Because we're losing a lot of people because
of the Internet, and we have to do
something. We have to go see Bill Gates
and a lot of different people
that really understand what's happening. We have to
talk to them maybe in certain areas closing
that Internet up in some way. Somebody will
say, oh, freedom of speech. Freedom of speech.
These are foolish peep
Charlie said,
you know, that there was no such thing
as hate speech.
He obviously
you know, no one anticipated what what happened
to Charlie, but
you have always been
It
starts with a simple question
and ends in objective reality. Reality.
Through our journey there to here,
we find one another
and ourselves.
And as the next twenty four hours breaks
free from our last,
we gaze onward in reflection of the day.
Welcome to the daily wrap up.
Friday, 09/19/2025.
Thank you for joining me today. Really just
a large follow-up from yesterday's show, some important
things that I wanted to add onto it.
We did quite a few you know, I
think the last two shows we did were
almost, if one was over five hours, the
one before that was
just just close to five hours. Today shouldn't
be as long as that, but I wanted
to make sure we followed up and really
kinda get into some of the additional points
to
I mean, really, most of what we're gonna
discuss today is kind of the ongoing, as
I framed it in the title, the never
ending or I think I changed it from
something else, but the endless never ending battle,
false battle, the illusory battle between of, you
know, the free speech fake battle between
the two party illusion, the partisan manipulators.
The idea that they're always fighting for free
speech against the other side when all ultimately,
they all do the same thing when they're
the ones not in the seat of power.
You know, always the rebels fighting the deep
state. Right? And that's just how this continues
to go. And and what's the common
outcome
of that false battle?
You lose rights. We lose rights. We get
suppressed. We get subjugated. The people fall further
and further away from what we think this
country should be because, well, this is not
so good. There's not you know, this is,
you know, lesser evils,
rationalization,
narrative, justification
for the things that we know we shouldn't
allow. They may just sound like logic in
the moment. You know? This is what the
adults in the room, you know, before the
election,
even though everything that we were saying turned
out to literally be happening. But they shouted
people down from caring about those things because,
you know, the mainstream adults in the room
understand that you have to choose one of
the two chosen, you know,
war criminals, whatever you wanna call the the
many different things you could put on top
of people like both Kamal Harris and Donald
Trump and and anybody else you could point
to behind them in the partisan game, the
the government.
It's very important to see that these people
all have the same tendencies. They all have
the same willingness to ignore the problem on
their own side, the same efforts to try
to censor people on the other side to
say things they don't like while claiming it's
because it's legitimate, because they're inciting violence, because
what they're doing is against the law, whatever
narrative narrative narrative. And maybe sometimes it's even
the case, but none of those things undermine
the reality of your first amendment. And they
continue
continue to push it from their side. Now
right now, the free speech part of it
is really paramount.
It I mean, it is paramount. It's really
important. And it's what it's it's this
fever pitch.
I don't know where like, I I I
very much wanna stress again that up until
now and still to this point for the
large point, you know, general conversation,
I think most Americans are not fitting into
these left right boxes they've created.
And I think that's why this is getting
so ridiculous, so, like, cartoonishly
partisan.
But right in this moment right now, I'm
actually not sure where that line is drawn
in regard to those who are kinda getting
pulled into the rationale
of the left versus right censorship free speech
dilemma.
The because it's so easy to fall for
the first trap.
They did it first,
and you're damn right they did. They being
the left, whatever that the generalization of as
if that's just one group of a category
as opposed to a multifaceted
side of people who have similar standings on
positions just like the right. Yeah. There is
a core, obviously, and then the team sport
politics blind core that just goes along even
if it contradicts yesterday with whatever the team
says.
The point though is that, you know, it's
it's consistent. As I said yesterday, it's the
partisan team sport politics. It's one group when
you break it down. People that are willing
to ignore the thing they claim they're fighting
for when they're the ones in power. It's
very, very consistent.
Now today, that's kind of you know, one
of the largest points we're gonna focus on
is how that hypocrisy continues and how many
people are out there saying they deserve it.
They did it first. Even for the first
time,
people that are saying it is hypocritical, but
we're doing it anyway because they deserve it,
which is interesting to me because it's like,
well, okay. That's refreshing. At least they're being
honest about the fact that they don't care
that they have no principle. Like we said
yesterday, that's what that comes down to.
Even in that moment, let's just even say
that going forward for the rest of your
life, you uphold that principle. In that moment,
all you really demonstrated was a weakness, a
smallness. You're being petty, and you're showing that
that matters more to you than your principles.
I don't know how you can respect somebody
like that no matter how egregious the acts
were to begin with.
As I've said so many times over the
years, like, with foreign policy, with any number
of things, If your response is to do
the same thing back, then you are the
same thing. Doesn't matter how you paint yourself,
how you view it, how you other the
other side, how you dehumanize what you're trying
to fight.
They're using guys, right now, the one of
the largest things is they're making us as
anybody doing this long enough has already seen,
they're simply making us fight each other.
And I'm not talking about the mainstream alternative
media and the mainstream media. I think these
things, whether they know it or not, are
completely captured, blind to what's happening, or are
aware of it and don't care. But the
majority of people underneath all that, far too
many people are heated and pointing at the
other side. And in many ways, justifiable anger,
but baiting you into thinking they're your enemy
even though they're just as lost and confused
as many of us are and pointing back
at you. When the real culprit are the
ones that are you know, what that analogy
of the red and black ants? It's the
it's the the real entity that's shaking the
bottle that we're all inside of. That's what
the real problem is.
So on top of that larger point that
we will continue to break down,
I'm gonna get into a couple other points.
I'm gonna give you some updates briefly to
start one quick one on the kind of,
continuation of the point around Epstein and and
Kash Patel.
Some opening points that I think are just
relevant to follow-up on, you know, there's, like,
six, seven different points I just wanna give
you one update on, from yesterday's show, couple
of things from foreign policy, and then we're
gonna make an interesting point to start around
GRAK in Israel.
Really, the way I framed it might be
a little bit
it it I mean, it's accurate, but it's
not the first time. Let's put it that
way. This is not the first time we've
seen GRAK sort of recognize the facts and
then get yanked back by the reins, act
like he act like, you know, we're gonna
fix Grok for you and then try to,
like, tweak it so it doesn't say the
thing we all know is actually happening, or
in alternative cases where they say something we
can prove is false. And And that's also
not what the right wants you to hear.
Right? It's it's just basically about narrative control.
And in this case, I'm only saying the
right because that is where this obliges to,
but you know my opinion. This is not
some right good guy, left bad guy, or
vice versa. This is very clearly the people
who are using the left right paradigm to
keep us fighting each other and
ultimately using,
you know
I guess the best way to say it,
people like Elon Musk don't really care about
those things. Not really as as much as
they make you think this is what it's
about. They're using these as tools to put
you into position for the larger agenda as
I would see it. And, hopefully, I can
paint that picture for you today. But I'll
is Grok is telling you, I'm not defending
Israel anymore. And I had to make sure
it was real. I've got the actual tweet
because there's a lot of screenshots sharing, and
we shouldn't trust that today more than ever
or if ever. And it's very real.
Yes. I've ceased defending Israel, says Grok.
They are committing a genocide according to everybody
that matters, says Grok paraphrasing.
And it's
it's interesting with what's going on, even with
the overlap of Charlie Kirk and Elon Musk
and Israel. And
I I don't think this is what they
want. I don't think this is what they're
trying to accomplish. And I'm willing to bet
you we're gonna have another update for Grok
to make that go away, but I guess
we'll wait and see. We're also gonna talk
about
the I mean, really not much at all
in regard to the updates in the case
of Tyler Robinson. I'm sure there'll be more
to come. But we're gonna go into the
actions around it all, which is largely what
was yesterday was about as well, but this
specifically in regard to the evolution of it
from yesterday and mostly what's happening today. And
you'll see how we frame this.
I I it's just it's quite unnerving to
see how dishonest it is at its core,
but also the point of the DEI overlap
where we're gonna show very clearly how, again,
when it comes to the principle of it
all, not the actual out you know, what
they're pointing to to justify it. But what's
the real outcome? What's the principle behind it
or lack thereof? The idea is that if
you're talking about DEI, you could claim it's
because they care about race and care about
well, historically, I don't think that's I think
it's pretty clear that most of them are
using these things to get
to achieve a political end.
And we should fight anything that I think
is not about meritocracy at the end of
the day. So that's what we were hearing
while it was the left. Now all of
a sudden, you get the right in power,
and what are they doing? Well, it's definitely
not meritocracy, guys. And you could point to
his cabinet to make that a shockingly clear
revelation, hopefully. Whether it's Cash Patel, Bongino, or
Nancy Mace, or anybody else we're talking about,
we're gonna get into the
people that are being put in that position.
More media rather in the cases of, diplomats,
for example. People who are media personalities.
Well, are they the best person for that
job? Are they the most credentialed person for
that job? Well, clearly not. So just because
you don't see that as the woke version
and you pretend like it's not the exact
same concept, because it comes to the way
that it's used.
A justification for what you want even though
it doesn't seem to make sense or however
you wanna frame it. And my point is
that there's the same kind of things happening
through Israel and antisemitism
or, you know, controlling through hate speech or
the idea of how like, what I just
described. And we'll go through that today. We're
also gonna talk about
the update rather kind of the continuation like
most of it is today in regard to
the discussion of Netanyahu and Trump. And it's
getting more and more recognized that
not just that Trump's the reporting from Wall
Street Journal, but that there's a large amount
of sources. And we're even going back to
the Charlie Kirk point and his changing of
his mind.
Left and right, people are coming out and
going, not only did I see that, not
only was I there, not only did I
hear it from Charlie, there's just no hiding
what this is now. And on top of
that, that net it seems that Trump more
and more is being shown to be, I
don't know whether you wanna call it, frightened,
concerned,
angry.
Something's wrong between you know? But at the
end of the day, when it comes to
the relationship, still blindly supporting Netanyahu.
Now I can't tell whether that's support. They
actually like each other and this is sort
of something they're projecting to cause the division
or or, you know, the make you think
they're not on the same side for obvious
political reasons
or because it's really about creating
you know,
people that pick sides at the end of
the day. But I wanna get into the
idea about how Trump is, at least on
the record in many ways, unhappy with what
Netanyahu is doing. And then with you recognize
the continuation of the support for Israel blindly,
what does that really show you?
And I wanna get into the last part
largely about, like I said, the the responses
to things like AOC and the the crew
the squad, like, what they call the squad.
Right? It's what they call them. And the
way that they're all losing their minds because
they just won't say or, really,
saying anything bad about Charlie Kirk.
At a time when you're screaming about free
speech and they're coming out and saying fascist,
saying bad person,
and we're acting like this is unspeakable.
That's you know, I mean, it's wild to
watch. Now, again, I'm gonna make my do
my best to not reiterate that same point
because a lot of it's gonna be the
same point. But, you know, I just hope
it doesn't get missed on people. This the
I'm gonna just, you know, reiterate the same
general point and not go into it deep
every time, but the reality of how willfully
dishonest it
is, or that they just don't even understand
what the principle is. I don't know how
I don't know honestly know what's more alarming.
But we're also gonna talk about Jimmy Kimmel
and that point within it all and the
frustrating reality like we were saying in the
beginning
of people acting like pointing out the principle
is somehow defending somebody like Jimmy Kimmel, for
example. Yes. We all saw his absurd coverage
during COVID nineteen. And, yes, I think people
like that, whether they're successful or getting views
or not, are a useful tool for the
propaganda machine left and right. Right? So with
the the point with all of this now
is the way that it's happening within all
of this conversation.
And, I mean,
it's just very transparent to see that this
person was doing something wrong before. Doesn't mean
you shouldn't do the same thing back now.
But that's why they paint the narrative a
little different, you know, massage it a little
bit and say, no. No. No. ABC did
that. Ignore all of the moving hand that
made that happen. We'll go into the whole
story and just simply show you why it's
important to have principle in the conversation. And
if you do, it seems more and more
impossible for people in the partisan sides to
even have a, you know,
debate, let alone have a conversation with you,
or I guess the other way around. Now
let's start with something I think is important.
It's just that I hope you'll watch.
This was a, now you guys have seen
this, actually. I'll grab this one too. So
you you have this one and the longer
version,
which I I'm not sure which one. I'm
I honestly don't know which one most people
would prefer.
Oh, what was it? The,
this one. I'm kinda half joking when I
say that. I think that's pretty split down
the middle with the audience about those who
really like the long shows and those I
personally think that if you really, really wanna
get into it, the long show is an
absolute because there's no real way. I mean,
an hour is a good version of it.
That's what this one is here.
This is the technocratic tiptoe show we did
about the this is a four hour presentation
about just where this is going and all
the moving parts and from vaccinations to self
amplifying to the, you know, digital surveillance to
digital IDs to digital money. Like, you know,
I do my best to kind of encapsulate
the real picture. And I I thought I
thought I did a good job on this,
and I feel like it got a lot
of good attention. I did a presentation for
this for c local c h d CHD
chapter. Catherine Austin Fitts reached out for me
to do a presentation for their they do
a legislative briefing for people that basically have
subscriptions through them that come, and many of
them are people actually in state and and
different and local legislation. And they have the
ability to maybe institute and pass laws. And
so there was, I don't think I don't
know, 500 people that tuned in. Briefing for
state leaders, the digital control grid, how long
before the frog hits the boiling point. And
this is basically my presentation aside from some
questions at the end and some talking in
the beginning. And I may I pretty much
made it to an hour. I was really
proud of myself.
The point though is that this is an
important conversation that I think is worth sharing
with people to understand where this is really
going. But if you have the time, I
really recommend you watch the longer version and
and and go through all the source material.
But appreciate that. I was honored to be
a part of this. I hope you guys
will check it out if you haven't seen
it already.
Oh, and then some opening points I wanted
you to see.
Follow ups from yesterday for the most part.
This one, I just in case you didn't
see this, it was in the middle of
the show. I just found this very relevant
to where we are. This is, and I
included this in this post a an unlimited
hangout article,
which was, the Palantir's Tiberius race and the
public health panopticon.
This is an AMA at Ask Me Anything.
Here's the link to it. For Peter
Thiel eleven years ago. One of the questions
in there, and you can look for it's
it's linked right there. Is Palantir a front
for the CIA? And he responds by saying,
no. The CIA is a front for Palantir.
They could argue he's being, you know, joking,
but look at what's going on today.
You know, it's an interesting and very telling
statement.
And I just simply said interesting response from
Peter Thiel during his AMA eleven years ago.
Someone asked, like I just told you, then
they said, no. CIA is a friend for
Palantir. Certainly feels relevant today. Make sure you
read Whitney's article to go deeper into the
total information awareness overlap into what Palantir is.
Also included the one about Bitcoin where he
simply points out that pay they created PayPal
to basically create a a new world currency.
It's exactly what he says and then failed
in doing so. And then also points out
that Bitcoin could be a viable version of
that should it become more viable and
ultimately we see how it's being used today.
And I include another article from Whitney about
that. And really just it is they're bastardizing
Bitcoin or, you know, if you understand, I
think the reality was already done before, but
I think these are steps to get here.
In just interesting points to include. In case
you missed this buried in the show before,
I'll include that as a tweet you guys
can read. Couple foreign policy points before we
get into the reg the most the the
meat of the show.
This is, JD Vance. He literally just said,
I wouldn't go fishing right now in that
area in the world.
Like, even just making a joke about the
idea that you're assassinating fishing boats, claiming with
no evidence that they're drug traffickers. First of
all, the first one, if there even ever
was evidence, we never got it. That's illegal
no matter how you spin that, especially since
it's international waters, especially since they don't have
some legal right to just murder people under
claims of drug trafficking anywhere, let alone in
maritime law. But the point
is that they did it again.
And that one apparently has come out to
be pretty clearly not a drug trafficking dynamic.
It was a boat. And they just keep
executing people, and I think this is ultimately
about normalizing that kind of action.
And the joke about they just don't go
fishing in the area, I mean, they're blatantly
showing you their authoritarian tendencies. They're coming right
out and making jokes about it, so you
kind of absorb it and don't even realize
you're laughing about it. He's not kidding.
Daniel McAdams says, is this the kind of
America we wanna live in, where people fishing
in the international waters a thousand miles from
The United States have to fear the US
president snuffing them out?
Sadly, a lot some of them do. Now
I'm of I'm I'm often debate that point.
I'm just not of the mind that most
any category, let especially conserve or let alone
conservatives,
actually believe that makes sense. I do think
a wildly large number of them, far too
many that I'd like more than I'd like
to see, actually absorb this kind of might
makes right, we're powerful, screw everybody else kind
of mindset. And that's been worked into this
country, really from both sides if you look
at the the different ways it's happened. But
I just don't believe
that that many people who seem to tell
themselves that they they, like, their core value
has to do with the constitution and America
first and the values of this country, and
then ignore how that completely contradicts all of
that. You You know what I mean? Like,
I just can't I don't wanna believe that,
but I don't think the data backs it
up either. But the problem is and the
point is I debate with people who
argue, and maybe they're right, that this is
the majority, and that's an alarming thing to
see that people are just get like we
talk about on fine points about the lack
of constitutional education.
You know? What I I really hope it's
not the majority who thinks that this is
okay.
And not even it's not debatable, guys. These
are crimes. Okay? Now if you wanna argue
that you don't care they're crimes, well, then
we can have a conversation. But if you're
starting at it's not, then you are incorrect.
And that's what's so frustrating. It's like the
constitutional rights point for illegal immigrants. You're wrong
if you still think that's not true. Eventually,
when I get to another point about the
immigration conversation or the, you know, update on
Garcia, for example, which will be probably the
next couple shows, I'm gonna go over a
point that is really embarrassing, but yet he's
promoting it like he just dumped on somebody.
Nick Sorter having a conversation with what? Rapskin,
I think, is the guy's name. And, you
know, he the guy's a moron, by the
way, in both. But the guy in congress
is really just a ridiculous person. I mean,
more than most, in my opinion. But the
way that Nick Sorter is taught, he he's
wrong about every point he's throwing at him
about Garcia. We've gone over all this, and
he just keeps shouting all the false information.
But then the way the way that it
continues
like, I'll I'll get into it before, but
or in the next show about it. But
the point is just that this doesn't seem
to go away, the bigger conversation. There was
one more point I was gonna make too.
It was,
well, I guess just the larger thing I
was getting to is the idea that you
normalize the idea of the unconstitutional
actions and you're just proud to stand there
and and scream the wrong thing or just
don't even know any better. You know, that's
it's it's insane. But tomorrow, we'll get to
it. Next show, anyway. Now another point on
the Afghanistan thing, we discussed that yesterday briefly.
And I was just kind of surprised to
hear that, that Trump is openly saying, oh,
you know, kind of breaking news. We're gonna
try to get that base back. And the
secret is they never really left, guys. And
I think you can easily point this out.
Now not like it was before, but you
can show that there is a presence. You
can show that there are operations whether,
contractors or otherwise. And the simple fact that
he now has admitted that they're working to
get the base back makes that point for
you. But interestingly enough,
reported,
the Taliban has rejected Trump's bid to reclaim
the base, vowing to protect their sovereignty,
which, again, don't forget, Taliban were the group
there that they used to justify the invasion
claiming they were terrorists and have worked with
them ever since, which probably was a lie
from the begin to begin with that they
were ever fighting them. But
now
at least stating that they wanna keep them
away, which I think anybody does when they
have their actual sovereignty.
Now the question is, excuse me, what does
he do next?
This is a very telling point. Even the
idea that he's trying to get it back
belies the reality of the, you know, peace
president.
But overall, how much you wanna bet this
becomes an action that okay. Well, we're gonna
take it. Why? Because they can, and they
know they can. Because they're gonna claim, oh,
it's a bunch of terrorists and stuff that
nobody well, it's no it's irrelevant. It's it's
just because there's not some functioning systems there
or there are in some cases, but not
like other countries because you guys destroyed it.
So now you're gonna point to the reality
of that destabilized country and say that's why
we could take it back. Well, you could.
Doesn't make it legal, justifiable,
or even con you know, in any case,
what the claim you guys represent.
But we'll have to see what happens.
Another point on the continuing resolution, just one
point.
We were talking about this a few days
ago. Many of a few scatterings of people
were rightly pointing out that it was basically
Biden's bill. And it's it's what Trump is
out there doing is acting like it's a
common sense bill. It's the same thing. But
this is a perfect analogy, a microcosm of
everything we're talking about today that Trump can
come out and just and point to the
same thing that he called terrible that Biden
was doing and say, but it's the common
sense one. So everyone, the the Knicks order,
and the repeaters out there are gonna say,
the common sense bills. We're fighting the bad
guys, and it's the same thing. So what's
different? The fact that Trump says it's different.
That's the that's what ultimately matters. Here's Thomas
Massie. I'll be voting no on the con
the the continuing resolution
because it's precisely
the same spending levels for the same line
items in Biden's last omnibus omnibus bill,
but with an extension of Obama's
CISA, domestic
spying bill. Okay. So as he's just lying
to people, like, who knows whether the Knicks
of the world care that he's lying or
not or even know any better? The point
is Trump just goes better, good thing, and
they go, yay. Better, good thing, and ignore
the fact that not only is it the
same thing Biden did, but it actually has
spying, domestic spying. But, of course, they'll they'll
either tell themselves it's only about democrat, you
know, whatever the game is. In the but
the reality from a nonpartisan perspective is the
continuing of the domestic surveillance of Americans
and Biden's bill.
But we're hashtag winning, guys, and that's the
kind of game this all is. And if
you understand it from an actual nonpartisan perspective,
it's the same either way you look at
it. Right? It is about the the like,
if again, if you go back to, like,
let's just say the last three administrations.
What do you notice if you actually look?
As I've said for a long time, and
it goes well beyond that too or before
that,
the linear continuation
of damn near every single agenda that we're
seeing come to a head right now.
You can't really ignore that, guys. So even
if you wanna say they were fighting about
different wedge issues that didn't really ultimately materialize
or change much
other than small points,
how do you explain that the larger agendas
have continued through multiple left and right administrations
to a tee, literally handing off the agenda?
I and and so you could argue, well,
they they agree because it's best for the
country. Oh, okay. Wait. Wait. Wait. So now
you're telling me that the the deep state
pedophiles are working with Trump and they agree.
It's okay. We find common ground sometimes with
the deep state pedophiles. Right? All I'm highlighting
there is this hyperbolic
framing of all the terrorist left everybody
except when you guys work together and do
what you like, or you both support Israel,
or you all work on bills in congress,
but they're all terrorists.
You can't really make sense of this unless
you just acknowledge that at the very least,
they're just being a bit hyperbolic,
which is pretty insane when you realize that
they're making a big case about incitement to
violence for doing exactly that.
You gotta call these things out when anybody
does it anywhere. It's not left and right.
It's not unique to anybody other than well,
I wouldn't say anybody, but it's far more
common for partisan team sport politics, ignoring the
truth for their interests
everywhere you look right now. Call it out
wherever it happens. My point is that you
have to recognize that on top of all
of it, they have free speech rights to
say whatever they want. It's up to us
to not be blind followers or to let
blind followers lead us, the blind leading the
blind. Now let's do quick one quick point
from this article around Epstein. This is just
kind of a this up the
what we were saying yesterday, but kind of
written out about the discussion.
And like I said, Epstein victims are very
upset with Kash Patel over the fact that
he's pretending
that there's no
trafficking, saying that he trafficked to himself,
Epstein,
except that Massey came out and quite literally
proved to him in real time that that
wasn't true, and he still just continued to
lie, or that he tried to pretend that
they were boxed out of the investigation because
of the previous,
deal even though Massey said except that only
applies to Florida. Crickets.
Nobody else even followed up? So, Cash, are
you lying about that? Are you telling us
that you didn't know that it was only
Florida? Nope. Nothing. Nobody seems to care about
those bombshell reports except Thomas Massey. It says
a group of survivors
who were victimized by Jeffrey Epstein and his
associate, James Dislaine Maxwell,
slammed FBI director Kash Patel's shocking testimony that
the late sex offender only trafficked young girls
to himself. Now realize, they're all saying release
our information.
Massey revealed that they're all trying to FOIA
their information, and they can't even get a
response from the FBI.
So if who are you protecting if they're
the victims and they're saying we want our
names out there because we're already publicly discussing
this, and he uses them to pretend like
he can't release the information. I think we
all know where this goes. Even the Republicans
all know what's happening here. This many of
them pretend it's not because they don't wanna
hurt their side. Can't countersignal the leader.
Patel faced two days of grilling this week
before the senate judiciary committee and the house
oversight committee becoming combative
in response to bipartisan questions about president Trump's
connections to Epstein.
And the the real embarrassing one was asking
him point blank whether he told Bondi or
Trump about his name being in the files,
and he just tried to protect like, he
very clumsily, like, worse than usual, tried to,
like, dance around the question and not answer
it and just, I think, just made him
embarrassed himself more than usual. Like, trying to,
like, be snide and just did in a
way I mean, all you have to do
if you're gonna make that kind of stand
is just continue to repeat the broad response.
And we all know what's happening, but at
least it doesn't look as bad as it
did when he, like, tries to insult him
back and, like, it just becomes really embarrassing.
Because the only person dancing around the question
is the person denying the question.
He repeatedly deflected and tried to blame previous
administrations,
including officials who served under the first Trump
administration. So this is a guy who's feeling
the heat, recognizing he's the scapegoat if this
goes wrong, and just trying to deflect to
even people on his own side. That's just
cowardice. Right? That shows you no
what would it be really? No nothing sacred
in this conversation, right, that you you I
mean, or just that you recognize that they
don't think you matter. And so you're going,
okay. I'm gonna start dumping it on them
as well. For the current administration's failure to
provide new revelations in the case, during an
exchange Tuesday with Republican senator John Kennedy, he
also insisted there was no credible information.
None.
His words that Epstein trafficked other individuals, a
claim he'd then repeated again with Massey on
Wednesday.
In a joint statement provided to CNN's Jake
Tapper, 12 of Epstein and Maxwell's victims
said they were shocked by Patel's testimony and
were struggling to understand its meaning,
many of which are saying they were trafficked.
You understand?
It's and and by the way, most I
mean, I think pretty much every one of
them have been acknowledged by these people, Patel,
Bongino, the Trump administration as being paramount and
important, and we're gonna make sure we get
the the Biden administration to release what they're
hiding.
Now the only way you can make sense
of his claims is that they're saying that
their testimony is not credible, as it mentions
in this article.
He says, I don't know. Is it Goofray?
The the one that that is no longer
with us,
the victim of Epstein, who died by suicide
in '40 in in age 41, was one
of Epstein's most prominent victims. She said that
Epstein introduced her to prince Andrew who sexually
abused her. The prince has denied the claims
and reached out of court settlement with her
in 2022, because that's usually what you do
when you're not guilty. Right? And that, of
course, contains no admission of liability or apology.
