I am the candidate of peace. I am
peace.
People don't believe that. Thank you.
A vote for Donald Trump is a vote
for a man who wants to end wars,
not start them. We do not want war
with Iran. We actually want peace. The Iranians
are clearly not very good at war. Perhaps
they should follow president Trump's lead and give
peace a chance. Kamala is campaigning with warmongers
like Liz Cheney. How do you think that
is? She picks Liz Cheney whose father
virtually destroyed the Middle East. You know, Liz
Cheney, she talks big. Oh, I want war.
She always wants war. Every time I was
with her in the White House, we should
attack
this nation, that nation,
nations that people never even heard of. We
should attack. She's a big, big, tough guy.
She sits back in Washington. Oh,
we ought to go and attack
Iran, Iraq. We're gonna attack everybody. That's why
I broke up with her. All she wanted
to do is go to war with everybody.
These war hawks,
they wanna draft your kids
to die in wars,
and they will never fight themselves. You know,
we'll stay around the country for fifteen years,
just bomb the hell out of everybody, make
everybody miserable. Nobody knows why we're there, you
know? The wars that never end. These endless
wars that we've been in, I've gotten us
out of so many. We don't wanna get
into wars. We're tired of fighting. I'm the
only president in the last eighty four years
that didn't start a war. Under Trump, we
will have no more wars. No more wars.
No more wars. We will have prosperity and
peace. We will have prosperity and we will
have peace. Remember, I'm the president of peace.
They said he will start a war. I'm
not gonna start a war. I'm gonna stop
wars. He's going to start a war. I
said no, no, no. My rhetoric is gonna
keep us out of wars, and that's what
happened. My proudest legacy will be that of
a peacemaker. That's what I wanna be, a
peacemaker. We will measure our success not only
by the battles we win, but also by
the wars that we end and perhaps most
importantly, the wars we never get into.
Our president will start a war with Iran
because he has absolutely no ability to negotiate.
He's weak and he's ineffective.
I believe that he will attack Iran
sometime prior to the election because he thinks
that's the only way he can get elected.
Isn't it pathetic?
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.
Tuesday, 03/03/2026.
Thank you for joining me today,
following up on the ongoing Iran illegal war.
A lot of important developments that you might
not have seen just over the last day,
but much more over the last couple of
days if you haven't been paying attention.
Important developments that show the the kind of
crux of the point
as you can see in the title, and
we'll get into it very in-depth with the
information source material that Donald Trump is being
exposed for lying, which shouldn't be that that
that difficult to wrap your mind around at
this point or for Biden or Bush or
Obama. But the point, ultimately, is that this
is about the justification for the actions
in Iran
and how clearly
that this is illegal. And, I mean, this
was clear from the very beginning, and we'll
get into the constitutional argument. We'll get into
congress and how and the War Powers Act
and the potential authorization for use of military
force and how all of this plays a
factor and how at the very core of
all of it, you can easily demonstrate that
what they just did was illegal. And that
comes down to the two main points about
whether or not there actually is an imminent
threat, which the Pentagon just outright claimed was
not the case.
And and and and within that, like, if
there's an emergency or you're under attack, this
is we'll get into the nuance of this
when we get into this part. The argument
is that the president can respond.
If there's an imminent, like, being attacked, that's
why I'm very clear about the point of
what self defense means, and it's all blended
together today even by even by Iran.
But the idea being that you should be
able to respond, not rush to congress and
take two weeks deciding while they're attacking our
country. That makes sense to anybody. But that's
been abused by blending those things and arguing
that them doing things over there then is
a credible threat, x, y, and z, national
security, and then they fold that in with
the Bethlehem doctrine. Well, we could preemptively strike
in defense because we claim they're doing something.
And how this gets
folded together this time is insane.
Hilarious, alarming,
but just insane.
They're effectively
retroactively
by because they're be they're cornering themselves with
their own broken logic,
creating justification for Iran to do the same
thing, even though I don't think that's what's
gonna happen. And, again, rather narrative wise about
how it started. I should be clear. We'll
go through all this because it'll get more
confusing with all the different layers. But ultimately,
then the beginning,
claiming that because they think we're going to
attack them, this is where it's sold to
sort of ended up, that Iran is going
to fire first under preemptive defense, which is
why we have to fire first. It's like,
woah. Hold on a minute. So you're saying
they were justified? Is that where you ended
up? It's it's pretty crazy, but we'll go
through it all. And I think the core
point to take away is that our government,
not new, been doing it my entire life,
just broke the law. And now the Democrats,
all the rest are in lockstep
because that's really how it always goes. And
And we're gonna go through a lot of
different parts that relate to this and not
not just the the nuance of the actions
around that, but the nuclear claim yet again
and how that's completely
blown up even though it's ridiculous. We're going
back to old school arguments from the Iraq
war. They're the masters of roadside bombing from
the Iraq war. We're using that citation even
though that's nuanced back to I mean, you're
just
even if it was exact exactly what you
always claimed it was, that's something that was
from you know, I mean, you just
they're drowning
in the reality of what this is. Even
the own government their own people are calling
it out. The reality of the international community
is clear. China, everybody's coming out and saying
this is against the law. And then we'll
get into the threat possibility too and and
the the follow-up about the nuclear allegation
that started that seems to at least from
where I saw it, John Kiriakou in the
podcast, saying that this is nuclear blackmail from
Israel, which as I said yesterday or day
before,
is essentially the Republicans now admitting, because that's
where it's now picked up by, that Israel
does, in fact, at the very least, using
nuclear blackmail,
influence US policy through Trump. It's exactly what
we've all been saying. It's never been about
me hating Trump or just about Trump. It's
about our government being influenced by Israel, Biden
too. So now that they've fallen back into
that last argument to seemingly make Trump out
to be somehow reluctant hero, as I always
talk about, you're now acknowledging Israel is doing
that. But it's gotten even more interesting
because of how this has developed beyond that.
Mainstream has now picked up on this argument
as we were two days ago talking about,
and now that's kind of the talking point.
Will it Israel force you to do this?
And Trump's like, no. That didn't even happen.
Even though that's what Rubio was saying. And
but in involved with all of that is
the allegation or rather the point of the
nuclear discussion and how they're now trying to,
like, muddy the waters about the reality of
that
and and, you know, and and using sort
of a in in well, two different arguments
that Iran might have then used those nuclear
weapons that we proved they don't have to
make that first strike. And it it all
becomes,
you know, lie on top of lie to
make this make sense. Now before I get
into anything else, and there are plenty of
other points we'll get into that are just
nuanced at, you know, adjacent points to all
this. It's pretty much all about Iran, Israel,
The United States, and the larger foreign policy.
I found something today
that I I've had. It was it it
was on a, war I had in there
that I hadn't seen a long time. And
I just I felt like making this point
because it was interesting to me, and I
brought this up before. I don't know how
many of you guys have seen this. Let
me hold this up, make it clear. This
is just an old pin
from, like, the very early days of the
last American bagged bond. As you can see,
it just it's a cannabis leaf, obviously, and
it says the last American Vagabond, then it
says be the change. Now if you guys
don't remember, this platform started pretty I mean,
almost entirely around cannabis flower form and the
reality of how that interconnected with a lot
of things. And through the understanding of what
that really is. If you haven't gone into
it, I recommend you do. It connects to
everything
in its own way. But before policy, I
mean, it's it's just it's incredible, and it
goes way beyond just some kind of drug
regulation. My point was I mean, that that's
just to make sure you understand why there
was a cannabis leaf on it, and it
wasn't it was more so about understanding the
legal
manipulations around it and then the lies and
what it could do for humanity.
The the tagline at the time was actually
be follow the change, be the change. And
the reason that I went with that way
back in the beginning is because well, if
and I'll start with actually the reason that
I stopped using, and it's because I I
came to become very aware of that, you
know, the as much as I still argue,
it's a very important sentiment to be the
change you wish to see in the world,
which is actually more nuanced. The reality of
it that's been truncated is that if you
change the tendencies within yourself, the tendencies of
the world will also change, the Dalai Lama,
I believe. And so the the the point
being is that it I realized that that's
the the truncated version, be the change, is
very overused. It's it's become sort of,
it's just overused and but it doesn't mean
any less important. And so I decided to
move away from that. But I wanted to
reiterate why that was important. The follow the
change part was sort of, like, pay attention.
You know? Watch what's happening. Follow the things
that are changing and then be a part
of that change. That was sort of the
idea. And so going back to that,
right now and, you know, in every other
topic we can get into for a while,
but more so now than ever,
I think it's relevant to think about.
Just even the the overused phrase, be the
change you wish to see in the world.
Right now, what are we dealing with?
We're talking about a situation where you're you're
the our our government is rationalizing doing what
we know are wrong things. So you could
talk about ICE. You could talk about Gaza,
but same thing here. And they're rationalizing, well,
we have to sort of do the wrong
thing back. You know? We have to break
the constitution, to save the constitution. It's the
same thing everywhere.
Now that's not being the that's being the
problem. Now maybe that being the problem will
in will maybe, by design inadvertently end up
bringing about the positive situation.
Very rarely in my experience, if ever,
but the point is to be the change,
be the thing you want to see changing
the world around you, and that's not easy.
In fact, it's almost always difficult to put
yourself out there and be the thing you
want to change, to show people the path
or be the person, the actions to you
know, the the moral, the integrity that you
want to demonstrate.
Not using cluster munitions because, well, they did
first and Russia's bad. Well, then you're not
anything other than the same problem. I just
felt that was important to to to kind
of put back in the mind because it's
everywhere. And what we're seeing from all the
governments screaming freedom and democracy and and constitution
and or internationally
about, you know, liberty and and all the
good things and fighting for human rights and
are are the ones destroying all of those
things. And it's gotten to a point where
it's not even,
you know, some nuance middle ground. It's we
fight for freedom and then in actual material
sense, destroying destroying freedom in the first thing
they do after that. Whether it's arresting people
without you know? And I could look at
it from an American perspective, but also international,
whether it's Russia or China or Israel.
And it's just that's these peep they're we're
being driven in the wrong direction. Now, obviously,
coming back to the American perspective, that's where
I can have the most affect the most
change. And so through that, what we're seeing
is our government leading us in a path
that is destroying
in a real moment moment to moment sense
everything that we are screen left, right, Americans,
in particular Republicans right now, what you are
actually fighting for.
So every one of you that continue to
try to rationalize why something you know is
literally the main thing you guys were screaming
would never happen with Trump or that you
would never allow, Most of you, I I
get it. You're already aware and you're already
going, I'm done with this. Good for you.
Means you have integrity.
But there's a lot of you out there
that are still waffling with this, and this
is the time, man. This is the time
to stand up and show the world that
you have integrity. To stand up and show
the world that you have principles. I care
about this. Donald Trump is somebody I fought
for, I voted for, but yet now this
is too far.
Find that courage. Be the damn change that
will see the world change around you. Now
let's talk about,
first, the clip from Ryan Grim.
Just well that he shared it rather. Oh,
I think they did make it since his
logo was in there. Just a Trump saying,
I'm the peace guy. I am peace. Like,
think about, first of all, just how narcissistic
that that I will bring peace, but I
am peace.
This guy, man, he is a special case
in a lot of different ways. And I
think it's just what a lot of people
in these elitist billionaire circles do. Everyone I
was just talking about this. For near that
rich and that influential, you walk in every
room and every single person there is wanting
to shake your hand and wants something from
you, wants your your guidance, wants your your
support, wants your money,
and that begins to take make you think
that you're just that important. No. No. They
just want something from you, and they're willing
to glad hand you and nod along with
everything as well. And some of them actually
probably do support and respect you. The point,
though, is that begins to create this mindset
that you are everything that's important in anything
you're involved in. And most of these people,
just because they have money, does not make
them that important.
That becomes that way because they've got the
money that might be able to do that.
And this is what you get. I am
peace.
That should be alarming. It should be self
explanatory, but he's not as he carries out
war. I'd also like to think that's self
explanatory. And before we get into the majority
of Iran's conversation, I just wanna point this
out to you. I thought this was fascinating,
and I think it demonstrates
that we're over the target as usual. I've
shown you this before, but I I just
wanna float it out there and ask people.
So I haven't done this before. Who else
has a Telegram channel? And do you get
this every single day?
I get this
I mean, literally, I this was this morning,
and I just deleted, I think, probably eight
more over the process of the day. And
if you can see, it's it's just random
people who create random Telegram accounts and come
in every single day and dump these things
in there. Says the Trump office has launched
their official Telegram channel. It's like the same
thing every time. There's one for Rubio. There's
one for Kellyanne Leavitt, and they do it.
Just post it in there and put a
tag, and who knows if it's even real?
I'm not gonna click on any of that.
But what's interesting to me is I does
this happen to everybody else? And if if
that's the case, then does not Telegram wanna
do anything about, like, this incessant nonstop spam?
I doubt it's everybody. I think it's only
particular platforms. And then I think it's floating
on top of that that this audience,
you think that you're gonna hey. Come check
out Kelly or Rubio's Telegram channel for for
I mean, maybe somebody. But to me, as
I said, that just screams desperation to me
in a at a platform or a grouping
of people discussing all the things that are
beyond the two party paradigm. So good for
us. For thank you for letting us know
that we're over the target. That's what flat
that's when flat comes. But overall, let me
know if you see that too. I'd be
really fascinated to find out it was basically
just heLab or certain people in certain groups,
and that wouldn't surprise me. That would mean
we're being deliberately targeted, not just kind of
mass spam on the platform.
Now starting with, Sayer here, he says or
points out an interesting point, referencing Thomas Massey,
who rightly pointed and rightly stated, bombing a
country on the other side of the world,
globe, won't make the Epstein files go away
any more than the Dow goes above 50,000.
And it's I thought it was funny. At
today, it was jumping up and down, but
I was gonna you know,
Pam Bondi will look at the Dow, and
the Dow went down like a thousand points
today and it did come back up. It's
just funny that, you know, these momentary things
that only elitist care about is that's why
I ever laughed at her. And I don't
think she even knew what that why that
was important. But he says with the with
Iran,
the war with Iran rather as a search
has now eclipsed Epstein files and the search
volume, and it was almost immediately.
Distraction isn't a theory, guys. It's measurable. Now
you can still argue that this was just
circumstantial.
Right? That ultimately,
it just was it this happened because it
was because Israel could even say as as
the reporting goes, Israel made drove them. It
wasn't their choice. Right? It doesn't change the
fact that now you can literally see the
moment that happens,
that very, very uncomfortable topic gets very much
less attention. So, again, whether this was designed
or not, now they look back and go,
okay.
I get it. Start a war. Or even
pretend to start a war, and look at
that. Everybody stops talking about the thing. And
this is not secret. If you're new to
this topic, that's been around forever. Netanyahu's done
it a thousand times. That's why I'm gonna
get to a second about the Atlantic article
making it out to be some kind of
new thing after post October 7. You're just
laughing how dumb that is. But but just
understand this. And I do very much think
this is by design. Now that's not to
say that the Iran war wouldn't have happened
without that, but it's really just it's a
it's a confluence of events that they're in
this moment and they go, okay. We we
are kind of planning for this two weeks
from now, but shoot. Let's do it now
because we wanna cover this up or whatever.
It is a daily conversation in Israel.
I might be being hyperbolic slightly about that,
but it's very common for them to discuss
in corporate media about how Netanyahu will casually
start wars or bomb things in order to
give himself a political benefit or political, you
know, clearing.
And yet that just continues.
Now it also doesn't mean that those are
things that wouldn't have already what's happened, but
he's using them nonetheless and killing people to
get it done. So Epstein files is going
off the conversation, but we'll we won't let
it drop. Don't worry. Massey won't either.
Now I can't actually believe this. I had
to make sure this wasn't fake, and I'm
still wondering if somehow I'm being fooled.
This is not a joke, guys. This unless,
again, there's somehow I mean, I checked this
just being I'm just kinda making a joke
out. I can't believe Melania is hosting, running,
chairing the UN Security Council.
And just so you may understand, that's unprecedented.
I've never ever seen that. I've never seen
any
first
lady,
whether they have the credentials or not, by
the way, which should clearly matter, host the
UN Security Council. So I don't know what
this means. I don't know if people have
theorized that they what's going on? Where's Trump?
Is he dead? And, you know, all kind
of crazy things. I don't think so.
Frankly, with everything else we're seeing, my first
thought was, I think somebody out there just
wants this country to look as dumb as
possible.
Now I'm not even saying that's the most
evidence backed opinion. I'm that's just what I'm
feeling. But there is evidence for that, and
you know what I'm talking about. But either
way, however you interpret this, tell me why
this is what you know, is this America
first? Is this, you know, make giving making
us look good in front of the world?
She can barely say the numbers out loud,
and she's hosting this. It's just embarrassing.
Good afternoon.
The ten thousand
one hundred and thirteen meeting of the sec
security council
is called to order.
And what's funny is people often you know,
more than just this opening clip pointing out
Walls and and, what's her name? Tammy Bruce
with this very uncomfortable looking faces behind them.
Because, I mean, if you look take your
time to look at it, if you care
about things that aren't necessarily important right now,
other than that's that it's happening and it's
crazy, most people in there are,
you know, you could my opinion is you
can see it on their faces.
Either way, guys, why is that something that
makes sense to anybody? Why would that be
acceptable, justified? That why don't why don't you
just let her sit in as president for
a week? You know what I mean? Like
and that's an international
body. Just, yeah, just weird to me. Now
I I I will I will read what
I said here, and I do think this
is important. Because this I think this is
how this goes to my point. Oh, I
guess this is what I just said, actually.
The US government is and I agree with
I this is what I genuinely think that
the is the laughing stock of the world
right now.
Ask yourself why they would allow that to
become the reality.
Because I do and I think much of
it is indeed a choice as opposed to
incompetence, even though that clearly plays a factor.
And who would stand to benefit from that?
Alternatively, from what I may think, you could
argue China, for example, would very much benefit
for making this country look stupid. But think
it through and realize what we're talking about.
If whatever it is, it's worth considering why
that's happening.
Also, on the partisan side, because just humorous
before we get into the rest of the
show,
and I this and and I do think
there's some relevance to this because of maybe
the same point, actually. Just incompetence or who's
driving this because my opinion, Laura Loomer has
far more connections to something other than US
interests.
But she says this on the second.
I showed president Trump everything you said about
him, Taco Carlson.
What he's in in, like
that's like junior high.
I I showed him everything. You're in trouble.
And if you look at the comments, it's
all really you know? I'm I am gonna
tell on you it's really sad, but then
guess what?
Literally, like, almost at like, the next next
day, Trump knocks Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelly over
Iran criticisms. MAGA is Trump. Now that's really
what I wanted to point to, but just
think about weird that is. And there's been
a lot of people pointing out that and
and remember she said this. She called she
just got the phone with Donald Trump, and
I told him all this stuff. And then
she posted this later going, I told him
everything, like, as if he can't just look
into what Tucker is saying. But, apparently, he
reacted.
Think about how insane it is that we're
talking about somebody with what he, Trump, is
doing in the world and the influence he
has, who also just casually listens to Laura
Loomer and allows her irrational screeching to influence
what he doesn't think on the world stage.
If that's what would happen, then I think
the timing is hard to miss. That's just
crazy. But to the real point,
you know, this this should be very irritating
for people who actually understand what make America
great again means. I mean, even if you
just understand what the acronym spells out, like,
MAHA, for example, make America healthy again, that's
not like, so when
RFK Jr and Trump don't do what they
promised, that's not the Maha movement breaking. That
is them breaking the Maha movement. The Maha
movement is predominantly,
as far as I can tell, people who
genuinely want to make America healthy again. Some
of them are willing to ignore the truth
to side with the team, but I think
the majority of them, which you can see,
are not okay with what's happening.
MAGA is a group of Republicans, conservatives that
would argue who will want to make this
country great again. I mean, look. This is
why I've gotten so frustrated with people
who and I push back when I hear
this and then she went, oh, MAGA stupid,
or they're all dumb idiots. I don't think
that. In fact, I think the opposite. I
think the majority of them truly wanted this,
but far too many of them are just
like with any partisan field or uncomfortable speaking
out when they don't feel like they have
the support.
But I believe that most of them want
to make America great again. They may disagree
on how that happens, but I'm sure you
could people can disagree.
The point though is that it's not just
it is Trump.
Make America great again is not just whatever
Trump says. It's whatever used objectively as the
person who they tell us actually has the
decision making power over the government decides it
is. What do we want this country to
be? For Trump to say it is him,
it just continually shows you what he they
they always deny. It's only about him. He
believes it's the sole interest, the sole driving
thought in this country. He can write executive
orders. He can decide we go. Nobody has
any influence, not even you. And if you
disagree, then you're not MAGA. He said that
twice already.
How is that not relevant, guys? I mean,
if you're an honest person and you believe,
that you wanna make the country great again,
even if you agree with him right now,
you would disagree with that framing.
It's frustrating.
So starting with the school, which I do
think is obviously be will be relevant forever
because it I think it's up to a
170
something children, schoolgirls.
It was an all girl child school that
was bombed
by a joint,
strike by US and Israel.
So this was on the point the twenty
eighth. US Israel illegally bombed Iran, killing over
a 100 schoolchildren,
which has only continued to flush out. It's
been I think I actually
yeah. I included it, I think.
Excuse me. Hiccups all of a sudden.
The geo confirmed.
And please go through this. Everything's linked. I
mean and this has been roundly confirmed by
plenty of other platforms as well that they
did bomb this place, and they did our
and they are responsible for it, and it
was not a legal target. But you always
gotta love how this works where in the
moment, it's simultaneously it didn't actually happen, but
if it did, it was them. And then
but if it did, then it was actually
because it was justified because it was inside
the military, but, otherwise, it was actually a
lie or, otherwise, it wasn't in Afghanistan. Didn't
even happen. It's just
this is Israeli propaganda.
They scramble up, just dump every possible alternative
on the table. Once everyone gets momentum, they
just lean into that. You saw it continually
during the Israeli war. I don't know why
anybody ever thought that would make sense. Like
I said, I think part of it is
just a collapsing kind of influence.
But the reality is clearly that that was
the case, and it was it was adjacent,
but not considered legally within that complex. On
top of that, as you can look up
for yourself, there are military complexes all over
the world that house US schools
or Israeli, by the way, or we'll get
to the Tel Aviv part at the very
end in regard to what that human shield
dynamic, as we've already told you, of Tel
Aviv really is. So just understand that this
is provable. They bombed these schoolchildren, and I
believe largely it was Israel. But who knows?
I don't think Trump's government at this point
is even capable of really deciding this outside
of Israel's, you know, path.
But EuroMed human rights monitor the Europe the
human rights group posted this video in in
Southern Iran, a girl school became a place
of unimaginable grief after at least a 165.
I think the last number I saw was
upwards of a 170 something because they're they're
digging children out of the rubble, guys, or
killed and dozens more injured.
And US Israeli strike. Now they rest with
their dreams in the mass graves. Schools are
meant to nurture hope, not bear the scars
of war. Targeting educational facilities violates protections meant
to shield civilians. Yes. We all know this.
Right? But he's right to point it out
because right now, they're claiming that they didn't
do that.
So here is what and let's not forget
what MAGA all these MAGA boys, MAGA, Johnny
MAGA, all these accounts have very real been
shown to be not bots, but but gas
astroturfing.
Accounts that are literally what John Banyani MAGA
account was proven to be right out of
the White House, guys. It was a staffer,
and that was an account that was out
there influencing MAGA movement direct I mean, it's
this is what we're dealing with. So he
just murmured that, by the way. And, also,
if you just search this identical framing, you'll
find Hager Howdy and and Sorter and every
one of them identical sharing the exact same
post going, oh my god. Red light flashing.
Marco Rubio just said the changed everything.
It's they get talking points, guys, and they're
identical, by the way. But let's listen to
what Rubio said and then laugh it out
down their framing is.
Clearly that The United States would not target
deliberately target a school.
They are, on the other hand, deliberately targeting
civilians Incorrect. As you've seen. As far as
I can tell based on all the evidence.
Because you know why? They are a terroristic
regime. Oh, okay. So you know why? Not
evidence because we don't like them. Because we've
told you they're bad. Bad guy, bad guy,
Iran. Doesn't that make sense? Right? Here's how
we know they did that because Iran, bad
guy. Oh, great. Great. What a they're what
a resounding or rather compelling argument.
Well, fine. You can call anybody else who
want a terrorist or you're I mean, what
it's just I wouldn't go off on that
point forever. The reality of just claiming they're
a bad guy. I mean, didn't you guys
just quite literally make up a fake cartel
to blame Venezuela and then had to admit
in court that you made it up? Or
and after the fact, Yes. They very much
did. I don't know why anybody anywhere pretends
like a liar who's been caught lying repeatedly
is worth trusting.
They sponsor terrorism and they participate in terrorism.
Point it out.
I I don't disagree. It's possible. They're all
I think all governments are bad. Point it
out for me. Somebody in the chat give
me a single example. Not they did this
because government said or because they fund this
group that did something. Show me where Iran
is invading countries, putting troops in other places,
stealing resources, bombing other countries, doing a fraction,
if any, of what both Israel and the
US government are doing constantly.
In Somalia, in Ethiopia, I mean, everywhere. We're
not even talking about half the places Trump
is currently bombing.
Because there's no
What is so let's look at that claim,
shall
we? So we can go back to the
one of the most obvious cases, which we
covered pretty extensively, which really did, you know,
have an effect on the conversation,
largely as I always point out, because Jim
Carrey decided to make cartoon, like, not in
a jokey way, but make, like, a cartoon
as, like, a political commentary of the fact
that The US Government, rather the Saudi Arabian
government with US support, bombed a school full
of children in Yemen. 40 of them. That,
by the way, if you forget, was the
one that everyone talked about, then they bombed
two more after that over the next month
that barely anybody talked about. And I I
searched the last American Vagabond website. I believe
we were citing antiwar.com
at the time, and it's verifiable.
These are real events that were even discussed
with the state department, but it's funny how
those don't get the same outrage.
They only feign outrage when it's forced to
be discussed, like everything else. But they bomb
a school bus full of children, backpacks all
bloody, strewn about the ground. We've covered this
extensively.
The what was it? The,
MK eight two bombs, I believe.
And they literally US right inside of the
bomb. Right? The the that's one example of
an endless amount of them bombing. Well, not
a school necessarily. In this case, both school
bus. Okay? Here's an extensive report from Bureau
of Investigative Journalism. CIA backed Afghan unit accused
of atrocities is able to call in air
strikes. Now both of these represent what you
could argue are proxies,
assets, elements. They're they're, you know, allies they're
arming,
which there's that they're belligerent. They're still responsible.
But I would argue they're also, like, with
Saudi Arabia, very, very much involved with the
decision making. But let's just pretend, like, their
assets did this, not them. Still with their
weapons. Okay? But so these are CIA backed
Afghan units calling in airstrikes and killing children
in schools, and you can read through it.
Here, CNN did one about Yemen in general.
This was overlapping with the m k two
that they found the shrapnel to prove that
The US bombs were the ones killing civilians
and children in schools, but these are all
technically still the tangential ones. Right? So here's
what Grok had to say.
How many schools in The US Military provably
bombed in just two
terms thus far? Now the the important part
about this is these are things, like, for
example, with Israel, as the same point. Israel
is out there regularly doing this. The US
is out there regularly doing this. Now you
can prove this with the reports I just
showed you. But for those who wanna disregard,
oh, it says CNN right there, so I'm
gonna pretend I can't look at that. Here's
a Grok platform from your republican platform. Okay?
And here's what Grok wants to tell you.
Don't trust what Brock says. Brock lies all
the time. But if you don't wanna look
at the reports I just gave you, here's
another example.
There are at least three, there's way more
than that, provable incidents where US military air
strikes directly at schools during Donald Trump's two
presidential presidential terms. I'm making it about him,
not the US government, because of what Rubio
just said. We don't do that. Well, Biden
did it. Obama did it. Bush did it.
Here's Trump's two terms. To be clear, Biden
did it too. But Trump, however, is currently
in position.
This is what Grock will tell you right
now. In 2017
in Syria, and we talked about this, a
US led coalition airstrike targeted a school sheltering
displaced families fleeing ISIS. The strike killed 33
civilians, including women and children.
A school
confirmed by Air Wars, Human Rights Watch, numerous
other platforms, United Nations confirmed
this was a bombing operation from the US
government that targeted the school and killed children.
So I guess Rubio's lying. Surprise, surprise. Here's
a school in Syria from 2017
as well. US aircraft bombed multiple sites, including
a school, killing 20 civilians. The strike also
damaged nearby homes in a hospital.
Confirmed by Amnesty International, local monitors on the
ground, air warriors confirmed with geolocated evidence.
So facts. K? Now in 2026, here's what
I found interesting.
Grok cites the bombing of the school. I
didn't prep it for that. I just said,
give how many schools? And here's what Grok
says.
02/28/2026,
girls primary school in Iran. A joint US
Israeli airstrike hit the school, killing a 148
to a 175
varies based on the reporting. The school was
adjacent to but separate from the military site.
I just it's just so funny to me.
These are all things you could verify on
your own, and I don't know why it
would mean more for you to grok to
say it, but for some people, they'll dismiss
both.
