White coat waste investigations have also exposed Trump
n I n a Trump NIH officials numerous
false claims that they stopped funding Beagle testing
and have prompted bipartisan congressional calls for action.
Taxpayers are so upset about the NIH's deception,
they're flooding secretary Kennedy's phone lines. Instead of
thoughtfully responding to public concerns about NIH funded
beagle abuse, yesterday,
HHS defiantly changed one of its phone messages
to play a recording saying, quote,
thank you for calling Domino's Pizza, end quote,
before sending taxpayers to voice mail.
Torturing puppies with our tax dollars isn't funny,
but people at HHS apparently think it is.
It starts with a simple question
and ends in objective reality. Reality.
Through our journey from there to here,
we find one another and
ourselves.
And as the next twenty four hours breaks
free from our last,
we gaze onward in reflection of the day.
Welcome to the daily wrap up.
Wednesday, 03/18/2026.
Thank you for joining me today. Now, very
focused show today, as the title suggests. I
have a few things I wanna start with,
but that clip so that that I saw
I caught wind of that
maybe ten minutes before I went live.
Part of me wanted just to put this
off and make sure we made a point
of that as well in this show. But
I I think it's good that we focus
on the point that we're discussing today because
of how much that's bubbling back up in
the conversation.
And you guys know all of this if
you follow the show for a very long
time. Follow James Corbett, Ben Swan, a number
of people that have broken this down around
where ISIS and Al Qaeda truly
originate from, from which it you know, where
what the funding and arming and and and
actions and foreign policy that drove to its
creation and literal creation, like, in the sense
of, like, byproduct actions, but also what they
did deliberately. But
this clip, I'm gonna I want I I
was gonna start with a clip that I
played before that relates to the topic, but
But I played at the start because I
felt like it's worth hearing twice.
We're gonna play that and a few other
things to start. But as I said, the
main focus today, and it relates to the
to the ongoing Iran war, and we're gonna
cover some updates around and like I, said,
we weren't largely covering yesterday. Today, I did
include some of the different actions that have
taken place so you guys can be more
up to date on some of those that
took place today. But there's a reason I
included it today. But largely, the idea of
it as the title suggests. Right? The the
open secret that it is. James Corbin has
a similar title that goes back a long
way. And I think it's important to sort
of nod to these things that it's been
there your entire life. And I'm gonna go
through some very fine tune like, a lot
of this we've covered over the years.
You know, I'm not gonna rehash every part
of it, but what you're gonna see today
is
the source material you can reinvestigate if it's
something we've covered extensively in the past, but
going through very
detail oriented points,
old corporate art mainstream corporate articles, also different
more investigatory articles, breaking down the same conversation,
the real origins of what these elements these
groups where they came from, what actions caused
their growth, what actions stoked their growth, and
were they deliberate.
And then at what point that became clear
and then how clearly you can see that
these US and Israel predominantly, but Western governments
we could discuss
continued to work with them. I mean,
just to start out with the
the frustration that we even have to keep
talking about this, that we literally have Jelani
in Syria. That's why I made fun of
those pictures in the in the image today.
How absurd it is that we can't be
honest about that even though it's self evident.
It's a it's a guy that they told
you was a terrorist because he was. He
was part of Al Qaeda, al Nusra. He
ultimately was turned into a clean-cut, you know,
suit wearing president for Syria.
And when that took place, and we'll go
through this in in the show today,
when he was put in that position,
the image of the state department $10,000,000
bounty, that was up at least so I
I think it was about a week afterward.
And that was simultaneous. And yet you so
you can see on the state department website
that he is a terrorist. They're calling one
anyway. And now, here he is. They're they're
telling you he's the president. You know, it's
it's insulting to our intelligence. And that's why
I think this show is important for today
because, yet again, we're hearing the, I guess,
Iran is ISIS or Hamas is ISIS and
Hamas is Iran or, you know, however they're
trying to mold this together. And it's just
embarrassing.
And my my ultimate point when you come
down to, like, the media side of it
is these are people,
I think, by and large, who know that
they're lying to you. Now that's just my
opinion. I mean, I I'm sure a huge
part of the conversation are people that just
don't realize they're wrong, but what I'm talking
about are the deliberate deceivers out there who
are trying for obvious reasons to paint Iran
as the bad guy. And today, we'll show
and that's not to say good guy, bad
guy from my perspective, but because I see
all governments in a very similar category, but
simply to state that what they're claiming about
Iran is just not true in most every
possible way.
But, ultimately, then
making the case through the information we're gonna
highlight today that Iran
was never really the culprit in what they've
been painting. Now whether you think Iran is
everything they've ever said they were is sort
of irrelevant to the point we're making, and
the idea that you can clearly show that
Iran is not funding or even associated with
ISIS, but that you can see that in
every possible location, it has been The US
and Israel. And in fact,
avoiding going after ISIS or Al Qaeda or
their offshoots and aiming at Shiites and Shiites
and and Iran.
And it's very clear when you understand this.
Now, so a few opening points we're gonna
get to before we go through all that
and end with some focal points around Iran
and actually end with a really interesting and,
I think, important for the framing of media
where the current mainstream alternative media is with
what we just what we're dealing with. And
the constant, constant punches
that are falling on
the team sport Republican MAGA type people who
are still trying to find ways to blindly
support Trump and show you how it is,
I don't think, ever going to stop until
we fully,
you know, digest and acknowledge what these people
have always been. Now to start, I wanna
say one thing that I almost already forgot
again that I keep forgetting. I wanna I
wanna shout out to somebody who sent a
a letter to us. And, really, just to
everybody, I've I I don't do this enough
because it's just there's so much always going
on every day. And, honestly, I've had this
thing sitting here for four days, and I
keep forgetting to just say it because I
wanted to. And that that's that's just to
make the point that even when I want
to, I still seem to forget with all
the things being set up and organizing. But
I wanna make sure where I'm thinking, you
know, in general, any of you out there
that send the most amazing letters and and
regularly donate, and, you know, many of you
in the chat right now. And it just
it means, as always, the world to me.
We wouldn't exist without you. And I just
really want to stress how much it actually
I mean, for those of you that do
reach out, you know because we write everything
back in a handwritten letter. At least the
ones that we can get to are the
ones that we receive, and that can't always
be everything. But that's what we do. We
don't respond unless it is a handwritten letter
from us. And and that we get a
ton a ton of stuff.
But my point in saying all that is
that I'm never able to get to all
of it. So I hope you all know
how much it means to me. And I
wanna give a special shout out to to
Drew
who sent me a letter that just retouched
me. You know, it was very it it
was impactful.
And I wanna make a point about what
Drew said in the letter, which was ultimately
and it's, you know, which I appreciate, which
is ultimately
stressing that the people in their the average
people have the ability to gift,
I guess, up to and I can't I'm
not sure if it's even accurate. It's what
they said in the letter, but up to
$18,000
tax free. So it reminds me of,
Shawshank Redemption. But for if you catch the
the you you catch the connection to the
the part of the movie I'm referencing without
saying it. But that, ultimately, that they're suggesting
that people out there who wanna support T
Lab can do so. And I just really
appreciated that as well as just a long
letter of just expressing how much our work
has meant and, you know, it just matters
to me. And I wanted to make a
point to say that. And, hopefully, that just
kind of spreads to everybody else out there
that has sent things that that just mean
the world to me. So beside, after that
note, let's get started with
the
oh, well, technically, I I wanted to make
a point about,
quick point about the Epstein thing, and then
I'll reference that video that we played. And
just because this these all interconnect for me.
And these ultimate points to start, including the
clip we just played, which we'll see again
in a second, about the ongoing testing on
beagles despite all of the claim through and
this is during Trump's administration, despite all of
the outrage, which rightly so, about what Fauci
was doing, that all of this speaks to
a larger point of not just that we're
being lied to. And we I think
everybody is seeing that. Like I was telling
you six months ago, a year ago, and
I meant it. I wasn't just guessing. I
meant it. I saw it. I could've been
wrong, but, clearly, we were not.
So the point is that I think this
is all changing in front of us. To
understand that the lying is still step one.
Understand and acknowledge that problem. But then we
have to recognize that it speaks to something
much larger, and it's not just Trump's administration
if that's where you think this is leaning.
Our government left and right, Biden and Trump,
Obama and Bush, has been doing the same
thing my entire life. I've been calling it
out the same way my entire career. I'm
just glad that people are finally starting to
recognize those problems. And, of course, I could
all be wrong. That's always possible, but I
think the consistency speaks for itself. And I'm
hoping that average people who are watching this
and are now seeing it keep looking and
watch as we continue into the next administration
and beyond, and they continue when the same
criticisms apply regardless of the left and right
paradigm. And the people who do not do
that become more and more and more cartoonish
and more and more and more obviously dishonest.
You know who I'm talking about, and they
are transparent today. But all that's to say
that what we're highlighting here is not just
about partisan stuff. It's about recognizing that this
is something that's happening to this country,
and it's not one side or the other.
It's not you know, or that we see
it happening, but we have to trust in
Trump to make sure we can see our
way through, which is kind of what you're
getting from even people calling out what Israel's
doing.
It's wild.
But all of it does connect to the
origin point we're how highlighting today as well,
which is of the creation of these extremist
groups, which are largely, I think, a product
of what Israel created in the world, but
I could be wrong with that. Ultimately, you
can prove quite literally that the US government
has funded, armed, and moved them around and
say, you know, it's tons of stuff we'll
cover. And I think that very much connects
to what is ultimately happening here. Why are
we being lied to? Why are they using
a two party paradigm to keep us yelling
at ourselves while all these things happen around
us? It's all kind of the same answer.
Different agendas, different angles,
but control, guys.
Now, this this is a just a clip
that you can watch, of course, with Katie
Miller. Just weird, isn't it, that you got
these these, like, weird extensions of the like,
it's total like, if you if it's like,
it's it's as if Obama's wife or or
Melania, which is also happening,
in the midst of this, stepped out and
started doing their own shows, which they're kinda
doing today. It's weird. That's that's direct connection
to the political sphere. It's not like they're
it's like pretending like Fox and CNN are
totally not obviously politically motivated. They used to
pretend that. Remember that? Remember that? When they
pretended like they were fair and balanced or
for, like, half a second, Fox pretended they
were an independent platform?
It's just they're just throwing what they can
at the wall, guys. It's so obvious. So
that's just to make the point about how
weird it is that this is Miller with
Miller's wife extension where she's just out there
pushing the same talking points and it gets
all, you know, crowded into by all the
partisans who wanna support the team. And it's
it's just this lazy recycling of the same
talking points. But what comes out in this
conversation that Shadow of Ezra points out, even
though they're largely partisan, they still a lot
of people are still very unhappy about the
Epstein files and the way they haven't done
it what they're supposed to. Deputy attorney Todd
Blanche admits they are no longer interested in
investigating Epstein's international child trafficking. Now this is,
like, the fifth time they've accentuated this point,
and it still seems to be a shock
point for some people. They told you there's
no more coming.
That's that they should go to prison right
now as far as I'm concerned, and that's
not because of someone that I think may
be in there. They broke the law with
the transparency act. This is what I'm always
talking about. Don't miss and what I do
care about what else is in there, what
else it may show. We all should. The
missing pages that we don't see and what
that means with with what we're seeing.
Care about that. Hope for it. Call it
out.
But make sure we don't miss the fact
that this administration just broke the law with
the Transparency Act. They did not follow it.
Massey's called it out. They covered up information.
They redacted names they shouldn't have. They withheld
in the the communications between Bondi and Cash
and others within the conversation. All of these
are crimes. I don't care if it's considered
a slap on the wrist or not. See
it through. That's a crime. They broke it.
Call them out. Let them be charged for
it, whether Biden or Trump or left or
right. It's amazing how simple that is. But
you're gonna get your arguments that may feel
like logic in the moment where they go,
but they didn't do it when Obama did
that. And blah blah. You know? Yep, you're
probably right.
I want them both to get in trouble
or rather be held accountable for the crimes
so we're not speaking in juvenile terms like
they do every day in this political sphere.
He dismissed Pizzagate as fully debunked and said
it would not be pursued. Now same kind
of idea.
If you wanna talk about what that really
was, and I can also argue that the
general mainstream conversation and mainstream alternative, which kinda
did exist then too,
it was. Pizzagate was turned into a ridiculous
cartoon that was meant to be the words
and an email which were relevant, but not
even remotely the only and most important thing,
and turned it into something ridiculous.
The idea behind it, though, very real, as
we're all seeing today, as it very much
still connects as Ben Swan came out and
did made a great point about. But it's
not they they even the name was turned
into something ridiculous because of the pizza place
in the shooting. All of this was a
manipulation. But either way, it's all done. It's
all over. No. It's not. These things are
very obvious. What about Zorro Ranch, Todd Blanche?
What about the affidavit signs saying Trump had
raped a woman and no one's investigated? I
mean, all of these things, and I'm not
saying they amount to absolute slam dunks, but
Zora Ranch is the most important that I
can see. You got people in New Mexico
in the government saying no one's even touched
this, she said it in 2019. She's now
saying it again in 2026.
Bodies were buried, they said. They got they
said they got videos and evidence and all
this stuff. Nope. It's over. No more. He
also denied the existence of Epstein's client list,
claiming he doesn't even know what that refers
to. You see, this is insulting to your
intelligence.
Look. You can play this game or there's
not some single page that's got all the
nobody even argued that other than ridiculous out
of touch people that either lied or didn't
understand what the point was about. We're talking
about the list, however you wanna catalog it
all, of the people that they worked with.
Put it on put it on a a
a disk drive if you want. To make
it out to be some kind of single
page that Epstein had posted on his wall
is to make fun of you, and they
know that. But we don't even know what
you mean by that. Nope. No more. Nothing
coming. Blanche added that Epstein had no ties
to any foreign governments. Yep. That's insanely stupid.
Or espionage activity, except it's literally proven. Proven.
Now, whether it was an agent,
you could debate that all day long, and
I would, too, because I don't think it's
proven. I think so. But whether he worked
with intelligence has been publicly admitted by just
about everybody. But here he is telling Katie
Diller through his control platform that they'll put
it all over in hopes that that's what
will be carried by the partisan team sport
players.
Yeah. Where he reports directly to Pam Bonney,
of course.
Just a normal day in the broken promises
world that the other that the Gunther Eagles
and Catchers and Benny Johnsons and Joan. Oh,
I will get to Jones in a minute
on his weird waffle, but mark my words
as he continues to support Trump. Watch.
Even today. But as they all try to
makes make this seem like a win somehow.
Now, back to this clip in the same
conversation of winning.
I I'm at I'm and this is not
just insulting.
It is cruel. And it's also I mean,
what it shows you, to cut it in
very quick point, they frame this, rightly so,
as torture,
as evil,
and then they kept doing it.
I mean, I don't even know I don't
even think I need to say anything else.
If you haven't seen the clip, we're gonna
play it right now. This is the most
insane thing you'll see on Twitter today, says
Holden.
Trump's NIH spent a $126,000,000,
according to this person speaking to congress,
on Fauci era puppy torture experiments since RFK
Jr. Took office. When Maha flooded HHS phones
yesterday, they got sent to voice mail with
a message that said, thank you for calling
Domino's Pizza. That's how in his response, that's
how HHS officials are responding to Maha supporters
demanding the reforms that they voted for.
They're laughing in your faces.
White coat waste has spent the last year
exposing Trump's NIH for lying about shutting down
Fauci Arab Beagle experiments.
I mean, you just can't make fun of
this. You can't dismiss this. You made a
huge case, rightly so, about why that was
inhuman, something that only evil Democrats do. And
then you just kept doing it. You kept
funding it.
Which shouldn't surprise anybody who's barely paying attention,
who's trapped by the team sport game because
they're all the same thing. And what this
is like my point about NED or USAID
or the narratives and woke it's all about
getting its means to an end. They use
what they think we care about to achieve
their political ends. These likely largely sociopaths, and
we need to be real about that.
Look at their actions. Look it up what
it means. Look at what they do every
day. Guys, it's not hard to recognize where
we are. But you get the typical average
person who hears you say that and goes,
oh, here we go. These conspiracy theorists as,
you know, as half the time what they're
actually engaging with are things that we were
telling you thirty years ago or whatever, you
know, back then or today for me, ten
years ago. NIH leaders claimed over and over.
And, of course, before we move forward, let's
not forget that on this platform,
speaking for myself, we do not say things
that, unless I'm clear that it's my opinion,
that we're not verified with evidence. Now, of
course, that could turn out to be false.
But you go back and look at our
track record on this platform to the very
day that I started when I barely knew
what I was doing. And I promise you,
it'll be hard for you to find an
example where we said something that was, like,
blatantly incorrect. But, I mean, the the point
is, you go back to what I was
barely starting, and I I'm sure you'll find
an example because I I didn't I didn't
have the same passion about it I did.
My point, though, was do it. You'll be
hard pressed to find something, especially since the
daily wrap up going forward. And I think
that's worth saying. It's not that's demonstrating our
value for you guys, that we continue to
be integrity based, fact based, and report what
we know we can prove.
NIH leaders claimed over and over that they're
phasing out these barbaric experiments on puppies and
that funding for them was already approved before
they came into office. Now as I said,
this is what he's reporting. So, like, that
that re ultimate point, if you argue he's
lying, then you should prove that if you
think that's the case. I have seen him
continue to call these things out. He's doing
his research on it. You wanna call it
out? Call it out. I'm willing to bet
you that Donald Trump and the rest of
his team are gonna flatly say not true,
and no one will care to look into
it.
We all know what these groups are. Now
here's the clip. Oh, I forgot I haven't
played the clip. For those that haven't seen
it, we started with this. Here it is.
Trump n I
White Coat Waste Investigations
have also exposed Trump n I n a
Trump NIH officials numerous false claims
that they stopped funding Beagle testing and have
prompted bipartisan congressional calls for action.
Taxpayers are so upset about the NIH's deception,
they're flooding secretary Kennedy's phone lines. Instead of
thoughtfully responding to public concerns about NIH funded
beagle abuse, yesterday,
HHS defiantly changed one of its phone messages
to play a recording
saying, quote,
thank you for calling Domino's Pizza, end quote,
before sending taxpayers to voice mail.
Torturing puppies with our tax dollars isn't funny,
but people at HHS apparently think it is.
Of course, you know, you could argue any
number of things. And I actually think this
is worth pointing out
because you have to realize a lot of
the people in these government positions are are
what were you know, look at the Hank
Seth. Look at Kash Patel.
These are just like, these are people that
are wildly out of their depth in these
positions. So there are people that are put
there because they're gonna do what they're told,
because they're easily manipulatable and are easy to
cow in a position and are
overwhelmingly
happy to have the power that they have
in that position. That's what I believe. So
my point is is you could take it
even further down. Their assistant deputy, you know,
the people beneath them and and are even
more so that. Right? My point is these
are average people. That was the Doge people
that Elon brought in. I'm not talking about
smart versus not smart. Some of those kids
are very, very smart in their specialized fields.
But there's still just kids online who are
younger, young adults, let's say, or teenagers or,
you know, however you wanna frame it because
some of them were 19 or whatever. But
in this case, just people who are, you
know, let's just say normal versus, like, internal
politics and, like, the,
you know, like, veteran politicians or whatever. And
so what I think is interesting is that
you have a lot of the examples
of of people who
like, what I'm getting at is the call
like, the calls coming in.
They might think, well, that's just a bunch
of Democrats who wanna make this look bad
for us or whatever. Right? Or all the
all the protesters are just paid people that
are Democrats who hate us. Well, I'm willing
to bet you some of it's probably that.
But are you guessing?
Are you unwilling to consider that there are
people, like myself included, not partisan, who would
be out there protesting if it would be
who care about the fact that you're breaking
the law? So realize that there's a lot
of these people that are within that who
have been convinced, sort of like my Trump
might have been convinced that 90% of Americans
believed in what he was doing.
I I I don't know for sure. I
find it hard to believe, but it seems
like that's what the reporting is telling you.
So, there might be a lot of people
in the administration who just are convinced that
anything that goes against what they think they're
doing and that Trump told them they should
do is only Democrats who don't believe in
us because everyone trusts us, like Trump said.
So, I'm just I'm getting at the like,
the idea that you put a message on
there that says welcome to Domino's and that
that that would be taken as anything other
than an insult to any American, in particular
people that support Maha, is only in a
world where you would think that the only
person who would ever call would be somebody
who's not on your side. And these are
people in the government. Now, that's hypothetical, obviously.
I can't speak to their minds, but it's
worth thinking about that in the large sense
of how these things operate. I think right
now, especially from the mindset, which we're gonna
get into more today a little bit, of
Israel capturing this government on all sides, that
their people are being put in place
that are buying the lies. That's why you
almost get these arguments of people in Congress
who don't even seem to understand the things
that most independent media are very well versed
on, or a Scott Horton could just rip
people apart. No. He's good at what he
does. He's very smart. No. I'm not saying
the opposite. What I mean, though, is that
he can step into these fields with people
who are claiming to have, you know, knowledge
about Iran and, like, high level military access
and just runs over the top of them,
and they don't even know what they're doing,
bringing up the claims of, like I said,
Jake Sullivan in in Al Qaeda. Or, rather,
I'm not sure I mentioned it on this
show, but,
Hillary Clinton claims or Jake Sullivan in WikiLeaks
claims saying Al Qaeda's on our side.
I mean, I I can mention something like
that. I bet you 90% of this chat
knows what that is. WikiLeaks, the whole thing.
You bring this up in a circle of,
like, in Congress and they're like, what? What?
What leaks? What? And whether they know WikiLeaks
or not, it's like they don't understand these
things. It's kind of mind blowing. I think
that speaks to the fact that these are
people who aren't really in charge. They may
think they are
or thinking about. Now, on other points of
that same direction, here's Thomas Massie pointing out
that the debt passed $39,000,000,000,000
today.
Take a look at how long ago that
was even in the billions, and it might
it'll scare you.
This is
obviously not sustainable,
and I think this is by design. I
mean, how I mean, we were we were
talking, like, billions. People were like, oh my
god. We're 39,000,000,000,000.
At some point, again, I should play that
video of like the money that it'll just
it just blows your mind. At the most,
it goes to like 10,000,000 and it ends
up like the video shows you what it
would visually look like and it's like 500
football fields. Like, we can't even imagine what
this would be. 39,000,000,000,000
means nothing to people, and I think that's
the point. Because it's so far beyond what
our mind can even grasp. $87,000
a second.
Why?
War.
Israel.
Foreign policy.
I mean, even other allies too, by the
way. But clearly, the amount that's dumping out
of here just to support what they're doing
while they're killing people is worth mentioning. He
also says, the the the recent Treasury report
says the debt is $38,000,000,000,000,
almost 39,
but that was the debt two days ago.
The debt badge I I built uses dead
reckoning to calculate the debt today at the
very second. That's why he said it's past
39,000,000,000,000.
On top of that, speaker Johnson comes out
and says a plan
is to move a clean
extension
of FISA.
You know, the thing they all criticize when
the Democrat did and then in turn, the
things that the Democrats criticize when the Republicans
used it. And they all just hand off
the baton and keep using it and have
their rationale. And we
the artisans don't call it out. Not really.
Same thing over and over. Massey's been calling
it out the entire time. It expires on
April 19, and we're looking at that deadline
hoping that we can get a clean authorization
for eighteen months. Yeah. Why not? You know,
just illegal spying on Americans. It's just what
we do. Right, guys? Hashtag winning.
Why can't we call this out? Well, because
people that don't are dishonest or don't understand
that this is a big deal.
Sure as hell, most of them seem to
call it out when it was pointed to,
when it was about Democrats using it. Why
can't we paste that together?
Why don't I always he asked, why don't
I always vote with the party of Washington,
DC? That's what he get criticized for of
why doesn't he support the team even though
he has a track record far more in
line with Republicans? He says exhibit a, the
party is about to extend spying on Americans
without a warrant
by voting to reauthorize unconstitutional FISA seven zero
two program. As well as the fact that
they're already kinda doing that with ICE, so
it just builds into the situation. This has
never never this has been there for such
a long time. People just act like it's
not a big deal until they wanna make
the other side look like the bad guy.
On top of that, at AIPAC, Massey writes
should be required to register as an agent
of a foreign government under FARA. You know,
the same thing that JFK was trying to
do with AIPAC before it was called that
and then got killed and then didn't happen.
Very real story if you don't remember that.
Because even US citizens are meant to be
subject to Farah. AIPAC and closely associated entities
have spent over $6,000,000
to influence just
his election alone.
It's directly it's directly in the interest of
Israel's agenda, and that's publicly stated.
Also, as we told you yesterday or day
before yesterday oh, and by the way, apologize
for not getting to the show yesterday. I
did I mentioned on Wake Up, but I
had a little bit of a family thing
yesterday and wasn't really able to get to
it. But, ultimately,
the plan still is, as we said, to
continue through this week, so stay tuned. But
Donald Trump just signed the executive order to
create task force eliminate fraud. You know, doge
otherwise is what it was called, and they
failed at that. Or rather, didn't fail. They
lied to you about what would happen. And
that's very easy to see how and and
and we're talking about, right now, more spending,
bigger government. Every basic promise they made is
the opposite. But don't worry. He's gonna start
a new program to spend money on this
new program that will end up probably costing
more money. But he says convicted fraudsters Trump
has pardoned this year. You if you don't
take a second to look these up. It's
insane to me how clear this is. And
they are people that are they call they
call them political prosecution. Okay. Maybe. I wouldn't
even disagree with that, but they still broke
the law. And you can find countless examples,
I should say countless, I think at least
three that I can remember, where people were
pardoned by Trump and then broke the law
again and went back to jail.
