It starts with a simple question
and ends in objective reality. Reality.
Through our journey from there to here,
we find one another
and ourselves.
And as the next twenty four hours
breaks free from our last,
we gaze onward in reflection of the day.
Welcome to the daily wrap up.
Sunday, 09/28/2025.
Thank you for joining me today.
I was thinking about this before I went
live today and something I've been trying to
kind of juggle in regard to the timing
of the shows. And somebody in the chat's
already pointed out, I'm not even finished with
the show you did yesterday.
Because we it's it's content heavy, obviously. With
what we're dealing with today, I don't know
how you cannot be doing that and really
try to get to the meat of what's
going on and understand all these topics.
What I'm trying to think about is how
I do this. So to explain is, basically,
I'll do a show that can be four
hours long.
And then I recognize a lot of people
don't even see that until the next morning,
middle of the day. Maybe they watch it
later in the day when they get done
with work. And so I recognize there's a
hard overlap right there. And so what I'll
tend to do is is leave the next
day open and usually prep the entire day
for another four hour show the next day,
and it becomes a cycle like that. And
it's not I mean, it's it's that ends
up being pretty somewhat consistent, but I don't
like the gap in the day and the
content because a lot gets missed, even though
that happens just because of life all the
time anyway. So what I'm trying to consider
here is that and this again, it's not
even if I plan to do this, it
will alter because of circumstances.
The get the goal would be to do
a show like I did yesterday
and
then have, like, a follow-up show. Like, today,
for example, where I have a few things
I wanna follow-up on, some points that are
additional to what I said yesterday that I
see happening today, and then the current events
that I think are relevant to get into.
Today, of course, there's some pretty
widely discussed events, shootings as usual that you
know, meaning meaning that shootings as usual
become largely focused events whether or not they're
you know, really, the point is that people
in partisan sides, that's kind of the point
of the show today. Will grab onto a
story and try to use it to their
team's agenda,
really, in every possible circumstance.
And today, it's a tragedy. Right? People were
killed in a church setting. We have another
example of a guy who shot at people
in North Carolina from a boat, both of
which we're gonna get into around the conversation
of what appears to be political leanings, what
the evidence shows, and how the entire partisan
field plays it the same way regardless every
single time.
And and just how
well, I'm gonna leave it till we get
into it, but many different points of this
that really expose
the way this always goes and what the
what the kind of what the real vulnerability
is right now.
And then, of course, the, like I said,
the the agenda. People that are jumping into
it immediately and calling it an attack on
Christians, except we're talking about a Mormon church.
And, no, that is not the same thing,
and we'll get into that. But other things
we're gonna get into to start. But what
my point was, I'm gonna try to do
those kind of the timings in the shows
like that where the next day can maybe
be, you know, which probably end up being
two plus hours anyway, but my goal will
be to shorter versus the longer ones. So
keep that in mind for those that keep
up on the show day to day. I'm
not gonna notate them any differently. But just
something to note for those of you that
are passionate TLAP followers out there, that's gonna
be kinda what I aim at in general.
But, anyway,
sorry for for Steve and whoever else in
the chat is not caught up yet. I
know there's a lot of content to get
to. Hopefully, you will will take the time
to watch it if you truly wanna understand
the way I see it and why I
think these things are important. But as always,
the the real the core point is the
source material is there for you. I'd like
to believe that those that care enough, whether
they have time for a four hour show
or not, can look at the source material,
can decide what they want to learn more
about, educate themselves, and not just repeat headlines
like most of the mainstream alternative media, but
truly understand the nuance within the content and
come to your own conclusions about it, whether
or not that aligns with what I think.
So let's start today
with a couple of opening points that are
really not that not gonna focus on, but
something I just didn't want you to miss
before we get into a few opening segments
that we'll discuss
that are largely around,
I mean, let's see. We basically have, other
than the two shootings we're gonna discuss and
the larger political agenda around it, some AI
points I wanna make about Donald Trump's statements,
kind of extension again. Like I said, follow-up
yesterday, some points he said at the UN
that we didn't discuss that I do find
very relevant. Interestingly relates to today's conversation because
of the way the partisan game is playing
out And, like, a deep fake conversation, interesting.
Pretty small points. Shouldn't take long to discuss.
And it all relates to the larger point
today. But just to start off some other
points quickly, something like this I wanted you
to see. Thank you for, GoStar for putting
this, in the
it was,
yeah, GoStar in the chat. Thank you for
that. I appreciate it. And this was just
an update. As it says here, the greatest
humanitarian mission of our time, Simhud,
Simud Flotilla, how probably how they pronounce that.
The point was it's the one we've been
discussing, and it's prominent. And now now they
have international backing with people ready to defend
it, individual people on boats. I mean,
honestly, my gut, Israel's gonna do what they're
gonna do anyway. And that's that may sound
outrageously crazy if you hadn't paid attention in
the past. It's what they do. They've attacked
these things many times. They've attacked Americans on
these many times, including US veterans, including Joe
Meaders, who was a veteran of The US's
liberty, and held him in in
locked him up in a prison for months,
and The US didn't even say anything about
it. On that note, the next statement I'll
make will be about something like that. But
understand that this is going forward, and they're
gonna their argument is the legal reality of
being able to deliver food to people who
are starving. And even Israel, in many cases,
argue that's not something they're stopping and then
will attack, bomb, and do whatever they can
to stop these people from doing that.
The point that's different about this one is
that there's a lot of people involved, including
even, arguably,
how this plays out when Israel comes around
will be the question. International like, other other
nations that are saying they're gonna stand by
them and protect them in this mission, which
I've never seen before, not like this. So
if Israel decides to attack them, this will
be I mean, international incident would not even
do that justice.
But I promise you if it happens, even
The US and UK will be pulling punches.
I think we've seen that by now. But
let's keep an eye on this because it's
becoming something
you know, it's it's
beginning to boil over, and, hopefully, they are
able to deliver food to people who need
it.
Now on that other point about Joe Meters,
I'm gonna keep pointing this out. I feel
like I should be referencing referencing this every
single day. Seeing as how we get suppressed
so much, maybe it'll reach a few people
who need to see it and not just
those of you who are already aware of
what's going on. Doctor Simon Godek,
16 year old American boy who has been
held for seven months now in Israel without
due process. I just talked about it yesterday.
I'm gonna keep pointing this out. Seven months
now, this is a child who's an American,
third generation American in Florida, who was born
in The United States, who went to visit
family who is in the West Bank, not
Gaza, and gets
arrested,
blindfolded, and thrown into prison, been there for
seven months with no process, no allegation, no
charge, has lost tons of weight, has disease
because of the way that they handle things
in these torture prisons,
and you have not heard a single word
about that American citizen from Marco Rubio, from
Ted Cruz, from rep seventy five, from Donald
Trump, from Bondi, from any of the rest
of these people out there acting like they
care about Americans first.
It really upsets me that this is even
it but you know why, truly? Because it's
undeniable
what that shows you.
They're willing to put that agenda first over
your interests. Now make sense of that and
or rather
put that overlay over what we're talking about
today. Reconcile that with where we are. They're
willing to put interest, at the very least,
their own political agendas
before your interests, especially when it comes to
a very certain government. Now when that very
certain government's immersed within our policy and these
things are happening in real time within your
states, ask yourself whether your government's gonna side
with you
or the same agenda.
Regardless of your thoughts on this, how in
the world we can have an American citizen
in a foreign prison for no charge and
no one says a word?
It really is wild. I'm gonna keep bringing
this up. Now last point is a a
a third update, by the way, from yesterday.
I this is just ridiculous where we are.
So this guy, he's an ICE agent who,
as you as I've showed you the day
before yesterday and as well as the day
today.
Of course, the of course, this guy clips
you the video where you don't really get
to see what actually happens. My god. These
people are disgusting. I didn't even notice that
until just now. Let me see if I
still have this. I probably lost the or
the older one.
That's just so incredible to me. Let me
see if somebody actually played the full thing.
The bottom line is
let me do this real quick.
This man,
without justification, grabs a woman because
she didn't
basically rested her hand on his arm while
pleading with him to let her husband go.
Now I don't care what you the the
that's not about the legal it's about being
a human being and understanding that person was
not in any way trying to initiate violence.
And even if they were, the way that
he responded
was to literally lift her off the ground
in front of her children and bull rush
her to the ground and throw her down.
And then he got relieved from duty, by
the way. That's what just happened yesterday. The
point of the story today is, oh, yes.
They reinstated him with full active duty, and
everyone's like, great news. Good job because who
cares about immigrants or whatever your mindset is.
And even if you don't care about immigrants,
the idea is that you are
you don't care about,
I mean, the law, obviously. Because, look, whether
or not you think that touching a person,
which is someone trying to tell me, is
obviously a violation or bond he said, if
you touch anybody, we're gonna come after you.
Why do you think she said that?
Fine. If you think they're breaking the law,
charge them with touching somebody's arm. Carry that
out through court and see how that works
out. I don't the the childish nature of
claiming that that we're taking a stand, and
even if you think that person was unjust
in what she was claiming for. It's the
way that he reacted. And the fact that
somebody who has rights, like she does, like
anybody does in this country,
that person violated those rights with what he
did. And the fact that you don't care
about that because of your agenda shows you
just like Trump was doing or just like
rather the government's doing that you care more
about the agenda than you do about the
facts on the ground, the case, the the
law, the constitutional
rights. You're so in that same circumstance, you
would be the guy to leave that American
citizen in Israel because your agenda is more
important. And it's a small point, but it
is the same ongoing thing everywhere we look.
And so I just think it's disgustingly weird
that so he does it. He gets removed
because somebody in that reality was like, yeah.
That's insane. And that person needs to be
removed. Whether or not we agree with it,
it's obviously wrong. And then you get the
White House that steps in. It goes, never
mind because our agenda is more important. Who
cares about the reality of the law? Who
cares about anything other than what we want
to present, which is we're right and you're
wrong no matter what.
But Eric Daugherty says great news.
Now once we get to the point where
people just like him, including him, are lying
to you about what's going on today to
push a very anti I mean, a division
agenda, an agenda like, you know, Donald,
Alec Jones selling his Holy War T shirts.
This is where it's all being driven, using
things like what happened and and and accusing
people like us of being accurate about the
story, of being insensitive despite the fact that
my personal feelings about whether it's a tragedy
is irrelevant
to covering the news. But I you know,
maybe we should take a moment to really
address something first.
Something that the Republicans, I think, need to
really identify is something called virtue signaling. Remember
that story? Remember that conversation about how ridiculous
it was? The left was always out there
virtue signaling and demonstrating how great how I
care and how they don't? Isn't that exactly
what the right's doing right now with all
of their virtue signaling about their righteous beliefs
and how you're all disgusting evil people? It's
look. It's it's whether or not that is
the case and, like, that they are actually
good, righteous people. It's about trying to project
that idea over the top of every story
because you wanna demonstrate that you are on
the right side of things. It's the same
thing for people who are not childishly lost
in a partisan divide.
And just think about that today. My point
was people like this are so willing to
rush into a story to make a case
about why they think this is happening for
their agenda, and it turns out it wasn't
even the way they framed it. Due diligence
is not something that usually plays a factor
in the mainstream alternative media.
We'll come back to that. But opening points
aside, I wanted you to make sure you
saw that this person was reinstated despite the
obvious reality.
Officer relieved of current duties after violent confrontation
caught on camera. This was what we covered
yesterday.
Just like that.
Brought back.
Now
other opening points,
the patriot patriotic blonde, somebody who actually worked
with Donald Trump's campaign who is now openly
telling you that if you're honest about this,
you recognize he is
whatever you wanna call it, double crossing you,
violating his promises, Epstein, everything else. Now whether
you agree with that, that's her opinion. I
agree with that. I think a lot of
Republicans are trying to be honest about that.
She simply writes, Thomas Massie has not only
demanded the Epstein files be released, but he's
also pushed to repeal the War Powers Act.
You know? Day by day, I I I
like Thomas Massie's stance more and more, except,
hold that for a second, odd at Fort
Knox, she continues, limit income tax and the
Fed, abolish the IRS,
secure constitutional liberties,
and mandate term limits.
And you wonder why the establishment hates him.
He stands for everything,
literally everything, the deep state is against,
which is interesting seeing as how the people
who are currently pushing against that stuff are
the ones claiming to fight the deep state.
Now a lot of that could very well
just be more political bluster. As much as
I want to believe in anybody who claims
they're doing the right thing for the right
reason, we need to be skeptical,
especially for politicians. And I would argue if
Thomas Massie is the person he wants that
he claims he is, that he would expect
that from us, that he would demand that
we hold him accountable. Right? Isn't that what
an honest person would do? So and I'm
I'm being very genuine because I really do
want to believe that somebody like this is
in a position able to do things for
the right reasons. I've told you how skeptical,
how very pessimistic I am because of our
entire lives showing us that we have a
reason to be. Nonetheless,
I'm saying all of this for a reason
because I do agree that this is what
he's projecting as to what he wants to
do, and some of them he's already doing.
The problem for me
is stuff like this.
Thomas Massie posted this. Despite the occasional friction,
Ron Rand Paul and Massie both praised Trump
as the best president of their lifetimes,
but not correct on everything.
See, now look.
I don't even think he believes that. I
don't think Massey actually believes that. If you
can call out the things he's doing, they,
like, inherently like, if you're calling him out
for a cover up of a massive sex
sexual trafficking ring, which is what he's claiming,
Kinda hard to say, but also the best
president of my lifetime. Right? I think he's
doing that because politics. Because that is what
they all do. And my sad revelation here
is that he's still playing politics. But maybe
for the right reasons, maybe for the best
outcome, maybe he has to work through the
system to do the right thing at the
end. That's what a lot of them tell
themselves.