Which seems to be funny since they're the
ones who would often point to this for
things to deny what Democrats say. It's just
always a useful point, but question all of
this because I've shown you how wrong this
can be. Confirmed by the United Nations, UNESCO,
as a grave violation of humanitarian law,
and plenty of other just, Algeria investigation, media,
UN reports, all have confirmed that this is
the reality.
But I guess we're all lying. Certainly possible.
Question everything. But recognize, guys, recognize where we
are right now. As he's saying, we don't
do that, but most of you already know
that. We don't break the law. They do
every day. We don't invade country. Do every
single day. We don't steal resource. You do
every single day. But they'll lie about all
of it, guys. Well, just to overlap it
since we're talking about Israel in a joint
bombing.
Right? It could maybe even Rubio is telling
the truth. He's not, but we don't do
it. Well, maybe Israel does. Right? Because they
both bombed, which I honestly do think that's
more likely with what happened. Same question. How
many schools has and you'll I'm sure you
know where this is gonna go. How many
schools has Israel provably bombed? And and I
just did the same framing in Trump's previous
two terms.
By September 2025, the total the total direct
bombings
since the war's start reached at least 662.
That's schools.
Schools
suggesting around 230 more from July to September
2025.
Tax on schools.
Thus, the estimate total number of schools provably
bombed during Trump's two terms by Israel, in
this case, is approximately 446
based on discrepancies.
446,
the grok will tell you, are proven, confirmed
by Israel and not just Gaza, but that's
predominantly what we're talking about. There's Lebanon, right,
Syria.
I mean, what it's just so irritating that
we have to pretend like these people out
here are have credibility.
Who cares if they got 10,000,000 followers on
Twitter? They'd no. People are laughing at how
dumb this is. Some of them fall for
it. I think the majority of people aren't
this stupid. And in case you wanna go
further, I'll include just searching for school. Just
the word school on the lost American backbone.
Includes the most recent one, but there's tons
of these, and there's much more that are
more specific besides just the word school. Here,
Israel's latest school massacre narrative falls apart. That
was 2024.
School bombings, ceasefire lies, twenty twenty four July.
Multiple schools bombed in Gaza, twenty twenty four
June.
November 2023, UN school bombed. That was November.
That was a big one. The UN the
United Nations school was bombed. Nobody seemed to
care outside of honest people in the United
Nations who I'm not saying is honest. 62%
of 9,000 plus civilians killed in Gaza are
women and children, and Israel uses white phosphorus
on the UN school that was November 2023.
And it goes on from there, by the
way. Look. There there's we'll see. Oh, it
doesn't show it here.
On the other one, it shows the bottom
how many there are, but tons.
It goes on forever.
You can read it for yourself.
Now the next the show I did the
table for yesterday, and that's really important to
hear because it's being widely covered right now
by a lot of the partisan media, interestingly
enough, because I think the effort is to
make it sound like Trump is innocent
even though it may, to a degree, remove
some level of accountability if it turns out
that he was blackmailed, but that does not
remove all accountability. And this is only one
topic. He's lied to you guys at about
7,000 that don't even revolve Israel. The point
is that Netanyahu came out very, very publicly
in multiple videos now and says that he
has that this is what I promised. Direct
quote. He said he promised it for forty
years. So let's go back to that claim
of an an imminent attack or, you know,
if you plan this for forty years, then
how in the world does that make sense?
And, again, honest people already see this.
And Iran reportedly from Israeli media had already
refused a ceasefire.
Because why would they accept a ceasefire? It's
pretty obvious based on every other circumstance, Gaza
included, that these people have no scruple. They
have nothing that's sacred. They will ignore everything
and take what they want. They'll make a
deal and bomb you in the back every
single time. And now what they get is
an example that why we're gonna make a
deal with you when you just created the
discussion for a deal. We met to make
a deal and you bombed everybody.
Think about how crazy that is. It's the
let's reverse it in case you're not getting
the point. Let's just say that Iran was
trying to make a deal with The United
States and said, look. We need your opinion
on this from your from your security council.
So Trump goes to The United States, goes
to Washington, DC, and collects everybody that needs
to make the decision. You've got 20 people
in a room. They're the most important people
in Washington, and Iran bombs all of them.
Okay. And then they all die. Right? And
they say, oh, it's for national security and
freedom and justification because preemptive attack, whatever.
And then they come up and go, let's
make a deal, Trump, or whoever's left and
say, let's make a deal. Why wouldn't you
make a deal? Are you are you terrorists?
Why would you ever go, sure. Let's do
it again. I mean, I mean, this is
the most obviously logical thing in the world.
That doesn't even mean Iran, good guy. They
they could be the worst person in the
world. I would still argue it makes no
sense to make a deal with the people
that just
committed a terrorist act against you.
Seriously. It's what we're talking about. You know,
look, if you argue we're talking about a
warfare situation, well, yeah, that would be justified
because these people are definitely positions of you
know, in positions of leadership of the war.
Well, again, discussing the idea that you started
at first either way, but the point was
that this was under a flag of diplomacy.
You opened that door. You created the diplomacy
setting, and then you bombed them just like
Solebani, just like in Lebanon the last time.
These are monsters, guys. Now whether Trump is
choosing to do that or not, you can
decide. If it makes it easier for you
to swallow,
just acknowledge that Israel is the one guiding
this and making both Biden and Trump do
what he wants.
Now here's the Atlantic. This is just incredible
to me. Steve and I were talking about
this morning. Benjamin Netanyahu's
long career was built on conflict avoidance.
That sentiment alone is so embarrassingly
inconsistent with what anybody can look up and
what even Israelis say about Benjamin Netanyahu. Let's
not forget the Atlantic connections, both of the
Epstein files, Israel itself. This platform has been
shown to be very manipulative, but that's not
to say that there haven't been there's articles
I read that I thought were good. It's
the same as anything. Read it all, question
everything, right, how you look at it. That's
just flatly not true, and it's quite insane
that they would even say that. But it
goes then,
October 7, transformed and radicalized him.
So if you read this and it's, oh,
it's worth your time even just it's it's
incredible what they're trying to argue. They're trying
to make the argument that Netanyahu was not
bad, didn't do anything like this, and suddenly,
because these evil monsters killed everybody, then he
just reacted crazy, but he's justified, basically, with
the argument.
I
just I mean, it's incredible with where we
are, with what the whole world sees, with
every human rights group and every international body,
ICCI, every one of them. The the Lincoln
Institute, all the genocide experts are like, this
is genocide. You're monsters. This is a problem.
And, you know, and then they come out
and write an article claiming somehow what they're
doing is justified?
I mean, this is my point about all
of this. Think about this from an Atlantic
like, where are the shareholders of this platform?
Or Or if that's even how that works.
I'm not sure if how these platforms are
set up with the that business model. But
either way, where are the people who are
invested in Atlantic, who want return, right, who
own it?
This is bad business, let alone bad dishonesty
and and bad politics. You are literally creating
a circumstance where you're writing something that you
know to be false that challenges what the
majority of the world says from a political
from a truth standpoint, but from a moral
standpoint. So people are gonna look at you
and go, are you really gas this is
like they wrote this about World War two.
In the midst of what was going on
and they said, you know, it wasn't Hitler's
fault. He just react, and he was a
peace guy. He's peacenik. And then then they
pushed him too far, and he reacted crazy.
And it's it just it's okay.
What do you think about how you would
look at that person. Think about why they
would make that choice. Then on top of
that, readers added, in a secretly recorded video,
which we've talked about, it's very easy to
look up, from 2001,
Netanyahu brags about stopping the Oslo accords
on dealing with Palestinians. He said, we must
beat them up, not once, but repeatedly. Beat
them up so it hurts badly until it's
unbearable.
Right? We saw, Gallant came out and told
you as along with the 100 other examples,
provably,
that he has repeatedly
sabotaged the deals with Gaza.
We saw it at the beginning where they
offered a full exchange, ninth and the tenth
after October 7. They said, no. We want
only to go after you. We don't secondary
the civilians are secondary. The hostages rather. So
all it's showing you is that that's not
the case. They've been creating war the entire
time, and even the fact check will show
you that.
So here's what Justin Massage say getting into
the the legal reality of this, and this
is really important to the conversation.
The constitution does not require the president to
notify congress. It requires them to get permission.
Now we're gonna get into their argument about
the War Powers Act and why it's a,
you know, self defense, which would then circumvent
the idea that you need to get permission.
Right? Because that's how this works, is that
if you're under attack or the threat,
you can respond. And then it take sixty
days and possibly ninety depending on what the
the way you've abused. You know, there's an
extension, you know, the whole point that you
can then after by that point, you then
are required to,
go through congress to continue. And then within
forty eight hours, he was required to present
his justification to Congress, which allegedly he did
on the second, which we'll get into.
But what he's saying right here is that
we just notified them. And with what we
know, that this was not imminent based on
even what the Pentagon says. Well, then he's
he's admitting right there that this was not
done legally.
And this person says, show me this specifically
show me specifically in the constitution where expressly
says the commander in chief article two powers
has to get the permission of congress. I
mean, can you really think this is
I I can't tell what this person is.
Just this it just in, like,
shockingly anti American style lying to people. Like,
coming out and just blatantly lying about how
easily you can look this up in the
constitution
or whether he just actually doesn't know that.
I'm not sure which one is more concerning.
Because this guy, host of the Joe Pagg
show, 288,000
followers is an in is influencing
political conversation and doesn't even understand the basics
of the constitution, but that's part of what's
going on today. We're being gaslit into this
dangerously stupid position. It's been happening for decades
in this country.
And at one time at one point, I
thought it was largely because our government is
it's easier to manipulate dumb people. But now
I'm trying to think it's quite a bit
bigger than that. Now here's what here's the
actual clip, and then we'll we'll talk more
on it.
Why not notify congress ahead of this and
just congress Well, we did. We notified congress.
I mean, we notified the gang of eight.
We notified congressional leadership.
There's no law that requires us to do
that. The law says we have to notify
them forty eight hours after beginning hostilities. No.
See but see, he's manipulating that already. And
this is my point. He knows this stuff.
The forty eight hours is about you giving
them the basically, your justification.
And then the and then if you were
under an emergency imminent attack, you could continue
for sixty days, possibly ninety.
But he knows this, guys. He's not stupid.
He is make manipulating the conversation. On top
of that, I would argue most of the
journalists out there, if they actually, you know,
barely know what they're doing, also know that,
and none of them actually pushed that question.
We've done that. I think the notification went
today, but we did notify members of congress
in advance. But we can't notify 535
members of congress. Oh, and authorized for what?
Please call it See, right there again, he's
conflating with two things. The forty eight hour
notification
is about justification for, I mean,
actually, I'm not sure if it's I I
I forget what it says about all of
congress. I think it's specifically the inner the
gang of eight as they call it, the
the,
inner circle.
But, ultimately, what's it gonna say that,
oh, yeah. So but he's he's blending that
with the idea of, like, if there wasn't
an emergency, I'm I'm kinda getting ahead. We'll
go through this all in in in-depth.
But, ultimately, if there wasn't an imminent threat
that you would then have to go to
congress and not just notify them or not
give them a justification, but get congress to
approve and vote on whether you go to
war.
That's the reality of this. So without that
imminent threat, none of this lines up, and
they're that's why they're leaning on that argument,
except the Pentagon came out and said that's
just not true. I don't know how we
pretend that's not very important. Some people are
trying. Congress can vote on whatever they want,
but there's no law that requires us to
do that. And I wanna say something because
I see people on TV. Look. That's fine.
If they wanna take a war powers vote,
they can do that. They've done that. They've
done that up on Think about how disgusting
that is, like it's irrelevant to what's going
on. I mean, this is but, see, this
is why most of congress is also going
along with this because that has changed. All
these people, I think, want power influence, and
the reality is if they have centralized power,
they have far more power in general.
So because Congress right now, if they wanted
to do their job, send and, yes, same
with Obama. Yes. Same with Biden. They're all
criminals. They should have taken action to impeach
them the moment that they broke the law.
They do not.
So then they they know this. And so
he goes, well, they could do whatever they
want because nobody's actually doing anything.
We saw talks about impeachment for Trump months
ago. We're talking about this by January. Nobody
did anything. Nothing real anyway, because it's all
a big show as far as I'm concerned.
Times.
But there's no people keep saying that we
have there's no law that requires the president
to have done anything with regards to this.
It's called the constitution.
Yes. There is. We're the to begin with,
no president's presidential administration has ever accepted the
War Powers Act as constitutional. Not Republican presidents,
not Democratic presidents.
That said, we have What does that even
mean? Are you so you're liter and look.
I agree in fact. I agree with the
point. I think Ron Paul made a good
argument about this a long time ago. That
the War Powers Act in a way sort
of enshrined the illegality. Right? Enshrine the possibility
for you to circumvent the constitution, but that's
always how they do this. And you could
argue that there was good intention with how
you framed it because of an emergency and
so on. Yeah. I don't know.
But it's it's like it's like the Patriot
Act or any number of things, the Smith
Mon Modernization Act. These things are done under
the guise of stopping a problem, but what
it really does is enshrine the problem
in under law. But then if you understand
how the law works,
Mayberry versus Madison, for example, if it's repugnant
to the constitution, it's null and void. Whether
or not it goes through congress, it gets
passed.
See, we're so far past the reality of
this. These are people that don't care about
any of this. The constitution does not guide
their actions in their mind. All the notification
at forty eight hours that we're here today.
I've done more gang of eight briefings
than I got in the four years that
Biden was president. I was It doesn't mean
anything. So arrest Biden then. I agree.
The argument that they didn't do it so
we could get to do it means, like,
that's why I started with that. You're either
just as illegal and unconstitutional as they are
or none of you care about it at
all, which is kind of the same point,
I guess. As a member of the gang
of eight, all of that said, we complied
with the law a 100%, and we're gonna
Why would you say it like that? Why
would you point out that the War Powers
Act may be unconstitutional and that I didn't
it didn't have vermi, which means that we
know that's not okay. That's not the way
it's supposed to be done. Therefore, we didn't
break the law. How do you even make
those two statements?
You just made it clear that you were
all breaking the law, Biden included. Wasn't that
your point? And then the next statement is,
but we're within the law?
Again, he knows what he's doing. This person
should be in prison. Continue to comply with
it. We've done the notification, you know, and
and we've officially to congress, but we did
notify members of congress. We just can't notify
535
people. That's not possible, but we did the
gang of eight. He's he's repeating himself to
try to muddy the waters, guys. Twice. I
briefed them last week, and then I called
them the night before the end of the
day. Honestly, I get the sense that Rubio
is pretty uncomfortable right now. I think he
senses the fact that he like like I've
said before, Trump often throws him out there
and and and basically makes Rubio the one
that makes the decision. And I frankly don't
think that's the case at the time. But
and and then last time that happened, remember
Rubio threw it back at him. It's like,
no. No. It was it was really Trump.
And I think they're both they don't like
each other despite what the front thing is,
and they've made that clear before. So I
think what we're watching is is some, you
know, that he he I think he's uncomfortable
because he knows that he may be the
one that gets, you know, thrown under the
bus as it goes.
So Justin says the constitution does not require
the president to notify congress. It requires them
to get permission.
And as I showed you, he responded saying,
show me where it says that. So Justin
Masch says this might be the most basic
concept in the entire constitution.
The framers granted congress the power to declare
war.
To declare
war meant to commence war,
to put the country in a state of
war and activate the commander in chief to
take offensive action
after that declaration. Then that power becomes the
executive
the commander in chief to carry that war
out. Draft language had granted congress the power
to make war, but the framers were concerned
that such phrasing would prohibit the president even
from taking defensive action without their permission. Meaning,
that should there be an invasion, that they
would ultimately have to spend all the time
doing that, which might lose them the country,
especially when there's a war footing, like, coming
off of, you know, with Britain. And so
the ultimate idea here is that they created
that opening.
But, what was I gonna say too? The,
I just forgot it. But, anyway, so continuing,
it says
that they they added that because of that
obvious which anybody can understand. Like, there's a
justification that does make sense. Oh, that would
that's what it was to remember that within
the constitution
to argue at any point, no matter how
logical they seem to you, that that that
unilateral power exists is is literally the antithesis
of what this all is. It was designed.
Don't we remember all these conversations? Oh, that's
right. We're not taught civics anymore. That's why
nobody knows these things because your government doesn't
want that. The reality is it was checks
and balances. The idea that they were supposed
to check that idea, that no one entity
had no more power than the other, and
they could ultimately all like, that's why it
was designed this way. So the president saying
he needs to do this without congressional authority
doesn't even make sense with the way the
country was designed.
And and that hadn't changed. It is they
they're just bending the reality using things like
War Powers Act, national security.
They're manipulating everybody.
And it says they had mended the language
to ensure that the president could, quote, repel
sudden attacks. That's what it was. While for
preserving congress's authority to initiate war. And he
breaks it down for you. I mean, it's
all exactly what he just said.
And, of course, what you get is, you
know, no basically, the guy going, no.
Doesn't declare
declare doesn't mean commence.
Also, now we're nitpicking about the meaning of
the words. It's not just because the words
have meaning. And and, of course, this your
audience has seen this before, by the way.
Congress has no control over the military. Are
are you serious? This guy is influencing 300,000
people with his ridiculously uneducated argument about the
constitution.
Crock says no. Joe's mistaken on both counts.
Not that it matters, and he is whether
or not Crock says that. But it's just
that obvious today. And there's a huge faction
of these people who are trying to misinform
everybody.
Or, again, I guess, maybe he's just that
dumb and the people are using him. You
can decide. So here's Nancy Mace. For anyone
who needs a refresher on American history history,
Obama bombed eight countries without congressional authorization
during his presidency and ex exceeded his nine
sixty ninety day limit, which I also said
at the time of the war powers resolution.
Right?
I said, looks like Nancy Mace agrees that
Donald Trump broke the law by bombing Iran
without professional approval just like Obama. Great. And
since we have principles, we charge them both
with crimes. Right?
Or am I misunderstanding her intentions here? Obviously,
being facetious because we know what she's trying
to do. She's trying to gaslight you into
thinking that it's okay that Trump does this.
Even though your argument just stated that it's
a problem.
So but it's only a problem when Biden
did or we a a Democrat does it,
and therefore, we're allowed to do it too
because we're, I guess, in kindergarten.
And this guy is well, this is the
point where we go into the argument about
the actual war powers act point. He says
Trump has ninety days. Well, if you look
at the comments, and someone always goes, whenever
you touch on a nerve, you get the
blind repeating of the statement.
Who peep from random people on Twitter that
had five four following. Like, why do you
think it's relevant that you exert you know,
this is the reality, and it's like you
you don't have any influence in the conversation.
You don't have any reason to understand this
more than anybody else. You're stating something you
can prove isn't true,
but people
just regurgitate the statement because Trump said it
on Twitter or too social.
Trump has ninety days before he would break
the law. That's not true. You don't even
understand the basic reality of how this process
works, let alone the idea that it's not
at sixty days. Ninety is the secondary part,
but it says as Obama did and Democrat
politicians didn't care. Yes. So you're admitting that
you're okay with them breaking the law? Is
that what you're actually saying? No. Not if
you pushed and asked him, but that's what
he just did. Obama did it and they
didn't care.
This is not an adult argument, guys. This
is not a serious person.
So the reality is, yes, he did. So
did Obama so did Biden. So did Bush.
They they all have done this, and they
all should be charged for that crime. It
should be consistent. It should be I mean,
basically, what they do when they make that
argument is, therefore, it shouldn't matter forever.
Like, okay. So when when the next Democrat
gets in and does something you disagree with,
well, you just made the argument that they
did it so they could do it. So
you're essentially creating a circumstance where the law
no longer matters forever. Why does that make
sense to any, you know, logical person is
beyond me. But let's get into this from
first the Washington Examiner,
and there's plenty of evidence to back this
up. No. The war powered resolution doesn't give
the president sixty days of free war. And
I've been saying this my entire life doing
this well before the Washington examiner made this
argument. It's easy to understand. It's just a
basic manipulation about the imminent threat. And that's
what I've I've how long we talked about
the Bethlehem doctrine and and and preemptive self
defense, the Orwellian absurdity that that is. I
talked about with Bolton and the limpid mines.
That whole conversation
spur spun out as borderline bombing each other,
and it all came back to Bolton,
knowingly misrepresenting
simply Iranian ships moving in their own harbor.
That was proven reality.
They well, he he ended up having to
address it and basically said, well, we didn't
know what's in those ships. We didn't know
what's in the ships moving in their own
harbor? He just played everybody, and then they
they sabotage. They faked the limpid mine. They
were trying to create war. Bolton's been doing
this entire life
because Israel, now Trump doing the same thing,
even though he called Bolton the maniac.
So let's go through this. Oh, I guess
it removed the
oh, man. Oh, no. That's right. That's right.
I think it was most of it, so
I'll just read through it real quick.
The constitution clearly grants Congress, not the president,
and I believe this is a Republican leaning
platform, whatever that means these days,
grants Congress, not the president, the power to
declare war.
Thus, most defenders of president Donald Trump's unauthorized
war in Iran point to the 1973
war powers resolution to claim the law allows
the president to wage war for sixty days
without
congressional approval. That's that's the gist of what
we're getting. Right? Because, I mean, look, there
are people who are I can't even believe
arguing that somehow
that the whole article two just does we
do what he wants. There's that that's just
such a
I mean, uneducated doesn't do it justice. Then
you could even make sense of that with
if you if you read any of the
constitution, you would realize how stupid that is.
But Trump says that to the world.
So if that was the reality, then why
would they even have to point to the
war powers resolution? Because they know that's the
truth. So they give you that dumb low
hanging fruit argument for people that will gobble
it up, then they know the rest of
us are gonna point to the real points
when they come in and go well, but
more powers too. That's Israeli type propaganda. I'm
always pointing out. You we can't be both,
but they do that. The reality is, clearly,
it is the case that congress is the
one that be it initiates, declares, commences war,
and it has to be an emergency for
them to be able to use the War
Powers Act point. So he continues. He's a
Republican member of congress. Congress, Mike Lauer, since
many of the Democratic colleagues don't seem to
understand the War Powers Act, no. It's you,
man, and that's embarrassing or you're dishonest. The
The president must notify congress in forty eight
hours of deploying troops. Yes. If
if
imminent invasion, imminent attack, or engaging attack, and
we'll go right from the constitution information here.
So it says, the common view is rooted
in a very basic error of understanding, and
I think it's by design, caused by careless
reading. Let's start with the crucial part of
the law from section two.
The constitutional
powers of the president as commander in chief
to introduce United States armed forces into hostilities
or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities
is clearly indicated by the circumstances. Now, obviously,
it opened the door to some level of
subjectivity,
but will not no matter what you think,
whatever they're pointing to, in no way makes
that case, not in any legal standing, not
in international law, not in US law. They're
basically saying them being them and doing things
that everyone else can do is somehow an
ongoing threat because they hate us. That's not
even if it's all true, it does not.
That's not legal justification. It does not even
come close. And most of these people are
lawyers or somehow lawyer adjacent. They know all
this. And it says, our exercise only pursuant
to a declaration of war.
Right? So that's one that that involved congress.
Specific statutory authorization, so like an authorization for
use of military force like Iraq and then
that involves congress,
or
a national emergency created by attack upon The
United States.
Now how unequivocal is that? Its territory, its
possessions, or its armed forces.
Okay. What's attack mean?
Attack means take aggressive action against with weapons
or armed force.
Okay. There's no misunderstanding that. That means that
if the first two involve congress by every
definition of the term, there's no misunderstanding that.
Anybody else saying otherwise is just lying to
you. And national so the third one, which
is where the war powers act comes into
play, a national emergency created specifically by an
attack. It's a direct quote
by an attack on The United States, which
means a of force or, you know, using
force or whatever I just read. Let me
do it again just so it's clear.
Take aggressive action
with weapons or armed force. So people or
armed force like bombings and to take action.
To claim them building missiles and eventually do
so is not the same thing. Now Bethlehem
doctrine is not legal reality. That's not law.
That is simply their mindset.
So them claiming preemptive attack, that's not legal,
guys. That's not the reality.
So continuing,
it says, if you think Trump is within
his rights to launch his his Iranian regime
change war, read that passage from section two
again.
It lays out the only three possible situations
in which the president can introduce our troops
into a new war.
The first two situations involve explicit congressional approval,
either a war declaration or something like the
AUMF.
The third case is the only case when
the president may, without
prior authorization from congress, introduce our military to
hostilities, quote, a national emergency created by not
just an emergency because of
and then Biden, that's not that doesn't count.
A national emergency created by an attack.
Now you could somebody could try to make
an argument of a cyberattack, for example,
and I would argue that even when Nixon
is an attack. It's like I pointed out
when the US government does it or Israel
does it. That's an act of war. They
just play the game. If Iran did it
to them, they would call it an act
of war, and they have in the past.
So in this case, a national emergency created
by an attack upon The United States, its
territories possessions, or its armed forces.
I mean, here's the case too. In in
every case you've seen Iran bomb a foreign
base, it's always been a response to what
The US and Israel did because they're not
dumb, and they understand how this works. They
understand the reality of the legal system and
that they can see that that would give
them, under even their own law, the justification
to do what they wanted. That's why they
try to turn this on you and say,
they unprecedented, unjustified. No. You started this like
you do every single time. I'm just glad
to see most people are actually aware of
that this time.
Now it says, I promise you,
read the paragraph again. The word only is
in there. This means if there's no declaration
of war, there was not. If there's no
authorization for use of military force, there was
not. The president can only start or enter
into a war if
we were already attacked.
Now that's also why they're playing that we've
been under attack for forty seven years. Like,
they're being guided by some kind of lawyer
that's like, you you guys are screwed. Here's
the best you could do. That's what I'm
I'm kind of joking, but I how else
what what are you gonna say? You guys
you guys stepped in this. You're wrong.
So forty seven years of ongoing attack. Well,
that's again. That's that's a
you know, under what? You're, you know, propaganda.
And so there's been no attacks. There's been
no literal
kinetic
military force or weaponry
on them, outside of response to them. Now
every one of the things they point
to, going back to Iraq itself, have all
been in response to actions by The United
States.
Now if this is, like oh, continuing. It
says oh, it's right here. This goes back
to founding father James Madison's insistence that the
constitution, quote, leave to the executive the power
to repel sudden attacks. Direct quote. The war
powers resolution codified this power that had been
implied by articles one and two of the
constitution,
which gave Congress alone the power to declare
war and made the president the commander in
chief more military.
If the Chinese fighter jets are flying here
to bomb San Francisco,
the commander in chief can't be left to
wait for both chambers to assemble and vote.
Right? I mean, that would make sense. This
was essentially
especially
pressing in the eighteenth century when assembling congress
might take days.
I mean, yeah, you could that's actually a
good point. Today, you could do it online.
It would take them twenty seconds to all
jump in, you know, but they don't want
that. They want this to be some slow
grueling process because that's not what they they
want this to be unilateral top down action.
That's my opinion.
So when's this notion
that the a president gets sixty days of
free war?
Read down a little bit, and you'll understand
this confusion. It says section four of the
law lays out mandates on the president in
case he introduces troops into war
or the edge of war.
Quote, in the absence of a declaration of
war, quote, not from section two. It's often
what they point to. We know he,
he oh, from section two, we know he
may only do this if we have attacked
or may only do this. We take this
action if we've been attacked or about to
be attacked. Right? So that's the idea. This
is the imminent imminent invasion, imminent attack, or
ongoing attack where you're able to do that
in the absence of declaration of war. And
it says in such a case of repelling
attack, section four lays out that the president
must one, and this is what we're dealing
with right now. But do you remember? The
imminent attack is not there. So going through
this process of the forty eight hours and
sixty days, they're already breaking the law in
every possible way. Now
in that process, had they been an imminent
attack,
they've already met the 48 part. As I
understand that Trump sent a thing for within
on I think it was yesterday, which barely
met the forty eight hours. So then the
argument is sixty days. But it says, so
one, make a report to Congress, which he
did, get congressional approval within sixty days.
So now they have a sixty day period
where I mean, I think right now, most
of them well, it's it's it's interesting. It's
a mixed bag. And I think it's gonna
I think most of them are biding their
time to see what Americans think because they're
all a bunch of we're we're fair weather
people.
But at the end of the day, people
like Massey are calling it out, you know?
And so after the sixty days, they get
to vote. Most Democrats, I can see are
all in support of this is always what
we're showing you guys.
It says in such a case of repelling
attack for lays out the president must go
through those steps. Again, these section four mandates
on the president apply only when Congress hasn't
declared war, but the president isn't allowed to
wage war without congressional authority except for repelling
an attack. It's very simple. They know this.
The sixty days of free war over the
president apply only in the case of a
national emergency created by an attack upon The
United States, its territories, possessions, or armed forces.
The Trump administration will try to argue, one,
as they already have, that Iran was about
to attack us, which is where they've gone.
They and and I'll go through it again.
It gets really broken the way they tried
to do it. It's clumsy.
Or number two,
the war powers resolution was unconstitutional, which is
essentially what he just said. Like, this is
what I'm talking about. They're trying to make
an argument, but then they already laid the
groundwork for maybe going a different direction should
they need to because they're just gonna take
what they can get. That's dishonesty, and those
are trickier arguments. The sixty day free war
claim is just flat wrong when it's a
war of choice.
Important to understand this, guys.