And people that, for example, defrauded Americans during
COVID nineteen under the guise of fear about
COVID. And these are you're gonna pardon these
people? So it's just a game, guys, and
it's just one more kick down the road
to make you think something's happening. I hope
I'm wrong. I'd like to see fraud go
away. I'd like to see corruption go away,
but I'm pretty sure frauding fraudster corruptive
or I said it wrong. Corrupt fraudsters are
not gonna be the ones to do it.
Now Trump offers donning access or access to
donor, excuse me, to national security briefings.
And this is where we're gonna bring this
into, I think, the larger point. I want
you to think about how in the world
this possibly makes sense.
Now, this is being like, this is actually
to start with this point, we'll show you
what they said in Congress. I'm not familiar
with what that is. Guys, this is widely
acknowledged. It was quite literally an email sent
out. I mean, this is something that has
gone this
is very, very consistent with what Trump has
been doing the entire time, the profiteering, the
selling access.
It's exactly what he is, and it's an
email directly sent from there. It's been it's
gone around the entire conversation.
Trump offered now you could argue, here's the
only error in the conversation, that he didn't
necessarily mean real national security briefings. That means
he's taken advantage of people. Either way, you
could argue, but he he listed it as,
as I'll we'll play the clip for you,
unfiltered.
And so this and I want you to
ask yourself whether this is just whoever, which
means they're selling out to the highest bidder,
which means it's national security,
top secret, whatever you wanna call it. It
doesn't have to be top secret, but information
is supposed to be secret, like things in
their secret meetings. But, yeah, you, oh, you
you wanna buy in Saudi Arabia? Come on
in. You want Israel? You wanna buy in?
Well, that's a joke, really, because I think
they already have access to this information, but
it's about selling access to information that they
keep secret even from you. Here's what they
said in congress.
Just wanna point out something that was released
about six days ago. This is a fundraising
email
from the president,
from the president of The United States. And
in this email here,
where there's multiple links to donate money,
it says,
as a national security briefing member, you'll receive
my private
national security briefings.
So right there, you know, if you wanna
try to defend him, you could argue he
just means he'll give you first access to
things he'll tell everybody. Yeah. Fine. You can
assume
all you want. What it says very clearly
is unfiltered national security briefings.
You know, the idea that we're supposed to,
like, willfully assume into the direction of what
makes it not a bad thing when he
just says things is insane. Obviously, we shouldn't
do that because it very well could be
exactly what it sounds like. That's just people
trying to cover for their person, their their
lead or whatever their don't counter signal the
leader, we hear Kat Turds say all the
time.
Director Gabbard or director Radcliffe,
do you think the public should be able
to supporters of the president should be able
to pay
and receive his private national security briefings. I
assume these are briefings,
director Ratcliffe, that you provide to the president
that is now gonna be provided to somebody
who makes a Regardless of what that that
I don't know what that document is.
But regardless of what it says, it it
didn't happen.
Oh, no. This is new. I mean, do
you no. It's certainly possible since it's I
mean, it's
I it's certainly possible you didn't see it.
But, I mean, I I find it hard
to believe. It was a very, very, very
publicized story. When you know? And the fact
it's even being brought up shows you that.
Doesn't mean question it, like, always. But, like,
this is what we tend to do.
Yeah. I'm not sure. I don't I don't
respect that. Well, it's it's let's how what
I would do is but how about we
well, they probably would say no. But the
point is, let's discuss this. It's something that
happened. Let's not just push it off and
come back because they never actually revisit these
things. Oh, well, follow-up a week later. I
never see that happen.
Well, but what I'm telling you is that,
the Hatch Act would prevent me from in
a political role from engaging in that. I'm
not aware that anything like that happened. Yeah.
This says unfiltered
updates.
So,
director Gabbard, do you have any comment on
whether unfiltered updates
of private national security briefings
should be made to individuals
that donate to the president?
I'm not I'm not familiar with that document,
and,
it's it's been made very public six days
ago.
We'll we'll we'll get you a copy here
because I agree with you, director
director Ratcliffe,
that the Hatch Act should pro prohibit this
type of conduct.
Right. I mean, it's it's just the same
old thing. If If no one said anything,
they would just do it. And if you
push back, they'll just lie and be like,
well, no. It was you know, you know,
they'll they'll say whatever they need to. Like,
are are we even quibbling about the fact
that this this administration has been caught lying
kind of I mean, more blatantly and more,
like, cartoonishly than any administration I've seen. That's
not to say that they haven't lied as
much, but these people just seem to be
very bad about it. They lie very obviously
and just kinda run with the never mind
or look away. I disagree. That's not true.
You know? And so here we are. I
don't know about that. It's a small point.
It it and it's not really, but in
the sense of what else is going on.
But I think it's important to think about.
What does that mean? Who has access? Is
our country simply being sold out to the
highest bidder?
I I think that's been the case for
quite a long time.
Now there's a lot of this blind support,
but I what I want you to see
is two things in this part. One, that
there's a lot of support still even for
people that should know better, but, also, even
they
are clearly changing their tune. Kevin Sorbo has
been like a diehard, ardent, blind supporter of
Trump to I mean and look. My my
gut and I I I can't even know
why I would say this because I have
no idea. I don't know who Kevin is.
I've never met him. But just kind of
looking at, like, his movies and what he
says out loud, I I I feel like
he's a person, a good person, that's being
tricked into thinking Trump is doing what he
thinks is the right thing,
genuinely. But it's like a blind guess into
the end of the into nowhere because I
don't know who he is. But my point
saying that is because I think a lot
of people out there are just played by
all of this, that that he wants to
believe Trump is the Christian who cares about
people and wants to change the world for
the better. But pretty sure doing genocide and
murdering children in schools is not the way
that goes, and Christians shouldn't support that. But,
you know, people people find their ways to
see things the way they want to. The
narrative we're told is that's not what happened.
It was Iran. They buy it, even though
you can prove that's not true. Right?
But he said Trump just said that Ilhan
Omar married her brother and that they have
proof that she's here illegally.
Trump said that. I don't need to play
this. They've said this thing they've said that
and tons of other things a thousand times.
We have evidence Pelosi did x, y, and
z. Obama's going to prison. He's a treasonous
care that yeah. Miller, Trump, all of them.
Now in most cases, I agree. They're they're
criminals
and should go to jail just as much
as I think Trump should. So I support
it. Put him in jail. Charge him with
a crime. My point is it will never
happen.
I hope so. Hope I'm wrong. In this
case, how many times
how many times can they hype with no
follow through about her being deported because she's
here illegally, about Pelosi
on January 6? Again, most of these cases
all argue there's something there.
Obama.
Social Security theft. Doge. All the crime you
said you found. Not a single person. Not
even to mention the Epstein files.
But how many people, how many times can
they hype with no follow through before Kevin
or any of them stop shilling for him?
Apparently, at least one more time. Because he
says, well, get on it then. Okay. So
right there. Okay. Well, get on it, Kevin
says. So in a week, in a month,
in a year,
will Kevin stand up and go, you broke
your promise. Probably not. I hope so. I
hope everyone's changing. But from what I've seen
thus far, these people just kick it on
down the road. How many times can you
tell when these people go to prison and
then not happen until you go, well, they're
they're lying to me
or they don't care.
Right? I mean, guys, this is just a
basic understanding of what's going on. You gotta
wake up to this. I'd love to see
somebody like this suddenly start going, you know
what? I see him for what he is
now. I'm sorry I ever did them. You
know, that's what a lot of people right
now are doing.
Clint Russell says, I do believe listen to
what Trump said. I do believe I shall
play this first. It was I forgot I
was gonna include this one, but it's the
same kind of point, but it's about Trump
saying something about Cuba, which is just insane.
And this is about whether people think he's
suddenly
changed.
He hasn't. This is who he's always been.
I do believe I'll be the honor of
having the honor of
taking Cuba.
That'd be good honor. That's a big honor.
Taking Cuba. Taking Cuba in some form. Yeah.
Taking Cuba. I mean, whether I free it,
take it.
Really?
You know, right. Because you typically take it
and then you free, take it, free it,
take it. Whatever.
I think I could do anything I want
with it. You want another two? Of course.
Apparently. Because that's a good follow-up. Believe it.
No. You know, free it maybe. You know?
But whatever whatever the f I want. Shut
up. You know? It's like whatever. It's just
how do people not see who this person
is? That's just small. He's always pounding his
chest about things that half the time don't
even happen, and usually is being driven by
somebody controlling him, I would argue. But either
way, I could do what I want. I'll
take it, baby. Free it. You know? Cuba.
I'll be it'll be an honor.
You can almost hear Lindsey Graham having I'll
be too too crude. But the point is,
it's ridiculous to pretend that this is in
any this is a crime.
Are you are you arguing there's a legal
rationale? Does international law does not not matter
when Trump decides something anymore?
Okay. Again, I always make this point. If
you're of the mind that it shouldn't matter
at all, then just make that case. Stop
hiding behind mom's skirts and pretending like this
is you're fighting for the freedom and constitution,
but then we don't care about it and
we want our things. Right? If you think
it's okay to just take Cuba or take
Greenland and you're fighting for that, then you
do not care about the law.
Hey. Maybe you think that's the way it
should work. That's my point. Then make that
argument. Don't stand by those things and then
go, America,
liberty, constitution because you don't believe those things
or worse, you don't even understand what they
mean.
The honor of having the honor of
taking Cuba.
So I said
to Clint who said Trump has 100% lost
his mind.
Funny, though. Right? Seeing as how
he did the same things before.
I guess just he didn't see that or
I guess was unable to or didn't want
to admit that it was happening before. I
mean, what are we talking about? Trump is
just because it you know, narrative is what
seems to blind people to what's really going
on. Did he not do all he did
in Syria? Did he not? I mean, like,
we can go down the list. It's just
another extension of the same US government foreign
policy with a little bit different flare. This
time, it's just right on track. Iran, Syria,
Lebanon, the whole and Cuba, just everything.
My point is this is no different than
what he was doing before. It's just extension.
It's the extension. It's ramped up. The agenda
has continued. And I said, this is the
exact same man we tried to warn you
about, Clint, in 2025. Remember that? We tried
to warn everybody. This is what's gonna happen.
We're gonna go war with Iran. Israel's gonna
take over there. We we said all of
this to a tee. And still, in this
moment, we're not the ones being recognized for
being that. It's the ones like this that
step over the top of us and go,
this thing that I lied about before, they
are so be it. This is the broken
nature of this media sphere. I'm of the
mind that more honest people out there are
able to see the long term reality, and
that's all I care about. I don't care
about dishonest media players. I care about honest
people who want to go where they can
find the facts.
And, you know, you still can find facts
for people that wiffle waffle around it and
jump side. Hey. But you but I think
consistency is what matters. I'm not even saying
dishonest. I'd like to believe this is genuinely
people starting to change their minds, like I
said about Tucker. Nonetheless, it is important to
point out, we all tried to do this.
I mean, Derek says it to him directly
because we did. He was we we got
by him, got called black pill, purity test,
the whole thing.
Wild to me that some act like Trump's
suddenly changed. That is the new narrative right
now. Going on Pierce Morgan. MAGA's dead. Trump
I don't know who Trump is. Now why
do you think that's happening? Maybe because they
genuinely think it. That's one of the possibilities.
But my point is he's not really different.
It's the same that just the lines were
crossed, but he's the same point. So why
would that happen? Well, I argue it's because
you're this is what the the system does.
When the system is losing, it it it's
a release valve.
Okay. Fine. Look. Everyone now sees Israel is
what they're doing. We can't get away from
that. So how do we frame it so
we gain? How do we control that narrative?
How do we control release?
Well, we do this.
We suddenly go, everything's different. Trump's all over
who he was. And then watch as that
suddenly becomes, oh, it was all planned, and
Trump brought you back in, which is what
Jones is doing. We see Israel's overtaking the
country. We know it. Now it's all there.
But we're fighting from within, and we're gonna
have to freedom. And the globalists are trying
to fight us, but they're losing. It's like
the same thing.
Sorry. I'm getting off track, but I'm just
like, it's important to see how
broken this is.
He has always been this person, and the
evidence is overwhelmingly clear. Two party illusion.
Same thing. This is Rudy I'm not familiar
with. He says, is everyone on this administration
being blackmailed?
What happened, Pete?
What do you mean what happened? Yes. He
before got in this position, said what he
knew you wanted. No more war. Freedom, liberty,
Democrats bad, then got in the position, and
here we are. Because, guys, that's politics one
zero one. And I'd like to believe that
we all know that, even the partisan players.
So why is it suddenly that Hegseth, oh
my god. What happened to him?
He did the same thing they all do.
Or is it that that earlier point? Maybe
it's because they believe that this is just
somehow different this time. Right? These guys are
the real ones. They're gonna be on my
side. We do that's how these people do
it. They convince themselves that somehow it's different.
These are the ones that are gonna fight
for me. Whitney said, hey, Seth's number two,
Steve Feinberg is actually running the Pentagon. Hegseth
is just the Fox and Friends figurehead. Look
up Feinberg and Cerberus, and you'll see what
I mean. She wrote an article about it.
So if you wanna think about what might
have changed, it didn't happen in the last
year, didn't happen in the last four years.
This is an important inflection point. Now I
believe this is still at a point you
might argue it was already going on if
you understand the overlap in the bankruptcy conversation.
But, nonetheless
and to be clear, what I'm talking about
here is Israel Zionism influence, but you could
take the take it however you wish, is
that this was Trump in 2015.
You could make many of these points about
what they said, and you could just argue
they were selling you the narrative you wanted
to hear. But I do believe something shifted
over the years.
And I know why you're not gonna support
me. And, you know, again For the podcast,
he's speaking at the Republican Jewish Coalition.
You've seen him talk talk at this very
location
in, you know, the last so many years,
and it's a very different tone and a
very different person. So here he is, 2015,
or is it, 2015?
And why they don't support him at the
Republican Jewish Coalition. Really? I know why you're
not gonna support me. And, you know, you're
not gonna support me because I don't want
your money. He raised a $125,000,000,
which means he's controlled totally. Totally.
Well, doesn't that matter that Trump thought that
a 125,000,000
meant you were controlled seeing as how 200,000,000
was given to him by Shell Adelson alone?
By his own metric, does that mean he's
controlled?
Controlled by the people that gave him the
money. Totally
controlled by the people that gave him the
money. That's why you don't wanna give me
money. Okay? But that's okay. You wanna control
your own politician. That's fine. Good. But I
will tell think about that, folks. Think don't
worry about it.
Yeah. It's fine. That's just the way it
works, though. Right, guys? Because that's what he
thinks. That's what he said after this too.
What's really important to me is The United
States and making it
making it great again.
Right? That's all that matters.
Is that really matters? Maybe it did at
that point. Maybe he and this is what
a lot of people actually considered, and I
myself still consider. Maybe he genuinely wanted to
step into Great again. My theme is make
America great
That was weird. I thought that stopped already.
Well, anyway, they just kept playing. But the
point is that maybe he did. Maybe he
was out there going, I'm gonna step into
this political field because I'm rich, and I
know what I'm doing, and I can do
everything. I'm not good. That's how he thinks
about himself. And he steps into this, and
then, you know, I the early conversations, he
got the JFK talk or whatever you wanna
call it, that the power system was like
checkpoint.
That's not who that's not how this game
is played. And let me demonstrate what will
happen if you don't you know, and you
could call that crazy. You can disagree with
it. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe that's not how
the world works. But you can consider that
clearly something has changed
since then.
First of all, this
is Mary Madison.
Her condition, West Bank annexation.
He was desperate for her cash. $200,000,000
by that same logic. But so here, back
to the point, as we showed you before,
2015, well, here he is now. This is
actually his last admit. This will this is
a combination. Here is Donald Trump
post
being in politics.
Do you know the biggest change I've seen
in congress is Israel
literally owned congress. You understand that ten years
ago, fifteen years ago.
And it was so powerful. It was so
powerful. And I think you know exactly what
I what I'm saying.
They had such power Israel had such power
and rightfully
over congress.
Rightfully.
There's just no way you can ignore that
rightfully. They right now, you could argue he
meant because they paid the most.
And I'm I'm telling you guys, that is
that's how these people under that because that's
how it actually works. Money means influence
in their lives and in politics. That's the
reality of the world. And so what he's
trying to say is that, or you could
argue it means that it's Israel doing it
just because it's Israel. Either way, it's the
same point. It's a mechanism. The fact is
it's influencing our government, and they believe that's
supposed to be the way it is.
That's what he just said. Here he is
telling you that he's gonna remove the Jew
haters from the country. Now as I've always
said, what he what regardless of what you
think he means,
it's an idea.
It's an idea. In this country, you're supposed
to be able to think in whatever you
want, including things that are hateful, including things
that are you know, other people disagree with.
That's the whole point of free speech and
ideological freedom. But, also, let's realize what they
mean when they say Jew haters. There's likely
people overlap with, at the very least, that
support Palestine or people that call out Israel's
crimes, myself included.
I'm literally working alongside tons of Jewish people
to call out what Israel's doing and plenty
of marches we've been alongside, like we've talked
about, because
it's about the ideology
in regard to, like, the Zionism influence and
not the idea of the religion. We've talked
about this extensively, but there is an overlap.
And even those Jewish people, Orthodox and otherwise,
will tell you that and then tell you
they don't support Zionism for that very reason.
My point though is this is what he
said after you heard it before going, don't
pay me because you'll wanna control me. Here's
what he said after that money came flying
through. We will remove the jihadist sympathizers
and Jew haters. We're gonna remove the Jew
haters
who do nothing to help our country that
It's simple. It's simple. I mean, again, to
make the point, you could argue that they
genuinely just means people who irrationally hate Jewish
people.
Is it a crime? Is it irrationally a
cry is it a crime to irrationally hate
Muslims or Christians or a person who's wearing
a red shirt? No. No. It's not because
you can irrationally hate whatever you want. We
can also call you irrational, hateful, bigoted, whatever.
But it's not a crime unless you, you
know, commit a crime.
But apparently, not anymore in the free speech
administration. You know? It's just it's always been
this obvious. He didn't change,
other than, like, my point being that whenever
this influence started, but not suddenly last yesterday
or last year. You know? What happened to
him? I don't even recognize him anymore is
what I've heard a thousand times over the
last three days.
And I just simply said, how it started?
How it's going? Well, here, just since I'll
just hear it again after we just played
those. It's very short.
I know why you're not gonna support me
and, you know, you're not gonna support me
because I don't want your money. He raised
a $125,000,000,
which means he's controlled totally, totally controlled by
the people that gave him the money. That's
why you don't wanna give me money. Okay?
But that's okay. You wanna control your own
politician. That's fine. Good. But I will tell
you. Think about that, folks.
Don't worry about it. What's really important to
me is The United States and making it
great again. My theme is make America great
Right.
After Israel first or Iran and or Syria
and Iraq, you know, Libya. After that, maybe.
We'll get to it. Shut up.
That's that's what I feel we're dealing with.
But so here
is oh, I'm gonna include this for you.
That's always an important one.
The this is the long thread of what
I just his last run. This is one
twenty four of just the
many, many, many, many times that he came
out and said many variations of the same
thing. And many, many times on his own
campaign trail, as you can see by the
podium where he had both Israel and American
flags, and I don't know why that wasn't
a problem for anybody. Why does that make
sense? If it was an American and a
Chinese flag, why would you not think that
was weird? Whether or not it was at
a at a Chinese event, and many of
them were not, by the way, at just
some Jewish republican coalition. These so many of
them were at regular events, and Mary Madison
was there. They
put Israeli flags
behind him running for president.
This is wild to me. I added this
last second because I saw this. Cara Leiva
put this out. I'm just just talking about
this. And this is, of course, CNN. So
let that actually flavor this even more exactly
in the two party illusion perspective. She says,
CNN, and this is what they're saying on
the clip, MAGA GOP view of Trump approve
is,
approve is 100%.
I think she mistyped that, but it says,
if you are a member of MAGA in
the GOP,
which what does that even mean? Does Does
that mean what Trump says, which means you
just blindly go with whatever Trump does? Well,
that makes sense. MAGA is not what Trump
says. That's why tons of major MAGA influencers
are like, that's not reality. That's why he
turned on Megan and and Tucker. Now that
doesn't mean good versus bad. Just recognize that's
happening.
If you approve of Donald Trump,
0%
say they disapprove.
Zero.
He's the 97 the 72 dolphins. It's such
a joke. I mean, guys, this is just
sad.
Do you realize I make this point in
any context? For especially in polls or in
math it's never
ever a 100%. When you get a 100%
result, there's a something there was a mistake.
From science, from polls, from studies, it doesn't
happen. That's insane.
Especially with the political situation that we're in
where you're doing things that have never been
more unpopular. All I'm saying is this is
just that obvious.
They need we're they're losing so badly that
they need a 100%.
It's exactly what I expect from the situation.
And it's CNN doing it. Now, what's interesting,
I think CNN is trying to do this
from perspective of that's how bad they are.
But it's the same point. It's the system
convincing the people they need to convince, which
is the Republicans, to continue to supporting the
globalist agenda that they're running through right now.
How this is how stupid they think we
actually are. Or how stupid leave it is,
apparently, by saying a 100%. It totally makes
sense.
Just it's wild to me.
Now let's get into the bulk of the
point today. Dave DeCamp put this out about
a daily wire reporter, if you can call
him that, blocked him so he can't retweet
it, but she called ISIS Iranian backed, which
is just another point to add to the
larger conversation. But it my point was I've
been seeing this bubble up
for a while now. The idea that somehow
that Iran it was involved in nine eleven
or that Iran is ISIS or that Iran
supports ISIS or however they want to frame.
It's it's it's entirely,
verifiably,
ideologically stupid, and proven wrong.
But it doesn't matter, though, because they'll just
and the real question is whether Brie knows
that.
Right? Whether she is conscious of that or
actually thinks that's the case
despite all of the evidence. Because you have
to understand, there is not proof
that that's the case.
All you get is the US guy said,
and he's a national security expert, or the
Iranian expert who's lived in The US his
entire life totally know. And that's what happens
every single time time in these conversations. I've
literally proven this to you over the years.
Robert makes this case every time that all
of these experts, all the Iranian experts, the
the Hamas expert, they're people that in many
cases have never even been to those countries
because all they do is and they really
are experts, but they're experts on the propaganda
about Iran.
So he says that they, you know, can't
can't block he can't share it because they
blocked him, of course,
but they're pushing this again.
So
we just had a great interview, by the
way, with Kevork El Masian literally titled the
true origins of ISIS al Qaeda and the
Iranian sleeper cell threat, which is clearly being
manufactured, and it's obviously a false flag concern
that it's not the same as saying that
it's not possible if they're Iranian sleeper cells.
Understand that's always the possibility. The reality is
that they're manufacturing
exact point. So let's start
with an article from the diplomat
from 2014.
Tons of stuff to get to. Iran didn't
create ISIS.
We did.
08/31/2014.
Now it says it may be convenient for
dissidents and opponents of the current Iranian regime
and it's important to remember this is 2014.
We're gonna go kind of chronologically through most
of it. It may be convenient for dissidents
and opponents of the current Iranian regime to
blame Iran for the rise of ISIS, but
history tells us a different story. I'll also
point out that this article, and many of
them, by the way, are very much of
the mind, one, you know, that Iran's government
is just a borderline terroristic but not ISIS,
which is the point in most of them,
which almost makes it more powerful. I I
I'll I'll break down why I don't believe
that's the reality, and I have many times
before in regard to what they claim they
are. They are a government, and I don't
support governments. And I think governments are capable
and everyone Iran's government has been proven to
commit crimes against their people just like any
government has. But it's not the same as
saying that what they just called Iran is
the truth or that they're throwing gay people
off their building. They they've been manufacturing
these things for a long time. Now, that's
not the same as saying that's never happened.
Today, that's not the reality. It's just not,
and we can prove that. But they'll recycle
the same old talking points, like the what
being gay in Iran. You know how we
look into what happens in Israel before you
make that allegation, and also then come back
and realize that that allegation is entirely baseless
for what currently happens today in the the
larger sense of the claim. But there are
examples you could make.
But the point is that in these articles,
they're gonna make the the case that, you
know, they're brutally suppressing their people, for example,
which my point is that there's much more
nuance than that.
But even these people will tell you that
they are not ISIS and, in fact, have
fought ISIS, which kinda belies the point in
a way. But he starts out by simply
saying it may be convenient for people to
want to frame it like that, but it's
just not the truth. The US, Western Europe,
and their regional allies, in fact, bear most
of the responsibility
for the rise of extremist groups like ISIS.
