Israel
is the reason for this war. America does
not wanna fight this war for Israel. Let's
go. Come on. Let's go.
America
America the South in suns and dark,
the war for Israel. Your inability
to name that, show you that it's meant
as
leaders.
This
is wrong. No.
And nobody wants to fight for
Israel.
A reminder to all our
Kavanaugh,
please stand up as a
marine. Stand up
for a nerve.
No one
wants to fight
for Israel.
And
Yeah.
Oh
my
god.
Oh my god. No one
wants to fight
for Israel.
His hand. His hand.
His
hand.
Okay.
And ends in objective reality.
Through our journey from there to here,
we find one another
and ourselves.
And as the next twenty four hours
breaks free from our last,
we gaze onward in reflection of the day.
Welcome to the daily wrap up.
Wednesday, 03/04/2026.
Thank you for tuning in today.
Continuing to follow-up on the chaos that is
what our government is doing to the world.
That that's a hard clip to watch.
I mean, I I'm actually
I'd watched that earlier, and and it I
feel I feel like it
The point is that clip is pretty insane
where we are today.
You're watching a a for the podcast, especially,
you're watching a a a marine stand up
in front of Congress and simply speak his
mind. And because he is not allowed to
say that we we don't wanna fight for
Israel, he gets violently dragged out of the
room and, of course, has his arm broken
as they try to drag him out.
I just think it speaks for itself with
where we are. I mean, how so you're
supporting the marines, supporting the troops. It's all
about the military. It's all about you know,
neither side of our government cares about what
they pretend to care about, in my opinion.
And we're seeing that right now. And so
it's worth understanding why that clip is so
important and why that is not a small
sentiment.
There's plenty of ridiculous people out there really
trying to push
what you know, claiming that most people support
this.
You can look at polls. I feel like
there's something on my face. That's why I
keep doing that. There there's plenty of polls
out there you can find that
will show you, you know, 81%
Republicans support this. But, of course, you can
I like I've always said, polls have value,
but they're never the full picture?
And if you look, most of the ones
we're pointing to are funded by Israeli platforms
or platforms we've discussed that are very clearly
one-sided
or literally
questionnaires handed to Republicans or or specific groups
of certain Republicans.
We'll go over this. The point is that
it's objective that people are not okay with
this, guys. That's obvious.
If you're seeing major Republicans
from Tucker to you know, you could go
down the list of people we've discussed over
the years, even people like Marjorie Taylor Greene,
who are standing up and saying this. How
can we even argue that this is somehow
a, you know, small democrat conspiracy or whatever
they're trying to frame it as? It just
shows you how desperate they are. They're flailing.
Both sides of the paradigm, in fact. And
today, there's a very important development around the
Kurds, which we were already pointing
to. Thank to Brent and Circus, in fact,
who point brought that to my attention and
and the reality being that this is now
not only showing you that this is a
regime change war as it always has been,
but that they're continuing to use one of
their proxies.
Funny how well, that works out when they're
blaming they're claiming Iran's using proxies all over
the world when really they have allies. And
if they did, if you could prove, which
I've never seen, that they are using proxies,
well, how would that be any different than
what the US government is doing? And the
point being that they have funded these groups
a long time ago. And I'm not talking
about Iraq. We're gonna get into a point
about Iraq. But the important
reality that you can find
the the your evidence showing that the CIA
was funding them and they were doing this
and and secretly arming them weeks ago, if
not much longer, if we understand how this
is really going and what the Kurds have
always been used for and how many times
they've been double crossed by the US government.
But that shows you something, doesn't it? So
that means that it wasn't a preempt or
rather an imminent attack, which that has already
been walked back by some of them anyway,
which is insane to me because then that
proves, as Trump says, it was preemptive. It
was, oh, we attack first, then there you
go. It was not a legal attack. There's
we'll get into it yet again if you
missed yesterday's show about the reality of the
legalities.
There's only three possible options. You can get
congressional approval. You can get an authorization, like
an authorization for use of military force, or
you can act under the War Powers Act,
which declares an absolute
necessity of an imminent attack, forces, or kinetic
bombings. That's it.
Not
even a threat of maybe they might do
something tomorrow. That's not the same point, guys,
and this has been very clearly outlined. But
But even my point is that even if
that was the case they are just told
you, well, we attack first. So that's not
even on the table anymore.
They've they've they've sailed this down. I mean,
I think part of it I'm not sold
on whether or not this is them just
floundering
or that this is actually a whole of
government effort to drag us into a world
where that's the way this stuff operates. There's
an important part we're gonna get to today,
an article well written about in fact, from
from Russian media, or rather just a Russian
like a a site, it looks like, like
a almost like a blogger, like a Substack
kinda thing, making an argument about why this
is gonna drag us into a place in
the world that we all see coming, that
we don't wanna be in.
We're gonna come some quick points to start
about Epstein, which
you won't be surprised to find out that
the the DOJ is, like, not even quietly
been removing more Epstein files while this has
been happening. We saw that while we were
looking straight at it, and now they've continued
to do it even more. This shows you
where we are. And and on top of
that, more allegations about Donald Trump trying to
manipulate Massey into stopping from doing what he's
doing or last or at least that it
was happening before we got here. We heard
allegations of Kash Patel threatening him about the
same point. How do we ignore all of
this stuff?
I mean, the reality of what that shows
you, with Lebanon being attacked, by the way,
and that's continuing, so
too is all the rest. But I'm gonna
include that today so we don't miss that
this is not a focal
point in only one direction. We'll we'll gonna
we'll gonna rehash, but just not even close
to as much as yesterday. But it's really
important as this conversation evolves to make sure
we understand the legalities around what's going on.
And as I just said, how what they're
claiming already shows you that they're breaking the
law
and how important it is, the imminent argument,
how they're now telling you, as as Tom
Cotton stupidly argued, it's been an imminent forever
forty seven years.
Honestly, that to me is just because how
else do you because they know it has
to be imminent to meet that demand. That's
the whole point.
But, oops, Donald Trump already said it wasn't.
Okay. So, now, you have to find a
way to stupidly mold that into
whatever makes it you know, and it's not
about even meeting legal justification because I doubt
this will ever go before court. It's about
convincing the public, at least enough of them
that can scream loud enough. And so that's
a talking point. Well, it's been eminent for
forty seven years. Who cares if the word
eminent has a very specific definition that's not
met by that claim?
But we'll, of course, continue to talk about
how they're all lying and contradicting each other
about about Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio, Donald Trump.
And and the the current part of this
goes a lot deeper than you think. And
that's gonna be a section right in the
middle about where this continues to evolve around,
like, the global proxy element that really is
what The US and Israel have been doing
our entire lives. And guess what? The two
chief ones among them, ISIS and Al Qaeda.
I know that still seems to shock some
people, but guys, you quite literally proved this,
and I've done this a thousand times on
this show. You could point to documentaries like
James Corbett or Ben Swan or plenty of
others that have absolute documented, nail to the
wall evidence, and most people know this already.
And all we're really arguing with are people
that don't care about the truth and just
wanna shout down things for their team. That's
where I think most of this has gotten
to.
And the evolution of this and we're gonna
make a point in regard to the changing
of the international order. We're gonna talk about
the authorization for use of military force, Iraq
2002, and how this plays a factor in
this conversation today on how, you know,
the Iraq well,
also because Iraq is
part of this right now, because of the
elements that are related to Iran, PMU, for
example, or the idea of what they're doing
in Iraq, and the idea of how this
went down under George Bush and how it
relates to where we are today.
It's striking
at how very clear it is. And then
the repealing of that act
with the National Defense Authorization Act in 2026
and what that includes
basically removes the justification
for how they've done this in the past
for going after Iran or Iran proxies in
Iraq. You see, what's gonna change, in my
opinion, is this is going they're gonna evolve
the way that this they don't need that
justification anymore. It's just because Trump says or
whatever they try to mold this into. But
it's interesting that happened, and we'll get into
whether that was by design or not. I
do think that's very relevant today.
And more updates around the general point of,
you know, the allegations straight up her moose,
you know, the the different points around all
of that, the the bombings on both sides
of the conversation, to what degree, what we
can prove, you know, and just kinda going
through all of this. And and, again, the
IAEA and the different allegations they're spinning. I
mean, there's people who are spiraling
because not even their own team are taking
their arguments at this point. And, I mean,
for literally asking Grok one of their own
things that will say they're lying or looking
directly from the source material, from the UN,
the IEA, and what they're saying. Either way
you look at it, they're going, that's just
not true. When somehow, these people still get,
you know, the same people we always talk
about, keep lying and keep getting reaching, continue
to share. And it's just it's all about
keeping a certain frame in a certain group.
I I think the idea of a majority
support has long since gone away. That's my
opinion.
But plenty more we're gonna get into in
general. The school bombing, which I didn't make
immediately in the beginning of the show because
I think it was already very clear from
the beginning. But what happened, you'll find very
revealing. And this is about Hegseth in a
briefing,
basically showing the map of where they bombed
and a journalist simply going, well, look here
after the fact. On the map, here's the
dot where that school is, and it just
happens to be right in an area where
they just told you they bombed. So even
if you wanna pretend it was an accident,
fine. They're incompetent. They're still responsible.
And plenty more we're gonna get through today.
So let's start with a shout out to
the or just an acknowledgment of the the
clip here.
This is the clip we were sharing first.
This is, former marine sergeant Brian McGinnis
stood up in a in congress to say
that we don't wanna fight a war for
with Iran for Israel while being removed from
with with Capitol Police. And
you're gonna see more of this. You're gonna
see more and more and more of these
kind of actions where you have I don't
know. And I'm not hoping for this, especially
not what I'm about to say, but people
who light themselves on fire to make a
point because this is how extreme and crazy
were this is the point we're at.
Some people rationalize why that just might make
the difference because they're you know, in in
a way, what we what I mean, this
is I'm not ever speaking to that kind
of action as somehow,
like,
clarity of mind. I tend I mean, I
just think that's a very extreme action. But
if you wanna if you wanna be honest
about it, that takes a lot of selfless
courage to do something like that. And I'm
absolutely not advocating for it for anybody because
I don't I think all those people would
have been better used to continue to fight
the problem. But just think about what it
takes to make that decision. And aside from
just being a lunatic, which I'm sure exists
in that conversation, of people that are consciously
deciding that this is so bad and so
real that this might just
tip the needle to change those people's lives
and sacrificing their own. My point is that
that's the point, the level it's gone to.
And they're having things like this where the
people who would otherwise be on an ideological
side are just like, all of this is
wrong. Where we're going is wrong. We need
to speak up. And people are literally standing
up in the middle of this and having
their arms broken just to make sure you
hear that that's what people think. Because if
you watch the media,
if you watch mainstream alternative,
you get an absolutely
ridiculous cartoon level of what they want you
to think everyone's talking about, and it's just
not true. And I mean, like, everything today.
Everything from how many people support it, from
what everybody thinks, to what actually happened. I
mean, the whole damn thing. Yeah. Guys, let's
remember. This is the post truth world. That
was what they discussed. The Bilderberg Meeting, it's
not a joke. It's all very real, obviously
documented, and then moment to moment, you watch
this develop. You watch them turn this into
a situation where the truth is a secondary
factor
as long as the partisans are talking, which
is the entire conversation.
Glenn points something out, and I wanted to
include this to start because I I just
thought this was you know, we mentioned this
article, but the way he framed this and
just to think about this going through the
conversation.
And this is the exact same thing, by
the way, from the other side of the
game.
The COVID nineteen illusion the the chaos that
there was that both well, really both sides,
but primarily the Biden administration
showed you that. It's a it's a it's
a cult dynamic or whatever you wanna call
it. Maybe you don't think that term is
it's too extreme maybe, but it is that
kind of idea. It's an ideological adherence.
The truth is secondary for a lot of
people in this game, and that's why Trump
comes out and says, you know, not after,
by the way, Laura Loomer comes out and
goes, I showed Tucker everything, or rather, I
showed Trump everything you said, Tucker, like she's
eight years old. I mean, how embarrassing.
But guess what? Right after she spoke to
Trump and apparently just was like tattletale,
talker said mean things about you that happened
to be true,
Donald Trump comes out and goes, talker bad,
Megyn Kelly bad because they criticize the Iran
action. Like clockwork, man. Think about how crazy
it is that that that person is influencing
Trump. But that's what I think happened. You
can decide. But we've already seen it. Walking
down the steps together from Air Force One,
that woman is an objectively vile and absurdly
stupid person, and here we are. The bottom
line, though, is that he said MAGA is
Trump because what they're saying is make America
great again is not what you're doing. And
his answer is not I am making America
great again. His answer is that's not the
point. It's what I say.
That's I mean, you can't make a better
example of what Trump is. That encapsulates
exactly who he is in every possible way.
And maybe you think he's gonna do good
for the country. Maybe you still think that
who cares if he's narcissistic and most of
them are. I'm not even saying you have
to just acknowledge.
That's an objectively obvious point. MAGA is Trump
is saying that whatever I do is making
America great again. That's not the reality. If
he does something bad, suddenly that's MAGA because
that's what that would mean. Words have meaning.
And he says as if, as Trump again
has said, because this is, I think, the
third time he said that, MAGA means nothing
more than frailty to whatever Trump believes when
he wakes up,
even as we've seen many times, if it's
the exact opposite of what he said he
believed the day before,
then it is, by definition,
a cult,
not a political movement.
That's why Marjorie Taylor Greene, as he argues,
has said there's a fundamental difference between MAGA,
a cult of personality and leader worship, and
America first, which I agree with. And well,
in the sense of MAGA meaning the Republican
team sports. But if you wanna say America
first, make America great again, these are all
just sentiments, guys. And the people who actually
believe in doing that, not just whatever Trump
says it is. Right? Like, Maha, same point.
This is why I was adamant about this
in the other show because I believe there
are most of the MAGA movement who genuinely
want or just Republicans or conservatives who want
this country to be better. And we may
maybe we disagree on what that might even
look like. Maybe they have disgusting opinions in
my view. It's different though than arguing that
they believe that whatever he does is the
right path versus what embodying what they want
to happen.
You see, there's a very big difference there.
And at the end of the day, that
means if you believe that most people don't
care about accomplishing what they wanted, well, that's
just I mean, think about what a crazy
reality that is. And maybe that's the case,
but I think you can prove that's not
true because of the way they act, because
of a thousand different things. So just just
at least for sake of conversation, accepting that
most people genuinely want the things that are
being sold, well, then that means that most
of them, even if we disagree because he's
not doing what he promised, are unhappy with
him. I mean, this is like two plus
two equals four, guys. It's obvious. And so
here we are, where it's obvious that he's
simply so frustrated that he's going, shut up.
If you don't are not my team, then
you're not a part of this team anymore.
And many of them are going, okay.
Now here is what they're doing in regard
to Epstein. And this is from a this
is a a report from what he was
doing before, but it just continues to show
you how desperate they are.
Sinister Trump plot, as The Daily Beast even
frames it, to steal GOP rebels' staff revealed.
This came out yesterday.
The extraordinary lengths President Trump allegedly went, according
to Thomas Massie, to keep his relationship with
Jeffrey Epstein out of the spotlight, which, I
mean, if you can't acknowledge that he dragged
his feet and tried to stop it, come
on, guys. That's just we're supposed to stop
you children. You could argue that maybe he
had a different reason, like, straight here exactly
what I said at the beginning because I'm
always giving you objective stances on all sides.
Maybe he just thought Democrats would lie about
things or, as we've already seen, subjectively
claim an email that says something is proof
that you did something wrong. One is not.
And, hypothetically, maybe he didn't create the law.
He just was friends with a terrible person.
That I mean, that says a lot. All
I'm saying is that that's a valid argument.
Even I would go, yeah. That makes sense.
I disagree.
You know, my opinion. But But all they
ultimately do is just you know, this is
how it tends to go. It's just it
becomes
obvious.
It's like it's like all of a sudden
Trump burns the ball in his office, and
he just goes, Well, it's because they were
all lies. Well, what is an honest person
gonna say? Well, that's suspicious. So this is
where we are, where he didn't give you
that. He just basically tried to drag his
feet. Now they all lie about it. And
he tried to poach
people who worked for Massey to stop that
from happening, from coming out. Massey claims key
members of his team were offered more prestigious
jobs in the Trump administration in an effort
to stall legislation that would have forced the
Department of Justice to release all documents linked
to Jeffrey Epstein. Now remember, this was the
thing they eventually were forced to do anyway,
or at least pretend to to sign the
document, the Epstein Transparency Act, but they were
behind the scenes more than once, we'll talk
about the cash point too, were doing everything
they could to stop it from even happening.
Then it was inevitable,
inevitable, and then so they pretended like it
was always what they were gonna do. It's
just how this goes. Both sides of it,
all politics, anywhere in the world, that's what
I've come accustomed to. I mean, that's what
I've seen. Right? I mean, if you're paying
attention, that's how this operates. And I don't
know if that's the way it has to
be.
I think this is sort of a by
design reality right now where the leading elements
are just very shockingly corrupt and disgusting. Maybe
that's just how all governments are. That's kinda
what I think. But either way, it's created
that circumstance. I'd like to see if we
could change that.
There was a 360
degree pressure campaign
or three sixty pressure. It's, you know, that's
the same point, being all the way around
from the Trump administration to derail to derail
his push for a congressional vote, Massie.
Most notably, Massie recalled multiple instances in which
his staffers were offered administration posts,
like, major jumps in the line. Right? So
now all of a sudden, you're in the
Trump administration. Like, your like, your career that
you just jumped major steps. Right? Or lucrative
private sector roles because guess what, guys? It's
the same damn thing. That's the revolving door
or basically just the same room at this
point that we're talking about. Hey, guys. You
wanna be in the administration of the of
the Trump administration, you know, the political side,
or maybe you wanna go work for Palantir?
Same time. Your choice.
What does that show you? That's just hilarious
to me or alarming.
And it says he told one employee told
the Atlantic he received an offer that would
have doubled his salary just weeks before the
house was set to vote on releasing the
files. Now as he he asked him, Massey
said, did you ever occur did it ever
occur to you that they might be offering
you this job to basically make me less
effective?
The staffer themselves commented saying that's what my
mom said.
Now it says the White House reportedly made
similar overtures to the MAGA aligned women in
Congress
who joined Massie, some to some degree, some
of them, and his Democrat ally, Ro Khanna,
in a spearheading of Epstein effort, including former
Georgia lawmaker Marjorie Taylor Greene, who seems to
have stayed on that line. Right? And then,
they mentioned Nancy Mace, which I completely disagree
with. I think she gave a lot of
lip service. She stood up and had made
some stances that even probably made people uncomfortable,
but then clearly she is on the side
of the team. That's obvious. Whether it's Iran
or Epstein, by the way, because she's towed
the line in plenty of examples. Either way
oh, and then it it mentions Lauren Boebert
as well. Kind of the same thing for
me. The Republican lawmakers broke with the president
and met with Jeffrey Epstein's victims throughout the
summer and fall.
At one point, Boebert was summoned to the
White House Situation Room for a meeting with
Pam Bondi, Kash Patel.
Well, you know why, guys. Walgreen had a
public following out with the president. Now, see,
my point is after that meeting, they all
went back into the Marta Taylor Greene didn't.
I'm not saying support her. I'm not saying
trust her. I'm just saying that's an obvious
reality that she, instead of following back in
line, didn't.
Boebert, the rest, did. You You know? They
had a little come to Jesus meeting. Hey.
Come meet us and let us tell you
why you need to get back in line.
Whatever that did. Whatever it was.
Still, perhaps, no one bore the brunt of
Trump's ire more than Massey, whom the president
has repeatedly labeled a loser, a moron. Trump
is now backing Massey, you know, very intelligent,
you know, well descriptive,
accurate. You know? Because, like, what does that
mean? What is what is he losing at?
What is he dumb about? You know? Those
are just pejorative. That's just to make you
know, he's I hate that person. You should
hate him too. It's based on childish, petty
things, which anybody can see. In fact, the
reality is Massey is far more adherent to
the actual America First mindset than anybody else
I can see. Trump is now backing Massey's
primary challenger because that's not obvious and and
almost, like, manipulative. I mean, I don't think
well, I don't even know.
There's gotta be some kind of a violation
in there where you have the sitting president
funding campaign challengers to somebody in congress.
I actually don't know if that's a crime,
but, please, somebody do some due diligence on
that. I should've done it earlier. How in
the world would that not be some kind
of a violation, a conflict of interest,
a crime?
I don't know. Please, seriously, somebody look into
that and let me know in the chat
if you guys find out. And now, it
says, if the country's saveable this is what
Massey said. If the country's saveable,
I'll win my reelection.
And if it's not, I don't need to
be there.
Interesting.
Now just to be very objective and, you
know, conspiratorial, if you will,
first of all, it's it's a, you know,
it's a binary, and it could be any
there may be other things that could mean,
right, just to be objective. But at the
same time, I I kind of agree with
what he's saying if Massey is genuine. And
so far, he seems to be doing very
consistent and standing by his principles, and I
and I agree with that. I'll support it.
Not in the voting sense, especially not right
now, but I definitely will support what he's
doing. And it says, if the country is
savable, I'll win my reelection.
Right?
So you could argue
well, what I guess what I was gonna
say is that ultimately would make sense if
he was genuine. Right? But I could see
a world in which sort of like the
whole America party or the green and what
she might do, where you could set this
up to where you know he won't win
because APAC and whatever else is just bombing
this whole thing.
And that doesn't necessarily mean that Republicans and
or people don't support him because I don't
believe our elections are even necessarily legitimate today.
And what that would look like was then
Massey would not
go back to congress because he feels this
is all broken and then runs for president.
And you know that would go, oh my
god. He's gonna change everything. Well, and maybe
he would. But I'm very skeptical
about how that always seems to be how
this kinda goes, and then it ends up
being somebody who sorta brings you back into
line. I mean, I've seen this so many
times over the years. Even smaller versions of
it like a Gabbard or others. I mean,
it's guys, this always happens. Bernie Sanders.
So just think about that. And I'm only
saying that to be objective. I'm genuine I
I genuinely, right now, with how long he's
been doing that, I feel positive about where
he seems to be aiming. Because look at
how many people he's irritating and upsetting, but
as always, that very well could just be
the thing they do to get you to
think he's the next candidate. Right? But
it's interesting he said that, so we'll have
to wait and see.
For now, the congressman remains laser focused on
Trump's relationship with America's most notorious pedophile.
While Trump begrudgingly
signed Massey and Connor's Epstein files transparency act
into law last year, 3,000,000 documents happen to
still be withheld, and they've been very clear
that no more is coming. That's just a
straight up crime, by the way, and it's
also the reality that they're, you know, double
crossing your own people. Now it says and
this is what he posted, and I've already
showed you this on the first. PSA, bombing
a country on the other side of the
globe won't make the Epstein files go away
any more than Dow going above 50 thousand
will.
And I guarantee if he continues to be
consistent that he'll follow-up with this and he'll
call them out on the reality that that
Epstein Transparency Act did not allow them to
just stop or to withhold the conversations between
Bondi and Cash Patel, for example, or any
number of things that they have been caught
doing,
least of which or I guess you should
say least of which in addition to is
them continuing to delete files as we speak.
Many of Trump's have got to stop following
the numbers because I think it's already clear.
It was going down every day. I checked
Trump's name. Every day.
So oh, and here was the clip that
I've you've I shared this in the past.
This is,
Massey telling you that Cash Patel before this
was threatening people in his team and say
and to him saying, if you don't play
ball,
I don't know. Let him speak for himself.
And this is all about the Epstein files
as far as I can tell.
Also, I'm gonna I'm gonna say this here
on camera because it's important.
One of Cash Patel's
staff threatened my staff with a criminal investigation
if we didn't
straighten up and play ball.
I was gonna ask you about that, but
since you brought it up And I didn't
I'm bringing it up. Okay. You brought it
up.
And so
as, like, a a criminal investigation
having nothing to do, you said it was
gonna be a fraud. We're gonna investigate one
of your staff for fraud. Right. And he
told And the thing of funny that is
too. Right? Whatever one, we'll pick one. Right?
We'll just but the point is we'll accuse
one of them a fraud if you don't
do what you're told.
That's corruption, obviously. Oh, but, another one of
my staff this.
If you guys don't straighten up, you know,
if you wanna play hardball, if this is
how you wanna play it or something like
that,
this member of your staff is gonna get
criminally investigated for fraud,
a very specific threat.
Speaks volumes and especially with the new reporting,
doesn't it?
I I don't know how much people could
ignore. And as always, my opinion is we're
past that line already.
And I mean, from partisans as well. Now
here's CBS News. The DOJ has been taking
down Epstein files. Here's what remains if you
wanna look into it. It's just it's we've
been all of us have been showing that
since the very first day. Right? And I
said, under this is important to think about
the timing. Right? Under cover of the very
illegal regime change wars
that he swore he'd end.
Right? So over here, he's removing information from
the Epstein files, which was something he promised
that he wouldn't do, or rather he would
release everything. It's most transparent in history. Right?
What a joke.
And and then instead of you know? I
mean, you'd think that if you're doing the
thing you don't want them to see, how
are you gonna cover it with the other
thing you don't want them to see?
That's because I don't think they have a
choice right now, guys.
He's covering this crime of removing Epstein files
with the crime of bombing a country he
told them he'd never bomb, and the regime
changing one he told them he'd never do
anymore. And it says I I wrote, that's
desperation, ladies and gentlemen. They're drowning in it.
And those trying to convince you to ignore
the reality of it all might as well
be violent players on the sinking
Titanic.
Meaning both two things. Right? Just the inevitable
and and just distraction. Right? Just don't think
about what's happening. You know? This is it's
the this is fine meme. That's the little
point. Now quickly on Lebanon, because this
this needs mentioning. It gets so little attention
because I mean, there's so much going on.
During Gaza's genocide, this was happening simultaneously.
