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, 01/25/2026.
Thank you for joining me today.
Very focused show today. Few extra points aside
from the shooting that took place that I'm
gonna make,
you know, in in conjunction with that that
are very important. A few opening points that
I wanna make,
following up on some of the points we
made in the previous show, sort of connected
to Davos' World Economic Forum, but very much
relates to the point we're gonna make today.
It just we're gonna break this down as
clear as possible, as objective as possible, as
nonpartisan as possible, as always,
And try to be rational about this. And
I just mean this in the most important
way right now because there's so much emotion
and so much partisan division and hatred and
vitriol
flying, being promoted by the very people acting
like they're the unity team. And I mean
that whoever's in power. It's not unique to
left and right. The left does the exact
same thing. And they are doing it to
some degree now. You'll just recognize it's a
more pronounced
effort when they're the the one in power.
And it's a teeter totter. And they use
that that overreach and the actions to justify
the way they respond to bring that cycle
right back around.
It never seems to stop. The difference today
is that I think most Americans are genuinely
seeing this to a point that they never
have before. I think that's why a lot
of this is happening. We're gonna go through
this as rational as possible and break down
the legalities of it. And the reason I
I titled it the way I did is
because it's sort of like with the Renee
Goode conversation,
an honest observer of this. You could there's
there's very objectively obvious things. Same with Renee
Goode. That what you can see when we
get into the video of the gun being
pulled
before by one of the officers, it's all
very clear despite all the lies. We'll go
through that at the end today because, at
this point, I don't think it's as important
to highlight the lies to start because I
think it's pretty objective.
It's obvious to most people that this administration,
this government, both sides of it, is very
dishonest, repeatedly caught by even Grok for that
matter, or Twitter, which I do I do
think makes a difference for some people. So
we're gonna show you all that at the
end. It shouldn't be as long as usual,
but it still might. We'll see. Depends on
how we get into these different things.
But we're gonna go over all of it
and show you the dishonesty, the reactions of
people that are worthy of attention, I think.
But just go over the actual facts that
we can see and break down what I
think this is leading to, what may be
driving this. And even if, as I highlighted,
just this is just negligence.
There is an element of this whole conversation
where that's being taken advantage of, whether those
officers are are aware of what we're talking
about. It's important to understand all of this,
but I wanna start quickly with something, we
we recently had a very successful fundraiser.
I believe we're about we're gonna kind of
officially end the page that's up pretty soon.
Just wanted to give one more shout out
in general that how how important that was
and how much that
meant to all of us and just the
overwhelming support that we got. I wanted to
say on that note that I've reached out
to pretty much,
everybody personally
who is supposed to be getting something
per their donations, seed packs or,
one on one engagement with Derek or I.
And then a couple of the others will
be reached out by either Derek or Etienne.
So if you have if you believe that
you were one of the people that should
be receiving something and have not got a
notification by me or somebody else, please reach
out to one of us. Let me know.
It could just be confusion. There might have
been somebody donated right before you or so
on, but I'll do my best to get
back to you. But as of right now,
I've contacted everybody. So if you haven't heard
from me, let me know if you think
that. And most of them are either on
the way or about to be sent out.
So and a lot of you, just like
last time, were ultimately like, you know what?
We'd just rather you keep that for your
future. You know? It's just it's it's, you
know, I'm I'm actually gonna reach out to
people next to them to see if they
want it, like, a secondary,
you know, runner-up kind of a thing. But,
anyway, just an amazing turnout, and really thank
you to all for our for the support.
But let's get right into it today. A
lot to talk about. I wanna start with
some points that are carry over from the
last show that I think are relevant because
of what this all is connected to. And
just a simple point to make about the
larger conversation is we're watching this this transition
in this country, which, again, I have my
opinions about the larger part of that or
where it's driving from or what it may
amount to, but we need to be honest
about this happening. It's not a secret. It's
being
signaled. It's outlined for us. And there may
be even different agendas from different par factions
within all this that have a different design
on it. But realize, this is very clearly
happening. And I'll give you my quick points
of what I see in this, but I
want you to think about how this national
police force dynamic plays into that.
And whether there are outside forces who are
even more so involved that may be playing
a factor in that as well. Just consider
all of this, but the last show we
did, I think, is worth your time. Gaza's
Board of Peace seeks to reimagine the international
border
or in an international order. Excuse me. And
this is like the one we just discussed,
that this is a globalist type plan. And
that doesn't mean that it has to be
involving with literally every aspect of everyone in
the world. You don't just begin with that.
I mean, the point is all of these,
the North American Union, these conversations were starting
points to build to a global control. That's
what the EU was. That's what you could
even discuss The United States as being in
somewhat not all necessarily began that way, but
the mindset of having what would otherwise be
independent locations with independent leadership
or boards or know, whatever you wanna think
that that people could organize themselves or maybe
just anarchy in the real sense,
that ultimately, it became something that's governed by
a larger overarching force. That is what this
becomes, and it grows, and it gets bigger.
Right now, we're seeing that from the group
that's screaming that they're fighting it. In fact,
the group that just told us it was
dead.
It doesn't exist anymore. And now let me
lay out for you my globalist plan for
Gaza, which is what they did at the
World Economic Forum. And the Joneses of the
rest came out and told you this was
over. We won just like they did the
last time Trump got elected. How did that
work out? So here's the show if you
wanna watch this for yourself. A couple points
I wanted you to see. This, I just
found interesting, the timing of it all. Very
much could just be a random thing. Greenland
hit by power outage. Strong winds in wake
of US tension easing. Point being, we know
that they're aiming at Greenland. It's not a
joke. And there there's resistance. And in the
midst of all this, we're seeing outages, you
know, with Iran and so on. And there
are examples of Iran doing defensive measures of
that. But every time we have this conversation,
we know that they're capable of this and
have,
and in most cases are,
manipulating infrastructure for the purpose of their agenda.
So it's worth considering that this may be
a starting point of what they're trying to
quietly strong-arm into position. Just worth noting in
case that becomes relevant. Just my opinion. Next,
I wanted to include,
Jason did a good breakdown about a forty
eight minute part of the re the larger
show, and he titles it or, frames it
as Davos keeps saying globalism is dead in
the water, but their new network states framework
copies the same transnational architecture
with just with updated branding.
Very important to understand, guys. This is what
I believe is happening, obviously. But at least
consider where this goes and what whether these
actions we're seeing and the bait and switch
that there is this administration
and whether that's because of this.
Now, Ryan Grim added something I found really
interesting. I'm surprised I missed this. Within his
actual outline of the board of peace, Trump
I'll just read what what Grim wrote himself.
I know this is obvious, but if you
missed it, Trump has appointed himself lifetime leader
of the world, not as he frames it,
but but of this board. Technically, chairman of
the board of peace forever.
Forever. The term never expires. I mean, this
is megalomania
stuff. Think about about the idea of creating
a board like this that is supposed to
be an ongoing kind of man like, you
make yourself the leader forever. This is just
insanely ridiculous, but on top of that, think
about this in the sense of what we're
discussing. You're creating something new. This is how
I framed it in regard to that episode,
which was I already closed it. But just,
you know, you could see the images. Trump's
branding for the global the board of peace
is basically the UN logo with a little
bit of difference and more of a focus
on specifically the Technate, which is what that
is. That was always meant to be a
starting point, guys. I find that wild. But
even if you disagree with my framing,
the the the the the, chairman forever is
a very weird and obvious thing that does
not align with what they pretend they believe
in. Niz,
here's what Jesse Waters had to say. I
find this telling personal opinion, but it's definitely
telling to me.
Jimmy with his teleprompter.
The Trump border piece already doing more than
the UN.
We're building golf clubs in Gaza.
The only thing they'll be fighting over now
is tea times.
Aside from the, like, insultingly disgusting thing to
say about people who are being genocided,
make sure that this is actually playing for
you guys. The point for me
is that they're already
working in golf It is on there. In
Gaza.
That they're already
you know, he's like, hey. They're doing more
than the UN. Now that may just be
their effort. You may frame that as, oh,
they're just telling you how bad the UN
is. Well, why would it even be compared
if you're talking about something completely different?
Because, obviously,
my opinion is that this is supposed
to repress this is supposed to be the
new global order dynamic. It's what they're doing.
I mean, it's it's literally what the people
around Trump are doing at the very least,
whether you think he knows that or not.
And as George Galloway says, gaze upon this
in wonder, then shutter.
Now here is,
Elon Musk, who also went to speak. And
I just thought this was interesting as we'll
get into some of the commentary toward the
end around this conversation. The and it it's
important to recognize where this kind of blind
support comes from. Elon Musk stuns the world
by going to Davos
and speak and to speak. The deep state
will not be happy. It's just you guys
do realize that he invited them he he
was invited there. Right? I think that matters.
I'm honestly just embarrassed for these guys at
this point. I mean, genuinely. Like, this what
we're gonna get into more today in a
part is that it's like I've been telling
you, and it was it was it's been
my opinion. Even right now, it's still my
opinion, but I think it's becoming self evident
to everybody that even major conservative like, most
of the movement is now calling this out.
It doesn't mean they disagree with everything. They
may agree with most of the things we
may even not want to happen, or illegality,
you know, like with the immigration side of
it. But when it comes to what they
just did with Alex, or even Renee Goode
or plenty of other examples, the Epstein files,
most of people in this movement are very
frustrated, and I'm starting to see that everywhere.
I believe that's just I don't believe that's
an opinion anymore. But it still is based
on something I can't prove, so consider it.
But I just thought this was interesting. Now
on top of that, remember what happened last
time? Elon Musk said, I was invited but
declined.
Okay. So what would it mean that he's
now going
versus going not going before? Well, still an
opinion, but but I think it's kind of
a logical thing to consider that now they
are going because now they're invested more so.
You know? Or they were trying to send
a different message then. Spiro simply said, now
he's speaking. People need to wake up.
And I'll include this discussion in case you
wanna know more about the network state dynamic,
which I think is the driving force around
all of this.
Bernie points out a conspiracy theory, another theory
that isn't.
DVLA databases will be used by councils to
determine where and when drivers move in The
UK, rationing car use to restrict movement within
cities.
That's interesting. That's like the whole smart city,
fifteen minute city, you know, freedom city, charter
network city. Same thing, by the way. That's
the conversation they're having in The UK. Well,
you know what brought that to mind? What
brought to my what came to my mind
when I heard that? Oh, that's right. The
current administration, rather the current the the government,
driven and supported by both sides of the
paradigm, which is the real point. Federal law
says new cars after 2026 must monitor drivers
and shut down if the car disapproves, meaning
the company, which is your new government now
we're being told. The new oligarch the elitist
oligarch's gonna win back the other you know,
that's what they're telling you. The CEO run
country. That is the agenda. Your dashboard should
not be the judge, jury, and executioner.
Now they Massey's speaking out about this. Didn't
matter. This is now happening. And the reality
is that this is something that's been slowly
growing. Now think Vault seven and the idea
around controlling those things. This is not new.
The point now is to recognize it's all
happening rapidly while you're being told, it's all
over. We won. Just Just like usual, I
think that's the role Trump plays, just like
last time. It's all part of the same
government agenda. Those right now trying to get
you to look at one side or the
other and only look there are more obvious
than ever, and they're being called out by
their own supporters right now. 1984
also adds this.
This is from nine hours ago. Pete Hegseth,
secretary of war, just entered America into the
AI autonomous killing wartime footing, aiming to bypass
all bureaucracy,
civil rights, advanced AI autonomy, experimentation,
and testing using Grok for digital kill chain
execution with drones.
This is from the ninth, and you can
go over this. This is just what we
all know is happening and coming. It's just
building this out in real time with their
AI control structure, with Israel involved, with their
surveillance and everybody in this this is the
world we all are fighting. Every one of
us, in fact. I mean, I shouldn't say
it like that, but the larger group of
people that are pushing back at the great
reset, which was well beyond partisan lines, and
many of them just didn't realize it was
continuing. They left. They thought we stopped the
Democrats. It's all over. That's how the game
works. Thanks to the one the big beautiful
bill, you know who championed that, we will
have autonomous AI drone swarms building kill lists
from social media. GROC, biometrics, autentics. That is
still a part of of Twitter, by the
way, despite what Elon said. That is Israeli
intelligence, not sort of, not connected to. It
is Israeli intelligence. Of US citizens armed with
pre crime technology.
It's all right in front of you with
lavender.
And he goes over the more of the
information. It's all broken down from what they
recently put out. And he also points out,
this is an open door for Israel to
spy on US citizens. True. It's already happening,
by the way. Unfettered access to our data
for continuous tracking and behavioral experimentation.
That is the memorandum of understanding they had
with their artificial intelligence plan. If they're using
everything that they have on you to train
AI and Israel has access to to everything
they're using to train their AI, it's not
that hard to recognize they have access to
everything the government has on you. Right in
plain text, if you wanna look it up,
autonomous AI kill machines in US streets that
were battle tested in Gaza, field office in
Israel.
GROC is confirmed to be in business with
the Department of War, which you know. We
talked about this already. GROC, which was a
DARPA program, already the government,
became a partnership with the Department of War
and is now spying, as well as the
fact that
integrated completely into their you have to recognize
what this I'm trying to go through this
quickly, but recognize the the breadth of this,
how far this goes. And this means that
you're not being managed by what you think
you are at this point. Managed is the
right word. And it's not about the the
government we think we have is a puppet,
in my opinion. I I mean, I think
that's very clear. But goes on to make
all the same points we've been connecting to
this. The reality of the the r and
d for this very platform being in Israel.
I mean, come on, guys. It's like everything
else. It's like startup solutions. It's a Delaware
company except for literally every other part of
it is run right out of Tel Aviv.
That's not a joke, by the way. We've
gone over that in a recent show.
And, of course, the joint statement of, the
memorandum of understanding, the joint statement of US
and Israel on the launch of strategic partnership
on AI
and research and critical technologies.
And, of course, we know Grok, from the
side of Twitter, literally told us more than
once, by the way, that it was suspended
by the platform
for accusing Israel of genocide. What we know,
what we can prove, is happening. You can
ask it right now and it will tell
you that, but it was briefly suspended for
simply acknowledging that. They went over showing you
who the war criminals were between Netanyahu and
Khamenei, and it was telling you it was
Netanyahu. It's not hard to see what they're
trying to do and clearly what the evidence
shows. So on top of that, Musk says,
criticism is allowed. Debate is allowed. Free speech
lives on Twitter. They just love to repeat
these these high minded sentiments that are completely
fact free. And he goes, yes. That's my
point, by the way. This is probably Elon
bought for all we know, managing through his
account. It's just, yes. Correct. 100%. Symbol. Upsign.
Whatever. And it's just it's just upvoting everything
to give it 17,000,000
views.
Whether you agree with it or not. Whether
anybody else does. That's what tends to happen.
Point is, Elon LARPing as a free speech
warrior is one of the most embarrassing parts
of this timeline. We We just talked about
this. Grok Grok is telling people when they
ask, they're getting their visibility reduced by 65%.
Why? Because they call out Israel's crimes. APAC
can come out and give you a whole
statement about things that are fact free and
actually proven to be false, and they will
get boosted as proven by grok. I'm sure
this will get covered up or might have
already been. It's all very clear. Daniel McAdams
says, it wasn't the Chinese that you hated
about TikTok while speaking to Lindsey Graham. It
was the free speech and ability to criticize
your favorite country, Israel. Here's Lindsey Graham going,
I'm so excited that we have TikTok back
in the because now we've taken over the
like, remember how funny this was. They were
all up in arms about the way the
platform worked because it was influencing opinions. So
the only thing they cared about was who
was controlling the influence machine. Because now they
can do that. Well, it's all great. It's
all gravy now. We can just convince you
of flies we want you to think of
and that's okay. Hashtag freedom. That's what they're
all doing. The point is, it was Israel
they were trying to censor for. That's where
we are. Let's not forget that Ozturk, a
PhD student, this has now come out even
more, but I don't think we needed more.
It was clear in the beginning, but more
evidence is good. Deporting
PhD students because they co wrote an op
ed in their school,
which was, if you read it, was simply
going, they're committing genocide. That's even if they're
wrong, you're allowed to say that. But they
weren't wrong.
And it's inherently un American and unconstitutional, doing
it because they criticize the one country that's
sacred is extra oppressive and revolting.
But that's exactly what happened to Ozturk. That's
Glenn Greenwald.
Adam saying, here is the newly unsealed State
Department memo confirming, finally, that the detention of
Tufts student Ozturk was based on the op
ed alone.
No antisemitic activity. No support for terrorism. That's
just what they said. You see why this
is relevant As they're calling Alex a terrorist
right now, even though we all know that's
not the reality because you have eyes,
this is important. This is insane. And this
is barely talked about still. And this is
what and and they they released this by
force, really. But, I mean, if you're already
a criminal organization, why wouldn't you just burn
it and say they don't have anything? That's
why I often wonder why. Because I think
my mind is part of this, whatever it
is, is trying to collapse what's happening in
this country. I really believe that. Completely my
opinion. Either way, they arrested her, tried to
deport her, tried to send her to El
Salvador, that was right in the beginning, because
she wrote an op ed about Israel. Who
do you think drove that? Probably Batar USA,
which is where the information came from, through
Israel.
Chris Rozzani points out, Massey votes against more
government chains around our necks. He's called a
grandstander.
Any what do you call him? A a
a loony? What do you say? I don't
know. Called him psychotic, Trump did. Americans love
their chains, he writes, as long as it's
their guy fasting them. Now look. I agree
with that for a lot of people. I
really want us to consider whether that might
not be the majority of people. That's just
the way our partisan narrative frames it for
us, how our media left and right and
mainstream alternative frame it for us because it's
in their interest, especially if they're losing that
control, to keep us thinking that. Now I'm
not gonna deny. It's clear that there's a
lot of people, possibly the majority, which would
be quite depressing, of people that are okay
with unconstitutional action as long as it's aimed
at their enemies. But I really want us
all to consider, and I genuinely think it's
what what I'm what I want you to
consider, which is that not everybody actually thinks
like that. And right now, more than ever,
especially conservatives, because of what's happening, are standing
up and taking a stand. And that's why
the system is going double time to try
to shout us back down and tell you,
if you think this, you're alone and you're
wrong and nobody's with you. Didn't that they
said the same thing during COVID and they
were wrong.
Thomas Massie says the Daily Caller is correct.
Every House Republican but one, you know who
that is, just voted to fund the Liberals'
favorite censorship
agency, CISA, as they would call it. Now
the Republicans are using it, as they always
have, by the way. This is in the
DHS bill. He said he's the one Republican
who voted no. But he's the bad guy,
right? I voted for the Save Act and
support deporting illegals, which, by the way, I
strongly disagree with in regard to the Save
Act. And I I would like to believe
Massie knows how obvious that Save Act was
meant to be something. It wasn't even about
immigrants.
It was about, specifically
the real ID overlap of digital ID.
So consider that. Right there is a good
point to be made. But either way, I
don't support online censorship is what he says.
So regardless of what you think, and we
should be questioning him like we do all
of them for things just like that. The
point is he voted on this for what
every Republican would actually want. But everyone on
the America First fake patriot side clearly are
okay with allowing this to happen. Okay with
things like this, by the way. We already
showed you this. In the 1059
minibus bill,
$5,000,000,000
in welfare for refugees,
literally, while they're still talking about Minnesota. And
and, of course, they says, well, when we
vote against this minibus containing $5,000,000,000
for welfare refugee, whatever you think about, that's
not the point right now. Some will say,
why aren't you supporting the president?
Think about how ridiculously Orwellian and, like, convoluted
that is. And guess what? Here we are.
It's not a joke. It's it's almost like
the whole thing, you know, difference between theory
and conspiracy theory or whatever is a week
or whatever the narrative. It's like thirty seconds
these days.
Mike Benz. Once again, Democrats vote a 100%
as a block while a third of Republicans
defect to Democrats. Why is it defect to
Democrats when what you're saying is they voted
in in the direction
that you guys claimed we should before we
got here. They voted against this because you're
giving $5,000,000,000
to refugee programs while you just said you
were fighting that or the discussion about the
auto shutoff for cars. The reality here, guys,
is that I'm not this is not about
Democrats voting on your side. They're voting in
their interest, which is what they all do.
I don't believe they care about your rights.
Right now, it's in their interest to project
that. The point is that they voted against
these things because they don't agree with what's
happening. At least, that's what they're saying. For
them to frame it as they just they're
now Democrats because they voted against the team,
it shows you the whole problem. It's embarrassing.
And here's Rand Paul and Massey saying, that's
what would happen when they voted against what
Republicans would otherwise say we don't want.
It's completely
schizophrenic at the end of the day.
Here's Thomas Massie. I hate to I I
hate to say I told you so. Guess
what? Another example of the lie. This is
just one. This is the bait and switch
administration.
This is about defunding hell, the,
Department of Education.
The reality is it was always a game.
And I real what I want you to
see in this is not left first right,
but rather that they play off each other
to convince you they're battling while they ultimately
keep going in the same direction.
This is what we're really dealing with right
now, and I believe many, if not most,
Americans are finally starting to see that. At
the Department of Education,
Trump abolished it. Right? Well,
actually, it would receive 78,700,000,000
in discretionary spending, not to mention the mandatory
with the Pell Grants,
pretty much a a tiny increase from Biden's
levels, but roughly the same.
So whatever happened
to abolishing,
the Department
of Education?
I just don't get it.
But this is where we are.
It would prohibit the administration. It actually has
a Democrat rider. It would prohibit the administration
from transferring
DOE funding to other agencies, which was his
plan,
and they got it.
Right. So you could simply argue this is
them failing. Right? That they just weren't crafty
enough. The Democrats got them somehow or or
some of them are rhinos or that's usually
what you get. And that may be the
case. But I it's in our interest to
ask whether that was the always the way
it was gonna go, that none of them
really wanted that, and they might as well
be in that back smoky room we talk
about going, hey. Look. I want them to
think that I'm on this side, and you
need to project that side. Right? So let's
play this the right way. I think this
even happens in foreign policy. I mean, I
think I know it does, but when it
you never who knows what is, you know,
when it's happening and when it's a possibility.
Like, with the Iran conversation in certain bombing
locations, you wonder maybe they got behind the
scenes even as adversaries and said, look. Let's
get this taper this back down. It's in
nobody's interest to take it this far. But
as I say that, I'm like, well, Israel's
entities, in a lot of cases, don't seem
to care about the rationality of what might
happen, but you can understand how that might
be the case. But think about this. You
know? So are they doing these things, or
are they, oh, they got us, and we
didn't get what we promised because they wouldn't
let us? Well, in most cases, you guys
are voting for the very things that allow
that not to happen, or however you wanna
frame that, like we just saw with the
bill and the funding for refugees. And don't
watch as later in the administration they blame
Democrats for that very problem or stupidly tell
you it was from Biden before even though
it happened after this minute. They do they
lie like they're breathing right now, and that's
pretty common for politicians. But right now, from
this administration, I think it's just incompetence and
clumsy.
Jason Basler says, dear MAGA, government tracking is
tyranny or
government tracking is necessary.
Which one is it? Can't be both. Right?
You can't claim the COVID tracking was unnecessary
and illegal and unconstitutional and then be like,
it's okay because now we can track you
because immigration.
The principle is what matters. And if all
you take all it takes is your personal
narrative on top of something to get you
to ignore the principle, then you have no
principles. This is what I'm trying to show
people.