Now this largely frames it as, you know,
their, like, adventurism in the areas, which alone
is enough to make that case. And you'll
see what I mean by that, but it's
more than that. Especially that it continued to
be
used, funded,
as even Mohammed bin Salman from Saudi Arabia
publicly said that they
had
organ basically used these groups, but in many
of them, they lost control of them. Now
take it for what you will. I can't
verify his statement because he just said it
out loud at a whoever was at a
conference, but I point to it many times.
And it it also made the argument that
many of these leaders aren't even religious.
And that speaks to the point we're always
making, that it's an abuse to manipulation through
religion to manipulate extremists, but the real extremists
are the people like the Zionist atheists who
are driving people into the ground. But continuing.
The US invasion of Iraq in 2003,
which Britain notably supported, was a strategic disaster.
And, also, think about that right now with
being compared to Iran. It's exactly the same
thing. And, I mean, literally, possibly even worse,
to be honest. Contrary to speculation at the
time, Saddam Hussein's secular,
Baathist regime
prevented a al Qaeda from operating in Iraq.
Think about this now. Now, this is important
for many reasons.
Because we're talking about the Ba'ath Party, which
was predom well, let's just put it like
there. I get people push back about the
the numbers,
but you can prove that it was a
large portion that were Christians in this inner
circle around Saddam Hussein.
If that doesn't make sense to you, it's
because you've been misled all these years. Let's
also remember that is, again, same thing. Doesn't
mean good guy. Just means that they lied
about that. And it must have flavor how
you see these people. Remember, Saddam Hussein was
an ally of The United States until he
suddenly wasn't. Until he was useless not useful
for them anymore or became a problem because
he was not following direction, however you wanna
look at it. Remember, he was armed with
chemical weapons to be used against Iran.
And, you know, and there's there's all these
different background points. My point in this is
to understand that Saddam Hussein was not the
exact the way that they framed him at
the very least. There was a major Christian
population in Iraq until they did what they
did, and that got largely destroyed.
And that because of that and that group,
they were preventing Al Qaeda from operating Iraq
even though their argument is they're the terrorists,
right, or they're the ones work creating them,
working for them. Iraq has had also been
supported by the West before nineteen ninety one
Gulf War as a counterbalance
against the revolutionary Islamic Republic
during the Iran Iraq war. So as always,
even if you wanna argue with some good
intentions, what we're talking about is the US
government
supporting
the groups we're talking about
because they needed to use them against the
group they thought they needed to fight. Now
you can prove this as far back as
you wanna go, that the idea of The
US going after Iran was because of Israel.
And then in this case, that they're talking
about them standing again like, basically, that in
Iraq, that they had supported them in the
rise against it because Iran was the focus.
And so all this time later, let's just
say that was the only thing they did.
Well, then that group became the very things
we're talking about.
So you you could argue it was clumsy.
I disagree that that's what it was. I
mean, it was by by design in my
mind. But it still means they're responsible. This
is the Mojadin argument, Afghanistan.
It's what they do. And, of course, then
you could play the points about how commonly
they do this. I'll play that clip again
today at some point. The idea of how
they create these groups in order to keep
these countries at at bay.
Now it goes on to say, The US
led invasion changed all of the dynamics that
we just discussed in of Iraq. The Iraq
war toppled Saddam,
destabilized the country, which, of course, is their
responsibility.
The idea was we'd go in there and
free everybody. They'd welcome us as heroes. We
all know that's not how that went. And
I hope we now understand that they never
even planned for that. They clearly did not
care and very much so like the chaos
because that's easier to control, easier to exploit.
It's every country we've ever I make this
joke, I guess, all the time. I mean,
guys, they're batting zero. You understand that. Right?
Every country they wanna liberate.
Can we not just stand back and go,
that one failed, that one failed, that one
failed, that one failed? And every one of
them, worse, worse, chaos, destruction,
killing civilians, slave markets.
Yeah. At what point do you go, oh,
I guess that's the design?
Obviously. But the problem is people don't I
mean, even if you don't think that, then
why don't we just go, hey, why don't
you take a seat? Let's just stop saving
people for a minute because you clearly can't
do it. But the idea is it wasn't
by accident, guys.
The Iraq war toppled Saddam. They stabilized the
country and led to a wave of sectarian
bloodshed. Right. The very thing that they told
you they were trying to fight
but created that.
The the I'm not not saying bastion of
freedom and and democracy before, but but it's
the same with you know, Libya is a
better example because it was very much so.
A place they pretended it was not. Free
education, free health care, highest quality of life,
in all of Africa. Or I think it
was at least on the top three.
And they
took him they made him get rid of
his nukes by claiming that would end it
and then killed him because he got rid
of him. A lesson for everybody.
It says it also made Iraq a safe
haven and recruiting ground for Al Qaeda. Now,
in this case,
again, you could argue that was just a
vacuum,
as they always like to say, which is
not it's not impossible. But, of course, what
we're talking about in that situation is if
they remove a power when there's really nothing
else to replace it, it just kinda ends
up any you know, in most of these
cases,
Iraq, Syria, well, the government was still there.
So the idea would be the government would
just come back in and take control. There
wouldn't be a bad but see, they created
this by removing the government then opening the
door and then creating the very thing that
led to the creation of ISIS and Al
Qaeda.
So, again, you could blame them for being
clumsy or not caring, or you could argue
as I am, and I think the evidence
shows that this was a plan.
You created this. But either way, I think
at some point, if you think it was
by accident, they then recognized the usefulness of
manipulating these groups. But I wanna argue again
that I think this was by design. I
think this was creating the circumstances for this
very point. And this whether you wanna talk
about Brzezinski and the Balkanization of The Middle
East, seventies, or you wanna get into the
more inner dynamics you know, I mean, talking
about Turkey with Syria, there's lots of different
dynamics to get into. But in this case,
just understand that this is very easy to
see, that they did this and created the
circumstances at the very least that led to
the creation of these groups. Al Qaeda in
Iraq and, again, at this point, let's also
not forget that this group stems from the
people they funded in Afghanistan.
So already you've got multiple connections. They funded
the Mujahideen
to fight the Soviet Union, and then it
became these groups. I argue even that was
somewhat by design, but you can decide for
yourself. So then Iraq, and then they create
another opening, and they flood in there. Same
point. Same it's the same point that happened
with Syria. They flooded in Syria, both Turkey
and from Iraq and from all over.
Now it says Al Qaeda in Iraq, ISIS's
forerunner,
was founded in April 2004.
AQI, al Qaeda in Iraq, conducted brutal attacks
on Shia civilians,
Iranians,
or or the, you know, the ideological connections,
not necessarily Iranians, but that's their ideology,
and mosques in hopes of sparking a broader
sectarian conflict.
So ISIS attacked
Shiites and Mosques.
Think about that for a second, and of
course, you could always make it mean, oh,
they wanted to create division. Maybe. Or maybe
it's because they were not working for what
you thought they were and were aimed at
Muslim culture and Christians the entire time,
which is pretty much what's been happening. Guys,
we'll get to the fact that they've never
attacked Israel.
Now it continues.
Iran,
where was I? I hope this is sparking.
Iran of
course, the Shia militias,
who fought extremists like Al Qaeda,
both to expand its influence in Iraq and
protect its Shia comrades.
Iran cultivated ties with, at the time, the
Milwaukee government as well, which will be relevant
in a second. What's interesting though,
Iran, of course, supports the Shia militias. Right?
They're ideologically. It it'd be like it's exactly
like Trump claiming he wants to support the
Christians in Nigeria.
Whether he means it or not, it's the
sentiment. Right? So in this case,
why are we arguing that that means they
then control they they certainly could just control
them. But I've always made this case. You
can call them proxies if you understand what
it means and doesn't mean that they are
puppeteering them. I don't think that's the case.
What we're talking about is people, militias, PMU,
what what what became Hezbollah. These are groups
that are popular uprising, supporting for the people
of their countries who are supported by Iran.
And they may sell weapons and exchange just
like The US does with all of its
allies. What they want you to pretend it
is is Iran.
Iran in these countries, you you know, literally
on the ground pretending to be something else,
creating destabilize it. You know what that is?
That's literally textbook Israel US policy.
That's the whole point, you understand? Lie the
accuse them of that which you are guilty.
And if you actually look, you won't find
this single example of Iran doing that. That's
why they need to constantly point to those
three groups. Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis. It's all they
can do. And then cite the thousands that
were killed when The US illegally invaded Iraq
and they defended it.
That's all we're talking about, guys. And as
I've always said, look at the groups they're
claiming. Let's just say as always that everything
they'd ever said about all three of those
groups is true. Hypothetically. Just for the sake
of conversation, let's pretend it's all true.
Take that and compare it to only what
you can prove.
Prove what EOS and Israel, or individually, have
done over the years.
Night and day.
But think about that for a second because
it's only and and most of what they
say about these groups are false.
It's just unbelievable what we can accept today.
Iran cultivated ties with the Malaki government. Oh,
and then it says Al Qaeda both to
expand its influence in Iraq and protect Shia
comrades.
Iran, basically, they were fight fighting Al Qaeda,
and that this is very clearly documented.
When The US helped to establish Iraq's government
after, of course, it destroyed the entire country,
it consistently supported Malaki at the time. So
at this point, you have
common ground. You have Iran supporting that group,
and you have The US supporting that group.
It consistently supported Malaki,
the US government, even going as far as
to assist in Malaki's persecution of dissidents
and civil society activists because, you know, freedom.
Right? The US was probably more instrumental than
Iran in cementing Malaki's power in Iraq.
Now when Malaki's troops stormed,
Sunni protest camps. So Sunni being, you know,
the the divide between Sunni and Shiite, the
other ideological
divide, and and largely Saudi Arabia.
Right? That's the Wahhabi Sunni mindset, which is
the foundation for almost every part we're talking
about in regard to the Sunni side. So,
Al Qaeda, ISIS, Alnustra.
Right? So, the point is that you can
find the direct connection to their ideology right
back to one of their chief allies.
Like, that's not enough to recognize what we're
talking about. But keep keep making the list.
Add to the points. Right? So if everyone
of them ties back to their chief ally
and why would it be Iran? That's the
one. Because they just say it out loud,
and people scream it too. It's not true.
So by the time that you when when
launched troops stormed the Sunni camps in 2013,
they were armed with US made weapons.
It's it's you know, whether this like, you
could pretend that that point may just be
that Malachi decided to do that. The point
is always is these group, they're just dumping
weapons in groups that they later call terrorists.
They do not have screw they don't care
about any of it. They don't have integrity.
They don't have principles. They don't care about
what they're doing. I'm saying that because of
their long history of demonstrating that to us.
By the time The US and Western Europe
finally decided Malachy was enough of a liability
after, you know, killings and all the things
they've done to push out of government. Fertile
ground already existed
for an ISIS led
Sunni insurgency
in Western Iraq.
Sunni. Not Shi'ite, not Iranian ideology. Sunni, like
Wahhabi, Saudi Arabian.
So think about this in that context. That
they are the ones that ultimately removed the
government that they were previously supporting, which Iran,
at least was, as as they wrote,
consistently supported him.
Or it were on cultivated ties, rather. That's
the by the way they frame it. In
order to protect the Shiites.
So not not even necessarily
on their side, but he was in power,
so he wanted to make sure they wanted
to make sure that their people were safe.
This is how he's framing it.
So as it says,
it was already for an Isis Sunni insurgency.
Now the Syrian story is even more important.
Now well, this she missed the simple point,
and we're gonna get more in-depth in some
of these articles.
They created the sent the setup for why
that became the reality in Iraq,
which they've utilized ever since.
The Syrian story is even more important. In
2011,
the Assad regime, and this is what they
write, violently suppressed peaceful protesters.
That's not true.
Again,
I I always want you to challenge these
things, especially if you disagree. And if you
do, please send me something, and maybe I'll
change my mind. But I want you to
understand that I don't say things like this
unless I feel it's proven.
The reality of this has been shown. And
I've been I I the only reason it
wouldn't be brought up today is because I've
talked about it a thousand times. Is that
in the case of that or Ukraine, for
example, as they admitted themselves on record,
they planned this. They shot the protesters, blamed
it on Assad, and that's not to say
Assad couldn't do that or isn't capable of
it. But he didn't do that. And he
didn't gas the people they lied about because
that was proven as well. Look at Eramate's
work and plenty of others.
Nailed to the wall. Or Robert Fisk, for
crying out loud. Like, literally broke down how
they manufacture these illusions.
So I'm just pointing out that this is
he state so they even still think that
these groups are terror or extremist or violently
killing their own people, but will still argue
that they're not ISIS. Just I think that
even makes it more powerful, but it's just
not true. And of all of them, you
can quite literally prove that this is what
they set up in Syria to create the
the situation for overthrowing Assad or at least
trying to over the next twenty years or
however long that well, yeah, basically.
And then, of course, now they have a,
ridiculously enough, a terrorist running Syria. That's not
like, that doesn't prove it to everybody.
In 2011,
they claimed they violently suppressed the protesters. Now,
this civil society movement
rapidly transformed into an armed uprising against the
Syrian government. Now, here's the point.
Even though this was done from the outside,
you had genuine Syrians who, in many cases,
didn't agree with their government that were protesting.
That's is that's always the case in in
usually in these situations.
Like in Iran, though, what happened very quickly,
especially since they're on guard for it, is
that it became very widely discussed and acknowledged
even by the unions that were supporting their
protest that it got turned into something different.
And that's why they all left and it
became just mass people on the streets bombing
through shooting and being literally armed by The
US and Israel as they openly admitted, actually,
in this recent discussion and plenty in the
past. Oh, and don't forget, they armed the
Kurds, which is happening inside the country.
It's all happening. But so in this case,
almost right there. They they
basically, they've suppressed the where it was. The
civil society movement rapidly transformed in an armed
uprising. Well, I disagree with the way they're
framing that. It's I think what we're talking
about is that the people are protesting. And
then what you had was the as they're
gonna mention right down here, you know, free
Syrian army or or the oh, no. The
the I'm forgetting the names now. It's been
a while since we got into all the
different acronyms. And, you know, remember how many
times they changed the names. And, ultimately, we're
talking about offshoots of Al Qaeda. Vanessa Bailey
and I talked about this. I had her
on for many different interviews. The point though
is these groups they work with in Syria,
not the ones fighting on Assad side, but
the ones on The US supported side that
they pretended were the free army fighting for
Syria. They're they were the moderate rebels. They
were the very people that got proven to
be Al Qaeda in Syria.
And so they they
started the uprising. And it says why in
the early stages of the war, this is
interesting, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey began funneling
arms
into opposition forces. You see? So this was
not organic.
Immediately. And this is always the case, guys.
We're seeing and, you know and arguably, as
much as they're pushing they're pointing at Turkey,
Vanessa doesn't think. And plenty of others argue
that that's not even close to what's gonna
happen, that there's more alignment there than otherwise.
But it's certainly possible because they do have
disagreements.
But either way, in this case, you have
the Sunni Saudi Arabia. You know, they're arming
the people that they later point to as
the civil uprising.
Well, that's not the reality since it was
started with a false flag, and they literally
dumped these weapons in there with these terrorists
they brought in from other locations from from
Iraq, from other and Turkey, and created this
whole situation.
And seeing an opportunity to destabilize
a key ally of our allies, excuse me,
of Iran
and Hezbollah,
their geopolitical foes,
As the civil war deepened, extremist groups joined
the fight.
They also became the beneficiaries of large amounts
of arms and funding from America's regional allies,
which is the same conversation. Just more were
involved than just, you know, filtered
it in. So all we're talking about is
you have The US access with Israel through
their allies, dumping weapons into the people on
the ground to create the revolution that they
point to, and then dumping in all the
terrorists they could find and then calling that
a civil war.
Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey knowingly
funded extremist groups, including
Jabhat al Nusra,
Al Qaeda's official affiliate in Syria.
Right? This is Jilani, guys. That's the whole
point. Javed al Nusra quickly became one of
the most effective and influential rebel groups
fighting against the Syrian government, Nusra. This is
a terrorist organization that was called back even
by the people that supported it at the
time.
Some El Mouser elements have also merged into
ISIS.
It's this it's it's well, it's not fair
to say the same thing,
but for the purpose of the conversation, it's
the same thing. Right? It's the same element
we're discussing.
The US ordered nonlethal
aid to the Syrian rebels.
So please remember, those are terrorists we're talking
about. That was even admitted by the Obama
administration that these moderate rebels were more extreme
than we thought or whatever they tried to
say. It was obvious.
And eventually, covertly armed them, as we all
know. Going so far as to operate a
training camp for rebels in Northern Jordan.
You so you're getting this? They were training
terrorists.
Al Qaeda's on our side in Syria. Obama
said we're training ISIL forces. I'm I mean,
actually, I I think I even have that.
Let me see real quick.
Yep. There it is. This is the exact
exact conversation. As I've said before, this aspect
of our strategy
was moving too slowly,
but the fall of Ramadi has galvanized the
Iraqi government.
So with the additional steps I ordered last
month, we're speeding up training
of ISIL forces, including volunteers from Sunni tribes
in Anbar
So with the additional steps I ordered last
month, we're speeding up training of ISIL forces.
That's it's just that's ISIS in Allant. I
mean, that's what that's what we're talking about.
And Sunni tribes. That's it's the same conversation.
My point is that you can do this
yourself. All this stuff is out there.
And, like, I'm gonna get to in a
minute showing, you know, John McCain, for example,
and when he was there, and then finding
the email that says that, you know, we're
basically pointing out why in 2012 that they
were already on their side.
It's just easy to see. Now, again, you
can decide that they're variations of the same
terrorist groups at ISIS, Al Qaeda, but we're
talking about extremist
pea the kind of people that they always
tell you they're fighting, and they have always
been working with them. That's the reality to
come to here and to understand where we
actually are. We need to get past this
to see what's going on.
Nonlethal aid to the Syrian rebels.
Event eventually armed them. I think that was
probably from the beginning. And as I just
said, training ISIL forces.
And it says, when the Obama administration asked
Congress for $500,000,000
to train and equip moderate rebels, the Pentagon
testified that it anticipated
difficulties
finding
moderate fighters to trade an arm. But that
didn't stop them because they didn't even want
moderate anything. They wanted the extremists to throw
at Syria because that's what they do.
In plain English, this means that they don't
really exist. That's what the article is saying,
meaning moderate, anything in this conversation. With ISIS's
victories in Iraq
and The US strategy of of fueling the
fire in Syria without allowing either side to
win is finally revealing its inherent contradictions
and keeping it destabilized like this. That's the
important part. And realizing
that the victories in Iraq I mean, just
like with Afghanistan, you create situation and just
let it you just pull back and let
it become chaos so then you can use
that chaos to justify further action. Now it's
much more complicated than that, but that's the
point to understand in this this part of
the conversation.
The US and its allies destabilized Iraq and
Syria in turn,
creating safe havens for extremists that previously did
not exist.
US allies provided the material support that allowed
ISIS and groups like it to become threats
to the entire region,
despite lacking any substantial popular base in Syria
or Iraq.
I mean, I don't know how you can
misunderstand that. You this is just this article's
framing, but you all of this stuff is
textbook. It's like, wait. You could read this
on anything discussing the background.
It is not unreasonable for Iran has both
to fight against these groups, which murder and
enslave Shia and other religious minorities.
Right? So you could that is you could
argue they're still terrorist groups. So the point
is that it's not it's not their terrorist
because they support these groups or vice versa
that because Iran supports them, therefore, they're terrorists.
It's just not the reality.
Their actions conceivably fall under one of the
West's favorite principles
of international law when they care to pretend
it exists,
the duty to protect.
Which means, by their logic, Iran has every
right to step in and protect these groups.
Iran has been the most serious foreign force
fighting against ISIS from the very beginning.
One of the easiest parts to prove, in
fact, which is just why everything's so cartoonish.
Iran is the most, they write, viable regional
partner for a temporary pragmatic alliance against ISIS.
This is 2014.
Iran and its regional allies are not the
cause of ISIS's rapid and brutal rise. Extremist
groups like ISIS and Jabal Musra have been
consistently
aided
consistently
aided by disastrous
Western interventions
in The Middle East and the influence of
regional actors like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Israel,
I'll add, and the fact that it wasn't
just destabilizing actions by accident. It was creating
these for the outcomes that we still
see playing out today. I mean, I didn't
even get into ISIS k. I'm not gonna
talk about it today, but remember my entire
point. I'll bring up one of the articles.
That to me is the extension of the
of maintaining
this whole thing.
Maybe this. The point of the you know,
my discussion was ultimately
I'll I'll I'll try to find somebody included.
That ISIS k
is essentially not real.
That that the point being that it's a
it's like like, I guess, if we're saying
none of them really are, that it's always
a construct created using other extremists that they,
you know, they call
moderates or
rebels.
But on top of that, the point is
that ISIS case seems to be an extension
to today that might not even exist. Not
in, like, in the sense that other than
the idea and, like, the framing of it
that they would just carry out whenever they
decide.
Just a thought, and I think the evidence
is actually pretty sound of the of what
they're claiming it is and not in the
reality seem to be there. But if it's
always been a construct, why even why even
need some kind of, like, base or location?
Just claim as a thing, and then when
you do something, point to that. That's what
I think we're talking about.
But it says extremist groups like ISIS and
Al Musro have been consistently aided by their
interventions.
Responsibility for the rise of ISIS isn't much
of a mystery. The West and its allies
just have a look in the mirror.
It's a good article.
Now I'll also include, as always, the excellent
work done by James Corbett, which I think
by I mean, if I want if you
wanted to truly just walk away with no
question in your mind, I should just play
this entire thing. But we've done it before.
In fact, we literally have the watch along
that we did with Corbett of all three
parts and Brock and Brock as well, where
we just kind of sit we watch it.
We jump in here and there, make comments.
And this is, I think, important to watch
in addition to just the actual content he
has, which is very powerful. And it's called
False Flags, The Secret History of Al Qaeda,
and it's the same conversation.
Undeniably
so. The reality of the receipts and the
money and the tracker and what it shows
you of how they created these things going
back well before the conversation we're having today.
Or I could also include, which by the
way, it I'll show you this in a
second. It makes me verify, which brings to
a weird page. But Ben Swan's documentary, there's
the link. It's included. 2015,
which if if I'm not too long, I
may just play it out to the end.
It's like twelve minutes. Ben's Ben Swan, Truth
and Media, the origin of ISIS.
Now why is this on a age verify?
This make me do that for any other
videos. I could watch, like, people being killed
on this thing from bombings and stuff. But
check this out. You wanna know why ISIS
was created by The United States? Verify your
age, and look what it makes you do.
Selfies, credit cards, IDs? What? Why would this
need to be done if I'm logged in,
have an account, because you you don't want
me to see the content?
You disagree? I think that's wild.
We'll we'll play it if we have time
at the end. Now, here's an article from
2014, same time frame. Alright? Iran sends troops
into Iraq
to aid fight against ISIS militants.
Realize this is the same conversation we're having
in the, like, just general point about why
why Iran was there in the first place
and why Soleimani was there fighting ISIS and
defending the illegal invasion of Iraq.
And even the the Guardian making it very
clear. 2014,
June. Here's one in December
2014.
Even more clear. Guess what? Even the Pentagon
said so. Iranian air force bombs ISIS targets
in Iraq, says Pentagon.
So whether I was talking to Drew from
Daily Mail or that was not true. What's
her name? Bree from Daily Mail or excuse
me. Yeah. Or no. Daily Wire or any
any of the rest of the ridiculous people
out there currently claiming that Iran is ISIS.
It's just
sad. Your own government has made this clear
in the past when it suited them.
Here is another follow-up. This is from the,
the defense post. Iran claims 700
drone strikes against ISIS in Syria 2018.
Then you can question the amount, but the
point is clear track record of them attacking,
bombing, and fighting around ISIS. It's very simple.
Here's BBC.
Qasem Soleimani. Why his killing is good news
for
the Islamic State.
Why? Because he was fighting them more than
anybody.
And this is even BBC, by the way.
This is 2020. I'll also include my interview
with James Corbett on this. I was pretty
far ahead of this story for a lot
of reasons, and that's why James had me
on James had me on. December June, 01/06/2020.
Ryan Christian on the assassination of Soleimani.
Very important to watch.
Now,
2017.
And this is really interesting to me because
this was written by the late Comenie,
the one that they just assassinated while he
was in a meeting to discuss peace.
America, quote, created ISIS. Now, what's important to
understand is you you if you only saw
this article, you may think, oh, I get
it now. These people are just parroting Iran's
propaganda, which is what they always try to
do. Nope. Sorry. What he's pointing to is
the same documents that Americans were calling out
years before this ever came out. That's what
what he what he references is documents that
can prove this because you can, guys.
This is not because Iran said so and
then I ended up in my it's because
the documents showed it. Because you can see
James Corbett's documentary, Your Bends, where it breaks
down the actions they took and why it
was very clear.
But keeping that in mind, America created ISIS,
he says, and its war on the group
is a lie, says Iran's supreme leader. So
ask whether that may have played a factor.
Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Monday,
this is 2017,
accused The US of creating the Islamic State,
ISIS, and called this war on jihadists a
lie.
He says, quote, you, The United States, and
your agents are the source of instability in
The Middle East. Who created Islamic State? He
asks. He clearly is pointing to the fact
that it was The US. And, also, remember,
what he's calling out right here is the
US government, not Americans at large, as always.