And the reality is because it's been going
on even longer in regard to the ceasefire,
follow Craig Murray's work and plenty of others,
They I I forget the number. It was
something like thousands of times.
They violated the ceasefire between Lebanon
with they made an agreement a while back,
and they've never really done much about it.
Israel's bombing here and there, doing what it
wants, encroaching, taking more territory.
No one says a word. Not really. And
so, right now, after this started, Israel has
just kicked off every possible angle because this
is what it's always been about. I mean,
didn't we all tell you this, that we're
honest? This was always the greater Israel expansion,
colonialism, and here we are. The moment this
kicks off, there's things going back at this.
There's actions taking place in Syria. There's actions
taking place in Iraq. I'll show you in
a minute. There's actions taking place in Lebanon.
There's actions taking place in Gaza yet again,
in the West Bank. They're just, like, initiating
everything.
And here we are. Israel has issued
this has happened before, by the way. And
what right do they think they have to
initiate an evacuation order for a foreign country?
Why? Because that's who they are. They believe
they have a right to this. They do
not.
And it's and by the way, they that's
not what they'll say in public.
We'll be called racist for pointing out the
reality of what's happening, even though we're talking
about a government committing a crime. That's how
stupid is that? The reality
is that they are now telling Lebanese people
in the South that they have to move
because of what they're about to do, which
is illegal. There's no justification for it. There's
no declaration of war. It's the same conversation
even from an international level because it's not
the same point for US law in Israel,
but the international dynamic is the same.
Israel's expecting over a million Lebanese people to
occupy their land and destroy their homes.
Expelling. Excuse me. Basically, moving over a million
people up to the north in order to
take their territory. Where's everybody talking about this?
I mean, if this was Iran or anybody,
come on. You you know the same old
re the the same old cycle, guys. Israel
is yet again trying to illegally seize more
Lebanese territory, but don't expect the mainstream media
or the mainstream alternative media to report that
to you. This is all while Israel rains
bombs down on civilians in Lebanon,
but nothing new there, unfortunately.
Here's an example of this. This is posted
today. Israel is raining bombs on civilian homes
in Tir, South Lebanon. Right? So think this,
guys. They're telling them to move away from
the North
at the same moment they're bombing the place
they told them to go. Well, gee,
certainly sounds familiar, doesn't it? Seeing as how
we've reported that same sentence probably 16 times
throughout the Gaza genocide that's still going because
it happened over and over. The very first
week, they bombed the crossing from Egypt while
they were coming across. It just doesn't stop.
And you can prove it all. UN, international
groups, everybody's pointing it out, but you get
the same lying people in politics.
What do you think that means? Why would
they lie at such an obvious moment? Because
they're compromised.
And they are bombing people in a city
that has stood for over four thousand years.
Civilian locations, just like in Iran. We'll get
there in a minute.
Here, the same methods used in Gaza are
being deployed in Southern Lebanon, again, the place
they're being told to move to, to completely
erase any trace of human presence and colonialize
new territory. And if you think that's actually
a hyperbolic statement, might wanna listen to what
the Israeli government's openly saying about Lebanon, what
Ben Gavir and Smotrich will openly discuss. And
that's not some side point. That's not like,
oh, Lindsey Graham said a dumb thing.
Similar point because they're not necessarily the leadership,
but it's different because those two have up
I mean, like, objectively more power collectively than
even Netanyahu at this point, outside of maybe
from, like, an acting point of prime minister.
And that's been discussed by their media because
they have influence over the entire settler movement.
And and, basically, he's being held hostage by
the most radical parts of that government. That's
not to say he's not radical himself.
So the reality
is that they have may or the point
was that that those people are stating, here's
what we're taking in Lebanon.
Here are the maps of what we're gonna
take. Here are the names in Hebrew we're
gonna call those Lebanese territories after we take
them. You've got Daniel Weiss out there saying,
we're gonna build all these settlements, and I've
I've even told Donald Trump.
We get we get gaslit by the same
people telling you they're fighting for freedom and
human rights.
Only hours after reinvading Southern Lebanon, Israeli terrorists
begin posting their own videos of displacing Lebanese
homes.
You see how crazy that is that we
get denied that it's happening, but then they
go post and laugh about it on TikTok.
Everyone's gaslighting us because Israel's dictating so much
of what's happening. And if you wanna still
pretend like I'm talking about Jewish people, you're
ridiculous
because I didn't say that, and that's not
what the evidence shows outside of the Jewish
connection to what Zionism is. We go over
this every day. My point in saying that
is because we're getting more audience every day,
and the reality needs to be clear every
time we discuss it that what we're actually
talking about is the Israeli government committing massive
crimes.
Whether or not they're atheist or Christian or
Jewish, which, by the way, many of them
are, in fact, nonsecular
atheist, sort of like Herzl, the founding element
of Israel of Zionism or many of the
original people who started it. Easy to look
up, by the way, but keep telling me
it's all about the homeland for the Jewish
people.
Mohammed Safa. The US and Israel have killed
nearly 400 people in Lebanon. Lebanon.
And nearly 800 in Iran with thousands injured
in less than seventy two hours. But keep
telling me about Hezbollah and what they're doing.
This is what a real threat to the
world peace looks like.
Now this is
I I mean, I'm used to this, but
still, this kinda blew me away with where
we're at.
BBC, after what I just showed you, and
plenty more I could include. This is what
they post yesterday.
Battered and isolated,
Hezbollah
drags Lebanon into another war.
It makes my makes my stomach turn.
You you understand? Like, the writer, the editors,
everybody around them, they go on. I mean,
unless they're also in their inner, you know,
little bubble, which is probably how this tends
to work. The truth, guys, is if you
have a brain and eyes, you can see
that they've been bombing them relentlessly and invading
and occupying. What's Hezbollah doing? I mean, again,
same point in Iran. I don't know. They
probably are guilty of plenty of problems. Show
me. Prove to me what you claim Hezbollah
is doing right now to justify what they're
doing. For me, what do you think they've
ever I mean, it's the same story every
time.
Battered and isolated. They write, Hezbollah finally shook
shoots back.
That's what's happening. After fifteen months
of Israel waging a violent one-sided war against
them in villages in Lebanon, and this is
what the BBC writes.
You don't have to trust me or anybody.
Check for yourself. Look at Craig Murray's work
who was on the ground in Lebanon, speaking
with UN agents and telling the discussing it,
demonstrating
why they're doing it. The UN says they
violate it. Nobody cares.
We're in a very, very dangerous point in
the world, but I see it coming down,
at least the possibility of it, unless we
or rather if we do something.
Now I I can't believe I actually didn't
sketch this when I posted this the other
or showed it the other day.
I would have loved making fun of this
yesterday
with the White
House. Demonstrating
yet again either that they're not actually even
of the mind they're of the mind there.
Like, don't even understand what they pretend to
be fighting for or what they they don't
even understand our own history,
Which you whatever you think that may mean,
you can decide for yourself?
They write the revolution that began in 1776.
My point the other day was just how
ridiculous it was. They're saying this while they're
invading a foreign country. Or they're, you know,
whatever. America first.
Well, it didn't begin or end
in 1776.
In fact, arguably, the movement started in 1765,
and the Rev Revolution
started in 1775.
Like, the actual military engagement. And there's nuance
with that too. But to say it began
in 7010, that's just because they're citing the
year that they that I don't think they
even knew what they were talking about.
How alarming is that? And that's just first
just making fun of them. That's you didn't
start then, you morons. But that's where we
are.
Almost 3,000,000 views on that post,
on his making fun of them. Well, in
regard to the government and their absurdities,
Carol Leibitt came out and said, if you
don't align with the values of The United
States and you don't respect our country,
you know, as as they clearly demand respect.
Right? Our culture, our laws, and our people.
You're not welcome here. Well, yeah, plenty of
people agree with that today, especially since that's
what they've been pushing on us for a
long time. But do we not realize that
that's, like,
aggressively anti American?
Like, at least what we pretended we were,
like, moments ago. The melting pot and, you
know, welcoming everybody. Freedom for all you know,
the freedom of religion and speech. Oh, blah
blah blah. But, oh, but if you don't
think this, feel this way, or say these
things, you're not welcome here. Great. I mean,
not even the Democrats said it that ridiculously.
I argue they were much more aggressive with
their action, though, at least at the moment
back then. Now it's just blending all of
the look. Right now, it's more extreme than
I think I've ever seen it. But I
argue it would have been the same no
matter who was in this position. You can
decide for yourself.
Right?
But if you don't align with the what
are the values of The United States? Right?
I mean, well, objectively, based on, like, our,
you know, the constitution. Yeah. Well, that's exact
that's Murray's point. Does that include government officials
who start wars without declaration of congress? You
know? And that's more of a law, but
we're talking about a value, they're violating these
things every single day. They're out there doing
countless things that are antithetical to everything that
represents this country. But this is what they
say because it's just tokens.
It's meaningless. It's all flash, no substance.
You don't respect our country? You mean and
it'd be by the way, the government we're
talking about, the country is us.
The government doesn't deserve your respect.
By the way, it never really does. It's
an entity that you should be questioning and
being critical about because that's the reality of
it. But at the end of the day,
if they are consistently showing you they have
integrity, showing you they have principles and continue
to fight for good things, then you can
basically, you know, garner that respect eventually.
But the idea
that today you're supposed to, despite them breaking
the laws and violating human rights and committing
genocide,
cheering on the worst things I've ever seen
in my life. But, yeah, you're not welcome
here.
Well, let's talk about the congressional part of
this because I think it's important to reiterate,
but some updates as well.
We just discussed this yesterday. US officials admit
Trump lying about Iran
war. They did. The Pentagon, as well as
plenty of other officials came out and said
they're just making things up. They didn't have
justification. There was no imminent threat. And and
now because that came out, now they're kind
of waffling and walking back, acting like that's
kinda not what I said, even though here's
exactly you saying that. You know? It's just
painful, guys,
and understanding why this war is illegal.
Now
we're gonna go through some points to, to
add to basically yesterday's show, and I really
recommend you check that out and go full
through it entirely.
I'll add most of it just in a
quick point,
but it's important to go through the documents
like we did yesterday and really understand the
War Powers Act and what it really is.
And I've criticized that plenty of times over
the years
and how it's abused
and how
the, you know, the openings exist for certain
actions and how they don't meet meet them
in any way right now.
So the basic reality is there's three possible
options.
If you're if there's you know, let's just
say you wanna go to war.
In this country, you have to get a
congressional approval. And, yes, we're not even gonna
get into the reality of how it hasn't
happened since World War two because it's a
a fair point. I agree. But it doesn't
change in any sense why it would or
shouldn't happen should or should not happen today.
Like, unless your argument is it hasn't happened
since then and that's why it needs to
never happen again. Well, then that would make
sense. But that's not what's happening. The argument
is, well, you didn't care when Obama didn't
do it. Okay. I did though. But that's
that's a that's a that's a flailing point.
There's no relevance on whether like, if that
if I mean, in fact, you saying that
suggests that you care about it. Right? So
why would you not care now? Because what
it says is,
my team.
Right? I want my team to win, and
your team did that, so my team. You
know? That it's a childish thing. And so
the reality is congressional approval is it's clearly
the reality of the constitution, and, obviously, it
still exists. Now there's been measures and add
things that they've done over the years to
water that down, War Powers Act being one
of them. But even though you could argue
there's a valid point being made within it,
emergency, but, again, to make it clear, congressional
approval
or
an authorization for use of military force, like
with Iraq.
Now that is the I mean, we can
get into the absurdity of of congress approving
that based on the reality of what we
were told, but either way, that was a
legal action. And so he got the authority.
And now there's but there's limits and there's
guidance and what and, of course, they just
who cares going forward? They've used that until
right up until this year, by the way.
The third option
is the War Powers Act argument that if
there's an imminent threat that's why they're using
the term, an imminent threat. And if you
look it up, it's very specific. It doesn't
mean tomorrow. It means literally missiles flying or
invasion underway,
not even saying I'm gonna do something to
you. Like, literally, Ron says I'm gonna bomb
everybody tomorrow. That's not the same thing. And
this is this has been roundly discussed for
years. And this it it was discussed back
in Iraq.
That's why they went to the UN, by
the way. That's why they actually sought congressional
approval. Right? I mean, they're pointing these things
even though it undermines their point. And so
where we're at now is they first tried
to argue that we were essentially forced to
because Israel was gonna do something and we
had to react. I guess they thought that
would justifiably show that they had some kind
of a pressure, but that's not legal. Like,
that doesn't legally justify it. But then it
came around where Trump was like, nope. We
acted first.
And so now they're arguing, well, that wasn't
true, and Israel didn't do that. It was
sort of like a side depart. And at
the end of the day, they're now saying
it wasn't imminent,
except except it's always been imminent for forty
seven years. Right? So they're playing this game
where they're trying to create you the narrative
that makes sense to fit the legal justification,
but it doesn't.
Johnson,
this was posted today.
The Iran have declared they they have declared
war on us, he says. Now
I believe him saying this is very deliberate.
No. They haven't. I'll show you, you know,
it's legally the reality. That's never happened.
But what he means is simply and this
is what I think anyway, to manipulate people
who don't understand the situation. He means pretty
much, well, they've they've been at war with
us effectively for for for all this time.
Not not really if you pushed him probably.
He would say, no. Not technically. But for
all this time, they've been bombing us in
secret evil. And by effect, they've been at
war. That's what I think they're trying to
do. But they know that people who don't
know what they're talking about are gonna go
on saying, well, he said Iran declared war.
No. They did not. He He says, I
don't believe in semantics because we're we're not
at war right now.
Like, so he's trying to yet again argue
that somehow that this doesn't constitute war even
though it does by every definition of what
it's ever been used for, and congressional discussions
have already made that clear, and Trump and
the rest of them have already called it
a war. It's just so
dumb. But either way,
it's their action first. It doesn't change the
reality of it. Here's what he said.
Iran has attacked three of our US embassies
in the last couple of days. Okay? Those
are sovereign territories of The US. They have
Yeah. And just so we're clear, we're gonna
get into the bombing part of this. They
are bombing sites, and every single one of
them have been shown to be valid targets.
And
and and even Tel Aviv, even Netanyahu lie
about that, and then John Kierke on Pierce
Morgan admitted, yes. That's a valid target because
there's a base underneath that, which you guys
already know.
And yet they stand up and go, look
at what they've done. They look at they
they're Trump and the rest of them are
suggesting that this the bombings of which, by
the way, by definition are legal because they're
responding to the attack, not defense, but they
have a legal right to respond under international
law. And so by definition, what they're doing
is legal unless they, of course, bomb civilian
targets. And so he's pointing at those actions
going, see? We told you.
So, basically, look. We told you. They're the
only ones that follow the law, apparently.
It's just it's baffling me.
But that's what desperation will do. I mean,
what else they're gonna say? Declared war on
us.
I of The US. They have declared war
on us.
I don't believe in the semantics. We've talked
about the language this morning. In fact, I
think what he just tried to do right
there is argue that by bombing those locations
is effectively declaring war. Well, that's a fair
argument if they had started with that,
if that was the first action.
But, no, you bombed them first with no
justification.
That was the initiation. That was a response.
We're not at war right now. We're four
days in to a very specific
Nope.
Clear That they can't define. Mission and That
they haven't given you the objectives for, that
there's only basic, like or rather, not they've
given you some objectives, but there's no clear
path to achieve them. There's no plan as
even Trump's letter to congress
stated.
Operation Operation Epic Fury, which has two components,
as you know, that we have articulated over
and over. The president has, the the, you
know, commander of joint chiefs, everybody is is
explained. Yeah. Yeah. We've you've yelled the narrative
over and over. That's not what we're talking
about, bud. Iran has attacked three of and
operation, operation epic fury, which has two components,
as you know, that we have articulated over
and over. The president has, the the, you
know, commander of the joint chiefs, everybody is
is explained.
It's just painful, man.
Like, he must know that nobody believes this,
not even his own team.
And yet they hear the and, oh oh,
I I did wanna point this out, by
the way, just because it bothers me. Brian
Mast is such a manipulative person. I mean,
in everything he does, you watch the way
he talks. He's just a disgusting person. When
he gets engaged with by people, by his
own constituents that disagree with his opinions, he
treats them like like they're garbage. Why in
the world does this man wear shorts every
single time he goes out anywhere? Think about
it. Why? Is it necessary? Can you not
just wear pants? You're forcing everybody to engage
with that because you constantly want to be
seen as that. That is a that is
a, you know, victim point or whatever you
wanna call it. Now you can have respect
for whatever you think he did. That's a
that's a different conversation. The reality is how
he's milking this in front of everybody while
he wears a foreign uniform in our country.
That's ridiculous. That I mean, it's equivalent of
somebody having a buy buy, a
prosthetic arm and having the coat torn off
their the arm torn off their coat every
day. Make sure you see the arm because
I did this in the military.
Again, again, you can respect the action and
still make fun of him for constantly and
and it also just looks weird. Why are
you wearing shorts? Because you want to constantly
put that in people's faces. Now that may
be taken wrong by some people. I just
think it's the kind of person these people
are, the kind of people that they are.
They're always trying to constantly, you know, project
and use and manipulate
everything, you know, while they stand there in
bold faced lie about everything they're doing.
Mike comes out and says, Iran's increasing aggression
and rapid ballistic missile development presented a clear
and imminent threat. Here we are again. So
now you're pretending it wasn't technically an imminent
threat by any definition we ever used. We're
saying that what they do they you know,
they've got weapons.
So that's clearly an imminent threat because we
know how crazy they are. That's not how
this gets played, but that's desperate. That's all
they can do. They but let's be clear.
That's been our like, the government of the
US has done this before.
They they just can take I mean, Trump
has done this before. You just drag it
forward. No one agrees, but congress is feckless,
so nothing will happen, and it just keeps
going. And behind it all, most of them
actually want this to happen anyway, I think.
So the truth is that ballistic missiles, which
every country has a right to, do are
not a threat to anybody outside of the
reality. They can always be a threat to
anybody. It's not an imminent threat to anything
other than, you know, engaging in warfare, and
Iran has never done that.
Like, in this context. They've never bombed The
United States in the in in the homeland.
They've never initiated those attacks outside of being
attacked first.
So, here we are.
Increasing aggression.
But aggression has a word. Or, I mean,
a meaning. Right? So, building things is not
aggression. The aggression is what you claim they
might do in if and when.
I mean, I just don't I can't
think of any other word than just desperate.
That's a lazy patchwork.
And it says the president acted fully within
his authority under the law. No. He did
not. That's just bad.
But as, man, Danny McAdams, Iran's increasing aggression,
who are you who are you talking to
me? This is just people to make fun
of him. You attack them without provocation.
It doesn't matter that you argue this. This
is what Bolton tried to do before. And
you have to understand, if you actually thought
there was a preempt like, an attack, right,
that it might justify the preemptive attack,
that requires congressional approval or authorization.
That's the reality. The war powers part of
it is only allowed if it's an imminent
attack. All he's doing here is trying to
mash those two things together. You can't have
it ways both ways. It can't be imminent
and also be preemptive.
But that's what you're getting from these ridiculous
people because that's all they know what to
do.
And that's what you get this ridiculous person
trotted out for. Cotton is just probably you
know, whatever. There's something about him that just
rings as, like
what's the right word for it? There's something
about him that's just, like,
held back. I don't know what it is.
Eminent for forty seven years.
Nothing can be imminent for forty seven years,
says the fact check on Twitter. But you
already know this.
Brian, no. Not at all. I thought,
secretaries Rubio and HECSA, chairman Cain,
and director Ratcliffe did did a very good
job of laying out the intelligence and the
current state of operations.
The the simple reality is Iran has a
vast missile arsenal Like everybody.
Far that far exceeds the combined missile defenses
of The United States, our Arab friends, and
Israel. Okay. Okay.
Okay. No. So the point is that they
have more than us, and that's not fair.
Got it. It gets much worse
every single month. Yeah. It means they make
more missiles. So do you. So does the
government. So does everybody.
I mean, you guys have, like, the largest
weapons manufacturers in the world. What are we
talking about? That is an unacceptable risk for
The United States. It's It's an unacceptable risk
for them to have weapons
that just because it's more than you, apparently.
Well, you have to realize there's two things
happening here. We're gonna get into the reality
of their strategic ability right now
and how it seems that Iran just played
them like a fiddle. And now they're at
a point where they have diminished what they
need, and the long game was played well
by Iran and Trump was looking to the
next week.
This is what it looks like anyway. And
so what he's doing here is making that
argument. Well, we can't just let them have
missiles. Why? Because right now, they don't have
enough to be able to effectively stand up
basically,
withstand
what they have to offer
in the extended time frame we're gonna discuss.
Even if we're just talking about eight weeks,
by the way, which we're gonna get to
why they're using those terms.
But think about that. How is it justifiable
to say they just have more weapons than
us? They can outmatch us with what they
have. We can't allow that.
Well, wait a minute. What about Russia or
China or anybody else? Like, so it's all
because we can, you understand. You see? Why?
Because they don't have nuclear weapons, guys. That's
the only logical reason here. If that logic
makes sense to other countries, then you'd be
doing that to every other country because many
of them have lots of star. But this
one is okay
because you know that they don't actually have
the nukes that you would that would make
you resent. Like with North Korea, they stopped
when the second they got that.
I mean, that's very clear. Their actions continue
to show you that they use the claim
of this to justify their actions, but their
actions only make sense because they you know
that they know they don't have them. And
we'll get, again, get into what the IAS,
the International Atomic Energy Agency said, what Kelsey
Gabbard recently said. It's an existential risk
for our Arab friends in Israel. Our air
friends?
What a weirdo.
So is so anybody, Israel. They they have
more weapons, and we can't allow that.
And it wouldn't get better if we waited
for six or twelve or eighteen months.
Right. Because I guess that's just more time,
and they'd make more weapons. You know, like,
basic reality of every country building more weapons.
To find a more imminent risk.
In fact,
Iran has posed an imminent risk to The
United States for forty seven years as they've
maimed and killed
thousands of Americans. Oh, there we are again.
No. So what they always do is that's
like thousands
all over no. No. It was one thing,
one field of war, and one engagement where
you guys were the aggressor and it was
illegal.
That's why the number never changes except when
Luna
or Trump actually risk thousands, maybe millions. I
don't know. He actually said that.
How dumb is that? He knows that's not
true, but he just wants to broaden it
out. Now you're gonna get ridiculous people online
going millions. See, they've killed millions. They have
not.
He's lying.
Right? The reality of the thousands were killed
were because they were illegally invading Iraq, and
Soleimani was the one that was defending against
that with I mean, and on top of
the fact that he was the one chiefly
fighting ISIS, by the way, especially since we
know that they're actually working with them. But
their argument has whittled down to basically they
we can't allow them to have abilities.
Like I said, you know, get rid of
all the butter knives because they could use
those as stabby. It it becomes ridiculous.
Like, if it's if it was nuclear weapons
and now it's just missiles. Now I'm not
I I understand, and maybe people don't know
that there's agreements about how far certain missiles
can go. But I don't believe any of
them truly care about these things. And either
way,
that's not been accurately demonstrated that that's actually
what's happening. They just keep yelling things that
they can't prove, and they've lied about damn
near everything I've ever seen them engage
with. So why would we take them at
face value? It's a good question.
Here's what Lindsey Graham had to say. Same
kind of continuation, same point. Is a imminent
threat, and it doesn't have to be imminent
to me Yeah. Because she don't want it
to be imminent. Right. The whole idea is
for it not to be imminent, dumbass.
You wanna prevent it from being imminent. Right.
Let me ask you this because I find
it I'm I'm Oh, it's so funny. We're
just so we're just, you know, it's they
it's I don't think it sounds to me
like neither of them understand what they're talking
about right there. You know? Eminent.
The point at the end of the day
is it's very simple as I've just told
you. If it's not imminent, then you just
broke the law.
Bottom line. Well, in fact, we already know
that because you told us you stroke first.
Stro strike struck first,
so we have it all tied up nice
and neat. But what he actually say in
there is, well, it was imminent because they've
been bad forever. But it wasn't really imminent.
Right? Come on, guys. We don't wanna let
it get to imminent, and that's where you're
gonna get the arguments aligned. You can't just
let it be imminent. Now watch. Look up
that statement. You'll have a thousand people going,
that's just crazy. Right? You're gonna let it
be imminent? I don't even think they know
what the word means.
It's just so funny to me how these
things populate.
And
here's what Trump had to add to it.
The old first Aaron Mate just said, because
the Israel first administration can't keep their lives
straight, Graham is effectively calling Rubio and other
dumbass for claiming, in Rubio's words, that there
was absolutely imminent threat from Iran.
Here's what Trump says. Right? This is from
yesterday.
So after all of what they said, here's
what he comes out and says, and I
think this is super important for the point.
But I thought we were going to have
a situation where we were gonna be attacked.
They were getting ready to attack
Israel.
They were getting ready to attack others.
You're seeing that right now. Oh, you're seeing
right now. You mean, are you referring to
the the legal response to your illegal actions?
Yeah. We are seeing that right now. All
of those missiles that are hitting in, those
are stationary. Those were aimed there for a
long period of time at these other countries.
Probably.
But let's just assume we can prove that,
but, like, unlike everything else he tends to
say. But even but but if they were
aimed at adversarial countries, why would that be
necessarily important? All these countries have been working
with The US and Israel to manipulate what
they're doing. So they're logically aware that there
might be a threat from those locations. Do
you think they don't have the same situation?
So I think I was right about that.
We attacked first.
And if we didn't, it could have been,
you know, look. We're really,
decimating them. They're being decimated.
And it's just such a ridiculous game that's
being played. These guys are just ridiculous. So
the truth is we attack them first.
There you go. As I wrote,
if accurate,
because who knows,
that's a preemptive attack as they call it.
Right? I mean, that's what he just described.
Well, we thought they were gonna bomb Iran.
