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.
Wednesday, 02/25/2026.
Thank you for joining me today. Quite a
lot to get to. A few updates on
stories we've been covering, like glyphosate, for example,
and and health related focuses that have that
come up that you might find very relevant
that are
interestingly overlapped with the neuroscience
conversation,
ties back to MK Ultra, actually a precursor
called Project Artichoke,
coming out with some documents. It's been there,
but it's out and being discussed, which is
relevant for quite a few reasons to what
we often discuss on the show.
But a lot to get to today.
Depending on time, we might have to put
some of it off, but ultimately, we're gonna
be covering glyphosate.
And what what we already covered for you
in the in the previous show, which was
that the Bondi DOJ
is
essentially trying to shield
specifically the glyphosate
related Roundup lawsuits,
but from, you know, Bayer Monsanto
and shielding them from liability regarding the cancer
lawsuits.
I you know,
there's no way you can put those two
things in the same conversation and argue that
you're in any way trying to roll back
a problem, but just have to do it
the smart way and then that.
And on top of the fact of Trump
making it a national security imperative that a
conversation about
producing it domestically,
it's just it's it's a it's a stretch
too far, and honest people are calling it
out. Honest people can see it. You either
don't want that in your food supply or
you or you're okay with it there for
narrative. At the end of the day, if
even if they were in some way,
like, taking their narrative, which is not necessarily
false that they've deliberately made it so we're
dependent on glyphosate,
if they started to, in some ways,
slightly move it back but said it was
gonna take a really long time and they
were showing you measured steps, I would even
go, okay. I I prefer it be now,
but we you know? But it it's happening.
That's not what we're talking about. We're talking
about The US, the government the US government,
Donald Trump's administration
deliberately
siding with Monsanto,
siding with glyphosate,
and then people like RK Jr. And others
deciding to just
walk back their previous lifetime of work against
that. I just don't it doesn't make sense.
We're gonna get to that topic. We're gonna
talk about,
some some, larger points that relate to Epstein
that are connected to the interview I did
with Cabork and L. Maisie. We'll point those
out when we get there. Some some
additional,
additional points to the Epstein conversation that you
might wanna see, some corruption points that I
know are gonna be very important for the
larger conversation, and then the larger
I'm gonna touch on the State of the
Union, but not for a very long period
of time and not for the reasons you
might think. I mean, maybe some of them,
but just I'm not gonna go through that.
I find it to be, like,
incredibly irrelevant today. It's a bunch of yelling
narrative from one team versus the other, and
rarely is it ever rooted in truth. We're
gonna talk about Iran and Mexico. Again, somewhat
somewhat depending on time. But I wanna I
wanna discuss about the obvious looming
what is this? Like, take 75
of how they're gonna
kind of build the momentum of trying to
go after Iran for Israel, and then sometimes
it happens, sometimes it doesn't. This has been
a long term, obvious, never ending agenda.
And the only reason it's so frustrating, even
more so, I guess, now, is because Trump
at least claimed to do something different and
then still didn't.
But then Mexico and the cartel overlap, which
is very important, but, really, a lot more
to get into. Each one of these stories
has some additional points that you'll wanna see
that I I I doubt, in a lot
of cases, these things are being covered in
most places today. So let's start with a
a humorous point
that you will wanna see that it's just
you know, we I I guarantee you.
I mean, I certainly you know, who knows?
Maybe because we always I've I've always thought
that because we always all of us, a
lot of us are constantly calling out the
absurdity of the most important election of our
lifetime and how it comes up every time,
that you'd expect them to just maybe stop
saying it because it becomes very obvious that
it be caught. But yet it happens every
year. I mean, in fact, ever or rather
every two years.
Midterms, presidential. Every sing I mean, as far
back as I can look, and I'm not
talking about one guy online, but
the the both sides of the paradigm, the
the mainstream alternative media screamers or whatever you
would have called that back before we were
highlighting it as what it is today,
every time. And so just humorously enough, I'm
waiting for it. And, oh, you know what
I realized? I was searching for it earlier,
and I got distracted, and I didn't finish
searching for it. I bet you that there
are examples right now on Twitter and elsewhere.
If you have one, send it to me.
Of somebody,
commentator, you know, the the typical partisan players
out there already starting to say it, please
tag me. But here's what Mike Johnson put
out or just Aaron Rapport sharing his statements
saying if we lost the midterms,
heaven forbid, if we lost the majority in
the house by the way, they have the
majority everywhere. It they the most power you
can hold in this government. If we if
it would be the end of the Trump
presidency in a real effect.
I I mean, what does that even mean?
Not at all, really. It would simply mean
that they now have the majority, and they're
still it's the same thing that happens every
it's just like it was in the past
situation. And you arguably said it was the
greatest administration in history. It's just very insulting.
And as I said, go ahead, Mike. Just
say it. The most important election, if that's
what you mean. Right? That's what you're trying
to say. Just wait. We're months away. It's
going to get more ridiculous day by day.
I just wanna make sure we saw that.
Now I wanna start with updates on glyphosate
and the health side of this. I'm gonna
try to do some of this reasonably quickly,
but you know me, I'll forget I said
that in twenty seconds and follow into the
story. But I wanna just I wanna get
to the larger foreign policy points. And now
you guys I I've already covered some of
this stuff up until now, so I don't
wanna give too much coverage to the updates
on it. But I you know, me, I
find this very relevant. I mean, out from
a global perspective, obviously, I think the genocide
and foreign policy I mean, these are world
shaking events.
But I the the health side of this,
and even more particular because of being an
American in this country,
whatever they're tooling with, I mean, all the
different elements, the nanotechnology
and the health, the vaccinate, I mean, actually
terrifies me. And I'm not saying that from
an irrational sense.
What they're doing is alarming.
Anyway, I just so that's why I feel
like this really does deserve so much attention.
First of all, don't forget Trump's new $2,000,000,000
WHO proposal.
They're adding to the lie of fighting globalism
as they're literally building another global model as
well as the the
UN
adjacent or rather UN equivalent, Board of Peace.
That's what this is. This is the reimagining
of our society. At least they're trying. And
then, of course, remember, he the the legislation
that the White House supports is shifting funding
to go to the state department so they
can yet again fund Gavi. It's all very
public. I've covered all of it very clearly
directly from their documents.
Still gets ignored, apparently. But
health side of this. So those two included,
just to keep your mind where they're going
and not going. Oh, and the other one
was the FDA.
Basically, they recently walked back the food dye
ban.
All of these things are huge because they
were the ones that you got. We did
it. He stopped this. He defunded that. He
pulled it. Nope. Apparently, none of that's actually
happening. None of any of it, it seems.
On the glyphosate side of this, we recently
covered this. This was two, four, five days
ago. Trump ignores Maja by ruling glyphosate national
security imperative despite obvious health risks. And the
interesting way that, you know, you got RK
Jr saying it's dangerous and even still saying
it's dangerous, except we need to because, you
know, economy. That's what he's arguing.
And yet then you get people on the
on the Trump side of this who are
out there going,
it's not dangerous. You're lying. The science is
ridiculous. Why are you trusting Democrats? That's but,
you see, that's not even what Trump's team
is actually saying. So it's weird how quickly
people will argue what they believe the team
needs even when it's often not what the
team is saying. It's just what I'm trying
to show you is the, like, blind effort
to dive into the argument even if what
they said thirty seconds ago was the exact
opposite. Print lack of principle. It's everywhere, and
we all know this is dangerous, guys. It's
been a very common conversation.
The studies they point to come from Monsanto.
The studies they point to come from the
groups behind and and the real point is
the
EPA. The WHO and every other group you
could point to and our own scientific studies
in the past have shown us dangerous. Now,
the EPA recently comes in, not recently, but,
you know, in the sense of this conversation,
and it's, oh, no. We don't think it's
carcinogenic.
Now let's talk about the EPA. Let's talk
about Bayer, and let's talk about why that
seems that's the case. Maybe it's because it's
packed full of lobbyists from the pesticide and
herbicide conversation. Maybe it's because Trump's administration is
packed with people from Bayer, as well as
any other profiteering corporate night. It's it's the
same as always. It is Citibank and Obama.
But that's never just the one thing. We
know that there's the in Israel conversation. There's
technocratic discussions here. There's all what I'm always
highlighting is this government, guys, it sold out
to the highest bidder a long time ago.
The old joke about the NASCAR, presidents today
in The United States should wear NASCAR stickers
on their jackets like a NASCAR car because
that's what we're really dealing with. It really
is the truth. This is not something we
should even be debating.
It's possible to work it back to where
we could you know, so it's not that
ridiculously corrupt,
you know, my opinion. But I think it's
important to realize that that's why all this
is happening,
why it's not just Israel or just this
because it is just an a free for
all
of a very powerful militarily you know, everything
you know about The United States. So let's
get into what's currently updated from what we
last discussed. Now here's a clip from Massey
from yesterday.
And interestingly shared by Children's Health Defense because
I do wanna get again shout out Children's
Health Defense. I've had my criticisms since they
somewhat parted away with, parted away as RFK
Jr.
Because I felt like in some ways, they
were kind of trying to give them the
benefit of the doubt, and, you know, maybe
that was justified. I'm just you know me
where I'm coming from with that.
But I do I and I wanna shout
them out here like I did a few
times ago because they are taking good stances
right now. And they even though they know
it's gonna be uncomfortable because this is essentially
RFK Jr's platformer that he was the face
behind it. All I'm saying is shout out
to them for having the courage to make
these points.
Thomas Massey warns that all three branches of
government are under siege by lobbyists and lawyers
from a German company named Bear.
Now it's just one company, mind you, and
this is a really big deal. But it's
just one sliver of a gigantic problem that
has basically stolen this country from the American
people. And that's lobbying. Right? But it's only
one mechanism in that large problem that these
entities are using. That's I mean, this is
how multifaceted this really gets, but this is
one small part within that part that shows
you that we have lost control.
Check this out.
Madam speaker,
I rise today to let the American people
know that this government is under siege. All
three branches of this government is under siege
by lobbyists and lawyers from a German company
named Bayer.
And a 100,000 others, by the way, including
APAC and Israel, you know, on and on
and on. Don't forget that.
They spent over $9,000,000
lobbying
the executive branch and the legislative branch so
that they don't have to be liable for
any damages
that their herbicide causes, otherwise known as Roundup.
And they're having some success. Now they haven't
had any success yet in this chamber
to get that immunity. They've had some success
in the state legislatures,
which are also under siege to get this
immunity from liability.
Look. The constitution guarantees people a trial if
they've been harmed.
Why are we
contemplating going against the constitution?
The attorney general has opined favorably for this
German company in front of the Supreme Court
about getting rid of any liability that they
should have for any damages.
And
the most recent thing that we've seen, the
executive branch. By the way, the president's chief
of staff and the president's attorney general worked
for one of the lobby biggest lobbying firms
that's received
hundreds of thousands, billions of dollars from Bayer.
And maybe that's why we've seen an executive
order
that says that the production
of this chemical from this German company
is a is a national defense priority,
and we know why they're doing that. It's
to keep them from having any liability.
Everybody in this country deserves their day in
court.
This is wrong.
We shouldn't succumb to the lobbyists not Remember,
the reason he's saying that, guys, is it's
about the the the in case you missed
that point, it's about the government's responsibility on
top of the company because there is a
government
collaboration here. But even if there wasn't, this
has been allowed and continued despite the evidence.
And, you know, again, the real thing is
that there has been a government you know,
this is not just them buying it from
a company.
Bayer, Monsanto, these things are it's like most
of most else happening in this country. It's
blended with the government in a lot of
different ways. And so what he's saying is
if you if this really came out like
I like the same point I make about
dioxins or PFAS or anything that you could
prove is so ubiquitous. Glyphosate.
That's the point, guys.
It is so ubiquitous that
if we actually started coming down with this,
you know, coming if everyone became clear of
what was happening, the government will be on
the hook for, I mean, who'd
an unending amount of lawsuits. So so would,
like, Montano and Bayer and and a lot
of other things when you dig into just
the it's not just glyphosate, by the way.
The executive branch, not in the judicial branch,
and
deserves their day in court.
This is wrong.
We shouldn't succumb to the lobbyists, not in
the executive branch, not in the judicial branch,
and certainly not here in congress.
Man,
real quick, update.
Looks like
in our, like,
I'm not sure if it's both chats. It
looks like in YouTube, there most of our
people are just being blocked from commenting right
now.
Wouldn't surprise I mean, there's a there's a
lot going on right now, it seems. I
keep there's a lot I'm not gonna get
into it all since this is just off
the top of my head, but there's things
going on that I'm noticing that seem to
be different today over the last couple of
days. And I'm just noticing I'm I'm getting
comments from you know, couldn't post the links,
couldn't go in couldn't comment in the chat.
You know, just it seems to me that
there is a level of concern about awareness.
You know I think that. I've been saying
it for a while, but just right now.
And just, you know, again, could just be
a glitch. Who's to say? But isn't that
interesting? Take note of that. Apparently, in go
look at the YouTube chat if you want.
If you are still happen to be in
the YouTube world, there there's only four comments.
There's plenty of people watching. That's in general
well, in general sense, by the way. A
lot of people who are watching are not
watching on YouTube, essentially watching sort of, like,
through the platform, for example. But either way,
that's interesting. So let's continue.
As Massey's pointing out,
And
Kentucky statesman makes a point. Here are Bayer's
top institutional investors. Do you notice a pattern
with all the companies that are poisoning our
food supply? And they're right, by the way.
BlackRock Vanguard. Now I'm not very familiar, I
don't think so, with this account. I don't
remember. They follow me. Maybe I do remember.
Oh, you know what? I do think I
remember this account. Either way, I don't wanna,
you know, assume I know what their content
would be like. My point would be, if
this was, I don't think it is, if
I remember correctly, a partisan account,
then the question would be, do you then
also hold account do you do you make
the same
point about Rumble
or, I mean, Trump's administration and Larry Fink
and BlackRock in, like, holding Trump's hand right
now? You should.
If you don't, well, then it's a partisan
one-sided point. Right? But if you do point
make this point and you're calling it out
everywhere, well, then you have integrity. You have
principles. And I I I remember I think
I remember correctly that this is one that
was calling these things out. Either way, regardless,
the point applies to anybody everywhere. It matters
or it doesn't. It can't be only when
it matters when it's about the Democrats or
whatever. You know what I mean? And it's
so constant, this conversation.
More most often, if you look, Rumble, two
of the leading investors or shareholders,
I guess, are BlackRock Vanguard.
They won't call that out, but they'll call
it out if it's a tangential subjective point
about anybody else as Democrat, they being the
mainstream alternative media.
Now the important point to understand, and this
does speak actually, I'll come back to this
in a second. The
interview I had with Camargo Maciain was a
great interview. I enjoyed the conversation about his
the larger point being the the big conversation
of what's going on in the world,
the reimagining of everything, but it came it
stemmed from his article about the network above
Epstein.
So keep that in mind about the the
larger,
nonpartisan,
all of government,
really, all of, you know,
the what you would argue would be the
real governing structure of the way the world
operates, the the way the power functions in
the world.
And the point being, it is not government
and voting.
Maybe it was at one point, but I
think people are beginning to very, very clearly
recognize that if it is a part of
it, it is not the driving force that
actually dictates policy and how the world operates.
International law? Clearly, guys. I mean, I'm not
even to say that means that that it
doesn't mean it's that it's not important or
that there's not people within that community that
totally care about it. What I'm saying is
if you look at what's going on in
the world, you can see that it doesn't
matter enough.
That there are
things in place, but they can commit genocide,
people can commit war crimes, they can go
and do whatever they want, and then people
can call now for it, and everyone could
acknowledge it's against the law, but then nothing
happens. There's no actual mechanism through which action
takes place. I'm not even advocating for that
necessarily because from a global perspective, I'm not
sure if I think that's what I want.
But it's important to point out that there
is something that is sort of stalled where
people are recognizing that the system we've been
shown is not the way things work. And
this goes to every administration I've ever seen
in this government. And, globally, probably the same
point.
Tray, tracing Bayer's ties to power in Trump's
Washington. This is news from February 24.
Now like I said, one of the most
common remembered points was Citibank and Obama because
it was really, really clear how they essentially
just bought their way into the administration, but
that's kind of always how it's been. So
this point's important not just for Trump, not
just because Republicans are bad, but because the
government has been bought out and is is
at least for sale. And I think that's
important for lobbyists, for corporations,
for the future of the way our government
operates, but also for foreign policy and governments
with very, very dark agendas that will use
that same mechanism.
So this is,
again, The US right to know
about Bayer buying Trump's administration, essentially, and you'll
find it very revealing who are the people
that are the, basically, the taps. White House
invokes the and, I didn't even know this,
by the way, invokes the Defense Production Act.
Not that it's it's a it's, in a
way, somewhat of an irrelevant point for the
fact that it's happening. I shouldn't even say
it like that. But it's happening basically to
a guaranteed supplies of elemental phosphorus and glyphosate.
Right? We read that whole executive order.
I don't remember him mentioning the Defense Production
Act unless I missed that, which is probably
by design if it wasn't in there because
that's an important point to make about, I
don't know, COVID nineteen
and Donald Trump initiating that very act that
I told you at the time was basically
production martial law, and it was,
no. He's the good guy. Democrat's the bad
guy. Well, think about this. Here we are
again using
Defense Production Act, which is a you know,
this is a sort a shortcut, a circumvention
of the re like, this is like saying
we're gonna skip constitutional rights because process or
because time and immigration.
And just in an analogy sense, it you're
circumventing the re the way it should pro
should work for the argument that we need
to do this because of the where we
are. But we're only here where we are
because you guys have forced us into a
position where we're now reliant on that, so
you say anyway, to maintain the current system.
There is no rolling back happening. They're leaning
in. They're doubling down. They're saying we have
to produce it here. We have to make
it a national imperative, and we're going to
protect them from lawsuits. There's not even an
indication of a rollback in any sense. They're
going further the other direction, yet you've got
people across the board claiming that's happening. I'll
show you a video that's quite embarrassing.
And they're
using
a basic basic production martial law act to
make sure that this continues. Why, I think?
Because then it's not something that can be
dealt with the same way through congress as
if they would even care, but it's still
something.
Regulators reapprove
reapprove,
dicamba, a Bayer herbicide,
twice blocked
by federal courts,
and clear the way for new pesticides containing
toxics. Toxic,
persistent,
PFAS, forever chemicals. We're not even just talking
about glyphosate here. The reality being that these
are things that are dangerous across the board.
And they're and what they're doing is allowing
this to continue with basically a rubber stamp,
a handshake. And and that that's the same
analogy to the FDA food dye point. Now
but I won't even you know what? I
take that back. To me, this is them
saying rubber stamp, you do what you want
because it's important for our economy.
And the US justice department urges the US
Supreme Court to erase billions of dollars of
Bayer's liability for its glyphosate based Roundup weed
killer, placing the weight of the executive branch
on the side of a foreign company against
thousands of Americans who say Bayer's products cause
their cause their
cancers. Now
I'm not gonna say I know for certain
that, like, let's just say agriculture
is is
partisan.
I I wouldn't I don't I don't think
most things really are the way they frame
them. But if you're gonna try to assume,
which we shouldn't, you know, in most senses,
but just for the sake of the argument,
I'd probably say it makes sense to say
that it's more of a Republican leaning, you
know, at farming and, you know, whatever else.
Like I said, that's I think it's not
the right way to do that, but just
for the sake of the point. So if
this is a predominantly Republican situation, like, there's
plenty of other examples. Like, right now, they're
slashing Medicare and things for people there's plenty
of Republicans that use that,
that this is affecting
their own people.
The set the point being that you are
now there are people suing these companies because
they got cancer while they were farming because
they were forced to use this, and the
Donald Trump administration is saying you can't do
that.
So the the fact that they're even trying
to make this a partisan point, which they
are, that's what they always do, is is,
I think, actually making it more obvious to
some people. Because they're out there right now
going, why voted for you? You're now you're
telling me I can't sue a company who
we that plenty of suits and plenty of
scientific studies have proven they're that they are
responsible for?
Pesticide industry influence in Washington is not new.
The Biden administration, to yet again show you
that it's not one side or the other,
also delivered wins to Bayer, including defending pesticide
regulatory measures.