I just my point is we have to
question them. We have to constantly be
skeptical. And like I said, if he is
a person truly fighting for the right things,
then he would demand that you do that.
Right?
I hope. I'm still gonna pay attention. By
the way, I'm hoping that I might have
an interview coming with him through just back
channel, somebody who knew him, and they they
said that they might be reaching out to
me. I hope so. And I I'll be
a very real, very hopeful, but also very
critical, like, I would hope he would expect.
Lastly,
Donald Trump confused by public's obsession with Jeffrey
Epstein
insists, ah, it was a different time in
the nineties. You know, back when rape was
cool and we all pretended whatever he's trying
to suggest there. Very, very strange statement. I'm
just gonna pretty much brush by this. The
point is that he's simply still going, why
does everybody care about Epstein? Are we still
talking about Epstein?
I mean, I mean, do we or is
anybody dumb enough to
to pretend like he doesn't know what his
entire cabinet has been telling you, that what
he has insinuated, his posts have insinuated personally
on his counts?
So now he's just trying to downplay it
to make you
decide that somehow it's no longer in your
interest because Trump said.
But anybody with a brain can go, yeah.
That's pretty crazy. That's wild. In fact, since
we currently have all the victims going, why
are the files being released? They're using our
names to keep files from being released, and
we don't care. And he's saying, why does
everybody care about this? Whether or not you
agree with the picture behind it or whether
Trump's involved in any of it, that's a
cover up, guys. That is a blatant on
the record, in front of you cover up
that anybody honest is covering.
I just think that's crazy. And we'll come
back to that more. We will keep up
on what's happening there even though most of
the mainstream alternative media acts
acts like it doesn't exist anymore. Another quick
point about January 6. You know,
how many times we can see this with
people like Kash Patel or anybody else in
the partisan game left and right over the
years where they step in with all their
fury and or fur fur yeah. Fury and
and just passion, like, projecting, anyway. Then we're
gonna change the world, but we're gonna we're
not gonna let them get away with them.
No one's above the law and no you
know, like, they every time. Right? And then
go on to let, you know, Israeli pedophiles
go back home, block the Epstein list, and,
you know, all the things that we're talking
about. Well, he comes out and says, citing
this article from Fox, FBI's Patel clarifies role
of hundreds of agents on January 6. Says
Wray lied.
Now the reason that's there is to counterbalance
what he's actually saying.
See? Ray lied. Bad guy on the other
side. You know, that's what that's supposed to
be, or rather whatever. Somebody who's technically
whatever side you pretend he's on against Trump.
So he comes out and says 274
FBI agents were thrown into crowd control
on January 6
against FBI standards.
Oh, wait. Okay. So they weren't there to
manipulate
and lead them from the front and psyop
kinda thing.
So is is is Patel now telling you
that they are lying about that, that all
of your Republican information about the reality of
the people who were 100%
manipulating that stuff on the ground that we've
proven 75 times over?
Or is he basically siding with the establishment
narrative that, no, no, they were there to
control, and it was had nothing to do
with the psychological operation? He says that failure
was on corrupt leadership.
Violating standards is what he's talking about. Thanks
to agents stepping up, the truth is coming
out about a violation of standards to use
them for crowd control is what he's actually
talking about. Transparency, justice, accountability.
Well, as diligent Denzian points out rightly,
after a riot was declared, he says, we
see you.
He's not saying the feds were in on
it. He's actually, if you're care if you're
being honest with yourself, reinforcing the establishment narrative
that they weren't.
Are we waking up yet, MAGA?
That's what he wrote. Agents weren't sent into
crowd control mission or were
after a riot was declared. So what they're
claiming is you guys got crazy,
and then they sent them in to make
sure everything went okay. Nothing about FBI actually
manip or, you know, Wray out there going,
let's go into the Capitol. You know? Fed.
Fed. Fed. All the reality of the conversation
or Antifa caught on video claiming they tricked
everybody to go in or people from the
Azov movement on the ground screaming in Russian.
You guys have covered this a thousand times.
These aren't my opinions. They're on video.
So I think what's insane about this is
people that are protecting Patel or on the
side of the partisan game will attack me
for simply challenging him right now despite the
fact that this is what everybody honest is
pointing out on the right. That that that
I mean, here, I'll include this yet again.
And I there's many shows I can include.
This is just the one that has the
title that's very specific, but also with the
images you can see, January 6 was always
a very clear government operation. This is not
a partisan tape, guys. And see what's funny
is I do this show then and I'm,
oh, you MAGA Nazi Republican.
Now those very same Republicans are calling me
a snowflake because I'm challenging their immigration point.
Now, but see, this is just what it
looks like to have your own opinions, not
bound by some partisan blind mindset. And the
reality is it very clearly was.
And at the same time, I can clearly
point out that what the Republicans are doing
are trying to put you in a technocratic
prison. But my the reality, guys, is that
he is towing the line.
He's coming out and telling you exactly the
opposite of what that finding should show you.
274
FBI agents. Like, just let's realize, if you
look back at the information, on the the
first so many months of the story, which
we were covering and everybody else was at
the time, we already proved to you that
there were people that were there. We even
show you the FBI informants that were part
of the oath pray the oath keeper's
side. Or the, what was it? The naval,
psychological operations left, the woman that worked for
it. Now she says she was just there
of her own accord. Sure. Maybe.
But the point was that continued, and more
and more came out that they were there
and that they were doing far more than
just helping stop the evil Republicans from breaking
down the capital, which is what he's talking
about.
I just it just blows my mind, the
kind of stuff that the TeamSport politics people
will do and that how many honest conservatives
will be quiet about it.
Call it out.
More to talk about on that, I'm sure.
Before we get to more of the conversation
of the focal point today, I wanna start
with a couple points about AI,
the UN overlap, and just a few points
that are relevant to all this. Because, really,
as we get into what these, you know,
even just any of these shooting developments,
you know, we always have to be able
to realize that some things
abound the like, can a government fake that?
I no. Let's be clear. I don't think
these things so far look like anything other
than events
maybe driven into reality, which is always something
we should ask. But, historically, can they bake
things? Absolutely. And you should always be okay
to ask that, but evidence should be what
you care about.
Is it something they could be coordinating in
some way? Always ask that question because, yes,
they have.
My point in saying saying all of that
is that in these events, you have things
that could come from the government like videos
that you should question for reasons like this.
But, also,
more accurately or more to the point,
every single time, no matter what the story
is. And if you've done this long enough,
you see it too. Every single time, you
get left and right and these partisan people
or you could just call it maybe the
edge lord scenario, people that don't care about
either side, just love to watch everybody. I
mean, I get that to a degree. If
you see how silly the sides are, it's
fun to throw grenades in there and watch
them all go, great. I'm not saying I
do that because I care too much about
people understanding the truth. But I can understand
why somebody might like to watch people who
are being subjective attack each other for no
reason. My point is that you get people
that step in and dump fake information into
the conversation. Make fake videos, use old videos,
use AI to alter things and lie to
you. And in a way, it's part of
the agenda because it ultimately creates an error
of, well, we have to doubt everything,
but let them tell us what to look
at. You see, question everything is always the
right thing to do,
but come to your conclusions about it. And
it's okay to be like, well, I don't
know. Everything I have in front of me
does not answer it, so it's okay that
I don't know right now. Don't look to
the government to tell you what you're supposed
to think, which is where this all kind
of leads right now. Trump claims video of
items, and this is a very small story,
but it's worth making a point about. He
claims that items thrown from the White House
window, probably AI after aid
fingers contractor.
It's a very weird story. Now really just
wanted to show you that you can see
these little the videos and the images.
Oh, there were some things I was gonna
read to you. But basically, all you see
is a video of something oh, it's not
the one. Basically falling out of a window.
And what the
article reads, it says, yeah, those windows are
sealed, Trump says. Those windows are all they're
sealed. They can't open them, which appears to
not be the case. And it says the
the person behind the mysterious dumping was a
contractor who was doing regular maintenance while the
president was gone. Apparently, they found out later.
The White House official told the post without
specifying
when the curious incident took place. Now, honestly,
I'm not even getting into whether or not
it's important. The trash bag, who knows? Maybe
there's something to it. My point is about
the kind of weird deception around this. It
says it wasn't immediately clear what the objects
were or why they were being thrown out
the window, which clearly absolutely happened.
So were they sealed and are they? Well,
let let's play let's listen to what Trump
had to say.
Trump There's a there's
a video there's a video that is circulating
online now
of the White House where a window is
open to the residents upstairs, and somebody is
throwing a big bag out the window. Have
you seen this? No. That's probably a AI
generator.
You gotta love that. So we're this is
I told I mean, it's not like I'm
somehow in
psychic. Everyone sees where this is going, but
I just keep warning you that this the
other shoe is gonna drop on this. And
it already kinda has happened more than once
and probably has happened in ways that we
don't even recognize yet. But that we're like
he like Trump even kind of jokes about.
Because it is it's a true thing to
point out that right now, if it's something
you don't like, people can go, oh, it
says AI. It's fake. Or if it's something
that is fake, people will accuse you of
it even if you can prove it's not.
Like, that's where we are, and that's used
by people like them.
So I actually, you can't open the windows.
You know why? They're all heavily,
armored and bulletproof. So that's a big I
love the fans in the background going, yep.
Whatever Trump said. Yep. Uh-huh. Exactly. Whatever he
said is correct, even though it's not. A
fake video? Well, it's gotta be because I
know every window up there.
The last place I'd be doing it is
that because there's cameras all over the place.
Right? Including yours.
No. But every window,
I I've never seen a window that's in
fact, my wife was complaining about it the
other day. She said, love to have a
little fresh air come in, but you can't.
They're bulletproof.
And,
number one, they're sealed. And number two, each
window weighs about 600 pounds. You have to
be pretty strong to open them up. No.
That has to be where was the window?
Let me see.
For the renovations.
Which is the window? It looks like, this
is on the Fifteenth Street side, I think.
Yeah. So right here.
Yeah. Those windows are sealed. Those windows are
all they're all sealed. You can't open them.
It's
the kind of thing they do. And what
So that's kind of the first part. Just
to make the case about the which, like,
by all evidence appears to not be true.
And even the story about his wife wanting
to open the windows kinda feels like it
came from something that happened in the Obama
administration,
but easy to say that they both could
have the same story. But we know how
often these presidents just repeat and, like, repackage
old sentiments that are meant to make them
feel personable, but that's the first part of
it. And I'll show you in a second.
It doesn't appear to be the case. So
my first point about that is just to
point out the silliness of, you know, is
he just lying because he thinks he's right?
Is he making this up because he doesn't
want that to talk about what it was?
It's if you're willing to to lie and
bluster about such a tiny thing,
what wouldn't you lie about?
One of the problems we have with AI,
it's both good and bad. If something happens
really bad, just blame AI.
But See, now to be very fair,
which he has no does not deserve,
he's just simply saying that's what people are
doing. I agree with that. But you realize
that's also what they're doing. We've already caught
them doing that. Trump like, or even the
reverse about the MS 13 thing and just
doubling down on the fact that they that
it's that it was real. You know? It's
like it's obviously happened more than once already,
but he's not wrong in the general sentiment.
But realize that they know that and are
doing it as well.
Also, they create things. You know? It works
both ways.
If something happens that's really bad, maybe I'll
have to just blame AI.
See, now that one was him saying he
have to do that. Kind of like a
joke, but not really though.
It wasn't. They they will and they have.
But there's truth to it because I see
so many phony things. I saw something
as I was growing up from the time
I was a baby till now. I said,
who did that? It was AI generated. So
it's a little bit scary.
Do you think that's even a real thing?
So wait. Since you were a baby when
they had AI that could generate fake things
when you were a baby, Trump?
Let's listen to that again.
Something happens really bad, just blame AI.
But also they create things. You know? It
works both ways.
If something happens that's really bad, maybe I'll
have to just blame AI.
But there's truth to it because I see
so many phony things. I saw something
as I was growing up from the time
I was a baby till now. I said,
who did that?
Oh,
so an AI fake from when you were
a baby
because that lines up. Right? Because we had
AI
and Internet the way we do today back
in the '70 wait. Was it eighties? Seventies?
Are you kidding me?
Like, I mean, just think about how like,
that's just, like it's just the most absurdly
stupid thing. I've he is just let's let's
be clear. Let's be fair.
You could point out things that Bush did,
that Obama did, that Biden especially did. They're
just like that. Biden more than anybody, really.
A bunch of fake things in the background
that I mean, I just can't we have
to laugh at that. Donald Trump just claimed,
which I don't even know if nobody was
caught yet. I'm sure there'll be some kind
of, you know, lefty article making a joke
about it because you should. He just claimed
that he's something he watched when he was
a child was an AI fake. Or unless
there's some kind of weird language mix up
that he just did right there and he's
conflating two things, but that's what the words
he just said are exactly that.
Right. So so closer to fifties. Right? That's
right. He is much older than he appears
to be.
What did I say? 70? Yeah. That was
that was more than that. He said it'd
be more like he'd be more like 50,
60. Somebody's like 80. Right? So it's even
older than that. Either way,
I just think that's worth really reflecting on
how ridiculous that is. And so if you're
willing to just kinda lie like you're breathing
for no real benefit,
what else would you lie about? But so
too do all of the presidents I could
ever name right now. It was AI generated.
So Oh, let me finish that. Just just
be clear that that is what he's saying.
If something happens really bad, just blame AI.
But also they create things, you know. It
works both ways. If something happens that's really
bad, maybe I'll have to just blame AI.
But there's truth to it because I see
so many phony things. I saw something
as I was growing up from the time
I was a baby till now. I said,
who did that? It was AI generated. So
Look at the guy right behind him who
just realized
that that's stupid.
That I mean, that's the way I look.
Look. The guy right behind him, he's listening
intently. Now watch how watch his head move.
