouldn't be okay with this. She says, I
will never participate in this, and I I
agree with that. I go to a private
practice which does not submit health records into
any database. Okay. So, you know, that's why
that makes sense. And the only three times
I visited my PCP in the past five
years were for athletic performance testing.
Nothing medical. I do not do any preventative
screening. I I don't either. I wouldn't. Test
and free and never will. There these are
medical mafia trapping devices. I do not do
annual checkups either. I won't share my health
data with anyone unless specifically
needed for an immediate treatment decision.
See, now that may seem crazy to some
people, but that is the most logical thing
with what we know about what's going on
that I've ever seen.
But, honestly, you want my own my opinion?
I think that this is what most people
are gravitating towards at this point.
And then, of course, again, this is not
new. Right? The the Palantir Panopticon and Trump's
new big tech led
new big tech led private health tracking system.
Alright. So is it if they roll this
out and tell you that that's what's Google
and Microsoft, by the way, which is completely
infiltrated by Israel, we just went over that.
And now those are the ones he just
told you again are going to be giving
back you giving back your data, probably with
tracking devices, probably with you know? I I
mean, we really can't scoff at this stuff.
It is so in your face. It's embarrassing
to ignore. You know, it was like even
like with waltz and, like, the signal telemessage
app thing in the congress or in in
in the White House,
these things are all over the place. So
why wouldn't we assume this is going on
in the same in the same position, whether
Israel or somebody else? That we shouldn't assume
anything, but we should consider that these things
are happening because the evidence is there.
Now, Shannon Joy, on top of all that,
pointed out something I think is important to
remember. And this just speaks to the larger
point again. The claims of things that rare
that aren't actually what are going on. She
says it appears
that research using aborted baby fetal tissue and
organs
is still funded despite the election of Donald
Trump. Think about how great how wild that
is to what all of the claims and
all the momentum, all the pushback, and here
we are. And you could you could look
into it for yourself. There's plenty of evidence
about this. And there and on top of
that oh, you know what? This isn't damn
it. There was one more.
Hope it did. I did that the other
day too. I somehow accidentally closed one of
these things.
Shoot. Oh, well. Well, the point I was
simply gonna make is that clearly and there
there is a lot of ongoing research in
this direction, just like the point I made
about with USAID
and and the,
circumcision for AIDS prevention. They made that big
point, which I also think is ridiculous that
we're finding anything like that anywhere, but it's
still happening
to this very day. It's still you can
look it up on USA spending, multiple locations
in Africa. Now that's not about whether, like,
the point's not about whether you think it's
good or bad or whatever. I disagree with
it for many reasons. My point, though, is
that they claim that was so outrageous.
Look at the kind of things the democrats
were funding, and you could prove it's still
happening.
And you could prove that there's many examples
of climate change related things happening all over
the world under this administration.
I made I did I brought this up,
like, four times in different shows already.
Just bringing it back up to make that
point because it shows that you are being
lied to. It also shows you that just
like like make the point about pronouns and
whatever else, like, the the the
political narrative used to justify an action. Right?
So at that point, they were using all
these claims of, you know, woke culture, DEI,
whatever to use that. And, really, in many
cases, it was just getting the foot in
the door for regime change, something like that.
The narrative changes, but the agenda stays the
same. And so it's the same idea with
all of this stuff. Right? In those cases,
I argue it's because they work for whatever
they try to accomplish in those areas, not
that they truly care about circumcision.
It's just it's so obvious. And this is
one more example of something that they're lying
to you about, which, by the way, is
pretty offensive when you understand where they're coming
from about it.
Now this is just hilarious to me because
we were talking about the sun ain't wake
up this morning, the whole Cracker Barrel thing.
I made fun of drain DC Draino for
making this whole big thing about BlackRock and
Vanguard. That's why they changed the name of
the label.
Sure.
Maybe. But but what's funny to me is
that you have such a big problem with
BlackRock when it comes to Cracker Barrel, but,
you know, don't worry about the fact that
it's Larry Fink and BlackRock are, like, inside
Trump's inner circle last time and this time
very publicly or that
BlackRock and Vanguard are the two of the
top three shareholders of Rumble, which you love,
but don't talk about that. Or that BlackRock
funds Twitter and Elon Musk and overlap with
Teal. But, no, those things are
no. It's nothing. Cracker Barrel, that's the real
story. It's just it's
pathetic. So here's the White House.
This is actually today.
Go woke. Go broke. You know? And it's
just so sad because it's like, yes. I
agree. This is stupid. The idea and he
changes the logo for the podcast to say
America First with Trump's picture on it. You
know? It's it's just kinda sad. I honestly
don't even think people recognize. I believe it
means, like, the crackers and they had in
the big barrel and not necessarily the white
guy in the picture. But I think what's
funny is that it's ultimately just another ridiculous
thing that's pretty meaningless.
Company can change and do whatever they want.
I also think it's dumb for them to
do something just because of that political pressure,
but I'm starting to get the sense this
was almost like a manufactured thing.
Like, that's but because it just seems so
it's quite irrelevant to even ask that anymore.
But Trump came out and said, they should
go back to the old logo
on the White House post
because that's what's really important. Right?
Jason Baster says, we've got deep state swamp
creatures at the helm. Engineering digital control grids
and people are freaking out over a logo
redesign.
He says whatever conservative America is talking about,
whatever conservative America should be talking about. Now,
again, I'm not saying I I mentioned in
in, like, many number of small things to
start the show and talk about, but I'm
talking about people and, look, you can talk
about whatever you want. It's more about making
the point that this is what they're over
focusing on, not just that they're talking about
it,
but it's they're, you know, almost and I'll
make a point about this with the next
post. So I think this is funny to
me that, one, that this has become such
an overfocus
for obvious reasons. And so I went on
to look and I'm like, what are some
people that, like, for example, were really adamant
about, like, human trafficking or or Epstein or
any, you know, any number of things that
are really in the conversation right now? And
I went to look and I'm like, well,
I'm just curious. Are they mentioning, Like, right
what are they talking about right now? And
I I thought to myself, because I actually
did a,
like, a rally, and I did a speech.
I think it was the very first one
I did way back when Franklin and Robbie
Starbuck and his wife were there, and they've
talked a lot about that. I just remembered
there's somebody that was really adamant about that,
and I haven't seen
anything post anything. You know? I think that's
just because the algorithms today, they just it's
weird how they shove things in your face,
and sometimes they don't whether you're following it
or not. But I said, okay. Let's let's
look to see what he's talking about.
I relooked and I said, what do you
what do you know? And honestly, I didn't
intend to make an appoint about him. It
was just because that's the first of all
that jumped in my mind, and it really
is like the best possible example.
This is a new one. I just see
this. Okay. You know, cat turd and talking
about woke ideology because they they just are
right now going like, look back to 2020.
Look back to that time. All the things
that are really you know, aren't even really
the bigger focal point right now. But Newsom,
Cracker Barrel.
This one is about Cracker Barrel. This one
is about Cracker Barrel. This one is about
Cracker Barrel. This one is also about Cracker
Barrel. This one is also about I'm not
I'm not joking. For the podcast, it's it's
like it's
like
it's having extensively,
exclusively Cracker Barrel. Isn't that insanely stupid? But
on top of that, you can scroll. I
don't see many posts about Epstein
or hue or any of this stuff. Right?
So it's just very it's very strange to
me that the overfocus when you know, and
you could take that for what you will.
Maybe it's just that's just what it happened
to me that day. But I wonder
why when you have such an obvious conversation
that should obviously matter, especially for things you
focus on, that it would be something like
Cracker Barrel that takes the focus. I you
know my opinion.
But then, of course, it all comes into
it all works out in the end because
Cracker Barrel reverses course and sheds a new
logo.
That's my point, guys. Does that doesn't that
feel a little bit like
almost like they did this in order to
have it come back and then be like,
we did it. We're winning.
Trump's the best because he did something that
basically means nothing for anybody other than a
political point.
You ask I you know what? Genuinely ask
yourself that. I have no idea. I'm not
saying I know anything about whether they did,
but doesn't it feel a little bit odd
the way this all went down? At least
ask those questions.
Now let's get into things that matter.
This one's interesting to me, and this is
just a follow-up from before, not even to
say that this is the story today. There
are plenty of other things we're gonna talk
about that I think are much more important.
But the ongoing kind of cover up of
the Epstein story is not a new story,
but it is very important. It is
obvious.
And I just wanted to make this really
clear about this point. It seems to be
almost, like, selectively ignored for the obvious reasons.
Maxwell, this is on the twenty second,
in the transcript in the conversation,
denies that Trump
or Clinton
were involved in the crimes of Epstein.
Trump or Clinton.
Okay.
I don't know why anybody would take the
testimony of a convicted human trafficker as face
value. It's gotta be pretty silly and stupid
to do that, but guess who? Many people
are doing that in the republican side. Jim
Jim,
Jordan came out and was like, that means
he's innocent, basically, paraphrasing.
Very weird thing to do. Because typically, when
a convicted pedophile or whatever you wanna call
them, because it's all, you know in in
honest in earnest, I think the that term
doesn't even technically apply to what we're but
there's they're sexual predators. They abuse children whether
or not they're in that age range that
would make that word apply. The point is
they are very clearly that problem in the
different varying ages for sure, probably still that
one as well.
And that that kind of person would be
an opinion that you then go, yes. That
means, you know, if she likes him, then
Trump's a good guy. Very weird. But the
point is important.
If you are right now claiming that Maxwell's
testimony about Trump vindicates him,
right, if you're saying she said that that
means he's innocent, then you're also claiming that
Clinton is innocent too. Right? The the logic
is exactly the same.
So I said enjoy that.
Blind support for those in power will always
blow up in your face.
Because I think the obvious point here is
that this is either her
appealing to power on every side to try
to gain what she's already gotten, her proper
deal. Her you know,
she's not gonna be I mean, it's it's
pretty clear that they already made an agreement.
Now she's in club fed.
She and they float stories about how in
danger she is. Maybe not.
Either way,
nothing's happening.
Nothing.
Oh, yeah. What happened? I thought Obama was
gonna go. Didn't Jones tell us Obama was
going down for sure? Where's that? I'll talk
about that later. The point is that this
is obviously,
you you know, so contradictory. If you're looking
at this and you are absolutely convinced that
Bill Clinton was the criminal and not Trump,
then how do you make sense of this?
Why would Trump and them con like, convince
them to say that, or did she say
it out of her own accord? Is she
lying about everybody?
Very interesting to me. It speaks volumes.
I think the obvious point is they're all
on the list. They're all comparable. They're all
compromised, and I think that's the larger point
of why it all works that way. And
I think, oh, when they had it, they
would have released it about Trump. Well, not
if they're all on it, not if they're
all criminals, not if they're all working on
the same team, however you wanna look at
it. Very logical, and you know that. Now
US House Committee requests Epstein birthday book.
Now the way they titled this, it first
made me think, okay. This is wildly partisan.
They could they if all they're looking for
is that birthday thing from Trump just to
make him look it's like that seems
like the least important thing in the conversation,
but the best for them to make it
only Trump when they're probably all involved. Right?
But when you read this, it is they're
asking for quite a bit. And that that
shouldn't suggest that you know they're innocent either
because they probably if they are involved, you
know, Comer, I think, and the rest,
then they kinda probably already know that whether
or not they ask, they're not gonna give
it. So it's like this game of chicken
with them right now to be like, wait.
Give us all the information knowing he won't
because he's on it, but they're all on
it. You know, you can see how that
might be playing out. All hypothetical.
A US panel investigating the crimes of Jeffrey
Epstein has requested that the executors of his
estate produce a number of documents,
including a book said to have contained personal
messages of his fiftieth birthday.
A lawyer for the Epstein estate confirmed receipt
of the request and said executors would, quote,
comply with all lawful process in this matter,
and that includes the committee's subpoena.
It says, among other papers, it also requests
any nondisclosure
agreements
executed by Epstein
over a three decade period. That's interesting.
And his will preceding his death in jail
from 02/2019.
Now ask yourself, why aren't these things already
out there? Isn't it Trump and Bondi and
Bongino and Kash all telling you that ever
you got it all, it's a and and
it's all victim stuff and porn that we
can't give you. Okay. Then how does that
make sense? Or about the book with the
birthday stuff?
I mean, pretty clearly, those don't do they're
just keeping it from you. I think that's
very and look. I don't need to convince
anybody of this. Honestly, it's mostly conservatives pointing
this out
despite the way they wanna frame it as
a bunch of weakling manipulators or the, you
know, Democrat
secret worker, whatever. It's just the narrative they
spit out are always so embarrassing to hide
that largely conservatives are the ones calling for
this.
But it says, among other papers,
then it goes on to say it further
demands any document or record
that could be reasonably construed
to be a potential list of clients involved
in sex sex acts or sex trafficking.
That's pretty I I I was surprised to
see that, to be honest, because of what
I just said before. So they're going give
us the list.
I doubt that's gonna happen. And now they've
kind
of made a good you know, let's just
say again, the reality is that they're all
basically compromised in some way. None of them
want this to come out. That's kind of
a a good move to go, you know,
put it in okay. Now we demand the
list.
So if they don't do it, that makes
them look like they're hiding it even though
I think they all know it's not gonna
that that is kind of my impression of
it or, you know, my opinion
based on
how prolific this really was. And you can
really see that, guys. I mean, just looking
at the Israel influence over this, and there's
no hiding the Israel overlap to what Epstein
was. They're just it's one of the most
obvious parts of the conversation. And weirdly, one
of the most dismissed,
I I shouldn't even say weirdly, obviously, the
one of the most dismissed by people involved
in that side of the conversation.
Makes sense.
But it goes on to say, however, the
US Department of Justice and FBI have stated
that no such list exists. And there you
go. But we'll have to wait and see
how this pans out. I I think it's
they're all they've been saying it the whole
time even though they're the ones that built
this narrative in the first place, which is
ridiculous.
It says reports emerge that Trump himself was
told in May, which you guys already know,
that Bondi
told him that his name appeared in the
files many, many times, hundreds, I think. And,
ultimately,
he asked them to be removed, and that
wasn't public until that came out.
As I said before, you could argue that
he just he's not guilty in any way,
but he knows it would be used against
him. It certainly makes sense. I I think
you can obviously see that there's more to
the story than that. If we if Epstein's
on the record, which I've played for you
many times, saying he was my closest friend
for ten years,
hard to deny that or that Trump is
pictured with him more times than most, or
he was on the plane on the record
many times, but we can't prove he went
to the island or not. These are all
accurate statements.
While campaigning for the presidency, Trump said he
would be open to making public more information.
But he recently changed his position, saying the
case was closed, criticizing his own supporters who
have continued to press about it, but also
calling the whole thing a hoax. Direct quote,
many times. Again, despite these screaming partisans out
there trying to convince you that that's not
what he really meant, even though he says
it over and over and just recently said
it again.
So I think that's I think this overall
story is important, and it shows you
the the influence of that network and that
you know what I think it connects to,
as well as the fact that your government,
you know, I mean, it from an all
of government perspective
are willing to play this, to use this,
to use you, to manipulate the way we
see most anything.
This just, I think, speaks to the I
think this is the reason, one of the
many, why this country is the play in
the place that it's in. Because things like
this have worked and they have been manipulated,
now people are acting
solely for their own enrichment, for their own
benefit, their own power.
And we I mean, do we not see
that every single day? The the rest of
the show today, we'll continue to make that
clear.
Similarly, we
So next point, let's get into
the burning of the flag overlap.
Right? So the constitutional
issue around all of this stuff is like
I said before, I I I think I
don't
I could probably think of a few examples
that were you know, would be at the
level of the kind of breach violation that
we're talking about, but it's the amount of
them consistently
one after the other that puts this above
the beyond the pale for and I've never
seen something like this in this not like
this in this country, where it's just one
after another repeated. Now, you know, maybe there's
points in the past that I'm just not
well versed on. Certainly possible. But I just
think this
is some this is a a kind of
a shift that makes me wonder whether this
is, you know, like like I'm talking about,
like a transition of power in some way,
wondering whether this is, like, you know, a
a in the same way from outside or
a, like, a deliberate destruction of this country.
I just don't know how to see this
any other way because it's not just that
it's happening. It's happening, like, in your face,
and then they just lie about it. I
I just don't understand how any political
group,
ad advisors, could ever think that's the smartest
way to go about anything. I just don't
I mean, that that is baffles me every
time I see it.
And so this is I mean, why would
they do this right now in the midst
of this, knowing the pushback, knowing that it's
gonna blow I mean, literally
show the reality of what they you know,
their their lack of belief in a foundational
document of this country. Of course, think about
a narrative. We'll go through it. The way
they're trying to kind of manipulate this into
saving this country like everything else, I think
it works for some people.
But any I think the how many veterans
we're seeing, including the one that got arrested
already in front of the White House or
in the, you know, in somewhat in the
grounds,
shows you that there's a lot of people
out there that are Republicans, conservatives,
veterans, who are very well aware that this
is a major step in the wrong direction
and are willing to stand against it even
though they may still support Trump, which I
think is an interesting point.
But we'll start with
David Ike.
Well, first, the the you know, again, we'll
make more points about this in a second.
The the cheer cheerleading Trump, team Trump squad
who basically you know, anything they do, it's
just the greatest ever even though it may
it proves, like, these are things that you
can prove they've called out in other ways
and other conversations.
People like Nick are just ridiculous
cheerleading clowns. They are hypocrites in every possible
way, and I'll make this point clear in
a second. But here's Trump talking about it.
You'll get one year in jail.