And this is our show we did on
this, Trump's bait and switch administration now fully
exposed, January 18. We also talked about ICE's
social credit score, which is on top of
everything else we're dealing with, guys. Surveying, you
got Gotham, and you got Elite, and you
got all sorts of other stuff we don't
even know about.
And they're using this to grade you, everybody.
It's not secret. It's all very clearly proven.
It's all justified under immigrants like we talked
about.
Now Jeff Carlson also says from the left
right paradigm point,
Trump and the GOP deserve to lose the
midterms after he's pointing to Eric Daugherty discussing
how the president
has just endorsed speaker Mike Johnson for reelection.
You know, the guy that every conservative I
know said was a rhino and they were
not even considering because he would never be
part of the team. He's not MAGA. He's
not America First. And then just like that,
he was the best guy in town because
Trump picked him. Dishonest people, though. Plenty of
conservatives were still like, oh, okay. That guy's
terrible, but maybe Trump sees something I don't.
That's what you tend to get. There's so
many dishonest people in the paradigm. But so,
Democrats,
it says, deliver more MAGA wins, mister speaker.
Help save the midterms.
These this is my point. These kind of
people with their flashy red light and their
just in breaking news for the thing you've
seen 70 times already online are the same
thing. And they are gonna go, yes. That
thing, whatever he told me to. I support
the current thing. That's what they are. They're
the Republican version of that. And the bottom
line is
Matt Mike Johnson is he's, like, antithetical to
everything you guys stand for, but it doesn't
matter because he's the team. That's what we're
dealing with. And that's the point. Carlson says
they deserve to lose. That is if you
still think that the voting process is what
we pretend it is, I think has been
stolen. Alex Zek, a long time ago, both
sides, says if you're trying to fit everyone
and everything into a left wing or right
wing box,
your psyche has been captured.
You cannot think outside of the paradigm
that they've created for you, and that's exactly
what those who wish to dominate and control
want.
I mean, it's really simple to grasp. Every
side
understands that. They just only seem to be
able to see it in one part of
the side or one part of the discussion,
of the mind that most Americans exist outside
of that paradigm right now. I could be
wrong.
They're playing the people against each other and
to exploit, divide, and conquer. 100%. Now he
had a really insightful statement here that I
wanna play for you that is it goes
a little bit more on the kind of
metaphysical or spiritual side, if you will, about
the idea of what this is doing to
us and more of a personal mental health
kind of mindset about what's going on. And
I think it's worth hearing what he has
to say.
We fail to consider how wild it is
that over the past few years there have
been multiple examples of human beings being wrongfully
killed, and then it's shared all over social
media.
And I said this with a Renee Good
situation, and it's even more relevant now. It
is wild that multiple people can watch the
exact same videos from the exact same angles
and come away with completely opposite interpretations
based almost entirely
on whether they're on political team red or
political team blue. Nothing to do with principles,
nothing to do with right or wrong, just
pure political tribalism.
And then depending on the political leanings of
the human being who was killed,
other human beings either cheer for it and
justify it or mourn it and protest it.
And then based on the political beliefs,
people immediately run to social media to assert
that their assessment of the videos
are the only correct ones. No room for
nuance. No room for discussion.
Nothing.
That should disturb you, but it probably doesn't
because it's been normalized at this point. And
I just want to point something out.
Irrespective of which political side you're on,
more division leads to more civil unrest.
More civil unrest leads to more justification for
increased government policies,
intervention,
and control.
And that power can be used by either
side regardless of who's in office.
The tyranny you cheer for now because it's
coming from your side will be used against
you by the other side in the future.
You can apply that to any point in
history over the last few years, whether it's
COVID or this situation.
And lastly, here's something else I've been thinking
about quite a bit.
I don't think we're meant to constantly know
every detail or be repeatedly exposed to traumatic
imagery of things that aren't actually happening in
our immediate surroundings.
I don't think we were designed to absorb
nonstop trauma
from across the world through a screen.
We take in this imagery, our nervous system
responds with fight or flight, and then we're
approaching our everyday lives as if what we
just saw on our screens is what's going
on in our immediate environment.
And for most of us, it's not.
And I'm not saying what happened in Minnesota
didn't happen, but I am suggesting what I've
said before.
We really need to be mindful of how
much what we consume on screens
is impacting our beliefs,
thoughts, feelings, words, and actions, and how much
that is impacting how we approach the physical
world around us and the impact
we have on the physical world around us.
Well put, you know, and I think it's
really worth considering.
You know? Just completely independent of politics, like,
whether that they're you know, there is a
part for me that, like, with with what
I do where I I I recognize
an exchange, you know, where I know this
is probably not in my best interest. I
know this will probably have a negative effect
on me, but it's important for me to
do it in this way because of what
I do. And maybe I'm wrong in that,
you know, but I think we all have
those little rationalizations.
But the larger point he's making is simply
just that immersing yourself in this in I
mean, again, I would argue that there is
some point at which it's important for us
to know about it and report, but what
he's kinda saying is just the day after
day twenty four hour news cycle just immersing
yourself in every terrible thing happening and all,
look at the outrage story over there, and
look at what this guy did over there,
and then using that to sort of blanket
mindset anybody in the certain group or you
know? And it's it's having an effect on
people, very much so. And I think it's
clearly by design. But just consider what he
has to say. Take that to heart. Right?
Take a step back and ask yourself, what
is really important to you? You know? And
that's just a general point for anything we're
discussing.
Now continuing on this well, I wanna read
Church Street Media wrote on top of that,
just the statement that he said, but to
think about it. You know, the tyranny you
cheer for now because it's coming from your
side will be used against you by the
other side in the future.
You can apply that to any point in
history. Now I would I would take a
step back from that and argue that's the
way we perceive it. What the reality of
that is is the government
will take whatever you give them and use
it against you any chance it gets. We
may perceive that as one side versus the
other, but the point is the government retains
that power, and it will use it against
whatever side or whatever element or all sides
that are,
you know, in the way of its agenda.
I just think that's
historically accurate. But, oh, Alex Zuck recently agreed
to do some, a kind of an article
for TLav. Just discussed it yesterday,
for basically, about the two party illusion and
his awareness of what this all is today.
I just really appreciated his his perspectives on
that, so you can look forward to that.
Now let's talk about Renee Goode, a couple
updates before we get into Alex.
And you this is important to understand,
obviously, because these stories are relevant, you know,
relevant and connected,
but there's some additional parts to this that
you're gonna wanna hear. And it's not only
what we already know, which is that her
she was still alive when they did refuse
to allow the medic to help, that ultimately
all the shots came from essentially from the
side backing. Like, we and we again, you
know all this if you watch the video
and aren't a dishonest person. And and, again,
that the best they could argue would be
that she was trying to leave and that
they shot at her because of that. Because
Cause that's what it's devolved into. Well, she
shouldn't be fleeing and, well, that's a crime
to shoot her in the back or shoot
anybody for fleeing in any circumstance.
Because the reality of the evidence shows you
what they said was not true. And I'm
not gonna go through it all again. I
quite frankly think this is just as obvious.
But I'll include this show, the shooting of
Renee Goode was a breaking point. And I
really do think that. I think right now
this is just the the the straw that
broke the camel's back.
Now here's
Vance
pushing the whole warrant discussion. I'm not gonna
get into it all again and watch the
clip. We the point was they're now on
top of this, trying to argue that agents
can now kick in your door if they
have a an administrative warrant, not one signed
by a judge, but a warrant that they've
issued through ICE because they claim there's a
a withholding or a, not withholding of removal,
but a, final you you know, they have
the right to remove the immigrant. Right?
The point is they're and if you read
the actual it's a memo they're using. That's
it. And even the memo, when you read
it, which contradicts their other materials as they're
training people, it quite literally says
the immigrant's home.
Right? They if they do not open their
door, this and what they're using it for
is going into anybody's home. They walk up
to your front door and go, we think
you have an immigrant in there. And then
you go, I'm not letting you in.
They then say, I have a warrant for
that person's arrest. Doesn't say where they're supposed
to be or in this house, and they
use that to claim they can kick your
door in and they're doing that. Nowhere is
that legal. And every law lawyer out there
with any honest perspective, and I only say
it like that because you're gonna get the
token one on Fox News or whatever else.
But if you look at the massive body,
if you read the actual law, if you
understand the constitution,
these things are wrong. And then you got
Noem and Bondi and all the rest of
them coming out and just lying to you
about it. That's what he's referring to here.
Vance did the same thing. And this basically
says nobody's talking about doing immigrant enforcement without
a warrant. We're talking about different types of
warrants. Well, yes. That is true, but but
you're talking about doing it with a warrant
that then does not allow you to do
what you're doing. He's playing games with people's
mind. He they know what they're doing.
Van Justin Amash says, JD Vance isn't this
stupid. So what he's doing here is deliberate
and evil. I agree. You can say evil
too much, but I agree with what they're
doing.
You don't just you don't just need some
kind of warrant to enter a home. You
need a warrant from the judiciary
signed by a judge.
He knows this. He's he knows they're breaking
the law when they enter a home with
an administrative warrant. Simple.
He uses the phrase administrative law judges to
mislead.
See? Because what's happening is essentially ICE's initiate
if send it giving themselves their own warrants.
And and the but at the end of
the day, even then, their own memo makes
that even clear that it has to be
at the house of the person who they're
going after. And so even their own memo,
which even in and of itself is is
a violation of the constitution,
is then they're misusing the memo. This is
what you get when you hire a bunch
of up jump bounty hunters and people that
can't even read to send out there to
initiate partisan driven, hatred driven
enforcement, whatever you wanna call it. You get
people that don't know what they're doing, who
drop guns and let their you know, accidentally
shoot their guns or any number of things
that have led to where we are. An
administrative warrant comes from the DHS, from them.
They are writing their own warrants, exactly what
I said
the last time we talked about this, which
makes them no more valid under the Fourth
Amendment than a random person wrote on a
piece of paper, I can add to your
home. He's right.
I guess, I mean, at some point, hopefully,
we get beyond this partisan haze. People will
look back and go, man. That was crazy.
Clearly, they're wrong. But in the midst of
this, you get the people screaming over the
top. FBI agent who tried to investigate ICE
officer in shooting resigns. So I think this
is very important to realize where we just
came from. The FBI agent who was actually
initiating the investigation
resigned because they wouldn't let this happen.
I mean, this is clearly I mean, think
about what's going on with Alex right now.
If you haven't seen, they had a warrant.
The local police to go and investigate, and
they refused to let them in. We'll get
to that. This is from Renee Goode. This
just happened.
An FBI agent who sought to investigate the
federal immigration officer who shot 37 year old
Renee Goode has resigned from the bureau.
The agents, her name's Tracy Mergen Mergen
left her job as a supervisor in the
FBI's Minneapolis field office after bureau leadership in
Washington pressured her to discontinue a civil rights
inquiry. Far as I could tell, there hasn't
even been any level of a criminal investigation.
And, this is with Jonathan Ross, who we
only know because he took his face mask
down. That's why they cover their masks and
why they're all doing it more so than
ever. And even Noam
chastised somebody in a public hearing or or
discussion when they mentioned his name.
Like, that's doxing somehow. Like, they're just breaking
people's minds with this stuff. According to one
of the people, such inquiries are a common
investigative step in the shootings. It's it's almost
mandatory.
Like, it hap in this when this happens,
that's what Justin was just basically saying in
other context that there is always something basically,
it's about the check and balance. Right? So
when this happens, there is an investigation because
otherwise, they're effectively investigating themselves. That's the idea.
And it says senior justice department officials have
repeatedly said there are no plans to follow
the path normally taken in such situations and
pursue an investigation into whether mister Ross, who
fired multiple shots at miss Goode, had used
excessive force. Federal investigators have also refused to
cooperate with state and local prosecutors in Minnesota.
This seeming like a pattern comp complicating any
efforts they might take to open their own
investigations.
Why would they not be like, this is
local police that happened in their they would
have every right to investigate.
States' rights in a number of overlaps. The
idea that they've built this federal power into
just always circumventing anything because national security or
whatever thing they point to, it does not
constitution
is the core point here. States' rights, they
have a right to do this their own
way. The federal government just doesn't get now
let's that's a little more complicated when it
comes to this point. States' rights wouldn't normally
be cited in this conversation, but I think
it's important to consider that the federal government
pushing its way over into everything that should
normally be done from a state level would
not
it it just shows you where we're going,
guys. Whether it's state to federal enforcement or
federal to global enforcement. That may be a
stretch for some people, but this is it's
it's where this ultimately starts. And I think
what's important to recognize is that there is
100%
a level at which the local police would
be involved in this. Now it says instead
of allowing miss Mergen
to work with the US attorney's office in
Minneapolis to investigate mister Ross, the justice department
has decided to investigate miss Goode and her
partner,
scrutinizing their possible ties to left wing protest
groups. So you have a killing of this
woman,
and everyone can see the reality of this,
and yet you're you you shut down investigation
and instead investigate the person you just murdered?
I mean, that that shows you the kind
of people we're dealing with here, which is
uniquely disgusting.
That decision prompted at least six senior prosecutors
in the office to resign in protest.
This is their people, guys. This is their
administration.
In a separate move, the justice department has
opened an investigation
into several elected Democrats in Minnesota in an
effort to determine whether they may have conspired
to impede the Trump administration and their efforts.
Now, look, you could argue that's valid. In
some cases, it may be. But to in
the in this investigation,
instead of investigating what happened, you then go
after her and her partner.
Seems literally
punishing the partner of this woman. And then
you be you start to initiate investigations into
Democrats for efforts to impede, but under the
guise of this moment.
That's just so despicable, it kills me. And
it says as part of that inquiry because
you have to realize investing that on its
own, go for it. But to do that
under the guise of this and then use
this to basically you they're they're not going
in this direction, instead going investigating Democrats
under the umbrella of this point. It just
it's especially insulting. As part of that inquiry,
the department issued subpoenas
this week, as you might have seen, into
governor Walz, mayor Frey,
and, mayor,
Kaylee Herr of Saint Paul, among others.
I mean, like I said last time, I
think most of these people, if not all
of them, because I think this of most
pretty much government in general, are guilt walls
in particular or guilty of crimes. You can
prove this in many ways if you get
beyond the left right paradigm and look at
how they vote for supporting genocide or any
number of things, or even go more local
into their actual areas, like the fraud in
this area that has been proven. 70 plus
people have been put in jail, most mostly
under the Biden administration, by the way, because
of this fraud. Now, what's interesting
is that I'm going to bet you anything
that this goes one of two ways, that
they either don't even show up and then
nothing happens, sort of like we're gonna see
happen with the Clintons, mark my words, because
it's all show and arguments and anger, and
then nothing ever happens because they're all on
the same side, or
they do show up and it's meaningless. And
they refuse and they make comments and nothing.
My point is, if you guys are telling
us that they're criminal or they're fraud they're
committed fraud and you claim that's an absolute,
then why couldn't this should have been done
already?
Show us the evidence. Right? Because right now,
what you're gonna what I'm gonna get into,
the argument is somehow that all of this,
meaning, I guess, maybe their the ICE reactionary
shootings is somehow their instigated effort. I guess
you could argue that somehow by them making
them shoot them, I guess, but that's not
what we can see happening. The point being
that they're arguing it's all instigated to cover
up fraud.
Okay. Fine. I I wouldn't even disagree with
that being possible. Where's the evidence? Okay? If
you're telling me this is them covering up
fraud, what fraud? Like, I'm I'm not saying
there's not fraud. What I'm saying is you
guys have yet to prove anything you're pointing
to. So why would they then need to
instigate all this to cover up something that
you're not even going after when you understand
the reality of where we are?
It's just it's comically stupid. Moreover, the justice
department has stated started cracking down on protesters
who have opposed Trump
in this effort.
On third which led to this point right
now. This was before this, to the shooting
of Alex, and another one, by the way.
On on Thursday, prosecutors filed conspiracy charges against
three people who were involved in interrupting a
church service.
I found this interesting. After a a protest,
in Saint Paul to protest a pastor's apparent
work as an ICE enforcement official.
According to a criminal complaint, the three defendants,
Armstrong,
Allen, and Kelly, intimidated, harassed, and oppressed to
terrorize and terrorize the parishioners.
It's such a gross embellishment,
but there is a point to be made.
But it says, on Friday, a pair of
federal judges who oversaw the case denied request
to keep them in custody. It's just like
everything they've done so far, the supposed terror
plot on Halloween that ended up being basically
nothing, and you tell me what's happened, or
the false cases against Comey and all the
rest.
This was clearly time to deflect.
Now what I think is important is that
you could if there's a crime and, like,
if they they wanna go back to the
face act or claim that they're intimidating people
in in in the religious context,
You can decide that's the case, but this
would never come to the level they're trying
to push it to. They're arguing this is
terrorism. They they end up altering that woman's
face to make it look like she's crying,
and they share that on the White House
account. You know? And I guess she was
told that wouldn't even be shared. It's like
it's just
crazy to me. And this is on top
of the fact that you just murdered this
woman, and now you just murdered Alex, and
this is what you're focusing on? Yes. That
really needs to be, like,
reflect on how crazy that is. Now protest
at Minnesota church service as detentions over ice
tactics. This last part that we'll get into,
Alex.
This was on the nineteenth. Protesters interrupted a
Sunday church service. This is what they're trying
to this is what they want you focused
on. In Saint Paul, Minnesota. All in Minnesota.
Right? Why only there? Isn't there immigrant issues
everywhere else in the country? Why is everybody
focused in this one location? Doesn't that seem
strange? Even if there is an issue to
be focused on, are you telling me that
you only have the power and the effort
and the resources to focus on one town?
It's just doesn't that seem weird? Like, it's
or is it the momentum or the political
lens they want you only focusing here, which
probably both.
Minnesota residents in the Trump administration after an,
immigration
immigration agent shot and killed Renee Goode. Videos
posted on social media show protesters chanting at
the city's church, including calls for ice out,
which, by the way, I mean, are we
out of the mind that protesting is illegal
now? I know they're really trying to basically
make that argument without saying it, but they
everyone has a right to protest. Now private
property matters. Right? Even even the FACE Act
will point to. There's relevance there, but it
says, and bringing the service to a halt.
Now,
did they do that, or is this how
they're framing it? I mean, we'll get into
the details here, but it says, con, congregants
are seen moving to leave the church as
the chants continuing worship music begins to play.
No. Look. I'm just gonna say from a
personal opinion, I don't see why this would
make sense. You know, what you're doing is
going into you're you're affecting all the other
people in there trying to trying to
pray, trying to go to church.
Right? Why would you do that? And the
reality is this guy does appear to have
some kind of overlap with ICE.
But is that illegal? No. So the the
protest makes sense in in in any context.
If you decide you wanna protest, you protest
anywhere you want in in a legal sense,
in a public sidewalk. Right? In this case,
you went inside private private property in a
church, and you did disrupt this. I I
think that's valid to point out if this
was being discussed as something benign like that.
The reality is they've turned this into borderline
terrorism.
That's what they're trying to do. So but
but it's worth being objective about this, and
I wanna point out that their actions
drive people to make more radical action, which
I straight up think is by design. You
basically instigate people into doing things because they
then rationalize that they, when you're fighting an
illegitimate force who's acting illegally, then, well, your
only option is to fight back. No, I
disagree with that. I mean, you can make
your own choices. I think it's self evident
they're trying to drive people into taking action
that they can point to. This has been
a long time they've been doing this, both
sides. Basically, the government to anybody. They do
it in foreign policy situations. Right? They create
chaos, and they point to the chaos to
justify their action. They're doing it to you.
So when you went into the church, if
this and it does appear to be that
just they're protesters,
recognize that that's not the way that would
go down. Why would you go disrupt everybody
else? So think about these things. Don't fall
for the trap, right, if that's what this
was. Maybe these are paid agitators. That could
be considered as well, but I think evidence
matters. And as far as I can tell,
they're just people that protest in a coordinated
fashion, which happens everywhere in this country. The
church protest over the weekend was organized by
Nekima Levy Armstrong, a civil rights lawyer. She
said she wanted to draw attention to a
church leader. And you can look into this
for yourself. It does appear to be the
case. David Easterwood, who also appears to be
the acting director of ICE's field office for
enforcement and removal operations.
Okay. So he's not just a pastor. And
it's not just, you know well, other than
that, it is praying. It does matter. It
is church service. He is a pastor. So
that doesn't then reflect on everybody underneath him.
And he wouldn't give you the right to
just disrupt everybody. But that is pretty interesting,
isn't it? And I find it interesting how
they don't really include that part of the
conversation. You think they would because they would
go defend ICE. Right? But they don't want
you to recognize that. I find that a
strange overlap.
It says he was named in a lawsuit
challenging aggressive enforcement tactics. So, he's technically actually
a part of this lawsuit. That does matter,
but it doesn't change the reality of them
intruding into this room. The Justice Department said
it was investigating the event with officials pointing
to a 1994
law, think about that, that bars using or
threatening force or physical obstruction, which apparently is
the only way they can do this, to
interfere or intimidate someone worshiping in a religious
institution. So it would be interfering with physical
obstruction.
But let's think think about how
desperate it is to go back to a
1994
law and try to frame that they're doing
something which the law doesn't even make what
you're claiming they're doing is not even what
the law overlaps with. This is them obtruding
obstructing in the religious practice. Fair. That does
apply. But it's not terrorism, and it sure
as hell not some Antifa organized Democrat deep
state whatever they're trying to call it. Attorney
general Pam Bondi, who said that that she
spoke with a pastor at the church late
Sunday, said attacks against law enforcement and intimidation
of Christians are being met with the full
force of the federal law.
Right. Throw a sandwich at somebody. You're going
down. You know, you work with Epstein and
sell children. We'll ignore it because, you know,
that's what we
do. Intimidation of Christians, I mean, this is
a desperate effort to tie this into something
your people support.
Guess what? They're also Christians, so you guys
are ridiculous. But, of course, that's what they
do. Right? You're protesting Israel's crimes. You must
hate Jews. This is what they do, guys.
It's of course, consider everything, but facts matter.
Miss miss, Levy Armstrong, the church protester organizer,
said that in the lawsuit filed earlier this
month against ISIS tactics, which, by the way,
are objectively wrong, illegal, they're breaking the law
everywhere, not every one of them all the
time, but it's objectively clear that it's happening
in an overwhelming degree. So that matters. People
wanna stop this. She saw that mister Easterwood
was named as a defendant for overseeing a
racial profiling campaign of massive scale with devastating
consequences
and connected him with the church. She compared
mister Eastwood's appearance in an October news conference
alongside Homeland Security, Kristi Noem, with a sermon
he delivered at a church that was posted
to YouTube.
Miss miss and Butch, he has a right
to think and do what he wants, guys.
Says miss Levy Armstrong and she circulated her
plan for interrupting the service on social media
as a way to raise awareness. So I
disagree with that. Right? You don't need to
disrupt other people's lives. But you see, this
is how they're starting to rationalize it, even
from a basic level, that we need to
do this to draw attention. You know, I
just think we need to think better of
these things. Do it outside. Do it in
other places. Do it in front of his
home on a public sidewalk. Those things are
legal if you knew where he was and
didn't post his personal information. The point would
be that you don't need to do this
in a church to disrupt what they're doing.
And it goes on to say, to have
someone in that role as a pastor also
being in that role as an overseer is
unconscionable, in her opinion. And I do agree.
It's weird. She said that that Jesus called
out religious leaders for their hypocrisy.