Baby till now. I said,
who did that? It was AI. I really
do think that. You look at his eyes,
kinda go further for a second, then he
goes, what?
Look, guys, that's funny. Like, I'm sorry to
dwell on it, but that's really stupid that
it's AI.
AI altered from when he was a baby.
Generated. So it's a little bit scary, to
be honest with you, but but those windows
are all very heavily sealed. Oh, also not
true apparently.
Right?
Circle back to the beginning. Now here's a
video or the video, so you all included
as always as always for new people to
the show. Every single thing I mention and
point to will be in this show notes
below. Anything I add will also be added
in real time during the show.
But, I mean, you could read this article
that very clearly highlights the fact that they
did prove later that, yes, the window was
opened and, yes, it did get thrown out.
So here, just in case, let's ask rock.
Can one open the windows at the White
House? And it says the windows at the
White House can be opened, but it's not
as simple as it sounds. Most windows in
the White House are designed to be functional,
so not 600 pounds is what they're saying.
Meaning that they can technically be open, but
security concerns restricted. That's all it really comes
down to, is that they're, you know, worried
about them being open for security risks because
I do believe that they are bulletproof.
But it says the building is a highly
secure residence, so windows are often fitted with
bulletproof
glass, and other protective measures. Opening them would
likely require Secret Service approval and would only
happen under tightly controlled circumstances, if at all,
but can and has. Historical anecdotes, like from
the former staff of or residents, suggest that
windows and private quarters such as these living
areas have been occasionally opened, But it's rare
and not casual. And it says, for example,
first lady Michelle Obama mentioned in her memoir,
wanting to open the windows for fresh air
but being limited by security mesh. Isn't that
funny?
So are they reading their old memoirs and
trying to present them? I mean, who knows?
Or it's just something that other people have
dealt with too. But I just think it's
humorous to point out. The the takeaway, you
can't open them. And he lied about that.
Or he doesn't know. I just think that's
worth recognizing as we go into much, much,
much more important things that they're probably also
lying about. Now just on a side note,
this somebody posted this. Maybe something or nothing,
but last night, the White House shut off
their lights, and, actually, I'm not even sure
if that actually happened. It does appear based
on this video. But they say the lights
were shut off and one window was left
on. And it goes, oh, but drop fourteen
said that. I I just want you guys
to recognize that QAnon is still very much
a real undercurrent within the Trump side.
Very much so. And if you think it's
not around, guys, this is the kind of
stuff they're still doing.
Anonymous
random drop you know, pretending still that this
is just the same thing going on and
not, you know, Michael Flynn or whatever else
we're talking about. Like, how easy it is
to manipulate something like this. An unverifiable anonymous
entity that drops cryptic things that you determine
what they mean. Mil
military intelligence. What is state secrets and how
how upheld is the security council? What must
be completed? So questions.
Why? By who? HRC next in line.
And then they go, why is Antifa allowed
to operate?
And that's supposed to be insightful things that
break down. Like, this they're trying to proclaim
that that's still some kind of an inside
white hat who is giving you the information
ahead of time even though they've been wrong,
what, 90% of the time, which is easy
to prove. I just want you to recognize
that because I believe that not only is
there a lot of people in the cabinet
that do know that and push that and
tap into it like Cash and Bongino,
but also that they manipulate it. They abuse
it. Right? They they use these things and
they and they nod to them when they
can to get benefit from it. Now
another part of AI in overlap, I'd this
I don't even know how to explain.
I mean, this is a very weird one
to me. And I have verified that this
did happen, both from, just
Grok saying that or from having
other articles and reports of it or having
the actual post. So Donald Trump
posted
a video
about a fake story, about something that has
been fake. The this is the, you know,
Daily Beast conservative platform. New QAnon conspiracy involves
a magical bed for zombie JFK.
Medbeds or whatever. It's a story that they've
circulated in the past.
And there's even weird ones. I've seen remember
that story about them, like, being able to
sever your heads and and move them and,
like, re attack them? And it looked very
convincing and real, but it was a fake
video.
He says tonight, Trump appears to have helped
pushed the false in MedBed conspiracy theory, which
has spread in the far right Internet over
the years. What I find fascinating is it
appears that Alex here wasn't even aware that
this is not this is an AI video
entirely. This is not even really Donald Trump's
voice. I'm gonna play it for you. And
what the crazy thing is though, this is
Donald Trump, who, yes, did post this video.
So first, about a fell story. Secondarily,
a video of himself that's not even him.
And now look, let's be clear. That's actually
happened more than once. The video they did
about the Gaza thing, which was like an
AI thing with him in it. But how
do you make sense of this? Did he
not know that it was him? Or was
he like, oh, did he think that it
was him somehow, or is he trying to
convince you? I I don't know. Watch it
first, and you tell me what you think.
Oh, there it is. Yeah. Sorry. Trump has
announced a historic new health care system,
the launch of America's first MedBed hospitals.
Now to be clear, this is not a
real Fox News segment. It's a fake. And
a national MedBed card for every citizen.
Every American
will soon receive their own MedBed card. So
clearly, you can hear that's not his voice.
Right? Donald Trump shared this. With it, you'll
have guaranteed access to our new hospitals
led by the top doctors in the nation
equipped with the most advanced technology in the
world. These facilities are safe, modern,
and designed to restore every citizen to full
health and strength.
This is the beginning of a new era
in American health care. Okay. You get it.
Right? Why would he post that?
After he just made a big point about
AI and what he'll blame AI and, like,
it my something about this makes this feel
deliberate to me. Like, there's something like, either
this is to distract from something else or
it's meant to make a point that we
go to later. I really don't know. I'm
kinda baffled by why this would even be
used.
So here's the article again. Oh, for well,
for this is Aaron Rapport simply saying Trump
he has deleted it. Trump deletes his bizarre
post featuring an AI video of himself endorsing
Medbeds,
which raises the question of whether he's so
confused that he thought it was a real
video of him talking. You can go in
that direction. You could argue that he's seen
Ile and whatever. You know, that's what both
sides like to do to each other, and
sometimes it is somewhat accurate.
To me, I mean,
it could be one of two things I
think is most likely.
Either he did this for a deliberate reason,
like he's done with many other weird videos
before to, you know, maybe it's a cue
thing. Right? To send the narrative through the
cue movement or
he shared it because he didn't even look.
Like, he he just saw the quick opening
and shared it because he that's what he
does too. These pea that's the kind of
weird social media presidency that we have today.
Now I'm gonna play this clip in a
second before we get to that because this
is where I think it overlaps.
On some this is just Grock saying, yes.
On September 27, Donald Trump posted an AI
generated video on Truth Social promoting Medbeds,
a fictional medical technology that's within the q
and on conversation. That's where this comes from.
It's just very, very weird to me. There's,
like, weird, like, underlayer things going on. So
here
is Donald Trump recently at the United Nations
discussing
a plan to use artificial intelligence
for very, very particular things that I think
is worth hearing right now. I just think
it's weird. Like, so why he just makes
this big push for AI when they're bit
they're they're very much in the like, they
wanna be in the driver's seat for the
way that the world goes in AI,
and yet you got stuff like this being
point I don't know. Is there a connection?
You decide. Here's what this said, though, and
I think this is important to hear.
Unbelievably
dangerous
to prevent potential disasters. I'm announcing today that
my administration
will lead a international effort to enforce biological
weapons convention.
Oh, yeah. The thing that they don't care
about that they violated many, many, many, many,
many times and still continue to. I made
that point back under, what was it, Obama?
And I made it under Trump. The law
and remember around the time of the of
the Bolivia point, and I made that point
then. They they they make the statements about
the biological there's what? I mean, even according
to the Pentagon, there's
20 plus
biological locations around the world. I mean, they
they are absolutely and that's not even necessarily
just BSL four, like, fake vaccine gain of
function scenarios. I mean, they're making weapons, guys.
They're making dual use technology.
So what he's saying is we're gonna use
AI to enforce that around the world,
something that they already violate. But, of course,
since they're gonna be the ones that wanna
lead this charge, it's pretty easy to argue
that they could do something that would make
them, you know sort of like, we're gonna
force or we're gonna fight for,
what was it, ESG, and then make the
argument that except we're gonna keep using oil
and gas and nuclear technology because, you know,
we use it to fight for freedom, therefore
allowing more of that to happen, which is
just ridiculous. Right? And not it's not even,
like, a a suggestion of ESG. It's just
pointing out very hypocrisy. Same thing here. Which
is going to be meeting with the top
leaders of the world
by pioneering an AI verification
system
that everyone can trust.
Okay. You could argue that only means biological.
It does not.
Like, maybe that's the one point he meant
right there. But if you can prove to
yourself, which you can, that they are actively
doing that now around in this country and
and in larger conversations,
An AI verification system. You know? Of course,
a biometric entry exit tracking system.
It's the same conversation, guys.
But all the fake parties all the fake
patriots out there are gonna pretend like that's
not what he's doing. Or this whole speech
was about, oh, Trump is poking the eye
of the of the establishment as he literally
proposes a joint conversation about how they'll use
this in the world.
Hopefully, the UN can play a constructive role
and Oh, yeah. Also go Yeah. But now
everyone else, Joe, is, oh, they're going after
the UN. The Globals are going down. They're
running scared as he proposes a deal for
them to work together
because that's smart. Be one of the early,
projects under AI. Let's see how good it
is because a lot of people are saying
it could be
one of the great things ever,
but it also can be dangerous, but it
could be put to tremendous use and tremendous
good. And this would The best thing ever.
Be an example of that.
The podcast is just from pledge for AI
driven by law to weapons verification.
To hear me speak about it, but that's
the way it is. I like to speak
my mind and speak the truth.
As we seek to reduce the threat
of dangerous weapons today, I'm also calling on
every nation to join us in ending the
development of biological
weapons
once and for all, and biological is terrible
and Right. Yeah. Right. Real bad bad evil
stuff, and we hate it while we make
them all around the world. And while Israel
is a leading charge in that where they
literally test these things on Palestinians every single
day.
Provable stuff, guys. We've talked about this a
100 times over.
So Trump is using the argument of going
after the bad of course, you know, when
the bad guys do it, though, that's when
it's bad. We do it. It's for freedom,
and it's for, you know, vaccines and double
stuff. And, oh, no. When they do it,
it's all about weapons and bad stuff. And
all the point is we'll use this to
go after people that we don't like, like,
everything the US government pretty much has ever
done. Israel
will not be pointed to in this. Neither
will Saudi Arabia or any others that are
involved with whatever else you could point to.
They are actively
all of these tools are gonna be used
against people that they don't like, their adversaries,
which today include you.
I think that's pretty obvious.
So here is the article from NBC News.
US rejects international AI oversight at at the
UN General Assembly General Assembly. Excuse me. I
mean, and so what this shows you is
the same kind of conversation. Now I'm not
arguing that The US
should or should want to adhere to some
kind of global adherence on artificial intelligence or
anything for that matter. But what this shows
me is it's more about the idea that
just like we talked about in the last,
large in every one of the conversations, whether
it's about continuing resolutions, whether it's about the
NDAA, the idea that there are that no
oversight, as Lutnick already told you, would be
the case regardless that they are not allowing
oversight so people like Palantir, groups like Israel
can do whatever they want and however they
want in AI because that'll be better for
industry. Who cares about the consequences?
Right? As you have genocidal maniacs out there
rushing to use AI to murder children. Right?
But the point is that this is another
pushback at oversight. That's how I look at
this, and I think it's important to consider
that. The United States clashes with world leaders
over artificial intelligence at the United Nations General
Assembly
this week rejecting calls for global oversight as
many pushed for new collaborative frameworks.
So he's literally saying, we wanna work with
everybody at the United Nations to effectively create
an AI
biological convention,
but yet we don't want you to check
what we're doing.
I just think that's a very weird way
to put that. And it says, well,
Craftio shot down the idea, and this is
just in regard to
the director of the Office of Science and
Technology
policy.
Well, he shot down the idea of combined
AI governance. Now that's really about the idea
of, like, the government of the AI, not
AI government, which is different.
President Trump said in the speech to the
general assembly on Tuesday that the White House
will be pioneering an AI verification system that
everyone can trust.
Right? So that would be the point is
that we'll do that, they'll create that, and
then you'll all be bound to adhere to
what our system says is the truth.
That's how I very much read that, and
it's how every other tool they've ever made
is act and treated in the same way.
Like, using Grok to manipulate government information that
they can alter and tweak and which they've
done, what, seven times now? But yet they'll
trust it now because, you know, whatever the
or the new update from today,
it says, hopefully, the UN can play a
constructive role, and it will also be one
of the early projects under AI. So as
they're out there acting like he's bucking the
system and calling out the UN, explain for
me how exactly that's the case when you're
proposing to work with the UN.
I'm just so tired of this ridiculous game
that's being played, and it's it's really just
whether you choose to look. If you're blind
enough to follow people like Jones that will
lie right to your face, at some point,
you deserve that. And it says AI could
be one of the greater things ever, or
the great things ever.
But it also can be dangerous, but it
can be put to tremendous use. You gotta
love that. Like,
it could be the best thing ever. Might
be bad, but it might be great.
So which one do you think he wants?
Right? The bad shoved in the middle or
the fact that he keeps telling you to
you know, it's it's something they're gonna do
regardless. But they love to kinda go, well,
it could be bad, lip service and all.
The statement to NBC News, a state department
spokesperson said The United States supports like minded
nations working together
to encourage the development of AI in line
with our shared values.
Right? So all that means is we're gonna
circle the wagons about ours and and, you
know, enemy states that we don't agree with
ideologically or because Israel hates them, we'll make
sure that they're boxed out of the start.
I mean, it's just a technocratic divide. And
this will continue to exact it, you know,
become more obvious. It'll become more severe. And
what do you think that's gonna do?