But Bayer's big wins with the Trump administration
come as the company seeks sweeping
legal protections from cancer lawsuits
at a excuse me. At a time
when a growing body of scientific research links
glyphosate to cancer and other chronic diseases. The
fact that anybody has the nerve to argue
that's not true or pretend like this is
debatable.
Because if you true to if you are
objective and you look into this, you'll find
a mountain of studies from all sorts of
locations telling you that this is clearly carcinogenic.
This is clearly
consistent. There's a statistically significant
problem there.
Then you'll find some studies, surely,
that are funded by Monsanto,
that are that are leaned into by the
very EPA we're gonna show you who have
lobbyists packed to the back to the teeth
from Monsanto and Bayer.
And and and fine. Read those studies. I
you should consider them like you should anything
else. First, you would acknowledge, well, there's a
whole weight of evidence over here. Why would
we pretend just these few? Well, because they're
being paid. They're being lobbied. They're being convinced.
Just the weight of the evidence, peer reviewed
and otherwise, should be enough alone. That's how
that's supposed to work, but it's not. But
then you can actually read the studies and
or read other scientists going through them or
or,
you know, people in the field and and
breaking down how ridiculous it is like we
did during COVID nineteen. So you have the
weight, the body, the the mountain of evidence
compared to the little, then you have the
actual consistency or rather lack of,
blanking on words right now that it's it's
just in inconsistent study where basically they manipulated
the study.
I mean, this is common practice, guys. It's
called,
I can't remember now.
P hacking is what it's called. It's basically
where you take the the data you get
from any kind of study and you basically
jumble it up like you're playing, whatever the
game is with the dice. You just keep
rolling it out and rolling it out until
you get what you what you think you
can make a frame out of and then
you sell it. And it's not inaccurate. I
mean, you're still showing the data, but you're
you you're not you know, it's not honest.
And, ultimately, when it's, like, Maholtra called out,
when you actually try to reproduce it, most
people can't because it wasn't really honest.
Pesticide history influence is not new.
It goes on to say,
Trump's administration
seeks sweeping legal protections
at a time when a growing body of
evidence is showing that it does cause cancer
and other chronic diseases, by the way, and
cancer rates are rising among young people across
The US. Well, that is the understatement of
the century. They've been rising in this country
my entire life. When I first started doing
this, the numbers were, like, one in four
people will get cancer at some point in
their life. That's not normal. I mean, that
isn't a ridiculous way to say that. That's
alarmingly
I don't know. It's so obviously a problem,
and yet we act like, oh, well, that's
just how it happens. It's not. It's not.
And now it's way worse, guys. I forget
what it is last time I checked, but
I mean, it's last time it's most people
in this country will get cancer in one
way or another before they're before they die.
And that means something. The baby goes away.
Maybe it's not maybe it's the,
non dangerous type, but we people are riddled
with this stuff, and it's because of all
the things we talk about.
Show, it says, they show how a foreign
corporation can produce influence at the highest levels
of the levels of the US government and
shape policies that impact health. We know this,
though. That's just basic lobbying, which is why
anybody who understands the dynamic would argue it
shouldn't be the way this works. High high
you know, major corporate interests with endless resources
should not be able to just pay politicians
to get what they want. That's what's they
they play this game where it's, no, no,
we're just supporting them, and they can do
what they want. It's not how we know
that's not how it works. APAC is proving
that every single day.
Our review of Bayer's access in Washington found
sixteen,
sixteen key
administration officials
with ties to Bayer's lobbying or legal network.
Bayer and its lobbyists have access to people
in power at the White House, at the
US Department of Agriculture,
the Environmental Protection Agency, and even those in
high level positions closest to Donald Trump. Taken
together, these relationships describe a network of aligned
doctors
positioned across the American institutions that write the
rules
for pesticides, enforce those rules, and then defend
them in court.
Now Bayer's reach into the, Trump's inner circle
starts with the most obvious, Pam Bondi,
Susie Wiles.
I mean, that alone should be enough, but
like I've said a 100,000 times since 2025,
there are no no no ethics pledges. Nobody
even feigned to care about conflicts of interest.
And how is that not the look at
this administration.
The if you've ever ever seen unprecedented right
now in regard to that, it's right there.
I've never seen more obvious conflicts of interest
that are just brazenly ignored than I've seen
this administration. And they're all they've always been
there. This is just them
changing the game. They it no longer matters.
Of course, we're allowed to profit from our
power. Watch until watch that becoming an argument
in some way. The most important
Bayer connections
involve
a group of Florida lobbyists and former lobbyists
who hold power in Washington.
Chief of staff, Susie Wiles, who has plenty
of obvious connections and people argue is basically
influencing him in the direction of Israel.
Pam Bondi, Brian Ballard, who employed both Bondi
and Wiles as lobbyists for years before they
joined the Trump administration.
Wiles, one of Trump's most powerful advisers in
Washington, worked for Ballard Partners
as a lobbyist and then a partner for
a decade until 2022.
From 2016 to 2022,
she also worked as a senior adviser
to Trump's presidential campaigns.
Ballard raised more than $50,000,000
for Trump's twenty twenty four campaign and served
on the twenty twenty four inaugural and transition
finance committees.
He is widely seen as one of the
most influential people in DC and in who
does not hold an official government title. These
these people are directly connected to mon to
to Monsanto Bayer. Now remember,
it's Bayer, and Monsanto is the under the
Bayer is the parent company.
So they technically, Monsanto still exists, but it's
Bayer Monsanto. Or really just Monsanto for what
we're really talking about because that's where this
originates from. But Bayer now is the just
so understand that dynamic.
Both Ballard and his partner, Daniel McFaul, who
served on Trump's twenty twenty six, twenty seventeen
presidential transit transition team, are registered to lobby
for both Bayer
and the American Chemistry Council. So these are
people in Trump's inner circle who are in
there influencing policy in the direction
for the American people.
And now we have this happening where they're
going defend Monsanto and glyphosate. Is that what
the American people are screaming for? I don't
know anybody screaming for that.
So clearly,
I think this is self explanatory,
they're fighting for something other than the American
interest.
Bondi joined Ballard Partners in 2019
to launch and the and chair the firm's
corporate regulatory compliance practice. So these are people
that literally worked for the groups that are
lobbying by and she's now
they had the t she's the DOJ.
Another bayer tied to Wiles is the lobbying
and public relations firm, Mercury Public Affairs. Trump's
chief of staff was cochair of Mercury from
2022 to November 2024 immediately prior to joining
the White House.
Where I think this is the epitome of
everything he claimed he was trying to stop.
The firm registered to lobby for Bayer in
August 2025. While at Mercury, Wiles also served
as cochair of Trump's presidential campaign, while literally
lobbying for Bayer in 2023 or for them
or, yeah, through this company on their behalf
rather. And in 2023 and 2024, according to
financial disclosures, registered lobbyists for Bayer at Mercury
Public Affairs include Brian Lanza, who was deputy
communications director for Trump's 2016 campaign and and
communications director for Trump's first presidential transition team.
Lanza joined Mercury in 2017
and has been a frequent guest on cable
news shows as a surrogate and adviser for
Donald Trump.
So if you haven't missed all this is
just the beginning, and there's plenty more that
I wanna get get even get into in
this article. These are people who are all
advocating on Trump's behalf,
who are proven to work for or on
behalf of Baer.
That should be more than enough to be
to gasp. That should be how this works.
But they're out there hawking cryptocurrency
scams and creating their own poly markets and,
you know, literally profiting off this the deals
that are being made from the position of
power. I mean, quite literally. And then without
extensions of that, whereas family and Lutnick's family,
I mean, it just is over the top.
And it's not
unique, but it's unprecedented in the level of
doing it today.
And, you know, more Bayer ties to the
White House in general. This lists off plenty
of names that you're probably familiar with. USDA's
official ties to Bayer itself. All these names
are people who quite literally worked for or
had a connection to Bayer and Monsanto who
now work at the USDA.
You have a pursuit of federal preemption. It
just goes on to discuss the the efforts
they've been making to get ahead of this.
You have slashing capacity at the EPA. Now
this is the other point that I was
making. EPA is the one that's standing by.
We know this is actually not. And they're
and they're challenging all the other science
world world around that says this is clearly
dangerous. Countries around the world, most of them,
who have banned glyphosate
because it's dangerous, sort of like arresting Epstein
things while Trump goes, who's that? You know?
Common.
Right? Or
Biden. That we have an EPA
who is ignoring the evidence to side with
the industry. And it says, Bayer allies also
pervade The US agency charged with protecting health
and the environment. Sort of like the FDA
during Trump and Biden's administration where they just
ignored all that was happening during COVID to
you because of those shots, in positions where
they influence back to the point of Bayer
and EPA in the EPA, in positions where
they influence what chemicals and pesticides are approved
and how they protect, the products are regulated.
Chemical industry lobbyists now occupy, get this,
the top four jobs at the EPA's Office
of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. Guys, that's
an insult.
Like, that's that's it's almost laughable if that
wasn't so insulting or dangerous.
The top four positions at the very location
that should be dealing with these chemicals
are chemical industry lobbyists. I mean, that might
as well that that is the the the
best the simplest. That is the wolf guarding
the hen house.
You don't think they know that, guys? That's
by design. And they are literally
think we're either this stupid or they just
don't care what you think.
And that's the division in charge of regulating
chemicals and pesticides. What? Now that stand back.
Dioxins, PFAS, glyphosate,
everything you could list off after that. That's
why.
And then but then on top of that,
ask why Trump or Biden or Bush or
Obama
don't care. They must see it when they
get in there. Well, because they're part of
the problem, guys.
EPA officials loosened ethics standards
to allow this to happen.
So you can go back further steps to
find out where they loosened the ethics discussion
to allow them to be lobbyists because, well,
we need the best people, don't we? It's
just so insulting, guys. And you know what?
The screamers out there will repeat it.
More Trump officials tied to Bayer. It goes
on. It goes on and on. People die
connected to Biotechnology Innovation Organization.
It never ends.
So continuing from this point,
Robert Barnes highlights what Tom Renz was saying
that this is why the administration is fighting
so hard to protect cancer causing glyphosate. Is
this why? He asked. Bayer Pharmaceuticals
has worked with both
Susie Wiles, Ballard Partners, the stuff we were
just discussing. Trump's COS, Susie Wiles, and Pam
Bondi both worked for these companies, like I
was just discussing. And then he shows you
documents where you can verify that for yourself.
Robert Barnes says behind and remember, these are
people that were very, very MAGA Trump supporter.
Behind all the betrayals of MAGA and MAHA
is a justice department corrupted by lobbyist cash.
That's why they call her pay for play
Pam Bondi.
Now on top of that
now I will say I've seen Barnes giving
Trump a little bit of pushback here and
there, but this,
I don't I I don't I think what
I'm worried about, I'll say it like that,
is that people are going to go, Bondi's
the one, and you damn well know it,
Robert, that Donald Trump is the one guiding
this. Donald Trump is the one driving this
as you as that was made clear during
her congressional appearance and every other thing she's
doing. She's not independent of the executive branch.
She's working for exactly what Trump wants. So
the idea that this is somehow only her
responsibility on top of the fact that clearly
Trump chose her.
Right? I mean, so I'm not even saying
that's not what he's saying. Maybe he posted
it right after that. But I know that's
going on, and I'm worried about certain MAGA
people suddenly criticizing when it's really about, you
know,
going, it was Bondi. Now we can move
forward because everything's okay again. You know? And
that's how this always goes.
Either way, recognize in the moment for, for
honest, objective, nonpartisan people that even their side
are calling it out.
Now, Tom, as to this, for anyone trying
to tell me the Trump administration is anything
but all in on protecting cancer causing glyphosate,
which again, it's insulting that anybody would even
try to make that argument. He he they're
this is what's interesting. Tom Renz and others
are in the MAGA side, and they're they're
grappling with the idiots on the mainstream multimedia
that will just scream whatever the team says.
And they're the ones doing that. Right? They're
the ones saying that, no. No. They're trying
to do the right thing and roll it
back. But that's provably not the case.
It's like them saying, we ended mRNA, and
you could read the actual document where it
said the exact opposite.
Or Trump or or Miller saying they won
seven to zero Supreme Court case when it
was zero to seven. Or MS 13. I
mean, come on, guys. It just never stops.
And you don't think Alex Jones and Nick
Sorder and Vantage you don't think they can
see those things?
I mean, maybe they're just that stupid. I
don't even believe that. I think they know
what they're doing, and they're deliberately misleading you
because that's what they do. So Tom
at least has the wherewithal to go, come
on, guys. Like, this is objectively
think about that. And And he's saying, for
anyone trying to tell me that they're not
all in on glyphosate, here is the amicus
brief that Pam Bondi filed with the Supreme
Court.
In it, you will see Pam Bondi's DOJ
making excuses for the EPA, arguing that glyphosate
does not cause cancer.
That's not even what R. Q. Jr. Was
saying, guys, despite clear science showing that it
does.
He goes on to say, You'll see DOJ
arguing that pesticide manufacturers should be immune
from state lawsuits.
This is not a joke. And you'll laughingly
see DOJ argue that these cases should be
overruled
because of glyphosate's economic and social benefits.
This is if you if you ever thought
this was about rolling it back, you were
lied to whoever told you that.
It says, by the way, the EPA has
the same sort of revolving door, like I
just showed you, with its employees and the
people they regulate as the FDA and SPIFarma.
That's called a captured agency.
The glyphosate order is all about immunity.
They could push a phase out. That's that's
what I'm talking about. Right? Even even a
slow one, at least I would go good.
At least it's starting. And I I would
argue they're probably gonna play you and roll
it back later, but at least it starts.
They're not even doing that. They're just feigning,
lying, and doing the opposite.
But he says this they could they push
a phase out or allow people sick or
dying from this poison to seek justice and
get medical bills paid. Instead, the administration is
building manufacturing capacity
to make it, right, not rolling it back,
it's increasing,
to ensure farmers remain reliant on this poison
forever. This is not MAHA. This is executive
order. This ex and this executive order is
part of a larger push to provide effective
immunity to high huge
billion dollar companies that want to profit off
poisoning innocent Americans.
Can someone please tell the president that we
need to have need him to come back
to Maha? See, though, I hate those kind
of statements. What like, he's confused.
Like, I I know what he's doing there.
He's just trying to make a call for
it without being too contentious, but still, it's
like, can please trump me? Make sure he
sees this. If he know he's the one
making this happen, guys. That's the point.
Oh, and this was just health rater saying
that this is
glyphosate of the what we just read.
Here's the actual,
oh, it's right here. Here's the actual document
if you wanna read through it. This is
this is the Monsanto company. Yeah. But this
this is the amicus brief.
Now here's the Hill said. Trump admin backs
Monsanto effort to limit Roundup lawsuits over glyphosate.
But since it's the Hill, we can ignore
it all because Democrats. Right?
Even though it's just another platform reporting with
their own slant, yes, information that you could
easily verify for yourself. The The Trump administration
is backing Monsanto in its efforts to get
the Supreme Court to shield it from liability
over cancer claims related to its Roundup weed
killer, a move that could anger the Trump
administration's allies in the Maha movement.
Trump administration filed a brief with the Supreme
Court arguing that lawsuits alleging that Monsanto failed
to warn consumers of the health impacts of
its Roundup weed killer are preempted by federal
law. The brief comes in support of Monsanto's
effort to get the Supreme Court to overturn
a lower court's ruling that the company had
to pay damages for failing to warn about
its product health impacts. I mean, the government
is literally standing in the way of people
who are harmed by something the whole world
knows is dangerous,
which does that doesn't that sound familiar? It
should. In about 75 ways, we could point
out, obviously, COVID nineteen. The case could have
far reaching impacts as Monsanto faces a 100,000
similar lawsuits according to the brief.
A 100,000.
Democrats, Republicans, independent I mean, people, Americans who
are suffering, and they're going, nope. Not this
time. We're gonna side with the big guy.
We're gonna side with what you would call
the deep state, whatever. I'm not even using
that term as that's not what I would
call them. Whatever the the ideas of all
the flow this is what we would call
this. You know, whatever. The the like, if
you're supposed to be the rebels fighting the
deep state or pushing back into the power,
guys, come on.
I mean, that that went out the window
day one with Stargate. Okay? This you are
the power. You are building out the control
structure. The support of the US government is
an important step, and good news for US
farmers,
says the company.
Of course.
The misapplication
of federal law jeopardizes the availability of it
to of innovative tools for farmers and investments
in Brier's economy, said Bayer.
So Bayer's like, yay. Good job.
Okay. That I think that speaks for itself.
But I remember even Bayer before Monsanto was
caught for giving, what was it,
tainted blood, essentially, where people got HIV from
it. And that you could mistakes or otherwise.
These are companies that are riddled with
mistakes.
And in this case,
they're cheering on this
shielding of liability
because it's an important step to
support, an important step for getting good news
for farmers.
Why is it good news for farmers in
any possible way? Most farmers spoke out about
this when you began forcing them.
The misapplication
of federal law?
What the world? I mean, so now it's
a misapplication
to use to allow people to sue companies
who they think, whether they're wrong or not,
as Massey said, that's their constitutional right.
It speaks for itself. The WHO International Agency
on Research in Cancer has classified
glyphosate
as a probable carcinogen. Now what I hate
about that is that there's almost never a
time where they go it is. It just
gets labeled as a probable, Carson, and let
it go forever. That gives them the ability
to go, well, we don't know for sure,
but we do. We very, very much do.
Now here is an an interesting development in
congress. This is supposed to say,
Marquis is discussing this with, what was her
name again? I was just looking at it.
It'll come up. You'll see it on the
screen. And and this is somebody speaking on
behalf of the Trump administration, and she's somebody
who has fought
or rather just as an extension of the
Trump side of this because she is defending
it and has fought for
banning glyphosate,
just like RFK Junior. And even this guy,
Mark, you basically go, con. I'm trying to
help you here.
And the argument is the same.
Again, just say it out of the beginning.
They're not rolling it back. You can prove
that. In fact, they're going hard the other
direction. Increasing manufacturing. Right? Making it an imperative.
Forcing them to do it. And shielding from
liability. There's not even an indication of a
rollback in any sense.
So when they say that,
maybe they believe it. It. They go, good.
Finally, we're rolling it back. But the point
would be that you could prove that's not
what's happening. And so you're in that position,
and you fought for glyphosate your whole life.
You're just simply lying for the team because
maybe you think it will eventually happen or
you never really fought for it in the
first place. That's what I would argue.
Registration filed a brief with the Supreme Court
arguing that Monsanto,
one of the main producers
of glyphosate,
should be shielded
from lawsuits
from Americans
who develop cancers from being exposed
to glyphosate
containing
Roundup, which is a weed killer.
Instead of fighting for families with cancer,
the Trump administration is fighting against them. So,
again, back to you.
Yes or no. Do you think president Trump's
executive order promoting
the production of glyphosate,
which you yourself have said likely causes cancer,
will put American families' health at risk?
Now really quickly, just since he I like
the way he said that's important.
Promoting
well, really quickly, make sure I heard this
the right word. Causes cancer
will put looking. We're promoting
the production of God. Yeah. Promoting the production.
How can you, in any situation, argue that
this is them rolling anything back when your
point is you're promoting the increased production?
I mean, I've already made this point, but
I'm just giving people the analytical and verbal
tools to be able to debate this conversation.
These things are very obvious.
Life of safety, which you yourself have said
likely causes cancer,
will put American families' health at risk.
Senator Markey, you and I both know that
these issues around agriculture and health are extremely
complex
and are affecting farmers, consumers, food producers, food
accessibility.
My understanding of the executive order is that
this the thrust of this has to do
with national security and decreased resilience and reliance
on
on, foreign countries for
tools that farmers are currently using right now.
But these are things these these are these
are cancer inducing
chemicals. We must as a according to your
own statements.
We must, as a country, move away from
using toxic inputs in our Yeah. Food supply,
and we must study these chemicals more to
understand their effects. I What are you talking
about? See, this is what's so killing me.
Her work
will show you.
If that's not she's does she not we'll
study it more. I mean, you yes. They'll
I mean, I should say they probably all
always say study it more, but the point
is not we need to study it more
to find out. That's like the fluoride point.