No early exits for burning a piece of
cloth, for burning the American flag. Now regardless
of what you think about that and how
much you revere it, it's constitutionally protected. No
way around that. And I'll make that clear
as we go through it. Then I'll make
it clear why they're doing it and the
way they think they're sidestepping it. But here's
what Trump said.
Actually, sir, this is an executive order on
flag burning that charges your
By the way,
this is what I keep talking about in
regard to the executive order. There is no
way you can argue an executive order applies
to any enforcement of anything all across the
country in every city and every state. Or
that the the executive order somehow, you know,
like we're talking about, can can apply to
I mean, the the simple point is executive
orders apply to the executive branch. That's it.
And in in in ways they use it
today, that's just what I'm trying to show
you about this like, we live in, like,
a dictatorial authoritarian government.
No different from Obama or the rest. They're
all started doing it. They just get to
write something down and claim that's the reality.
Trump is just taking it to a whole
new level. And he also just recently said
that he can basically do whatever he wants
because he's the president. Sounds familiar.
Attorney general Would you listen to this Order
on flag burning that charges your attorney general
Would you listen to this? This is not
happening.
Flag burning. All over the country, they're burning
flags.
All over the world, they burn the American
flag. Okay. Right there. Are are they?
Are are they all over the country, are
they burning flag? This is what he does
with every single thing he talks about.
He's hyperbolic.
He he says, you know, everywhere happening all
the time. Everything that's happening is chaos and
madness and murder.
I'm sure you could show like, okay. If
you're gonna take the example that flags can
burning can cause chaos,
okay. By that logic, you can illegalize
damn near anything by claiming that doing that
then causes people to do x, y, and
z.
It's just simply dishonest. It's in fact illegal,
unconstitutional,
but you're gonna start to see this kind
of action based on this kind of precedent.
And as you know,
through a very sad court,
I guess it was a five to four
decision,
They called it freedom of speech. Oh, they
called it freedom of speech. See how insulting
he is about this? And he's done this
many times. I'll play them afterward.
He said it in the last time about
the flag. He said it about shutting down
the Internet.
People will say free speech. Those are stupid
people. No. Those are educated people who care
about the constitution because you're they're right. It
is unconstitutional
to do this or to shut down the
all the things we're talking about.
But he says they're stupid. In this case,
he acknowledges that the Supreme Court ruled in
favor, and it's not the only time, and
it's not the only precedent. There's many examples,
and he just goes he acts like it's
something to dis to
to dismiss,
that he just doesn't like it. Oh, it's
two or three to four. So who really
cares?
These things truly matter.
Not in the sense of, like, you know,
like, the point is it matters in the
context of what we're discussing about how this
country works.
And they're I think what they're doing is
setting a precedent, not just for the flag,
but for
ignoring a precedent, ignoring the constitution
in so far if it gets you what
you're trying to accomplish. Remember?
There is no violating the law if I'm
saving the country or whatever that quote was.
Remember that because that's what they're marching with.
There is no breaking the law if I'm
doing if what I claim is saving the
country.
You know,
through a very sad court,
I guess it was a five to four
decision. Sad court. They called it freedom of
speech, but there's another reason which is
perhaps much more important. It's called death.
Because what
What?
So you have to understand the way so
the reason that they did this free speech,
but there's another reason. So by that logic
of the way he set that up, there
there would be another reason for why it
should be in that position.
That's not what he's doing. He's going on
to make the case that death is be
what happens when people burn the flag. I'm
just trying to point out the illogical setup
of his own statements.
It doesn't make sense.
It's language. Words mean things. It just it
just well, all the he was just trying
to build toward that's bad thing and this
is other bad thing that can happen. Therefore,
constitution doesn't matter.
Now watch. Listen listen for yourself. All over
the world, they burned the American flag.
And as you know,
through a very sad court,
I guess it was a five to four
decision,
they called it freedom of speech. But there's
another reason, which is Another reason that they
called it freedom of speech. Perhaps much more
important. Or another reason that they they made
it unconstitutional. Called death.
Because what happens
when you burn a flag
is the area goes crazy. Okay. So literally
every time anywhere you burn a flag, everyone
goes lose their mind and go crazy. Does
anybody believe that?
That it's it's like some kind of ring,
it's some kind of magic spell. You burn
the flag and people start looting and going
crazy.
That's the dumbest
hyperbolic assumptive thing in the world. He's just
selling you on the narrative, which, by the
way, look online.
All the dutiful morons out there are screaming
about that point about how it's not even
about the flag. It's about the the people
getting crazy. Okay. So you are you are
now the democrats. You are the same thing
that you were calling out because that's exactly
the same logic they use for everything they're
pushing, and now you're the same thing. Congratulations.
If you have hundreds of people, they go
crazy. You could do other things. You can
burn this piece of paper. You can
and it's Yeah. Yeah. You know? Go out
and burn a piece of paper instead. You
know? Same thing. Totally.
It's regard it doesn't matter. It's about your
right to do this that is protected.
And all he's trying to do in a
very clumsy way is suggest that because that
might lead to other things, but what he's
saying is it always does all the time
and everything's crazy, then that means we can
make this illegal. No. It doesn't.
It it just doesn't matter. I don't care
if literally you burn the flag. It turn
it it does exactly what you're saying. It
still does not change the reality of the
constitution. The way out the reality of
the constitutionality
of it. I'm trapped myself with descendants. But
when you burn the American flag,
it incites riots.
Nope. No. It just burned the flag. People
can do what they want, act how they
want. The idea is that it's a protected
act. You're not starting a riot. People can
riot, and they could be arrested for for
rioting.
This is insane. This is the same logic
the Democrats used to shut down all the
things you guys have called out. Levels that
we've never seen before. People go crazy.
And So, again, levels we've never seen before.
Can you give me an example?
Levels we've never seen before. So you take
the craziest
chaos you've ever seen in the world that's
documented, and that's worse than we that we've
seen it worse after the flag burning.
Now you can act like I'm being too
specific. That's the way he does this. He's
lying. It's not some kind of, you know,
just kinda off the cuff talking. He's making
things up. He's always pressing you to the
most extreme level because it's all about narrative
building. And the dutiful morons again will come
out and scream what they just told us.
That's what happens every single time.
Wait both ways.
There are some that are going crazy for
bias
at levels that we've never seen before. People
go crazy.
In a way, both ways.
There are some that are going crazy for
doing it. There are others that are angry
angry about them doing it. Oh, I see.
So now because people are irrationally acting out
against somebody who's doing something constitutionally protected, then
we gotta make it illegal.
We're starting to get really close to the
level of the argument for why guns should
be removed. Doesn't that seem concerning? But I'm
sure that won't happen seeing as Trump is
the one that has pretty much rolled forward
every big change, including bump stock or, you
know, floating the idea of, I should say,
every big change, but in the context of
what we've seen recently
or the idea of paying the guns,
due process later. He personally said that. Now
I'm not even saying it's gonna happen. In
fact, I find that really hard to believe,
but there's been a lot of things that
have that I find hard to believe. My
point is if you disagree with the logic
of the gun narrative they've spun, this is
no different. You're not responsible for other people
reacting to you. This is like saying shut
down a protest because they've attacked me. Right?
So me being here caused them to attack
me, so therefore, I'm the reason this has
to go
away. It's just simply a broken argument for
shutting down what they want anywhere all the
time.
That's what he's doing, and you damn well
know it.
Do you wanna discuss that? What the executive
order does, sir, charges your department of justice
with investigating instances of flag burning.
Great. So as many people pointing out, let's
realize how these people just set things in
front of him and he signs it.
I know you don't wanna think about that.
I know you don't believe that, but it's
true.
Like, he is being managed. It's I think
it's very clear. It's the it's it's the
game of making this hubris filled man convinced
that he's the one in charge of everything.
That's why they treat him like he's a
child. You're so great and you're so powerful,
and everyone knows you're the smartest guy in
the room. Do they believe it? Most of
them in the past have said he's the
dumbest person in the room, or he's an
idiot. He's a moron. Rubio included. Vance included.
Does that matter?
I'm not even saying he is stupid. I'm
just simply saying that it's obvious that he
is they give him options. They claim it's
what he said and what he wants.
He's being managed, and he's being led by
these tech oligarchs and the Zionists and everybody
else. It's like it's no different than past
administrations, but it's just very in your face,
and the changes happening are some of the
most alarming I've ever seen. But let's let
hey. Explain for me what I just signed.
Go ahead. And then where there's evidence of
of criminal activity,
that where prosecution wouldn't fall of the first
amendment and instructs the Department of Justice to
prosecute those who are engaged in these instances
of flag burn.
And
what the penalty is going to be, if
you burn a flag, you get one year
in jail. Okay. You see what he see,
this is what's so hilarious to me.
Just like with the MS 13 thing, I
don't think he knows about the nuance of
what the executive order said. The guy really
carefully laid out the the nuance, which is
it's not it's not a foul of the
first amendment because we're not outlined flag burning.
It's about if you haven't worn a flag
and it also violates a law, well, then
you don't need this executive order because the
laws are already there. They're making it about
the flag because that's what it's about. And
Trump clearly wants that. This is his team
making it
giving Trump what he wants in in a
way that they think they can get it
done. And that's what he said. Burn the
flag. You get a year. The guy literally
just said that what it's not about the
flag. It's like if you burn it in
an area where burning things are illegal, or
if you burn it and it causes a
a riot and you're blamed for that. So
it's not about the flag then. You see?
Trump, it's just it's either an ins it's
either example of his ineptitude
or his, like, nonchalant disregard. Like, he doesn't
even care. I don't know. But I find
it obvious and kind of embarrassing.
Watch. Watch watch what he did. It's very
clear. First amendment instructs the Department of Justice
to prosecute those who are engaged in these
instances of flag burn.
And what the penalty is going to be,
if you burn a flag, you get one
year in jail,
No
early, exits, not out thing. What does that
mean? Jail. If you burn a flag,
you get and what it does is
There's no there's he made that he that's
not correct, by the way. At least not
what their executive order says. But my my
point, it is what's going to happen. That's
what he's going to make happen. And all
they're gonna do is fit in what you
do into some box. They can make it
sound like that's what it is. You know,
the same way they're screaming lies about Garcia
to get what they want.
This is this this is why I'm talking
about this in in particular,
not just because of the same
unconstitutional,
you know, like Obama or Biden, like, the
same things that are terrifying, like indefinite detention
and so on. It's the fact that Trump
himself is
clumsy and belligerent about this stuff, but the
people he surrounded himself with are,
I mean, utterly terrifying.
Not just not because they're necessarily smart or
because they're maniacs. They're sociopaths, and they're also
very insecure,
naive, petty.
I mean, we can all see it. And
it's Zionists and globalists and big tech people.
I mean, he it's just it's very clear
to me that that's what's driving all of
this.
But the ultimate, If you play the flag,
you get and what it does I was
gonna say one more thing. Anyway, keep going.
Is incite to write. I hope they use
that language, by the way. Did that? Insight
with the Insite to write. See my point?
You didn't even read this thing.
And you burn a flag, you get one
year in jail. You don't get ten years,
you don't get one month. You get one
year in jail that goes on your record.
Thanks for the clarification on what your one
year meeting. And you will see flag burning
stopping immediately just like when I signed the
statute. You see? Okay. Even right there, he
just very clearly let the cat out of
the bag. It's explicitly about flag burning. That's
what it's about. This is why it's so
insulting for people to try to play the
game. They pretend, and that's what you're seeing
the all online.
Literally quoting, and I'll show you next, the
part from the executive order that says it's
about the violation of burning and places aren't
allowed. That's not what he's telling you. And
you and you know it. You the one
out there arguing that already knows and they're
laughing about how they're lying to you about
it because they got what they want. Like,
that's the kind of feeling you get from
this. He shows it to you. And monument
act. Ten years in jail, have you heard
any of our beautiful monuments? Everybody left town.
They were gone. Never had a problem after
that. It's pretty amazing. We stopped it. Probably
because the whole thing is being done by
the same government entities that are trying to
manufacture responses from us, or maybe I'm wrong.
But this is something that's, I don't know.
In a certain way, it's equally as important.
Some people would say it's more important.
I'd I'd say a good thing.
You
you you wanna throw the bone to everybody.
Right? You these people say they say that
over there. And then everyone who wants to
go, oh, he agrees with me. Oh, he
no agrees with me.
It's just so it's so, like, noncommittal in
every possible way to everything. That's it. That's
the same hyperbolic. It just I I think
these things are worth pointing out. It just
it just shows you the kind of person
he is. I don't know why anybody
would have, like, faith in somebody that is
so
completely wishy washy about I mean, it's all
over the place. And, yes, he does make
definitive statements all the time. But when it
comes to the moments of of struggle, like,
the moments where you're doing something that you
know might not be
like, if you're a leader, you would come
out and you wouldn't try to softball, you
wouldn't try to sidestep it, you wouldn't try
to nuance it. You would say, I'm doing
the hard thing for this reason because I
believe in it, and take the consequences.
But these are weak people.
Because the people in this country don't wanna
see our American flag burned and spit on.
And by people that are, in many cases,
paid agitators.
They're paid by the radical left. Right. Or
the right because they both do it, and
they all know that. But see, this is
about see, now he's bringing in the left
the bad Democrats,
which by the which by the way, for
some of them means whatever he just said
before that is all now it's all now
we all agree because bad Democrat. Right? That
it all makes sense. It works for some
people. I do it. You talk to these
people. They don't even know half of them.
Don't even know what they're doing. They said,
I don't know.
They gave me money to do this.
I see the same things that you do.
They're bad people that tried to destroy our
nation. That's not working because I think our
nation
now is the most respected nation anywhere in
the world. You see my point?
That was just so unnecessary.
What is your issue? Why do you always
have to lurch into I'm so great and
everyone thinks I'm doing a great job? I
mean, it it again, it screams
insecurity.
And it's also simply not true. And you
know it. We all know it.
I don't even need to stress that. I
think we're all very aware of what the
world thinks of this country right now. Far.
You saw that with the European leaders
on Friday?
Oh, great. The other globalists love Trump right
now. We're winning.
So that with NATO where they agreed to
go from 2%
no pay to 5% fully paid up. Oh,
good. Because NATO's not going away. Yeah. That
was another lie. Hooray. Trillions of dollars paid
where they respect your president to a level
that they jokingly call me the president of
Europe. They call me the president of Europe,
which is Again again, how much wanna bet
that actually didn't happen? I mean, I don't
know. It could. I just it just seems
like there's so many examples like that that
I'm that turn out later to be full,
but there's so inconsequential.
It's such a small thing to do, but
it happens all the time.
It's an honor. I like Europe, and I
like those people. They're good people. They're great
leaders.
And we've never had Yeah. Oh, the leaders.
Right. The ones that you guys all tell
us are monsters and pedophiles, and he loves
them, though. But that's a secret 40 chess
move, and he hates them. They're gonna secretly
be arrested in four years. Wait for it.
Had a case where,
seven plus really 28,
essentially, 35,
38 countries were represented here the other day.
38,
European countries were rep European and other countries
were represented.
Right. Right. See, Vas Akers in the chat
rightly recognizes, what the hell was he talking
about? Look at where we started. How the
hell did we even get to this point?
Because he does this kind of, like, sprawling
praise of himself that goes from topic to
topic, and it doesn't even connect. By the
time he's done talking about how great he
did and Europe loves him, it's like, wait
a minute. What did we even start with?
What were we talking about again? Oh, that's
right. Burning the American flag.
I just think it's insane, guys. It is
really, like another level what we're watching.
And it was a great meeting, but,
your country is respected again. I I say
it all Do you I think he lost
where he was. Time. One year ago, our
country was dead.
Everybody said it. We had a death battery.
We were not gonna survive.
Now we have the hottest country anywhere in
the world. Oh, it's so hot.
Hansel is so hot right now.
So it's an honor to be involved, and
this group has a lot to do with
it right behind me.
What was I signing again?
Europe? That's right. Europe.
I mean, I shouldn't be that dismissive because,
honestly, doing that is gonna push people away
that need to hear what we're talking about.
But, guys, it's just cartoonish.
You know? I mean, it really is. That's
when I say worthy of ridicule,
wow.
So
the other part,
aside from Nick Sorter's
childish cheerleading of bad things in the country,
let's listen to some people that called this
out. Now Bill Hicks, I agree with. The
way he did this is it's humorous, but
it's also spot on, worth pointing out. But
I'm gonna play to you from you from
Scalia, from,
from Ron Paul, from,
Decentered News did a great clip that kind
of includes both. Some parts of this, a
little redundant, but I think it's well done.
I wanna play it. But, guys, this is
this is why I argue that most people
very much do see this. That doesn't mean
they're all telling you that or that they
all necessarily will even push back against it.
But you know as well as I, if
you're a republican and you've been screaming about
how important the constitution is, if you've been
screaming about things like gun rights or in
you know, constitutional rights and the protection of
them,
now
you're going, damn it. You know? Like, that
is you're either too stupid to know that's
what you're obviously looking at or you know
and you just pull that punch.
Now I'd like to believe you're out there
calling it out because that would be principle,
and that is actually what I believe most
conservatives have or Democrats,
liberals, however you wanna look at it. I
really do believe that, and I just think
that they get swayed by politics. I think
that's obvious. And the reason I say that
is many examples of how the government acts.
I don't believe the government would be always
pretending to be something of good force in
the world if they didn't believe that we
at large wanted that.
I think that's pretty self explanatory, but, you
know, it's just my opinion. So this speaks
to the fact that I think it's been
we talked about this for a long time.
It's very well understood. It's been embodied. It's
been and now we just see Trump just
radically change that. And I think that's the
point. What is that supposed to accomplish?
I don't believe it's about doing anything positive
for the country. I don't believe it's about
pushing back on something you think you're fighting.