Even though Rubio, as we'll get into next,
came out and literally said that we thought
Israel was gonna bomb Iran, which would then
cause us to get attacked, which he's now
walking back.
This is just crazy.
Well, if accurate, that would be called a
preemptive attack. Why is this important?
Because, as I said, that would require congressional
approval.
Whereas a response to a genuinely imminent attack
would be allowed under the War Powers Act,
saying we attack first makes this unequivocal.
Simple.
Of course, that'll be suppressed as always. And
guess what? Here's what Donald Trump had to
say in 2013.
The president must get congressional approval before attacking
Syria. Big mistake if he does not.
It's just,
oh,
it's just ridiculous.
I mean, more than I've ever seen in
my entire time doing this. Like, we're in
a place where that's why I often think
that this is not just only incompetence. This
feels like it's being done to us. Doesn't
it?
I mean, how dumb can this get? Like,
why would you put yourself in a position
where you're, you know, I again, that sounds
like there's some kind of a maybe he's
painted himself into a corner. That that's exactly
what it would look like. But it seems
like more than that, doesn't it? Like, you
could lie better than what they're doing right
now, but here we are.
Caroline Levitt comes out and says, no. Rubio
did not claim what he literally said on
video.
And Max says, desperation grips the White House
as the Israel gate crisis deepens. Trump's press
secretary is turning to the never Trump NRO
for damage control,
but there's no going back after Rubio's candid
confession.
So she just simply goes, no. It didn't
and posted this article.
First, here's what the White House post said.
So she she's over here going, that didn't
happen. Here's what the article says. Well, here's
what you guys posted on Twitter.
Quote, the president made the very wise decision.
We knew that there was going to be
an Israeli action.
Direct quote. He says, and we knew that
if it did if we didn't preemptively,
too late, go after them before they launch
those attacks. And, again, we would assume that
we can prove that that would happen, probably
not. We would suffer higher casualties, and I'm
willing to bet that's just what Israel fed
them to get them to feel that was
what might happen. Trump, most likely. As even
Rubio said, Remember in the language, he's he
made it clear that someone told Trump this
is the best choice.
You know that's how this gets played. Now
we're gonna go to him saying it in
a second. This is the full clip. You
wanna watch it. And then there's a reason
to it, and I'll actually just go to
the article because this is where they make
the argument. I don't find it has merit.
I'll show you why.
It says, no. Marco Rubio didn't claim that
Israel dragged Trump into a war with Iran.
Woah. Woah. Woah. Hold on. That's a quite
a different framing, isn't it? So the question
oops. Oh, tell me that didn't.
Alright. Good.
The question
here, first of all, she says oh, wrong
one.
Didn't claim
okay. Well, see, she said the same thing.
They didn't and it which by the reality
of what he said is exactly that, that
ultimately their actions forced us to do something.
But realize, guys, what's everyone saying?
What we're saying is that I mean, just
exactly what he said. We're not claiming anything
other than what you said. Israel's
actions forced you guys, or at least you
claimed that, to take action that you would
have otherwise not taken.
Period. You could so to make it about
dragging them into a war, that's the kind
of nuance they they abuse to to make
the argument that you're about to hear.
It says, a large cadre of commentators have
been arguing that Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu
dragged US president Donald Trump unwillingly into the
war with Iran. Again, quite a bit differently.
Right?
Maybe he's willing to do this but didn't
wanna do it then. Like, it's just about
you're creating all these secondary points to you're
you're carving it out to make it sound
like if he didn't literally drag him into
this, then that's a lie. Even though he
said it, it was about why now, not
versus why in general. That's what they're arguing.
It says, at first blush, this theory received
a boost from comments made by Marco Rubio
on Monday, which, by the way, the theory
didn't exist
until he said that, other than just the
general sentiment that Israel's dictating policy. Right? This
is what's kicked off the conversation. So for
them to frame it as if the theory
was going around and that was that gave
it a boost, it either shows bad journalism
or they're being manipulative. And as Max set
stated, you know, I think he believes it's
very manipulative.
But when you listen to Rubio's full comments
in context, it says it's pretty clear that
he wasn't advancing this claim, so they say.
So it says the second question I've been
asked is why now?
He goes in answering this question, Rubio said,
we knew that there was going to be
an Israeli action. They cite it right there.
We knew that they that that would precipitate
an attack against American forces. So it seems
pretty clear so far. And we knew that
if we didn't preemptively
go after them before they launched those attacks,
we would suffer casualties. Okay.
So, so far, they're admitting that we're right.
And it goes on to say, this is
the clip that is being taken as proof.
Right. It is because it's his words. I
mean, it's a weird argument to say I
mean, for just to be clear, even if
you had, like, a larger clip that added
more context, it wouldn't make the statement untrue.
It's a weird way they're framing this. It
would make it true. It would just be
the the bigger context makes it you know,
you could you could misframe that because he
did say those things, guys. That's the reality.
But it goes on to say the clip
is being taken as proof that Netanyahu
forced The US to war. Again, you could
argue by action made it though they had
they felt like they had to. It's
a little bit different. But those making this
argument are conflating the question why
with the question why now.
Okay.
So whatever. Fine. Make so you could argue
that Trump had always planned this, and the
point is still the same, that Israel's actions
forced this to happen when they wouldn't have
otherwise done it, even if it would be
next week. You see the point? Like, this
is a bad argument unless your argument is
only about the fact that they made this
happen from nothing.
I mean, at the end of the day,
they are clearly influencing
through forced action what Trump just did.
Now he says, in fact, if you watch
the full press conference, which we we showed
you, Rubio makes this clear.
At about five minutes mark, he is asked
explicitly whether he was saying that The US
was forced to attack Iran because of an
impending Israeli action, and he responds no, of
course. Now the yesterday, we showed you both
the original 01:30 clip that's being shared and
the follow ups. Both the follow ups that
day and the day after, blue and purple
tie from yesterday. Now he says that's the
question of how, why now, he responds.
But this operation needed to happen because Iran.
Oh, that's a very clear explanation because Iran,
bad guy. I mean, you might as well
just say Iran, bad guy. It's exactly what
I always point out because Iran. Right? And
he goes, in about a year or a
year and a half, they would cross the
line of immunity, meaning they would have so
many short range missiles and so many drones
that nobody could do anything about it. Well,
yeah, man.
Why is that a crime for them to
be better than you if that's what you're
pointing out? That they have weapons and things
they're building and you can't stop them. Okay.
No. Look. I'm not like, let's just pretend
that they're everything they claim they are. This
would still not be legal. You understand?
And, of course, we would should demand that
they actually prove what they're claiming.
And it says because they could not could
hold the whole world hostage. Well, you're doing
that right now. You and Israel have been
doing that my entire life, and I've never
seen Israel do or Iran do even remotely
what you're claiming. Doesn't mean it's not possible.
But on top of that, what would be
the objective there? What do you think the
accomplishes? Or accomplishment is that they don't seem
to claim they wanna do anything like that.
Israel, on the other hand, has a stated
policy of taking more territory, and you are
global ambitions as we can all see. Trump.
Alright. The the US government, and I'm gonna
be really honest about it because I don't
think it's just Trump.
But
look at the damage they're doing now, he
says. Yeah. You mean the legal responses to
your actions.
Okay. This is not difficult. Okay? Anybody who's
honest is already going, man, this is very,
very clear. And it says, and this is
a weekend Iran.
Imagine a year from now. Right? Because boogeyman.
So if we make it out that they're
evil and bad and terrible, then a year
from now, that's gonna be even more evil.
See how easy that is to show. Well,
that means nothing. It's based on your fabrication
of what they are to begin with. And
it says, so that hap had to happen.
Okay. Well, so far, he hasn't made any
kind of a legal justification.
Iran bad guy, so there you go. It's
basically what he just said. Obviously, we were
aware of Israel's intentions
and understood
what that would mean for us. And we
had to be prepared to act as a
result. Okay. Did he not just end by
going and then they were right?
So just because you argue that we always
needed to stop Iran, which you've always said,
doesn't change the reality of the point, which
is that you did this now because Israel
did something that made you have to. He
just said that again. When you don't realize
how oh, gas this is gaslighting.
That's carry on leave. They're they're gaslighting you.
They're going, that's not true, and then literally
citing why it's true. And then may I
guess, trying to make you feel like you're
just not smart enough to understand the nuance,
that's crazy to me.
Now I'm not disregarding the nuance. It just
doesn't meet the point. You still got forced
into this or whatever term you wanna use.
Now here is what he said versus what
he's saying now. This is a day apart,
guys.
And this remember, like, I just why I
wanted to read that to you. So you
heard their response. You heard what they're claiming.
They're they're claiming that's why this is taken
out of context. So remember that because that
I read it for you, but here's just
the part where he stated it versus what
he's saying today. I don't know how you
cannot act like this is objective,
like, self evident.
Yesterday, you told us that
Israel was going to strike Iran and that
that's why we needed to get involved. Today,
the president said that No. Iran was gonna
get Yeah. Your statement is false. So that's
not what he I was asked very specifically.
Were you there yesterday? Yes. I asked. Okay.
You gotta love that.
Oh, were you there? Oh, yeah. I'm the
one that asked the question.
I
heard you. I wrote it down. We're not
dumb.
Were you there? Know, it's just it's a
gotcha moment, and he failed. Right? He was
trying he was hoping, probably got unlucky that
it just happened to be the same journalist
because if it wasn't, everyone would go, oh,
they are democrats. Whatever.
How embarrassing.
That's why we needed to get involved. Today,
the president president said that No. Iran was
gonna get Yeah. Your statement is false. So
that's not what he I was asked very
specific. Were you there yesterday? Yes. I am.
Okay. Question. 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 and
perhaps even higher those killed. And then we
would all be here answering questions about why
we knew that indeed.
Pretty damn clear, isn't it?
And he also used the word preemptively. So
there you go. The ship has sailed, guys.
There is no legal reality here. Now look.
Even if they ultimately go to congress, which
seems to be flirting with right now, and
they get an authorization for use of military
force, well, technically, right now, as far as
I understand it, they're putting forward
a war powers point to try to get
that in conversation.
And it looks like they might vote it
down, which wouldn't surprise me because all of
our government's corrupt.
But what my my point was is even
if they ultimately, after, let's say, the sixty
day period we're talking about, ultimately get that,
it doesn't make this it still makes this
first actions legal. Illegal. They broke the law.
And I'm going to bet you that nothing
ever happens,
which is upsetting because they should. No matter
Biden, Obama, or Trump, or anybody, they're breaking
the law. Why does that not matter? And
all it's gonna do is continue to recreate
the reality where Democrats will do it next.
Democrat will do it after that, and they'll
point to each other like the scarecrow from
Wizard of Oz.
DD Geopolitics says this u the The US
is so cooked. It's hilarious.
This is a Democrat.
And just like I showed you Blumenthal. You
know? I'm really worried, but this is necessary.
You know? It's like they're all just siding
with the team.
He asked them if you this I'll just
let it play speak speak for itself. It's
actually pretty funny. Now I can't tell if
he, like, tried to walk away and then
got blocked. I'm not sure, but it's this
is what we're seeing everywhere. They're contradicting themselves.
They're making themselves look like they don't know
what's going on probably because they really don't.
I think Israel, you know, forced The US's
hand here, boxed The US in on this.
Look. No one wants it. Really quickly, by
the way, just like we told you from
before,
tell me this is not an obvious opportunity
for the deep state pedophile Democrats to go
after Trump like you keep telling us that's
all they wanna do and to go, he
broke the law. He impeachment.
Instead, they side with him.
I mean, how much more do you need
to see? If they were in any way
adversarial, they would not side with him where
he's doing the wrong thing, where he's objectively
breaking the law.
Every day, conservatives, honest conservatives are starting to
see the reality. A nuclear war.
No one wants a nuclear forced US's hand
here, boxed US in on this. Look. No
one wants a nuclear war.
No one wants a nuclear Israel,
but we certainly don't want an endless war.
Plain and simple.
And what did I say? Nuclear Israel Oh,
no. Got it. Let me say that again.
No one wants an endless war, but we
certainly don't want a nuclear Iran. That's for
sure. How funny is that? So, basically, he
just made a mistake, or, like, that's what
he's oops. I oh, did I say Israel?
Freudian slip is what I would call it.
Even though Israel already has nukes, and everybody
knows
that. But so bottom line is, he supports
it. We can't let there be a nuclear
run. Well, guess what? There's not that's not
what's happening. The evidence has not backed that
up, and we'll, for the umpteenth time, make
that clear today.
And you think these people don't know this,
guys? I mean, if their own government, their
own intelligence, and and the institution they point
to, the IAEA, all of them tell you
that, why would they claim otherwise?
You see, the answer's right there, because Israel
says. All it's always how this is working.
So here, just to continue the point of
the absurdity of contradiction,
is what I we saw yesterday, but just
play it again. Like, this is where we
are. This is obvious to anybody who's not
dishonest. They're lying to you. They're playing games.
Okay? Here's the point about war.
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. We 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.
Nobody should classify this as war. It is
combat operations.
War is hell
and always will be.
Strategic strikes are not war.
And and, of course, you watch, like, Luna
or anything. They're just they're, like, just so
smug and dismissive,
and they're also wrong. And And also and
also she said, you know, they're boots on
the ground. There's no boots on the ground.
And then, like, that like, almost less than
twenty four hours later, they said, well, there's
probably there might be there might be boots
on the ground. It's okay. Well, then your
entire premise was ridiculous because they're already telling
you that might be happening.
This it's a game, guys. It's a game,
and they're and they're holding the line. That's
how this works. Now that's another example of
this, by the way, which is almost more
embarrassing. And I just think these people are
are, you know,
like, jockeying for, like, position and and how
much they could benefit from all this horrible
like, the
profiteering, you know, every time a country like
any like a like a Gaza or Iraq
or Syria. They these people are jockeying for
how much they can benefit from all the
terrible things they're doing. Or just to gain
clout and influence in Trump's administration,
here's what another one of these people tried
to tell you. You'll concede this is
war. We haven't declared war. They declared war
on us. War secretary of excellence. We haven't
declared this. You said this this is war.
They called it war. They called it war.
What I was saying is okay. Well, that
was a misspoke. What I was saying that
they declared war on us, but but war
is ugly. It always has been ugly.
But we're, you know, we're at a we're
taking out a regime that's been trying to
attack us for quite some time. But it
you're not So he comes in and says
it's war and then says, what do you
mean? It's not war. It's like, you just
said it was war. They're just all spun,
guys. That's crazy. And then you go on
to describe why war is bad. Like, then
okay. Even if that's not even, like, let's
say, they started it.
If you're engaging back, then you're in war,
guys. Now that changes the reality of whether
or not you have to declare it and
go through approval. Right? But to just play
this game like we're totally not in a
war is ridiculous.
And it's also even more because they absolutely
initiated this. The reasoning is always because, going
back to World War two forward, like, they
just don't want it to this is it's
a big deal, and Trump doesn't wanna be
seen for going to war. It's it's it's
a narrative game, guys,
and it's just obvious.
And because they keep yelling this, not that
you need to see this, but it's very
obvious
according to even Grok. Show it to the
conservatives out there that keep yelling this. Now
what I'm noticing is that argument and every
comment of people going, Iran's the one that
declared war, like I was saying. Now I
think, like, they're most of them,
whether that guy recently or
I I think Johnson and so on are,
you know, saying it in order to get
people to think that. Some of them online,
though, were absolutely under the mindset that this
actually happened, that they declared war. No. They
did not. They've never formally declared war in
The United States. And even what you wanna
point to in regard to the the, you
know, in,
whether you talk, like,
kinetic action, conflict, invasion, or, you know, whatever
we're talking about, whether it's Iraq or Iran
or or, in this case, the
Iran hostage crisis or the,
a Ajax and later seventy nine revolution. The
point is none of these things, in any
case, have ever been declarations of declarations of
war and that they don't even consist to
a formal
that like, there could there's examples where, like,
for example, the Obama
like, if
well, it's funny. If The US assassinates the
president of a foreign country, that is by
default becoming a war according to anybody in
the past. But I just wanna make sure
we understand that because this is not some
point where Iran stood up and said, I'm
declaring war on The United States, but that's
what a lot of conservatives are saying. Now
to get into all the vast stuff, which
we've touched on recent,
more than once in the past, but once
recently over the last, I think, so many
weeks, There's a lot of examples of these
conversations in regard to these hostage crises or
different, embassy points or, you know, the things
they briefly list here, but a lot of
different points you could point out in the
past. Like I've always said, guys, these people
have committed crimes like any government has. But
the reality of most of these situations are
far more nuanced than they're just evil people
doing things to The United States. In most
cases, it was manipulated.
You you see assets in there from Assad
and CIA. There's a whole lot of situations
like this. You Libya is an obvious example.
You know how much they lied to us
about that? We can look back and see
very clearly what actually happened, and it amounted
to this person being murdered, basically raped to
death in the streets.
I mean, to get into Libya, we can
get into the reality of what was going
on, the the the free health care and
free education. And, you know, it's a third
it was one of the largest,
highest quality of life in all of Africa.
Sure as hell is not that now, regardless
of what you wanted to claim he was
doing.
And on top of all of it, I
can't this
I actually when I saw this, I couldn't
believe it happened only because
it's so
obviously manipulative from what everyone has talked about.
This has become such a very large conversation.
The idea of Charlie Kirk for the podcast,
the idea of what he was saying then,
what he say what's going on now, his
points about Iran and what was happening with
Trump. I mean, their own people would stood
up and ask these questions to people like
Cruz or or Glenn Beck, you know, about
Israel and about Charlie Kirk, and they all
got super uncomfortable. The point is their audience
is very aware. And when this happened with
Iran, apparently, most of Turning Point audience was
outraged
because they understand what Kirk was telling them,
that this was not this this is Israel
doing this was the point, and Charlie Kirk
said that.
So what do they do? Turning Point USA
literally puts out a video of Charlie Kirk
that tried to insinuate
that he is
for the war on Iran. And it says
because it was a quote where he was
saying, if you're serious about actually protecting human
rights, you should wanna make Iran western again,
is what he wrote and what he says.
And ultimately saying how much do you actually
know about Iran? Now that's not the same
thing as supporting the invasion of it for
a foreign country. Or you could argue he
changed his mind. The point is this clip
in no way represents what he was saying
before he was killed. And I'm talking, like,
for the year before he was killed. And
even this says the clip predates Charlie Kirk's
2025
statement calling regime change in Iran
pathologically
insane.
He opposed war
or this war for clear you know, for
clarity.
And so they show you an old clip.
And as Max writes, Turning Point USA got
community noted for deliberately misrepresenting
Charlie Kirk's vehement opposition
to US war on Iran. How do you
make sense of that other than,
I mean, Israel or The United States are
dictating what they do to the point to
where it's contradicting Charlie's memory?
Doesn't that speak to the entire point of
what we've been saying about it? The like,
everything. What happened? Why it happened?
Imagine being assassinated in front of your wife,
Max writes, then having her willfully sell out
your convictions and paint your legacy in front
of the entire world.
How is he wrong?
It's no different than than Bondi in the
sense of the lying about him coming up
and telling you he you know, hate speech
is not the same as free speech, and
he and using Charlie Kirk to make the
argument even though he explicitly said the opposite.
Every one of these points alone should be
enough to change someone's mind about these people.
I think it already is.
Now thanks to Brad Serkis yesterday, he pointed
this out to me, the article, which you
can easily look up, Trump calls Kurdish leaders
in Iran war effort. Now this is so
hilarious how this all went down. And in
regard to their lying about it, what ultimately
how it's what is happening now, is very
serious. And in fact,
Robert Ilkesh literally called this. He called this
in this he actually discussed this as well
as I believe it was
I forget it was the Azerbaijan or Armenian
groups that were in these, basically, arguing that
these kind of groups were going to be
utilized to initiate this kind of action, which
again you could argue is is not you
know, I'm sure other people can see that
possibility, but I just wanna point out yet
again that he called this accurately.
So Brian Brian Circus brought this to my
attention yesterday and says, basically, you know, come
fight for us in Iran. We promise you
the state we've always offered. And he goes,
I know. We just abandoned you in favor
of Al Qaeda in Syria, but that's different.
And it's what? Like, the fifth time they've
used them and promised them a state and
then abandoned them. And it's just it's it's
pretty crazy.
But so here's where we are today.
CIA working to arm Kurdish forces to spark
uprising in Iran.
The CIA is working to arm Kurdish forces
with the aim of fomenting a popular uprising
in Iran, multiple people with the familiar with
the plan told CNN.
The Trump administration has been active
in active discussions with Iranian opposition groups and
Kurdish leaders in Iraq in Iraq
about providing them with military support.
Right? Because Iraq is very much involved in
this conversation.
And that's also part of it right now
with Iran. I mean, we're gonna get to
the blackout that has happened and what's going
on there.
But for those already, they're gonna go, Ryan,
you're excited. You're on CNN. And they're lying.
Well, guess what? Trump's already admitted it. So
sit down.
So the reality, guys, is that this is
happening, and that we've seen this building. It's
not new. They've been working with them since
I mean, well, even before the Syria conversation,
and the reality is that this is a
manipulative proxy element they're using to destabilize countries.
It's very, very clear. And so what you're
seeing is them even, I guess well, what's
interesting is, first, it's being sourced. Someone's telling
them about it. They deny it,
and then they simply own it. And I'll
show you what I mean.
So for this is what I just I'll
point out what he said. This is where
I saw it. See, he said Simas says,
remember this headline when you start seeing reports
on Instagram or stories about an organic spontaneous
uprising in Western Iran. Right? That's usually how
this goes. And I'm going to bet you
that
that even happens, even though we see it
so clearly. And in case you're not following,
I'll show you what I mean. So right
here,
Carrie on leave it denied this.
I believe it was yesterday. She came out
and said, that's not true. Or rather just
simply that Trump has not agreed to any
such plan. But there what we can prove
now is that he did, and it's been
going on for weeks. So as always, they
lie. Right? But you could argue they they're
national security or whatever, but they just lie
to you. They always do this, and then
look at the next day, they show you
that they were lying to you. So the
reality of this is they were building this
for quite a long time,
and they denied this right here. And I
think immediately it got shown whether because people
are leaking stuff or whatever.
And then
I mean, less than twenty four hours, it
seems they've put out a massive PR campaign
to basically own this is happening.
Or at least that's how I'm kinda seeing
it. It's hard to tell because it'll happen
very in very short session. So first, hear
what she said.
Thank you, Caroline. Two questions.
The Trump administration reported reportedly is considering arming
Kurdish,
forces
in the hopes of thank you, Caroline. Two
questions.
The Trump administration reported reportedly is considering arming
Kurdish,
forces
in the hopes of inspiring a popular uprising
in Iran. Could you comment on that report?
I can comment on the fact that the
president has held many calls with partners, allies,
and leaders in the region in the Middle
East. He did speak to Kurdish leaders with
respect to our base that we have in
Northern Iraq.
But as for any report suggesting that the
president has agreed to any such plan is
completely false and should not be written.
Well, so you could argue maybe that, you
know, he was discussing it and has been
agreed to,
But the reality shows otherwise. Now this shouldn't
even be that big of a deal because
they lie all the time. And and and
even this, you would argue, might even be
sort of justifiable if it's like we don't
wanna leak our plan. Right? But just take
note. It's always the lies.
Now, from there and I think it's it's
more important to show that the the timeline.
So, ultimately, try to deny it. Now, if
they were gonna deny it or rather planned
to be to,
point to this, then why would they deny
it first?
It still may line up, but here here's
a Daily Mail article from today.
Kurds could begin ground operation in Iran within
days
after being secretly armed by The US for
months, according to the sources.
The Kurds living in Western Iran could begin
a rebellion, and it wouldn't be a rebellion.
It would be a a
an insurrection or a,
what's the term I'm looking for when it's
a
there's a term for that, when it's groups
within either way, the point is it's being
done by the US government and Israel. You're
creating
a force, and we can see it. They've
now owned it. It's publicly discussed, but yet
it's a rebellion?
I mean, we're already there. We're already seeing
it being called an uprising and a rebellion,
and that's not the reality of it. This
is an invasion, guys.
And whether you're using other forces or not,
it's still the same thing, armed by The
United States. The US and Israel are thought
to be seeking an armed uprising, again, and
have been smuggling weapons to Kurdish volunteers
since last year. Yeah. So they're trying to
make it sound like a popular oh, they're
just they just carry out their country.
You mean the Kurds that you're basically shifting
bringing in from Iraq? And, by the way,
there was examples of them already bombing locations
in Kurdish Iran before this. So it seems
more likely that people there don't wanna be
involved and, ultimately, they're bringing people in from
elsewhere, which, by the way, is what they've
done every time. The rat lines and people
from Turkey into the Syria conversation. Like, they've
moved these terrorist groups that they arm and
work with around the world. And I'm not
even necessarily talking about just the Kurds, but
there was an overlap. I made that point
back then. People didn't like that who supported
the group, but they're working alongside the in
many cases I showed you, Syrian Defense Forces
and, you know, these are terrible groups.
It comes after president Trump and prime minister
Netanyahu
urged the Iranian people to take back their
country and overthrow the current regime. In and
of itself would be an insane thing if
anybody else did it in the world,
and still is. Now
here's what spectator the, index reports CNN reports
about the CIA working with Kurdish forces in
Iran, and Assad Raad highlights what Jerusalem Post
added to it.
She writes, this is not about liberation.
They want to foment chaos,
collapse, and ultimately partition Iran
like they're doing everywhere else, like they're doing
in Syria. It's like they're they they wanna
do in Gaza. It's like this is what
they're doing. I mean, the entire origin of,
like, the Middle East you know, going back
to Brzezinski and, like, the r the beginning
with Afghanistan was about the balkanization of The
Middle East. That's the same kind of idea.
Right? And and then, you know, carving it
up and and get even before that, when
you're talking about,
I mean, any number of discussions, as far
as you wanna go back from like a
US war front, it's always like this idea
of taking and then carving it up in
ways that benefit us in like the maximum,
whether it's resources or geostrategic control, you know,
getting our guy there and this person there.