Right now, the Trump administration is pushing back
on the fluoride ruling right now to make
sure that doesn't happen.
Every which way, they are challenging and ignoring
and
and compromising the actual Maha movement. But to
say that is insulting. That means you're I
mean, the there's if I mean, how many
studies do you genuinely need on the same
topic over and over and over and over
because you got one industry funded study that
says the opposite?
I'm very gravely concerned
about the health impacts of these chemicals. I
understand that. Doctor, I'm just trying to help
you to agree with yourself.
You've already said it in the past, but
Trump is contradicting you.
Our food system is dependent currently on these
chemicals. There is a good faith movement towards
moving our food system towards regenerative agriculture. That's
not true.
Period. There's not a good faith anything. And
why would you good faith? Why so we're
trusting that they might eventually do that? That's
not ever how you deal with government. You
know, you could argue she has good intentions,
like the people that fell for the discussion
from the government.
They truly wanted those things, and they were
just going, I just you know, I'll side
with them just for the slim hope that
maybe it will happen because it's never happened
before.
I can understand why you might take that
shot. It's just time to start recognizing that
none of them are ever gonna be on
your side. And even if that ends up
being false, that's in your interest to look
at it that way, question them all the
time.
But there's no good faith anything. They're increasing
production. They're not rolling back anything there. Even
if they lean into the other forms of
farming, guys, you're making it an imperative to
make this used in every possible farming discussion.
That's and that's what the whole point was
with the way Monsanto did this. It was
forced. It is a genetically manipulative process.
For a precision
application of pesticides,
I believe
in good faith that is happening within this
administration.
I do also believe that we must do
that for the faith. He's immunizing. He's arguing
that there should be immunization
of Monsanto. Yeah. And
vaccines. That's not good faith. That's just siding
with the chemical manufacturing company that is in
fact causing the cancers. Right. So,
don't you think it does put people families
at risk if these chemicals are in the
system? You that's been your position historically? I
think there's there's grave issues with these chemicals.
I think that we are in a very
complicated moment for agriculture and food. We cannot
overturn the entire agriculture system overnight. That would
hurt farmers. It would hurt food prices.
This is Well, you know, but, yeah, let's
just even say that's exactly what will happen.
So what
if if your argument right now is that,
okay, we need to then start rolling it
back instead, I would go fine. I agree.
But your choice now is Trump doubling down,
spending more, making more, using more, or having
the the the destabilization by stopping.
I mean, if those were your only two
choices, it's a no brainer, guys.
But here we are. A national security That's
not what the Trump administration. That's not what
the Trump administration And as a physician and
as a surgeon general, my focus would be
on making sure that we are protecting American
consumers and their health and making sure that
we are having transparent, honest conversations.
I'm I'm disappointed
to see you back away from your efforts.
I'm not I am not in any way
backing away from this issue. It is a
core passion of my life. Okay. Secretary Kennedy
has already backed away
from his prior statements that glyphosate is a
carcinogen.
Yep.
I mean, I get it. It's probably really
tough. Like, it it take
considering from the moment that maybe she genuinely
just trying to make the right thing happen.
I I I can I can appreciate that?
I can understand where you might come from.
But think about being in that compromised position
just like RFK or Tulsi Gabbard. You know,
if you are an honest person, yeah, I
mean, you can see it in the way
she's moving, the way she's talking. It's gotta
you know, you want to believe that they're
gonna follow through because no one else ever
has, but they're just not. Like, let's not
delude ourselves with the hope that they'll do
what they've never done. Let's hope for it.
Right? But don't let that be the only
thing. Hold their feet to the fire. Hope
is okay, but it can't be the only
part of the conversation
no matter how desperate we are. You know?
It's it's just it's very transparent where this
goes. Now here is another clip
from a,
from Wall Street Apes. And I thought that
this was just I'm gonna play it first,
then I'll read what he says. And it
just frustrate the hell out of me, how
we have to constantly deal with the partisan
view of things that are very clearly a
government thing.
All of them. Everywhere. Or the idea being
that somehow one side just wouldn't do that
because we know they're better. It's that's just
silly. And in fact, flatly false and proven
throughout history.
Oh, no. He sees us.
Woah. You need to learn about these three
really bad senate bills that are coming over
to the house next week. The first one,
the income tax. Now some people will say
it's a millionaire's tax, but when senate Republicans
tried to attach an amendment that would limit
it to a million dollars and above, senate
Democrats said no. That should give us all
a ton of pause Yeah. Because they're probably
corrupt. Then there's the environmental crimes bill. This
would give the attorney general unprecedented
power to investigate,
prosecute,
and incarcerate
tradespeople,
farmers, and ranchers, holding them personally liable for
minor environmental crimes. Oh, interesting. And that right
now would be who again? Oh, yeah. That's
by I'm bonding. Okay. And that would give
her the power to attack farmers for things
that they're doing they disagree with. Maybe like
not using glyphosate or, I don't know, maybe
any other thing that they would use to
manipulate the circumstance. Like, we've already seen
about about immigrants or anything else. Like, any
number of ways that they could go out.
And this is specifically about environmental claims, but
I'm just making the point about the larger
way that we've seen them manipulate the farming
field. And we could talk about the beef
initiative and different end entities out there that
have called them out for their hypocritical stances,
sort of like the second amendment groups calling
them out for their hypocritical stances about the
second amendment or any number of thing that
the team sport politics pretend that they're not
doing.
And then lastly, there's a bill that would
create a board that can decertify your sheriff,
your duly elected sheriff. You don't want bureaucrats
decertifying
your sheriff after you elected them. Go to
House Republic. Interesting. Okay. So sheriffs, you know,
sort of like the sheriffs right now who
are standing up against ICE in certain locations,
and the Trump administration is trying to get
them fired. He's trying to push back on
the local government or trying to
circumvent state's rights in a in a in
in unconstitutional ways because they don't like what
the state is doing. Okay. All of that.
That's what's that's what they're talking about. We
I agree. We need to stop those bills.
I agree. Now here's what Wall Street apes
had to say.
Washington state Democrats
are preparing to pass this bill. Well, it
would be the government, seeing as how there
are Republicans involved, and it would need them
to be able to pass. Okay? And it's
funny how when you look into these things,
there are plenty of them that are very
much, like, mostly partisan.
But it's very rarely the case when it
becomes like, especially when it's something that becomes
usable. Whoever voted for it, it will be
abused and applied by any sides in power
like we're seeing right now. But it says
this,
flashy red light. That's how you know it's
important, guys. This will give Democrats the power
to prosecute farmers for minor environment.
Oh, okay. If and when the Democrats in
power, sure. Sure. But you know the part
that's being left out, bud? That it would
give the Republicans that power right now.
Doesn't that matter? Why is it only that
you're going, Oh my god. The Democrats would
do something?
Because that's the only way people can see
through the lens in the partisanship or because
people using these accounts know that that's what
gets the reach, and that's what Elon allows
to be seen or however you look at
it, guys. Democrats are also introducing this bill
to allow them to remove any sheriff. What
do you mean to at the end of
the day, what group is literally going after
people that are not siding with the team
right now? The Trump administration. What group did
it before? The Biden administration. It's willfully stupid
to pretend like this is only one side
in any circumstance.
I mean, right now, what you what you've
seen from these last two administrations consecutively
or, you know, I guess, yeah, consecutively is
that you have examples of them using things
that the other side criticized, and then the
other team getting power and then using it
back.
You don't need an explanation there, guys. They're
both criminal, or they're both hypocrites, or whatever
you would frame it as they're both, because
they're both doing it. It doesn't make it
justified because they started it. We're not effing
kindergarten.
So let's talk about one more health related
thing before we get into, some Epstein conversation
and overlap that
with the skit that we live in.
So, Michael Recktenwald, who, by the way, I'll
be interviewing tomorrow,
about it might not come out tomorrow as
usual, but I will be interviewing possibly come
out tomorrow,
about their new,
anti Zionist PAC. Now you it's an interesting
point for me because I'm not I'm not
I don't support the the idea of PACS
in general.
But it's the same kind of idea in
the past about having like, for example, saying
Adam Kokat running for president or Derrick Rose
running for mayor. The argument in all of
those cases was sort of to run to
gain the power to then dismantle the power.
Right? That's kind of the idea. And, of
course, you could question whether that's the real
intention. You should. My point, though, is that
I I would ultimately support that because of
the intention. And so in this case, I
would consider that. Right? Is it maybe a
good idea to support a pack that the
PAC's intention is to call out the way
that the others work or the, you know,
so so and so and so. And so
I'm gonna we'll have that conversation.
But it'll be very a very skeptical
perspective for me, but the I very much
support the idea of creating a political momentum
that can support you know, that ultimately can
call out it the Zionist problem.
However, though, the money in politics is still
there. Right? So maybe I'll we get into
maybe the intention is to use money in
politics to ultimately call that out. You can
see how that works, but it'll be an
interesting conversation. Either way, I support his work,
and I I if, you know, hoping it
has good intentions, I support something like this
that's calling out what I see as one
of the largest problems in existence today.
He says this about this new report.
We know about we knew about MK Ultra,
and now we know about it its precursor
program, Project Artichoke.
Aimed at mind control over a much broader
population base, these revelations make it clear the
CIA has posed an enormous threat to US
citizens, like we needed more evidence of that,
in addition to the the horrors it unleashes
on non US target governments and populations. Now,
again, the CIA is not supposed to legally
be able to operate in this kind of
inside The United States, but they do anyway.
Sort of like the FBI internationally, they do
it anyway. If we lived in a truly
democratic society, the FCIA would be dismantled immediately.
Of course, we do not live in a
democratic society. In many ways, our government is,
what is that? In in, in in
inimisal
to human
welfare. I read that differently earlier. It tending
to
tending to obstruct or harm. Now this is
an interesting point, guys, because this whole thing
is
I mean, to what to what degree we
can call it provable is provable. As here's
the
oh, where was it? Right here. Hold on.
I specifically grabbed that. Where did I oh,
here it is.
This is special research for artichoke, and this
is the document, the CIA document. And it'll
be included. You can go through it for
yourself.
So then this is what he the post
that he tagged in it. This, go to
the Daily Mail report on this, what I
saw first. Declassified
CIA files revealed chilling blueprint to manipulate Americans
and Americans' minds through covert drugging with vaccines.
Does not hit the nail on the head.
That's very interesting. Now this is not even
new. We've talked about many,
many overlaps of the,
you know, vaccination or just health,
mechanism
to deliver rather, there's like a vector for
whatever they're trying to deliver,
whether through aerosols or you know, there's tons
of these conversations, and it's been proven throughout
history. More time I mean, operation sea spray
is always a very good, easily proven example
where they were testing back it was bacterial,
you know, pathogens and spreading it across San
Francisco to see what happened when the person
died. That your government did that to us.
It's a small example because there's been tons
of large COVID nineteen, for example.
The point, though, is that they thought about
it. They mapped out how they could use
things like this to mass manipulate the population
all the way back then.
Now there were we've, at least in my
view, never been more critical of the government.
Think about what they're considering doing now.
The newly released CIA document reveals a chilling
blueprint to manipulate the minds
manipulate minds through covert drugging experiments,
proposals
to develop chemicals capable of altering human behavior
behavior.
I mean, this is just in line with
everything we're seeing over with the COVID nineteen
discussion or the neuroscience or or DARPA. I
mean, this is everything they're doing. And this
just shows you their mind's been there the
entire time, like, I think we knew. It
discusses drugs designed for both immediate effects, like
truth serums, serums, and long term influence potentially
administered through food, water, alcohol, cigarettes.
Researchers also suggested that such substances could be,
disguised in medical treatments like vaccinations or injections.
Artichoke, project artichoke, served as a precursor to
the CIA's MK Ultra program, which layer or
later broadened
mind altering experiments on a larger scale.
And that's a whole if you I mean,
you guys are probably very familiar. There's probably
15 articles on TLAB about MK Ultra, and
it was way more than just mind altering
drugs. There was sexual manipulation. There was torture.
I mean, it's horrifying. It's amazing we don't
recognize what our government is today. The document
was declassified in 1983,
but has resurfaced on social media where users
are shocked to see the CIA discussing methods
for drugging entire populations. That's a direct quote.
They also outlined practical considerations for concealment,
like such as substances that could be introduced
surreptitiously,
secretly into the food, water,
Coca Cola,
beer, liquor, cigarettes, exact that's a direct quote,
mentioning Coca Cola by name, highlighting the CIA's
focus on undetectable methods of influence.
Moreover, the report recommended consulting with the Army
Chemical Warfare Service, noting they have conducted exhaustive
studies along these lines that could provide specific
guidance for the program.
Beyond Drugs, Artichoke explored a wide range of
psychological tools. Sections of the document discussed hypnosis.
Now that's the term used all the way
back then, but think about it with the
rest of the terms they use as maybe
something more technologically
advanced,
psychological techniques,
gases, aerosols, oxygen deficiencies.
So in that mindset with hypnosis, we're not
talking about some medallion in front of your
eyes. Right? We're talking about some kind of
state, and that could be affected by all
in like, in a technological sense, like a
neuroscience dynamic, and that was when these things
were being flushed out.
Researchers questioned whether such methods could compel individuals
to perform actions against their own will. It's
exactly what Catherine and I were talking about
in this very topic, about neuroscience and using
your technology to do that,
including potentially criminal acts without leaving conscious awareness
of their behavior,
typically without informed consent.
That doesn't I mean, right now, they should
be connecting with what we were just talking
about, at least in some possible ways, with
ethical considerations
frequently subordinated
to perceived
national security needs. Basically meaning, well, isn't this
illegal, unconstitutional?
Aren't we gonna hurt people? Well, national security.
Yeah. That never changed.
So think about this in the context of
anything we could talk about. But since we're
talking about glyphosate,
isn't it possible that the reason that this
very obviously dangerous thing that everyone's calling out
is now suddenly a national security imperative is
maybe because there's more to it than what
we see? Maybe the argument was because this
is about a slow, you know like, look
at what it's been doing, all of this
stuff. The endocrine disrupting chemicals and all the
different, you know, cancers and and mental issues.
And, I mean, maybe that was the whole
point, or maybe it went awry. Lost control.
All of it's theorizing and considering possibilities,
but what we know based on the information
is that they were doing this and considered
using things like vaccines or whatever else
to drug the entire population for their benefit
and for their control.
That should mean everything with where we are
today. Don't assume.
Don't blindly assume, but consider.
And I'll just include yet again what I
was using a lot during COVID nineteen to
make a point. This is one of many,
by the way, originally 2018.
Compulsory
moral bio enhancement should be covert.
That was all point about whether there was
something else going on with the shots that
they didn't tell you about. And it says
and this is this is a this is
a scientific argument, but the government has made
this argument. I mean, there was an argument
a while back about putting, like, I think
it was lithium in the water or, you
know, for the benefit of everybody. And maybe
we do it secret. They've had these conversations
more times than we can document.
Some theorists argue, and they don't mean that
in a weird sense, but people who just
consider, you know, it's funny how they use
it bad when we do it, argue that
moral bio
enhancement, so rather just bio enhancement, so like
a genetic altering shot or something in that
sense,
ought to be compulsory, so forced.
I take this argument one step further, arguing
that if moral bio enhancement so the mean
they're meaning that if it's, you know, justified
for some larger, greater good sense,
that he's arguing that if it ought to
be compulsory, because he just said that apparently,
then its admits administration
should be covert,
secret rather than overt. So what what they're
saying is, as a government, if we decide,
well, this isn't everybody's interest, and since we
know they won't understand, we should give it
to them without their knowledge because that would
be the moral, ethical thing to do. That's
actually their argument.
This is to say that this is morally
preferable
for compulsory
moral bio enhancement to be administered without the
recipients knowing that they are receiving the enhancement.
He says, my argument for this is that
if moral bio enhancement ought to be compulsory,
then its administration is a matter of public
health. Clearly.
Or because they say so. Right? And for
this reason, it should be governed by public
health ethics. The insane argument of saying that
doing something to somebody without their knowledge because
it's in
your opinion, interest of everybody, that that then
therefore meets ethics
is the exact problem we're in where people
can rationalize whatever they want because of the
way they view the world.
Paul, government does it more than anybody. Also,
think about this with things we've mentioned over
the years.
Genetically engineered mon magnetoprotein
remotely controls controls brain and behavior. We talked
about Charles Lieber with his virus sized transistors
from Harvard when it overlapped with COVID nineteen,
working with Bob Langer, who was part of
the the scientific cofounder for the Moderna shot.
I mean, these are the this is very
real,
and what we were seeing all the way
back then seemed to be a precursor for
the very point of how this technologically
is now being applied.
I'll include the Rockefeller point as well, the
same study, just this is a, year later
in discussing the d the study from the
Rockefeller Institute, where they literally say with the
new technology, scientists are able to exert wireless
control over brain cells of mice. And it
gets into
quite literally being able to move them around.
Can give spikes in insulin or or the
opposite, which could kill you.
And I these are some some shows we
did on this back from 2021.
BioDigital Convergence, COVID mag
magno genetic ferritin vaccines. That was the magneto
one we just showed you. Big spikes in
mass vaccinated areas. And this one from 2024.
Oh, that's funny. Looks like
I admit to put the wrong date in
there. Gain of functions, newest brain virus, and
genetically engineered proteins to control
everything.
These are these are peer reviewed studies, guys,
talking about exactly that.
And then there's the CIA document for yourself.
Now on top of that,
Sayer, point, posted this from greenmedinfo.
Epstein documents revealed that he was actively editing
defense health
work plan
that paralleled
a classified DARPA program
launched the same month
to the same people.
The Epstein the at the network above Epstein.
In February 2017, a formal work plan landed
on Epstein's desk. It listed DARPA's
Biological
Technologies office
founding director as an advisory
partner. It included a complete digital
platform for the strain simulation exercise,
a pandemic
preparedness tool.
It specified reliance on Gates' team enterprise wherever
relevant,
and it's confidently
con confidentially
noticed was addressed to Jeffrey Epstein.
It didn't just he didn't just receive it.
He shaped it, pushing back on framing, navigating
internal politics at Bill Gates' private office, who
is now very close to Donald Trump, and
treating the document as his own. That same
month, DARPA launched its pandemic prevention platform, the
p three platform we've discussed,
building on its mRNA vaccine investments. You start
to see how this might literally come together?
Two parallel pandemic preparedness platforms the same month.
At least one shared individual.
One one inside the Pentagon, one with a
convicted sex offender as an active editor.
Now he breaks this all down in-depth.
Defense layer, how Jeffrey Epstein cultivated access to
DARPA through billionaires a Gates Pfizer, a network
of scientists that connects to the larger nanotech
discussion, to vaccination, to all of this kind
of eugenics minded ridiculous stuff we're talking about.
And, of course, here's rep,
Ana Paulina Luna saying, I think our next
task force should be on Amkite Ultra.
Oh, because they're totally honest about it. Right?
Like, they just tripped over this thing and,
well, that's interesting. Let's talk about that.
You're in the government.
Are you reacting to what the media throws
at you, or are you trying to work
for the American people? I think we know
the answer to that. These people these these
are talk show hosts. Right? These are these
are to the star. These are, like,
mid range
soap opera stars, and all they care about
is just
throwing at you what will get them more
popularity.
That's what I believe anyway. I mean, really,
guys? Yes. I agree. That we should care
to look into it. Do you think that
them sitting around congress and yelling falsehood at
each other is gonna do anything in this
conversation?
I don't.
And then, Truthstream Media
called this.
They said and because remember the alien thing
was basically throw it out again and nobody
cared? Everyone just moved on because we know
they're lying? It says, Now we, the government,
will suddenly tell you, the governed, the truth
about all the bad and lies that we,
the government, have done after we, the government,
investigate what we, the government, have done. Because
trust us, also aliens.
You know what I mean? Like, why would
we pretend that you're gonna you know, it's
just such a constant
exercise in futility.
Now I really recommend you check this out.
I have a really good time speaking with
Kumar Khomeini, and I and I'm sure we'll
connect more going forward.