I think it's about the way that we
respond to this, the react.
But decide for yourself.
I,
sick of this shit, man.
Our emotions are running wild and our mind
is stuck, man.
The flag burning thing. Oh god. Did that
bring up some fucking retarded emotions?
They didn't say that. They said if a
guy burns a flag, he perhaps doesn't need
to go to jail for a fucking year.
Pretty harsh on their part in
it. People are going, hey, buddy.
Let me tell you something.
My daddy died for that flag.
Really?
I bought mine.
You know, they sell them at Kmart and
shit. Yeah. $3.
He died in the Korean War for that
flag. What a coincidence. Mine was made in
Korea.
Didn't die for a fucking flag. It's a
piece of cloth. He died for what the
flag represents, which is the
freedom to earn the fucking flag.
And as my friend Jimmy Pineapple would say
I'm sorry for the cursing. I usually warn
about that. But not that I'm sorry that
he's cursing, but I usually give you guys
a heads up because this is usually a
family friendly show. But it's such a perfectly
obvious
point. Right? They didn't die for the flag.
They died for that freedom,
which by the way, actually used to be
the the the mantra. Right? But now it's
shifted.
You know you understand this. You know you
agree with it. It's time to be honest
about it, Cole. It's
fucking closed.
If you don't want a burnt flag, then
I'd recommend.
Yes. I'd burn it.
I love y'all, and you feel that.
Do we?
Feel like we're being lectured by some kind
of pale demon.
Well,
that too.
So here
is what Trump put out. I just wanna
show you a couple points on this. Like,
the first part is trying to, like, lay
out the, like, the moral, like, you know,
the the narrative for you, the way you're
supposed to think. You know? And all it
really is is it's the symbol that represents
us and we care about it. Anybody doing
it doesn't love this country. It's it regardless
of what you've been if you think that's
true, it doesn't change the legal reality of
it. It doesn't change that you have the
right to do so, especially when you understand
that what they're laying out for you here
is statism, jingoism. That's what they're doing.
You can you can understand the,
you know, why people might revere the any
flag for that matter, or why a person
in this country might have a certain affection
for it when they have fought and died.
You know? But you you can understand these
things.
But the idea that they're trying to tell
you that this, like, that this represents you,
it's just not the truth.
And I think that's the hard part for
people to get around right now is that
they've been convinced. It's it's like being convinced
that somehow they gave you your rights.
It's so many constitutionally
illiterate people in this country, and they're all
the ones screaming online right now.
But here's what it says. Notwithstanding the supreme
court's rulings on first amendment protections,
the court has never held an American flag
desecration conducted in a manner that is likely
to incite imminent lawless action or that is
an action amounting to fighting words is constitutionally
protected. Now that is not the same as
saying it's not or it is. Like, the
point is because a court has never held
that,
it's like a double negative. You can't say
they've never held
that doing it this way is protected.
That's that is a weak loophole sidestep.
So when this comes to pass, when they
arrest this veteran, they probably will. You see
what I'm saying? Like that because the point
is it's it's about that this is a
protected act. All they did was find a
specific carve out circumstance that hasn't been ruled
either way. That's what they're doing.
But fair enough. They've never ruled they've never
held that American flag conducted in a manner
that is inciting violence
is is protected. Okay. They also haven't ruled
that it isn't.
The idea is that it is in general.
So the they're carving out like, this is
my point from before. So if you're gonna
say
burning anything in this area is illegal.
Okay? Then you don't need to write an
executive order that says, if you burn a
flag in a place that's legal, that's illegal.
It already is illegal. This is about the
flag that Trump clumsily already made clear.
But that's how they're trying to paint this
so when they have a narrative, So when
they arrest the guy, they'll say, well, he
was burning in a place that creates riot
or is dangerous, whichever one works in the
moment. K. If if there's not an illegal
reality for burning something, they'll make it that
it could have incited a riot. They just
said that.
If it's if it could, right, in a
manner that's likely to incite.
Oh, so now we're never psychic. Okay. So
it's precrime.
You okay with that, guys? Apparently, only when
Trump does it.
You're gonna tell us that by burning a
flag somewhere, it might incite riots because Trump
said that in the Oval Office. Therefore, we
make it illegal. But it's not about the
flag. It's not about burning the flag. That's
protected. But if you burn a flag anywhere,
it could incite a riot, and that's what
you go to jail for, but it's not
the flag. It's it's this is just childish
semantics.
And you know, we this is what they
do every time.
My administration will act to restore respect and
sanctity to the American flag and prosecute those
who incite violence
or otherwise violate our laws while desecrating the
symbol of our country to the fullest extent
possible under the see, when Trump comes up
and goes, hey. If you burn the flag,
you get a year.
It's very obvious what they're doing. The attorney
general shall prioritize and this is also why
you can clearly prove that Trump had no
part in making this and clearly didn't even
read it.
To the maximum oh, wait. Was that it?
The attorney general shall prioritize the enforcement
to the fullest extent possible
of our nation's criminal and civil laws against
acts of American flag desecration
that violate applicable content content neutral laws while
causing harm unrelated to expression consistent with the
first amendment. What a ridiculous
mental gymnastics right there.
The point is,
fullest extent possible.
Okay. So if you burn something in a
place where it's not allowed to be burned,
there's already a crime amount for that.
Right? So what you're saying is if you
do the flag version of that, we'll push
it to the limit. Okay. Then explain to
me how that's not about the flag.
Honestly, this is just bad.
To the maximum extent permitted to by the
constitution,
because they clearly care about that, the attorney
general shall vigorously prosecute those who violate our
laws in ways that involve
desecrating the American flag and may pursue litigation
to clarify the scope of the first amendment
exceptions in this area. Wow. I mean, it's
just it is
saying the same thing in six different ways
to make it clear that the flag being
burned is the whole thing here, but only
when it's in ways that we can get
you for outside of the flag burning being
the focus.
Right? Very, very well done. But it says,
this secretary of state, the attorney general, and
the secretary of homeland security, acting within their
respective authorities, shall deny, prohibit, terminate, or revoke
visas, residence permits, naturalization proceedings, and other immigration
benefits, or seek removal from The United States
pursuant to federal law, including all the different
articles, whenever there has been an appropriate determination
that foreign nationals have engaged in American flag
desecration activity under circumstances that permit the exercise
of such remedies pursuant to federal law. Okay.
One of the most obvious parts of this.
Same thing.
Illegal alien, Visa, green card, they all have
constitutional rights. It is the truth regardless of
how stupid you are on the topic of
constitutional rights, even illegal immigrants. The point is,
in this case, they're saying green card, Visa
holder. So, obviously.
Okay. So if a green card holder or
a Visa card holder,
let's say, commits an open air burn in
a park where it's illegal,
will they be deported for that? Will they
lose their Visa? Very much no.
See, this is the thing. Even if they
commit a crime, that's not something the the
legal reality of them just yanking the perm
the Visa or green card because they violated
a law is not how that works. There's
very specific extreme cases where that can be
done. They're just doing, oh, you ran a
stoplight? You're out of here because they're just
trying to get rid of people. And it's
all illegal.
Anybody with a brain and lawyers and judges
are all saying the same thing. So, in
this case, what they're doing is
if you burn in the same way, in
a in a case where you would not
have your visa removed, but it involves the
American flag, then it's gonna happen. Again,
clearly, that's about burning the flag.
I and this is my point. This is
if this comes to a judge that actually
cares about the reality of the constitution, there's
no way this will be upheld. But they're
going to force it. And I'm willing to
bet you they'll ignore the judge and in
many cases, take action before this even goes
before a judge.
You know you know we've seen it already,
guys. I just you know, I look. I've
got people I know that are acting like
this makes sense, and it makes me sad
because it is obviously insane. Like, it is
a,
a willful deception of what's going on just
like they did with Garcia because they want
what they want and they don't care that
it's wrong, but they know that you might,
so they they fudge it a little bit.
And then hope that you listen to the
liars online about what it really means and
ignore the obvious, ridiculous,
unconstitutional
thing flapping in your face.
Libertarian party says burning the American flag is
an expression of free speech, which has repeatedly
been defended by the US Supreme Court. Repeatedly.
Like, Trump tried to make it sound like
this one case. He's just doing that to
make it sound like it's, oh, it was
a brief thing, and they were wrong, and
let's redo that. It's not. It's been roundly
upheld, and it says
patriotism doesn't mean blind allegiance to symbols.
Patriots
sure need to hear that today.
If you ban burning the flag, you wholly
discredit what it represents.
Right. All these fake libertarians out there seem
to miss that. Now I will tell you
there have been some that are, I I
would argue, really bad right now in regard
to criticizing Trump administration who are standing up
and calling this out. So good. I'm glad
to see that because that's what a libertarian
should do. But quit whining. You're on the
Internet says
or just highlights exactly the point that we're
talking about. The court has never held that
American flag
is conducted in a manner that's likely to
incite is constitutionally protected. Again, it that doesn't
mean anything. You're saying something hasn't happened here.
They've never ruled one way or the other
on this point. It's not the point you
think it is, bud. Either way, what they're
trying to say there is they can get
them arrest them for this because they're claiming
it's about the other thing, not the obvious
thing they're going after.
It's I'm telling you, this is what the
argument is all over the Internet right now.
Now, Chris Anne, Chris Anne Hall
says this. I think it's very well put.
Trump desperately needs a real constitutional adviser.
Pam Bondi is not. She's not really anything
in my opinion. She's a not along whatever
Trump says person, and I think that's pretty
obvious. And never has been, he, she says,
a constitutional advocate. She doesn't I mean,
clearly, her or Kristi Noem have no clue
what they're talking about. PS, this is an
executive order and is not even enforceable.
Exactly. Now but here's the thing, though. Some
are suggesting that that's entirely the point, that
it's not even really about this and they're
not even gonna afford. It's really about giving
some kind of a nod to people that
want this to be the case for because
they hate Democrats or people that hate this
country. They're like this rabid, jingoistic people that
want, you know, anything that you if you
say a bad word about the country, you
should get deported, like, that kind of lunacy.
So maybe they're right. I honestly hope that's
the case because to to drive this forward
I mean, even the executive order itself and,
like, the momentum behind it is a damaging
thing for this country and for the understanding
of the constitutional or the constitutional reality of
the country rather.
So that's worth considering. But,
I for my opinion, if I'm, you know,
guessing which way it'll go, I've already seen
a veteran get arrested for it. So I
think it's going to go the bad direction,
to be honest. But she says, you can't
hate flag burning. Oh, you can hate flag
burning. You can despise it. It can make
your blood boil. But if you understand liberty,
the very foundation of America, you know you
cannot support government limits on free speech just
because it offends you. Because that makes you
the same Democrats you're calling out, doesn't it?
This is exactly what separates a republic from
free men from a free men from a
kingdom of subjects.
It's the protection of free speech we disagree
on or disagree with. And let's be clear.
The Supreme Court will strike down any such
law. I certainly hope so. Not because they
like flag burning, but because it will be
their constitutional duty to do so.
And before you nod along thinking it's justified,
remember, a president you don't like will one
day wield the same power.
It's amazing how they can't reflect on that.
And or they again, my argument is always
the ones that are really driving the, you
know, blind allegiance are the ones that don't
care which way it goes either way. They're
just benefiting by the ongoing manipulations,
but they convince a lot of good people
to look away from
it. And so and it goes on to
say, imagine waving a, don't tread on me
flag.
Oh, wait. No. It goes it says, what
happens when a liberal president
decides that your speech is offensive and uses
the same power against you? Guys, it's the
same point.
Right? So if you were upset about them
saying you can't say these words,
you're doing the same thing.
Imagine waving a don't tread on me flag
at a protest and being arrested because the
president says it represents domestic extremism.
Palestinian flag. It's the same thing. It doesn't
matter what you think it represents. It is
your right,
and you're doing the same thing. You are,
in fact, destroying what you think you're fighting
for. Call it out. Once you give the
government a power, it will never
meant you it was never meant to have.
It will always be used by somebody against
you
every time.
Now here's what the White House put out.
Now this is what's so embarrassing about this
right now, the DHS account, the White House.
It's like they've got some 16 year old
Doge person running these accounts. Like,
they're small and petty and and just and
embarrassing. Like, it real as much as I
know that the government doesn't represent us, people
in the world think that. And it embarrasses
me to see that they they look and
they think we're so stew. It's the same
way people look at the conservative screamers or
the liberal screamers, and they act like that
represents everybody in the sides. They don't. But
it's embarrassing, isn't it? When you see they
think that's what you look like and you
don't, or this is what they're doing. And
they're making these, like, manipulative propaganda videos. And,
in fact, I'll read you an article in
a minute or part of it that shows
you that's what they're doing on the ground
in Washington, DC. They're, like, producing things like
Wag the Dog style. But here, White House
says actions have consequences.
Burn an American
flag, disrespect disrespect our nation, incite violence, one
year in jail. No excuses. Oh, wait a
minute. Hold on.
I thought you just made this whole thing
about not the flag, but about if it's
illegal in other ways. You see how dumb
these people are? They just can't get away.
Like, they and, of course, arguably, well, that's
just on on Twitter. They didn't know. They
just were wrong about it. It's the White
House account.
It's about the flag. Let's stop being children.
Okay? It's obvious what they're doing. And even
Twitter says, hey. Per the United States Supreme
Court, Texas versus Johnson, flag burning constitutes symbolic
speech that is protected.
I even saved that just in case they
got it deleted, which they have been doing,
like Kash Patel did.
But here's the
video.
Just,
you know, obviously, what they think will get
you outraged. Right? What you think will make
you like, this represents every single example other
than except for, like, Iraq veterans and, you
know, people that are very pro American, what
they're doing to make a point.
Now
take note of the fact that they're running
the same track
behind all of this as if so in
one place, somebody was chanting America was never
great, which weirdly just happens to be exactly
what his mantra is in reverse, make America
great again, and they run that across the
whole thing because everyone was chanting that. Right?
You know, it's like they're just trying to
give you, like, very lazy one person. Like,
you know what it is. They're doing this
because they have an agenda. They want you
to think it's a bunch of radical America
hating maniacs.
I'll prove to you next of the person
who was already arrested that they're not. Somebody
who fought and could have died for this
country, who in fact is a conservative, who
very much believes in these ideals, who was
just arrested from the White House for doing
exactly that. But they'll try to scream at
you in one way to get you to
think one thing. Wait. Yeah. No. No. No.
No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.
No. No.
No. No. No
believe that you could find much worse examples.
Especially since Trump seems to suggest that every
time it happens, like, riots break out. Where's
all that?
Rarely have we seen anything like this, and
I think you should get a one year
jail sentence if you do anything to create
the American flag.
Yep.
Well, they sure they sure laid that out,
didn't they?
The obvious reality that they're clearly going after
the flag.
Right?
Next,
Glenn Greenwald
with, of course McCain. A clip from ants,
justice Antonin Scalia.
Probably the most single, most popular justice among
the American right in the last five decades,
explaining why
burning the American flag is vital free speech
under the first amendment and why banning it
is clearly unconstitutional. Now
the like, Glenn, for example, is coming at
this from the obvious.
They're making it illegal to burn the flag,
so let's make sure people understand it's not
illegal. It's a constitutionally protected act. But people
on the Republican side of this who are
trying to scream for their narrative,
they already have their sidestep. It's not about
the flag. It's about other things illegal in
the area.
But, clearly, the White House just clearly said
that's what it's about. Trump clearly just said
that's what it's about. They're telling you it's
about the flag burning. So they're trying to
manipulate people to have a narrative to sidestep
the obvious. Here's what Steven Scalia
said. Oh, I knew I just deleted that
on accident. Hold on.
King,
I would not allow people to go about
burning the American flag.
However, we have a first amendment
which,
says that,
the right of free speech shall not be
abridged,
and it is addressed
in particular
to speech,
critical of the government. I mean, that was
the main kind of speech that, tyrants would
seek to suppress. Yep.
Burning the flag is a form
of expression. Speech doesn't just mean
written words or oral words. It could be
semaphore.
That's important. We'll get to that in a
second. That's one of the most common arguments
I'm seeing right now. Somehow, the definition of
speech
only is things coming from your mouth. Therefore,
that doesn't apply. Again,
shockingly, constitutionally literate people out there are the
ones leading this charge.
Burning a flag is a symbol that expresses
an idea. Doesn't just mean a form
of expression.
Speech doesn't just mean,
written words or oral words. It could be
semaphore.
Burning a flag is a symbol that expresses
an idea.
I hate the government,
the government is unjust, whatever. If you're not
sure, then in the end,
does and no one knows the constitution better
than you do. Doesn't it come down to
your personal interpretation
of the constitution? If it isn't clear cut,
which it clearly isn't, you in the end
have to make No. No. Don't. An opinion,
don't you? Well, don't forget this person has
to be convicted
by a jury of 12 people
who unanimously
have to find that he was inciting to
riot. So, you know, it's not all up
to me. Right. So that's the other part
of it that, you know, cut together in
the conversation is what Trump's currently trying to
do is claim that. Clearly, this is something
they've this has been there. Right? The the
ideas have already been planted,
so it's it's not some new thought. Right?
The idea is, okay, we can claim they're
rioting and then okay. But his point is
correct. Right? This would have to completely flesh
out, but maybe that's what they're building if
they want to accomplish this. Right? Support from
people that might end up in that jury
body. You know? Who knows?
It it would be up to me to
say that there was not enough evidence for
the jury to find that perhaps.
But, ultimately,
the the right of jury trial is is
the protection.
Yes. And, obviously, it's an old clip. I
think that's pretty clear. Here here is
the next point.