So here's what Brock had to say. Again,
important to understand you can read this directly
from the constitution, but if you're gonna ignore,
I guess, the constitution,
then maybe you care what Elon Musk's manipulated,
Brock has to tell you.
Is it but basically asking about the fur
whether The US is first attacked. Now it
says under the war college resolution,
section c two, the president may introduce US
Armed Forces into hostilities or situations where hostilities
are all imminent only
pursuant to a a direct motion of war,
statutory otheration, same thing, a national emergency created
by an attack in The United States. It's
exactly the same thing. It says, in other
words, strictly speaking, the president lacks unilateral authority
to start offensive military actions. Cool. Thanks,
crock. Like strikes on other countries, unless responding
to an attack or imminent threat equivalent to
one, which is not what's happening, but they're
trying. Preemptive or preemptive actions without this justification
arguably violate the resolution.
Arguably, they do. It's very simple because you
don't have preemptive justification without their well, I
mean, technically, there is no such thing as
preemptive justification because the argument would be that
they're already about to attack. So it's response,
not preemptive defense. That's the game of words.
But it says, if forces are introduced to
hostility in regard to reporting,
the president must notify Congress. So if if
you're being attacked, explaining the circumstances.
Then under the sixty ninety day point, it
says, once a report is submitted or should
have been, that was that was yesterday, US
forces must be withdrawn within sixty days
unless Congress authorizes continued action, which is what's
happened in the past, base basically, by lack
of action, like, letting it continue.
And then it says
where was
I?
Unless congress authorizes the action, then it says
the president can extend this by up to
thirty days. That's where the ninety comes in.
If they certify in writing that it's necessary
for the unavoidable military necessity of safely moving
forces. Think about this. So right now you've
got MAGA people going, he's got ninety days,
when the extra thirty days only comes into
play if in writing he pre claims
they have to do this because of the
unavoidable military necessity of the safety of removing
forces. So think about that. That that means
that you've already decided you're gonna get out
of the war, and you need a thirty
more day period to get this their troops
that they claim aren't even there out of
the country.
And you've got people out there, major people
in the MAGA group are going, he's got
ninety days. That like, that guy we just
pointed to for 300,000
followers.
And the argument, if you're even gonna be
right about it and you're not within the
base point of whether he's allowed to, is
sixty days. And another thirty should he decide
to remove them. I just you know, it's
just so broken and embarrassing. This is why
I think people like that, they actually don't
know what they're talking about. Because why would
you make yourself look like a moron just
to help the team? It's hard to say.
You can decide which one it is. It
says this clock is intended to force congressional
involvement and prevent an indefinite unauthorized wars.
The resolutions framers tied it closely to the
attack emergency scenario scenario as that's the only
valid basis for unilateral
action
initiation.
If the action doesn't meet the attack threshold,
it's not supposed to happen at all. Meaning,
there's no legitimate thirty day grace period for
non defensive wars. They they they cite the
thirty day because that's the I just suck
quote what they said up there, and that's
what they're referring to.
And lastly,
with does the ninety day window only apply
if The US is attacked first, which is
the whole point? Strict legal interpretation,
yes.
Yes.
You cannot have that unless you are attacked,
and that's what they just did. So they're
lying to you and breaking the law. Now
it says for non attack scenarios,
I e g preemptive strikes, which is what
let's be clear. That's what they're calling it.
Trump
burped every one of them.
Yeah. More than anybody. Preemptive defense. Right?
So according to the reality,
for non attack scenarios,
e g preemptive strikes, the action could be
seen as unauthorized from day one,
potentially breaking the law immediately
rather than after ninety days.
That's the reality. Now in practice, it says,
no. This is important. Presidents from both parties
have often ignored or broadly interpreted this limit,
claiming inherent article two powers to act preemptively
or under existing authorizations,
like the former use of use of author
or authorization of use of military force that
was applied to Iraq and it brought it
just anywhere ever they think it's connected. It's
insane.
So at the end of the day, you
either acknowledge
that the constitution was built to bound to
stop this very exact kind of grow you
know, blooming power that's unjustified,
or you can go none of it matters
because they can do whatever they want. But
then explain for me why you're fighting for
the constitution.
See, there's honest people out there, and there's
dishonest partisan players. That's pretty much the gist
of it as far as I can tell.
And here we are, where they're forcing this
in,
you know. And and the idea that just
because they didn't do it before does not
mean it's suddenly okay now. That's actually that
you're you're arguing against your own argument when
you do that.
Lastly, it says,
excuse me, the Trump administration has described the
February
2026
strikes as preemptive
or in response to immediate threats,
killing Iran's supreme leader and others, but without
evidence of a direct attack on The United
States.
Exactly. And it says as of 03/03/2026,
votes on restricting further action are expected soon,
but Trump could veto any such measure
requiring two thirds overab. Oh, okay then. So
if they don't impeach him, he could do
whatever he can literally do whatever he wants
forever. So all you guys out there arguing
in congress, that's not true, and he's a
king and an authoritarian
but then you just do nothing. All you're
showing us is that you actually kinda don't
want that, or you just don't care, and
you're biding your time until you can utilize
the same power.
Because think about it. You're you you know
he can just beat it. This is a
never stopping train unless you guys decide to
step in and stop that power, whether it's
Bush or Obama or Trump or Biden or
any of them, but they won't.
In summary, Grach says the ninety day period
is is legally tied to the attack response
scenarios, which you already know. It says that
the so nondefensive
actions like the Iran strikes that Trump just
carried out don't qualify for that grace period.
Now here is what,
Mike had to say,
and
the argument of war, as we talked about
jokingly this morning, is embarrassing because what they're
doing is coming out and calling it a
war and then pushing back on calling it
a war.
Half the time, I think this is by
design. Like, just to make it confusing and
make people not know what they should say
and people just kinda check out.
But here's Mike Johnson.
Or maybe not. Hold on.
Oh, I got the wrong one. Shoot.
So basically pushing back on the idea that
it's a war in general,
saying, you know, this is not and I
think the declaration of war point two, but
what this comes down to is that, you
know, what we're talking about even a bombing
is an act of war, and there and
applies in the same way. So whether it's
not just the the full on
ongoing declaration of war forward, it is in
fact the
acts of war as well. It's the same
conversation.
Here here it is.
How do I do that?
Decades.
The president was acting well within his authority.
What I just told you is the scope
of what happened here and the situational awareness
that they had at the time to make
this decision.
It it was not, it's not a declaration
of war. It's not something that the president
was required because it's defensive in nature and
in design and in necessity
to come to congress and get a vote
first.
And if they had briefed a larger group
than the gang of eight,
you know, there's a real threat that that
that very sensitive intelligence that we had,
you know, might have been leaked or something.
So this is what this is why this
is why
the commander in chief of our armed forces
has the latitude
that any commander in chief, any president always
has because they have a set of information
that is sensitive, timely, and urgent, and they
have to be able to act upon it.
They did that.
He's acting well within his authority.
What I just told you is the scope
of what happened here and the situational awareness
that they had at the time to make
this decision.
It it was not, it's not a declaration
of war. It's not something that the president
was required because it's defensive in nature. That's
the important part. I just wanna make sure
I didn't miss it because I was,
it looks like I did have the
wrong setting on, by the way, so I
apologize about that. The audio is probably much
better right now.
Here this is the bottom line is, guys,
that we're he's basically talking about
where's the 12 on there? You know, the
the it's defensive in nature. But we just
went through this pretty clearly. Right? So if
you're arguing it's defensive in nature, then you
don't have the legal authority to do what
you're doing. There is no legal reality where
unless you're being attacked where this can happen
the way it's happening. Again, they know this.
Like, I mean, if we're in a world
where they actually don't know this, I find
that almost more alarming than anything else. And
that would make my argument for who's actually
calling the shots here, guys. But,
you know, it's just it's incredible. We're gonna
go through this even more.
So next point.
Oh, actually, we're gonna come back to that
video.
Here's Ken Klippenstein. White House talking points for
congressional Republicans say we are not at war.
Just major combat operations in Iran. Which, by
the way, regardless of whether they've said it,
which they have many times called it a
war already,
it is by definition. Like, this nuance of
arguing, it's the same thing they try to
pull with Kirby and Biden.
There's not unless we see troops in unison
in in specific hand holding hands and doing
jumping jacks, like, just giving you specifics. It
was about Ukraine. I'm kind of joking with
the last part. Unless we see troops marching
in, then that's not boots on the ground
in war.
Yeah. It is though, by the way. But
then, we saw boots marching in, and they
still try to deflect and act like it
was. No. It's not as many as we
thought. This is just what they do. Our
governments lie to us, guys. We're I'm pretty
sure we all know this by now. So,
yes, it obviously is war, regardless of what
they say, but this is where it gets
embarrassing.
Here's Pete Hankseth.
Just I mean, you just heard him call
it a defensive war. Right? You just heard
them. Your argument about why they may be
a a danger and why you have to
act first,
even if that's the truth, which it doesn't
appear to be based on the Pentagon's claims,
it still doesn't make that a defensive war.
It makes it an act you're attacking under
the concern that something may happen. Like, the
abstract way they've
they've gone beyond just defending from what they're
building, but now they may eventually be able
to build something, so we need to
which I get why they're trying to do
that because it gives them the power to
do whatever they want whenever they want. But
here's what he said. I have to say.
It's Blood of our people.
Car bombs in Beirut, rocket attacks on our
ships. Yeah. Yeah. From a long time ago.
But, yeah, let's just keep ignoring every other
thing that you guys have all done since
then to them many, many, many times, bombing
shooting their planes down, bombing their you know,
but that's okay. We'll just and we'll only
point to the examples when we were illegally
invading another country because that makes them terrorists,
obviously. Murders at our embassies, roadside bombs
in Iraq and Afghanistan Again. Funded and armed
by Iranian Quds Force and IRGC
killers.
My generation of veterans carry the names of
brothers
who never came home.
Brothers butchered by Iranian backed roadside bombs It's
a third time. Well armed. Three times he
puts that out. They're very desperate to make
some kind of argument for why they're just
these bomb sides. Well, the reality is you
guys were legally invading their country. And they
were stopping you trying to anyway.
What do you mean? You guys don't use
bombs? You guys don't use mines? I mean,
it's just why would that suddenly be terrorism
because you're trying?
Are we even confused about Iraq? We all
know that was against the law.
What I mean, they how do you not
see this as desperate? Like, you don't think
he knows that? You doesn't think he you
don't think he knows that we know that?
Militias,
thousands
of our own.
We didn't start this war,
but under president Trump, we are finishing it.
There Oh, really?
And to be to be obviously clear, I
don't think I ever need to say this
based on who I am and what I've
always done and what I've said. The reality
is, obviously, American troops dying is horrible, just
like Iranian troops dying. It's horrible. They're human
beings with families and dreams, and it it
it matters. It should matter on all sides.
And if only one matters to you, then
you're the problem. But the reality here, guys,
is that what we're talking about was illegal
action.
US troops are not. It doesn't make them
special because somehow they're you they're therefore, they
broke the law. Their government made them break
the law, and their defense of that was
within the law. There's no world in which
them defending your legal act off defending off
US government's illegal actions makes them terrorists. It's
just ridiculous.
But as I wrote in response to what
he said because he said, we didn't start
this war. We're gonna finish it. You know,
aside from quite literally starting the war, though.
And then even Twitter.
US and Israel's combined forces did, in fact,
preemptively strike. That's what they called it.
How can you not call that? Because they
want you to believe that they telling you
that they might do something, which means we
have to respond to stop them preemptively,
means that they started it. Do You not
see how you could make that argument against
literally anybody anywhere?
It's obvious.
So here is the embarrassing compilation of
him calling it a war, like you just
heard, multiple multiple times, many of them, Trump
included, and then having the all of them,
masks and all the rest, Luna, embarrassing themselves
by going out and going, it's not a
war. There's no boots on the ground even
though we just heard they might put boots
on the ground. Yeah.
Boots on the ground might be necessary, we'd
just heard, but they're gonna yell at you
now because you're so down and you understand.
I think they're being used.
We may have casualties
that often happens in war.
I don't know if this is technically a
war. We didn't start this war.
But under president Trump, we are finishing it.
This isn't a war. He we haven't declared
war. The secretary of defense who calls himself
the secretary of war said today, this is
a war. We set the terms
of this war from start to finish. One,
nobody should classify this as war. It is
combat operations.
War is hell
and always will be.
Strategic strikes are not war.
You know, I mean, it this is just
it's the same thing every time. How embarrassing.
How ridiculous. We are being laughed at. This
is not some kind of a nuanced opinion
debate
that's saying one thing and saying another, literally
at the same time arguing two different things.
That's Israeli style propaganda. It's every single thing
we've seen them do since October 7, lying
on both sides of their mouth, giving you
two different arguments, and hoping you pick one.
And, really, not just that, but sort of
crafting different narratives and even different complete arguments
for different groups of your team.
Some people want more people to get hurt.
Some people want you to pretend they're not,
so they give you both.
If you can prove this. So here we
are doing the same thing. Some of them
go, yeah. Screw her on. Go to war.
Some of them go, well, we shouldn't, but
we need to do the right thing for
freedom. And so they pretend they're doing both.
I think that's probably what this is.
So here is hey, Seth.
I think this is really important for two
reasons,
telling you that they're not guided by any
kind of moral integrity. You know? They they
they're just gonna do what they need to
do.
Okay? Well, rules of engagement are actually about
making sure that like, not like the IDF
where they can go steal and rape and
steal clothing and dance and make videos and
do whatever they want with no guidance and
no control
versus arguing that our our military has somehow
guidance and and structure and that you're not
allowed to murder people without, you know, arresting
them first or or you're not allowed to
just act. You know? That there's supposed to
be some kind of legal reality there, that
we're better than the monsters we claim we're
fighting, that we're not just raping and shooting
and killing without any justification. That if we
arrest somebody, whether Osama bin Laden or anybody
else, that we charge them with crimes. We
present the evidence because we're better. Right? Except
that's never been the reality. Now, we, as
Americans, a lot of us have adopted that.
A lot of people in the world in
general have adopted this idea of being better
than they are
because we some of us thought that's who
they really were, and so we've adopted that.
Doesn't if that make that's real because that's
who we are. They are pretending.
They don't care about any of this. So
listen to him tell you, we don't need
these rules of engagement,
which means we don't care about having any
guidance. These people can go out and do
whatever they want. They can murder someone on
the street because we said they're a bad
guy.
Like, if somebody surrenders, for example, it's classically
understood they're supposed to be taken as a
POW. No. They can do whatever they want.
That that would be considered,
rules of engagement.
Right? Not anymore.
Israel has clear missions as well for which
we are grateful.
Capable partners. As we've said since the beginning,
capable partners are good partners.
Unlike so many of our traditional allies who
wring their hands and clutch their pearls,
hemming and hawing about the use of force.
America, regardless of what so called international institutions
say, is unleashing the most lethal
and precise air power campaign
in history.
B twos, fighters, drones, missiles, and, of course,
classified
effects
all on our terms
with maximum authorities. No stupid rules of engagement,
no nation building quagmire, no democracy building exercise.
Yeah. But also all of those things, though.
But sorry.
No politically correct wars. Oh, okay. So we're
not gonna pretend it's about woke pronouns, and
we win. Yay.
We fight to win, and we don't waste
time
or lives.
As the president warned in All bunch of
hollow up your words that mean nothing because
they're obviously the opposite right now. Effort of
this scope
will include casualties.
Wait. We're not gonna wait as hell. We're
gonna use your lives to fight for Israel.
And always will be.
Israel has clear mission,
hemming and hawing about the use of force.
Think about that.
You know, this is just this is this
is counter to, like, the quintessential argument of
what this country was supposed to represent.
Quibbling about the force.
Just murder them. They're bad guys. Who cares?
They didn't say that, but that's the implication.
Pesky rules of engagement. We don't need any
of that. Stupid. He called them stupid rules
of engagement. In case you forget, rules of
engagement are the internal rules or directives afforded
military forces, including individuals, that define circumstances,
conditions, degree,
like how far they can go, and manner
in which use of force or actions which
might be considered provocative
may be applied.
Right? They provide authorization for and or limits
on, among other things, the use of force
and the employment of certain specific capabilities. So
not only did he say stupid rules of
engagement, but specifically mentioned rules of for or
use of force.
So it he literally just said there's no
restrictions or guidance on how much force they
can use when our warriors are deployed.
It's just it's just appalling where we're going
with this, and it has nothing to do
with anything other than them convincing you somehow
that you're powerful while they, in fact, remove
your power,
which is pretty embarrassing for those that pretend
like you're somehow in charge and winning and
powerful when, really, you're just being pacified.
It's pretty sad.
So let's get into lies coming directly from
Trump's administration.
US officials and lawmakers with access to classified
information
say the Trump administration in fact, I take
it back. This one's not at the
where was that?
I think it matches it. The the the
Pentagon itself has come out. Let me actually
make sure I have that included. There's a
Reuters article. US officials and lawmakers with access
to classified information say the Trump administration's assertions
about threats from Iran are incomplete, unsubstantiated,
or flat out wrong.
I'm gonna search for that, make sure I
have real quick. Let me see.
Oh, I'll do it right there. So first,
Trump's case for war with Iran faces growing
scrutiny.
The Trump administration in in pressing its case
for war with Iran has made a number
of accusations. No. I do believe it's in
here. I think that's why I didn't grab
the other one.
In their case for war, they've made a
number of accusations about the regime's threats to
its neighbors,
US troops, even the American homeland itself, all
of which is completely, you know, belied by
the fact that there's nothing happening you can
prove.
Show me where that's happening. Where let's let's
say threats. Let's even say they're threatening everybody.
We're gonna kill everybody.
Okay? Where is it actually happening in reality?
I mean, the idea that that's like saying
screening something out loud is enough to put
you in jail in The United States. Well,
that's where we're getting to.
The point, though, is that that's not even
the reality when you break into the arguments,
that what they're actually threatening. They're not doing
that. This is just belligerent desperation as far
as I can tell. And that's not to
say good guy, bad guy. I make that
point every single time. There's plenty I can
criticize about the Iranian government. The point today
is that they're lying about them, regardless of
what you think they are. However, it says,
US officials and lawmakers with access to classified
information, along with experts who have spent their
careers pouring over public data and government reports,
which doesn't mean they necessarily know the truth,
say the administration's assertions are incomplete, unstan unsubstantiated,
or flat out wrong. Quote, the administration has
been inconsistent and often inaccurate in explaining why
we're at war, what we are trying to
achieve, and how we intend to achieve it,
said, Michael Singh who handled the Middle East
portfolio
for George
Bush George w Bush.
President Trump speaking Monday at the White House
has said US was running out of time
to, quote, eliminate the intolerable threats posed by
this sick and sinister regime and added that
the operation could last four or five more
weeks.
You gotta love how this continues to and
what the reality, guys, is this is gonna
stretch if you think this is gonna end
in any like, in some well,
put it this way, because this could go
any number of directions. I mean, they could
Israel could nuke them tomorrow. Is the reality
that I think that this was they're fully,
fully intending to go as far as this
needs to go. Meaning that they'll give you
the argument. This is gonna be in and
out and quick. It's not like the old
administrations where we're, you know, engaging in long
war. They no. That's just what they say
in the beginning every time. Like what they
said in Iraq, it's gonna be in and
out, and they're gonna welcome us like heroes,
and it didn't happen. They do it every
time, and people fall for it every time
or choose to because they're team sport players.
It says Rubio on Capitol Hill later told
reporters that Tehran planned to attack The US
following opening strikes by Israel on Iran, requiring
The US to protect American forces in the
region. Now that's slightly changed already.
But he says from an imminent threat.
So you understand, their first effort to water
this down was that ultimately that we and
this is what I played for you in
the last show, that he had to attack
because
Israel or rather that, you know, for opening
strikes that Israel was apparently gonna do anyway.
We'll get to the nuclear threat or blackmail
argument that John Kiriakou seems to have started,
which there I think there's merit to it,
but it's not something that wipes Trump clean
of responsibility.
But then ultimately, he said that Israel was
gonna bomb them, and then we thought Iran
then we our intelligence claimed probably Israel's intelligence
that Iran would have bombed The United States,
which I don't think even makes sense.
Why in the world would is Iran, even
though every other time it had the opportunity,
chose to show restraint and maybe bomb a
base in Iraq, for example?
Why would they bomb The US, which would
cross a huge line,
unprecedented,
instead of bombing Israel, again, like they've done
numerous times?
It doesn't make any sense.
You see what I'm saying? Like, so it's
it's actually a false argument from I mean,
it certainly could have been the reality, but
there's nothing to indicate that. And, in fact,
everything that suggests that would be the la
like, doing that, like every past example, would
give them what they need to respond. We
said this about Syria. When they go, so
I was gonna do a gas attack. And
we would go, why would that happen? Right
now, they're in a position where they seem
to be gaining momentum. The US is floundering,
and and they they they're gonna jump out
and do the one thing they need to
give The US the excuse to stay. And
then what do you know what happens? After
Trump was like, we're gonna leave. Oh, now
I can't because they gassed somebody. And we
know those were lies. It's the same conversation.
So
they're claiming they were planning strikes
after Israel would have bombed them. So by
definition, that means that you would have started
it, and then your argument is they would
have done what they're legally allowed to do,
and we can't allow that
quite literally.
Because if Israel would attack them, that would
mean that they have the right to respond.
And even if The US was involved, on
record, they are belligerent of this argument. That
means legally international law, Iran would have been
able to bomb them.
That's not what I hope. I I hope
every moment that's not where this goes. And
that would be the US government Israel driving
that to where we are. But just reiterate
that.
You're saying that they would have attacked us
after Israel bombed them, meaning they would have
done what they were legally allowed to do,
and you're not okay with that. There's no
other way to understand that.
Now it says Iran and and, again, clear
they've evolved that to now sort of that
we thought Iran might do a preemptive attack
even before Israel bombed us, but we'll get
to that in a second. Iran was nowhere
near capable
of building a nuclear weapon even if Tehran
seeks one, said many US lawmakers. And we're
gonna get to that. Tulsi Gabbard and everybody
else in the world telling you that Iran
is not doing that, and they're lying to
us. But it says there's no evidence to
support Trump's claim that Iran could rapidly develop
a missile capable of striking The US.
But on top of that, guys, I mean,
I know there are ICBM agreements about how
far and so, but I don't think any
of these governments truly follow that. And at
the end of the day, the idea that
Iran has missiles like everybody else in the
world that can reach The United States, that's
not in that's not unique.
Israel's missiles can reach damn near everything in
the world, I guess, bare aside of, like,
Argentina, like, a few examples. So does that
that would, by that logic, make them the
same threat to Iran?
It's all, but Iran's bad guy. It's that's
always where this ends up. Because even if
that's the truth, it doesn't mean the law
no longer applies, guys. It's there for everybody.
So it's just it's just tired game they
play where they're showing you it only applies
when we want it to.
So saying that they have and, the point
that they're acknowledging is there's also, on top
of that, no evidence that they even thought
they were doing what they claimed, even with
the missiles, that they weren't capable of it.
But I disagree with that, in fact. But
it says the accusation that Iran would preemptively
attack US targets in the Middle East rested
on either Israel or The US moving to
strike Iran first. Again, as it sits in
this, which I believe was
yesterday, and it has evolved since then.
Chief Pentagon spokesman, this one's really important, Sean
Parnell,
denied that the administration had shifted his justification
for the operation.
From the beginning, he said, the objectives have
been to destroy Iran's nuclear missile capability, eliminate
its navy, stop its terrorist proxies from destabilizing
the world oh, this is the wrong one,
actually. And and and stop the regime from
deploying roadside bombs, but I didn't wanna mention
this, which have killed thousands of American servicemen
service members.
Okay.
Iran's nuclear missile capability,
not there. Based
on every piece of data we have other
than Israel and The US lying to you
or at least yelling it out loud and
repeatedly
being shown to be lying. And, I mean,
Netanyahu with this weird little bomb Wile E.
Coyote graph or the wall of CDs that
turned out to be nothing but information he
had from twenty years ago. All of this
came out to be proven,
and they just make it up. We're two
weeks away, one year away. Everyone's sharing those
videos.
And that's that's what it is. To kill
the thing that, by the way, Trump said
a week ago was obliterated,
meaning annihilated by definition. It doesn't exist.
Its particles are gone. That's what those words
mean. And so here we are where he's
telling you suddenly we have to do it
again to destroy the thing that we just
told you was destroyed. So either lied in
the first place, which, in fact, I argue
that, but these are not nuclear capabilities that
I in my opinion, based on the evidence.
But then, eliminate its navy.
It's navy.
What?
So, yeah, this is effectual in effect, in
effect, give up entirely.
Like Gaza, just become groups that we can
do whatever we want to at any time.
You have no power, but we'll it'll all
work out for you, even though we hate
you and call you terrorists. Give up everything
everything you have, missiles, navy, everything. And if
you don't, you're terrorists.
I mean, this has just gotten to a
cartoonish level, like, more than usual.
Stop its terrorist proxies from destabilizing the world.
Who are we talking about? It's like the
like the the clip from,
who are you talking to? What are we
doing here? This is incredible.
So, what they're talking about is Houthis, Hezbollah.
We do this every single time, Hamas, which
Israel thought did until recently.
But nobody cares about that, apparently, because, oh
my god, they're funding proxy terrorists, but so
did Israel. But we don't care about that
one. Well, then the Houthis, as I said
yesterday, and every time we've talked about it,
have demonstrated themselves to be objectively the opposite
of what they claim.
The pirates and terrorists
were stopping ships that were bringing equipment to
Israel, didn't kill anybody, didn't steal anything, and
let everybody go. Didn't even the bombings even
were effectively kept the ships afloat because they
were stopping them. It was restraint.
And they're the terrorists? And and yet you're
watching Israel and United States, like, laughingly kill
people, and they're the bad ones? Overall, the
point is even if they were actually funding
them or actual proxies they claim, which they
are not, they're allies,
it still wouldn't be stable who's who's who's
who's who's destabilizing?
Who are Hezbollah destabilizing?
It's just become so ridiculous.
Look at The US.
Look at look at Israel. Look at The
UK. There are, in many examples, destabilizing places
all over the world under the guise of
stabilization.
It's just that it's that clear. And stop
the regime from deploying roadside bombs.
I mean, I almost can't believe they decided
to just kinda throw this back in, and
Trump said it six times, he said it
three times. We're talking about bombs from Iraq.
By the way, a place where they illegally
invaded and they were legally defending.
But why would you cite that from Iraq?
When's the last time they did that? 2011,
apparently?
Look it up.
And now it says, but the only administration
oh, here. Let me that's why I had
this, actually. Here's the kisser clip of Trump
saying it.
Well, it was pretty Shoot. How am I
missing all these clips, man?
I'm clearly messing this up. Oh, this is
the one right here.
For decades, it had been the policy of
The United States never to allow Iran to
obtain a nuclear weapon.
Many decades.
Since they seized control of that proud nation
forty seven years ago, the regime and its
murderous proxies
have spread nothing but terrorism and Yeah. You
know, after they illegally overthrew it in '53
and then turned it into a despotic oligarchic
hellhole for anybody other than the elitist at
the very top. And I you could again,
I literally just did this using the site
source material from the from the ground, from
the UN. But then also, let's look at
what Rock says. Quite literally challenges what Trump
and Elon say right now. No. No. They
illegally overthrew them. No. They it was terrible.
It was a horrible hellhole for basically everybody,
but you can also read the UN that
says the same thing. But, apparently, it only
matters when certain things say certain things on
this platform.
Death and hate.
They've killed and maimed thousands of American service
members and Always the same point. Always the
thousands. That's what Luna cites. The thousands. Well,
that's Iraq
When you are illegally invading Iraq, that's it.
That's the Solomani overlap as well.
Hundreds of thousands and even millions of people.
Nope. That's just a flat out lie. That's
the thousand just, you know, million, maybe even
tens billion times. Why?
Thousands is the argument. Trump's just doing what
he does. He's on that moment. He's thinking,
you know, why not a million? Why not?
And then people fact check him and nobody
cares and it's k seems he's he's a
Biden. Mindable with the same thing. With what's
called roadside bombs. They were the kings of
the
roadside
bomb. Roadside bomb. The kingdom of Yeah. That's
what they're did you okay. To what why
would somebody clearly put that in his head.
Say this today. That's our talking point
from 2011.
And we took out Soleimani. I did that
during my first Illegally, under the guise of
diplomacy. You invited them under diplomacy. He came
to seek diplomacy, and you killed him in
the Iraqi airport. Or was it the Afghan?
I think it was Iraq it was the
Iraqi airport. Killed him, bombed him illegally. That
was all illegal every single which way you
look at it. And Soleimani was a very
highly respected person in most of the world
and was, in fact, defending Iraq against your
illegal invasion when he killed those US servicemen
or they, as a group, killed those members.
You just can't ignore the facts, guys. If
all you care about is anybody killed I
mean, if US government's out there remember what
they remember when they were in Iraq? The
stories of of commanders ordering people to rape
women, order the the tur I mean, look
at what Israel's doing right now in live
in public display.
And you're gonna stand there. I mean,
I digress. I'm just so frustrated of how
clear it all is. I've said a thousand
times today.
Had a huge impact.
He was the father of the roadside, though.
He likes that. I think that's a powerful
point. The father's bum. Just stupid. It's and
they all will stand there. Yay. The thing
he said. Do we agree? Because we're all
on the same side.