And, like and and so there's never a
cohesive country that you have to fight you
anymore. And this is what they do everywhere.
And there's been arguments over the years about
a about just af of Africa as a
whole, trying to make sure that it never
really rises up to realize its potential because
then they'll have influence in the world.
And it this is what they wrote from
the Israeli media. Number six on the list
was to forge a Middle East coalition for
Iran's partition.
Encourage long term plans for a federalized or
partitioned Iran. So
their point is make sure this gets broken
up and it never comes back to what
it was. How is that what Iranians want?
No, guys. It never was. None of this
is what Iranians want, and that's the truth.
So Inevitable West writes, Donald Trump has done
the impossible.
This is today. So suddenly,
it goes from her denying it to now
what's happening, and we're oh, we're amazing.
He has boots on the ground in Iran.
Woah. Wait a minute. Is that what's happening?
Well, we're gonna get into Israel claiming it's
already going on, but from The US perspective,
it's something they're planning. It's a very weird
thing. But the MAGA media has a way,
rather the manipulative side of it, of just
kind
of adding, you know, like, that you have
this thing that might be and they just
kind of add different layers to it and
put on a fake picture and yell it
out loud. It goes million views and they,
oh, and this is not even remotely true.
Happens every day. Donald Trump has done the
impossible.
Iraqi Kurds have stepped up and pledged allegiance
to United States. Guys, these groups have been
kind of fluctuated and used by them forever.
And I don't call it allegiance if you
understand how this has ever worked. But as
he writes, Bacon Funnel, then Bread and Circus,
the impossible. He goes, The Western predator class
has been hiring mercenaries to invade Iran since
the least Alexander the Great, thirty three hundred
thirty BCE. Whether you think it's
accurate or not, just to fit a point,
is that they've been trying to do this
forever. It's not some impossible thing to get
proxy forces to invade Iran. They've been doing
this everywhere in the world. But Maga Media
is making it out to be some big
deal. We're changing the world. How absurd the
Hasbarra is. It correlates precisely with how indefensible
the policy is.
But here's what Israeli media is saying. No.
You could take this as them lying to
put us in a position,
or as I tend to see,
you know, it's
both of those things happen all the time,
but as I tend to see in many
of these situations, they'll jump ahead and yell
the thing that makes The US look bad.
And in this case,
Kurdish officials
speaking with Israeli media, they claim,
tell them that Kurdish forces in Iraq have
already launched a ground offensive into Iran.
So that seems to be why that's being
reported over there. But interesting how the deviation
between so is is Israel just now guiding
our media talk conversation as well? It seems
like the MAGA media is queuing on what
Israel has to say in some cases.
You know, the dishonest ones, anyway. Okay. So
based on what they're saying, there is now
an actual invasion underway being funded by the
CIA and the US government in Israel, and
that's apparently a rebellion. It's an uprising for
freedom.
Well, as Mark Ames writes, and I think
this is very, very much worth considering.
And this is just somebody reporting down here,
Kurdish forces in Iraq have launched a ground
military offensive, right, according to Israel's media.
Now, I've also seen, though, a lot now,
I don't I don't wanna say I've seen,
and maybe they're out there like the White
House necessarily owning this plan in the moment.
But I've seen this interesting push from the
people that tend to be repeating what the
White House wants people to hear who are
seemingly backing this up. So as he writes
and I agree, he goes, I've never seen
a covert CIA separatist military operation like the
moderate rebels or any number of examples in
every field of war they've ever existed in.
He's never seen it so heavily advertised.
As it's happening,
as widely, as loudly as they can as
they can PR it, public relations.
He says you'd almost think the CIA was
running a deception operation here to stoke IRI
paranoia
and get them to massacre the local Kurds.
Well, I guess we'll we'll be following this.
We'll have to see how this goes. The
truth is we just said there's at least
reports of them bombing those Kurdish locations. So
maybe there's some truth to this. Maybe there's
a situation here where they're trying to create,
like, a wag the dog scenario to to
execute some kind of plan. This is where
we are today.
Either way, it's a it's incredible to me
that we're at the same moment seeing them
kind of caught funding,
you know, in separatist groups within a foreign
country. And can you imagine what the reverse
would be if that was being done by
a foreign country in The United States? I
mean, you you already know.
And that that's somehow, you know, we're fighting
for freedom. You know? And what by the
way, it also shows you that they've been
planning this well before what they claim was
some kind of an imminent reaction.
Right? They armed them with the intention to
do this. That also brings into a different
light
the idea of the talks with Ron.
So we're back here pretending we're gonna have
some kind of agreement while you're planning to
invade the country and then bomb them in
the location where they're meeting to discuss your
offer deal? Come on, guys. It's like everything
else. If you're an honest person, you're not
ridiculous. That's quite obvious. They planned to hurt
them, and they used the negotiations to lie
to them, like with Soleimani. In fact, that
becomes more relevant a second with the Iraq
part, which is where they used the offer
to bring him into Iraq.
And the and why they needed that? Because
the authorization required it to be in Iraq.
It's very simple. So Trump goes peace, and
Soleimani comes because he's not a monster, and
he bombs him in the Iraq airport.
That's the
story. And they go on to go, monster,
thousands of Americans, yep, in Iraq while you
were illegally invading. It's the same old story,
and I don't think that's a good thing.
I don't want Americans to die, but you're
responsible for that, not me.
Ryan Grim points out in regard to the
war powers part of this
that the Maha movement now at least this
statement coming from some of them at the
higher level of that kind of whatever you
call that. And I mean, the real people
that want America healthy again, not the team
sport politics part of Trump's team that pretended
to do that. So what he's showing is
that that now, Maha, at least these grouping
of them, have fully broke with Trump, lobbying
for passage of the war powers resolution, which
would hinder his ability to do what he's
doing. I I kinda take that back, but
that's how they see it. I just don't
think that's where this is gonna go even
if they pass that because it's already they
already have avenues to abuse this. And on
top of that, they don't seem to care
about the law or the courts or or
impeachment. So why would they follow anything they
don't wanna follow anyway?
Either way, it's worth pointing out that they
believe this will do something positive, at least
that's what's being framed as, and that they're
breaking with Trump. As the Maha people, guys,
like the high level people, that's super important
to me. You can read
It's it's I think this is happening a
lot more than people realize. And as Steve
and I have been telling you for years,
I think, but at least since this election,
this has been clear since the beginning.
People were I mean, Stargate forward, as far
as I could tell, people were like, okay.
This is obvious. And day by day, it's
become more clear.
Josiah, Josiah makes this post about the article,
the Russian point that I was talking about
earlier.
And this is the,
it's by,
how do you say that? Fedor
Louyankov,
editor in chief of the what is the
magazine? Russia NGO and global politics.
Now so take that like you would any
other platform, whether American or Russian or or
Chinese or whatever. It's funny how we have
a different you know, I already know people.
They're like, oh, it's Russian. It's probably blah
blah blah. It's just information. I might as
well be put printed on a piece of
paper with nobody's name on it. Read it.
Think about it. Consider it. Investigate it. That's
all you have to do. And the reality
is what he's highlighting in this article right
here is actually I mean, it's to me,
it's exact. It's clear. There's no there's not
error here. What they're doing is changing the
global dynamic, and that's what I've been telling
you for a long time.
As Josiah Josiah writes, under the old law
of war that existed prior to World War
two,
outright assassination of a foreign head of state
was condemned by all civilized powers. Now here
and in the article, I think they point
out that doesn't mean they actually cared or
that they didn't do it in their own
ways, you know, or behind the scenes or
whatever. But at the very least, it was
kind of a publicly acknowledged reality that that
wasn't that if if, you know, done like
we just saw it, that's just not allowed.
And that's condemned action, sort of like mafia
enforcing on itself, if you will. You do
it that public. You just can't allow it.
Right? You could think of it that way,
or maybe they just had more integrity back
then. However you wanna look at it. The
truth is that was the reality. We all
saw it back then, that it was condemned.
And even I'm talking even like the, you
know,
Kim Jong Un or whatever. Like, they because
the my opinion, because they know that creates
unstable situations, which only lead to more war
and chaos. But guess what, guys? That's what
these people want.
Because at some point, these disgusting power force
structures decided to they realize,
wait a minute.
I mean, doing not doing that is the
right thing, and that's the best for humans
and and life and and and freedom and
and, you know, whatever, whether foreign countries or
not.
But if we don't care about any of
that, and instead we destabilize those countries surreptitiously,
then we could benefit like crazy from that.
And we can still come out here and
yell freedom and go, that's bad. We wanna
help. And then be over here underlining their
whole situation,
you know, cutting deals behind the scenes to
take their resources or going in there and
stealing them ourselves. And it only grew from
there. You could talk about fruit companies in
South America to very exactly what's happening today.
Or what happened? Venezuela was selling out the
oil field. It's the same thing. And so
they realized that if we keep them destabilized
and and unable to, you know, build,
a defense or any kind of semblance of
government, then we can just do what we
want whenever we want. And even on top
of that, play the hero card even though
we're not doing that. You see how clear
that is? And so there was a point
where that clearly, whether it was narrative before
or not, transitioned into being the reality.
He says the goal was to limit violence
by, at least the statements of it, by
bracketing off the government and people as lawful
targets.
Militaries fight militaries. Right? Governments are off limits
in regard to, like, you know, like a
general versus the president.
Or, for example, Khamenei, who is this you
could think of it like the pope in
the sense of a US Catholicism perspective because
that's what we're talking about. Not this was
not some, you know Think about if Iran
assassinated the pope and what that would be
doing to the Christian right right now.
That's what they just did. And and arguing
that somehow it's gonna walk this down, like,
make it less crazier. And, you know, and
even as I said before, I'll show you
again in a second, Their own CIA assessment
told them that that's not how that would
go. And you got Jenkins out there lying
about it anyway.
And it says there was a hard headed
reason for this being the way it was.
Keeping the opposing government in place made wars
less brutal and existent and existential
by preserving the continuity and stability of powers
and power that made effective peace treaties possible.
Now you can also argue from a very
global perspective that they're all ultimately whether they
fight in some ways or not, at the
end of the day, that they all had
agreements that we're just gonna make sure we
all stay in power.
But some cases, I do think that's how
these things come to work. But I don't
know. I I shouldn't even water it down
with that because it just makes it more
confusing for those that are I mean, the
point is where we're at right now is
that what what we all told ourselves, at
least what we saw, was different before. What
they're doing now is only open that door
for everybody else, especially like the actual
crazy people out there. Like any other groups
out there, the other countries we're not talking
about who are maybe destabilized because of foreign
action from these governments or maybe because, you
know, whatever you wanna talk about, or groups
that they're arming, Al Qaeda and ISIS. Now
you open this position where this is just
the norm.
It says, but now
they that every enemy of The United States
is apparently a terrorist. There's no ground for
negotiations or lasting peace. None of this has
anything to do with whether the Ayatollah was
a good man. Those judgments between sovereign powers
mean nothing. Everyone thinks he's a good and
everyone thinks he is good, and his enemies
are bad. See, it's it's just subjective ridiculousness,
and that's where they they're you they're manipulating
people to think that they are the kind
of,
arbiter of what is good and not.
In light of this reality, the goal should
be to limit the destructive f f
effects, excuse me, of those moral claims by
removing them as a subject of warfare.
Because, by the way, I mean, that's
claiming somebody's a bad person is not a
justifiable reason from a military or international perspective
to take more legal action or war, kinetic
action.
Action. By assassinating the Ayatollah, The United States
was set has set a precedent for future
wars that threatens to make those conflicts even
more radical and violent than they should be.
That's I think that's by design. That move
was a mistake, and we should say as
much. So here's the article.
Total today, excuse me, the fundamental limiting elements
of international relations are being dismantled.
Now this there's some part that I think
are sort of a translation issue because it's
just it's in, Russian.
So it's I'll point it out when I
get there.
It says the war against Iran promises to
worsen international chaos.
Despite what they're promising, remember that. Regardless of
the outcome of the current crisis, the attack
by The United States and Israel and Iran
will have serious consequences for the world politics.
And they said the same with Iraq,
with everyone, in fact. And all of them
ended up being catastrophes. And I think that
was what they wanted, frankly. And it's not
only and not so much about the prospects
of the Islamic Republic itself. The question is
the perception of what is possible and acceptable
in international relations.
This perception is changing,
and change does not bode well for the
future.
It's worth stating starting, excuse me, with the
fact that that appealing to international law,
which in theory underlies
any diplomacy,
makes no sense.
In 2002, 2003,
when the United States was preparing to invade
Iraq,
very important, guys, it still believed it was
necessary to waste time and effort, as they
would frame it today, trying to achieve a
corresponding UN Security Council resolution.
Why? What
is that no longer no. It's still the
reality. So why does Trump pretend like it
doesn't matter? Because the constitution was the same?
The laws were the same? Well, because at
that point, they were still at least feigning
to care about the process.
It goes the famous Colin Powell test tube.
Remember? Where he holds up the thing? They
then he lied about that, which was supposed
to prove the presence of weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq,
was presented at the UN meeting and it
carefully prepared rhetorical accompaniment. He says they couldn't
convince me, but they tried and considered it
desirable.
I think that means, like, they considered it,
you know, enough. You know? They but they
lied. Remember that. They got caught.
This time, it doesn't even occur to me,
he says. Neither last summer nor how have
the
initiators of the forceful action turned to international
authorities for approval of their actions. See, it's
kind of a translation thing. The point is,
they didn't even try.
Why? Because UN is Hamas or whatever the
dumb things they're saying. It ultimately was just
a way to circumvent any kind of a
check on their power.
It says now in The United States, they
are rising to the issue of internal legality.
It's pointing out that Americans are going, well,
regardless of international law that you clearly broke,
what you're doing is a crime in this
country.
And it says Trump did not have the
right to actually declare war on another country
without the permission of Congress. And it says
George w Bush, by the way, received such
permission for Iraq in advance.
Now
this overly simplistic way to say that, but
ultimately did. And it says but the and
I'll show you in a second. But this
is due to the political situation in The
United States itself. External relations do not matter.
It says The United States, it turns out,
cynically used dialogue to lull people to sleep
and take them by surprise. That's what we
saw. That's what they did in Lebanon. That's
what they did in Venezuela. I mean, every
place I can point to, but, clearly,
we just saw them get caught doing that
here. We saw them do it in Lebanon,
where they bomb them in that room where
they're meeting for negotiations. As I'll get to,
Solomon, it was the same point.
It says, what conclusion will those who are
in the diplomatic process with Washington
or or who will have to do so
to oh, see that same kind of thing.
What conclusion will those who are in diplomatic
process with Washington
or who will have to do so draw?
Like, basically saying, what are they gonna do
if they're in the middle of a process
with The United States? You can't believe anything
at all. Right? You can't take them seriously.
They violate everything they do. I say it
all the time. You should rely on on
rely only on yourself and your strength. And
at a minimum,
have an argument that your counterpart cannot ignore.
It's it's even more difficult. The supreme leader
of Iran was not only destroyed by a
targeted strike, but this destruction was declared
a great achievement and a blessing for the
future resolution of conflict despite being, like, verifiably
the opposite, even according to US intelligence.
However, Khamenei is a legitimate,
according to the laws of his country, head
of state,
a member of the United Nations
recognized, or he was, by almost everyone in
a full participant in all forms of international
relations,
including political negotiations with the organizers of the
attack, which have continued to this day.
I mean, you're talking this is somebody it's
like every other point we made. It's like
them deciding to kill the head of state
in any other country because they just decide
they need to.
That's where it is. And, I mean, this
is a person who is literally a member
of the United Nations who was in like,
as they're highlighting, was participating in these negotiations,
was like, if they're engaging with them as
if he's a legitimate
part of the negotiation.
So there's no denying that they did this
to trick them so they could kill them.
There's just something, like, disgustingly
dishonest about that. Like, vile. Like like,
not just surreptitious. There's no better word for
that. You know, where you're you're it's it's
sinister. Right? I mean, like, what you're doing
is is like oh, I'm gonna get to
a clip from, Hegseth in a minute,
where he just comes out and says, you
know, we're we're taking advantage of them. We're
kicking them while they're down, or we're hitting
them while they're down because it's not a
fair fight. Like, okay. Why do you think
that's a good thing to say?
In no context does that analogy ever mean
the right thing?
Boxing,
any sport. What do you so you punch
them while they're down? No. That's not bad.
You don't do that. I mean, even in
warfare, it's always been discussed as some kind
of a you know, like the revolution, for
example, in America. They they meet for Christmas.
You know, it's like there's a a moment
where you can acknowledge we're at war, but
we can respect or we can have you
know, that's never been the case for these
people, in my experience.
And I'm talking about, like, the current reality
of our government and Israel's government.
That ultimately, they've gone to a position where
there is nothing sacred anymore, and they're going
to the level where they're creating like, they're
just challenging things that were held sacred, like
the discussion of a negotiation. Because if that's
not there, then there's never a negotiation ever
again because no one's ever gonna trust it.
The murder of the head of of one
state by the forces of another state and
by decision of its leadership in accordance with
the same model as the leaders of terrorist
organizations.
Drug cartels are eliminated is a fundamentally different
dimension of world politics.
Guys,
it's a very good point.
Cartels,
drug terrorist groups, or whatever. That's what they
do, right? They just go kill somebody because
they decide they're a challenge to their religion
or whatever you think drives their ideas.
So in any real sense, how is that
different from what they just did? They have
an ideological drive. In fact, they're pretty extreme
religiously, and we'll get to that.
I don't it's a
whole thing.
But, ultimately, they just decide that guy bad,
so we're gonna go kill him. I mean,
it it just because you claim you've got
some right to do it. That's the whole
thing. It's like some divine right, it would
seem. And
it makes them exactly the same from any
kind of a legal standpoint, even compared to
previous cases of regime change. Right? From their
US government regime changes.
It's a different reality,
including violent endings such as the lynching of
Gaddafi in in Libya. Right?
Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
Both of those, despite how it started,
this is possible thanks to external military intervention.
But Gaddafi was killed by Libyan opponents. But
let's be real. I think there's more to
it than that in regard to people that
were on the ground, that were working with,
you know, CIA or whatever. But nonetheless, on
the record, it wasn't them.
Hussein executed by trial in an Iraqi court.
So that's just doesn't count anymore. Right? These
people are why? They wanted you they they
wanted you to think they cared about process.
We care about evidence because we're better than
our enemies. They they they're like, no. We're
not. We're strong. Shut up. That's what you
get.
And both episodes, it says the case of
Iran is different.
Oh, sorry. It says,
no matter how one evaluates his objectivity,
the ultimate point was they did these in
ways that were clearly meeting that demand for
some kind of process. And it says the
case of Iran is different. It is a
reproduction of the method that Israel applied to
the heads of Hezbollah,
Hamas,
and The United States fully supports it. Right?
It killed them because we say bad.
The fundamental
elements of international relations that have been preserved
from previous eras are being dismantled.
Recognition of the legitimacy of states turns out
to be due to specific circumstances.
It's not that before, everyone acted extensively in
accordance with norms of law, I'm glad he
says that, and morality.
The latter is in interpreted differently depending on
cultural traditions where you are. Right? It's subjective.
Right? People have different opinions on what that's
the reality of the world. But certain boundaries
were present even amongst that conversation, and now
they don't even exist.
That's should be alarming, guys.
So, again, if you missed that earlier point,
what they're doing, why does that why does
that not create the justification for some new
radical group to come out and go screw
it? We're gonna take we want because we're
strong, because we can, because we're willing to
go that far. That's what they're showing you.
Firstly,
negotiating with the Americans makes almost no sense,
he writes. The real question is either about
capitulation or about imitation.
Like, I think pretending, like, fronting in preparation
for a forceful solution. So, basically, pretending to
deal for war.
Second, that's capitulation, meaning do what we say,
or we're gonna pretend to deal with you
and then bomb you.
Isn't that what we see every day?
Secondly, a situation is quite plausible when there
is nowhere to retreat and nothing to lose.
And then any of the last arguments is
legitimate. Then type of a red button that
is avoid available is literal or figurative. I
think the point they're trying to say there,
the translation issue, is ultimately that you create
a situation where it's all or nothing. Right?
Red lines, but, you know, it's like it's
it's built in a way to manipulate you
into having no other choice.
If even if an improved semblance of Venezuela,
for example, comes to fruition,
there, there with a behind the scenes agreement
to transfer power to some hands of that
suit everybody,
such social engineering will not reassure other regimes
that oppose The United States. Right? Because everyone
can see what they just did. Whether or
not it ends up as a positive reality
for Venezuela, you did it through illegal means.
And so all it creates is a situation
where no one's gonna believe that you're ever
trying to do the right thing. The mechanism
for changing control and bringing it under control
has been outlined.
This is a much tougher option
than even the color revolutions in the February.
Opposition to it will grow stronger and become
more desperate,
which they'll then simply point to to say,
look. They're terrorists. How this tends to work,
even though they're justified because of what they're
doing is illegal, with consequences that in a
certain scenario become fatal.
Once again, it makes sense to turn to
the two thousand three Iraq campaign.
It became a turning point. Afterwards, the entire
structure of the region created in the twentieth
century began to crumble
by design. Right? That's what that's what the
plan was. The rapid defeat of the Iraqi
army in the overthrow of Saddam Hussein gave
rise to euphoria,
falsely,
and a feeling of the ability to effectively
rebuild the entire region according to American
views.
In reality,
everything went differently.
And and, look, I argue they knew that
from day one. I don't even think they
had intentions to make this country better.
Controllability began to drop sharply, and those who
were not not the ones who were counting
on,
and those who were not the ones they
were counting on strengthened.
By the way,
the rise of Iran,
which largely determined the current conflict,
was also stimulated by the elimination of the
previous Iraqi regime.
You could say that's by design, and it
well it very well may be. But it's
also worth considering that these ridiculous, clumsy
authoritarians
will essentially go in, take what they want,
destroy everything, and then just walk away. And
then what that leads to, they then justify
for the next criminal action. I mean, you
could say this about every country they've been
involved in.
They created the situation.
Whether you're talking about the, you know, shooting
protesters and blaming on the government to justify
doing what they do, or simply by their
belligerent actions, they cause these things to to
be created as blowback or whatever you wanna
call it and then go, look, see, bad
stuff, when all you're toe pointing to is
things that you created.
I mean, in a way, it's the same
thing we're dealing with right now with this
exact situation with Iran.
The transformation of Iran, if it happens as
a result of aggression,
again transfers the entire regional situation to another
another phase. The idea of Trump and his
inner circle for the Middle East is quite
simple.
Israel's military force dominance in the region
combined with the intensification
of Israel's
economic interaction with the Gulf monarchies and the
interest, first of all, of The United States.
So basically, Israel does whatever it wants and
we benefit from that.
If Iran in its current form can be
eliminated or at least radically weakened,
then the military commercial scheme will gain prospects.
Commercial, meaning that's always what this comes down
to. The idea of building in Iran for
the benefit of their elitist circles, which they're
already salivating about.
Trump was convinced that the dividends,
if successful, were very large, control not only
over the vicinity of the Gulf, but also
influence over a significant part of the adjacent
territories from the from the Caracas to Central
Asia.
See, he sees
history.
I'll be remembered.
I'll be the one that changed everything. I'll
I changed the face of the world. It'll
be called Trump land, probably.
The bottom line,
he was convinced, probably by Israel, to see
the how this would benefit him.
And that's all. Who cares about the law?
Who cares about US interest, America first?
I will be forever. I lionized by doing
this. I will make billions of dollars. Everybody
will love me in the inner circles who
make billions of dollars.
That's where this goes.
And this opens up qualitatively, by the way,
my opinion, obviously, this opens up qualitatively different
commercial opportunities,
which is at the center of the worldview
of Trump and his associates as anybody can
see who's not lying to themselves. The emphasis
on naked force and coercion in world politics
is growing.
Rampant lawlessness.
Even hip hypocritical moral or ideological
frames,
meaning, like, we keep seeing hypocrisy everywhere,
are they no longer it says even hypocritical
moral or ideological frames, and they are no
longer needed. How to feel be may I
guess what they're saying there is basically
committing, you know,
naked force and coercion,
but, you know, basically going, but this is
us, you know, basic how do you frame
it? Like, so coming out and just violently
attacking somebody, but claiming, for example, that it
was necessary, justified, preemptive self defense. That's what
they're saying.
But now the point is they don't even
need that. It's gonna turn to a point
to where it's just naked aggression because we're
justified. That's what we're talking about.
At least and and we went from a
place where that was something that didn't happen
and there was more of a process to
now just going, well, we do it, but
because article one or whatever, right, Or article
two. Just be why are you in power?
And then what he's saying is then that
that is no longer necessary.
It's just we're in power. Shut up.
And it says how to feel about this
is a personal matter for everyone,
but one cannot ignore it.
It's well written.
Nazar
Reza Nasri points out the and and this
is because the Israeli,
Israel Katz, what was I forget his position
off the top of my head now. High
you know, someone high up in the Israeli
government
says every leader appointed to the Iranian terror
regime
to continue and lead the plan to destroy
Israel, many of which, by the way, Trump
was claiming he was the ones he wanted
to end up in power, to threaten The
United States and the free world with what?
That's not happening. And the countries of the
region and to suppress the Iranian people
will be an unequivocal target for elimination, they
write.
It does not matter what his name is
or the place where he hides.
So, again, what that means, by the way,
on top of what this guy says is
if they're in Florida, we'll bomb Florida.
As they've already claimed so many times,
America first, though. Right, guys? If Israel is
normalizing the targeted assassinations of state officials in
a manner that constitutes one of the most
blatant,
unprecedented,
and shameful violations of the UN Charter.
It states the UN Security Council, the secretary
general, and regional organizations
fail to strongly and unequivocally condemn this practice.