True Street Media, and I thought this was
really interesting.
Because our old at the same point from
the Libertarian Party about burying the flag and
protected,
but it says because True Street Media says,
because our constitutional republic is being subverted by
a unitary
executive running the country by fiat,
the American flag is currently no longer a
fitting symbol for display.
Therefore, burning it is actually the preferred method
for destroying it in a dignified way. Now
whether you agree with the logic of why
it's no longer
a fitting symbol to display, and there's plenty
of logical arguments for that seeing as how
it's been bastardized by the very people who
are no longer supporting the American people into
a symbol of war. That's not to say
you can't still have reference for it for
what it originally was. The point is you
understand if you're logical about this why some
might see it differently today. The point though,
which I find really interesting, is if you
look up the flag code, guess what it
says? The US flag code says the flag
when it is in such condition that it
is no longer a fitting emblem for display,
which typically means holes in it and broken,
but, you know, it just simply says, no
no fitting emblem for display should be destroyed
in a dignified way, preferably by burning.
I just found that ridiculous.
So now your the way that it argues
you should get rid of a flag if
it's no longer for display,
bidding emblem for display, which, you know, we
usually take to mean that it's torn or
broken. Right? That they would argue you should
burn it. And being the one thing you
should do in that case, it's funny that
that's the thing they highlight for why I
just it's I feel like there's almost some
deeper meaning to this, but it's not even
worth it just seems silly. So
I agree with the logical point here that
if you believe that, then, okay, in that
logic, then you should have the right to
burn it. And being not a fitting m
o four display, isn't that subjective? Isn't that
up to the user of the flag or
the one displaying it? It sure is. See,
there's so many ways to look at this.
It's not even about the flag, guys. It's
about setting the precedent.
And sure as hell are they trying to
run this forward to do I mean, with
the support of a bunch of minus people
following them
for the agenda of, you know, whether it's
all everything means nothing, nothing means everything, or
specifically about the next step for some massive
unconstitutional move, which is clearly happening. You can
decide, but I think they are clearly using
this as an incremental step. I very much
do.
And here's Ron Paul, you know, the very
guy they tried to pretend they were gonna
work with because they knew that would trick
libertarians into supporting Trump's cabinet, who now is
a bunch of Zionist globalists and technocrats.
But this is the reason why they want
you to think they were gonna work with
him or Massey, by the way, who now
he pretty much roundly hates because he continues
to be the same person he always was.
Pretty funny how that worked out.
They called this stuff, and they've been consistent.
Ron Paul has been one of the most
consistent principal people I've ever seen in this
conversation.
Here's what he has to say about Trump's
executive order.
Hold on. Make sure.
Guess I missed that one. That's so weird.
I wonder how I do that. Let me
grab this real quick.
I literally go through this like one by
one. And somehow, I still manage to miss
these things. Or maybe I just made a
mistake and when I grabbed or something.
Let me grab one more thing here.
Yeah. I guess I did. Alright. Hold on.
Let me grab this. It's a it's a,
obviously, a very relevant one because, you know,
there one of the other clips I gotta
show you
is is the the example of
where's that? Of him, you know, in in
the past talking about this for congress, which
is very important. You know? Again, being one
of the most consistent people in this conversation,
especially in this very point,
which I always find it interesting as, you
know, to why
Trump people would pretend they, you know, support
this guy or they support Trump with him
and then,
like, almost contradict that exact thing by then
siding with the people doing the exact opposite.
Like, it's such an insulting point to try
to pretend you wanna work with them and
then do everything the opposite of what he
would do, but that's happening pretty much across
the board.
Here we go.
Signs order
to criminally
charge those who burn US flag in protest.
So it looks like protest is the problem,
and,
that's skirting
on the grounds of, first amendment rights. And
what we find is when people get into
this, it's a very emotional issue. Patriotism
rides very high in the in the flag
between
more or less sacred,
and we have to be cautious about how
we handle
it. Yeah. I know it was an executive
order that Trump signed yesterday, and it does
feel an awful lot like an attempt to
deflect,
people's eyes from things that are upsetting his
base. You know, the Epstein files,
what's happening in Israel and Gaza.
This is, I think probably supposed to be
sort of a feel good move,
to get people on board. But then again,
these aren't the nineteen eighties anymore. And as
you say,
in the late eighties, the constitute or the
the,
Supreme Court ruled that flag burning is a
form of expression,
protected by the first amendment. So we're sort
of going back to that again in a
sort of jingoistic way. If we can put
that,
first clip up. This is from The Guardian.
I just clipped this when they first came
out yesterday afternoon.
Trump signs order to criminally charge those who
burn US flag in protest. Now this is
interesting because he's going to try to circumvent
the Supreme Court decision. And I go to
the next one, you'll see what he said.
Donald Trump signed an executive order on Monday
instructing federal prosecutors to pursue criminal charges
against individuals who burn American flags during protests.
The order tells US
attorney general Pam Bondi to look at cases
where people burn flags
and see if they could be charged with
other crimes like disturbing the peace or breaking
environmental laws, and the purpose of that is
to get around the 1989,
decision by the Supreme Court in Texas versus
Johnson
that ruled that destroying the flag is protected
political expression
under the first amendment. Now we do have
a a clip,
to hear
what president Trump's,
was talking about when he signed the EOF.
If you burn a flag, you get one
year in jail.
No early,
exits. No nothing. You get one year in
jail. If you burn a flag, you get
and what it does is incite to riot.
I hope they use that language, by the
way. Did that? Incite to riot. Incite to
riot.
And you burn a flag, you get one
year in jail. You don't get ten years,
you don't get one month. You get one
year in jail, and it goes on your
record. Because Michael Tracy, who we both know
is very insightful, and he manages to get
people irritated with him on all sides. If
you put that next clip up, he noticed
something very interesting in this executive order. He
said, what are the odds that Trump actually
read his own executive order?
It doesn't impose
one year in jail if you burn the
flag.
It makes flag burning a higher investigative
priority
to see if other crimes incidental
to the flag burning can be charged. It
specifies
no jail term. So he may not have
even read his own executive order. Right.
I happen to agree despite the ineptitude of
Michael Tracy in so many ways.
Here,
next,
is the clip from Decentral News, which has
some of the older Ron Paul clips and
then some of the parts of the clips
you've already seen. But I really just wanna
just try to play this because he did
a great job on this. And this is
back from July June 11. And this is
Thomas Massie. Bring this bill to the floor.
This is not an easy no no vote
for anyone who took an oath to the
constitution seriously.
Like, this is and, again, even here's Nick's
order back then. Breaking. Trump announces he will
be supporting legislation to jail people for the
American flag, and says, now we've seen illegals
do this multiple times. All patriots should support
this.
Such a clown.
It just it just makes me truly sad
that people like this I mean, I don't
know. Maybe they're too stupid to know that
that that's a ridiculous thing to say or
they don't care. I kinda leaning towards the
ladder at this point. They're
just like this windfall on these platforms just
screaming the thing you're supposed to, like they
are the I support the current thing of
the right. It's literally the same thing, right?
They like the Ukraine flag for the left,
that's the same thing they're doing In a
way, there's but it's a different way, but
it's the same idea.
And even this even here. Nope. That's illegal.
But, yay, patriots.
Here is the clip that they put out.
Oh, no. Excuse me. This was
the clip they shared here, and there's the
clip that he sent the news put out.
Shit. Did you watch the flag burning thing?
Wasn't that great? Boy, if everyone showed their
true colors then, didn't they? The court ruled
today that burning the American flag as a
form of political protest
is a right protected by the first amendment
to the constitution. People acted as though the
supreme court approved of flag burning. You know
what I mean? Does that mean we have
to burn our flags? What did it say
that we had them No, no, no!
It's not what they said.
They They said that perhaps if somebody wants
to burn a flag, he perhaps doesn't need
to go to jail for a year.
Pretty harsh on their part,
Does that mean we? Burn a flag. They
said that they said we should burn, but
they didn't say that. They didn't say that.
They didn't say that.
Does that mean I have to go out
now? No. No. No. No. No.
Listen.
Read.
Think.
Well, I don't get it. I don't wanna
burn my flag. Then don't.
People snapped over this. Did you watch that?
People were just, hey, buddies. Let me tell
you something.
My daddy died for that flag.
Just really? Wow. I bought mine.
Yeah, they sell them, you know, at Kmart
and shit. Yeah.
Yeah, he died in the Korean War for
that flag. Oh, what a coincidence, mine was
made in Korea.
No one, and I repeat,
no one has ever died for a flag.
A flag
is a piece of cloth.
They might have died for freedom,
which,
by the way,
is the freedom also to burn the fucking
flag. Say,
burning the flag doesn't make freedom goes away.
It's kinda like
freedom.
Today, the US Supreme Court said that the
state may not criminally punish a person for
burning a flag as a means of political
protest. In an unusual coalition, liberals William Brennan,
Thurgood Marshall, and Harry Blackmun joined with conservatives
Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy. And I don't
I don't approve of flag, Bernie. I don't
wanna burn a flag, but if somebody wants
to burn a flag,
what business is it of mine?
Is it my business if someone wants to
burn a flag? Is it? No. No. It's
not. Is it my business what other people
read or watch on TV?
No. It's not.
Justice William Brennan for the majority, the government
may not prohibit the expression of an idea
simply because society finds it offensive or disagreeable.
That would dilute the freedom that this cherished
emblem represents.
And he said, if there is a bedrock
principle underlying the first amendment,
it is that the government may not prohibit
the expression of an idea simply because society
finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.
You can't make the flag into a sort
of a religious object that's so sanctified that
it can't be used in public protest.
See, the point is that even if society
as a whole
right? This is a really important thing today
people have a hard time with.
Right? Like, we've been almost forced into this
lie of democracy,
not republic, but mob rule democracy. So then
we argue, well, everybody most people agree with
this, therefore, we have to all line up
with it. No. That's not the reality of
what this country was built on. Same thing
they talk about, like, in, like at least
a lie, actually, about El Salvador. It's like,
look. Everyone's happy. It's more safe. First of
all, it's not even the truth on either
count, but it's about trying to pretend that,
well, if everybody agrees with it, somehow it's
okay. That's simply not true.
Here we are. Right? It's the same idea,
but we're, I guess, further along down the
lie train. Two Reagan appointees, Antonin Scalia and
Anthony Kennedy, both conservatives, provided crucial votes for
the five judge majority. And I would like
to suggest that we put in a bill
if you burn the American flag one year
in jail.
We do not need more legislation like this.
The real attack are on our liberties. The
real attack attack
on
the
constitution,
and this does nothing to address
it. All we need to do is
pass a flag of him and and it's
gonna solve the problem of the attack on
the con on the constitution
which is continuous
and endless.
I would like to point out that, the
word desecrate is a very important word and
we've talked about it all day, but we
haven't yet defined it. It means to deconsecrate.
What I'd like to know is when we
have consecrated the flag, we're holding the flag
in the highest of esteem
and yet liberty is really what should be
on the pinnacle.
Liberty and the constitution. But to deconsecrate
something means that the flag was consecrated. I'd
like to just read what that means. It
says to make, declare, or set apart as
sacred
or such as a church to set apart
for the worship of a deity? Who and
when did we raise this flag to this
level? Have we deified the state to this
extent?
When we undermine the constitution and the bill
of right, we undermine liberty, and then we
diminish the value of the flag.
Well done.
Some great clips from Ron Paul too.
Nails it. Right? We don't talk about that.
Right? It's it's a religion. Now as I
was playing that, I was just kinda quickly
looking at some updates. I thought this was
interesting.
So, again, somebody who clearly isn't watching the
show because we're in the middle of it,
but comments as if, you know, this it's
a my the title is Trump admin arrest
veteran for flag burning.
And it just says the arrest was for
starting a fire on federal property, not for
burning a flag. Please, not you too. See?
That's what I said below. This show is
for you. You might wanna pay attention.
Is that what it's about? Look. Look. It's
not even necessarily about the idea. It's what
they're it's what what I'm saying is what
they're aiming for. Right? They are aiming for
that focal point, the flag burning, as he's
just made spectacularly clear. Now, let's even say
in this one case that you could argue
that's all it was really about. That had
they burned anything else, that's probably out okay.
Maybe.
But are you of the mind that that's
not what Trump's focusing on? Are you pretending
that he's not specifically aiming for people who
are burning the flag and finding ways to
work around that? There are other examples. It's
already happening. He's already been pushing for years
about the same point. So it's a willful
type of ignorance to fixate on the one
byproduct point and act like it explains everything
else.
People are willing to do anything to support
their chosen person.
It just depresses me that people are like
that. Five times August sees it, he says,
burning the flag is stupid, but it's still
freedom of speech. Even if I disagree with
it. But just so I understand where we're
at, burning the flag will get you a
minimum year in jail while being connected to
Epstein's network of pedophiles and human traffickers is
boring and not worth looking into. Got it.
Now, again, Trump specifically keeps saying that part
about the one year in jail for the
flag, so we can't keep pretending like it's
not about that. But he's right. This is
what you care about, Cracker Barrel and and
and people burning things in public property? Are
we kidding?
How did it be how did you come
to this? How did you get put into
this position? I'm talking to the ones out
there that are actually people that care about
these things. How did you let yourself end
up here?
Simon Goodeck.
Here's rapid response. Trump signs executive order to
restore respect, pride, and sanctity
to the American flag and prosecute those who
desecrate the symbol. Now show me in there
where it says only if they're burning things
on public property.
This you know, it's willful ignorance, guys. Simon
says unpopular opinion.
This is outright unconstitutional BS. You either have
a first amendment or you don't. Good for
him. And even under the again, this is
under their rapid response, White House post. The
president does not have the power to create
a crime which will be punishable by guilt
time. That is that's whether it's a burning
of public property or the flag. You know,
see, people don't wanna thought he is violating
the reality of this in every which way.
And this is further, flag burning is expressive
speech, which we already know. But I'm glad
they pointed out the other one too. You
can't just executive order some kind of time
for death penalty or whatever he keeps doing.
And that's not in the context of the
flag. That's another one, but that's what he
keeps doing. Executive order
as if he doesn't there's not even an
attempt to go through congress.
What's the narrative? Well, they'll stop me. How
do we know? In fact, I don't have
the mind that they probably all agree with
most of this stuff. Either way, it's not
your decision to make, to just circumvent the
way that checks and balances are supposed to
work. We passively allowed that through
ineptitude, through, you know,
apathy,
both converse and a lot of people who
choose to go well. You know, that's the
real black pill. Those of us out here
trying to fight to maintain and save and
you know? We could call black pill for
not blindly following the game of paradigm or
the the partisan paradigm,
but yet we engage with this stuff and
have people like, well, it's already we're already
there.
Too late now. It's already too long. You
know, it's that's the black pill. They're both
so bad. I gotta choose the lesser. That's
a black pill.
The conversation's interesting.
Southern gal says, people died for this flag,
and if you hate our country, leave simple.
Honestly, I'm like that probably a bot just
because of how that's, like, the the lazy
you know, like like, if you gave a
bot, like, respond like you're one of them,
that's what they'd write. You know? It's like
it just feels like it's not thought through.
It's an emotional tyrant. People died for it,
and that's not true. We just went over
that. They died for the freedoms it represents.
It's a lazy way to frame this. But
the idea that you hate your who says
he hates anything? Like, you it's just this
lazy argument
that you that you've got couched already, ready
to throw. He probably she always has a
copy she's posting on everyone she sees saying
that. That's how it feels. It's not true.
Or that you have to leave because you
let's just even say you do it. Why
would you why should he have to leave?
He lives here. He's born here. You're required
to love where you know, it just the
problem is, okay, let's just say like this.
Let's say the country's amazing and the government's
amazing and you still hate them. That's still
your right. Okay. But what about another scenario?
Let's say the country starts out great and
then the government gets really bad over the
process of fifteen years and you're there, and
you've grown to really hate what they are
because they don't represent what they're supposed to.
Are you still gonna have to leave, or
are you required to fight to make it
better again? See, Southern Gal wants you to
leave.
And just who cares if it's bad? You're
supposed to blindly support you get the point?
You don't aren't ever supposed to blindly support
anything,
but that's what you get from people like
this. And Simon says, it might sound crazy,
but the last thing American soldiers died for
was your flag or freedom. They died for
Israel, for Churchill, for Stalin, for rare earth
in Afghanistan.
Well point well well taken point. For crushing
Libya's attempt at a gold backed currency for
oil, lots of oil. Now whether you agree
with the different points, he he does a
good point of making it, you know, it's
all it's different points for different wars, but
either way, he makes an excellent point. If
you think that the governments or the people
in power were fighting to save freedom, you're
a child. Like, it it's insane to think
we could look at what we know and
can prove today and still have that mindset.
That means you're either not even paying attention
to what we can prove in history
or you don't care.
And her answer, you're a dumbass.
Nailed it. Well thought out response.
And this is just interesting. People contradicting themselves
in this.
August 25, Matt Walsh says, yes. Make it
a crime to burn the American flag. Desecration,
as Ron Paul was just saying, of the
gay pride flag is already prosecuted as a
hate crime. Oh, okay. So they did the
wrong thing there, so we should do the
wrong thing here too. Freedom.
That's that's
dumb. That's bad logic, guys. That's not logic,
in fact. No more double standards. You mean
that's but that's what you just did. You
literally just you did. Okay. But and then
it says, if the sacred symbol of the
LGBTQ
cult is protected, American flag should be too.
Or
we initiate we we say, no, it shouldn't
be protected because that's not the reality. So
why would you force in more of the
wrong thing? You see how dumb that is?