I'm not saying that people should be forced
to what what they're doing is creating
a
tool that will be forced through global ideas,
like we see Israel and United States use
the UN, for example,
that then will be forced on people that
are not in line with that idea. But
see, if it was in the way other
way around, well, The US and Israel would
cry free they have freedom.
They're infringing on our sovereignty. Well, yes. I
would agree, but they do the same thing
every day to every single person they don't
like, including you today.
I think I read the bottom of that.
It says the
yeah. Well, it says The US position in
international bodies
is to vigorously advocate for international AI governance
approaches that promote innovation,
reflect American values, and counter authoritarian influence, except
ours and Israel's and Saudi Arabia's and everybody
else that we allow to be the worst
authoritarians in the world. Though we're okay, but
not you know, but everyone else's, which aren't
even close to that, but start to push
back on our authoritarianism and, oh, they're the
fascists.
End of the day, American values.
So you want to force American perspectives on
everyone in the world through your AI control
structure, but don't want there to be some
kind of a balance between other people's mind.
I mean, this is the same kind of
thing we keep talking about.
If you wanna talk about, like, American exceptionalism,
well, that's an idea that we talk about
within this country and how we like, the
idea that we are ever projecting, forcing.
The the the way we see the world
on any other country is always part of
the problem. And didn't Trump tell you the
last time he was elected that I won't
be the policeman of the world? We're not
going to, you know, change or, you know,
the what was the other word he used?
The ideological thing?
Well, that's exactly what they all do. They
do it every time. All these things are
used to these are tools going in the
direction of the same problem. Now, again, same
conversation. Trump rips UN's empty words, accuses it
of assault on the West in fiery dress.
So here's where you recognize
words
are one thing
and actions are another. So maybe Jones and
the rest need to really reflect on that
point because here we are where they simply
go, oh, he said, you know, last time
at Davos,
pronouns are stupid, and you're, oh, they dunked
on the bad guys, but, yeah, that they
work there with them, and they're aligned with
them on every other agenda, including the vaccine
agenda.
But he said pronouns were bad, so, well,
he showed them.
He's still working with them. It's just it's
just a very childish mentality. So it says
Donald Trump unloaded on world leaders attending the
United Nations Assembly on Tuesday,
questioning the purpose of the international organization and
ripping it for being behind empty words and
underwriting an assault on Western countries through mass
migration.
Right? Which, again, there is some level of
truth to what we're talking about there. But
what's hilarious to me is that you could
push back on that in any other context
when it relates to the most obvious culprit.
But then point this out as some broad
UN thing toward only The United States, which
I I again, if you understand the history,
if you watch this show, you know I
understand the point that's beneath that. But what
they're trying to do
is use it for their interest in places
where it's really about control. And, overall,
ripping them for empty words and accusing them
of of creating
weaponized migration, but yet let's work together because
that's what this is. Make sense of that
for me. They're using fake immigration to overthrow
our country, but let's make a deal because
we could work together.
As he says, what is the purpose of
the United Nations? The UN has such tremendous
potential. I've always said, it was such tremendous,
tremendous potential. It's not just it's not even
clo coming close to living up to all
that potential. For the most part, at least
for now, all they seem to do is
write really strongly worded letters and then never
follow-up.
It's empty words. Empty words don't solve war,
president went on.
Yes. Right. So again, the point is what
we just read, including even that as a
secondary statement, is it has so much potential.
We wanna work together, which is ultimately what
we're saying here.
Which is hopefully the UN can play a
constructive role and it'll be one of the
early projects under AI.
Okay. So if they're overthrowing your country with
immigration, why would you wanna make a deal
with them to further your project?
I could say it 16 different ways. If
we if it's not sinking in for people
out there, the reality is clearly that that's
contradictory.
But
words are one thing and actions are another.
Right? So at the end of the day,
they'll always be all bluster and, hey. Oh,
they're the bad guy, and we'll go after
them, but what they do is what matters.
So as we just recently pointed out, AI
is the new gain of function. And this
was a really concerning show if you haven't
seen this. The conversation of both the concern
about average people and what they claim, you
know, a grok can do by creating biological
weapons, which is why Trump is having that
conversation. They're literally building on these narratives.
But the real issue was what they called
BDTs, which is the the the institutional side
of it.
It's gain of function, and experts will tell
you that. Now they're using AI to do
the same thing, which is why I argue
this was ever done in the first place.
The whole executive order claiming to end gain
of function, which all they really did was
claim they're gonna be the experts on the
version they like. Well, welcome to the AI
gain of function, which is way, way worse.
Just like, you know, stable coins, way worse
than CBDCs. But, hey, we're winning because the
first one didn't happen.
All over the place, guys. Watch these shows.
Now lastly, just to recognize that you have,
you know, a a video from RFK Jr,
which he's been saying for quite a while.
It'll make you a slave. Digital currency that
will allow the government to cut you off
from your and yep. And we all agree
with that.
This is concerned citizen Sharon since the twenty
seventh.
Well, I said, well, hard to take this
seriously as they quite literally roll those things
out. Right?
This is not an opinion or conjecture. Their
own reports make this clear, but sadly, many
care more today about what the elitist yell
out loud than they do their openly laid
out plans and actions.
Hashtag stable coins.
Doesn't that seem just the most logical thing
in the world? And we can prove that's
happening. But team sport politics wins the day.
Now before we get into the last two
main topics, I think this is important to
think about because this is where the left
right game comes into play. Right?
This is a an article, again, coming from
the UN point.
Now I'm gonna say it right out of
the gate.
I don't think there because they've held this
close to the chest for that which seems
pretty weird, because as you know, normally, these
things are dumped out everywhere they can when
they want this to be a con when
they want the mainstream alternative media to vomit
in nonsense all day so it gets really
confusing.
New York Post, Trump administration official physically assaulted
by a United Nations General Assembly or assaulted
at the UN by deranged leftist, White House
says.
So there's many points to make about this.
I'll read it first. You know, first, obviously,
is the claim to be deranged leftist, which
you know they would label against anybody that
just acted against them, Just like we already
see with Robinson and other ones we've already
pointed to, which you could prove there is
no provable connection to either left or right
organizations. And pretty much everybody so far has
been unregistered or independent or libertarian, and yet
they'll force it in because, look, he wore
a mask. Look, he said the word fascist.
Well, that's your opinion. That's a subjective claim
for somebody. I say fascist. Am I a
liberal? No. I'm not. I think both sides
are ridiculous. But either way,
this is what they're claiming.
On top of the fact that
they seem to have not released the name
of the person who they claim was arrested
and already released, they they're not releasing the
name of the person, the official that the
US government says was was harassed. No. I'm
not saying it's false. Very well could just
be something they don't want you to dive
into for other very clear reasons that maybe
don't align with the agenda or that it's
not actually a leftist.
Either way, I don't know that because they
won't release the information.
It says a Trump administration official was physically
assaulted by a deranged leftist inside the UN
Thursday afternoon during the gathering of the general
assembly.
And it says, quote, an HHS official,
I'd love to find out who, was followed
into a bathroom, recorded, physically assaulted, and verbally
accosted by a deranged leftist at the UN
who somehow entered the venue past multiple layers
of security. That also seems an interesting point.
Right?
Because the argument is what? You know?
Drain, terrorist level, big breaking insecure, UN. Like,
there there's an overlap to all this. And
it very well could just be somebody who
was angry with them and decided to go
out and yell at them. Does that then
make it an a left terrorism problem Even
if they're a lefty. No. It does not.
It could. But then wouldn't you need to
prove that? You know, present some kind of
actual tangible evidence where the judge could say,
yes. I can see a network of people
planning violence, and here's cases they've acted it
out. No. It never happens that way. Not
today because it's all about narrative and floating
a general concept
to, you know, justify government action in a
more broad way with really unverifiable claims, but
freedom, though. Right?
And it goes on to say,
White House press secretary pointed this out. Thankfully,
the official is safe, and the lunatic was
arrested. But this is a part of a
disturbing and dangerous set of failures by the
UN, you know, UN Hamas. Right? After they
sabotage president Trump because we've proven that? No.
We haven't.
So a escalator didn't work, and his prompter
didn't work. But it also didn't work for
three major speeches calling out Israel.
But so if you're gonna claim so how
does that make sense? Or maybe they just
had glitches that day or maybe they attacked
all of them. The point is, shouldn't we
care to prove those things before they continue
to make a statement? No. That doesn't matter
today. Not for politics.
Kelly told Fox News Digital that the US
Secret Service will investigate how this violent protester
has was admitted.
So if nothing ever comes to this, I'm
calling BS. If no name was ever pointed
out, if there's nothing, it's either my opinion
BS or not or lefty, and they'll cover
it up. The source familiar told Fox News
Digital that the individual has been charged with
assault, aggravated harassment, attempted assault, and criminal possession
of a weapon. So you're telling me somebody
carries a weapon into the United Nations General
Assembly and accosts a UN
a HHS official in the in the bathroom,
and that's not a gigantic story all over
the news. We don't we would know the
person's name.
Something's clearly off about this. I'm not saying
I definitely know. I've made that clear. I'm
telling you my gut instinct, which is that
they've lied a lot just like left and
right governments lie to you like they breathe.
To me, this just doesn't add up. And
we've seen them very clearly try to force
in a false narrative over things that you
can
prove. But it says a the individual was
leased
from custody. So somebody out there would have
information that would be really there'd be public
things you could find. I can't find anything.
Now, if you found something over the last
couple hours, maybe it's developed.
But this this article was from yesterday. So
my point is this would have already
happened.
It says
they're expected in court on the thirteenth,
but no name, no mention of them or
the official.
The official tried to get away from the
woman who was screaming derogatory and pro Palestinian
comments.
This checks all the boxes, doesn't it? The
official said the woman called her a fascist
and a Nazi.
Literally every box.
So who knows? Maybe.
But I think it's very interesting how this
is just a thing that they screamed out
that doesn't that seems to accentuate
all the different points they're making.
Why wouldn't they talk about this? Why wouldn't
they plaster this person's face everywhere?
You I mean, the logical point would be
either they're not really a lefty and they
just used it because that makes sense for
their narrative,
or it didn't happen at all. But I'd
like to see. So if it turns out
to be exactly what it looks like, I
never said the point is we don't know
for sure, but I'm sure they'll pile on
and be like, yeah. Oh, cute. No. No.
That's not what we do on this show.
Giving you my opinions. But overall, I think
you know as well as I that they've
been caught lying many, many, many times. Now
as we just even literally highlighted them lying
about very benign, unimportant things.
Suspect in North Carolina restaurant shooting identified.
Charged with murder after three killed, at least
five wounded. Now what I found really interesting
about this story, this is reported today. I
believe the shooting happened yesterday.
Why wasn't discussed?
I mean, if this was a very clear
lefty person, which, let's be clear, right out
of the gate, neither of these stories, I
think, you can yet prove definitively what their
political standing was,
which I and that that matters to me.
I don't care if the guy's wearing a
red hat, out there hunting, you know, whatever
guys, if you the the the reality that
you could pretend you know by the way
somebody looks, yeah, I get it. There's very
clear
leanings.
But I know plenty of people who identify
other ways than what they clearly look like.
And, really, I believe most people are somewhere
in the middle of that, and we're still
forcing in these fake constructs of left and
right because it keeps people under their thumb.
My point, though, is that unless you can
prove that, like, say, he voted as a
left or right person, which neither of the
people have, or
he's out there saying this publicly in some
kind of a statement, wrote something like that,
or is literally affiliated with some kind of
an organization. Those things don't exist. So these
screaming idiots out there who want you to
believe, he's a lefty. We know it. He's
on the right. We can tell. It's all
the same
thing. So here's what's important.
This is for Fox News. A suspect has
been charged after a gunman opened fire from
a boat into the waterfront restaurant in North
Carolina, killing three people and wounding at least
five others. It's a tragedy, guys. It's horrible.
The idea that we need to say that
for that to be accepted, like, it bothers
me. And almost to the point to where
I don't want to come out and be
every oh, I condemned the bad thing that
we should condemn, and I'm sad. Right? Okay.
Let's move forward. Because I am. I know
that. I don't care what people think about
what I'm supposed to feel about something. My
past record, my track record, what I do
every day shows compassion and empathy for anybody,
left or right, for families of people that
are suffering. Anybody.
Just Just what we said about Charlie Kirk's
family, regardless of the position we think about
his politics.
Family we're suffering. That has to matter to
people. So my point is that when you've
talked about the I mean, I pointed this
out about the or the el the shooting
at the Mormon church. And I simply said,
you guys are misrepresenting this point. And somebody
comes in and attacks me because I don't
care. I don't believe in God because how
dare I point the
as if they know everything I'm thinking. The
point is a single and obvious point.
The the the projection of somehow how I
like, how dare they come out and accuse
me of not believing in god because I
I made a point that's accurate, but they
didn't say the thing first that I'm supposed
to say.
It's all fake, guys. Every time they stand
up and go, oh, I could down the
thing, it's because this is a cycle they
all go through. Do you think any of
them actually care? Maybe. Historically shows you they
don't. Whether or not you think that, the
point is the fact that people make like,
the idea that you're supposed to put on
this ritual every time it come out, it's
about my personal feelings. I care about these
things because I have empathy for human beings.
I don't feel the need to put on
a song and dance about how I care
about these things before I talk about them.
I think that's self evident in the work
that we do. Regardless,
don't care what you think. A suspect has
been charged after a gunman fired from a
boat.
Nigel Max Edge, 40 years old, was charged
with three counts of first degree murder and
five counts of attempted first degree murder in
connection with the shooting at an American Fish
Company restaurant in Southport, North Carolina.
The city's public information officer
confirmed Fox News on Sunday morning.