I just think he's a really yeah. I
I was laughing about this with somebody else
is that he gets called a terrorist,
Assad apologist, or whatever. He's gotta be one
of the most measured, good hearted, just in
you know, just intentional and
and genuine person. Listen to him. Like, it's
so crazy that you could listen to this
person for ten seconds and come away thinking
anything other than this guy cares about what
he's doing. That he's just you know, the
the facts matter. It just kills me. And
he's also very measured. He's not out there
with radical opinion. It's just funny to me.
But it's worth your time. Now we get
into this very big conversation. The title was
from Epstein files to Iran war. Digital IDs,
CBDCs, and AI endgame. And we go across
a lot of what we always talk about.
Good conversation. So the point, though, was the
Aetna network above Epstein. Like, we I think
we just highlighted plenty of things that demonstrate
something that supersedes the government structure. Right?
One thing I wanna throw in just because
it was irrelevant to our in discussion. In
that interview, we were talking about
not really owning things because that's one of
the points I make about the network state
dynamic. You know, you own the keys to
everything and, you know, like, the digital keys
to all your digital assets,
but then you don't really own anything because
they like Coinbase, they can just shut you
out of the system that hosts it even
though you have the keys for it. Or
like a you know, well, anyway, plenty of
analogies we could make there. But one of
the points was I said, well, you know,
this is the reality where we live in
right now in a lot of ways where
you don't own the land if you're paying
property taxes and they can, you know, eminent
domain. Right? And we talked about that, and
here we are. Right after the show, I
saw this. Trump set to seize people's homes
on Mexico border to build wall.
Because that's American? Did you steal from Americans
because you want your agenda? Well, it's American
government. Yeah. It's far back as I can
look. Sure as hell not we pretend our
American values,
but just like anything else. Now on the
Epstein point,
it's it's the left right paradigm is a
lie, as always, and all of them are
trying to cover this up, which is what
we were trying to highlight. New York Times
comes out with this. Now tell me, if
the Democrats are out there to get Trump
at all costs,
like we're told. And there there clearly are
petty divides, and clearly these people in many
ways don't even know that they're being used.
But it's also very clear when it comes
to war and Israel and and all of
it. They're always on the same side, guys.
Epstein, for example.
And so when they're all they're telling you
that no that the Democrats would just burn
everything down to get Trump at all costs
because they're deep state pedophiles. And then the
platform you tell us is a deep state
then they come out and go, we never
should have left Epstein files out. We we
really agree with Trump. We're on Trump's side.
What does that tell you? And Adam says,
the New York Times is running cover for
Epstein. They just published an article titled, Epstein
files never should have been released. I'll give
you three guesses as to the backdoor background
of the author.
The point, obviously, guys, is, of course, it
should have been released because this is important
information. Now are there ridiculous idiot people out
there that are using some subjective information to
make false claims? Yes. It had the mainstream
media does it every day. The The mainstream
alternative media is the group largely doing that,
and that's your team. That's not what you're
using their false reality to pretend that all
of us independent media are doing that. We're
not. Well, some of them are. But, overall,
that's just the way it's gonna go. The
information it's the truth should not be withheld
because of dumb people. That's just insane, but
that's how they often use this.
Now in case you missed it, then there
I mean, there's a there's plenty more. There
I mean, I'm seeing people resign. People go
to jail. People get arrested all over the
world right now because of what the US
government put out.
Now you'd you'd be you feel like you
wanna give them credit for that, and you
can give it credit where it's due because
they did take that action.
But they are not doing anything. They were
forced to do this six times over, and
they still are dragging their feet. So you
can't go you that's they they did this.
They were forced to do it, and they're
still trying to stop it. But the reality
is they're telling you it's over. We're not
doing anything more. There was nothing there. There's
nothing actionable.
Hash Patel said that in front of congress,
and yet people are getting arrested.
He probably feels really worried about that. Larry
Summers has resigned from Harvard because of what's
in the Epstein files. I just posted this.
Are people still talking about Epstein?
Yes.
Here's another one. Breaking news. The Nobel laureate
Richard Axel Axel said he's resigning as co
director of Columbia Brain Institute because of his
friendship with Epstein.
I think it's just pretty clear that people
know that there's more to this, guys, and
they are worried about that, in my opinion.
And now there's been arrests too. Let's be
clear about that. There has been arrests.
Prince Andrew, for crying out loud.
Now, one quick point on this, which is
interesting. We played this when it came out.
Ted Lieu.
You you heard the clip. He comes out
and says, Donald, this is what what's being
in.
What they say he basically says, the files
show
unreleased files. Now see, they didn't say it
like that, actually. Hold on. So why,
that Donald Trump is doing Hillary Clinton? It's
because they're trying to distract
from the fact that Donald
Trump is in the Epstein files thousands and
thousands of times.
In those files, there's highly disturbing allegation. Okay.
See, I I'm actually that Brian Allen misrepresented
this. Now he says Ted Lieu says that
it's full of unreleased Epstein files show Donald
Trump raping children. That's not what he said.
And that that actually matters a lot because
what he says is there's allegations about Trump.
That's important for this point, but just important
because it's accurate. Right? Because that's the same
point. If we're being subjective, well, then that's
they're you're they're you're giving them what they
want, just to dunk on Donald Trump. Because
I'm pretty sure this is a pretty
partisan account. But he posts plenty of important
clips and things that I'd like to share,
but I'm questioning them every time like we
should anybody. You should question me. The point,
though, is he says there's lots of allegations
of Trump raping children. Right? People have said,
I mean, a fraction of that, that Trump
will sue them 16 times. I think this
is actually a really important point.
What Boston says is so many right wingers,
because they are, are losing their s h
I t over this clip. But guess what?
Trump won't sue him. I mean, who knows?
Maybe we will, but I haven't seen it
yet. He sued sued plenty of other people
for far less.
And he says why? Well, because discovery is
a b I t c h, and Trump's
not and Trump is guilty. Well, you could
disagree with that. But
considering that possibility, wouldn't you
not doing something shouldn't be evidence of anything.
But it's an it's an indication.
And if he doesn't sue him for calling
him a rapist of children,
that might be the reason. Because if you
do, well, suddenly now this becomes something where
you can have a an ongoing court case
where these documents become much more real.
I think I think that's a valid point.
I don't think I I doubt he will
sue him.
On top of that, Dem Oversight Oversight Dem
says this is the largest government cover up
in modern history. We are demanding answers. And
the New York Times says justice department did
not release key records in the Epstein files
about a woman who made an unverified accusation
against Trump, in which she said Trump assaulted
her in the eighties. Now this is not
new in the sense of that this example
is, but there's been countless already. From the
fact that they withheld their own exchanges from
Bondi and Kash Patel or that they there's
been numerous examples where they already broke the
law in regard to the Epstein Transparency Act
and congress doesn't seem to care. Massey will
call it out, but no one does anything
about it. So on top of that, it's
it's come out yet again. They just decided
to leave out a very important example where,
of course, it made Trump look bad.
Shouldn't be surprising to anybody. Now on top
of that, what I'm pointing out is what
Orwell said.
Because Oversight Dem's going, oh my god. I
wanna cover up. Well, the same way they
did before and the same way that we
know most of them are tied up in
the same problem. But she says, excuse me,
Oversight Dem's. What about your hearing with Richard
Cotton today? Which I guess didn't happen. The
bottom line is that all of them are
scrambling from this, but right now it's the
hot potato. And Trump, of course, is getting
the focus because he's in the seat. Maybe
that was the entire way this was supposed
to go down. I don't know. But don't
fall for this where they go, because it
I agree. It is a cover up. But
don't let them point to that and
allow you to think that they're somehow not
involved in this as well.
And just corruption, so I wanna include these
points before we talk about Tulsi Gabbard.
FBI
unlawfully withheld tapes of Tom Homan's potentially corrupt
actions. I mean, it's in line with everything
else we're seeing after the bag of cash
probe absurdly ended. Remember, they acted like it
was nothing, it was all a lie. Well,
guess, turns out they withheld a video that
would have made it much more clear. Well,
if they were if he was innocent, wouldn't
that video have exonerated him?
I mean, again, nobody thinks that, guys. I
mean, I I that's my opinion, obviously, and
I'm sure there are some people out there
that do. But
if you look at this information objectively, it's
pretty clear that this was a cut like
everything else they're doing. He did take the
money. The evidence was clear in the beginning.
They made it have to be something else.
They wouldn't let you get the information. They
they bull rush over everybody else. Now it
turns out they withheld the video that would
have shown you that he was supposedly innocent.
These are corrupt people. No different than the
Biden administration, but there's an
unprecedented level of corruption that I'm seeing.
I think that's because of where we are,
and it's been getting worse and worse and
worse. Here's another example. Melanie points out, crypto.com
donated $5,000,000
to Donald Trump on to his PAC on
'20 on the January 23.
On February 17, Trump's administration intervened in a
federal lawsuit on their behalf.
The article's here. You can read it for
yourself. This is what a bribe looks like.
Now, really, this is what politics looks like.
Quite frankly, I see this to be a
very thin line of difference between lobbying and
this. It is the same thing. Now that
doesn't mean it's not a crime. The lobbying
mirage allows them to pretend like it's some
kind of something. This is a crime. There's
no way around this. This is blatant. But
no one's gonna do anything about it. We
should, as Americans, we should be crying foul
and call out everyone before them too because
they are all doing very similar things and
have throughout the history, throughout past. But
I just think this is important to see.
Direct translation of giving him money
that he'll use however he sees fit and
then
stepping into a federal lawsuit against the company.
I mean, that that's just blatant corruption.
And
one quick point of to corruption as well,
but Charlie Kirk, senate judiciary says a whistleblower
just disclosed to that FBI experts
were delayed
at least a day,
twenty four hours in dep deploying to investigate
Charlie Kirk's assassination.
My god. You couldn't make this more obvious.
From the guy that took the camera, who
stood on the chair that he was shot
in, from the lack of investigation of the
scene, from not actually cri sealing off the
scene. I mean, every single part of this,
guys.
And they said, why?
Well, there was an FBI plane and pilot
shortage
because cash was using them for personal flights.
Now, you could disagree with that.
I don't honestly care. There's no world in
which that should have happened, where they stopped
it from I mean, you could see, here's
what I find interesting about the way the
partisanship works.
Always incompetent
than criminal. Right? Even for the other side.
Because the truth is, it could be that
he just was out there using his power
to benefit himself and it screwed up the
investigation, or it could be that it was
they they were told to make sure the
investigation didn't happen, and that's just the way
they make it look like. Because they're not
gonna go, he did it for Israel. They'll
never say that. But what they will do
is make it look like he's a petty,
ridiculous person to make him look stupid, not
fired, not go to jail, but then you
can make you dunk on the Republicans.
Same game back and forth.
And James Lee Riley calls out he was
meeting with his Mossad honeypot girlfriend, allegedly.
There's more to the story, obviously, guys.
Now on Gabbard's side of this, in regard
to Israel and Kushner in the same point,
we talked about this on the on the
thirteenth. Gabbard accused of suppressing report naming Jared
Kushner.
Think about how relevant that is right now.
Well, Wall Street Journal comes out with this
in the twenty fifth, that is today.
And it
is
I mean, it doesn't add much more to
the story other than that they're stopping it,
which was already the case, but it's just
becoming more obvious now that they're stepping in
and they're not going to allow this. Because
it's been, what, nine months now that they've
been dragging their feet? But now they're just
coming out and going, we're not going to
allow it to be seen. If you remember
the story, we're gonna read through it now,
and citing executive privilege. So that is Donald
Trump stepping in going, I don't want anyone
to see that, and Gabbard going, okay.
This should bother everybody. The Trump administration told
congress it won't share with lawmakers
the classified intelligence that led to a whistleblower
complaint against US spy chief, Tulsi Gabbard. Now
to quickly give you the background,
eight months not eight, nine months ago, you
have a whistleblower
from the intelligence community who got insight on
something that they wanted to show the intelligence
community.
That that what do they call them? The
gang of eight or whatever. The, you know,
the Tulsi Gabbard being the head of the
DNA DNI, excuse me, and then the other
groups from left and right, senate and and
house being the intelligence,
committee committees. And then, ultimately, the the process
would be for a whistleblower to present that
information after getting guidance from from Gabbard on
how to break it down or whether it
should withhold certain things, and then it will
be released to them, and they could discuss
it from from congress's perspective.
Now that usually takes weeks. It's been eight,
nine months now.
What they're claiming is they have insight into
a communication between, I guess, Iranians, I think
was the point. But, again, I I wouldn't
put too much stock in most of what
we're being told right now. And in that
conversation, Jared Kushner's name came up.
So that was all we knew.
Then Gabbard took eight months and refused to
show anybody.
Then they folded her name into it, or
rather, like, seven six, seven months. They folded
her name into it and said, Well, we're
calling Tulsi Gabbard out for making sure this
doesn't get seen.
And so now she's being accused of this.
Now remember, this is a whistleblower,
implying that they have a crime they're exposing.
So the idea that they could just go,
We're not gonna let anybody see it, is
exactly where we are in this country.
We support whistleblowers except
Assange and Reality Winner and, and and,
Edward Snowden. They're, you know, on and on
and on. We they don't is the point.
They lie to you because left and right,
our government is corrupt.
So what what we're saying here is that
we don't want you to see what the
whistleblower is showing you because it makes us
look bad. Now what are they actually arguing?
It's gossip is the word they used. It's
fake information. Okay. Well, then why would it
matter if we see it? Why would it
be national security top secret for us to
see something that you claim is not even
true?
There that the first claim, they didn't have
an answer for that. Now what they're saying
is because it reveals the process through which
we get information.
They do this all the damn time.
I call BS.
So at the end of the day, my
opinion, then we'll read this, I think this
is important. I think it's about Jared Kushner's
influence over the global dynamic and what's happening
with Israel and Iran, and these people are
going, this is not okay.
Intelligent entities going, this is this person is
unfettered power, or they they can prove Israel
is controlling him. These are my opinions. But
whatever it is, guys, realize that they're going
we're never gonna allow anybody
to see this, but it's fake,
though. So it says, in an email to
Democratic congressional staffers sent on February 13
and reviewed by the Wall Street Journal, Gabbard's
office said it was unable
to provide the unredacted intelligence that underpinned the
complaint, quote, due to the assertion of executive
privilege
to portions.
Again, meaning Donald Trump,
or at the very least, his executive branch
personally said these things can't be seen.
The intelligence at issue was assembled in a
report by the National Security Agency early last
year and relates to a conversation
two foreign nationals
had about Donald Trump's son-in-law.
Oh, that's right. I take it back. I
think the Iranian point was an over the
the possible we discussed last time. If I
remember correctly, it was two people. It was
just foreign nationals.
And his name came up. But then the
the considerations were obviously he's dealing with Gaza.
He's dealing with Iran. So at some level,
it could very well be Israeli foreign nationals
trying to lie about something, and they don't
want you to see it for that reason.
Now I wouldn't make as much sense because
it seems like they're in league with each
other. But remember, these people, I mean, at
the end of the day, they're they would
dub they would sell their grandmother for a
nickel, it seems. Every one of them in
every way, if it benefited their immediate situation.
That's what sociopaths are like. Now it says
senior Trump administration officials have said the claims
about Kushner's Kushner were demonstrably false,
but declined to offer more specifics on grounds
that doing so could expose a highly sensitive
surveillance method. How exactly would that be? If
you were to come out and say they're
lying about Kushner being a woman or whatever,
what is it's a lie. Right? How would
in any way telling us the substance of
the claim
divulge your process or your surveillance? Wait. That's
just dumb. It's not true. But that's the
best they can do. Because in the beginning,
it was pretty clear that Trump was going,
Donald, don't don't show them that. It's gossip.
But then why wouldn't you show us?
Executive privilege generally refers to the power of
the president to withhold confidential information
or private discussions from Congress or the judicial
branch. Current and former US intelligence officials said
the use of executive privilege to limit the
sharing of intelligence was unusual.
A whistleblower complaint filed last spring accuses Gabbard.
Now remember, this is after
the initial point was brought forward. So they
have the information about whatever this thing about
Kushner.
Then the complaint was filed of Colt Tulsi
Gabbard about how she improperly limited the distribution
of that intelligence within the Trump administration for
political purposes they're alleging.
I
think Gabbard is denied, of course. The the
complaint itself
has stalled within Gabbard's office from reaching congress
for more than eight months. The intelligence, which
is at least in part about Iran,
is said to derive from an exceptionally sensitive
surveillance method.
Okay? I mean, if that's even the truth,
what would that mean?
Is there some secret thing that I want
us to know that they're using? Or is
it Starlink and they're spying on Iranians? That's
interesting. Officials have said any disclosure of the
collection method could damage US national security. That's
just it's national security. That's the answer to
everything. There is no respect national security. Shut
up. It doesn't matter. And and historically,
and I mean provably,
like, every one of these cases, guys, you
can typically depending on how's how what level
it's at, you could later look back and
find out if that was the case. Right?
Once at once the dust settles, was it
really national security? Did it ultimately matter? Were
they lying about what happened with Israel and
Iran? Yes. It turns out they were. And
they always cite national security to keep it
from your view. Bolton, limpet mines, Iran. That's
exactly what they did, and they lied.
It's not secret.
I mean, it was in the beginning. It's
not now. In a new letter, Warner and
Haim said they weren't able to confirm whether
the discussion at issue was about Kushner because
the version of the complaint they received was
so heavily redacted. Those are people from the
committees.
They're simply saying we can't even tell what
this is because they just redacted everything. Kushner
has been deeply involved in some of the
administration's most challenging foreign policy issues.
That alone should be weird based on their
family dynamic, but he is serving as a
volunteer
in the Trump administration and doesn't have any
formal US government role, therefore he's not bound
by damn near anything.
On top of the fact that nobody signs
ethic pledges, nobody cares what the normal legal
dynamic is, but this
it's a very common point.
The guy has no connection. No one voted
him in. He has very alarming connections to
companies in Israel and for he has I
mean, he's proven to be working on you
know, from a place of personal profit. At
the end of the day,
if not even if none of that was
true, the idea that you have an unelected
volunteer person from his family who was dictating
these sign these foreign policy situations
should never be okay with anybody.
Now, I mean, could you imagine if this
was
Biden's,
you know, son-in-law?
I mean, we we have a similar point
with Hunter Biden.
You know, it's it's just such gross hypocrisy
all the time. Democrats are in the minority
in both chambers in congress. Now, like, one
more point, by the way. I I can
already hear people going, Hunter was a crackhead.
No. You're right.
Eric Kushner is very well put together. Okay.
Fine. Well, that's completely subjective. It's not about
whether or not they're a bad person. It's
about the principle. And that's what it always
shows you is it comes down to their
personal emotional reaction as opposed to, I I
don't care whether the best person in the
world or, you know, a bum on the
street. You should not have that
person from that position in this spot. It's
just that's the point.
Democrats are in the minority in both chambers
in congress and have little recourse to force
Gabbard to share material with them without support
from Republicans.
So you could clearly point out that there's
a I mean, I'm curious to see where
Massey stands in all this. Who control the
intelligence committees and have dismissed the complaint as
meritless
and a manufactured controversy intended to smear Gabbard.
You know how you could easily show that
that's the case? Show us what it says.
Or even just tell us what it says.
You could even lie about it. It's pretty
easy to see there's something weird going on
here, guys.
And I bet you that's where it ends.
I bet you that's forever drifts away, and
neither the Democrats nor the Republicans ever truly
make an issue about it.
Now as Chris points out, Chris Menahan, remember
when Trump said on the campaign trail that
Jared Kushner would play no part in his
second term? Whoopsie.
It was a it was a one of
those broke or what, you know, promises kept
moments. Right? Hashtag winning. Apparently, everything he does
the opposite of what he promises turns out
to be a hashtag winning moment.
And, also, I've just you probably have seen
this before. I've I've mentioned it in the
past. Don't forget that Jared Kushner's father is
also working in the Trump administration.
US ambassador Charles Kushner banned from meeting with
French government over summons, no show.
Nepotism. I mean, any number of overlaps here.
This is just weird.
Now very quickly, since it's really the least
important thing in the conversation,
is the reality of how broken like, you
know, we live in some like I said,
this is we live in a Saturday Night
Live skit, guys.