It's all political. It's all because it's a
point that you it's you know, he has
this big,
rightly so, by the way, did a lot
of really great work around the idea of
the trans manipulation, but that's what they're like,
either he's over focused on that and he
cares more about fighting that thing than the
actual constitution you're you know, I don't know.
Or he dishonest. You could you could decide
for yourself.
But this is you points back to June
2019,
where he says, but burning the flag doesn't
abolish or harm the country in any way.
It just makes people very emotionally upset. And
speech that makes people very emotionally upset is
the only space that needs to be protected.
Now, yes, people can change their minds,
but that's a principle. Right? It's not changing
your mind. That means you've changed your principle.
You don't have the same stance anymore. You
don't believe you get it.
And this person says, Matt was making a
joke, and then he says, nope. It's right
there.
And there's another example, and it just shows
you that that's not the case. It's he's
contradicting that. It shows you that you today,
for whatever reason, no longer uphold that constitutional
value.
Same thing here. In the other side, from
the reverse situation, Valentina says, the people that
burned the flag in, in this is June,
July 2024. The people that burned the flag
never forget to the people that burned the
flag never fought to protect it. Jail those
terrorists.
It's just been crazy in any context.
Then February 2025, now that the game has
been flipped. Right? Now she feels like she's
the rebel fighting the big powerful Republican side.
She says, whoever doesn't like our first amendment,
with all due respect, you can f off.
Then these are stupid people.
These are people like you were you are
being guided by your hatred for the big
bad orange man. You're all falling for this.
Or the big evil Biden. They're all criminals,
guys. It's just silly to me that you
can stand there and say,
people doing this need to go to jail.
And then when Trump wants to put those
people in jail, you suddenly go, no, first
amendment.
That means you don't care about anything. You
have no principle. Same point.
True Stream Media
highlights what Dan says. Dan Smotz says orally
highlighting this person's pic a screenshot.
He writes, you burn you I will burn
every last one of my American flags in
celebration of the American freedom that Trump is
trying to outlaw right now.
She says, and tags Bondi and Cash and
Bongino who are probably investigating now because how
stupid all this is, arrest this guy who
says he will burn every last one of
his American flags. Okay. Well, is he burning
in a place that's illegal? Is he is
he doing anything else that you could somehow
contort into illegal crime? Who knows? They'll probably
make one
up. But it says, he and he writes,
you should be arrested for even talking about
free speech. Don't be like boomer Samantha. Whether
she's a boomer or not, it's irrelevant. Somebody's
called me a boomer the other day and
I'm like, you guys even look these things.
I'm not. I'm not even close to that
generator, but it doesn't matter. It's a it's
a it's a dismissive response is what it's
supposed to be.
But Truthstream media rightly says, ironic how some
people are more outraged about the destruction of
a piece of cloth than they are about
the destruction of the rights and the republic
for which it is supposed to stand.
Speak for itself.
I mean, you either acknowledge how clearly
how accurate that is, or you don't believe
in the the rights of the republic for
which it stands.
Church DME also points out, and this this
meme is or this, you know,
graphic image is very well put. It's just,
like, it's just text. I prefer someone who
burns the flag and then wraps themself in
the constitution
over someone who burns the constitution and then
wraps themself in the flag.
Very well put. And seriously, like, it just
resonates. Right? Because it's not about whether you
agree with what they're burning. It's about what
they ultimately are in what, you know, you
are the constitution is what you care about
whether or not. Right? In the other case,
the piece of cloth flag is what you
care about whether or not the constitution is
burned.
Very clear.
Now here is the person that everyone's trying
to makes you know, trying to rationalize.
A veteran
arrested yesterday
outside the White House for burning the American
flag.
1989,
this person writes the Supreme Court rule flag
burning is protected under speech under the first
amendment. Trump's crackdown doesn't override the constitution. It
violates it. If we're look if we're locking
up veterans for expression, we're not defending America.
We're oppose we're impersonating China. Here's the first
flip.
My name is Jake Harry. I'm a retired,
disabled combat veteran, serving over twenty years in
the United States Army. I fought for every
single one of your right to express yourself
in however you feel that you may wanna
express yourself.
Take note of where he is. K? This
is important. K? He's not the the argument
keeps being stated that he's, you know, like,
somehow inside the White House grounds, which, you
know, you can make the same argument. I
mean, really, let's be like, they're they're they
could try to get you for something like
this in any context, burning something, you know,
which is not inaccurate.
But we all have to understand that that's
not what this is actually about. As Trump
has made repeatedly clear.
And the first amendment right to burn the
American flag.
Alright. And you know what? There's one more
point you made here
about the reality of constitutional like, so the
idea that somehow the government can pass a
law in any context that then makes your
constitutional reality not the same is not how
that works.
But you see, we're so far past that.
Fire in a theater and all these little
nuance points that allow them to rationalize
the undermining of your constitutional rights.
You could make a I and I would
I would stand by the argument that regardless
of what, you know,
civil infraction they claim, you're not allowed to
burn in this public property, that that wouldn't
circumvent the reality of your constitutional rights.
I think that's an important point to think
about. Jesus in that house right there signed
a executive order today that was illegal
to burn the American flag. No president can
make
a law, period. No congress shall make a
law intrinsic on first amendment rights. I'm burning
this flag
as a protest
to that illegal, fascist president that sits in
that house.
Doing for every single
Is it funny to me? Like, it's funny
to me which which clips seem to be
specifically weirdly out of sync and the other
ones are fine. It's all downloaded from the
same place. I think I always find that
funny. One of you American citizens,
we burned this flag in protest
to that
president
who feel that it's his right to do
whatever he wants, make whatever law he wants
regardless if it's legal or
illegal. Go away.
Go away.
Go away. Go the fuck away from me.
Fucking fuck.
What's up? My name is Jay Carey.
I am a 20
combat veteran having served in the United States
Army.
It is our first amendment right to burn
this flag
regardless of what the president said.
That's what I thought. No
nobody
nobody will enforce those Somebody's Somebody's reporting him.
The illegal laws that that president tried to
make.
Now as somebody in the chat, Riley points
out that we brought up often, Mabler
versus Madison.
Right? It's, you know, three, I think. I
could be wrong about that, but the point
it's if and there's many other points, by
the way, that are relevant to be brought
up in the past. But if it's repugnant
to the constitution, it's null and void.
And I and you you know why? I
mean, that's the reality of the legal standing
from the Supreme Court, the reality of the
constitution. So you know I agree. That's my
point about saying that. But it's gonna even
for most people that agree or, like, or
or
or believe they fight for the constitution,
Most of them will go, oh, well, there's
a law that says you can't burn here.
No. It's republican to the constitution. Therefore, no
one's voting. But, you know, it's it's, it's
a hard battle today, which it shows you
what real constitutionalists
are. You know? But it's I'm not trying
to dis dis anybody. People have just been
misled. That's why we're here. Trying to keep
people in line with the reality of all
this.
So, again, speak to the guy and, like,
you know, don't tell me you're saying that
too. It's like from every possible angle,
this is wrong, and people are finding their
nuance because they wanna support a certain side.
It just makes me sad. Here's the other
clip of when they arrest him.
Come here, favor. I gotta fuse right there.
Violation of his first amendment right.
Yep. I'm being detained because I expressed my
first amendment right to burn The United States
flag in public,
not causing harm or causing any danger to
any citizens or personnel in the area.
That's okay. The other question is, had this
executive order not been passed, would they have
done anything?
I argue no. I argue this was about
calling his bluff or whatever you wanna look
at it as, and they responded because that's
how small these people are.
That's what we get when we have a
fascist right here. Have 90. Are you serious?
To fire. I don't know what.
Weapons. No.
It's okay. It's okay. I accept this. I
figured this was gonna happen. Hey. This is
an illegal risk. This is an illegal search.
Nothing worse than our brothers and sisters immigrants
that we're receiving. Probably a lot better. I'm
being treated very well.
Not surprising seeing as I'm a middle aged
white man. I just took his phone. See,
what's funny is people making those kind of
statements
by
the kind of just belligerent rights teams for
politics side will proclaim he's a Democrat.
Far as I could tell, he's not.
Doesn't matter, though.
Right? If you say that, you are to
them. I could just you can be you
can be a Republican and say the wrong
thing, and therefore, you're a rhino now. It's
just it's just it's a selective boxing out
of what things you don't like. It's childish.
Oh, those things I don't like, so I'll
pretend you're in a different group. It's like
it's just it's just so sad. The point
is that anybody with,
you know,
compassion or anybody with an understanding of the
reality of the constitution can recognize what they're
doing to immigrants is insane right now.
But the screamers will say otherwise.
Yeah.
Yeah. I know it's Yeah. What?
That's right.
I mean, no. It's secret service, by the
way, for the podcast.
That mean that's why I wrote the Trump
administration as opposed to police.
I mean, think about sending out the secret
service
to arrest I mean, look at the military.
Look at how many people are around. Welcome
to your police state, guys. This is not
normal. Whether DC or not, you know, the
idea that it's just
military everywhere,
secret service arresting you for a defraction in
the mill you know, it's it's obvious this
is beyond what should be happening. And, again,
I argue wouldn't if it wasn't because if
the executive order wasn't there. Arrested, sir?
Why is he being arrested?
Can't answer that one.
You're a danger?
Why is he being detained? Being detained because
I expressed my first amendment rights in a
public area not causing any danger or causing
no danger to anybody.
Simply expressing my rights
as a US citizen
and a retired disabled combat veteran who served
this country faithfully
for over twenty years,
which, as usual, means absolutely nothing to the
people who wanna claim they care about that
if and when you barely challenge their agenda.
To me why is he being detained?
What'd he mean by a different guy? Police,
he's
Why is he being detained?
And now it's become pretty clear, by the
way, from across the board whether even you
know, there's plenty of local police, I would
argue, that don't believe in what's happening. But
pretty much anywhere you look right now, police
are no longer identifying themselves. They're not addressing
people. They're not responding. They're not you know,
it's
they're being allowed to do that right now.
One of the many things that are happening
that are shockingly changing, like, oh, a drastic
step in authoritarianism
away from the constitution
every single day. It's what they call the
boiling frog. Right? One incremental step, one little
degree every day, and you just don't recognize
it. You go, well, it'll change tomorrow. Yeah.
It's only for this thing right now. Oh,
yeah. That's just because those people came in.
Oh, narrative, narrative, narrative. And then by the
time you look back, it's too
late. You know, a lot of people say
call it out. I think a lot of
people see it.
Brian Allen shared this.
So here's TIFF going, speech comes from your
mouth,
not a cigarette lighter. You know, it gives
you some definition about the word speech.
And Brian says,
it's okay, Tiff. We understand that MAGA lacks
comprehension of abstract legal concepts, especially those where
free speech extends beyond the verbal expression.
You know? And I again, I don't argue
that every MAGA person is in that same
category. I think most of them in, you
know, by and large,
see the problem. That's my opinion. I know
people disagree,
but I think it's important to recognize that
this is a problem. You know, people that
are, like, again, constitutionally illiterate, they don't understand.
Like Scalia just said, this is it's not
just speech.
It's been ruled many times over that it
applies to a lot. I mean, even the
government claims that their actions under certain cases
are protected by free. It's it's they're abusing
it in their own way because that doesn't
apply to them, quite frankly, not as the
government against the people. But even then, people
like this can't under they don't choose to
understand it or they can't.
John Bedouin senior
says, I'll be burning my flat MAGA hat.
I'll be burning my MAGA hat. I didn't
elect a dictator king. The constitution still rules.
Not this ignorant fool.
His OWS,
Operation Warp Speed, murdered a million Americans, and
there's no amount of propaganda or suppression of
social or of social or old media that
can, excuse me, change that fact. Kids are
dying still.
And so the point of this is, one,
he's a Trump supporter who no longer supports
Trump and also still sees what he did
through COVID and is
acknowledging that they have not yet rec rectified
that and never seem to wanna try. But
I just think it's important that people are
willing to call this out,
whatever side. An interesting additional point,
Linda Malmon points out, 08/26/2025,
the Los Angeles Times,
Beverly Hills Public Schools to consider displaying Israeli
flag on all campuses.
Because totally. Right? It's nothing weird there. Why?
Because it's we're, you know, apparently, The United
States Of Israel at this point. Why not?
How does that even possibly make sense unless
you acknowledge that that's what's going on? On
top of that, let's, you know, it's just
it's a it's a flag overlap that I
think is important. So meanwhile, while they're
rapidly
destroying the constitution, they're instituting Israeli flags in
schools, at least in some cases, and or
the idea of training your police or all
the different ways that they're infiltrating this country
when it comes to the unit a 200
startup companies or the PACS cabinet in Trump's
administration.
But, you know, no big deal.
And I simply said, after Brian yesterday reported
this, Fox News reporting that Trump will sign
executive order on the American flag. I said,
and watch as all the fake patriots cheer.
This is unconstitutional, and anyone who truly cares
about the constitution will call this what it
is.
And Jamie rightly points out, funny how y'all
and she's talking about the people that are
pretending it's okay. Funny how y'all scream about
freedom until it's someone else's
someone you don't like using theirs.
Well put. Right? Freedom. Freedom. Until somebody else
is doing something you don't like, then they
go, not that one though. Just like the
left
Or the you you could have taken that
either way. I'm I'm addressing this towards conservatives.
But the point is, didn't you guys make
that same point?
Right? That's, you know, freedom's speech, unless you
say the things that make me unsafe and
uncomfortable.
Just because it's a different framing doesn't change
the principle of it. You guys are violating
what you believe in because the other side's
bad or whatever it is that make
just I I really like to believe that
we're gonna get past this.
Now,
martial law, Washington DC. There's some important points
to make around this topic. Now we already
I'll I'll include the the links to the
shows we already did. Martial law rolls out
around The United States. That was on the
August 22.
Followed up with that, talking about Trump rolls
out Obama's martial law plan, basically showing you
that exactly what people were worried about Obama
doing is what Trump is doing. And you
could argue that it's just they're just continuing
the same plan regardless of the partisan side.
However you wanna look at it, it's just
it's insane that the very people that were
rightly concerned, which again, my point was, I
think it was clearly a plan that the
writing the article I pointed to was somebody
claiming that they were conspiracy theorists about Obama,
and it wasn't happening. And now Trump's actually
doing it, and they're not calling it out.
I think it's slightly the right point. I
think it was gonna happen under Obama, and
it clearly was seen, acknowledged, and they changed
it was there. You could prove that they
had some of those things in
in action, let's say.
And they were calling it out, and now
Trump's doing it even further, and now they're
not.
Interesting way. So it's even the part see,
he sees part of the point, but I
think he's missing it because of his partisan
side. I think that's what plays everybody right
now that are trapped in the partisan sides.
Now here's Nick's order.
It's official.
National Guard troops are armed in the streets
of DC. Hooray.
Look how happy they are about it. That's
what he wrote. Each of them began carrying
their military.
Do this in Chicago, New York. Take our
cities back.
I just I I feel like right now,
maybe with the competing with Laura Loomer, I
I don't know somebody I have a lower
opinion of right now online. Like like, really
silly. You know? Like like you like, ridicule
level. Like, this is embarrassing, and yet,
millions of views and all these which makes
me either really hopeful that we are really
living in a dead bot dead Internet boss
scenario or sad that there's that many people
that cheer something this stupid on, this contradictory.
Like, unless they really don't care about anything
they claim,
which I probably some of them, but but
it is, what I said first, I really
feel even more so if these people, you
know, care about the constitution and don't realize
how silly, how or, like, just hypocritical.
Contradictory these stances are to what you're otherwise
claiming because narrative.
Right? We have to break it to bring
it back. The Democrat did it first, so
we're gonna do it just I just I
I can't help make fun of it. I'm
sorry. It's it's
ridicule worthy.
I wanna be mean. Trust me. I there's
but I you know, even that is far
you know, we we in the past, we
never even gotten stuff like this, but I'm
telling you, man, it is a special kind
of stupid.
Speaker Johnson says Trump deserves Nobel Peace Prize
for DC police takeover.
Of course, right? Of course, he does. Why
not? But the point is they've been building
this direction. They've rolled it out as if
it was gonna be this you know, DC
is just there to observe and make sure.
And then, oh, but now and it will
be really quick in just this one place,
and then it all becomes, well, it might
take a little longer. Oh, we're gonna roll
it to more cities. Oh, but now we
need their vote now we need to help
them before. Now they need weapons.
And this isn't even, like, a slowed increment.
It's like it's like every day every fourteen
minutes is another you know, it's not slow,
but it's incremental, but it's not slow. It's,
like, very much in your face. It starts
with it's only here and gonna stop, and
now look at where we are. It's been,
like, a week. It's just it's obvious this
is a larger plan that has been coordinated,
and people like that are trying to gaslight
you into cheering it on. Now Shannon Joy
comes out with a very important point.
I saw this first from her. She's referencing
the independent article.
Trump's con inc, and she does cite it
right there, which is why I'm referencing it.
I I will rarely point to someone who
shares something even if I see it from
them if they don't put the source link,
but good on her. And she says, Trump's
con inc trumps Trump's
con inc trumps thought he was going to
deploy troops to blue states.
He's totally rug pulling them by deploying his
fascist police state to red states.
Absolutely classic. She hates his cult or he
hates his cult, mocks them relentlessly, and they
just come back for more. Now I'm not
sharing the hilariousness of this. I think it's
horrifying
and alarming,
but I I get why it can be
humorous. But I've I've I'm I do my
best to not fall into those as even
though we're making fun of people, it's like,
you know, it it when you lean when
I'm not saying that I do it too.