If they do that, if they fail to,
it risks establishing a dangerous precedent, turning such
criminal actions into the accepted norm.
Which, again, like we just read, what they're
saying is, we don't care where they are.
We don't care if they're not military.
We'll kill them because we've argued they're bad.
Comey was not military. That already violated the
law. The reality,
one of the other many ways we haven't
mentioned. In this case,
if they're at their home,
If they're not, if they're just a if
they're they're the president.
None of those are legal targets in the
context of war, that that's what they're doing.
Oh, well, don't forget. As, Higgs said, so
you've rule rules of engagement, pshaw. We don't
care about those. Yeah. Exactly.
Do not allow Israel to further poison the
foundations of international law, he writes. Now you
don't have to advocate for global order or
international law to understand that what they're doing
is wrong.
That that's a trap. I think it's been
created. I I you know my opinions. I
don't I think in many ways, we're trying
to very clearly expose the new globalist agenda,
but the point, nonetheless, is where we are,
and that is against the law. So it's
important to highlight that. Right? Pointing to the
reality, the current static issue does not mean
support. Right?
It can. Authorization for use of military force
against Iraq resolution
of 2002.
Now this is important
because of how this has been applied
and that Bush
did ultimately gain this. And this is why
this was a
quasi I mean, my opinion is that most
of these things are illegal and unconstitutional
regardless
of how you know, that they write down
something that gives them the ability. But my
point is that this from within the circumstances
we claim are the reality, then
reality, then that is legal. That's not what
they did today. The Authorization for Use of
Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002
was a joint resolution passed by the United
States Congress in October 2002. It was repealed,
interestingly, by the National Defense Authorization Act for
fiscal year
2026.
Like, that that just happened. Now my mind
and so I can't it's hard to say
for sure, but I my opinion is that
this was something they wouldn't have wanted remove
because it gave them the at least the
arguable justification to continue to bomb Iraq and
Iran.
And
it got forced in in essentially, with, like,
a a, like, a rider, whatever you wanna
call it, where because it was the National
Defense Authorization Act, and they had they had
to pass that to fund the year, they
ultimately there's people in Congress that made that
go in. And it's been it's been there
for a while. Biden seemed to say he
supported it. Because what it does, it gives
them this never ending authorization
that mission creep beyond Iraq, which has been
everything.
Interestingly, that's no longer the reality.
I'm gonna go into why that's important.
But my point would be that if they
did remove this, it means something like, the
argument is they don't think they need the
justification. And that makes sense to what we
just read.
But it might just be that there's somebody,
a Massey type, that just recognized why this
was bad and
forced them to put it in. And Trump
clearly
needed this to pass. And so that was
something we probably just get, ah, screw it.
We'll do it anyway because we don't follow
the law anyway, do we?
I think that was it on here.
Just to show the main point. And then
here's the actual bill, authorization for use of
military force, in case you want to read
further on that and understand that this was,
you know I mean, this is something that
we need to consider with Trump's actions today.
And understanding, he said we attacked first. This
or congressional
authorization are the only two options on the
table. So they're already breaking the law. Now
the votes in regard to this in 2002,
rather, excuse me, the of the repealing of
it in the National Defense Authorization Act,
02/1996
to 01/1933.
Oh, no. I'm sorry. This was the wrong
one. This this was about the the in
the past. Either way, the bottom line about
the 2002 part was the authorization served as
the legal basis for The US led invasion
of Iraq in 2003
rather than a formal declaration of war, but
both those things apply. That's the reality.
Note that while Bush sought the and obtained
this congressional approval,
even then, by the way, he argued that
the president
had independent constitutional authority as commander in chief
and would without it, could act without it
was necessary. However, he pursued it anyway.
You see, that was already building, guys. If
you thought that, then why would you do
it anyway? Because you could argue you're trying
to appease the international community. Well, there's some
logic to that too in the sense of
just demonstrating that you're not belligerent for the
rest of the world. But the point is
that that's where this became you know, it
grew over the years, and now Trump just
going, well, article two, I could do what
I want.
It's not true.
For context, the invasion did not have explicit
United Nations Security Council approval for the use
of force, which led some to call it
illegal under international law.
Now here is just security 2024.
A presidential proclamation to end the Iraq war.
Unilateral exec executive action to defang a zombie
authorization for use of military force.
Now a point to add to this, by
the way, is that since this has been
removed, which you'll see right here,
what they're doing in Iraq is illegal.
By the way, it was to begin with.
But now they arguably don't even have the
legal justification to continue to occupy Iraq. But
guess what, guys? They need Iraq
desperately for what they're doing. They need Iraq
and Syria to maintain the supply lines for
what they're doing in Iran and what will
come more more importantly, which I think anyway.
And so here,
this
because of the NDAA 2026,
you could argue that this is something that
they have been I that's why I'm leaning
more towards sort of forced to do but
don't care. It says such such action would
finally nullify,
excuse me, the power of the outdated two
thousand two war authorization for that conflict. I
can't believe it's still it's 2026.
Think about that. Twenty four years,
this temporary authorization has maintained
that and listen to Trump tell you. It'll
be a couple of weeks. That's what they
said about Iraq.
Twenty four years.
It says
the authorization for the conflict and safeguard against
its future abuse, including as a basis for
war with Iran,
because that's what it was being pointed to
because Iran was involved with nine eleven. No.
They were not. And that's been proven a
100 times over. Even New York Times wrote
an article about it.
But, one of the couple of the parts
here. And mainly about that, authorization for Iraq
and Iran and how this is now removed.
The Trump administration also invoked the 2002 resolution
as a statutory basis for the killing of
Soleimani.
Right? So this is my this is how
they were using this. Right? We killed him
because we claimed
he rely he relied it says Trump relied
in part.
The legal justification for the operation remains heavily
redacted, of course, on the theory
that the 2002 law theory
provided
continuing authority
to, quote,
establish a stable democratic Iraq and address terrorist
threats emerging in Iraq. That that's what they
used.
Think about that. So it had to be
Iraq. That was the point.
And so they said, hey. Let's make a
deal. Come meet us in Iraq. He flew
into the Iraq Airport. They bombed him in
the Iraq Airport.
This is this is who we're dealing with.
And if even if this guy was a
monster, which he was not, that would still
be ridiculous.
But what they did was to a person
who was very respected.
I mean, the world around, quite frankly, Iran
in particular,
and they turned him into a terrorist because
he dared to defend against their illegal actions.
You feel free to look into this stuff
if you care, guys. I mean, I've talked
about this stuff extensively. I did a core
interview with James Corbett back when that first
happened about Soleimani.
It's just obvious it was then.
So what we're talking about is the use
of that to bomb him illegally
because they established a stable and and they
they basically argue that because he was there,
he was destabilizing Iraq. That's how flimsy this
is.
Even though they invited him there, guys. Now
it says, from 2021
to 2023,
the administration cited article two of the constitution
as the sole authority
for periodic US airstrikes against so called Iran
backed militias. And there we go. So they
just transitioned away already before we got to
this removal of these because they you know,
this is the point where you might think,
that's why I consider both, that this was
a plan,
to ultimately
fold this in and just start doing it
even in 2023 under Biden. Because guess what?
They're all the same.
Create the justification to just use,
I guess, the power that you're in charge.
That's what they're actually arguing.
Paramilitaries in Iraq and Syria blamed for attacking
US forces in those countries. That was like
the PMU,
which by the way were groups that are
I mean, arguably still to this point. Well,
it depends on how much is actually being
exchanged between US and Iraq, which I think
is very little.
Who knows? But at one point, while they
were fighting them, they were still being armed
by Iraq who was being armed by the
United States government.
Easily provable. And so you're basically arming them
to then fight them to claim you're bombing
Iran. That wasn't the reality.
This is just so crazy how all this
goes. And so here,
they but they again, back to the point,
they used article two in 2023 under Biden
to argue they could just do what they
wanted even though they technically still had the
authorization of use military force. This is but
as frequent US air strikes against these Iran
backed groups persisted, and the sixty day deadline
imposed by the war powers resolution approached in
late twenty twenty three, the Biden administration
shifted legal rationales because, basically, what we're talking
about here, which I still argue is a
ridiculous point because they didn't have an imminent
threat. But you see, it's the same thing.
Biden, Trump, whatever. That were that what they
did was abuse the War Powers Act to
argue they had sixty days to to flush
it out even though they didn't prove that
it was actually an imminent threat. You see
how this works? But so now you're meeting
this deadline for sixty days, not ninety, like
a bunch of more on the line are
saying. The ninety comes into play when you
get possibly an extra thirty days because you
convince congress you need that to remove the
troops.
But it says,
the administration reported to Congress that both the
2002
and the 2001 war authorizations provide authority for
these hostilities. Right? Right? So you're just playing
both cards.
Thus, well, the the White House could continue
with strikes even in the absence of fresh
authorization. So why did you do it anyway?
Because you you're just you're going through the
motions to make it appear like you're going
that you you know what you're doing is
illegal. There was no imminent threat. But here's
here's our forty five you know, forty eight
hour thing. We blame we're doing something. Give
us sixty days. Then the sixty days passes
and they go, well, but whatever. We could
do this anyway because those authorizations are still
there.
Okay?
I honestly think that was about setting up
the point to justify what Trump was doing.
Because they didn't need to do that. They
could've just sent the authorizations right there. And
everyone's ignored. Everyone's acknowledged that and let it
go even though it's not, I don't think,
accurate.
But yet they did it and then went
to the authorizations,
setting the precedent for that reality, article two.
So like the index, not the first example,
but I think that's important timing. So like
the Obama administration, they write the Biden White
House is now invoking
and this is, again, this is written in
2024.
The Biden White House is now invoking the
2002
authorization for use of military force as a
source of sub of subsidiary authority
subsidiary authority for military operations in Iraq and
Syria.
Addressing this outdated Iraq war authorization
is thus more than a matter of mere
legislative hygiene. The 2002 Iraq authorization for use
of military force, the AUMF,
remains susceptible to future abuse. Yep. It was
right up until the moment it was removed,
and still they don't seem to care, specifically
as reported authority to attack Iran and Iran
backed groups.
Republican senators opposed to repealing the author authorization
explicitly
emphasized
the need to retain the Iraq authorization,
not in order to achieve objectives specified by
the resolution. Of course not. But in order
to fight Iran
without going to Congress.
Make sure you hear that. The argument that
they discussed among themselves was the reality that
we need to keep this because that's the
only way we're gonna get to go to
war with Iran without justification.
You You have to understand, they know that
they're breaking the law. They know what they're
doing, and they're just hoping that we don't
push it.
And that's that's in case you missed it,
that's both sides of the that is your
government
as a whole.
Human Rights Watch
To make sure we get into legal reality
yet again, the the Israeli army comes out
and literally tells you what they're doing, and
then these are crimes, guys.
It says the the r the IDF warns
representatives of the Iranian regime who remain in
Lebanon. You see how this works? That's their
second that's their effort to justify illegally bombing
Lebanon and invading, apparently, and telling them they
have to evacuate. But, no, they're they'll pretend
that's not that's not what's happening.
What they're doing is saying, We think Iran's
bad guy. And that's just exactly what the
US government's been doing our entire lives. That's
the mission creep. That's what they did. They
argued, you know, ISIS or Al Qaeda, and
they might be there and over there, and
then then they just invade whatever they want.
Aside from the fact that they've literally worked
with those groups. You know, the reality.
Earlier today and so the bottom line is
that they claimed that's what's happening. Here's Human
Rights Watch.
The laws of war
strictly prohibit
attacks targeting civilians,
which, by the way, important to hear this,
include
officials from other countries who are not directly
participating in hostilities. That's that's the that right
now, what you're gonna get is the people
who act like Hegseth and Trump going, no
rules of engagement. They're gonna call you weak.
They're gonna call you, you know,
a Democrat
or whatever they wanna frame it as.
This is the reality, guys. This is the
law, and it's always been. You could disagree
with it. Sure. But what they're doing right
now is not claiming it. They're just they're
just not they're
refusing to acknowledge it because Israel wants to
assassinate who they wanna assassinate. So it doesn't
matter whether you're sitting with your sit your
six month old baby in your in your
home, they'll bomb you because they just told
you they would. Doesn't matter where you are
or where you reside, and they're telling you
right now.
So suddenly, you're in Lebanon. Well, you're not
in the field of war that justifies the
attack even though, hypothetically, if you had a
legal attack going on, which is important.
And they're just going, we're gonna bomb them
wherever they are. And every group
withstanding is telling you what they're doing is
a crime. Well, guess what? They said the
same thing about Israel and Gaza, and it's
still happening.
The suggestion that Israeli forces will target Iranian
government officials who do not leave Lebanon is
both deeply disturbing
and as an admission of an intent to
commit a war crime.
But guess what? The US government will still
support them.
The,
reports
Iran regime is paying for their crimes against
America
in blood.
I mean, can we not just stand back
and realize, like, this is pushing the envelope?
This is what we're talking about.
Okay. So we have to understand what war
is, and that's what the Human Rights Watch
was pointing out.
At least what we pretended this was, and
that's important too because I'm not I'm not
naive. I understand that these things are very
different in the real world sense, and that
most of them actually don't care about them.
So most of this stuff in in regard
to, like, the the guidelines or rather the
the guardrails,
is that ultimately what we've always discussed is
that war is in this is a is
a it's an we don't it's we're forced
into it. It's a forlorn hero. It's a
necessity. We have to to save people or
to fight back the bad guys. Right?
War has never been argued to be punitive.
Did they deserve it? Just because they they
we were giving it back to them, even
though we know that's always been a guiding
force for the the weakest among them in
the room. But the the reality is they've
never said that out loud. And so for
you to go and say, we're paying them
for their crimes,
well, you're bombing in civilian locations. So either
that means that you're saying all of Iran
is paying for those crimes or because you
are actually fighting all of Iran and even
Israel's deliberately bombing them, including the school you
basically admitted you bombed,
Israel's deliberately bombing them, including the school you
basically admitted you bombed. But, again, the the
real point here is that you're admitting that
what you're doing is about vitriol. It's about
vengeance.
And, guys, that's a crime,
Period. On top of the other arguments, and
people will make this argument.
They just don't care. And and and hegseth
is out there doing this. Like, I think
it's be being driven to do it.
No rules of engagement. How are you possibly
gonna say that? That's it. That's an admission
of guilt, guys.
Again, even if you go, well, I don't
care. Those things shouldn't exist. Okay. May you
can make your argument. I'll debate it with
you. We can discuss it. But at the
moment, that's the current reality to which the
US government is literally signed. Right? That's the
UN charter. This isn't you can't just pretend
it doesn't exist. They're breaking the
law. And guess what? We'll point to Iran
every time they even, you know, like, fake
fake like, kind of fake an attempt or
whatever you wanna call it. Like, they're not
actually doing it. But they'll go, Ron violated
the ceasefire. Ron violated this Charter or this
resolution.
But then ignored or UN is a mosque.
Right? Well, here's Tucker Carlson speaking with,
Piers Morgan.
And I think this is interesting for a
couple of reasons. I'll let it play out
or let I might stop it, but I'll
I'll let it play before I give commentary.
Interesting for many reasons.
Where Donald Trump decided to attack Iran,
what did you feel about that given that
it ended so apparently quickly?
Do you think Trump was vindicated in his
short, sharp,
strategy there? But Oh, well, I will stop
at this point at all. This is weird
to me.
When I looked into this, what I'm being
told is this is a new clip.
Right?
But I I I that can't be the
case unless Piers Morgan is genuinely arguing right
now that that that Iran has already stopped.
Like, somehow, it was a quick end. I
believe
that's being misattributed,
and it's actually from the twelve day point
afterward.
But you decide for yourself. Either way, it's
the same point. You'll see what I mean.
It's really just about the way we're engaging
with Iran.
But that's strange, isn't it? Like, so I
mean, what who whatever you ask, you'll find
that their argument, at least when I was
looking into this, from reports, from people sharing
it, that this is a new clip that
this came out.
I I I wasn't able to find the
actual interview, which I'm sure we could eventually,
but
it well, he'll listen again. You'll see what
I mean. I'm just like, if if this
is new, I can't believe he just argued
that. I'm I'm thinking it's just repackaged old
clip from the previous one being shared today.
Where Donald Trump decided to attack Iran,
what did you feel about that? Go hold
on right here.
Where Donald Trump decided to attack Iran.
What did you feel about that? Given that
it ended so apparently quickly?
Do you think Trump was vindicated in his
short, sharp,
strategy there by by bombing Iran? Or do
you think that this will come back and
haunt him down the line?
Well, of course, I can't say. I mean,
my my life is a kind of unbroken
chain of bad predictions and embarrassing,
analysis. And I've been wrong so many times,
and I will be in the future without
question. However, it's just a fact that,
you know, events have consequences that we can't
foresee often for years or generations.
And I think it's very unwise,
like
the invasion of Iraq leading to what they
claim is the Iran issue. Right? Whenever Whenever
you think about Iran, that's the argument they
make, that this has led to that problem
becoming a problem or any number of points
where they create the kickback or the, you
know, the,
vacuum that leads to what they you know?
Or Afghanistan
is the best argument even though there's more
to that story.
That ultimately, they armed and funded the very
groups that they put used against the Soviet
Union, which became,
you know, Al Qaeda. But I think it's
clearly we can see today. This has been
a design. And maybe it started organically, and
they just decided to use it later. Same
kind of point, though. Right? They create the
things they later point to.
In the future without question. However, it's just
a fact that,
you know, events have consequences that we can't
foresee often for years or generations.
And I think it's very unwise,
to use military force
without a clear achievable object objective that serves
the American national interest. In fact, it's not
it's not allowed to use it under any
other circumstances.
And in that case, I was concerned and
remain concerned
that this focus on Iran is not actually
connected to our national security. How many Shiite
terror attacks have there been in The United
States in my lifetime? Let me do the
math. Zero.
So don't tell me that And in case
you missed the point, if you wanna make
this about Saudi Arabia, well, that would be
the Sunni point. That's the Wahhabi version of
that. That's nine eleven, or at least what
they claim. Right? Not to get into that.
You guys know the reality, but that's the
point he was kind of insinuating. Right? And
that's interesting. Why make it about the other
side? Well, because that's the side Israel's fighting.
It's really is that simple, guys.
The greatest threat we face is Iran. That's
a lie. You're telling it on behalf of
a foreign power. Maybe they feel the greatest
threat they face is Iran. It's not the
greatest threat we face. It's not an endorsement
of Iran. Okay? Doesn't make me a simp
for the Shiites. It just makes me an
American who's trying to think clearly about what
our problems are. And our problems would include
tens of millions of foreign nationals living illegally
in my country. Nobody knows their identities. They
would include a collapsing economy that makes it
very hard for my children to have children
and would live the life that they grew
up with and and their friends and all
American kids. It would include a drug crisis
that's killed millions of Americans
over the past twenty millions of Americans over
the last twenty years. Iran is not even
in the top 10 list. So you can
scream at me all you want and call
me names and call me a bigot or
whatever,
but I just there's no evidence to support
that. And so if the energy of the
US government is focused on a threat that's
not the primary threat to us, it is
by definition ignoring threats that are. And that's
a kind of negligence.
And so I pointed that out. I was,
you know, roundly attacked. My family was attacked.
Whatever. I don't care. It's true, and everyone
kind of knows it's true. And being bullied
by Ben Shapiro into pretending that it's not
true, it's just not on the program for
me at 56. I'm just not not doing
that anymore.
Now I agree with him. But what's interesting
to me is is it's essentially we've got
to a place essentially where Tucker Carlson is
now saying what I've always been saying.
And it's so good. I agree. But whether
and we should genuinely hope that maybe he
just is doing the right thing for the
right reasons. We question me and him, always.
Never stop doing that. Me either one of
us could be deceiving you relying the entire
time. Either one of us could be wrong
or misfed misinformation. The point is interesting to
me, though, that, yeah, everyone sees it. They
always have, and we're just being gaslit about
it. And the truth is that, you know,
it's it's like all we have been giving
the even before the last selection process, like,
twenty twenty four, twenty five point to 2026,
these people were telling you to side with
the team. All of them were. Now I'm
not that doesn't mean you should ignore what
he just said, but recognize that. Or as
people point out with you know, like, right
now, I I we talk about this today
in wake up. Dave Smith is, I think,
doing a great job calling all this out.
But as Steve rightly points out, or or
Derek, I forget which ones did it, he
was the one out there telling you to
support this. Now may whether genuine now or
not
and I'm I think he's owned that to
some degree. Who knows? You can decide that
that's important to recognize that that was a
time where and we've all made mistakes. Right?
We've all made the wrong, and he's owned
that. He's I I regret doing that. He's
a traitor. But it's still important to see
that and then genuinely question whether this is
not gone as now. Right? I don't have
any reason to think that. In this case,
you should question it. But with Tucker,
right, what he's saying there is important to
hear because I want you to understand what
we've been trying to tell you is a
very real point and has been I mean,
is at the highest level of the conversation,
whatever you think that means, people see it.
He's calling it out. So recognize that, demonstrating
our value. We've been telling you this well
before this became something the right was forced
to acknowledge. Now to his point,
guys, I mean, this is really important to
understand.
We're being gaslit to this for Israel. That's
not a secret. That's not some kind of
a misrepresenting
what Marco Rubio said. The evidence has been
there my entire life.
And what and what we're seeing at this
level is that we're acknowledging that, that Marco
Rubio accidentally, or for whatever, right design,
tells you that Israel was doing this, we
were forced to act. They're just basically trying
to slowly walk out this reality and almost,
I think,
become make it just sort of the reality
without saying that.
Either way, I'm very glad to see that
being called out. And I will share, like
I said, from anybody. In fact, I'm gonna
make a point in a minute. I I
figured if I maybe I've already passed it.
I forget. But I I don't think so.
About,
Michael Tracy. She's
a spectacular
fool today with what he's been doing.
But if he said something I agreed with,
I I mean, I would probably hesitate to
speak up, but I would share it if
it was a well made point. And I
think that's important, and we should always do
that because it's not about the person necessarily.
It's about the content.
And as, for, for Khan writes, oh my
god. Derek Carlson literally cooked Trump and Piers
Morgan brutally.
And they hate him for it.
Oh, I'm glad I just remembered that. Because
as he was saying in there, a point
that I haven't gotten into that I do
think is very interesting and relevant, just in
in a in an always kinda sense based
on after the aftermath of what they do.
Let's just say this goes the way it
always has in the past where they blow
the country up, kill everyone they can, claim
this freedom, claim they're supported, and never is
the case, and then
basically break down the country to its pieces,
sell it off the highest bidder, and leave
it into a kinda chaotic situation where they
claim someone's in charge, and they just reap
the benefits forever. So every one of these
countries are doing it. Every one of them.
The point is if that goes that route,
what'll happen to the people?
Well, what you're gonna see, without question, because
it's gonna be chaotic, is a ton of
immigration
or emigration, whatever the correct point. There are
gonna be people that flee in other countries,
And that will inevitably end up in Europe
and The United and everywhere else, right? And
then what are they gonna do? Like they've
done every time before. You'll get forty seconds
later, people going, Oh my God, it's a
foreign invasion. And blah, you guys literally did
this.
They did it in that they did it
in South America. They did it I mean,
every one of these points, you can prove
that their actions caused it, and they turn
around and use their act that that what
they've caused to justify their next step.
It's it's devious. But this starts and it's
it's really fascinating to go back. It starts,
it I don't know. I I I don't
even know how I bumped that. Sorry about
that. So continuing.
Next segment here, and this gets into some
it was a bunch of points around this
I wanna make. And this this is,
hold on.
Oh, woah. Okay. I'm realizing I just lost
something here, I think. Hold on a second.
I hope I didn't just close that.
I can find it though.
I know exactly what it was. That's crazy.
How did that happen? Hold on. Let me
grab this. I wanna start with this and
then go through,
hold on one second.
There was a a response.
Damn.
Alright. I'll also let me grab let me
get it for my, give me one second.
Maybe I should have played that clip. It
was a it was something I wanna use
to make a point, and it's a post
that I think is really is really well
done.
I do disagree with one of the points,
but and I said that, and, it was
it's propaganda and co.
Oh, nice.
Nice. Well, he he just responded, by the
way. He looks like we might be doing
a live stream coming up soon. I just
said, hey. Don't reach out. I'll I'll show
you what I what I mean. Let me
grab it for you right now.
And the point is simply about a a
a really well put together sort of assessment
of what they see happening
and and and what it sort of is
inevitably leading to. And a large part of
it comes down to the point about weapons
and and using them and kind of, wasting
the rest through their response, setting themselves up
for failure.
It's gotta be there we go. Why would
that not show up? Okay. Here we go.
This
and you'll see why the I think this
is just well done. And I was, you
know, shout them out. I think they do
good work.
Because they remember propaganda and co was was
one very, very much so calling out the
Israeli lies very early, very early, at a
time when it was that, you know, as
Steve put it, the the difficult difficult, not
the easy difficult.
So
as they write,
what this is what I was saying. I
just said, hey. Great assessment. I agree almost
entirely. I'll accept the claims of nukes. And
they said I said, but if you wanna
talk more, let's let's connect. And they said,
oh, let's do it. So, you know, I
I just I very much appreciate that. You
know, that people can have disagreements but not
just immediately hate each other. Right? It's like,
and I and I think that's clear, but
it's not at work. I think it's objective.
But the point is, they wrote, now, first
of all, this is from,
He's
saying the war with Iran could last up
to eight weeks, saying The US and Israel
expect to have achieved uncontested airspace.
Well, first off, it's for it's in bear
like, it was very roundly discussed well before
we got here that that was going to
be a very quick point, that that's almost
inevitable.
And that and that Iran has already factored
that in, that they would ultimately end up
gaining control of the airspace very quickly. It
was not some kind of massive monumental achievement
because it was already I mean and you
can go back and look. There's been people
discussing this building for a while. And a
lot of the analysts and people that are,
like, military minds are saying, well, that was
gonna be happening immediately.