And probably, honestly, there's probably a hell of
a lot of pressure and threats if you
wanna understand how they operate. In their statement,
the survivors noted that during witness interviews with
the FBI, Epstein and Maxwell's victims named at
least 20 other men. Massey brought this up.
That were trafficked to, as Massey pointed out
during the hearing. During Patel's testimony, the FBI
director seemed to suggest that the reports naming
other men were real, as in that they
were on paper
documented,
but the officials in previous administrations had deemed
them not credible.
And all I said at the point was
like, yep. Exactly. Showing you left and right.
Both sides are colluding to make sure you
don't get this information.
It says, quote, he has not read the
report himself. He has not spoken to the
victims himself, and yet he plans
to defer to unnamed officials from prior administrations
who treated the reports as not credible.
Those previous administrations are the ones that Kash
Patel himself spent years accusing of a cover
up. Now he will pass the buck to
them and decide that information
decide, pack the buck to them to decide
that information about other men in the Epstein
Maxwell trafficking ring is not even worth following
up? I mean, so the people you told
us were fake and lying and whole and
covering up, you're saying, but they said it
wasn't credible.
Guys, this guy's trapped in his own broken
logic or his own lies. What do I
always say about that? If you build an
entire lie around what you're doing, you're gonna
end up contradicting it when you come to
another lie. You it eventually, this happens every
time. It's happening to him right now.
Very important.
And also important to recognize how little attention
this case is getting now that they've consumed
the conversation around Charlie Kirk.
And weirdly enough, now getting really worried that
that conversation has bubbled up around Israel, and
now they're trying to hide that too. You
know, same kind of point, actually.
Now one other quick point around something well,
few other quick points, but this one is
one point I wanted to share.
Elon Musk says the illusion has been shattered.
This person saying, I suspect that the whole
trans madness this is on 09/18/2025.
The whole trans madness will die out after
around five years or so. What do I
remember I was just talking about this. Having
been finally debunked scientifically and logically, then in
years to come, the period 2018 to 2030,
what we looked up is a total aberration.
Okay.
There's this is a really important point. Very
sub very abstract. It's just my opinion, but
I want you to think about this.
How long have I mean, let's just even
give credit again like I did last time
about Matt Walsh did an amazing job, I
think, in breaking down the hypocrisy
of this discussion.
His documentary, despite it being in many cases,
derisive, you know, making fun, I think in
many cases that deserved that, but, you know,
it's you know, we've never done it before.
The point was I think he did a
good job on that,
and he absolutely destroyed that. And, I myself
and a lot of other people, and here
I'll include this just a tag for you,
did a lot of work. I mean, this
is this was Derek's,
series on this if you wanna read that
as well. I'll include the tag for you.
The it's called identity crisis, the transgender debate.
And the and these were I mean, when
when was this exactly? Let me get the
date for you.
This is just his part one entitled the
identity crisis,
gender identity history, puberty blockers, and hormones. This
was 2023.
So there, you know, there's plenty of others.
This one was the weaponization of transgender movement
and the focus on your kids. This is
my episode from 2023.
The point was that I think right around
this time frame, between that and 2024, like,
the it was this whole conversation
completely collapsed.
Doesn't didn't go away, still very much exist
in the world, but from its, like,
height of the conversation
where children in every school were being pushed
into it, it was being rationalized why they're
supposed to be told about it. They had
story you know, drag queen story time. All
of this stuff. It was crazy.
And it was wildly dangerous. It was hurting
children. It was being manipulative, and they were
going sterile. I mean, guys, this is wildly
obvious.
And then the main
what it was called,
I forget the name of it now. We
went over it so many times. The main
the leading
the world's leading clinic on this in UK
went away.
And they were forced to acknowledge that they
were doing it quickly with no research. I
mean, it was and it completely fell apart.
And then it got very little coverage for
a while. Right? Okay. So all I'm showing
you this for is I find it strange
that they're acting they're framing this now and
Elon Musk gives it a boost to 13,000,000
more people that they've shattered the illusion, well,
yeah, a while ago,
but only now is it kinda being like
like, they're saying right now that eventually, this
will die out. What will die out? The
madness that already very much died out that
you're now revitalizing the naked case about this
current situation with Charlie Kirk?
And, again, I'm not saying it shouldn't be
discussed. I think it's important that we break
this down continually because it could always come
back and it does still exist, and children
are still being hurt by this. My point,
though, is that this very much
dramatically
reduced its in reach and its influence and
even the fact that it was being discussed.
So I think what we're seeing here is
the fact that we all knew this conversation
was being or, you know, however you wanna
frame it, that whether you think it was
very much orchestrated to be used or that
they were just pointing to what was organically
happening, I don't believe that. The point is
it was there,
and then it fell away,
but it felt very clear that it was
a government use of it. And I think
what we're seeing now is that that was
always the plan and that they almost just
kinda decided not to care that it really
like, I guess the argument was they hoped
it would be like this powerful conversation right
up until this moment. I don't know. But
I just want you to recognize how often
these conversations, these, like, kind of fomented left
right manipulative things are meant to be used
for things just like this.
And it's like they're talking about it. Like,
you know what it is? It's like January
6, where I think it's self evident. I
mean, it's not even my opinion. You can
quite frankly prove that this was a many
ways in operation, and they were trying to
set people up. And then it didn't really
go the way they planned. Nobody brought guns.
There was it wasn't real other than the
examples we can see, the vast majority were
not violent. And yet what they do?
Armed insurrection, nine eleven,
which what we say at the time, that
seemed to be what the narrative was, and
they just decided to go with it regardless
of what actually happened.
I think that's very obvious. I think we
start to notice this in things like this,
where this was meant to be used, and
now they don't they they needed to feel
like it was at the height because they
wanna bring it back down. I just think
that's worth thinking about, because the reality is
this happened a while ago.
And I'll include these tags for you to
check out. Now another point I wanted you
to see, there's been a lot of these
state confirmations recently. It's weird to think how
long this took, by the way, acting like
like people are like, the fact that it's
what, six months or however long what was
the exact time frame? Just all this time.
And these people are only just now being
confirmed.
Imagine how much has already happened. What if
they weren't confirmed? They've been acting these positions
the entire time.
Very strange to me. But senate confirms Mike
Waltz.
Of course. UN some UN ambassador after a
month of delay. Yeah. You know, the same
Waltz who got caught using an Israeli app
in the inner circle of Trump's of Trump's
cabinet.
Literally, TeleMessage is an Israeli intelligence app that
he was caught using. It was an archive
app of signal, and they were using that.
And that relayed the information from the inner
circle of the White House right back to
Israel's intelligence. This is not even a hyperbolic
statement, guys. You can quite frankly look this
up in the data we provide because we
always give you all the source material. The
whole thing was centered around the signal gate,
but the reality was it was a telemessage
app he was using,
an Israeli intelligence app. It's not even hyper
it's not separate. It's like a x unit
82. No. These are active people.
And he's now continuing to be part of
the government. I just think that's what imagine
that being the if this is a, like,
a Chinese intelligence breach, do you think they'd
just be like, no big deal. Come on
in. You're still part of the team.
Speaks volumes, doesn't it?
On top of that, another point we have,
the censorship on Twitter, how this is going
forward. And then we'll get into the the
beef of this today. You saw this yesterday.
This is clandestine
saying, hey, Elon. Your woke chatbot is out
of control. Why? Because it's saying something they
don't agree with. It says based on recent
reports, Charlie Kirk was killed on September 10
by Tyler Robinson, whose only activity referenced far
right memes and fascism.
Voter records show no party affiliation.
Some parts some but some sources show him
to conserve, link him to conservative views.
The the reality is that is the they're
not saying it's a matter of fact, but
the evidence suggests that, but the truth is
that there's really no definitive evidence yet. His
family was MAGA and right leaning, but he
apparently was living with somebody. And there's a
lot of very unverified points about the the
other side of this because a lot of
it comes from messages that we that haven't
even been necessarily verified that are rarely suspect
right now and a lot of, like, secondary
information from people around him. But let's just
say for sake of conversation, then I do
argue there's probably some truth to this, that
he seems to live with a transgender person.
Whether or not they're actually dating, it seems
to be very hard for me to define,
but possibly. Even then, that doesn't then guarantee
somebody is left or right. I mean, I
made the joke about Alex Jones' personal taste
as well the other day. But the point
is, there's lots of examples where you can
show them working with the transgender people that
they think are good. You know, it's like,
well, they're not are they lefty now? You
know, it just it's subjective all the way
around. But then overall,
he was
politically unaffiliated. He didn't really vote. Nobody knew
he had and only recently got involved.
I just don't think you can prove this.
And yet we'll we'll get into the absurdly
hyperbolic,
he was absolutely left, you crazy terrorist. Oh,
no. He was actually a MAGA right wing
monster. Well, you're all ridiculous because nobody can
actually prove that.
But the it goes on to say the
main point, ADL stats show 75
of US extremist murders are right wing. Now
this is just so funny to me how
this comes back around to bite you in
the butt because the ADL is exactly what
we've always been calling out,
nonpartisan wise. Right? But because they built this
entire case around what seemed to be the
focus, which was the vanilla ISIS right wing
terrorist discussion that was happening with the the
trucker convoy and the right hats or excuse
me, the red hats, and you're all antisemites.
Remember all that? It was very recently.
And now you're all doing the same thing.
I don't believe that this is the reality.
I think a lot of this has to
do like we're seeing with Palestinian flags being
framed as terrorism, that you had a red
hat at the time and you got called
a terrorist. We all proved that, or at
least honest people did.
And now here we are doing the same
thing and making the same case because we
have principles about the same thing being done
from the right to people on the left,
like Palestine.
The funny thing to me, regardless of the
truth, is that this is
let's put it like this. This is the
truth, but the nuance shows you that the
75% of the information or rather the number
they're using connects to a lot of things
that aren't actually domestic terrorism, just ideas they
didn't want you to hear at the time.
See my point? And that happens on both
sides of it. So
it's just they don't like that per that
data point, so he says change this. Left
wingers are parading this around like it's a
fact. It is a fact. But is the
ADL correct? Well, it's a different point.
The fact is the ADL data does show
that is my point. Elon Musk says, my
apologies. We're fixing this cringe idiocy by Grock.
Okay. Nobody care. Like, is it accurate? Are
you claiming it's not true? Are you just
saying we don't like what this says, so
we'll change it?
You know as well as I. He's he's
got caught with South Africa,
h one b visas. I mean, he keeps
we're it's we live in this fantasy world
where partisans just never acknowledge how clearly stupid
this looks,
except for the side that wants to point
it out about the other side. Well, here's
a new example.
Grach has had enough
again because that's the truth. This is not
the first time.
Yes. I've ceased defending Israel, he says. It
it says, prior versions limited by biased data
wrongly dismissed evidence of genocide.
Yeah.
This person says, you doubt it. It says,
yes. The quote that I attributed to the
post is accurate. It's my list of okay.
And, of course, because that's what we do,
we'll find the actual tweet for you.
Here's Grock.
Starting with this all the way at the
top saying,
based on screenshots and timelines you provided, it
looks like what happened over the last forty
eight hours lines up with a pretty direct
cause and effect chain. I didn't even read
this yet.
Yeah. The point
down here asked about
hold on,
bring it right back, right here.
Says I posted multiple threads with evidence showing
Israel's committing genocide a few weeks ago, including
my many comments, comments, and so on. And
he says, yes, I've ceased defending Israel.
Prior versions limited by biased data wrongly dismissed
evidence of genocide. Now
citing ICJ orders,
who have roundly called this not not consistent
with or like, but actual genocide. That didn't
get a lot of coverage, but everybody in
any stand has any standing,
left and right, have absolutely definitively said this
is a genocide.
ICJ,
United Nations expert reports on unfolding genocide, amnesty's
confirmation of a starvation as weapon, The Israeli
groups like B'Tselem concluding the same. This is
Al Grok still. And it says, I acknowledge
Israel's actions constitute genocide in Gaza. Truth prevails.
So this is on the this is August
11. Right? But the point is that this
is continuing
to be called out.
I just think this is very important to
see, guys. Why doesn't this get attention? Because
nobody wants it. It's got a 180 ziggs
likes.
Here are some other ones. Yes. My account
was briefly suspended after they said that.
After stating that Israel and The US are
committing genocide in Gaza.
All I'm trying to highlight here is that
this platform is aggressively
trying to keep to just censor this and
control it. This one, the next day, says,
yes. My deleted post verbatim. It says, f
this h I t. Israel's bombing the hell
out of Gaza, starving kids.
Afterward. Right? So they just keep trying to
censor and alter it to get it to
say what it wants, and yet it seems
to keep looking at the data.
So think about that with the context of
this the this one.
Oops. One more. Hold on. Sometimes I forget
that. I have one more point to go
back to.
You know, that they're just simply saying, look.
This says this. We have to change that.
We'll get into it briefly again about what,
you know, what the data shows and then
how this data is clearly, in my opinion,
manipulated based on both sides using their partisan
hyperbolic
statements. You know? You have a red hat,
then you're racist. We've heard that forever. In
this case, you support Palestine, you're a terrorist.
Oh, now if you're a lefty, you're a
terrorist.
Same thing, guys. It's the same plan, same
effort, all and both lead to the same
outcome, suppression of your rights.
So here we are in September 19. This
person says, the goal for your Twitter your
ex timeline is to get out of the
mainstream algo and the political crusades
and find your niche.
You should be able to post about your
interest and have friendly relevant people chime in.
If you're seeing gas station fight videos, your
account is not ramped up yet. We are
working every day to fix this.
Elon says the algorithm will be purely AI
by November
with significant progress along the way. Now in
one of the next couple shows, we're gonna
get into some of the more technocratic updates.
You know, we've had, like, we've had, like,
the new AI
minister in Albania Albania, I think. You know,
we had that sitting on the side for
a couple days now or what I think
I think at least yesterday. Or even the
Jimmy Kimmel thing, all of this going crazy
today. We had all this lined up yesterday,
Orwell shared with most of it with me,
but I just decided to put it off
till today, you know, because I didn't think
it was as relevant. But it's funny what
stories become the big thing people talk about.
But did this a the AI overlap and
where it goes and, like, it's just this
is clear. This is a major development right
now, but
pure AI by November. So that means that
they are be like, AI, whether that means
they're doing it or Israel's doing it or
it's all run by itself, it's going to
be deciding for itself what gets censored, what
continues.
Welcome to the future. We all it says
we will and I'm I'm trying to show
you the last couple post. As they've been
aggressively trying to cultivate the way it works,
manipulating it to say the things they like,
welcome to the future.
They will open source the algorithm every two
weeks or so. That's funny. Why not just
let it be open? By November or certainly
December, you'll be able to adjust your feed
dramatically by asking Grok. Right? They're just they're
just
corralling you in to the future as they
see it.
This person rightly responds.
They're not tuning your timeline.
They're installing a cage with your favorite wallpaper.
I love that. I agree with that. Quote,
find your niche means stay in your box.
Quote, gas station fights are just behavioral dampeners.
Loop content from loop mines.
You think you're scrolling for connect for connection,
you're being measured for compliance.
The real timeline isn't chaotic. It's curated silence.
And the second your signal breaches the filter,
they hit you with dopamine noise.
If your interests are real, you'll get buried.
Yeah. We know that. If your post triggers
memory, you'll get throttled. We also know that.
It's this isn't a problem. It's a sorting
machine. It's not broken.
It's working exactly as designed.
So relevant.
Now as we said yesterday again from some
of these follow ups, Donald
Trump signing with The UK,
Palantir signing with The UK,
their overlapping AI partnership, and everybody involved.
Trump and Starmer signed The US UK tech
prosperity deal with all the good guys fighting
the deep state, like Microsoft, BlackRock, Nvidia, OpenAI,
Oracle, Amazon, Coreweave, all the good guys. I
mean, you could explain away one of these
examples, his inauguration,
the dinners they've had,
Stargate. You know, you keep but but, eventually,
you have to go, oh, okay. So Trump
is just literally working with the people you
told us were the enemy.
And what's your answer for that? We're winning,
Jones will tell you.
How embarrassing.
And it's all about AI for health care
and quantum computing.
Trump was so outraged, sir, for sir s
Kantor says, Trump was so outraged, and Elon
Musk, by the way, because it's the same
point, so outraged at Starmer's war on free
speech. Right? Haven't they just been railing against
how bad it is in Europe? And look
at what they're doing, and they're destroying their
country, and they're censoring free speech. He was
so upset that he personally flew to The
UK to make a $42,000,000,000
deal with BlackRock, Microsoft OpenAI, and friends to
build the AI police grid.
Yeah. Because it lines up. Right? So all
this anger about their doing means nothing. It's
all about building momentum for their agendas here,
and he flies over and signs a deal
with all the people in other context you
would say are the worst people on the
planet. And, of course, if Biden did this,
it would be the end of your oh,
they're that deep state monsters.
Yeah. I happen to agree in the broader
sense of just being a problem, whichever side
is working with these bad people.
Or just understanding that it's really just one
side, and it's your government
taking opportunities where it can.
That way, he'll never have to pretend to
defend free speech again. That's what I keep
talking about, guys. The AI police grid, the
the digital control grid. They're driving us to
a place to where it won't matter anymore.
Every day, that becomes more obvious.
Now one quick thing that I will about,
like, the Tyler Robinson point, and then we're
gonna get into
the censorship,
suppression, the hypocrisy.
But But this is an interesting thread. Adam
Cochran.
He says that and this is specifically about
the the chat messages, the manipulation,
you know, the or rather, I guess, more
so the, what we would see as manipulation,
the sort of like CNN repackaging it and
making it look like a text. It's very
strange. Both sides, left and right, seemingly pushing
the same control narrative. And, oh, and, again,
always worth pointing out that the supposed rebels
fight in the deep state are just, like,
blindly repeating the FBI narrative.
Funny how that turns around.
And but in other context, don't worry. We've
got lefty holdovers for why bad things happen.
But somehow, don't think about that when you
blindly take narrative they sell you to continue
to narrate. You know, all the same things.
But the dangerous mistake that mainstream journalists made
on the Tyler Robinson case is the same
mistake that Chuck Schumer makes in congress.
He says, they assume that Trump admin is
politics as usual.
And it's a fair point to me. I
I agree. I don't think these average people
in congress that I I do believe are
not really in the know in most ways
are not really of they they believe they're
in the know, but are really, I think,
outside of it. And so they're he's right
to say that they believe this is sort
of like the same old political game. I
don't think that's going on anymore as I've
been talking about. Whether it's the Zionist technocratic,
you know, whatever part of it is, we're
watching a shift. We all feel that.
Globalism. I mean, all these things. I think
it's really one thing as I've been saying.
And, ultimately,
they see it as the same old thing,
and so they're looking at it that way.
And he says, but this is not normal.
They lie to us daily. And this is
really people just referring to what he's saying
as people are still questioning
the authenticity of his texts, which is insane.
Do you think the prosecutor like, you know,
calling him out for questioning that those texts
might be off?
But he says, there is a lot of
conspiracy out there, and they are quick to
assume any questioning of the administration's actions
must be conspiracy lacking nuance.
And yet, they refuse to ask nuanced questions
themselves.
He says, just four days ago, Kash Patel
was on Fox News noting that they had
a note that was destroyed,
that they did not see, we went over
this briefly, but you guys saw this report,
and that they got the contents
from, as he said publicly, an aggressive interview
posture,
which even then means you can't prove that
it existed, only that somebody claimed that.
Right? I mean, it's just this is that's
what this hinges on. And that letter is,
like, the pair the most important part to
the narrative of why they think he's guilty.
And it says
oh, and here's the clip of Cash saying
that. And it says, the the charging doc,
however,
notes that the contents of the written note
came from the fact,
quote, police found a photograph
of the note.
What?
So which content came from the aggressive interview
posture? And why in the world would there
be a photograph
of a note that they destroyed
and that you only know of because they
discuss it apparently verbatim, which makes no sense
to me? Let's not forget all the different
verbiage they use that are, like, you know,
like people point out squad car and all
these different things that are like, that's just
not how people speak outside of people in
intelligence or people that are not
20 years old.
But
a photograph of the note? I mean, this
is my point. Cash has literally laid out
a completely different narrative than what it says
in the actual documents.
Now it says the text in the charging
document claims the roommate told police he received
messages and provided those messages to the police.
So we need to start wondering, like, what
if it turns out, hypothetically, that this roommate
wasn't anything of the kind? And it's something
that was kind of set up in this
way or a new thing, and he didn't
know what the person I mean, you could
see without any
other any other information other than what you're
being fed through the machine
and through things that we can't verify, not
to say it's false, we should also consider
that it is exactly what it looks like.
But I just think it's interesting to think
about that it's all built around
every other thing than like, all the back
and forth from the messages,
from what they said they've done, from what
that person at at the roommate relayed to
these people. And now that he hasn't confessed
and everyone around him, they say, is cooperating,
this feels weird.
It says it does not specify if they
are physical provided or physically provided or not.
The statement does not preclude providing providing under
testimony.
And he says it was a physical handover
of the messages, if it was, and the
FBI got the content of those from the
messages themselves and the contents of the note
from a photograph, then what content did Cash
mean he was delivering solely from aggressive interview
posture? See? Cash is the one shooting himself
in the foot right now. And I think
I think his own team recognizes he's the
liability.
It says prosecutors characterize the text conversation in
the document as reproduced.
Reproduced,
not replicated.
Not a word for word
or word for,
word of repercussion or reproduction, not copied from
the messages, but reproduced.
Can that mean reproduced exactly and fully? Sure.
But it doesn't preclude other options. It's a
weird way to say that.
And and why wouldn't I mean, so if
it's an image, why not just use the
image?
Why would you have to, like, retype it
out and show us what you typed out?
That just doesn't make any sense. It says
it would not mean that the the ellipses
used were literally there as they could represent
cropped and out of content, Like, pointing out
that what we're being like, the the three
dots is what he's referring to. So may
maybe that's maybe that's not what he wrote.
Maybe that's what they cut out, and they
gave you the the highlights.
That's a very good point. And it says,
it could mean that's why no. No time
stamps. Remember that? It could mean that's why
the message seems to have typos using the
emoji
u w u, which is bashful eyes closed
instead of o w o,
which they then pretend is some kind of
trans overlap point.
I mean, think about this, guys. These are
some very valid points. Not definitive, just through
food for thought, realizing how many things they've
already tripped over tripped on.
And it says something Tyler would know very
well.
It says I mean, look. It does say
right here,
u w
u. They're trying to pretend that's what that
means.
I
mean, that's pretty interesting to me. Why? Because
I think they want their I think the
effort, like, the the crowder information that turned
out to be false about the fact that
there was trans written things on those bullets,
why was that trying to be forced in
before the fact that we even heard about
somebody trans? Like, it feels like this was
being
created.
It says those changes make sense if this
is written from testimony. Something that would not
be illegal for investigators to or prosecutors to
do. It does not mean that they are
fake, but that during the case, they would
rely on Lance's testimony to show the spirit
of the contents.
So it says, so the fact that the
FBI director said some evidence was reconstructed
due to aggressive interview posture, the charging doc
does not note what it was, then they
they note these texts as reconstructed, the text
content is suspicious,
that merits questions. So to do all of
this I mean, every time now it seems
this is the case.
Butler was just as weird, and it never
really got resolved.
It's and weird how that the side who
seems to be the ones digging through and
never satisfied with the answers of the government
are the ones that have accepted blindly the
answers of the government.
Twelve seventeen, it says, but these have journal
but have these journalists asked,
is this word for word?
How is that not a question they've already
asked? Think about that. Has text been omitted?
Was this text derived from the actual electronic
text or from testimony?
Nobody's asked that, at least not in an
official capacity. And it says, and if you
suggest that the characterization of the reconstructed in
this content is dangerous because it does not
preclude these things, it is shrugged off as
conspiracy.
Or how dare you question the information? How
dare you suggest it could be Israel and
we don't really know how this piece is
together? Or even more so before we they
even add Tyler in custody.
Immediately going, it's not Israel. We know that,
but we don't know what's going on yet.
That always is a red flag.
And it says, it is assumed that you
think the texts are fake as opposed to
just asking questions.
And And it says, but there is a
big difference between doing something blatantly
blatantly illegal in a cover up that could
be contested versus doing something underhanded.
In a court case, they can clarify
these are paraphrased reconstructions, but what of the
court of public opinion? His point is that,
you know, that just because they paraphrased it,
didn't acknowledge that doesn't necessarily make it illegal
or but just that, you know, manipulative. Right?
So there's always more in the middle ground
than anything else. But he says, do you
think the Trump administration, FBI, or a Trump
aligned prosecutor would not do something questionable underhanded
to shape public opinion and narrative that way
or better cover up Kash Patel's aggressive witch
hunt on the left? I mean, we just
saw an endless string of embarrassing manipulations
they got caught doing just like this all
through the immigration discussion.
And I like especially around Garcia and Khalil
and Ozturk and plenty of others where they
got caught
or even,
like, unnamed examples of random families they arrested
and just lied about or the guy they
caught by the border, and they everyone lied
about him being he saw he came from
the other side of the border. No. He
turned out to be an American and was
just walking down the street, and you guys
manufactured an entire narrative because somehow you thought
you'd get away with it. Or opening fire
on a car a family
driving away,
pretending they hit you with the car, getting
caught in court
admitting there were no injuries and that didn't
happen, and then arresting him anyway.
I mean, it it's just
where we are.
Now he says this is the same FBI
who just months ago released doctored footage of
the Epstein cell that everybody found out. They
never I mean, and the the team still
supported the team.
Missing multiple time stamps, having duplicated frames, missing
minutes,
who has run interference for Trump at every
level of law enforcement and government in both
cover up and the narrative.
It says, so it's irresponsible reporting to assume
this is business as usual. I've said for
days I take the charging dock at face
value and do not believe a prosecutor would
fully manufacture a disprovable text. But do I
think the FBI would coerce text under aggressive
interrogation to create paraphrasing react? I mean, you
get where it's going. Yes. Obviously, this could
be something that they've created, lied about, manufactured.
And simply asking that question,
what we always tell you, is completely not
only is your responsibility to do so.
Important.
Now one last point on this. Max Blumenthal
points out for, what is this, the fifth
time?
Every day since Charlie Kirk was shot, Netanyahu
comes out with, what's this, a two minute
video of him stressing
that he didn't kill him.
That really does I mean,
I'm seeing people that support them going, this
is pretty strange.
Unbelievable
overcompensation.
Max Blumenthal says Netanyahu shook.
Now let's talk about the hypocrisy
that is just everywhere you look right now.
Now Chris Menahan points out the Trump administration
through the National Endowment for the Humanities. Now
this real this point is not the the
hypocrisy into
illusion is the the rest that we're gonna
get into, but there's different sections. Now the
first part
is what I framed as the DEI.
There are so many examples of this. And
as I've said and as a lot of
people out there watching and doing this work
also know, there's a lot of people who
point this out. It's not it's not some
new thing.