But when you fall into that line of
it and you keep you know, you can
find yourself cheering things on just because it
hurts them or because it makes them look
bad, that's what people like Nick do. And
I just think we need to just be
careful and stay away from that. But thank
good honor for calling this out because I
think it's very important. Trump mobilizing up to
1,700 National Guard troops in 19 states to
widen crime
and immigration crackdown.
Because it's the same thing. Right? Clearly, wasn't
supposed to be seen that way in the
beginning.
And oops. Hit my microphone. And now it's
coming together. Like, they're they're it's really largely
focused on immigration, which shows you even there.
There's a clear kind of sidestep. But deployments
reportedly set to take place largely in Republican
controlled states.
Now it says
the deployments will take place across the following
states,
Alabama,
Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Nebraska,
Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota,
Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wyoming, per Fox News.
Texas reportedly slated to have the latest deployment.
Okay.
Weirdly,
very, like,
conspicuously
missing
Illinois.
When everyone's talking about, like, that become the
focal point. Now, again, it could be because
that was by choice, so we weren't looking
at it. But I find it really interesting.
If it goes forward and Chicago is not
the next place oh, the hype about the
crime, which I'm not disagreeing with. That don't
miss that from last time either. I'm in
no way suggesting Washington DC was a perfect
bastion of freight. There's horrible crime there. But
it's not the way he made it out
in the context of, like, worse than any
place in the world. This is what I
was laughing about. You could have easily said
this place is so bad with crime that
we have to do something. I would have
been like, yes. I agree. But not in
the sense of what he did. So my
point is you didn't even need to to
lie about it. You could have easily gotten
everyone on board because we know the crime
is terrible there. But he had to make
things up and corner himself, which I again,
I keeps thinking it's like there's a reason
for this. Like we're supposed to see it.
I don't know. It just doesn't make sense
to me that they're that kind of like
consistently bad at this. But
he made it, he said he literally claimed
it was worse than any other place on
earth. You can quite literally prove that's not
true very easily. And then
you could also prove that Washington, DC, even
with the claims that they're making, is not
even in the top five of the numbers
we can see. So, why do they start
there? Because it's DC. Because there's something important
to that in this larger context, whether it's
giving it to Peter Thiel or Freedom City
or something entirely different. It's not about what
they're claiming.
You have to be honest about that. But
then the next points, same point. I've I
don't have the Newsweek article up, but you
can look at the top 30 list we
gave you from a conservative platform. And the
point was, they're not aiming at the top
five, not even the top 10 in most
cases. So what's it really about? My mind
is about two things. One, about specifically the
locations that are important for what they're doing,
the AI transition, you know, whatever agendas they're
really aiming at. And two, more, like, broadly,
just the police state. I mean, this is
quite literally what most people have been alarmed
about for a long time,
rolling out the martial law police state. Now
whether you it ends up being, like, what
we would envision as that or just having
casual members of the military and deploy ready
to deploy units all over the country, which
is what we're gonna get to. It's what
they're actually doing now.
How is that okay with any conservative right
now? Why? Because you think Trump's not gonna
do anything bad to you? Well, what happens
when the next Democrat comes into power? Who
really can't think that far ahead?
This is really crazy to me. Like, the
idea that we're not only I mean, look
at this is half the country
on top of the fact that it's largely
Republican states. I just think that needs to
really resonate.
Recognize that it's like, as always, they come
it comes back to bite you if you
lean in to supporting any power structure, in
my opinion. But okay. So Illinois was not
listed there.
Here's what he had to say about Chicago.
I'll give you they're all pointing at Chicago.
You all know Chicago is a killing field
right now,
and they don't acknowledge it. And they said
That's not true. Pretty sure everybody acknowledges it,
but, you know, you're setting a narrative. We
don't need him. Freedom. Freedom. He's a dictator.
He's a dictator. A lot of people are
saying maybe we like a dictator.
It's also important, you know, casual mention of,
you know, maybe, but I don't like them.
Dictators are bad, but, you know, maybe they
like those things.
Just this typical meaningless, you know, floats the
idea. You know, it's it could be just
a troll too. That's the way they play
most of this stuff. Even though more than
half of the things we were told were
really just him toying them with the left
turn out to be real. And then they
just then they go, well, we always meant
it. We were trolling you. Or you don't
even know what's going on. You're just playing
along with whatever you're supposed to say yes
to, like most of you are.
But a dictator?
Remember what he said about Cece? Where's my
favorite dictator? What did Bukele say? I'm the
cool dictator. Guys, they're clearly priming you for
something. Probably an authoritarian state. That's crazy, Ryan.
It's not like they're rolling out of police.
Oh, they are right in front of you.
Chicago.
It's clearly what they've been insinuating and pointing
to. Bennie Johnson today. Chicago resident urges Trump
to deploy the guard. Okay. So then clearly
everybody agrees because this guy in the street
says so. I'm not arguing that there's not
crime. I'm willing to bet you plenty of
them want whatever he's talking about. Maybe because
they have personal stories about crime. But overall,
just like in DC, at least from my
impression, it does not seem that most people
want what's happening.
You I that's just my opinion based on
what I can see, and you don't have
to believe me. But the truth is that
I really do try to find you know,
tap into other groups and reach out to
people who may have you know, people that
live in certain places and be like, what
are you hearing from people? But you never
really know. We'll get to an article from
the Washington Post, which we should I don't
trust the Washington Post. We'll consider what it
says about
the the that very point, about how it
seems that people on the street have a
very different perspective. And the videos that they
take are very different than the same version
of what happened from what the White House
puts out. We all know they do this,
though. We shouldn't deny that it's not you
know, like, it's left and right.
So if we pretend that they're not doing
it now, then, you know, it's it's kind
of a childish thing to pretend like it
only happens on one side. Like, the deep
state is only the one side. It's kinda
sad. But, yes, Chicago's got some bad crime.
It's a really bad I've said that many
times over the years. I've also pointed out
that it's weird how
both sides seem to ignore when there's a
problem there or people shot, but yet then
over fixate on certain shootings when they want
to.
It's typical.
But all that's to say, yes, there's crime,
and, yes, it should matter. But I also
very much think that there's a game being
played between both sides to kind of justify
problem reaction solution. But overall, it's about constitutional
action and whether this is being done the
right way, whether it's being used to accomplish
what they want, not that they care about
Chicago. And all and a bigger point on
all of them.
Is this gonna change anything or are they
just gonna rush in the military, clear out
the streets in an aggressive way, and then
claim that's all good? And then one or
two things, either they leave and it goes
back to what it was cause that's what
will happen, or they stay and claim that
keeps you safe. What's more likely, do you
think?
Here's Trump
saying Chicago,
but that he has the right to do
whatever he wants because he's the president. Well,
paraphrasing. You'll you'll hear it for yourself. It
is what he's saying. And I simply said
it is amazing what people can ignore to
pretend that they're winning.
I would have much more respect for Pritzker
if he'd call me up and say, I
have a problem. Can you help me fix
it? I would be so happy to do
it. I don't love,
not that I don't have I would the
right to do anything I wanna do. I'm
the president of The United States. If I
think our country is in danger, and it
is in danger in these cities, I can
do it. So there's no denying. There will
be people like I'm already seeing trying to,
like, mental gymnastics this.
He it's very clear. Language again. Very clear.
I wanna do. I'm I don't have I
would if the right to do anything I
wanna do, I'm Wait. Hold on. Wait. Not
that I don't have Not that I don't
have the right to do anything I wanna
do, and he ends with I do. I
would have the right to do anything I
wanna do. I'm the president of The United
States. If I think our country is in
danger, and it is in danger in these
cities, I can do it. I can do
it. Right? That that's clear.
Not that I you know, his point is
I can do whatever I want if there's
an emergency.
He seems to genuinely think that. That's terrifying.
But, honestly, it's not that far from the
truth because as apathetic people in this country,
we seem to have allowed that to be
the reality. Ultimately, that they just go emergency
and they do whatever they want. And because
it keeps happening, then he's right. He does
have that power. Even though technically speaking, legally
speaking, constitutionally speaking, he does not.
That's where we are. But understand how care
terrifying it is for somebody doing what he's
currently doing and simply claiming that I can
do what I want if I decide there's
an emergency.
I mean, he just said that in front
of who was that? Talking about the elections.
Right? He said, oh, oh, it was, oh,
it was Zelensky. And he was saying, oh,
we wanna have elections because we're an emergency.
And Trump just said, oh, can I just
declare an emergency and we don't do elections?
Honestly, to me, even it felt like he
was kinda joking. But these days,
maybe he was going, oh, okay.
Who knows? But, again, the main point is
I can you know, Chicago first, but then
I can do what I want. No
problem
going in and solving,
you know, his difficulties,
but it would be nice if they'd call
and they say, would you do it? Right.
Because what you want is someone to go,
please come in with the military and then
do what you want in my streets.
Is that what you know? Is because if,
like, if you were involved like, the idea
that you call Trump and go, hey. I
need your help with crime.
And that that means come in with Marshall
Marshall lost the police state, and that that's
what you'd want. Like, that's clearly not what
they're claiming they want. I don't who knows
what they really want between the governor and
Trump. But at the end of the day,
asking for his help is not you coming
in with resources or giving you more money
to fight the police. You know, it's all
the Democrats lie about everything all the time,
therefore, we can't listen to them at face
value, but he should have asked me first
because I'll help him. You know, it's just
you can't all or nothing everything. Like, if
they're all bad democrat monsters,
then why would you then wanna work with
them? Like, it just doesn't make any sense
because neither of them is really the truth.
I think they're all criminals, but they're not
all everything he says. At the end of
the day, my gut tells me that all
of this is probably in some way going
in the right the the court their direction,
the coordinated direction.
But again, then why is Illinois not on
the list? Well, I guess we'll have to
wait and see.
Nick's order
says president Trump sends a strong warning to
governor Pritzker
Pritzker who demanded Trump keep the National Guard
out of Chicago.
Quote, I have the right to do anything
I want to do. I'm the president of
The United States. So here's what's funny. That's
what everyone seems to be quoting.
Right? Like, I mean, I'm sure it's a
short clip. I wouldn't I'd be really surprised
if we didn't watch it, but that's what
he says too. I have the right to
do anything. I'm the president. That's not what
he actually I really have a problem with
people who quote things that aren't exactly what
was said because the quote is a very
specific meaning when you do that. So I
do hate that. Either way, you heard what
he said. He there was more of a
nuance, but it it ultimately meant the same
thing, but I'm still not okay with that.
What might think is funny is Nick Sorter
literally quotes the same thing, even though that's
also not what he said. Well, you should
probably even watch it for all of you.
These people are not real journalists. But overall,
it's the point that he's praising that.
I have the right to do anything I
want to do because I'm the president and
he has a fire symbol, send in the
troops 47.
That was over the top for me.
So you you're
surprising
that the president claims they can do whatever
they want? So this that means you're okay
with Biden doing whatever he wants. Right?
No. He's a bad guy. So you're only
okay with the one that you think is
the right guy doing whatever they want. You're
a child. Like, that's that is worthy of
ridicule.
As I said, honest conservatives who truly care
about the constitution
need to start calling out these pretenders, and
they're all over the place. They are simultaneously
helping to destroy this country while tricking people
into thinking that you are all just as
dishonest and ignorant, as sycophantic
as they are, meaning sycophants.
Call it out, guys. They're they're the ones
that are really hurting what you're trying to
do.
Now the Pentagon, as I showed you before,
on the twelfth,
plans to create a military reaction force that
they explicitly point out for protests.
A quick so 600 national guard deployed in
two locations, at least that was the original
point they put out as the hypothetical,
that could rapidly deploy across the country for
protests.
As Trump, I played before, literally said in
LA, if you come out and protest, you'll
be met with violent force or it was
serious force or I forget it now. It
was something like that. But it was about
force. Not because you break the law, but
because you're simply protesting what he's doing. So
he very much does think that. And again,
it'll be like, well, they were inciting violence
or they did that. It wouldn't really that
it's not even who cares if they did
it or not? We were gonna shut them
down and we'll fill in the excuse like
they do with everyone they're arresting in the
streets. It's what they're doing right now. Not
everyone. I'm being hyperbolic. It's a lot of
that,
though. But that's where it's going. And now
here's the yesterday,
Trump signs executive order. Woah. Surprise. Surprise.
Why wouldn't he go, hey, congress? Because he's
a dictator at this point. And it's not
just him. It's what they've been building.
But Obama before them, Biden did the same.
Rule through executive order is not what we
pretend this is. And, again, if you just
wanna go, but the other side,
then you're okay with that. Whatever your rationale,
you're going do the wrong thing.
So another executive order establishing
specialized national guard units. It's what we just
talked about, to address crime in the cities
or whatever else they wanna use it for,
like suppressing protests. It says Donald Trump signed
an executive order Monday tasking his secretary of
defense, Pete Hegseth, with establishing
specialized units in the National Guard that will
be specifically
trained and equipped to deal with public order
issues.
Oh, okay. So they're literally enforcing the law.
Armed.
Are we still pretending this is not exactly
what it looks like or that it's a
violation of policy comatose despite the idea that
if they can declare an emergency and title
32 and it all goes away, well, then
it all means nothing then. If they can
just
write out, you know, just to claim as
a loophole for things that are shall not
be infringed. You know, no big deal.
It says, the clearest sign yet he intends
to expand the US military's role in domestic
law enforcement activities across the country. Now this
is what I find most interesting. This is
CNN.
Now Now listen to the way they go
on to frame this. Now they're they're you
know, in a way, they're going the thing
and it's like, I guess the the air
is like it's bad.
But in this article, they essentially lay out
why he's gonna do it and it's okay.
That's one of the reason that tells me
that there's a bigger thing here that they're
that, like, not everyone at CNN, the people
writing the article. But as you know, they
don't have really any control over what happens.
It's come from the top down as the
Alison Marrows of the world have told us.
And, weirdly, the one people like Tucker still
have yet to really divulge. Yeah. You think
you know why? Overall, there is a lot
of coordination, a lot of manipulation. And so
my point is that they may hate Trump
and think they're fighting him, but from the
the platform,
this article and the way they write this,
it at least suggests to me that it
is an all of government agenda to get
this done.
And not just this one thing, but the
larger agenda. It goes on to say, to
designate an appropriate number as a quote from
Mike Seth, To designate an appropriate number of
each of each state's
trained national guard members to be reasonably available
for rapid mobilization for such purposes and establish
a standing
quick reaction force that shall be available for
rapid national nationwide deployment.
Now you remember what our founding fathers had
to say about standing armies?
Now that's already what's going on. We've had
a standing army for a very long time.
Well, once militia is stopping in, now they
you know, we just have an army all
the time. Well, that's something our founding fathers
would be very upset about. But who cares?
Right? Now this is a step even further.
Now we're gonna have a standing military and
bases all over the country, but now we're
gonna have a standing deployable forces ready to
be enforcing law on a given day.
Do you not realize how much further that
goes?
Military deployment in any place is usually seen
as quite an escalation. The National Guard being
deployed for protest in the past has been
a big deal. This is being wildly normalized
to the point to where he's having little
deployable units that'll go out to enforce the
law.
Why is that not I mean, because the
idea of Posse Comitatus
is very clear.
All they do is claim that there's, you
know, you could use it's right here, title
32.
Know what it is?
Title 32.
And allow that to work. Why? Well, because
you have a state of emergency.
So what this means, if this is gonna
be the case, is is that there has
to be a never ending ongoing state of
emergency for every for, I guess, the country
all the time, that under that, they then
execute this for whatever law is in place.
How does that make sense legally?
What's the emergency? And how does it justify
them being there in all the time? Because
it's just it's the same thing that Ron
Paul and and even RFK told you. They
never give your power back.
Do you think the Knicks owners of the
world care at all?
It says questions remain,
however, about how the order will work in
practice.
The national guard already has reaction forces. Right?
They do. Designed to rapidly respond to incidents
requiring law enforcement or security support in each
state. They do.
And every territory and district of Columbia.
Okay. So why is this happening then if
that's already the reality? These forces primarily perform
their mission under the command of and control
of governors.
And Trump's executive order on Monday does not
specify
what authority the units outside of DC would
report to if a state's governor does not
wish to use them. Okay. Clearly, you get
where that goes. Just like now, despite this
game they're playing where they're technically under the
governor's purview, but Donald Trump's administration is literally
telling them all what to do, it's all
it's the it's the same way they do
everything.
They're playing it.
No. The governor's completely out of control. They
don't. We all see that. Or like with,
Garcia, you know, well, our hands are tied.
We totally can't bring it back, and they
bring it back.
They know you see that, guys. They they're
laughing in your face. They want you to
pretend that they're laughing at the Democrats, but
they're laughing at all of you because they're
violating everyone's rights and they're violating the constitution.
That matters to everybody.
So this is about trying to play this
game about, you know, you're creating in a
way
with ICE and this, you have a you
have a national police force, which is something
that the Jones of the world used to
really call out all the time, and now
they don't care.
It goes on to say
oh, wait. Did I,
yeah. Okay. I read that. It says, quote,
it seems very performative.
So there's a lot of this going back
and forth
where it like like, even with the first
amendment flag discussion,
like, that some peep like, that this is
more oh, I forgot to mention that too.
Like, that's what,
Daniel McAdams said. That in a way, this
feels like it's more of a like a
like a like a head fake. You know?
Like, it's something meant to take to elicit
a reaction, but they're not really gonna go
after it. Something tells me that's not the
case, but I get the point. Like, in
this case, it seems performative. Like, the idea
of the National Guard Executive Order might never
really come to pass, but it's about trying
to appease a certain audience, like with the
flag thing.
Yeah. It's it's a good point to consider.
And it says, but, again, the devil is
in the details of, excuse me, of how
they plan on using them.
I agree.