Like, we're embarrassing. Like, rather, our government is
embarrassing, and the world laughs at us. And
it's really time that we become honest about
that if we ever wanna change it.
This is Roger Stone. Now, look, it's
every time, whether it's Biden or Trump, these
things are meaningless
statements of what how great I am and
everything I'm doing. And then you go, that's
a lie. That's a lie. That's a lie.
That's a lie. Every time, left and right,
every single time. And honest people make the
point every time. It's all about narrative and
rhetoric. That's all it is. Management of the
narrative.
I did this, and, oh, you had to
date wars. No. You didn't. I mean, it's
just it's insulting.
And then even worse, you get these jack
o littiots behind them going, yo. Yo.
Like, what what is this? Are are we
at a football game?
I mean, these people are embarrassing in so
many ways, but it's because they've all of
them have divulged into this kindergarten,
like, high school,
divide kind of dynamic where they're just battling
each other over the moment
without any interest in the real outcome.
They want moments of, you know, points of
of scoring and dunking on each other. Now,
I think in an interesting way, that's been
created.
You know, we talk about the check and
balance system of the way the system's supposed
to work, where you essentially use their ambition
against each other and they check each other's
systems or check each other's
ambition.
Right? I you can consider a world in
which that very
that very system has been inverted.
Where what you've turned it into so you
could manipulate the government from maybe Israel's perspective
is a situation where you check and balance
them with their own stupidity,
their own petty narcissism, where they basically, nobody
ever ends up in these positions where they
truly wanna do anything because if they do,
they get they can't exist in this ecosystem
because all you're doing is trying to score
cheap points on each other, trying to stand
up and pretend you care to get one
side to cheer for you in the moment.
And, I mean, what I'm trying to say
is that these people wanna be aware of
how broken this is, and they think they're
at the peak of the world and they're
being laughed at.
It's worth thinking about how easily that would
be managed, to keep the dumbest people in
these situations and all they do is huck
nonsense back and forth at each other,
and that's check and balance system in the
reverse.
So Roger Stone has this to say. Last
night, America stood and the left sat.
It's just the
lowest hanging fruit. I'll show you what they're
talking about very quickly. It's quite embarrassing. We
live in a Saturday Night Live skit.
So here is what Matt Walsh had to
say. This is let me see if I
even have this. I don't think I downloaded
most of them. Here it is. Here's one
of them.
With this statement,
then stand up and show your support.
The first duty of the American government is
to protect American citizens, not illegal aliens.
Okay. You're a little sad when you can
call.
Nobody else. Nobody else.
Okay.
So everybody's making that ball. Oh my god.
They just did like that that that was
the point of Roger Stone's statement. And they
sat. Okay.
Well, sure. You could choose to make that
a huge deal. You could choose to make
it out to be that they don't care
about Americans first.
What's hilarious about that first is that you're
talking about an administration who is
objectively
prioritizing
Israeli citizens and Israel over American citizens, including
the American that was just killed in the
West Bank they don't care about, or Americans
being kidnapped by Israel they don't care about,
or any number of examples. And you could
make the same points about the Democrats. That's
the point in when you're not a ridiculous
partisan, guys.
But what's crazy about this to me, other
than their ridiculous hypocrisy, like they actually care
about Americans while they're arresting Americans in the
streets and shooting them, is that what you're
doing right there is creating an obvious gotcha
moment. That's all this is about. Meaningless. It's
all flash, no substance. Is that you're saying
something
that you know though, you you stand up
if you have this opinion. Well, guess what?
The Democrats are gonna go no because Trump
said it because they're all children.
The same way Republicans do it. Okay? I
mean, we saw these are the way that
these things constant
constantly go. We saw it with Pam Bondi,
where what's her name said, turn around and
say you're sorry to those Epstein people. And
then she didn't do it. And so what
do they say? She doesn't care. She won't
apologize, which may be the truth. Or it's
because I'm not gonna just do what you
tell me to do. I'm not gonna give
you that moment and make everyone go, look.
She told her. That's how this constantly works.
And it could be both. It's just so
frustratingly stupid. Now the point is always is
that you're saying Americans should care about Americans
or rather the government should care about Americans
over illegal immigrants. Well, I would argue that
most of them, if you really break down
the point, would be they would claim we
fight for America. At the end of the
day, it's Trump's manipulative way. He's trying to
use that because he's not. He's fighting it.
There's always a breakdown of the inner narrative.
But on top of that, from a human
perspective, shouldn't it just be ultimately caring about
people?
Right?
Like, the idea that there there should like,
balancing one group versus the other is how
this ultimately creates? But
back to the main point.
If we're talking about an America first perspective,
that's up for you to decide if that's
the way the world should operate, or rather
just the country should operate, then what they're
doing is the opposite of that in a
real sense.
I think this is insulting because what they're
trying to do is create the impression that
one side cares and one side doesn't when
neither of them care about you. And that's
all you get. And Matt Walsh has this
to say.
Insaner times, this would be an enormous scandal
when every single politician who refused to stand
would be run out of the office and
forced to rely on disgrace.
Okay?
Because they just didn't stand. I mean, again,
there's multifaceted opinions of all these people left
and right to some degree. And if you
really, my main point is always is they're
all corrupt. I think that's pretty clear.
But does this mean anything to you guys?
Is this a bombshell because we just proved
that they don't really care about Americans
when they all support Israel over you? Again,
with Pam Bondi in the same point, guys,
it's about trying to create a got you
moment, and you know that they're gonna refuse
just because they know what they're trying to
do.
I hope you get what I'm trying to
say. I'm not suggesting that they necessarily all
care about you or that the Democrats do,
whether it be it's it's always a game.
None of them care about how this plans
out. Stephen Miller says, an entire American political
party refusing to stand for the principle.
Because clearly, they're all principle people. Right? Actual
American citizens matter more than illegal alien invaders.
Oh, okay. So you could make the point.
Are are you saying when you say that,
are you talking about people with visas and
green cards? They are. Maybe they think they
are. This is always a game of narrative.
Is a degree of nihilism, anarchism, which is
not what those things mean. I mean, look,
what's funny, you can even look this up
again on here.
A political theory advocating for the abolition of
hierarchical government.
So, Stephen Miller, you're dumb, or you're just
conflating that on purpose because it's the only
ideology that has no place for morons like
you. But it says, and extremism that defies
categorization.
All that because they didn't stand up because
you, you know, asked them to stand up?
How ridiculously petty.
Now here's a good example to counterbalance this
with.
This is an older clip, by the way.
Cut a record number of job killing regulations,
and in one year, we have lifted 2,400,000
Americans a record off of food stamps.
So
interesting. Right? So how dare they? How how
dare you not clap
for saving people and helping them off of
their poverty, right?
Well, so you could make that argument, right?
You could look at that and go, jeez,
the Democrats don't even care. They're they're helping
people. Except when you understand how this really
went down, which was and you could easily
look this up if you care.
They didn't lift people up. They pushed them
off of food stamps. Now, that's a different
conversation about whether you think it should even
exist or whether you think people are abusing
the system. Those are different conversations. The point
is,
when he talked about this, there were Americans
who relied on those, whether it was through
manipulation or not. And And they didn't help
them into a better situation or or get
them a place where they used something else.
They just pushed them off the platform
and then came out and made the argument
that he lifted them off of it like
he's helping them. And then they that's why
they didn't stand up and clap because that's
what you you're very dishonestly framing that. And
then plenty of people made the argument. They
oh, they don't even care. He's helping Americans.
They don't even clap because they hate Trump.
He always goes,
they all hate you. They all hate you
so much that they're trying to convince you
that one side or the other loves you
in order to get you to support the
things that break your that ruin your life.
Mike Lee says, I've been to 16 of
these things, and I've never seen Republicans behave
like this during a State of the Union.
And it what? It's Ilhan Omar and them
saying, you killed Americans, I think she says.
Or you killed two of my constituents, which
are true, by the way.
Okay.
Why? Wait. Yeah. Mainstreamer says nothing
like Lee. Oh, he's so
proud and, you know, what's the word?
He's clearly trying to project himself as outrage,
moral I'm righteously indignant.
Oops. Marjorie Taylor Greene, Andy Ogles, Dan Vandoor,
they all they all heckled Joe Biden. Okay.
Here's multiple examples. 2022. Here's 2009 or even
better.
Here's Mike Lee screaming in Biden's State of
the Union. Now it's such a meaningless stupid
point because studies the people who need to
hear this don't get reached by it. But
it's just wild to me how every single
moment of every day, these people can just
blatantly lie to you, and it doesn't seem
to change anything.
So they all do it is the point.
Surprise, surprise. See how often that turns up
to be the case? But they just love
to go, oh my god. Clutch my pearls.
You're the bad one because you're doing the
thing that we all do. And my you
don't think he knows that? Of course he
does. Hi. In fact, Flix called out one
of the many lies. Trump claimed gasoline is
below $2.30
in in in in most states. You can
easily look it up, by the way, if
you care. It's not true. He also stated
that prices have reached as low as a
dollar 99 in some places and mentioned seeing
gas as $1.85 during the recent visit to
Iowa. Problem is, market data from AAA and
of tonight indicates a national average of $2.95
with no individual states. Again, repeat. No individual
states' average actually sitting below $2.30.
And that's just one easily verifiable lie from
his State of the Union address. Wonder if
any Republicans have the balls to call this
out. Now, the sad thing is that he
says one eighty five, and you can go
right now and look. You'll find tons of
Republicans just citing that as a fact because
Trump said it out loud, even though it's
not true.
Plenty of other examples. This one I've called
out plenty of times before, and it's not
just because Grock says so. It's easy. It's
an objectively obvious point.
He did not stop eight wars, guys. I
it's embarrassing that people even try to act
like that makes sense.
Our country has never been stronger. My first
ten months, I ended eight wars,
including Cambodia.
Isn't it funny?
They laughed because it's not true. Sick people.
Cambodia and Thailand,
Pakistan and India would have been a nuclear
war. 35,000,000
people say. It's just not true, guys. Prime
minister of Pakistan would have died if it
were not for my involvement. Oh my god.
What a narcissist. You know what I mean?
Think about and look. You can disagree with
me. I'm sure plenty of blind partisans do.
The reality is it's not true. He he
engaged with certain
parts of these situations and in no way
I mean, first of all, they weren't even
calling these wars before those were happening. There's
been ongoing back and forth between many of
these countries for a long time.
Did he he he counts Israel and Gaza,
guys. That's they're still killing people. He talks
about Syria. They're still killing people. He's lying
to you or just people that
support him, no matter what he says, are
gaslighting you for him.
It's pathetic. And I you know, here's the
here's the thing that should really bother you.
He knows he's lying to you.
What a weak, weak, petty person. That's that's
what you have to do as the president
of the country, that you have to make
things up to make yourself feel important.
It's what they all do, guys. Most of
these people are far weaker and insecure more
insecure than you think.
And I simply just here's Grok. You can
look at it for yourself. Nope. Not true.
Very easily disproven.
Here's a claim about tariffs. Are we're literally
still playing this game. It's
it's embarrassing.
Let me see if I got that one.
I didn't. Jobsite news.
He says, as time goes by, Trump says,
I believe the tariffs paid by foreign countries
will, like in the past, substantially replace the
modern day system of income tax. He's just
trying to get you to think he's gonna
take away tax. He's not. Taking a great
burden off the people. That's one of the
lies right there. And they say reality check.
And it's amazing that we can't get past
this.
Tariffs are not paid by foreign countries.
They're paid by US importers at the border.
And those costs are almost always, he says
typically, almost always passed on to American consumers
through higher prices,
which is literally we're living through right now.
The US collected about a 189,000,000,000
excuse me. A $109,000,000,000
in customs duties in 2025
under Trump's expanded tariffs.
That amounts to roughly 3.5%,
4% of total federal income.
Revenue. Excuse me. Nowhere near enough to replace
income tax. So he's lying or he doesn't
know what he's talking about. Probably both.
Does that matter? I mean, should you be
insulted or scared? One of the two would
be appropriate.
And here's what they posted. I I this
is I was making fun of this the
other day.
All flash, no substance.
You think this would be embarrassing? Like, when
you know and here's what's crazy. Whether you're
talking about polls
or the Epstein conversation where you have major
peep like Tucker Carlson, Dave Smith, who are
saying, I regret voting for this person. And
you've got this massive awareness of people in
the Republican side starting to call out things
like, MAHA being a lie, like food dye
is being rolled back, like Stargate, like MR,
like self amplifying COVID shots, like a new
WHO.
Right? Like any I I mean, a list
of examples.
But, hey, we just can't stop winning, guys,
because that's what we're supposed to say. House
on fire. Everything's fine.
Country is winning again. In fact, we're winning
so much that we really don't know what
to do about it. It almost feels like
a joke, doesn't it? People are asking me,
please, please, please, mister president. We're winning too
much. We can't take it anymore. We're not
used to winning in our country.
Until you came along, we're just always losing,
but now we're winning too much.
And I say, no. No. No. You're going
to win again.
You're going to win big. You're gonna win
bigger than ever. And to prove that point
to prove that point, here with us tonight
is a group of winners who just made
the entire nation proud.
The men's
gold medal Olympic
hockey team. Alright. Thanks, Kash Patel. Seeing as
how you guys had literally nothing to do
with any of that, but let's just glom
on to the credit. Look how great we
are. They won. We win. We're The USA.
You're pathetic.
I mean, think about that kind of a
statement and making it all about you.
Literally, everything is all about him. I'm we
are winning. Look what I did, and here's
the team. I mean, guys, it's, I mean,
I'm shocked. It's overwhelming
how crazy this person is. And I don't
mean that in the sense of I mean,
other than anything that we've been highlighting. It's
just he's a special kind of person. He
truly is. And it is just wild to
me. But that's the way he just did
that. We just are so tired of winning.
We're winning, winning. That is as I did
with the meme here. That is the exact
that is a living example of this meme.
Everything's fine. House burning down around you. We're
winning. Hashtag winning. Read the comments. It's not
what their own team thinks.
But what else are you gonna do? Just
gonna just like I say, just scream freedom,
and then apparently, that hide your crimes.
Well, he also said, we're gonna be leading,
the well, excuse me. JD Vance will be
leading the administration
and their new war on fraud.
Well, haven't we been here before? I feel
like I've heard this before, haven't you? I'm
officially announcing the war on fraud to be
led by our great friends.
Well, wait a minute. As Massey points out,
wasn't that called Doge? Didn't you announce Doge
at the last State of the Union, which
was supposed to be about reducing fraud and
spending? Oh, that's right. We were spending way
more than ever and fraud's exploding. And
we're not even talking about Minnesota if that's
the only thing in your mind right now
because that's pretty embarrassing. The reality is that
has been ongoing since well before this administration.
As far as I could tell, they haven't
arrested anybody. 74 of them have been indicted,
many arrested during Biden's administration. I'm not siding
with any of them. It's just those simple
facts. But here we are. The point though
is that this is ridiculous, guys. You're just
reinitiating the same thing you failed at as
if we don't know that. He says nobody
in DC is serious about cutting fraud because
no one's fraud
or one man's fraud is another man's reelection
program. Perfect.
When I offered an amendment to end the
day care fraud, remember this, guys, the speaker
blocked it. We just covered that. And in
fact, there's other examples of that too, where
they're continuing the funding of the of the,
refugee assistance overlap in those locations.
And Massey pointed this out.
He tried to make it clear. Look. That
thing, they just spent weeks screaming about, Nick
Shirley and the whole thing, and they all
supported the funding to continue.
This is why it's so frustrating people like
us. I mean, it's
infuriating.
How can anybody misunderstand that? Because the next
order, the rest, they just either rack they
kind of try to make it make sense
for why, no, no, that's not what it
actually is, or they just pretend like it's
not there.
It's insane, isn't
it?
Dave Smith. Last year at the State of
the Union, Donald Trump declared that this was
a new golden age, and it was upon
us. Trump promised that Doge would cut hundreds
of billions in fraud,
that he would end the war in Ukraine
and Israel and others and rather, Gaza. Excuse
me. And that the era of regime change
was over.
This year, after doing none of that,
he will be selling a stupid, unpopular war
for Israel and Iran.
Can't misunderstand that.
Now, on Iran, because I think this is
wildly important, guys, because it is, I mean,
honestly, this agenda has never really stopped. As
far back as I can look, it's always
been some well percolating, and they take shots
here and there. But this is never going
away until Israel stops this agenda, guys. That
can't be misunderstood.
So as David DeCamp writes, again yet again
showing you the the reality of the two
party illusion,
one thing that can unite Republicans and Democrats
is lying your way into a war.
And this is,
an example of, wait. Let me let me
make sure I grab that. Maybe I didn't.
I was cutting some of these out earlier.
Let me see what believe the tariffs
paid for by foreign countries will, like in
the past,
substantially
replace the modern day Just Making sure that
was it. That I guess I did have
that one. It was shorter than I thought.
Modern. I left the the team coming in.
Okay. So I guess I don't have it.
But either way, come back to the clip.
So the point is and I I remember
why, actually. I think I've got one here
that we'll show.
Basically, Elizabeth Warren and other Democrats
always fronting about pushing back. And this is
the game again, guys. The game again about
the lie of the two party illusion.
That ultimately,
they'll stand up and scream, we're fighting him,
and then side when it matters. Or that
if they're a bunch of Democrats always out
to get Trump, then how do you make
sense of them siding with anything he does?
Right?
Elizabeth Warren and other Democrats
rising to applaud Donald Trump's posturing around a
lie
and the war over against Iran using the
claim of nuclear bombs.
And Glenn calls it out. Here's Elizabeth Warren,
February 24,
the day before,
says no war with Iran. The American people
want president Trump to focus on making life
more affordable for working families here at home,
not sending our military into another endless war
in The Middle East, and then the next
day stands up and claps for Donald Trump's
proposal for war.
These people are frauds, guys. Whether they're put
there for that reason or they're just capitalizing
on the system for their own benefit, you
can decide. Elizabeth Warren came into social media
to feed her dumb liberal followers this pleasant
sound cliche
about no war with Iran. Then and now
a couple hours later, she gave a standing
ovation during oh, I guess that was. It
was yesterday. That's right. Gave a standing ovation
during the most militant part of the speech
about war with Iran. Classic Democrat.
Now this
is the argument that we're getting.
Donald Trump is telling you
that Iran has nuclear weapons. We'll get into
the crazy argument that is right now, seeing
as that we just spent years months telling
you it was obliterated.
But now he's saying they're about to strike
the Europe and The United States with you
with with the nuclear weapons he told you
they don't no longer had, or that he
just tried to walk it back to ballistic
missiles, but that would be that didn't work.
So we're going back to nuclear rep because
that's what that's what Israel wants.
He's recycling the weapons of mass destruction propaganda.
How what else would you call that but
desperate?
Here's Mark Levin.
In order to lie America into a war,
he is now claiming that Iran has nuclear
ICBMs.
So you guys you know what? It when
when we lie to you and everyone sees
through it, the best thing to do is
kinda just mash them together. You know? Right?
Like, because the point was, well, we we
we're worried about their their missiles. Well, that's
not the only problem. It's because they have
nuclear weapons. Well, it's not that alone because
we can't prove they have it, so let's
mash them together. Now, realistically, that is typically
the point, nuclear ICBMs. But I think it's
funny how they're evolving the way they tell
you what's going on. And in this very
argument, he does that in one argument.
Or rather, in this very clip, he does
it in one argument.
But they're aiming for New York and Los
Angeles. How could he possibly know that? This
guy is such an obvious manipulator,
and it says you can literally hear Levin's
lies evolve in the span of one minute.
He goes from claiming Iran is obsessed with
getting nuclear warheads and putting them on ICBMs
that can now reach our country to blow
up our cities off the face of the
earth to claiming they already have them and
are aiming them at us, but not Tel
Aviv or Jerusalem. That's his subtle way of
suggesting this isn't a war for Israel. President
Trump shared a similar lie filled rant of
Levins making the case for war on True
Social.
Now we saw this.
This is actually very important.
They put this out because everyone was calling
it out. Because let's be let's remember. That
this is actually funny because it's, in a
way, kind of counterintuitive to the argument if
you're if you're taking a side and that
side being Iran. Because the reality is they
didn't obliterate their nuclear program, not as far
as I can tell. They said that because
they always say that. We won and hit
everything the way we wanted to. They always
do that. From far as I can tell,
it was pretty unsuccessful.