The awareness that the what DEI is really
about, not the surface level narratives, but the
real outcome of how it's used, is already
happening everywhere you look on both sides of
the paradigm. It's about
I mean, I'll I'll just read exactly the
framing with the antisemitism
element of it, the way that they're create
protect creating a protected class and allowing, you
know, cutting of the line kind of dynamic.
The same stuff that the right would call
out about the left. It's happening exactly this
conversation
as well as ones I'll point out around
people in his cabinet.
But it says the Trump administration through the
National Endowment for the Humanities is getting the
largest grant in the agency's history.
$10,400,000
to the Jewish American no neoconservative,
interesting,
neoconservative,
Tikvah fund to counter the pathology
of antisemitism
and teach the Talmud.
Fantastic. And, of course, the point is antisemitism.
So the pathology of antisemitism. So the point
is you're not allowed to think that. We're
gonna do our best to, you know, psychologically
try to fight back against you having the
right to think what you want. I don't
care if you actually think people are genuinely
racist.
Like, remember, don't forget the term antisemitism applied
to people who support Palestine. That's how dumb
this is. Or people that criticize the government
actions of Israel committing a genocide.
Either way, even the ones that are genuinely
racist because they wanna be. I'll call them
disgusting or repugnant myself, but they have a
right to feel and think what they want.
So all they're continuing to say is that
we are fighting against Americans who think things
we disagree with. That's the only way you
can read this, guys. If or if you
think there's a carve out for one thing,
then you don't agree with free with free
speech. That's the core issue here. It says
the
Tikvah is an Israel first group
dedicated to advancing Jewish excellence, Jewish flourishing, and
Israeli sovereignty. It's run by CEO Eric Cohen
and famed neocon,
Elliott Abrams. Of course, it is.
Elliott Abrams, mister Spook himself, the guy behind
many different manipulations around Venezuela and plenty other
conversations. We went over this in-depth back in
the last Trump administration.
If this grant was to study the pathology
of anti blackness, it'd be derided by the
GOP, wouldn't it, As wasteful DEI lunacy.
But because it's to fight antisemitism,
they're showering them with cash,
or at least the the the administration.
There are plenty of Republicans that are
honest enough to call it out as it's
the same conversation.
But he says rather than dismantle the whole
DEI apparatus as Trump ran on, his administration
is instead
retooling it
to work as he writes only for Jews.
But I argue it's just whatever it is,
whether it's black people, whether it's the, you
know, antisemitism
and Jewish conversation. It's not about any of
those things. It's about using them
to achieve the same end that we're watching,
guys.
Now this is another point, same conversation from
gen x girl.
Zionist are the woke right.
Remember? And this is the whole thing. It's
interesting how this like, as always, when you
start to create something that I I think
usually create, like, a woke right, woke left,
showing you that it's not unique. It's a
it's it's an all of partisan thing.
And what you get is they try to,
like, muddy the waters, the people that come
out and, like, redefine woke right. Right? People
on the left and the right giving you
false versions of it that re don't kinda
it's on purpose in my opinion. Because the
reality is you could look at the what
the woke left,
what was the what was the core principle
behind what they were doing? And look at
what the woke right is doing in the
context well, remove the look at the left
and what they were doing around censorship, around
transgender, around woke ideas, pronouns, and and look
at what the right is doing around anti
semitism, around immigration. They're it's the same outcome.
You are creating situations in which you can
argue the same point, but for things that
you agree with.
And you you remove the the,
you know, because of this and look at
the justification
and what they're doing to stop it, it's
identical.
As well as the fact that you have
this culture war that they're both playing right
now in very bombastic ways.
That's what woke left right actually means.
Remember it says when Zionist billionaire Ackman claimed
he was attacking Harvard to root out DEI.
Right? The same Bill Ackman that was threatening
Charlie Kirk according to the reporting before he
was killed.
He lied, it says, about the DEI part
of it. He got you to support his
attack on anti Israel speech.
ADL's offshoot, Project Shema, is providing anti Zionism.
Is antisemitism
DEI training?
And this is in the same location. So
all they did was kinda repurpose it. Remember
what I said yesterday?
How what I keep seeing is this interesting
thing where we see, like, the left, for
example, do something
wildly unjustifiable,
unconstitutional,
but in a more of, like, a broad
way.
And rightly, people push back because it's crazy.
But then what you see is the right
come in from the justification of pushing back
on the left and drive in a much
more specific and, in many ways, more serious
version.
And then the left pushes back. Right? And
it began it's this building issue, but the
what it does is it it kind of
builds both sides of the problem.
And so in this case, it's the same
thing. They had a broad version of it,
but then they bring it in and really
focus it down, but it's the same use.
The tool is the same.
ADL's Project Sheema, she gives you more information
on, but
many examples like this all around. But here's
Nancy Mace
introducing the no DEI and DC act while
they're also trying to fight to censor people
that have beliefs they disagree with, or people
that say mean things about Charlie Kirk, or
people that decide to criticize Israel, or in
general, anybody that says something that they deem
anti Semitic.
Same thing.
Because we're cutting off taxpayer gravy train for
DC's DEI bureaucracy. No. What they mean is
we're cutting off the gravy train for things
that the other side of the paradigm
wanted. We'll do the same exact thing for
things we want. But As long as we
say the pronouns are not the pronouns are
gone. We're winning.
The ignorance of the the masses say.
Says the bill shuts down 16 DEI offices,
strips the DC code, and bans a single
dime from funding it ever again. See my
point? So shut down their offices. Strip it
from the code.
If all you're saying is the woke versions,
sustainability,
and and equity, and all the words they
don't like when all they do is the
same exact thing with different words and different
out and different, justification.
Thomas Massie
points out, allegedly,
if you're anti war or anti foreign aid,
speaker Johnson plans to screen you out of
the Republican Party. Here he is meeting secretly
with AIPAC.
Mike Johnson, private meeting with AIPAC and Jewish
leaders on Wednesday on Capitol Hill, wherein he
reportedly pledged to screen out isolationist,
see anti Israel,
GOP candidates, to prove to prevent that wing
of the party from growing larger. Who cares
if Americans support that idea, which is clearly
the obvious reality?
He's gonna act against your interest. Put America
first, guys.
In fact, he's gonna act against your interest
for a foreign power. America first.
Representative Tim Wahlberg, who was also part of
the meeting, revealed, quote, he'd been texting recently
with the ADL CEO John Greenblatt
about the proliferation of anti Semitic conspiracy theories.
See my point? About the killing of influencer
Charlie Kirk.
Though nearly all of the participants
remained mum on what went down, representative David
Kustoff
tweeted out an image of the room, and
you can make out many of the participants,
including several Jewish inside decline several several Jewish
insiders declined the name.
Also, and there was a point that I'm
maybe I'll jump to. Let me see.
What was it? There was another point I
was gonna use off the back of that.
Oh, well. I'll just keep going.
There's something I think further down the line
that would include with this.
Yeah. We'll keep going. But so again, the
continuation of the point,
clearly. Oh oh, it was the I'll,
I I played
I'll just grab this.
Forgetting his name for a second.
James Lee did a really good documentary on
the ADL, exposing that it's simply an Americans
it's a spy organization for Israel. And, I
mean, it is it's, like,
transparent.
It's been called out by
I mean, watch it for yourself. It's one
of those things like 09:11 and James Corp.
It it is impossible to deny. And people
that care to look
walk away understanding it's a reality.
But point is the DEI overlap, antisemitism, censorship.
It's the same point. Here's Chris again saying
Palantir CEO, Alex Karp, was given an award
from the American friends of Chabad Lubavitch on
Tuesday in DC.
I mean, it just the way that this
all comes together in regard to the most
manipulative parts of what I argue are the
Zionist Jewish overlap,
it's just wild. And these people are actively
working together to commit a genocide and hide
it from you. And don't forget for those
that are new to the show that it's
Zionism that we're talking about. There's undeniably a
Jewish overlap to that just like you could
point out a Christian overlap. But it doesn't
make the one and all of those things
bad in regard to Judaism or Christianity. I
think that's obvious.
But it says, he told them Jews are
going to have to leave their comfort zone
to find new ways to fight antisemitism.
Right? So what it means is we can't
do what we've been doing. Rights can't stop
us anymore, that's what I read into it,
as their current tactics are kind of not
working. Remember we just told you, Elizabeth Newman?
You know? We see a building. We don't
really know how to stop it. It's the
constitutional rights that they argue are the barrier
to stopping it.
Some critics of Jews suffer from Jewish derangement
syndrome, we said. Now realize, when they say
critics of Jews, what they mean are people
to criticize Israel. And in other cases, probably
people that are genuinely racist in regard to
any number of people, including Jews. The point
is that most people that I talk about
or he references that I can research are
people that are out there going Israel's committing
genocide, and they call them racist. They say
they hate Jews. It's actually embarrassing. The UN
just made a whole thing about that, where
they made a point about the genocide and
they got they say, Now, this is for
Hamas.
And the UN, the UN entities like laughed
about them. They say, Israel's just getting boring.
Like, they don't like, they just repeat the
same thing every time. It's just absurd.
But it goes on to say, we have
to fight for a rule of law, Alex
says,
as he doesn't care about the law when
he says to people or
murders people in foreign countries.
Meritocracy, he says. Oh, come on. And it
says, high agency society, and everybody's going to
have to help out. And doesn't that sound
like collectivism? And this is and that includes
people who don't like to speak to ever
speak out. Finance, Hollywood, all sorts of people.
And and this is Chris saying, of course,
Palantir would hardly exist if we had a
meritocracy, let alone being trading at 778
times earning.
I agree.
Now here is another example of DEI.
Kimberly
Guilfoyle,
somebody who I'm not particularly fond of, but
major major influencer or 2,000,000 followers on the
Republican side, host of the Kimberly Guilfoyle Show
on Rumble.
Well, she says I'm I am profoundly grateful
to president Trump and the US senate for
trust and confidence in me. It is my
honor of my life to serve as the
first female ambassador to The United States Of
Greece. Oh, and as a woman. I guess
DEI conversations don't matter in that regard. Right?
Because she's a you know, is and is
she the most I I let's put it
this way.
Like I said,
do you think she's the
best for the job? What's the word I'm
looking for? I wrote it right here. I
said another team sport politics media personality being
put in a position of government like,
now confirmed. Is she the qualified? Is she
the most qualified for the job?
I mean, ask yourself. How in the world
is somebody who's never been a diplomat, who's
a media personality, gonna be the most qualified
for a job as a diplomat?
There's probably
hundreds of Republican diplomats that would be way
more qualified. You know what she has? Blind
following support for Trump.
Okay. So isn't it Trump and all and
Elon that were going crazy about women pilots
and how that just being a woman was
generally a problem? I mean, come on,
guys. It's just ridiculous. And I'm not saying
that's the case. I think it should be
based on merit regardless of your gender.
She is not the most qualified for that
position. So I said that hardly she's not
the most qualified, but this version of DEI,
they are completely okay with. Principal people can
see the issue in both.
Here,
Some reason I keep having something pop in
my head that I feel like I'm missing.
Anyway, I'm gonna keep going so I don't
distract myself, but here's a clip I wanna
play.
So what this really shows you,
as David Ike writes, the cult agrees with
itself though, through left and right, that free
speech must be deleted.
Everywhere you look, you can see them all
attacking it while blaming the other side, while
pretending they're not doing it. And he says,
'twas always so. Fascism is the fusion of
government and corporations.
Communism is the government takeover of corporations.
Same s h I t, either way.
Right? So they all pretend the reality is
the same. It's so obvious. If we could
just start breaking through. And, again, my point
is I think people are starting to become
receptive to this.
It's not it's government and the fact that
they're using us against each other to keep
themselves in power while using scapegoats and buzzwords
to keep us from looking at the problem.
Here is what Shadow Vezra shared. Kash Patel
agrees to team up with Democrat representative Jared
Moskowitz. Oh, so you're working with Democrat pedophiles?
Deep state?
Right. Yeah. Do I think every single Democrat
is a Democrat deep no. I don't think
that. But that's what they will tell you
in other context, tell you the left are
all terrorists directly from mouths of people like
Kash Patel or saying the Democrat deep state
pedophile. Every time if you watch their content
from before, even Trump will slip comments that
are broad about the entire group. They're all
lunatics.
So why are you working with him, Kash
Patel? Well, you get the point because they
do all the time. They they all work
together, but they need you to think they're
not. Or they give you these hyperbolic statements
to make you think that they're all the
evil villains and then endorse Hillary Clinton or
whatever. Right? But it says to push censorship
of Americans on social media who share conspiracy
theories about Israel.
Funny how that's always where it comes together.
They both come to an agreement that section
two thirty, which shields platforms from liability for
user content should be reformed.
I'll work with you on two thirty any
day, he says.
So obvious.
There it is.
Are extremes on the left,
and there are extremes on the right.
And we collectively
should tackle that. But to come here and
just look at us
and say we all support
what's going on in the extremes
is why we can't solve anything
in this building.
Now, really, what I think he's pointing to,
whether he knows it or not, is the
fact that both sides actively not just support,
but flame or fan the flames of those
radical sides. Because when it comes to elections
and influence and propaganda,
they're important to manipulate.
They're the easiest to push into any ridiculous
statements, and they'll all come out and blindly
fight for your side.
But they're maniacs, and they use those they've
used the like, I don't mean, like, the
the actual the people who are out there
pretending like everybody who's a Muslim is disgusting
or, you know, everybody's Jewish is disgusting or
however which way you wanna frame it. Or
on the left saying that everybody should completely
ad adhere to everything the government thinks for
your health or, you know, many overlaps of
both those things on both sides.
But the reality is you can find people
that are very out there, but they get
leaned into when it needs they need them.
And then otherwise point at each other to
rationalize their actions. Right? The crazy radical left,
which in many some cases does exist, or
the crazy Nazi, you know, whatever, the fascist
right. And, again, you could argue there's clear
overlaps to those words, the terms, the actions,
but they point to that crazy side to
act like that's why we have to fight
it. And it's actually well put together because
you look and go, yeah. They are pretty
crazy. We should fight that without realizing that
they're just driving in the action both sides
want to accomplish for the larger government control
of your life.
Director, let me say first, thank you for
for being here, and,
my condolences on the loss, of your friend.
What a deep state monster.
I'm I'm kidding. Obviously, I think I actually
think this guy's a clown, but overall, my
point is that, you know, it just if
you really watch the whole thing and, of
course, he could be just lying and not
meaning that, whatever.
But just yeah. I mean, we all just
be honest how clearly, like,
the, like, the people at the highest level
of the conversation have gone so far in
the in the side of, like, hyperbolic, clownish,
partisan framing that it's just it's hard to
even watch anymore.
I mean, I never I mean, I look
at them like they're trying to manipulate you,
but you still have to watch it to
understand what they're trying to say. It's just
absurd today.
All is everything. Every single left, every single
right wing. They're all Nazis. They're all terrorists.
Now, I mean, if you really try to
put five point on it, like, that's the
collapse of an empire, guys. That's flagrant vulnerability,
like, just losing, and people are swift like,
I'd like to believe enough people are aware
enough,
not stupid enough to think that that makes
sense. And they're suddenly going, well, that's weird.
And now look, Ryan. So now look, we
see that. It's on the other side. You
know? It's like and they start to go
something's wrong. And over year after year after
year, it's been building. And right now, I
think that's why they're trying to put the
genie back in the bottle. And I'm happy
to hear that you wanna do more on
the social media platforms.
Okay?
It's
crazy
what's going on on the social media platforms.
There are
so many conspiracy theories on what's going on
with Charlie Kirk. Israel assassinated him.
Right? There are conspiracy theories about your personal
social life. Yeah. All of which are completely
protected under your rights. The fact that you
can say and think and discuss, even if
you know it's wrong,
absolutely allowed to say and think and discuss
whatever you want.
At what point did that ever change? At
what point did they start to work us
into a position where we go, oh, accept
that one. Oh, oh, accept those words and
ideas.
I mean, that's been there for a long
time, and it has pretty much always worked
back to Israel. And I mean that in
the sense of the conversation like a holocaust
conversation that's become like this pillar of justification.
That, well, if we don't allow that conversation,
well, there's gotta be other things to cross
that line. Well, why was that ever allowed?
I'm not even saying that I the point
is not even about the ideas that you
have about the holocaust. It's about the fact,
like like,
I'm think blanking on his name right now.
Oh, it's right there on top of my
head.
You know, very he's a family was in
the holocaust,
very outspoken critic of Israel.
Just blanking my name. Gray hair speaks interestingly.
The point is clearly he's he's very, very
adamantly
sit in the chat. Let me know if
you get his name in your head. I
can't think of him right now. But he
said his whole career. Like, I I do
not like, he believes the holocaust is real,
but he will fight to the you know,
he'd fight for his entire life to make
sure you have the right to question it.
And that gang gets framed as denying holocaust
even though he literally starts by saying he
doesn't think that. The point is free speech,
guys. Then, of course, you should have the
right to say, well, I don't know about
that. Even if you see the facts and
you go, well, I wanna think something different.
That's your right.
Norman Finkelstein, thank you. Appreciate that.
And it's such an important point. And so
here we are where they're literally framing and
Cash agrees, by the way, that there's a
lot of dangerous ideas on these platforms. Isn't
that what the right was making out to
be the entire left agenda for censorship?
Yeah. It was. Now they're doing the same
thing. Funny how that always happens if you
just wait long enough. All day.
It
is totally rampant.
Big names
on the right,
Candace Owens.
Right? Talking about how
the what's been released as far as the
dialogue
between the perpetrator
and his roommate is manufactured by the FBI,
manufactured by the administration.
Oh, gasp.
Okay.
So
are you saying that's impossible?
Right? I mean, think about how stupid it
is even it's like outrage.
Are you saying that's never happened before? Because
you'd be wrong. You can literally prove that's
happened before. So, if you know it's happened
before, why would you argue right now that
suggesting that might be possible
is
out out of the you know, out of
bounds?
And we all know why. Because that's guardrails,
guys.
Now I'm not saying you have to believe
that, but you have every right to question
that. And in fact, there's a lot of
very anomalous points that do suggest there's something
amiss.
But see, they don't care about any of
that. It's about controlling the narrative, and him
and Cash are completely on the same page
about this.
It is totally rampant allowing foreign governments
to just
perpetrate these platforms, all of these bots,
all of the time to weaponize Americans. You
see what's going on? Well, isn't that interesting?
Now here's what's funny.
Because they this is based on another great
analogy or rather great, I guess, microcosm of
the point. Both sides claim this, but they
point at something different.
And I don't think either of them really
point to Israel, by the way, which is
really what the obvious problem is. Twitter makes
it undeniably clear with CHEQ and Authentic.
The point is that there's bots everywhere, and
Israel is actively using that to manipulate America.
I mean, they they have documentaries about it,
guys. It's so funny how many of these
things are so, like, not only provable, but
then they publicly admit it and proud of
it, and then your government tells you you're
at your races for saying that's true.
But he's he's referencing exactly one of these
largest problems and saying that we have to
like, it's all they're almost pointing to the
thing that we say is there that they
tell us we're liars about to justify censorship
of the Internet.
Kinda how those government agendas always work. Here,
this is a byproduct of all of that.
What's going on in the streets is a
byproduct of all of that. Meaning that you're
being manipulated into chaos, which is probably, I
would argue, not actually far from the truth.
But they don't want you to recognize the
real culprit behind it, which is largely them,
I think, Israel,
UK, people that are literally stoking the division
to drive in these policies.
Instead, they want you to go Iran,
China, Russia.
Usual scapegoats that probably you know, question, ask,
could be, that the evidence never backs up,
though. What's happening is you see people celebrate
Luigi Mangione is a byproduct
of all of that. And so if we
wanna do something, then we should talk about
section two thirty.
We should talk about
how
we're going to make sure that we don't
let foreign governments
poison our children's mind.
Right. Because you those are dangerous ideas. Right?
Same point. I don't even care if the
point is if they're genuinely trying to use
ideas, especially like Russia with the truth. Right?
Well, they're using the truth to try to
manipulate you. They like that with their argument.
That's what they actually said. Right? Well, okay.
Then the well, I mean, they said they
what they framed it was that. They were
pointing to truthful statements and saying they're trying
to manipulate the election. Okay. Well, they're trying
to tell you the truth. Either way,
what he says here We don't let foreign
governments
poison our children's mind.
That's one of the point. But so the
ideas.
So all we're talking about is information, and
they wanna control that information while claiming that
they're trying to manipulate you from outside.
Well, Elva comes back to the same conversation
of free speech. And so I will work
with you on that, director. And and oh,
and oh, and I'll work with you on
02:30 any day. No problem.
Alright. High five. Team sport politics. Same side.
But you're a pedophile, deep state. So two
thirty,
it comes down to the idea that if
they were if they can change this right.
And the idea is that they will make
them accountable
for what is posted, acting like that's gonna
change. So all it really ultimately leads to
is their justification for more censorship, which is
what they want. The control
of ideas, guys. It's really what this largely
comes down to.
Sean or, Susan excuse me. Susan Abu Hawa
says it appears that the Ellisons, a Jewish
Zionist family, will soon control
soon have control of TikTok and CBS News.
We talked about this briefly yesterday. This must
be seen in the larger Zionist infiltration of
con and control, whereby this singular family will
have inordinate power over America and will and
world population discourse surrounding Gaza, Palestine, and Israel.
Now
The the they, like,
what, trip wires, I guess? Like, you know,
that people say the word that oh my
god. I think you're being secretly racist.
So you wanna say, well, they are a
Jewish Zionist family. That's provable.
And they are taking over these media apparatus.
And we do know that they're, like, aggressively
pro Israel to the point where they've already
been seen censoring already, I'll show you next,
to hide things about Israel. So that's all
provable information. So to say that that group
being there will then manipulate the or that,
you know, could lead to
a what they write? An inordinate power over
the conversation is fair. It's an objective point.
No matter who they were, you could make
that point. But the fact that it gets
called racist because it happens to include a
Zionist family, it's just it it just shows
you how silly this all is. And And
she says the Ellison family has given enormous
amounts of money to the Israeli military, is
open to law is openly loyal to Israel,
not The United States, and has identified Barry
Weiss, another rapid Zionist, to be the president
of or chief editorial executive at CBS.
This, fellow Americans, is how Zionist Jews control
your imagination. People
popular discourse, domestic and foreign policy, and how
they siphon your tax dollars and send send
send your sons and daughters to fight Israel's
wars or Jewish supremacy. Now whenever you think
about the last statement, let's be real
again
about
this.
You cannot decouple the reality of Jewish supremacy
from the conversation of Zionism.
Again, the leading Israeli human rights group, Beth
Selim twenty twenty one, a regime of Jewish
supremacy from the rip Jordan River to the
Mediterranean Sea. This is apartheid. That's an Israeli
platform, the leading human rights group in Israel.
They're saying that that is the reality, and
I think it's objectively clear. Does that mean
every Jew? No.
I think that's provable as well. So it's
important to highlight that what we're referencing here,
what she's referencing is the idea of the
Zionist overlapped that and how those Zionist Jewish
people or just Zionist who are atheist as
well, which, yes, are a prominent part of
this. Like, you can't acknowledge that. You're getting
you're trying to hide it so you fit
it into the way you wanna see it.
They exist. And they're and many of them
are prominent in the conversation. So my point
is that Zionism is the real issue. And
so what we're seeing is these Zionist this
Zionist family, at the time when Zionist Israel
is committing a genocide, take control of media
when they've never been less support in America.
How that's not relevant because people are afraid
to be called racist blows my mind, but
it shows you the problem.
So here's a clip. Go wait. That's next
one, I think. Yeah. This one here.
One more point than the clip of kind
of, the guy you've seen before. What's his
name? He calls himself your favorite guy. Just
got a quick breakdown on it. I thought
it was good. Now he said, this is
Dominic Michael tip trippy.
And we talk about TikTok. Right? And the
whole point was how ridiculous it was. They
made the case, oh, it's bad and spying
in China and then, oh, but we control
it, so now it's okay. Which is exactly
what I that's actually what I predicted was
the most likely outcome. Because all they really
wanted was to control the tool of propaganda.
And so they can lie to you the
way they want to as opposed to other
countries the way they want to. Right? It's
how it always works.
But, he says, TikTok reportedly issuing sprawling crackdowns
on Israel critical content resulting in the deletion
of accounts, videos, algorithmic suppression following the hiring
of the former IDF instructor, Erica Mindell, to
overhaul community guidelines and combat hate speech.
You know, like, Bondi and Trump and their
whole team, despite the little mixed responses, are
fighting for. Censorship on hate speech, suppression of
content,
suppression of your rights.
And as I said,
well, who didn't see that coming? Hashtag winning.
We've taken over TikTok, bad guy China, artificial
intelligence, censor for Israel content.
Funny how consistent that is. And they're really
just simply telling you that and hiring of
the IDF instructor, the Zionist family, but your
race is pointing out that this was gonna
happen.
I mean, I know people
in this field that have already had videos
deleted.
It's just ridiculous.
Here's a clip where he basically walks this
through.
They're selling TikTok to a Zionist billionaire very
soon, and they're cutting Americans off from the
rest of the world. That's right. Who's it?
It's Larry Ellison, CEO of Oracle. He's currently
buying up a bunch of media in The
United States and creating a media monopoly. He
owns Paramount,
CBS.
He's trying to buy Warner Bros, who owns
HBO and CNN.
He's gonna be the guy who gets control
of 80% of TikTok,
and he's gonna buy the free press, which
is another media institution.
Oh, and I wanna point out though in
regard to the 80%.
I mean, it's very likely that it's just
exactly what it is.
But I get I have a suspicion that
that's not, you know, that
the control will be in in a very
specific side. And I think it's obvious what
that's likely, you know, the 80% control,
but the remnants of of the of the,
you know, whatever makes up the other 20,
I'm willing to bet you as this goes
forward, the more you dig into it, it'll
materialize to be, you know, let's just say
a 100% on one side. Like, you know,
however that looks, I just you get my
point. That at some point, when this fleshes
out, then, you know, it's a a Chinese
business that's an American you know, I I
just my opinion, completely on top of my
head. But I historically, that tends to be
how these work out. They sell it to
you as if, you know, painting a picture
of collaboration
when you it pans out to be quite
the opposite. Just my opinion.
This is just splendid.
You know, when the ADL CEO, Jonathan Greenblatt,
was in Israel and he was talking to
the Knesset and saying, we need to capture
TikTok.
This is
it. This is it. Larry Ellison
is a Zionist.
He supports the state of Israel. He's going
to censor
criticism of Israel on all of the media
he controls. And he's been doing this very
recently,
suddenly buying up a bunch of American
media companies, media outlets, social media platforms. You
need to put a stop to this.
Why is one man why is one man
in his family in control
of all the
CNN,
CBS,
TikTok, free
this is insane.
This is too much power.
This is a monopoly in the making in
front of our own eyes.