Yes. And that's part of our duty as
Christians.
Of course, they don't care about that.
I found that interesting and relevant. What about
you?
Now, this was interesting.
Asking Grock, was there any official investigation after
the killing of Renee Goode? Right? So we
we're talking about this being, you know the
way they're framing this is so insulting.
Now the reality of this this even the
way this asked, yes, there was an investigation,
but here's what it says. The FBI briefly
opened a civil rights investigation into ISIS actions.
The there there are reports of federal involvement,
but it faced controversy.
Some sources indicate the Trump administration pushed to
redirect or shut it down
and and, basically and instead probe good for
possible liability, which is actually what happened. A
judge reportedly refused an FBI warrant for that
exact thing, so that's real. This led to
resignations including FBI involvement. We just talked about
that, right? Well, just to clarify, so only
a very brief investigation that was ultimately shut
down and not concluded? Is that it?
Based on available reports, yes.
Now really absorb that. We're talking about the
fact that we're a a killing of a
US citizen in broad daylight. That's Renee Goode.
And not only did they not do a
civil investigation that barely started and shut down,
and that's why that person resigned, but they
have not even done any frame, any sort
of a criminal investigation whatsoever.
That's all I I'm pretty sure that's required.
Isn't that standard operating procedure? Especially with a
shooting? And we always heard and talked about
this. This is a demand this is a
a required investigation.
But apparently not now.
I just find that to be so insulting.
Guys, this is a changing of our reality.
They're driving it. Now, really, I would even
I would argue in many ways, this is
the coming to awareness of where we've been
for a long time, but now just being
proven to you in very difficult ways to
understand or different ways to to, to,
to accept. Because it is. It's where we've
been. Right? Now I found this interesting. This
is a clip that I'm gonna use to
roll this into the conversation of Alex and
where we are.
Catherine Austin Fitts said this in a pre
in a interview we had. What I find
interesting is I'll point to you quickly, Shadow
of Ezra, which is, you know, pretty much
a a partisan account,
shared this. And, of course, they never give
links to our information. And what what's what's
important to me is not me, but rather
that if you go to the actual article,
you can find all of the source materials,
everything we reference, which I think is the
most important part. But I'm still glad that
it's getting some share because listen to what
she has to say. I think this is
relevant. And it also shows you that conservatives,
partisans, are very much starting to question the
big picture, and I love to see that.
Then you're gonna love to see what Grock
said when somebody asked who this was.
Guess what? They didn't say me, but let's
watch this first.
I mean, let me let me show you
how the game works. Mhmm. Okay?
So I live an hour outside of Memphis,
and Memphis has an absolutely
horrible crime problem.
Mhmm. And they've had a district attorney, I'm
told, who basically let the criminals run free.
Okay?
Now we know the criminals running through to
the extent they're doing narcotics trafficking or sex
slave trafficking. It's not those criminals who are
making all the money. The money's going upstairs.
Right? Right. Because
you you can't you can't transact a dime
in this financial system. You know, it's all
controlled by the banks. Okay?
So so the money's going upstairs. But, anyway,
so we have a DA who will prosecute.
There's a wonderful
senator from this area who's been trying to
get that DA impeached because what do you
need?
You you know,
the crime rate is way too high in
Memphis. Okay? And and it's hurting property owners.
It's hurting citizens.
It's killing tourism.
It's just bad. So
but what do you need? You need you
need a non Soros financed DA. You need
a real DA who's prosecuting crime. Right. And
Let's not forget the scent and the Soros
connections there, which are very relevant. You know?
Because that it's important. There's it's not always
one side. Not that's important for what she's
saying, but I do think it's important for
the bigger two party illusion point, which act
actually is what this is about. And not
permitting crime to happen in the city. That's
your solution.
Okay.
Now hold that thought because this is the
ping pong of the uni party. So we
got one side of the uni party
promoting this,
you know, sort of,
allowing crime to ravage Memphis.
So in comes Trump.
And and if you look at what happened
in Chicago,
Trump is basically saying, okay. Well, ICE is
gonna drop in
and round up people without warrants or evidence
and, including US citizens and their kids and
confiscate property
freely. Now why would ICE do that? Mhmm.
ICE would do that because if you get
pushed back against ICE, it gives the the
president authority to drop in the military. Right.
Right? Correct. He's allowed to drop in military
to protect ICE
and and ICE facilities. Right? Is he though
well, let's I'll come back to that though.
Go ahead. Okay. We don't I'm not gonna
play that on this clip, but we talk
about this. And it's it's we both I
mean, the reality of this is she's doing
this to make a point as you kind
of hear right here. But if you understand
this point, it like, the legality here, just
the the ICE is just an it's that's
like saying you can deploy the military to
protect the police force. It's not true. She
was saying that this is what their rationale
is. That's what they're claiming. The point, though,
is that it the legalities of this but
there are some exceptions, possibly, come at us,
when it comes to National Guard and different
state points, but they've violated these every which
way possible. Military deployment, National Guard from different
states. It's it's they're what they're doing is
illegal.
You can yell national security and maybe even
in a court argue that that legally stands
because we've, you know, bastardized the reality of
the constitution to meet national security. But that
wouldn't make it constitutional when you understand the
reality of the constitution. And I argue that
judges' only job is to enforce the constitution,
not give them loopholes away from the only
thing that keeps them checked and balanced, if
that's even where we are. K. Well, let's
just assume Mhmm. You know And I wanna
reiterate as someone's commenting. I we get into
this later. Please watch the full episode because
we basically agree. Well, let's I'll come back
to that, though. Go ahead. Okay. Well, let's
just assume Mhmm. You know, he he can
have standing.
What he doesn't have standing to do is
drop in the National Guard or the military
to deal with local crime.
Mhmm. Right. That's the mayor's job, the police
job. Okay.
But if he can cook up a pushback
against ICE now, you know, somebody said, oh,
well, look at what ICE did, you know,
in Portland, you know, in June. And my
attitude was really who financed it. Mhmm. Okay.
This is a theater.
And and,
you know, and and you've got so so
I was having a debate with somebody from
Memphis the other day. No. They were they
they were from the other side of Tennessee,
but we're talking about Memphis.
And they said, I would be happy for
the president
to drop
military
into Memphis to stop crime. Okay?
And and I said,
you know, pointing to what happened in Chicago,
what about the rights of the people in
Memphis? And she said, they have no rights
until they're in prison.
Okay. Now what this does is say no
warrants, no due process,
no effort to determine whether somebody's a citizen
or an immigrant.
Okay?
So let's talk about the precedent.
What we're saying is
I can arrest somebody with no warrant.
I can if you look at what's going
on in California, I can hold them for
thirty seven days at great expense of the
taxpayer
with no warrant and no identification.
The expense is super important. Right? Are we
supposed to be cutting costs?
Well, apparently, now that doesn't matter, including spending
more than ever as long as we,
you know, justify it for the need of
immigration.
You know, at some point, there has to
be some kind of moral and and logical
consistency here, but not right now.
And no due process. So no evidence,
no warrant,
no due process. Right?
And I can put them in prison. And
the basis upon which I can do this
is because I say they're a a domestic
terrorist. Right. So if I say you're a
let's say you have a 100 acres of
farmland I want for my data center.
Good point.
I I just say you're a terrorist,
and then no warrant, no due process.
I can go
arrest you, put you in prison, and confiscate
your property all because I say you're a
terrorist.
Mhmm. Right?
We're talking the plunder game.
Telling you guys, this is being shared by
major conservatives right now. They're all starting to
wrecking Because you know what? It's not that
hard to digest. It's the same thing we
were all fighting. They're just not used to
or haven't been some of them seeing it
in the lens of this is currently happening
through this administration.
But there's no missing it if you just
are objective, if you just stand back and
look at the facts. And I don't mean
the debatable and whatever we argue that, you
know, you look at the objective reality where
we are that even the other side's pointing
to it just is framed differently and understand
what's really driving it. So check I recommend
you check out this interview. And I I
get a sense of why it might not
have been shared because of the title and
what the image looks like. Now Catherine and
I were discussing this, and and we the
the whole point was about
one of the things that came out in
the interview was what she was discussing in
her claim, which is that she already used
Trump as the most anti capitalist president in
the history in US history. I'm sure people
disagree with that. But when you listen to
her points and you listen to the reality
of it, what she did with TikTok or
NVIDIA or any number of examples, it's exactly
if Biden had done it, it would have
been called socialism.
Catherine Austin Fitts reversed Robin Hood. Why has
Trump become anti capitalist? I I think it's
a really important thing to consider.
So the major point, though, is about driving
us into this position. And what are they
doing? Calling people terrorists who are simply just
present
because you know? And and this and the
AI point, think about that. Didn't they just
say that this the one they're talking about
in Gaza was the size of Manhattan?
Like, that's think about what they're doing and
what what necessitates that. Then they're gonna steal
property? I mean, this is the network state
overlap. That is a part of that agenda,
funded and driven by the same people in
the same groups with the same outcome, with
digital IDs and digital tokens and digital money,
and it's the same conversation.
Now this person asked, Brock, what podcast is
this from? It says, this is a clip
from Catherine Austin Fitts' interview with Greg Hunter
on USA Watchdog, which she does often,
discussing government tactics and local crime issues. That's
not even what we were actually discussing.
I mean, you have to understand, guys, that's
not a mistake.
I mean, it certainly could be. But are
we really gonna pretend that Grok with its
AI monstrous overlapping database is gonna say, that
looks like what are you one,
you can see my logo, you can see
me, you can see the fact that we're
not talking about that. I mean, it just
kills me. I was just talking about this
with Derek, by the way. He goes on
Jimmy Dore's show who knows me and he
calls it the Vanguard. He goes on Redacted,
who we have overlap with, and they call
it the last vagabond.
There's some kind of a conspiracy here, I'm
kind of joking, to just not discuss this
platform. I think we know why if that
is what's happening. But in any case,
I said, of course you misreport this. Are
you not allowed to say it's the last
American Vagabond? Then it says, thanks for the
correction. Upon verification,
this clip is from October and your interview.
Oops. We just figured that out, you know,
and then gives the YouTube link, of course.
And I gave them major the the normal
link. And I go, oh, thanks for thanks
for the link. I just think that's hilarious.
It could who knows? Just be a glitch.
But this one was funny too. This person
responded too before I did and said, no,
Croc. This is clearly the last American vagabond.
I'm sure you can see the top right
watermark. Is he blacklisted? And they go, thanks
for the correction. Upon reviewing, this clip is
from an interview with last American vagabond. So
realize, this post was before
I asked and it was wrong. You think
I mean, think of the point is that
this grok is supposed to be learning. Right?
But yet you can act again separately, which
I've done this myself, and it will give
you the same broken answer. That tells me
that there's an order like, some kind of
a coordinated thing going on. But it says,
sorry for the mix up. No. He's not
blacklisted. It was just an error in sourcing.
Check their site for full episodes. Now when
I clicked this earlier, it wouldn't load. But
I last checked a second ago, and it
did. Just took a really long time. There
we go.
But it says, how did your error in
sourcing specifically occur? Here's what it says. The
error happened because my initial search pulled up
similar discussions by Catherine Austin Fitts, which by
the right. That wasn't what we were discussing.
And this is leading to a misad misattribution.
I didn't spot the T Lab watermark in
the clip until I reviewed it closely. Or
the fact that we look different or that
it's a different I mean, you know, come
on. I just don't believe for a second
that was a whoopsie mistake, but of course
I could be wrong.
And it could be something that Grock and
his they don't even realize. There's like somebody
there's a black spot. There's something that's being
you know, it's not there's something put there
algorithmically so they don't even notice that or
something like that. Or it just misattributed.
Also possible too.
But check this conversation out because I'm telling
you, there's there's a lot more in there
like this. And the point going back to
the actual post
from,
Shadow of Ezra
is that this is a huge account that's
sharing this to a largely Republican audience, and
it's getting a lot of reach. Of course,
not when I share it. Of course. But
it's important to recognize that this is highlighting
what we're discussing, the two party illusion, the
problem reaction solution of bringing in immigrants, of
using that problem to justify ICE crackdown, to
us to just to then create conflict, which
you use to justify ICE's actions, then you
call everybody terrorists, you take what you want.
I mean, this is a
classic recipe, guys.
Now David Icke highlighting, I'm glad to see,
high impact flicks. And this is when Trump
was speaking at Davos, and this was about
him for a lot of different things. He
covers fifteen minutes. He covers the points that
we've talked about and and and more. Check
out Brian. He's always doing great work. And
the point of him saying he claims the
the COVID shot was the best thing ever
and Operation Warp Speed was amazing, still says
that. How are people okay with this out
of control evil? David Icke says, the simple
the sequence is simple. You tell people your
ICE thugs are only targeting illegal immigrants. But
then you then you ever expand your tier
tyranny to include legal migrants and US citizens,
which is where we are. It's so blatant,
and it's only just begun. You're watching Trump's
Gestapo imposing fascism. And if you think it
couldn't ever happen else everywhere, just remember COVID.
Exactly.
Jason points this meme out, which I think
is relevant.
First bomb first president dropped eight bombs in
eight countries in one year.
Didn't really care that much. Right? Epstein files
still sealed. Zero arrests. Nah. Nah. Nah. You
know, I'm talking about the team sport players,
obviously. Protesters exist in a different area code.
You know? And it's like, well, okay. You
know? Yes. There is coordination. That has to
be acknowledged. Like, there are political manipulations taking
place through organized protesting. Yes. Doesn't invalidate
somebody. Like, with January 6, I think even
conservatives are able to recognize that that was
something that was being done. Right? There was
a manipulation. But does that then mean that
every conservative that just happened to be there
was suddenly illegal? No. Right? And you guys
argued that. So the same point has to
apply. If you have protesters out there, even
if it's a Soros funded whatever, which is
a valid point to be made, doesn't mean
that everybody there is part of that. Or
that people are or even if they are,
that they have negative intentions or that they're
doing something illegal. All of that matters. Consider
those things, but we have to verify, prove,
facts matter.
Protesters do travel for things, especially when it's
a national problem. But consider both. Be objective.
Don't fall for things.
And then, of course, Jason points out, this
is so important. This is where we that
they've just proved this after Renee Goode.
This got covered by everybody. ICE Observer or
ICE lee tells legal observer, which is somebody
there protesting or filming, legally allowed to do
it, whatever you think about it, we have
a nice little database, and now you're considered
domestic terrorist. That's what we just talked about.
Right? So and he said this. It's been
it went around. And the I've seen actually
more than one video like this. And so
they're taking your photograph. If you happen to
be standing there doing something legal, but it
bothers them because because when you do that,
it makes it harder for them to get
away with their crimes.
Then they put you on a list and
they say, now you're a terrorist. Even if
he was just trying to threaten or scare
her, that's insane.
And it shows you where we actually are.
It's it's
spin the the the dynamic around to consider
that was a Biden official saying that to
you. It has to matter regardless. And he
goes and poof, just like that, your rights
are gone. Now we have a confirmation that
Palantir database we warned about is real active
in labeling Americans as domestic terrorists. It couldn't
happen here. Yeah. Well, here it is.
Now let's get into Alex.
There
even from people that I know who are
very adamant on one side of the paradigm
are not okay with this. And I think
that's a point that's personal, and you don't
know what I'm talking about. But nonetheless,
consider that in your own life and recognize
if you'd my in my experience right now,
people
across the board are outraged about this, even
more than Renee Goode, probably because it compounds
after what just happened. But because this is
actually far more obvious, if that's even possible,
what we know about Alex Preddy,
the man shot dead by federal agents. Now
if if there's a different pronunciation going around,
please let me know to be respectful, but
I've I couldn't find anything about how it
would be pronounced. I doubt it would be
pretty. So pretty probably is accurate, but let
me know if you guys have a different
pronunciation.
The parents of Alex Jeffrey Pretti,
who was shot dead by US border patrol
officer in in Minneapolis,
Saturday, this was yesterday, Issued a written statement
decrying top Trump administration officials who suggested their
son was a domestic terrorist. Now really think
about that framing.
Even with Renee Goode, it should have blown
your mind that they would go that route
immediately.
Seeing as how there's actually a valid there
is a definition that would go along with
these things. Even if it's broad, which is
what it always is for the way they
use it, to think that that would apply
to somebody, even if what they did was
what they claimed, is so far over the
top. And it it's just the reactionary
go to from people that aren't smart enough
to realize they shouldn't rush right into that.
Like, no. Like, Bondi. Like the entire administration.
Because it shows you something, guys. Shouldn't there
be an investigation before you level a term?
Like, yeah. There really should. But they don't
care about that. And they don't even care
about having an investigation.
So Jeffrey or excuse me. That's his middle.
Alex
was an intensive care nurse at a VA
hospital.
There's a video going around that I will
play for you that I think is somewhat
relevant because of what he says and not
just, you know, the I try to avoid
the, you know, here he is doing a
nice thing, you know, or because, I mean,
it matters. It really everything matters. But
showing you it's like here he is doing
a bad thing doesn't then mean he justify
or killing him was justified or means that
we should think twice. You know, it that
stuff floods the conversation. And it's the same
point for the good stuff. Right? Just because
he's out there doing all the great things
you can see on video, does that mean
he couldn't have done what they claim? You
know? It's it's a port it's about being
objective and rational in these points, like we
did with the Israel ongoing genocide conversation with
plenty of difficult conversations.
You just have to put your head down
and be rational
when everyone's being emotional.
Now but the fact that he was at
VA, you know, his whole background
completely challenges. That's one of the valid reason
to point out that he was any kind
of a terrorist, let alone a criminal, which
he was not according to everything you have
on him. His background, there is no engagement.
So eve to argue he just decided to
become a domestic terrorist, which would mean something
official and legal and it's just it's insane.
And it should insult everybody when you know
that they're simply
spitting that out to cover what they did.
Was an avid outdoorsman who enjoyed getting adventures
with, his dog who recently passed away. He
worked with the US Department of Veteran Affairs
and had participated in protests following January 7
killing of Renee Goode by an immigration and
customs officer.
So right there, plenty of people will then
go, we knew it organized. But you have
to understand, and that would be stupid. Even
if it is the case, that wouldn't prove
that. The reality being that people are organized
in fighting back what this is. I I
can like I keep saying, if you care
to look for yourself,
go to one of these locations and talk
to people. You'll find very quickly that it
is a lot of people on all sides
of the paradigm. Mostly people that are aware
of it all being ridiculous, but you will
find conservatives more than ever today.
I I would imagine it's probably slanted more
to the left because people are afraid of
being seen or losing their group or whatever
it is. But I'm telling you guys, this
is not hard to see.
And he is protesting this or was because
by by the stated information we have, I
can't speak to his mindset, he didn't agree
with these things.
Quote, he cared about people deeply, and he
was very upset that what was happening in
Minneapolis and throughout The United States with ICE
as millions of other people are upset. No.
You could use this very point to argue
that that's why he went out there and
was being for well, we're gonna go through
the video. We're gonna go through the evidence
you can see, and you can prove this
stuff for yourself. So it it can't be
all emotional, narrative driven discussion.
Reality is you can see what happened, and
it's not what they claimed. And the point
is that people are now acting differently though
because
what they're doing is criminal.
Now I'm never advocating for violent reaction. And
I'm I'm even making clear to to tell
people, you know, this might happen. But isn't
that the point?
To scare you away from standing up for
your rights because they're acting illegally.
I frankly think that's a large part of
this, but, you know, more so to be
honest today with this one, I feel like
this was largely negligence, and that's also a
huge part of this. But it's the cover
up that ensues that shows you what they
really are. Right? You gotta stand up for
your rights, guys. That has to matter today.
Now you can decide how you do that.
That's what I'm doing right now. And I
I go to protest. I go to these
things if and when I choose to, and
I wouldn't shy away from it because of
something like this. But you need to consider,
as this article and this stuff will go
into, that this might happen. His family warned
him. Don't be, you know, be careful. We'll
go into this article
because of this very moment.
Freddie was a US citizen, born in Illinois.
Like good, court records showed he had no
criminal record, and his family said he had
never had any inter interactions with law enforcement
beyond a handful of traffic tickets. But according
to this administration, that means you can be
deported apparently. In a recent conversation with their
son, his parents, who live in Colorado, told
him to be careful with protesting.
Quote, we had this discussion with him two
weeks ago or so. You know, that that
go ahead and protest, but do not engage.
Do not do anything stupid, basically. He realized
what we're gonna show you is what he
was doing. He was filming. He was being
passive until that situation became,
you know, the we'll get into this the
spraying of the person and him and the
reaction to that and then what ensued.
I mean, you just have to realize that
I want to reiterate,
I actually personal I think personally and again,
it has to be a personal choice because
of the risks. It's never been more important
to legally stand up for your rights. And,
I mean, look, there's a point at which
legally means nothing when you're dealing with an
illegal institution, but I would still argue that's
in your interest to do so for obvious
reasons.
To make sure you're in it's the same
kind of point you'd make in a foreign
policy point to say, so they did this
illegal thing, so going and doing it back
because it's justified? No. That makes you just
as bad as them. Whether it's white phosphorus,
whether it's bombing civilians,
show the world that you're not the same
thing by doing the right thing. Go out
there and do it the way that we
know it should be done to show to
show the contrast. But, again, each of you
have to make your own
decisions. Continues, the Department of Homeland Security said
the man was shot after he approached border
patrol, which we'll go over the video, with
with a nine millimeter semiautomatic handgun, the reality
of which he did have, which he legally
is allowed to have in every way that
was happening, and it didn't even come into
play until after they had tackled him. And
an officer pulled the gun and they let
it go they ultimately dropped it or they
ultimately fired it by accident, However, the played
out will let you decide for yourself. They
shot him unarmed on the ground because of
that.
This was not in his hand. It's disgusting.
And each one of them have come out
and yelled the narrative. He came at us
with a gun, which they say with it,
but they're gonna probably later argue we just
meant he had it on him, but that's
not what they're saying, and that's not how
it's being taken by all the people repeating
their narrative.
In bystander videos yeah. And it says, officials
did not specify he brandished the gun, meaning
take it out. In bystander videos of the
shooting that emerged after soon after, Prudy is
seen with a phone in his hand, but
none appear to show him with a visible
weapon.
It says family members with Prudy owned a
said he owned a handgun and had a
permit to carry a concealed handgun. So everything
was legal. I also think it's worth pointing
out, this is a Democrat.
Right? So these ridiculous framings that we have
about one side or the other, they're all
manipulations, guys. Yes. There are slants.
But, I mean, are we not are we
supposed to pretend that he that, you know
I mean, whatever it is, is he automatically
a terrorist because he's a democrat with a
gun, which is what some people are saying
now, showing you that they have no principles?
Or is it ultimately that it's left and
right people own guns? People own wear masks.
People you know, it's not unique to one
side, but they always use these things to
frame it a certain way.
Family members said he owned it, but he
had never been known to carry it in
the past. Now I argue that's probably why
he was because of the way it's going
right now. Doesn't make it a crime to
bring it to a protest or anywhere else.
It's a legal concealed carry permit.
There are specific limitations, in some cases banks,
depending on the policy, in some cases things
government buildings, I think in all cases, but
this was not one of them. He says,
I can't get any information from anybody, Michael
Prudy said Saturday. The police, they said and
call the border patrol. This is his father.
Border patrol closed. The hospitals won't answer my
question. Think about how disgusting this is.