But there was clearly some things that were
bombed. So that being said, I don't believe
they obliterated whatever they said they were bombing.
But at the same time, the evidence shows,
as even Tulsi Gabbard said this year or
rather, no, was it just
over the last year, Gabbard very clearly, I
think it was 2025, said they were not
seeking a nuclear weapon. Biden's administration said the
same. The evidence does not show that. The
IC, the,
international
the IAEA
said the same thing.
You just can't keep lying about this when
everything says the opposite. The point, though, is
that they were never actually building toward that
according to the evidence,
despite what all the people scream. So here
we are, where Trump, lying to make himself
look like he was successful, says we have
obliterated the entire thing. That's what's important because,
as I've said in the past, if you
lie about everything, you're gonna eventually contradict a
previous lie. And here we are. Because now
they wanna bomb again because that's what Israel
wants. Israel wants the nuclear bomb argument? Oh,
so we're right back to it. Even though
that's so embarrassing for me as if you're
asked Trump, because
I just claimed it was gone. We have
a 100% defeated ISIS. Oh, ISIS just bombed
us. We We a 100% defeated them. Oh,
we just took out a guy. You know,
they did that for back and forth for
years.
So Glenn says everyone knows that once you
totally and completely obliterate a country's nuclear facility,
they grow back to the original size in
six to eight months.
Now he's obviously being facetious, but the point
to be made, as far as I can
tell, and I'm not an expert, and I've
done my due diligence on this stuff,
I don't think it's possible.
Outside of and you could argue potential help,
but it would be some pretty severe extreme
like, I would argue, like, transferring things to
Iran help. I don't think that's even happening
or even possible right now with a few
different points. But the argument being that
it's not possible for them. Had they obliterated
it, like they said, or even had it,
then it wouldn't even be possible for them
to reach what they need to be able
to make a bomb, let alone have one
ready to be used in six to eight
months, let alone a year.
And on top of that, they've been saying
this for how long? They're this many weeks
away.
Well, bay based on that logic, then it's
gonna be about eleven years before they you
know, however long it is. Ten twenty years.
So here is home of the brave.
Trump spent eight months telling you, there is
no more threat. We did it to now
go, no. They're back threatening us, but the
thing we told you is gone. You can't
misunderstand this.
Stopped.
The world
that the strikes were a spectacular
military
success.
2025. Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities have been
completely and totally obliterated.
We assess that the American strikes on Iran's
nuclear facilities has set back Iran's ability to
develop nuclear weapons for many years to come.
The nuclear threat
of Iran,
that was totally obliterated. Iran, where we wiped
out their nuclear capacity for weapons.
They totally obliterated
the nuclear potential nuclear supply
of Iran. In June, we obliterated Iran's nuclear
enrichment capacity.
Last summer, I ordered devastating strikes on Iran's
key nuclear facilities and achieving total obliteration
of the Iran nuclear potential capability. Totally obliterated.
Did you love that? The tote the last
part, totally blurry. That that's him ad libbing.
The rest is literally written right down for
him. And that's the whole point.
Also point out the shocking consistency with the
words and verbs and because there's a that's
a narrative control. It's also not true. And
here's what the point is. This is the
New York Post.
Iran, a week away from a bomb grade
material.
See how this, you know, which, by the
way, is playing the stupidity because that would
mean they're very far away from having a
bomb. But who cares, though? Right? Witkoff warns
as Trump weighs options. Oh, Witkoff warns. Because
he knows. Right? Why the hell would Witkoff
have any insight to what Ron's bomb making
is doing?
How do we fall for this stuff, guys?
It's crazy.
On top of that, as I was just
half playing for you, this is
Netanyahu going back. I mean, if if this
is a fraction of the how many times
he's actually done this. And he says, how
many times are we gonna keep falling for
this?
Stopped.
Iran could produce a nuclear weapon in a
very short time. It could be a year.
It could be within a few months.
They have the wherewithal,
the stored up preserved knowledge to make a
bomb very quickly, if they wanted to do
it. Iran is so dangerous. Weeks away from
having the fissile material
for an entire arsenal of nuclear bombs. They're
very close. They're six months away from being
about 90% of having the rich uranium for
an atom bomb. Iran is gearing up to
have to produce 25
bombs atomic bombs a year, two fifty bombs
in a decade. Ladies and gentlemen
time is running out. Iran will be capable
of producing alone without importing anything nuclear bombs
within three to five years.
Now it's also worth reminding everybody,
you know, the the different parts of all
this. Right? I mean, how long that's been
continuing? And so one part of it is
Iran's side of it. And you could argue
they're lying. And you could you should genuinely
consider that. That they're this is a religious
what for them. They they they will not
do it. That's the argument because it it's
it's it's, contradictory to their religious beliefs.
Now you can decide to believe that or
not. The point though is that that based
on all the rest of the evidence that
actually lines up with what they're actually doing
and what people have said and what Gabbard
from this administration told you, what the International
Atomic Energy agent told agency told you,
and all you get is a group that's
been lying about everything they're doing around the
world that's telling you they're doing it and
they've been saying it for years?
Oh, we can't be this stupid. Now, of
course, it's possible. And even taking the North
Korea example, you might even argue that they
now recognize they should.
And, like, every other country has a right
to do that. The only reason it makes
any sense to anybody is because Iran bad
guy, like we're in kindergarten. And, in fact,
most of what they claim about them is
what The US and Israel are doing to
the world. And every government's capable of all
these things, so we should be skeptical about
all of them. Kinda simple, isn't it? The
reality is facts matter and what you can
prove
is a fraction. I mean, what they're pointing
to I mean, look, I have to make
it as simple as possible. I think all
of them, Laurent's government, there there's corrupt elements
like all of these governments.
But if you can look at what they're
out alleging and prove it's wrong, you should
ask what they're trying to accomplish. Then stand
back and look at what The US and
Israel are doing
that you can prove and compare it to
what even they claim they're doing, and it
it's it overshadows it insanely.
I mean, you could just point to the
genocide.
I again, I don't even need to make
these arguments, I don't think, because I'm pretty
sure the whole world sees this.
Now I'll play this one again, but I'll
include all four of these. I just simply
said, gee. I wonder why all this is
happening with Iran. And it shows you the
clip of of,
what's his name? But this stuff
Jeffrey Jeffrey Sachs, you know, going over the
list of wars in the seven countries five
years, and now it's literally been pushed by
Netanyahu the entire time. And then two versions,
essentially, of what you just saw of him
going over the years, telling you about going
after Iran. And then, of course, the Washington
Institute with Patrick Clausen. Just showing you with
all this pressure from Israel, saying, do we
need to do this? We need to do
this? Here is the Washington Institute mapping out
how they make that happen.
That's what you're watching.
I frankly think that crisis initiation is really
tough,
and it's very hard for me to see
how The United States,
president can get us to war with Iran.
Which leads me to conclude that if in
fact compromise is not comping,
that the traditional way of America gets to
war is what would be best for US
interests.
Some people might think that mister Roosevelt wanted
to get us into World War two as
David mentioned. You may recall we had to
wait for Pearl Harbor.
Some people might think mister Wilson wanted to
get us into World War one. You may
recall he had to wait for the Lusitania
episode.
Some people might think that mister Johnson wanted
to send troops to Vietnam. You may recall
he had to wait for the Gulf Of
Tonkin episode.
We didn't go to war with Spain until
the USS,
until the Maine exploded.
And may I point out that mister Lincoln
did not feel he could call out the
Federal Army until Fort Sumter was attacked, which
is why he ordered the commander at Fort
Sumter to do exactly that thing, which the
South Carolinians had said would cause an attack.
So, if in fact, the Iranians aren't gonna
compromise,
it would be best if somebody else started
the war.
But, but I would just like to suggest
that,
one can combine other means of pressure with
sanctions.
I mentioned that explosion
on August 17.
We could step up the pressure.
I mean, look people, Iranian submarines periodically go
down. Someday one of them might not come
up. Who would know why?
We can do a variety of things if
we wish to increase the pressure. I'm not
advocating that, but I'm just suggesting that,
it it it it's this this is not
a a either or proposition of, you know,
it's just sanctions has to has to succeed
or other things.
We are in the game
of using covert means against the Iranians. We
we could get nastier than that.
Just it's incredibly illegitimate
from every single position, guys. That's just ill
you're talking about creating the justification for an
illegitimate war. Even if you argue it's because
they're bad guy. Like, what are you arguing?
Like, we'll get into what JD Vance says
right here.
He says, we've got to get a position.
Well, I'll let I'll just I'll just let
it play, but it's simply the state sponsor
of terrorism in the world. The largest state
spawn I mean, this is how embarrassing this
is.
So what are you pointing to? Like, let's
just even pretend that you can literally prove
that Iran is funding Hezbollah, Hamas, and the
Houthis. That's what they're actually pretending right there.
That's not even true. Allies, sure. And maybe
even in some cases today, maybe that is
happening more so. Maybe there's weapons exchange with
that. You could even argue that there is
support in that sense, selling weapons to each
other. Allies do it all over the world.
It's not bad until it becomes a raw
and their allies. The point, though, is that
this is not what they've claimed. That there's
they're just they're terrorist entities, and they're using
them to proxy war. Not what's happening.
And on top of it, you can prove
it to yourself by recognizing that they've never
proved it themselves. They make allegations based on
their intelligence, national security. It's not the case,
guys, especially since you can prove that Israel
had been literally funding Hamas while they were
saying that. But the point, though, let's just
give them that and say, fine. Iran controls
entirely Hamas, Hezbollah, and Houthis. And then let's
just give them, they're all terrorist organizations. Okay.
For sake of conversation.
Then compare that little dynamic to all the
groups that The US and Israel are funding,
and all the things they're doing in the
world, and all the countries they've destroyed, and
stealing from, and raping, and torturing, and everything
they're doing in the world.
What do you see?
Giving them the things they claim. What do
you see? Does it seem like Iran is
the leading state sponsor of terrorism? Or does
it look like the groups that are funding
the majority of those groups in the world
that they claim they're fighting, like Hayat al
Sham and Jelani in Syria, or every other
group we're talking about, or are allying with
Saudi Arabia and all the countries that are
actually come on, guys. It really doesn't take
that much to see how stupid this is.
Here's what he had to say, and throwing
in the nuclear conversation because that makes sense.
I understand where other people are coming from,
Bill, but I don't know what Chuck Schumer
is even talking about. The president has been
as crystal clear as it could be. Iran
can't have a nuclear weapon. No. They don't.
And they've already said that that's okay. That
would be the ultimate military objective
if that's the the route that he chose.
That is, of course, what we're trying to
accomplish as the president said through the preferred
route of diplomacy,
but it's very simple. We have to get
to a position where Iran,
the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the
world, cannot threaten the world with nuclear terrorism.
Where are they doing that?
You see how ridiculous this gets? Show me
where they're threatening the world nuclear terrorism.
You claim they're building them.
Okay. How can you threaten people with the
building of a missile? Oh, because when they
get it, they'll do bad things. So you
say, and it's on something where they're not
even building.
Try to make sense of that. That you're,
nuclear
what would he say again?
It was oops.
That's weird.
I'm telling you, man. Things are acting so
that was weird. Where Iran,
the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the
world, cannot threaten the world with nuclear terrorism.
Yeah. That's what he said. I just wanna
make sure I was didn't mishear it. Nuclear
terrorism.
I mean, show me where that's in any
way possible happening.
How are are they going are they making
threats and saying, you better do this or
we're gonna eventually do bad things when we
get nuclear weapons? Or are you suggesting they
secretly have them? And in that case, show
me where they're threatening to do things with
those weapons.
Guys, this is just painfully stupid, but this
is the game. It doesn't matter. They know
we know it doesn't matter. They know that
they have the people to support them. They
know that they have the insiders who want
to overthrow Iran, and and
they'll get all their financial support. And then
they can stand there and act like, oh,
America believes in this because my little group
says so, and we all pretend that's the
case.
We're we're just in a very dangerous point
in this country, guys. We are falling.
Either I should say, they are dragging us
down. We don't have to collapse this country.
The government doesn't care about this country. It
cares about its interests, and its interests are
clearly Israel.
But let's go further.
Dave DeCamp.
Brett Baer says POTUS
about State of the Union.
It's important negotiations Thursday, and Jimmy and, and,
Genovid, Iran desperately wants a deal.
But,
Trump says, Iran just can't say the sacred
phrase, we won't build nuclear weapons, and this
is what they keep doing. So you got
Vance claiming nuclear terrorism
with something they don't have or they do
or they're not threatening. I don't know how
that makes sense. Then you got Trump saying,
we would make a deal, but they just
won't tell us that they don't want a
weapon, except they literally say that every single
time. This is the point, guys.
They don't care what they say. That's because
Israel doesn't wanna hear it. They wanna bomb
Iran. They wanna overthrow Iran. They don't care.
The reality here is that Trump is claiming
they're not saying this, but this is literally
one of the representatives saying this. Iran will,
under no circumstances,
ever develop a weapon. Ah, okay. But then
they go, we don't believe you.
You see how this works? So then Trump
comes up and says, they won't say it,
but they just said it. All you're doing
is that we don't really believe they're we
don't want them to say it out loud.
There's nothing they can do that will convince
us. So this is over.
But why won't Iran make a deal? They
won't say the thing we wanted to say,
then they say it. We don't believe you.
See see this never ending cycle, it's exactly
what Israel does with Gaza.
They pretend like they're in good faith negotiations,
but they know they've set it up to
fail every time.
They could sign affidavits. They could do everything.
They've literally let them go through their nuclear
facilities. The JCP j JCPOA was an agreement
designed to allow those investigations.
Trump is the one that broke that deal.
And they've then within the deal increased enrichment
because that's what the deal said. And they
claimed that was a violation of the deal.
That's the Iran deal.
And here we are, where they're just going,
they won't even say it. Here they are
saying. I mean, it's just infuriatingly
stupid, isn't it? And it's all gonna lead,
probably, regardless of all of this, to Israel
bombing, or rather,
literally Israel bombing Iran, probably through The United
States.
I shouldn't even say literally in that case,
but the point would be clearly that this
is seemingly gonna go forward even though most
people seem to be aware that it's not
legitimate.
And on top of that, that most Americans
in every possible way you can see do
not want more war, specifically with Iran.
But America first, guys.
Here's IDF Brian Mast, because that's not relevant
at all that he's literally dressed in an
IDF uniform as an American politician. Right? Here's
what he had to say about it.
End nuclear enrichment. You have to bend ballistic
missile program. Stop having the Ayatollah kill your
people. Stop I mean, what are you talking
about? I mean, starting off with things that
everyone's allowed to do, so those aren't legitimate.
You can't just say, nobody's allowed to have
pencils over there because we think those are
bad. Okay. That doesn't have any people in
other countries, governments, or any other country are
allowed to have missiles. They're allowed to have
defense. They're allowed to enrich uranium for civilian
programs or for weapons, by the way. I'm
not saying I agree with any of them
doing that, but that is the reality.
This is them just going, we demand these
things because we don't wanna be the policeman
of the world. We don't wanna dictate what
they can do. That's it's just they're ridiculous.
All of them. Stop threatening The United States
Of America. They're not. I don't think they'll
take that off ramp. I think we end
up using the capabilities of our two carrier
battle groups that are in the region. Oh,
good. So we're gonna use the carriers to
bomber on because they refuse to do what
we call and demand for them to do
even though they're kind of already doing all
those things.
This is the same point. They're not threatening
you. They're responding to your ridiculous allegations and
saying, don't do that. We'll respond. And then
you go, you're threatening us. Listen again. To
end nuclear enrichment. You have to end nuclear
enrichment. Okay. Same point. We'll continue because it's
legally allowed. You have to bend ballistic missile
pro Every group is allowed to have ballistic
missiles. Program, stop having the Ayatollah kill your
people. The claim is about 30,000 Trump is
alleging, which is not, based on what I
can tell, completely
based on nothing other than Israeli intelligence through
Iranian platforms they claim are representing Iran, you
can quite literally prove that they're funded through
National Endowment for Democracy and places like Israel.
Now, that doesn't mean false. It still very
well could be true, but the facts generally
show that that's not the case based on
most reporting from Iran. Now here's what's interesting.
Iran is claiming that they've killed three, four
thousand people.
That's on the record. What's the point, though,
is they're saying these are foreign entities coming
in to overthrow our government.
You tell me what makes most sense to
you. It could be both. It very well
could be Iran irrationally killing anyone they think
might be a risk. At the same time,
guys, we know what they're doing because we'll
get to the point where they're telling you,
we're arming them to overthrow Iran.
You can't pretend that they're not in real
time arming people on the ground. Assad has
already said that. Israel Iran The United States
is now making that clear.
So even if you think you're fighting for
democracy, that gives them the legitimate right to
fight back.
That's that's an insurgency. You are literally doing
that. It's just it's a it's a supremacist
mindset of people that believe that it's okay
when we do it, nobody else is allowed
to.
Stop threatening The United States Of America. I
They're not doing that. Like I just said,
like it's the last point. They're they're not
threatening United States. Don't think they'll take that
off ramp. I think we end up using
the capabilities of our two carrier battle groups.
So they're because they're not doing the things
that I said and we're pretending they are,
we're gonna bomb them because they're gonna refuse
to stop doing the things that they're already
not doing. Think about how ridiculous that is.
Then
they're gonna if this happens, bombing with the
carrier groups. Well, guess what might happen back?
Well, Iran might respond
and might bomb the carrier groups. And then
what does that literally turn those American citizens
into? A new US is liberty. Well, that's
not a good analogy, actually, but a similar
point where it's being used.
Right? Well, they're gonna go, you just killed
Americans, and now we're gonna go to war
with Iran. You put them there to be
attacked. You don't need them to be sitting
there in order to bomb Iran. Think about
that for a second. Think about what they're
doing with those people. You could argue it's
just threat, power, but you're putting them within
strike range.
For what purpose?
I I genuinely want us to consider this
is about setting it up in order to
justify further war.
That are in the region when that timeline
hits to say the threat to America comes
to an end. It's destruction or diplomacy. It's
one or the other, and I think they
choose destruction.
They choose destruction as you bomb their country
because they don't don't do something.
I mean, this is just the most Orwellian
thing
you I mean, I I feel like every
I wanna say every time. I'm like, this
is it's all it's crazy to me.
It's calling an apple and orange. You know
what I mean? Like, just completely diametric of
what's happening. So just to be clear, the
president has given a deadline of the first
week in March. You are expecting a strike
from The United States on Iran.
I expect that Iran does not take the
diplomatic off ramp and that it comes to
a strike for the president to protect the
homeland of The United States of How in
the world is it to protecting the homeland
of The United States?
It's all abstract. It's because, well, they fund
all these abstract groups that we can't quantify,
and those groups are the ones sending people
into the border, and then those are destabilizing
our immigrants and and, you know, Venezuela, whatever.
It just becomes this abstract, meaningless, unverified argument
of things that are happening. That maybe.
But you're bombing a foreign country and claiming
you're protecting us from their threat. Based on
what?
How and let's just even say there is
a threat out there. Is this America first?
I this is over the top. America, which
absolutely this is against an imminent threat against
the American people. I can give one example
of Americans literally killed the end of at
the beginning of 2024.
Three American service members killed by the hand
of Iran, while they were in Jordan. That's
one example. Continual
Oh, okay. So we're talking about your ongoing
illegal operations around the world?
I mean, think about what they're talking about.
It's the same as arguing that when you
invaded Iraq and then Soleimani and Iranians helped
them fight off your documented
illegal invasion and your lie about WMDs
that to this day, people like Brian Mast
call them terrorists.
How are they terrorists if they're on the
light the right side of history defending an
illegal invasion?
Because you decided so.
Well, attempts to fly drones to our merchant
marine fleet, drones to our navy vessels. You
Yeah. Like, you mean, like, while you're in
their waters?
Yeah, man. That's what he's talking about. We're
you're on their bo in their their international
waters, and their drones are watching you, and
you call that an alligator or,
incitement.