On Monday, Trump suggested he'd ask Congress to
codify the action,
expanding the National Guard's remit, telling reporters in
the Oval Office,
quote, I think Democrats will actually vote for
this. Now,
maybe.
Two ways to think about this.
If the Democrats vote for this, then that
answers my question. And it's pretty clear to
me at the very least that it suggests
that they are all like, this is a
government power take move that they're all supporting
because it gives them more power.
Or or the other pot the other way
to look at it or the other, I
guess, possible outcome
is that that doesn't even happen.
I'm kinda leaning toward the former. The idea
that this is, like, codifying something something through
congress seems to be something they are terrified
of doing.
Nothing. Like, I haven't seen anything. I mean,
when's the last time we saw almost anything
from the executive branch or any of the
conversations from Trump go through congress, whether it's
foreign policy or anything else? There's executive ordering,
everything.
Immediately,
right out of the gate. What? Like, hundreds
of them came right off his desk. That's
crazy
because it's just gonna happen the other way
right back, and then it's just this teeter
totter, which is what I always tell you.
So I argue it's probably this is like
feigning that We got everyone's support, and everyone
likes it, and then they just don't do
that. So you kind of, like, sits in
people's minds that that maybe happened. Like, you
know, they're kind of half followers, and then
narrative becomes that, well, you know, congress was
okay. Didn't even happen. But we'll have to
wait and see.
And if they vote for it, it'll answer
the other question in general. But, it's hard
to see.
You know, because there's a lot of personal
hatred that goes back and forth, you know,
that some will push back. But you know
my opinion when it comes to power. Look
at COVID 19 countries or internally.
People will take the power that they can.
Says Trump could send national guard troops into
a state against the governor's wishes,
reminiscent of what happened in Los Angeles, which
is just crazy,
when troops were federalized.
But the critical distinction of who the troops
report to or rather the the framing is
just a way to hide it, impacts what
guard members can do
can or cannot do while they're mobilized.
Federalized troops, like those who mobilized in Los
Angeles, cannot perform law enforcement activities even though
they did. I we've I mean, they spoke
up about doing so,
but the narrative is they didn't. Even from
CNN, which is stupid. And it says,
as it would be a violation of the
post ecumenatas act. Yes. And they did. I
argue the same thing now despite the next
point. It says troops on title 32,
which is something that Trump really initiated for
the most part and ultimately is a loophole
that was created for this very purpose. And
it says, like those mobilized inside DC are
not subject to pussy comatatus. That's ridiculous. And
therefore, able to assist in law enforcement. Why?
Because you created some loophole?
Because if we declare it an emergency, therefore
that's stupid.
This this is like the idea of saying
we can violate your constitutional rights because it
hurts someone's feelings today, because we decided. It's
just the way they play this game today.
Now, you could disagree with me. I think
that it's the obvious reality is that deploying
a military force to enforce domestic law is
against the law. That's what the original concept
was. And now they just found a way
around it. Does that make it okay? Not
to me. The DC National Guard is unique
in that the president has the authority
to activate them under article, title 32. That's
DC in particular. And it says, though,
that authority is typically delegated to the secretary
of the army.
Otherwise, National Guard troops elsewhere in the country
are under the control of the governors. Now
this is why earlier I argued
one of the law more likely reasons that
DC was the starting point.
So because if it really got pushed back,
he could argue that that in this location,
that comes down you know, really, again, it
should be the secretary of the army, but
the Trump could effectively do that. But even
then, though, the same point applies, enforcing the
law. That's why the emergency was declared under
what concept?
The emergency.
Right? What? Wait. What what's the reality? Or
is it still we're talking about immigration. We're
talking about crime.
How do you prove any of these things
constitute an emergency? My point is there's a
specific,
you
know, framing
within like, so if you're gonna declare an
emergency, there is a specific point in which
that has to be you know, you can't
just claim, it's a windy day today, therefore,
it's emergency. They do, but the point is
those things are illegitimate, and they do it
all the time now. But that's the normalization
of the precedent like he's doing now. You
just keep letting it happen. Eventually, it just
becomes the reality. There's plenty of illegal and
unconstitutional things that we have. We allow all
the time these days.
Now this is from Washington Post.
What's really going on in DC? What you
see depends on who's filming. Now you can
read it all for yourself and be rightly
skeptical of the Washington Post like you should
be of anybody,
equally, by the way. That's why it's so
funny when we push back like, you're using
them. It's like, you know, you still the
idea that we haven't got to the point
where, okay, if we are equally questioning
any data point, any source,
then why do we even talk anymore about
whether they're well, it matters to me when
I'm looking. I know they lie all the
time. Okay. So I take that into effect.
I read it and I consider that. Just
like I think that when I read anything
from the mainstream alternative media or anybody for
that matter, I recognize that they could be
wrong. They could be misled by other people
that lie.
And, you know, it's very simple. If you
simply acknowledge there's lies being spun in all
possible ways, you question every data source, then
it becomes irrelevant
to a to a large degree whether or
not that's the case. If you are doing
the right thing by doing your due diligence,
then it shouldn't really matter. But see, the
problem is it's used to dismiss,
which is really the point. Oh, that's a
Democrat platform, so we are that's always fake
news. Well, maybe. Or maybe they're using the
truth to manipulate you, and it's still worth
understanding.
You get the point. So this is something
you should read through. I and also the,
archive version doesn't actually have the videos in
it, which I think are important to look
at because it's basically saying, you know, here's
the one taken by a random guy in
the street. Here's the one the White House
put out.
And you'll notice very obvious differences, which is
very, very clear. Now the main point
is simply one employee on a video team
within a federal agency
describe being unwittingly pulled into the operation. Now
what they're saying is, well, I or the
point that point says that speaking on the
condition of anonymity out of job reprisal concerns,
question at all, the employee said their team
once covered events and produced content to be
used internally,
but has now been told to be ready
to join agents doing law enforcement work.
So this person
has they claim that they feel like they've
been unwittingly pulled into filming these things on
the streets instead of doing things that are
internally for their own, you know, things about
the office or whatever internally means, like in
the White House. And then it goes on
to say the direction
was to hit the streets with agents and
get footage of what they're doing,
and then it and and then turn it
around quickly.
So even if it's true or accurate pictures,
it's still propaganda.
They're they're trying to shove these things in
your face to make you feel a certain
way about what's happening. And then it says
the employee spoke of feeling uncomfortable
with the new marching orders and hoped the
administration would soon lose interest in DC policing.
Quote,
this is all just a show, the employee
said. This is theater.
Now, again, take it for what you will.
That's somebody who literally works with them, who's
out there filming those videos with them and
is claiming that it's all really a show
they're all putting on a show. That doesn't
mean all fake, really,
but this is sort of wag the dog.
And, again, if you look at these videos
or you know, there's some that are in
here. If you look at the ones that
are online
for yourself and look at what the White
House is posting, you'll find very many versions
of what they show you that are very
deceptively point framed on top of the fact
that they do these weird compilations of specific
events
that really don't represent the majority of what's
happening.
They do this with everything left and right.
We all know this.
So it's important to consider that. Right? That
what you're seeing online is very rarely the
full picture of what's going on.
Now before we get into the next point,
let me see where my time's at here.
So we are we gonna get into Garcia?
Some more immigration stuff.
Okay. I think it's I think just for
the sake of what we talked about today,
I'm gonna end with a couple points here.
We'll probably leave it there for the next
show, which which might be tomorrow depending on
a few factors.
So here here is what I these are
some points about the
kind of the side step from a lot
of what's going on in particular, the rolling
police state. Can you even imagine
Obama or Biden doing a fraction of this
and what Jones would have said about it?
I mean, it's almost comical to think about.
But
that Epstein,
I mean, a lot of stuff that they're
kind of very clearly
gaslighting, pulling away from. On the twenty third,
he said, huge DOJ actions incoming. I I
really hope that they actually are going after
Obama and the rest, which clearly hasn't seemed
to have happened or Clinton or Gates or
anybody else they claim they're gonna go after.
Twenty third,
Patrick, long talk with the top. Well, I've
I mean, you know, as if you watch
this show and if you even pay attention
to part of what they put out, he's
done this a lot and many, many times
it hasn't panned out. I've covered many of
them over the last six months. Like, very,
very large examples of huge insider sources tell
x, y, and z, then just and not
even ever, like, follows up and goes that
didn't happen. Just moves on to the next,
you know, propagandized story. But then he posted
this the next day with a blank piece
of white paper and said, boom. I don't
even know what that's supposed to mean.
Here,
on this the the next day, this is
the twenty fifth, he comes out again
and says mega bombshell exclusive. You gotta you
know, when you write bomb breaking and every
single time, you gotta pick up you gotta
pick up a notch. Right? So now it's
gone to mega bombshell exclusive with two red
lights because it's really important this time with
three exclamation marks so you know it's serious.
And it goes on to say, president Trump's
head
strike force lawyer,
Ed Martin, delivers powerful information to Alex Jones
from the DOJ that will shape the foundations
of The United States.
Quote, as soon as they start indicting these
people,
if you think you've seen whistleblowers and house
of cards falling, it's gonna go free fall.
Okay.
I guess we'll wait and see.
I'm sure you know what I'm thinking.
We've seen this before.
The military tribune things that he has discussed.
You know, the idea of the the the
indictments of the military tribunals, and it's all
coming down. We've heard that for so long.
This feels like the revitalization of the same
old cute thing that's been going on for
a very long time.
Here's what David Icke said.
They play Jones so he can play you.
How long ago Jones was in tears over
the Epstein files, but he soon recovered and
got back on script.
Bottom line, he's promoting one of the most
corrupt, criminal, and tyrannical presidents in US history
who is owned by Israel and the AI
oligarchs.
Every day, a bombshell broadcast or mega bombshell
broadcast. Exactly. It's almost it's embarrassing.
But it's the same Trump promoting Epstein diverting
BS.
He cannot grasp or refuses to grasp that
it's a one party state and he is
one of the violins.
Well put.
Now later in the same day, because this
is kind of, you know, it's the propaganda
in your face all the time.
First, later in the day, it says the
deep state just got hit with a massive
earthquake.
Trump's DOJ government weaponization task force to
target democrat crime syndicate. So it's all the
same, not happening yet, about to happen, report
about nothing that's happened yet. Over and over
and over throughout the day, framed differently in
different ways. So it feels like there's a
whole bunch of coverage going on.
You've seen it before.
The American people, later in the day,
captioning the same tweet. The American people want
action, indictments, justice.
After being politically persecuted in the courts and
shot in the ear, if we believe that's
what happened, don't you think president Trump wants
action more than anybody? Feels like you're trying
to convince yourself almost. I'll tell you this,
he says.
Kash Patel, Pam Bondi, in six months,
will not be in the FBI and DOJ
if these indictments haven't happened, period.
How much you wanna bet they don't happen,
and then he cheers them on just like
he keeps doing regardless like David I just
pointed out. We've we're already there, guys. That's
happening now with the last thing he said.
Nope. This is an interesting overlap.
Here's the next one.
This one is later in the day, on
the twenty fifth, or in the morning anyway.
He says, the Democratic party working with the
UN Oh, wait. Let me read this one
first. Yeah. This is important. Or just for
the point I'm making anyway. He says, our
republic hangs by a thread.
Answer the call.
Okay. So hangs by a thread does not
feel like winning.
Right? So simultaneously,
promise is kept. We're winning. We're taking the
deep state. Remember, the other day, they're shaking.
Deep state is on the run. And now
we hang on by a thread?
Oh, because he's trying to sell this thing
at you. Okay. So you it's about selling
you the narrative just like Trump does every
day. Whatever he says here is different than
what he says there because he's got a
different thing he's trying to sell you right
here.
Is that not obvious?
Okay. Then he goes on to say captioning
that, the Democrat party working with the UN
is openly trying to bring down The United
States with replacement migration. Oh, so we're going
back there.
Well, I'm not denying that there's obvious overlaps
to this, but if you're gonna pretend Israel's
not, like, shockingly, like, admitting that they're doing
that, which we know he's doing. He's pulling
punches for Israel all over the place, then
you're lying to yourself and everybody else. Or
that it's just the Democrats and it's about
some you know, it's it's a it's a
fraction of the story to get you looking
in the wrong direction. It's what they do
every single day.
President Trump's actions are 100%
constitutional,
except not at all, though, and have been
upheld by the courts. In fact, that's not
true. That's actually ridiculous.
Do you are you not paying attention? You
watch this show. You know they've been shouted.
The courts have ruled against them more than
they have not in the context of immigration.
And look at what they're doing with the
burning of the flag.
That's this is the day it happened.
100% constitutional? Okay. You're I'm embarrassed by you.
And he goes, our republic is literally fighting
for its very survival. Say it again later
in the day. Okay. Same day. PM. When
the indictments come, I want all of your
apologies because everyone's calling him out for how
ridiculous it is to say that with no
evidence. And then he says, Alex Jones, he
quotes this is him putting out there. Alex
Jones calls out pessimistic patriots
for preaching doom in the face of total
victory.
Okay.
So in the face of total victory, but
at the same exact moment,
the the fighting for its very survival.
Okay. I mean, I guess you could you
could make a point to how that could
pot you could make an argument for those
existing at the same time, but it's starting
to feel a little bit abstract, you know,
all over here and all over there. It's
whatever to sell you on the narrative. But
my bigger point is you can't claim we're
winning and everything's happening the way we all
want it, and there and the deep states
on the run and then claim that we're
fighting for our very survival or that we're
hanging on by a thread.
In this case, it goes back to the,
you know, pace of total victory.
Self immolation is not the answer when grand
juries are open.
Democrats are s h I t themselves in
okay. I mean, are we the only one
that sees how silly this is? I just
feel that it's I'm I'm I'm there are
people that buy this. And this is middle
of the day, January 20 or eight today,
2025.
Exclusive Roger Stone confirms. Oh, cool. Then we
know it's real. Grand juries are being convened
nationwide. Again, it may well be happening.
I hope it does, and I hope it's
applied to just
not just one side of the paradigm and
not selected people that they wanna throw under
the bus to make this all go away.
But But even it does, if there are
people that we know are criminals that go
to jail, good. I'll sell that will be
a positive thing.
But until it happens,
this
incessant repeating of this point when everything else
is going on feels like what you think
it does.
But he says, Roger and Alex Jones, then
war game, the Democrats admitted plan to responding.
Okay. So now you're taking a hypothetical and
war game planning around what you'll do next.
You know how many times Roger Stone has
said things that literally turned out to be
false? But but he says it, so it
must be true. But Maxwell Maxwell said Trump's
innocent too, so we know that now. Same
kinda point.
But here is just a flashback to July
22.
Paul, global bombshell. Like, bombshell is used out.
Trump says we are going after Obama for
his treason, and he's not letting him off
the hook like he did Hillary. Okay. But,
yeah, that was July. How are we how
are we looking on that? How's that working
out? Ukraine war is already over. Trump and
Netanyahu have already split clearly. Right? Nope. None
of those things are true, but we've all
been told that's what's going on.
DOJ sources confirm indictments of deep state coup
plotters are evident.
We'll have to wait and see.
But Obama, right? That was in a that
was day after day when it was the
real talk. That's common. Obama's going down. The
indictments are out okay. And where are we?
They even there was even this whole point
to put out who they were gonna call
in, and I haven't seen any movement on
that. Not to say it won't happen.
But shouldn't we all
be especially skeptical of the government that we
claim? Like, that's the point. They are the
power. They're the government right now. So
hasn't he told you your whole life to
be critical of the government?
So when they when they're claiming these things,
we shouldn't just blindly accept that. Right?
Yes.
Logic. We
shouldn't. But here he is again. Trump as
DOJ is going for massive indictments of deep
state leaders as well as their minions.
And I simply said, seems to be all
he can talk about right now. It really
is if you look. I guess we'll find
out. Meanwhile,
Trump says, a lot of people are saying,
maybe we like a dictator,
to make the point. You know, it's like,
what's going on right now is so crazy,
and all they can do is point away
at something that isn't even happening yet, if
it does at all.
And, you know, okay. If if we got
somebody who's literally rolling out a a police
state, violating your constitutional rights, and then he
uses those powers to go after people that
don't he doesn't like, even if they're actually
criminals, doesn't that feel a little bit wrong?
Like, in the way it's happening, I'll still
cheer on criminals going to jail. But you
must realize if a criminal is using criminals
to put criminals in jail, yeah, you know,
it doesn't feel like a win to me.
But here's this article. Donald Trump says, maybe
people like a dictator, which we already played
for you on the clip. But we'll leave
it there for today, guys. I will I
will come back to these. I have Laurie
lined up for the most part, but just
briefly, the point of of Garcia, as you
already know, is that he was detained again.
And then they even though they basically promised
they wouldn't do that and here's what's funny
about the DHS point too.
One, here they are putting him out as
MS thirteen even though their evidence proves that
that's the evidence doesn't back that up. And
that's the White House
lying through their teeth,
but they put out this thing about him
claiming he
was MS thirteen.
Again, the same what we've shown you before.
We have all the documents in this right
here.
August 22, the unprecedented gaslighting lies around Garcia.
And I have all the court documents that
were out at that point that proved everything
we're saying, that go back to the old
claims, the claims of wife being the claims
of everything.
And proves to you, if you just care
to look, that they're lying to you very
clearly
with source material.
But they put this out on the twenty
fifth, the Homeland Security account, and Melnick just
says this is a lazy claim that presumes
that you won't read the document. Why? Because
in fact, when the portion they didn't even
post, which is why they did that,
says that an unnamed source that was never
identified, which you all know because you watch
this show, was the one who claimed he
was MS 13.