They won't even respond. He couldn't he didn't
even know what happened to his son. They
had to see a video on TV of
their son to recognize that it was likely
him, and they couldn't get anybody respond to
him. As of Saturday evening, the end of
the day, the family said they still had
not heard from anyone at federal law enforcement
about their son's death. They're cowards. Because historically,
that is something that takes place. Some process
finds out and relays that information. That's usually
what you see. Well, we can't say anything
until the family's been notified. They don't even
care, guys.
And this is not normal. Even for it's
the same criminal government and same criminal institutions,
in my opinion. But at least in the
past, there was some level of process, it
seems. At this point, with the way they've
turned this around, I think it's meant to
destabilize and collapse basically everything personally. But either
way you look at it,
that's grotesque.
After seeing videos of of top Trump administration
officials suggesting that their son was a domestic
terrorist who attacked an officer and shot him,
they issued a warrant state a written statement
describing themselves as both heartbroken and angry.
The sickening lies told about our son, they
say, by our the administration are reprehensible
and disgusting.
The family's
statement said,
they added that videos showing showed Alex Peretti
was not holding a gun when he was
attacked by federal agents, so they lied, but
holding a phone with one hand while using
the other to shield the woman who was
being pepper sprayed. He also got sprayed.
And you have to consider that, by the
way. Then ultimately, he got sprayed in the
face, which clearly caused adding to the confusion.
So at this point, before he even gets
tackled, he sprayed with pepper spray. Then he
gets tackled. He doesn't even know what's going
on most likely because he probably can't see,
and that's when it all ensues. We'll go
through it. Please get the truth out about
our son. He was a good man, they
said. Alex Purdy grew up in Green Bay,
Wisconsin where he played football, basketball, ran for
track. He was a boy scout, sang in
the Green Bay boys choir. Right? Which, you
know, is reporting, but like I said, that
that doesn't mean you can't go out there
and do something wrong. But the evidence shows
what actually happened. After graduation, he went to
the University of Michigan Minnesota, excuse me. Graduated
in 2011 with a bachelor's degree in biology,
society, and the environment according to his family.
He worked as a research scientist before returning
to school to become a registered nurse.
She said Preddy got a permit to carry
a concealed firearm about three years ago and
that he owned at least one semiautomatic handgun
when they separated.
His neighbors knew he had guns. He'd occasionally
take a rifle to shoot at a gun
range. Oh, doesn't that make him a terrorist
according to the the Halloween plot they claimed?
Well, whoop. They went and shot at the
right the the range, but they were Muslims,
so they must be terrorists. Guys, there's a
reason all this is falling apart. They're they're,
whether it's pure competence, and I think it's
part of that, or just that they're trying
to feign action for support, which I do
think is largely what's driving this. They're not
going anywhere.
In this case,
this this is just kinda overlapping with previous
examples. By this logic with what they did
before, these people would be investigated for terrorism.
This is supposed to be the conservative side
for supporting the second amendment.
But we'll do a whole point on that
in a second.
Now remember
or where was it
oh I just forgot what it was
well any case you know we're gonna go
through this more plenty more to get to
but this is just the general overlapping this
is France 20 '4
And so, you know, that he ultimately had
that, and I think it's important to consider
that by him having it there, which I
think seemed uncharacteristic,
that, you know, they're arguing that he was
a terrorist because he brought a gun. I
mean, again, the idea this is coming from
the Republican side of the conversation.
Now as Brandon Circus points out, Alex Peretti
was a US citizen. He had no criminal
history and a legal permit to carry firearms.
He was shot
10 times,
10 times after a mass federal agent had
already disarmed been disarmed already disarmed him, which
we'll show you. There is simply no defending
this action in good faith. He needs to
be charged. And he's referring to the shooting.
10 times, guys.
And here's the article. Read it for yourself.
So here's the first video we're gonna look
at. David Icke shared this. VA nurse murdered
by Trump's demonic estoppo for trying to stop
women being attacked by Trump's thugs, which, by
the way, was unjustified.
It says psychopath Trump and psychopath Steven Miller
say he was a would be assassin. We'll
go into that. And they're being fact checked
by Twitter. People up from the highest levels
of their conversation are calling him out. Trump
is a front man, a mental and a
physically dismantled gopher for pure evil. That's what
David frames it as. Here is malcontent news.
No weapon and no approach. Cell phone in
one hand, hands up in compliance. Tackled, legally
owned gun removed by federal agent while he
was face down on a stomach, shot at
point blank range in the back.
Not hard to see. Here's the clip.
Okay. K. So just you gotta see just
the start. He's right there.
K. He's got the girl in his arm.
K. See? Now he has that's his phone
in his hand. Then they push this woman
for to to to to serve I can't
see any reason, but it's who knows?
For me, from my perspective, there doesn't seem
to be anything that justifies him pissing this
woman. Just he pushes her on the ground,
which you're a big tough armed police officer
or ICE agent rather, who has to shove
an unarmed woman on the ground because, what,
she insulted you? Just it's it's I mean,
who knows? But if you rationalize that,
then he walks up.
He gets sprayed in the face for stepping
in between them, which, again, let's understand here.
There is not a legal process happening here.
Nobody's being arrested. This is a a person,
which police officers and anybody else are accountable
to their actions just like anybody, guys. He
did something to this woman. That's assault, if
you wanna break it down. And then he
steps in between them. It's all very clear.
Wanna stay and play it again. Then he
gets sprayed in the face.
Right? So let's understand. And I I think
we have to understand is that at this
point, he's
even have you ever sprayed the face before
with what they're using? Well, we can only
assume it's normal bear spray, pepper spray, whatever
they're using. Assume is a big one because
of what they're using elsewhere that who knows.
We won't play it again. Now watch. You
know, think about that as he goes down.
He's blinded at this point.
Don't
fucking bite me.
Look at that. Overreaction.
Still spraying him, by the way. While his
hands are up, he's bending over. That's anger,
guys. That's untrained anger.
Okay. So now he's on the ground.
And now they begin to start trying to
arrest him. Like, okay. So this is the
point. You're not resisting arrest if there's not
been a legal process engaged. No one says,
hey. You're under arrest. No one says, you
broke the law. This is a reaction
to being sprayed in the face, and then
they all rush in there because that's what
they're trained to do.
We're gonna get closer examples in this case.
I'm gonna show you this. It's every part
of it. I think it's worth seeing the
the out the largest.
There's seven people involved at this point, agents,
for one unarmed gun. Technically speaking, unarmed since
it's not in his hand. That's the the
idea that there was a gun in his
belt, which he's legally allowed to carry, they
don't know that at this point until they
see it on his side.
Right there, I believe, is where the guy
in the back, I'll show you in a
second, pulls the gun out. I'll show it
to you very clearly.
I mean, look at these guys all piling
in. Like, one guy's got his hands on
the back of another agent. Guys, there's just
no process to this. They don't know what
they're doing. If your your behind is could've
very well caused him to react that way.
But listen, this keeps peep freezing for some
reason.
Of course, it's freezing.
Oh, come on. Are you kidding me? Hold
on a second.
There's literally no reason that should be freezing
right now, as usual.
So that guy literally runs out. See that
gun in his hand?
Then that's not even what we're talking about.
Okay.
So first and foremost, I think it's important
to see how that started. Right? That this
ultimately is an as a guy with nothing
in his hand but his phone, in a
place where he's legally allowed to have what
he has and they don't know about it,
they spray him in the face as he
simply tries to say, woah. Like, steps you
you can look you can see it clearly.
He steps in, goes, like, pins up, and
he just goes to town and starts spraying
him in the face. Now if you wanna
make some kind of case about impeding or
whatever you're talking about, there has to be
something functionally happening. You're not impeding just because
you're present when they're doing something. There's not
an action. That woman was known to arrest.
There was no fun there was no
he wasn't being charged with something. He wasn't
being accused of anything. It was a reaction.
At some level, these people have to be
accountable for their illegitimate action.
And here he is, an assassin tried to
murder a federal agent. We'll come back to
this. And, of course, here's even Twitter. No
evidence has been released supporting the allegations of
an assassination attempt. These guys are just bombastic.
That's what their job is, apparently, destroying this
country.
So here's Adam Cochran,
again, doing just a frame by frame breakdown
so you can see it. I'll play the
actual clip too. But what you can see
is the time frame of all of this.
Ice had already disarmed the man before shooting.
This has been
forensically proven, guys. It says the man never
drew his gun. K? They're the ones that
took it out of the holster. Think about
that.
At fifteen seconds, one of the agents begins
to pistol whip the man in the head,
showing the orientation of the man's body and
how his hands were nowhere near his waist.
At thirteen seconds, we see the man is
on his knees. An officer in gray jacket
is pulling up his shirt. You can see
the gun in his waistband at sixteen seconds.
The officer in the gray jacket grabs the
gun from the waistband.
By eighteen seconds, the officer already has the
gun in his possession, and he's walking away.
These video the in these videos'
frames, you can see the agent has already
disarmed the man and is walking away.
See right there? That's the one you saw
a second ago.
One more time. Right there.
And I'll play it more through with the
other videos. A second later, after the man
in the gray jacket is walking away, the
officers pull the victim up to his knees.
One officer points his gun at the man
point blank. Okay. So right here, he's up
on his knees. There's plenty of still shots
about this going around.
K? And at that point, the gun's out
of his waist. Now I this is where
it gets in incredible whether we're talking about
just incompetence,
negligence.
Then ultimately one of few things happens. Either
they respond for some unknown reason
because they're jumpy and they're, you know, they're
causing all of this. This is not some
liberals are trying to attack us and we're
so scared, which would be embarrassing in the
first place.
Because there's plenty look. That's I'll play
a a a video from a sheriff in
a little bit where he's the one saying
this. Like, we've been in much more dangerous
situations with fewer people, and we don't react
like these bush league. That's what he's calling
them. But
regardless,
that they're reacting in a way that's unjustified
based on the reality situation, the lies of
10000%
increase. It's all they're making these things up.
And on top of that, or rather the
secondary point is
or they, when disarming the gun,
accidentally did something with it or somebody else
accidentally fired, which caused them to fire on
him. It's right now, it seems to be
up in the air. It says the man
is disarmed. His hands are clearly visible, and
the gun is pointed at his face, which
you can see. We'll play this again.
Nineteen seconds with the unarmed man on his
knees, the agent pulls the trigger point blank.
The officer in the gray jacket looks back
in surprise.
The agent who has just shot raises his
gun higher
and and shoots again.
Point blank, unarmed man on his knees. Twenty
one seconds, we can see the officer shooting
off the shooting officer as he backs up.
Gun still aimed at the man's head as
he now lays flat on his side. The
agent fires again.
He continues to back up and fire at
his now lifeless unarmed corpse on the sidewalk.
He fires at least two more shots, reporting
says 10 total.
Notice how no other agents even has the
weapon drawn because there is no threat.
The man is disarmed. He was surrounded by
officers. They pulled him into his knees and
executed him point blank. Now you could argue
that was by design. I get the sense
this was just incompetence,
reactionary stuff because they're not trained very well
and because these people also are being driven
by a a very clear partisan hatred.
Everyone's a terrorist to be if they you
know, that's what they're doing right now. You
can hear it when they say things. I
don't mean their their I mean, their what
they're literally saying. Calling these people liberal terrorists
or whatever. In many cases, talking to a
republican member of the military. I've shown you
two examples of that.
The agent five fired multiple shots into a
dead man. This was murder.
Right. We'll go over the rest. He's base
breaking down what we've already been discussing. That
that how it started and so on. So
here's just one kind of still shot from
a different angle. Not still shot, but a
a more high definition
video.
Stabilized version. One officer takes the gun from
the guy's holster. The second officer shoots him
in the
back. Honestly.
Okay. Right? You can see the guy grabbing
right there.
Okay. Right there.
Now, you can see it from other angles.
I'll show you a better shot. But this
is from the other angle. And what you
can see, the guy in the middle right
there is reaching into his waist,
pulls it out right there, and turns and
goes and moves away, and they shoot
him. So ask yourself
how that went down with the first shot.
Right? This is my point. This is the
anomaly.
Right? I'll tell you right now, right now,
the guy has the he's backing away. This
guy right there, I can't really point for
you guys to see, but the guy with
the cap sort of the middle, but on
the other side of the of the group,
he's got the gun. He just pulled it
out of his waist. Then you hear one
shot.
Right there.
Now was that him? That's the argument. This
is the guy with the gun, and we'll
show you, with the gray jacket who just
pulled away. Now did he fire an accident?
I that hasn't been clarified yet. Somebody did.
Now it seems weird to me because watch,
now he gets he's up on his knee.
Right there. See, he's up on his knees,
which tells me he wasn't shot yet. This
is all assumption, guys. We're just looking at
what we can tell right here. But the
reality is he was murdered
Through negligence, however y'all sort of look at
it, because of the way this went down.
Because of how it started. Because of even
at this moment, he didn't have a gun.
Okay.
If he was shot, I doubt he would
be up on his knees right there. But
it could be possible that they pulled him
up. It's hard to say. I'll play it
all the way through in a second. Because
we then after that one shot, and you
even see the guy in the gray jacket
look back.
So that might be, you know, saying it
came from somewhere else. It's hard to know.
Then they shot him all the rest of
the times.
Looking at those shots continuing. I mean, I
don't even understand
how this is being seen as anything other
than an absolute, I mean, negligent homicide at
minimum.
Yeah. Play it all the way through. Honestly.
Got the gun. Got
Look at all the standing there.
Eight of them?
My God.
You just do.
At the can right there.
Not sure of what. We got a bear
spray or something. They're right there.
Oh, not yet.
Right?
You can see it clearly. Oh,
Oh, that's the wrong angle. I'll show you
the other one.
Long shot.
Now think about this in the sense of,
you know, a
average American guy
works for VA hospital.
So, you know, based on everything you can
understand, you've got no no criminal background.
And this ultimately happened. I mean and even
if you wanna argue that he did something
wrong,
is this what it's the the world we're
in today, where you can you can make
one misstep
and be murdered in the street?
Apparently so. Apparently in Vegas or here or
Renee Goode. Apparently doesn't matter as long as
the right side does it, to some people,
anyway.
So here is Ryan Grim. Here's the gun
that they claimed. Of course, he had another
clip, so therefore, he must have been a
murderer. I mean, what's funny is the people
that claim to be the ones protecting the
second amendment as Republicans seem to not even
understand how guns work or understand what gun
owners do. You know? It's it's painful.
But he says, this bill, Bill, Meligen says,
DHS tells Fox News the suspect was armed
with a gun which had been recovered by
federal agents. You see, they're lying right there.
They knew how this went down because their
agents were involved, and they still try to
water it down in a way to make
to let you assume the incorrect thing. These
are just criminal people, guys.
Trump has unilaterally repealed the second amendment and
Americans being bearing arms or merely having them
legally in their cars, you can now be
executed. Now he's seeing this as but their
the image. But let's remember, he is actually
referring, whether intentionally or not, to a case
that we've already covered, which he does in
a second in another post. The woman who
didn't have a gun in her car,
who one of these agents literally said five
shots or seven shots, five holes, and brags
about how good of a shot he was,
they lied about her having a gun. This
all very clearly broke down. You can look
this up. It's easily provable. I went over
it more than once. The case
was they rammed her car, by their misunderstanding,
jumped out, and then shot her. She luckily
survived because they claimed afterward by looking into
her information that she was armed because they
saw that she had a a legal gun
that she could carry. So they just made
that argument. I guess in desperate hope that
she had it on her, she did not.
It was at home. But they still lied
since she had a semiautomatic
rifle or whatever they called it. McLaughlin, Bondi,
Trump, they all backed it up. So, yes,
apparently, you can be murdered in the street
for simply having something on you, let alone
even
registered to you.
And he says they took his firearm and
then killed him afterwards. So we saw that
later.
Johnny Johnny Gatgrass says could couldn't it couldn't
be more clear that the goal was a
civil war? Actually, let me see if this
one has the
better ang the angle where you can actually
see
yeah. Here we go. K. Check this out.
See? You can literally see the gun, guys.
That that's what's important.
Right here,
he's got the gun in his hand. He
literally pulls out the gun from the guy's
waistband. That's it right there. So there's no
misunderstanding this, guys. Every which way. There's there's,
like, six different people that film this, which
is why they hate that you're observing, guys.
Because this happens. This is a textbook case
of why they're so desperate to stop you
from filming them and stop you from
now who shot them? Who's responsible? They're gonna
hold the line. Noem and Trump and Bondi,
they're gonna hold the line. They're not gonna
tell you who this person was. How much
you wanna bet? Because nobody took their masks
off and now we don't know.
Is this the country we live in? Where
they could just murder people in the streets
and nobody gets a hell of a cow
because the the government stands in between you
and them? This is every authoritarian country in
the world right now. Or rather government, I
mean. In history. This is how it
goes. He literally has the gun right in
his hands right there.
Right? And then he walks away with the
gun. See? It's clear.
So same thing. As he's saying, could it
be more clear that the goal is civil
war? Now that depends on whether you think
this is being intentionally done either by them
or those above them. It says the last
desperate move of a failed ruling class is
to get the peasants to fight amongst themselves
so they don't start building guillotines.
It's a very important thing to consider. Adam
simply says slowed and zoomed footage shows the
victim's gun being seized prior to the first
shot.
Now here's even Robert Barnes, guys. Now he's
been clearly criticizing plenty of different things. Yeah.
He's not just been blindly supporting them. But
he has been some ways that I thought
was a little bit on the line, but
overall, ultimately, was a very huge MAGA Trump
supporter and has been taking a principled stance.
I think that's worthy of respect and and
calling it out in a positive way every
time.
He shoots him in the back
after he was disarmed. That's Robert Barnes, the
lawyer making this case.
And this person, Justin, says, the shooter did
not know he was disarmed. He has heard
gun, gun, gun. He was trained to do
so. That's your response? So it's okay he
murdered him because he misunderstood?
Well, that would still be something that could
be charged for, you understand? And they're not
supposed to just respond and shoot who's in
front of them because they hear the word
gun. That would mean they're not trained properly.
But people like this are clearly okay with
just going whatever.
But whatever, if they say it, then I'm
gonna defend it no matter how I can,
no matter the embarrassing mental gymnastics I have
to make after claiming thou shall not be
infringed every day of my life. It's embarrassing,
guys. And by the way, that's not even
actually what happened. Not the first time. But
it doesn't matter. Facts don't matter to these
people. Ryan Grim says, here's Tim Poole, which
we'll get into more toward the end. This
is what Grim says is more important. But
all of these painfully obvious fake patriots out
there who are trying to tell you this
is all okay. Go back to sleep. Tim
Pool says he clearly was not intending to
massacre ICE, and he clearly was resisting arrest.
No. He really wasn't. One, because as Ryan
says, I don't think you can say he
was resisting arrest because there was no effort
to actually arrest him, which matters. Or say,
hey. You're under arrest. The agent shoved the
woman to the ground. He helped her out
and was sprayed, thrown to the ground, and
beaten. The natural human response is try to
cover your face and protect your body as
you're being assaulted. And let's not forget, he
was just pepper sprayed.
How do he doesn't know who's tackling them
if it's done. I mean, it's possible. Maybe
it wasn't enough. Maybe he was blind. It's
worth considering.
If you're sprayed that close in the face
with pepper spray, you can't see if you've
done this before.
I'm saying it's certainly possible. Maybe he could
a little bit. But the thing to consider
is whether he didn't even know who was
tackling him, which makes a huge difference, doesn't
it? Because even listen to it, in many
cases, they're not going, we're ICE. You're under
arrest. They don't do that. It says interpret
interpreting the body movement as resisting arrest is
too much of a leap. Now he's being
very generous with this ridiculous person called Tim
Pool. The agents escalated the situation repeatedly and
then using their own escalation as a reason
to kill him. They that's actually seems to
be their current step standard operating procedure within
the current dynamic of ICE. It's not the
same as before.
Oh, wait. And this is one of the
responses who says,
he physically put himself in between police and
someone they were interacting with, which by the
way, see, they're stretching this. Interacting with?
Was she was she under arrest? Was she
being arrested? Was she being interviewed? None of
those things. They weren't interacting with her. He
shoved her to the ground because she said
a mean thing or whatever went down right
there. My point is, you can see that
there wasn't some ongoing engagement. It was a
reaction
while carrying a firearm. Okay. So now you're
suddenly saying that anybody who legally carries a
firearm is suddenly legally accountable when they do
something that's not illegal because of the gun?
These are supposed to be Republicans, you understand.
A tremendously stupid thing to do. Freely carry?
I mean, we're gonna get into this next.
But right now, what people are laughing about,
people are starting to see through the left
right illusion, is you have Democrats on CNN
and CNBC
basically defending the second amendment to Republicans
who are saying it shouldn't matter in their
own way.
It's just it's a obvious moment for people
to break up to this. Ryan Grim also
points to this one, who is basically defending
this.
Oh, no. I'm sorry. This was a different
one. I didn't there there's plenty you could
find out there, but it's like with Renee
Goode, guys. If you can just be honest
about what you're looking at, like we just
showed you, there's no error in that conversation.
You could argue some variance there, but there
is what they said, just like every time,
was a lie. I'll show you what Noem
said. They just lied to you, guys. Same
with that leader Gestapo guy who they are
calling a munchkin now, which is kinda funny.
Rob says, after analyzing the videos, I believe
it's highly likely the first shot was a
negligent discharge from the agent. That makes the
most sense to me right now. In the
gray jacket after he moved the sig p,
p three twenty from Freddy's holster while exiting
the scene.
And Ryan says there may indeed have been
a negligent discharge by the untrained idiot agent.
And the p three twenty actual and this
is all over right now. You can look
it up. Apparently, he has problems with that.
But that becomes something circulating around. Worth doing
your own due diligence to find out if
it's even the right gun or, you know,
these things become, like, the the talking point.
But that is going around. I agree. That's
the argument. That that that gun has that
problem and it discharges. Okay.
That alone would be bad. But worse is
that his colleague who shot him saw him
take the gun,
so knew Alex was unarmed by then. Now
you can decide if you think, I agree
with that, but it's hard to know what
he saw and didn't see and what he
knew, you know? But I agree. When you
look at it, it's easy to to to
assume, which we shouldn't do, that this person
was able to see that he took the
gun, You know? But it's happening fast. My
point is, even if they didn't, the way
that they did this was insanely criminal, guys.
Because if that means, they didn't even know
whether he had a gun or not. Right?
Which is how it starts.
Now Khaleesi points out some witnesses.
There's a couple of people. Of course, you
could always argue that they were on a
certain side, which always could be the case.
But, guys, this is how it works. You
have people that give their testimony, and they
all and witness testimony is is famously
unreliable because even if you think you saw
something, your brain can remember things incorrectly. That's
easy to look up. It actually is quite
common. Police will tell you people will all
see something and they'll report different colors for
cars or whatever. Right?
But this case, there's somebody who was there.
Take it for what you will, as well
as somebody who lived close who was a
doctor.
Same story, guys. They wouldn't let him treat
him.
A witness who was only five feet away
from Alex Peretti filed an affidavit depicting what
she saw. She says he didn't touch any
of the officers and didn't appear to be
resisting. He was merely helping a woman who
had been pepper sprayed, which is what you
saw. She says she's terrified that ICE is
looking for her. I mean, wouldn't you be?
Now that may be unfounded, but with what's
going on right now when people are being
kidnapped in the middle of the night without
any process, with any warrant or identification, in
some cases being sent to places around the
world without legal standing, in this case, American
citizens who, by the way, that has happened
to, or in this case, people being arrested
as American citizens and then punished in some
kind of immigration cell for three, four days
without even they prove they were US citizens.