The claim of forming a coalition against Daesh,
ISIS, is a lie, he says. Of course,
Americans are the against are against an uncontained
ISIS,
meaning that they wanna make sure it's controlled
in their way. But but if anyone would
wanna truly destroy it,
they, the Americans, will counter them as they've
seen before.
He says, we are facing a proxy warfare
in the region as a new trick by
the arrogant powers against the Islamic Republic, and
they just turned it into the reverse. Right?
We're claiming that people that rise up to
fight what they're doing are the proxies funded
by Iran. We possess documents and information showing
the direct support of The US imperialists for
this highly disgusting movement, ISIS,
in the region which has destroyed Islamic countries
and created a wave of massacres and clashes.
As we showed you earlier, bombing mosques. So
understand,
you can argue that there's overlap on both,
but realize with where what we just what
we just went over, there's more to get
into.
And then that they now and and then
try to just say that ISIS is Iran.
So how do you make sense of that?
I mean, you could argue like, the point
is that question it all.
But that lie seems to make this even
more clear, doesn't it? If we can, out
of all of it, very clearly prove beyond
a shadow of a doubt that that's that
they've been fighting them over the years, that
their ideology is different, that they're far more
aligned with Sunnis and even Israel,
then why would they so they come out
and they go, but they are ISIS. Well,
that that's just lazy, and it's because that's
what they desperately need. And that alone should
show you that they're lying about this whole
situation. That doesn't mean every other thing they've
ever said about is a lie, but you
should be asking that. And in fact, I
argue it largely is.
Here is the Crescent International, and this is
more about the overlap of Israel and ISIS,
but also Hamas. Because let's not forget, though,
what do they say? ISIS is Hamas. Hamas
is ISIS. And then what do they say?
Well, Hamas is Iran. Okay. So it's very
easy to see what they're actually trying to
insinuate, that Iran is ISIS or that Iran
does all of this. And if Hamas is
ISIS, they at least support ISIS. It's not
true.
Now let's also not forget, as I'll I'll
point to in a second, about the overlap
of Hamas and Israel. But in this case,
the article was ISIS, Hamas, and Zionism. Enemies
or allies?
And the real thing is about is about
specifically whether Israel
is more connected to ISIS.
Long term strategy is what motivates both ISIS
and the Zionists, he writes. Same with this
article, like I said before. You read this.
It's very critical of the of some of
the groups that you may think we're trying
to defend, I guess. And it says, all's
fair in love and war. So torturing and
killing civilians is the order of the day.
It's it is all about land. And this
is important because what he's framing is both
ISIS, not a mosque, but ISIS, and Zionists.
And he's saying it is all about land,
so both are aggressively expansionist.
Ethnic cleansing and racism based on spurious
historical readings are necessary.
At the same time,
both are movements demanding
strict adherence and willingness for self sacrifice.
The ISIS fantasy
is the same as the Zionist foreign policy.
Guys, now that's his opinion.
But really think about that with what we're
discussing today and all of the things we're
showing you to prove that they're not connected
to Iran. Think about what this may mean
with what we started with there. And in
fact, here, I'll play a couple of clips
before we continue on this to make this
point and play the clip I mentioned before
since it's important to see the arming of
these groups and how they actually do this.
I'll maybe wait on that one. But this
one I was gonna start with and this
is, guys, this is just a sentiment.
In fact, it doesn't prove anything.
But I find it interesting, and it speaks
to how far this is you know, the
people asking these questions from this long ago
and the idea of ISIS or what Assad
is actually called. I find it interesting. It's
on C SPAN. What's in others?
You tell the story about how you try
to find out what the
what they call the Mossad when they deal
with, publicly? I thought was a reasonable question,
but the trouble is, you can't pick up
the phone book. There's no, Langley in, in
Israel that you can look up, you know,
CIA or in our case, the Mossad. We
thought we should ask, what shall we call
it in English? You could translate the Hebrew
words. As I said, Mossad is institute. But
when they write a letter to their friends
in the CIA or the British intelligence, what
do they call themselves? It took a while.
It was a matter of asking the prime
minister's spokesman. The best you could do because
officially,
the Mossadah's under the prime minister's office.
And, I think he sort of wondered why
you wanna know and all that, so we
explained. And he came up with, the Israeli
Secret Intelligence Service. And if it were to
have initials, it would be I s I
s.
Just simple words like that. Interestingly enough, kind
of the British model.
You know, like I said, it's it's just
a data point. I find that fascinating, and
it would be a little bit on the
nose, wouldn't it?
But there there's arguments about why that's necessary,
but it's factual based today. Like, you know,
what we can prove, but consider that there
may be a reason of why that would
be the
case. Hopefully, the other one in a second,
actually, when we get to this end of
the segment. You've seen it from the nation,
just the point about why they fund these
groups and why they need to keep these
countries destabilized.
So continuing
that they're both the same, Zionism, ISIS, as
this person argues, aggressively expansionist, ethnic cleansing, racism
based on spurious historical readings. At the same
time, both our movements demanding strict adherence.
The ISIS fantasy is the same as the
Zionist foreign policy.
Just replace Jew with Muslim.
That is Wahhabi
Salafi. That's the Wahhabi Sunni discussion. At least
the Zionists aren't picky about who they call
a Jew.
But think about what he's saying right there.
That's what he wrote, by the way. But
the idea cause they are. We're talking about
the same kind of extremist ideology. That needs
to be considered because that's the whole point
today. Now, you don't you can argue they're
not literally the same thing.
But that seems like a valid point to
consider. Why would Israel promote Hamas? It writes.
Because, remember, they have, and I think we'll
play some of these next. ISIS is a
spin off
of The US backed, Mahujahideen, and Al Qaeda
in Afghanistan in the nineteen eighties. So it's
very it's common knowledge, but yet, you you
talk to a a military Pentagon, and they
act like, what do you mean? It's I
don't know what you're talking about. Because they
know these things are not supposed to be
acknowledged.
Intent on undermining the secular Soviet backed regime
in Afghanistan. The US government funded these extremists
for that purpose.
Likewise, it says, Hamas was founded in 1987
with the tacit approval of Israel. That is
true, with the intention of undermining the secular
Palestinian resistance.
Now the point you made there is I've
always covered.
It's it's not you there's a bit an
argument that's that needs to be you know,
there's a debate rather about the full, like,
created from whole cloth conversation. And I don't
think that's what happened. As I've said before,
I think it's clear that there was a
group. There was there was a an entity
that existed. And that then you can see
that they decided in their own discussions to
use that group. My point is what they
then got turned into through that time frame,
Israel created that. That's clear. I mean, that
that's where the funding, the the the the
creation as as they're highlighting here and others
will get into, is using them whether they
knew that or not. And I argue that
there it wasn't even full control even at
that point, but over all the years, it
changed.
Funding and manipulation and eventually killing people, and
people grew up. And, yeah, you know, younger
people joined, and the group
changed all the way until October 7. And
so, oh, yeah. You can even argue even
then, as many do, that that was all
coordinated and it's because they funded them. That's
not what I think makes sense. The evidence
doesn't seem to support that, but it's certainly
possible. The point, though, is to consider
or really just acknowledge that Israel did fund
and influence Hamas, and that matters, especially if
we're gonna criticize people. Hamas is the worst
thing in the world. Well, then why did
they fund them? You know? And the reality
is, I'll play the clips again, is in
order to create the divide, just like they're
doing to us in this country right now
in regard to the left right paradigm or
even creating groups they wanna point to. They're
literally Antifa and do left
domestic terrorist lefties or whatever they're trying to
create. It's the same kind of idea.
Now it says, likewise. It says, just as
The US washed its hands of Al Qaeda
when they stopped following The US script, when
Hamas showed itself as an effective resistance movement,
he writes, and a comp competent governing party,
Israel switched to persecuting it, tacitly defending the
Palestinian Authority.
Things were catching up to Israel, he writes.
It had the its wayward Hamas now and
now a terrifying, if not particularly
competent,
more extremist Islamic group on this doorstep. Now,
I don't fully agree with the framing, but
to read it again and to frame it,
he says just as as The US washed
its hands of Al Qaeda. Now I don't
agree with that.
Like, I guess if you wanna argue with
Mujahideen
in Afghanistan that they ultimately said screw it,
which they did, I argue. And but even
then, I argue there was more planning that
went into how that could eventually be used
again. Still, you could argue they just kind
of dropped them and moved on. But I
do not believe they washed their hands of
Al Qaeda. I think once they became Al
Qaeda, that was a group being used, sort
of like funding I mean, I'll bring that
up right now. Not that it's relevant today
other than the general point.
Oops. That's not the one.
Oh, it's,
what is that?
CIA.
There it is. Oh, that's right. Not just
us off. That's how I remember it.
The point in this one is to realize
that the CIA, as well as, you know,
you can get into the other groups that
were involved over the years.
Documents you can prove, which, by the way,
was already popping up. I just grabbed that
too.
Right there.
Project aerodynamic
nineteen sixty six is the document posted, but
it's from night from before that.
Documents prove the CIA has been cultivating fascism
in Ukraine since at least 1948.
So let's understand. This is a tactic. It's
a plan. So when they funded the Mujahideen,
it was a model.
And that was well after this. And they've
been funding these groups, which literally are today
the Azov movement.
That's the whole point. So, it's an extension
of the same game. They create these groups
in order to destabilize and control.
That's the entire point. And so what we're
talking about in this is the same idea.
And that look. They like the Kurds, for
example, different kind of point, but it's group
they've used, but then they just they don't
see a use. They just drop them and
leave. They do not care, just like these
groups do sometimes. But the point is still
to understand why they got created and how
rather, why and how they were used. So
I'll play this clip here for this very
point of why they do this with these
groups. Brashinsky was the strategist for Jimmy Carter
and convinced Jimmy Carter to say, look, the
Russians are dominating,
Afghanistan with a civilian secular government.
Let's create Al Qaeda. Let's, back Osama bin
Laden and give his supporters
weapons to begin fighting the Russians. And, we
can pull a coup d'etat there. And, the
Russians will fight back, and then we'll say
the Russians invaded.
And it worked. Saudi Arabia made a deal
with America that they would push the Wahhabi,
extremists,
the Al Qaeda,
the most
right wing wing of Islamic parties, and it
worked. Essentially, Al Qaeda is a contract army,
for The United States. Well, the same thing
was happening
in in Russia. What Brzezinski wrote was that
America is faced with a possibility
of not being able to rule the world
unilaterally.
Any country's
economic ability to be self sufficient
means,
potential
military power. And in order to prevent any
country from threatening America militarily,
you have to prevent it from developing
economically.
The American nightmare, Brzezinski wrote, was that Russia
would get together with Germany and with Western
Europe, creating Russian raw materials, German industry, and
somehow finally Russia would become westernized.
America,
under Bershinsky's
strategy, said this would be a disaster because
if Russia's westernized,
if it becomes democratic,
if if,
Europe and Russia are prosperous, then we cannot
control them anymore, and they will have no
reason to be NATO. We've got to stop
Russia, and the place to stop this Russian
European,
conglomeration
is to split it right at the border,
down Ukraine. Let's do in Ukraine
what, we did in Afghanistan.
Let's, back the crazies. Well, most of them
are,
the the former, neo Nazi groups that have
been
so prominent that fly the Nazi flag.
Important to think about. Right? Just so it's
basic reality has been going on a very
long time. So to finish this paragraph,
when Hamas showed itself as an effective resistance
movement
and competent governing party, Israel switched to persecuting
it. Now the question is, is that what
happened?
I think there is a level of that
transition that clearly took place, but I've always
argued even going to post October 7 or
before that there was still influence there. Maybe
an individual, maybe more, just money. It has
an effect.
And it goes on to say, Israel switched
to pursuing it tacitly defending the Palestinian Authority,
which was argument just to shift into a
group that was another element to use as
a counterbalance and ultimately is now had had
demonized them, but it became another element they
manipulated. Things were catching up, it says, and
has wayward Hamas now terrifying, if not particularly
competent, more extreme Islamist group on its doorstep.
Remember, this is still a group that they're
involved with in in the first place. So
continuing
from September magazine, also '19, '24 2014. Excuse
me. No Hamas isn't ISIS.
ISIS isn't Hamas. It's just an extension of
the same point where they're trying to claim
this in the same time frame. Remember, nine
seven two magazine is an Israeli platform.
Anyone who isn't a shill for Israel can
see through Netanyahu's new slogan. Remember, this is
02/2014.
We're not even at post October 7 right
now. It says Hamas is ISIS. ISIS is
Hamas.
It's such a crude attempt to brainwash people,
he writes, to put the most horrifying image
in their minds and associate it with Gaza,
thereby cleansing Israel of those images of Gaza's
agony. Remember, 2014,
was it operation was it Iron Shield? Or
one of the last operations, which, guys, you
could qualify as a genocide if you understand
what they were doing. But, of course, we're
quibbling about an obvious one today, so let's
just call them war crimes. But objectively, like,
very clearly killed hundreds of innocent people.
So
to ignore what they were doing to make
it more about they're so bad, this is
okay. It's what they tried to do now.
It's what they're doing right now. It says
like he's been doing his whole career.
Netanyahu is insulting people's intelligence,
treating them like children, selling them the war
with a short little sing song slogan they
can all remember.
And remember, they're telling you Hamas is Iran.
Right? That Iran's the one, even though that
doesn't make any sense.
The point
is that clearly,
if you're gonna make the case, well, we
just very, very much outlined why that's not
the case. They were in fact fighting them.
But
ignore that since, you know, it's an the
point is that they wanna try to overhear
conflate these things as the same thing, then
it should matter that we if we can
debate one one debunk one and both apply,
but, well, they're the ones lying around the
first place. So let's continue.
He gets away with it because people won't
challenge this idiocy for fear they'll be accused
of defending Hamas. Very simple. Right? It's the
same thing I did today. Or a solid
apologist or whatever. It's the same kind of
sentiment that floods through the
incredibly stupid, highly regarded mainstream people. Because, I
mean, it's or or you're
shockingly dishonest
because it's the same thing and the same
sentiment. You just like to support the terrorists
and whatever. It's just it's so frustrating that
it happens every time. Just to be clear,
he writes, I know very well that Hamas
is a brutal, dictatorial organization, he writes. The
term Islamofascist
is indeed descriptive of its character. So in
that limited sense, it's the same as ISIS.
Now, I disagree with the the general point.
I'm not saying good guy, bad guy, but
I don't actually don't think and it's funny
because he goes on to make the same
argument, essentially. But he says well, take take
his point as for the sake of this
conversation, consider them the same thing. But as
he goes on to say, it's just not
the case. But the difference between Hamas and
ISIS in the degree of their brutality
and in the strength in their strength
is so great as to be a qualitative
difference.
It says Hamas is not slaughtering and beheading
and crucifying people by the thousands.
Funny how you would hear differently from Israel
and The United States. It's not committing gang
rape. Seems wildly relevant seeing as how so
many years later they made that allegation.
It's not massacring people because they practice a
different religion. Well, that's interesting. They're not, by
the way. Or a different variant of their
own religion.
Or because they belong to a different ethnic
group, all of which you're seeing happen through
Israel and The United States and the people
they support. Look at Saudi Arabia.
Hamas, like ISIS, is persecuting minorities, Netanyahu says
over the weekend. This is 2014. But there
are churches in Gaza.
Right? We've talked about this. Christians attend them
freely. It's provable.
There is a seat in the Gaza legislature
reserved for a Christian.
That's night and day from what the way
ISIS treats Christians, isn't it? Except Gaza's a
flat place now.
But realize the same point.
How can you tell me that that's that's
the case when you don't even see the
same thing happening in Israel?
In Gaza, like the idea of Christians, the
way they treat them in Israel is self
evident. It's publicly discussed by
reverence, but we but the Christian right ignores
it, needs to say something to you. The
reality is that you can call Gaza whatever
you want, or rather Hamas, as brutal but
you have to acknowledge that they, while ruled,
allowed churches,
allowed free attendance, which you could prove.
Even post October 7 when Israeli politicians were
trying to call it out and say there's
no churches, they publicly got exposed because one
of the people, I think it was LBC,
was an idiot, I guess, and said, look,
I just talked to the reverend. There are
people right now in those churches. He goes,
well, whatever. Let's change the subject. He just
moves on. They're all like that, guys. And
I mean, the ardent, die hard, dishonest scientist
who are trying to destroy Gaza.
It says about Hamas' executions in recent days
of some 25 suspected collaborators,
which, as always, I thought the the case
you could argue was people that they didn't
know or the innocent people they caught. The
reality is we know and have already seen
what The US and Israel do to people
they call collaborators or they call whatever they
wanna call their enemies.
We do I even need to go into
it? All the examples of people they've done
in Israeli prisons, what The US did in
Guantanamo when many of them were proven later
to not even be people they thought they
were. I mean, guys, it's obvious. That's something
to justify any of it. Because you see,
I never play that game. If it's wrong,
it's wrong. I don't care what your side's
coming from. In this case, though, the point
is to say if they have 25 collaborators
they killed and you think that makes them
terrorists, well, then at least ply that same
logic to overhear where they do it all
the time and recognize where they could very
well be people that did this because they're
being funded by The US and Israel and
very well are not innocent people being caught.
Think of it recognize the possibilities is the
only point. It's a sickening reminder of this
organization's ruthlessness.
It says, but the fact is that the
pre state Zionist underground
So he's arguing, look at the bad things
that Hamas is doing.
But the fact that the pre state of
Zionism, the Lehi Ergun parties,
whose military leader was Yitzhak Schimer,
executed many suspected Jewish collaborators.
I make this point all the time. The
Zionist killed
Jewish people who pushed back. They the the
Jewish people that were alongside the Palestinians in
a large sect this has been covered.
I mean and so and I hate always
having to qualify. These things are so obvious.
And so there's UN documents and just written
down things from Zionists
that they they were critical. The Jewish people
in the location were like, this is not
Judaism. What are you doing? We don't support
this. And many of them got killed.
But, you know, it's all about saving the
Jewish people from Zionism's perspective. It's just not
the truth if you understand the history. Both
Lehi and Ergon, led by Menachem Begin, who
by the way is a horrifying person,
one of the worst that you wanna look
up some of the stuff they've discussed, it'll
keep you up at night. And I'll give
you some examples in a second, by the
way, because it was written by Horez.
He also deliberately bombed crowds of civilians,
hid behind their own civilian population,
human shields, and had maximist
maximalist
territorial
goals. This is an Israeli platform talking about
the foundation of Zionism.
The Ergon and Lehi, the progenitors of the
Lukud, which is Netanyahu's party, practice what could
be called judo fascism.
Judeo fascism, excuse me. And minus the religious
fundamentalism,
could be compared to Hamas.
What do you mean my minus? It's the
same exact thing.
But it says, but like Hamas, they could
not be compared to ISIS.
Now it says, if Netanyahu really believed Hamas
is ISIS, would he have sent a delegation
to negotiate with Hamas and offer it concessions
in Cairo?
Probably not. Would he have reached a ceasefire
agreement with Hamas after Operation Pillar of Defense
in 2012? If Hamas is ISIS, would a
senior Israeli Defense Forces officer have told this
to Britain's Financial Times in March 2014,
today we can describe Hamas as a much
more restrained,
much more responsible
organization
than it used to be a decade or
two decades ago.
This all in light of their statehood experience.
This has made them much more responsible, much
more cautious.
Funny how that worked out until they no
longer felt that was working for them, and
then they just started to use them again
as justifications.
At this time, this is the overlap of
the funding, guys. I'll play those in a
second. And if Netanyahu thought Hamas is ISIS
with his goal in the current war, at
least until now, have been leaving Hamas severely
weakened,
but still strong enough to go running Gaza
until keeping it out of and keeping it
out of the hands of ISIS's global Jihadist
allies? I mean, think about it. If your
argument at the time is ISIS is Hamas,
then, like they're saying, there was a point
at which Hamas was weakened,
and they allowed them to keep running Gaza.
Why why wouldn't you? You could either argue
that you could argue they thought that they
didn't wanna take all responsibility. They're then that
simply means that they're willing to work with
terrorists at the very least, but realize it's
because they always were, whether here or there
or anywhere else. And they do not actually
have the designs they claimed they did. And
overall, this part as well, they're telling you.
We describe them as restrained, but they're different.
And at the end of the day, all
of this speaks to the reality that they're
working they're allowing them to exist while going
after Shias, Iran,
other elements and and, you know, in Lebanon.
But this being allowed. Like I've always pointed
out in Yemen, in the Saudi Arabian controlled
area. Why do I keep telling you? They've
got an area of Al Qaeda that's just
always existed and, in fact, gotten larger, that's
not connected to any water location that's just
within their area and somehow seems to prosper.
I'm sure you could piece that together.
It continues. But for all those differences, the
decisive one between Hamas and ISIS,
of course, is that Hamas represents a nation
under foreign rule,
says the Israeli platform, which means Hamas is
fighting a war of self defense against Israel.
Yep.
It's objectively clear. It's international law. It's been
documented my entire life. But, of course, once
the October 7 half an hour lies took
over the entirety of the western media apparatus.
Because, I mean, ask yourself why that is.
I mean, I don't have to tell you
if the entirety of the web apparatus lied
to you about beheaded babies, left or right,
and I lied about every other lie. And
does that mean they're all that bad at
their jobs? Or Or does it mean that
there's some element, you can decide what that
element is, that influences the entirety of our
media apparatus? Guys, it's just one plus one
equals two. It's not hard to recognize that
because they tell you that that means racism
somehow, even though I didn't even mention what
we're talking about. In fact, you know what
I think. It's Zionism and not Judaism.
It's pee it scares people away from acknowledging
these things. And then people grow up in
their media spheres and don't it's like a
a bubble they draw around certain conversations. They
just don't even know they're there anymore. Honest
people don't do that.
But for all the differences,
Hamas is fighting a war of self defense
against Israel. It's a legally occupied territory, which
means they have the legal right to arm
resistance
regardless of whether they were ever attacked. That
in at post occupation, that is international law,
Geneva Conventions.
And it goes on to say, ISIS is
trying to take over a nation or nations
that are beset by civil war. Now think
about it for a second. What ones were
they always trying to go after? Well, that's
strange.
It's
every country Israel wants. What a weird overlap.
I guess that's just coincidence.
Trying to take over these nations, which we
know. They are beset by civil war. So
ISIS, being the most murderous totalitarian and feared
of any of the factions, is fighting a
war of aggression.
His point is very different than Hamas.
Compare ISIS. Compare. He says ISIS is a
threat to take over all of Iraq, maybe
later Syria.
Hamas isn't a threat to take over a
blade of grass in Israel.
You see?
They turned this into it because and they're
not fighting ISIS and the groups they're pointing.
They're fighting the groups they want you to
think are the bad guys.
It's a construct.
And they'll tell you, at this time, it
wasn't even the reality. It never was the
case. They never wanted to. Doesn't matter. And
there's one more answer, he writes, to Netanyahu's
attempt to justify the war by equating Hamas
with ISIS. It is the Palestinian authority or
rather, is the Palestinian authority ISIS too? Well,
according to their arguments, they're all terrorists. Right?
He says, is Ma'am al Abbas also ISIS?
Now as there as Robert's artfully
shown you, they're just they are a a
controlled entity that Israel uses to to kind
of opt to, you know, shuck off its
responsibilities, but they work for Israel. Very clear.
And that's the whole idea, is they shifted
into a new proxy group. That's the whole
point. When they arguably lost some kind of
the influence or whatever you wanna call it,
the PA became the thing. That's the same
dynamic.
That's what he's saying. Are the ISIS too?
If Netanyahu can't deal with Hamas, why couldn't
he deal with the PA? Because he's saying,
well, we can't do it because they're bad
guys. Well, what about the PA? Right? It's
it's it's all
they're lost in their own lives. If Hamas
is the problem, why does Israel maintain a
military dictatorship over the West Bank?
See how easy it is to break this
down? Where the PA has worked with the
IDF in Shin Bet for the last decade
to shut Hamas down.
Well, they do it because it's about controlling
territory as I think everybody is seeing today.
For Netanyahu,
ISIS is a red herring, he writes, and
so is Hamas. Netanyahu is fighting in Gaza
to defend the occupation,
and we would fight to defend it against
any Palestinian challenger, or he would.
This is 2014.
It's true then. It's true now. It's always
been the case. There was just a constant,
never ending propaganda campaign from Israel from this
point from their entire career life versus their
existence.
2014, later, it just got more and more
and more and more and more enshrined. More
people got replaced. More politicians got put there.
Here we are, where we know these things
and we can prove them, but people don't
even understand.
Now, for the point about Hamas, in case
you don't forget or in case you forgot,
in case I haven't mentioned it recently,
the idea is quite obvious. Like I said,
I've explained it. I think it's not about
saying they outright controlled them or outright created
them from nothing, but there was, without question,
influence. And you can debate to what degree.
Masaad chief visited Doha, urged Cutter to continue
Hamas financial aid. It's very clear. That's a
rest. That's 2020.
Here's the clip I often play. This is
the former prime minister simply telling you that,
yes, we gave them money in order to
keep Palestinians divided. I just don't know how
why you can ignore some of this stuff.
Consider they're lying. Sure.