It says Southport chief police chief Todd Coring
told reporters at a press conference later Sunday
morning that the suspect acted alone in a
highly predetermined fashion. That's interesting.
Not some random thing is what they're claiming.
Even when you get into it, it seems
there might be some sort of a p
s p t PTSD kinda point. But either
way, they're claiming it was not some reaction
or some kind of lost your mind point,
but a highly premeditated
planned thing.
So they're saying, question police officers
like you do anybody else because just like
anybody else, they're capable of lying, deceiving, you
know, everything else that anybody else is capable
of, not to insinuate that that's the case.
It says, we believe that this was a
targeted location,
Coring said, adding that the suspect is in
custody and there is believed to be no
further threat to the community.
Southport's public information officer previously said a boat
with a single occupant on the Cape Fear
River paused briefly in front of the restaurant
at around 09:30 and opened fire, killing three
patrons and injuring multiple others.
The boat then sped sped off in the
direction of the intercoastal
waterway towards neighboring Oak Island.
The US Coast Guard observed a single individual
matching the description of the shooting shooter loading
their boat on a public ramp in Oak
Island shortly after 10PM. The coast guard crew
detained the person who was turned over to
Southport Police for questioning.
Now it says Coring said the suspect identified
himself as a combat veteran who was injured
in the line of duty and suffers from
PTSD.
Fox News Digital could not immediately confirm those
claims.
Well known to the local
police.
Now exactly what that means, I think we'll
flush out more. There's one point about it,
but he was apparently well known to the
local police. And at first, you might think
because he's working with them, but it seems
he was calling them out and suing them
and stuff. But it says, no, he didn't
have any significant criminal background.
His suspect had filed numerous lawsuits against the
police department in town in recent years. So
it just there's, you know, there's different points
that you could pretend are aligning with what
side you want to see.
He says the authorities does not immediately release
the names of those killed.
So when you look at this story, to
me,
it's easy to pretend it's one you know,
well, look. He's, you know, a veteran, and
he's, you know, whatever. The point is that
nobody can prove for sure. And that's the
honest
thing to do is to say and, really,
let's just say he was left or right.
The idea that the game is to then
make that about the entire side, how did
we ever let that stupidity start?
Whether you think there is, prove these things
or shut up. I'm just tired of these
people out there screaming about, oh, every single
person is a Nazi or every single one
of them is a terrorist. When everybody somewhere
knows that can't possibly be the truth, but
we all just let them scream
and keep gaining their millions of followers and
profiting from the Twitter cycle. You know, it's
it's just wild to me.
We'll probably find out some way or the
other, but I mean, when you look further,
as this says, not affiliated with the Republican
or Democratic party according to voter records,
which are right here. Nigel Max edges North
Carolina voter registration, which the fact that we
can look this up is crazy to me,
how lacking of privacy we have. But he
was born in 1994
and listed as no political party affiliation.
But yet, they're all making their claims anyway.
Actually, this one is getting less attention than
any, but there are some of them out
there. To me, I think it's because it's
easy to see this as right because a
veteran, which is the I think people just
ignored it, or rather because they chose one
that they could use more than the other.
Now that's you may be offended by that,
but you know as well as I that
people on the partisan game use stories like
this every day. And then when you come
out and and, you know, accurately discuss these
stories, accuse you of being insensitive as they
lie about people, like Charlie Kirk, for example,
or use his name to go after people
for saying things they don't like as if
that's not inherently insulting to Charlie's memory.
But this story got very little attention.
I just find that very telling. Don't you?
Why wouldn't that have been discussed?
It is I it's very like, it's identical
to what we're going over right now,
but it didn't get discussed. You can decide
why. Now here's the new one from today.
And, again, this is especially a sad story,
obviously, because they're talking about people that were
in the mid in the process of of
going to church and with, you know, children
and families. And and and there's a and,
really, for me, the reason I'm even accentuating
that is because we're talking about people that
were not only shot at,
but then, ultimately, that there was a, like,
family and children that got separated and, like,
trapped inside. And and, you know, and this
is still developing information. And, apparently, somehow, the
the building caught on fire. People are claiming
they know that it was set by the
shooter. I can't seem to verify that. And,
apparently, there are people trapped in there. That's
a really horrifying story. It says one dead,
nine injured in Michigan shoot church shooting. Arguably,
I think
people are claiming the second person has been
killed.
And it says, shooter down, building on fire.
So, at least one person has died. Now,
again, if you have any major updates, let
me know in the chat. At least one
person has died, and nine others were injured
in the mass shooting. As I said, the
reports are going around that a second person
has now died, but, again, nine others were
pretty severely injured.
And
and and and and a mass shooting and
a fire that occurred in a church in
the Central Michigan community of Grand Blanc
on the morning of Saturday, Sunday, September twenty
eighth. Now right out of the gate,
people came out and it may and used
this to claim this was an attack on
Christianity.
Now I'll go over it yet again a
second. I don't regardless of what you may
think or what Johnsons are telling you, you
know, Bennie Johnson or whether I start out
there trying to lie to you about, the
truth is that's not Christianity, guys. It's I
can prove this to you in very basic
ways. And this is not even like a
religious point. This is just a fact about
the differences between the two. Now, yes, I
can just like, you could argue like many
other things or offshoots of this does not
then make them the the the adherent idea
of Christianity.
I mean, you could even argue that about
other diff you know, it doesn't even matter.
The point is I can prove this in
a second in the very, very basic way.
My point is though you have people coming
out and yelling that this is an attack
on Christianity because that's the current narrative, and
I argue they didn't even look. They didn't
even look or do their due diligence, or
worse, they don't understand the difference.
But it says a 40 year old man
drove his vehicle through the front doors of
the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day
Saints, the Mormon church,
a suburb of Flint, Michigan.
That town just, you know, Flint, Michigan still
doesn't have clean water, by the way. According
to Grand Blanc Township police chief William Rain,
he then exited the vehicle and fired several
rounds at people inside the church.
Raine said this afternoon when a conference. 10
victims with gunshot wounds, including one victim who
was pronounced deceased, were transported to local hospitals
during the incident. The Mormon church was also
engulfed in flames, and police said they believe
there will be more victims because there are
people inside the building near the fire that
couldn't get out.
It says responding officers engaged in gunfire with
the suspect according to Rain, which is interesting
seeing as how there are people still in
there. It says the suspect is no longer
with us, Rain said. Police identified the suspect
in the shooting as a deceased man from
Burton, but they didn't release the name. But,
apparently, that name has been put out by
New York Post. But knowing how ridiculous that
platform is, we should probably take it with
a grain of salt, but it doesn't mean
that's false.
Police said they will be conducting search warrants
on the suspect's residence and will look into
cell phone records. Several law enforcement agencies were
assisting local authorities in the investigation,
including a 100 FBI agents. Surprising that Cash
Patel didn't dump evidence on Twitter this time,
Michigan State Police, and and, ATF.
I mean, realize that just like right now,
it it like like we saw before, it
was the effort to dump in something that
would make it into a partisan discussion.
And without that piece of weirdly inserted evidence
that I don't think we can even necessarily
prove was part of everything, but there's a
lot of weird anomalies to it all,
everything else, like, we keep showing you, even
if it did say anti ice and that
was actually done by the person, that even
alone does not then prove somebody is part
of one side or the other. Again, I
think ICE is disgustingly obviously like a gestapo
force today. It doesn't make me calling for
violence. It's just simply me, a person, understanding
what it is. And it's obvious to prove
this. It's not left or right. I think
both sides are equally ridiculous in the team
sport game. The point is by saying that
does not make you one side or the
other. Wearing a mask does not make you
one side or the other. I've seen both
sides do it. Trump wore a mask for
crying out loud. But it's all about the
assumptive layer they can put over the top
to shove in their narrative.
Now it says that in a true social
post, Donald Trump said if the,
FBI
immediately responded to the scene,
the FBI will be leading the federal investigation
into the shooting and will provide full support
to state and local officials. Now when the
FBI is instantaneously
on the scene, that raises suspicion
for me. When you have
undeniable evidence of the FBI manufacturing events or,
in many cases, having direct contact with these
shooters before they then go and do and
and it's not about saying they should have
arrested them for no reason. It's not what
I'm implying. But the point is that it's
weird, and you should wonder whether there's something
beyond that
about, you know, like, any other examples where
they basically allow these people to carry these
things out for certain agendas, and then the
ideas, maybe they were supposed to stop them
before it happened and they failed, and then
they just pretend they weren't involved. That has
literally happened more than once.
So the suspect is dead, they write, but
there is still a lot to learn, Trump
said in the post. But this appears to
be yet another targeted attack on Christians. Donald
Trump said that, despite being a Mormon church.
So it's all about narrative, guys. It's about
inserting the narrative the way you want to
sell it.
Oh, and then the point also, the the
leader of the church died apparently yesterday. And
I'll I'll go over some posts that I
oh, I actually didn't I don't have them
right here.
Some posts here, like, for example, this is
one of the series
that Derek did,
that I'll include in the show notes, called
the Utah ritualized sexual abuse investigation.
This is largely about that overlap of this
issue, the the direct investigation as well as
the Mormon church in general, and this is
the guy they're talking about right here. The
title of this is Utah ritualized sexual abuse
investigation, the Mormon church, and child sexual abuse.
The man in that picture, who is, in
my my personal opinion, a a criminal, and
you can read the information for yourself, the
accusations, they go back a long way. He
passed away.
So the point is that maybe there's something
to that. Maybe there's, like, you know, some
more story to it, but, you know, that
to me, that just looks like another data
point, at least for now. Now this is
what I find really important in all this.
James Robert James Smith identified as the Michigan
Latter day Saint the the Mormon church shooter
because Grock named Singer as suspect and then
goes, oops, apologize for the glitch.
So this is the Grock that's currently informing
our government?
That's how insane this has gotten, guys. This
is this is Grand Blanc Township police chief
William Rain confirmed in a press conference that
the shooter was 40 year old man from
Burton, Michigan, who we'll get to in a
second, at least the reports of him, who
was shot and killed at a police scene
following a brief exchange of gunfire. His name
has not been yet released. You know? Oh,
it's right here, actually. We'll come back. Thomas,
I guess, Jake might be a secondary name.
Thomas Sanford. Thomas Jake Sanford. That's the report
from New York Post.
But it says shortly after the incident,
Twitter users began sharing a quote
from Grok,
which inaccurately named the shooter as the lead
singer of The Cure.
I mean, how is that even possible, guys?
That's not an accident. To me, that's either
some kind of deliberate troll that's done by
Grok and Elon Musk and Twitter, or somebody
is able to manipulate that even by just
dumping fake information on Twitter, which shows you
how absurd it is that this is the
kind of thing that they're using to run
our government
and is completely overlapped with Israel and any
number of very obvious problems with the AI
conversation.
That's,
like
what's the right word for it? Like, I
was the beyond the pale is what I
was looking for. Like, that is so far
the cure, the singer I mean, and not
only that that's the case, but that then
got circulated without due diligence by everybody because
Grock said. Now it says in an initial
post, Grock stated a 40 year old man
identified as jame Robert James Smith rammed his
car into the church, and it's just the
rest of the story. Opened fire,
gunshot gunshot victims, police exchanged gunfire with Smith
who died at the scene.
Now what if somebody went and took action
against
James Robert James Smith?
Would that be the accountability of well, here's
an interesting action point right here. Now we're
talking about a program, not a person. So
maybe you could arguably say that the platform
was responsible for that by putting out the
information that led to his death. Now I
would simply argue that the real way to
to deal with that would be, and my
always point is to keep the government out
of it, to sue them for that. And
you I care I guarantee you a judge
would see the logic in that. See, that's
the point. The government getting involved, even when
it comes to something like that, I would
argue is not necessary.
But it says the post circulated widely before
Grock issued a correction. And it says, oops.
That's a glitch on my end. Robert James
Smith is the lead singer of The Cure,
not involved in the shooting. The actual suspect
is today in today's Michigan church incident hasn't
been named yet. Thanks for the heads up.
I'll debug that. You'll debug that?
God. That's just a story in and of
itself, guys. But it'll be quickly overlooked as
they roll it into our government.
Now
the quartering comes out and says the American
flag oh, and by the way, there there
is reports of American flags being in the
back of the truck the car or the
truck that drove into the building.
The American flags, he writes, on the church
shooter's truck
is maybe the most obvious op in history.
I bet they still fold there still folds
in them. This will end up being lefty
trying to frame the right.
This is put out before. Anybody knows what's
happening.
Now I wouldn't stretch anything. I would not
go as far as to call this person
a journalist,
but influences
a ton of people with 407,000
followers and plenty more when you look on
his other platforms. The reality is that this
is just your projecting of your personal opinion
as absolute fact. And the reality is,
as we'll get into the information, American flag
very much lines up with who this person
appears to be. I'm not even suggesting that
means he's Republican or even conservative because I
can't prove that. But for him to come
out and say that shows you the kind
of blind following adherence to my team's narrative
that everyone's pushing.
Of course, people like Alex Jones come out
and say, an active shooting terror attack just
took place in the church of Latter day
Saints in Michigan. The terrorist rammed his truck
through the front of the large church then
began shooting attendees
and set fire to the church, which I
can't prove and I don't think he can
either. But that's the narrative that Lewer puts
out so they all repeat it. And it
says I would and I'm I'm not even
saying false. What I'm saying is that they
put things out before they can confirm them
every single day. And it says I would
he says I would give it a 98%
probability that it's an Islamist or an antifa
affiliated
nut job.
Great. Great. An antifa, tran tifa, alif an
Islamist
antifa,
tranifa affiliated nut job. Because that all perfectly
overlaps. Right? Let's just jam it all together.
Okay.
And be 98%, somebody turns out to be
inevitably false, then it'll just go, well, I
didn't say it completely. Okay. Well, here he
is.