So back to the point.
But the Trump administration's explanations for what senior
officials are now openly calling a war have
shifted for several weeks. Trump later pointed to
Iran's decades long aggression toward The US, most
notably its role in killing American servicemen in
The Middle East. I just went over that.
That's it. That's your bet. That's what they
got.
Now
I could spend twenty minutes talking about how
many times the US government has killed Iranians,
whether through regime change efforts, assassinations, Israel included,
by the way, but just even The US.
Bombing their airliners full of civilians.
But that apparently doesn't even it's not even
relevant. Not left or right media.
Always the same point. They argued that Iran
was developing intercontinental missiles capable of reaching American
shore count like everybody else.
So they're they're how dare they make the
things? It's like like I said before. You
know? Look. There there is a conversation to
be had about the deals they make about
how far these can go. Take a look
at what Trump is doing and what Russia
is doing. They don't care, guys. They're both
they're also increasing their tactical and regular nuke
munitions or rather stockpiles
despite what they say and despite the nuclear
proliferation treaty.
Now, again, that's not to say that it's
all it's okay for everybody then. That's not
my point. I'm not doing what they're doing.
What I'm saying is it's it's unjustified and
hypocritical for them to claim it's not okay
for them to do it. My opinion is
all of them should stop it entirely because
this is continually
leading to these kind of situations.
But this is the equivalent of the saying,
which is basically where they're getting to. Well,
they can't have guns. They can't have a
navy. They can't, you know, they can't even
exist is basically the point. Recent US intelligence
assessments had included
that Iran could not develop dozens of missiles
for at least a decade.
That's that's even the missile argument coming from
their own intelligence.
Rubio, who also served as Trump's national sir
security adviser, told reporters Monday that the real
problem was Iran's short range missiles.
See my point? No. It's the ones that
can reach America. Oh, no. It's the ones
that just any missiles. You know?
Guns. You know?
Mean words. Can't allow it. Terrorists.
Told reporters Monday the problem was their short
range missiles, which could help the country deter
others from stopping it from pursuing a nuclear
weapon.
Okay. Okay.
So, so based on a thing that's not
happening, that we're worried they might use those
to coerce others to allow them to do
a thing that's not happening.
On a call with reporters Saturday, a senior
administration official said that the president's motivation to
strike included the possibility of Iran launching
attacks
preemptively
against US assets in The Middle East and
that further waiting could risk a disaster.
So so this is, again, the evolution of
it. They they that scenario had been briefed
days earlier to the gang of eight. Well,
actually, I take it back. I think that's
the still the if they attack first. The
top Republicans and Democrats in congress privy to
the most sensitive US intelligence about national security.
That's the that's the gang of eight. But
Democratic lawmakers and aids familiar with the briefing
said officials made the case that if Israel
attacked Iran first. Yes. Exactly. Which officials believe
was very likely, Tehran could target US instill
installations, excuse me, in the region during its
counter strike.
Well, yeah.
Obviously. Like, that's a no bread. You're involved
with the war. You are act conducting war
against them. That's a no brainer.
So they create the thing, then point to
the thing that they can legally do and
say, oh, no. They're doing something legally in
response to our legal action. Therefore, we're arguing
we have legal justification to do more action.
Talk about Orwellian.
Quote, there was no imminent threat
to America that would justify putting troops in
harm's way.
Quote, there has and this is these are
all,
this one was, Mark Warner. These are people
in the Gang of Eight. Democrats and Republicans
speaking about this, but the main point I
wanna get to is in regard to just
the intelligence.
Quote, there has been nothing raised to us
about increasing homeland resources to counter these types
of threats.
On Monday, White House press secretary Levitt said
the concern was what Tehran would do if
Israel launched an assault first. The United States
understood that Israel was going to strike Iran.
See? Now this is where we get what's
interesting is that this is what they lie
they they would have lied about this. Right?
When this was being discussed before we got
here, they they they would they're not they're
gonna they're not gonna tell you that Israel
might do something, whether we want them to
or not, or that Israel might do something
with a nuke that might drive that's what
they're now saying, which, in effect, shows you,
as I've said three times, that they're admitting
Israel, through whatever mechanism, is blackmailing this government
into policy action.
See how powerful with what you're doing, what
we're doing, this conversation and everyone else doing
it, has forced them to basically
decide to use what is the reality to
make sense of why we're here. They're forced
to admit that because, I guess, at the
last ditch effort, we have to make sure
that Trump is not seen as the guilty
party or all of us don't go to
jail.
But now that's we we're saying Israel is
controlling us. Always incompetent than criminal, guys. Always.
That's what they want. They wouldn't they don't
wanna go to prison.
The United States has understood that Israel won't
attack first, and Iran, if they did, would
attack us, which, like I said, doesn't even
line up logically. President Trump was not going
to sit back and watch his evil Iranian
regime prepared to attack Americans. But but wait.
The evil Iranian regime, you just the what
you just laid out was that they were
attacked, and they might respond. So why would
they be the evil one? Because that's just
that's just how it goes. Because bad guy
Iran.
Alright? Because, again, Leif is just blindly repeating
she's not even that intelligent. If we if
he had, the Americans were killed. The media
would be criticizing him for it, his carelessness
and unwilling to attack.
Probably, because they're all ridiculous. That doesn't make
what we're talking about is the broken pot
binary system, the fake mainstream on both sides,
the fake mainstream alternative on both sides, and
that's not the majority.
So what they do is they point at
each other and act like that's everything. Most
of us are sitting back going neither of
those things. You're all ridiculous. The truth
is that they shouldn't have attacked because there
wasn't a reason to attack. And I argue
that most Americans based on every single poll
I've seen in my lifetime about war would
not have been upset if he did not
attack something.
But she wants you to believe because they're
trying to gaslight you and you're going, well,
if everyone else agrees, then I guess I
should, that that's not the case.
On Iran's nuclear ambitions, Trump officials also offered
public assertions that differed from the consensus among
other countries and independent experts and didn't share
intelligence with lawmakers to bolster their claims.
Steve Witkoff,
The US's chief negotiator with Iran, which still
blows my mind, told Fox News last month
that Iran is, quote, probably a week away
from having industrial grade bomb making material.
My god. How many times we've heard that?
But The US and Israel struck Iran's three
main nuclear sites last June,
and Trump said they'd been obliterated.
I'm I'm gonna make a point about that
in a second because we failed to make
this point. I didn't even make this point.
Then we all have a breakdown about Zaporozhia
power plant and Ukraine and Russia. Oh my
god. Nuclear disaster, but nobody said a word
about them bombing nuclear locations?
Whether civilian or otherwise, by the way. Think
about how completely
disconnected that is. We'll come back to that.
It says, but The US and Israel struck
their three main reactors, and he said it
was obliterated, meaning it was like it would
be dust on the ground.
So the argument that they were able to
build from nothing to this, that, that, that,
that's just just not true. Period.
But you could argue, which is what I
argued and I think you can prove at
the time, that he didn't obliterate. He just
was boasting because he wants you to think
he did something. In fact, it looks like
they didn't they they had some effect of
the bombings, but most of it didn't really
have the effect they wanted. And in reverse,
you could argue that the the bombs they
got through on Israel were way, way more
effective, and they made that claim at the
time, and you could prove it. They just
lied about what got bombed. The point
is that if they didn't obliterate it, then
that means they had some facilities. And I
get that I'm gonna get to that in
a second, meaning, ultimately, they were bombing nuclear
facilities. But, again, civilian based on all the
evidence we have. Meaning that it's about power.
That's that's the reality. And it's not close
to
the enrichment level needed to make bombs.
And it says, Iran's atomic program hasn't advanced
significantly since then, according to all the evidence
we can find. So either Trump lied, and
even then, they didn't advance to get that
or, you know I mean, I I think
we know they're lying in all these cases.
The real question is about this is all
just nuance within their lie. The real question
is whether or not they're even trying to
do that and whether the evidence shows they
have or or trying. They're they're just not
there. Well, that I'm gonna do another segment
on that. Officials and analysts note that Iran
does not does have uranium
that could be enriched around,
around the one week time frame to make
it usable for a nuclear weapon. Now we're
getting into this. It's not as simple as
that sounds in regard to the timing to
make the bomb. The issue is Iran appears
to have no enrichment facility. Uh-oh.
Where,
cascades of centrifuges are assembled to enrich the
material to weapons grade.
Let me read that again. So all of
them out there going, oh my god. They
brought this back. Well, based on the evidence
according to seemingly everybody, including the international community,
rather like the IEA points and and Wall
Street Journal's own investigation,
that they they have material
that could be used to make it into
a certain level. But, again, then from that
point to make it into a bomb or
rather there there's a whole process to this.
And I've talked about this in the past.
It's not as simple as saying they're there,
and, again, they don't want to and provable
in the past have shown that they're not
trying to. But overall, that they don't have
the facility needed to enrich that to to
do it in the first place, even if
they had the material. Why? Because it was
bombed.
So they know that. And so the all
of this comes back to the fact that
the reason they're doing any of this is
because they actually know they don't have nuclear
weapons. Because if they did, they would be
treating them like Russia or no North Korea.
Because that's the argument. We can't do that.
They've got nuclear weapons. Okay?
Everything they do shows you that they need
the argument. They have them to justify the
attack, but know that they don't.
In this case, even if you think they're
trying, they don't even have the facility needed
to do what they claim they have to
do to make it.
And even if Iran did get weapons grade
uranium from some other place,
it would still have to assemble scientists, produce
uranium material, build it inside a nuclear device,
all without being caught doing so. Now firstly,
those things take time.
They've assassinated their scientists. They've been hitting their
material. They've been hitting their locations. And Trump
said it's been obliterated.
And on top of that, they're being monitored.
That never went away. And so it just
becomes so embarrassingly
clear what they're doing. And this is why
Netanyahu has been lying his entire life about
it, wait biding his time until a Trump
came into play.
Trump's ultimate aim in Iran is still unclear,
he reports. He has offered several competing narratives
since the operation began, ranging from regime change
to eliminating Iran's threats to The US,
threats to The US to cutting a deal
with new leadership in Tehran.
On Monday,
Pete Hegseth pointed to Iran's decades long, quote,
savage one-sided war against America. Again,
demonstrate that for me, please. And noted that
Trump had given Iran multiple opportunities to negotiate
its away its nuclear work, which isn't there.
You see how dumb this gets? And on
top of that, they have already made a
deal that Trump broke.
And no matter what you pretend that is,
he broke the deal.
Literally, as outlined, they were doing everything they
were supposed to do within the deal. Now
you could argue like they still do that
they were lying and making a bomb. That's
not proven. That's not there's no evidence. Everybody,
including the US government, including the IAEA, said
that wasn't true. And they've never produced evidence
that ever made that case.
In the JCPOA, they were in that they
that's what was happening. They were monitoring everything.
They were holding it on a certain level.
It was way lower than it is now.
The only reason they're at 60
is because they were allowed to enrich because
of this agreement. And since then, there's been
nothing in place. And so the if you
read the original agreement I I I always
wanna say '25 or '32. I forget when
it's been a while now. But one of
the articles in the agreement said explicitly,
if the US government pulls out of the
deal unilaterally, then they're allowed to enrich uranium
until essentially forces them back into agreement, and
then that went away. Trump broke the deal,
and then everything went away. And so the
argue that they should be negotiating with you
is just ridiculous.
And on top of that, they've tried. And
last time they came to an agreement in
a room to try to make that deal,
Netanyahu just killed them all.
So think about the goal that it takes
for him to go, they should have made
a deal while you murdered everyone in the
room trying to make the deal.
The US and Israeli operations wasn't aimed at
regime change, but the Iranian regime sure did
change, he said. Okay. So what do
other than the idea that it's quite obvious
that their goal was regime change because Netanyahu
and Trump have literally stated that, again, with
like, the war point. They have said it
exactly like that.
But then, ultimately, the outcome is the regime
is changing, which it hasn't actually changed. They
killed some people. And right now, it seems
they're just gonna be discussing where who comes
in next. And we'll get to the argument
where it seems that the CIA already told
Trump and his team that doing this was
only gonna make them even more hardliners.
And
that makes sense if you understand it because
that would give Israel the justification to go
see. We've always told you they're extreme.
In fact, you've just made that the reality
by murdering families and killing people like you
sort of did in Gaza. Right? Even though
they still didn't take the bait all this
time. It's just anyway,
classified intelligence assessments produced by the CIA. Oh,
here's the part right here. In recent weeks,
determined that Khamenei's demise could lead to hardliners
from the country's,
Islamic Revolutionary Corps
or another faction in the country taking power.
So why would you take this action? You
know, of course, because doing this will bring
them to the table for peace.
Nobody believed that. They didn't believe that. They
this is the lie to get you to
accept the the action. Then once the action
brings you to war, they then they justify
the war. And the,
you know, the usual suspects that I can
make fun of right now all just gaggle
along and go, yes. Now it's good. War
regime change war bad. And now it's a
good thing because Trump said, now we're gonna
fight for the war. Now it's limited strikes.
Now it's a war. It's just whatever they
say is the next thing they rationalize.
How embarrassing.
But they told him, doing this
is likely going to cause more of the
hardliners to end up in power, which makes
sense.
And so watch as Israel uses the new
people in power to justify more action,
like they have done every single time in
every conversation.
Trump, however, is still encouraging
Iranians to overthrow the regime with US support.
He says, I call upon all Iranian patriots
who yearn for freedom to seize this moment.
Again, I point this out every time. How
that that is the I that's, the epitome
of
interference.
As they've said, remember when Russia was putting
Facebook memes? Oh my god. They overthrew the
election. Influenced the election.
Apparently, Facebook memes, that's way too far. But
standing up on on at a podium and
saying, overthrow your government, that's totally fine. You
know, it's just dumb, guys. It's always this
stupid.
America's with you. Now, if you think for
one second Democrats are different than Republicans, then
you haven't been paying attention.
So, let's go beyond that. Now, on the
Bethlehem doctrine, I'll include this article from Global
Research. Just understand what they're actually trying to
say. That's that's why that makes sense, is
that they're claiming
that they can attack based on what they
claim is intelligence, that they do not require
to show you that they were gonna do
something first. Now, what I wanna make clear
is a preemptive attack or self defense is
what they're arguing they just did. Let's make
this very clear. That's the Bethlehem doctrine. Okay?
That doctrine is just policy. It's not law.
If you're claiming Bethlehem doctrine, which means self
preemptive self defense,
by definition, that means you didn't meet the
requirements for the War Powers Act. Right? Because
that requires an attack, an imminent threat, not
the possible threat that might be coming for
you to justify a response. No. So the
fact that they've already called itself preemptive, maybe
that's just their incompetence. They've already sealed the
reality that they do not meet the re
the respond, the War Powers Act, net necessities.
Think about that. It's crazy, but here they
are. So, So, again, that's either by design
or that they're just that bad at what
they're doing. But read this, and,
in the article Craig Murray here,
connects it to the killing of Soleimani. Right?
It's the same point. All these different things.
Now largely, that is The US, UK, and
Israel who use this.
I understand it came from sort of a
UK entity, but I tend to see it
largely as an Israeli driven policy.
And then, you know, roadside bombs because they
did that back then. Therefore, they're terrible while
we've been killing them every day for long
as we've been here. And let's be real
guys.
We being the US government. Aside from the
actual military actions, they've been starving that country.
They've been sanctioning that country. People are dying
in the winter. Children are starving to death.
Same in Venezuela. Same in Cuba in some
cases. That's what they've been doing our entire
lives. And we're gonna pretend like that's not
enough to I mean, you know, but back
in 2011, they were legally defending the country
of Iraq and terrorists.
It's pathetic.
Now here is the Daily Beast.
Trump admits he has no war plan in
bombshell letter. Now, this was the letter that
has been put out that actually is what
what they give Congress because of the forty
eight hours.
Here's what it says.
President Donald Trump admitted in a letter to
congress that he has no idea how this
war will with Iran will play out.
Now that's very relevant, obviously, because that means
he's committed us to another of Israel's war
without any,
like, guiding roadmap on how this will end.
And as we already see Israel ramping this
up in every way that it can, there
doesn't seem to be an off ramp even
in the cards. His answers have ranged from
a few days to more than a month,
which Pentagon insiders warn would put serious strain
on US air defense stockpiles.
Already six American service members have been killed,
I think it's much more than that, in
retaliatory strikes since the joint US Israeli campaign
began on Saturday.
On Monday, the president's lack of a plan
in Iran was outlined in stark terms in
a letter to congress obtained by CBS News
officially informing lawmakers of the strikes, which I
I'm sure really frustrated them.
Because they're what because here's what's important. Of
course, they're gonna argue that somebody broke the
law, like, classified, you know, you gave in
the letter out, but it's it's just a
letter of of, ratification
within this War Powers Act. I argue Americans
have a right to see that. But understand,
they're breaking the law, guys. See, I mean,
genuinely, what they're doing by arguing that, it's
a it's a minor, but it is still
technically by definition them breaking the law by
using this. So you could argue that by
putting that out was whistleblowing,
if you want. Either way, I think it's
important that we see it. Quote, although The
United States desires a quick and enduring peace
hardly,
it is not possible at this time to
have know the full scope and duration of
military operations. That's what Trump wrote.
The letter was sent under the War Powers
Act in that a 73 resolution requiring the
president to notify Congress within forty eight hours
of deploying forces,
if Congress had not declared war. The deployment
cannot last more than sixty days. And then
the ninety was the thirty days on top,
but that you have the if you have
you need an emergency thirty days to be
able to remove troops.
The clock is now ticking for Trump to
either conclude the military operation or convince congress
to back the war with Iran. Quote, these
strikes were undertaken to protect The United States
forces in the region.
In Iran?
Okay. Maybe Middle East, but guess what? There
are people in Iran, as we've proven in
the past. Protect The United States homeland, advance
vital US national interests. Woah. Wait a minute.
What? Including ensuring the free flow of maritime
commerce through the Strait Of Hormuz and in
collective self defense of our regional allies? Okay.
Woah. Woah. Woah. None of that even comes
close to meeting what's needed or justifying the
War Powers Act.
Protect forces in the region is not an
imminent threat. Protect The United States' homeland would
be if that was actually imminent, and there's
no evidence of that, including from our own
government.
Advance vital national security. And so now you're
arguing that we're bombing this country because
financial interests? Yeah. That's been clear the entire
time of this administration, including ensuring the free
flow of maritime commerce. Now they keep threatening
things in the Horn Strait Of Hormuz.
In fact, let's look real quick. As far
as I can tell, it has still not
been closed down.
And what they keep pointing to
well, it looks a little bit less than
last time, but there's look at how much
that's that's right this moment. That's a live
map.
So
and on top of that, let's look at
this.
We'll see if the US ship is still
in there.
Damn it. This thing's always wonky for me.
There we go.
Yep. USS Michael Murphy still within the street.
It's on the other side. It's in the
bay, I guess, if you call it. Right
here.
And that'd be a bay or a straight
How would you call that? Anyway, the straight
from Moose is right there. I guess it
would all be straight, but that's the choke
point.
So how does it make sense? How are
they all arguing across the board that this
is that the Strait Of Hermos has all
been shut down? Now to to reiterate the
point, for you didn't see the last show.
What happened was Iran threatened and said, you
cannot the strait's gonna be you know, you're
not allowed and so and so. But they
didn't actually shut it down. As you can
see, there are ships going and going. I
do think what they're doing is trying to
threaten and manipulate
The US and others from being worried about
it, which is kind of a smart tactic.
But it did have a very clear effect
on a lot of things because just the
statement caused a bunch of reactions.
Now, again, they threatened it and said they
were gonna I think it was something like
set on fire any ship that comes through.
That but, again, we're, like, we're talking about
Israel, The US, and so on. But look.
What am I missing?
There's tons of activity going through there, and
there are merchant ships through everything. I just
find it interesting. That does still put a
thought in my mind about, wait. What's going
on here? That's a discrepancy between everybody. Iran's
saying it. They're saying it, but it's not.
So it gives me a weird feel like,
what there is there a larger play happening
here? And we should not dismiss that possibility.
Like, that they're all playing us. Right? But
either way, I'll include this so you could
check it. It's a direct link to the
Strait Of Hermos itself.
So
the Strait Of Hermos and maritime commerce is
not just legal justification to start a war.
It's just not. They they even if you
even if they shut it down and you
argued it was destroying global commerce,
as far as I understand it, that's not
a legal justification to bomb and kill people.
It will Garrett, they would probably do it
and argue national security, but same point.
I'm sure somebody would disagree with that because
just because
especially because Trump's in power, suddenly commerce and
financial everything is, it means I mean, to
me, it's wildly secondary to human interest. But
it says, but during a briefing with congressional
staffers, Pentagon officials said, there was,
there is no evidence that Iran has been
planning preemptive strikes.
I just wanna make sure I had the
article too so you guys can read it.
Oh, this wasn't the one.
Let's
see.
I must have either had it up and
closed it, or I do that often.
Where's the title on that? Oh, there it
is. That's weird. I did not suggest to
preempt a strike from Iran before you sorry.
I think we'll we'll just include this one.
It it's all linked in here either way.
And so because we already touched on this.
Reuters this came out in Reuters.
And the point was the Pentagon officials challenged
what Trump said. They said there is there's
no evidence that there was a preemptive strike.
Now, again, that means imminent.
That's the whole point. And as the Pentagon
is now telling you that there was no
imminent threat, that means that every single thing
they've done based on that is a crime.
Because if there was no imminent threat, then
they aren't allowed to do the War Powers
Act point. That what was that's required.
And this is simple. They know this, and
this is I guess they're just hoping
that they get they get away with it.
Now realize,
this is happening, and the Democrats are supporting
it. This is happening, and both sides of
the media are largely going along with it
because national security and bad guy Iran, they're
all doing the same thing.
Don't you think if this was the deep
state pedophile Democrats who wanna break down Trump
no matter what, that they'd be calling this
out, trying to put him in jail for
it? See? Because they're all on the same
side. So that means if you wanna recognize
that, then you have to acknowledge that the
people you're defending are working with the so
called Democrat pedophiles that you wanna claim they
all are. That's not what I think is
a reality. In some cases, there's evidence in
Epstein files. But the reality is, guys, that
your government's corrupt. All of them are doing
the same things. And every time war and
Israel come to play, they all stand together.
Oh, yeah. Let me include this for you.
So
last point in the segment.
Before this all happened, Kash Patel, just reading
this today,
fired an entire team of Iran experts right
before this starts. My opinion?
I think it's because they knew what they
would get told. That peep and now I
am of the mind, as Robert often points
out, that these whether Iran or Iraq or
these so called US based experts that many
of them have never been to Iran, they're
just experts on The US propaganda about Iran,
and maybe they don't even know that. Either
way,
firing them now, these people would still arguably,
like, understand the law. And, you know, I
think it's about the reality that the history
they get it. And we need only people
here because this is gonna be a long
war that's for Israel who agree with what
we want, who will toe the line because
they're team players and will do whatever Trump
says because that's everybody he has around him.
It's all yes men.
It's all it is. Cash cash is a
it's like a living example of that.
That's my opinion, obviously. But think about why
that would happen. Why would you get rid
of all your Iran experts right before you
initiate war with Iran?
Now
Henri oh, very quick point, actually. I wasn't
even sure if I wanna include all this,
but I do think it's relevant for a
couple of reasons. One, just to show you
yet again that these fake partisan mainstream alternative
media players are just ridiculous.
But so first of all, Matt Walsh and
the rest were thirty seconds ago
on the side of this.
Now suddenly, because it's so unbelievably clear that
almost nobody supports this, well, these people are
fair weather, you know,
with no integrity, as far as I can
tell.
Now, saying that, by the way, there's a
categories where I've seen them cover, like I
said, like trans cover, for example. I thought
you did a great job on that. That
it doesn't it's not all or nothing. At
the end of the day, everybody in most
people who are willing to compromise their principles
for certain reasons have their categories.
That's That's my opinion
anyway. I personally care more about integrity and
principles and that than anything else. I I
I will it doesn't matter if I've been
arguing my entire life. If it comes to
a point where I go, well, I like,
that's I don't believe in that. So I
will call it out no matter who it
is. Should that be how it always is?
And so in this case, these people have
been cheerleading Trump and what he's been doing.
And now here's what happens. This is the
yesterday.
So far, we've heard that although we killed
the whole Iranian regime, this was a regime
change war. It was not a regime change
war. And although we obliterated their nuclear program,
which they did not, we had to do
this because of their nuclear program. And although
Iran was not planning any attacks on The
US, they also might have been, depending on
who you ask. And although we are not
fighting this war to free the Iranian people,
they are now free, or might be, depending
on who seizes power. And we have no
idea what we'll be doing. The messaging is
so confusing. Oh, so in essence, he's calling
out the Trump administration. But not really, though.
Right? Not really, because another post will support
it in general. We gotta stand by the
team or stand by the presidency. End of
the day,
you just argued like with the like with
Alex Jones. This is somehow what we need
to be doing.
And now you're upset about it, and that's
what everybody down like, many of them are
saying.
Look what Massey said. I didn't see this.
Hope you don't get fired for this because
it's true. Right? It is true. I agree
with it, in fact. But what's funny is
that you how do you stand there with
a straight face and make that argument after
you were just trying to pander people into
this? Or rather, you know, gaslight them into
it.
Well, Caroline, leave it, interestingly, follows up. And
this is hilarious to me. So we are
all just we just read through the reality
of this. And even Trump's own letter, which
came yesterday
to congress, says we don't know how this
is gonna end. Okay? So here's what she
says. On Saturday, which was I well, it's
Tuesday today. On Saturday, President Trump released a
statement laying out clear objectives. Okay. That's not
necessarily the same thing. Right? That's him that's
not objectives. That's talking points. That's how I
want you to frame this. And he goes,
let me she goes, let me reiterate. Destroy
the Iranian regime missiles and raise their missile
industry to the ground. Okay. Well, this is
just ridiculous. There's no justification for that. We're
not talking about nukes anymore. Annihilate the navy.
Okay. So remove their ability to be in
the ocean. Okay. Ensure the re the regime's
terrorist proxies could no longer destabilize the region.
Again, so forego every possible
ally that you have in the world because
anybody you ally with is suddenly now a
prop. Yes. That's what they're saying. Don't exist
is our argument.
Stop them from making IEDs, which they haven't
made since 2011 based on the evidence I
can see or at least haven't used them
publicly according to every status source I could
find.
Guarantee that Iran can never obtain a that's
already been done. Nuclear weapon, Preventing this radical
regime and its terrorist leaders from threatening America.
What does that even mean?
Preventing them from threatening? That means they can't
exist. Right? Okay. But you get where this
is going. Right? These are all
subjective.
Stop them from being bad guys.
Fine. Good. Stop them from doing things. Stop
them from having a navy. Okay. But that's
not what he was asking.
Right?
The messaging is confusing. Right? What's actually gonna
happen? What's the plan?
The plan is do stop the bad guys.
That's what she thinks is a plan. That's
not a plan. That's that's
wildly naive. And, in fact, all the things
they're pointing to, they've been wanting to do
forever. They've always said these things. So what's
different now?
It's sad, right? But I should point out
people calling this out. Oops. So this person's
saying, no one's asking you to change your
mind or become pro war, but you can
shut up for a couple days. Your vocal
critic opinions aren't defending and benefiting us. What's
funny about that's a supporter
saying, stop criticizing Trump. You're both supposed to
get in line.
How clear is that?
When your own team turns on you because
you're not toeing the line, maybe you're on
the wrong side. Or all of it's the
wrong side. And he says, and this is
what I mean by audience capture, by the
way. But he says, If you disagree with
what the government is doing, stay silent until
they're finished doing it. Well, Matt, you've done
that, man. You've done that. But it says,
that's just about the most un American sentiment,
I agree, you could possibly express, which he
has argued you should do, support the team.
It's also the same BS emotional blackmail that's
been used to silence critics of every public
policy. Okay. Glad you're finally calling it out.
But as he rightly points out, he literally
were on the side of these people until
you literally, a few hours ago, stopped. And
he goes, by the way, why are you
refusing your calls?
It's the truth, guys. Not only just this
topic, but the idea that all of them
have been supporting you in a gas gaslighting
you into supporting
this team because they were gonna change the
world and stop the Democrats.
Just a second ago, you were telling us
the Democrats are gonna ruin the world. You
think about it, you know, again, maybe he
doesn't even realize it and, I mean, you
could decide for yourself, but I think it's
worth pointing that out. Now he says here,
we were told the program was obliterated. Right?
It's the same thing. Now he's all suddenly
questioning all these things.
It's easy to suddenly see the things that
are obvious. Okay? He's choosing to do that
now.
And then or you could go the Alex
Jones route, and in the midst of all
of this go, we're under attack. 200 American
200 over two hundred Americans are killed every
day by opioids.
Go out of here.
Yeah. Oh, yeah. Yep. I agree.
That's like saying,
we're we're go let's address the obesity problem
in the middle of this. It they're that's
important that opioids are killing people. I've covered
it my entire career. It's huge. It's a
big deal. No one's ever been held accountable
for it. Both sides of the paradigm ignore
it. Sacked their family, got a slap on
the wrist. Nobody cares.
But the question is, why are you suddenly
saying it now? Is there some kind of
new point? Not that I can tell opioids
are killed people. It's been there for a
long time. It's important.