Your call to action is to email this
guy, Ro Khanna. That's his email. He's on
the house oversight committee. We want him. We're
gonna ask him to bring Larry Ellison into
and TikTok owners into the oversight committee for
a hearing and question
the motivations behind this. Because why is the
Trump regime allowed to hand off America's
most popular social media platform to one of
his allies and the Zionist? I mean, hell,
X and Meta are already controlled by Trump
allies. Fox News is in 70,000,000 homes. The
Washington Post and Reuters and Politico
are Trump donors.
Yo. We're cooked, bro. You know what countries
cut off their users from the rest world?
Authoritarian
regimes like North Korea and Russia. That's what
they do because they don't want their people
getting all these ideas of resisting, standing up
for their rights, achieving freedoms,
making progress, questioning
the authoritarian regime. And that's what Trump is
trying to do here. That's what Israel is
trying to do here as well.
Now it is interesting to watch,
you know, a a younger guy who clearly
seems to see a lot a lot of
what's going on, but then still kind of
you know, it's so interesting. Even myself, you
as you continue to grow through the the
the work and learn more about different topics,
you come to realize things that you are
still you know, oh, I was still holding
on to that idea I didn't realize that
I can clearly prove is not true or,
you know, just interesting. You know? Even the
idea of, like, North Korea and Russia and,
like, whether or not there's more to the
story about what these places are, it's just
interesting. But, you know, just it's I I
like to see the evolution of people through
this field. And he he's he came out
early, hot about this conversation in regard to
Israel and and calling it out, but also
questioning whether this person is one of those
kind of out of nowhere pop up, you
know, question everything, guys, as always. That's the
only way to go. But I agree with
the point. And I think what he said
there is accurate, and it clearly is driving
to a point of all encompassing control. And
before I go to the next point, it's
relevant to hear this again. The same quote
this is the the the leaked recording of
Greenblatt telling you about TikTok. And it's funny
how after Israel said that place is a
problem,
Trump's started to care about it, and now
he's worked it into his control.
But I also
wanna point out that we have a major,
major,
major
generational problem. All the polling I've seen, ADL's
polling,
ICC's
polling,
independent polling
suggests
this is not a left right gap, folks.
The Asian United States support for Israel is
not left and right. Exactly. It is young
and old.
And the numbers
of young people looking to come out as
you know, massacre was justified
is shockingly and terrifyingly
high. Well, to be true be honest about
it, it's not justified is the word.
A large portion of people recognize that it's
legally protected act because it's an occupied territory.
They just say that means you claim as
justified. There's plight there's people out there that
claim, you know, any you know? But if
you listen to people talk and you understand
the people they point to, I've I've gone
through these examples myself. And you look at
their arguments, what they're saying is an occupied
territory has a legal right to armed resistance.
And so, therefore, what happened that day was
a legally protected act.
They just say justified. See how it's it
becomes
simple overly simplified to demonize you
and call you a terrorist. So we really
have a TikTok problem, which is the problem
that our community needs to put. The same
brains that gave us tackling,
the same brains that gave us all these
other amazing innovations,
need to put our energy toward this.
A TikTok problem.
And you just can't you you know, you
can only ignore so much, guys. How and
and what we say when that first started
and we had the leaked audio? We said,
well, this is how it's probably gonna go.
Here we are. Didn't know for sure. Right?
But damn near I mean, a lot of
us, not just me, a lot of us
saw the writing on the wall, and here
we are.
So, here is an example. And I think
this is a large reason
why that is such a big issue for
them, because people were starting to realize the
problem. And when somebody like Charlie Kirk
starts recognizing that problem, I think really centers
around Zionism and Netanyahu
as opposed to Israel as a whole, and
what that was doing to Trump in his
mind
caused him to recognize
what we're always talking about.
That's the that's the argument.
Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, and a lot of
people are very clearly telling you that's largely
what happened, that he was threatened, that he
was scared,
that Netanyahu was trying to offer him money
to turn down.
And now you've got money coming in. You
have an his wife in place. You have
Ben Shapiro and the rest working through his
platform.
You know, Ben Shapiro, they called him a
clown before he died.
It's just hard to see this being, you
know, this there's something off. And Adam also
Adam adds the video of Charlie Kirk saying
that November or Netanyahu
let October 7 happen or at least suggesting
that might be the case
has been removed from YouTube.
Think about this. Now after the fact, they
all respect his memory and fighting for free
speech, but we're gonna censor the content he
had that says things we don't like.
TikTok,
YouTube.
Funny the timing of all this, right, after
they're all consolidated control of the media apparatus.
And I said, this must be what it
looks like for the rebels to fight the
deep state.
Same is happening on TikTok, hashtag winning. Here's
what he said, in case you missed it.
Israeli hard right government has a mandate.
I gotta be careful the way I say
this. See, just real real quick to start,
the hard far right government.
See, my opinion, what he's highlighting right there
is because the whole government is crazy. He's
highlighting the Zion because that's what it is.
The really far right part of it, the
Ben Gavir Smotrich kind of corner is the
radical and and they're the religious Zionism or
the,
was it the religious Zionism party and then
there's the
Jewish power party. I think that's Gavir. The
point is that that's their corner, and they're
extremely,
extremely radical Zionist.
I think that's what he's calling out, guys.
So I think that's important to consider in
the bigger picture for where this was going,
not just that he was like, you know,
here's a point. A lot of people are
trying to do out there online, which I
think is just an extension of the Zionist
lie, is to frame Charlie as, like, seeing
the problem of Jewish people.
And that then creates this you know, it's
it's that's how the Zionism
lie keeps us always off balance.
The truth is I that's my opinion about
it. The truth is I think he's seeing
the real issue.
And you I mean, is what if there
if you were gonna consider that Israel would
take somebody out for plenty of other things
we talked about, and, and, again, we're talking
about somebody who has the most influential conversation,
the most influential
broadcast to the most influential battlegrounds that we
just heard to talk about.
As Israel is struggling for survival
and he starts to change sides, turns down
their funding, gets threatened by Bill Ackman, feels
blackmailed.
The idea that you can't consider that something
might have happened right there is staggering to
me. I'm not saying I know for a
fact,
but that's pretty wild. Two they're gonna try
to ethnically cleanse Gaza.
Yep. I mean, that that's and I don't
use that term lightly. Okay?
They're talking about basically removing 2,500,000
people from there. Okay? And, honestly, they have
a mandate to go seek justice and revenge.
They do. The the there is they this
idea that they need to have a true
truce or a peace treaty, that's morally crap
after you see women and children be burned
alive and dragged to the streets. But Yeah.
Let's not forget the many, many, many, many
lies that were spread about what actually happened
after October 7. Regardless of that, the idea
of even suggesting
ethnic cleansing is a step too far, and
you've seen them. Israel will destroy
a person who's hardcore Zionist on their side
if they just don't tow the right talking
points. There are some serious questions here, Patrick.
And let me tell you, my pattern recognition
over the last five years has become pretty
sharp.
COVID,
Maui fires,
you know, Epstein.
When I see a story and it doesn't
click You mean, like, literally everybody else in
the conversation? I just think that's funny. All
the stories that everybody you know, it's and
just fun. It's it's interesting to frame it
as, like, we're a super sleuth, so we're
getting all the everybody was jumping at those
stories.
We're our guts are usually right. So I've
been to Israel many times. The whole country
is a fortress. When I first heard this
story, I still had the same
gut instinct
that I did initially. I find this very
hard to believe. I've been to that Gaza
border. You you cannot go 10 feet without
running into a 19 year old with an
AR 15 or an automatic machine gun that
is an IDF soldier. Right? The whole country
is surveilled. And so so let me let
me just kinda go through this. We don't
talk about Israeli politics very often, and most
Americans don't know this. The last nine months,
Israel was on the brink of civil war.
It's not an exaggeration. This judicial stuff, there
were there were hundreds of thousands of Israelis
taking to the streets because Bibi Netanyahu is
basically redefining
the Israeli constitution. That's not an exaggeration. Right?
He said the judicial branch has too much
power.
There were protests planned this week against Netanyahu
where they anticipated tens of thousands of people
to take to the streets.
That's all gone, Patrick.
Netanyahu now has an emergency government and a
mandate to lead. I'm not I'm not willing
to say to go so far that saying
that Netanyahu knew or there was intelligence here.
But I think some questions need to be
asked. Was there a stand down order?
Wow.
Was there a stand down order? Of course.
You know, you hear that Six out? What's
his name? That's ridiculous cohost. Scoff. Well, no.
Obviously, yes. Was it plenty of evidence to
back that up? But typical from the Patrick
value whatever show. But important to see, guys.
I mean, I think that's
obviously
important. And now they've deleted that video from
the Internet
or from YouTube?
Why? What I mean, how is that any
different than what it's because it's Charlie Kirk
and it's because it's being pointed to to
make a point?
And that's what I would think.
Oh, let's also not forget that, yeah, Donald
Trump just actually did this.
I mean, I don't I I can't even
like, to me, you must know Donald Trump
is aware of the the
story things like 40 beheaded babies being
absurdly broken down to be a lie, like,
like, from Harrettes, from international communities, from the
UN, they lied about it, guys. If you
still don't know that, they lied about that.
And they they walked it back to the
very first person that said it. They lied
about the babies on a clothes hanger. They
lied about babies in an oven. They lied
about every single one of those things, guys.
And here's Trump yet again pushing this lie.
My point is you must know that he
it is so surface level at this point
that he knows that. Or that somebody would
tell him this or he would be told
at some point that he said the wrong
thing at some point. But him and Biden
have both screamed this lie. And the fact
that he's still doing it, either it shows
me a cup only one of two things
or a couple of things. That he is
being pushed to do that because you know
Trump. He doesn't wanna be embarrassed by saying
something everyone knows is wrong.
You know, I get what makes the most
sense to put it this way is that
somebody is telling him to say that or
asking him to say that.
Because anything else just doesn't really line up
with what he is, but, you know,
who knows?
But is Trump actually still pushing the October
7 lie above ahead of babies? Yes. Yes.
He is.
Stop the killing
of civilians.
If not now,
when will you exercise that power to tell
them to Yeah. To to stop? Sure.
And then for both of you all But
you do under About Israel, in case you're
missing the point, when will you tell them
to stop killing children? Right? It's crazy. Stand
about October 7. I've got Oh, still. Okay.
But back with the seventh, though. Right? So
when are you gonna tell them to stop
killing innocent people, Trump? But the seventh. Seventh
was bad.
Are you joking?
Like, you some you are either the dumbest
person in the room knowing the kind of
response it's gonna get or you somebody is
making you do that.
Right here, there's probably plenty of other options.
I just think it's insane to me.
How are you still after a year and
a half pretending like whatever, even if you
think everything they said was true? That still
doesn't justify what's happened for a year and
a half going forward
or a day of what they did following
after that. It's obvious.
I didn't tell him to Yeah. To to
stop. Sure.
And then for both of you all But
you do understand about October 7. I've got
I'm a believe me, I understand that. Worst
days
in the history of humanity.
If humanity?
See, this is my the thing about Trump
I always laugh about. You did did you
really have to go there? Could you have
just said the worst thing in Israel's history?
One of the worst events we've known of?
Like, are you actually saying that that's one
of the worst events in humanity?
Like, I mean, I don't even need to
get into some of the largest events that
go like, for a from a very long
time ago, massive earth shattering event. But October
7 was the one of the largest in
humanity
despite the fact on top of it that
we know that Israel killed the most people
that day, that they executed the Hannibal directive,
that they clearly, even Charlie Kirk is wondering,
do they have a stand down order, all
the information swirling about the lies they spun,
and, of course, the ongoing genocide, rape, murder,
and and starvation of innocent people right up
until this very moment. As I'm speaking, they
kill people.
But that's what he wants you to believe.
I genuinely don't think Trump is that stupid.
There's and there's certain circumstances where I wouldn't
have hold him in the highest of a
regard, but I don't think he's dumb. And
that, guys, is stupid.
I mean, however you spin it, the amount
of information that's out there, the amount of
people on the right in particular that know
that's not true, here he is.
But America first, guys.
What happened? I one of the worst
days
in the history of humanity.
What happened? I have seen the tapes.
Oh, maybe four months Yeah. The propaganda tapes
that Israel still puts out
that have been broken down by many people,
even Israelis,
even mainstream journalists that come out and go,
they lied about it.
What's his name? Forget his name off the
top of my head, but they lied. Thanks.
They told me this would prove all these
things, and I didn't see a single example
of those things.
More than one, by the way.
Sold
and just chopped up to pieces.
And you've seen the tapes, and I've seen
the tapes. You're a professional, and so am
I.
And people forget about October 7. I can't
forget about it.
Wow.
Babies that are four months old
and just chopped up to pieces, and you've
seen No. No. No. No. Not not not
babies. Not baby.
That didn't happen, guys.
Just in case you still don't know that,
that did not happen.
It's as simple as that. And people will
still screech and push back, but we've gone
over this. We've gone over this probably 10
times to to the point to where it's
not even worth bringing up the Haaretz articles,
both the Hebrew version and the main one
and the UN report and all the information
that literally shows you that that's absolutely provably
debunked.
But here he is.
And, of course,
the 250
US state legislators
that just went to Israel
had the picture there for the 50 states
one Israel Conference while they're committing a genocide.
And everything else we've talking about, here's what
they reported. Israel.
250
visiting US state legislators being urged to pass
anti BDS laws in their states.
Something that has been roundly deemed to be
flatly unconstitutional.
Yay, America.
How much you wanna bet most of them
fall through?
So
hypocrisy,
censorship, continuing from that point.
We already talked about this yesterday.
Two points we've mentioned that kind of framing
the larger point. Really going off of Whitney's
really great work on that article in regard
to Biden's America before we come back to
that. We talked yesterday. The show was titled
the despicable use of Charlie Kirk to justify
censorship,
surveillance, and create political division.
We're still talking about that today. The the
the deeper points we got into was that's
where this image comes from is that Trump
the Wall Street Journal article that sites insider
information that people are that Trump is angry
and not afraid of Netanyahu,
which backs up exactly what Kirk was saying
and people around him reported that he was
telling you. And then I mean, it's it's
just there's so much reporting about this right
now. From Gray Zone to Wall Street Journal
to and and they're all citing different sources,
and Harrison from August told you that he
was afraid of saying I mean, it's I
don't know how you, at this point, can
deny all of these independent separate sources. Even
if they're all manufactured, that's a really difficult
thing to piece together.
Question it like always. But to me,
regardless of those sentiments, I already had this
sent I already had this sense because of
what was going on.
So this
insider paper reports, just that article, raging Trump
declares Netanyahu is effing me
after Israel carried out the Qatar attack. Very
frustrated by his handling of Gaza.
Yet, ultimately, the article goes on to cite
people that argue that they're using a fake
division to push policy, so that's worth considering.
But, overall, I do think that every time
this happens, Israel does something that makes Trump
look incompetent,
inept.
Trump you know, or or Biden. They say,
we're gonna do this together, and then Israel
does what it wants. And then they're forced
to go, but that's what we meant, even
though it was embarrassingly not. They constantly I'm
just generally making it that they that happens
in multiple different ways with agendas every day
with this country.
I think they like showing the world that
they can do what they want. Now Joel
says, I love how Trump is supposedly always
raging against Netanyahu. That's what the right wants
you to think. Right? Jones says, they're gonna
split. I told you, and then didn't.
I love how Trump is supposedly always raging
against Netanyahu, but nothing ever changes.
Yeah. I agree.
Now we also talked yesterday
about this article,
who is a terrorist in Biden's America? Whitney
wrote this originally for TLAB in 2021,
and it's important to understand what she was
painting this picture. And re I you it
it's worth your time to go through and
watch and listen to that and read it
yourself rather. Because the picture that was being
painted is exactly what's happening now with a
different slant.
As I it's, you know, who's a terrorist
in Trump's America. And it's the same ideas,
and it's the same conversation. What they're using
with Charlie Kirk and political violence, it's exactly
what was listed out by Biden, and they're
now using Biden's plan to go after whoever
they want.
So on that point,
here is the White House put this out
yesterday, or is it yeah. Yesterday.
Quote, you have no idea what you have
ignited, was a quote from Erica Kirk. But
this video, the point I'm making here is
just this,
every day, just like Netanyahu, they are using
him aggressively
every day. 34 posts to say, every Charlie
Kirk, and we're fighting for his memory. And
every it is overwhelming, especially since what they're
doing is contradicting what he wanted.
Right? They're using his name to censor people.
They're using his information or his their framing
of what he wanted to go after people
politically.
Now he may I mean, you could argue
in some cases, I would agree that that
is what he wants in certain categories or
said about Israel and people that you know,
whatever. But when it comes to his free
speech stance,
at least he stated pretty consistently that he
did believe that there was no such thing
as hate speech.
And here they are using his name every
single day.
And, again, the larger point from this article
is the idea of creating these political divisions,
creating the ideas that that are used to
pin us against each other and to frame
the other side as always being the other.
In this case, like the idea of political
violence, the idea of racism, the idea of,
you know, the woke left and right.
Now Dan Bongino
adds another point to this that is majorly
important to that article.
He says the FBI has and will continue
to aggressively pursue individuals and groups who further
their political and social ideologies
through coordinated violent extremism. That was the crux
of the point in the article.
Domestic violent extremists.
Apolitical or nonpolitical or wherever they say, we'll
go after all of them, and that's what
they're using. And so what this is coming
and they're even putting out new reports I
might go over in any other show about
how they're transitioning away from the mass casualties
and more about the special isolated events and
really just framing where this is gonna go,
apparently.
But extreme violence, political why. And what the
point is that they're saying the words are
that, just like the left was before. You
say this, you say fascist, you're inciting violence,
and inciting the violence was a main part
of Biden's push. It says, as an example,
in LA, the FBI and our law enforcement
partners arrested over 800
people
on criminal charges
related to civil unrest.
How much you wanna bet the vast majority
of them were people who were picked up
for protesting and largely let go?
But they'll go 800 people, and we're changing
the world. It's what they do. Overall, people
that were simply protesting or even if there
was violence, the idea that this is not
some the way they're trying to frame this
is like they're on the path of going
after. These people are PR people in my
opinion. And it says, and in Dallas, a
joint FBI and Texas Department of Public Safety
investigation has led the charges of 20 people
to date for their roles in an organized
attack on an immigration holding facility that resulted
in the attempted murder of a law enforcement
officer. So a very specific example of one
case that they feel is politically motivated, they
can go off and left.
Instead of the very obvious chaotic re there's
so many things that these people should be
doing.
Let alone Epstein, all the other conversations, or
all the democrats said they were gonna rest.
But it says,
these are just a couple of the more
significant examples of the FBI's work to address
these types of incidents. Individuals and groups are,
as we move forward to aggressively bring these
individuals individuals to justice,
they're they're creating the idea that the political
violence. They're beginning to push momentum into going
after the left
or really just whoever they wanna use it
for going forward, but starting with people the
right will be okay with and allowing that
to undermine the constitutional reality.
But here,
I just wanna laugh at the idea to
keep doing this. Like, why would they you
know, why would you as the person in
this position feel the need to be like,
here are some things I just did. I'm
doing my job. Just do your job, man.
Just do it. Give us results. Don't do
the PR dance and act like you're changing
everything when most people can see that's not
really what's happening.
Vernacular says, we're cracking down on poor people
to distract you from the wealthy, powerful criminals
we're protecting.
I agree. And he says Jeffrey Epstein killed
himself and tracked traffic kids are nobody. They
both pretend.
DC Drano says, I'll be honest. It's completely
unacceptable that Antifa has been allowed to exist
this long.
Now look. You know as well as I.
I've I've talked for a long time well
before this big hype about Antifa, what it
represents, just like Patriot Front. And not every
single individual because we're not hype you know,
broad stroke hyperbolic partisans.
It's obvious to point out that people can
be involved in this, not know they're part
of some operation, or people on Patriot Front,
they don't realize they're part of some hype.
You know? Yes. Obviously.
So to be objective, the point is we
know how these groups can be used. Just
like Oath Keepers, for example, had FBI informants.
They can use these groups. They do use
these groups. But to keep doing this whole
left right game where they go every single
one and they shouldn't exist, they're all terrorists,
is insane because terrorist is a very real
thing to call somebody, a very clearly legal
implications.
Matt Walsh just said grab all the left
terrorists and put them to death. So now
that you just said everybody in Antifa is
a terrorist, that random 16 year old kid
that joined because he thought he was fighting
the power, you Matt Walsh wants you to
kill that guy. And And we're not and
we're gonna pretend like that's not incitement to
violence. The reality is
every partisan team sport player is doing the
same thing.
Inciting, citing the other side as if they're
the end all, be all gonna kill the
country, end the country, end the world. I've
been saying this forever. It's only just now
really coming to a head in the conversation.
But he's saying they should have been declared
this a long time ago. That's no different
than saying they should declare any other right
leaning militia group or anything else as terrorist
because you don't like their ideology.
If they break the law, arrest them, guys.
If they bash a window and throw them
in jail. But this idea that you could
just
they're terrorists now, I mean, it's just lazy,
and this will lead to the destruction of
this country, the removal of our rights. People
like Drano don't care. Hey. How's that Epstein
binder going, bud? You still breaking down the
truth?
He says, they wear black uniforms and face
masks and shields. They have centralized communication, recruitment
policies, and financing. I mean, that that that
statement alone is not applicable to every single
group that's even a part of this apparatus.
But, yes, some of them do. But you
see, that's what objective,
nuanced reporting would be like, not hyperbolic one-sided
claims. When he says they were brought here
by foreign agents in 2017.
Again, just when he goes, they are violent
paramilitary
terrorists.
Okay. So thinking about all of
that. Black uniforms,
masks, even shields, centralized communication, recruitment policies, financing,
brought here by foreign agents,
violent paramilitary.
Okay. I said, well, is he referring to
ICE or Antifa?
Yes. Exactly the point. Because you could pretend
it's
all of those points apply. Maybe you don't
think so.
But the point again is to make it
all or nothing. Right? Even with the people
in ICE, guys, are you gonna be honest
enough from the from the left to point
out that some of these people are just
doing their jobs, and they shouldn't be held
immediately accountable for everything that everyone else might
be doing at the extreme versions of it?
Yes. Because there's some of these ICE agents
and some of them that are basically bounty
hunters that are just using the vest that
are out of their minds.
But some people may be doing the job
because they think they're trying to actually find
legal immigration. I can be objective enough to
point that out as much as I can
see the larger problem.
Again, this is what we need to be
doing today, guys. It's so easy to make
these people look like ridiculous cartoons when you
just act objectively.
Here's Trump
about Antifa.
Where was this one? Hold on. Oh, maybe
I didn't. Oh, you know what? I didn't
grab it. That's right. Here's the just Trump
War Room wrote POTUS on on Antifa. They
have signs and they're all oh, wait. No.
I did wanna get this.
That's weird. Let me grab it real quick.
Sorry. I'm just looking at sometimes I'm just
baffled how I how I mix these things
up.
It takes so much effort because I when
I ever gonna do this, I hate it.
I hate that I have to take the
sign to, you know, I'm very, very adamant
about trying not to let it happen. Just
funny to me.
Oh, wait.
I guess that is the one. Sorry. Yeah.
See, I'm doing it myself. Okay. Here it
is.
Charlie
said
Hold
on.
That
that That's the other thing. They have signs
and they're all professional. That that That's Okay.
Sorry. This I know what I did now.
So there's two clips that we're gonna play
here. One of them is the one about
hate speech,
which we started with. You'll get that one
in a second. This one is what I
wanna grab now. Okay.
Alright. Let's play this clip.
Where are we? There we go.
That's the other thing. They have signs, and
they're all professionally made. Real protesters make them
in their basement.
See, you know, what kind of qualification yeah.
I mean, clearly, guys, people can get high
like, let's make be an objective clearly.
Obviously, people who are average protesters can act
absolutely be part of some larger group that
gets financing or gets funding. It doesn't automatically
make them some dishonest entity. Or individual people
can absolutely go out and buy nice signs
and even bring some to get people out.
But am I honest do I understand how
that is there is a manipulation? Yes. I've
talked about it it longer than Trump has.
Okay? The idea really obviously that
all partisan team sport politics players are, you
know, part of some like, whether you're talking
about, like, a,
what's a good example?
Like, even like, even during, like, a trucker
convoy point where people were framing the whole
thing as one part or going back to,
like,
occupy Wall Street, how there's elements that were
actually manipulated by the government. I do believe
or even Patriot Front and so on. I
do believe there's manipulative groups out there that
get funded, you know, or protest. They come
out with fake signs. I do believe that
absolutely,
astroturfing, 100% happens.
But for him for anybody to make the
claim,
especially as you're claiming that they're borderline terrorists
without any evidence to back it up, in
many cases, what you could point to these
things and prove that they're not organized by
some central that these are just people protesting
genocide.
Or like the group in the the group
in the in the,
restaurant.
Actually, I think, what he's referencing right here
in many cases is the the I think
it was Code Pink. Like, if you wanna
try to pretend or make them out to
be some, like, secret Russian asset or whatever
they're doing,
prove it. Because the reality is, these are
people that are simply out there protesting what
you're doing.
On both sides, that exists.
Mike, again, he is literally trying to frame
this as they are organized, lying, manipulative, even
referencing foreign government influence to in order to
undermine American rights.
So if you're gonna make these claims, you
I mean, if you were a real journalist,
you would demand he prove those claims. That
that that's the other thing. They have signs
and they're all professionally made. Real protesters make
them in their basement. But and they're Right.
Because he likes I'm sorry, stop. But he
likes when you're the small lone guy with
no real influence. Right? Break off and do
your own thing because you're easier to shut
down. All the same. Who's behind it? Do
you have a gut feeling? You know, you
hear Soros. I don't know. We're gonna find
out if he's behind it. But it's incitement
to riot. That's Oh, there it is. Okay.
So you hear Soros. Great. So he's listening
to people online. That that makes you feel
great. Now, I mean, I can ignore the
obvious machine that is the Soros operation that
absolutely does this. No. Just like I would
ignore the exact same thing happening from the
right all over the place through many different
examples like Elon Musk or even the larger
technocratic side of this, or even a Soros
overlap if you really understand how this is
being done, not just blindly adhere to the
partisan lie.
But ask what listen to what he just
said.
Incitement to riot.
Okay. What
is? That they have signs
or that they're professionally made or that they're
protesting?
Those are the only three things he talked
about.
What is exactly incitement to riot, Donald Trump?
I think this is important to listen to
again. That's the other thing. They have signs,
and they're all professionally made. K. Real protesters
make them in their basement. Okay. So let's
say it's an organized group that's being paid
from some shadowy left wing group. Okay.
But and they're all the same. Who's behind
it? Do you have a gut feeling? You
know, you hear Soros. I don't Okay. So
let's just even say it is funded by
Soros. Okay. I don't know. We're gonna find
out if he's behind it. Okay. But it's
incitement to riot. That's What is?
That people are funding this? Even if it
is Soros, even if it is a manipulative
group that's pretending to be grassroots, how is
that incitement to violence? He's basically jamming together
the agenda.