According to New York Post, which is important
to point out,
since I I and, again, since it is
New York Post, maybe we should take you
know, before we take it at face value,
we should, you know, pull that. But as
I said, as we should do always regardless.
Right? Question everything.
But it says, New York Post names Grand
Blanc church shooter as Thomas Jake Sanford, an
Iraq war veteran.
Police say the gunman crashed into Michigan church,
opened fire, and set it ablaze, killing two
people now and injuring nine.
Okay. Well, you see, now if we were
playing the game the same way the ridiculous
partisans were, we would jump out and go,
obviously, Republican. Right?
And I could obviously point out that seems
likely
more likely, I guess, than, you know, somebody
with a purple haircut and a pink hat.
Right? But
I don't know that, and we're not ridiculous
enough to make those claims like most of
the partisan teams for politics. Hopefully, we can
start to put, you know, in,
what's that word I'm looking for?
Do hopefully, what we're doing in that way,
I can't think of my words for it.
By being objective, we'll filter through the rest
of the conversation and start showing average people
why we shouldn't be as clownish as these
partisans out there. That even though it benefits
them wildly, hopefully, we care more about the
truth, which is what they all pretend they're
fighting for.
So you can decide for yourself.
Now if this was a person doing the
same things but had a pink hat on
with a mask or whatever else, they would
already be screaming lefty like they already are,
by the way, before they even knew what
was happening.
How does that not make the case for
you? Right? That should be enough right there.
The fact that they were screaming or that
they told you the same thing before. They
screamed who he was before we even knew
who was arrested with Charlie Kirk.
So
here's Kash Patel. We are tracking reports of
the horrific shooting at the end of fire
at LDS Church. FBI agents are on the
scene to assist local authorities violence in a
place of worship as a cowardly and criminal
act. I agree. Our prayers are with the
victims and their families during this terrible tragedy.
I agree.
Here is
NBC News. Church attack leaves one dead, nine
injured. Now this was just again I I
just had this up from before. This is
the image I was using before just to
show you that it's Church of Latter day
Saints, which we already know.
And here is a slew of people coming
out and screaming it's a it's a Christian
discussion
or a Christianity is under attack.
Okay. So let's make this point clear. First,
I say without even a glance at the
facts, Bennett Johnson uses the story to use
to to story uses this story to use
for his agenda. Only issue, it's a Latter
day Saints church, not a Christian church.
Now not sure why anybody takes these TeamSport
politics partisan seriously. Not only be not only
and and this was the point I think
is important. I made this point for a
reason. The only point being made here is
the lack of due diligence.
Not that I'm you know, not anything other
than that point. That's all. So people that
are coming under this and saying, well, you
know, maybe I posted 75 times somewhere else
about how tragic it was and how much
I care. Not that that's even necessary because
I do care. I don't need to verify
myself to people on Twitter.
But the point
same thing. This was oh, just I just
wanted to get to the explanation. So very
quickly, all the others doing the same.
Eric Doherty. Christianity
under attack.
Same thing. All these fake patriots will jump
on whatever they are told or whatever they
feel will benefit their agenda, likely both. This
is a Mormon church.
And, you know, doom does his own due
diligence on this. Just quick search. Again, these
are things that you could easily prove yourself.
As he he simply asked, are Mormons Christians?
He's then he says no. Mormons, members of
the church of of Jesus Christ of Latter
day Saints, do not worship the same god
as traditional Christians, primarily because differing views on
the nature of the godhead. And so this
is where it becomes important. While both groups
worship Jesus Christ, Mormons view the father, son,
and holy spirit as distinct beings with individual
bodies, whereas traditional Christianity believes the godhead is
one being existing in three persons. You can't
pretend those are the same thing. Now look,
I'm not saying one bad, one good. Let's
not be chat children about this. It is
not
Christianity.
You just it's it's just it's just simply
not the reality. And here's the point you
can look up for yourself, which I was
trying to show people,
which is
the Latter day Saint church quite literally teaches
that humans can become gods in the afterlife.
Look it up for yourself.
How do you think that? Does that align
with Christian Christian beliefs? The problem is all
these people are out here pushing this because
it's a partisan agenda, or maybe don't even
know that they're being misled by Nick Short
or Betty Johnson and Alex Jones and all
the rest. As Sasha Latapova backs me up
and says, can I please remind everyone that
Mormons are not real Christians? It's a sect,
a very successful one. However, I am not
sorry that they got attacked and I mourn
for all real victims.
Excuse me. I I just to the podcast,
she says, I am very sorry they got
attacked and I mourn for all real victims.
A slip of the tongue. The the point
she's making is simply not, like, somehow ungodly,
just not as a defining point. Not Christian.
They're not Christians. Just like you could argue
Judaism. Jews are not Christians. Right? And but
you could argue both stem from very, it's
just it's a manipulation.
And my point I don't even think this
is because they actually think that. It's be
I think it's because they jumped into it
to scream the agenda without even double checking
the story,
which is what they do every single day.
So Nick says the same thing. Christians has
to attacks on Christians has to end. No.
There's no Christians there, bud. And it says,
it's horrible, but this is not a Christian
church, Lizzie points out. It's a Mormon church.
Nice folks, not Christians. Praying for them. And
Nick says Mormonism is a sect of Christianity.
See where this goes? They believe in Jesus
Christ. That doesn't make them Christians. Do you
understand? So too do a lot of other
religions that are not Christians. But he he
either he doesn't know that, which is insane
for a Republican right fighting for Christianity or
whatever they're framing themselves as today,
or he's lying to you.
He goes, it's literally in the name Jesus
Christ of Latter day Saints. Well, I said,
you are an absolute moron. The real question
is, do you actually believe that, which speaks
volumes about you, or are you just pushing
it since you're too feckless to admit that
you're wrong?
You can't tell me that believing that humans
can become gods aligns with Christianity.
Or the very clear point of the Godhead
discussion about the difference there. They're not you
just can't.
And I wanna be stressing this, guys. This
is not a point of religion. This is
not a religion. I mean, other than that
it is about religion. I'm not making this
a religious point. It's a factual point that
you can look up for yourself.
Nick, surely, you can't see this and not
think to yourself, is Christianity under attack?
This is just the agenda, guys. It's what's
happening right now. And I'm not look. I'm
not even trying to say it, alternatively, that
Christianity is not under attack. You can decide
that for yourself. That's not the point we're
getting into right now. The point is that
these people are misrepresenting this like they do
everything
just like both sides of the paradigm do
because that's the game.
That's the same thing as you posted those
down below. They can read for themselves.
Walter Kirk comes out and says, I leave
mass hearing about the shooting and arson attack
in a church in Michigan. To all Christians
everywhere, if 95%
of men in your church are not carrying,
then you must fix that. Christianity is being
attacked.
Be prepared to defend yourself, family and community.
Now look, I have no problem with anybody
carrying a gun since that's your constitutional right,
whether you're in church or not. But the
idea that you're pushing, this idea that we
need to be on guard defending yourself, you
know, you should be kind of aware of
your surroundings and protecting yourself anywhere all the
time. But this word this you're pushing fear
and
anxiety.
We're on under attack and they're coming for
us. And what you're really pointing at is
Muslims.
That's what this comes down to for most
of these people when you break it down.
And this one is
Eric Doherty saying the same thing, Christianity.
And this person points out that Trump said
Christians as well, which we already saw.
Even Donald Trump comes out and says that.
So James Lee rightly points out, whichever way
the story develops, the mainstream media, which by
the way absolutely includes the mainstream alternatives that
we just pointed to, because that's what he's
pointing to, whether he agrees with that, that's
what he's referencing right here. Those kind of
people that are doing that already,
they will use it to
frame cultures.
Right? The cult the ideological battle, the culture
war, they claim is only the left that
they both participate in. Guaranteed, he says. Don't
fall into the trap.
James sees it. Now he says, I'm not
familiar with her, by the way, but I
followed her to see what what you know,
if he's correct about her ongoing work. And
it does seem to be measured. And she
says or he writes, follow independent journalists like
Anna r Mattson for The Real News. Here's
what she said since he referenced her. Scene
of a giant fire happening at a church
in Grand Lake, Michigan. I talked to someone
who just got here from South America. It's
his first week in The US, went to
church with his mom. His mom is still
in the building and he got out. From
what I'm hearing on the ground, a man
drove his vehicle into the church and then
started shooting and even shot a little girl
in the back, and she is at the
hospital right now. The shooter has been neutralized,
but that's all I know at the moment.
Everyone within a thirty minute radius has responded
to the scene.
Right. So the guy you know, the South
American there, I'm sure, you know, people like
Laura Loomer would look at it and be
like, that's probably a Muslim who attacked everybody.
Like, that's the kind and I'm I'm not
even that's not even a joke. I'll show
you some examples right now. They they the
kind of thing that they will project onto
any conversation because people have a certain religion.
She's the one that literally said, why do
we allow Muslims in congress? So let's not
pretend like she doesn't broadly think every Muslim
is a terrorist. She says it every day.
That's the common thread in a lot of
this. People like her are kind of driving
what's funny is they all kinda pretend like
they're not near her because she's just that
ridiculous on just an objective level from everybody.
Even people like Tucker Carlson had to distance
themselves because she's a lunatic.
But
driving the the the thread here comes from
the idea that people are
invading our country, trying which you can decide
for that if that's the case. You can
care or not whether or not that might
be happening. I care about facts.
And I do I pointed out many times
about the reality of weaponized migration and very
clear foreign countries involved in that. Nonetheless,
is there a crime? If so, charge them
for that crime. We just talked yesterday about
the illusion of political violence, the new hate
speech on the right.
That's what this is. The idea that you
somehow make it a different lens or construct
some larger barrier. So if someone breaks the
law, and then you go, but all 17
of you are politically violently organized, so we're
gonna get all terrorists even though what you
did was protest and break a window or
whatever. Fuck. Rest them for violent or vandalism.
Arrest them for what you think the crime
was. Everything else is an overreach of the
government on either side. And all they do
is build the construct and keep pushing back
and forth until we completely lose everything. That's
That's where we are right now. So if
you think there's a Muslim invasion of this
country, maybe you're right. Prove it. Break it
down. Show us what's happening. Get people to
investigate and charge them with the crime. If
you think the entire government's involved, then prove
that. Don't keep giving us insinuations about broad
things, which is what they're actually doing.
Now those out there will try to pretend
like, oh, I'm just never gonna accept it.
I care about this left and right. I
call all sides down equally. People who aren't
children can see that. And so I want
to see it. You could prove to me
that you have I don't care whether it's
from
anything. I would not care if regardless of
what the evidence showed, if I could prove
it, it would be reported on this platform.
I think that's important to think about.
Now going forward, last two things I wanna
get into.
Is this same conversation, this part and then
the Muslim focus.
You get people like this. Johnny Maggot comes
out. So here's another shooting. By the way,
before we even know what's happening, and now
that the person is at least visually looking
more right, they start pulling their punches. They
start ignoring it. Right? But he says, Kamala,
last night, We must fight fire with fire,
which is a very common statement that the
right has made many, many times. And he
goes, this morning in Michigan, a terrorist opened
fire.
My god.
Is there any indication that there was any
connection? No. And the the further you look,
not even remotely. But even if it ends
up being a connection or the idea that
you're trying to turn in her words into
the violence, then you're a snowflake. You are
the very left that you were calling out
before.
Words are not violence. And whether or not
she literally said go do that, I would
still argue that there's no crime outside of
the person who commits, you know, an actual
crime.
Are we now at the point where even
like, this is what we're gonna discuss on
the thirtieth, by the way. We're having a
panel about free speech with the IMA. And
I I actually argue my stance on that
will probably be an unpopular opinion, but I'm
doing it for a very clear principled reason.
If somebody comes out and says, go kill
that person. Do you think that's a crime?
I'd argue half my audience probably does. I'm
not even sure where I fall in regard
to what it should be, but I think
the principle has to be aired on right
now. And so if somebody says something like
that, what if they're joking? What if they
didn't mean it? What if it was meant
to scare you know, who knows? Because the
point is speech is never violence.
It's and speech is not a crime. Hate
speech shall not be is not a real
thing. Political violence is a construct over these
real things. There is speech and there is
violence. The rest of it are political lenses.
And so if somebody says something like that,
the action, the crime that does it, that's
the that's the issue.
Now you could argue that person is is
irresponsible. And if you think that their actions
led to that, then sue them. I'd be
willing to bet you a judge would probably
argue the same.
The government getting involved is the problem. And
the fact that we blend all that together
and get lost in all the minutia, that's
what they designed this for. But
she said fight fire with fire, which how
much you wanna bet though that clip? I
mean, I didn't even I mean, just by
way things have been going, the clip's probably
from, like, a different you know, I'm just
kind of joking off top of my head.
Probably from six years ago or something. But
even if it was today or yesterday, the
idea that you can claim that's related is
just exactly what we're calling out everywhere. And
Micah then says the suspect is 40 year
old white man, gun owner, who had two
American flags, Taster's truck.
Right? But Coring's already laid the idea down
that somehow that can't be real because it
can't be the right, except that kinda seems
to be the reality right now.
But blame Kamala because that's the narrative. Right?
Or, again,
Donald Trump Junior says he knows exactly what
he's doing when Gavin Newsom's press office says
Stephen Miller's a fascist.
Yeah. He's calling him a fascist. Do I
think Gavin Newsom's a good guy? No. I
think he's also a fascist. But the idea
that him calling you a fascist is he
knows, wink wink, what he's doing. You're a
you're a bro flag. Donald j Trump, or
rather Donald Trump junior, is a bro flag.
He's the woke right. What it actually means,
he's using culture
culture war, cancel culture ideas to claim that
saying something, whether real or not, is actually
the problem. So he's trying to get him
killed, go after him.