But acknowledge it.
So are you saying Benjamin Netanyahu
deliberately boosted Hamas
to try to prevent a Palestinian state? Yeah.
Sure. He deliberately and systematically
even even told this on record
whoever wants to avoid
the threat
of a two state solution has to support
my policy of paying protection money to the
Hamas. So what we did, with the
Now this guy is the former head of
Shin Bet. Permission
of our prime minister is
to let
Qatar
to transfer
a huge amount of money in cash,
probably more than $1,400,000,000.
By doing it, we increase the power of
Hamas. We
did everything in order to make sure that
Hamas will go on controlling Gaza.
So
I think that's pretty clear. And, you know,
you can also, by the way, point to
the tweet put out by Horets
on October 9, two days after October 7,
quoting Netanyahu saying anyone
who wants to thwart the establishment
of a Palestinian state, you know, the very
thing that they pretended they wanted the entire
time,
has to support bolstering Hamas,
the group they tell you is terrorist organization,
which means support them, and transferring money to
Hamas.
Quote, this is part of our strategy. Isn't
it? I mean, this is my point as
always. You can have this quoted directly from
the Lacout meeting by her ex,
and yet we get called crazy for even
pointing to that. It's because the the hype
was there from the very beginning. Like the
rape conversation. Like, you could barely get a
word in edgewise. It was pearl clutching and
screaming because that's what wins the day when
it's emotional.
Well, here's the rats. Hamas and the Ergon.
How dare I compare the two?
Because we were just talking about that, right?
Like, the idea that these groups are worse
objectively from what anything you see Hamas doing
despite the lies about it. For all those
suffering from voluntary amnesia, here is just a
few of the Ergun highlights. Now,
I'm not gonna read all of them, but
I'll give you some and you can read
the article for yourself. It says, We will
find whoever prepared this explosive device will get
to whoever is behind them, and we will
settle accounts with these terrorists,
says the Israeli government. Benjamin Netanyahu speaking about
something, and this was 04/28/2016,
at a conference of the eighty fifth anniversary
of the establishment of years to the founding
of the Irgun.
So what was became Zionism?
The pre state underground militia led by
Menachem Begin.
Unfortunately, Netanyahu neglected to specify, you know, which
terrorist he meant.
That's the Israeli platform making a joke about
whether he was talking about Ergun or Hamas.
And it says, the ones whose 80 birthday
he was celebrating or the ones who blew
up a bus earlier that day? Of course,
assuming that was actually who did it and
not some Mossad operation or somebody they funded
through Hamas. But it says, how but how
could I dare to compare them? That's because
people were outraged.
Some Israelis, Zionists, rather, were going, how dare
you?
But it says, by way of jogging the
memory of our, of our Arns and and
everyone else
suffering from voluntary amnesia, below is a tiny
sample, a drop in the enormous bucket of
praiseworthy deeds, praiseworthy should be in quotes,
carried out by the heroes of the Irgun
and Lehi, the militia once led by Yitzhak
Shamir and known as the Stern Gang.
All are from approved
revisionist sources, which if you don't know what
that means, Israel literally has a an entity
that, like, makes sure certain information never gets
out to the media, like a constant actual
censor, the literal ministry of truth. And so
my point is even this is allowed because
I think they're proud of this stuff. And
let you take it for what you will.
Now there's videos where you can watch them
brag about this. People just tend to pretend
like either the translations are false or you're,
you know, whatever. Like, they just ignore it
because it's but you can watch them. These
old guys, like, joking about raping women. In
fact, this one I'll include,
only because it is,
the the one that was really well it
it went made the rounds. And this was
this clip of this guy who was from,
I believe it was Lehigh party,
saying and you remember this right in the
beginning of October 7, October 13. They brought
the Israel drove this guy around speaking to
IDF, literally telling them, erase them, their families,
their mothers, their children.
This is October 23 and publicly put out.
That's who we're talking about. This is an
old monster who's still alive, who is raping
and killing, and they're bragging about it, and
then went around to the IDF and said,
do it this time. Rape and murder and
kill the children. That's what he literally says.
You can watch it all for yourself.
So, as Dan writes,
Ezra Yachen was a member of the Lehi.
That's this guy. The Zionist terrorist group that
twice attempted to ally with Nazi Germany.
Provably documented by Wikipedia, by, by literally by
Herets, by the way. I'll show you in
a second.
On January 11 I mean, he he just
reads the reality of it. They they twice
tried to align themselves with Nazi Germany. If
that doesn't make sense to you, then maybe
you should look into the reality of the
history and stop listening to people like Benjamin
Netanyahu.
Dan Cohen is a Jewish person himself, in
case that matters more to you.
Here is
the Harratz article.
Zionist malicious efforts to recruit Nazis and fight
against the British are revealed.
This is an article from 2023, and it's
discussing that exact point, that the Lehigh party
tried to recruit, or rather align itself with
both the Nazi party and Stalin, by the
way, because they wanted their own fascist government.
That's literally the terms that they used.
All of this is on the record even
from Israeli platform, but we're all crazy, apparently.
So the point
is that this
is the guy or the party we're discussing,
and all of this is on the record.
So these are some of the things that
those people and some of the videos you'll
see where they're kinda casually discussing it are
talking about. 11/14/1937.
Ergun gunman in Jerusalem carried out a shooting
attack,
killing two Arab pedestrians
in Rahiva.
Later, snipers fires at an Arab bus, killing
the three passengers and wounding eight. Bravo, Ergun.
Now these are actual
entries
that are not allowed to be discussed be
like, entries documenting what the Ergon and Lehi
were doing and saying. And these are, like,
these are as they wrote, these are the,
praiseworthy deeds that they're highlighting.
For the first time, but not the last,
the Ergon throws a bomb into an Arab
cafe with middling results. One person killed, six
wounded, 1938.
1938, July. A series of terror attacks on
pedestrians in Jaffa Tel Aviv in Jerusalem. Bomb
see, now my point is this is in
Jerusalem.
So you these are by their people, guys.
And this is the reality. It's what I'm
constantly pointing out. These are false flag dynamics
like you can see with the British. Same
things they did. They bombed the British. They
blamed it on other people.
Bombs and shootings, the buses, the results improve,
they write. Eleven Arabs die, twenty two are
wounded. Civilians, we're talking about. The Ergun, 20
nineteen thirty eight. Ergun plants an explosive device
in the Haffia Open Air Market out of
political motivations. The device comprised a few metal
milk cans stuffed with explosives and nails. I
got same thing I do today.
Cans for children.
July 1938. A similar device in the Arab
shuk is in Jerusalem. Ted dead, thirty one
injured. Same thing. Just keeps going. Explosive devices
killed in killed Arabs. Cheering it on.
This is an Israeli platform writing about why
Ergon
is comparable, and I argue, like, much, much
worse than what they're pointing to as Hamas.
Goes on a long time.
Now to bring this forward to today, in
case you thought this was some kind of
an old thing, here's her rats. Here's the
article.
When you leave Israel and enter Gaza,
you are God.
That's a quote.
Inside the minds of IDF soldiers who commit
war crimes.
Just casual. That's 2024. That's in the midst
of the ongoing genocide.
And he says from Herets in Israel, this
is the chief commercial officer
per whatever this is, UN
diplomat, a description of an IDF commander
murdering a four year old for fun.
It's the truth. I've I've I've gone over
this already.
Casually. Just written about it, begin with it
because they're bad. They're all terrorists.
That is the mindset of the leading Lukud
party that is driving this into their people's
minds.
Okay. 2016.
ISIS in Israel on the Golan Heights. Now
remember, this is the place that Trump gave
them illegally,
which has all the vast a huge portion
of water that Syria needed and also the
the elevated area from which now they bomb
down onto Syria and control strategically.
The Yarmouk Valley is run by ISIS, it
says, and left alone by Israel.
2016.
Firstly, it says, why has ISIS not attacked
Israel? It's a good question.
A country they have sworn to destroy or
so we're told. I I mean, that alone
should be a question that shakes you. Right?
Okay. So we're being told that it's all
about killing the Jews, and then what you
do is attack Muslims and Christians.
Maybe there's something to that, and maybe we
can stand back and recognize, I don't know,
that they've apologized for bombing them before. I
well, I'm jumping ahead just a just a
touch. We'll we'll get to that. But the
reality of that one question, why have they
not attacked the people that we're talking about?
Why are they not attacked inside, I don't
know, The United States?
In no way am I even remotely saying
that I want that to happen. Don't pretend
that's what I meant. The truth is though,
if you wanna talk about nine eleven, then
you are lost in this conversation because the
evidence does not support what you're probably thinking.
Or that that's something I'll connect to Iran
is probably where you're gonna go. Firstly, it
says, why have they not attacked Israel? A
country they swore to destroy.
Similarly Oh, and the point is from this
base, which is literally on the border
of Israel. That's the Golan Heights. Before it
was given to them by Trump and before
Assad
and his government is the one that removed
them.
So at this point in time, 2017, you've
got an ISIS group that's literally on the
border
of of Israel.
Now I'm actually of the mind this is
a group that they were working with, and
that's why that exists. But either way,
similarly, why has the IDF not attacked this
small and weak group of extremists on their
border? Again, I think they were cultivating with
this time. The answers to such questions show
the truth behind the rhetoric all actors use
in this conflict.
Now the Yarmouk
Martyrs' Brigade, the YMB is what we're talking
about, so remember the reference to the acronym.
The group started off relatively moderate, they say,
with a close alliance to the free Syrian
army. Okay. Well, then let's let's make sure
we realize totally not moderate then. The game
is about the moderate this is these are
the same people we're talking about. The same
groups we'll come back to that McCain met
in Syria.
These are the groups that literally were shown
to be Al Qaeda, and I'll make that
clear to you in a second. But so
just for the point, the article was written
then. They they argued they were not. They
were not.
And it's a fact that the Free Syrian
Army, we know what these groups are at
this point. Right? These are the al Qaeda
elements they use to throw against Assad that
they want you to believe were the rebels
fighting back. We already went over this very
clearly.
Now it says and and the point was
the group started off with alliances to them.
The YMB in 2015 began implementing
Islamist reforms.
Okay. Interesting. So remember the timing here and
where they are and and what I believe
was the influence from Israel. And and, again,
that they're right on their border,
knowing that they're there, coveting the Golan Heights
in general, and yet they're gonna allow them
to grow into the very thing you're fighting?
It says change the name of its department
even,
translating to the regional name for ISIS.
Look at that. The group even changed their
logo to incorporate the ISIS flag.
By the 2015,
the YMB became a subgroup of ISIS,
only a stone's throw away from Israel, literally
at the border.
The YMB alliance means that ISIS now shares
a border with Israel at this time,
yet they have not acted on this.
In one of our Baghdadi speeches before he
was allegedly killed for the seventeenth time, I
think it was eight, I guess, but who
knows if he's even still killed right now,
he discussed Israel. I mean, in case you
don't know that, by the way, same thing
I even, like, I even said with, like,
considering that possibility with Khomeini.
How many times and it's a different point,
by the way, because I think with Baghdadi
or Osama Bin Laden, how many times they
said that these are assets, guys. That's the
point. And Baghdadi was being used as we're
getting into today.
They said they killed him like five or
six different times. And the last one, that
just that's what Charlie got him. And then
it's
he hasn't popped up again. But there were
times where there was years where, yeah, then
he popped up again. And maybe that was
a lie. The point is
to think about that in that context of
how they use these ideas, these boogeymen.
And James Corden makes an excellent point about
that in regard to his Al Qaeda documentary
about Solomon Lock.
But it says in one of Baghdadi's speeches,
he discusses Israel.
And it says he went he went that
on to say that with the help of
Allah, we, Isis, are getting closer to you,
Israel, every day.
Right? But it's puzzling, is it not, since
they were literally on the border?
Armed groups of fighters right next door to
Israel. To get any closer would mean they
would be literally inside of Israel.
So why has ISIS not followed through on
those treaties? Come on, guys. I think we
can all piece together why.
Now in the article, they at least give
you one of the possibilities that maybe they
just weren't able to actually win. Maybe they
were recognizing they couldn't win. I don't believe
for a second that's what we're talking about.
Especially since what they tell you is these
are irrational lunatics who wanna kill themselves to
kill anybody and kill a Jew. Right?
So but let's make that, though, but they
needed to get stronger to kill themselves for
that per come on.
The reality here, I think, is quite obvious.
You have a group that they claim they're
fighting. That's ISIS. The guys that literally publicly
changed their name and their flag and are
on the border of Israel.
And then Baghdadi says, we're getting you next.
Right? We're getting there closer to you.
I just it's it's insane, guys. This is
a group that I can prove and you
can prove if you watch this show or
do your due diligence that are have an
origin point of what they did in the
area. We're gonna get even more into it
in the next couple articles.
And so it's incredible to me that we
can see that,
and yet they and and and have them
being built and cultivated on their border, and
then stand up and go, we're gonna get
to you, and then not recognize how clear
that is. But at this time, there was
less evidence, I guess. But even that needs
to that's why this article was written. Why
does that make sense?
In 2013, the YMB kidnapped some 20 Filipino
United Nations peacekeepers. I remember that. They held
them for two weeks before releasing them. However,
the YMB kidnapped these peacekeepers
from inside
Israeli occupied territories.
Okay. While YNB was only loosely affiliated with
ISIS in 2013,
there have been no repercussions for an Islamic
militant group infiltrating an Israeli buffer zone
and kidnapping UN peacekeepers,
which I think we all know what they
think about UN peacekeepers in general or UN
at all.
And so what you have to understand is
that you have a group that I'm pretty
clearly can show you are influenced, funded, connected
to these groups, who they wanna pretend that
they're fighting, who has never invaded, who's right
there, and yet they then are allowed to
go into Israeli controlled territory and take UN
peacekeepers and take them, and then nothing.
Can you even imagine what they'd be saying
if they came in and took somebody from
you know, a Jewish person from Israel? Or
anything they could use to create the sentiment?
This is obvious to me, especially since they
know what the UN peacekeepers will ultimately do
is expose what they're doing.
Because that's the ultimate point here. We're talking
about locations even with Syria's territory where Israel
has been breaking the law. And that's why
these peacekeepers are usually sent in. So they,
just like they did today and continue to
do, got them out of the way. That's
what I believe.
My opinion.
And it goes on to say, Israel has
shown in the past its willingness to attack
groups on its borders that it perceives as
a threat. But for some weird reason, they
didn't do it with a group that invaded
its territory and stole what is supposed to
be protected UN entities in Israel territory.
Doesn't that make Israel look weak? Yes. It
would. But see, it doesn't matter because they
don't even want you to know what happened,
I don't think. Not in the way that
it is actually being seen, or should be
rather. Israel has, during the Syria war,
authorized airstrikes in Syria multiple times. We saw
that. We've covered them. Israel bombed in Syria
countless times.
These airstrikes, however, have aimed have aimed
not at ISIS,
nor al Nusra,
or other Sunni Jihadist groups. You know, the
entirety of the whole Al Qaeda ISIS conversation.
These strikes, however, were overwhelmingly
targeted at Shia affiliated groups.
By the way, many of which they claim
are connected to Hezbollah or Houthi, but really
just talking about, like, groups like the PMU,
which today, you know, if we gave him
get to the point about Joe Kent, the
idea of this conversation being that they were
like, the idea of was always told you
about what these groups were.
It's to say that these are Iranian proxies
and then claim that they're controlled.
Like, the so what you're talking about is
that, like, the Iraq government is controlled by
Iran, but yet is The US is occupying
Iraq.
It's you're missing a few
very important connected parts and all that. It
is that we can prove that they have
very clearly been funding the groups they use
to create the chaos in these areas. But
you can show that, like, the PMU, for
example, is just an extension of the
Iraq military
that is funded by Iraq that and I
told you this so many times over the
years that at that time was being funded
by The US. And they were going, the
PMU is Iran. I'm like, well, you guys
are literally funding them right now. Anyway, that's
all to say that there's this weird narrative
being floated about all this that I think
is meant to sort of water down the
point.
Israel has
bombed Syria many times,
but only going after
Shiites instead of
the very group they tell you they're all
fighting.
Israel in September 2014 also shot down a
Syrian Air Force fighter jet for stringing into
Golan airspace.
You're willing to shoot down a jet of
Syrians that potentially sparking some kind of conflict,
but you're not willing to bomb the ISIS
group that you're cultivating on your border?
And it says Israel has shown during its,
Syrian war that it is willing to attack
those who threaten its territorial integrity, but apparently,
not when it's ISIS, the article writes. The
YMB has entered Israeli held territory, yet there's
been no reported conflict between the two groups.
Funny how that works. In fact, there have
been reports from Foreign Policy magazine, and you've
seen these,
claiming that far from fighting the militias
that are ISIS, as we just verified, in
the Golan Heights, Israel has, in fact, been
providing health care. Now you see, these are
the things that you get, like the mainstream.
Sometimes these things pop into conversation. Right? Like
this one
that a lot of people talked about.
Exclusive.
Israel is tending to wounded
Syrian
rebels.
Ah, but we know now that's not what
they were. But you see these things failed
to connect for the normie mainstream broadcaster that
says or what they don't care or want
to know. But let's but again, let's go
back to this. This is really important.
Right? So what we've very clearly identified here,
according to even US,
documentation, is that the YMB
and, really, just publicly
changed itself, its,
its name, its flag to ISIS.
That's on the record. Right? So that's the
group we're talking about. That's the group in
the Golan Heights
that Israel went and gave treatment to. At
the time, they called it the rebels, moderate
rebels. They were not. They were quite literally
ISIS.
So, actually, I mean, these
are these momentary points. That's enough right there.
Period. For you to understand that they were
not truly fighting them. But what I'm painting
is much bigger, that they're actually working with
arming and, you know, are ultimately proxies. But
at the end of the day, that should
be enough. Here's Jerusalem Post.
Netanyahu visits the IDF field's hospital for Syrians.
They tried to frame it at the time
as, like, helping the innocent people. It all
came out. As it says, Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu
on Tuesday visited a Golan Heights field hospital
that treats Syria's wounded.
And the timing? 2014.
Like, it's easy to connect these dots right
now because all of it's out there.
So back to the article. This is 2017
pointing back.
So we know that happened. And it says,
quote, we don't do any vetting
or check where they are from or which
group they are fighting for
or whether they are civilians,
says Colonel Peter Lerner of the Israeli military.
Why would that be? So you're fighting terrorism,
but you don't care to check whether the
ones you're treating are the very terrorists you're
trying to fight?
That's just stupid, guys. That means that they
are I mean, you could argue that they
just didn't check. But what would that mean?
If they didn't check, that means they don't
want to know. I argue they didn't care
to check because they knew who they were.
It says there seems to be a very
different treatment for rebel groups on the South
of Golan Heights border than for those on
the North.
Contradictions.
But why would Israel, which authorized multiple bombings
on Syrian militant groups
on the Assad side, take such a relaxed
view towards ISIS on their doorstep?
You know the answer.
Israel is focused not on ISIS and Sunni
groups,
but on the Shia groups in Syria.
But, again, the funding of Hamas. I mean,
you can find common ground. You like, I
you should question all of this.
Even
question the source material, but realize that the
body of evidence is very clear. And if
you look to the other side of the
argument, you really have a bunch of statements
and narratives based on, you know, your clout,
What group you come from, what news group
you work for, like, or that you're a
former president or an expert on Iran. But
I'm showing you source material and evidence and
and reporting and all of this you can
verify for yourself.
Where was I here? So it says, Israel
is focused not on ISIS and Sunni groups,
but on Shia groups in Syria.
Right there is enough to show you that.
Israel's airstrikes have hit Assad's Shia backed regime
and Hezbollah,
not ISIS or al Nusra.
Correspondence between then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
and political adviser Jacob Sullivan
about Israel's aims in the region tried to
rationalize
why Israel ignores ISIS.
It says,
in 2012,
at the start of the conflict, Sullivan said
that there was, quote, a positive side to
the civil war in Syria.
This so called positive side to a war
that has cost some 400,000
lives, and this was only at 2017,
was that, quote, if the Assad regime topples,
Iran would lose its only ally in the
Middle East and would be isolated. Great. So
we're willing to destroy an entire country, kill
a lot of people, just so we can
maybe weaken the group that ended up not
actually being weakened.
That's the kind of people we're talking about.
They
consciously make the decision to do things like
this, like with Iran right now, not for
any hopeful, you know, altruistic agenda, but because
they want to get what they want. And
they will kill, as
Madeleine Albright told you, 500,000
children, and they definitely think it's worth it.
That was on the record for crying out
loud.
This would please Israel, it says,
which under the Netanyahu government has fixated on
the perceived threat of Iran.
A war which destabilizes Iran's ally, Assad, would
benefit Israel's interests.
This Machiavellian belief could explain why ISIS is
not focused on. The Iranian backed Shia militias
are the biggest concern for Israel, not extremist
groups such as ISIS. Yeah. You could argue
that. They'll get to them next, or you
could just realize how obvious it is that
they were never fighting in the first place.
Despite all of this, the YMV,
the Yarmouk Valley,
at this time, was still run by ISIS,
left alone by Israel until
the Assad government took them out.
That you could look it up for yourself.
Now the point is that then what happened
was Trump gave them the Golan Heights, which
they then occupied anyway, which kinda shows you
what this was all about in the first
place.
My opinion.
Now here's the document they referenced. You can
read it for yourself. Coming from Jake so
Jacob Sullivan to Hillary Clinton, and it just
breaks down everything we're just discussing. Now even
more than that though, which I believe oh,
we'll get to it in a second.
It's timed well. I'll show you the other
email from WikiLeaks that shows you what they
said. But again, here's these. You can check
them out. Israel's tending to the terrorists that
we now prove have everyone has proven that
these were not smotter rebels.
Here is a disinfo site. I thought it
was interesting what they said. But it says,
ISIS never attacked Israel nor the other way
around.
Now, they're not denying that, but they just
argue that's just them, like, debunking that it
was because
of ISIS. I guess, whatever you wanna frame
it as, like, they weren't fighting them. So
it says, why does ISIS never attack the
State Of Israel? Or the other way around.
This is weird, it says, since the Islamic
State emerged in twenty two thousand six and
started a global crusade with terror attacks all
over the world. It seems that it did
not employ too much effort in harassing Israel.
This astute observation. It is striking that the
state entity most hated in the Muslim world
has been practically ignored
or avoided
by those who proclaim themselves as the most
radical, violent Islamists in the world. It is
weird, isn't it? The ones they tell you
were only, They want to kill all the
Jews, but then they actively avoid and never
actually attack the state of the Jew. It's
funny, right? Of course, that's what Zionism tells
you it is, but this is a different
point. But it says, Does this mean that
the state of Israel created, encouraged, cooperated somehow
with the creation of ISIS?
Certainly should make you ask that question since
the evidence shows that, but it says it
would be reckless to give an unequivocal answer
to this question. That's fair. But here's the
response.
Response? Conspiracy
theory. It's
very sound. You know? And listen to what
they say about this. It's so funny. If
you can spear you you could even read
and agree with everything they write here right
here, and then be a smart a smart
enough person to realize that you could still
argue this and that would still be the
case.
It's just it's because you're supposed to say
conspiracy theory, which doesn't even mean anything. It's
that's not a response, but here's what they
write. Only since October 2023,
Israel has thwarted
several Islamic State related terrorist plots. It's actually
a gross misrepresentation,
but it says at least nine
according to jihadist terrorism expert, Aaron Y. Zeland,
which I'm sure you can deduce where that
expertise comes from. And it says the Islamic
State Organization attacked Israel from Sinai in several
in several occasions,
notably
2015, 2017.
Now, you could go into this yourself and
find out that most of these were things
that you can't really tie back other than
you know, like, when I often talk about,
like, rockets falling where they claim some there
there is a coordinated effort to frame things.
And, in fact, many times, just outright fake
that things happen a certain way. I'm not
saying that these here, but recognize they're so
often lying about the way things went down.
What I'm gonna show you here is the
fact that in 2017,
one of the examples that you can actually
prove, even though they say nine, that's not
even close to reality,
is that it happened, or at least you
saw some kind of exchange.
And even as Newsweek reports,
ISIS fighters
regret attacking Israel
and have apologized.
That's according to the Israeli for former defense
minister
in 2017.
So here they are going fake news because
they did it and defended even though ISIS
came out and was like, oopsie, our mistake.
We didn't mean to bomb Israel. Like, the
fact that that ever even actually happened or
that he said it whether it did or
not,
that's enough right there. How would that even
make sense? That's over the top. And it
says in March 2024, the Islamic State spokesperson
called its supporters to carry out attacks against
Israel, which didn't happen.
Sure. They love to go, we're getting Israel,
and then like you heard a second ago.
We're getting to you next, and didn't do
it.
Among other objectives, it says Israel is also
attacking is attacked Islamic State bases and militants
in 2015 and 2018 carrying out dozens of
COVID airstrikes. Oh oh, you mean you mean
fighting the Assad government? Yeah. Not the same
thing. Guys, this is very clear.
So, again, you can agree with every single
part of this and then still acknowledge the
evidence that shows you that they are, in
fact, working alongside these groups or
literally giving a medical treatment. However you wanna
look at it.