And so it's of course, they use it
to go, we are the best, even though
it was a kind of expected. But eight
weeks.
Well, why do you think that is?
Because it's exactly where they have the timeline.
It's just ridiculous.
Well, there let's be clear again. They're looing
this illegally.
They told you they acted first, so there
is no imminent threat. Therefore, there is not
a war powers allowance giving them sixty days.
Not. But like with Biden and everyone else,
they did the same thing even though it's
illegal. So here we are. So now they
claim they have sixty days even though it's
illegal. Another 30 show they argue they would
wanna remove them, and that would take more
time. That would give you the ninety days.
But suddenly, it goes to eight weeks, which
was four before. Right? Well, because eight weeks
is perfectly what they legally argue they have.
I just think that's interesting, isn't it? What
a perfect coincidence. And then ultimately, we are
we'll get it done in eight weeks, which
I doubt that's actually the case, but it's
just an interesting point that it perfectly aligns
with what they claim they legally have allowed
to continue. Just respond it to me. Now
here's what they said.
Now it's eight week mission.
It'll be twelve weeks by next week. Hengseth
brags about establishing air superiority as if that
wasn't always going to happen.
Like, if Steph Curry bragging that he's made
the most threes in a game, everyone was
expecting it. The US was always going to
establish air dominance over Iran. For this reason,
Iran only had the first two days,
and it's still his assessment, by the way,
to make that clear, to unleash a massive
wave of missiles before The US would take
over the skies and start hunting their missiles.
Now I do agree. I mean, again, it's
you can you the argument there's different opinions,
but the argument was pretty clearly out there.
And that ultimately, if Iran thought that at
the very least or knew that, that they
would know that they had a window
to ultimately make the situation in their favor.
And it says during the short window, Iran
needed to exhaust interceptor supplies from The United
States and Israel
and eliminate key radars that help track and
intercept their missiles.
Colonel
Douglas McGregor
already argued that they took their eyes out,
and I'll show you what he means by
that. Iran's And I'm talking about Iran against
The US and Israel. Iran succeeded in both
of these objectives, he writes. The entire region
has burned through interceptors, meaning they've used them
all. And a lot of cases, we're being
told to stop things like drones that are
like, $20,000
versus millions for what they're using. And and,
again, that's our money they're using, by the
way, for Israel and The United States. They
will not replace them quickly, he writes, and
must now face the next few months struggling
to intercept Iranian missiles and drones targeting the
Strait Of Hormuz.
And by destroying or damaging radars, Iran has
increased the chances of their missiles slipping through.
Now that the two day window is closed,
they are pivoting to a long war of
attrition, Iran.
And just like the twelve day war, Iran
has reduced its missile launches but will still
deliver them over time for the long war
of attrition.
And this is why we laugh when you
get the people that come out, like, day
one and argue we already won. It's a
success. Trump already caused peace. It's it's just
it's embarrassing.
Even if it was possible, like, it's just
that's not what's already happened. We're in the
midst of it. You know? It's it's it's
propaganda.
It says this is in regard to, it
says this isn't happening because The US destroyed
their missiles or their this isn't happening because
The US destroyed Iranian missiles or their launchers
in regard to them kind of slowing down,
which is what they're claiming.
It's happening because Iran is saving them for
the long haul. Again, his opinion, but I
I agree. I think this is a very
well put together assessment.
America will establish air dominance, but they can't
keep their refuelers and fighter jets flying over
all of Iran to bomb it left and
right forever. Right? At some point, they're gonna
they're gonna and this is one a minute
one of the many reasons why they need
these kind of supply lines too for and
more so for the ground stuff. The US
isn't just low on interceptors. They're also low
on JDAMs.
So there so there will be a shortage
of key offensive weapons as well, and that's
been argued by almost everybody.
So The US hasn't destroyed Iran's missile supplies
nor their ability to launch them, and they
likely won't be able to at all. And
we'll get to some examples of why that
seems interestingly the case with,
one of these discussion points where we gotta
lose it already?
I'll come back to
it. It's basically showing them firing from places
that are they argue are undetectable.
And it says, so The US hasn't destroyed
their missile supplies nor their ability to launch
them, and they likely won't be able to.
This is why Trump hurriedly tried to recruit
the Kurds to fight for them. Also, by
the way, why he offered a ceasefire
through his Italian
contacts and are and reportedly from Israeli media,
Iran flatly denied it.
That's crazy when you think about what's happening
with what they're afraid. If Iran was already
losing, they wouldn't have denied that.
So it goes on to say and the
Kurds will get to. That's a super important
point. That's that's an illegal invasion of its
own right. They need proxies to try and
break Iran in the long run by occupying
territory.
It says, so far, no one seems able
or willing.
And that's this is before the today point.
And the population that supposedly hated the government
has remained loyal, obviously, because that's they were
lying about what's going on there, to keep
Hormuz closed, which I I wanna get into
that again. Technically, not closed, but we'll get
into that same point about what is happening
because you can see yet again that there's
ships. Oh, the even even US ships on
the inside.
So if this was I mean, if they're
arguing they were gonna be bombing anybody that
came through, how are there US ships within
that? You know? But we'll come back to
it. The reality is there's a lot of
ships
still there, but the the main point is
that it is,
reduced.
So that's right now, by the way. We'll
come back to it. The argument is that
it's apparently like they're claiming 94%
reduced. I I don't know how you would
tell that by looking at it, but it's
hard it looks like there are ships. That's
why I've always said if it was shut
down, that wouldn't be the case. But it's
more so restricted is the right way to
frame it, if that's accurate.
So he says, but to keep whatever they're
doing going, Iran doesn't need massive waves.
They just need to fire one or two
missiles a day. It's a good point. Right?
Because the threat, even like we can see
right now, just the sentiment, the idea that
they will stop you even though it doesn't
seem to be happening to everybody, is enough
to slow it down by apparently 94%.
So they just need to make the threat,
fire a couple of missiles here and there.
And if one of those missiles hit an
oil facility, it will be disastrous, he writes.
And as we are now seeing, they have
the ability to launch missiles from underground.
So Iran is guaranteed to still get them
off.
The the the oil facility part of it
is obviously
a in their mind, like, if they did
that, it would obviously cause a lot of,
negative attention to them from other countries they
hurt by doing that, but it would very
clearly put them in a bad position and
put Iran probably in a better one. And
it says, and if the or going continuing,
it says,
so the Gulf countries will take a massive
hit to their oil and gas revenues throughout
this entire eight week process. And I I
get the sense it's gonna go longer than
that, guys.
And by now and look. If you wanna
be real about this,
it has for a long time. Whether if
if you just because we have these lulls
in between the regime change efforts, they never
stopped. They've always been building what they're trying
to do to Iran. So, the reality is
it's never it's ongoing. So, if they just
pause after eight weeks, the the agenda doesn't
stop.
But it says, and by the way, another
reason for the re the reduction in missile
waves
is the fact that the military is operating
in decentralized nodes.
They have their orders and their targets.
They will attack when they choose to. The
only real winner is in this situation is
Israel.
Right? Because their goal was never really regime
change, but a weakening of Iran. Well, I
argue it's both, but I would argue it's
more so because they
they're getting The US to do it for
them like they have. Now Israel's launching missiles,
but what we're seeing largely is The US
people at risk. And we'll get to that
in a second. Are people arguing there's been
650 US service members killed?
The US denies it,
But there's evidence that seem to suggest sort
of like the Iraq point in the bat
before when they're like seven seventy
brain injuries. It's like there's no way they
caused seventy brain injuries, but no one died.
It's it's that was the the people that
survived. Right? The point is that they're hiding
this.
But so clearly, Israel is benefiting because this
is what they've wanted, but also if and
when, and I think it's already happening, there
is a ground part of this. Do you
think Israel is gonna invade? No, that's not
gonna happen, guys. It's going to be
US troops.
And it says they have achieved this, but
not without dragging The US into a quagmire
and effing over the Gulf countries in the
process. And Saudi Arabia came up early and
said The US has abandoned us. They're using
all the defenses to help Israel, and they're
let and we're getting bombed.
Is that I mean, this is an all
or nothing game for them, Israel or nothing.
And that's because I don't think they have
a choice.
But Iran still has highly enriched uranium, he
writes,
which is well, 60% is the argument. That's
that's the the claim directly from the International
Atomic Energy Agency, which, by the way, was
what the what was allowed. It's within their
safeguards. I'll show you yet again the lie
from Witkoff. But he says the, they they
still have the rich uranium, and he says
they can drop 20 nukes on Israel at
any moment. That's where I disagree.
But look, there's arguments out there and people
that claim there's evidence and maybe I'm wrong,
right? I mean, I'm I'm always okay having
a discussion about these things if people are
coming at it from an amicable way and,
you know, we're willing to you know, that's
what this will be. And I I appreciate
that. And so I think what's important is
that we are able to do that with
each other, like in the IMA, for example.
Like, not all of us agree on everything.
Right? And we have to be able to
be like, hey. Like, this is what I
think and evolve our opinions. You know? I
just think it's very clear, and and we
we talk about this, that the, the evidence
we have, not that it's not there or
not possible.
Maybe they have them, and we can't prove
that. That that's just as likely. But that,
ultimately, the evidence doesn't back it up. I
think that's pretty clear. It says, so this
is ugly and painful for Iran, but it
isn't over. Remember, this The US went to
war with the Houthis for eight weeks. And
and as you write, what happened?
They literally still controlled Obabe Al Mandev straight.
They they effectively
reduced their their shipments incredibly, and they didn't
even need to techn they didn't need to
kill anybody. They didn't steal anything. They didn't
sink a single ship.
But they sure as hell used munitions because
they were using restraint, and they called them
terrorists for it as they were raping people
and killing children. Right? Because clearly.
Oh, that this was just our, yeah, that's
right. And so going forward, keeping all that
in mind. Right?
Robert a Page
points to an article from the Hill. Hegseth,
Kane, preview major gravity bombing campaign.
Now maybe you argue they're just using new
munitions. I mean, Israel does it every time
to try to test new things on people
that are, you know, they're taking advantage of.
But he says when secretary Hegseth says The
US shifting to gravity bombs, this means we
are running out of pure precision mutate munitions,
which is exactly what seems to be the
case. He says the smart bomb trap is
transforming into a dumb bomb disaster.
He's a professor of political science, University of
Chicago, specializing in security affairs. Well, tell you
what you will. I think he's right.
And this is in, well, it's Asian times.
I forget the,
where was this? I saw about three different
articles on this point, and I believe this
is the reality because I think they're not
stupid. Unlike The United States, Iran, and this
is their quote, prepared itself for the a
long war according to the security chief himself.
Well, that's exactly what propaganda code was saying.
Right? They knew this was gonna go at
this point. They knew The US would be
the way that they're all in there, and
they planned for it. And now I I
think that planning is showing to be the
right way to go.
So, in regard to the Strait Of Hermos,
like the the point is that they're arguing
when the first place was
were threatening that. And that what, you know,
the story that actually had an immediate effect.
But as I showed you, there's still clearly
ships in the middle on both sides. So,
there it's not shut down, right?
Then they put out another claim. I think
it was the day next or two days
later, and they said they were gonna set
on fire or something like that, probably bomb
ships that were going through. And that I
still have yet to see that happen because
that would be a huge jump. Huge.
Even with what we're dealing with, because they
would use it that way. Right? But so
then reports come out that nine like 94%
of the traffic has been shut down. I
just don't understand. It's weird to me that
I keeps we can and this again is
a real time map
of how we can see it all and
then still not like, that doesn't make sense
to me. But I I maybe that's just
a representation of what the 6% that's left.
I don't know. I I don't know. I'm
not I'm not watching this map every day.
But something about this feels off to me,
right? And my worry is that there's something
bigger going on. Like, we always should ask
that everyone's lying to us. I don't know.
It just seems strange. Because so keep it
all in mind, but remember that they obviously
have the ability to shut this down, and
we're talking about net the Internet the waters
of Iran. It's like it's it's look, it's
the same point
of claiming
that
the the The US
wouldn't shut down
the Gulf Of Mexico.
Right?
Like, the idea,
even though Mexico is right there and has
just as much right to the territory that
The US had, which what they've done effectively
before, wouldn't just shut down their access to
it because they decide to. Right? So, the
idea that they're somehow not allowed and I
would argue, realistically, none of them should be
allowed to stop any free movement, frankly, but
that they do it over there. And so,
at the end of the day, happening here
is it makes them hypocritical. Same point as
before. I argue none of them should be
doing it. But Iran is in a position
where they recognize the only thing they can
do, if that has to come to pass,
is effectively use that as a coercive tool,
but recognize they haven't technically done it yet,
which I think speaks volumes. How this ends
up will be, you know, will ultimately be
the main point. Oh, and even just as
I was searching for this to see the
articles, here's what the random brave thing wrote.
The Strait Of Hermos is effectively closed. So
that makes my point right there. That's not,
like, there's not ships blocking it, but it's
effectively closed
through not though not formally declared closed. Right?
And so, even we go in and, like
I discussed, it breaks down those same points.
They say, this is closed. If anyone tries
to pass, they they will that's what it
is right there. They'll set the ships ablaze.
Well, okay. Well, clearly, that's not the case
and that there that's anybody's right there. Right?
I think what the point was, if it's
all the way it looks, is that they're
saying that
to make the threat to have that just
be the reaction while not actually doing it
because those consequences will be real.
But they're still using it. They're still saying
they shut it down because people are doing
they're
taking the choice to not go through. But
this is even what the new Arab wrote.
After Iran threats and US pondering, is the
Strait Of Hormuz closed?
And it says through traffic at the Strait
Of Hormuz, the world's most critical oil checkpoint
has come up to a near complete standstill.
Following Iran's declaration of the closure of the
passageway, marine tracking has shown. It says real
time open source traffic data show,
shows transits have plummeted to near zero.
So I guess also, tran alternatively, that those
ships could all just be kind of sitting
there,
but doesn't seem to be what translates from
day to day. But I still think that
the US ship, as we just showed you,
is on the inside of that. How does
that make sense? I don't know. I guess
maybe because they're docking on the other side
of the landmass. Maybe that's possible. Right? And
they just come out like that would make
sense. But, anyway, the point is just question
it because something seems a little bit odd
about it.
Now here is Alex Jones
coming out and saying Trump has signed an
executive emergency order for war.
If anyone tries to close this rate of
Hormuz.
Then you watch the clip. He's just like,
I knew it. I called it. I told
you it was gonna happen. And here's the
thing. And what does he point to? Oh,
by the way, here's here's
Nightwatch Nate showing you both these guys literally
over here going, we need to side with
Trump to save us from war with Iran.
And here they are going, oh, no. You
know, it's it's just hilarious to me. But
he's arguing that they signed an executive order.
That's what it says right there. He wrote
this. Trump has signed
an executive order. Emergency order for war. If
anyone tries to close okay. Well, what he's
pointing to, which I already showed you, is
Trump's true social,
which simply says that I've ordered The United
States oh, actually, maybe I didn't show this.
I I forget. It it might I think
I might have had it off the side.
I forget. Either way,
the argument being that he's claiming or says
effective immediately, I've ordered the United States Development
Finance Corporation to provide at a very reasonable
price political risk insurance and guarantees for the
financial security of all maritime trade. Okay?
It's traveling to The Gulf.
That that's not just about one location, by
the way, but it says, this will be
available to all shippings if necessary. United States
Navy will escort tankers through the Strait Of
Hormuz. That argument hasn't that's not new, by
the way. That's been made before. No matter
what, The United States will ensure free flow
of energy to the world and, you know,
they don't, and military might the greatest on
the Earth. Okay. Well, guess what?
He's lying to you or he's stupid because
the reality is there is no signed executive
order as far as I can tell.
There is a statement on Truth Social of
demanding an immediate effective thing,
But so why would he claim it like
that? Because he won't I I don't know
the reality. But if you could look it
up for yourself, they could there's look up
the executive order pages that I've done myself,
or you could simply ask the platform that
he'll deny. Somebody else did the same thing.
Is there any merit to this? No.
Trump posted today that they may escort people
through if necessary.
No sign executive emergency order. Why does he
keep doing this?
I mean, genuinely, why does he keep doing
this? I actually don't understand why you would
choose
I mean, the only thing I can come
to terms with is either that he he
doesn't actually know he's wrong, which is crazy,
and he's just being fed constant lies for
the people that have always given him half
truths, or he knows he's looking stupid and
all in to support the team. Actually, wasn't
gonna play it, but here, just listen to
the beginning of it
because I just don't understand.
Other than the the obvious point that is
that what they've always been, you know?
And they're just now it's all that they're
being
you know, they're basically what's the word? Activating.
I'm just going now. Go out there and
do what you know you've always been doing,
and then just doesn't matter. I don't know,
but it's hard to watch.
Instead of the first to show,
they're gonna use the insurance company shutting down
the Strait Of Hormuz
as the claim that we've gotta put a
beachhead on the Iranian side so they can't
close it to secure it for trade.
And his point was for boots on the
ground. Right? Except that's the Kurds are already
happening. So that's doesn't that ended up not
being the reason justification for it. But you
could argue again for maybe US boots, which,
by the way, are already there if we're
being honest.
But overall,
maybe tomorrow it happens. I say this every
time. Maybe tomorrow that actually gets signed and
then that that'd be the case. But right
now in this moment, he did not.
So you can call that a small point,
but I actually argue it probably won't even
end up that way because he's been caught
like, incredibly lying like this many, many times.
But the ultimate point is that if it
did happen tomorrow, then tomorrow, that would be
the right then they would they did not
sign it today. He simply put a statement
out.
So I just wonder why you would lie
and make yourself look this bad. Said I
believe that'll be the excuse for boots on
the ground which they floated in the last
few days, which Eric Prince freaked out about
rightfully. Ladies and gentlemen, he just put this
out.
Show the time stamp on this. Guys, scroll
down. Interesting. He's doing a a victory lap
even though he's wrong.
How funny is that? But overall, guys, this
is just the way this has been going
for a very long time.
It's hard to watch.
I I just don't get it, you know?
But it's it's been a it's been a
never ending reality. This just never stops. And
again, you wanna look back here, you'll see
them doing the same little stong and dance.
Also, it's worth noting, by the way, and
I do think this is interesting because of
what Stephanie Sineff had to say about Ozempic.
That it's it's almost the point would be
that you just you just blow up if
you stop taking it. And if you keep
taking it, there's
it has dangerous side effects.
And so, weird as some of his voice
has been bad for weeks and he's gaining
weight back, I think there's some relevance to
that. Personal opinion. You guys can decide for
yourself. And that's what it looks like when
you blindly trust an administration to just take
whatever, Here, take this methylene blue. Take this
NUOZ EMPI. It's all great because we said
so.
Team sport politics that end up hurting you
because you do it yourself.
Oh, and then here's ask it to see
in case you didn't agree with that one,
I asked it that was yesterday. I asked
it again today.
No. There is no publicly available executive order,
and their statement is the claim seems to
be stemmed from exaggerated or misinterpreted social media
posts or lying, which amplified Trump's statements into
something more dramatic like an emergency war order.
Yeah. That's what their job is, guys.
Well, yet again, here's Tim Young.
Tim Young has 1,100,000
followers. This post itself
only has nineteen thirty six thousand just jumped.
I want you to think about that, guys,
because these people, their own team is not
okay with what they're saying right now. That's
what I think.
He says Iran wasn't close to making nuclear
weapons. The the the wasn't just close, and
I we showed you this yesterday. The Iranian
negotiators
brag that they had enough to make 11
bombs. They did not.
That's a lie.
I'll show you right now. And, I mean,
I'll just jump ahead to this point since
it makes it even more clear.
It's now come out after the fact.
Diplomats claim
Trump's envoy
undermined his re Iran talks. What a shock.
The blind Israel Zionist was lying to us.
Oh my gosh. The truth is that he
and Kushner were doing this from day one,
and they've been caught already more than once.
So he I'm a play the clip so
you hear it. It's only fifty seconds. I
realized that this has been going around all
the partisan media, and they state this as
fact because Witkoff said it out loud even
though you can prove with source material directly
from the IAEA that that's not true. Here's
the clip.
Percent materials,
Shuh, Sean,
can be brought to 90%, that's weapon grade
weapons grade, in roughly one week, maybe ten
days at the outside.
The 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%,
and they're aware that that could make No
shame because that was legally allowed, and that's
what was within the safeguards.
11 nuclear bombs,
and that was the beginning of their negotiating,
stance. Yeah. Which was stating the reality that
was allowed. So that's that's they were they
were proud of it. They were proud that
they had evaded all See, that is everything
else you could have argued, he was just
you know, he he it wasn't necessarily lying,
but that was him just they were proud
of it. They were, like, gloating or what
was the other word he said?
They were they were proud of it. They
were proud that they had evaded all sorts
of oversight protocol. Evaded oversight. So he's he's
bald faced lying.
And that's now come out. Right? The other
diplomats have been like, the guy is just
trying to sabotage this. The truth,
yet again,
here is a the from June
2025,
the International Atomic Energy Agency, like, the group
in regard to deciding whether or not they're
meeting their obligations, and they always did. JCPOA,
before Trump pulled out, that was the reality.
So here's what they said. And I can
I read through a lot more of it
yesterday, and it makes it very clear, one,
that what Israel is doing, bombing these locations,
puts everybody at risk for potential civilian nuclear
programs having a problem?
Didn't everybody scream about what was happening in
Ukraine and Russia, but now they're bombing deliberately
in
a multi war and was like, oh, good.
Get them. What? I just there's no consistency
in these ridiculous people. But on top of
all of that, it says, Fordow is Iran's
main enrichment location for enriching uranium to 60%.
The agency is not aware of any damage
at that location. They're stating it like that,
and I'll show you even more because that's
just a static this, not some shocking point.
That's what they already knew was the reality.
And what they're saying there is, good. Thank
god they didn't there's no damage for that
to potentially be a problem.
As stated in my post, he writes, and
I believe this was the secretary the, yeah,
the director general of the the Internet the
agency. As stated in my post recent report,
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 agreement.
You may recall that more than 400 kilograms,
four sixty five is what he said, of
this stockpile is enriched to 60%,
which in case you missed the last sentence
is within their safeguard agreement. So here he
comes out and goes, they were bragging about
the the over 400 and above 60%, and
they just didn't care. They were violating safeguard
reg no. They were not.
He knows that, and he's playing the dumb
people in his audience.
And it says, it is no. I shouldn't
even say it like that. The people who
are not educated on these points. It is
essential that the agency resumes inspections as soon
as possible to to provide credible assurances that
that hasn't changed.
Because since the twelve day war point, there's
been ongoing war fighting, so nobody's been there.
The point is within that time frame, that
wouldn't be the case anyway. The reality is
they're simply just saying, let's go back to
the agreement that Trump and Israel are violating.
They didn't say, but we'll just they are
causing this not to be the reality because
we'll go right back to ensuring that they're
not doing what you always say they're doing.
And at the end, it says again, the
IAEA can guarantee
through their watertight ins watertight inspection system that
nuclear weapons will not be developed in Iran.
And yet here he comes out and lies
blatantly because that's what Witkoff is, a liar.
And I simply said under Tim Young who
blindly shared this and he was wrong. Clearly,
you all benefit from incessantly lying on the
I mean, the interest of the government on
this platform, but they're the rebels fighting the
deep state while they support the deep state.
Rather, I should say you benefit from repeating
whatever the government says, which is almost always
a lie, and you just don't seem to
care one way or the other. And this
person down here rightly points out journalism before
was them going, you know, can we asking
questions of power. Now it's them repeating what
power says to the people. It's very real.
That's exactly what they've done in the mainstream
alternative and and mainstream.
Now
Ryan Rosbyani reports what senator, what was what's
the name again? Chris Murphy had to say.
Now what we just talked about from the
propaganda co assessment, right, was and this is
this is what is you know, again, I
a lot of these things in especially in
the midst of all these are very difficult
to prove. But the assessments from people who
are so called experts in the topic and
admissions from both sides of the conversation
in in certain ways
seem to suggest that The US has really
burned through what they have.
Some people arguing why that was necessary, but
the end of the day that they burned
through a lot of it.
Propaganda and Co and others that I've read
through are arguing that this is a planned
strategy.
And remember what Rubio and others had said,
that the missiles and drones they have, it
was gonna get to a level where we
wouldn't be able stop it. Well, I don't
know why that becomes a legal argument because
they have things that you could use. It
was just ridiculous to me. But
what Chris what Murphy has to say here
is that and it's sort of what we
already were told that they can't stop these
drones.
That are essentially just killing US servicemen, which
begins to make the argument that more people
are dying than we actually are told.
See, can you give us an
How did I do that?
I don't know how I keep doing this.
Every day every day, I somehow miss these
clips. Sorry. I shouldn't even bring it up
every time. I should just play it off
like I didn't even do something wrong because
that would be smooth. Let me see here.
While I'm doing this and just I laugh
at myself because I go through this every
time, and I do the same thing every
time.
And I think I have a a system
where it's absolute that I'm not gonna miss
something, and I do it all the time.
So here is this I'm grabbing from the
downloader.
Him essentially just telling you that these drones
are getting through, which lines up with pretty
much everything else we're being told.
And, also, don't forget that we they haven't
been doing the briefings. They haven't been talking
to Sunday show. Like, they're not giving you
any information.
And most everybody's arguing that that's indicative of
some kind of, you know, like, they just
they're they're
they don't know what to say. That they're
failing or it's hurt. You know, they they
what the it rather makes the sense that
this it adds merit to the claim that
there are more people dying than we're being
told.
This is as serious as it gets. This
is war and peace. They told us in
that room that there are gonna be more
Americans that are gonna die, that they are
not in a short run gonna be able
to stop these drones that are gonna continue
to fly into the Middle East. We have
to have a debate in the United States
Senate on an authorization of military force. It
will likely fail.