But why now?
Do I really I don't there you go.
Look over there. I mean, come on, guys.
That's ridiculous. And I'm not saying you have
to only cover this one topic, but just
realize that in the midst of this or
the Epstein files or Israel and the genocide,
none of that. That's they're screening away from
pretty much anything that matters in this conversation.
Or the ongoing globalist manipulation from Trump and
the new,
Board of Peace or his new WHO proposal
or the Stargate program or, you know, you
can keep going. Or double crossing the Baha
movement and removing away from food dye bans
or leaning into glyphosate. Now in most of
these cases, he'll give you the token, like,
bad thing and I don't agree, but then
keep supporting the team.
It's just kinda pathetic, isn't it?
Now here is he here he is going
all day
just
Pete Hegseth said globalism is over.
I'll just include this article, actually. This is
the same thing.
That they went to Davos. Right? And and
Lutnick
was like, globalism is dead. And literally, that's
where Trump introduced
his proposal for the Board of Peace, a
global entity.
The the the UN even called a a
tangential security council, which by definition is a
global entity, which I don't
board of the Board of Peace for the
I mean, with other countries coming out to
global, that is the UN point or the
new WHO or but I wrote, globalism is
dead. Long live
globalism. Trump is trying to create this or
the network state dynamic and what Peter Thiel
and Purnell's Capital are doing and they're this
is a reimagining of our world, and it's
obviously not national. This is a global point.
So when Alice Jones comes out and goes,
where? Come on. I keep accidentally zooming. Here
we go. I just said, America's submission to
globalism is over. Alex embarrassingly cheers as Trump
tries to recreate the global order right in
front of us and quite literally begins one
of the longest sought Israeli agendas of war
with Iran
for Greater Israel, which is another angle of
the globalism.
But globalism's dead because Hegseth, who's involved in
it, suddenly says it out loud. Yeah. That's
worth making fun of, guys.
Now, one of these other ridiculous people in
the fake media movement says, holy
crap. Because that's very, very cool. The Kristi
Noem just testified under oath that the Biden
regime was paying child traffickers to sponsor unaccompanied
minors across the border. My uncle said Biden
should be in prison. Yep. You know what,
bud? We agreed. We agreed the last three
times you posted this. We agreed every time
because they're all criminals. But the difference is
you seem to never follow-up and go, why
hasn't Trump arrested these people? Isn't that interesting?
Well, someone of your followers, who's actually a
subscriber, said, wow. We really need to see
some arrests. I'm tired of hearing about all
these crimes with no one being arrested for
them. I agree. And Nick says, Biden, my
orcas ran one of the largest trafficking operation
in history. That's his response.
Well, yeah, man. That's the yeah. He that's
are you just repeating yourself? Okay. And he
goes, exactly.
I mean, we need to see some form
of justice for this sick crap.
And he doesn't respond.
So I said, and from Nick on actual
follow through and arrest from Trump, crickets.
You realize this is I I'm not even
sure if this is a new statement from
her. It wouldn't make a difference because this
is not a new topic. You know why?
Because we covered it too.
'24. 2024. November. The Biden administration's legacy of
migrant child trafficking.
See, because we're not ridiculous. We're not one-sided
or partisan. We're objective. And we cover things
that are true. And the point is, it
is important.
And they should be arrested for it. But
guess what? Nothing ever happens. And if you
were Nick Sorder, wouldn't you start to go,
hey. Why isn't Trump doing anything about this?
Why isn't Noam doing anything about this? You
just told us that they were under under
oath. You told us that they were
paying
child traffickers
to sponsor children,
and nothing and you nothing?
And while you're censoring the Epstein files? Come
on, Nick. I'm sure you could piece this
together. I know you're not that bright, but
you could make it happen. You could realize
that they're lying to you. But I do
get the point. They don't care. That's why
you get crickets. Because they're in it for
the red, flashy lights and holy crap.
Here to oh, oh, sorry. A couple last
points in this. So Witkoff
demands that Iran and its missile program and,
you know, we we we already showed you
this, demand end everything. Alliances,
navy,
all they need to exist.
But he also talks about the nuclear program.
And we're gonna get into the reality of
that because I'm gonna yet again point this
out for those that might not have seen
it, but with new resources. But the point
is I could do a new show every
day and every single day use new credible
sources pointing out the reality that they're lying
about most of this. Every day.
I'd all I'm hoping that you guys out
there with the wherewithal to do so will
continue to show everybody else that need to
see it. Here's what Witkoff had to say.
Still blown away he's even involved in this
conversation.
Well, it was pretty silly, but they thought
they could strong-arm us. You know, president Trump
sent sent me in In regard to your
the the supposed negotiations. Remember, they bombed them
in the room that they were coming together
to negotiate. Not in the room they're all
in, but the room they went to discuss
in Iran about the deal they proposed.
So, they never believed in negotiations that they
killed them while they were negotiating. Okay? On
top of the fact that they've always been
coming to the table, always. And they made
a deal before and Trump broke it.
These people all know this, guys. These are,
like, in my opinion,
borderline sociopaths who want to benefit from the
situation or want more power, want more resources
or more more wealth, and are willing to
lie straight to your face.
Remember, the the for foreign minister of Oman,
who's sitting right there with them, publicly told
you everybody was in line around and was
willing to accept accept things they never had
before, including zero enrichment.
And then they bombed them. Literally, like clockwork.
The moment that became the reality, I think
Netanyahu realized the time was up. Because if
they publicly come out and say, we're willing
to do no enrichment and we'll sign everything,
then that would make the Israel, from that
point forward, would look even more
belligerent if they were to bomb. So, they
took the opening they had. And I think
that's what they even said. As Leavitt said,
Trump they saw an opening on the weekend.
That's what it was.
Well, it was pretty silly, but they thought
they could strong-arm us. You know, president Trump
sent sent me and Jared there to,
to really determine on his behalf whether they
were serious
about doing a deal that,
Oops. Sorry. So, basically, they've sent two Israeli
assets to tell Trump what Israel needs.
I mean, that's what we're talking about. Or
they lied to him. Right? The these are
people that are demonstrate their entire lives that
they're blindly in support of Israel's agenda. And
then they go to make the deal that
Israel wants to go for Iran, and then
that ends up happening. Now realize strong arming,
what he means is they wouldn't give us
every single thing they wanted or we wanted.
They wouldn't give up their army their navy,
excuse me. Misquoting these things. They wouldn't give
up their army. They wouldn't give up what
we wanted.
That's not strong arming. That's just not agreeing
to completely not exist.
That addressed his objectives, which are elimination of
their,
of their missile program,
elimination
of their advocacy and support for proxies, which
is destabilizing
the entire Middle East. Oh, is it?
You mean you mean aside from you destabilizing
every one of the countries involved in. I
don't see the Houthis, Hezbollah, or Hamas destabilizing
Syria, destabilizing
any number of the countries. I mean, Gaza,
for obvious example, Afghanistan, Iraq.
Right? Or any of the countries that you're
literally manipulating but claiming they're our problem, problem,
like
Saudi Arabia and UAE or where where they
can murder their own people, nobody cares.
Elimination of the Issue is the point. Because
they've made agreements with Israel, their leadership anyway,
their rulership,
which most of them have been put there
by a legal regime change like with Sisi
in Egypt. And most of the people of
those countries despise Israel.
I see how that works. And so but
then they can that's why Howard's work might
work my favorite dictator. CC can do whatever
he wants because I agreed about Israel. So
Trump and they'll ignore us. They'll let us
do what we want. Hey, Bukele. You still
killing your people and removing civil rights? Yeah.
Good job. You're on our side.
They don't care about these things.
So we can have freedom of the seas
and,
not be threatened with the shutdown of the
Gulf Of Hormuz.
So because they threatened to shut down their
own waterways,
we want them to not have a navy.
So no ability to go in the water
because they did what they were legally allowed
to do in regard to controlling their waterways?
Now I should it it it's a little
nuance to argue about the whole Strait Of
Hormuz.
But you have to understand, you're talking about
them being illegally bombed. They're under threat. They're
being threatened with annihilation by both these countries,
and they have the ability to to to
control their own waterways.
Now, that is an interesting discussion because it
does affect the other landmass. Right? So there's
more involved than just them.
But don't you think the US government I
mean, and they would and they have. You
think they care what Mexico thinks when they
wanna control the waterways right by The United
States? They do not. Now, again, that doesn't
mean that it's okay for everyone to do
it. My argument's the opposite, that none of
them should be okay to do that because
they're all violating another country's rights. But you
have to acknowledge the US government does it
every day. So they're hypocrites for trying to
say they couldn't or shouldn't, but none of
them should. But in regard to Hormuz, the
point was Iran has had,
I don't know, 15 opportunities to do that
when they've been attacked by Israel, The US
over the years, and they haven't.
Clearly, this is be a bigger deal. This
is more advanced. And so now they're threatening,
and they still haven't done it.
Right? So they haven't even done it, and
you're arguing remove the navy because of something
that they say they can't I mean, just
it's all the same. And finally,
no nuclear
enrichment that can get them to weapons grade,
which means no nuclear bomb. And we went
in there and tried to make a fair
deal with them, and it was it was
it was very, very clear that it was
that it was going to be impossible probably
by Okay. Well, that's an interesting way to
frame that. We went in there to make
a deal, and it was very clear it
was gonna be impossible. That's in that's not
the same as saying they wouldn't agree.
Right? We didn't get what we wanted. It's
an easy another way to say that, and
that's why it was impossible.
Well, you could take it either way. But
I find it telling he did not make
it explicit that Iran didn't agree because we
know they did. The end of the second
meeting. But we then went back for the
third meeting just to give it the last
college try. And, of course,
they thought
they they wanted us to
report positivity.
It was it was not positive, that meeting.
Oh, well, can I get some details? Did
what what did you offer? What did they
refuse? You know why they don't do that
anymore? Because Blinken showed the world that you
guys look like fools. And you come out
and go, they didn't agree. And then because
we're not dumb and there's a lot more
happening today than CNN, Fox News reporting, and
us listening, People came out and said, that's
not true. Here's the deal. Here's what they
offered. You have Hamas and everybody else able
to go online. They go, here's what they
gave us, and they get caught lying. No.
What happened was they did agree, and Israel
didn't want that, so they bombed them. And
then Blinken comes out and goes, Hamas broke
the deal. They do it every time. Pompeo
used to do it every time with Saudi
Arabia and Yemen. And when they
actually stood down, Saudi Arabia would rush in
and take more territory. And then they would
go, yeah, the Houthis broke the deal, and
you could prove they did not. It's what
they do.
They're bad people.
Report positivity?
It was it was not positive, that meeting.
Great. So just not positive. I mean, they
didn't get what they wanted. The truth is,
as we can prove, Iran was willing to
make a deal, and then they got bombed.
Which seriously, if we can't piece together how
consistent that is from every example in Gaza,
from every example in any any dynamic Israel's
involved in, or even just The US with
Saudi and Yemen and all the rest, they
do the same thing every time. Sort of
like when they're invading or creating justification regime
change, they kill protesters and blame it on
their government. I've seen it in every single
field of war they've been involved in. And
you again, I'm not talking about my opinion.
I'm talking about provable evidence that's come from
international reports or Seymour Hearst investigative reporting
all over the world.
So on the point of the bombs, let's
go through the same old things. Here's Tulsi
Gabbard, and this should be enough, from Trump's
administration
telling you it's not true.
2025. Continues to assess that Iran is not
building a nuclear weapon.
The IC continues to assess that Iran is
not building a nuclear weapon. That is the
international excuse me. The intelligence community. That is
the entirety of the in inter intelligence community.
What is that? 40 I forgot how many
however many unknown
institute or, agencies that we have out there.
Probably a lot more than we think. She's
she's saying as the DNI,
the director of national that we do not,
as all of us combined, think that they're
seeking what here we are.
And then she was punished for that, by
the way.
The IC continues to assess that Iran is
not building a nuclear weapon, and supreme leader
Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program
that he suspended in 2003.
There you go. Okay. Now here's what's interesting.
I think this was the last moment where
Gabbard was like, I'm gonna do the right
thing. I think that she, in this moment,
was thinking maybe I can just do I
can be honest and and isn't that what
they want from me? And then they came
out and said, shut up because you just
heard our agenda and just my opinion. And
then look at how she changed. Look at
what she's done since then. She's a different
person. She's come out and lied. She's double
literally said the opposite of what she argued
for Venezuela because Trump.
That's embarrassing, man. Who knows what she was
told and what she was threatened. Who knows?
But you know it and you see it.
That is again, last time.
The IC continues to assess that Iran is
not building a nuclear weapon. Okay. And Donald
Trump then literally punished her for that because
here's what happened. Right? So that that came
out, and Trump reportedly left Tulsi Gabbard from
the Camp David meetings to discuss Iran and
conflict. Why? The director of national intelligence was
left out of one of the most obvious
intelligence,
you know, revolving conversation of Iran, Israel.
Left out?
Because
Israel knows that she would tell the truth.
That was how I would read that, or
Trump did.
How were you gonna box her out? She
was also boxed out of Maduro's conversation because
of what she said before on Venezuela,
even though she came out and made herself
look bad by saying the opposite.
How do you misunderstand that, guys? Like, cash
removing all of his Iran people. They are
controlling the flow.
Iran does not have a nuclear weapons. We
can't afford to repeat the Iraq war lie.
That's the University of Western Australia. I mean,
you these are it's just everywhere you look,
guys. Anybody that wants to be honest about
this, the evidence has always been there. Here's
the International Atomic Energy Agency,
the ex the the
location of the group that decides this, that's
supposed to investigate that they did during the
JCPOA
and always told you they were not, just
like Gabbard told you.
Attacks on nuclear oh, this was so it's
two things. One, to continue to show you
that they are not, according to everybody.
But on top of that,
I didn't see this when it came out.
This was
so so June 2025. It was after the
last bombing. Twelve day war, whatever they call
it. And what they were saying as the
in Atomic Energy Agency was,
why are they're bombing nuclear locations? And it's
civilian, as they cite,
but that's a like, that's a big deal.
Like, we're we're very worried this is gonna
cause a nuclear disaster. Why didn't anybody care
about that? Why didn't the corporate media clutch
their pearls and scream with their hair on
fire like they did about Ukraine and Russia?
Same point. And in fact, you were dealing
with Ukraine that seemed to be a rather
the Azov movement that seemed to be deliberately
trying to cause it.
Think about that. Now it says attacks on
nuclear sites in the Islamic Republic Of Iran
by Israel
have caused a sharp degradation in nuclear safety
and security in Iran.
Now you this I I I'm of the
mind. This has been trying they've been trying
this.
This is by design because if you were
to cause a nuclear disaster, you know how
easy it would be for them to claim
we got one of the nuclear bombs?
How easy that would be. Nobody would deny
that or rather be even able to disagree.
Even though I would be like, it could
have been nuclear facility civilian, and they'd be,
oh, you're, you know, it the momentum is
what takes over. All the screening people that
we always make fun of would all be
going, we knew it. We proved it, and
it would just carry over the conversation.
On top of that, it would destroy Iran,
which is what they want.
Says and says though they have not so
far led to a radiological release
affecting the public, there is danger that could
occur.
And yet with this knowledge, they bomb them
again.
Now realize, guys, if they had obliterated them,
they would have released something problematic. So yet
again, another example of they're lying to you.
But it says the Konab,
Konab
the how do you say that? Komdak
dab. Kondab
heavy water research reactor
under construction
in In A R A K, Iraq,
Iran,
was hit on June 19. Now good point
to be made about the ridiculous mainstream alternative
media is numerous platforms were fear in fear
mongering style reporting that that was something that
had been hit, and it was, you know,
like like insinuating that there was some kind
of a massive problem or release,
and and it turns out it was under
construction. And according to the agency, it says,
as the reactor was not even operational and
did not contain any nuclear material, no radiological
consequence was expected. The nearby heavy water production
plant
is also
assessed to have been hit. And similarly, no
radiological consequence is expected.
The point, though, is it got reported as
the exact opposite, the threat being there from
a lot of the same because it it's
about fear. It's about hyping people. It's about
getting shit. Interesting. Always happens. Now continuing, the
Bush Bushier nuclear power plant, spelled B U
S H E H R, if I said
that correctly. It says this is the nuclear
site in Iran
where the consequences of an attack would be
most serious. It is an operating nuclear plant.
And as such, it hosts thousands of kilograms
of nuclear material. And to be very clear,
it's very clear that it's a civilian program.
And that's what I'm gonna get to. They
make that explicitly clear from the whole sense
they're not doing nuclear weapons programs.
It says, similarly,
a hit that disabled the only two lines
supplying electric power to the plant
could cause its reactor core to melt. I'm
almost like, stop saying this out loud. Seems
like you're trying to you know, but it
says, which could result in a high release
of radioactivity to the environment.
So if this happens at this site, remember
this point, because I would the argument's gonna
be that the agency involved with deciding whether
they were seeking nuclear programs told you they
were not and said that this location being
hit would release this damaging nuclear material from
their civilian program.
I think that's something Iran or Israel might
be trying to do. It says in their
worst case, both scenarios would necessitate.
Oh, and it could release hot. It could,
could release a in a high release of
radioactivity in the environment. It says, in the
worst case, worst case, both scenarios would necessitate
protective
actions,
such as evacuations and sheltering of the population
or the need to take stable,
ion or iodine, excuse me, with the reach
extending to distances from a few to several
100 kilometers.
Radiation monitoring would need to cover distances of
several 100 kilometers, and food restrictions may need
to be implemented. I mean, their entire society
would shut down.
Clearly, you see why that would be something
they want. Now it's worth pointing out that
there's plenty of people that argue that nuclear
power or weapons don't exist. I I mean,
I think the evidence shows,
clearly, there's
is evidence that suggests that there's some kind
of a nuance in there or there's a
lie within it. People that high level people
that have argued that it's not dangerous. But
I just argued the body of evidence that
it seems largely the other way. Examples of
what has fallen now, I argue the nuance
within that, if you wanna get into it,
is more so that there might be a
discrepancy between the fallout
and the long term effects
versus the immediate action. They would argue that
the bomb's just large bombs and so on,
but, you know, it's worth considering. I I
think I my opinion is the evidence shows
that they do, and the ultimate point would
be that we can like, if you look
at, for, Fukushima or,
what's the other one I'm thinking of?
The the famous one.
The power plant. Why am I blank on
the term? The the one that the one,
Russia,
Czech, I think,
discussion, the famous one. Anyway, the one that
basically, the point is that if you look
there, I can't believe I'm forgetting the term.
Somebody in the chat will tell me that
there's trees and animals in some places. And
it's like, they argued it was gonna be,
like, hundreds of years. And so the question
is maybe it's just not as lasting. You
know?
Chernobyl. Thank you. For for us, I forgot
that. But anyway, the bottom line is that
it's worth considering because some people do believe
that. I just I think it's always important
to point out the full kind of breadth
of opinion.
And, like, my point was, I think there
was an expert in the past that would,
like, put it in his mouth and claim
that, you know, didn't hurt him and so
on, but, you know, worth considering.
But either way, I've always argued this in
the past that whether nuclear bombs or not,
it's largely I mean, the explosion that the
destruction is most of what we're truly talking
about. And so at the end of the
day, what, you know, what we're saying
here is that the attack on these plants
could cause
destruction. That's the real point. And it says,
as stated in my this is the IAEA
speaking. As stated in my most recent report
to the agency's board of governors
and based on inspections conducted at the relevant
facilities since then.
Iran's uranium stockpiles
remain under safeguards in accordance with Iran's comprehensive
safeguard agreements.
The things that they're still meeting, by the
way, all this time later, despite what Trump
says, despite what Netanyahu lies about.
So they've kept it there.
And the point is that's in accordance with
the safeguard agreements.
And that it's that there's no problem. There's
no illegal situation. There's no threat. They're telling
you it's well within the agreement we made.
And it says you may recall that more
than this is really important because it's already
being spun by Witcoff and other ridiculous
mainstream alternative Republican commentators. It says, you may
recall that more than 400 kilograms of this
stockpile of uranium
is enriched up to 60%.
It says, it is essential that the agency
resumes inspections as soon as possible to provide
credible assurances that none of it has been
diverted.
Meaning that there's no evidence to suggest that
and that that being in that position was
already where they left it before, meaning that
and and they were meeting the agreement. But
the point is since the last bombing, we
haven't been to follow-up. So it's possible that
might have changed. And I'll show you how
they end up with the point. But realize
that 60% number is not in in its
sense, as it is, violating the agreement they
already have with the IAEA.
Very important. But also the fact that that's
not a violation in any other sense, especially
since every government in the world has a
legal right to seek nuclear power, as well
as weapons, by the way, despite the proliferation
treaty, Israel being a key example of somebody
who isn't signed on that and still has
them and use them anyway.
There's one other point. I'll read the bottom
part, and it'll probably remind me about the
basically saying,
stockpiles remain under the safeguards in accordance with
their agreements. Oh, and what and the point
is that what they're saying is that they
at that time, Israel was lying about it,
saying they already have the in many cases,
already have it, but, otherwise, already reaching it,
but they were telling at the time. They
simply were not, and they didn't care. Now
it ends by saying a diplomatic solution is
within reach, and this is important. This was
2025.
Just like the firm minister of Oman said
after this, they were willing to make this
agreement. So in this point, twenty twenty five,
June, after the twelve day war point,
they said
a diplomatic solution, this is the International Atomic
Energy Agency, is within reach if the necessary
political will is there.
Meaning, if Israel and The United States are
willing to come to that table.
And it goes on to say, elements for
an agreement have been discussed.
The International Atomic Energy Agency can guarantee,
through a watertight inspection system, that nuclear weapons
will not be developed in Iran.
They can form the basis of a long
standing agreement that brings peace and avoid the
nuclear crisis in The Middle East. This opportunity
should not be missed. So Iran, as we
said, that we've already discussed this, that we've
agreed, because this is the same point. This
is not even getting into the enrichment point
of the secondary deal that they already then
said agreed to by the foreign minister. This
is before. Same as the JCPOA, simply that
they will have their stockpile made. They don't
seek a weapon. They never have. So we're
okay with that. You can come and inspect
and double check. And so that's what we're
saying. We've discussed this with Iran. They're on
that table. And then, ultimately, if there's the
will, we can make this deal. They could
form the basis of a long standing agreement
that brings peace and avoids a nuclear crisis.
Then Israel bombed them. That's what we're talking
about.
They are trying to make a deal, and
Israel didn't want that, so they bombed them.
And it says this opportunity should not be
missed. The alternative would be a protracted conflict
and a looming threat of nuclear proliferation that,
while emanating from the Middle East, would effectively
erode the Non Proliferation Treaty and the Non
Proliferation regime as a whole.
Even though they already don't take it seriously,
It's just stated very clearly. Not only you're
telling you that they weren't doing it, that
they were upholding the deal right up until
the last time they checked. And then, down
here, the point is we're waiting on the
will to actually carry this forward into an
agreement.
And and, of course, what I think happened
based on what the foreign minister and others
have reported, that they then threw it a
thing that they always do in the hopes
it would destroy the deal. Well, we demand
zero enrichment.
It's like saying no navy. Right? I think
that's where it went. There's no enrichment. Nope.
In their mind, thinking they'll never agree to
that, and the minister said they did. And
so I think it got to the point
where they were just going ridiculously. No. You
can't have any army or run a no
navy. And so the end of the day,
I think they were probably calling their bluff,
and that's why Israel attacked. Either way, they
were willing to make a deal, and that's
what happened. And now we also know, by
the way, going the reporting came out that
they were planning that a week ahead of
time. And they tried to scrub that from
reporting, but it's come out. Even Axios reported
it. They planned a week ago. So that
means when they were making those fake discussions,
they were tricking them. When they said come
to the table, come meet, they were tricking
them. And that's why Israel bombed them because
it was a plan.
That's grotesque.
These are bad people.
Now here's what you get from this. Of
course, you get the clown Eric Daugherty coming
out and just repeating this because they don't
know what they're talking about.
Holy smokes.
It's almost like a like a holy crap.
It's like some kind of a like a
template. I don't it's just it's embarrassing quite
frankly. But of course, it gets promoted and
Elon Musk goes this and 100%, and, you
know, well, they do. He goes, Steve Witkoff
confirms a jaw dropping threat.
Or
says it.
Confirms? You know how dumb that is? Like,
so the confirm would be that something was
stated and he has evidence to confirm that.
Stating it on Fox News does not confirm
it. But you see how dumb that is?
That's how they read this or why how
they're tricking other people. Did Witkoff saying this
as him confirming anything?
That's pretty sad. But it says, in the
first meeting, Iran said to us directly
that they control, as we just told you,
four sixty of 60%, and they're aware that
could make 11 bombs.
So they're using what is the static reality,
which was under the agreement with the IAEA
to convince people that that's already a problem.
You see what I'm saying?
Witkoff
must know this because they're dealing with the
larger international agencies, or he doesn't. He's stoop.
I don't know. The truth is, at some
level, they know that's not a violation.
They know that's well within the agreement that
they left it at, and all they're doing
is pointing to the thing that was already
made the deal and claiming they're doing a
bad thing.
It's that simple, guys.
And then the dumb air recovery types come
out and go, oh, thing. Oh my god.
Everyone's bombshell. It's all proven.
Sent materials,
Sean,
can be brought to 90%. That's weapon grade.
Weapons grade. Yeah. But don't forget, guys. They
don't have the refiner. They don't have the
the enrichment
locations to do it because they were bombed.
And that that has been confirmed
because they did bomb plenty of things. The
question is whether they were able to actually
effectively obliterate all of their nuclear locations, and
that does not seem to be case. But
in regard to that point,
that seems to be the reality. And, in
fact, that's a that's a very
logical point because doing so, in effect, if
they were actually gonna make nuclear bombs, would
stop them from enriching that uranium. And so
it has. So they did that
as the Wall Street Journal reported as the
pen and everybody else is confirming that they
bombed the location that they would need. So
they have that, and they might be able
to do it should they have a location
to enrich it, which they do not. You
don't think he knows that? All of this
is there. They're trying to gaslight lie Americans
into supporting a war that will kill Americans
for Israel.
In
roughly one
can be brought to 90%. That's weapon grade
weapons grade in roughly one week, maybe ten
days at the outside.
The Of course, all that, if they had
the facility, will be on top of the
fact that they would want to do that.
And all the evidence shows you historically, they
never have and never want to. Based on
all of the agencies that checked them, based
on Tulsi Gabbard, based on previous administrations,
but let's trust Netanyahu who has light us
into countless wars as Charlie Kirk told you.
20%
can be brought to weapons grade inside of
three to four weeks.
And let me say this because
I forgot this small little detail.
In that first meeting,
the both the Iranian negotiators
said to us directly
with, you know, no, no shame
that they controlled 460
kilograms of 60%.
See? He's doing that to make it sound
like a problem. Like, the, International Atomic Energy
Agency just told you exactly those statistics and
said that that was well within their agreement.
So what am I missing here? Does Steve
Witkoff not know what he's talking about? Or
is he simply lying to you for the
interest of Israel? You can decide.
And they're aware that that could make 11
nuclear bombs, and that was the beginning of
their negotiating,
stance. So that Okay. So what you mean
is the beginning of their stance was to
acknowledge the reality of their standing. How is
that a trick or a ploy? He's tricking
you if you fall for this.
That's that's they were they were proud of
it. They were proud that they had evaded
all sorts of oversight protocols to get to
a place where they could deliver 11 nuclear
bombs.
You think think of think about what he
just said.
Now let's go back.
One more.
Okay.
Where was it?
Shoot.
60.
There it is.
So it says and this is directly from
the director general of the International Atomic Energy
Agency from late twenty twenty five.
And it says, as stated in my recent
report to the IAEA,
based on their inspections, Iran's stockpiles remain under
safeguards
in accordance with their deal.
You may recall that more than 400, so
425,
whatever you just said,
this stockpile is uranium up to 60%
with which remains within their safeguard accordance.
So he this is just blatant, shocking, like,
criminal level dishonesty. He's trying to trick Americans
into supporting something that he knows is not
true, that literally meets their agreement
as it currently stands, which whether Israel or
US agree with that themselves is irrelevant, guys.
They're trying to manipulate you into thinking that
that in and of itself, as he just
said, was them tricking you, evading the IAEA
when they've stated it exactly right there back
in June 2025.
This is worth it's worth doing this again.
Make 11 you know, no, no shame
that they controlled 460
kilograms of 60%,
and they're aware that that could make 11
nuclear bombs
when that was the beginning of their negotiating
Which I flatly disagree with, by the way.
He's just conflating that with if they were
to make that to 90, which then they
could make it. It's it's ridiculous.
Stance.
So that's that's they were they were proud
of it. They were proud that they had
evaded all sorts of oversight protocols to get
You see, what's even funny if you really
think of what he said, evaded all sorts
of protocols. It's not the same as saying
that 60% was evading the safeguards.
Like, these people are very crafty, just deceitful.
He knows he's trying to language, like, not
state unequivocally
that what they did was a crime, but
saying it in a way that makes dumb
people think that's what he said.
That's how low he thinks of all of
his audience, guys. He's trying to trick you
into thinking that you're doing the right thing.
Because you know what? The other day, like
I just said,
they know you want the right thing.
You were not them. You're better than them.
Conservatives
out there. It's a reality.