But even they will acknowledge how weird it
is that it's never been,
you know, the law the what we've seen
elsewhere.
And the minimal cases you can find, they'll
apologize for. Or they'll lie about what actually
happened.
This one's interesting. Jerusalem Post.
And this is what we're saying we're saying
at the time, 2017.
Report. ISIS Israel,
temporary allies
against
Iran. That's a real post,
a real headline from the Jerusalem Post, which
they've changed now, right, for obvious reasons.
ISIS Israel temporary allies against Iran. I mean,
guys, it's very clear. You know exactly what
this means. Because they're not fighting ISIS. They're
fighting Iran. So ISIS and Israel become allies
because they're fighting Iran. But why would that
even remotely make sense if they've always told
you they're fighting ISIS and that ISIS is
Iran? Because it's schizophrenic. It's ridiculous. But that's
everything Trump's doing today. I'm sure you can
understand why I said it that way.
A new report suggests that in the narrow
area of confronting Iran's presence in Syria,
ISIS and and Israel's interest may temporarily converge,
which is in a way makes them allies.
Work yourself into a pretzel to somehow make
that make sense. But in the era of
ISIS as a state it says, but in
the era after ISIS as a state has
fallen
so what you're talking about is Syria?
Because they all they they argue it's like
they're saying to the Iran's been defeated, but
we're still ongoing.
That wasn't the case at the time. But
it says, when Israel's new main concern in
Iran's presence is Syria,
is Iran's presence in Syria and its attempts
to smuggle game changing weapons through Syria.
Good god. Both ISIS and Israel may be
targeting the same Iranians.
It's just a it's a it's a way
to simply make the argument that we're working
together, which no matter why it happens, shows
you that they're not actually fighting them, and
second, that they're not actually fighting Iran
if ISIS is Iran, as they tell you.
It's just laugh worthy. Stupid.
Also recognize that the game changing weapon you're
talking about allies selling weapons, which is just
like another Tuesday for every other government unless
you're Iran.
Then, that was 2014. Right?
But we have clear evidence that they were
working with these groups.
Moderate rebels? Well, in case you forgot, here's
the archive of Hillary Clinton's emails that WikiLeaks
showed. And let's not forget, they've never been
shown to be have WikiLeaks has a pristine
track record of showing you information that has
been shown to be correct.
02/12/2012.
Al Qaeda is on our side in Syria.
2012.
So that means two years before they're talking
about what we just showed you, they already
were told through Israel that Al Qaeda was
on their side.
And then that's why they're later trying to
make the arguments, well, we're aligned for a
judge. Let's not forget how many times over
the years even US politicians have casually floated
the idea that, you know, maybe we'll make
a deal with ISIS. Maybe Al Qaeda will
work with us. There's a reason for that.
It was always this was a group they
were now you could argue this is The
US finding out that Israel was working with
this group, and they're going, okay. Good. They're
working with us, or this is just him
informing Clinton or whatever else it is that
this has always been the reality.
Oh, and by the way, here's John McCain
visiting those same rebels in 2013.
One year later, after we've just told, Al
Qaeda is on our side in Syria. And
what have we already made clear? That that
group is the moderate rebels? That's who it
is? That's what we're talking about? Well, guess
what? That's these guys right here.
John McCain goes and meets with the very
people that we know, and it all spin
I mean, this is not hard to understand.
You could also make the same point of
McCain and Lindsey Graham going to meet the
Azov movement in Ukraine before they did all
this.
This is how dumb they think we are
that we can't piece this together, or frankly,
they just don't care that we see it.
Here
is Craig Murray
breaking down for you this reality as one
of many journals you should listen to that's
been telling you this entire I mean,
if you haven't why if you haven't looked
into his work, you need to. Especially right
now with what he's been covering about Lebanon
or at least as he was covering because
he's been calling that out well before it
became the focal point now. Telling you they
were violating ceasefires. Telling you they were killing
civilians. Telling you they were occupying territory, but
no one's listening.
Now it's just part of the ongoing war,
which makes no sense other than it's what
Israel wants.
Well, there's no doubt
that the so called rebel forces,
attacking the government in Syria
are creatures of The United States and of
Israel.
There's been congressional
testimony,
in The United States openly,
that The United States had spent
more than half $1,000,000,000
on the
Syrian rebel forces.
That was some years ago. It had gone
up since then.
Israel has provided medical and other support facilities
to them perfectly openly.
The United States
yesterday,
was attacking
from the air,
forces coming from Iraq to try to help.
By the way, this is not extremely new.
This is not old, but it's not like
from the last couple of weeks, so I
forget the exact date, but just recognize that.
It's before what we're dealing with right now.
The government of Syria,
while Israel
was attacking the links between Syria and Lebanon,
again, with bombing from
the air.
And for forces facing the rebels, the Syrian
Arab army, the National Army of Syria,
has been bombed relentlessly
by Israel
for more than a year.
So there's no doubt whatsoever that the rebels
are backed by,
the CIA
and backed by
Israel.
Same group.
So if you need one more data point,
one more person, Craig Murray and his excellent
research telling you the same point. The ones
meeting with John McCain, the ones that Israel's
giving treatment to, the one every point we're
making, this is the same these are the
terrorist organizations. That is the Jalani, Al Qaeda,
Al Nusra. You know, this is the same
conversation.
You know what I mean? If you need
to stop and go back and rewatch all
that, do it because it's important to make
sure that this all connects in your mind,
that what we're talking about are the same
groups right to this very point. And now
they're just trying to spin this into about
it because because it's always been about Iran
and Israel's religious war.
And that's what's happening here. It's an attempt
by the Americans
and the Israelis
aided by the Turks
to overthrow
the regime in Damascus
in order to block
assistance
flowing through Syria
to Lebanon.
Right. Which ultimately is about the Iranian conversation
as well.
Especially, one, because they'll tell you that it
is Iran. It's not. But also because it's
it's the focus of what Israel is trying
to accomplish, whether it's greater Israel or just
trying to eliminate the people that they see
as adversarial to, I guess, them controlling their
lives.
But let's also recognize how ridiculous it is
that we can be at a point today
where you have provable examples. I mean, to
the point to where Netanyahu publicly says it
out loud.
Haratz covers. What's wrong with that? How Israel
started Israel trained and armed an ISIS linked
Gaza militia.
I mean, if again, if you haven't heard
about this, this is objectively clear. This has
been openly discussed in the Knesset where it
got brought up. You're working with ISIS linked
elements. And he goes, what's wrong with that?
If that sounds crazy to you, you should
recognize what we're talking about today. Because in
their inner circle in Hebrew where they much
doesn't translate over to the blind people who
don't wanna see what's going on in the
Western press, is that they'll say these things
very publicly. They'll discuss the fact that international
law does not bind us in the world.
I cover this stuff often.
People dismiss it as crazy. I don't know
why. It's open there. I can show you
a video of Netanyahu telling you these things.
They'll still go,
you know, Israel and why? Well, you know,
whatever it is,
openly.
How Israel trained these militias? This is the
Gaza Humanitarian
Foundation. This these are ISIS elements,
and he's open about that. So, again, if
you wanna pretend it's because of some current
reality, it doesn't doesn't change the fact they're
working with the very things they tell you
they're fighting while going after Iran, who is
not working with these groups.
Here's an example of this was from 2024.
I bring this up all the time because
I think it's such an important thing to
think about. This was it it was 01/07/2024,
one of the previous examples of their hostility
growing towards Iran.
And ISIS claimed responsibility
for the deadliest attack in Iran since 1979.
That alone should make you go, wait, what?
That doesn't even make sense, what we're hearing.
Didn't didn't you just tell us Iran is
ISIS? Are you telling us right now that
they are backed by whatever. Okay. How many
times exactly do we need to see
ISIS, the very group they're pointing to, attack
the enemies of Israel, whether Iran or otherwise,
when they're at the peak of hostile rhetoric
with Israel
before we understand what we're actually seeing.
And then go right back to them calling
it Iran or Hamas is ISIS after it's
just it's insane.
It's clear what this is. If ISIS can
be driven to attack Iran in the midst
of Israel heated heated conversations, then ISIS is
working for Israel or at least influenced by
what they're doing.
Kinda simple to see. We also talked about
Syria as we made the image today. This
is October December 2024 after Jelani
and Israel took over Syria. Just, you know,
despite The US using US servicemen
to throw it, you know, to carry out
its I mean, everything they did in that
country, all the horrible things they carried out,
all the missing children, all of the fake
attacks, and the American people that died.
And then Israel got to take it over.
Do I do you need to make any
more examples of what the US government's doing
for another country? America first.
On top of that, as they further occupied
Syria, you could prove they were western backed,
ISIS patch wearing
people wandering around. As I say every time,
grab the image. Do reverse image shirts. This
is literally from Syria post they're overtaking it
with a proud ISIS patch with number whoever
won driving down the street. You also have
examples of another ISIS patch wearing guy who
was literally executing all the whites on the
ground.
Christians, all the whites, killing everybody they didn't
like. That is the kind of people they
support because they are easy to manipulate.
And here here's actually in case you didn't
see the image from today. The reason I
used this and made the joke about it
was I think because,
you know, this this is oh, here. I'll
grab this too in case you since we're
talking about Jelani. In case you haven't seen
this, and I'm sure most of you have.
I might even have it in there somewhere.
This was the post that was on the
state I mean, I have the actual state
department link where this is on there. So
this is verifiable.
The US government put this out about Jelani,
the guy who's currently the leader. Actually, I
do have this up there. I forgot. I'll
play the clip where Trump says he put
him there. The realize that this says $10,000,000
bounty.
As I said in the very beginning, this
was up on their site
after, for at least so many days, he
was put in president's position. How do you
even make sense of that?
They just don't care, guys. They literally don't
care.
So, that's the whole point of what we're
discussing here is that that's who they're working
with and always have been. So, as DD
DiDiGEO Politics points out, The US wants to
activate Al Jelani and his ISIS gang to
fight Hezbollah in Lebanon. We actually told you
this already. It's been being reported, floated at
the very least. The US has urged Syria
to consider, which they'll do what they're told,
I imagine, to deploy forces in Lebanon,
illegally in Lebanon.
Why would the US government be asking a
a a new Syrian terrorist organization they put
as the government to illegally go into Lebanon
when that's not even part of the Iran
conflict? Because this they they don't care. There's
no boundaries. There's no law. I mean, imagine
if you had an entity they were fighting
in Mexico They just turned around and was
like, well, we're gonna take Florida. We're gonna
take Texas. We're gonna turn around and take
some South American country because we're we're just
gonna defend ourselves.
Do you think any of these people will
be acting like that just made sense because,
you know, they said bad guy?
How do we not make fun of how
dumb this is?
It's all just because they go, those are
bad guys. What they're doing is illegal anyway,
even if they're terrorists. It's funny how we
just go past these things and pretend like
it's okay because we're the ones.
It's supremacy is what it really comes down
to.
Exclusive. US encourages Syrian action against Hezbollah.
Is that not exactly like them? You they
tell proxies invading our country. What do you
think that is? What do you think the
Kurds are in Iran? That's what they're doing.
It's what they've always done, and they accuse
everybody else of doing, which is certainly possible.
But I use this image for the show
today because I wanted to make a point.
So here's McCain.
But
they don't even try to hide what they're
doing. Like, it's that lazy.
Mohammed Al Trump Lani. This one is Mohammed
Al Netanyahu Lani. Like, just it's a joke,
obviously, but the point is it's like, it's
just so brazen and obvious, and they know
we see it. They don't care, it seems.
No. This of course, right here. Well, as
I already showed you, here's what Trump had
to say. What may via his hubris because
it's clearly Israel that made this all happen,
but he wants to own it even though
he must know or maybe even doesn't, which
is even more alarming, that this guy is
exact well, you know why I know he
knows? Because Loomer screamed about it.
Terrorism. Muslims. We hate Muslims. Right? Jones will
tell you at the end of the show
today. Get the Muslims. Kill them all, basically.
Bomb them all. The point is that he
tells still comes out and goes, yeah. I
might put him there. He's doing a great
job.
Can say is that the president of Syria,
who
I essentially put there, is doing a phenomenal
job. He's a rough guy.
He's not a choir boy.
A choir boy couldn't do it, but Syria
is coming together, really coming together well. You
could probably argue right there that they they
convinced Trump that, well, it's a dangerous place
and there's mean people there. So what we
need for the moment is somebody who can
actually deal with that, and then we'll transition
back to somebody better.
Maybe maybe he's that easy to fool. You
know what I mean? Like, that's what I'm
always talking about. Like, you're you're so smart,
mister Trump. Here's the only two options I
know you have to pick because no one
else can, and there's 95 other options, and
that's either one they want. I mean, that's
how this game is played against people that
can be manipulated.
Especially somebody who's full of his own, you
know, he's so up, you know, high on
his own opinion of what he's possible. The
whole thing about Iran is what we were
told. Question it, but I believe it.
In this case, here's Scott Horton.
Jelani killed US troops in Iraq war too.
He did.
Very I mean, it's easy to document. We
covered this last time. We went over
it. He pledged his allegiance to the Bushers
of New York City, and, yes, his Syrian
Al Qaeda regime is involved in systematic
kidnapping,
rape, forced marriage.
But I guess it's all okay when our
guys do those things, but we can claim
that's what's happening over there and not prove
it, and we'll kill people for that.
America first, he says. No. Israel instead.
Wake up.
Here's what John Bolton wants you to think
is happening. Just to show you the insanity
of what we're actually guiding, despite how he's
not in the administration, this is the same
mindset. It's the Israel, neocon,
globalist mindset.
Well, The United States and Israel have knocked
out so many people at the top working
their way down the list as it were.
Is there not a danger that eventually there'll
have to be talks with somebody, but there
won't be anybody with any authority
left in Tehran,
and they may be more extreme than the
people at the top. In other words, who
who who in the end is Donald Trump
gonna talk to?
Well, I think,
the the way the regime will collapse is
that the disagreements,
among whoever
remains in the leadership will spread and and
And what he means by that, by the
way, is that's what they're aggressively
trying to create.
Right? They're, like, they're try like, reality has
been over the years, they're they clearly are
in a in a unit against what they're
trying to do. But what they're like, they
tried doing Venezuela last time and failed and,
I guess, in some way, it succeeded
in kidnapping Maduro. But he what he I
think he's arguing, my opinion, is that they're
in there with their intelligence, their their cloak
and dagger manipulations,
trying to create divisions. And and, you know,
in fact, they probably have other assets in
there. They're using them to create little false
flag, whatever.
So what he's really saying is we are
destabilizing the country. We're gonna cause rifts amongst
them. And then once we do that, we'll
as he's gonna tell you, we'll put people
we want in there.
Hashtag democracy.
They will just collapse because so many of
them will say this ship is going down,
and we don't wanna go down with it.
I think
One more thing. Because that's how they are.
That they are so so driven by their
own opportunism and profiteering that they recognize that,
okay. Well, I I'm principles be damned. Right?
Constitution America for who cares? I'm gonna make
sure I get mine. That's how these people
are.
And in fact, that's how they always have
been. They don't care about any of the
things they want you to think about. In
my opinion, they scream what they that you
want to hear. I hope I mean, right
now, the MAGA movement is coming to terms
with that. But think about what he's saying
and what they're
actually doing. We're making a mistake, though, and
not working more with the opposition, providing them
with resources,
assistance.
They are. Weapons. Weapons if they wanted. They
are. And to help them break away chunks
of the regime in, for example, the regular
army. Not And What do you think happens
to the Iranian people during all of this?
Especially since you guys are targeting their civilian
locations.
Let's be clear. These are not some casuals,
like, they are hiding in the school or
the bomb hit there and fell off and
it's just part of war. No. They're bombing
schools, hospitals,
like every other war Israel's ever been involved
in. And you can listen to the experts
across the board, even the everyone will tell
you that because it's happened every single time.
Every single time. The Daha'i doctrine, mowing the
lawn, is their actual policy, and that means
kill everything.
They'll They'll tell you that if you look
into their own policy.
The revolutionary guard, but the conventional military
that might come over to the opposition because
they know what bad shape the country is
in. And it would be the And that's
probably them hoping that by saying this on
a show, they might hear it and convince
them that's actually what's happening. It's pretty clear.
I think that's not the reality. The regular
army that could, restore order and the you
know, coming out of this, you wouldn't have
Jeffersonian Democrats running the country. You'd have a
military government,
which hopefully would have the sense to allow
the people of Iran space to figure out
what Sure. Why not? Let's just install a
military junta and just cross our fingers and
just hope it works out.
You literally hear what he just said? I
mean, you understand. This is such an irrationally
violence driven. He this is guy who this
is like Lindsey Graham in Cuba. He's been
drooling over Iran being toppled his entire career,
probably driven by lobbying and whoever else is
influencing him. But at the end of the
day, it doesn't matter as long as we
get that guy out of there. Now you
may even think he truly believes they're just
that dangerous, so it's worth the it's it
was worth it, as Badeline Cain said. Well,
it was just worth 500,000
children because they were so bad. Well, look
at what happened.
Clearly, that's not the reality. He was not
as bad as they claimed. He wasn't a
good guy. But the reality was they created
this situation to drive in what they wanted.
And then the second they got what they
wanted, they cut and run. They leave it.
Libya, Iraq, Syria, who cares?
And this is where we are again. Military
and what he mentioned there is true. Their
own assessment told them if they took Comenity
out, they're probably gonna get someone worse. Whether
sure or not, the point is they didn't
care. And Trump lied about all of it.
Or even worse, he was lied to, and
he's too dumb to know he's being manipulated.
It's pretty alarming.
Here
in congress,
now we're gonna get into the next part
of this conversation and get into Joe Kent
and some other things,
but this connects to what we're just saying.
This we're gonna get to the Iran side
of this, which is obviously still very relevant
to the larger point of why we just
discussed that. As Patriotic Blonde points out, the
Colorado senator Michael Brennan point asked who you
warned Trump that if Israel assassinated the supreme
leader, that we'd somebody worse would be in
the position. The way he responds is very
telling. Now we already covered this. This is
very provably a c the CIA represent or,
assessment
was very clear. And, by the way, it's
not a new one, but that's I've seen
that more than once. And so for him
to answer this way, like I said earlier,
I'm not familiar with that document. You know
what they're doing.
It's an effort to not contradict what Trump
is saying.
I know, senator. I know, director Radcliffe, that
I am that you warned president Trump that
if that if Israel assassinated the supreme leader,
the RRGC
would replace him with with potentially a harder
line puppet. In fact By the way, few
points I wanna make, but that Israel would?
So you meet so here's what's interesting to
me. This is a little slipper, rather, inside.
You realize this is well before the actions
were taking place because the assessment came out
before he took out Khamenei
or Israel did. So you understand what he
just said there is that, right, the intelligence
community,
well aware that Israel was probably gonna bomb
Iran, was telling Trump, well, if they do
that, they're gonna get somewhat worse.
And then what did you hear from Rubio?
Well, we knew it was gonna bomb, so
we had to bomb first because they were
gonna bomb it. And then Trump even came
to that point at the end even though
he lied about it first. We had to
because, you know, Israel
Well, as always, that proves it's not an
imminent threat, so they're trapped by that logic.
And clearly, if there's any legal reality here,
they'll go to jail for that, probably not
based on how broken this all is. But
that they knew that Israel would do that.
All I'm showing here is the timeline that
this was
weeks likely before they got here, and they
were already trying to if Israel's gonna do
this because Israel has always been driving this.
Now, to play it from the beginning, he
calls it a puppet.
I'm not even sure how to take this,
whether he's just he's framing it because he
heard it. But realize what he's saying right
there.
That there'll be a new puppet in Iran?
What does that even mean? Who's the puppet?
Aren't we being told Iran is the puppeteer?
That Iran is the one manipulating proxies in
other countries? So So if what he's saying
is there'll be a new person in the
position that's a puppet,
who exactly is the puppeteer?
I know, senator. I know, director Radcliffe, that
I am that you warned president Trump that
if that if Israel assassinated the supreme leader,
the RRGC
would replace him with with potentially a harder
line puppet. In fact Harder line puppet.
Now what the assessment said was a harder
line leader, like a hard, someone from the
harder, more extreme part of their government.
But a puppet
In fact, I think what was clear is
that the likelihood was that it would be
a hard line puppet. Do you disagree with
that characterization of the intelligence?
To that specific question,
what we knew was,
first of all, I guess I have to
address upfront,
so much of what you related in there,
the difference between political rhetoric versus Not political
rhetoric. I'm quoting the president of The United
States. Political
What do you mean political rhetoric? It's a
it's a, quote, publicly discussed assessment that your
department put forward. I mean, I it's it's
crazy to me that the you do it's
same thing we're gonna get into a Gabbard
in a second, where they're just unwit they
do they were, you know you know why?
Because Trump is watching,
and he will punish you for challenging what
he said. You all know that. I mean,
it's it's crazy. Anybody even tries to pretend
it's not what we're all watching.
But a puppet. Great. What does he mean?
Right?
I mean, you could just I I'm I'm
almost I I don't even see how that
perfectly fits in. It's interesting to me. But
you could argue they may believe that they
already have control.
Right? That maybe the person they have in
place or maybe they knew that when they
killed them, or maybe they thought when they
killed them that one of the people they
already controlled would be in place, but they
might be extreme,
sort of like the ones they work with
in Al Qaeda, right? It's interesting to think
about. I don't think that's what's happening. Just
I just the only way I could think
that makes or he just said it because
that's what the terms they're mixing up. I
don't even know. But it's worth remembering if
this becomes relevant down the line. The a
harder line puppet, because that would suggest that
The US, Israel, or some other force is
puppeteering them. It's not Hamas, Houthis, Hezbollah,
ISIL Qaeda because they're telling you Iran is
the one funding and manipulating those groups.
Yeah. Maybe it's meaningless. Maybe you've misspoke.
Something tells me that there's more to that.
Then, of course, Ratcliffe just going, oh, whatever.
I don't know. That's that's political rhetoric that
we told you that that would happen.
Now
the point is that Kent, Joe Kent, and
others,
whatever you think about Joe is relevant to
the point, in fact, that he came out
for whatever reason and told you what we
all know, that this was not imminent.
Now, maybe he supports bombing Iran, which this
what you're getting from the partisan media is
the usual flailing. Like, instead of addressing the
point, it's about attacking the person and, oh,
yeah, well, here's what he did when he
was 17. What a monster. It's like,
maybe. What does that have to do with
what he just said? It's always how this
works. And so, right now you're getting a
lot of things, some of them which are
relevant to, like, the larger picture,
but you're getting a lot of attacks about
who he is and what he said before.
You know? And, really, the ones that are
might be relevant are things he said about
Iran before. But how does it in any
way change? Like like you guys all tell
me, what if he just changed his mind?
That's also possible. To me, it's about the
sentiment and the fact that he resigned in
order to say it, and that you know
it, and that I can literally prove that
it's true. That's what matters to me. The
rest of it might be relevant down the
line if he ends up being a larger
point in all this, but he's resigned. So
what I wanna get into here is put
the claim and then what we hear from
Gabbard, and the idea that this was undeniably
an illegally
started war, and that's like we already showed
you because Israel's been gunning for this and
Trump was their opportunity.
That's why Lebanon was brought into it with
no justification and just because they're taking advantage
of the situation.
Top counterterrorism official Kent resigns over Trump Iran
war. We'll get into what Trump said about
him, which is just kind of crazy. That
before, he was always a great guy, super
smart. And then because he challenges you, like
I was just saying about what Gabbard and
them know,
he won a loser. He was the worst
guy. He was really bad on this stuff,
which everyone points out. Then why did you
put him there?
Or, mister Trump, as we all know, is
it just because he challenged you and now
you call him a loser? Because you're a
child, apparently.
But it says, Joe Kent, the director of
National Counterterrorism
Center, announced his resignation on Tuesday, citing his
concerns about the justification for the military strikes
in Iran. You see,
different than saying
not terrorism or saying we shouldn't bomb them
or shouldn't take them out or should it's
simply saying because you can look into his
opinions. He seems to be pretty gung ho
about going after terrorism,
that he's simply pointing out that the way
we did it was illegal.
See, we can disagree. Maybe people out there
genuinely think Iranian Iran's government should be taken
out, but want it to be done through
congress, wanna get a a declaration and do
it the right way. What's that's the way
it should be done.
So think about that. But it says
saying that he cannot, in good conscience, back
the Trump administration's war. He's he's somebody on
their team. Understand? Iran posed no imminent threat
to our nation. Simply true. Verifiably so. And
it is clear that we started this war
due to pressure from Israel. This is what's
bothering everybody. Now here, again,
is where I think the true point is.
The Charlie Kirk point, if you will. What
we're dealing with in this country is, even
within the team sport partisanship,
the growing awareness that ruins it all,
that Israel is the one driving the policy.
And so you get people like this who
are,
you could argue for sake of conversation, are
just diehard
team sport Republicans who wanna take out every
terrorist. They don't care about the law. You
know, whatever. Deporting everybody we don't like. But
if they feel that Israel is the one
doing it to the detriment of Americans, that
we can't allow that because that's not America
first.
Very interesting to think about. Now, that's one
way to look at it. You could there's
a thousand ways you could frame this. But
in my point, I think, is that he
says, can't in good conscience support this? Not
that he doesn't support Trump's agendas.