It will likely fail, and we shouldn't be
voting to proceed to other pieces of legislation
until we get a debate on this deeply
unpopular immoral and illegal war with Iran. Today,
senator. It's always so funny to watch them
stand up against these things but then never
truly follow through with the action, like impeachment
or whatever else.
By the way, I'm laughing now because I
realized now I remember, I I didn't I
ended up deciding not to play that.
So, I I plan ahead, and then I
forget. Laugh at me. But so, the point
here is that he's just here are the
they're claiming these are the, US
military personnel that were killed.
And we're being told that this stuff is
just flying through, that they already depleted and
all this different stuff. And here's Chris Martinson
and others who have been highlighting,
which, you know, this is a, I would
argue, subjective because you can't prove that it
means what they think. But I do agree
with what it suggests.
There's a point that the a post that
went out. Not a good sign, she writes,
that The United States that do
that The United States that Dover Air Force
Base is, quote, urgently hiring people to sort
through the personal effects of dead soldiers.
There's an application for it. And as Chris
Martin says, well, seems like a lot of
effort for six people. So take that for
what you will. You know? It's an interesting
point. And we know they've hide they've hid
these things in the past. Now
RT reports that more than six hundred and
fifty US military personnel were killed or wounded
by Iran's personnel according to Iran. Now how
would they know for sure? You know, that's
that's how the game is played every time.
They always one side lies about more, one
side lies about less, and it's usually somewhere
in the middle. And Daniel McAdams writes, why
has the government not provided an update? That's
the real question. An account of US service
members who were killed or wounded. Why not?
So almost always, this happens in the past,
even if it's a lie. Right?
Daniel Mac or Douglas McGregor came out and
said satellite imagery confirms massive damaged
massive damage to US Space Force's $1,100,000,000
ballistic missile early warning radar in Qatar.
They took out the eyes.
He said this in the third.
So considering what else we were just talking
about and the reality that he's $1,100,000,000
ballistic missile early warning system, like, whether or
not you're talking about the fact that they
they hindered their ability to see what's happening
or the fact that they just took out
a billion dollar system,
how do we pretend like this is not
becoming obvious? I mean, assuming this is correct.
I mean, that's the point to make because
the the only reason I would share it
like this seeing as I was just statement
is because he's a general, and I'd argue
he has insight, but take question like you
would anything else. In the past, he tends
to be signing these things because he has
contacts in the military. And what's interesting and
and and in most cases, they flush out
to be correct. The point, though, is that
this would be something that would suggest that
Iran's not failing like the claim, not floundering
and being killed and bombed. Never they but
they're more so lying about that.
RT points out a a China reporter Chinese
reporter, excuse me, who was on the ground
in Tel Aviv.
Captured extensive damage in the city and the
center for Iranian strikes.
But just after five minutes of filming, the
Israeli security arrived and ordered them to stop.
You know, because it's a free country, and
it's all about free speech and and and
and journalism. Right? Well, here's another point to
include.
CNN detained and their phones access
accessed by Israel. The Israeli government detains American
journalists, or whatever you wanna call CNN, and
their reporter crew after they were released, and
they said that the Israeli authorities were able
to access their phones
without using a password
or Face ID. Right? Thanks thanks, US government.
Thanks, Palantir. Thanks, all the different things they've
been doing. And that's before and, their face
ID before tapping taping the cameras. And what
we keep hearing is that they put things
in people's phones. That's been proven. That was
somebody back came back and showed what they
put in their phone.
Tape was placed over the camera phone camera
of the journalist with numbers written on the
tape.
That's crazy, guys.
So journalism, though. Right? Your freedom must be.
This is the Israeli government doing what they
always do.
I'm sorry. And I said American journalists. It's
it's it looks like it was seen in
Turkey, but regardless, journalists.
Or, again,
you know, not even really joking. Whatever you
wanna call the corporate media. But still, there's
still whatever. The point is, you are a
journalist if you wanna be and you can
lie, and that's free speech. So the point
is, just whether they're lying or dishonest or
working for the government, they have the right
to go there and do what journalists do,
and they're stopping
them.
Now kim.com
points out some pretty crazy videos.
And as far and from what I can
tell, these are these are genuine.
This is Tel Aviv. Guys, take a look
at this.
Where are there where are there air defenses?
I mean, that's that's crazy.
They're some of them. Right? But what it
looks to me like we're talking, like, one
out of 10.
So he says, Israel lost its air defense?
You know my opinion. I don't think they've
ever truly had that air the Iron Dome
working like they claim they
do. That's my opinion.
Eric Doherty. Holy smokes. Look at Terron. Yeah.
And that does appear to be also an
accurate video. We'll show you that in a
second. That that'll I'll show that's just to
show you this, but I'll show you that
one in a second. Now these apparently are
also real based on my investigation. But, you
know, there's a lot up in the air
right now, but this is what I found.
Look at this one.
Look at that.
Where I mean, I don't see anything being
stopped right there.
I think this is quite a bit different
than we're being told.
Now, this is especially frustrating for Americans.
On the third, yesterday, the US Embassy says
it can't evacuate Americans in Israel.
Now, there's been an update to that. I
haven't seen it flush out yet, but there's
been arguments of them saying, Well, we'll do
something. We'll figure it out. We'll get because
everybody freaked out about this.
I think I believe it was,
Huckabee,
the blind religious Zionist Huckabee who told you
that America should die for Israel or that
we should, you know, that America everything. These
guys that guy's so blatant about his support
for Israel over The United States
that ultimately, he was the one saying that,
you know, we can't do it, and and
people were outraged.
So my point is regardless of whether they
reactively said, wait. Wait. We'll find something.
They were telling you that you were stuck.
We can't help you.
And then
this is the same day. White House helps
MAGA influencers, including famous dog walker, flee the
Middle East war zone or private jet.
You get this, guys? So sorry, Americans. You're
stuck. We can't do anything for you because
Israel won't let us. But these MAGA influencers
will get your private jet. We'll fly you
out because, you know, you guys lie for
us. Or whatever you wanna make sense of
it is that or make make sense of
it for it or whatever makes sense of
it. That's crazy to me.
It shows you where they what they care
about.
Not you. Not Americans.
Now last point two last points in this
segment before we mostly finish up.
As the Zionism observer points out, and we're
we showed you this video when this came
out. This this was a while ago, 2023.
What you're looking at, guys, is Ben Gurion
Airport.
And this was not even denied. I mean,
that that's just they argue like that's we're
it's okay because we're not terrorists.
It also makes that a legal military target.
And as Zionist observer points out and then,
of course, when they have civilians around it,
that makes them using them as human shields.
When the inevitable strike on Ben Gurion happens,
western journalists will lie to everyone and tell
us this is a civilian airport. This video
from 10/12/2023,
and it's and it is of bombs used
to massacre families in Gaza. And Iran is
not is in a civilian airport. Well, you
could argue both that Israel's allowing it to
be a civilian airport, but it's also using
it as a military location. So it's Israel's
responsibility.
Let me see if I have
this one.
That doesn't look like it. Alright. So continuing.
Says explosions rock ere Israel as Iraq suffers
nationwide blackout.
Now we just talked about this, and I
think the Iraq part of this
oh, did I lose it? Oh, I guess
not that long. That's right.
Is because I think what we're dealing with
right now is that they recognize a threat,
that the Iraqi government's never been okay with
what's happening or rather the people and lots
of the government. But and even then, it's
evolved into most of the government too. It's
just and they like, whenever they tried to
vote, they said, you gotta leave. And they
said, no. We respect your sovereignty, but we
won't leave. That's how dumb this is.
They occupy them.
And so there are groups that are are
that are loyal or, you know, that are
allies, or you could call them proxies if
you wanna go with their narrative, I disagree,
of, in in Iraq that are they claim
are Iranian proxies.
They're they're allies, and in many cases, you
could prove they've not even been connected for
a long time. They've you know, back when
it was the discussion of the invasion of
Iraq and there was an overlap. The PMU,
the pair,
was it military units or whatever it was,
those are, are the same religious ideology.
They bomb them often throughout the years claiming
they were attacking Iran for things they did
when there's no real connection in that moment.
But I think right now, what you're seeing
is a global situation. We're seeing it places
all over the world get rushed because they're
protesting what they're doing. Marines just shot people
rushing a consulate.
You could argue protesting, but, you know, there
I think there's a valid point to discuss
rushing a consulate. Like, if they're rushing in
and you're you know? I'm not gonna say
I support shooting people because I don't know
the context of it. But overall,
people are not okay with what's happening, the
world around, and they're starting to feel it.
And so what I think is happening is
that there's things in Iraq that are rising
up as well, and they recognize they need
to main ensure that Iraq is still theirs
for supply chain, for what they're gonna be
doing in the future. And so I think
they've been there's already been bombings in Iraq.
And now there's been they're suffering a nationwide
blackout today.
Like I keep telling you guys, that's I
think this is by design. Now watch if
somebody eventually, if they need to, will argue,
look at Iraq, do this to their people
when I think they did it themselves, rather
the, you know, US government. Explosions were heard
near the international airport in went on Wednesday
in Iraq, grappling with a nationwide power outage
and rising security tensions,
prompting the US embassy in Baghdad to urge
American civilians to leave the country immediately.
Multiple outlasts were reported, particularly around the airport
zone that host troops in The US coalition.
The city is also home to a major
US consulate
complex and has seen repeated drone in receptions.
Now this could be any number of overlapping
things, even multiple things. You could even argue
that maybe Israel's doing this to justify that,
you know, to get US to feel they're
under attack. But you could just as easily
be Iran bombing these locations because they're legal
targets.
The incidents came as Iraq's electricity minister announced
that the country had suffered complete shutdown of
its grid. Authorities said the blackout affected all
provinces and the technical teams were working to
determine what happened. Officials didn't immediately identify the
reason,
but it's all been kicking off since it
started with Israel and Iran and The United
States.
Now we'll see how this develops, guys. I
very much think we're watching the global initiation
of these agendas, like the Greater Israel Project,
for example.
Now the board of peace or rather excuse
me, the article where I use that, The
The US Israel illegally bomb Iran killing over
a 100 school children discussion. This was from
the February 28.
Minnaab, the school, the girls school.
Every day, it becomes more obvious what happened.
Every single day. So you can watch the
show. It was obvious then.
Drop site news
post something that I almost can't believe.
You don't even need I mean, oh, that's
what I had next up. I'll play it
real quick since I do have it. Here's
what Hagseth was saying in the discussion. Look
at the way he responds.
Can you give us an update on what
the administration knows, what you know now about
the reported strike on a girls' school in
Southern Iran on Saturday?
All I know all I can say is
that we're investigating that. We, of course, never
target,
civilian targets. I literally went over this in
the last show, and, yes, they do. I
mean, it's not it's even it's even frustrating
we have to I think we all know
that. He knows that. I can show
you countless examples. I talked about the the
school bus full of children in Yemen, which
was a Saudi Arabian attack, but it was
US bombs and they were allies. But then
I can show you countless examples of US
bombings in Iraq, in Syria.
Countless examples, guys, where they're accused and then
proven to be bombing these schools. And we're
gonna get to this one right now where
he's lying because it turns out they did
whether by accident or not. And I don't
believe that. But we're we're taking a look
and investigating that. Red time. So that was
what?
What's today?
Almost, like, almost a week ago? Five days?
Right?
How long does it take to figure out
whether you did something?
Not whether, you know, the nuance of what
but what did you bomb them or not?
Was that your attack or not?
They already know. They knew immediately.
So watch how he answered. When somebody just
follows up and goes, well, what do you
know? It's been five days.
In front. Just on the basis that with
the information you would have, your reconnaissance abilities,
ability to gather information. I mean, it's several
days on now. So is there any clarity
on whose munition this was?
We're investigating it. Thank you.
Now what you're noticing from them, and that
was a small example, but he's become really
defensive.
They all have. Why? Because they know they're
being seen, guys. That's I mean, we've all
dealt with this. You've all caught somebody doing
something and watched the way they all act
like Luna on that talk show when she
gets red and flustered and can't pronounce her
words. Yeah. Because we they they know they're
looking stupid, guys. Not a secret.
So it's quite obvious we're investigating. Shut up.
I just told you. Like, you know, if
if there was no if nothing was going
on, you'd you'd that wouldn't be your answer.
It would not in that way, in my
opinion.
The reality, guys, I I this is I
think, on top of it all, just an
actual example of incompetence, like, incompetence or, you
know or you could argue that this was
given to him
intelligence because that's you know, where did that
tend to come from in this conversation? And
that they were doing it to blame it
on them. Now, the reason I even add
that is because the Israeli government,
rather one of their little weasel assets out
there, has already insinuated that it was the
US government that did this and that not
to blame Israel.
I'll show you next. So keeping that in
mind, it's just as likely that somebody, an
Israeli entity, gave him this map or gave
him the intelligence or whatever to set them
up. If you don't think that's possible, you're
just not paying attention. But
oh, you you know, and just for since
since I said it, we'll come to back
to it. Here
is Elon Levy.
The Minhav School incident is an extremely tragic
story. It seems to be a result of
faulty intelligence. Oh, you mean aside from when
you guys first said it didn't happen, and
it was in Afghanistan or Pakistan or whatever
you said next? Now it did happen, but
now it's because faulty intelligence. Oopsie. That's always
what they do, like clockwork.
Because the school was on a site that
used to be part of an adjacent
military base, well, that would still make it
not a legal target. You monster.
As has been argued by every international entity,
adjacent is not the same thing, but it
says that was bombed. In any case, Israeli
forces weren't active in the area, and CENTCOM
is investigating, so you don't dare try to
pin this on us.
Wow.
I mean, guys, that's very clear. We'll come
back to it. As DropSite News writes, right
in the middle of the strike map,
US war secretary Pete Hegseth proudly displayed at
a Pentagon briefing site sits MNAAB,
quite literally.
That is exactly where it is, and you're
even in the red of one of their
bombing locations.
That's his map. That's what they posted.
Where was I? So it says the site
of a school in Southern Iran where The
US Israeli strike killed a 165
children this weekend.
BBC's Tom Bateman asked Higgseth whether the Pentagon
knows whose munitions hit the school, and Higgseth
said the department is still investigating. Journalist,
Chris Oziak plotted the Manabe School, Green Dot,
onto the strike map released by the US
military today. It sits within the cluster of
US strikes zones shown on the Pentagon briefing
map.
That's just wild.
So we know what's going on here, guys.
It's not secret. I mean, every single point
in this discussion has already shown this. And
on top of the fact that we actually
know they bombed those locations before this. We
actually knew that because they announced that. We
know that they bombed the location and then
tried to blame Iran because they got their
assets to put out a fake image where
they claimed it was a missile that shot
by Iran. And that turned out to be
a fake or rather an old image
with snow in the mountains where there's not
where this is. It's just this ongoing
game. And get and then Zachary Foster points
out, genocide apologist refers to a 150 school
children and over a thousand civilians as trash.
If you're confused about what's going on, America
and Israel are basically cleaning up the world's
trash.
That's welcome to Zionism.
Well well and and at the same point,
this this one is a
a a special version of these manipulative people.
She says, these, son of a, b I
t c h, has prepared for war with
the West for forty seven years. Right? You
see the talking points. All the same thing
from every one of them. And on day
four of the war, they're already hiding in
schools.
I thought you, quote, love death more than
love life. What happened?
Oh, look. It's a picture that I guess
you could assume is a school, but not
be sure. It's just stupid. But even that,
guess what? You know what they're you know
what she's doing?
She's deliberately taking an image from a press
conference that Iran held in the school
even with pictures of the dead children that
they killed behind him.
Because they're doing that to a drowse that
they did this. They bombed this school, and
here we are announcing that the okay.
Dave de Camp. This is the elementary school
that has already been bombed. It also says
a lot about the spoke supporters of the
war that the presence of a foreign minister
spokesman at a school would somehow justify bombing
it. You see? He's not military.
By every every law we've always argued, we're
bound by international or otherwise.
He's a minister. He's a government. He's not
a military active per but they don't care.
And Elon Levy says it's The US. Don't
blame us.
And also comes out and gives you, though,
well, it was a whoopsie. Well, we you
know, sort of like remember,
blank and all of a sudden
dang. That's frustrating.
Oh, Shareen.
How do you spell that again?
Dang
it.
Oh, well.
The point
Derek did a great work on this. The
the the reality of that was that there
was a USU, and it was a journalist
that got shot
and that the Israeli government lied. They came
out and said, no. It was Hamas. And
that guy proved to be false. And so
it looks like it was a ricochet. That
turned out to be false. Then it you
know, and there I think there was even
another element. And then eventually, it was like,
well, we did it, but it was a
mistake. I'm not making this up. It was
like a week and a half. That's where
it came down to.
And so, ultimately,
just
lied until you got that, you know, got
you you accepted what they said.
I thought that's how you spelled it.
Yeah. Right there. Let's see if that pops
up. This would be a good article to
include regardless because it shows, I guess not.
Well, look it up later. Give me the
link in the chat if you guys know
what I'm talking about.
So the idea being that it turned all
the way in eventually to it. Oh, it
was a faulty intelligence, but blame the is
the United States government. So after all of
this with what they're doing for them,
they still have the nerve to come around
and say, but it was their fault. Blame
them because that's always what this is. America
first. Right? Hey, Israel supporters. One of Israel's
assets just publicly admitted to schools and debombed
as you all have been told to lie
about it, and then claimed the US government
was responsible for the bombing alone and not
to blame Israel. Greatest ally indeed.
Even the UN came out and said that
the bombing of the school, UNESCO, says the
bombing of a primary school during The US
and Israeli military strikes on Iran, which is
exactly what happened, are simply a violation of
humanitarian law. It's a crime, in case you
missed that. And it is.
But the UN Hamas or whatever, yeah, we'll
just ignore it. Doesn't matter. This is why
I often point to and use the counterbalance
of something they might listen to, like a
GROC or whatever else. Because you can give
them source material. I don't blindly trust any
of it, GROC or United Nations, but it
does matter.
And yet they go, that's this or that.
That's what they said. I was supposed to
belong. UN UN woke, UN democracy. Whatever it
is. And the point is, it still matters.
Question it all, it still matters. And the
truth is obvious.
Update from CENTCOM commander on operational epic fury.
David Camp writes, many of you may remember
the shock and awe of strikes of 2003,
start of Iraq and the the invasion of
Iraq. This is what this is the the
guy telling you, the military.
The first twenty four hours, he says,
of this operation
were nearly double
the scale of shock and awe.
So the illegal Iraq war. Right? The shock
and awe campaign that we saw. That was
all everyone loved it. It was amazing. Everyone
all these civilians were dying on live screen
TV.
They've done nearly double that in Iran.
Bombing very clearly civilian targets
as we'll show you as they're all bragging
about right in the center of Tehran.
This is this is Tehran, guys.
A massive civilian location.
And you got Haggerty out there going, oh,
look how great it is.
Sal the Agarist, somebody with integrity. He says,
remember two weeks ago when Trump regime feigned
sympathy for the Iranian people?
They were fighting for the Iranians. Right?
Well, here they are indiscriminately bombing, which is
a war crime, one of the most densely
populated places on Earth.
I just don't know how we can't pretend
that's obvious or we pretend it's not. Sean
King says they are just carpet bombing a
place that is more dense and crowded than
New York City.
They aren't even attempting to explain justification.
The whole world knows it's not justified, guys.
Eric Douderting.
Apparently, happy that one of the deep state
pedophiles is on your side now. Because that
all winds up. Right? Yay. Mitch McConnell agrees.
Because guess what? If you're not a clown
like this guy, it's obvious to see that
they all always support Israel and war. Because
they do.
I just think it's funny that the moment
that these people who you otherwise called monsters
are suddenly on your side, you go, yay.
Unity.
How embarrassing. And everyone sees it. Mohammed Safa
says from the UN, says The US and
Israel just committed a a massacre
where just that were destroyed a four story
building full of civilians
and then bombed a hotel full of tourists
and diplomats.
They committed multiple massacres across Lebanon in the
middle of the night while people were asleep.
The US and Israel, both.
It never stops.
The Telegraph.
Tehran.
In in, quote, an apocalypse of hospitals in
flames,
and children buried beneath rubble. You know, I
would have said before, I don't know how
they're gonna get out of this. But clearly,
right now, they just did it all in
in Gaza, and everyone sees it, and nothing
has stopped. In fact, they feel enough
to do it again.
We can't allow this to happen. We can't
allow these things to continue.
Hospitals in flames? Now, again, I'm not blindly
accepting this because the Telegraph says, guys, you
can look. If you ever said the same
about information in COVID nineteen, the error was
there, if you just happen to look, if
you clearly understand the reality of Israel, if
you just look at the facts, it's the
same point, guys. It's objective. Same with Renee
Goode, these other conversations. If you weren't completely
blind of a partisanship,
they were obvious.
It's not the same as saying as one
versus the other side. All the sides seem
to be wrong. It's about acknowledging the truth.
Peter, Cornell points out that now that it's
nine hospitals,
a girls' school, women's basketball gymnasium, Red Crescent
Building, which has been publicly discussed by most
of the the Red Crescent, UN,
plus the main TV station, residential blocks, you
know, just ongoing murder of civilians because that's
apparently the goal as it has been for
Israel from day one.
Manjosent points out, you can't just allow The
US to fire ballistic
missiles from your U from your bases in
your country
and then claim you're not directly participating in
a regime change war against Iran. That's what's
called a belligerent. That's a legal attack. That's
why they bombed all of these other countries.
She says, so where is the system deployed
as The US is bragging about? Look at
our long range precision system.
Clearly not in The United States. Right? So
that's his point. But where are they? Kuwait,
Iran, Qatar,
UAE, Saudi Arabia? Well, his point is all
the places where Iran yes, guys. That's the
obvious reality. So as they collect their pearls
and act like Iran's doing bad things, well,
they're bombing places that are legally
allowed.
It's not that hard to see, guys. It's
all very clear.
This was pretty crazy.
As Loki points out, here's CNN basically admitting
that they're censoring for Israel.
Well, fair. We're not showing you that because
we're not gonna show, the Israeli government does
not, allow us or want us to show
where that may have come up, that interceptor.
Showing you that because we're not gonna show,
the Israeli government does not, allow us or
want us to show where that may have
come up, that intercept.
Great journalism.
Right? At what point did you did you
you ask permission to to show inform that's
never the case.
You in a way, as a journalist, you're
you're necessarily adversarial to anything you're covering, any
governments.
Who cares whether you're gonna reveal their secret
location? It's about journalism and breaking down the
truth.
Well, see, what's happening right there is they've
decided that their objective to help Israel is
more important than the truth. That's nuts. That's
self evident. That's just what they just did
right there.
And that's that you maybe agree. Maybe you
agree that it's not important to hide those
things for the interest of the war against
Iran. Well, okay. Well, then you're choosing
the side rather than the truth.
And it's less important for a random person,
but they're a journalist.
And you're not supposed to take a side,
are you? But we all know that's how
these places operate.
Points out something I caught as well. Luna
came out and said,
please join me in prayer tonight
for the underground
church and thousands of Christians in Iran right
now that are braiding the storm. We must
pray for protection. What she's I guess I
mean, I I don't know whether this person
just is I would get the sense that
she just is being told things and has
no idea what she's talking about.
Or she lies. I think she's been caught
lying too. The reality, guys, is there's a
major Christian population in Iran. It's not a
secret.
So what she's trying to do is pretend
that it's just like they lied about in
Gaza, and they all got caught for it,
that they're acting like it's a secret underground
reality. Or I guess maybe she means some
kind of special underground church. Well, the truth,
in case you didn't already know, is that
there's a lot there's a lot of Christians.
And it's not like I think it's hundreds
of thousands, and that it fluctuates.
But they're not persecuted in Iran, guys. That's
not what's going on. And far less than
they are in Israel, in fact. And the
reality
is that that's always been the case.
And in fact, you can well, there's there's
a whole whole lot we can get into
in that regard. But what I'm gonna highlight
here,
as he writes underground, what about the churches
in Iran above ground that Israel and our
and America are currently bombing?
Do you not care about those congresswoman? The
point is these people don't actually care about
Christians,
or at least not when they're Iranian.
It's really about feigning that to justify your
actions as Israel seems to target Christian populations
in every single location it's involved in. If
you look at The Middle East and the
war on terror or the war of terrorism,
the one thing you seem to notice is
the Christian populations have been diminished in every
one of those countries, but the claim that
they're fighting, the groups they're those have grown.
That's pretty clear, actually. They've had reports about
how that's happened.
So ask yourself, why is it why is
it make sense that we're,
by efforts of fighting terrorism, diminishing Christian populations?
Well, you could argue they're trying to get
them out there. That's not what's happening.
Same law well, in look. That is actually
the case when it comes to Gaza, by
the way, and you can easily look this
up and prove it. But the the claim
at the time was, you Christians gotta get
out of Gaza because they're dangerous. We and
and they basically forced and coerced them out
of there. But then look back and go,
they can't or they're not even allowed to
be there. Yeah. And they literally still are.
There's literally still churches and Gaza that go
back to the foundation of Christian.
They don't care. They're liars.
She doesn't care. She's a liar.
And drop site news.
So far, by their asset assessment, it's been
one thousand ninety seven civilians that have been
killed by use US and Israeli bombings since
the twenty eighth, including a 181 children 10
according to the monitor, HRANA.
In the past twenty four hours, the group
recorded a 104 attacks across 19 provinces with
strikes hitting military bases, medical centers, and residential
areas.
A 104 attacks across 19 provinces.
This is the war on Iran, all of
it, guys. This is a I mean, look
at the picture. I mean, it's just it's
crazy.
So the point,
no stupid rules of engagement.
Pete take, Seth.
I I can't I don't know why that
wasn't a bigger point to everybody.
Very clear. Now what's interesting is even as
the nays rule as the next day comes
on, he's actually arguing
that I'll I'll just I'll just show you
exactly what he says.