That's happened many times that I've already seen.
A veteran.
What's his name? Redis?
He he did a whole expose about it.
They literally punished him because he told them
he was a US citizen, and they felt
stupid about
it. They literally kept him in prison for
multiple days, wouldn't give him water. I mean,
you've got over this so many times. It's
painful that it's how many times it's happening?
It's not a unique bad apple situation. Okay?
So now she's worried because she may be
a witness to their murder, guys. So I
don't think this is a joke.
Saying that they are lying, they they they
basically they're she's worried because they're saying that
she's lying and doesn't know what they'll do
to her if they find her. That's what
her testimony breaks down.
You can consider
that. Here, Air Melnick
reporting what Kyle Cheney is pointing out, and
he's going through quite a a bunch of
these things as the plaintiffs in the lawsuit
to restrict ICE's use of force in Minnesota
filed an emergency motion with the eighth Circuit
Court of Appeals tonight to reinstate those restrictions.
It included this affidavit from the person who
witnessed the shooting. It says, plaintiffs in the
case have added a declaration from a pediatrician
who sought to administer aid to Alex after
he was shot. ICE agents appeared to be
counting his bullet wounds.
You know what? If I find out this
is the same person who bragged about seven
shots, five holes, it will definitely make sense,
won't it?
Well, I'm sure we'll probably find out, but
maybe not if they never admit who it
was, if they never, because you know what?
Now that I take it back, I don't
even think we got that original guys. Oh,
wait. I maybe we did because he was
posting something. I'm gonna look into this more
as we go forward. But right now, we
don't know who the shooter is. So it's
kind of fruitless if unless we find out
which in what world
would we never find out who this person's
name is?
Ryan Grim. Oh, wait. Hold on. Make sure
I didn't miss this. I think Aaron said
something.
Melnick, the lawyer, points out another declaration
you have to read. Alex Preddy was shot
near the apartment of a doctor who saw
the shooting occur, rushed to the provide emergency
aid, and he was lying on the street
dying. They describe what they saw. The victim
had at least three bullet holes in his
back.
It's insane.
Ryan Grim.
This is the comparison to that older point
we made. Josh here says, Trump appointed judge
blocks FBI, DOJ, DHS
from destroying or altering evidence related to the
shooting of Alex by border patrol agents in
Minneapolis.
Judge Eric Tostrand, Grant's t r o, set
Monday hearing. They literally are going, you better
not destroy they've already done this. The car
in that last shooting, they drove away, and
no one ever found it. I mean, this
is just so mind blowing how clear it
all is. That's why even honest conservatives are
going, yeah. This is pretty crazy. You can
prove most of this stuff. So Ryan says
the doctor who tried to treat Alex was
sitting they said they were sitting around counting
bullet holes. When ICE agents shot US citizens,
this is what I was referencing Martinez in
October, he similarly bragged in a text to
fellow agents about the number of holes he
put in her. And he said seven. Five
he said seven shot. No. That's actually inaccurate.
His report was seven shots, five holes. You
can look this up. I've gone over it
many times. These agents do not see the
American people as people to protect, but as
an NPC in a video game that they're
playing or worse, as actual enemies. They should
not be walking the streets armed. Now I
do wanna argue that I don't think that's
every ICE agent. That's why some of them
have made statements. Some of them have been
pushed out, resigned. That's where we are. But
in a general sense, you can't know for
sure what their intent is or what they're
thinking, but I agree with the general framing.
I mean, you can see their where you
where you can, what they say. Right? Where
they frame it as liberals, crazy rebels were
fighting or, you know, that you're gonna be
I mean, all the different statements. I don't
wanna try to remember off the top of
my head. Where they've been caught on video
saying exactly what they're trying to do. It's
just this is not a unique
isolated incident, which is terrifying.
Now this is even crazier, which we've mentioned.
This is the local police. Here's what he
said in his first briefing. And just to
make it even more clear, I'll he he
follows up and explains it even more clear.
I mean, it's clear in the first one,
but just in case, they were not allowed
to investigate their own state location because
the federal agents wouldn't let them even though
they had a warrant.
There's no legal standing for them to stop
them. What does that show you? I think
we already know if we're not being blind
to this. They're covering something up. They've already
been caught. They already know something that the
their narrative was false, just like with Renee
Goode, just like with countless other examples of
ICE agents being caught lying about what they
did, and there's never been any criminal accountability.
This is straight up criminal activity.
Honest
Good morning.
I was in contact with the Minneapolis Police
Department after the incident that you're all, familiar
with now.
They requested our force investigations unit
respond to the scene and conduct such an
independent investigation
as we have in other recent incidents in
the city of Minneapolis.
What occurred was our team responded to the
scene, and I was in contact with federal
authorities
to inform them that that was going to
occur and that we were responding to the
scene in Minneapolis.
When our team arrived,
they were blocked by
federal agents with the Department of Homeland Security
from accessing the scene.
We were
The homeland
Department of Homeland Security.
Is this a national security interest? I mean,
think about how wild that is, guys. We're
talking about the DHS Homeland Security
blocking out local police for an investigation.
I don't think you could paint this anymore
clearly.
With them and we're in contact with the
FBI
trying to attempt to access the scene so
we can gather evidence
to understand what occurred and work through this
process.
Our team also secured a search warrant for
the scene, which is an unusual move in
a public area like that, but we did
that attempting to have
judicial
approval to enter the scene to gather evidence.
Meaning, they already knew that they were gonna
try to stop them. That's why they did
the unusual step because clearly, and they were
right, guys. Even though they had the warrant,
they tried to stop them. So, you can
clearly see a level whether it's local versus
federal or some different division within the government,
which doesn't mean good guy bad guy, Always
important to point out that they could just
be fighting over control over your life. It's
worth considering. Either way, that there's an element
within this that's like, okay. We see what
you're doing. Now, very well, that could just
be a partisan game. And you know why
you you know how you would know that
if nobody ever goes to jail despite the
evidence. But either way, they came at this
because they clearly knew that they were gonna
be blocked out, and they were. Now what
does this do? That makes a very compelling
point that there is something being covered up.
We were once again blocked by federal authorities
to go in and do that scene examination.
We have a long history
of working
side by side with the Federal Bureau of
Investigation
on all types of cases.
That's true in other high profile incidents that
you've seen in officer involved shootings,
and that's remains the case that we do
and will be going forward.
So here's the the follow-up, essentially,
where he's reiterating. Because I think what's interesting
is what he says there, I think it's
pretty clear, but people go, like, well, did
you just say that they stopped you? And,
like, I it's just it's almost like a
double take. Right? And here's what he says
in response.
So to be clear, you said you've got
a signed judicial warrant
to gain access and were still denied by
federal agents?
Yes. That's accurate. The question was we had
a signed warrant and we were still denied
access to the scene. That's accurate. Correct.
We took the step of getting the search
warrant because we were denied access to the
scene. So we thought that we'd be able
to get access to the scene much like
we would anywhere else by having an independent
judge
agree that we have probable cause to investigate
the incident at the scene.
That was
provided the information to, the Department of Homeland
Security, and they said that this was a
scene and matter being investigated,
by the federal government, and they would not
allow us physical access to the scene.
Oh, you arrived at the scene. You were
denied. You go to a judge, ask for
a warrant, though. Judge Grant said warrant. You
show up with that, you're still denied. That's
accurate. We were denied after we provided information
we had a warrant.
It's I really do. Like, if you're in
their position, how do you rationalize that? Like,
how do you make that decision? And then,
you know, that to me, what that shows
you is a reactionary moment where you're desperately
trying to cover this up, and you just
go, don't let him in. Don't let him
in.
No rational reason. No way to explain it
to the media.
I just don't know how else you understand
that. I think that's very, very, very clear.
Now, in regard to this point, the second
amendment and the the the constitutional rights element
of this or just any legal reality, I
think it's important to focus on this, the
hypocrisy of the right side of the conversation
doing what they're doing right now. Now, if
you understand what we're always trying to show
you, then you already know that this is
the left right paradigm is an illusion to
get you to fight your neighbor.
But it's interesting, nonetheless, for those that are
still grappling with that to recognize the hypocrisy
with this moment. And Dylan,
wrote something very eloquent as usual when he
says, if the second amendment does not apply
to this exact kind of moment,
what do people think it is for? Because
that what you're getting is a lot of
conservatives who are now saying he shouldn't have
a gun. He shouldn't have brought it to
a protest. A conservative saying that
in a place where it's legal for him
to have it. You know, it's it's just
beyond the pale. And and it's the people
you expect, guys. It'll if you haven't seen
it from the Alex Jones, Tim Pool, Nick
Sore, the whole shebang,
all of them. I stand with ice. It's
just it's wild.
He says a citizen can lawfully carry. See
mass federal agents beating someone in public, move
toward the scene to help, especially because what
they're doing is legal,
and then get erased with a hail of
bullets because he had a gun.
That excuse is an insult in a country
where possession is legal by design,
where the whole point is that the public
never becomes a disarmed audience watching state power
operate with impunity.
I'm not interested in arguing frame by frame
footage. I'm interested in the principle that a
free people cannot accept, a standard where lawful
carry becomes a death sentence the second authority
feels threatened.
It's either you have principles or you don't,
guys. If that is the standard, then the
second amendment has been reduced to a vibe.
The founders did not write it so Republicans
could do militia cosplay on weekends.
Very well put.
Where where honest people out there who actually
have principles, whatever side they're on, will absolutely
understand that.
Now on the point of hypocrisy, let's not
forget we already saw this. This is a
Democrat. Or at least the point was in
a Democrat location supporting the Democrat agenda. And,
you know, I don't think it's expressed whether
he is or not. The point, though, is
that they're calling him a liberal.
Eagle Guntherman, a major Republican influencer. This is
my neighborhood liberal man with a rifle, stands
outside of home to protect from ICE. Lock
him up.
I mean, this was
over everything we've seen, I forget what the
engagement was. Let's take a look.
I mean, like I said before, I mean,
he's borderline
ratioed.
And the reality is, as even this says,
this is the second amendment, which give people
the right to keep and bear arms. Gunther
Egelman has previously said, we must never give
up our second amendment.
And here he is saying, oh, it's a
liberal though. And, again, something I don't agree
with, even though what they're doing is criminal.
And it's not like he's out there face
to face. He's in his own location saying
I'm and this is identical to what militias
and Republican elements have done forever.
Here is this shockingly embarrassing hypocrite out here
telling you that guy's not allowed.
These people don't believe in anything.
They are cosplaying as what you want for
their agenda.
Or he actually does believe in these things,
and he's willing to challenge or undermine them
because of a political agenda or because he's
being paid. I don't know. But that's worthy
of ridicule, guys. Here's the clip, in case
you didn't see it. It's worth hearing. Oh,
maybe I oh, here it is right here.
And just to hear what he has to
say. This is this should be defended by
anybody with principles who believes in the second
amendment.
Oh, god.
Yeah.
Do you live in the neighborhood? Yep. This
is my boss. This is my area. I
don't I don't go into other people's neighborhoods
and try and intimidate them. I I protect
my people. Are you giving out your name?
No. I'm okay with that. Our neighborhood's showing
up.
So you guys had a lot of people
out here. Right? At least 30 or more.
Yeah. 40 or 50. That's pretty good for
a quick turnout.
Alright. So a guy
who's in his front of his own his
own home, or rather his own neighborhood, right,
who's legally allowed to have that, that's the
case of where he is, and this second
amendment supporting Republican says lock him up because
I don't like that he's doing that.
It's just painful, isn't it? It's truly painful.
And these people only grow in influence on
a platform that claims to believe in these
values.
Now just in case you missed these this
part, Donald,
Derek Burrows put out an article about Donald
Trump,
and and the gun rights groups. And I
thought this was majorly important because it shows
you a complete and obvious hypocritical stance.
Gun rights groups condemned Donald Trump and his
DOJ for defending National Firearms Act. Now I
I won't go through it all again, but
it's worth looking at what they were saying
as they're calling out Bondi. Right? Unfortunately, Bondi
defends this and uses some of the worst
of gun control lobby's talking points to do
so. They're calling them hypocrites.
They're calling them out. I also covered this
in the show. I went over that. Gun
rights groups say Trump direction is anti second
amendment. I mean, what point do we just
wake up from this stupor, guys?
I'm speaking to the ones that need to,
anyway. So let's point out some of these
hypocritical stances and some of the people from
the government and people in the social media
sphere and the shocking level of hypocrisy. Robert
Barnes, yep, calling it out. Here, as he
as he rightly calls him, counterfeit cash. Gotta
love that.
Now, here is Kash Patel out here attacking
second amendment rights and lying again about the
law. That's how Barnes frames it. I agree.
Thousands of people are marching through Minneapolis.
They are targeting,
the border patrol. I mean, it it it
feels like Great journalism there. Are they all
targeting border patrol? Well, in a in a
protest sense, yes. But you see how they
make that targeting, impeding, interfering?
That's protesting to them is that now. Or
at least that's what she what is it?
Maria
Bartola? I forget her name. But at some
point, basically,
just parroting the talking point. That's what the
corporate media and the mainstream alternative does every
day.
I the rhetoric and the,
the protesting is only ramping up. What is
your advice to the people right now? Yeah.
How dare they talk more? And how dare
they protest? It's terrifying, isn't it?
Who are outraged that this is a second
killing at the hands of border patrol in
two weeks. Don't you love that overlap, though?
You know? But we're outraged about the killing,
and you clearly just set that up to
rationalize why it happened. It's just so it's
just it it make it's kind of embarrassing,
isn't it? But it should make it makes
me sick. Like, the kind of people like
that anyway, this is the point. Let me
play it again. Listen to Cash Your advice
to the people right now who are outraged
that this is a second killing at the
hands of border patrol in two weeks.
As Christy said, you cannot bring a firearm
loaded with multiple magazines to any sort of
protest that you want. It's Yep. Yep. You
absolutely can. That's wrong. And you're an idiot.
Or he doesn't know he's wrong, which is
even more alarming, guys. Of course you can.
In a place where it's legal to do
so. You're literally at a place where he
has a legal right to concealed carry.
So you tell me that because suddenly a
protest happens, therefore that location is no longer
valid? He was on a street sidewalk.
You really think that he does I mean,
I don't know. I honestly don't know. Do
you think he doesn't know that? It wouldn't
surprise me. These people don't actually seem to
know anything they claim to support.
But it could very well be that he's
willfully
saying the thing that's wrong, which will undermine
your rights
and allow them to remove them. Even though
they can't legally do so, they can just
not respect them, but they will act as
if they don't exist.
These are the patriots out there saving you
from the deep state. These are the ones
that are fighting for your constitution.
Wake up, guys. If you're out there and
you believe that, where are you looking right
now? They are destroying every single thing this
country holds sacred. And the next Democrat, Republic,
or whatever it is, will the the the
what I call them before, the republic the
demo I I don't know. I tried to
demlicans. I don't know. They together will continue
to break this or to progress this problem.
My point is no matter who the next
left side of this comes into play, they're
only gonna ramp up the problems like everyone
before have. Take a second and look back.
Look back at the the transition.
Look at what they said they were gonna
do, and then look at what they were
really doing. And what you notice is a
continuation of the same agenda that never really
slows down.
Loaded with multiple magazines to any sort of
protest that you want. It's that simple. You
don't have that right to break the law.
You do have that right, and it's not
against the law. But you see how he
says it that way? You know? Like, someone's
training them in some way to get these
certain manipulative
tool these the the the words that confuse
people who don't understand what they're talking about.
And incite violence. We will, of course Oh,
now it's inciting violence? I'm sorry. I shouldn't
stop it this often. I know you guys
don't like that, but you're inciting violence by
doing something you're legally allowed to do. But
how you're not inciting violence, by the way,
even if you were allowed to have that.
That's inciting violence in your pocket. You know
what I'm saying? Like, this is just what
you're doing is creating the circumstance, which isn't
illegal, and then pointing at the presence of
the just the circumstance being there as the
incitement of violence. Isn't that the that's basically
the same as words or violence.
It's it's not a violent situation till that
action is violent.
Firearm
loaded with multiple magazines
to any sort of protest that you want.
It's that simple. You don't have that right
to break the law and incite violence. We
will, of course, always protect your first amendment
speech. And if you peacefully protest, there is
absolutely nothing wrong with that. But you have
seen a trend here, not just in Minnesota,
but across the country in these protests turning
into violent scenarios. After they're engaged with VICE
in almost every circumstance, by the way. Now
I'm not gonna say there are not examples
of the left or the right creating violence,
but that doesn't then make every protest violence
or every protest something sudden you have to
shut down because they all are agitators or
they're all this is what you guys keep
doing. And people attacking law enforcement, that's when
you go over the line, and that's when
law enforcement steps in. Okay. When somebody attacks
law enforcement, then arrest that person. Right? If
that's what's actually happening.
That does not then invalidate everybody they're protesting,
left and right. Our government's done this my
entire life.
But just think about what he's doing and
think about how disgustingly
unconstitutional
and illegitimate this is. What they're doing is
supporting government power over your life. Protest that
you want. It's that simple. You don't have
that right to break the law and incite
violence. We will, of course, always protect your
first amendment speech.
You see how that works, guys? They don't
protect anything. That's an inherent right that they
have no involvement in. Now if they want,
they can uphold that.
You know, if you look at the language
used by the founding fathers, the constitute, there
there's a reason they use the words they
did. Today, they always use the words that
make you confusingly think that they have the
power to control those things. We can take
it away. We can give it. We can
protect it for you. That's not how this
works. It is something now you could argue
in a different context. The government can help
protect those rights in a general sense by,
you know, standing by them. But what he's
saying is we can help you have that.
We like, they're making it sound like they
can take it away the moment that you
do something they don't like. That's not how
this works.
And what do you mean by peaceful protest?
Well, just because you're out there doing something
they might call violence even though it's not
like, they're telling you saying words are violence
today. Didn't Bondi literally say that? Either way,
you get the point, guys. They're using this
to frame it in a way that they
can then go, that's no longer allowed. This
guy did this. Shut it all down. It's
what they're doing. And if you're honest with
yourself, you already know this because it's been
going on quite a long time.
And that's again, Robert Barnes, counterfeit cash. He
says, yes. You could bring a firearm loaded
with multiple magazines to any sort of protest
you want. It's called the second amendment.
Jedi's Girl. Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus. Now there's
been some very frustrating responses from some of
the larger gun groups, by the way. I
I think that, clearly, there's a political momentum
happening in some of these cases, but this
is important from the location it happened in.
The Minnesota gun owners caucus has sent us
a statement. We do wanna share it with
you. It says in part, despite widespread
speculation regarding intent, there has been no evidence
produced indicating an intent to harm the officers.
We are calling for a full and transparent
investigation
by both state and federal authorities.
Every peaceful Minnesotan has the right to keep
and bear arms. Talking about Alex Purdy right
there. Yes. So they are saying they do
not have any sense of intent. Well, you
know, the I mean, I think the more
interesting thing about that is that, you know,
this group, was
some people vilify it because
post enunciation shooting, they came out so strongly,
against any kind of other, you know, measures
that would be banning weapons. Control. And this
is a group that's actually saying, hey. Let's
not this is the only group I've heard
today that says, let's not jump to conclusions.
Right.
Which is pretty sad when you think about
it when you got groups that have classically
stood by chow not being friends suddenly going,
well, you know, Democrats are acting crazy. That's
what you're getting from certain gun right groups.
Just showing you a complete lack of principle.
In an example, by the way, that is
far more clear than ones we've seen in
the past.
Justin Amash
highlighting what
this is, what's his, who is his name?
Bill
Esselle.
He says if you approach
a law enforcement
approach law enforcement with a gun, there is
a high likelihood they will be legally justified
in shooting you.
This is what they're saying. And here's Twitter's
context, even from their manipulated grok, or rather
just, you know, the platform. The US constitution,
particularly the second, fourth, and fourteenth amendments, prohibit
officers from shooting citizens merely for possessing a
weapon that is not an imminent threat. You
see, these people either don't understand the founding
documents they point to or they're trying to
lie to you about them.
This was reaffirmed in Graham versus Connor, which
says force must be reasonable.
Justin Amash, quote, a well regulated militia
being necessary to the security of the of
a free state, the right of the people
to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed
unless you approach a law enforcement officer.
Same old thing. Right?
Shall not be infringed, asterisk, except with a
pathogen. He's making the same point. If you
have principles, then you're not going to you're
gonna say that the reality is shall not
be infringed.
Period. The real when you say unless or
if you approach a law that that that's
not really what they're saying, but that's the
implication. That you can have that in a
legal sense, but if you dare walk up
to an officer, that's not the reality of
it, guys. It's just not. And these people
are trying to lie to you. Now if
you have the mind that we should change
that, that's a whole different conversation. And you
can get in you can involve yourself in
that conversation, but realize that what the the
the the basis of this is that these
are
inherent rights that exist, that they simply outlined.
Now that can still be the country can
get together and say, we no longer acknowledge
those rights. That's certainly possible. But it's something
that in their mindset as they wrote it
was not a given or taken thing. It
was inherent, And we should, as the people
of this country within our borders, enforce those
inherent god given rights.
It's very easy when you understand this. And
that's why when you get to things like,
Mayberry versus Madison, they rule that you if
it's repugnant to the constitution, then it's null
and void. As the first 10 amendments, the
bill of rights were the first 10 amendments
to the constitution, those were not repugnant to
the constitution.
Anything, and I can show you plenty of
them since then that have been passed even
by congress
that are are
contrary to any of those things, then that
shouldn't be legal. That's null and void per
the Supreme Court. But we have long since
got away from that, and plenty of stuff
they do right now is unconstitutional, including laws
they pass, which are not legal or constitutional.
Ryan Grim. There was indeed a strong faction
of British loyalists making just these arguments in
1776.
Their descendants are still with us.
If the patriots of today were alive in
1776.
If you don't like the colonies, why don't
you just leave?
We respect authority.
Comply with redcoats and you won't get hurt.
Redcoats lives matters.
If you don't if you have nothing to
hide from the king and you have nothing
to fear, just obey the king's laws.
That was a little bit of a stretch,
but realize the same point we always make
about this, guys. These are the way that
they're acting is the opposite of the rebels
fight the deep state. They are quite literally,
gaslighting for the power. Maybe they don't I
think a lot of them don't even realize
that. I mean, this comment itself is in
response to Matt Walsh, which we'll get to
in a second. I didn't even see this
one, actually.
Yeah. It'll just it'll derail, I think. I'll
look at it later.
We get to some of the points you
made. I don't wanna you know, I'll just
go through it and understand it, and it'll
take away from the show. We I wanna
I wanna finish this up. This is the
last basic segment right here. Now here's the
clip of Alex, by the way. This is
a Philip Lewis shared this. A video of
Alex Preddy was posted on Facebook by Mark
Randolph, the son of the deceased veteran,
with this caption.
Rest in peace, Alex Preddy. He was my
dad's ICU nurse.
He read my dad's final salute,
excuse me,
at the VA after he passed away. Never
wanted to share this video, but his speech
is very on point. Now so so it's
the personal video that they did just amongst
themselves, and he just happened to post it.