It says, again, no threat. Iran posed no
threat to the nation. And it is clear
that we started this war due to pressure
from Israel and its powerful American lobby.
This is exactly what happened. So everyone spinning
out about this makes the point even more
clear. Here's what he posted with his, you
know, his,
document statement. After much reflection, I've decided to
resign from my position as this that director
of national counterterrorism
center. I cannot in good conscience support the
ongoing war in Iran. Iran posed no imminent
threat to our nation, and it's clear, same
thing, because of Israel.
And then here's what Derek said, and I
appreciate this. He says, good.
Now the one thing you got wrong is
that Trump was never a peace candidate, which
he says here. And this is my point
from before about what happened, how it suddenly
changed. Well, as Derek and I and the
rest of us in the IMA have been
saying from well before 2024,
that was never the case.
They lied. It was propaganda.
Same thing. And he says,
he dropped more bombs than Obama in his
first year in office. True. He dropped the
the largest non nuclear bomb in Afghanistan, and
he didn't even order it as we can
prove. He bombed Syria's Syrian based on a
false flag. Easily identifiable.
He helped Saudi Arabia starve Yemen, still to
this very day, by the way. Not to
mention Maduro bombing of boats, giving more money
to Ukraine and and to and to, and
to Israel to kill Gazans.
But, yes, good on you for this move.
We both agree with that, but it's worth
pointing out that these things are it's this
weird wishy washy partisan game. That's kinda why
I framed it like that. He may believe
all of that, but still has the integrity
enough to acknowledge that what they did with
Iran was illegal.
I'm surprised that's not for some people, it
seems like that point just doesn't connect.
I don't know why. I mean, I I
guess I would argue because you're in that
middle ground that doesn't really have anything you
truly care about. It's a team thing. Because
in in the point, you either care about
the principle or you don't. I think that's
that's probably most people.
Here's what Trump said. Actually, here's the I
forgot to grab this one too.
Let me play this one. This is what
Trump said in 2022,
and I'll play the one he said recently.
Trump on Joe Kent in 2022.
But,
I'd like to introduce Joe to say a
few words. A very incredible guy and with
a tremendous future, in my opinion.
Right now, he's only thinking about Congress,
and maybe he'll be there for a number
of years. And we don't know what's gonna
happen, but I think this man has a
tremendous future, very special
person. Thank you very much. Come on over,
Joe.
Well, thank you so much, mister president. Thank
you so much, Don Junior and Kimberly, and
thank all of you for being out here.
This is absolutely amazing.
Funny how that works out. Right?
How often you can have these people who
are the best ever, who suddenly are the
worst ever the moment they just disagree mildly
with Trump.
Again, guys, it takes it's a special kind
of juvenile person that can't acknowledge
how obvious all this is.
So okay. But you could also make the
same argument that he lied about him right
there because he was on his side. It's
the same point whichever way you look at
it. You can't you know, you it's not
like he just suddenly changed everything he was.
He just disagreed with Trump. And in fact,
he's pointing out the one thing you're not
supposed to point out.
I think that's the whole point. Now here's
what he says today.
It's a good thing that he's out because
he said that Iran was not a threat.
Iran would No. He said not an imminent
threat, Trump, as you damn well know. Is
a threat. Every country realized what a threat
Iran was. The question is whether or not
they wanted to do something about it. Oh,
yeah. So you just so imminent, though, is
the difference. Not just the threat. The missiles
are threats. Everyone's got missiles. You're all threats.
All we really just did right there is
double is is in confirm that there wasn't
an imminent threat. That's the only point.
And on top of that, though, Iran said
very clearly, and we'll get two more examples
in a second, that they had no intention
of bombing. And, in fact, even warned them
what they would do if they attacked first.
All on the record, by the way. They
Trump just doesn't think you're smart enough to
look into any of this stuff.
And many people, many of the greatest military
scholars are saying for years that Name one,
Trump. Name one of these military scholars that
are agreeing with you. They don't exist. It's
not true. It's just ridiculous how we can't
all be honest about that. He just, you
know, casually lists off things that are all
that support what he wants you to think
is happening.
President should have taken out Iran because they
wanted a nuclear weapon. Nope. Not true. Not
by any sense of anybody's information other than
what Israel tells Trump, literally.
They were, if we didn't do the attack
or if I'll go a step further. If
I didn't terminate the Iran nuclear deal, give
it to us, one of the worst deals
ever made Back now. By Barack Hussein and
Obama. Remember when they sent Boeing seven fifty
sevens over there? Loaded with cash. Yeah. Their
cash. The cash you see is from them
illegally. Yeah. Very simple. Easy to look up.
Hundreds of millions of dollars. You would have
been very happy. This was a wonderful
they said hundreds of million people forget that.
Does anybody remember? Yeah. We all do, Trump.
And it wasn't it was you go lie
about it over and over. Now you can
argue that they shouldn't be allowed to have
their money because they're terrorists, but that's also
kinda silly. It's their money you stole and
returned
for whatever reason. That that's the reality. And
on top of the fact that they've never
done what you're saying, not once.
Right? You remember
hundreds of millions of dollars in a Yeah.
Right? Rob, you were there. You remember out
there, buddy. Is there even somebody sitting right
there? Probably not. That's that's how dumb this
is. Boeing seven fifty seven. I think that
two of them loaded. They took the seats
out, and they put cash. What's funny is
maybe, like, it doesn't that just there these
are unnecessary points added. But how much you
wanna bet that's probably not even true? I'm
just kinda joking right now, but, you know,
he just does this. Maybe even two. Maybe
it was 75 planes. I'm not sure. Maybe
they took all the seats, they turned them
into tanks. You know, just he does this
every time and half of it turns out
to just be casual lies. I I don't
even understand why you would do that. Why
would you lie about things? I'm not even
saying I know this one is, but we
know he's done this. Why do you lie
about unnecessary things? I don't even understand that.
And it was so much that there wasn't
a bank in Virginia, Maryland, or DC
that had any money left. They stripped him
of all Now realize where this started, and
this is all he does.
What does any of this have to do
with the point?
Iran was not a threat.
Joe can't. Iran's a threat. So suddenly being
told that you gave them money that Obama
so the point turns into Obama sucks, and
that's supposed to somehow make us think that
they were a threat? Why would that make
that happen? Why? This is just him reeling.
He's suddenly gonna start telling you why he
stole the election and why why Obama's gonna
go to jail. It's just the same old
rhetoric.
Iran was it took the seats out
almost as ransom.
That's not gonna happen with Trump. And nobody
ever did anything about nobody ever said anything
of yeah. You mean, literally, everybody talks about
it forever, though. I guess you forgot that.
Can you imagine if I did that?
So they've been a threat for a long
time. See how that worked out? So funny
how you just totally didn't make any argument
at all that was about a threat. You
just rambled on about Obama giving money and
how that was there or how they, you
know, gave them money and the seats were
out too plain. Yeah. See? A threat. I
told you.
Why don't people laugh at this person? But
they've really been a threat. If if I
didn't terminate Obama's
horrible deal that he made, the Iran nuclear
deal, you would have had a nuclear war
Incorrect.
Four years ago. Nope. You would have had
you would have had nuclear holocaust. Incorrect. And
you would have had it again if we
didn't bomb the site. Oh, apparently, again. Right?
So you nuclear holocaust, and we all die,
and then it second happens again, and we
all die a second time. Does that make
sense? So when
somebody is working with us that says they
didn't think Iran was a threat,
we don't want those people. Yeah. You don't
want people who have opinions. Right? You want
people who completely follow whatever you tell them
to do because that's what intelligent people do.
Right? That's what but when Trump told you
before, right, when Trump has said, Look, I'm
gonna bring in the best people around me
because I don't know everything. I don't have
all the opinions. I'm gonna bring in the
smart people to tell me. And then he
goes, You don't agree with me? Get out
of my administration. Because that makes sense. Right?
The best people to tell me the things
that I don't like, so I fire them?
An honest person can see this hypocrite,
can see I mean, right now, a lot
of people are pointing to him saying, It's
just one example how your energy bills will
be 50% less by my presidency.
Not true. Didn't happen. Now, you could argue
you tried and failed. But the point is
every one of these things, and you get
the same Bennet JohnsonJones types out there just
lying through their teeth about how it's all
gonna come through. Maybe. I disagree.
But all you're getting right here is the
reality.
There's the
flagrant hypocrisy.
Where is it? Where where here? This one.
And there are some people, I guess, that
would say that, but they're not smart because
they didn't think Iran was a threat.
We don't want people. We don't want those
people. So you mean you don't want people
who have opinions that disagree with you?
So that means you want people who aren't
the best people in the conversation. You want
people who are on your side. That's called
team sport politics. It's exactly why this administration
is barely keeping its head above water.
Because and there are some people, I guess,
that would say that, but they're not smart
people or they're not savvy people. Oh, right.
Right. You're not smart or savvy if you
say that the Iran cover wasn't you know,
if you say the provable reality, if you
say what
Tulsi Gabbard told us, if you say what
the IAEA told us, if you say what
Rubio and you both basically said without saying
it, then you're a stupid person that's not
savvy. It's like when he told you, if
you think that shutting down the Internet's a
free speech issue, then you're a dumb person.
Well, it is, and it's actually completely free
speech, so we're, guess, we're dumb for being
correct. Or if you say, burning the flag
is un is, is constitutionally loud, then you're
a
stupid person, as he literally said, even though
that's the truth. I I mean, I don't
know how many times we can look at
something like that and walk away going, oh,
he's just he's just speaking off the cuff
or whatever. No. He's just being stupid or
dishonest or manipulated.
And And if you think it's about Trump
alone, you're not paying attention. Biden is frankly
worse in many ways. Obama, Bush, it's just
an extension of the same game.
So, Scott Horton points out well, first, actually,
Josh Gottheimer says, Joe Kent resigning and immediately
pivoting to blame Israel
for everything is as predictable as it is
on Sirius.
Oh, really? You know? And understand this is
being presented with no evidence to counter the
point.
Everything we covered today shows you unequivocally
always that Israel is playing a part in
this. That that's exactly the case. What he
just told you, what Rubio told you, what
Trump told you is that Israel was the
reason that this had to happen. That's exactly
what they said. And so Joe Kent comes
out and says Israel drove this into reality,
and now he's racist for saying what Trump
said?
This is counterintuitive.
It's cons it's, as I said, schizophrenic.
This is why certain people just kinda they
act like they don't maybe I still understand.
Paul, it's just too complicated. I'm just gonna
listen to the people that I like. What
did he say? Okay. That's what I'm gonna
agree with. They do that on purpose. You're
smarter than they let you than they want
you to think. This is not some kind
of deep inside understanding. He's just wrong. He's
just lying because probably paid through lobbying for
a lot of reasons to lie about any
number of things, pharmaceuticals,
Israel. You know, that's what they do. They
are sellouts.
Either way, the point is he's wrong. Scapegoating
Israel isn't just tired anti Semitic trope, and
there it is. It's an it's anti American
to point out that Israel manipulated Trump.
These guys if you don't see by now
these people are this is not my mind's
stupidity. This is blatant
covering for everything we're talking about.
Why do you think that exists?
It says, this guy has ties with white
supremacists and has pants okay. Here we go.
Let's just go ahead and say it's true.
I haven't even looked into it. Why does
that even matter
in regard to his claim?
Are you oh, I get it because he's
he's a white supremacist, therefore, he hates Jews,
except for the fact that those literally overlap
in the larger conversation today. That you can
show more supremacist,
extremist perspectives from Zionism and in Israel than
pressed about anything we're talking about. And also
show that they provably connect with, fund, work
with the extremist Nazi white supremacist units in
this country that are elements of the Azov
movement and literally fund them in I mean,
here.
Just just for the one example since people
always will wanna ignore these things.
This is Haaretz, yet again.
This one's 2018.
Rights groups demand Israel stop arming neo Nazis
in Ukraine. If that suddenly makes no sense
to you, it's because you don't understand the
situation, and it's very surface level if you
care to look. And the reality was the
Azov movement.
These are Nazis, neo Nazis, extremists, the very
thing they claim they're fighting. And they're funding
them because that's what's going on, guys. That's
the whole conversation. Patriot front, the whole thing.
That doesn't mean that there's no realist, like,
genuine organic
extremists, but it's that they've used them our
entire lives. So his point is, well, because
he has ties to something they claim is
and, you know, look, look into it. If
you care to look into it. I don't
think it even has relevance to the point
of whether this was an imminent threat. But
if you want to, maybe I'd look into
it, and may you'll probably find out it's
less definitive as they want to make out.
But either way,
you're talking about that that makes him somehow
anti Israel, which doesn't really make sense when
you understand Zionism.
Kent's reduction of Iran to Israel's fault isn't
leadership. It's big in a deflection. Well, guess
what? He's resigned, so he's not even in
the government anymore, man. You guys are spinning
out because this is the truth. And it's
not about racism or Judaism. It's about the
fact that we already know Israel drove this
because you guys literally told us that.
I mean, this is just embarrassing, isn't it?
But people like Josh don't care. They're gonna
make themselves look that stupid to defend Zionism,
which they'll turn into me being racist even
though it's literally not even talking about. I've
made that explicitly clear. But here's an even
better response.
Mike says, Iran is the greatest state sponsor
of terrorism in the world.
Wow. That's that's compelling. Right? Very very fact
based oriented.
You this this is just this is like
Hamas is ISIS, ISIS, ISIS, Hamas. It's the
same kind of dumb thing. It's not true.
We literally just showed you that. On top
of that, even if you wanna argue they're
funded by Iran,
look at what they're doing in the world.
Israel, The United States, they're funding groups' extremism
all over the world.
And then you could prove that's not even
what Iran is doing. So this is just
lazy. Maybe he believes it. Maybe he doesn't.
I don't know. Let's see. What what is
he? A 180,000.
Sits in tanks and thinks. Yeah. Very smart.
So, here's what Tulsi Gabbard had to say.
And this gets into the same point of
the conversation.
I find this to be very important because
this is new.
So, we played the old one. In fact,
I'll just bring up the
the Newsweek article because I played the clip
many times,
where Gabbard, on the record, in 2025,
said they are not building a nuclear weapon.
I have the I the IAEA post from
2025 that says the same, that proves to
you that the 60% that Witkoff mentioned was
within their safeguard agreement. I'll even go over
the JCPOA point that I referenced. And in
fact, that was correct about it being 36,
by the way. I was proud of that.
It is all there. And they knew it.
They weren't breaking the rules right up into
this very moment.
Despite what they all lied about, which has
to show you that they have to lie
about it, then they must know that it's
not happening. So, here's Gabbard coming back.
Okay? This is 03/01/2026.
And you can't I mean, guys, I find
this to be almost unequivocal. The way that
she responds and the way that she refuses
to when it matters.
Doctor. Gabbard, I'd like to reground this in
your core responsibilities.
Under the law, you are responsible for providing
national intelligence to the president. Correct?
Yes. And to the heads of executive branch
departments and agencies. Yes? Yes. And to the
chairman of the joint chiefs and senior military
commanders?
Across the ICE. Yes. And to the senate
and the house and relevant committees. Correct? Yes.
And the law states that the national intelligence
you provide to congress, quote,
should be timely, objective, and independent of political
considerations. Correct? Yes.
And you noted in your opening statement you're
here fulfilling a statutory responsibility and that your
testimony, quote,
represents the IC's assessment of threats. Correct?
And that opening statement as submitted to the
committee in advance of this hearing stated that
as a result of last summer's air strikes,
quote,
Iran's nuclear enrichment program was obliterated, end quote.
Correct? That's right.
And is that in fact the assessment of
the intelligence community? Yes. So the assessment of
the intelligence community is that Iran's nuclear enrichment
program was obliterated by last summer's air strikes?
Yes.
In the opening statement you submitted to the
committee last night also stated, quote, there has
been no effort since then
to try to rebuild their enrichment capability, end
quote. Correct? That's right. And that's the assessment
of the intelligence community. Yes.
The White House.
Now that one's important as I've been telling
you. But it was also widely reported,
at least by people that cared about the
facts, which were that the ones
the whole argument being obliterated was not factually
correct because it wasn't entirely obliterated. But what
they did was take out the enrichment facility.
That's been proven that the IAEA,
IAEA,
everybody involved,
Which, by the way, means, as I've told
you, that even if they were doing what
they're claiming, they would not have the facility,
or rather if they were wanted to do
what they were claiming, they wouldn't have the
facility needed to actually do the enrichment. Let
alone, as I'll play Scott Horton in a
minute of something he said back in 2025,
which is well said, that there's many as
I've been telling you as well, there's many
other steps involved. They're all just trying to
play on people on the act the lack
the the point that most people don't understand
these things by design because they're not they're
not things that most people need to understand.
But so what the the the point here
is is he was saying Try to rebuild
their enrichment capability, end quote. Correct? That's right.
Or I went one more far. There we
go. In the opening statement you submitted to
the committee last night also stated, quote, there
has been no effort since then
to try to rebuild their enrichment capability, end
quote. Correct? That's right. And so the point
is that clearly they didn't even try according
to The US intelligence assessment.
So we know they did it. They can't
build it again. They haven't even tried to
build it back. So there's no world in
which it's possible according to US intelligence that
they would even be close, let alone even
trying or trying, let alone being close to
what they're claiming.
That's the assessment of the intelligence community. Yes.
The White House stated on March 1 that
this war was launched
and was, quote, a military campaign to eliminate
the imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian
regime, end quote.
That's a statement from the White House. Quote,
the imminent nuclear threat
posed by the Iranian regime.
Was it the assessment of the intelligence community
that there was an imminent nuclear threat posed
by the Iranian regime?
The intelligence community assessed that Iran maintained the
intention
to rebuild and to continue to grow their
nuclear enrichment cap Was But I right there,
because I he rightly gets you know, tries
to make the point further. I think right
there alone was enough.
If you're telling me that they can maintain
the intention
to do so and you but you're also
just clearly acknowledging that you they there is
no enrichment facility, well, then, by definition, there
is no imminent threat.
Nuclear imminent threat. And, also, you can prove
there was no imminent threat in general because
nothing was happening. But there was provably based
on those statements and shaping the representation of
the entire intelligence community,
no nuclear imminent threat like Trump like he
just read and they said. That's
easy. But it gets it gets more clear.
It gets clearer the way that she continues.
The intelligence community assessed that Iran maintained the
intention
to rebuild and to continue to grow their
nuclear enrichment cap Which every country in the
world has the right to do, by the
way. Is it the assessment of the intelligence
community that there was a, quote, imminent nuclear
threat posed by the Iranian regime? Yes or
no? Senator, the only person who can determine
what is and is not an imminent threat
is the president. False. This is the worldwide
this is the worldwide threats hearing where you
present to congress national intelligence,
timely objective, and independent of political considerations.
You've stated today that the intelligence community's assessment
assessment is that Iran's nuclear enrichment program was
obliterated and that, quote, there had been no
efforts since then to try to rebuild their
enrichment capability. Was it the intelligence community's assessment,
that nevertheless, despite this obliteration,
that
nevertheless,
despite this obliteration,
there was a, quote, imminent nuclear threat posed
by the Iranian regime? Yes or no? It
is not the intelligence community's responsibility
to determine what is and is not an
imminent threat. Okay. That is a Here's here's
the problem. Volume. No. It is it is
precisely That he received. It is precise. Now
before I have to finish,
the point that they're losing people trying to
lose people in,
it's here's what important to understand this. The
one he's gonna make very clear right now
based on her own statements and quotes exactly.
Yes, it is the her responsibility to present
the threat assessment. That's literally the statement. That's
her that's the the the framing of the
of the hearing and exactly what her job
is. Now you could also say, though, it's
Donald Trump's position as the president to then
take that information and then decide if it's
imminent, but that's not what he's asking. But
that is a fair point to make. That
from Trump's perspective or any president, that it
is their prerogative to decide what that intelligence
means and how it should be carried out.
That is how that operates. That's not what
he's asking though. And she refuses to answer.
He's asking, is it your assessment from the
IC before? Yes. It's his prerogative. We get
that. But did you come to the conclusion
that it was an imminent threat? The answer's
no. Based on everything she said and the
facts that we have,
she refuses to say it.
You don't need to think hard to understand
what that means. It's pretty clear. I mean,
look. She he already stepped when she came
out and disagreed with him last time, he
literally threw under the bus and said, I
don't care what she thinks. Like, on the
record.
And then excluded her from many meetings including
Venezuela and others as the DNI. That's insane.
That's why she's playing ball,
I think, anyway. Need to determine what is
and is not an imminent threat. Okay. That
is up to the president's
not a volume No. It is it is
precisely that he received. It is precisely your
responsibility
to determine what constitutes a threat to The
United States. This is the worldwide threats hearing
where,
as you noted in your opening testimony,
quote,
you represent the IC's assessment of threats. I
mean, it's very simple. Right? So you represent
the assessment of the threat, but from the
IC's perspective, the intelligent community. That's it.
You are here to represent
the IC's assessment of threats. That's a quote
from your own opening statement.
And And so my question is, as you're
here to present the IC's assessment
of threats,
was it the assessment of the intelligence community
Very simple. That as the White House claimed
on March 1,
there was a, quote, imminent nuclear threat posed
by the Iranian regime. Yes or no? Once
again, senator, the intelligence community has,
provided the inputs that make up this annual
threat assessment. You want to answer? There. Exactly.
She's right there. She was refusing to say
it because that's what she just said. We
gave them the assessment, but you're refusing to
say what the assessment said. You're just letting
it drift with whatever Trump claims it looks
like, and we know they're being dishonest. But
either way, you could acknowledge what the assessment
was, but you know that it will contradict
what Trump is saying.
This is just politics, and it's bad. There's
there's people's lives on the line. American soldiers
are being killed. Iranian civilians are being killed.
And Israeli civilians, if they're if well, I
actually don't think actually, in the chat, let
me know. Last I checked, there was only
the one person who had been hurt, not
killed, but I forget if that went further.
But I again, I the whole point was
that Israel and The US are lying about
how many are being killed. But regardless, the
point is this is where these things lead
to civilians being killed.
And she's refusing
refusing.
The question. The nature of the imminent threat
that the president has to make that determination
based on a collection in volume You're here
to be timely intelligence that he is provided
with. You're here to be timely, objective, and
independent of political considerations. Exactly what I'm doing.
What I'm doing. You're here to
question because to provide a candid response to
the committee would contradict a
statement from the White House.
I'm checking this real quick just to see
so we can get some
general insight.
So it says generally about 14 to 20
have been killed.
But, again, you know, we should question all
of this, including what the what Iran claims
is being killed in Iran. Now we're gonna
get to a point in a second that
is gonna speak to more of why it
just in that general point, there's more skepticism
for me, and it's not because I don't
think Iran is not capable of doing that.
And we've talked about that already. We'll come
back in a second, though. So I think
this is really important.
Obviously, there was no imminent threat. By every
every piece of evidence that we have, And
she just refuses to say it, which shows
you where we really are right now. And
that she's probably even afraid to say that.
Now here,
Gabbard comes out because of that exchange and
says, well, I think so anyway. Donald Trump
was overwhelmingly elected by the American people to
be our president, commander in chief, as our
which, you know, this is
people disagree with that, but it's not even
relevant to me about whether or not they're
breaking the law. Right? And it says, as
our commander in chief, he is responsible for
determining what is and is not an imminent
threat. Well, yeah, that's not inaccurate.
But it says, and whether or not to
take action. Correct. As he deems necessary. Yeah.
I agree with that. The president but he's
still also responsible for the fallout, the outcome,
which he then shocks off people around him
as usual. The office of the director of
national intelligence is responsible for helping coordinate and
integrate all intelligence to provide the president and
commander in chief with the best information available
to inform his decisions. So are you actually
pretending right now, Gabbard, that you you break
you gave him a bunch of scattered data
points and he just sits down and puts
it all together for himself?
Like, he's even capable of that, quite frankly?
That's just bad.
That's what you have to do to make
these things make sense. We all know as
literally as he made just artfully pointed out
in the con in in that hearing right
there, that it's literally your job per the
hearing, per your job's description
to assess the threat and present your assessment
of the threat.
Exact not not give him the data points
that could be used to do that. I
I just am so embarrassed by where we
are right now. After carefully reviewing all information
before him, Trump concluded that's what she's trying
to pretend, that the the the the terrorist
regime in Iran, the very group that she
right before all this was telling you what
forever wars, no more invasion. The terrorist Islamist
regime. Are you serious?
Imposed an imminent threat, and he took action.
And as everyone wants to call him out.
Patrick Henningsen, no Tulsi. Iran's not a terrorist
state. You know?
Check back his work. He's he does good
work. Derek, another sellout. Of course, again, this
this should have been obvious for years now.
She's always been a war hawk when it
comes to radical Islam. All of the people
who fell for all of the people
you fell for as part of the Trump
coalition are sellouts. Gabbard, WEF, global leader, CFR,
correct, JFK Junior, Zionist, Cylenon, glyphosate, on and
on. When will people realize politics is a
rigged game and no one gets into the
system at a level without being controlled?