Because he says no rules of engagement. That's
very specific. Then it became
something more like, some kind of them. You'll
see I forget the term he used.
And this is, again, Eric Daugherty
reveals America's not screwing around with BS rules
of engagement. We're and get these guys are,
like they're in junior high. I've no idea
what you're talking about, and they're just like,
yay.
Holy crap. He just said we're not messing
around with rules of you mean, like, the
law? Like, making sure we don't murder people
for no reason? But, yeah, rock and roll.
Just laugh at these people. They're worthy of
ridicule. And he says, this was never about
a bear fight.
I can't believe they're saying this. They're just
basically going, we're bad people. We're gonna poke
them when they're down. We're gonna screw them
over. We're gonna take what we want because
they're bad, but we can't prove that as
we commit genocide, but follow us.
Wrong. We're playing for keeps.
Our warfighters have maximum authorities granted personally by
the president and yours truly.
Our rules of Right. Hear that again.
Authorities grant
We're playing for keeps.
Our warfighters have maximum authorities granted personally by
the president and yours. Maximum authorities?
So that means just no not just like
ice apparently. There's nothing guiding them. Go out
and do what you want. They're all terrorists
and monsters. Kill everybody you can. Like, do
you not see where this is going?
That's what they're doing.
And this is based on an illegal invasion,
an illegal act. They're not justified.
And on top of that, as we're gonna
show again, maybe quickly because we're long on
the show, it's a religious war even from
The US's perspective according to how they're being
told the military.
There's now I think it was a 110
reports
from multiple agent multiple entities within the military
reporting that they're being told this is for
Armageddon.
They're fighting God's war for for Trump. I
mean, it's insane. It's insanity, and people are
going, holy fuck. This is insane,
and reporting this to people.
This is what's guiding their policy. So my
point is they initiate an illegal war to
invade this country or to bomb this country
under false pretexts, and then Israel's out there
guiding this in some kind of religious context.
And there's no rules of engagement?
You're given the maximum authority to do whatever
they want on the ground?
Everyone should be upset about this.
We're playing for keeps.
Our warfighters have maximum authorities granted personally by
the president and yours truly.
Our rules of engagement are bold,
precise,
and designed to unleash American power, not shackled.
Here it is.
Well, you just said there are no rules
of engagement, not because of what no. Have
it or the point is the clip I
just played for you. Yesterday, he said, we
are the what he's he said, there are
there, we're not,
back down, but there's no rules of engagement.
I forget exactly what he said. We just
talked about yesterday.
But he made it very clear that there
were none. He said no rules of engagement,
which, by the way, is why that Eric
guy just said the same thing today. It
was yesterday's point. So here's a new clip
today where he's now going,
they'll be precise. You know why? Because somebody
who's not a moron was like, dude, you
are you are you crazy?
You gotta make you gotta and then he
came out and evolved the narrative because or
or maybe he did that to get people
to lash out, and then he changed it.
It's just to cause chaos. That may be
part of the design. Either way,
there's no world in which that should have
been accepted.
What?
This was
American power, not shackle it.
This was never meant to be a fair
fight,
and it is not a fair fight.
We are So what does that mean?
So so you're just admitting that you've all
I mean, what isn't your argument that ultimately
you're worried about them having the upper hand?
So you're so what you're saying is we're
willing to we wanna have this fight when
we know we can win, when they're not
ready to fight back, or if that's what
you're framing it as. Real powerful of you.
That's real honorable. You know what I mean?
Like, there's nothing about this that lines up
other than you claiming bad evil boogeyman. So
it all makes sense. So we're able to
do the thing that's morally object you know,
objectionable.
The thing that stretches the boundaries what we
accept for ourselves because they're bad.
But guess what? They're not. Not in the
way they say they are. So what you're
accepting is the moral degradation of everything we
ever claimed we were because power.
Punching them while they're down.
Hey, Again, that was what I said earlier.
How are you gonna say that?
We are punching them while they're down. There
is zero context I've ever seen that makes
that a positive thing. That's a insult. That's
weak. That's
cowardly. That's what you do when you're cheating.
I mean, I just think it's crazy that
they're using basically analogy points to suggest they're
doing the wrong thing.
Which is exactly how it should be. Yeah.
It should be that we punch them while
they're down. Right? Isn't that what we've always
said? Didn't you get grown up teaching to
your children to punch people while they're down?
Right? That's the that's the powerful thing to
do.
Thus far, Operation Epic Fury has delivered twice
the air
So Rami Abduel from the human, so I
always messaged the human
rights group.
In the Israeli US attacks on Iran, almost
no one is speaking about the civilian toll.
Now his estimate seems to be much higher,
but he does have more direct access to
this stuff, and he's claiming if we take
it for the grain of salt, like always,
he's estimating.
But estimates indicate around 2,000 civilians have been
killed
and 508 580 children just in four days.
Now if you remember the same estimates that
were made about Gaza,
they wildly surpassed them even though they were
called fake when they first came out. It's
the same point here.
Question it. Right? Wait till we can prove
it. But I think it's quite obvious. This
is look at what we just saw in
just Tehran. They have about 13 provinces just
right now. Guys, it's obvious.
US secretary Pete Higgs
says the war could last up to eight
weeks, achieve uncontested airspace. Same one before. Mel
says we've, yeah, we know. That's America's number
one export nowadays, it seems. Oh, the point
was
over the country in a week, we've unleashed
death and destruction from the sky all day
long.
Same point.
Why is that something you're bragging about?
These people are literally trying to drag people
down into their sociopathic mindset.
Death and destruction has never been what we
are promoting,
even if we all secretly kinda know or
some of us know that's what they really
were doing. But now you're just going, we're
murdering because we're free and freedom and power
and blending all of things together. You know?
We're doing the right thing for the wrong
reasons. Hooray. You know? So it just doesn't
make any sense.
And, also, you're bombing civilians objectively. You could
all see it. So, yes, we get it.
You've been bombing just death and destruction across
all of Iran. Yay.
I I think this is what Israel wants
to hear. Brian Allen points out an alarming
extension of this where it seems based on
the reports now these images appear to be
the wrong images,
but even the check down here will tell
you that the argument the claim is actually
still accurate, which is that a submarine did
in fact attack,
Iran's
or rather, a submarine did attack Iran's I
IRS,
Dina, which was the ship off of Sri
Lanka
on a on, today.
Now why that's important as he says?
Be and then there was a 101 people
missing apparently, seventy eight injured.
That's in the Indian Ocean.
Now they may not feel relevant to anybody
that thinks just bomber on everywhere, but that's
not the legal reality of war. Just like
it's not allowed to bomb them when their
family's home or when they're just not military.
This, as he says, just left the Middle
East.
China and Russia are already providing Iran satellite
intelligence, so we're hearing. US base is destroyed.
India is now hosting American fallback ports, and
now a submarine strikes in Asian waters.
This isn't a regional conflict anymore, guys. It's
a world war in slow motion, and I've
been saying that forever in the regard to
the sense that it's kind of we've always
been in that position.
Doesn't mean we shouldn't care about it. But
those out there always hyping every move as
the beginning of World War three have always
been using that to keep you in fear.
The point is you can go back to
Syria before. We've always been some kind of
I'm like, you could you pretend, like, regional
war. Is that not the same damn thing?
I mean, really. But now I agree if
you wanna even go beyond that. This is
all the way around,
and they don't care. And this this is
your limited game. This is the guaranteed piece
in four weeks. Come on, guys.
Israel always gets what it wants, apparently. But
here's Scott Jennings out there trying to gaslight
everybody. If the last attack on Iran didn't
deter the Iran regime, then why would this
one be different? Well, because the ones,
the people who weren't deterred are now dead,
he says.
If
bombs dropping,
on the nuclear program and destroying them,
last year didn't
help move forward those objectives of deterring the
regime, why do we think that suddenly this
is going to do the same thing? Because
the people who weren't deterred are now dead.
That's number one. But but let me let
me but but this is Iran.
It there those people are dead, but there
are other people. This is they've got plenty
of people.
Flag. Everybody call them. That. Plenty of the
call that There there's no indication layers deep
on that. We are we are 72 into
this. You're making a good case. There's no
there's no indication as we Do you hear
what you just said? You're making a good
case for the why? Because so first of
all, the argument is we he he literally
just made the argument that we killed enough
we killed the ones that might stop this
from happening. And then the guy over there
goes, well, they're seven layer deep in that
very state. And he goes, well, you're making
my case. How are you making it? You
just he that's contradicting your case. What you're
what you think he's making the case for
is continuing to bomb them, but that contradicts
what you said just happened.
Like, you guys, you realize they're trapped in
this point where everything they say is contradicting
what they just said yesterday because, apparently, they're
going in every direction all at once. Maybe
because they don't know what they're doing, maybe
because they are being driven that way. I
don't know.
But it's every moment you're seeing these kind
of embarrassing contradictions. It's always that here tonight
that there have been any political changes
in Iran. So my question is, if bombs
dropping a year ago didn't change it, what
is what is the rationale for thinking that
bombs dropping today are gonna change the actual
political dynamics on the ground in Iran? Well,
look. You're you're asking a broad question about
justification and what we intend to do with
these guys over the long term.
The justification is Not even remotely what she
just said, by the way. She asked why
you think this would make would change the
situation when last bombing
clearly didn't since you just bombed them again.
Right?
And then, well, you're asking about justifications. Let
me explain what we're doing.
There's bad politics, actually, but politics. A, we
had a huge problem with the ballistic missiles,
and we did believe that if Israel, according
to the secretary of state, attacked and they
intended to attack Look at that. Our bases
were going to be targeted. They were not
willing to absorb that attack. Didn't Trump just
say that wasn't true? Maybe they should get
their story straight. This is within less than
four twenty four hours amongst themselves, guys. Act.
So we attack. That is what the secretary
of state has said. You can agree with
it, disagree with it, but that is but
that is the justification. That's number one. Number
two, it is then make sense? You think
Well, I look. I I think it's I
think it's pretty I think it's pretty obvious
that the Iranians are not shy about firing
ballistic missiles across the region. I would What
are we talking about? Yeah. Now that you've
bombed them and they've responded,
it's only ever been in response to your
actions. In every con in the last time,
the time before, what are we talking about?
He knows that. That's a desperate position in
any context, whether you're debating. It doesn't matter.
You're you're basically lying, and everyone knows you're
lying. That's the most desperate, weak position in
the table.
And for crying out loud, you're sitting with
a bunch of people from CNN. That's pretty
embarrassing. Reason to watch many of them in
the spotlight. Stand, Scott. Are you for this
invasion or not? You seem to be dancing
around the question. Oh. You think this was
a good idea? No. I'm I'm quite for
it. And you think that was I think
I think these out about that. I think
these butchers
deserve to die, not just because It's always
where it goes. It's it's it's just realize
we've gone way away from the actual question,
and this is what they do on purpose.
Because they're bad and they deserve to die.
Well, that's something that's usually handled with courts
of law. Right? Right, Scott?
Constitution law. It's just these guys are so
ridiculous. Like, on their face,
openly. What is the real point? No integrity.
Nothing guiding. There there are no principles. They
will lie through their teeth every day because
in these days, apparently, every other day because
Trump changes his mind, and they all follow
along.
Now don't forget as I commented underneath him,
well, that's not what the CIA assessment said
from your own government. So he knows he's
lying. The century or at least that their
intelligence suggested that would not be the case,
and here we are, where they just continue
and I don't think they're even close, like,
to doing what they claim they're doing. Classified
intelligence assessments produced by the CIA in recent
weeks determined that Khamenei's demise would lean to
hardliners from the country's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps
or another faction of the country taking power.
That's what they told them. That's what Trump's
administration is intelligence through Gabbard told him. And
the reality is they don't care. In fact,
I think that's what Israel's trying to create.
The very thing they always said was there
that wasn't actually there, so they can then
justify doing it forever. It's the same thing
to do with Hamas. This is from the
Wall Street Journal. And let's not forget,
Gantz, as I showed you that, on the
second, came out or was the first or
that was the third then because I don't
think I did a show on the second.
He came out and said that he will
not rule out US
or Israeli boots on the ground.
As I said then,
great for the Israeli entity to tell us
that he's in charge of ruling out or
deciding or is it you know, the fact
that he willing to say that he won't
rule out US boots, it speaks volumes, and
you know it does. And that's it's always
been there.
And I wanna point this out as a
meme,
but in reality,
because this
you may be offended by this. For the
podcast, it shows in the bottom, American draped
or American flag draped coffins. Oh, this is
Americans.
Top picture shows Israel it says Israeli Israelis,
and it shows them sitting in long lounge
chairs of the beach. Now look. There's been
an Israeli that got killed because of the
bombing there.
But what we're talking about here is not
the exchange of missiles. What I'm talking about
is where this seems to be going. And
if this goes to ever like, Iraq or
Syria or any of the rest of them
that were for Israel, as we can see
Israel dominating us, Syria right now. So The
United States can go through all this and
waste American lives, then Israel swings in and
takes control.
That's literally what's happening. Trump can pretend he
put that terrorist there, which why he would
ever admit that is beyond me. But we
know Israel's made bases. They're occupying. They're doing
what they want. You can prove it.
The US doesn't seem to be pushing back
on anything.
So if this goes that direction, what do
you think is gonna happen? Well, we already
got told. Well, we won't we won't count
out US boots on the ground. Do you
think that Israeli troops are gonna deploy to
Iran?
Did they deploy to Iraq? Did they deploy
to Syria? Did they deploy anywhere other than
Gaza and still fail? Not that I can
tell.
That's how this is gonna go. And all
of these people screaming about protecting Israel will
fail to acknowledge that they're not the ones
fighting the war that apparently is for protecting
them.
As Wyatt Reed points out
I mean, this is gigantic, by the way,
and you can verify this every which way
you want. This is a huge gathering of
Iranians.
As he says, starting to think the media
was lying when they told us Iranians were
waiting to lay flowers at the feet of
the invaders. You know, sorta like they lied
when it happened in Iraq.
Trump
sitting around discussing the the worst case where
someone is bad takes over Iran, and it's
always the same thing every time just like
Venezuela. Now I was gonna start with that
today about Delsey Rodriguez and the weird thing
from Trump where he's basically threatening
legal action if she doesn't just do whatever
he wants.
Like, that's somehow
legal.
It's just so wild. It's sort of like
him threatening suits and everything to get people
to do what he wants in this country
and acting like it's somehow legitimate.
The point is is, Alex writes,
Trump wants to bring democracy to Iran by
choosing its leader.
When political elites use the word democracy, what
they really want to say is we get
to choose who runs the country. It's like
Hamas or anything else or rather Gaza. They
go democracy and then they give you the
shah.
That's what they're doing in Iran, the crown
prince of democracy. It's they're laughing at us,
right? That's what's happening. And that's what they're
discussing. So if it's someone they don't like,
well, then they're gonna say no. Well, then
that's not democracy.
We all know that. We're not stupid.
Now lastly, and I think this is important.
Well, actually, lastly is the religious part, but
this is and I might just carry that
over tomorrow because we already talked about it,
but
I think it's really important to see this.
Now this it shows in my mind two
things. One,
the headline reads from Reuters, White House, Spain
has
agreed to cooperate with US military.
And then the same day, they come out
and say, nope. We don't agree. Or actually
well, excuse me. This one was,
oh, so that was the new one. Okay.
So earlier, by the way, back on,
February, they came out and said they reject
Israel's accusations of standing with Iran,
which is interesting because
Trump comes out and says or through the
White House that Spain says they want to
agree, and Spain comes out and says no
to war. Sanjay just reaffirms Spain's stance against
Trump's Iran offensive. So what's going on here?
Is this Trump desperately trying well, here's what
I think. Just cut to the chase. I
think what happened is that they're trying to
coerce somebody, anybody,
to stand up and stand to back them
because it's this is universally unpopular because it's
obvious what they're doing is wrong and nobody
wants to stand up and take that. So
I was actually really shocked when I saw
this. I'm like, why in the world would
anybody
stand up and stand stand by what they
can see nobody agrees with, that everything everything's
illegal.
And I thought, okay, well, it's they're reporting
it. So, if it did happen,
that means, in my mind, that Trump or
whoever else offered them something that they see
as more valuable and more beneficial to them
in the long term than whatever the side
effects, whatever the consequences would be for doing
this.
And then I saw the report where they
go, That's not true. We didn't agree to
that. I thought, That's crazy. So, I think
at that point, maybe he tried to coerce
them into going along with it, thought he
had the upper hand, and they came out
and said, No.
Or maybe tomorrow, they come out and go,
well, now we agree. And then I'll I'll
argue that they got coerced. But I it's
all my opinion.
But either way, isn't that just interesting that
in the same twenty four hour period, they
can come out, he can tell you they
have a deal. We're working together with war,
then Spain says, no. We're not.
And it just it's everything's every part of
this conversation is completely like that.
This is, just from The Washington Post. Spain
Sanchez says no to war in Iran despite
Trump's trade threat. Now this is another part
to this where it shows you coercion, where
Trump is threatening using tariffs to get them
to do that's my point, though. Right? So
you could argue. Now I can't prove these
are interconnected. It's very clear they're at the
same time. But it seems to me that
Trump was threatening like he did with tariffs
everywhere else, which is simply taxes on you
in order to get Spain to join the
war against Iran.
They're desperate, guys. That's my opinion, clearly. But
either way, he's using this coercively. Everybody can
see that.
Now I I think I will go I
wanna go through this more in-depth again just
because it's important. But just to remember, as
the credit report, The US troops, commanders
are framing Iran's war as god's plan. That's
US personnel.
Apparently,
a 110
complaints have been logged within forty eight hours
from over 40 units
across 30 installations
complaining. And this includes Christians, Muslims, Jews,
everybody. And they're
outraged about this. They're alarmed about this. Why?
Because you're being told you're fighting a religious
war.
Not a just war for freedom and liberty,
but a religious war. And who's the one
guiding that?
Is anybody confused about that?
And this came through Jonathan Larson's Substack. He's
the one that actually broke the story.
And there's plenty of examples of the very
weird Zionist Christian rel you know, whatever they
call what they're doing coming from this administration.
Like I said, I'm gonna go through this
in the next show. But realize that this
you may go, oh, that's just cre weird.
That's Christian. They're good. The Muslims are weird.
All that is is your perspective.
There's radical elements in every religion in the
world, and that's based on who goes there.
Muslims, Jews, Christians,
most of them in this conversation, in my
opinion, across the world are just normal people.
These people,
Zionist people,
the the the Christian extremists in this group
or Zionist are all you know, what we're
talking about are clearly
clearly
driven by this.
Yeah. And I'll come back to you. Just
that that clip is, you know, where she's
just go talk about, what she's saying?
Yeah. She's going to strike and strike and
strike and strike your enemies and strike your
enemies because god said, like, that's insane. That's
insanity.
The idea that God wants you to murder
people around the world because of a just
I mean, come on. Now, look, you could
point to things in the Bible that that's
a different story than them justifying you murdering
people for worldly intentions. That's so counter to
any Christian value.
They don't
care. And on top of that, you have
plenty of examples of, you know, here's Hegseth
proudly discussing the,
the third temple
conversation. Right? The destruction of Al Aqsa Mosque
and the rebuilding of the third temple, which
is the end times prophecy.
Here he is, proudly discussing how that's important,
which, by the way, necessarily includes the destruction
of the West. That's who they that's what
they believe, and they're literally calling out America
first.
Former, Margaret Kelly Green, if your church leaders
and elected leaders are telling you that the
way to bring Jesus back, because that's what
they're saying from the Christian side of this
conversation,
is by killing innocent children
of innocent foreign people you've never met in
a foreign land you've never been to, then
you're believing the lies of wolves dressed in
sheep's clothing.
100% agree.
Men of God who say that they agree
with what's going on in Gaza are not
men of God.
I will stand by that until the end
of my time. Okay. That's I mean, there's
how can you possibly argue otherwise?
Here
in English, by the way,
because I asked why that makes sense, why
the IDF would put out a video in
English. Well, obviously, because they're propagandizing Americans that
shouldn't be
confusing
by now, that comes out and says, Purim,
triumph over an enemy seeking your destruction. Centuries
later, we are reliving
that story. Now what she's claiming here is
that they're essentially reliving this through what they're
doing in Iran. Right? Well, as Harrison points
out, and this is easily verifiable,
the story of Purim Purim, how do you
pronounce it, ends with Jews murdering 75,000
people. That's that's not the actual story. Now,
of course, the argument is enemies,
that their enemies they took out.
So far, let's just even let's just even
you pretend that's justified. Now
what she's literally saying is we're reliving this
through this, and you're talking about 75,000
people being killed. It's like when they reference
Amalek. This is not a secret.
What they intend is destruction and chaos and
murder. That's what that means.
And they're telling you, America.
Now this may be normal to you. Right?
I mean, I've been in plenty of these
myself. I grew up in a place with
football and whatever else where for the podcast
where people pray together. Right? Everyone reaches in.
This is everyone touching Donald Trump, and they're
all praying together. Well, as DG Memes says,
Rubio, let me explain to you that Iran
is run by lunatics and religious fanatics.
So you could argue that's the reality, or
you could realize that they're religious people just
like these religious people. And within those groups,
yes, there are very clearly religious extremists
just like there are in this group.
That doesn't make everybody that's a Christian. Everybody's
a Muslim and bad. Like, this is a
game, and they're using
it. K? And the point is with what
Israel's doing, those are religious extremists, guys. That's
insane.
It's very clear what they're doing, and they're
using Trump's administration to do it. That's why
this whole thing right here is happening with
the Turning Point USA background. There but what's
happening in Israel or excuse me, in Iran,
there's plenty of examples of the similar mindset.
Now the question is that's what is that
what is guiding the policy of the government?
If you think that, then demonstrate yet again
for me where those things are happening in
the world. Where is Iran doing those things?
I won't even disagree. It's certainly possible.
Prove it to me.
In this case, well, you can see what
they're doing as is as Trump and his
government tells the military they're fighting a war
for god a war against, where you know,
god's war for Armageddon.
This can't be confusing to anybody.
There's only one extreme element in that right
now, and it's clear.
Now to end,
Mataya Ugar Sargon points out the same thing
as earlier.
85% of Republicans support the war on Iraq.
Eighty four Republicans. You know, Fox News, CBS,
poor 81 Republicans.
I think that's objectively false.
And as Zachary points out, well, the MAG
apologist, this person he points to, is a
propagandist and not a journalist. She claims MAGA
supports Trump on Iran. This is false. The
data she cites are questionnaires asking US Americans
what they think about launching strikes on Iran.
Oh, but over the past four days, The
US did not launch strikes on Iran as
the questionnaire asks.
That's what that's what we did last June.
The point is if you read into this,
the reality is quite different about what's happening,
and what you can see in the conversation
is that Americans have very clearly called this
out. Turning Point USA
individuals
have almost roundly called this out. I mean,
they're desperate, and that's why this stuff continues
to happen.
I'll leave you with a
clip. Another one from Donald Trump.
Swearing
to commit
to stop the globalist ambition of regime change
wars in The Middle East. Yet again, showing
you why this isn't yet again the globalist
agenda
that all they're all trying to hide from.
But, guys,
call it out. Every single day, call it
out. Now, in regard to the show tomorrow,
because of a couple of factors, I'm gonna
try to do one, but it's not guaranteed.
Just wanna put that out there for everybody
planning because I'm I'm on my path right
now with consistent shows. I'll be doing it
right after that and might only even take
one day this week. I'm not sure. But
just stay at it because it's you guys
look at what's happening. You you know, you're
winning if you don't see that by now.
And I mean in the sense of at
least information flow.
Because I mean, you may not agree that
everybody sees it or the majority.
I maybe I'm wrong. But you must acknowledge
that this is different than it was ten
years ago or whatever. It's it's very different
that our conversations are basically guiding the conversation,
like, as the independent media. Not even I
mean, even the mainstream alternative seems to be
responding to the actual journalism and trying to
flare out and flail and get you distracted.
You're having that effect.
Carry that with you every day, man. You're
making a difference out there. Well, thank you
for tuning in. I love you all. As
always, question everything.
Come to your own conclusions.
Stay vigilant.
These globalists want to squander all of America's
strength,
blood, and treasure.
Chasing monsters and phantoms overseas.
In addition, there must also be a complete
commitment to
dismantling
the entire globalist neocon establishment
that is
perpetually dragging us into endless wars,
pretending to fight for freedom and democracy abroad.
We should have never gone into The Middle
East. We should have never gone into The
Middle East. Under my leadership, we will turn
the page forever
on those
foolish stupid days of never ending wars that
We're rebuilding our military stronger than ever before,
and we are not going to deplete it
again on stupid,
senseless,
endless
wars.
World War three has never been closer than
it is right now. We need to clean
house of all of the warmongers
and America last globalist in the deep state.
I am the president who delivers peace. I
was the first president in decades who didn't
start a war. And the worst, most incompetent,
most corrupt president in history
is gonna drag us into World War three.
And this horrible, horrible president
is dragging us toward World War three. We're
gonna be in World War three soon because
I think we would have been good with
Iran. I don't wanna do anything bad to
Iran. Large sections of the Middle East. I
mean, look at the death and destruction
that's taken place,
and none of this would have happened if
I were president. Our opponents
join with warmongers
and neocons to wage endless wars, these wars
that never end. Together, we're fighting to secure
our borders, end the endless foreign wars, and
defend the working people of America.
But the Muslim and Arab voters in Michigan
and across the country want a stop
to the endless wars and a return to
peace in the Middle East. That's all they
want. Speaking of World War three,
I'll keep you out of World War three.
What would happen if we had a war?
We won't
with me, but you will have World War
three, I believe, without me,
but we won't have.
I will
be sure
that World War three will not happen. I'm
the only one who can say it. Won't
happen.
But I stand here today, and I'm the
only candidate who can
make this promise,
I will
prevent and very easily
World War three. Very easily.