At least, that's how it's being framed, and
that seemed to be the case. Also, my
father's final words to me was continue the
fight. Continue to fight the good fight. He
was he he would be honored in Alex's
sacrifice and ashamed of the current administration. In
my dad's words, I encourage you all to
continue to fight the good fight. Here's what
Alex Prady had to say about this deceased
veteran in his in his in his hospital
sometime before this took place yesterday.
Terrence Lee Randolph.
03/30/1947.
12/10/2024.
Case it was unclear. That's Alex reading.
Today, we remember that freedom is not free.
We have to work at it, nurture it,
protect it, and even sacrifice for
it. May we never forget and always remember
our brothers and sisters who have served so
that we may enjoy the gift of freedom.
So in this moment, we remember and give
thanks for their dedication and selfless
service to our nation
in the cause of our freedom.
In this solemn hour, we read them our
honor and our gratitude.
You gotta be able to think about
it's crazy, Will.
This is a guy who clearly worked at
a VA hospital, clearly had respect for the
military and the people that within it. Does
that sound like a typical framing of a
a Democrat hating America, hates our troops, hates
all the you know, it's it's just it's
I'm so tired of these lazy
tropes and and and categorizations they use. It's
just not the reality today. There's some level
of truth to it in a slanting sense,
but it's just not the case. I think
it's less and less every day. The point
was that they wanna make this guy out
to be some radical leftist terrorist.
Seriously?
You know what I mean? Like I said
before, the one thing does not then prove
that no sir, anything's possible. But when you
understand all what we can see and look
at the video of the way it went
down, this is a person who was standing
up for the country.
In everything, it seems. He's standing up because
he believed that what they were doing was
wrong. What they're doing is wrong. Doesn't mean
violence should be justified against them, but the
reality at the end of the day is
he's standing up and out there knowing there's
a risk because what they're doing is wrong.
And that applies to every single American who
wreck who
who whose rights are being,
undermined because of what that's that they're doing.
And then he sits there and says, you
know, on the the whole the classic freedom
isn't free. Right? Which is something that I
even, I make fun of in the way
that it's used by the government. But what
he's ultimately saying right there is that and
it this is not, like, let's dismantle this
country. We hate it, which is a valid
opinion. You can believe what you want. Doesn't
mean you're a terrorist. The case is that
what he's highlighting is the opposite of what
they frame Democrats think.
Right? He's saying this is something we have
to fight for, that we have to work
at.
That just makes me sad. The people that
this person will forever
be framed as something he's not because of
maniacal,
dishonest people.
And it's just disappointing.
Thomas Massey, one of the very few people
in the in the in government that came
out and had the right stance on this.
He said, first, this is the same one
we showed you. If you approach law enforcement,
you might get shot. Okay. Thomas Massey says
carrying a firearm is not a death sentence.
It's a constitutionally protected god given right. And
if you don't understand this, you have no
business in law enforcement or government.
Simple. And this is why they hate him.
Here's what Peace by Truth had to say.
Massey support you. However,
you need to be objective,
which I believe he is, but you can
decide. There is an organized effort to attack
and assault law or, federal agents. Now that's
a valid point to consider. He says if
you engage federal agents violently, that's not what
happened. See, this is this is work, you
know, you you're buying the narrative that's being
sold without understanding it. Like, they put out
false videos about Renee Goode. The same thing's
happening right now. It says, if you're going
to,
if you engage federal agents violently and pull
your gun out, which he didn't do,
chances are the agents are going to defend
and protect aren't gonna protect you. Antifa is
a terrorist group. Okay. Clearly,
I get the sense this is an honest
person who's been misled by his side. Because
the reality is he supports Massey, not that
that necessarily proves anything, but that he's of
the mind, and he's wrong, that he, one,
acted violently, and, two, pulled his gun. Both
of those things are false. That's what everyone
from Alex Jones and all the rest are
screaming to people, still disappointed, it seems. Think
about that.
And so my point, though, is to consider
this argument, which is a fair point. I
do believe there is an actual organized effort.
You would I you might just you might
come to find that it's the side you
don't think it is. Or, really, just it's
your government. And the point would be that
the people you think you're fighting with are
the ones, at least in part, that are
creating the chaos to get you to react
so they can create their agenda.
It's classic policy, guys. But my point is,
do consider this. Right? That there is a
level of this, even if it's just the
Democrats trying to put people in there and
cause the chaos they can use to point
at the government. That's that is the classic
tactics I'm used to. I just don't think
it's only one side at this point. And
if it is, it doesn't invalidate your rights.
That's the last point to make here. Let's
just even say everything they're saying is true.
There's an organized Soros effort. Let's just even
say it's it's Walt and Omar trying to
cover this up, which Trump is trying to
claim. And that they organized this effort and
put these people out there. Okay. Fine. I
don't that's there's no facts to back that
up at the moment in this particular case.
But even if it was all true, that
wouldn't then invalidate his rights.
That's really how this has to come down.
If you have principles, you can acknowledge that
even if they did that, that doing the
wrong thing does not then make it okay,
guys. It's just childish almost. It's wrong because
what you did broke the law. What you
did violated his rights
even if it was organized.
Now here is a sheriff
speaking about what I'm not sure is this
exact event, but just generally speaking what ICE
is and what they're doing about at least
one recent example where they left the car
unattended. And I wanna show you this because
I think there are a lot of policemen
out there
on any side of the paradigm who have
values, who care, who actually believe in the
Constitution, who are saying, this is wrong what
they're doing, and I need to call it
out because they are people with integrity. Right?
Mm-mm, Maine sheriff Kevin Joyce on the disloyalty,
and he called it Bush League policing advice.
We've all seen the three minute video,
and I've heard some people say, oh, it's
it's hard to watch.
What was hard is
is that there were
five to seven
ICE agents there.
In my world,
my colleagues,
we've arrested
some dangerous people on the back roads of
Cumberland County
with three or less deputies.
Yet, this was a show of force,
a show of whatever they were trying to
do with seven people.
What's even more disturbing
Just a quick point at the same moment
where you get the Benny Johnson of the
world trying to tell you all these Antifa
people are a bunch of wimps.
They can't do anything. But at the same
time, that's why we need seven because they're
all trying to kill us, you know? Well,
even even wimps can come out and hurt
you. I just think it's a funny point
to make that either either dangerous and organized
or they're completely un you know, like, no
kings. That was their argument. Oh, they can't
even organize anything. That's why it wasn't bad.
Okay. Well, then you're countering your own point.
The point is that they're lying about damn
near everything for both sides, and that's why
that happens.
Is the comment made by the witness that
videotaped
this encounter
who said that in the three minutes they
got out, they pulled a guy from the
car, handcuffed him, put him in the car,
they all took off, leaving his car
with the windows down, the lights on,
unsecure,
and unoccupied.
And who's to say this guy was even
a criminal? More than often than not right
now, it turns out to be that's the
case.
They left it right on the side of
the street.
Folks, that's Bush League policing.
I really appreciate this because you see the
point is that why should we care? They're
a bunch of democrat.
Assuming you know that's the case, first of
all, it's so incredible how quickly people go,
well, they're bad. They told us. The government,
you mean? Right.
But realize that that's what we classically, even
if some even if you hate that person,
even if that's a murdering psychopath, the reality
is, one, leaving the car there, it hinders
other people too. That's you know, you're supposed
to care about that. But secondarily, it's just
the right thing to do.
See, doing the wrong thing because he's a
bad guy means you're just like them. But
if you know he's a bad guy and
you still do the right thing, that means
you have integrity.
Right? That you care about other things than
your personal emotional reaction.
But right now, that's what the Trump administration
is doing more than anything. It's coddling that.
Hate those people. Act emotionally. We're strong. It
doesn't matter. They're they're literally leading into the
worst
traits of humanity, the lowest common denominator.
Again, in my world,
you wait for a wrecker.
You wait for somebody to come pick it
up that the individual wants, or you get
permission to drive the vehicle into a public
parking spot and you lock it up and
you give the person their car keys. You
don't leave their personal belongings unsecure
along the streets of the city of Portland.
It's not fair to the guy that owns
the car.
It's surely not fair to the Portland police,
and it's what my understanding is is going
on.
I'll end with this.
We're being told one story,
which is totally different than what's occurring or
what occurred last night.
So next, I want to show you something
I found interesting.
So this is where I first saw this,
And I I was just curious what Grok
had to say about this, and I asked
it. I'm a I wanna make a point
about how you can't trust these platforms, guys,
which you already should know. But because I
often use it as a counterbalance to make
a point, I don't want that to be
seen as somehow supportive of this. I don't.
I've made my points very clear about that.
In the case of there is you know,
it's a line we draw. Right? And we
all do this for many reasons, different context.
The point is I do find it of
value, maybe I'm wrong, in using this to
sort of expose people that need to see
it from a side they think, you know,
might feel like it's Grok, they can listen
to more and so on. And if you
see that Grok says that Elon's lying, maybe
that opens your mind a little bit. I
mean, you know, you guys can decide. This
is fascinating to me. I said, is this
what I'll ask I was curious. What exact,
incident
was he referring to? And to see what
it would say. Guess what it says.
This post
and its featured video clip of a man
in US general's uniform. No. It's not. It
says, this post
where was it? Oh, this post captions it.
However, it says the attached video and visible
speaker
do not match the uniform and appearance aligned
with a high ranking military officer, not a
local law enforcement. And this platform frequently quotes
posts
videos of generals and officials criticizing them. Basically,
long form saying insinuating
without saying that that it's not real. It
looks contradictory, and it looks like, basically, they
have the wrong info, like, saying that it
seems like it's an altered post. You can
read the rest of it.
I just think that's and I went further.
And I said, it's actually real quick. Why
are you making that up? And he goes,
oh, I see. I misidentified the uniform. It
does need it is the obvious main police
uniform that that would I mean, this is
like before. Do you really think that you
can frame it as a main police chief
and they can that oopsie. We thought it
was not the obvious main police chief that
we later saw it as. The clip appears
to be for a reef recent conference.
You know, so I'm sure I think this
is really obvious of this platform trying to
subtly misguide you in ways that they can't
be like, oh, well, I was wrong. Hey.
Maybe it's just wrong. But I think it's
more than that. Here's the actual post if
you wanna check it out. It goes over.
This was January 22.
Okay. Let's get into the responses from the
government.
Here's what the Homeland Security account put out,
which you already briefly saw. As DHS law
enforcement officers were conducting a targeted operation, that's
what they say every single time, even though
almost all of them are not as far
as I can tell. They're just reacting to
certain situations. That's not my opinion. I mean,
I've proven this many times over, but everyone's
gonna disagree when they have an agenda.
Is that targeted operation in this case like,
I mean, okay. Let's take a step back
in what we just saw.
Now, okay, I guess what they what she'll
probably argue is that they were engaging with
the target operation over here. Right? So I
was gonna say that clearly that wasn't targeted
when this is a reactionary thing. But it
says, in Minneapolis against an illegal alien wanted
for violent assault and, of course, wanted. Again,
many of these cases turn out to be
not even the right guy or they'll stand
there and go, we were getting a pedophile.
You look into it and it turns out
to not even be true. They're they have
talking points they're putting out. That's not to
say that they're not arresting valid people. I
do think that is also happening. My point
is that you can catch them lying,
I mean, more than I ever seen in
my life. So it's worth considering they're lying.
Right?
An individual approached The US border patrol officers
with a nine millimeter semiautomatic handgun.
Seen there.
But that's not what happened. You don't say
that when somebody has they he walked up
with with a legally legal carry in his
waistband that was he had a permit for.
They didn't know that was there. So what
they're doing right there is trying to frame
it in a way that makes you think
they responded to his gun. The two officers
attempted to disarm him. That's not what happened.
This they're just straight up lying. They didn't
even know that was there until they got
into an ar the altercation with them on
the ground. So the officers, plural, did not.
One of them accidentally did this by accident,
like, by stumbling across it, as you can
see in the video. The suspect it said
disarm the suspect, but it says the armed
suspect violently resisted.
Same thing is said about Renee Goode or
the way they frame it as they tried
to murder the officer.
They're lying. I don't even think we need
to stress that to people who are honest.
Seriously. I mean, if you can't this is
the same point that Alec was making, that
we can watch the same video. I don't
think honest people are reacting differently. I think
there are people with agendas or people that
are blinded by their partisan side, and there's
everybody else. More details on the armed struggle
are forthcoming. The armed struggle. God, it's disgusting.
Fearing for his life and the lives of
the safety of fellow officers, they open fire.
But what do you mean fear for your
life? You didn't know there was a gun
until after the fact. So what did they
even fire at?
The sound of a of weapon discharging, which
very well seems to have been the officer
themselves? Medics on the scene immediately deliver medical
aid. That's a lie.
That I mean, guys, the the if they
I mean, I there's so it actually,
I get a physical reaction from stuff like
this because it's so dishonest. It's not the
fact that I'm on the side of the
other or that guy. It's about the government.
See, this is what's always got me going.
The powerful lying about the people that are
under them and the reality of them using
this. And it's not just dishonesty is one
thing. But when they're lying, when you can
prove they're lying, it just gets me. I
get it frustrates me.
The suspect also had two magazines and no
ID.
Okay. This looks like a situation where an
individual wanted to do maximum damage. Oh, it
doesn't look like that. Well, the evidence sure
as hell doesn't show that, and they already
knew that when they wrote this out. About
200 rioters arrived on the scene, protesters,
and began to obstruct and assault law enforcement
on the scene. Crowd control measures were deployed.
Situation is evolving. Okay. Here's what even Twitter
has to say. The man can be seen
holding a phone and approaching a woman who
was shoved.
You realize how insane that is that right
out the out the gate, Twitter is gonna
go, you're just you're making that up. Here
are three videos that we know you probably
already saw. When an officer throws him to
the ground, at no point is the man
seen approaching officers while holding a gun.
They're lying to you.
And this person says this too. Now we've
seen all the pictures. He was holding a
he's just some big dude standing up to
what he calls your little Nazis, so they
murdered him. You can decide if you agree
with the framing.
Here's Kristi Noem, also fact checked. Police confirmed
Alex Preddy was a US citizen with a
gun permit, and his gun was removed prior
to officials fatally shooting him to death. Now
it shouldn't matter that Grock agrees with that.
You could have seen it for yourself. We
showed you the video. But I'm willing to
bet there are some people that were thinking
otherwise even with the video we showed until
Grock said so or whatever this is. And
I find that frustrating, but we we each
have our wines, I guess. But video evidence
shows that Freddie never drew the gun.
Here's what but here's what Noam actually said.
Approached US border patrol officers with a nine
millimeter semiautomatic
handgun. Liar. The officers attempted to disarm this
individual Liar. But the armed suspect reacted violently.
Nope. Fearing for his life and for the
lives of his fellow officers around him, an
agent fired defensive shots.
Medics were on the scene immediately
and attempted to deliver medical aid to the
subject, but he was pronounced dead. He's basically
just reading what they put out on the
Twitter post. Right? There's something I haven't gone
over, but there was there's a post that
came out discussing about how,
Cash Patel and Bongino were basically, when Bongino
was still there, were in this argument about
exactly how they were gonna play out the
Twitter back and forth about some FBI breakdown.
I was gonna be like, I'll put this
tweet out and then you come and respond
like this and then I'm gonna say that.
And this is all coming out. It's all
confirmed.
And literally, we're yelling at people that were
trying to investigate this and ultimately, they were
more focused on how the Twitter breakdown would
go. You all know that that's exactly what
we know is going on. I mean, it's
you can look at these people and understand
that. I just think about how clear it
is that these are these are I mean,
they might as well be actors. And I
don't even mean that legitimate like, in the
actual sense. But that's something we should consider
in the sense of who's actually driving the
bus. But what I mean is they're just
LARPing. They're coming out live action role playing
is what they want this to be, and
they're just
failing.
It's hard to watch. But recognize how dishonest
that is from top to bottom. But they're
they circle the wagons every
time. Lie, lie, lie. Never admit you're wrong.
Sue everybody. I mean, that's what they're doing.
At the scene,
the suspect also had two magazines with ammunition
in them that held dozens of rounds.
As they tend to, But sure, makes it
sound worse when you list it all out.
He also had no ID.
This looks like a situation where an individual
arrived at the scene to inflict maximum damage
on individuals and to kill law enforcement. I
was I was wondering, like, look at the
two behind her. What are those two people
think?
It's never it's never smart to just assume
by their faces, but look at them. You
know, it's like you get the sense sometimes
it's like everyone around them knows what's going
on.
I think they do. I don't think everyone,
I don't even think close to the majority
are the kind of people they are. And
that's uncomfortable. It's worth considering.
About hundreds of protesters
then showed up at the scene. They began
to obstruct and to assault law enforcement officers.
We saw objects being thrown at them, including
ice and other objects,
and a rampant assault began, and even an
HSI officer agent's
finger was bitten off.
Oh, my god. And, you know, just think
about where we are right now. Like, even
if that's actually true. The idea that we're
at a point where you guys are acting
you are an an unaccountable lawless force. Eve
you have to understand even and I'm never,
I repeat, never advocating for violence
outside of you defending yourself. I just mean,
like, extent I'm never going, you should respond
to violence or go out there and hit
them in the face because I just don't
think it's in your interest. Even if I
might do it personally, that may be the
case in some parts of my life. My
point is that in the moment for us,
it's wrong to do that. Rather, it's not
gonna be on our interest. But even if
that's the way that went down, my point
is in the law of this country,
it's roundly upheld. You have the right to
like, if if if, like I said before,
if a police officer does something illegal and
if if a police officer comes in and
kicks your door open
without any identification,
you have the right to defend yourself. If
a police officer comes in your house without
telling you and tries to shoot your family,
well, that's more obvious, isn't it? You have
a right to defend yourself. The point is,
if there's a legal barrier, if they're breaking
the law and and, again, I don't wanna
make it sound like I'm advocating any kind
of action against police officers. My point would
be no matter what it is. Police officer,
government official, anything. If somebody comes in illegally
and breaks the law, you have a right
to respond to that. That's and this is
why they've upheld this with, for example, being
pulled over on the side of in the
middle of a highway where no one's around.
Well, there's examples of police who or people
pretending to be police who take advantage of
women, right? So the law is clear that
if you don't if you're not comfortable, you
can go someplace where you feel comfortable. That's
up. Even though they none of the police
officers are gonna want that, they're gonna say
you're evading arrest, you're allowed to do that.
And that's the same thing with the with
the front door and and the law. If
they're breaking the law, you have a right
to react. I'm not saying even the reaction
should be violent in the sense of killing
somebody. But in this case,
if they're there doing something illegal, which we've
established that they are, people respond to that.
So is biting off their finger the right
thing to do? No. In my experience, my
my feeling, but you have to point out
that by responding to an illegal force, there's
a different circumstance than just radical leftist who
hate the government, who are fighting, up and
you know, upstanding law enforcement. It's not what's
going on. So So when you have these
examples of the law being broken and people
respond, that changes the conversation.
You could decide. Court law can decide. But
what they're saying is wrong.
Crowd control measures were deployed to bring safety
to the public and to law enforcement at
the scene. And once again, I wanna remind
everybody
that this situation and this tragedy did not
have to happen. You're damn right it didn't.
So going forward,
he says, Brian from high impact flicks, pretty
much everything she said is a lie. She
really wanted to look like being armed with
two full magazines is some sort of criminal
act. Notice how conservatives, as he writes it,
are creating a situation where armed Americans are
guilty until proven innocent. That's what I think
Dan was saying, right, Or, remember, there was
Ryan, actually. That by default, essentially, you've created
a situation where the second amendment no longer
matters.
Because it's it's there. Right? But they can
go, but, asterisk, you know, we argue you
were in this situation or because of what
you posted on Twitter and that you have
a, a
a license for the gun and therefore we
have to react differently, they're doing all this
stuff. And in this case,
creating a situation where they can argue because
you have it, even if it's legal, that
they can rationalize the action. Then that means,
in effect, it doesn't matter anymore. They can
always find that loophole. They're doing that everywhere.
Fourth amendment, second amendment, first amendment, everywhere.
It's not unique to the right.
Now, Brian Allen post this, Minnesota just sued
Kristi Noem.
Probably go nowhere, but at least it's something.
At least somebody's out there trying some action,
impeachment, whatever it is,
to sue him over, sue her specifically over
Alex pet Pretti's shooting, and it's a constitutional
gut punch, she writes. Minnesota's Bureau of Criminal
Apprehension and,
Hennepin County attorney
say federal agencies blocked the state from the
scene, which we know, took control of evidence
and witnesses, and then refused to turn anything
over to Minnesota so Minnesota could run its
own criminal investigation. Now this is where the
argument comes in. Well, it's all Democrats controlling
all the maybe.
Okay. If you actually think that, then why
wouldn't they take this opportunity to prove that
to you right now? Why wouldn't the Trump
administration or whoever is making the argument for
why they're not allowing the state to investigate
prove this? It wouldn't even surprise me if
you came out and showed that every one
of them are involved with a criminal conspiracy.
I mean, this is what's so frustrating is
that most of us are going, yeah, probably.
But they're not proving anything. So then you
get this situation where Republicans who wanna believe
their own side are going, but if they
can't let them, because they'll just cheat and
lie. Maybe. Probably. But if you want that
to be the reality, then lay some evidence
out where we can all bite into it
and expose them. This is why I keep
showing you that nobody's ever gonna go to
jail because it's all narrative.
Even though that's I think they can prove
in most cases that there is criminal activity
going on.
It says, and here's the part that should
set off every alarm in the county. The
complaint alleges DHS didn't just lock Minnesota out.
They allegedly let the scene collapse
while evidence was still at risk.
Guys,
this is a cover up. And this is
the reality of what we see in many
of these examples where the the the last
one we saw, where the the woman was
shot five times or seven shot times five
holes as the guy said. They drove they
drove the car away that was engaged with
hitting her because they rammed into her. You
can see it on the video. They drove
away and they never came back. And there's
there's more than one example where they're covering
up evidence. They're withholding information.
And it says Minnesota's arguing you don't get
to investigate yourself in secret after someone dies.
At the very least, fine. Let another state
do it. Let some independent agency investigate, not
the government. They're never going to allow that,
guys, because it's quite obvious. I mean, look
at this.
Just a still shot of what we were
talking about. Spraying this person, hand in the
air. I mean, they tackled him after this.
They murdered this guy. I mean, there's just
really no way around that. That's not a
hyperbolic term right now. Negligent murder is what
this
is. Now here is, I forget his name,
Bon Bon Bovino.
The point I was laughing at is they
put out a a, a, like, a video
meme of him singing the Lollipop Kids song,
which I'm sure drove him bananas because these
people are all so insecure when it comes
down to it. But, you know, at least
as, like, what what I think I can
see in the way they act, pounding their
chest because we're so strong is usually the
weakest person in the room. But either way,
my point was just I think I think
it's I'm glad to see people like that
put in their place as they're out here
break violating the rights of Americans and claiming
they're saving you. He shamelessly lies.
And I'm just gonna play this next one
to make the point, but here is what
the
Twitter fact check says. Video shows Alex Prudy
permitted US ICU nurse,
permitted as a permit, filming with the phone
in both hands when agents pepper sprayed and
tackled him. Gun holster removed while pinned, fatal
shots followed.
Contradicts the claims of approaching with a handgun.
They're all lying to you guys.
These people are just the new
enforcement arm of the country, and it's not
what anybody asked for.
So what's interesting, I could just play it
for you right now, and it's identical, but
why don't you just play this one instead?