Name it. They are constantly threatening America, and
the president says, no more. This comes to
an end. He is always about protecting the
homeland and about protecting our people, and this
is no You show me a single example
of where it's certainly possible. It might be
out there. But I'd like to see an
example of Iran out of nowhere going, we're
gonna bomb The US because US is bad.
Show me that. I'd love to see that.
And it might even be a lower rung
politician. That wouldn't even surprise me. It's like
a Lindsey Graham speaking off the cuff. But
I still I don't see that. What I
see is Iran responding
to allegations from The United States
and saying and and and threatening agreements that
compromise their situation at the barrel of a
gun.
And then demanding action when they don't do
anything, you call them terrorists.
I I mean, am I missing anything?
Continuing.
Cloud did points out that this is not
a war with
Iran.
It's a war for
Iran.
With, you know, just just words on Twitter.
Powerful. Right? And as Glenn says, well, this
is exactly what was said about Vietnam, Afghanistan,
Iraq, Libya, Syria. This is how silly we
are in this country. Or rather, what they
pretend we are, well, apparently, we don't even
need to be involved anymore.
Think about it. Because I don't think anybody
really believes them. We know this. We're not
stupid.
War propaganda never ever changes no matter how
discredited it gets.
Martyr maid
genuinely goes this route, says Trump has been
cornered.
His his options, as he sees them, are
to start a war with Iran on something
like our own terms or to be dragged
into it at a time and in a
manner of Israel's choosing.
The third option,
telling Israel to fight their own war, is
not on the table because he believes, because
clearly he knows what Trump is thinking,
that if he does that, well, then Israel
will use nuclear weapons.
And he and members of his family will
be in physical danger.
But otherwise, in every other moment of the
day, we love Israel. We support you. Here's
more money. Because that lines up. Right? Then
they probably cheer on other conversations. I don't
know. I'm not familiar with the account. I'm
just thinking about how funny it is to
make the argument that he's basically being threatened
by Israel, but then every single day, he's
out there cheering on for Israel. Curious how
you think that makes sense. And I'm not
even disagreeing. I just think it's who knows?
But it says the military buildup has had
three purposes. First, he hoped, Trump, that Iran
would capitulate
and submit to an agreement strong enough to
calm the Israelis down for the time being.
See, this is this is pretending that for
whatever reason Israel
wants that to happen.
They do not. I mean, listen to what
they're saying. I mean, this is what's crazy
again. Listen to the global conversation. Listen to
what the Israeli government is saying in their
media. Listen to what Ben Gavir has they're
telling you. Now, again, those are other politicians.
Doesn't necessarily mean what they're about to do.
But the point is they're telling you,
we don't wanna deal with Iran. We wanna
take Iran. We want the Greater Israel Project.
We want all of these areas. I'll show
you that clip in a second.
So
he says, second, to have enough forces to
deal with the fallout if Israel attacks and
Iran retaliates against American bases. Right? Because it
would logically be the thing to do to
bomb them more when they simply respond to
us bombing them. Right?
And finally, to potentially strike first and at
least be able to control the first phase
of battle. Who cares if we're killing hundreds
of thousands of innocent people?
The talk of limited strikes reflects his hope
that Iran can be intimidated into buckling because
Trump genuinely does not want war.
My god. That's where we're at. I've never
prayed for a politician or government before, but
I prayed for Trump for the first time
yesterday. You should too.
God. I've just this depresses me. And as
Ryan points out, Darrell Cooper is either controlled
opposition or he's just deeply naive.
He's still out there pushing
the laughable fantasy that Trump is some kind
of outsider opposed to the ruling class or
ruling elitists.
How can you possibly still make that argument?
If that was ever true, it was only
true during the portion of his first term.
Now
Trump will happily and willingly choose from a
list of options that are accepted acceptable to
the foreign policy blob, which Trump has worked
to keep fat and happy throughout both of
his terms.
Cooper should be embarrassed of this maudlin nonsense
about praying for Trump. I agree. I mean,
I'm actually blown away that anybody
again, I agree. Either naive
or wildly dishonest.
Because to me, that's just sad. I'm not
even gonna get into the thousand different ways
you could objectively point out why that doesn't
even line up with what's happening.
But overall,
it ends up being he's the he's the
cornered hero. You know? He had to do
it.
You could make that argument every day of
the week, and people will buy it because
they want to believe he's the one trying
to say everything.
The bottom line, guys, is that that means
that even his supporters
recognize that Israel controls him. Think about that
for a second.
And here, as a newsman points out, is
how Trump used to talk.
I mean, this is both important because of
what he's saying,
but also genuinely the way he's saying it.
I'm not even necessarily meaning an age point.
It could be. Maybe he is aging. I
mean, he's pretty old. But think about the
way he's talking here compared to what he's
doing now and wonder whether there's somebody has
told him to shift his direction and tone,
or he just isn't the same person. But
But either way you look at it, this
is who he used to be or at
least what he was doing before. Are in
Iraq. We spent $2,000,000,000,000,
thousands of lives. We don't even have it.
Iran is taking over Iraq with the second
largest oil reserves in the world. Obviously, it
was a mistake. So George Bush made a
mistake. We can make mistakes, but that one
was a beauty. We should have never been
in Iraq. We have destabilized
the Middle East. But so you so I'm
gonna so you still think he should be
in peace? I think it's my turn, isn't
it? You do whatever you want. You call
it whatever you want. I wanna tell you,
they lied. Okay. They said there were weapons
of mass destruction. There were none, and they
knew that
Isn't that interesting?
Seems like a different person, doesn't it?
I mean, at the very least, you can
argue point out that that's contradictory to what
he's currently doing. Right?
Well, ultimately, I'm gonna I think I'm gonna
wrap up here, and we'll we'll carry over
some of this to the next show. But
what I wanna include
is the Starlink point.
Right? As Max Blumenthal points out, I will
play this clip.
National Endowment for Democracy. It is it's USAID,
guys. It's the same functional purpose.
I mean, in a sense of what I
believe it's actually doing. Leader the the
the National Down for Democracy leaders cut off
in congress after they start boasting about deploying
Starlinks
to the ongoing chaos
in Iran.
Believe, mister chair, that we just got a
notification
that the state department is actually funding a
new,
program to, I guess, with Starlink. Is that
what it's called? Can can you explain that?
Think about what you just said, though. God,
I'm so embarrassed by how people in our
position and political power in this country have
no clue what's going on. The program is
not called Starlink. They're giving them Starlinks, but
let's get past that.
I I wouldn't wanna speak on behalf of
the state department, but what I would share
is that we've been investing in in communication
tools over over years that allow,
for information to be sent into Iran even
when,
Internet connectivity is blocked.
We specifically began supporting the deployment, the operation
of about 200 Starlinks early on. Alright. You
know what? I'm gonna interrupt you. We better
not talk about it. Okay. So
Jeez. These people are not in control, guys.
Yeah.
That's so whoopsie. That's just that's like my
god. That these people have no clue. I
mean, that's just so somebody clearly was like,
shut up. And she's like, whoops.
It kills me, man. I mean, I just
it's it's it's alarming, truly.
But okay. So let's talk about this really
quickly. So first, here's a good article to
read that goes back to Alan McLeod 2023
Mempress News, how Elon Musk is aiding the
US empire's regime change operation in Iran. And
that goes to everywhere else too. I keep
making this point about the timing and when
Starlink gets deployed. It's only ever, except for,
like, two circumstances
in a in a broad government sense,
deployed under the cover of war.
Every time. He was always, because we're there
to help the people. You could argue that.
You could try to believe that, but then
look how it ends up. It's a tool
of war. He's a defense contractor. That's what
these things are used for, guys.
So
here's the Wall Street Journal. US smuggled thousands
of Starlink terminals into Iran after protests crackdown.
Oh, except he just told you they did
it before.
He that's what he that we start before
we got to this point, they were already
doing this. Of course, that won't change them.
Just say, well, because we're on that guy.
Right? We had to get ahead of it
because we know who they are. It won't
it never matters. They can always rationalize what
they're doing. Trump administration covertly sent thousands of
Starlink terminals into Iran in an effort to
keep dissidents online. So think about this.
Keeping you're keeping the you could argue that
means the people that are trying to fight
for freedom,
or if you understand anything about this government,
they're these are their assets. You're trying to
keep their ability to manipulate, propagandize, and and
send intelligence.
This this is basically warfare, guys. It's amazing
to me that we can't be honest about
this. An effort to keep them online. The
US smuggled roughly 6,000 of the satellite Internet
kits in the country. Yeah. Because that's about
the Iranian people and Internet. Right? 6,000 for
the Iranian millions of population.
Which would you how do you selectively choose
which ones get Internet?
We can't be stupid. This is not about
them giving this is about them controlling the
situation. The state department has purchased nearly 7,000
Starlink terminals in earlier months, with most bought
in January to help anti regime activists circumvent
Internet shutoffs in Iran. And, again, I've said
it in the past, sometimes, yes, they shut
this off because they're aware, in my opinion,
exactly what they're doing, because they don't want
them to manipulate the their their processes. But
there's examples in the past where it was
attacked, where Israel would sabotage their Internet and
then blame it on them. So and so
either way, you could think, you know, it's
used in many different ways. And it says
the purchase came after, and that would be
in that case, that would be to make
sure that their people could still then communicate
while they turn off the power.
The purchase came after senior Trump administration appointees
decided to divert some funds from other Internet
freedom initiatives. I found this really interesting.
Tehran has repeatedly
accused Washington, without evidence, they say, which is
ridiculous, of playing a role in fomenting popular
dissent and organizing last month's nationwide demonstrations.
Without evidence?
Guys, they've publicly said that.
They've openly admitted that they're stoking these things
for freedom, of course. That doesn't change the
point. It's not actually for freedom, but that's
that's what they say. But even if you
say it's for freedom and good things, it
doesn't stop. It didn't change the fact that
you're involved in fomenting it for freedom. You
see how dishonest this is? Wall Street Journal,
New York Times, aren't they supposed to be
the ones calling it? Wouldn't they go after
it? They're they're all on the same side.
As protest when when it matters from the
top, I would argue, as protests swept Iran,
Trump encouraged Iranians to continue demonstrating. It's right
there against the regime, promising help is on
the way. How can you write that and
write up there saying, no, without evidence that
they're ferment
so fermenting would be keep going. Right? Am
I confused?
Or do you just know that much more
about words, Wall Street Journal?
So stupid.
Maura Namdar,
who until December led the State Department's Middle
East Bureau, in August sent a memo to
the Secretary of State Marco Rubio urging the
acquisition of Starlink expressly for Iran.
While her bureau, quote, has funded a variety
of VPNs
and other Internet freedom technologies,
and it's used when Internet shutdown. Wait a
minute. Hold on a second. So you're telling
me that our government right now is trying
to fight to stop us from using VPNs
while providing VPNs to the people of Iran
for freedom?
O okay.
You wanna make sense of that for me?
So we're not allowed freedom? America first? But
they get freedom because it's not what it's
really about.
But you see how that works? This is
what it looks like to lie about everything.
At some point, these things bump up against
each other. So either you support this for
freedom or you don't. You know, the point
is they're using them to get around.
They're trying to bring down the government.
Iran's trying to stop them, and that's their
way to circumvent the ways they're trying that's
what I believe. And they're to be to
be able to communicate while they're shutting down
their communications.
I think that's very important.
So they're they're they're letting them giving them
the ability to do these things while trying
to suppress Americans' ability to hide their own
identity.
Now and and what's even more interesting, by
the way, is that VPNs would not allow
you to then have ability to to have
electricity.
Right? So what it means is they've been
historically giving them VPNs to hide their identities.
You can't hide from that. So they've been
trying to secretly peep have people in the
country that can manipulate things, and that's largely
why, in some cases, is Iran will suppress
that breach.
Namdar has long been an advocate for empowering
Iranians to overthrow the regime. What a what
a lovely way to say that. Empowering them
to do something shockingly illegal that we you
know, or in the sense that you're doing
it as an extension of US policy.
The question has always been when and not
if.
She continues to engage in Iran related policy
to this day. You know who they're talking
about?
This
very high very meritocracy example. Trump hires beauty
salon owner to decide who to ban from
The United States. That's her.
Because, you know, we we believe in meritocracy,
don't we guys?
Here's here's her page right here.
Maura Namdar.
Continuing, it says Internet freedom experts and other
US officials have advocated for fully funding VPNs
because they would better protect Iranian dissidents.
Again, so it's okay that they hide their
identity because they are
you know, they need freedom, but we are
not allowed freedom in this country. They argued
for funding both Starlink and VPNs, but warned
against curbing VPN funds. Right? Because they need
to hide their identities.
Operating Starlink without VPNs, they said, would make
it far easier for Iranian authorities to geolocate
the user, adding that VPNs are also more
accessible and cost effective. So, yeah, because you
guys are conducting regime change. That's pretty clear.
Now here's a quick clip from Cuts News
that's showing them getting caught trying to bring
Starlinks in. Now it says the documented footage
revealed that the authorities at Iran's, international airport
confiscated these suitcases. Now Now it says according
to to, Owen, it says a senior Dutch
diplomat
had refused to allow it to go undergo
routine X-ray.
Right? So you have a Dutch diplomat who
care apparently, he's been contacted through this is
US the only way you see this is
Elon Musk company and the US government. So
they use a Dutch diplomat under the cover
of what, guys?
Diplomatic immunity. You see how this works? Just
like with any number of, like, COVID examples,
the the omicron
point from what country was that again? Bosnia?
I forget now. Botswana.
They used the diplomatic immunity. All it shouldn't
even exist, in my opinion. But
he refused. Okay. According to informed sources, diplomat
departed the country shortly afterward without reclaiming his
seized luggage. A second diplomat later appeared
to retrieve it. How weird. When the suitcases
was inspected with accordance with legal diplomatic procedures,
officials reportedly discovered Starlink satellite devices.
Jeremy Scahill. Here's a CIA video posted on
far in in Farsi encouraging Iranians or rather
yeah. It is a video posted in Farsi,
encouraging Iranians to contact the CIA for instructions
on how to use Tor, the very same
Internet process that they they the dark net
that they say we are not allowed to
use. Isn't that perfect? And other encrypted anonymized
methods that they say we can't use.
But we're totally not fermenting this, but reach
out. We'll show you what to do.
This one, Ted Cruz, says The United States
will most definitely be bombing Iran in the
upcoming days,
calling them limited strikes. Ted Cruz says he's
advised president Trump to immediately start
arming protesters in Iran. They're already doing that.
They've already made this point.
For whatever reason, probably because Israel wants it,
they're just making it obvious now So they
can overthrow their government. The idea that he
thinks it's okay to even state that. What
would they do if Iran was saying we're
arming protesters in The United States to overthrow
the US government? Can you even imagine what
they would do?
I just it's just mind blowing. I don't
even think I need to explain these things
anymore.
And Iran's foreign ministry said, I believe there
is no such thing as limited strikes. I
agree.
Act of aggression will be considered an act
of aggression.
Period. And every every country, he says,
will respond to such an act as part
of its natural right to self defense.
Right? Do we only agree with that when
Israel pretends that's where they are? Or do
we exalt acknowledge, as we've all said, that
every country has the right to defend itself?
The point is that they're going to do
something if Israel drives them to do it,
and they have a right to respond. And
they're gonna use that response to claim Iran
initiated violence. Watch.
And here, Iranian phones received messages from unknown
numbers. Look at what they were saying. Trump
is a man of action. Wait for it.
You realize how just messed up this is?
So we're being told the Trump administration is
fighting for the Iranians,
and Iranians are being propagandized with manipulative messages
through their phones that that Trump is coming.
It's very weird. And, also, doesn't it sound
exactly like what Israel did in Gaza?
Yes. It does.
Mel, of course, Israel will use nukes on
Iran.
Likud, member of the Knesset,
deputy speaker,
has now telling you, we are gonna use
nukes in in Iran. We have more tools
we haven't yet used. No one wants to
no no one wants to test us. They
have Persian rugs, and we have textile they're
both they're threatening to use nuclear weapons in
Iran, at least on in a
leaked audio communication.
They dropped the equivalent of two nuclear bombs
in Gaza in the first six weeks. I
don't know why we would bock at this.
And I agree. I think it's actually very
likely.
Now here is what Trump was saying before.
This was posted by,
judge Knapp.
Current strategy of nation building and regime change
is a proven
absolute
failure.
We will break
the cycle of regime change. We must abandon
the failed policy of nation building
and regime change
that Hillary Clinton pushed in Iraq, in Libya,
in Egypt,
and in Syria.
Regime change takes chaos. You've seen how that
works
over the last twenty years. That hasn't been
too good. Not a reckless interventionist.
Globalism.
We're getting out Oh, it is globalism. What
did I tell you, Alex Jones? Even though
that was obvious.
So if he's now doing the same reckless
interventionism, doesn't that then make him,
globalist?
Out of the nation building business.
Yep.
Even though they come out and go, but
globalism's
bad
because that's all it takes. Right? You can
literally roll out a globalist UN,
you
know, replicate
and start a new WHO or try to
and talk about global changes and build networks
today and then go,
globalism's bad. And, apparently, that's all you need
to do. And everyone goes, he hates globalism.
Now let's engage with the globalist plan. It's
so stupid. And Daniel McAdams says they're literally
about to go to war for another country.
This is gaslighting. Here's what they posted.
Americanism,
not globalism.
Okay. Let me ask you this. If they
are changing their brand of globalism to be
America first for the world,
does that not make it does that make
it no longer globalism?
And then the the real question would be,
is it even actually America first? No. It's
not. That does not as well. But either
way, it's just very, very basic what they're
doing. Under president Trump's leadership, we're rebuilding the
defense industry industrial base right here in America.
Sure. Why not?
And just to make this exceptionally clear, it's
not gonna stop even if they do Amaran,
even if they do take over Iran, or
after they take over Syria. What are they
doing? Are we done? Nope. Still going.
Former Israeli prime minister Bennett warns
Turkey
is the new
Iran. He called president Erdogan a sophisticated and
dangerous adversary who seeks to encircle Israel.
I mean, maybe it's all rhetoric. Maybe not.
The point the point is it's just gonna
shift to the next agenda because the Greater
Israel Project, which is, I mean, probably the
easiest part to prove the entire conversation because
Smotris, Ben Gavir, Netanyahu, they will have talks
about why it's important. And yet then we
get shouted down by the the new media
about the reality of it. The truth is
that's Jordan,
Egypt,
parts of Syria,
which is already they already control. But this
is about a I mean, this is a
part of a globalist agenda, guys.
Now here's Amun Jada.
This is, what's his name again?
Lapid
speaking on behalf of Israel.
He says Israel this he writes extremely important.
Israel's liberal opposition. This is what that's what's
so important to me, is he's supposed to
represent the
measured side
of the Zionist government, the liberal he's the
opposition, right? Not the crazy right wing, okay?
Well, here is liberals Israel's liberal opposition leader
openly saying Israel's biblical borders, the same thing
Huckabee talks about, should include lands of Turkey,
Syria,
Iraq,
Jordan,
Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Lebanon.
Everything we've been telling you to be great,
big, and vast Israel.
While he says this is not possible only
because of security considerations at this moment,
Yair Lapid is leaving the door open for
a future where if the regional international situation
changes,
Israel would grab those lands promptly without a
second thought.
Lapid brings this in the essence of his
Zionism, a fanatically expansionist colonial movement that existentially
existentially threatens all of its neighbors and sees
their instability and collapse as opportunity.
You I mean, we have to be real
about this. It's not gonna stop here. If
we allow this, it didn't stop at any
number of the other countries that they pushed
as The US to fight for their benefit.
And even just with Gaza, we still see
this every day, and we're still called conspiracy
theorists for acknowledging what the Israeli government is
telling you.
In the end, Smoshkret says, there will Israel
will occupy Gaza and establish settlements there.
Mark my words.
That is how this will end up. The
board of peace, the game is all gonna
be to end up in some way like
this and call it something else.
I certainly hope I'm wrong.
Now we're gonna cover most of this in
the next show, but just to quickly point
out, The US officially has removed colonel Nathan
McCormick from his position at the joint chiefs
of staff.
Why?
For calling Israel a death cult and saying
America's acting on Israel's proxy.