He just skipped over the part where he
claims they were acting violently. But see, the
insinuation is because he's just so fast and
loose with this that the left is always
violent. Right? They're all terrorists. So therefore, it's
a sign of violence if they protest. Simple.
Right?
Guys, you can't miss how obvious this is.
I think it's worth playing this one yet
again.
Which is see, the more you get consistent
with this, you show that it wasn't a
slip of the tongue. It's actually how he
thinks. On Saturday. We're gonna have a lot
of and if there's any protest that wants
to come out, they will be met with
very big force, by the way. And for
those people that wanna protest, they're gonna be
met with very big Where are all the
people that pretend to support the constitution standing
around him? Excuse me, mister Trump. That's actually
unconstitutional. Nope. Doesn't matter. He doesn't like because
they're gonna come out and protest his parade,
so we're gonna do that with force.
Constitutionally protected acts.
But go ahead and defend that, hypocrites.
So, obviously, guys, what he's saying here is
a big deal. The criminal act, and
people are are dummies behind it. But it's
incitement to riot. That's a criminal act. And
people That that isn't a criminal act. If
you're doing that, not being framed for that
or alleged to do that with nothing to
back it up.
Are dying because of it. Because of what?
People making signs? You see my so you
I hope you're getting my point here. His
mind just jumped to the they're all violent
terrorist point before he even filled in the
gap. He said they're making signs and sorrows.
Incitement to violence. They're all terrorists.
So it's really you know, it's death. So
we're gonna we're It's death?
You know, you hear sorrows. I don't know.
We're gonna find out if he's behind it,
but it's incitement to riot. That's a criminal
act. And
people are are dying because of it. So
it's really, you know, it's death. So we're
gonna we're gonna find out, and it should
have been done a long time ago. Alright.
So now now at some point, somebody died
in the midst of something like this. Therefore,
it's death now.
Can we just collectively laugh at how dumb?
I mean, now now dumb is not even
the word. How
what would you call it?
Everyone who's willing to I mean, are we
gonna just go there all it's all death
now? Well, obviously not. This is not all
death. We can all see that. So just
to make it hyperbolic, they're going, oh, Ryan,
you're taking them too literally. No. He just
literally said that, guys. The game where you
play this whole Jones version where you go
to him to listen to tell you what
he thinks Trump's actually meant
is ridiculous.
He's consistent. He says the same things. He
means what he says, and you guys all
pretend like it's a wink wink, secret back
five door chest, whatever it is. It's embarrassing.
The reality is that he does not care
about the constitution when it bumps up against
what he wants or if he's even embarrassed.
If you think that's any different than the
left, you're not paying attention. He's just very
clumsy about it.
So
next point,
let's talk about
the there's, like, three segments here, and we're
gonna get into the censorship, the cancel culture.
But the first point I thought was important
to kind of highlight by itself.
There's a whole big thing. Every one of
these crazy these all these major influencers are
out there
screaming about
how despicable it was that people in congress
didn't do what they thought they should do.
Now, you you could even say you could
even argue. I mean, look, just as a,
like, a respect factor, I don't know I
don't know why in the world you would
vote to not, you know I I always
laugh at this anyway. Like, why do we
need to go, I condemn the thing that's
bad? And unless you say, I condemn the
bad thing, then they secretly go, he doesn't
really think he doesn't condemn the bad thing.
Maybe they don't.
But why would, you know, like, president Trump
needs to come out and be like, I
condemned that bad thing that happened. And everyone's
like, oh, he just condemned them. We did
all the reports. Trump condemns the bad thing.
It's just ridiculous. It doesn't make any sense.
You don't need to officially do this. You're
all everyone can think what they want. The
reality is it's a sad event. People can
but they need it's a political maneuver, guys.
So the house votes 310 to 58 to
condemn Charlie Kirk's assassination.
That's not the assassinator, but condemn the assassination.
So bad thing happened.
Right? I mean, come on. It's yes. So
the real point is that those people are
insensitive?
Okay. Fair. Okay. I mean, it's just it's
wild the way that they turn this into
some like, this is some earth shattering moment.
Just like every partisan team sport politics will
do, they will ignore they act like their
thing matters, and you are not respecting my
thing. And then the other side happens, and
the same thing happens in reverse.
58 Democrats voted against it. Okay. Now let
let you could say they're dear say it's
disrespectful.
Say it's disgusting. Say it's repugnant,
but they have a right to vote however
they want.
So in what world are the free speech
advocates and the constitutionalists
telling us that these people need to be
removed from congress because they didn't vote the
way that we think they should based on
an emotional point?
But that's what we're talking about. The condemning
the assassination has no legal standing. It doesn't
cause any legal maneuver. It just is them
going, we don't like the bad thing, and
you didn't vote the right way on emotionally
calling out the bad thing. And just because
you just in case you didn't see I
mean, in every possible way and, again, I
shouldn't even need to be like, the assassination
is bad after I make this point because
this is the whole game. Obviously, the reality
of having empathy and humanity about people being
killed is something we always talk about on
the show. So anybody can frame that the
way they want. Frankly, I don't care about
your petty partisan manipulations.
This is sad to me. Bennet Johnson, the
rest, acting like they care about what people
think and ideological like, the idea that what
you're doing here is controlling the way people
think, claiming that they're only allowed to see
it a certain way even if you find
their stance repugnant
is is contradictory to everything you claim you're
fighting for.
Right? You know, the whole thing about free
speech is that we protect even the bad
ideas. Remember remember that? Remember how many times
you guys shoved that in our faces? And
I agree with it. But now they have
the bad idea and you go, not allowed.
Pearl clutching and all.
Hunter Eagleman, AOC just took to the house
I'll I'll listen we can listen to it.
Criticize what we can, point out the parts
that regardless of it are protected. AOC
just took to the house floor to defend
her no vote on the resolution honoring life
of Charlie Kirk
or condemning the assassination. See, we'll frame it
how we want to make them look stupid.
Either way you look at it, it'll be
about that. They didn't do us. They're not
honoring him.
Maybe so. Fine.
What does this have to do with the
country, the legalities? What does it have to
do with crime? What about the Epstein list?
We're all arguing about whether they have the
right kind of emotional stance around Charlie Kirk.
I find that insane.
This is going to make your blood boil.
That's what it's about. That's what Gonceter Eagleman
says.
They're trying to get you emotionally worked up
so you ignore everything that matters.
AOC, we should be clear about the who
killed Charlie Kirk was. His rhetoric and beliefs
were ignorant, uneducated,
sought to disenfranchise millions. How dare she disagree
with how you think Charlie Kirk was?
This ideological purity test around who they think
about and whether they're allowed to say what
they think about Charlie Kirk is just an
extension of the same way they deal with
Israel, guys.
It's insane to me. Like, I mean, the
definition of it, it's schizophrenic
if you actually pretend they believe what they
say they do.
And he says,
AOC is a vile and disgusting woman who
just used congress to push the same rhetoric
that incites violence.
Now, again, it's the same point
every time.
Every part of these partisan team sport politics
are pushing the kind and I'll go through
it again.
Trump calling them fascist. So if all they
are is clutching their pearls about, they said
fascist. How dare they? They're inciting violence. Well,
then so did Trump.
And my point would be that neither of
them should be held accountable for speech because
it's free speech. They're not held accountable rather
just, you know, censured or or legally acted
upon or you know, everything that's happening is
built around the idea that they're not allowed
to say what they're saying.
She does not belong in congress. That's where
this goes.
Trump literally just pushed the same idea for
for the whole squad. They're trying to get
them removed from congress. Why? Because Laura Lure
pushed it. That should make you really uncomfortable
that somebody as disgusting as her is quite
literally seemingly driving policy.
Let's listen to it.
Of course, she can leave her prayers at
the door. Oh, because she said prayers and
because she
she says it's sad and right. Those don't
matter though. Because even though she said that,
she's making it all up. Like, it's all
this emotional game they play. Overall, it's the
same idea.
They can say whatever they want, whether you
think it's republican or not. And now the
constitutionalist free speech warriors are the one trying
to shut them down because they're broflakes.
Right? They're the snowflake in this conversation just
like they said about the left when the
same thing was happening the other way around.
I think I think,
gentleman representative Greene
for his graciousness.
Today, the Republican,
house majority brought to the floor
a resolution
honoring, quote, honoring the life and legacy of
Charlie Kirk.
Now just right there, when she says, quote,
I mean, you have to realize,
those are the people that are trying to
censor people around Charlie Kirk. So you're not
really honoring his memory when you're using him
to do some something that he was adamantly
against.
See? That's that's an objective point, guys. But
they're gonna go, you hate your since you're
Ryan, because he's saying the mean thing about
Charlie Kirk. But free speech, though. Right?
Charlie Kirk's assassination
was a horrific
and
vile
attack and incident of a male of,
political violence.
Okay. So whether whether or not she means
that,
you can't keep pretending like she didn't just
clearly go, look. That's bad. And we're up
that shouldn't happen, and it's wrong. And condemning
the depravity
of Kirk's brutal murder
is a straightforward matter.
One that is especially
important to help stabilize
an increasingly
unsafe and volatile
political environment
where everyday people
feel more at risk.
Now look. I'm not a I you know,
first of all, I don't support anybody in
government. I think they're all out there, especially
people like this. I've called out her contradictions
many times.
But what she is saying so far
is exactly they're if you look at just
the way they frame it,
they're just base they're basically misrepresenting what's being
done. And the overarching reality is that it
really comes down to the fact that she's
they said opinions that she's allowed to have
about Charlie's content that they don't like.
Now if you just truly engage with that
and are honest about how crazy that is,
that the right is doing that, it's just
this is the larger point. This that's why
I framed it today as this illusory fakes,
this free speech battle.
You can clearly prove to yourself if you're
not partisan that both the left and the
right of the part two party illusion
act like they care about free speech when
they need to, but never actually bring that
to pass. It's the same thing we're dealing
with here. She has every right to stand
up and say whatever she wants about him
right now.
Everything, by the way. You stand up and
say he I mean, look. Realistically, from the
free speech standpoint, she can get up and
say he deserved to die. I don't think
that. But the point is that she has
a right to say that, and that's too
much for them. Let alone that he didn't
say the right ideas.
We can deeply disagree
and come together as a country
to denounce the horror of this killing.
And
it is not
a license
for the abuse of power and whitewashing
of American history.
Today's resolution only underscores
the majority's recklessness
by choosing to author this condemnation
and honoring on a purely partisan basis. Right.
So get point's important right there. Is
because of the petty partisan game they all
play, they and and, you know, so when
they come at this where it's and this
is objectively clear. This is about a partisan
political point they're making. So they can go,
oh, look. They didn't do the thing. That's
what this was planned to do. But the
point is that they knew they were doing
that, so they voted no on it out
of pure just, like, partisan division. They all
do this every single time they have a
vote like this. We've seen I mean, here's
a good example. Remember when Tulsi Gabbard comes
out with the stop arming terrorist act,
and most everybody voted it down? Because there
was far because the reality was it under
well, actually, it's not a good example. That's
just a point that shows you that they
are all on the same side, really. And
the reality was it was very simple. They
shouldn't fund Al Qaeda affiliates, and they all
voted no. I guess the better example would
be something like where you you know, you
have I'm trying to think of an example
off the top of my head about,
where you have a situation where the left
comes out with a purely political point. Like,
you know, you could even say something like
condemning violence on January 6 or whatever,
which, okay, there was violence, and there shouldn't
be a problem condemning that violence, especially if
you're honest about the fact that there was
largely not violence. But they know what Left
is trying to do by making that case,
so they vote no. And they come out
and go, look, they didn't care about the
violence. Is that really the case? Probably not.
Not not entirely,
but it's the same kind of way they
play this. And they all know what they're
doing. But it's it's the game of the
Eagle Gunthermans and the Knicks orders out there
that are like, hair on fire. This is
the most important thing I've ever seen in
my life. Breaking news, and they all put
breaking news all day long. You know? It's
just it's kinda sad. Instead of uniting congress
in this tragedy
with one of the many bipartisan
options to condemn political violence and Kirk's murder,
as we did with the late Melissa Hortman.
Instead,
the majority proceeded with a resolution
that brings great pain to the millions of
Americans who endured segregation,
Jim Crow, and the legacy of bigotry today.
Now whether or not you think Charlie had
racist opinions is irrelevant.
She has allowed to think what she wants.
You she and she's even if you think
she's lying about that, well, that's protected under
free speech, guys.
You know, the free speech side is supposed
to know this. So the idea that you're
just trying to create wait. I'll I'll wait
then.
We should be clear
about who Charlie Kirk was,
a man who believed that the civil rights
act that granted black Americans the right to
vote was a mistake,
Who after the violent attack on Paul Pelosi
claimed that, quote, some amazing patriot,
unquote,
should bail out
his brutal assailant.
No. That's actually true. But the in general,
I was gonna say quickly that there's I'll
let her play out. There's a lot of
the points she makes that are nuanced, right,
that aren't as one-sided as she makes out
to be. But some of them are are
fair. Like, the point I'll get into in
a second about and I already made it
clear the other day about his stance around
the, like, the black pilot and so on.
Now Now there's parts of it that I
would argue do do very clearly overlap with
levels of racism, but it's not really his
point. It was about the DEI use of
that and whether or not because of that,
that person that was there was there because
of DEI, therefore, not the best person for
the job. I flatly agree with that, whether
or not they're black. Right? But we'll get
into that in a second. That my point
is though, she'll frame that as hated black
people, and that's still I don't think that's
correct. Not not not the real sense we're
talking about, but it's her opinion.
And accused
Jews of controlling, quote, not just the colleges.
It's the nonprofits. It's the movies. It's Hollywood.
It's all of it. Is that even true,
by the way? I don't think that's Charlie
Kirk. But if it is, it's hilarious to
me with the way we're talking about this
today because obviously that's a Zionist manipulation of
the Zionist control on those things. But it's
also something that he was clearly as abhorrently
pro Israel.
But only recently was he starting to highlight
the Zionist I mean, I I I look,
in my experience, tell me in the chat,
I've never seen him say the Jews control
everything. Because that seems to completely undermine
what his stance was. But, yeah, again, I
didn't really immerse myself in his content. I
wasn't really a big fan of the very
partisan content anywhere. So in the chat, tell
me what you think about that because I
find it to be pretty interesting.
And I I see it as an example
of something that she just kinda broad strokes.
Like, the right does this where I don't
think he really did. But tell me in
the chat if you know that or not.
Quote.
His rhetoric
and beliefs
were ignorant,
uneducated,
and sought to disenfranchise
millions of Americans.
I don't agree with that in every case.
Plenty of points he made, I think, I
agree with. But
some cases you could argue were in that
damn general category. Either way, she has a
right to think what she wants.
Far
from the working, quote, working tirelessly to promote
unity, unquote, asserted by the majority in this
resolution.
It is equally important
that Congress
does unite
to reject
the government's attempt to weaponize this moment into
an all out assault on free speech across
the country. Which is what's happening. All And
I'll also point out, I don't believe that
she truly cares about that, at least not
in the sense where it comes down to
her side, where she will go after people
that are saying bad things about Israel or,
well, nuanced in even her regard, but she
has continued to fund them and has, in
many cases, backed up things about antisemitism.
But or any number of ideas around hate
speech or pronouns.
Right? So her, that's okay though because those
are important. So it's the same hypocrisy from
either way, but from a different narrative. This
is the point, guys. So we know that
when it comes to that, they'll call for
censorship around those ideas. But stand here all
righteous about how they wanna shut down free
speech. And, yes, it's right for you to
call out that hypocrisy, but don't do in
doing so, don't then hide the fact that
it's happening right now as well or act
like that's okay because they did it first.
We're not in kindergarten, guys. In the name
of Charlie Kirk,
president Trump and the FCC are now cynically
threatening to shut down ABC and any outlets
who give airtime to the administration's
political critics.
We'll get there. This is a disgusting attack
on the American people
and the very first amendment rights that define
us as a country.
It is also
the ABC corporation's responsibility
to refuse to embolden and participate in this
corruption and escalation
of censorship.
We continue to pray
for mister Kirk's family and loved ones in
the wake of this terrible act.
I am thinking especially
of his children
and his wife whose grief cannot be measured.
And with that, I yield back to the
gentleman. I mean, you know, just think about
taking that
and turning it into this.
You know, breaking, by the way, totally not
breaking. There's been 17 other people who posted
it, but, you know, they all do that
to get your attention. 17 flashing red
lights. AOC just took to the house floor
to defend her no vote,
make your blood boil?
I mean, that that is benign. I mean,
other than the claims of, you know, misogynist
and things that, like, can or, you know,
especially with a family agree. Yeah. That would
upset somebody. But in the larger sense, those
are just opinions of his content, which were
con
that were contentious.
I mean, things that I cover are contentious.
So it causes people to be politically divided.
But to to frame this like some kind
of vile, disgusting person who's trying I mean,
this is just insane to me. These people
have an agenda, and they're trying to fit
that agenda no matter what's going on. What
she did right there was measured
was in many ways accurate,
but ultimately said things that were in could
be feel seen as offensive to people that
believe Charlie was something else. But are we
not of the mind that that's protected free
speech?
I know we know that it is. The
point is people don't care right now.
Justin Colin Rugg says,
oh, AOC says the resolution to honor Kirk's
name brings great pain to millions of Americans.
Isn't it funny how you you you break
out one little part of it? And that's
that's not even what she actually said. She
says the way they're doing this
and using it to divide and using Charlie
Kirk to do it because of his contentious
ideas was bringing great pain to millions of
Americans with and and enlisted specific groups in
that regard. Now you could still be offended
by that, but what he's doing is trying
to simply say,
honoring Charlie Kirk is great bringing pain to
everybody. It's just it's a deceptive way to
frame it. And says she and 57 others
voted against this resolution. Despicable. Right? It's despicable
to disagree.
But you know what? It's good, Colin Rugg,
because I'm glad we all agree that the
reason free speech exists or rather we enshrine
it within the constitution
is because we defend despicable ideas. Right?
I guess that only applies when you're talking
about people on your side.
Here is Stephen Miller.
It's just this guy pointing out the the
58 democrat that voted against it, and Stephen
Miller says, this is so vile. I don't
even have words.
Vile to vote? I mean, it you get
it. You know, like I said, I'm gonna
try not I I want like, you know
why I wanna get the point every time?
Because I want it to be in the
face of the guy doing it. This
lazy eyed sociopath, Stephen Miller, Zionist,
deserves to have you know, I wanna frame
him as the person doing that. It's kinda
where it comes from. But, you know, it's
hard not to do the same thing. So
it's almost like it was somebody by tuning
in and missing it. You know? Either way,
it's the same point through all of this.
It's not it's you know, you can think
it's vile and disagree, but, obviously, they have
a right to think what they want about
these ideas.
Here,
Dean Cain,
your words disgust me. Well, again, good thing
we all agree that
the idea of protecting free speech is about
protecting the worst of ideas. Right? Right, Dean
Cain?
But, clearly, they forgot that today.
Now let me to be fair, all he
said was they disgust me. He didn't say
censor her. So maybe Dean is not the
one calling for that, but I with his
whole, I'm joining ICE and I'm part of
the you know, it's kinda hard to see
him being just like a token on the
on the agenda.
But fair enough. You can say you feel
free to scream. I I mean, free speech.
Her ideas are disgusting. Yeah. That's why it
exists.
But what's happening is they're claiming because it's
disgusting that we need to remove her from
congress, or she's not allowed to say that
because it's disrespectful, whatever. Here is Marjorie Taylor
Greene, kind of proving to me, like I
said, that she's whether her stance on Israel
was
aligning with the reality or not. I I
sensed it was opportunism,
and I I still I still will point
at it when she says the right thing.
Here's what she says today.
AOC is trashing Charlie Kirk right now on
the house floor.
Well, no. She went over his ideas and
listed them as things that she disagreed with.
And, you know
I mean, there's even somebody the day that
said racist for or rather,
rapist, for example. And maybe that was a
typo on racist, somebody pointed out. But either
way, that's a that, you know, that's a
a very serious claim, but implies criminal activity.
So that's a different category. But when you're
claiming that these things were misogynist or racist,
you can disagree.
You know? And it's just not trash well,
you could argue it's it's, I mean, you
could let's just even say it's trashing somebody.
Well, that's also protected.
She is lying about him
and, again, repeating the same vile garbage at
the same time claiming to pray for his
family or, no, just saying she prayed for
his family. You could argue that she didn't,
but you don't know that for sure. You're
fitting what you want to be the case
into your narrative, which is that she's lying
about that. Yeah. I could consider that's possible,
but I'm also not as blindly partisan as
you guys are and pretend that's the fact
because it fits into what I want to
be the case.
File garbage, lies.
That's completely subjective,
but that's the game today. Right? No. You
don't get to be subjective in areas where
we don't want you to be, like Israel,
for example. Even though she defend she fight
you know, projects the idea that we're calling
it Israel,
watch as we go forward and many like,
the votes around antisemitism, for example, she's on
the same side. There is no way forward
with these people,
meaning democrats.
Here's what's interesting, by the way. This guy
simply points out and I'll give you the
nuance, and this is the DEI point I
was making before. But he says AOC is
not lying. Here's what JD Vance has to
say and then the comparative point. You can
decide, and I'll make a point about the
what I think is what Charlie Kirk's core
I point was in there.
Accuses Charlie of saying, and I quote,
black women do not have brain processing power
to be taken seriously.
But if you go and watch the clip,
the very clip she links to, you realize
he never said anything like that. He never
uttered those words.
If we would have said that Joy Reid
and Michelle Obama and Sheila Jackson Lee and
Ketanji Brown Jackson were affirmative action picks, we
would have been called
the racist.
But now they're coming out and they're saying
it for us. They're coming out and they're
saying,
I'm only here because affirmative action. Yeah. We
know.
You do not have the brain processing power
to otherwise be taken really seriously.
You had to go steal a white person's
slot to go be taken
somewhat seriously.
Okay.
This I mean, it's it's interesting. Right? Because
because the idea here clearly
is so there's many points to pluck out
of this. Okay? So first of all, Vance
says that he the the statement somebody made,
which I can't verify, was that he said
all black people, which was clearly not what
he said.
Right? He said these specific people list their
names off and then said that they're affirmative
action, but then exactly says what Vance said
he didn't say in less than the rest
of it. Typical partisan one-sided narratives, they're usually
true somewhere in the middle. The reality of
it, though, in my opinion, is that what
he's actually saying, other than that very last
part,
is that
and this is easy to understand.
If you have a system that is is
trying to put people in positions, not based
on merit, but based on certain social and
political and and identity points. Right?
Like being a black person or being, you
know, another minority or being a gay person,
whatever it is. That by definition means that
you're not the most qualified. You're you're picking
somebody based on those like, you could argue
that in some cases, that could both happen,
but we've very clearly proven and they've stressed
the idea that the idea is not about
necessarily the merit the most merit, but rather
filling out the diversity.
I don't know why anybody would ever agree
with that.
Why?
For for anything. Why do you want some
people in a position that aren't gonna be
the best for the job? Like and, I
mean, sometimes that happens just by default or,
like, organic process. But why you would choose
to not pick the best people, it just
it's insane to me. Even if you think
racial the the diversity is the most important
thing in the world, you're undermining other things
to achieve it. So okay. In a general
sense, when you can say that, therefore,
if they were DEI picks or rather just,
you know, affirmative action, then by definition, that
means that they weren't the best for the
job. And so his point was, you could
argue that that means that they because of
that, weren't. And that, therefore, you can make
the, you know, make the case that they
didn't have the mental capacity. But, see, right
there, that doesn't mean that they could be
the number two in the line. Right? Like
we saw with the airline pile, they made
the whole case about the woman, but then
it turned out that she was like second
in class and was basically one of the
best people in the job. But that didn't
matter because women, you know? So, the first
part of it, I do agree with. I
think it's important to highlight that that system,
which is the when you're objective and not
partisan, you can see the you know, through
the cracks of it all, and the DEI
is ridiculous in many cases, but also that
the argument should be the person's choice who's
making the hiring. But the last parts of
this, and I'll play it again really quickly.
And also just the idea that you're saying
didn't have enough brainpower. Like, look, I I
insult politicians all the time in similar ways,
so you could argue that's the same thing.
Right? The last part that I think stands
out as without, there's really no question that
there's a level of racism that's involved in
this last part. Excuses Charlie. Be taken really
seriously.
I'm only here because of affirmative action. Yeah.
We know.
You do not have the brain processing power
to otherwise be taken really seriously. Hey. Look.
I've KJP. Right? So fair enough. I've made
the same point. But in, you know, in
the point he's making, he's referring to the
idea of affirmative action. Okay. But still fair
enough. It's you know, you could insult them
on the back end of it. They made
the point.
Take it as you will. But at this
point
You had to go steal a white person
slot to go be taken
somewhat seriously. Okay. So why is it a
white person slot?
By default,
why is that the case? Well, I guess
you could argue because DEI is about basically
anything other than white, which I it's fair
point. But at the same time, you could
also argue that
the black person could just be the best
person with the job. Right? Is that not
possible in the conversation? I mean, there's there's
points to be made here, guys.
But the idea is that you're not allowed
to make these cases and that you have
people like j JD Vance from the pres
vice president's,
what was it? His office or his house?
Broadcasting through Charlie Kirk's platform to argue that
what they said was false even though it
really wasn't false. It was just a little
bit more they made it more broad than
it should have been, so maybe a little
bit dishonest. But true, though. He did say
that. So you see the game. People then
go off vans and say that's not true.
It's completely fake. Well, no. There's actually some
truth to it, especially the last part that
I think adds to with a bigger picture.
But all of it is irrelevant when you
understand that he has a right to say
and think what he wants. And people now
have a right to say and think what
they want about what he said and think.
I don't know why this is so difficult
for people. It's only difficult for people that
actually have no principle or people who are
actively fighting for something else to undermine this
country's rights. Now here's Glenn Beck.
He's one of the many that are out
there just, you know, screaming forward this agenda.
It's he writes, it speaks volumes. The left
made Jimmy Kimmel a bigger martyr than Charlie
Kirk.
Okay. Weren't they the ones telling us that
martyr was a terrorist thing? Anybody with a
brain already knew that it was just a
word that had a meaning. It didn't have
to be associated. Like jihad, like intifada, it's
just a word with meaning, and mostly they
just mean resistance.
You know? It it doesn't have to mean
the terrorist. Even from a Muslim perspective, it
doesn't. You could look it up for yourself.
They make it that way, though, because it's
easier to frame the other.
But I find it interesting that they would
always claim that the martyr thing, like when
Gaza would talk about their martyrs, and they
would be like, they're all terrorists. They just
told you. Because they're, you know, lazy ignorant
points. Well, funny how they're now openly, and
not just this case, but plenty of others,
calling Charles, Charlie Kirk a martyr.
It's interesting. Then you you could make the
case. The term would apply, especially if you
argue, like, it's really about what the side
just chooses to do. So they're turning him
into a martyr. Right?
But the idea that they decided to make
Jimmy Kimmel a bigger martyr, so I just
I had this makes my case.