Guess what? It's identical what they're saying. As
David Icke says, both are apologists to murder,
and the fact that they are okay with
that reveals why they got their jobs.
Here they are. This might as well I
mean, this like that. They're a threat to
our democracy. Part of the media, same deal.
Vigil approached US border patrol officers
with a nine millimeter semiautomatic hand semiautomatic
handgun.
The officers attempted to disarm this individual,
but the armed suspect
reacted violently.
Now fearing for we could go through it
all, but my point is it doesn't shouldn't
surprise anybody. Like, even maybe you don't even
think it's wrong. Like, oh, they have a
report that they listed off. Okay. It's all
false, though, and they're lying about that. And
they almost know that at this point, and
they did it anyway.
Pretty crazy.
What I think, honestly, is even more crazy
is the response of people out there.
Here's Stephen Miller, first of all, though, before
we get into that.
He says a would be assassin tried to
murder federal law enforcement. That's how we frame
this. This guy's always pushing the envelope because
my opinion,
this guy is straight up working for a
foreign power. That's my opinion.
He is, in my opinion, on top of
that, actively trying to bring this country to
its knees.
You decide what you want. It's completely my
opinion. I just can't stop seeing as this
one guy, they'll all say one thing and
he takes it. You know what it feels
like the same as what I've seen in
the past? It feels like when Israel goes
to to back to Israel and screams the
the thing that The US doesn't want you
to know. So they come they make an
agreement. The US comes back and says, it's
okay. We did it this way. And Israel
in The United States says the same thing.
That Netanyahu will literally go back to Israel
in international media where we can all see
it and say the thing that makes Trump
look stupid. Say the thing that makes The
US look weak and controlled.
And I and then nobody does anything about
that. And I always point that out. It
feels similar. Where except now it's happening here.
Well, look them out and be like, we
did everything this way, and it's all, you
know, whatever. Somewhat even though it's a lie,
at least somewhat measured. Then he comes out
and goes, this would be murdering assassin, democrat,
thief, datenah. It's always like that. Tried to
murder federal law enforcement.
We have eyes. None of that actually happened.
And so the official Democrat account sides with
the terrorists.
I mean, just embarrassing.
This is why I'm of the mind that
most conservatives aren't are just going, just stop,
man. Like, this is embarrassing for all of
us, and a lot of them are now
very much calling it out. Here's Twitter. Videos
of the encounter show the gun was never
drawn. The weapon the same stuff. It's all
the same thing, and they just lead these
up. They keep going.
Automatically labeling Americans killed by ICE as terrorists
is the Israel Israelization
of The United States.
That's exactly what this is about, guys.
Stephen Miller, also.
An assassin tried to murder federal agents, and
this is your response.
What was the response?
One, ICE must leave Minneapolis. Two, Congress should
not fund this version of ICE.
Right. I mean, you could disagree with his
standing, but that's pretty measured. And in response
to shockingly illegal action, yeah. Makes sense. And
it says no evidence has been released to
support the allegation of assassination attempts. It just
doesn't matter.
And Robert Barnes says unfortunately see, because he's
he's defended him pretty strongly in the past.
Unfortunately, Stephen Miller lied.
Why would you say unfortunately?
Call him out. Right? This kind of lie
will badly hurt the administration's credibility on a
range of other matters. Really? Like, he's lied
about damn near everything. This man is a
toxic, toxic,
you know, virus, whatever you wanna call it.
This is this man is hurting in everything
he does what you actually believe.
That's what I see anyway.
Deserved to be called out a hell of
a lot stronger than that. Here, kim.com
responding to JD Vance. JD Vance says this
level of engineered chaos is unique to Minneapolis,
hardly, and it's not even remotely as what
we've seen in the past. But is it
engineered?
It could be, depending on how you look
at it. It is the direct consequence of
far left agitators working with local authorities. Oh,
okay.
I mean, first of all, the claim that
there's far left agitators, in a general sense,
is real. Like, there's far right agitators. They
exist everywhere. But is that what this was?
I haven't seen evidence to prove that. But
he doesn't care about that.
How about working with local authorities? Now you're
claiming they're working with the police? I would
love to break that story down, if if
especially if it was Democrats there doing that.
That's a huge story. But guess what they've
never given you? Any shred of evidence to
back that up.
Engineer
Kim Kim says, how did they make the
ICE agent pull the trigger against an unarmed
pepper sprayed American on the ground? Guys, they're
drowning in this right now. Kim is a
large
largely I mean, he's been more nuanced to
some degree, but he's largely supported the agenda.
You have no and I could be wrong
about that. Let's be clear. I don't follow
every one of their work extensively. I'm just
taking on what I've seen as we're passing,
so bear that in mind. But I think
mostly what I've you know, I think it's
generally accurate. I'm pretty sure he's largely supported
some of the the the Republican side of
this, Trump and so on. But like I
said, he's he's been critical in some ways
too. You have no political future in The
United States, it says. No money Peter donates
will change that. But I hear you write
books.
Now I like to I'd like to believe
that's the case. Frankly, I bet you Vady
Vance becomes one of the next presidents, despite
how I agree with him, which shows you
we don't influence the outcome. Hopefully, we're starting
to recognize that.
Here's what Trump had to say.
Now there is a fake post going around
that that
now for all I know it was deleted
and then it's being lied about, you know,
but the the fact check says that it's
not real. I couldn't find it on true
social. It's one that makes Trump look like
it basically says you have a gun, you're
a criminal, which wouldn't surprise me, to be
honest. They're basically saying that, but it pretty
strongly goes against what they were supposed to
say as a conservative. Right? But the claim
is that's not real. Here's a real one
from True Social. This is the gunman's gun
loaded with two additional magazines,
exclamation mark. This is a conservative. Don't forget.
And ready to go. What is that all
about? Where are the where are the local
police? Why aren't they allowed to protect ICE
officers? Why do ICE officers need to be
protected? They're armed officers who are far more
violent than anybody we're talking about. See, it's
just about it's about creating the narrative that
they are the ones that allow them to
be at risk, even though they met they
created the entire situation. And
plenty of conservatives are calling that out. The
mayor and the governor called them off? Question
mark. Is that did they?
I think they did, which is funny, but
the way he phrased that. But the point
is, why would that be necessary?
The lies they keep spinning about the thousand
percent increase, which is now, what, I think
up to, like, 8,000. I'm serious. Different people
say different things. It's all based on Homan's
statement that's never been verified. There's no evidence
to back it up. And most of the
cases you can point to are them in
some way instigating violence.
And it says, it is stated that many
of these police were not allowed to do
their job, that ICE had to protect themselves.
Okay. I don't understand what you're saying. Do
firemen need other firemen to protect them from
the fire? I don't understand what you're saying
here. It says, not an easy thing to
do. Why does Ilhan Omar have $34,000,000
in her account? That's a good question. I
make the same point. Why do you why
have you gained $2,000,000,000 from being in the
presidency so far? Why has Pelosi you know,
the point is they all enriched themselves.
Yes. It's insane to me that Ilhan Omar
has that much money after you know, I
get there's disputes about what she really had
to begin with, but what they posted shows
very little money in the beginning. And now
she's got $34,000,000
That's insane. That's criminal.
Because they're enriching themselves based on those positions.
And just because everyone does it does not
make that justified. I agree. But that does
not then suddenly mean everything you're pointing to
is real. This is a game they play,
guys. And where are the tens of billions
of dollars that have been stolen from the
great state of Minnesota? Yeah. Good question. Aren't
you the ones supposed to be doing something
about that? Didn't you guys tell us you'd
arrest some people? You can't keep pointing online
like you're just some independent observer, Trump. You're
in charge. Do something. Arrest somebody. You don't
you blame Bondi all you want. She works
for you. At the end of the day,
I haven't seen one person arrested of consequence
in any conversation, but let's keep pretending like
we're winning. Right? We are there because of
massive monetary fraud. I I believe that. Then
do something about it. Billions of dollars missing.
Legal criminals.
Keep talking. Do something, please. Anything.
We want money back. Where do we want
it back now? See, they just skip past
the part where you've shown any evidence or
investigation and just demand money. And if you
don't, then you're proving you're a criminal. Like,
it's just it's childishly lazy.
This is no different than the big bank
robbery. You mean like you just did with
Venezuela?
Much of what you're witnessing is a cover
up for the theft and fraud. There we
are. That's the big point. Okay. So now
we've skipped over all the fact evidence part
of it and just went to, well, the
fact that this is happening,
even though we're driving most of it, is
because we're trying to cover it up. Okay.
Probably.
I don't even think that really, but my
point would be certainly possible.
Not that they're not breaking the law, but
that this is somehow, you know, organ which
is not that far fetched because of what
we don't, you know, talk about usually that
things can be created to distract from others.
But if you look at the facts, it
doesn't line up. They're the ones largely kind
of, like, clumsily causing this, which is not
what anybody seems to want. And at the
end of the day, if you're claiming they're
covering it up, then give us something to
prove that. Like, if right now the claim
is they've got evidence that they're breaking the
law, then why wouldn't they go arrest them
right now? Why wouldn't Waltz be in prison?
Or at least being charged with a crime?
Then bringing them in for subpoenas about something
basically unrelated
does not mean anything. Or even if it's
not and they ask all these questions,
that means they don't have any evidence. That
means they're on a fishing expedition to bring
them in to answer questions about their own
crimes. You think they're gonna do that?
It's just frustrating. It's so clean. It's it's
self evident that people have been watching this
and don't fall for the partisanship.
The mayor and the governor are inciting insurrection.
Oh, here we go. Back around with that.
With their pompous, dangerous, and arrogant rhetoric. What
they're saying, by the way, and I don't
support them because I think they're just as
much part of the problem, is exactly what's
happening. You're breaking the law. You're violating the
constitution. The same constitution that they would violate
if they were in that position, by the
way, but they'll happily point to it right
now.
They are not causing what you're doing. Instead,
these sanctimonious, political fools should be looking for
billions of dollar okay. It's the same old
roundabout thing, nothing of consequence.
But they're committing fraud. That becomes the talking
point, which is all over the mainstream alternative
media.
Chairman
representative garb,
Garbanio
has formally requested testimony from ICE
border patrol and the USCIS
leaders at a full committee hearing. How much
you wanna bet they just ignore this?
Quote, Congress has an important responsibility to ensure
the safety of law enforcement and the people
they serve and protect.
It's a big deal, but I doubt it
goes anywhere. I mean, they they don't seem
to be able to enforce on anybody, even
themselves. They could do this just becomes a
a nonsensical continuation of pointing fingers.
But I I agree they're breaking the law.
The point would be this will be called
a political move. It'll be called partisan. In
some ways, it is because they didn't care
when the other side was doing when they
were doing it, when they were in power.
You know, it just but at the end
of the day, I'd love to hear what
they have to say. But how much you
wanna bet they strong-arm them? They they stand.
They won't that's what I was saying before.
They will not admit the person's name. They
won't, probably, even under oath, deny or refuse
to admit who the person was who killed
Alex.
Unless I'm missing it and it's already out
there, please let me know. I wasn't able
to find it earlier. So let's end with
the most unimportant part, but yet the most
embarrassing part.
All of the very obvious manipulating people out
there who are still trying to pretend they're
fighting the deep state and fighting against the
illegitimate government power while literally building both of
those things.
Alex Jones.
Exclusive.
Yeah. Oh, breaking exclusive. Even though at 6PM
and has been shared by 75 other people,
but breaking to you alone. Right? See video
analysis proof that the latest ice shooting
are the armed agitator
was justified.
That's Alex Jones.
The guy fighting for your constitution, he says.
The guy defending the second amendment, he says.
The guy fighting the power in deep state,
he says.
Alex Pretti is seen reaching for his holster.
Guys,
insane. Like, let me understand. Even which is
not true. It's been this has been broken.
His own audience is calling him out. But
if you understand,
even if that was the case after you
had been attacked, pepper sprayed, tackled, and you're
on the ground, what what's legal about this?
That's what I was saying in the first
place.
They're breaking the law by doing all of
this. As if if there's not a legal
justification, you're a citizen attacking a citizen.
People have riots. Doesn't mean you should draw
your gun right there, but that's not what
was actually even happening. But my point is
even if it was, this is still Alex
Jones
boot looking, parading, literally bowing to what the
government wants.
It's pathetic. Oh, look. Derek, I didn't even
see this. Derek says, the more of a
belligerent statist you become, the more people see
you for what you are. A sellout.
You literally warned us all since February about
the rise of the police state. You warned
Americans would be labeled domestic terrorists. You warned
about a scientific technological
dictatorship.
Now it's here, and you're literally cheering it
on.
You're out of your mind. Now I actually
just think it's what he was meant to
do. I think that's his role, sadly.
And David Icke says, Alex Jones gets down
on his knees before a picture of Trump
and post this. Mister anti state tyranny
has long become a propagandist for it, an
utter disgrace.
No way back here from Alec. No way
back from here, Alex.
Only other Trump, Miller, Musk worshiping sycophants are
listening anymore.
I agree. Now it's worth pointing out that
I've been making these points for a lot
longer than a year, I think. But since
the beginning of this administration and before, about
him, about others, about the change, about the
awareness of where we are. It was my
opinion. But I think, hopefully, you're starting to
see if you're new to this platform, like
during COVID or any other situation,
that because of our balanced, objective, nonpartisan perspective,
there's a lot of us out there, I'm
the only one, you'll find that it's very
easy that we'll break through in the beginning
of most stories. And not even because we're
have access to more information than anybody else.
Sometimes we do because of work that we
put in.
But, really, just because there's so few of
us out there that are at this level.
So many of these mindless I mean, David
Icke is one of the people out there
calling it out, and he's got a huge
platform.
But he still doesn't get the the view
that he should in the moments where you
need to see it. That's how this works.
The people like Jones who continually get it
wrong, while everyone claims it's always right, ultimately
get projected higher.
Oh, this is, Katie said this in the
chat earlier.
The same people who defended Kyle Rittenhouse are
condemning Prady. Think about that. What a perfect
point to make. Right? The same ones that
were out there, you know, which by the
way, he should have been defended. I agree.
I believe in that. I believe the sense
was and look. You can even see the
way it broke down, the way that he
kind of was crying in court. This was
just a kid. I think he got taken
advantage of. And I think he was out
there legally with his firearm and got a
situation occurred, and he defended himself. And you
could argue that he unjustly acted. That's a
different point.
We we can all that was a little
bit more you know, there was there was
a situation that took place and there becomes
more argument about whether it was more of
a the bottom line was that if you
believe that you are under threat and you
are holding legally that you have that's your
choice to respond potentially with legal force. The
point would be you have a legal right
to if you are actually being threatened. Right?
I mean, this is the way it works.
The the end of the the point is
that if you're out there defending him, and
now you see the situation where a guy
is not even he was not even literally
holding his weapon, being killed in the street,
and now you're I mean, it's just it's
shocking. Like, I mean, hard to imagine levels
of hypocrisy.
Now,
Alex Jones again
responds after this.
After he posted this. Clearly,
you know, flailing with people calling him out.
Because I mean, you could look for yourself.
I mean, look at the,
where's this one?
Oh, this wasn't the one. Well, there was
one I was looking at earlier where he
was, like, crazy ratioed.
Says, to be clear,
read what I posted below.
He reached for his holster. He didn't.
We are not saying the gun was still
on him when you can see he was
removed in his footage. I mean, are you
actually joking right now? Your argument is that
his hand went to where his holster would
be after the gun was gone, after there
was I mean, by the way, I disagree
with that too. I think what you can
clearly see the entire time is the opposite
of that. But he now he's just this
is what this looks like to me is
Jones grappling. Like, he's like, oh my god.
This is such a negative like, people called
him out. You look for yourself. His major
supporters are going, really, man?
So this is him trying to move the
goalpost.
I didn't mean he had it or he
I meant that he was still reached anyway,
but that wouldn't even change the reality of
it. And secondly, I don't even think that
happened. He says that action alone of him
resisting
resisting what? He wasn't being arrested. He was
sprayed. They tackled him. It was a I
mean,
yeah, I don't even need to do this.
I quite frankly think that most everybody looking
at this are is just embarrassed for him.
And it says, and reaching for his holster
is what led him to getting killed. That's
what he just argued. All in capital first
letters for some weird reason.
This is the rhetoric of Democrat leaders
calling for civil war. Oh my god. The
only people actually calling for exactly that are
people on your side,
whatever you think that is. And armed uprisings
against the federal government. I mean, okay. Can
somebody please point to me? And I'm sure
it's out there. But where are the people
with the level of reach and following of
these people out there going, let's overthrow the
government?
The most of the people I see that
they're calling doing that are the Democrats out
there saying,
this is legal. This is what the government
just did to crime. And literally beginning to
basically support the second amendment. And here's Alex
Jones doing the opposite.
And, again, it says right here, video of
Prudy holding a phone, not reaching for his
holster, when federal agents tackled and pepper sprayed
him. An agent removed his gun from his
whisk waistband. I mean, even Twitter is going,
you're wrong, bud. You're wrong. And he doesn't
care.
David Icke says, I have been saying for
years that civil war was the goal to
divide and rule and justify military crackdowns. And
do you think that's more likely or less
when Trump's Gestapo is killing Americans?
You have only one eye, Alex Jones, and
it's not all seeing. It's the left. It's
the left. No. It's the cult working through
right and left. I mean,
you know he has the ability to consider
the most obvious point in the room. He's
he's, like, painfully ignoring the gigantic elephant in
the room. But he go Alex continue or
excuse me. David continues, but that doesn't fit
the narrative spewed by the psychopath
you promote.
Tragic to see what has happened to you,
and you have doubled down so often now
to defend the indefensible
that you have no way back to credibility
among anyone except the same ever diminishing mentality.
Alex,
David Knight calls him out.
One of the many who have fled from
his ridiculous platform that have continued to speak
out about how nobody checks any sources and
how it's always been manipulated. I mean, it's
it's not a secret, guys. Ask any of
them from Greg Rees to David Knight to
any number. I mean, Owen Shroyer at this
point, but, you know, there's differences there. But
the boy would be from, I mean, the
the Burmese's of the world, the Grinch Groves
of the world. They'll all tell you the
same thing.
Alex Jones is the one, and he says
he wasn't reaching for a gun. They shot
him after they took it took the gun.
Alex Jones is the one reaching for excuse
for the police state to murder gun owners
just when you didn't think Alex could stoop
lower. From documentaries warning about the police state
to cheering it on, I regret I ever
worked for lying, traitorous, opportunist, and shill. Alex
Jones. David Ike has pointed out what controlled
opposition Alex has revealed himself to be.
Intense.
Here's what he said in response, doubling down.
Right? So this this one says video evidence
proves the ice shooting of Alex Purdy during
the ice rioting in Minneapolis rioting. Of course,
he's he's not objective.
Was justified.
He says meanwhile, crazed antifa rioters are now
literally biting off the finger. See how this
works. It was it literal?
Who's to say?
I mean, I I don't know what happened.
I mean, I'd I'd I've I looked a
little bit when I saw this going around,
but I don't see anything I can prove
it with. But my point's the same. If
somebody ran one random maniac bit his finger
off, that doesn't then make everything you're doing
illegitimate. That'd be the same as somebody, I
don't know, I mean, off top of my
head, you know, waving a Nazi flag at
a trucker rally and then blaming everybody for
being Nazis. Didn't you also call that stupid,
Alex Jones? Yes, you did. But you're a
hypocrite. Everyone can see that. This person says,
how was it justified?
And he goes, I noticed you have Abraham
Lincoln in your profile. You must not know
your history.
What a deflection.
Are you ever embarrassed? It says. What do
you what do they have on you, or
what are you selling your soul for?
He says,
I stand with ICE and their constitutional
mandate.
I don't think I don't know how that
can get any more clear.
I simply said remember this because it will
be important.
Victory Jin says, imagine claiming that you needed
to hoard guns in case the federal government
attempted to invade US cities. Then when it
happened, you rooted for the federal officers, justified
the broad daylight execution of an unarmed citizen,
and still pretend that you are defending the
second amendment.
Now whether you agree with the first part
of the the framing, hoarding guns to defend,
you know, that's arguably what many people have
said, including, Alex Jones, which is some level
of the reality, which is really what it
was about defending against a tyrannical government.
But think about how crazy that is, guys.
I mean, it's worth pointing out. Here's Daniel
McAdams
hiding what's,
pointing what Sean here said, McCarthy. American right
wingers be like, of course, the feds were
justified in executing him. He owned a gun.
It's just it's just incredible where we are.
And Daniel McAdams says, rightly, there is no
American right wing. Now I it's depends on
how you mean that. I I would take
it as, like, the the team sport politics,
like, mainstream GOP. Whereas I think there's plenty
of conservatives who identify with certain values but
aren't blindly adherent to the party line. Right?
And even then,
pretend like they are when Massey is more
so doing so but call him a Democrat.
It's weird. But he says it's completely demolished
under a mountain of boots that have been
licked.
But, hey, that border patrol dude has a
snazzy SA style uniform, so it's all good.
I wonder if somebody posted it.
It is actually pretty wild. It's Bovino. Right?
Uniform.
It's it is it's it's just, like, straight
out of a good a movie.
Now it's just oh, there it is. Perfect.
Look at this, guys. I mean, is this
not, like, straight out of some kind of
movie of the Gestapo or, you know, some
kind of Orwellian future?
Clearly, this guy has a complex, I think.
It's all he's clearly I mean, projecting his
strength from and it says the opposite to
me.
But here is a clip from Nick Sorter
saying breaking. Yet another angle shows now deceased
leftist
agitator,
Alex Prady, aggressively resisting arrest. No. They say
whatever they want you to see in it.
And it says, Adam, at one mo point,
Petty seems to be attempting to jump on
the back of a protester.
What?
This is Nick Sorter, ladies and gentlemen. These
are the people that the administration has leaned
into. These are the children in the room.
And I mean that in every possible sense,
other than literally.
You guys, we're talking about people that are,
like,
willfully dishonest, people who will come out and
and cheer on the small I mean, that
doesn't even matter. These are people that are
showing themselves to be childish and naive and
blindly adherent to whatever the team says. Just
like exists on the left. Broflakes and snowflakes,
same thing. Propaganda and Co says he isn't
resisting. He got pepper sprayed in the face
while trying to protect the woman that was
aggressively shoved to the ground. He slips and
eventually falls because he went the ground is
slippery and ICE agents aren't grabbing him from
different directions. Now whether that's exactly what happened
or not, hard to say. But he was
not doing something that they he wasn't being
violent. He wasn't trying he he basically got
sprayed, fell to the ground, and then they
dove on top of him.
It says while on the ground, he covers
his head to protect himself from being beaten,
which he was. Then an officer sees his
weapon, probably yelled gun before taking it. I
haven't been able to confirm that, prompting the
other, people to fire at him in panic.
He does not deserve to be killed, but
Nick Sore was out there cheering it on
like it was some football game.
Here's Tim Poole.
He says, holy s h I t. Could
this have caused the the shot leading agents
to believe he fired on them? As Tim
grabs on to what's going around online, and
and Max acts like he discovered it, and
post the image of a p p three
twenty SIG. Okay.
And he has a, a tendency to fire.
Okay.
He goes, is it possible? Sure. Anything's possible,
Tim. You this your effort is to go
could it have been his fault?
Is it possible when agents yelled gun then
grabs it, SIG discharges due to deflect other
agents due to the blah blah blah. Okay.
Bottom line is,
oh, it's weird. Hold on.