In case for even right now, you could
ask ROC, by the way, and he'll tell
you that's not true. Turns out, it is
true, which says something about what ROC was
doing. Maybe it's changed by now. Pentagon removing
Israel planner from joint staff launching probe after
the JNS scoop. So the Jewish National Syndicate,
that's what stands for. Right? I believe it
was national. Right? The JNS
platform,
apparently,
exposed this man for having opinions.
And in this country, and the joint chiefs
of staff, you're not allowed to have an
opinion if it happens to be about Israel
because you'll be removed from this Zionist administration
that it obviously is.
Should be chilling.
And lastly, quickly, Mario Nuffel
pedals the worst Israeli propaganda imaginable.
This guy I mean, this is just a
dishonest person. I mean, there there no. There's
no way around it for me. You're engaging
with this guy. You're interviewing this guy. You're
talking with this guy. I you have to
be able to see this person is a
you know, he is whatever he needs to
be for that moment,
sharing whatever you put in front of him.
Iran's IRGG
RGC, working with Mexican cartels, they said. Oh,
well, isn't that convenient? So we need to
bomb Iran. Oh, guess what? It's also working
with the cartels we just told you are
a problem,
and it says fake news.
Utterly
ridiculous. This is why Elon retweets and boosts
his posts.
Iran Cartel
alliance is directly a threat to US national
security.
My god. I mean, this stupid this is
exactly what works for the agenda at the
end. Watch as that get this this shifts
into some other focus, and this just gets
put away. Who cares now? Right? Oh, MS
thirteen, then Trendy, Raga, we're moved on from
them. We're talking about something else now. You
know, just whatever they need you to be
focusing on in the moment.
And they'll come back up. Now I clipped
this out
to twenty minutes. I just went through all
the different posts where where I'm highlighting all
the different clips and examples and articles showing
you that they've worked with the cartels. Israel,
The United States caught. Going back to 1989
where Israel was caught training the Medellin cartel
extremists.
It just never goes away, guys, and this
has been clear for a very long time.
Interestingly enough,
Mexican president, Claudia Sheinbaum, clarifies that no US
forces were involved at all. And even waters
down a little bit the claim of intelligence,
but does still say that there was exchange.
But says, you know, there's always exchange going
on.
So to me, I'm starting to wonder whether
this was them acting to stop what The
US was doing, or maybe even more, and
we'll read this last part about whether or
not this was The US doing this in
order to cause chaos for Mexico and that
the best way she can think to handle
it is to just own the action, which
is what happens a lot. Because instead of
looking weak like you weren't in control, you
just claim, I did it. It was my
responsibility, and we're gonna make this place better.
You you see what I'm saying? You'll see
what I mean in a second we read
this.
First, here's Bennie Johnson getting called out by,
hopefully, everybody for blatantly lying, and a woman
that he claimed was desperate in Mexico
was not, and she calls him out.
So as James Lee calls out, why is
the media lying to us about what's going
on in Mexico? And he's calling out Benny
Johnson here, guys.
BBC, the fear is everywhere.
Mexico, drug cartels. It's crazy. Well, apparently, that's
not really what I'm hearing from people in
Mexico, at least not to the same degree.
And on top of that,
he literally makes up an entire story to
make this case.
Reporting live in the streets of Mexico
right now where this dude that has 3,200,000
followers. That's Benny Johnson on the screen. Post
this video that's completely
made up
saying that me and two other girls are
liberals that are also Americans, which I'm not
a liberal or American
are stuck here
and we can't get home and all this
stuff. The straight so there's a bunch of
libs that are trapped in Mexico right now
and they're terrified because of cartel
violence spiraling out of control. It's very dangerous.
And they're demanding the US government and the
Trump administration
save them and deliver them back into America.
This complete made up story.
The streets are open, transportation's open, it's completely
safe here. The cartel war that happened on
Sunday was a twenty four hour thing. Everything
was cleaned up. Today is Tuesday. The airports
are back open. Everyone's out. Businesses are back
open.
What you see in the media is not
true at all. And it just goes to
show you that you cannot
trust the media. I live here also and
moved here for the winter. Tourists were injured.
No civilians were injured. This was an act
of retaliation
between the cartel and the government
because one of the cartel leaders were killed.
So the cartel went and At least that's
what the general sentiment is, but we'll get
to that in a second. Burned a bunch
of vehicles. They actually pulled people out of
the vehicles
before burning them
and also lit some stores on fire. That
was it.
Crazy
shit happens like this all over the world.
That is much worse. Yes.
So it's completely safe here.
Everything's fine.
No tourists or civilians were hurt. So don't
believe what you see in the media
and go boycott and expose that dude. I
cannot believe that he posted that. Again, I'm
not a liberal. I'm not American, and I'm
not stuck here. Now as rightly pointed out
in the chat, but, you know, we will
always say every single time, and I've already
said that we should question her as well.
We don't know whether anybody could be lying
to you. But, again, when you stand back
and look at the bigger picture of the
evidence at hand,
that's her. She was in the video. So
she could be lying about her own experience.
That's certainly possible, but it's much less likely.
And on top of that, there's plenty of
other people you could ask. People that are
in the area that say it's not as
not like they're saying it is right now.
And they could be lying too. Right? But
at the end of the day, it's pretty
damn clear that this was being hyped.
And and I think the most relevant part
is that we're talking about a person
that is in the video he's claiming about.
So she has every right to speak up
and say, I'm here. That's me. Didn't happen.
That's actually hard to ignore. Right? Either way,
question everything as always.
Also, Bennett Johnson lies all the time, and
I think that's objectively obvious. Just very, very
clear how there's an effort to distract and
to pivot and to make it about democrat.
Libs stuck in Mexico. Like, what a child,
guys. It's so crazy to me. Here is
another example of a video from before we
got to this Mexico point. Elon Musk can't
have Mexico's lithium,
says
China bomb
thirteen days ago.
Remember that in the constitution, she says, one
of the modifications to the constitution '20 eight
constitutional '28 is that only the state can
exploit lithium, meaning only the state of Mexico
can take lithium from the ground. It was
not only in the mining law, but also
in the constitution.
So, in this case, no private company, no
private miner could exploit lithium. Unless, of course,
you overthrow the government and control it. Right?
Interesting. Here's what Musk said yesterday or eleven
hours ago. Well, first, this she's saying Mexican
president, is threatening to sue Elon Musk. Why?
Because Musk was claiming that cartels run her
government,
which I I would I would argue that's
probably, to some degree, any influence. Derek will
talk about it. The point, though, is that
you can prove just as much that that
it The US goes back well before her
administration in doing the same thing far more
than anybody I can see.
So she says
she's
basically threatening to sue him. Musk says she's,
quote, violating my human rights and laughs about
it. And that's where they point out, well,
thirteen days ago, she came out and called
Musk out, or rather just called out in
general saying, well, he keeps saying, nobody can
come take lithium from Mexico.
I think there's something to this overlap to
where this goes.
And as always, I I rarely think it's
only about one thing.
Let's not forget that Musk said very famously,
we will coo whoever we want, deal with
it, about
Bolivia.
And it was overthrown.
That should matter. And it's about lithium.
Well, this Derek highlights this article we'll finish
with from the Free Thought Project. What the
TV won't tell you about the bloodshed in
Mexico.
Simply,
the state needs the public to believe that
syndicates like the cartel they're referring to, the
CJNG,
materialize out of thin air, requiring billions more
in taxpayer funding and heavily armed federal ICE
agents to defeat. And the truth is that
the United States government, acting as the ultimate
cartel with a legal monopoly on violence, incubated
the exact exact conditions,
supplied the military grade weapons, and allowed Wall
Street to launder the bloody profits that created
that that group in the first place. We
just talked about this. I think they mentioned
it in the article.
HSBC.
Right?
Yep.
Getting caught laundering money for the cartels, and
they go, well, they're too big to fail.
Well, fine. Yeah. That's the truth.
Or the DEA was just caught. Right? We
show we bring this up every every time
this comes up lately. DEA was caught laundering
money for the cartels. 2025.
No big deal. It's okay. We do it.
Right?
Continuing
by by,
violently
interfering in the black market of their own
creation, the intelligence agencies engineered an arms race
that circum accumulated
oh, excuse me, culminated in a cartel boasting
antiaircraft
capabilities.
We showed you the images yesterday or day
before yesterday of looks like the US military,
perfectly illustrating how the state creates the monster,
feeds it, arms it, and then demands you
surrender your liberty to be protected
from it. What a perfect way to frame
that. To understand the sheer scale of the
CIA and the DEA's cartel engineering, you have
to look past the sanitized Hollywood narratives and
examine the state's long documented history of playing
kingmaker in the underworld.
The blueprint for this corruption was laid decades
ago when the CIA helped establish the,
Direcion Federal de
Segurad,
Mexico's equivalent to the FBI,
which functioned as the intelligence and enforcement arm
for the early cartels,
while the CIA simultaneously
used smuggling routes to fund Nicaraguan contras.
Every one of these things are linked and
to be source material you can verify for
yourself. It's all true. The US intelligence apparatus
never has never been in the business of
eradicating the drug trade. They are in the
business of managing it,
utilizing black market profits and cartel muscle to
advance geopolitical objectives
while ensuring their own enforcement budgets comp continue
to bloat.
A good
comparison
and, you know, a a a prep past
example,
the US government working with the mafia
to do whatever they claim they were doing.
And realized, well, hey, this works out very
well. We can use these things that we
claim we're fighting to create, you know, to
benefit ourselves, and we can sell them out
as soon as we want to. That's how
this works, with their proxies all over the
world.
Because the US government spent years crippling their
rivals and flooding the region with military grade
weaponry through botched operations like Fast and Furious,
one we mentioned in the previous show.
And the link was included here, by the
way.
This right here. I I included earlier in
the show as well. This is the show
we discussed this.
The US government's long documented cartel connections.
The point though,
Fast and Furious was a very well documented
example where they got caught.
Now the cartel didn't just inherit inherit the
drug routes, they inherited a massive arms depot.
This evolution shifted the paradigm of cartel violence
from street level assassinations to full scale guerrilla
warfare. And as always, in any situation, Mexico
or anything else, it's easier to manipulate and
exploit when they're destabilized.
Like, right now, by the way. Like, had
that gone further
or had it been what they claim it
actually is. While arming the cartels is bad
enough, the sheer hypocrisy of the drug war
is laid bare when you examine how the
state treats the financial institutions
that cleans the cartel's blood money. If a
peaceful individual structures a bank deposit to avoid
the $10,000 reporting requirement, the IRS will seize
their assets, destroy their life, and throw them
in a cage. But when global banking giants
launder billions for cartels, the state simply extracts
a massive fine, effectively taking a cut of
the drug money. It's exactly what it is.
And lets it continue.
In 2012, British banking HSBC
giant signed a deferred prosecution agreement with the
DOJ,
admitting to laundering
a billion dollars for the Sinaloa Cartel.
The intelligence apparatus is fully aware of the
so called kingpin strategy. The targeted assassination of
cartel leadership
does absolutely nothing to stem the flow of
narcotics. Instead, as detailed in The US military
zone strategic research, which you can click right
there,
taking out a boss like El Mencho
predictably
fractures the syndicate into a multi headed hydra,
unleashing a brutal power vacuum where heavily redact
heavily armed factions wage massive turf wars for
control of the roots.
The CIA and DEA knew exactly what the
fall would be. They knew assassinating El Mencho
would set UNESCO on fire, if that's what
they did. However, a burning Mexico is highly
convenient for The US for a US security
state that relies on perpetual crisis,
providing the ultimate pretext to justify increased border
militarization,
the deployment of surveillance drones, and the looming
threat of unilateral military intervention.
Now think about this
as just a hypothetical. Right?
Because we don't know. She's claiming she Cheinbaum
has claimed that she's responsible.
But if The US did this with the
desire to destabilize the country and she was
aware of that, the sort of antidote would
be to own it and to act like
you're in power, you're in control, and we're
gonna make things better for Mexicans and ultimately
then be seen if you're able to fight
off what they're doing as effectively doing that.
So, again, it's all just a possibility. But
I think it does make sense. What Matt
Agres was saying in the Free Thought Project
article there is ultimately that The US could
have been behind creating this to cause chaos
to then justify
all of the things they're accomplishing. And you
know as well as I why that does
meet that need.
I think it's very important.
Now lastly, I'll end with a clip here
from Ryan Grim and of drop site news,
you know, just about the America first lie
that that that the Trump administration has been
selling. But we'll leave it there for today.
Thank you for tuning in. My plan tomorrow
is the interview. And because of the timing
of it, it the interview might come out
that day, it might come out the next
day, and it's likely not gonna be a
show unless I can squeeze it in for
the timing for prep and and doing the
interview. But that will count in my mind
as one of the shows for the week.
But my plan, as I said, the other
show will be aiming for five this week.
I forgot to say at the beginning. But
that's my I'm I'm planning to go every
day
this week. That's my goal. And I'm saying
it to try to you know, I'm I'm
really wanna make this continually the reality for
both of us. So I need the time
away from it as well as I think
it does help the the flow of information
for us to be continually, you know, throughout
the week, back to back shows. Right?
But I'm looking forward to the interview, though,
because I'm interested to see what they have
to bring to the table for, you know,
the anti Zionist pack and how they're gonna
bring that out. And Michael's a very interesting
and insightful person, so it'll be good conversation.
So thank you for tuning in.
Keep calling this stuff out, guys.
They see it. They know you see it.
Right? It's obvious things are changing.
And we really, I see as one of
two real options here.
We can kind of sit back and watch
as it continues
and hope that maybe this process kind of
works it out in a positive way, or
we can step up and take advantage of
the reality
of where we are, of Americans being aware
of the problem,
and genuinely change this for the better. Now
I don't know. Maybe we disagree on what
that is. All I'm trying to initiate is
that desire in you. So maybe you can
make that happen. Maybe the maybe somebody way
smarter than me out there is gonna jump
up and create something that will genuinely change
this for the better. But as I've said
over the years, acknowledging and highlighting and understanding
the problem, that's what I think I do
most of this discussion. And I I fight
for I mean, which is why I reach
out to people like Derek and wanna work
with I try to absorb the solutions part
of it. We have to.
But we need to acknowledge that just
highlighting, defining, and explaining what we're dealing with
so people can then try to grapple with
that is never gonna stop being important.
So thank you for being here. I love
you all. As always, question everything.
Come to your own conclusions.
Stay vigilant.
From this day
forward,
it's going to be only
America
first.
America
first.
Do you want to review things in Iran?
Well, it's, seems like that would be the
best thing that could happen.
If we could get it settled for once
and for all, that would be good. Frankly,
Canada should be the fifty first state. Okay?
It really should. And by the way, you
have to do something with Mexico. Mexico has
to get their act together. My administration will
be reclaiming
the Panama Canal,
and we've already started doing it. We're renaming
the Gulf Of
Mexico into the Gulf Of America. Now we
have the Gulf Of America now. It's great.
All The United States is asking for is
a place called Greenland, just as we have
acquired many other territories throughout our history. There's
nothing wrong with it. I actually stopped the
war with Congo and Rwanda, and they said
to me, please, please, we would love you
to come and
take our minerals,
which we'll do. And in Nigeria, we're annihilating
terrorists who are killing Christians. They've killed thousands
and thousands of Christians. What's that all about?
Look at South Africa. What's going on? We
feel there's
persecution
or genocide going on. These are articles over
the last few days. Death,
death,
Death.
Horrible death.
Death.
White South Africans
are fleeing because of the violence and racist
laws. The next question is who's in charge
of Venezuela right now? We're a judge.
We're gonna run everything. We're gonna run it.
We have a a very sick neighbor. It's
not a neighbor, but it's close to a
neighbor,
and that's Venezuela. It's very sick. Colombia is
very sick too, run by a sick man.
He's not gonna be doing it very well.
So there will be an operation by The
US. I it sounds good to me. If
you take a look at Argentina,
if the president doesn't win, we would not
be generous with Argentina. If he does win,
we're gonna be very helpful. And if he
doesn't win, we're not gonna waste our time.
How is this Argentina rescue package America first?
It's really meant to help a good,
financial philosophy like Venezuela. Yeah. Is there a
message for Cuba and Diaz Canel?
Well, Cuba is an interesting case. Cuba is,
you know, not doing very well right now.
Cuba is right now a failed nation. Cuba
is ready to fall. You know? Yes.
Cuba looks like it's ready to fall. I
don't know how they if they can hold
that. Cuba and us, we are talking. If
a deal has been made, would you consider
an operation with the one in Venezuela? If
I was, it wouldn't be a very tough
operation.
We're gonna straighten out Gaza. We're gonna make
Gaza very successful and safe. We have an
opportunity to do something that could be
phenomenal. The Riviera
Of The Middle East. Is it time for
Ukraine to hold an election? Yeah. I don't
think.
It's been a long time. You know, they
talk about a democracy, but it gets to
a point where it's not a democracy anymore.
Ukraine better come to the table fast. That's
all I'm telling you. Will Russia face any
consequences,
if Vladimir Putin does not agree to stop
the war? Yes. They will. Yeah. There will
be very severe consequences. And Somalia
is a failed, it's not a nation. Got
no government, got no police, got no milli,
got no nothing. Somalia.
Filthy, dirty, disgusting, ridden with crime. The only
thing they're good at is going after ships.
We don't let them take ships anymore. You
know why? We use the same exact missile
on them that we use on the drug
carriers. Do you notice
that ships aren't being taken anymore? The pirates
are That's right. I hadn't thought about it.
The pirates aren't No. No. No. Pirates. It's
actually very easy. They head out. We say,
guess what? There's pirates.
That's the end of the pirates. I'm doing
it worldwide.
I'm helping
Europe. I'm helping NATO. They love me. NATO
calls me daddy. They called me daddy. He's
our daddy.
He's running it. Most European,
nations, they're
decaying.
They're decaying. Your countries are going to hell.
The United States
is keeping the whole world afloat. Without us,
most of the countries don't even work. You've
been a kingmaker in a lot of Republican
primaries.
A lot of people Including
foreign nations.
I was very honored to see that a
very
wonderful prime minister in Japan won by a
landslide, and she attributed my endorsement for that.
I've endorsed Viktor Orban. I endorsed,
go back to South America, Latin America. South
America. Turkey's an example. Erdogan is a friend
of mine. Whenever they have a problem with
Erdogan, they ask me to call. And I
do call him, and I always work it
out with him. What we did for Israel
was amazing. And by the way, I told
BBB, stop taking credit for the dome.
That's our technology. That's our stuff. I authorize
the spending of billions of dollars, which went
to Israel's defense. Isn't that right, Miriam?
Look at Miriam. She's back there. Stand up,
Miriam. Stand up.
Miriam and Sheldon would come into the White
House probably almost more than anybody. I think
they had more trips to the White House
than anybody else. I could they kept looking
at us sitting there so innocently. As soon
as I give them something, always for Israel.
As soon as I give them something, they'd
want something else. I said, give me a
couple of weeks. Will you please? They, were
very responsible for so much, including getting me
thinking about Golan Heights. I gave them the
Golan Heights, and they never even asked for
it. Are you involved in the rift between
UAE and Saudi Arabia? They do indeed have
a rift,
and we can get it settled very easily.
I settle wars. I settle a lot of
rifts between countries.
You've been noticing. Right? That's an
easy one to settle. I settled eight wars.
Kosovo and Serbia, The Congo and Rwanda, Cambodia
and Thailand, Pakistan and India, they were really
going at it. Settled Pakistan and India. Settled
so many wars. I'm very proud of it.
And I do it pretty routinely, pretty easily.
It's not hard for me to do. Israel
and Iran, Egypt and Ethiopia, we're gonna fight
over a dam. They
got a big dam. I gotta work that
one out now too.
Armenia and Azerbaijan.
I've ended eight wars. Ended eight raging wars.
I settled eight wars. No president's probably ever
settled one war. I don't know. Think of
it. I did eight. How confident are you
that our negotiations with Iran will be successful?
I think they'll be successful. And if they're
not, it's gonna be a bad day for
Iran. Very bad. We're just gonna have to
see what happens with Iran. Is the military
option okay?
I only have one place in mind. It's
The United States.
America first.
I'm so