Just kills me how clear this is. And
yet this will fall on the wayside because
it's in the middle of a longer show.
I get that. But also because it just
doesn't get the reach and people don't talk
about it, that we don't have the allowed
algorithmic reach to get these out because this,
if it was on Tucker, would be a
bombshell.
Right? Like, all of these points. And they're
not, like, secret they're everywhere. You could look
them up yourself.
Well, here is this very, very obvious and
caught repeatedly lying as Zionist propagandist,
who, by the way, I mean, literally caught
whole cloth making up allegations about recent things
that have been happening. We caught it. Here
he is posting, NATO says Iran is on
the brink of obtaining a weapon. Well, okay.
I this guy is a classic player in
this game, and he is not the inside
I the International Atomic Energy Agency is the
highest level of insight on that point. They
just told you what I showed you right
there. So him saying this is just him
siding with the team. That's NATO for you.
NATO is an international army created after the
illegal the lie of what was nine eleven
that's only been used once to initiate
the war on terror. Right? The attack one,
attack all. And it's just like it's just
a it's and ICE is a local version
of that, it seems. Here's what he said,
though.
I was forced to Oh, wait.
How do I keep missing these for crying
out loud?
You know what? Maybe I just didn't
grab it. But I mean, the point is,
because it is short twenty five seconds. So
but NATO says they're on the brink of
a nuclear weapon. I didn't even waste time
with it. We know it's not it's not
true. He's saying it because he's supposed to
say it. He's repeating the narrative.
Here's JD Vance
saying the same thing. But here's what he
says. President Trump will not
get The United States into a years long
conflict.
Well, you'd think there'd be a period right
there. Right? Won't happen.
But he said, we will not get The
United States into a years long conflict with
no clear objective. Okay. Okay. Same thing. So
we might get you into years long conflict
with a clear objective, but we won't have
a years long conflict with no clear objective.
But I'm gonna go ahead and call BS
anyway and say that they're both. You'll you'll
get a years long conflict with no clear
objective. They'll claim otherwise, but that's always how
this goes. I certainly hope not. But then,
of course, he goes with the same nuclear
lie like they all do. So that's what
they're here for.
Back to Afghanistan,
twenty years of mission creep, twenty years of
not having a clear objective, and twenty years
of The United States trying to bring liberal
democracy to Afghanistan.
Iraq was a little bit shorter, but we
were still in that country for nearly a
decade with no clear mission, no clear definition.
What's so different about this, Jesse, is that
the president has clearly defined what he wants
to accomplish. And there's
what? You know, not at all, though. Not
even remotely. I mean, I guess you could
argue he's defined what he wants to you
know, we wanna bomb these ships, so we
want them to have no navy. That but
that's not a plan.
Right? You're not you're this it's a very
different thing they're doing right there. We can
all yell, I wanna win the war. Hoorah.
Whatever. I don't mean that in a supportive
way. I just say at the end of
the day, you're we're talking about a plan,
and you admitted in that letter that you
don't have a plan.
That's just this Vance is just a mindless
follower. That's what he's doing. He wants power,
I think. And many people have already argued
that his involvement in all this has just
made sure he will not be the next
president. Frankly, I don't agree. I think that'll
be whoever the team wants, not voters, by
the way.
Of mission creep, twenty years of not to
Afghanistan, twenty years of mission creep, twenty years
of not having a clear objective, and twenty
years of The United States trying to bring
liberal democracy to Afghanistan.
Iraq was a little bit shorter, but we
were still in that country for nearly a
decade with no clear mission, no clear definition.
What's so different about this, Jesse, is that
the president has clearly defined what he wants
to accomplish, and there's just no way. I
said this before the conflict started. I'll repeat
it again. There's just no way that Donald
Trump is gonna allow this country to get
into a multiyear conflict with no clear end
in sight and no clear objective.
Yeah. It's it's all fun and games to
say it out loud. I mean, they said
the same thing in bringing in Iraq. Doesn't
matter. I mean, they they they this guy,
as you've already seen, will say whatever he
needs to say to support the team. I
mean, does anybody disagree with that? I mean,
most of the people on the team say
that's how you're supposed to go. How dare
you challenge the narrative? How dare you not
support the team during war? They're literally arguing
that. So in that same point, you must
realize that Vance is of the same mind.
He's not gonna come out and be like,
well, this is the wrong path. Hardly. Even
if he thought that. Or anybody think otherwise?
So when he comes out and says that,
well, it's just because that's what he's supposed
to say. It's meaningless. All these channels, CNN,
Fox News, they're just narrative managers. They don't
actually give you actual I mean, it's all
just about what they want you to see
it as. Same with the State of the
Union. Same with the State Department briefings. What
they're trying to control you.
The bottom line, guys, is this is obviously
gonna be whatever Israel wants it to be.
As every data point you can ever see
shows you, they've been guiding the US government
to this position for as long as I've
been doing this. What is different about president
Trump, and it's it's frankly different about both
Republicans and Democrats
of the past, is that he's not gonna
let his country go to war unless there's
a clearly defined objective. He's defined that objective
as Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon and
Oh, great. Then we're done.
Cool.
See how that works? So if you even
believe that's what they're actually doing, well, they
just set you up to fail because that's
not even the reality.
So either we end right now because it's
over, or you've set yourself up to meet
a goal that's not even possible, which means
it'll go on forever. Sort of like a
war on terror.
Demonstrate for me how you end a war
on an idea.
Exactly the point. Has to commit long term
to never trying to rebuild the nuclear capability.
It's pretty clear. It's pretty simple. And I
think that means that we're not gonna get
into the problems that we've had with Iraq
and Afghanistan.
Of course. I don't see in any way
how that even remotely shows that, but whatever.
But think of what he's saying that we
don't want them to reach that again. Well,
let's here's what people keep pointing out.
One side of the argument is they're doing
it or about to, but in this case,
you're saying we don't want them to be
able to reach that again. So there was
no threat then. How can you argue there's
an imminent threat if what you just said
was we'd we'd stopped them, but, you know,
we just know they're bad guys, so we
don't want them to be able to maybe
in the future get to that point. Well,
in every way they're doing this, even though
it's, like, 17 different narratives, every one of
them show you they're breaking the law.
Again, that's either incompetence or by design. I
can't decide. At this point, I can't even
tell. So here's what Trump said. So he
we're not gonna get you into a war
that lasts forever because Trump just said wars
can be fought forever
successfully.
Like, I just had to laugh at this.
So you've been spending your entire career going
end of forever wars, and then the minute
you begin a war that's clearly an ongoing
you you state on what day was this?
The second, yesterday.
Wars can be fought for forever and very
successfully.
But he but he says using the the
supplies which we need, which will go on
forever. His point was about how people are
worried about the stockpiles. Right? So just like
I always point out, in order to make
you believe somehow that we'll never run out
of missiles, which is ridiculous, in fact, the
evidence already shows you that's not true, is
to then sell another lie, which means he
contradicts a previous lie, which I will never
go to war forever. And he goes, well,
it's okay though. Stockpiles are unendable, so we
might go to war forever.
Embarrassing.
And all the jackals are out there trying
to make sense of it and make it
make sense, you know, it's just what they
do.
Now, on this point, I think it's worth
this is her saying the
war, you know, that's not a war. It's
not a war. Well, we already demonstrated that
both all of them had called it a
war. So she's ridiculous.
Luna's out here just towing the line and
made to look like a fool on the
second because they all came out and said
it on the second. So she's probably really
irritated about that, but here's what she had
to say. And this is worth hearing for
a couple reasons. And I wanna add before
we even play it, I'm just as irritated
by how ridiculous she is in this, by
how smug and how completely uneducated she is,
and how she seems to know that and
still gets smug and pushes back and gets
all flustered and mispronounces words because she doesn't
know what she's talking about. And that's unbelievably
clear.
But at the same time,
I have, like, a physical reaction watching these
ridiculous mainstream alternative me or rather MSNBC
mainstream people act all smug and righteous to
her. Because to me, they're all the same
thing. I've watched every one of these people
act ridiculous and lie for the team and
sell partisan narratives and just, you know, so
they get to sit there and look like
they're the right righteous ones because Luna's just
that dumb in this moment. But don't take
that for one second to think that any
of these people are gonna be on your
team. Question them all. And quite frankly, my
opinion is all of them have lied to
you over the years. But, nonetheless,
this is pretty bad for Luna.
Not just invade? We are not invading. Are
you seeing are you seeing boots on the
ground there? Because I'm Well, just wait. Not.
And I've been told directly by the state
department and I don't have some bad tech
of intention. I mean, we we just killed
that. Okay. Really quickly. She was told by
the White House or State Department that's that's
just not the intention because it's totally totally
not gonna happen ever because Trump told me
that that's just never gonna happen. Oops. Okay.
Well, Trump just said that's probably possible.
Oops. Well, that's how it happens when you
work with somebody who's lying to everybody, including
you, and you don't realize that or you
don't care. Back to the clip.
Invasion. That's not
just invade? We are not invading. Are you
seeing are you seeing boots on the ground
there? Because I'm not. And I've been told
directly by the state department, and I don't
have boots on the ground.
I mean, we we just killed the lead
on the ground.
Okay.
Targeting strategic military strikes and invasions are two
totally different things according to They're calling it
a war. The president has called it a
war
and targeted air strikes. Strategic
strikes.
Strategic strikes. And according to the White House,
and I just talked to them. I talked
to the secretary of state. Strategic strikes are
not war.
Really?
So if someone bombed America Do you see
boots on the ground?
That Oh, wait. That makes no sense. I'm
just saying it has to be a vote
according to
Why that bugs me is because that's a
valid argument. It's what I'm saying. But if
this were reversed, how much you wanna bet
they would be gaslighting everybody to support Biden's
war? You see what I'm saying? And in
fact, I think they actually did.
But it's just it's just that's I shouldn't
make that point again. It's just I wanna
make sure you hear that because I don't
think there are any of them. But what
she's doing is so incredible to me. Really?
So if someone bombed America, do you see
state
strategic strikes are not war?
Really?
So if someone bombed a I just tried
to go back to work. She's I just
spoke to them. She said it again. Right?
Well, think about this. Is that so right
now, you you call them and they want
you to go out and say the thing
they need you to say in that moment.
And then they screw you over by saying
something different.
This is just so like, I don't know
why anybody falls into this unless themselves be
played. I think it's because they know in
any other circumstance, they wouldn't even be in
this position. They wouldn't even be allowed this
power. But because they're willing to lie and
tow the line, they're a law they're afforded
that.
Erica Do you see boots on the ground?
War? That Oh, wait. That makes no sense.
You're saying it has to be boots according
to your own
according to your own According to action, but
definition that's your standard. So you say Ron
has killed thousands of Americans and murdered them.
So by definition, they've already declared war. So
it's clear they've killed them and murdered them.
Because that's how extreme it's gotten. They're very
serious. I know. I've had I've had GI
and this is raining down on me too.
I know how terrible the Iranian regime is.
See?
I I know. Right? They're all bad. High
five real quick. Iran sucks. Okay. Now back
to you.
What are you talking to? I know that
your raw regime is bad. Has any I
mean, I don't know. It doesn't even matter.
We've all gone through this already. I just
think it's hilarious. We that when it comes
to war and Israel and anything, they're always
on the same team. All the media, mainstream,
all the newsreels are it's the same thing.
Just kills me how clear that is.
Heather? We're not we are not debating
that they are a truly terrible regime. What
we're talking about is the standard for the
commander in chief to commit our sons and
daughters
in the military
to war and going to war when it
is in the national interest in making that
case to America and going to congress and
getting approval for war. So you are saying
this is a limited mission
that is only bomb strikes.
So there Which are acts of war. That's
the reality. There is no congressional authorization
necessary. How is this different from when Joe
Biden bombed the Houthi rebels in Yemen without
congressional authorization
and you oppose that? Yep.
Exactly. Right? We see how how it works
as you get into the position where now
we want our thing. So all we're gonna
do is go, well, you didn't care when
he did it, and then do it. But
the problem is, as she pointed out correctly,
when you were opposing Biden's actions, you were
against that action. Not, well, Biden should do
it because the one before them did it,
because they're all hypocrites
all the time.
So here is Betty Johnson. There should be
Betty Johnson. Benny Gantz, just as ridiculous, coming
out and saying, we will not rule out
The US
or Israeli boots.
Woah. Woah. Woah. Hold on.
Betty Gantz? The Israeli so Israeli government comes
out and says, we won't rule out US
boots.
I don't even think I need to make
that clear. Why would the Israeli government be
involved in ruling it? Because I think you
already know why. But they say US or
Israeli boots. So already making it clear that
we might have to go to boots on
the ground, which in many cases is already
happening.
Both of them. Now, weirdly enough,
after that statement comes out, bang, bang, boom,
and look at that. Now by now they're
all going, well, we might have boots to
the ground. It's almost like they're not the
ones making these decisions. Trump says he might
have to deploy ground troops just yes. Ness
if necessary.
Greg Stoker points out that Pete Hegseth comes
out and says the same thing, that we
might need to use ground troops. We'll go
as far as we need. It might be
necessary.
Now Hegseth was a little bit more,
you know, well, we don't wanna box anything
out, which is not the same. They always
gonna do that. But both the other two
were we might be it might have to
happen. Very different way to frame that. So
there's Luna going being told, guaranteed. She called
them. No. No. No. Here's the talking point.
That's not gonna happen. And then next day,
they come out and go, that might happen.
It's just she's gotta be really frustrated about
that. But it just shows you that these
things always mission creep. And just so it's
clear, here's a Democrat. Here's Blumenthal. I am
or, senator. I am more fearful than ever,
he says, after this briefing,
that we may be putting boots on the
ground in Iran. So first, I'm going, oh,
okay. Good. He's gonna call it out. Then
he says, troops from The United States may
be necessary.
Oh, okay. I see. So you're super worried
this might happen because we might need to.
Great. So both sides want it. Both sides
feel it's necessary. Both sides know it's irrational
based on nothing is true because Israel wants
it, and Iran's not seeking a weapon because
your own teams told you that. Well, intelligence
from both sides says that, but it may
be necessary.
How I mean, the only way you make
sense of this because of the evidence is
these people are acting on either lying information
from somebody else, Israel, or because they're just
being told to do it.
I'm sure there's other things you can consider,
but how the evidence is clear.
So the last part of this or I'm
sorry. I keep doing that. I think I
have two more parts. But this one is
the
blackmail nuclear conversation. Now we went over this
in-depth before it does, you know, the mainstream
level.
This is the clip again really quickly. I
believe this is where it came from because
it seems like this was not being as
much talked about until the last couple of
days after it kind of reached that level,
and it became an easy,
low hanging option to say, oh, well, he
didn't he didn't have a choice.
Thank god. So it's not whoo. So it's
not Trump. The guy that I love, whoo.
Thank god. It's actually because he didn't have
a choice. I'll take that no matter what.
That's what a lot of people did. Because
they don't because right now, it's really uncomfortable
to feel like the person that you swore
was gonna save the world turns out to
be the problem. So instead, you go, oh,
thank god it's actually Israel. I'll take that.
I think that's what people did even though
it doesn't line up. Right? But I'll in
in a in a sense of the full
picture. And I'll I'll show you what I
mean. So here's the clip first.
Reason though, I'm told,
that Donald Trump decided to bomb Iran
was that the Israelis said for the first
time, if you don't bomb Iran to take
out these deep bunkers,
we're gonna use nuclear weapons.
And they had never threatened that before.
And so Trump said
bombing Iran might actually save us from the
start of World War three
if it keeps the Israelis from using nuclear
weapons. So We have to understand, guys. Nuclear
weapons alone does not dictate new World War
three. I mean, if if they bomb Iran
and Iran starts the war and the war
spins out like we're seeing, that's World War
three.
The nukes only make it just, like, a
wasteland dystopian scenario.
But so so the argument is not no
world war three. The argument is no nukes
destroying everything, but then World War three instead,
which might lead to that anyway.
Now in in no way am I criticizing
John Kierke out here. I I I question
and doubt what is going on here. I
I doubt I question whether this is being
a controlled release, and he's been doing, you
know, coming out and saying important things that
are actually relevant in order to sell you
this now. I mean, that's I don't I'm
not even saying I think that's the reality,
but it's a consideration that I think about.
That there is no former CIA. We're dealing
with somebody who is now giving you the
the needed moment statement, and that's what it's
been building up to.
You can decide. I I've I've cited him
saying things a lot over the years because
I think they're very powerful. But overall,
what does this amount to?
Right? It amounts to a situation where you
argue that Israel is blackmailing The United States,
which is our that's my argument. So I
agree with that. But I don't think any
part of the government is sort of outside
of, you know, whether let's not even say
they're completely being blackmailed
to do this.
There's
endless examples within domestic policy where they're taking
actions that sell you out just to local
companies or rather just international or rather national
companies
or any number of things that aren't necessarily
Israel related. So just I don't think in
any way this makes them,
like, devoid of responsibility for where your lives
are right now.
According to your source, the Israelis told the
president of The United States that if he
did not use The United States military power
to bomb the nuclear facilities in Iran,
Israel acting on its own would use nuclear
weapons. Yeah. Do you see why there's a
problem with that statement, John? I hate this
part. Yeah. Because they don't we're told they
don't have news. Yeah. We all know they
do. Anybody who says they don't right now
is embarrassing.
I don't even wanna go into how many
times Netanyahu is, like, sheepishly looked embarrassed when
he accidentally states something about his nuclear weapons.
It's just dumb. But nonetheless, not everyone knows
that. Yeah. Because they've never admitted that they've
had them. That's right. So you're kinda have,
though, by the way. Telling me that they
just admitted to the president of The United
States that they Who knows they have them?
Have nuclear weapons, and we still do not
have them in the IAEA treaty. I mean
That's true. That's important because and and everyone
states that. We know that. They just they're
they're a special circumstance according to all these
Western governments. And if
if Israeli nuclear whistleblowers are to be believed,
yeah, they've had them they started working on
them in the fifties. Using stolen US information.
They got them around the late sixties or
the early seventies. Look at look at,
Mordechai Venunu. Mhmm. You know, he wasn't charged
for treason for nothing. That's the guy they
hid in Rome with the honeypot? Yeah. Yeah.
'86.
So, that's where this kicked off from, right?
I think, anyway. I mean, let me know
if you think otherwise. It's not as important
as it as other parts of this, but
I do think that's where this kinda started.
Right? And, oh, at the very least, you
could argue that, you know, he somebody told
him that. So other that that source could
have been giving it out to whoever else.
I think that's kinda what happened. You know,
the MAGA media, like, here here is like,
right now, we're at a point where this
is clearly getting out of hand.
Everyone's calling this out. Nobody bought Trump's narrative.
They all see Israel controlling him. So what
do we do? Well, we we use the
blackmail argument.
Because clearly that I mean, even somebody like
me who sees them for what they are
is still gonna go, if I'm honest, well,
yeah. That even if he's the a monster
sociopathic murderer,
he if he was blackmailed to do it,
you could argue there's less responsibility there. That's
just the reality.
Right? So I think that's a it's an
easy way to go, well, he didn't mean
to. As he said, he was trying to
save us from World War three by illegally
bombing a foreign country. It just I've I've
there's a even if that turns out to
be the proven reality, I have a hard
time ever accepting that is what we should
have done. The wrong thing, you understand. The
wrong thing for the right reasons. That's just
the same path I'm talking about.
Then you maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm naive.
You guys can decide. I don't believe that.
I don't believe that the wrong thing because
the right it's the same argument every which
way you look at it. The right thing
would have been to go Israel's threatening nuclear
blackmail. And if Israel nuked somebody, that's Israel's
responsibility. They're the monster. I'm not saying we
should accept that. But the argument that this
thing might have happened, therefore, this wrong thing
had to happen, what if they're lying to
us? I just you know, again, it's for
all of you to decide because that's a
very difficult comp that's hard. I get it.
And I'm not saying it's the right choice
versus the wrong choice. I'm just telling you
that I will that's where my integrity and
principles come into play, and I'm not going
to argue that we should murder people because
they might do something worse. I just can't
get along with that.
Now,
here is what Rubio had to say
about this very question. Now, we took we
watched this morning and they didn't wake up.
And I can't believe he said the way
he said this the way he did. Oh,
wait. Oh, here. I'll play it first, actually,
and I'll do something for, I was anyway.
I don't even imagine it. Just something on
the dLive platform.
Here's the clip right here. Where's it right
there?
The second question I've been asked is, why
now? Well, there's two reasons why now. The
first is it was abundantly clear that if
Iran came under attack by anyone, The United
States or Israel or anyone, they were going
to respond and respond against The United States.
The orders had been delegated down to the
field commanders. It was automatic, and in fact,
it bear to be true because in fact,
the within an hour of of the initial
attack on the on the leadership compound, the,
missile forces in the South and in the
North for that matter had already been activated
to launch. In fact, it was abundantly clear
that if Iran came under attack by anyone,
The United States or Israel or anyone, they
were going to respond and respond against The
United States. Now that's what we already read
before. Right? That's what the Wall Street Journal
was saying. Is that ultimately that they were
told, I'm sure we can assume I mean,
the logical point would be from Israel. We
don't know for sure. Right? But that makes
sense. Right? Israel is telling you, that's where
all their intelligence comes from about Iran, you
know, that they are gonna bomb you. And
I I in fact, I think he actually
states Israel is the one that said that.
The point, though, is that we're told that
if anybody bombs them anywhere, because Israel's gonna
bomb them, which came out after the well,
then they're gonna bomb us. Okay. Well, Israel
could easily just have lied to you about
that, you know, like they lie about everything
else, like they lie about nuclear weapons, like
they lie about everything.
Let me preface these remarks with I never
never ever believe
Israeli figures.
I've been in the government too long to
know that the Israelis are patent liars.
In their intelligence community, in their propaganda community,
certainly,
and in their leadership,
they are inveterate
liars.
Let me say that again. They are liars.
So you can't believe anything that comes out
of Jerusalem. It's all propaganda?
Yep. Somebody who would live through it. Right?
So the point is that they could have
come and said this thing to get them
to go that thing. And the end of
the day, I think Rubio and Trump are
passive players. They'll do what they're told anyway.
That's my belief. And so here we are,
where we had to do this thing, which
doesn't meet the law, which is not the
Bethlehem doctrine. It's not legal reality.
And you can't even prove there was an
the the preemptive possible threat.
So you justify that with what Israel said.
Borders have been delegated down to the field
commanders. It was automatic and in fact, it
bear to be true because I talk about
that actually. We talked about this back in
his first administration when they used the largest
non nuclear bomb in Afghanistan for effectively no
reason. Trump was eating cake in Mar A
Lago. In fact, that was what ultimately was
confirmed by him himself.
And he didn't even know. Why? Because as
I said at the very beginning, at that
term in administration,
that he made it clear that they on
the field could make decisions without his authorization.
I find that to be insane in any
context since we're not dealing with people who
are elected at that point. Right? But on
top of that, what else is overlapping with
our military?
The Israeli military.
IDF members, Israeli intelligence, all sorts of things.
So now we might have a situation where
if Israel is influenced enough, infiltrated enough, they
might be in in fact influencing generals on
the ground. Israel may in fact be dictating
our military policy, if that's the reality. And
all we just heard is that they are
they're just sitting back at the White House
letting them dictate that policy. Let me let
me play that again in case you don't
remember that. This has been going on since
his last administration.
It's the orders had been delegated down to
the field commanders. It was automatic. And in
fact, it bear to be true because in
fact, the within an hour of of the
initial attack on the on the leadership compound,
the, missile forces in the South and in
the North for that matter had already been
activated to launch. In fact, those had already
been prepositioned.
The third is the assessment that was made.
Right. And realize that means they planned it
as as been reported
well before Israeli,
government entities speaking with
was it,
Reuters and then also Axios reported it as
I showed you in the last show.
They publicly said, we had this plan. We
had the dates picked a week ago.
So they lied. Right? So they had all
this planned up, lined up, this was ready,
things in place, and then they pretended to
negotiate.
That if we stood and waited for that
attack to come first before we hit them,
we would suffer much higher casualties. Oh, really?
Okay. What's the indication that they were gonna
attack? There's no so why would they have
come to a room to discuss a possible
deal? Remember, that's where Israel bombed them. That's
how they got Khomeini. They killed a bunch
of they bombed them while they were meeting
for negotiation. Why would they immediately negotiate
if your argument was they were getting ready
to bomb you? Oh, but wait a minute.
Your point was they would only bomb if
Israel bombed first.
So you killed them while they were making
good faith negotiations because you knew Israel was
that crazy? Apparently so. All they're doing is
essentially making our case for us. All this
time, we've been telling you Israel is dictating
policy. Israel is blackmailing with the Epstein network,
and here they are going, yep, kinda, that's
what's happening.
And so the president made the very wise
decision. He we knew that there was going
to be an Israeli action. We knew that
that would precipitate an attack against American forces,
and we knew that if we didn't preemptively
go after them before they launch those attacks,
we would suffer higher casualties.
Preemptively.
So right there, again, he makes the case
for how that in no way legally meets
the war powers resolution, war powers app. Same
thing.
Right there. He just did it himself.
And perhaps even hire those killed. And then
we would all be here answering questions about
why we knew that indeed.
So the point is that we might have
had higher so at the end of the
day,
you're claiming that you had to act because
something might have happened.
There's no way around that.
That is against the law. There's no imminent
threat. So if you not if you thought
there was a preemptive discussion, that's when you
would be required to get congressional approval or
a use of authorization of authorization for use
of military force. We just read through it.
It's only two options and only if imminent
attack.
So all these people are that dumb, that
dishonest, or they're just willing I mean, again,
I got those two things. I mean, think
about that for a second. All these large
podcasters and all these people.
Wild.
And then the White House account shares the
same thing. And this is a a rather,
like, a same conversation. The next day, though,
they say, and this was posted today,
was The US forced to strike because of
an impending Israeli action?
Following up on this. It's interesting the way
he responds right here, because now now it's
even evolved a little more. Right?
Was it been pending Israeli action? No. First
well, let me two things I would say.
Number one is, no matter what, ultimately, this
operation needed to happen. That's the question of
why now. But this operation needed to happen.
What is that? Iran in about a year
or a year and a half would cross
the line of immunity, meaning they would have
Woah. Woah. Woah. A year from now. Okay.
Wait a minute. So now you're trying to
argue that your preemptive attack was because a
year from now that they might have some
okay. You just sold yourself down the river
even further.
Sailed or whatever the phrase is. So, you
just made it clear not only was it
preemptive, which right there removes the possibility of
the war powers justification,
but then you made it clear that it
was two years away the threat, you might
argue, was justifying the preemptive
attack. There's no one any way you argue
that is an immediate impending attack, an imminent
attack. Those are the words used.
So many short range missiles, so many drones
that no one could do anything about it.
This is actually really important what he says
here. Because Iran in about a year or
a year and a half would cross the
line of immunity, meaning they would have so
many short range missiles. So I guess we're
just nuclear just doesn't matter. So they'll have
missiles and drones and stuff like every other
place in the world.
Okay.
So many drones that no one could do
anything about it because Oh, you mean like
you're doing?
Right. So, I guess, it's bad when they
do what you're doing? Yeah. Pretty much. Every
single time. You think they're not building drones
as much as they possibly can? China, Russia,
they're all doing. So, your worry is that
Iran may have power that gives them standing
on the stage. Not that they may do
anything necessarily with it. You don't want them
to be seen as an equal standing player
on the stage. That's what you want because
you know what that comes to. It comes
to the reality that what you've been doing
to them your entire career, both Israel and
The United States, becomes the I mean, whether
it becomes the possible legal mechanism to hold
them accountable or just gives Iran enough influence
in the conversation to be able to stand
against their objectives. This is about control and
influence. And they're willing to starve an entire
country, whether Yemen, Venezuela, Iran, any of them,
just to get what they want out of
it.
Is anybody confused? I mean, we've been doing
this for years,
as in covering this. They have been doing
this my entire life.
They can hold the whole world hostage. Look
at the damage they're doing now. And this
is a weekend. What's that?
Damage? What what damage? What are we talking
about? You mean the damage that's happening because
of what you started?
I mean, think about how insane that is
to argue the damage they're causing is it
that's what they're using, the bombing in response
to your actions that you told us was
preemptive.
Look at what they're doing in our their
legal response to our actions. It's the only
way you can frame that. In Iran. Imagine
a year from now. So that had to
happen. Obviously Imagine a hypothetical year from now
where they're continuing to legally respond to our
actions. We're aware of Israeli intentions and understood
what that would mean for us, and we
had to be prepared to act. Okay. This
become this is now the real part. Obviously,
we were aware of Israeli intentions. Obviously, we
are aware that Israel is belligerent and was
gonna attack them without justification, so we had
to do something. Because if we didn't, they
might bomb us out. And then because they
might bomb us because of Israel, we might
there be they're there for I mean, I
don't even know how you continue through that
without laughing. Or the argument that where it
comes to
is that you gave them the justification for
a preemptive attack.
Right? Didn't you just say that Israel was
going to bomb them? And that that means
that based on your own logic that they
can then bomb you first? Isn't that the
Bethlehem doctrine? Isn't that the preemptive attack? Except
in this dynamic, you were actually going to
bomb them. And so that you're literally saying
that their legal action,
whether because of what you've done first or
that before that, because of your preemptive justification,
either way you look at it was justified
in your mind.