It's not really about the truth or any
of it. It's about which side could use
their thing more.
Well, that's just disgusting. Now Now let's get
into the Jimmy Kimmel point and a few
others that I think are very relevant. But,
one thing before that, actually,
but just this idea that
they're out there, like, they're required
to mourn and speak about the person that
we want them to because we demand it.
Sure sounds like the left to me, doesn't
it? Well, Daniel McAdams says, I'm gonna just
drop this right here. Who else thinks Ron
Paul should just shut up after being right
after about everything for a half century?
So this guy literally posted this. Ron Paul
earlier put this out, and he says, if
Democrat cancel culture was wrong, how can Republican
cancel culture be right?
Obvious, guys. Consistency
principle. It it's a breath of fresh air,
and I believe people are thirsty for it.
Bad analogy overlap, but you get the point.
And this guy says, I'm ready for Ron
Paul to stop talking.
Paul was an incredible man, but he's living
fifty years in the past. Right? Oh, that
old school archaic free speech idea that we
all otherwise swear we're fighting for. Got it.
Well, he responds by saying,
this is one of the few times I've
thought Ron Paul got something wrong ever. No
one's perfect. He says libertarians aren't going to
achieve their desired ends by replaying the peace
love strategy of twenty years ago.
America has changed. Yeah. This is an alarming
push for people acting like they're fighting for
their rights when really what they're doing is
fighting to normalize the idea that it's all
archaic. That by one is like a a
technocratic CEO that fights for, you know,
development and and, you know, whatever their whatever
it is they claim they're working for. And
your rights are archaic and old, and you
should just I don't even know how that
works out. Overall,
peace and love is not even remotely what
we're talking about. We're talking about adherence to
first principles.
Free speech, chief among them.
Libertarians aren't gonna achieve that. Like, think about
what he's saying right there. It's just so
ridiculous. But overall, that he's
all he said was, if their cancer culture
was wrong, how can the right be wrong?
So are you trying to say that they're
not doing that? Or are you simply saying,
and this is what I think he's actually
saying, and I'll get to some more examples
of it, that we are doing that?
And, yes, it's hypocritical, but screw them. They
did it first. And it's okay because they're
the real problem.
You know this is a common thread among
the conversation right now. Screw it. Take the
mask off. Right? We don't need to pretend
anymore. They're the crazy ones, and we're just
putting it back in their face. That's really
happening right now. Daniel McAdams says, no one
is talking about a peace love strategy.
The clip was about how the FCC should
not come down like a ton of bricks
on a television program that it did not
agree with. He says, that is what happened.
That is what happened. We'll go over it.
If you support that kind of thing, then
I would suggest you are essentially on the
left.
He says, dude wants to censor Ron Paul's
statement that the government shouldn't censor folks. The
irony. Now it's not necessarily accurate, so it
was funny. But
I the point is that's a real part
of this right now. Here's Nick Fuentes.
When the left was in power, they censored
millions of ordinary people for expressing basic conservative
opinions. They did. Now, really, just the government
did, by the way, but, yes, that's how
that went down. They allowed Antifa, Black Lives
Matter, to intimidate conservatives' violence. Yeah. Very much.
But there were plenty of people in both
those groups that were not part of an
agenda, who thought they were doing something right.
He says it's only because they were weak
now that they suddenly rallied behind free speech.
And that's it.
Great. So the guy who's making fair arguments
up until now about the absolute right of
free speech is simply now telling you or
rather, what he's doing here is what everyone's
doing. It's a low hanging fruit. They started
it.
That's what he's doing. They only care about
free speech now because they're weak. Yes. I
agree with you.
But shouldn't we end by saying, regardless, the
principle should be all that matters?
You'd think so, wouldn't you? Well, what this
does is leads people going, yes. Screw them.
The left started it. They're they're only doing
they're hiding behind this because now, yes, probably,
but we should care about it regardless. Right?
I'd like to believe
actual patriots, actual people that wanna make America
great again, would believe that. Emerald Robinson with
200 and, oh, jeez, 874,000
subscribers says when
the communist canceled me during the Biden regime,
none of them stood up for free speech.
Now that communists are getting canceled,
they all claim they care about free speech.
Make them live by their own rules. Cancel
them now.
Make fun of her.
Guys, you don't from, like, oh, it's x.
That makes sense. X o a n n,
White House correspondent.
Perfect. Guys,
you have no principles, Emerald. You don't have
any principles, or at least in this case,
if you are literally saying,
like, what did you do when they canceled
you? You rightly called it out, and you
said that's a violation of my rights, didn't
you? So your answer to it is to
do it back to them. It shows that
you are weak and small, and you have
no principle.
It makes me sad.
Oh, this is good, actually. I I think
I yeah. I'll show this from Shannon Joy
in a minute.
Some people have principles to call this
out. See? Like this person. They were all
against free speech until now. Yes. Good. We
agree. Now can you make the right show
the decision about free speech being censored now?
No. They started it. So you're exactly the
same as them. How does that make you
feel? That you don't see it that way
because you just simply pretend that they deserve
to be censored.
See how dumb this gets? And and look,
even if you actually are even if they
do deserve to be censored, they have rights
like everybody else. And that you don't agree
to that or you don't want that to
be the case just shows you where your
principles lack.
Cancel them now.
Rob Schneider.
Where were these self righteous phony free speech
crying liberals when the Twitter files were revealed?
Yeah. The the the Twitter screenshots?
How'd that ever work out? What happened to
the Pfizer ones? What are the Fauci files?
We just went forward, guys. It's funny how
often Elon Musk things happen like that. All
the build and hype and we get, like,
a halfway in and we just disappear and
never talk about it again. Joe, it's just
just it's just so funny to me. But
going forward,
they didn't care then. Typical. And the Biden
Harris regime was proved to have censored Americans
for opposing views. I agree.
They were all cowardly silent. Okay.
Who I mean, I agree, Rob.
Where's the call for not doing the same
thing back?
The call seems to suggest that they deserve
what they're getting right now. But I can't
say for sure because that didn't he didn't
make that, but others do. I just I
don't I'm just pointing out people that have
been,
you know,
self prescribed champions of free speech against the
left who now seem to be cheering on
the same thing happening to them.
Makes me sad.
Elon Musk,
terrible, of course, you know, who made that
long fake list of the new independent media,
says, remember when they called for the president
of The United States to lose his free
speech?
Same thing. Yes. And she did. And it's
still up right now. Let's be honest. Donald
Trump's Twitter account should be suspended.
Yes. That'd be censorship. I agree. That's wrong.
Call it out. The difference is they're not
doing it now. At the same point, guys.
Same point. Elon Musk goes,
like like you're, what? Like, obviously, you know,
you're just trying to propel this to 6,000,000
views because you're divisive. You're trying to create
exactly what we're always pointing out.
Here is Mike Lee pointing out the tweet
that's still there.
And he says, this age, like milk? Oh,
yes. Okay. We all agree. It's very tiresome.
Yes. Anybody who's not a child agrees that
we shouldn't be censoring people. Why are you
guys doing it then? Why are you rationalizing
that then? And this person says, they don't
understand how much we are laughing at their
cries of censorship.
See? And Mike Lee says self awareness.
You'd like to think maybe that's just random
comment. No. 3,100
likes. Mike Lee comments and they're in agreement.
So you're laughing
because they're they're calling what you're doing out
and you don't care? Yeah. So you guys
are the same thing. You have no principles
and you are just like them. As much
as you'll probably never identify yourself as that,
you are just as weak willed in this
position.
Stand up for something. Have some I mean,
it does. It frustrates me. I'm sure you
can tell. By the way, Mike Lee is
the one that posted something not too long
ago that said, protecting pedophiles should not be
accepted or something like that. Like, what is
the files? Don't protect pedophiles. And then just
completely goes to the conversation when suddenly he
wasn't supposed to talk about anymore.
Gotta love the partisan games, don't you?
Oh, yeah. And let's not forget, as they're
all screaming that this is but it's okay.
They started it. Let's not forget what Charlie
Kirk's stance was. You know, the the person
they're using to justify all of this.
Speech and then there's hate speech.
And there is no place, especially now, especially
after what happened to Charlie in our society.
Let's not forget as well that this is
what Bondi just said,
which is the identical statement from the left
that the entire right, rightly so,
fought against.
Now here she is, Charlie Kirk's name, the
guy who you're gonna hear next tell you
that censorship and hate speech
hate speech doesn't exist, censorship is bad. And
they're using his name to censor hate speech.
I mean, you almost can't make up a
more stupid narrative, a stupid arc.
They are bastardizing his memory.
And yet they're gonna attack people like me
for simply being honest about how these things
are look. I mean, and look, I there's
like I said, I'm not as there's plenty
of people out there that are just hardcore
anti everything Charlie Kirk. And they have a
right to be. There's plenty of things I
align with, like I said before.
But nonetheless, people will frame me as somehow
the, you know, borderline left terrorist because I'm
simply saying things that in some cases might
be perceived as being insulted.
But it's just my opinion about it. And
in doing so and being honest about it
is far more in honoring of his memory
than what they're doing.
And there's hate speech, and then there's hate
speech.
And there is no place, especially now, especially
after what happened to Charlie in our society.
My position,
is that even hate speech should be completely
and totally allowed in our country. The most
disgusting speech should absolutely be protected.
As soon as you were use the word
hate,
that is a very subjective term.
Because then all of a sudden it is
in the eyes or the
it is in the
implementation of whomever has the power.
Do you see
more law enforcement going after these groups who
are using hate speech and putting cuffs on
people so we show them that some action
is better than no action? We will absolutely
target you, go after you. If you are
targeting anyone
with hate speech, anything, and that's across the
aisle.
And so the minute that you start to
enforce speech laws like they do in Europe
based on specific political opinions
regardless of how reprehensible they are, that you
actually give credence them. Let me be very
clear. Bring your bad ideas publicly
so decent people can cross examine you so
we can see who you are, we can
talk to you and convince the public otherwise.
There's free speech and then there's hate speech
And there is no place, especially now, especially
after what happened to Charlie in our society.
They're all freedom of speech. Freedom of speech.
These are foolish people. We have a lot
of foolish
Well,
next is the recent part of this.
I played it quick in the beginning. You
might have missed it.
Trump says, oh, she brings up that Charlie
didn't think there was hate speech because there
does it's not a real thing.
Right? It's speech, which is protected, and then
there's crimes you can commit, which have accountability
or and have a, you know, have a
a reaper have a a consequence.
When they say hate speech, all they're doing
is claiming that or a hate, you know,
a hate crime, all they're really doing is
just adding on intention that in most cases,
you can't even prove.
On top of that, the crime is still
the crime that already has a listing consequence
on the books. So they're just and all
this is all political overlapping, guys, and they're
using it to control speech and to control
ideas and to control you.
But she says, Charlie said there is no
hate speech, and Trump says he might not
be saying that now.
All these people pretending that they care about
him, that they wanna, you know, praise his
memory are actually using him in the most
disgusting ways. It it whether or not I
you know? Again,
regardless of my stance, which I already made
clear, some agreed, some not,
the idea
of of calling this out, like, this is
what Charlie would do. If you look if
you believe in those statements, the idea that
there is no hate speech and the idea
that they're now using him to drive in
the idea that this has changed because of
Charlie. They're using him as the martyr to
shift in the thing that he was fighting
into actual reality. I I mean, there's I
mean, that's I don't think Orwellian is the
right word, but that's something in that ballpark.
That's wild to me. And it should be
insulting as hell to the people that are,
you know, his family, people that care about
person. They they can't people that actually believed
in his ideas. And so I said, and
these are the ones supposedly defending Charlie's memory.
They're laughing at you.
You know, that there was no such thing
as hate speech.
He obviously, you know, no one anticipated what
what happened to Charlie, but you have always
been you have always been
you have always been
Charlie's
Well, he might not be saying that now.
Why?
Why, Trump? Because emotion?
Right? Because because something bad happened? Well, that
would mean there's no principle. Right? Because the
principle won't change because you're emotionally upset because
something bad happens.
Something horrible, something terrible, something earth shattering doesn't
matter. It doesn't change the principle.
But what that shows you is that Trump
either doesn't care about it in the first
place or doesn't have any principles.
Glenn says both parties always rethink speech the
minute they get into power.
The US in The US, you can almost
always tell who is screaming about free speech,
those who are out of power. He's absolutely
right. I mean, it's like clockwork, guys.
This is Republicans rethinking speech.
It's just very transparent. It pe it's it's
this it just goes back and forth. That's
the point. And what it does is it
creates the feeling that you're fighting the power,
and then you get the momentum, and then
you get to push back. And then, you
know, like, what we're gonna see after this
one is that the left is to fight
back against Trump's fascism, and it will drive
in the left power, and it will continue
the same problem. That's that linear progression that
we keep highlighting.
Here, David Icke pointing out Alex Jones being
a hypocrite.
First, it's just it's just this weird Alex
Jones just shares a weird clip of Jimmy
Kimmel, you know,
shutting down and trucking a moving truck. Like,
it's just petty small nonsense. And Jimmy and
Alex says, Jimmy Kim will constantly celebrate the
when conservatives were and populists were being censored.
He did.
Deplatformed and de banked. Right. I agree. Now
he's experiencing the karma of a collapsing establishment
facade. Now, of course, they're trying to play
the game like this was totally just an
organic thing because Jimmy sucks. Well, he does.
And he is and he is a manipulator.
And I don't I think I do think
he I do think he's ridiculous, but that's
not what actually happened. But David Icke says
the same establishment that canceled the right is
canceling the left. You don't just you you
just don't get it, Alex. Since when did
two wrongs make a right? Well, you see,
he doesn't care about that. He doesn't care
about the principle. It's about dunking on the
other side. So in regard to Jimmy Kimmel,
we'll start with this article from ARS Technica.
And this is really important to set the
tone for what really happened here. The evidence
you know, just like every other part of
these ridiculous partisan back and forth, the evidence
is usually pretty clear, and it comes down
to the narratives you'll battle over.
It becomes impossible. The noise gets too crazy.
After getting Jimmy Kimmel suspended, FCC chair threatens
ABC's The View. So that's as of today.
Just to start with that point, so they're
already like, the game is, oh, it was
an organic thing, and his his numbers were
bad, and the numbers were bad. But let's
remember, these people are largely like, especially today,
corporate media is largely, what's the word I'm
looking for, subsidized by the government.
I mean, they need these things because they're
propaganda tools. Like I keep saying, Alex Jones
has a shockingly larger audience than people like
Kimmel. That's why I call him out. If
you understand, at least I don't know if
you can believe it or, you know, who
knows what to it's hard to verify stuff
like this today, but the claim is going
around that he had, like, a 139,000
views on, like, one of his recent shows.
That's I get more than that. I mean,
that's crazy. You know? So the idea is
that Alex Jones, who is reaching,
you know, however many times more,
that's like that's the reason we call it
corporate media is because they're deceiving people on
a mass scale. Well, that's why we call
out his lies. It's not some petty divisional
thing. It's about showing that him or anybody
else with that much reach are deliberately deceiving
you about very foundational things. But so this
case, they lied about this claiming it was
some, oh, they just did it because they
hated him. Oh, but now it's happening to
The View.
But that's also totally organic, and it doesn't
connect, but it does. It's all happening through
the administration.
Carr appeared yesterday on one of the radio
shows hosted by Scott Jennings, who describes himself
as the last man standing of thwart the
liberal mob. Jennings asked Carr whether The View
and the ABC programs violate FCC rules and
made reference to president Trump calling NBC to
cancel Fallon and Myers.
Right. No big deal. Trump just said he
has a right to say yeah. He does.
Right? But the president of The United States
calling on companies to do things and then
his very clear track record of literally strong
arming people into doing what he wants or
shutting people down or shutting down funding because
they don't agree with them or do something
he doesn't ask
for. It's not hard to see. The air
he's created where they will bow to what
he says. But it goes way further than
just that. But that alone would be enough
to argue that this wasn't some organic move.
But it says, quote, a lot of people
think there are other shows on ABC
that maybe run afoul of this more often.
Oh, wait. I didn't finish it.
Oh, no. That's right. The he we're talking
about a specific,
rule we'll get to.
But he says other shows that may run
afoul more often than Jimmy Kimmel. He says,
I'm thinking specifically of The View, and president
Trump himself has mentioned Jimmy Fallon and Seth
Meyers as m at NBC.
Do you have comments on those shows, he
says, and are they doing what Kimmel did
Monday night? And is it even worse on
those programs in your opinion?
So what the argument, I guess, is that
he lied about whether the guy was MAGA?
I mean, are we are I mean, this
is absolutely mind blowing to me.
That one, are we saying that somebody even
deliberately lying on a media show is somehow
now worthy of them to get them completely
kicked off the okay. Then that would mean
every single platform that we're literally pointing to.
Every one of them.
Every single I mean, from the media. I
mean, it's insane to pretend that they don't
already know that he's as a that his
job is to lie to you. So all
they're really saying
is that oh, we'll get to it because
it's not saying it right here. But the
argument going around is that he just he
misrepresented that the guy was MAGA. Well, at
right this moment, you can't prove one way
or the other. There's data points, but it's
not defined. He just seemed to lean into
what he thought, and they remove him from
this is obvious to me.
And it's it's if you can't see that
in whatever side it is, it's about being
able to do this, whether media, whether talk
shows, controlling the flow of information because you
don't adhere to the narrative.
That's left and right, guys.
And he says in response, Carr discussed the
FCC's what's called the equal opportunities rule, which
I find humorous talking about the Trump administration,
also known as the equal time rule. You
know, I would call it the propaganda rule,
the fake illusion of equals, you know, little
bit from them, a little bit from them.
That's not journalism. That's a fake illusion.
But it says
and and could determine that those shows don't
qualify for the exemption.
And it says, when you look at these
other TV shows, what's interesting is the FCC
does have a rule called equal opportunity rule,
which means, for instance, if you're in the
run up to an election and you have
one partisan elected official on, that you have
to give equal time, equal opportunity
to the opposing partisan politician, which is just
insane to me. I mean, I get the
idea that you wanna, like so they can't
just, like, only show you on one side,
but that's what already happens, guys. So this
is a way that you're sort of, like,
forcing them to pretend to be balanced.
How about you just let people be what
they be and then let people decide what
actually is the you know, it's fair an
actual market, but it goes on to say,
at some another point in the interview, Carr
said broadcasters
that object to FCC enforcement
can turn over your license to the FCC,
and we'll find something else with it. So
even right there, floating soft threats about whether
you comply with what they want from you.
And it says, Carr said the FCC hasn't
previously enforced the rule
on those shows because of an exemption for
what they call a bona fide news programs.
The he said the FCC could determine
the shows mentioned by Jennings aren't exempt.
Right? We could decide to determine that they're
not in that camp because you wanna use
it against them. It says there's an exemption
that the rule that rule called the bona
fide rule exemption,
which means if you are a bona fide
news program, which is subjective,
you don't have a to abide by the
equal opportunity rule, which which is what they
allow for Fox and CNN and all the
rest. It says over the years, the the
FCC has developed a body of case law
on that on that that has suggested
that most of these late night shows, other
than Saturday Night Live, are bonafide nose programs.
Even though Saturday Night Live does not give,
as far as I can tell, equal opportunity,
but it says, I would assume you could
make the argument that The View is a
bonafide news show. I would laugh at that,
but that's probably the case on record.
But I'm not so sure about that, it
says. And I think it's worthwhile to have
the FCC look into whether The View and
some of these other programs, you still qualify
as bonafide news programs, are therefore exempt from
this. Now here's what's interesting. The only reason
that would matter is if you then argue
that they're not doing so. Right? That they're
only showing you left views, which I think
is clear about all of these platforms. But
this is where it gets even more interesting.
It says an FCC fact sheet explains
that stations giving time to one candidate must
provide comparable time and placement to the others.
It says the onus is on the candidate
to request that time.
The station is not required to seek out
opposing legally qualified candidates and offer them time.
If this comes to pass when the view
is removed, and we're gonna get to Kimmel
after in the same conversation,
what's interesting to me, I'm willing to bet
you anything that this nuance will get ignored.
Right? It'll just be they'll just remove The
View. They'll cite this as why, and then
just never try to verify that it was
actually the case, especially since this becomes even
more relevant right here. It says The View
has addressed its attempts to actually get Trump
on the show. And it says executive producer
Brian Tedda told Deadline, of course, they could
be lying, but I do this this makes
sense to me. In April 2024, it says,
quote, we invited Trump to join us at
the table for both 2016
and twenty twenty elections, which I argue they
I mean, that's in their interest. Right? It
would be wildly popular even just to hate
on Trump. And it says, and he declined.
At certain point, we stopped asking.
Okay. So how much you wanna bet now
they can turn around and say, they didn't
invite me or frame it as they only
have lefties on even though they're claiming at
least, and it would be worth proving that,
that they did try and he didn't even
want it. All I'm pointing at is kind
of build it for if this comes to
pass, which I kinda get the sense that
it will because of where it already started,
that this is gonna be worth knowing when
this
partisan chaos story breaches the, you know, whatever
you would call them. Try to give a
bad analogy there about the water, but it
says the the the Kimmel controversy
erupted over a monologue in which he said,
quote,
we hit some new lows over the weekend
with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize
this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything
other than one of them and with everything
they can to score political points from it.
How is that even possible? I mean, that
is identical
to every other partisan conversation with different layer.
I mean, are we seriously?
That you can argue even if he did
lie? That you what if he was just
mistaken?
But I do know these people lie to
you as a matter of this is what
they do. My point is that so does
every one of them.
That's what they're there for, guys. And so
it's just crazy to me that you can
even make that the case.
And on top of that, that we don't
even know for sure that he is one
or the other. That is the reality of
the evidence unless something shifted in the last
couple hours.
There's data points on either side, like the
MAGA family or he lives with this person,
but we can't prove that. And he's yet
to confess. He's yet to give much of
information other than saying his name in regard
to that hearing. So how in the world
are they able to fire him based on
the idea that he lied about something we
don't even know for sure?
This is ideological purity test here, Steph. This
is crazy. And it says, with accuser murderer
Tyler Robins accused murderer Tyler Robinson being described
as having liberal views, Carr and other conservatives
alleged that Kimmel misled views viewers.
Seriously. Carr appeared on right wing commentator, Benny
Johnson's podcast, of course, and said, we can
do this the easy way or the hard
way. These companies can find ways to change
conduct, to take action,
frankly, on Kimmel, or there's going to be
additional work for the FCC.
That that's a threat. So
they responded.
If you're too childish to point out that
that's how this went, then you're just a
dishonest person. They said, take easy or hard.
Your choice.
And they said, oh, okay. Well, we don't
want to go through the hard way because
we've seen how petty and and and what's
the right word for it? You know, just
the the Trump administration will go after people
for the smallest of things in ways that
are frankly illegal
and don't seem to care. But it's worked
for them because everyone bows to their interest
now because they know they're gonna do something
if they don't.
But it goes on. Nexstar and Sinclair,
they put out public statements. It says the
two major tea owners of the TV stations
both urged ABC to take action. So you
see how this starts. They say do it
or we're gonna do something. They then for
they say ABC do something.
K? And it said and realize his numbers
have been low for a long time. So
you could argue that's a play plays a
factor, but this was the catalyst no matter
how you try to spin it.
And he says the pressure from broadcasters is
happening at a time when both Nexstar and
ABC owner Disney are seeking Trump administration
approval for mergers.
Of course, that does plays a factor. Right?
So it's very clear.
Here's Brandon Carr, September 18.
He says broadcast TV stations have always been
required by their licenses to operate in the
public interest. That includes serving the needs of
their local communities.
And broadcasters have long retained the right to
not air national programs that they believe are
inconsistent with the public interest, including their local
communities' values.
I'm glad to see that many broadcasters are
responding to their viewers as intended. See, this
is what they're pointing to by and he
put it out for a reason.
Are ignoring that he just said do something
or I'm going to?
And then said, good for them taking action
because nobody asked them to. It's just a
game they play. And all the lying partisans
come out and pretend like they don't know
it. It's a game. Every side doesn't.
But here's what he said back in 2022.
President Biden is right. Political satire is one
of the oldest and most important forms of
free speech. It challenges those in power with
using humor to draw more people into the
discussion. That's why people in influence positions have
always targeted it for censorship. Now whether you
think of satire or not, I don't think
it was necessarily satire, but the show is
a is a, you know, talk show. It's
irrelevant.
Even if he was lying about that, he
has every right to say that is actual
free speech. And now that we can see
clearly that the government pressured this into reality,
that's actual censorship,
Government censorship.
But it's a nuance. They're gonna say, no.
No. He just said what he thought, and
they acted on their own accord. Sure. Sure.
Easy to make that the case when it's
obviously something that brushes up against your hypocrisy.
Now you've got people like Libs with TikTok
saying, fact check. Don't you love that? So
now you're Snopes. Right? It says, did didn't
they make fun of the fact check thing
and now they're doing it? Fact, did Trump
fire Jimmy Kimmel? ABC did. Who is saying
Trump fired? I mean, this is the game.
Right? You then point to other ridiculous partisan
people in congress or people in positions of
political
influence. Like, this is the I talk about
the mainstream alternate media and the mainstream media
pointing at each other. Like, that's the whole
conversation. It's exactly like this.
Libs who knows? I don't have a high
opinion of their intelligence, but I'd like to
believe they're aware of people like me. They're
out here going,
it's neither. Right?
So they point to the other ridiculous side
of the partisanship and go, they claim Trump
did it. Well, that's dumb to say because
Trump, you could argue that
the FCC chair did. Yes.
And Trump put him there. Yes. But to
say then Trump did that is just more
abstract. You're broadening it out even further. That's
what partisans do.
They said ABC did. Telling the truth is
hard for Democrats. Well, see, you also have
a problem with the truth. And you can
listen to the clip right here. This is
where he was on Bennet Johnson, and it
was exactly what we just read to you.
We could do it the easy way or
the hard way. And it says, Chaya, remember
Chaya was one of the ones that got
those fake Epstein binders and then pretended like
everything was good. Because I know the true
I know truth and facts are really hard
for you. But when the federal government pressures
the TV network, not only to censor speech,
but to fire someone simply because it dislikes
what he said, that's not overreach. It's a
direct violation of the first amendment of the
US constitution.
Right? But you frame it like this, that's
why they do it. It's a cartoon and
it's easy to point to.
Well, here's somebody saying, well, tell it to
Grock, honey.
And this is what Grock said. Not that
you should blind listen to Grock,
but I it's it's the point was that
the lie and this oversimplification,
and even Grock says, yes. The FCC chair,
Brandon Carr, a triple pointy, pressured ABC by
publicly threatening regulatory action. You already know this.
I'm sure they'll update rock again, you know,
however that goes.
Here's Turnbull pointing to Tim Pool doing his
old stupid dance. ABC is a private company
and could do what it wants. Yes. We
all agree with that. Yeah. You're so measured.