It's not validated as they claim. Multiple federal
judges have dismissed it as inadequate. And then
don't forget that that unnamed source guy was
then or rather the the the cop that
used it
pointing to somebody they never verified was then
fired for corruption. That's the story, guys. It's
wild, and that's what they've used the whole
time going forward. Right?
Or that they actually say here today, Noem
announced that ICE arrested Garcia.
Well, he didn't. He was detained because he
turned himself in.
They can't even be honest about that because
they're so desperate to make themselves look like
they're winning and we're fine. We're okay. We
talk them down.
Nope. Really embarrassing, actually, to even try to
frame it that way. Then here,
they say Garcia previously admitted he was here
illegally.
Do you realize how distorted in defense, how
insulting that is? Because the reality is this
is old dude. Here's the, selective clip that
says he was here. Yes. Everybody knows that.
He was here illegally
back when that happened in Home Depot. Right?
Okay.
Then the got they they went to deport
him, and then Trump's administration,
The very people trying to lie to you
right here were the ones that gave him
the holding of removal because he was worried
about political persecution.
That's where the story ended.
Trump's team decided he was not a risk
and let him stay.
So now pointing back to so look. He
admitted he was here. They're trying to manipulate
you in very clumsy fashion.
Then they came back all that time later
and used all these other claims. Or it's
just it's just I've gone through all of
it many times.
It just bothers me how willfully dishonest they
are.
And on top of that, Melnick's also pointing
out what I've been telling you the whole
time.
Trump administration
not trying. They already did. They dismissed MS
thirteen leaders charges. They said that they're sending
back to El Salvador because he had a
deal with them. And as he simply points
out, I remain surprised that this isn't a
bigger story.
You're telling us you're going after people because
they're MS thirteen gang members, but you're releasing
all the leaders?
It's just it's just so dumb at its
core. It's it's it's just insulting.
And and I'll go through a lot more
of these really horrifying claim, you know, veterans
being arrested. You know, this guy oh, this
guy is a DC lawyer.
This guy was a a a US,
which one?
Oh, he's a US citizen who looks like
he's just brown skin, and they just wouldn't
they wouldn't accept that he was a US
citizen. They've held him for it just it's
it shows you every day what they're actually
doing.
Papers, please, reality is where we are. Army
based net that was used for World War
two Japanese internment will now be used as
the nation's largest ICE detention center. Bruce Fine
nailed it. Exactly what he was saying.
600,000
Chinese people are being allowed in for immigrants
now. Do you know that? We'll talk about
it in the next show. That's that's true.
Right? Afrikaners, come on in. 600,000
Chinese people, come on in, which it's you
guys can decide whether you think that's good.
It's it's hip hypocritical
to say this can't happen. We're shutting down
all the immigrants because, oh, just just the
ones that Israel doesn't like.
It's it's even the world rumors like, no.
Not the Chinese. They're all spies because she's
such a moron. They're of course, some of
them could be. You know, it's just such
a weird but the point is it doesn't
make any sense. You're all being played. You're
all being manipulated if you care to listen
to these people. Now I I I I've
talked about this many times. I haven't gone
into it because by the time I came
I had a few days that I wasn't
working. I came back and I I honestly
feel like this has been very well covered.
Gen x girl did a great job. Alex,
what was it again? Or excuse me, Tom
Alexandrovich,
you an Israeli government entity under Netanyahu that
got arrested for a child sex sting, and
they let him go. Meanwhile, trying to and
meanwhile, the same time,
shoot. Where was that?
Oh, it is right here. Oh, it's the
same one. Meanwhile,
Trump set to eliminate no cash bail in
DC with executive order. Right? So while he's
doing that,
he's letting pedophiles go, making it harder for
Americans to get out of jail, but they're
letting pedophiles flee the country with no charge.
It's just so insulting.
Here's Khaleesi breaking it down. You can prove
yourself. Here's the documents and everything. Here's his
LinkedIn page.
Right? And just in case you're really still
trying to push back on this because they
lied.
Israel lied, said he wasn't arrested, then he
got proved he was. Then Trump's team tried
to lie and say they weren't involved, then
they got proved they were, and they're both
Zionist.
No joke, guys. Very easy to prove. And
nobody cares about that on the team short
Republican side. Big surprise.
100% charged on the county website. He was
charged with luring a child. And just so
it's clear, we literally have that now on
our website. Shout out to I think it's
breaking point that posted this, but this is
the actual paper. You can read it for
yourself.
And the point that stood out,
he admitted to having been engaged in the
aforementioned communications with the decoy juvenile as articulated
under the summary. 15 year old is what
it was. Due to the aforementioned facts and
circumstances, I determined that Alexandrovich did commit the
offense of luring
a minor using technology. That's what the the
police said. He was subsequently transported to Henderson
Detention Center and booked accordingly.
He's from Israel and is visiting for the
Black Hat Conference, works for Israeli government agency
right there, and has so far approximately fourteen
years. Alexandrovich stated he has never been arrested
and was not familiar with the consequences of
speaking or not speaking with The US. Agent
note, Walsh stated he was not able to
give a legal advice. However, he wanted his
story to be heard and says, Alexandrovich stated
he was a at at has a meeting
with the NSA tomorrow
and has been it has met several bureau
people and NSA people over the past week.
He described the bureau agents as one of
of of one white guy who was tall
and bald and one black guy in case
that means something to you. But, yeah, meeting
with the NSA.
You know, they let him go. He fled
the country. They don't care. Even Glenn Greenwald
called it out as the US depart state
department tried to lie about it. They were
aware that he was the Israeli citizen was
arrested. They put they basically claimed that we
didn't have anything to do with it. They're
lying about it, and that's why he called
them out. This wasn't some low level obscure
bureaucrat. He works with the Israeli National Cyber
Directorate, which reports to that in Yahoo. How
do you release a foreign national on a
major felony charge with no passport seizure? Everyone
knows why, guys.
And then the Utah attorney, Chata,
who, by the way, literally ran on the
fact that she's Israeli
fighting against the the squad. That's what her
big push was.
She put this out on the eighteenth. The
August 6 is when this happened.
She was involved and then only came out
with it the when she was when she
became aware that everyone knew about it. So
she said, a liberal district attorney and state
count judge in Nevada failed to require an
alleged she's lying.
Straight up.
Gen x girl called it out. Everyone can
prove it. She's literally she is a Zionist
who let another Zionist go for child sexual
crimes,
and here she is trying to claim. And
then, of course, you could look at her
other information, which is there too. People posted
it down here of all the other quotes
and things she said that are horrifying that
she deleted.
And then this is funny to me.
Alex Jones on the twenty fourth because everyone's
going, why are you talking about this? And
I think we know why.
Actually, it was the day before we talked
about it, but he goes, breaking.
Twitter confirmed the removal of this guy was,
you know, blah blah blah. Seriously, it's funny
to me. He says breaking and then literally
plays Kim Iverson's report that was from a
couple days before that. So I said, I
always love when Alex reports on something everyone
seems to already know, uses someone else's work
to do it, and then still somehow writes
breaking.
Just make me laugh. So stupid.
And then here he is back home in
Israel, or technically I think this before, but
that's the same guy on the corporate media
in Israel talking
about he admits
he is the one submitting social media takedown
requests for Israel.
40,000 of them, 90% approved. Twitter, everything.
No big deal.
And Kash Patel,
no one is above the law, he writes.
And then the context underneath was added. Well,
they did let this guy go,
the Israel child predator.
And then they deleted that.
It's not an, that oh, where's the other
one?
Oh, I didn't I was rushing through it.
There's one where I have it, it might
be right here.
I had the I had the tweet where
he says,
no one is above the law. We've all
most of you seen it. The point is
that's
no longer there.
They got Twitter to remove that factual statement.
So Khaleesi said cash was community noted. Why
is it now gone?
I think we know. I think we all
know why, and it sure ain't free speech.
Now
last few points. This is an old story
from the February 2024. And it's about, guess
what? The son of an Israeli diplomat who
intentionally ran over a Miami cop
was let go
and released back to Israel. No big deal
though. Right? It's not like it's a continual
thing. Oh, yeah. It turns certainly seems when
you look into it to be a really
common thing that happens. And it's not just
Israel. I cover this a lot. Saudi Arabia
does the exact same thing. And it's hard
not to connect the same point though, seeing
as how it all overlaps. But
multiple examples. Saudi fugitive is accused of serious
crimes, get help to flee while US officials
look the other way.
It's not hard to find.
I covered it in this episode back in
02/2019.
Or, technically, there's an article we posted, but
I covered it in an episode.
And I was gonna make a point about
the department of war, you know, just showing
you, you know, really the peace president clearly
as as comrade Misty points out, peace president
as he's going, department of war sounds better.
I don't wanna be defense only.
What are you talking about?
It's not a game, man. This isn't some
toy box you're playing in.
Heck, Seth. This is short. I'll play this.
This is ins you know,
it just shows you who these people are.
Oh, man. I haven't been playing this the
whole time.
Nobody in the chat told me. How long
ago was that gone off the
oh, well.
That's crazy. Usually, somebody tells me. Anyway, clearly
for the pod or I mean, not clearly,
but for the podcast, I didn't have the,
the screen up on on there. If somebody
wants to tell me where I left off,
I could at least it doesn't I mean,
I I could just briefly go through it.
But, I mean, I I was showing you
guys some of this stuff.
Some of I think some of it mattered.
You know, like, some of these things I
was showing you, like, to see it made
a difference. But, anyway,
most of it was stuff I'm gonna go
back through, in a in a future show.
So if you wanna look through it, I'll
I'll include most of this either way.
Thanks a lot, chat. You guys let me
chat. I'm just kidding. But so here we
go with the last points. Oh, yeah. This
part. So this was the clip I was
gonna play. This is Hakseth.
Day turns into a Not that one.
Here it is.
My my platoon in Guantanamo Bay, our motto
was,
those who long for peace
must declare for war.
Did you hear that?
Totally logical, right? It's not Orwellian at all.
Those who long for peace
must declare war. Yeah. Spoken like a real
defense contractor,
government defender. Like, that's so insulting.
So you could you I mean, that you
could argue those who want peace
must prepare for war,
not declare war. Right? Like, I mean, that's
it's a very different way to say that,
I think, by design. Also, you know, as
unit at Guantanamo, because those are the people
you wanna listen to about peace. Right?
Must prepare for war. We don't want war.
We don't seek it. You are the peace
president, sir. Because we are strong, our enemies
know what we will do. And so whether
it's secretary of war or secretary of defense,
that warrior ethos is changing. We're going back
to basics.
Our drilling
You know, if you understand this, we've talked
about it many times over the years. The
reason they changed it is because they wanted
to propagandize you. They wanted you to think
that we were fighting wars. We were defending
ourselves, but everywhere.
It's just a simple social engineering experiment, guys.
And all they're doing now is they they're
trying to whatever whether it's because we're rolling
back into this, the technocrat led, like, we
don't care what you think. I I don't
know. But it really does show you that
they're trying to, you know let me let
me put it this way. It's all opinion.
One of two things I would think. Either
they're doing that because
they're trying to signal to you that they
are going to go to war everywhere and
they want you to be on board with
it. Or like I said, it feels like
there's some kind of a destructive element to
this. You know, you don't just expose the
fact that we've been deceiving you this whole
time and call yourself the peace president and
then let it clearly come out that you're
going to be going to war. It just
seems counterintuitive. It doesn't make logical sense from,
like, a usual political standpoint.
So I just find that to be interesting,
and I wonder whether it's more about,
you know, like, deliberately trying to collapse things.
I've just worth considering.
Trump has shattered the annual record for airstrikes
in Somalia. Peace president, though. Right? It's true.
More it's it's everywhere you look. This is
the case.
Israel just bombed a serial hospital. A Reuters
journalist in the hospital, but they bombed the
hospital first,
waited for them to come in, and then
bombed it again.
Because that's what they normally do. Right? But
then they say, hey. We're sorry about that
mistake.
No joke.
Israel what's funny is so this Israel Defense
Forces confirmed it did hit it, but, you
know, that it was that it was an
accident, which ultimately what they're arguing.
Then on the media, though, in Israel, they
reported pretty broadly that it was actually approved
from the highest levels
because they knew who was there.
This is what we keep showing you in
their media, in the Knesset. They're like, we
got that Reuters journal, like, that kind of
thing. And we just don't we're not honest
about it.
But that again, and as Caitlin Johnstone points
out, the eighth.
Remember that time in the beginning where they
were like, we're not doing that. You're fake
news. And this is the eighth time they
bombed that hospital. So explain to me why
the second time made sense. Explain to me
why the fourth time are we claiming there's
still secret tunnels and human shields. They're just
bombing people who are trying to make that
place somewhere they can have refuge. It's
disgusting to me, and this is what Trump
and the rest of them support. Always, this
matters to me in any conversation we're having
about whether they're people you should listen to,
whether they're people who care about human life
or care about your rights or care about
anything.
Lastly, as I just showed you the other
day,
here's Aviv of Klompas, one of these really
just floundering
Zionist propagandists
because the whole world sees them,
saying more incredible scenes of protests in Tel
Aviv. What did I just tell you?
These are massive protests to people who are,
in many cases, carrying signs of dead children.
They're protesting for them to end the war,
to take a deal.
And in this case, many of them are
literally like, we want this to end because
you're killing children. Now that's again, that is
not the majority in Israel, but we I
just reported on this massive 300,000
protests who are openly calling for the end
of this. One of them were saying, GHF,
there's genocide. They're killing children.
And what I tell you,
these very desperate Zionists will go and say,
look at their our protest for you to
get release the hostages,
which in a way is what they're saying,
but they're calling for the Israeli government to
make that happen because they know they're the
ones stopping it. And yet she just she
tries to make it out, and she doesn't
really even frame it that. She just says
in scenes for a protest
in hopes that you'll go, oh, they're fighting
on our side.
It's just it's
it's ridiculous how desperate they are, and I
it's clear why
everyone sees them. Nobody's falling. Now, again, I
am being hyperbolic there, but I do mean
it in a in a I'm using it
that way for a reason. It's not literally
everybody, but it is clear that the majority
for a long time now
recognizes what this is. All around the world,
you can't deny this anymore, guys. It's I
mean, you can't deny that it's every major
human rights groups and almost every platform that's,
like, mainstream or otherwise has acknowledged famine, genocide,
everywhere.
Even though in many cases, they're still pulling
punches. Right?
Just very, very clear. And they are all
involved in this. Like, let's make the bigger
point in regard to the world.
Yes. Epstein's a major story that they're covering
up. Yes. What they're doing with health is
crazy. This is the biggest thing in the
world.
This ongoing genocide in multiple nations in the
same agenda is
overwhelming
and less and less are people even pointing
to it. I mean, even in my coverage,
the only reason I would focus on is
is because I know you guys are aware
of this, and I know that we've covered
it, like, extensively, and I still will when
they but it's like some days, it's like,
you know, we know that there's killing, which
I hate even saying out loud, but at
the end of the day, we have to
cover a lot of other things too. So
even that makes me disgusted that this this
should be twenty four seven all the time.
Look at what they're doing, not this protest,
but the reality of the ongoing genocide.
It really is the most important thing in
the world.
I mean, it's what you know, removing your
our personal political drive. Like, if you're objectively
looking at everything, this has to be what
we care about most. And that's gonna bother
people who wanna make it about personal you
know, how how else can we cover this?
The amount of people that are suffering, the
amount of if you just no. It's not
just suffering. Do the the created famine.
Fake pieces of food that blow up in
children's hands, shooting them while they try to
scrape dry rice out of the dirt.
You know, you just this is,
you know, something that will stick with me
forever,
and it should.
But we'll get into plenty more in the
next show, guys. I'll leave it there for
today, but I'll leave you with a clip.
Linda Momoun says, professor Jeffrey Sachs, we're seeing
something that is beyond imagining taking place before
our eyes.
I agree.
Plenty more to get to, guys.
We will see you in the next show.
I love you all. As always, question
everything.
Come to your own conclusions.
Stay vigilant.
Israel
is the most lawless,
violent,
criminal,
rogue state on the planet.
It is committing a genocide. It
is starving 2,000,000 people,
and it is now proposing to do more
very explicitly.
First, to
occupy
Gaza through another major military operation
against the population facing starvation
and in the occupied West Bank Of Palestine,
to establish
new settlements
that explicitly,
according
to
the minister,
zealot minister of
this government,
Smotrich,
will destroy any chance
for a state of Palestine.
In other words, Israel is not only committing
a genocide, it is upping the ante right
now. It is a rogue state
operating
completely outside of international law,
spitting in the face of the entire world,
the American people are overwhelmingly
against what Israel is doing overwhelmingly,
and they are calling for The United States
to recognize
a state of Palestine I'm
sorry to be I'm sorry to be so
blunt, but we have not seen anything so
shocking
as this
in our lifetimes, actually,
in, recent decades.
What is happening right now is utter criminality.
What is The US doing about it? It
is siding
with Israel
in everything. It is completely complicit
in everything.
It
sanctions
the International Criminal Court,
which cites these war crimes. It sanctions the
judges of the International Criminal
Court. President Trump declares that Netanyahu, who presides
over these crimes,
is a
a great person
and a war hero,
and he calls himself a war hero also
for his war on Iran.
We are seeing
something that is
beyond imagining,
taking place before our eyes, and it is
two countries doing it, not one. It is
The United States and Israel.
And how Trump operates
in this way and draws the American people
against our will
into this is a disgrace. He calls himself
a peace president. This is a genocide president.
We are disgusted
by the behavior of Washington.
It's Trump. It's the congress in the hands
of this lobby
that is committing
a genocide.
We're disgusted. It has to stop. And this
is the overwhelming view of the American people.