They're they're they're the same. That's what this
comes down to. And here's Mike
Speranza
saying, this is why people get shot.
Because Stephen Miller the fascist?
Or because they said that?
Okay. Well, here's the same point every single
time that none of them want to admit.
Then if that's the problem, then is this
also a problem, guys? American
politics today is between these far left fascists
led by Harris and her group. We have
a fascist person running
who's incompetent.
She's a Marxist, communist, fascist,
socialist.
She's not actually a socialist. She's gone past
that. Somebody's got to explain this one. There's
a radical left Marxist communist fascist.
Right.
Okay. He has every right to say that.
In fact, I agree. But if you're over
here saying the word means that you're calling
for violence, then what about Donald Trump? Are
we gonna apply it equally? Well, no, Ryan,
because they're actually are fascists.
Oh, okay. Right. So you're all children. Right?
We my idea is the correct one, and
theirs the false one. No matter what my
subjective opinion. You know, this is
problematically
what they there's people that believe that is
enough, like Kevin McGinnis apparently.
That when they're when they did it to
me, I'm gonna do it back, and I'm
justified. Maybe you are justified. It doesn't change
the fact that it makes you the same
thing. If you cared about the principle and
if you cared about free speech, for example,
then you wouldn't do it back. All you're
showing is that it's more important to you
to go after the other side just like
they did to you, just like they rationalized
against you
because you wanted to do it back.
Sad. It really is sad to me. And
I'm I'd like to believe most people are
aware that this is ridiculous.
So the overlap to this, which by the
way, let's remember. Okay. We have a white
man who shot a Latter day Saint church.
At what point does this overlap with a
Muslim conversation?
You wanna make that clear for me? Well,
here's Laura Logan.
The it is the real point here, the
fact that a complex attack was carried out
against a Christian target right after Al Qaeda
publicly instructed their supporters to focus on Christian
churches and schools. Oh, except that it wasn't
a Christian school. It was a Latter day
Saint school. So let that reflect on Laura
Logan's due diligence. And then also ask yourself
how that connects.
A white 40 year old man, again, according
to your post, make sure you for don't
forget that. But as it currently is and
as everyone's that's already flooded through the conversation
and you could already visibly watch the right
start to counter away from it.
Why?
Is it possible Al Qaeda was work yes.
Of course, especially since Israel and United States
use Al Qaeda as their proxy element and
maybe they work with all that's, you know,
and making a point. But that is I
can't prove that either in regard to this
point.
And on top of that, my the reason
I do bring that up is because we
can't forget Al Qaeda is not what they
claim it is. And see, I I just
need to bring it up because someone can
water down the point, people that might not
know this and think it's crazy. It's quite
literally the most easy thing to prove in
the conversation. It is obvious that ISIS and
Al Qaeda were proxy elements created by intelligence.
James Corbett, Ben Swan, plenty of amazing documentaries
that nailed that to the wall with receipts
that you cannot deny. My point though is
that understanding that then changes what it means
when Al Qaeda stands up and says go
after the Christians. Overwhelmingly clear though is that
there's nothing that connects these two things at
all. Unless you're telling me that this white
year old man, if it turns out to
be provably the guy, was acting because Al
Qaeda told him to go after Christians, but
then mistakenly went after a Mormon church. But
let's just yell the narrative anyway. Right, guys?
Here is Wall Street Apes.
Now this is interesting to me because this
is all being constructed around this. Now I'm
gonna look up I'm gonna make a point
to, at some point, go further into and
if actually, if there's anybody out there who
lives specifically in Dearborn, Michigan, reach out to
me with whatever you have to say, whether
you are telling me that you're being invaded
by Muslims or you think that it's not
or somewhere in the middle. I'd like to
hear more about it because I find this
very problematic with where we are today, with
what's happening. I don't mean that in the
sense of just Muslims existing in this country.
Let me make this point with this clip.
And then let me break down quickly what
r a I r is right next to
m e n r I.
So this is the right now, this is
overlapping with what happened in this Latter day
Saint Saints Church only because they claim
Muslims are involved somehow with all of this,
and this was being constructed before we found
out the narrative about the 40 year old
white guy. Dearborn, Michigan chief of police speaks
in Arab, he says.
And all all praise due to Allah. Yeah.
Because it appears that he's a Muslim.
He proudly talks of replacing the American Dearborn
Police Force with Arabs, not even
Dulles, I'll play it for you. I'll make
it clear what he's actually saying or he
does with what he actually says. This is
the way they're framing it. The police force
went from 3% Arabs to 45% Arab Muslims
or Arabs.
The assumption they're all Muslims is the the
the
bigotry of the people pointing this out. Because
there there's plenty of Muslims that are not
or rather Arab or vice versa. It's very
clear, guys. The the crazy thing is that
they will just make the case because they
have a certain opinion they're pushing.
This is what being conquered looks like. Okay.
Maybe. And I mean that genuinely.
Maybe. Maybe there's more to this that I'm
not being able to see or that I
should make it clear that the evidence does
not back up. And a subjective narrative is
the truth, and I can't prove that. That
is certainly possible,
especially when you understand the very real threat
of Israel and the way that they've conducted
these kind of agendas all around the world
for a very long time. Or if you
listen to them speak in the Knesset about
why this country needs to collapse to bring
on the end times and how that needs
to happen with the West flooding with immigration.
I'm quite literally quoting what they're telling you
in scripture or from the Knesset politics.
But who cares? Let's ignore that while this
happens, they point at one group. Here's what
he actually said.
Joined the department. Dearborn's Arab American population was
nearly 50%.
Okay. First point. He joins the the share
the department in a location in this country
that is 50% Arab, not Muslim,
Arab.
Arab American population was nearly 50%.
Okay.
So do we forget what we're supposed to
pretend democracy is in this country, or does
it only apply when it's white people? Right?
Or is it like international law unless Israel,
or whatever your weird little asterisks are about
the things that shall not be infringed?
Now I'm not claiming I believe in mob
rule, but we're the game that we play
in this country is the democracy is the
most important threat to democracy. Right? But what
that means is that if you've got 50%
Arabs, not Muslims, now there's an overlap very
clearly, and maybe it is 50%. My point
is that we don't know that for a
fact.
Some of them are atheists probably, but the
point is 50%.
Okay. Well, they're voters that live in the
state. So the fact that they want and
this I would even argue this is sort
of a lefty mindset that needs to be
diverse and represent the people. I think it
should be about who's the most merit,
who's the best for the job. Always I
mean, that is the most logical stand, but
that's that they can decide in their state.
So, he's saying he want the representation is
now reflecting what the community is. Now, why
is that bad? That's only bad because they
don't like that it's Arabs and their insinuation
is because they're Arabs, therefore they're all terrorists.
Are possibly some yeah. Certainly possible. Can you
prove that for me? I'll wait.
If you can prove to me, I'll talk
about it happily because the reality would be
that'd be a very big deal. But I
think we all can very clearly see that
the rumors of the world are packing together.
You're Muslim, therefore, you're bad.
That's it. There's not even any connective tissue
in there. And so here he is telling
you that when he came in, 50% of
the population were Arabs.
Yep. That's yet less than 3% of our
police. Now a department that reflects in him
Now here's what's funny. The way they cut
this video was very deliberate to kind of
the what he was continuing to say there,
but yet when I came in, it was
only 3% of representation
in the department.
That's what he was saying. So the point
was he wants to make it reflect what
the community is. Whatever you think about that,
that's not crazy. Embraces the community it serves.
Yet less yet less than 3% of our
police. Now a department that reflects and embraces
the community it serves. Yeah. It's now a
department that reflects the community
that it serves.
It's the same point in reverse of people
on the right saying that they want white
representation because that reflects their community, which I
don't think is that crazy. I think the
idea of the racism game is about you
know, the point would be it's about what
the community can decide for themselves.
So it's funny that that's okay there, but
this is bad here. Why? Because Muslim bad.
Arab bad.
Not secret, guys. It's pretty easy to see.
It's our government has been seeding this through
us, arguably, because of Israel for our entire
lives.
Happened during nine eleven. It happened about Russia.
Happened about any number of groups. They wanna
go evil, bad guy, villain. Now Palestinians are
dehumanized. It happens every time they have an
agenda.
With 45%
of our Arab our officers being Arab Americans.
Right. Okay. So the way they probably do
dishonestly frame that and chop this up so
you like, even though it's pretty clear regardless,
it was 3%
and the population was 50% Arab. Now because
they
people you know, they've hired people that more
represent and even let's be clear about that.
If you were going to actively hire even
at a merit based reality,
they would very clearly, that would likely represent
more than 3%
of of the 50% of the population. I
think that's very easy to see. Or because
you think somehow that only the white ones
are best for the job because of air
that, which means you're ridiculous.
It's gonna be mixed, guys. That's the point.
And so he went from 3% to what'd
he say?
With 45%
of our Arab, our officers being Arab American.
So now 45%
in their office are Arab. Not Muslim. There's
an overlap, but Arab. Because 50%
of the population in that area are Arabs.
So it's actually 5% less than representation,
and they make this out to be some
kind of conquering move. It is insane to
me. Now I'm again, the larger point about
what else may be happening in Dearborn,
reach out to me. And I've seen some
things that I find interesting, but I've also
seen a tremendous
amount of BS.
Framing people praying in public as absolutely crazy.
Oh, the Palestinian flags were being overtaken.
No. Just, you know, people protesting. You know,
people who could raise a flag however they
want in this country. Because didn't we forget
freedom, Mel that? We forget about the freedom
part?
Now when we joined the whole department, Dearborn's
Arab American population was nearly 50%,
yet less yet less than 3% of our
police. Now a department that reflects and embraces
the community it serves with 45%
of our Arab our officers being Arab American.
I'm proud to serve as your chief of
police. Okay. So he said a word because
he's speaking about Muslims. How dare he?
So saying a an an Arab word makes
you a terrorist now?
I mean, it doesn't take a special kind
of intelligence to realize how
this is exactly what they claim they're not
doing. We're not racist. Well, yeah, you literally
are being racist. That's insane. Now, could it
mean what you think? Yeah. Prove it though.
If you can't prove it, then you're making
an assumption that because this person is a
certain color, therefore, that is what they think,
and that's your problem. That's you doing that.
And then I actually think Laura and people
like that absolutely know what they're doing
very clearly.
What a genius way to take down a
nation.
So I'll I'll include this just because it's
relevant. This is a a a clip I
did about what was called MEMRI.
It's something that Laura Loomer, Alex Jones, a
lot of people reference all the time. It's
this station right here.
Right?
That is literally run and you could watch
the clip. It's proven. I mean, this you
could look it up on Wikipedia if you
think that matters. Their evidence is so obvious
that it's on Wikipedia. It's run it was
founded
by current
Israeli unit eight thousand two hundred intelligence
and is currently run by current
Israeli eight thousand two hundred intelligence.
That's not a joke, by the way. And
yet they're they're like, look at what Israel
intelligence just said Muslims are doing. You know,
I'm I'm pretty sure we can't possibly consider
that this person might be working for Assad
or that every one of them standing there
might be Assad or however you wanna and
I'm not saying that's I can prove that.
But I can prove that they've done that
endless amounts of times,
which has been literally documented even by the
United Nations or even by the ADL getting
caught with fake Nazi marches or however you
wanna frame the examples over and over of
this kind of ploy.
Here is the person behind
RAIR.
Now from the left, you'll get a lot
of conversation about how she said anti Muslim,
anti which does very clearly seem to be
the case. But my point is that comes
largely from left framing of this about, you
know, just take that for what you will,
founder and chief of
RAIR Foundation. Now my you can look through
yourself. Go down and look at her content
if you wanna make your decision about what
she's putting out there. The point for me
is that this well, this just this platform
oh, and and the general point for you
to look up for yourself, you can look
it up on Wikipedia or anything about her.
She's a Jewish Zionist American who is adamantly,
ardently pro Israel and very, very, very aggressively
anti Muslim.
She makes the case for herself.
So consider that when you're looking at content
that's about framing it a very framing
innocent actions of people speaking about whatever, you
know, as
overthrowing, conquering this country while we're quite literally
being overthrown and conquered by many other things.
Like, the idea that you can't see the
Israel infiltration throughout this country or the technocratic
transition taken right in front of us while
they're pointing at something that might be happening,
but I can't prove.
Seems a little bit ridiculous, doesn't it?
Now, here's Laura Loomer. Watching the attack on
Chris on Christians today in Michigan.
Nope. Nope. Not not Christians, Laura. Muslim. Mormons.
Mormons.
First sentence. But she doesn't care. I I
bet you she didn't even look. She goes,
I will say it's only going to get
worse. And here we go. So get out
of the way. The lie out of the
way. Now let me build my narrative to
why Muslims are bad. Democrats in Michigan are
running a running a Muslim for senate.
Okay. So the four year old white guy
who shot the Mormon church has to do
with this, Laura? Okay. He's openly tied to
the Muslim Brotherhood, refuses to condemn look. I'm
not defending politicians. If you think there's provable
action or actual in actionable information about him
actually being tied to terrorist groups or and
not what they declare a terrorist group because
they don't like what they're saying, actual action
of violence for political reasons, you know, like
The US and Israel do every single day,
then make your case, Laura. Charge him with
that. The insinuation that because he's tied to
groups you don't like or groups that you
think are terrorists or even groups that are,
if you think they're tied to it my
bottom line point is you can look through
this for yourself or anybody who's not a
complete child who will tell you Laura Loomer
is the most subjective, assumptive,
doxing, manipulative person on this platform,
I I can't help you. It's obvious.
When I exposed in 02/2018, I destroyed these
these campaign. Hate against Christians is widespread in
places like Michigan. Right? All of this is
built on the shooting against a
Muslim a Mormon church arguably from a 40
year old white guy.
Here's her video.
Now I can read all this for you.