But because that they know that, well, now
we have to attack because
they're have a justification for it. But that
turns into because we have to attack, we're
justified
based on their legal I mean, you could
it's this it goes in layers on layers.
At the end of the day, it all
comes down to they have the right to
do what they have right to they have
a right to do what they might do,
and we don't. But because they might do
it, we have to act first, which then
makes us somehow justified.
I mean, guys, this is just beyond the
pale. I've never seen I mean, again, I
think it's because they're lost.
And understood what that would mean for us,
and we had to be prepared to act
as a result of it. But this had
to happen no matter what.
So that had to happen. Obviously, we were
aware of Israeli intentions and understood what that
would mean for us, and we had to
be prepared to act as a result of
it. Mhmm. But this had to happen no
matter what. Oh, did it?
Maybe maybe because you're forced to, because you
don't control your government or your country.
That may make sense. Maybe that's what he's
actually meaning.
Here is Rubio
asked oh, and and this is oh, so
I'm sorry. So I I've framed that wrong.
The last one was a continuation of the
first meeting because it was the purple tie.
The blue tie is the this is the
next day. This is today. And I find
this one more that one was revealing too,
but this is revealing for a different reason.
Now the conversation has changed quite a bit.
Right? The more more the Pentagon, all the
information's come out, and I think now they're
scrambling because everyone sees for sees them for
what they really are doing right now.
Here's how he responds to this, and I
think he just you tell me what you
think. I think he looks completely scattered.
Well, I wanna just clarify what you said.
I wanna clarify what you said because you
said does not say clarifying. But you said
I would give that No. But you have
to read if you're gonna read the whole
thing Your quote is about, we knew that
there was gonna be an Israeli action. We
knew that would precipitate precipitate attack. Yeah. No.
I understand. But listen. Alright. We got let
me understand. That's what that But I had
a very specific question from that gentleman. Right?
The president said the president said Hold on
one second. I asked him force Israelis. Okay.
But let me answer because this is my
press conference. Sure. Okay.
The you asked me I was asked a
very specific question. So you guys can be
rep misrepresented, but I was asked this very
specific question yesterday. The bottom line is this.
We the president determined we were not gonna
get hit first. It's that simple, guys. We
are not gonna put Americans through So he
just he just skipped right past the question
because what he's saying is yes.
And that meant that we might get attacked.
So we're not gonna let that happen. See
what I just what I just said. So
the illegal situation that started it, which ends
up being you might be attacked, you think
gives you legal justification to act first?
How does that even possibly make sense? He
must know that's not true. I I again,
I I take it back. He knows that's
not true.
There's no way around that.
You just said Israel might attack and he
called you on it. And you're like, well,
Kim and and the question, just move on.
And then you just get lurch over the
top of the question and go, look, no
matter what, we were not gonna let ourselves
get attacked. Okay. You might there might even
be Americans that go, you know what? I
agree with that. Because I don't care about
anything else. Law doesn't matter. Just make sure
we don't get okay. Even if Israel starts
it, we then support them after that. It's
ridiculous.
But you have to understand that what you're
literally saying is their their illegal actions drove
a response which would have been legal, and
that might have affected us. Therefore, we can
bomb the country who the only legal response
in the whole conversation.
The response would be to bomb Israel if
you were gonna respond because they're the one
breaking the law. But nope. Because you're not
in control.
In harm's way. If you tell the president
of The United States that if we don't
go first, we're gonna have more people killed
and more people injured, the president's going to
go first. Oh, well, okay. Again, now, I
may be reading too much into some of
these things. So consider for yourself.
But if you're Rubio and you're watching what's
happening and you're not dumb in in the
sense of, you know, like, you're not you
you understand.
And right now, you're watching where this is
going and how you're the one kind of
on the stage and it's, you know, I
I think about what he just said again
right here. We are not gonna put Americans'
troops in harm's way. If you tell the
president of The United States If you tell
the president,
who do you think he means? Who? Who's
tell who's telling him? Intelligence, maybe? I don't
know. Maybe somebody else.
Well, guys, we are not gonna put Americans'
troops in harm's way. If you tell the
president of The United States that if we
don't go first, we're gonna have more people
killed and more people injured. Okay. So if
you tell him we we don't go first,
something bad will happen.
This is how you play
Trump. There's only two options, mister Trump, and
you have to go first, bad stuff. But
if we go last, other things. And he
goes, well, the the the first one, clearly.
Oh, you're so smart. You know everything. That
is his ego, I think, is played every
day. Now, who do you think he's talking
about? The only anomaly in the conversation not
anomaly. The only element giving that information.
He just told you that was Israel in
the beginning of this press conference yesterday.
So what he's saying is Israel told Trump,
if we don't do something right now, Americans
will die. Of course, you could take that
as Netanyahu threatened to kill Americans or by
default, through his actions, create that situation. The
point comes down to he's not gonna allow
it to happen. So if you tell Trump
that, here's what Trump does. He may be,
in fact, telling you what just happened. Either
way, what he just broke down for you
is a reactive response based on a claim,
not facts, not evidence. Now where we are
today shows you that the claim is, in
fact, not true.
That's where we are. The president's going to
go first. That's what he did. That's what
the president will always do. He will Of
course he will. The president will lurch out
and do something reactive and emotional because that's
who he is.
And then, I guess, scramble to just make
that what makes sense. That's what they all
do.
So here's this guy says, secretary Rubio is
crushing all these fake news reporters. It's awesome.
And it's just one of these guy you'll
see him pop up there. It's just the
same old now oh, look. He I think
he went up, like, 70,000 followers today. Big
surprise. 384,000
followers. It's just a blind whatever Trump says
support kinda account. I just posted this. You'll
see it pop up later. But it's just
I mean, that's not what happened. Even supporters
are gonna he's flustered. He clearly is, you
know, not making his up, but but supporters
are like, man, he d showed them if
they had or all the people he mentioned.
So here is Johnson. Speaker Johnson asked con
if congress, asked if congress needs to authorize
war against Iran. He said the president's acting
well within his authority. It's not a declaration
of war. It's not required in in defensive
design.
We we already went through this. He knows
what he's doing.
You do. I mean, literally, or in fact,
going to war, whether it's a declaring
or bombing. It's the same point.
The reality is you have to justify this.
There has to be justification.
There has to be legal reality. And so
all he's saying is we don't need to
go through the legal reality because it's defense.
It's because it's defensive. Well, what you just
did there, like I keep showing you, is
if it's defensive, then that requires
the the rather than War Powers Act would
require an imminent attack. So if it's defensive,
then the only other two options are congress
authorization of use military force. That's it. There
is no other point here. What they're doing
is tricking people that don't know what they're
talking about.
Brandon says, so let's check this math on
this. The war that they started because they
fear that Israel might start it instead is
defensive.
He's making my point. Same thing. That's just
dumb. And anybody who's honest is gonna see
that. We're reaching levels of BS previously thought
impossible. I agree. I'm not even familiar with
Brandon's work. I just it's just that is
the correct point. Edward Dowd calls this out.
We're this is, Netanyahu and Hannity.
The reason
that we had to act now is because
they were after we hit their nuclear
sites and their ballistic missiles broken, you'd think
they learned a lesson,
but they didn't because they're unreformable.
They're
totally
fanatic
about this, about the goal of destroying America.
Oh, really? I mean, okay. This is just
narrative. It's rhetoric.
In a in in in an act like,
in real world sense, that's not what I
see. In fact, that's not even what I
hear when you talk to Iranians. I've talked
to people backpacked to the area. It's just
not the case. But the Iranian government has
a very, very clear reason to hate the
US government. And over and over, over the
years, have made it clear what they mean
when they say that
is the government.
Sort of like Hamas will even update their
own charter that says, look, we're talking about
Israel's government Zionism because, I mean, you you
could all call them liars. Sure. Maybe they
are. But you can't keep pretending like it's
that odd. It's just not the case. So
they started building new sites,
new places, underground bunkers. Oh, did they? Well,
I think Trump just said a week ago
it was obliterated, and the IAEA just confirmed
they don't have an ability to enrich it.
But I guess Netanyahu knows better even though
he's lied every time he takes breath. That
would make their ballistic missile program and their
atomic bomb program
immune within months.
Months. Months, I guess. Months. Even though
it's not even technically
possible.
No action was taken now. No action could
be taken in the future. And then they
could target America. They could blackmail America. You
see? So if we don't do something now,
even though it's not immediate, that in the
future, at some point, we can't define, they
may be able to do something they've never
done. Therefore, we're justified. No. You're not.
I mean, guys, this is just bad. But
guess what? Israel and Netanyahu have been doing
this as far as long as I've been
covering this. The same old thing. The same
old rigmarole. But guess what? Now people call
it out.
I'm so glad to see this. Edward Dowd
says, Rubio, earlier today, said we had to
get involved in the attack on Iran because
Israel was going to strike without us. Now
Netanyahu on Hannity, this was, yesterday,
says they struck Iran to save America from
being blackmailed.
Oops.
They those two things don't line up. And
he says, this is just like the AI
circle jerk of Ponzi Finance. If it doesn't
make sense be it doesn't make sense because
it's not supposed to make any sense. I
actually agree with that in some ways. That's
one of the possibilities that logically makes sense
to me, that they're putting out multiple narratives
to just muddy the waters. So nobody really
knows what's happening. And you can call them
a liar, but nobody cares because there's no
accountability because Congress doesn't do anything.
I just either way you look at it,
guys,
you you could prove to yourself that this
is not what he said. So one of
them is lying to you in regard to
Trump, versus Netanyahu.
But here's the funniest part. So this is
today. You just saw what they all said
from from war, from Rubio to Hegset. It's
basically saying Israel forced our hand. Right up
until today, by the way, he reiterated that.
Here's what Trump said today.
Mister president, did Israel force your hand to
launch these strikes against Iran? Did that not
pull The United States into this war? Now
in case it's too low, just it's kinda
low on the podcast,
they asked point blank that Israel force your
hand.
No. No.
Personally, I just don't think Trump's capable of
admitting that.
Right? I mean, no. It's all me. Even
though we're calling him a criminal, even though
it's illegal actions and he must know they're
illegal, his answer is no. I did it.
It's me. I'm the one. I'm responsible because
I'm the best.
It's perfect. Perfectly describes who he is. No.
I might have And did Israel force your
hand to launch these strikes against Iran? Did
that not pull The United States into this
war? No. I might have forced their hand.
You see, we were having negotiations with these
lunatics,
and it was my opinion that they were
gonna attack first. They were going to attack.
If we didn't do it, they were going
to attack first. I felt strongly about that.
I mean, because you have to understand,
there's nothing that makes that make sense.
I mean, it's certainly possible. But if you
look at every narrative we've gotten, all the
evidence at hand, even what Trump said before,
what Rubio said, what all of them pointed
out, what it appears to me is that
Trump also now heard the reality of that
or also became or rather maybe he knew
it was hiding from you. That's also considered
a consider, but is now just made it
about himself.
The narrative where it was, look, we had
to do this because Israel's threatening us. We
had to do the the thing everyone's criticizing.
But now Trump doubles down and says, no.
I kinda forced them to do it
because I thought this was gonna happen. Well,
Rubio said it's because Israel's gonna fight attack
first.
Either way, guys,
by what Trump just said, because we already
went through it, he just made it the
legal argument that what they did was a
crime.
Preemptive.
Right? Defend your did they there's no imminent
threat. He just felt they might attack first.
That's what he just said. So by that
definition, you would require congressional approval.
See how crazy why why are the media
all over this? Why isn't everybody going, oh
my god. He just admitted it right there.
Put him in jail. Why isn't congress beginning
impeachment?
Because none of them are actually against this,
in my opinion.
And we have
great negotiators, great people, people that do this
race. That's that's the two p that's,
Kushner and
and Whitcough. And they're not. I mean, I
just I don't even think they present that
well, to be honest. I mean, actually, Kushner
is is more like an Obama style. Right?
But in a sense of just, like, presenting
calmly and whatever. But at the end of
the day, it's clear where their allegiance lies,
guys. Successfully
and have done it all their lives very
successful. And,
based on the way the negotiation
was going, I think they were gonna attack
first.
And There's nothing to indicate that. So by
what do you mean, Trump? By okay. Here's
two things to add to this. Here's how
I know he's lying.
It's been admitted they planned this a week
ago.
Like, before the a week before
that happened.
So if you thought they were gonna attack,
why did it take a week? Couldn't they
have attacked you in that week time frame?
But on top of that, it's also the
reality. Hold on real quick.
They were gonna attack first,
and
I didn't want that to happen.
So if any Oswald, one more thing I
was gonna say. So the the because there's
contradictory points of what they're saying. One of
the most obvious being the what he laid
out. But overall, that if you think they're
going to attack first, but yet you planned
it ahead of time, it doesn't really line
up. But there was one other point. I'll
it'll come to me. Let me keep going.
Based on the way the negotiation
was going, I think they were gonna attack
first,
and
I didn't want that to happen.
So if anything, I might have forced Israel's
hand.
That's Israel. Israel was ready and we were
ready, and we've we've had a
a very, very
powerful impact because
virtually everything they have has been knocked out
now.
Not really as far as I can tell.
We'll get to some some of the follow-up
actions. But either way, I mean, the at
the end of the day, he's basically taking
the claim for the thing that the whole
world is calling a crime.
That's crazy. Now, again, that's either because he's
all about hubris and narcissism or he's being
told to take the credit. He I mean,
that's what Israel wanted in the first place.
They wanted them to take the first step
so that they would be their responsibility like
they did last time as Israel backs away
and lets them bomb. It's what they do.
So as Aramate says, Trump is directly contradicting
his own secretary of state and top congressional
allies.
On Monday, they all claimed that The US
had to strike Iran first because they knew
Israel was about to strike.
And that Iran and by the way, that's
what Israel said.
Israel, Netanyahu just told you they bombed to
protect The United States. It doesn't make any
sense. They're all lying to you is the
reality, if you actually understand the the main
point.
And it says that they all claimed The
U the, The US had to strike Iran
first because they knew that Israel was about
to strike and that Iran's retaliation would endanger
US troops. Now Trump is claiming he had
to strike because Iran was gonna attack first.
Every which way you look at this, it
proves to you they're not they're not meeting
the necessities of either the War Powers Act
or congressional approval.
Of course, here's Dan Bongino.
Goes off on the do the doomers and
black pillars attacking Trump
over his and his team over their decision
to strike Iran. The very same person who
told you it was such a bad idea
to go to war with Iran.
These people just have no no integrity.
How could you possibly make that argument and
that you're doomers and black pillars
for claiming this is a problem? Black pill
I mean, think about what that means. These
are the people the people who called us
black pillars for telling you this would happen
before the election came.
President Trump and his team are privy to
a dataset of intelligence that we are not.
That's always the argument. Sure. Maybe there's something
we don't know that makes it all make
sense.
That is that is the last vestige of
the desperate.
The idea that somehow we don't know this,
we don't like it, and I don't like
what this is Trump, you know, promised this.
He's doing this. It's the opposite of what
he said, but, you know, maybe there's a
reason.
That's it. That's what he's doing. Maybe they
know something we don't. Maybe there's a reason.
That's the way that's the only way to
say that. Maybe they have a justification that
we don't see. Maybe. Sure. So your argument
is we should always give the government who's
lied to us entire lives the benefit of
the doubt the same government that you, Bongino,
were telling us we should never trust ten
seconds ago?
What a complete coward. And he goes on
to say, I'm not anymore. But having lied
through for years, he can't tell you everything.
I know that was obvious. Yeah. You mean
the position that you ran screaming from because
you actually had to hold people accountable and
you weren't able to, weren't willing to? And
he says, apparently, it isn't. Some people out
there, it's the media space, think they're better
informed. That's not what we're talking about, man.
That's a dumb way to frame that. Some
of them do. My argument is we demand
the truth. Not that I happen to know
more than per I don't know what they're
privy to, but I am privy to the
constitution and the reality that no matter what
intelligence they're looking at, what they did was
a crime. Now, I guess, save for the
reality that you could prove there was a
literally,
like, bombs about to fall in the country.
But if that was the case, they would
have already shown you that. Because that would
be that would that would prove they were
right. If they could prove there was an
actual imminent attack, then they would have been
right to do that. But they were not,
because that's not what happened. And they've all,
in varying lying ways, told you examples that
make that case.
How pathetic.
Max Blumenthal points out the Trump administration has
deployed the ICC indicted war criminal Benjamin Netanyahu
to The US media to explain
the war on Iran and their main bash
of support among Fox News boomers.
You're bringing in Netanyahu to speak in English
to the American audience about a war that
they're criticizing.
I mean, it's just you can't this can't
be more clear. And the way that Hannity
does this, mister softball, you know, they just
give it's just you clearly have an agenda.
You're not a journalist if you bring them
on and go, we both agree you're right.
Let's just let's explain them all you're right,
which is basically what he's doing. It's pretty
sad.
A a lifetime worth of study in my
view.
And I wanna ask you this. You know,
there are people that say, well, the prime
minister of Israel dragged Donald Trump into it.
And then and as somebody that's been friends
with him People meaning, you know, the secretary
of defense or war, excuse me, or, like,
the people in congress. You know? Random people
out there throw all these claims out. You
talk you're talking about people in the gang
of eight. People who have insight into the
intelligence came out and said, Israel made us
do this, including Marco Rubio and Hegseth.
And that's how you started Hegseth. You started
as you know, some people dumb out there
might make this argument.
Trump's cabinet said that.
So stupid. But this is how they trick
people.
A a lifetime worth of study in my
view.
And I wanna ask you this. You know,
there are people that say, well, the prime
minister of Israel dragged Donald Trump into it.
And and as somebody that's been friends with
him over thirty years, nobody drags Donald Trump
into anything, number one, but I wanna get
your reaction to that.
Well, you're right. So as Steve pointed out,
you could pause it right there, and it
seems as if he's saying, that's correct, sir.
That is what happened.
And maybe he meant it that way because
there is quite a pause right there, but
I'll play it through. And he basically says
that's that you're right. Trump wouldn't be cowed.
But, guys, we've seen this happen. He's been
cowed by Israel countless times. He's been cowed
by plenty of examples, but so too can
anybody in that position. So that's why it's
a dishonest thing to say. That's why you
know they're gaslighting you for Israel. And Hannity
seems to be taking Israel's side in this.
Because you could easily
side with the idea that Trump had to
do what he had to do. And that
would be you taking, basically, Trump's side of
the argument. Even and and because Trump is
owning, saying, I'm the one responsible. But instead,
Hannity goes to Israel and says, we know
you're probably correct.
Think about what that shows you as somebody
who's a diehard Trump, like, supporter, which is
Hannity.
Nobody drags Donald Trump into anything, number one,
but I wanna get your reaction to that.
Well, you're right.
I mean, that's that's ridiculous.
Donald Trump is the strongest leader in the
world.
He does what he thinks is right for
America.
He does also what he thinks is right
for future generations.
Right. Like a surrogate program. Right? Like like
turning back on the banning of dude food
dyes. Like, leaning in to making glyphosate in
in in national imperative. Right? Right?
Like creating wars he promised he wouldn't do.
Like increasing cost of the government. Like, growing
the government. All the things he promised he
wouldn't do. Right? Because he knows what's best
for America.
And frankly,
we're partners in that effort because I've devoted
my life,
to securing
the life of the one and only Jewish
state.
And, believe me, it's been a struggle. I've
known the pangs of war. I lost a
brother in war,
and, in battle. I myself fought terrorism was
wounded in liberating,
hostages from a hijacked plane.
What do you mean is, you know, usually
fighting children and and killing innocent people?
I held,
I held a fellow soldier in my arms,
when I was 18, and he died in
my arms.
I know the cost of war, but I
know sometimes that war is necessary to protect
us from the people who would destroy us.
And that's what free societies have to understand.
God. It's so gross. I mean, it is
such a bastardization
of any kind of concept of a free
society. He's literally trying to get you to
justify
war mongering, controlling authoritarianism
as the reason for free societies.
That is what Trump and the rest of
them want you to believe. Peace through strength.
It's gross.
Now there's a point we made about strength,
not violence, not kinetic action, but strength. What
they're doing is peace through bombing and war.
That's not ever in history the reality.
And that guy that that very dangerous person
staring at you right there, he's the one
making this happen.
So here is another example of him on
Hannity talking about
the,
the the nuke part again, but
as what Trump ultimately said to him in
the first place. I I I think oh,
yeah. There was one part that said he
wanted to hear, and then we'll go to
the next case.
Because he he just
you know, I met him, in Mar A
Lago. You may remember this because I think
you live close by, and I saw you
at that time. Oh, Oh, yeah. That that
Epstein was there too. Right? Right before it
was re election. Okay?
And or before his he was inaugurated
the second time.
And we met we met in Mar A
Lago.
And the first thing that
Donald Trump said to me,
he said, you know, we have to prevent
Iran from getting nukes.
As simple as that.
He said that because he saw that as
a clear and present danger
to the security and well-being of The United
States. To have a regime like that so
fanatic
that it just just defines itself
of by destroying America, exporting revolution, exporting terrorism,
exporting the worst
Islamist fanaticism that attacks Arabs, attacks Israeli. What
he's describing is quite literally The US Israeli
foreign policy dynamic.
Funding and arming of ISIS and Al Qaeda
or Hamas or any number of groups that
they have tried to manipulate. The Kurds, which
aren't all the it's not all evil terrorism,
but using Kurds to manipulate them or any
any grouping to try
to terrorism.
But using Kurds to manipulate them or any
any grouping to try to use them against
other countries. Some of them are alarmingly dangerous,
like Mohammed bin Salman has admitted from Saudi
Arabia that they literally trained and used these
groups, and many of them they lost control
of. He said that years ago.
That's what he's describing.
Right? The idea that this stuff literally stems
from Zionism.
Right? That is the whole point in regard
to terrorism
in general.
I think the Zionists have used it and
brought it, in fact, to the area. Terrorism
as we know it today, the planting of
bombs in marketplaces and so on and so
forth, was, in fact, introduced into the Middle
East by the Zionists in the twenties.
But the net result of of Zionist,
terrorism and and violence in the in the
first third of the twentieth century has brought
forth,
to my mind, the the anomaly, the
horrific and
unacceptable status in The Middle East today of
the state of Israel, which is in fact
an armed garrison state, which now exports more
arms and distributes violence all around the world,
vastly disproportionate to its
disproportionate to its size. I mean, in that
respect, I think it's a it's it's a
horrible cycle of of violence. But in it
all, I think the Palestinian is the victim.
It's no question about that.
It attacks Americans, it attacks every
just defines itself,
by destroying America, exporting revolution, exporting terrorism,
exporting the worst Islamist fanaticism that attacks Arabs,
attacks Israelis, attacks Americans, attacks everyone Where?
Everyone inside. Where? They just fired now their
Where? What? We're oh, what you're talking about,
by the way, ballistic. You're talking about the
responses to your bombings. That's what they're doing.
That's what he just they're bombing everybody everywhere.
Well, they're bombing the locations that you can
quite literally prove are belligerents in the war.
Locations that have helped them fuel and bomb
and conduct and that's you can prove it.
That's been art there's been plenty of coverage
of this now. Every location that Iran has
been bombing, including Tel Aviv, which I'll get
to in a second, it's even Kurukau, backs
up is a legitimate target because of where
their location is. And they do that on
purpose. I'll play it in a second. But
realize what he's saying. But, go, let's just
let's get past all of that. Where are
other examples other than your what you just
framed as problems being hit? They're legally
allowed responses to your unjustified actions.
What other points are we making here? What
other examples?
Right? Show me where that's taking place in
the world. A regime like that's so fanatic
that it just just defines itself,
by destroying America. Where?
Where exactly has America been destroyed by Iran?
Anybody?
A single example. Exporting revolution.
Where?
Revolution?
What are we talking about? Exporting revolution? Are
you talking about the locations that have pushed
back against their illegal governments? On top of
that, they're not Iranian. I mean, he's probably
talking about the Houthis or the Hezbollah because
that's ultimately the point. These are groups Houthis
in Yemen were overtaken by Saudi Arabia. Hadi
was an illegal dictator put there by The
United States. I don't know where are you
guys now? Last time I checked, he was
living in Saudi Arabia in Riyadh, and they
claimed he was the rightful leader. Like, they
said, Guaido or anybody else they lie about.
And those groups fight back. I just made
the point about the Houthis and the war
in the regard
to Gaza.
How are you gonna call them terrorists while
they effectively stop your ships without hurting anybody,
without stealing anything? And you still call them
terrorists. You see what I'm saying? Or or
Hezbollah, for example, is a very respected political
organization in Lebanon in regard to Lebanese people.
And it doesn't mean they don't do bad
things. Ever group, I think. Especially when you're
involved in politics and war, clearly gonna be
involved in some things that I would disagree
with. But the point
is they are not exporting revolution. These are
groups responding to your illegal cover. Like, well,
how about Iraq or Syria? That's what they're
talking about. You guys illegally occupy their countries
like Lebanon too, and they respond and you
call them terrorists. That's what Iraq was. That
was Iran. That was Soleimani.
It's the same cycle everywhere.
Then you could pivot and go, How about
we look at Israel and The United States?
How about we look at all the countries
they were illegally bombing and occupying? And the
countries say that. The world says that. And
they're still killing people. Iraq and Syria. You
could talk about Lebanon. You could talk about
Bolivia. You could talk about every one of
them they're bombing or occupying.
But that's okay, apparently.
And you compare the two and it's like
a thousand to one. But, yeah, but but
bad guy Iran.
This is my point.
Because we do this, because you follow-up, because
you share this, because other people are growing
aware, it's not working anymore because they've always
lied to you. Exporting terrorism,
exporting the worst
Islamist fanaticism that attacks Arabs, attacks Israelis, attacks
Americans, attacks everyone everyone inside. They just fired
now their Yeah. Ballistic missiles. Yep. In response
legally to your illegal actions.
So
talking about Iran terrorism, right? Here here is
something that always comes up. Now, you could
look up I think there's New York Times
articles. There's been endless coverage over the years.
The lie that Iran was involved with nine
eleven because that remember was the entire point
Israel push it immediately
and it and it fell apart even back
then. They tried to make it about Iran.
They said Iran was ultimately responsible.
And it got called out. It got exposed.
It's completely
it it has no merit.
And even the New York Times care like,
years later, followed up and said that why
this had no merit and it wasn't true.
So since that point, it very much tapered
off. But you occasionally get the argument when
it comes necessary, I think, because Israel drives
that. And that's like right here.
Steve Daines says the Iranian regime is the
world's leading state sponsor of terrorism. See my
point? Like, that's just such an embarrassing claim.
You could argue they sponsor terrorism, but to
continually which I disagree with just because I
can't prove it.
But you to argue they're the leading state
sponsor of terrorism with what we just discussed
and every group you can prove The US
is involved with and the very few that
you could point to Iran being associated with
and all of them being simply the Houthis,
Hezbollah, and that's all they're pointing to.
And and and now every day you talk
about ISIS fighting them, around ISIS bombing them.
I mean, here's watch. I'll bring up I'll
type in ISIS and one of them
if it pops up oh, I used to.
Let's see.
Let's do this. Just give you one example.
And I've I've I've talked about this for
so long over the years,
about how every single time it seems
that Israel ends up in one of these
positions. It's funny how suddenly ISIS bombs Iran.
You know, even though they're supposed to be
the leading state sponsor of terrorism. It's always
when
oh, here's a good a good, interview by
the way, in weaponizing immigration and the unfolding
of the Zionist globalist plan that was with
Vanessa Bailey.
Let's see.
Well, there's an example of them working with
ISIS in Gaza, by the way.
Oh, wait. Now I'm just I just lost
my what were you looking for again?
Oh, that's right. So, the ISIS and and
and Israel,
it
might not pop up soon. They're in there.
Because I've done a lot of shows re
over the last somewhat a year with with
the point about
ISIS being oh, look at that. Now you
can't even see the broadcast? Isn't that funny?
Why is that, Twitter? Why are you blocking
the broadcast? It's supposed to be there forever.
Israel continues bombing Gaza, and then, you know,
aims to swap ISIS link gangs for Hamas.
Yeah. I wonder why.
Oh, right here.
Now it's well, again, the Syria point, that's
well, I'll make that a second actually. You
won't take it too long. There was there
was plenty of examples over the years where
I make the case that every time it
happens,
when Israel gets in this position, you suddenly
start to see ISIS bomb Iran.
Doesn't make any sense.
Here it is. Perfect. Finally got it. Oh,
and I'll read this one too since we're
following up on something. Oh, yeah. Of course,
Emily Schrader, who's been caught lying repeatedly, and
this was a lie too, by the way,
comes out and says, if they're the world's
biggest or I said, if there's the world's
biggest state sponsor of terrorism, how does it
make sense that The US Israeli
Israel's most prominent terrorist group, ISIS, just attacked
them?
Tellingly, exactly when Israel needed them to. I
know you won't respond since you're a coward.
Here's what it said back in 2024. Same
point because it happened again later.
How many exact how many times exactly do
we need to see ISIS attack the enemies
of Israel at peak
at the peak apostille rhetoric before we truly
understand what we're seeing? ISIS claims responsibility for
the deadliest attack in Iran since 1979.
That was 2024.