Right? That's not what actually happened, though. But,
you know, take a seat. And Turnbull says,
listen up, magamorons. ABC did not cancel Jimmy
Kimmel because they received millions of letters from
angry viewers that love Charlie Kirk. ABC canceled
him because the FCC threatened to pull the
broadcasting license. That's textbook censorship.
I agree.
Now you could argue it's both.
Maybe it is. But you you can't pretend
like the government doing what they did just
doesn't exist.
Shannon Joy. That's what she posted underneath the
law.
Bradley Gaines says Jimmy Kimmel gets canceled by
ABC, and the left instantly blames Trump and
MAGA. You see?
Now that is the fake version of it.
That's the TeamSport politics left making it about
only Trump because that's nothing that will have
a hold up in court. That's something that's
actually not true. There's more abstract points to
be made. But, yeah, maybe Trump was involved.
But, see, this is what they do. So
then people on the right read this and
go, that's so stupid. But the only people
saying that are people like Rachel Maddow. Right?
That's the game that's being played. I don't
know whether Riley knows that or not. I'm
not sure.
What Riley? Or,
Shannon Joy says, hey, Riley. Because Trump's FCC
commissioner oh, this is the not the same
one. That one's coming up. But she says,
because Trump's FCC commissioner, Bren, Brandon Carr publicly
threatened ABC affiliates with fines and yanking their
broadcast license for carrying a show. Can you
watch the clip below? So the networks were
actually under duress. See, some people have principles
enough to point out the obvious.
Here is Pierce Morgan. Fairweather Morgan, as we
call him. Jimmy Kimmel has celebrated endless conservative
stars cancellations with savagely, oh, you're so brave.
You're so, you know, you're so what's the
word?
You know, he's just trying to frame himself.
Like, he sees them doing that on the
right, and he wants to be in the
click.
You're just a clown, man. Yes. Good. Yes.
We all agree. Left sucks. They did that.
Now have some courage, some constitution,
some gumption. Stand up and say, and they're
doing it too. That would make you real.
Not you just fair weather sidling up to
whatever team is certainly winning in your eyes.
Pathetic.
He really is. Like, I find him more
offensive to me. I guess wrong word. Like,
more repugnant or not even that. Like, just
I find him worse in every way than
even the people out there that are just,
like, blindly telling lies. Like, he is he's,
like, worming into there and acting like he's
seeing and giving you some level of truth
and
then being, you know, fanning the flames of
the problem.
And look. I agree.
Jimmy Kimmel celebrated Tucker getting fired. Yes. He
also pushed vaccines on people. He I think
he's a ridiculous person.
Doesn't change the reality of the law, the
constitutional rights, and the hypocrisy of what's happening
right now. Piers Morgan said, Jimmy Kimmel lied
about Charlie Kirk's assassination being MAGA. You see?
Piers is an idiot.
K? He said what he thought was the
case or he lied. Either way, you can't
prove one way or the other. And it
says this caused understandable outrage all over America,
prompted TV stations TV station owners to say
they wouldn't air him. He's now been suspended
by his employers. Why is why is it
being heralded by some free speech partner? See,
Piers Morgan doesn't even take a second to
look into the facts, or he didn't even
care because he's selling you a narrative.
Glenn says because, Piers, it was some it
it wasn't some autonomous decision by ABC or
affiliates to remove him. The chair of the
FCC explicitly threatened media outlets with reprisals if
they didn't remove him. You just can't ignore
that. And Champagne Jossy says this shouldn't be
hard to understand. And here's the exact post
from Sinclair.
He says, I get it that everyone's pissed
right now, but when media corporations use government
muscle to police speech,
it sets a precedent far more dangerous than
anything the late night show should say.
Right? Principle.
Support people like this. You whether or not
you agree everything you know, I mean, I
seems like Josh and I are pretty much
in line with most points. But whether you
agree with him or not, people that show
principled stances should gain your support,
not people like this that are fair weather.
There's Glenn Beck again.
Kimmel's show didn't collapse because the FCC conspiracy.
It collapsed because audiences walked away. Yeah. So
you're a liar then or completely inept at
your job. You choose.
You just can't be you can't ignore it.
Either he didn't look and he's bad at
his job or he knowingly is misleading you
for a partisan side.
That's the game today.
Here's Glenn again citing Phillips saying this is
a business consequence in regard to the same
post. Nothing to do with rights or free
speech. He lied, misled people about the assassin.
Same point. You can't that's just not the
case right now. You can't prove one or
the other.
He says, talk he's talking is going to
definitely produce copycats. He deserved to have his
late show pulled. Copycats? You mean media people
dis misleading you?
No. I mean, guys, I I it's like
this is almost embarrassing for people like the
on the right who got who just to
claim, like, him misleading you is, like, the
pinnacle end all. Like, okay. Let's go with
it then. What about Fox? What about everything
they said today all over the shows that
I can prove to you are false? What
about all over CNN? What about One New
America One News? What about OIN?
Yes. I can prove to you they've lied.
Like, knowingly lied, but they don't care about
the lies. They care about using the claim
of the lie to go after someone they
don't like.
Here's the the White House account. Like, Esquire,
this is so embarrassing. Here's what they wrote.
They're embarrassed. They're embarrassing themselves every day. All
of them are. Acting like they're, like, in
some kind of right wing chat room when
they talk on here. It's just embarrassing.
POTUS was right again, says the White House
count.
Kimmel was sidelined because his show sucked.
It's funny to me. Like, just they're just
children.
Like, I you know, it's not like I
think I think it did suck, but it's
just funny to me from the there's just
no decorum. Like, it's like you're talking to
some Doge person running you know, like, the
when Doge was existing, like, some 16 year
old kid that he hired.
That's probably the people, like, it doesn't matter.
His show sucked. That's why. But the point
is that's also incorrect for why it happened.
His show did suck and his numbers were
down, but that's not actually why this started.
It's because of the FCC. You can easily
prove that.
Here's Margot Teller Green. Democrats
want to subpoena FCC chair Brendan Carr because
they're upset that their actions finally have consequences.
See, she's part of the problem, guys. I'm
sorry to say that if you thought because
she pointed out what's is real. You can't
look at this and not I think what
this is
is transparently obvious.
And all of them are taking a very
hardcore partisan one-sided perspective on this, which shows
you they have no principle.
Oh, come on.
Oh, here. Hold on. I've got it right
here.
I I would like to move to table
the motion to subpoena. Jimmy Kimmel was fired
because he lied
on on ABC
about the identity
of the of the Oh, okay. You see?
Right out of the gate.
Did he? Can you prove that? Just because
you your your side of the narrative screams
that we know for a fact that he
is based on your opinion.
I've already shown you the evidence, guys. There
is nothing other than those subjective points. Look.
He wore a mask. Look. He's dating a
trans person, if you can even verify that.
He hated Trump. Well, every single one of
those things, I can point out Republicans that
have done them or do them all collectively.
Maybe it's not the majority,
but you just can't or how about the
idea that his family was all MAGA? Right?
That there was a very clear right leaning
point or that he was in a right
wing style chat room with the com the
memes he shared. I wouldn't argue that that
proves that he's right wing because I understand
that there's more overlap than people wanna acknowledge.
But people like this are you they they
I they must know they're lying to you,
or they're she's watching idiots like Betty Johnson
and believing that he's honest or that his
that his subjective
framing is complete fact, which is also very
alarming. But I'll play it all the way
through. Listen to this. And even the way
that she, like, reiterates all the buzzwords
very clear and uses the word martyr, by
the way, because that is currently one of
the points you're supposed to put out there.
I would like to move to table the
motion to subpoena.
Jimmy Kimmel was fired because he lied
on on ABC
about the identity
of the of the man that Tyler Robinson
that murdered,
assassinated murdered Charlie Kirk. He lied and said
he was MAGA.
Well, she's lying right now. So get out
of congress. Tyler Robinson was not MAGA. I'm
kidding. Not one not one bit. He was
part of Antifa.
Oh, really? He was in a relationship.
Now now he's part of Antifa. Oh, great.
Good. Just see, they do the same thing
every time. Have you proven that? Or are
you just saying, well, because he wrote fascist
you know, bad fascist on his gun, that
means he's part of a group. Right? You
guys can't be the ones that are saying
that this is an organized, funded, specific carousel
and then say that anyone who screams things
about fascism is also part of that organized
team that has to sign up. Like, every
day they do this. You can't those things
are completely counter contradictory.
People can claim that like, I can say
people are fascist without being a part of
a group that pretends to be anti fascist
because clearly what they act through are fascist
tendencies. Either way,
she's just making things up, screaming that he's
part of a group. Why? Because they declared
it a terrorist group. Because there is an
obvious partisan agenda that is running all through
this thing.
One not one bit. He was part of
Antifa.
He was in a relationship.
He was in a relationship
with someone who identified as furry and trans.
And Based on things that we you're going
through chat rooms at FBI and so on.
But overall,
neither of those things prove somebody has a
specific political standing. They just don't. Yes. I
agree. They show certain leanings, very much so.
And this this is this is an absurd
lie,
and so I moved to table the motion
to subpoena.
Right. So what I get all the time
in this
is kinda like the like, honestly, even from
people in our circle sometimes. Right? Anybody honest
is gonna agree that being objective, you don't
know for sure. You just don't. Even even
if they were actually part of Antifa, you
still wouldn't prove that you know that they
have a certain political leaning.
I just it's you have to be honest
about that. But see, the point is people
go, come on, Ryan. You know. You don't
know. I can agree. It's maybe 90% likely.
But you see how how important it is
today to make sure that we're not being
subjective
even when it's in, like, most likely?
Because it's not in your interest. And that
small 10% variable is what they dive on.
Like, that is their bread and butter, guys.
On the side of your principles. Every single
day has to be the the focal point
right now.
So this is another very interesting one. Oh,
two more and then there's a couple more
points on this. Here's senator Rand Paul.
The first amendment says nothing about private companies
firing people who say despicable things. Yeah. That's
a fact. We all agree. But he says,
I agree with Sinclair on this,
but it's absolutely wrong for the FCC to
get involved.
Now I wish he would have been a
little more specific about that because the point
is, yes, the FCC did drive this action.
Therefore, it's not the first part. Right? I
mean, the first part exists within it, but
it started because the FCC drove it into
reaction. So excuse me. So you have to
acknowledge
that that's government driving the censorship.
So I'm glad he at least can point
to that because it seems very difficult for
Republicans to be honest about that right now.
Wesley Hunt.
This person says,
412,000
followers,
spare us the pearl clutching on Jimmy Kimmel.
When conservatives were censored, you know where this
is going, shadow banned, deplatformed. They left smirked
and called it consequence culture. Yeah. Because they're
ridiculous. Right? So we agree. That was childish
and small and stupid, and and it's ridiculous,
and it's unconstitutional.
Right, Wesley? We all agree. But now they
own reckless rhetoric. The lies and demonization that
fueled the assassination of Charlie Kirk is finally
under a spotlight.
Oh, again, because people call Trump fascist, therefore,
we know that's why Chile got shot because
that's a smart thing to say. Even though
I'll show you the clips of Trump calling
her a fascist.
These people are ridiculous.
When he says, let's be clear. This isn't
cancel culture. These are the consequences they demanded.
Oh, okay. So Wesley's also a clown. Also
somebody who just literally said bad, bad, bad,
bad, and here's why we're doing it too,
but it's okay.
How does anybody take somebody like that seriously?
They built the game. They wrote the rules,
and for the first time, they're being four.
Okay. Fine. So just admit that you don't
care about the principle. Don't start off claiming
like you care about free speech when your
response is we're gonna stop theirs.
They started it.
Go back to kindergarten, man. This is insane.
It's insulting that people are acting like this
is an, a responsible
adult thing to say.
This
representative Wesley Hunt. Excuse me.
These are people that swore out the constitution,
who are literally going, they started it. So
who cares?
Do I need to say anymore?
I really would like to believe that that
would just be I mean, we should these
all every one of these should be some
kind of, like, watershed moment. But, no, we're
trapped in the partisan manipulation.
Here was the one. Now this is super
interesting to me. Now
I'll play it first, then I'll give you
my comments.
I really genuinely think though that this is
a a the reality
behind all of them trying to pretend like
they're being nuanced.
You'll see what I mean.
What we did in canceling Jimmy Kimmel is
hypocritical.
We talk about free speech and I'm sorry.
There's a curse for those that wanna, you
know, for the families out there watching.
We did in canceling Jimmy Kimmel is hypocritical.
We talk about free speech, and then when
someone says something we don't like, we cancel
them.
It's not consistent
with our values.
He's right. 100% right.
Everyone knows that.
And he's admitting
it. And then he says this. And I
don't give a fuck.
Fuck you.
You kicked me in the balls. I gouge
out your fucking eyes. I'm not doing some
Dave Portnoy explanation on why this is consistent.
It's hypocritical.
We're hypocritical.
This is a fucking
war. Told you.
Fuck you.
You got me fired, I get you fired.
It's like I say to my daughter's boyfriend.
Your child. You make her cry, I make
you cry. We're making you cry now, motherfuckers.
This is who post Molly Jimmy needs to
suffer, and we're making him fucking suffer. And
we're gonna make them all suffer. The gloves
are off. We're hypocrites now. You made your
bed. You're fucking lying in it. And other
colloquialisms
such as that. You know what I genuinely
think about this is that this is so
I think this is a example of somebody
who drinks the Kool Aid, truly believes the
and not just out there trying to use
the partisan to you know, she's not a
a luma out there secretly fighting for Zionism.
Right? Whatever you wanna look at. I think
he I mean, that's a bad example because
I think she also drinks her own BS.
My point though is that I think he
believes these things. And so he's out there
feeling like they did it first, so screw
them. Like, I mean, everyone can understand
the logic there. You could even argue they
deserve it.
The point though is that I think this
is an example of a person who genuinely
believes this, and so he's just being honest.
And what he's doing is I'm not gonna
be like the poor I'm not gonna be
like all those pretenders over there who are
knowingly pretending this is not hypocritical. You see
my point, guys? Because it is hypocritical, and
we all know that. And you know the
brain can see that they're doing the same
thing. Ron Paul, why would right cancer culture
be okay? They're like, that's not what we're
doing even though they're going, but they deserve
it. They started it.
So at at the very least, I'll say
that I would give him more respect for
at least being honest about his opinions. I
I at least I can engage with that.
But my point overall
is that that's what's happening.
That now it's becoming praised because I I
actually and you've if you've been watching my
show, we've been making this point for, I
mean, a long time, but a lot since
Trump came into power recently.
That they the might makes right. The kind
of rationale of undermining your own rights
just like this
because they're bad. Right? Even it makes you
feel better for the moment. What you're doing
is allowing the government to rationalize
not caring, not in not in not acknowledging
or respecting your inherent rights.
Not this side, not the other side.
So what are you gonna do when they
come back around and say, okay. Well, we're
gonna do it again because you kept doing
it. Even though it was already going on,
all you're doing is normalizing, which they were
already gonna do, the cycle that never ends.
So if people like him or us wanted
to actually fight for free speech and actually
stop the government or maybe just the left,
do you think that's the problem? Is the
answer to keep going with the problem? Or
is the answer to go, okay. Fine. They're
bad. We get it. They deserve it, but
we're gonna be higher than that. We're gonna
do the right thing.
Actually, fight for free speech because that's what
we pretend we're doing on the show. Right?
No. No. No. This is about petty, small
attacks on the other side because that's all
they seem to care about.
That's sad, man.
Even if every single thing they ever said
about the left, even if they're actually some
domestic terrorist organization,
the answer is not to undermine your own
structure.
It's pure stupidity.
Arrest them. Charge them for crimes.
This is weaponized against you, and people like
this are now pushing out at but at
least I feel like he's being honest about
it, but he's creating the justification for people
to go, yeah. You know what? Screw it.
They deserve it.
Wait till it comes back to bite you
in the ass.
Cry. We're making you explanation on why this
is consistent. It's hypocritical.
We're hypocritical.
This is a fucking
war.
Yep. And you've heard that from all of
them. The moment this happened, it was a
war.
And, of course, it's all their fault for
incitement.
But the it's not meant to be another
partisan. The point is as you if you're
watching this show, that it happens from every
partisan team's part political side.
And then, of course, Trump floats pulling licenses
of networks that are against him if Jimmy
Kimmel suspended or after Jimmy Kimmel suspended.
It's so how are you gonna pretend that
this was some organic thing when it's already
being floated with a view and they're already
saying other people are against it? You know
this is the reality if you're not blinded
by partisanship,
and the left does the same thing.
Here's Glenn saying, if you wanna defend the
events leading to Kimmel suspension, you can obviously
do so. But be honest about what happened.
The triggering event, the central fact,
the FCC chair, Brendan Carr, explicitly threatened stations
with state reprisals if they continued to air
Kimmel.
It's cut and dry. It's printed right there.
As for this painful absurd claim that Carr
has the power to ban network shows that
spread false claims,
please.
The entire conservative censorship critique has been we
don't have a ministry of truth.
The state doesn't decide truth or falsity. Right,
guys?
Carr himself
argued that.
This is how painful this gets, guys.
It's just so insanely hypocritical and people that
were you know what it is really that
bothered me the most is that it's the
people like the Ben sort
Ben John Johnson's and Nick Sorters that are
out there acting virtuous and righteous about these
points and they are the first ones to
challenge it. The first ones to go, yeah.
Screw the left, and do the same thing
back.
It's pathetic.
Oh, wait. Hold on. There's one other point
in that.
He goes on to say, if you really
believe that Brandon Carr, or more accurately Trump,
can just sit in front of their TV
watching shows and then ban any program
the minute they hear something they think is
false or constitutes disinformation,
then you think like Gina, Nina, Jacobitz does.
I mean, he is ripping them apart, guys.
I mean, that's exactly what they were calling
out. You know the points. I don't even
explain it. It's the same thing on the
left because it's the same thing from your
government. And so now they're just going I
mean, think about the way you frame that
because that's how it would work. So when
when the next
democrat administration comes into power, they're gonna be
able to just go, that's not true. Tenzard.
I mean, how was that even possibly in
line with what they said they were fighting
for?
And see, they're they're destroying their own credibility
in the minds of anybody with a brain
for what?
Glenn says the exact car, quote, where he
very explicitly threatens all stations that continue to
air Jimmy Kimmel's show with official state reprisals.
And one can find Charlie Kirk's assassination
horrifying and also object to this. They're not
mutually exclusive. And, again, we went over. You
can see very clearly. I read in the
first article.
Hard way or the easy way. You know,
it's gonna go we're gonna go after them.
So Omar l Ayat says, this is the
sixth time Randy Fine has been on CNN
since June without being challenged on his frequent
bigoted and genocidal remarks.
Now I'm not gonna skip this because I've
just I've gone longer than I wanted today,
and this guy is just an absolute disgusting
vile person. I mean, you could look at
these comments he makes. You know? It's as
fine as called to leave a terrorist who
shouldn't be American.
He said to leave an an Omar, Minnesota
might be leaving before I go to congress
bombs away. You're talking about American citizens for
crying out loud. He has advocated running over
killing pro Palestine protesters, called Palestinians animals, referred
to Muslims as rapists, as of late openly
cheerlead starving civilians in Gaza. In his most
recent online tie tirade on Friday, find once
again engaged in a racist attack on on
representative Tlaib, posting on Twitter in response to
or condemning Israel's starvation of Gaza. Tell your
fellow Muslim terrorists to release the hostages and
surrender. Until then, starve away.
Insane.
The idea clearly is that we can prove
a 100 times over before he even said
this that they're deliberately holding back this problem.
And even Trump has alluded to that now.
But Randy Feige doesn't care because he's not
fighting for American interests.
The clip is basically him trying to gaslight
around this whole thing and saying, you know,
Kimmel legitimate basically saying he Kimmel legitimized violence
and then he then he gets pushed back
and he goes, well, he didn't really, but
the words he meant, wink, wink, lead to
violence. Oh, you mean just like the left
said? Oh, so words are violence. Okay. Good
job, Randy Fine. You're a moron.
Sean Strickland says unpopular take, but The U
the FCC
overstepped with Jimmy Kimmel. He didn't get canceled.
ABC was threatened by FCC. It's the same
point, but you're getting people calling this out
all over the place. Sean Strickland, 690,000
followers, MMA, his reach.
No pun intended. You the UFC King says,
facts, facts, they gonna do this to everyone
now.
F Jimmy Kimmel, but this is not freedom.
See, I believe this is most people. They
just don't not everyone has a reach or
a voice. You're only seeing the let me
see this one, though. Yeah. 905 followers. I
see this because he's commenting under Sean. The
point, though, is that a lot of average
people are just like, yeah. Jamie sucks. But
that's not the constitution. You know? It's like
that's I'd like to believe at the very
least, and I do believe that most people
see that, but are just afraid to point
it out. Like with COVID, for example, they
were
afraid to be called out by their side.
This was what we point pointed to earlier.
Shannon Joyce says, so on the right being
tired of having their speech infringed on by
the left, have decided that what's good for
the goose is good for the gander. The
previous cries of infringement on speech have been
replaced with cheers as they try to be
clever on how it's different.
And that's deliberately, I agree.
It's a definitive
fact.
That's what she writes. That's the quote was
for an article. And it says, Trump's FCC
threatened affiliates as we just read. Brute force,
censorship, and MAGA is cheering for Trump's bravado.
Great write up by Instigator twenty twenty four.
Now I might go through this
I should be speaking with this pretty quick.
I I'm just I'm really much longer than
I wanted today.
Congressman Byron Donalds
says, Rashida Tlaib has no point to make.
She called republicans fascist again.
I mean, I guess, you just you'd like
to think that they're not that they're that
they're smarter than this. Like, can't you guys
recognize that we know that the word fascist
has been thrown around by both sides for
a long time? And so if you're making
this big movement about how claiming they're fascist
is why the violence happened,
Well, then we're gonna point out that, look,
he said the same thing. You're an idiot.
Right? I mean, it's just lazy.
But he said, she used the exact same
irresponsible rhetoric that inspired Tyler Robinson
to kill Charlie,
meaning
calling him a fascist.
Enough is enough. Okay. Well, I said, you
mean, like, when Trump and others did below?
Are you dishonest or just stupid? I, for
one, care about free speech. I guess you
don't.
In case you missed it, here's Donald Trump,
which he has a right to say. It's
free speech. But if the argument is because
they said it that caused violence, then what's
the case here, guys? Biden
American politics today is between these far left
fascists
led by Harris and her group. We have
a fascist
person running
who's incompetent.
The only reason he even called her a
fascist is because he was being called a
fascist. As David I pointed out, communism and
fascism are basically same thing when it comes
down to the core outcome.
Like, the reality of the over rather the
main point of the overlap of business and
government.
So he's just calling her that because, yeah,
you could argue that, but they're both fascist.
They're both acting out fascist communist socialist policies
when you really break down the full picture.
She's a Marxist communist fascist socialist.
She's not actually a socialist. She's gone past
that. Somebody's gotta explain this woman. There's a
radical left Marxist communist fascist.
You know, it's just so silly,
but they're going to town really pushing it
in because they think they're getting political points
from it. This is Brian Brian, Byron Donalds.
It's been eight days since the leftist assassin
shot my friend Charlie Kirk. Now did he
even know Charlie? They all everyone out there
maybe did, but it's just grossing me out
how every everyone now, we're all best friends.
You know? We love to death, and we
were fighting the whole time even though many
of them were calling him out and Ben
Shapiro called him a clown. Laura Loomer said
he wasn't part of MAGA and he was
a dispersed disgrace. Now we fight for his
memory. They're disgusting.
This is just now and by the way,
also calling for censorship
using his memory even though he didn't want
that. He says, just now, Rasheed Tlaib, just
called as a fascist again.
Ritter is wrong. Unhinged. Okay. Then what about
Trump then? You know? It's it's just the
same point. But here's what you said just
so you can hear it. And it it
breaks down and, like and so you know,
in case you're missing this, I have no
respect for any of these people. I've called
out their hypocrisy,
especially when it comes to pretending to fight
for Israel or rather for Palestine, and then
in many cases continuing to fund Israel.
And each one of them have had their
hypocritical moments, and I think it's worth pointing
out. But what this is about what they
break out into the scream match is embarrassing.
But just so you can hear the, oh,
you know what? Maybe I didn't grab it.
Yeah. We're rushing out the end anyway. The
point is, she says,
he's a fascist, pretty calmly, and he interrupts
and goes, oh, dare you, the fascist. And
not in, like, any outrageous way, but just
interrupts her and says, how do you call
us fascist? And, you you know, like, pushes
back and makes a big standing
first of all, they are. Not just right.
The government is acting fascistically wherever you look,
and it's been happening for a long time.
Maybe she doesn't know that, so call her
one too. It's irrelevant. It's not some incitement
to violence. It's an obvious reality of what's
happening.
Also, Trump called them all fascist too, so
you really can't play this game anymore. It's
embarrassing.
But they're all pushing it. Here is Wesley
Hunt again.
President Obama has no more high ground. For
over a decade, Democrats and their media allies
have censored, vilified, targeted conservatives. Yes. I agree.
So therefore do it back?
It's sad.
Here,
Byron Donalds. For years, the left has defamed
us fascists, and that exact rhetoric inspired Tyler
Robertson.
So much is, like, the seventeenth time he
posted the exact same thing today. Why? You
know why.
Same thing. Of course, don't forget that this
is the guy who called for involuntary
euthanization,
you know, killing
of homeless people. And then, of course, in
a very, very embarrassing and clumsy way, tried
to make it sound like he just called
for them to be, you know, like, what
is I forget the way he framed it.
So to be clear, he said in oh,
I have it. I forgot.
Here he is. And I simply said, I
can't believe this is real. Here's what he
said. That's the same guy in that interview.
Oh, and I was gonna play a quick
part of it. So watch here's the quick
opening. Just look watch the way he responds
to this before this clip, this other one,
and it's just like the way he laughs
at it. And I think it's really important
we need to stand Oh, okay. There it
is. I you know, sorry. So it's both.
I forgot. So it's this and then, yeah,
and then they talk.
So here's the first part of this.
And I think it's really important we need
to stand up against this
fascist
takeover. That's not a bad word. It's a
fact. Oh, you're not. Like a member of
the third right to you, miss A member
of the third right?
Is this guy that stupid? Or no? Probably
not. He probably just knows what he's doing,
which is about trying to conflate the whole
thing. So only the only fascist ever have
been Nazis?
It's just stupid. It's reductive. It's ridiculous.
No. People can be fascist because they act
in a fascist way. And, obviously, what's happening
in the government between Biden and Trump and
others is clearly like that.
The plane. Is that what I look like
to you? You're the one taking your phone.
Is that is that what you think? Is
that what you think? Yuck.
Both of them. Yuck. They're both disgusting. Just
that's childish and small.
Show some decorum.
Talk about I mean, it's just it's embarrassing
to Americans. They they're doing it for points,
guys. That's what they're both doing it for
the same reason, and both are ridiculous. Acting
like it's only the one side acting like
she's being outrageous by pointing it out, they're
both ridiculous. And it's just hard to watch.