I'll just play it for you. This is
what she did to go up to a
guy who she's accusing of all this stuff,
Who, by the way, some of the people
need to start suing her because you can
have a slam dunk case of libel
if you really wanted to for most of
what she puts out there.
Here is what she had to say, and
she's basically just saying this at him to
get it on film. It doesn't even really
care what he has to say.
Or
they're weird, we're all gonna die opening
scary music.
Enemies of the state.
Oh my gosh. He's got a ball's eye
shirt on. He's a terrorist, guys.
I just had a question for you. I
just wanted to know how you reconcile your
own,
personal practice of Islamic law with your Marxist
socialist political platform that directly
contradicts tenants within Islamic law. I, my faith
is about what I choose. Now, so just
note that she cuts all of it, right?
That's a cut completely after the first response.
And wait, you know, so that's selectively edited
to make it seem the way she wants
to. And even then, it doesn't really make
her case, other than her getting her her
narrative out.
Now are you arguing that he is enforcing
Sharia law? Now here's what's actually really crazy
to me. There's so many
Randy Fine pushing legislation to ban Sharia law.
Can you point out an example of any
actual real legal
like, not just somebody online going, let's bring
Sharia law who probably works for Israel. Or
maybe they think that. Who cares? These are
average people who can say what they want.
Can you demonstrate for me actual motion in
the direction of Sharia law, which by the
way would be inherently unconstitutional,
therefore, no one void should even start? But
then that matters because it's about creating this
illusion that this is all coming and look.
Maybe it's the case, then prove it to
me. Nobody's doing that. They love to make
this case. They'll just scream that we can
they it's subjective patching together arguments.
And what she does is come at him
and go, how do you con how do
you reconcile what I tell everyone you're doing
and what you're actually doing? I'm not supporting
any of these people. I think all of
these politicians, you should be questioning and doubtful
of, and I don't support any of them.
And change the fact that it's easy to
point out that she's being subjective and just
making a gotcha moment.
With my life. I I think that's what
faith is. It's a choice that people make
about how they live their life. Basically says,
you know, my faith is about how I
live my life, and that's for each each
person to decide. Yeah. Didn't don't forgetting it's
about a religious freedom in this country. But
see, her case is that, no, they're secretly
evil, so we can't allow that anymore.
But free speech and freedom of religion. Right?
Free of speech, but you can't say those
things till they're bad. This is Laura Loomer,
a walking, talking hypocrite. You didn't answer the
question because under Islam, for example,
gays are punished by death.
Again, you could make up,
is there places in the world that happens?
Sure. Just like it happens in Israel or
it's happened in any other places that is
not hard to prove. But is it Islam
everywhere kills gay? That's not true. There's so
many broad misrepresentations that are constantly screened by
people like Jones and Johnson, and they have
so many followers that it becomes like an
accepted constant thing. They're throwing gays off the
roofs in Iran. There's so many points you
could make. Has things happened? Yes. You can
point that out. And many of them happened
under the Shah, by the way, when Israel
and The United States were controlling it, but
let's not talk about that. Today, they lie
about every single thing they're going after, and
people like Loomer are the ones dumb enough
to take the bait and run with it.
Because you have to understand,
somebody like her, should this go awry, will
be thrown under the bus faster than it
can blink, and they will never even look
back. And she'll be screaming about how unfair
it is, how she persecuted
when she brought it on herself. And the
Trumps of the world won't even blink. I
don't know that that's true. Stone, so gays
are not hot. I don't know that. In
The Middle East. And you yourself said that
you are you are a Sharia compliant.
I don't say that. Well, so you said
that your head touches the floor 34 times
a day. I choose to pray. We're done.
You see how this works? Oh, you you
pray, therefore you want Sharia law, right?
That is the stupidest is there a connection
in the world?
Yes. To argue that every Muslim who plays
prays anywhere is about to bring in Sharia
law is the kind of garbage journalism, if
you can even call it that, that Laura
does as a matter of it's it's a
daily practice for her. I think I think
we're done. How to live their life. Denying
that tribulation tells people how to love and
I don't know what you mean by Ma'am,
I'm a cult leader in America. I don't
know what you mean by
I know, but your time She there's just
somebody random coming up and saying, like, you're
insulting me. I have a belief
she's disgusting. Like, objectively disgusting. I know you're
kind of saying something right now. Excuse me.
We have other people who would like to
talk to him, so And you're not inviting
you. This video. Like, you're somehow getting a
gotcha moment.
I would like to speak to the candidate.
You have had enough time to speak to
the panel.
But why doesn't he wanna answer my question?
Because there Well, he did. And you clipped
it out. And he I mean, clearly, you
were talking to him. Even in the clips
you put together, you can tell that there
was ongoing conversation for it seems like quite
a while. But she edited it, so it
didn't look that way. Ma'am, we're gonna get
you a little bit more of a discussion.
By Jewish individuals, like myself, vote for a
candidate who practices the theology of the truth,
the storytelling of Jews and Christians.
So, oh, so the the every Muslim wants
the death of all Christians?
Guys, it's just stupid. Like, if you're unable
to acknowledge that, then you're part of the
problem. And I think you know that. I
think you're willfully pushing this idea.
Or if you disagree,
take some time to look into this for
a second. Try to be objective about this
and understand what these people are trying to
accomplish. And then understand how, I mean, like,
transparently
people like her are being funded by the
kind of people that we're always talking about.
And that's not just about Israel, but very
clearly manipulative.
Here and just well, where are we right
now for time? I don't want this is
a whole separate point that I'll include, but
it's the same kind of conversation. Laura Loomer
is attacking Ro Khanna, who, again, I don't
support any of them. I think they're all
part of the government, and we should question.
And, you know,
genuinely speaking,
if you want to vote and participate, then
question all of them equally as hard as
you possibly can. From my perspective, I don't
vote because I don't believe the system is
actually,
if, you know, in a true representative government,
should we be forced to live in a
state of society? The whole thing I have
to say every time.
I do think voting is paramount if it's
actually
translating to the outcome. I don't think I
think that's been stolen from us. My point
saying all that is that I I don't
I think all these people are elements of
a problem that we need to solve in
this country.
And I'm hopeful, like, someone like Massey might
prove me wrong. I hope that. But that's
all to say that whether O'Connor or anybody
else, I'm not choosing sides. What she's trying
to do is saying that because
you are doing certain things, therefore, you're supporting
terrorism or it's it's a completely subjective overlap.
She goes, there's a conference taking place in
Arabcon where Muslims are gathered to talk about
how they can consolidate more power in The
US. Yeah. Like, just like the Jewish people,
just like a lot of other groups of
people that try to discuss how they can
consolidate power through their through their group.
Is that problem? Could be. Certainly.
Is it done very commonly amongst Republicans and
Democrats and Jews and Christians and Muslim? Yes.
But it's only bad when Muslims do it.
Could it be bad when any of them
do it? Yes. If certain things are happening
for certain reasons and they're doing so for
manipulate let's say they're planning to overthrow the
government. Well, yeah. That's bad. But all she's
saying is the fact that they're connect collecting
and saying, we wanna find ways for the
Muslim community to gain more influence in our
conversation.
That's terrorism because they're Muslims,
especially when you can prove that the Jewish
population is doing that more than anybody in
the entire conversation. And, no, I'm not saying
that that's a problem only for Jews. Zionism
is the issue and not every Jew believes
in Zionism. But she says speakers and attendees
are on video laughing over the October seventh
of Oz. Oh, how dare they not believe
what you think? And whether they were laughing
about that, I find hard to believe, but
you'll frame anything the way you want. Even
if they were, they have a right to
think what they want, Laura. You are this
purity test.
Remember that?
Complete like, you are completely you are the
virtue signaling purity test that you protect on
everybody else.
And he goes, Ro Khanna spoke at this
conference.
Are you going to condemn Ro Khanna?
Are you gonna condemn that they are doing
this?
All he says,
I've called that October seventh terrorist attacks horrific
and called for the unconditional release of hostages.
Yeah, because he toes the line. He's literally
outside of
some some some points of, like, why it's
a bad thing to be stopped, they all
still support the genocide, guys. And he's attacking
her anyway or she's attacking him anyway. He
goes, I vehemently disagree with anyone who excuses
or minimizes that. Now do you condemn Netanyahu's
ongoing killing of women and children in Gaza,
Laura Loomer? And you can not be shocked
that she doesn't respond because she doesn't care
because they're all terrorist Muslims in her mind.
And she will quite literally say that out
loud.
This is where we are in this country,
and she's just one of the most extremist
examples. And I don't mean that in some
terrorist sense. I just mean that her ideas
are
disgusting
objectively.
Now here's Alex Jones today.
Staged false flag terror attacks against ICE and
National Guard are the next phase of the
Democrat destabilization
plan.
Cool.
Now can we all agree that the government
does things like this all the time? Yes.
Yes. We prove that. But he will say,
whatever happens next, no matter what we prove,
whatever, it's gonna be a Democrat thing.
Doesn't that sound familiar? Like, you know, no
matter what happens next in in Syria, it's
going to be Assad who gassed them? You
know, that's a government thing. Alex Jones is
the government. I mean that in a symbolic
sense, but who knows? What you're doing right
there is an action for the power structure,
Alex.
And here's Andy Noe saying, Portland,
no games. Federal agents move into force and
arrest of far left riots beginning.
Man, there's stuff going on. People are protesting.
They're rolling out martial law. People pushing back.
If they do if they break the law,
then you can charge them for a crime.
But everything else is you guys creating the
air for the government to take more power
despite the claim of you fighting the deep
state.
It's just pathetic.
This
is just a broad point to the future
for whatever next happens will be this because
somehow I'm, you know, I'm psychic. But the
point is, you know as well as I
that anything else could happen. He's just trying
to get ahead of that and claim whatever
he wants before we even get there. This
is what propaganda looks like.
So
we just talked about
on this last show, Netanyahu exposes Israel's global
tech infiltration and Trump to deploy military for
domestic terrorism. And what we pointed out was
the deployment in Portland that seems to be
happening
and the martial law reality of that. Now
that's very alarmingly being used to
claim to go after certain things when it's
aimed at one side of the paradigm and
ultimately used to shut down our rights
as a country.
But what's interesting is it also was, you
know, very or or or even the Comey
point, by the way. Very many examples of
Donald Trump weaponizing
the DOJ, just just like the Biden administration
did. Right? And we should care regardless of
what side does it because either way, it
represents a problem for the American people. Right?
But, no, we only care when one side
does it. And Bondi says, don't worry.
When I read the title. I thought, oh
my gosh. She's calling him out. Pam Bondi
says, the weaponization of DOJ is over under
Trump.
I went, wow. She's stepping up and it
got some some gumption. Oh, nope. She's simply
saying, now that Trump is in, no longer
is it being weaponized
despite them literally weaponizing it right now in
front of you. But that's the point, though.
They'll say whatever they'll look you in the
eyes knowing that you know that's not true
and say it anyway.
Just like KJP,
just like Jen Psaki, just like John Kirby,
just like every other one in the back
and forth, the left and right, who will
come out and lie to your face about
what they want you to think.
Last point just on the way out, guys.
Let's not forget that Donald Trump seems to
be trying to start war with Venezuela. The
The US Navy has killed 17 people in
deadly strikes. 17, most of which you can
prove, even according to themselves, are not drug
trafficking.
Now Venezuela is giving civilians guns. Now I
wanna make a point on the way out.
With everything else happening,
ask yourself.
Is that there it goes. My gosh. This
platform is really loving me lately.
On the way out, guys,
with this conversation of Venezuela,
imagine
what Donald Trump would do if Iran,
China, anybody, Venezuela
started bombing American ships in international waters.
I don't even care if they were actually
trafficking drugs. What do you think Donald Trump
would do?
We'd be at war right now. They'd probably
bombing half of Venezuela.
That's what I think we kinda know that
right now, whether the left or the right.
And so what we're understanding here is that
they have continued to bomb
Venezuelan ships
in international waters. Regardless of what they claim
or are doing, that's a crime. And they
just don't care. And now Venezuela is going
and my point is, they're going, arm yourselves.
There's no way this is legal. Regardless of
what they claim, it's in international waters. They're
not somehow the policemen of the world.
Arm yourselves.
And so now when something happens and they
open fire, guess what the narrative's gonna be?
I told you they were terrorists. I told
you they were terrorists, and now we have
to push harder.
See how that works? How easy it is
to push action and then point at the
action as justification for your first action, like
they do in Iran, like they do literally
everywhere, like they're doing to you
right now.
I really hope that can resonate with some
people today.
But we'll keep talking about this as we
always will. We will continue to break these
things down and objectively cover them. And, you
know, I'm sure over the time, as we've
seen in the past, there might be something
that we you know, that my opinion is
wrong about or that I I miss misrepresent
because I had the wrong information.
It's gonna happen to all of us. But
I think
even in saying that, my track record speaks
for itself. Look for yourself.
You point out how many times even accidentally
I've made mistakes like that. You know why
it's so rare? Because we're objective, because I
wait for things to be proven. And then
some rare moments when I think things are
proven, it turns out somehow to be wrong
because an AI video or whatever. And then
you circle back and say that turned out
to be false, and we correct the record.
But
it's quite clear what we can see happening.
The precedents are there. Left, right, left, right,
right, right, left, left, left, right, left. It
just keeps going on, and every time, it
builds a little further. And right now, I
feel like it's coming to a head. I
think we all sense that. So thank you
for supporting this platform. If you'd like to
continue supporting it, there's links in the chat.
There's links under every video. We we, you
know, are under attack every day. We continue
to put this out for free because we
believe that the information is most important. If
you find value in the content, let us
see let us know what you think. Yeah.
Show us what the value is to you.
I love you all. As always, question everything.
Come to your own conclusions.
Stay vigilant.