So wait a minute. If ISIS is the
leading terrorist group we talk about and they're
fighting Iran, How can you ever argue that
they're the leading state sponsor of terror? You
see how dumb this gets? But it's always
like this, guys. It's always like this.
Meaning, you approve it.
So they chant death through America and call
big Satan. Well, yeah. They're talking about the
government, and they made it clear all over
the place. If, if you take the time
to actually look, you'll find that most Iranians
have a weirdly positive view of most Americans.
Now the government's a different conversation. I've often
wondered why that makes sense, but I think
maybe because we're all starting to realize that
our governments don't represent us. I'd hope so.
But here's what Montana Libertarian Party says.
Pop pop quiz.
Steve Danes,
who is the,
in the senate, of course, because all the
most misinformed and uninformed people seem to be
in government. Who attacked The United States on
09/11? He asked.
And because they're saying Iran's involved, is the
point. And it said or rather that they're
terrorists, but this is always the case that
Iran was somehow involved in nine eleven. And
he says, who attacked us? Was it, a,
Sunni Islamist, Al Qaeda,
a known enemy of the Shiites in Iran,
which is easily provable, same point with Hamas,
by the way, in regard to ISIS,
or, b, Shi'ite Islamists in Iran,
Hezbollah or the Houthis?
Hint, The US is now backing the group
in Syria at Israel's request. Yep.
And that is the terrorist regime that they're
supporting in Syria that Trump just told you
he was responsible for putting there even though
it was Israel, but he's doing the same
thing he's doing today. All I can say
is that the president of Syria, who I
essentially put there, is doing a phenomenal job.
He's a rough guy.
Yeah. And by the meaning terrorist, by the
way. Because as you can see, they had
a $10,000,000 war a bounty on him, him,
and he's a bad guy. And they told
you he was Jelani. He was killing children
and beheading people
quite literally.
Right? Here here's Scott Horton telling you, don't
forget. He killed troops he killed US troops
in Iraq. Right? He pledged his allegiance to
the butchers of the New York City. He
he, evolved with systematic
kidnapping, rape, forced marriage. You know? But he's
against Hezbollah so bad. We'll support him.
That's how clear this is.
And so the point, if you missed it,
that
Iran,
they're ideologically
enemies of Al Qaeda and ISIS,
both of which are funded and supported Al
Qaeda and ISIS by the US government Israel.
The Shiite Islamist in Iran, Hezbollah and Houthis,
are are adversaries
of
both the Sunnis as well as in in
larger sense, but not in every world personal
sense, Shiites in, there's rather,
the Al Qaeda and
the Sunni
Wahhabist,
Saudi Arabian religious mindset,
ideologically.
So we have to understand when they call
them the largest state sponsor of terrorism and
you Al Qaeda and ISIS are literally their
enemies, you have to see how desperate that
is. That's because that's what Israel has always
wanted, always claimed. It's not true.
Now, White House comes out today because they're
desperate and says, The revolution that began in
1776
has not ended. Just trying to tap into
just one of the core motivational points to
their team, Republicans, Team Smart Players. We're we're
revolutioning against the team. Even though they're the
power, somehow, they're still revolting against the power.
Right? It's just lazy. And, at the end
of the day, it's because we're liberty and
freedom and, you know, America first, none of
which is happening. And it says, the revolution
that began then, it still continues because the
flame of liberty and independence still burns in
the hearts of every American patriot. Well, I
I would actually agree,
but most of the people who are actually
of that mind are either being tricked by
you thinking that's what's happening or aware that
you're actually the problem. And it says, end
our future really bigger, brighter,
better, bolder.
I guess it's a new chip flavor or
something. It's a new a new soda flavor.
At the end of the day, guys, the
point
is that that's
right now. Right? So you're telling me that
the revolution for freedom and liberty is bombing
Iran?
I mean, there's only one way to take
that. If this is what's happening, then that's
a part of it. Right? So this is
the revolution for free. Who are we revolting
against?
You're in power. You're the government. Who are
we who are we revolting against for the
patriots and freedom? And, you know, this is
just all flash, no substance.
They just hope you blindly go, yay. And
that's what the swords of the world do.
Red flashing, man. Holy crap. Oh my God.
He just changed the world. Okay. Well, compare
these two points.
So which is it? Right? Did Israel essentially
blackmail you with nuclear weapons?
Right? To to force the so called peace
president do a war, one that he still
defends and promotes, by the way?
Or is this Trump continuing the American Revolution?
Right? But but in Iran, because, you know,
America first. I mean, you can't look at
those two things and make them make sense.
If, like, if they are blackmailing you into
action, then we're not in the midst of
a revolution for freedom, clearly.
But you can work that out for yourself.
Now, of course, to what's actually happening post
what we've covered,
it's it's it's the same story every time,
guys. Netanyahu comes out yesterday and says, you
see the difference.
The tyrants of Tehran targets civilians. We target
the tyrants of Tehran to protect civilians. It's
the same exact kind of formulaic response they
did with Hamas, they did with everybody else,
and they've been caught lying constantly.
They've been cheering the targeting of civilians. Their
own people say they're all guilty. They're all
terrorists. Amalek.
That's what he says, and we'll get to
that. We'll get to the reality where the
US government is quite literally telling their troops
that they're in Armageddon, that they're fighting for
the end times.
That's what Israel is doing to this country.
We'll come to that.
Same formula formulaic lies over and over. But
you the difference about what he's pointing to,
interestingly enough,
is in Tel Aviv. Right? Look at they
bombed this civilian area. Well, that's quite interesting.
Let's actually do go to that real quick,
and we'll come back to that.
Oh, wait. Did I is it all the
way over here?
Oh, really? Did I end with that? Well,
let's see. Hold on. Where are we gonna
let's just, jump to that now.
Right? So
we're talking about,
which one did I close?
They target the bad guys. The bad guys,
they're fighting only target civilians. Right?
And, again, he's talking he state he's making
the argument that because they bombed Tel Aviv.
Right? Well, Glenn Greenwald just had a really
great question and and surprised the way John
Kirchow, or how do you pronounce his last
name, how he answered.
It's pretty important to hear this. Because and,
in fact, I'll even bring this up. I
believe this will come up.
Let's see.
Yes. Perfect.
And this is Haraz. Does the presence of
the IDF's headquarters in Tel Aviv endanger the
city's population?
The answer is yes.
This is a large city version of human
shields, and that's even what they'll argue. So
check this check this back and forth out,
and I think it'll make it clear for
yourself.
Astounding to me that somebody like Mike Pence
or so many other people
who lied to the public continuously,
led our country into disastrous wars, one after
the next, are now just speaking as though
none of it ever happened. It would be
like as if a journalist, I published eight
or nine different fraudulent stories with fake quotes
and fake sources. And then the next day,
I woke up and said, oh, I know
I did those things in the past, but
I think I should still have credibility for
you to listen to my reporting today even
though I did all of that. Exactly. And
that's happening all over the place. That's happening
with every politician. It's happening on left and
right of the paradigm.
It's happening with the current administration. Trump, they
just lie every day. Israel gets caught lying
every day, and it just carries over as
if that doesn't change from the media's perspective,
both mainstream alternative and mainstream. And that shows
you the larger game, all sides of it.
He's right.
The other point I wanna make is I
wanna ask Jonathan because I honestly, it is
very, very difficult. I have Really quickly before
he makes the coin. May keep an eye
on the I forgot her name. The, you
know, the fake Iranian res resistance person who
literally gets paid by the US government right
in the bottom right corner. She literally gets
paid by the state department. How dumb is
that? Cheering on the Shah that nobody in
Iran wants. Watch the way she responds when
he asked this question.
Jonathan, because I honestly, it is very, very
difficult, I have to confess, not just for
me, but for the world as as the
polls show, to listen to an Israeli official
in an Israeli accent give lectures on the
need to have compassion for civilians after everything
we just watched Israel do, vaporizing tens of
thousands of people in Gaza all throughout the
Middle East attacking countries. But since he is
here, I do wanna ask him.
Jonathan, there's a lot of reports in mainstream
western press about how the IDF
has built its primary military and intelligence structures,
not just within key residential areas in Tel
Aviv, but also underneath. Is it true that
the IDF has built
key military and intelligence targets within residential areas
of Tel Aviv and beneath residential targets in
Tel Aviv the way that the western media
has continuously reported. Is that actually true?
Now my opinion is that she in the
bottom right, but the the way her this
is my opinion. The way her face looks
is that she's ready to go. You're such
a dishonest liar. You're anti semite. Like, the
same response because that's what people do in
these situations on Piers Morgan and anywhere else.
Because the argument is, that's can't be because
that's not what they do. Well, it's the
truth,
which you're gonna hear him acknowledge. But it's
just funny to me. First of all, she
responded like, oh my god. I can't believe
you're saying that. And then look at her
face, like, getting ready for him to go,
you're such a liar. Now what happens?
Yeah. I can give a relatively short and
plain answer to it.
Surprising question. I've read some of your reporting,
and you seem like an informed guy.
But,
yes, the IDF headquarters
referred to as the Kiria
is indeed located in Tel Aviv.
It is surrounded by civilian buildings.
And inside
the headquarter,
not underneath civilians, but underneath the headquarter itself
is a bunker,
which is not a revolutionary
concept of militaries.
And that bunker is a few stories below
ground. It it its name is indeed
the Zion Citadel,
and, that is where some of the, Israeli
officers, generals conduct military operations from. I suppose
some of the strikes, if not all of
the strikes that are ongoing
in Iran today are managed from there.
Okay. So literally just told you that what
is happening, ongoing strikes are managed from that
location, meaning they are literally the key
military location.
Right? Because headquarters. And on top of the
fact that he just told you that everything
we're doing is stemmed from that place. Well,
I think it has an image, but if
it doesn't, it's it's still the same point.
I thought it did. Oh, here it is.
So we'll get this is from the defense
ministry. So this is in the center of
their metropolis.
And he just he tries to make it
somehow different because it's, like, a couple layers
down. Guys, the point is you built this
underneath your center point of your of your
civilian location.
I mean, there's just if you wanna just
be dishonest and go it's not the same
thing, you're ridiculous, and everyone's gonna laugh at
you, but they're gonna do it.
But this is Harrettes telling you that's the
reality. And he just told you the same
thing. Literally cited the exact same point. Built
under that. So when Netanyahu stands there and
goes, look at how they target civilians,
you know they're lying because the whole point
is John just
said, and he was moments ago,
a representative of the Israeli government,
he was in the IDF,
said that is a justifiable target. He just
told you that's a legal target because it
is.
So, the only difference is they choose to
build it inside of a location where residents
So, how is that different than anything they're
claiming on the other side? The only difference
is you've never been able to prove that
in regard to post October 7 in Gaza.
That's the reality. They people claim that, but
the facts have never been there. And, in
fact, what they keep claiming is shown to
be false, sort of like claiming they bombed
a a guy with a rocket launcher turned
out to be a young kid with a
bike. Over and over, this happens. And they
knew that when they lied about it. In
fact, it was shown that they even altered
the way the image looked to make it
seem that way. But this is just how
they operate, guys.
I've covered all this. I don't expect you
to blindly believe me about those last parts
because I didn't include the source. But it
is the truth, and we've covered it relentlessly
on this show.
The bottom line is that they are dishonest,
and they are using these people as a
shield and then using those people's deaths as
the justification to blame Iran for being a
bad guy.
So
Marcus o' dissent points or Marcus d'Ossent points
out, yes, Iran hit Israel many times. They
did. And it's their right and duty to
their citizens to defend their country and sovereignty.
Now, whatever you think about it, they had
the legal right to respond to them. Not
to defend because it's not defense. It's a
response. But they had that legal right, as
everyone's acknowledged. It's or other than governments, by
the way. But it says, however, they didn't
do the following.
They did not prevent ambulances from reaching pea
injured people. They did not shoot the press.
They did not burn children on purpose. In
fact, I've not seen children burned at all.
They did not shoot emergency medical workers. They
did not shoot bomb or burns surrounding civilians.
They did not snipe babies in their heads.
They did not maim people indiscriminately for sport.
They did not roll over anyone with a
tank. They did not slaughter whole generations of
civilians. They did not starve Israelis.
They did not shut their electric, gas, or
water off. They did not turn off communications.
Now, remember, this that, you could argue they
might have. And I made that point. But
at the same time, there's examples of every
past war, and I think that you've seen
a recent one where they attack their infrastructure
and then blame them for why it went
down. But even Iran has admitted, in some
cases, they do restrict these things because we
just showed you. And Israel's admitted they use
them to to propagandize, to to announce what
they need to be doing across the streets,
to manipulate their information flow. I mean, Trump
has done similar things. So has Biden or
any before. You can see where they ultimately
try to stop. Like with Russia, oh, they're
trying to influence you with information, so they
censor Russia or press TV. Same point, guys.
They did they did not stop food supplies.
They did not rape anyone. The point is,
obviously, you've caught on. These are all things
that Israel did and continues to do. They
did not arrest Israeli children. They did not
spit on anyone. They did not storm synagogues.
They did not drop bombs intentionally on displaced
people. They did not make jokes of hungry,
injured, and murdered children on TikTok. And the
list goes on. This was just this was
a just response.
So here are more examples of what they're
bombing. And this has only gotten worse because
it seems that Trump has sort of authorized
just on this relentless.
The carpet bombing is what we're talking about.
Trump has basically said this is gonna continue
to get worse.
And as Max says, having failed on its
original objectives, the Israeli backed Trump administration is
now waging a war of terror. Today, today,
the third, The United States carry out a
series of strikes on airports in Iran. The
guys, you can verify this stuff for yourself.
You can look at the imagery. You can
back up the fact. They're and they're telling
you this. The state department put out a
list of things that they bombed.
In the first photo shared by the law
the local journalist, a destroyed passenger plane is
reportedly shown
possibly in Iran Air or Airbus a three
one nine at the and this is the
Bushehr Airport we just talked about. The video
captures the aftermath of the strikes
at the Mehrabad Airport in Tehran.
Point.
They're targeting these things, guys. I mean, let's
not let's be real. We know they've actually
targeted an Iranian civilian airliner in the past,
and nothing ever happened. I think Reagan said,
he'll never apologize for my country. Well, they
murdered those people.
Mensho Sint points out the first six US
soldiers to die in the conflict between The
US and Israel
Iran
dynamic were killed by a direct Iranian strike
on a makeshift operation center
at
a civilian port
in Kuwait.
Remember remember all of them? Remember, Israeli media
reported this going, thank god it was only
Americans that got killed.
That's what they reported. Saying, don't worry. It
was only Americans. Essentially, that's how that was
framed.
Think about the response in The United States
when it's everything's about whether or not the
Israelis are affected, but in Israeli media, it's
like, thank god. It was only Americans.
And so but the point was, in that
location, they were it's a civilian you they're
claiming they bomb civilians, but they're bombing your
military groups that are there. Or whether it's
Tel Aviv or, in this case, it's now
been shown that they had US soldiers in
a civilian location.
So is that the the it's always
every accusation is is, an admission kind of
a thing. And it says, yes. US soldiers
conducting military operations from a civilian port. It's
not new. It's been I mean, we've said
this from the very beginning, but the point
is that you can prove it right now.
And Israel strikes Iranian leadership again
while they're meeting to choose the successor for
the government. And all this really shows you,
it's not about whether you if they're in
the midst of warfare, you know, the point
at the end of the day is what
Trump argued and still says, limited strikes for
negotiations or that, ultimately, this was about trying
to stop this from getting worse. Well, then
why are you continually bombing them and making
it more complicated? Well, in the sense of
if if and on top of that, by
the way, and I think I actually have
this.
Oh, that's the one. It's not. That's the
oh, that's the video. That's right. But the
point is that ultimately, we as I actually,
I know I reported earlier to you. I
I did already. The point about the yeah.
I already reported it. That the CIA told
them that there if they bomb Khomeini
or any of the leadership currently, that that
would only likely amount to more radicals making
it in. So in every possible way, this
is making it worse, and they were already
told that.
And my point is that's what Israel wants.
They want nuclear fallout. They want these people
to get crazy so they can just keep
going. See, we told you even though it
was never happening until they started this. And
overall, they're bombing them while they're trying to
find new leadership because they want this to
continue. This will never stop if they do
this. Trump was the one saying some of
these people might have been the ones to
take power, but then Israel bombed him.
See how clear this is? Here's a clip
from Rubio.
Oh, wait. Hold on. Damn it. Did I
miss that already too?
I just don't know how I did this
today. I missed a bunch of these apparently.
Alright. Here we go.
Point I would make is, and I said
this yesterday and I repeat, what's about to
you
know, you're about to see you know, we're
gonna unleash Cheng on these people in the
next few hours and days. You're gonna really
begin to perceive a change in the scope
and in the intensity of these attacks.
Great. So it very rapidly with less than
twenty four hours went from, we're trying to
walk this back from chaos. We're trying to
stop them from making World War three to
it's gonna only get worse. Get ready.
Why? Because we won't I mean, well, Ron
responded. That's their legal right. Well, then they
responded again in regard Israel, US.
Because their child is apparently and just can't
be the point is that they want this
to be a war. Don't they we I
think we all see that. They're not even
trying to argue that anymore, really.
But that's been acknowledged by the fact that
there is no effort to make this slow
down.
They've been clear. We wanna stop them forever,
which is always what we've been telling you
because Israel said, I've been prominent Netanyahu. I've
been telling you for forty years.
Right?
As is trying on these people in the
next few hours and days, you're gonna really
begin to perceive a change in the scope
and in the intensity of these attacks. Maybe
beyond Iran. Like, that's the scope and the
intensity. Why would that be the case? As
frankly, the two most powerful air forces in
the world take apart this terroristic regime They
didn't. Defang it and take away its ability
to threaten its neighbors. Great. So now it's
not see, this is it's gone from nukes
to just weapons to, you know, just they
exist. It's a danger. Right? They have they're
dangerous. Take their bangs off. We gotta stop
them from being a danger and threatening people.
Where is that happening?
What are they gonna point to? I he's
already done it. Look at where they've just
been bombing.
Because you were they're responding. It's legal.
There is no evidence to make any of
what they're saying make sense if you're just
honest with yourself.
Or hide behind a zone of immunity that
allows them to develop their nuclear ambitions. Oh,
yeah. I love that. So now what you're
admitting is, well, they're hiding what they're they're
meeting their allowances.
But because that's happening, they're secretly behind it.
Do we prove that. It's not what's happening.
It's the same as you know, we what
comes to mind is that same clip we
played you. I think Elizabeth Newman
basically saying that we see them something building,
talking about MAGA Republicans really, but we just
don't know how to stop it. And what
they say in that meeting is that, look,
they're not breaking the rules. They're within their
constitutional rights, but they know they're they're they
know we're watching them. So, they operate just
beneath So, basically, what you're saying is they
operate legally.
They do enact and say things within their
constitutional rights. And that's them tricking you, secretly
doing the thing within their right? No, that
means nothing's happening. That That means what they're
doing is legally allowed and you don't like
it. So, the argument is change the rights
because we don't like what they're doing.
Same exact thing here for Iran.
Right? It's it's it's it's they exist and,
therefore, we can't allow them to be there
because, ultimately, that's a problem. It's not that
they're you know, what they're doing, which is
not breaking the law, which is they're not
saying that, but that's the reality, is ultimately
the problem. Just being static there.
It's just disgusting, guys. The they're they're driving
in the world.
Radical, clerical led,
regime
cannot be ever allowed to have nuclear weapons.
We saw what they were willing to do
to their own people. They were willing to
slaughter their own people in the streets.
I just that's literally not what happened.
They lied about the number, first of all.
It came from Israeli intelligence. The reality of
the number that were killed is debatable. And
even they've admitted to it, thousands, that they'll
tell you and plenty of verifiable resources on
the ground, the unions that originally supported the
protest have all come out and told you
those are masked agents from foreign countries.
All public. You can look it up for
yourself.
And those people are the ones that's Max
Blumenthal showing you, burning police in the streets,
breaking down breaking into government buildings and burning
them down. What do you think Trump would
do if that was happening? What do you
think Trump would do? Somebody looks bad at
an ICE agent, they shoot them. I mean,
I shouldn't say it like that, but that's
essentially where we are. But they look bad
at them and they say, you you know,
you saying mean words is enough for me
to tackle you the ground. You raise your
voice, I erase your voice. Right?
But we're we're gonna say that they're not
allowed to respond to people that are burning
police in the streets that we know are
working for your guy. I mean,
that's not to say that they're not protesters
out there who are doing things they're allowed
to do and Iran's shooting them for any
number of reasons. I've never argued the opposite.
But I want proof,
evidence at the very least of anything you're
claiming and they don't have it.
And on top of that, what has The
US been doing my entire life to every
possible thing moving in front of it? Controlling,
suppressing,
occupying.
Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, and on and on and
on. And what are they doing right now
in Gaza? They're murdering everybody. But, yeah, let
Rubio tell you why the bad guys are
the ones that we're pointing to, and not
the ones that you're
listening to.
Imagine what they would do to us. Imagine
what they would do to others. Alright. Just
imagine. What's a hypothetical thing? Whatever makes you
scared enough to listen to my stupidity, just
imagine that. And that's what's happening.
Under president Trump, that will never ever happen.
Alright? God.
It's just weird as hell, man.
Nope.
Last part, genuinely.
Here is the alarmingly religious aspect of this
as Netanyahu Branko writes is very open about
it, because he is. Most Americans have no
idea they're being pulled into this war because
of a random passage in the Bible that
Israeli religious fanatics are obsessed with. It's much
more than that, but more to get into
right now, but I've talked about it plenty
of times. Most US media dutifully don't report
this. Now realize this is
religious Zionism.
And it's not just about Judaism, by the
way. That's the whole point. But the reality
is the this is driving
the the Israeli government.
And if you haven't caught on by now,
the US government.
They're open about it. Ascent and Hegseth, and,
I mean, they're these are these are open
religious scientists. They tell you, as Hegseth was
just talking about I I might even grab
it, actually.
Let's see.
There it is.
Oh, excuse me. Not this was in the
past, but mentioned recently again, talking about the
idea of potentially building a third Jewish temple
on the Temple Mount, which is a huge
discussion. That's what they argue will bring on
the end times.
There's a lot again. It's if you don't
understand it, look into it. There's much I'm
trying to make it quick. The point is
there's a whole discussion about why that comes
around. At the Al Aqsa Mosque is what's
there now.
The all of this swirls around this. The
the red calf they genetically manipulated into being
they're they're creating this. Even though the reality
of the prophecy is that god creates, it's
not Netanyahu and his team. But here we
are, and that's why it's a bastardization of
Judaism while they're abusing people who think that.
Chris says
Netanyahu on Iran war. We need to this
week or read this week's Torah portion. Remember
what Amalek did to you.
You realize how everyone points this out. They
point to the beginning. They point to him
saying that, guys, the ICC and ICJ use
that statement to be one of the main
reasons what they're doing is justified the intention
is there. Genocide.
Because that is a passage from the Bible
that justifies
killing everything. Donkeys, not a stone upon a
stone is the term is the phrase.
And and even though he knows we're calling
that out and even though he denies that
that's the reality, here he comes out on
the second, speaks to his people on camera,
and says, remember what Amalek did to you.
We remember and we act.
He says, now go and smite Amalek and
utterly destroy all that we all that they
have and spare them not, but slay both
man and woman, infant and suckling ox, and
sheep and camel and ass. That is what
it says.
And they've cited that. And look at what
we're seeing. It's a designated landscape of barely
one stone, another stone. So here he is
telling you that this is what we're involved
in.
We're in the middle of a religious war.
Right? Okay. Well, maybe you think that's just
his side. Well, guess what? US troops are
reporting to their commanders that they're framing this
war as god's plan.
As first reported by independent journalist Jonathan Larson,
who here is this is his his, report
here.
A US combat unit commander told noncommissioned officers
that the war
on Iran is part of God's divine plan.
How terrifying is that? And I'm not talking
about that we shouldn't believe that God has
a plan. It's that these monsters are using
the idea of some religious prophecy to drive
what should be what they claim is American
democracy and will of the American people.
Not what's happening, but that's insane. And it
says allegedly claiming president Donald Trump was anointed
by Jesus.
I keep telling you this, guys. That's because
Israel and many people in that think some
well, they at least they there's plenty of
Zionist elements that frame Trump as a prophet,
whether they believe it or not and are
just using him as you can decide.
But there are American Zionists Christian Zionists that
argue he is a prophet.
And now he's being told the military is
being told he's been appointed by Jesus to
ignite Armageddon.
The complaint, which is real, filed with the
Military Religious Freedom Foundation, which remember, guys, isn't
we're supposed to have a separation.
There's not supposed to be, like, religion in
schools or that's not how this is supposed
to work. I mean, even though forever we've,
you know, in God we trust and so
on, but we're we pretend. And so here
we have a there's religious military religious freedom
foundation. And one of the it says, is
one of the more than a 110
110
logged complaints
within forty eight hours. A 110 military personnel
complained about how insane this is from 40
units across 30 different installations.
Complaints including Christians, a Muslim, and a Jew
have requested anonymity
to avoid retaliation
because they know where we are right now.
The Pentagon has yet to respond.
I assist where we are.
Now and now just an immediate cover at
the same point, and this is actually one
of the complaints
received by the military found religious freedom foundation
alongside 40 of different you know, same point,
30 installations,
which claims the military leaders are briefing their
troops that Donald Trump is commanded by God
to strike Iran and expedite expedite.
You see the difference?
Expedite
Armageddon.
Think about this, guys. Not not avoid Armageddon,
but expedite.
Bring about the end times.
This is not some conspiracy theory. This is
quite literally
reported by
the
Military Religious Freedom Foundation from a 110 different
reports.
You can read it all here. Check it
all for yourself.
Advocacy groups report commanders given similar messages at
more than 30 installations
at every branch of the military.
How are we not seeing that we have
been overtaken?
China has condemned what's going on. Who knows
if they'll step in to stop it? They
did they don't seem to do much about
Gaza.
The Kurds,
apparently, are now being called up by Donald
Trump. Seems they're abs exceptionally desperate.
Every time something Kurds have been played in
every field of war, it seems, and they
seem to just always jump at the opportunity
to maybe have their own country, and the
US government plays them every single time. Come
fight for us in Iran. We promise to
give you your state. He's like, no. We
just abandoned you in favor of Al Qaeda
in Syria, but this time is different. Trust
me, bro, as BreadCircuses
points out.
Lastly,
just a cherry on top of the insulting
pie we're dealing with here, The US has
imposed sanctions
on the Rwandan army. Oh, and by the
way, just since we're, you know, talking about
Rwanda,
don't forget that Israel was quite literally involved
with their genocide,
beginning, during, and after. It's it's documented publicly
in very many number of international documents, but
we'll lie about
it today. Yes, they were. And, Bosnia too.
It's not because we wanted simple, proven reality.
Anyway, The US has imposed sanctions on the
Rwandan army
and four of its senior commanders
simply accusing them of fueling the conflict
in their neighboring
Republic Of Congo.
I mean, I get get well, get a
load of that. The US government is sanctioning
Rwandan people, whether justified or not, because they're
fueling a conflict in their neighboring country.
Well, wow. If that's not the most insane
argument you mean unlike your 75 examples of
that all across the world, including your neighbors?
But, you know, I digress.
It's just it's ridiculous where we are, guys.
It's absolutely insane. And it's not just because
what they're doing is wrong, that's that's the
leading part of it. It's because I've never
seen this, not just obvious, but, like, self
evident.
And we just keeps
goosestepping forward, apparently.
Now you know my opinion. I'm that's what
I'm what I'm doing is an effort to
stop that, an effort to bring awareness so
we can actually bring about some kind of
positive change. I believe we're closer than ever,
truly, to that because of how crazy this
is.
I just hope we can keep fighting for
it because whether or not we should keep
fighting for it. Right? Because we believe in
it. Because that's what we care about. But
at the end of the day, if we
are close, if we're watching this kind of
breakdown in front of us, we have an
opportunity to make something real.
Like, you know, maybe whether you believe it
was at one point or not. Like, we
have these we we we I mean, we
we could genuinely strike out in a direction
that goes away from government if we actually
saw where we are, but I doubt that's
gonna happen. But I just want people to
realize that we have an opportunity
within all this chaos
and to fight for that change.
Thank you for tuning in.
I love you all. As always,
question everything.
Come to your own conclusions.
Stay vigilant.
People in America do make money off of
war, and they make a lot of money
off of war. So they wanted the music
to keep going. They don't want the music
to stop. Right. And as soon as, you
know, Biden was serious about getting out of
Afghanistan and did get us out of Afghanistan,
we were still spending $50,000,000,000
a year in Afghanistan
after twenty years.
As soon as he got us out of
there, guess what? We start spending an average
of $50,000,000,000
a year in Ukraine.
And now that that's winding down, guess what?
This thing in Iran is heating up. And
regardless of whether our troops engage directly,
those are all American munitions.
And those stocks
are you know, the people who run those
companies
are excited
that and then now, you know, as soon
as we deplete our stockpiles, we're gonna have
to fill them back up. Like, it's not
like they're holding a bunch of inventory, but
the US government does. Those are ostensibly, those
are weapons that are supposed to defend us,
that are now being used, and so they
know we'll buy them back.
And I I have this theory that there's
about $50,000,000,000
a year of things that need to get
blown up and replaced
in order for that segment of the economy
to stay healthy.