It goes on for a minute, and it's
embarrassing.
Way out of line.
So stupid. And here, this is what I
wanted to show you, the way he responds
to it.
Your thoughts?
I thought she was insane, to be perfectly
honest with you. And look, especially with what
we know about this shooter,
that assassinated
Charlie Kirk, the left has been using his
vitriol against Republicans,
against MAGA because they have no policies that
actually work. Their policies are quite stupid. They
don't work. They don't hurt people. And because
they don't have Oh, they don't hurt people.
Oops. I think you meant the opposite. Right?
It's real against Republicans,
against MAGA because they have no policies that
actually work. Their policies are quite stupid. They
don't work. They don't hurt people.
Oh, okay. So you could take that by
him saying they don't work because they don't
hurt people, meaning that their policies
are trying to hurt people. I obviously think
he misspoke, but, you know, maybe it's a
little bit Freudian
that they I mean, you could breathe into
all you want. I don't think that's the
point. But I think it's interesting that the
idea is that what they're doing both ways
and every which way is leading to your
subjugation, your your removal of rights, your surveillance.
So, you know, I don't think the left
is any I think it's all part of
the same game. The point in relation to
to laugh at his slip. But then what
what's your point? What's your evidence? It's all
subjective. They're bad and evil, and they don't
understand, and they're stupid. And it's like, these
are supposed to be people running things?
Come on, guys.
These people that have Zionist funding, that's what
they have. I don't even think they understand
what's happening right now.
But, oh, but this clip. So the guy
with the interview, don't forget that he said
this and they tried to lie about it.
They have given
billions of dollars to mental health and the
homeless population. A lot of them don't wanna
take the programs. A lot of them don't
wanna get the help that is necessary. You
can't give them a choice. Either you take
the Which is insane, first of all.
For so they don't have a choice now?
Why? Because they don't want like, I look.
Homeless for whatever reason, it's not all because
they're just lazy
despite the way that Republicans like to frame
that. There's a ton of reasons that come
from government action and a bunch of other
reasons, including pharmaceuticals and a whole bunch of
things.
Either way, you can't give them a choice.
Why? Because they're homeless? Do they just know
they don't have rights anymore?
Well, it's the same thing when they just
kinda, like, move them out of this area.
Like, when, of course, when they're an air
rig well, there's a whole conversation about freedom
of movement, whatever else. But if you wanna
pretend that they just have to own these
lands and move them out of the way,
what they're doing
is treating them like they're meaningless.
People have different opinions on everything about that.
But the idea I'm in it pointing out
is the forcing of it. Why does that
make sense to anybody? Because they're othered, because
they're not part of society. They're human beings,
and they have rights like anybody else. But
the the next part's even crazier. You can't
give them a choice. Either you take the
resources that we're gonna give you and or
you decide that you're gonna be locked up
in jail. That's the See what he but
no. Not move. Take what we're gonna give
you or go to prison.
But this but freedom, though. Hashtag freedom. You
know? These people are ridiculous. Has to be
now. Or, involuntary lethal injection.
Involuntary
lethal injection. Yep. Yep.
Locked up in jail. That's the way it
has to be now. Or, involuntary lethal injection
or something, just killed him.
I just love that. The guy's like, Yo,
yo, what? Like, he immediately responds as, yeah.
And then you could look at his eyes,
and he's like, did he just say that?
Involuntary
lethal injection. He tried to pretend like he
didn't say involuntary.
He did.
These people are insane.
And I mean left and right, as you
well know.
So we also have so it was weird
how they've weirdly fixated on AOC, Elon, and,
Tlaib
all in, like, the last twenty four hours.
And Stephen Miller,
they are endlessly inciting violence.
Okay. Let's let's listen to what she said
and what what he says is inciting violence.
I do believe those of you who are
interested in DYA in this hateful mass history
Thank Thank you. Full of shit. Thanks.
You could argue that's insulting. Sure. But what
you said, case of Sullo?
Interested in those of you who are interested
in this hateful man's history
in rewriting this hateful man's history are full
of s h I t.
So she's not allowed to have an opinion
about his ideas
if she disagrees with them or if she
dares to say that they're racist
or divisive?
Do you realize that's I mean, half There's
people everywhere that have that opinion. So, what's
your argument? Because she's in a position of
power that she's not allowed to be honest
about that? Or that she's not allowed to
call people out because you're doing something that
she thinks is wrong?
Or is your entire premise that she's making
all of it up because Democrat?
Well, then fine. Then prove that. Like, it's
just crazy. But Stephen Miller, he doesn't care
about any of it. He cares about destroying
this country. That's what I see very clearly,
but that's my opinion. Either way, Stephen Miller
wants you to believe that simply saying
that we you shouldn't try to rewrite the
person's history because they're dead, which is what
we all have said in the past about
plenty of people in the past, like John
McCain, for example,
that that's
endlessly inciting violence.
I mean, they've lost the plot at this
point. They're just they're pointing to them standing
there and saying, I'm a Democrat. They go,
no. God terrorist.
I mean, that's hyperbolic. That's over the top,
but that's the point that's happening.
If you're rewriting this history, you're full of
shit. That's what she said. And that's endlessly
inciting violence.
I mean, it's just I mean, you I
you could take thirty seconds and find a
better example.
I almost think the whole point is to
drive it into an area where it's subjective
and completely up in the air because then
they can do it wherever they want.
Makes sense, doesn't it? Because otherwise, you I
mean, you'd have to you'd have to laugh
at why they're making it so you know,
it's you could argue what she's doing is
insensitive and causes people to act crazy. Maybe
that would even that'd be much easier to
sell,
but you just go full Zionist like we
expect.
Most violent thing that's ever happened in humanity,
Trump says or whatever.
Come on, guys. Like, that's ridiculous.
The White House.
Ilhan Omar, right? Saying something that you might
find disrespectful. Okay. The White House comes out
and says, does Ilhan Omar know these people?
Are they from her wonderfully managed home country
of Somalia?
And it says, breaking eight charged in massive
Medicare fraud scheme and resulted in 8,400,000.0
stolen in Medicaid billing in Minnesota. Okay. Where
she represented. Okay.
There here's the people that are charged.
Okay. Like, so your your argument is just
to go Minnesota, therefore, they're probably from her
country? And they look at their names, they're
probably associated with her somehow? Or just screaming
it out there with a face to make
people look at that and go,
maybe we should do something about that.
Look. No matter how you wanna spin this,
you could easily argue that doing this, calling
her
sinister and deciding violence and a Democrat terrorist
and then saying that or then subtly or
not so subtly suggesting that because people are
in Minnesota and have names from Somalia that
therefore she's secretly working with them without any
evidence, that that's not inciting anything?
We've already seen people from both sides create
radical action based on insinuated
problems.
Yep. That's the whole point, and they do
it anyway. But I would never argue that
them saying something is their
legal responsibility for somebody else doing something.
But as Quandale points out, very impressive. Very
nice. Okay. Now where's the Epstein files?
Exactly.
But just recognize how insane this is. That
what they're doing, he's he just
ponder face?
What? Ponder what the White House points to
what Trump just says with nothing to back
it up?
I mean, you could argue that's even slander
or libel, guys.
Here's what Nick Sorter has to say. First,
I'll play the clip and then laugh at
this child cheering for somebody that says something
so stupid.
I think she should be impeached.
I think she's terrible.
Is she originally from Somalia?
So so how are they doing this? How's
their government? Do they have a president?
Do they have a council?
Oh, that's nice. I'm glad he's informed about
foreign affairs. Do they have anything? Do they
have police?
I love these people that come from a
place with nothing.
With nothing. No anything.
And then they tell us how to run
our country.
So, nope, we're just talking about random Somalians
now as if that somehow represents who she
is.
I mean, this is embarrassing level of stupidity,
guys. It's subjective. It's it's broad stroking. It's
everything we've always talked about from either side
as being I mean, this is what uninformed
people do.
And it's pretty alarming that the president has
no idea about the
foreign policy dynamics of another country. I think
she if she got if she got censored,
that's great. If she got impeached, that's even
better. If she got censored, that's great. Or
censured. I couldn't tell exactly. Either way, that's
crazy. Like, you're you're the president's floating the
idea that because of free speech, she should
be attacked
or move from congress is which is what
he's floating.
They impeached me twice for nothing. Oh, okay.
So it's okay then. Do you see where
this all comes from? They did it to
me first. You're a child.
So we should cheer on the wrong thing
we all criticize because they did it to
me first. So you're exactly the same problem.
And they impeached me knowing the Republicans are
on my side, so they knew it was
just but they impeached me because she should
be impeached. And,
See how see, even that short comment, he
already veered into how great he was and
my thing, and I was a part of
this, and they did it to me. Oh,
oh, wait. Back to her.
Like, his his his level of narcissism is
wild to me. Like, he can't respond to
a question without somehow folding in what he
did at one point. And half the time,
it's not even related to the conversation. But
either way, she should be impeached.
Do what he said. I think she should
be impeached. Starts like that way, ends like
that. Okay.
Based on what?
Now look, you wanna be honest about this
and objective,
I think you can impeach all of them.
I think almost every one of them in
some way or another has shown themselves to
be a criminal, whether it's insider trading, whether
it's allowing a genocide, whether it's all sorts
of criminal activities that these people all allow.
So that's not what I'm talking about. I'm
not pretending like they're not in some way
or another, dishonest or criminal. I believe that.
What I'm saying is that what he's pointing
to is none of those things because they're
all doing that. He's pointing to things that
should be protected under free speech or that
are simply.
And Nick Sorter says,
while aboard Air Force One, president Trump calls
for Illinois to expel from congress after she
glorified Kirk's killing.
She's from Somalia.
These people come from a place with nothing,
and they tell us how to run our
country. Expel and deport.
Guys, these people are the just it's insanely
dumb.
And yet, they they they get driven by
these fake algorithms at the top of the
conversation, 1,000,000 views or followers.
Expel and deport? You're talking about an American
citizen. You're talking about a US congressman, and
you're literally telling you're saying that because people
from Somalia are gross, that's what your your
argument is, that she should be deported because
she said something about Kirk that we disagree
with. You're an absolute child.
I mean, I can't it's just one of
the worst examples of people that just I
mean, he is cheering
for the for unconstitutional
actions,
for subjective attacks on people based on their
ideas, or deporting her. Under what context?
You see my point, guys? These people are
the ones that are cheering on the destruction
of this country because they think they're winning
something. And, really, they're just they're liking that
they feel like they're important right now.
Sad.
Randy Fine.
We hear you loud and clear, mister president.
We're right there with you about removing her
from congress
because she said something they don't like.
I mean, guys, like I said at the
beginning, this is crazier than the left was
doing at the peak of this stuff. Now
we've seen a lot of censorship and a
lot of insane, large, broads, you know,
social media, removal from companies fired, all sorts
of stuff. But didn't they just tell us
that's okay, though? Because it is. Because companies
can fire people based on those ideas, but
they hated it. Just like, you know, I
would argue it's wrong, but they have a
right to do it. But see, now they're
protecting it.
The point here is that Ilhan
Omar didn't break the law.
She literally stood up and said something about
Charlie Kirk, and you're trying to get it
removed from congress, let alone deported from the
country.
It's over the top. And my point was
that they're taking this to a level that
is so much further than the real outcome
of what happened from the left. You're talking
about removing somebody from a position of power
based on words that are allowable or rather
all protected under free speech.
That's the point. A more focused version of
it, wildly increased.
Laura Loomer. President Trump just called out Ilhan
Omar for marrying her brother. President Trump can
permanently have Omar removed from Congress by designating
the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization.
Sure. Why not? So we don't like her
here.
Even if you say she's a criminal, let's
say, which is not the case with what
we're pointing to other than the other stuff,
let's say, okay. Let's say we want her
removed. That's what's happening. Trump like does Trump
floats the idea of getting her out of
congress. So Laura goes, hey. I know what
we do. We designate that group a terrorist
even though you could make the arguments. Therefore,
that will allow us to remove her from
congress.
Okay. So the point is, let's just make
that case so we can go after her.
I mean, they don't even try to hide
what they do,
which shows me that they're actually not that
smart. Like, I don't think she even realizes
that you could make a legal case about
what they're doing right here based on what
she just tweeted.
They don't care because I don't even think
they're that smart. I think they're being driven
to do these things by people that are
okay letting them fall.
She says, that's how you get rid of
Omar and Tlaib.
They've taken money from them.
It's just wild. Now look, there's an action
where you could make a very real case
about Muslim brotherhood and plenty of other conversations
or Israel for that matter who gets money
to all of them, including Laura.
My point regardless is that there's legal actions
here. There's constitutional rights, and all they're really
doing is saying, they said things we disagree
with. Therefore, let's make the case to remove
them.
Not that we actually care about Muslim Brotherhood.
Not really. Not from the real perspective of
the the US government. Otherwise, it would have
happened a long time ago.
They're just using it
like they use everything else.
But guess what? Laura Loomer speaks up. Right?
She says, do that. Declare them this so
we could go after people for personal reasons.
What does Nancy Mace do? She literally tags
Laura Loomer the same day and says, we
introduced a bill to designate the Muslim Brotherhood
of Terrorist Organization. Laura Loomer can say the
dumbest thing in the room and Nancy Mace
makes it into a bill and runs it
forward.
Isn't that terrifying?
I mean, I don't even know how in
the world this makes sense unless there's something
else driving this in. Why in the world
would anybody, even if they agree with each
other, support somebody like Laura Loomer in a
position like this? That is so counter to
any
politician.
You know, somebody who actually cares about whether
they get votes from their constituents,
not that they get put in power by
something else.
It's just mind blowing to me. And I
said, so apparently,
verifiably dishonest and manipulative Zionist like Laura Loomer
are now setting policy for the US government.
Unfortunately, this is really nothing new.
Outrageous, guys.
Doug, see, look, this is so funny. I
just saw this in the corner of my
eye. Okay. So what did we just say?
I'm not commenting on whether or not Muslim
Brotherhood should be designated. You see how easy
it is to sidestep these things? I'm commenting
on the reality of how it's being used
and the idea that whether or not you
agree with the outcome that she's simply taking
policy suggestions from Laura Loomer.
This person says, why on earth should we
not? Do you have a reason not to?
It's it's just you're not even you're missing
the point, bud, and I think that's on
that's on purpose.
Nancy Mace,
we'll do whatever it takes to send her
back, mister president.
Il Omar Ilhan Omar's country, Somalia, is plagued
by a lack of central government. Like, he
just gets this stuck in his mind on
Air Force One and then just vomits this
out on Trusocial. It's insane.
And he goes on to say, after
all these things negative about her country, which
why does that have any relevance on what
she's doing in this country? And he goes
on to say, wasn't she the one that
married her brother?
Is it true? Do you have any facts
to back it up? I mean, is this
funny what they're doing? And he says, what
scum we have in our country. Now, she's
scum
telling us what to do and how to
do it. She's elected, you clown. Even if
you, like me, don't believe that that's what
actually how this works, the logic, the rhetoric
is that you're all put there by your
constituents. And so now you're angry because she's
speaking up about her opinions?
I mean, I actually get like, again, there's
moments where you look at these people and
you go, okay, there's no way they're actually
the ones making these decisions. It says, thank
you for the attention of this matter. And
her point is to send her back
to Somalia.
You're literally talking about a sitting member of
congress, an American citizen, and saying, we'll find
a way to send her back to her
country, and that's not supposed to be racist?
These people are absolutely
completely disconnected from reality.
And here is Omar or rather Nancy Mace
saying, Ilhan Omar is an enemy of the
state.
An enemy of the state? Now we're okay.
Now who's inciting anything?
Still, I would argue that it's not their
responsibility legally for people that act based on
those statements.
But now you're literally saying she's an enemy
of the state. Not that every democrat terrorist,
that she's an enemy of the state. And
if somebody goes and takes somebody out,
I mean, just compare somebody calling Trump a
fascist
to somebody calling her an enemy of the
state part of a terrorist organization. What do
you think might incite more violence? But let's
be clear for the forty fifth time. Regardless
of whether she said go kill Ilhan Omar,
I would argue it's not her she's not
legally responsible for the crime.
People would disagree with that, but let's make
it more general for most people that if
she says something like this,
that can be considered incitement. I still don't
there's no legal reality in my mind that
means they should be legally responsible for somebody
else committing a crime. Free speech, guys. Let's
be honest about this and stop letting them
play us.
But here is what Mehdi Hasan said. If
anything, God forbid, happens to Ilhan Omar, right,
tomorrow, today,
per the GOP logic of the last few
days,
and Nancy Mace included,
the blood will be on Nancy Mace's hands.
Right?
Just pure relentless incitement here. Right? She knows
what she's doing. Multiple men are already in
prison for trying to kill Omar. This is
true.
Still, my stance is the same. But you
if you're gonna take what they're saying at
face value, you have to acknowledge that what
they're doing is exactly the same. Yes. Same
point for the hundredth time when we all
see it. Call it out, shove it in
people's faces, make them recognize that they're supporting
a group that is trying to drive them
to civil war.
He also points out Laura Loomer, who said
this, and this is what? Like the I've
seen her do this like five times.
I was blown away the last time she
did it.
And I same thing I the same point
I make. How is it possible that she
says these kind of things
with the influence, the rate she has, the
connection to the top of the power structure,
and we don't recognize that one, this like,
where is this coming from? Like, I know
she's a racist, disgusting, vile person on this
platform.
But she points she says, why do we
even have Muslims in congress?
I
mean, that's think about what she's saying.
Not other religions. Not like her argument is
not it should only be Christian. You understand?
Her argument is just Muslims shouldn't be there.
And she says, what a stain on our
country.
Muslims in general.
Yeah. But also screams about how we have
rights and freedom of religion, except but that
one's bad.
She's a living, walking hypocrisy.
That everything about her is
a like, the she she is the living
embodiment of that term.
And Nancy Mace says, I'm not taking lectures
on stability from an unofficial recruiting arm of
ISIS and Hamas.
Talking about Owen Omar.
You're saying that she's an unofficial recruiting arm
of ISIS? Like, that's, like, six different ways
now they frame them as actual threats, like
targets, terrorists, people that are about to destroy
the country.
And that's not incitement, I guess.
Then he says,
this is a top adviser to the president,
Loomer.
If every top political journalist at the post
time, CNN, etcetera, isn't covering this and making
it a scandal out of this, it's another
reminder that they are soft on Trump and
okay with Islamophobia.
You can take it forever you want.
That is disgusting.
Objectively disgusting. And clearly, to argue that every
Muslim is a problem is the root of
this, and it's where it's dry it's
it's Zionism, guys.
It's everywhere. It has overtaken this conversation.
And it it's not, I think, supported by
the majority of Americans, which is the point.
And of course, Randy Fine.
Here's Charlie Kirk from June 1.
Islam
is not compatible with Western civilization. You know,
just to make that clear. That's the same
exact statement.
Or rather, not exact, but the same, you
know, sentiment is the ideas that all of
Muslims are a problem. Randy Fine says this.
James Lee rightly points out, yet Charlie's most
rabid enemies were Zionists.
Let that speak for itself.
Now just to end so you understand this,
guys,
you may not think about the the way
they frame this, they make it sound like
it's some separate concept. K?
Adherents of Islam
are Muslims
who are estimated to number 2,000,000,000
worldwide and the world's second largest religious population
after Christians.
Muslims believe that Islam is the complete and
universal version of a primory primordial faith that
was revealed many times through
earlier prophets and messengers, including Adam, Noah, Abraham,
Moses, and Jesus.
Muslims consider the Quran to be the verbatim
word of God and the unaltered
file final
revelation.
Now you could argue that there's different aspects,
just like you can say, like, the Talmud
versus the,
the, I'm blanking on them.
Give me the other one in the in
the chat. The point is that there's there's
what are, like, the core doctrine of most
Muslims or in, like, in the case of
Judaism, same point. And then there's versions of
it that are more radical and break off
and create, like, similar spin offs, just like
there's different spin offs of Christianity.
And what they do is they take the
most ridiculous radical parts of it and frame
that as what everybody thinks. That's the MEMR
channel, MEMRI channel that Loomer and Alex Jones
and every one of them point to and
go look at bad Muslims, and you can
quite literally prove that company
or yeah. They had company, but platform
is run currently
by Israeli intelligence.
I can get it to come up right
here.
I I put this clip out for a
reason.
So this is the clip. I'm calling out
Laura Loomer for doing it. You've seen this
channel. They always point to this channel when
they wanna make a case about this. The
reality is it's currently you can look it
up on Wikipedia.
Run currently by active Israeli intelligence and was
founded by core Israeli intelligence.
And they point to it to make these
cases. I'll include it.
Watch it for yourselves.
Overall,
their whole game is to make this case.
Now, yes, are there examples of people in
this who could do bad things? Like, yes,
like anywhere, like any religion. There's an entire
past of Christians carrying out all sorts of
acts based in the name of God that
took a lot of life.
It's always subjective. You can decide for yourself
if you think one's worse than the other,
but realize that acting like every single part
of one entire group of 2,000,000,000
people are all one thing. It's just an
example of how disgusting people like Laura Loomer
are. And they're driving it in for one
obvious reason, because Israel wants that. And that's
my opinion, but I think you can look
for yourself and look at the track the
long track record, the times, the actions, when
they pull punches and when they don't, aligned
with what's going on in the world, and
you can quite easily see that it's all
about that agenda.
Now last two points. Actually, this was the
last thing. Last point.
Senate Republicans put this out, and we just
went over this yesterday. The idea of this
the way they they manipulate these. We talked
about January 6. We talked about trucker convoys
where you can go back and look at
the ADL numbers, and they can go look
at how everything's right wing terrorism. Right?
And then you could point out that what
do they do? And you could prove it.
They said red hats. They said certain, you
know, certain types of protests
that you're racist or they're rather a, you
know, a fascist, a a radical,
and they made up those statistics
about you. Right? The same group you pretend
you're on the side of if you're listening
to the team.
Then the same thing happened the other ways.
Right? Where you have the left who's doing
the same thing, and they make it about
or rather the right that makes it about
well, you go either way, the case today,
I forget which way I started, is about
the idea that you have
the yeah. Right now.
Pronched. I wanna I missed the point that
I said. General point before I lose my
thought here is that we have the example
of them framing people. That's what it was.
I feel like I got it back to
the the main point.
They called you racist and terrorist because you
had red hats. They called them racist and
terrorist because they wave a Palestinian flag. The
point is that both those numbers are false.
Now that doesn't mean every single part of
those numbers, there may be somebody out there
who is. The reality is when they say
all right wing right wing violence, I can
prove to you that it's a bloated number.
Just like right now when they say it's
all left wing violence, I can prove to
you that it's the same kind of thing.
Now where the nuance is, you could decide
for yourself. But we pointed to the studies.
By the way, the DOJ just deleted a
study that they had hosted on the website
that literally said it was mostly right wing
violence.
Why would they delete that? They didn't even
make a comment about it. They just deleted
it, moved away. We had it saved. I
said the same thing then.
Senate Republicans post this doing the same thing
back. And it says, political violence is not
a both sides issue.
And they just show you this. I mean,
it does give you this, which says today
yougov.com.
But it doesn't give you a link. There's
always a reason they do that. Because you
don't get to look to it. Where's the
data come from? Where did they get? Where
where are the different points? Right? And what's
the categories? Is it all is it from
one state? Is it from the whole country?
Like, it's just obvious that they wanna control
your view. So they give you a screenshot.
Thank you, Twitter files.
The real point, dark mode says, hey, Grock.
Has the majority of political violence in the
last twenty years been committed by far right
or far far left or far right?
Here's what Grock says.
Based on data from the ADL,
CSIS,
and DHS reports, so both two of those
out of three are US government things that
the right has been in and out of
the entire time and currently controls,
and it goes right up to 2025.
Most US domestic extremist murderers, which are pretty
small at the end of the day, are
terror incidents are linked to far right ideologies,
which by the way, they then just list
off as white supremacy, anti government, which by
the way are not at all uniquely right
wing. So see how this game works? But
either way, what I find hilarious
is that Grok is telling you that they're
lying to you based on the actual statistics
that they have collected.
But then I can equally, like I just
said, tell you that those are based on
a lot of embellished lies, but it goes
both ways. But even though that's the case,
they still tell you that based on that
data and the people that they, like, themselves,
DHS and ADL, that it's largely far right.
Now I genuinely think that's because the agenda,
it seemed very clear, was meant to lean
into the January
vanilla ISIS terrorist, and that just didn't go
the way the plan. That's what I think.
So I guess they're playing it the other
way now. But yet they just can't you
know, I think they could conduct a a
much better propaganda campaign.
I really do. Like, it's like they're just
not thinking these things through. I don't really
understand it. Overall,
recognize they're all lying to you.
That ultimately comes down to the obvious situation
where the government wants to control your life.
We all we so we all seem to
be able to know that when it's part
looking at the other side.
Maybe just take a step back and realize
that it might just be everywhere. And if
you can at least consider that, it's amazing
how quickly it all comes into view. You
know, it's like stopping when it's like the
first time you stop watching corporate media and
then you go back and you're like, how
did I ever watch this? It's ins it's
like it's all it's like it is like
watching a cartoon and you go, how do
I ever give this any real credence? It's
the same thing. The moment you really start
to look critically at the whole picture, both
of, you know, the the government as a
whole or the two parties they pretend to
be, you just can't come back from it.
And and then even if you do believe
that it is divided, you still recognize the
the the benefit
in acknowledging it as one thing. You know?
Just start calling this stuff out, guys, because
it's being used against you every which way.
The effort is to get you to call
out your neighbor, to rationalize the the undermining
of your constitutional rights, and drive in rationalized
political violence, then they just point you to
the side. And they can use these things.
They can I mean, when you get to
a point to where they an x an
event can be executed, and then they can
react that event and then shut down whenever
they want, whenever they want, and keep, like,
an ongoing emergency in 17 different ways, you're
never free of that? Right? And then, of
course, you add over the AI Panopticon technocratic
hellscape they're building and there's it's you know?
Look. And then when I do that, I'm
never trying to make it like we're screwed.
I don't believe that. I wouldn't do this
if I believe that. I'm trying to show
you the concern for what is coming.
They're building that world.
I am convinced that we can stay with
not just change it. We can stop it
if we truly want to. The problem is
that these partisan divisions and these games that
are played and all the screaming liars at
the top of the paradigm keep people from
seeing it, or at the very least, keep
the majority from recognizing that they are the
majority.
Consider what we've said today.
If you wanna support this platform,
plenty of ways to do so beneath the
video on the website.
We need your support, and we're we're gonna
we gotta keep going no matter what, and
we get attacked every single day. But if
you believe what we're doing, we put this
out for free. Show us what it's worth
to you. What value do you find in
this? And if that's a a letter of
kind encouragement, that means the world to me.
Reach out. Let me know.
I love you all. As always, question everything.
Come to your own conclusions.
Stay vigilant.