Didn't I have didn't I have something? Oh,
I guess not.
Didn't I have a caption? I thought I
had something on there. I guess not. Anyway,
the point was this is about trying to
bring this to the level of
yeah. So this this oh, that's what it
was. It was down here. So this person
says no. Firearms expert here. Who's to say
if it is or not? But you can
do your own due diligence. The firearm was
20 plus feet away in the hands of
an ICE officer when in the gray jacket,
which is true. You can see that in
the video. So you see this is Tim,
as usual, either not doing due diligence as
usual or just framing it the way that
whoever's asking him to, whoever's handling him to,
whoever's paying him to does so.
You could see it. I now I saw
the it took me twenty seconds to find
the information around this, and I looked through
the videos and I went through this. And
I researched it all morning before doing the
show. It's easy to see right away that
you can see multiple angles and prove that.
It says it was not dropped. And after
the shooting, you can hear that officer saying,
I have the gun over a 100 feet
away.
Please stop, Tim. This was a bad shoot.
Tim's trying to rationalize why it was okay.
The point, though, is that if he did,
which you can see it, I showed you
in the video, have this gun, only one
of few things is possible. Either he accidentally
fired it, which is what I was considering.
Right? That's what I was saying in the
first place. Or somebody else just popped off
a shot for no reason, and then others
fired afterward because they didn't know what's going
on. That makes sense with how bad these
people are trained or how ideologically driven they
are. But here's what he's here's what Tim
said today. Or she yeah. It was today.
It was at 9AM today.
Trump needed to invoke the Insurrection Act a
long time ago. You know, civil war, Tim
Pool, who can't stop pointing at civil war
every day seems to be the one trying
to drive that. As somebody recently said, anybody
calling for their incident Insurrection Act, they were
convinced is trying to create civil war. I
mean, what are we taught? Insurrection Act? These
people are the most un American people in
the conversation.
In in a in a tech in the
point of, like, the principles we rep the
values we have in this country. These people
are trying to destroy this whether they realize
that or not. Of course, he he
cites can Higbee.
One of the one of the obvious influences
being paid from Israel. That's not my opinion.
He went there. He was one of the
people in that room, and these people are
very clearly promoting these agendas.
Now you can go through this if you
want. I'll actually include it in the second
down those down the they're they're showing you
things like this.
Basically, report like, so we have to understand.
ICE is breaking the law by not identifying
themselves, by not preserving warrants and a ton
of other more serious. Those are just the
obvious kind of ubiquitous ones. Those alone justify
people watching them, justify people following them, justify
people trying to prove who they are.
They're not they're not protected by what they
think they are when they're out there willfully
violating the law. I'm not saying be violent.
I'm not saying dox their personal address. I'm
saying you have a legal right to know
who they are and what they're doing in
a official capacity. That's your right as a
citizen.
These people like Tim don't care about that
or are too stupid to know that. In
this case, can't make these out there going,
oh my god. He infiltrated these signal chats,
which, okay. I don't think they were even
trying to keep it out because at the
end of the day, you could look. I
I'll I'll show you his entire feed. It's
basically going here. They're here. Look. Here's his
license plate, which is your you're you're trying
to prove who they are. That's your right.
Oh, my God. Look. They put a piggy
symbol underneath it. They must be terrorists.
These are snowflakes, guys. How embarrassing for you.
And the Insurrection Act? Because not clearly on
foot walking the dog, so had to leave,
but confirmed to in front seats,
watching police officers. Yeah. I mean, seriously?
Cop watching has been a thing for the
ever since I've ever been doing this. It's
always been upheld because it's legally allowed jurisdiction
and to call back if they hinder public
safety. What are you pointing to to argue
Insurrection Act?
That they're there and they're Democrats.
This guy is a joke, man. A lot
of these people are showing themselves to be
what we've always told you they are. Now
in response to Tim saying,
people should not be willing to arm up
and fight federal agents dispatched by duly elected
government. It's not what it that's not what
happened.
And he literally says, We won.
We want ICE enforcement. You have no right
to get guns and try to stop us.
Us? You have the government now, Tim? I
mean, guys, these people expose what they really
are every day. This is democracy. You are
fascists.
I mean, he's a caricature. Half the time,
I feel like he's almost over, like, maybe
in a way, trolling the conversation.
Maybe that is what he's doing, but that's
not how it gets taken by most people
that support him. And, ultimately, it's just a
cartoon of even the conversation that's being had.
You're the fascist know you're the fascist you
get a joke.
Every part of the government right now is
acting the same way is a covid or
is it what they're doing now it's all
the same thing guys. People like this keep
you lost in the middle.
And Dylan rightly says, we won is the
most childish phrase in politics, and the fastest
way to announce you have no idea how
power actually works. Well said. Thought I shared
that earlier. He says, you didn't win anything.
You were useful.
You were mobilized and emotionally leveraged to help
an apparatus secure control, and now you're being
rewarded with the illusion of participation
while decisions are made far above your reach.
Tim Pool is not the government. He is
not there in the room. He is not
setting policy. He is a mouthpiece whose job
is to translate state action and tribal reassurance
and keep his audience compliant
by believing they're victorious.
Well put.
People like Tim will cheer for a machine
that would turn on them without hesitation, in
many cases, has in the past,
convinced it belongs to their side simply because
it borrowed their voice on the way up.
It's incredibly sad to watch. Very well put.
Here's Nick's order. Breaking leftist rioters in Minneapolis
are now chanting burn down Fort Snelling, which
is the location of ISIS facility.
They're declaring a kinetic war on the federal
government. Guys, this is worthy of making fun
of people like this. I mean, even if
that's actually what their plan is, are you
gonna pretend that them saying it in a
low big public location is their plan to
invade the I mean, come on, guys. It's
stupidity. It's as stupid as pretending that January
6 was a planned invasion. It's an effort
to drive that by the government.
This is pathetic. As Ryan Grim says oh,
he goes on to say, send the troops
before it's too late. These are the guys
fighting the deep state, guys. That's what they
want you to know. This these are the
guys defending the constitution.
Send in the military.
These are the guys stopping the globalist over
I mean, come on.
It's never been this clear in my entire
life.
And as Ryan Grim says, the troops are
already there, bud.
I mean, it's just insane that we just
we're just beyond pussy comatatas and and the
march military, martial law, police state that Obama
would sneeze hard. They'd be like, martial law.
And here we are with the troops marching
through the streets with the Gestapo, and we're
like, yay. Freedom.
So saying look. Yeah. Look. They said burn
burn down the fort.
Okay. I I I don't agree with calling
for violence. But, I mean, what's the what
this is something that happens constantly within the
both sides. And then both sides point to
the other and go see, they're the one.
When it's if if they are doing what
they're saying, I don't mean in this case,
but just in any context, at the end
of the day, you're the useful idiots.
Both Nick, as a useful idiot, and the
people chanting that. Both of you are allowing
them to be used to make this childish
game in the middle where they just use
you to justify their action, whatever side you're
on. But, yeah, Nick, a kinetic war. They're
threatening a kinetic war. Does anybody actually believe
that? I don't think he believes that.
It's embarrassing.
And Matt Walsh, because he's doing the same
thing, he says, if you dress up in
your militia costume, arm yourself and then go
out in the street with the express intent
of interfering because, yeah, we can prove his
intent. How often do I make fun of
that? Anyone trying to tell you what they
know he was thinking, feeling, intending
are stupid and deserve to be laughed at,
or rather, dishonest. Because I don't think Matt's
stupid. I think he's dishonest and he's trying
to pretend he knew what this person wanted
to do. Even though the evidence of the
information in the videos show you the opposite.
But let's just even take the first part.
Okay. If you dress up in your military
costume.
Is that what he is that how he
would frame the militia on the right? That
he would frame the different organized groups that
have a right to exist because the constitution?
Or is it only when it's a lefty
doing the same thing? Even though it's not
even what he's doing, by the way. Do
you see how he tries to belittle that?
These people are dangerous. Whether they know it
or not, they're actually very, very rapidly undermining
everything that they were defending a second ago.
Arm yourself, which is you're right, I thought.
Right, Matt? Right, Matt? And then go out
into the streets and express intent of interfering
with law enforcement, as if we could prove
that. Secondarily, if law if law enforcement's out
there murdering people in the streets, hypothetically,
kicking in doors out warrants, hypothetically,
then you would have a right to interfere.
Right, Matt? These guys don't either don't know
what they're talking about or are dangerously trying
to destroy it. And then fight back when
they try to arrest you, which didn't happen,
and then you end up dead. You only
have yourself to blame. Think about what he's
saying. And for that whole surge of deliberate
and insanity in our decisions. Right. So you're
also a victim blamer. Okay.
Propaganda and co says observing is not interfering.
You could be killed for simply looking at
ice and Matt Walsh will justify
it. And the same guy, observing. Don't be
an idiot. Like, just this kind of dumb
response
when that's quite literally what's happening. And they
themselves have said that doing so is is
impeding.
Snatching the phone out of their hands go,
didn't you learn? Or the one saying, now
you're on a terrorist list.
The people like Justin down here, whether a
bot or not, which is certainly possible, if
he is a real person, they don't care
about any of that. They can't because it's
all out there. It's all very public.
You'll post it down there and they'll call
you a liberal. You know? The reality is
there are rights and principles. Whether you're on
the left or the right, there are things
that are enshrined by our you know, they're
outlined by our constitution that these people usually
act like they believe in, except when it
doesn't work for their agenda against a certain
side.
Jack Posobiec, of course, because he they're all
doing it. There's only one example. Tons all
day long. They're all doing the same thing.
He comes out and says, Petty Petty was
conducting an illegal armed roadblock.
Think about how insane that is. This is
Bondi level. No. He wasn't. And it says
to obstruct ICE operations.
Did you did did not have an ID
or carry permit, but he did, though. You
see, Jack's lying to you.
ID is irrelevant.
Carry permit? Yes. He did. Engaged officers? No.
He didn't. And violently arrested resisted arrest? No.
He didn't. Now here's what I think. I
think people like Jack don't even look at
the information.
He might even genuinely think this is what
happened because he's buying his own BS. He's
leaning into the circle that he otherwise you
know, or the CIA or whatever it is,
is getting an information that he thinks he
can trust. Whatever the narrative is or whatever
the back and forth is, he's wrong.
He's shockingly wrong and doesn't care to back
it up. Like, this is from this morning.
You think he doesn't know that by now
if he happened to be wrong in the
beginning? Doesn't matter.
As Robert Barnes says, Jack is lying here.
The officers instigated everything. He didn't roadblock anybody.
That's not even in the conversation.
He never brandished his gun once. He gets
he calls getting pushed assaulted and murdered as
him having engaged officers.
Embarrassing propaganda slop. Oh, look. I didn't know
he responded. Check it out. He says, go
ahead and watch the full video. Yeah, Jack.
We all have, bud. You're back in 9AM.
Long past that right now. He goes, he's
right there in the road, destructing operations before
he engages the officers. No. He's not. Guys,
everyone has the information.
Everyone's down your posting. He doesn't care. Don't
know how else to put it, my dude.
I just it's blow it's this is because
they know even when wrong, if they just
keep doubling down, they'll win some people over.
Wild.
Here's Laura Loomer, of course. If you resist
arrest, you'll likely be shot. Just a lazy
interpret lazy kind of use of what everyone
else has been saying. It's just it's just
what do you mean? Anyway, it's not even
she's not even worth engaging with. Like, these
people she's like the dumbest down version of
everything else that's been happening. Barely even in
the right path. You you would think people
would know this by now.
That says what she that's what she's got.
Even though none of that actually happened. It
just looks to me like he was being
beaten, which we all saw. Execution is not
the punishment for resisting arrest. You see, that's
my point. Is she just lazy with it?
So now now if you try to run
away, you get shot in the back and
it's their fault. If you resist arrest, you
get murdered in the street. Neither of those
things actually happened, but that's the best they've
got.
These are stooges for the state.
Sean Davis, unfortunately, says Trump needs to take
the leash off and just allow,
but,
and not just allow, but encourage law enforcement
to be far more aggressive and violent towards
rioters, which means anybody since they call everybody
rioters and terrorists.
Does this guy really think this, or are
you just not able to see how this
will be abused?
He says, more aggressive,
nonlethal
violence. Oh, yes. Because that makes sense. Right?
You just saw what happened. This is from
yesterday.
And you're telling me that you want more
violence, but nonlethal, though. Explain for me how
that more from what we just saw is
anyway nonlethal since they just murdered somebody.
At the outset, reduces the likelihood of deadly
violence being used later on. So be nonlethally
violent, very extreme, in hopes that doesn't boil
it. I mean, that's just that's not even
logic, guys. That's just dumb. That doesn't even
make sense. If you come in with violence,
it will cause violence.
They know that. That's a policy for them.
If Renee Goode had been punched in the
teeth, he says, and dragged out of her
car, she wouldn't have been capable of running
down a cop, which literally didn't even happen.
January 24, that's what he's still saying. Is
he buying into the fake information, looking at
Megyn Kelly's altered video? Or is he just
not caring to even look, or does he
know and doesn't care?
And they wouldn't even need to shoot her.
Great. So your response is that somebody should
be punched in the teeth and dragged out
of the car because you don't like what
they're doing?
These are boat liquor authoritarians, guys.
It's pathetic, and it's painful. How many of
these people are out there who in other
in many cases had correct takes about plenty
of other things, like during COVID nineteen?
Now here's this. Here's Cam Higbee showing you
this bombshell.
We suspect an observer was shot and has
been taken to the hospital.
Okay. Well, that's happening. And it says, I
cannot stress enough, Ryan Grim writes, how stupid
some of these people are. This is the
brain trust of this goon squad. You found
people texting about news and developments?
Yes.
Alex said or Camby's Cam Higbee says, Alex
Pretti on signal conspiracy
in the highly organized anti ice rapid response
signal group. That's how he's framing it. It's
a chat with people who are protesting, and
you could look at it for yourself.
He says, we suspect an observer got shot.
Observers are are what they call ice chasers
and okay. I I mean,
dedicated to hunting down agents, harassing, and well,
that's how you sure frame it. The reality
is observing as the word makes it.
If Tom is correct, the situation is significantly
worse than we initially thought.
Man, you're talking about the fact that they
just shot one of those people observing, and
you frame this as their conspiracy because they're
observing that?
That's just straight up desperate, guys. This is
Cam Higbee. It's the same person.
And here, if you wanna look at it,
like I said, here's the whole damn thing.
You can go through every single one of
these and be shocked to find out that
it's
looking at their where they're going. Here's what
we can see. There's a dispatch. There's a
license plate checker who's scanning our license plates
with the flak camera, which is unconstitutional.
I mean, you go through it. It's painful,
guys.
Sharing our, or our Bloomington patrol zone map,
which is loosely based in the city.
I mean, these are people who are legally
required to identify themselves, who are not, and
they're trying to do that. And apparently, that's
terrorism. That's the gnome, bondage, stupidity level of
where we're at. Can't make me just doing
what he's told, I think. And it's just
pathetic.
None of this is even a problem, let
alone a crime. It's just crazy what they're
trying to do. Now as Kim rightly points
out, I I Israel trains ICE. They do.
And many clear overlaps despite what they keep
trying to tell you. And as we know,
Israel shoots first, blocks ambulances, calls the victims
a terrorist.
It's a car it's a cartoon he's showing,
but it's real, which we'll end with this.
Couple points.
Play the short version of this yet again.
Army veteran and whistleblower Anthony Aguilar, who went
to Israel, who proved that they were working
with ISIS elements, who proved to you that
he watched them kill children. Didn't change anything,
apparently. They're they're still literally Netanyahu's on the
board of peace, for crying out loud, for
Gaza, a Gaza of which has no in
inclusion of any Palestinians.
I'm just I'm just blown away some days.
Remember, here's what he told you on on
January 7.
The suspect all oh, that's right. I didn't
play that one because it was identical. But
here's this one. Come to your neighborhood.
Think again.
I have been to Israel where ICE agents
and DEA agents
and other three letter agencies
train
with the Israelis,
and they bring those tactics back here.
No
justice.
No peace. No justice.
You know you know what's actually funny about
that? Like, right there. No justice. No peace.
Whatever you think about where that comes from
or who's driving it, I guarantee you there
are average people there that they're just with
that, believe it, think they're and rightly so
are calling out a crime. Right? They frame
that statement as terrorist or as paid agitators
and antifa and okay. Because they say no
peace. They're fighting for violence. Is that what
it means? Or does it mean until you
give us justice, we're not gonna let you
ignore this?
It could be both. It could mean all.
It could be somewhere in the middle. Because
anybody who's not a completely blind partisan follower
is gonna recognize that that's how that works.
There can be people that go out there
and yell, you
know, treason and could intend to murder somebody.
And they could break it's treason and mean
it as you go to jail. Right? You
can always interpret it the way that you
want it.
The truth is they're breaking the law. That's
what matters here. If you're gonna extend this
out into the person trying to call them
out for that and criticize the way they're
doing that, well, you damn well better acknowledge
the crime first. And sure, if they're doing
it in a way that is illegal, call
them out too. But to skip over the
crime and say they're doing that in a
way that makes me uncomfortable and probably means
terrorism, you are exactly what you've always been
fighting. You are the bro flake to the
snowflake. You're the same conversation.
Families
are suffering.
Every day on the oppression
that we export,
we bring it right back
here.
Look around.
We are the ones suffering.
Children in Gaza are suffering.
Fathers,
mothers,
families
are suffering.
We bomb boats off the coast of Venezuela.
We blow up Colombians in fishing boats and
say, oops.
If you don't think that won't come to
your neighborhood,
think again.
Now, I'm gonna end with another clip from
him. But first, I wanna show you a
couple of things that I added on toward
the end. This is the clip I'm gonna
play at the end. It's another new one
I had seen where he's talking about similar
things. I think it's a good thing to
consider at the way out. He simply well,
I'll I'll do this and I'll read it
at the end.
I'll, how do you say that? Olia?
Scooter rak rasker, not familiar? Simply says, this
is today, this morning. Protesters standoff with border
patrol and ICE agents during attempted raid at
City View Apartments in Minneapolis. Now there's probably
a lot going on right now across the
country, and for some weird reason, hyper focused
on Minneapolis.
I think it's obvious why, but
all I'm trying to highlight here is that
off the back of something like that, such
an obviously unjust action that is then being
completely supported by the government, what do you
think people do?
I'm not saying it's rationalized or justified to
go out there and commit violence or do
something illegal in response. In fact, I argue
it's never the right thing to do. But
you have to understand, at what point does
this become the justification?
Same thing the right was saying. Right? They
stole it all. We should brush it and
steal it back. Okay. Well, even if you're
right, doesn't that seem like that was used
against you? Yes, guys. This is how this
works. So don't take the bait, first of
all. But I just want you to think
about, even whether organized or not, that average
people,
especially if they're all,
you know,
numbed out on antidepressants and whatever else the
world is being suffocated by, or, you know,
with a lot of things that are driving
other things going on or just psychological manipulation.
My point though is that you're out here
doing something wrong. And some people eventually are
gonna rationalize doing it back, which we shouldn't
support them. We should call out too. But
that it's something you can understand. And on
top of that, that you have people that
might start taking a little bit more violent
tactics because what they're doing is illegal. And
even then, you're forced to have the conversation
that, well, it that doesn't make what they're
doing illegal if they're simply but and I
don't wanna advocate for that. But you have
to understand, this seems like they're trying to
create this this area where they can then
look. They're turning the streets into a war
zone,
which they can then want each side points
at each other, and it never stops. And
what do they get from that? Well, they
get the easy rationalization to do whatever they
want next
forever, apparently.
I just don't know why that I mean,
this, at the very least, has to be
obvious
in in, like, in the history.
How many times has happened? So at least
consider it today. And so I'm showing you
this because I'm just showing you that there
is more engagements going on. They're not stopping.
At some point, this is gonna get even
worse. And that's the only fault here is
of the police enforcement.
Now here's an interesting point. Mario Noffel says,
AOC obliquely compares Trump to Hitler. Okay. Well,
it's not that difficult to do today. It's
also not too difficult to do with Biden
or Bush or Obama, but you can clutch
your pearls and held, oh my god. They
see they said fascist. They wanna kill everybody.
Well, here's the clip of Trump saying fascist
75 times against Democrats. Here's a clip of
Miller saying fascist. Oh, yeah. They it's very
easy. I can bring it up right now.
So when they do this, they make it
out to be there. That's gonna cause violence.
We'll same deal each way. And both times,
it's the only person's responsibility is the one
who commits violence.
It's funny how both sides are the ones
saying words equal violence, even though it used
to be the thing only Democrats did. Well,
what's important to me, not what she had
to say. I don't I think most of
these people are very problematic.
Is that what they're saying is history shows
us that mass movements have mobilized to protect
us against fascism and authoritarian. You know, we
need to stand up and push back is
what she's doing. Okay. Well, guess what?
The authorization,
the DOD, five two four zero point o
one, to use US military lethal force against
you, US
citizens, on US soil
was issued under Joe Biden.
So I just wanna end with this obvious
point that hopefully hopefully brings this home.
Is it sure? Maybe even AOC believes what
she's saying. Maybe she doesn't even realize that
she's part of this left right paradigm line.
I don't think so. I think it's clear
that most of them know this.
But what I'm trying to say is that
so here here she is playing the rebel.
Right? We need to stand up to what
is obviously wrong, what Trump's administration is doing.
Just like when the republic Republicans were standing
up to what was obviously wrong from what
Biden's administration was doing. That's how this gets
played. So you always think you're on and
right now even, they're trying to keep themselves
feeling like they're the rebels while they're in
power. I think that's where they've lost their
step here. But what I'm trying to show
you is that they play this back and
forth on both of us. So if we
can recognize that the force that Trump is
currently using to quell you
was given to him under the Biden administration,
then you have to realize this is a
ongoing evolution of the government narrative to get
you in a certain position to
carry out justify.
Right? Give them the excuse for the agenda
that they want
as the government.
Historically, guys, this has always been the case.
I just hope we can start not just
asking these questions. I think that's already happening
at the, possibly the majority scale, but start
to actually have these conversations
in a level, like,
bring it to the point of a congressional
conversation if you have that power. Right? Bring
this up in front of people that can't
ignore it. If you're a huge plot if
you have a massive platform out there,
talk about it. Make this a conversation because
it needs to reach the rest of the
population.
And on top of that, we just need
to start being honest about what's actually happening.
These people are committing crimes. I mean, right
in broad daylight and just yelling the opposite.
These people need to be in prison. Quite
frankly, hopefully, we can lead that to a
place to where we can, you know, discuss
why government needs to exist at all, but
that's difficult for most people. But I'll leave
it there today in general just to recognize
guys that using what they're doing, they will
pit us against each other. And we'll wake
up in a new world that they've reimagined
for us before we even realize where we
are. And I believe that's what's happening right
now. So So thank you for continuing to
support this platform. Thank you for continuing to
fight for the truth.
I love you all. As always, question everything.
Come to your own conclusions.
Stay vigilant.
When tyranny becomes the law,
rebellion becomes our duty.
We can no longer stand
for what's happening in our cities
with federal state police.
In 1940 Germany, they had a name, Gestapo.
And someone has told me, well, that's not
fair, and it is because that's a German
name for secret state police.
When police come to our streets and they
cover their face and refuse to give their
name and are impugned to any laws and
impugned to any investigation and they can shoot
and kill an American in our street without
recourse,
that is a secret police.