Here, as you heard a second ago, I'll
play just the short clip again, is what
Trump said about the deal. And I think
it's actually really important
because not only is this incredibly false, and
maybe he believes it, which is even more
alarming, but it just speaks to the
the the way that they're always gonna play
this to make it look like the group
the the group that's in fact not breaking
the law is the villain in the conversation.
If if I didn't terminate Obama's
horrible deal that he made, the Iran nuclear
deal, you would have had a nuclear war
four years ago.
You would have had you would have had
nuclear holocaust,
and you would have had it again if
we didn't bomb the site. You think you're
laughing at how dumb that is? Right? That's
like saying being you know? Anyway, I said
it before. That's just him. That's his off
the cuff, which speaks to intelligence in my
mind. When
somebody is working with us that says they
didn't think Iran was a threat,
we don't want those people because
So here's another way to look at this
too. So he stands up and goes, that's
an imminent threat. Now clearly, he did this
in these discussions. He didn't just jump out
and announce this. He clearly tried to bring
this to people's attention. And so the point
is, instead of having that conversate you know,
he he find he he just ignore it.
You don't want that. You push him out
because he disagrees, which is what we keep
seeing.
So what it shows you, again, is you're
not willing to consider other people's opinions. At
the very least, there was no opportunity to
actually have the conversation
of maybe why that's the case. I you
know, but you know my opinion. I'm just
trying to be objective. I think it's quite
obvious that there wasn't even an opening for
that.
This is Israel's war and Trump signed on
for it. There's really no other conversation. They've
been exposed for that kind of tunnel vision
mindset with everything they're doing.
So let's talk about this deal. As we
brought up a lot, we covered a lot
when that was in the midst of happening.
With most of these things, we were in
the weeds telling you, article 36, we can
prove right there that they're allowed to do
it. But that nowhere was in the main
conversation and barely in the main and to
even to this day, people still don't even
understand what these things mean.
And I said this what he just said
is utterly ridiculous. Seeing as how it was
the US government under Trump that violated the
agreement by unilaterally pulling out of the JCPOA,
the Iran deal, and thereby
legally allowing increased enrichment,
which the deal specifically outlined in the event
The US broke the deal. So let's talk
about
that. As I've shown you many, many, many
times, here is the, it's been a while
since I brought up the document, which is
what we do on this show. Source material,
the joint comprehensive plan of action, otherwise known
as the Iran deal.
I was actually surprised I got it right
because I keep I kept I kept going.
Well, I think 36. I think that's what
it was.
36 right here. And I actually haven't highlighted,
but I can read it right here. Okay.
So this is specifically under the dispute resolution
mechanism, which is exactly the point.
If Iran believed and, remember, this is signed
on to by the US government, by everybody
else involved as well, including Iran. If Iran
believed that any or all
of the e e three and e u
plus three, the different groups involved,
like US being one of them, if they
believe that they were not meeting their commitments
under the JCPOA,
Iran could prefer the issue to the joint
commission, which they did. All of this is
documented. They went to them and they said,
this is not you know, The US pulled
out. The US is sanctioning us again. All
of this was literally documented. It'll show you
in a second. So in the whole if
you read the the rest of this middle
part, it simply says, okay, if that if
that doesn't go anywhere, you know, the commission
has fifteen days to resolve it. If they
don't, you know, and it goes on like
that. And then it says, if if that
doesn't if the if it wasn't resolved,
then you after that, you have thirty days
processed to if the issue is not resolved,
and the commission would consider the opinion of
the advisory board for no more than five
days, like, it's a whole process. Right? To
cut to the chase, the simple reality is
it says,
if the issue still has not been resolved,
like, so after all the kind of engagement,
which by the way, again, is important to
hear. Iran did it all. Iran brought all
of this to the right people. And, you
know, and and to frame them as, like,
the evil terrorist trying to secret by. It's
just insane because you can see and that's
why nobody wanted to talk about it at
the time. Because they were the ones going
to the UN. They were the ones going
to these places, trying to get this conversation.
Look. Look. They're breaking the deal. And as
usual, the influence of Israel
made it so people ignored it. If the
issue after all of this stuff they did,
which they did, still has not been resolved,
to the satisfaction of the complaining participant, in
this case, Iran, because at this point, the
US had unilaterally pulled out and I'll show
you at the bottom. It was explicitly stated
that if they do that, they'll get they
can
go back on the agreement essentially within the
deal.
It says and if they have been resolved
and if the complaining party deems the issue
to constitute significant nonperformance,
which everyone else agreed with, by the way,
then
that participant could treat the unresolved issue as
grounds to cease performing its commitments under the
JCPOA,
which in this case was to not enrich
uranium
to rather to a certain degree. And it
says, or in whole in whole or in
part, and or notify the UN Security Council,
which it did, that it believed the issue
constitutes significant nonperformance.
Then lastly, and this is under 37. That
was all 36.
Article 37,
at the very end, it says and you
can read all of this if you want
to eat the the moment to moment specifics
of how it should go. Iran has stated,
and this is all agreed to by the
US government as well, if sanctions are reinstated,
which Trump did,
in whole or in part,
Iran will treat that as grounds to cease
performing its commitments
under this agreement
in whole or in part.
So the bottom line is not only did
Trump unilaterally pull out of the agreement, which
gave them the right, as they just stated,
to go back on those agreements, which, by
the way, they didn't just rush into making
it. They just slowly increased their enrichment to
make that point and use it as a
bartering tool to try for a long time
to force The US back into the agreement.
So understand, the only one violating the deal
that Trump was claiming Iran was breaking was
the US government
by everyone at court other than the US
government in Israel because their whole the point
was they're secretly making nuclear bombs. They weren't.
And even back then, if you remember, Trump
went from that to, well, ballistic missiles, the
same way he did this time because they're
just jumping from narrative to narrative. So the
bottom line is then they also sanctioned them,
and so they had provable examples from the
deal that allowed them to slowly increase enrichment.
Now, eventually, they it was so long past
where the deal just became defunct.
And now there's other agreements which will point
to in regard to the IAEA, which Iran
is still, to this point, adhering to.
It's just incredible that we have to point
this stuff out. All the dishonest people out
there, all the mainstream alternative liars and the
people that are just, you know, holy crap.
This is the greatest war ever because hashtag
freedom.
It's embarrassing.
Now you wanna hear someone who knows what
they're talking about? Here's Scott Horton, and he's
breaking down, you know, in a very good
kind of breakdown, adding things that I didn't
include that I've been telling you for years
that this is exactly the point.
Trust the Iranian regime
as far as you could throw them when
it comes to potentially creating a bomb.
It it by the way, even just starting
with that, like so Piers Morgan's sentiment is,
you know, why would you trust the further
you could throw them? Why? Like, do do
you have any engagement with the Iranian government,
Pierce, or are you just blindly taking what
the US government that lies our entire lives
says about the regime they wanna overthrow?
You know, that's Pierce for you. You know?
It's funny to me. It doesn't come down
to trust at all, and I'll beg the
rest of the panel's forgiveness. I'll try to
stay quiet later on in the hour here
and let y'all talk. But just real quick
so you understand, we had a deal in
2015
under which Iran exported every bit of their
enriched uranium
stockpile to France who would then turn it
into fuel rods and then ship it back
to Iran to use in their reactor.
They now the nuclear reactor produces plutonium waste,
but they don't have the facility required to
reprocess
plutonium,
to get all the impurities out to make
weapons fuel. So No, guys. That's a different
point than what we're currently talking about today,
which I argue still I believe still exists.
But the point was about the enrichment facility
that was been destroyed recently, which means they
can't enrich. What he's talking about is something
different, which shows you that even then, they
weren't able to do the very the the
way basically, to sum it up quickly, the
the way that they were framing it. That
in a week or a month, they'll have
a bomb. Like, he's proving, and it was
going too further, that that's not the reality.
Rather, he's stating that, and the point is
you can prove that. And it's clear that
the evidence was always there. And the UN
documents, I IAEA,
you know, it's people just choose to listen
to what Netanyahu said even though he's been
caught lying our entire lives.
Produces plutonium waste, but they don't have the
facility required to reprocess plutonium,
to get all the impurities out to make
weapons fuel. So they had no plutonium route
to the bomb. The Russians would come and
get the plutonium out of their reactor when
it was full in time every couple years
or whatever.
Now their uranium route to the bomb, because
they were exporting every bit of their enriched
uranium out of the country,
was they,
have this arbitrary,
timeline breakout period. They call it the breakout,
point that it would take them one year
if they decided to withdraw from the treaty,
kick the inspectors out of the country, and
begin to enrich weapons, raid uranium. It would
take them a year to have enough to
make one bomb with. Now the new report
that came out said that on top of
that, it'd take another couple of years to
have an actual warhead ready to do anything
with it. And I'm sorry this is complicated,
but I know people can follow on this
if you know anything about the history here.
The let me explain real quick now that
the the Nagasaki bomb was a implosion bomb,
a a plutonium implosion bomb,
which is the type of bomb that can
be miniaturized
and fit to a missile. But the the
Hiroshima bomb was a simple gun type nuke,
a uranium nuke, which is a humongous thing.
You Iran could never fit that on a
missile or deliver it to Israel or The
United States in a million years. And so
if they had a single gun type nuke
or two, it would essentially be to test
off a demonstration around in the desert to
show that they have one, but still would
not make them an offensive threat to anyone.
And as the CIA concluded in o seven,
they abandoned all research into a weapons program,
even bothering to look into it in o
three when America got rid of Saddam Hussein
for them. Now here's what's funny to me.
All of this is easily verifiable. What he
was just claiming that we're saying there before
was that the hypothetically first of all, they're
not doing it because the evidence shows that.
But hypothetically, he's saying,
should they have, you know, desire that they
would be in this position where the one
they would make would be so gigantic that
it wouldn't even be useful, and this the
the girl who's clearly the Israel supporter just
rolling her eyes and going, oh my god.
Like, you just said they have a bomb.
We don't care. But he didn't, though. His
point was they don't. We can prove that.
But even within the hypothetical, it wouldn't even
be possible as she rolls her eyes. You
know? It's just this game that anything any
possible thing because Iran's so evil bad guy
has to be taken out because they're so
evil. All that's based on claims that are
usually false by people who are actually committing
crimes in the world. And that's not to
say Iran has not, is not capable of.
I'm when I'm doing that, I'm only talking
about the allegations from Israel and United States.
It matters. And if you wanna look into
it, they've been lied about their our our
entire lives. But if you wanna get into
the reality of the government, yes, listen to
Iranian people. They've discussed the actions their government
had done, and there are things that you
can prove. But most of what you're hearing
from our governments have been completely manufactured.
And,
again, let's just even say you disagree with
that. You can stand back and look at
Syria
and Iraq
and Ukraine
and on and on and on and literally
prove that our governments created these these operations
to justify what they want.
It's not new, guys. It's been happening.
I mean, as long as I've been doing
this, this has been the reality.
It's always about creating the justification
to get what you want.
And so,
the fact that they've had now I'm sorry.
Get to the your your point. Donald Trump
left the treaty or the the agreement in
2018.
Now, Pierce, it's complicated, but according to the
agreement,
Iran is allowed to stop abiding by some
of the restrictions in it if America breaks
our side of the deal. They actually are
still within
the larger agreement even while ceasing to abide
by some parts of it. Yes. Exactly. And
see and that's hard for some people to
wrap their mind around, But it's exactly the
case. And I was yelling this and getting
people, you know, the same thing. People like
the girl, oh, you guys are so stupid.
That's just that doesn't even make sense. It
does, in fact. It's it's explicitly stated within
the agreement that they're allowed to do the
thing that you guys all point to as
a crime should Trump do what he did.
Like, if if you're gonna pretend that's not
the case, then explain why. If you did
did you know? Because all they do is
say, oh, well, Iran was doing was the
one breaking it first. That was their argument
at the time. Nobody presented evidence for that,
as usual.
Now that 60%
enriched uranium stockpile that they built up is
clearly, just as it was in the Obama
years, is clearly simply a card to play
in negotiations Right. To deal away. That uranium
is there to give up if they can
get America to back down and lift the
sanctions. That's Which, by the way, let's not
forget, was what the foreign minister of Oman
told us just happened, that Iran was agreeing
to hand over this, agreeing to hand over
the material to stop enriching entirely, and the
next day, Israel bombed them.
That's all on the record. All it is.
If they wanted to make weapons grade uranium,
they could have made weapons grade uranium. They
weren't doing that. They're getting closer because it's
a card to play in negotiations.
And now to your and one closer meaning
increased enrichment percentage, which as he already pointed
out, is one in step in many to
actually get to having a usual bomb, let
alone one that's small enough to put on
a ballistic missile. Last point, and then I
swear I'll stop, and you made this point.
Nothing changed.
Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence says
nothing changed. They did not break out toward
a nuclear weapon. There was no Casa Spelling
here. Even if you accepted the premise, then
you there's no, like, justification for start the
war. You could launch a preemptive war to
prevent them from getting a nuke, which is
a whole other argument. But even if you
accept that premise, nothing had changed in Iran
other than the the timeline the arbitrary timeline
of Trump's demand had expired, and you hear
Trump and the rest of the hawks trying
to conflate having a nuclear program at all
with being on the verge of achieving a
nuclear weapons capability. And this is what George
w Bush called shorthanding it. In other words,
they just imply a bunch of lies because
they can't explain what they mean. And realize
this is around the time of, like, a
twelve day war point, which is, you know,
a precursor to where we are now.
So, again, I've brought this up many times.
I still think it's very relevant. This is
from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the director
general, and cites the 60% claim that Witkoff
used to lie to you. Still, it's amazing
to me how I can point this out,
and I've I haven't seen this in literally
any other show. Not mainstream, not mainstream alternative,
not all the big time media, but imagine
that. Why? Because Witkoff is not supposed to
be countered, I guess. The point is, it
says I and this is the director general.
As stated in my most recent report
to the to the agency's board of the
IAEA,
Iran's uranium stockpiles remain under safeguards in accordance
with their deals, with their safeguard agreement,
and then says that the 400 plus, that's
$6.04 65, Whitkopf was mentioning, in the stockpile
is enriched to 60.
And that is within the safeguard agreement. It's
very simple. And as well as always at
the end, it says they can guarantee through
their watertight inspections that Iran is not and
will not make a nuclear bomb.
Things like this matter, don't they?
Now, Mario Nafal comes in and says, what
the hell? And this is Tulsi Gabbard simply
saying
that Russia I think let me see if
I have it. Yeah. I do. Here's this
clip. Just very quickly.
However, the intelligence community assesses that Russia, China,
North Korea, Iran, and Pakistan have been researching
and developing an array of novel,
advanced, or traditional missile delivery systems. Missile delivery
systems.
With nuclear and conventional payloads that Okay. So
just so it's clear, that doesn't mean nuclear
bombs. It could. What it means is technology
that could deliver a nuclear payload on a
ballistic missile. That's what they're claiming Iran. That's
what all of them are doing.
It's not a crime, by the way, to
have any well, there are
conversations to be had about their their ballistic
the intercontinental ballistic missile agreements, but none of
them follow it. As far as I can
tell, The US is they lie about it.
So at the end of the day, the
point is that every government has the right
to have their own missiles and defense and
so on. So what I'm pointing out here
is first that she says this, right, that
they have them. Pakistan have been researching and
developing an array of novel,
advanced, or traditional missile delivery systems
with nuclear and conventional payloads that put our
homeland within range. Okay.
And why is that
a big deal?
No. Because these are bad guys, and they're
aiming at okay. Well, here's the important part.
As Mario goes, what the hell is going
on? Why didn't she just say well, guess
what? This has been basic fundamental information that
I've known my entire life. Or, you know,
whatever. Like, you like, the I is anybody
confused about Russia having new ballistic missiles and
nuclear capability or China or North Korea. Iran
is incorrect since the information we just showed
you is not even remotely the case. But,
of course in fact, let me let me
did did she say that one?
And Pakistan have been researching.
So, again, the point is that's why I
made that clear.
All she's saying is they're researching
the types of ballistic missiles that can carry
war like,
new like warheads, one of which will be
nuclear. That's the technology we're talking about. If
you look into it, it's not unique to
what at the end of the day, all
she really said is stuff that's publicly available
that is not a crime. And she kind
of folds in Iran in there, and that's
the statement that was later used to claim
that. But then you saw the what followed.
You saw the engagement where it was very
clear that the assessment they knew was that
they did not.
My point, though, what the hell is going
on? Why does that they can hit The
US becoming a threat?
Like, are you serious? Is this guy an
actual like, the new media that we're now
clutching our pearls at something that everybody knows,
that these people have missiles and stuff? Is
it just now a big dangerous deal to
point out that they have them because Tulsi
said so out loud? She's just reading a
basic statement of understanding, but according to the
new media, it's a bombshell.
Or because they want you to freak out
about it, I don't know, or they wanna
bury Iran in the middle of it so
it slips in and it's a lie? Probably
that one.
Either way, I'm just so exhausted with the
ridiculous new media.
So
here's Caroline Leavitt.
In response to Joe Joe Kent coming out
and saying there was no imminent threat,
Here's what she wrote. There are many false
claims in this letter, but let me address
one specifically,
that Iran posed no imminent threat, which was
the only one that matters seeing as how
it's the only thing you were saying to
keep you out of jail if there's any
actual accountability, which it probably won't be. But
if it wasn't imminent threat, this was an
illegal war, which, by the way, every good
president in my life has done. But they
should all go to jail if we have
anything that means anything. This is the same
false claim that Democrats and some of the
liberal media have been repeating over and over.
False claim? I mean, we just went through
this, but what's maybe just so embarrassing.
Trump said you attacked first. You said he
had a feeling.
Literally, he had the feel they thought they
would respond. That's in no stretch of the
imagination imminent anything. And then we know they've
been stretching it to be like, Well, they're
working on nuclear stuff eventually, so maybe, or
forty seven years of imminent threat. This is
just desperate.
And, of course, they shove her out there
to look stupid because they don't wanna do
it. As president Trump has clearly and explicitly
stated yeah. Clearly. He has strong and compelling
evidence that you guys don't wanna show us,
though. Right?
Just back there. Trust me. This evidence was
compiled from many sources. Oh, you mean the
DNI report we just talked about where she
just told you that that's not the case,
but Trump decided anyway? Yes.
And it says, Trump would never make the
decision to deploy military assets against a foreign
adversary in a vacuum.
Didn't Gabbard literally just say that? That you
gave the information you gave him and then
he's the one that decided? That's the case.
Or I guess, you could argue they were
in the room with him. But the point
is, what she's trying to insinuate is that
it was the intelligence assessment that guided this
decision, not that they handed him scattered data
points and he pieced it together to make
the imminent threat. Iran is the is the
world's leading state smart. I'm just so tired
of this.
Not only does the evidence not back that
up even if everything you say is true,
it's just flatly not the case based on
everything we know, even based on US intelligence
assessments that I've shown you over the years
about the proxies, about everything. The Iranian regime
is evil.
That's it. It's evil.
Right? No crimes, no invasions, no regime changes,
no bombing, nothing. But evil because Israel doesn't
like their they want their territory. That that's
what it's about. It's proudly killed American. Oh,
proudly killed you mean when you were illegally
invading Iraq? That's it, guys. That's the only
point.
US government illegally invaded Iraq. Soleimani and Iranian
supported Iraq in resisting the illegal invasion.
Simple. They know that. That's the best they
can do. Wage war against our country. Ex
what?
Are you now genuinely trying to conflate this
with nineeleven? I bet you that's what she's
doing. And openly threatens us all the way
Threatens us all the way up to your
illegal actions against Iran? Is that what she
just said? Yes, it is. Openly threatened us.
You mean like Trump does to everybody who
blinks at him? This is so stupid. All
the way up to the launch of when
we attacked them without justification.
That's how you explain why it was not
an imminent threat or was an imminent threat?
Seriously? Iran was aggressively expanding their shor their
missiles. Right. With which everyone can do, that
you guys are doing too.
That's not imminent anything. This is bad. This
is bad. The regime aimed those missiles at
the like everyone does everywhere. What are you
talking about?
Ultimate goal, nuclear weapons. Despite the facts, though,
despite everything we know and all of what
our intelligence told us and what the everybody
in, a a said, no. But but they
had them, though. Trust me.
I mean, I I don't even this is
just worthless. Let's go to the point that
matters here, which is funny to me.
So she says, no imminent threat. The whole
thing is a rambling nonsensical argument that doesn't
even make arguments, in fact, half the time,
to argue that it was not imminent.
Okay. Well, let's check out what Leavitt had
to say on the twelfth.
Caroline Leavitt
arguing with Caroline Leavitt. Here it is.
The this post, and it was ABC News
saying that there was a threat to California
from Iran. Right?
This post and story should be immediately retracted.
Why? Because it's false information.
It says, to be clear,
no such threat from Iran
or to our homeland
exists.
Wasn't that funny? Wait a minute. So you
could if she said no such threat from
Iran, you could have argued she meant this
specific type of threat.
But she said, no such threat from Iran
to our homeland exists.
And it never did.
To our homeland. So there is no threat
to our homeland from Iran. You can't misunderstand
that. Then, because Trump made her, apparently, she
comes out and says, there's no imminent threat,
or there was for sure an imminent threat.
But you literally just said there was no
imminent threat
on the March 12.
I mean, guys, this is the dumbest thing
I've ever seen. I am critical of government.
I always have been, but this is a
step above
or under, I guess, whatever you wanna say
it. It's insane.
These people are the most embarrassing things I've
ever seen this government. And think about that
statement
with how we talk. I mean, this is
just crazy. And then there are people who
wanna make it about left versus right. I
mean, for crying out loud, how many times
did they say it or look back at
how we criticize Biden? It's not that, and
you damn well know it. If that's the
best you can do, you're already losing.
But here's what,
circle or circ c said about him
or said about what she said, which is
just artfully done. So I read some of
it, but this it's just it's this is
perfect.
So, she she goes, it was clear, perfectly
clear what Trump was trying to do. Right?
And they go, yeah, everything's perfectly clear. Right?
Iran could not be allowed to get a
nuclear weapon,
which they have been months away from for
well over a decade.
Also, Trump is the only president who could
have kept us out of war with Iran,
as he himself repeatedly told us. So we
destroyed their nuclear capabilities, which Tulsi said they
didn't have in 2025.
Then we attacked them last month because Israel
was going to attack them because they were
months away from developing a nuclear weapon since
we destroyed their nuclear capabilities. And then that
would then lead Iran to attack American bases
as they you could add with possibly a
nuke that doesn't exist because that's what Rubio
said. Iran has never posed a threat to
The United States,
but we had to attack them first, not
because of Israel, but because they pose an
imminent threat to The United States.
It's just so it's just exactly what she's
doing. And it says, fortunately,
we have won the war already,
which was not a war though, but a
special operation. In Iran, now several times in
the last two weeks, it's basically over, but
might not be over for some time because
we already won. We also don't need anyone
to help out of the Strait Of Hormuz,
which we knew they would close, which is
why we didn't prepare. And we now need
allies to help soon. What are you guys
not understanding?
I mean, it's so it it shouldn't even
be laughed at. It's so alarming that this
is what's actually happening, but
don't laugh, you're gonna cry, I guess. You
know? I mean, think about how dumb this
all is. How and just this one sentence.
Iran has never posed a threat to The
United States, as she says right there, but
we had to attack them first because of
the threat to The United States they posed.
Oh, god. It's so crazy. And then here's
Wyatt Reed making a very important point that
comes directly from the UN Security Council. Nine
days before
The US Israeli sneak attack, Iran
publicly
warned,
if it was attacked,
quote, all bases, facilities, and assets of the
hostile force in the region would constitute legitimate
targets because they would. That's that's the international
law.
Here's the letter they sent to the UN.
So think about this. The UN. Whatever you
think about it, you've got Iran,
who they want you to believe is a
terrorist organization, going to the UN to present
evidence about why Israel's about to attack them
or The United States, and that should they,
that they have to respond in the way
they did. And even though they know that,
they did it anyway. And then even went
on to claim that the response they told
you they would carry out legally was demonstration
of how they're terrorists.
I mean, that is such a bad
What's a better way to frame it? That
is, it's like sophomoric.
It's just badly prepared,
badly formed,
or by design to make The US look
this bad. I mean, that's the those are
the only two things that truly make the
most sense to me. I don't know how
I mean, why would you have this and
then still carry out the plan that would
then cause the thing you would then need
to claim that that is a terrorist act
when you can go, here, they just said
they would do this?
It's just beyond the pale.
Here's Trump,
as you just heard. Power.
Look look what happened.
In the last two weeks,
they weren't supposed to go after all these
other countries that You mean, despite the fact
that they told you they would and announced
it to the UN and even presented a
data document?
Do you think does he not know that?
I mean, that's almost more alarming that he's
been so completely insulated by this as as
what,
Steve calls it the the the,
oh, now I'm forgetting it.
Shepat Luba bubble or something like that. Like,
just speaking to, like, the internal Zionist Israeli
politics
influencing him from the, like, the religious perspective
of the Zionist influence over the this it's
obviously a part of this.
Understanding the reality of Zionism we've discussed endlessly.
But the idea that he's so insulated by
this, as everyone seems to be acknowledging at
this point that he doesn't even know that
or he's just lying to you. They weren't
allowed to do the thing. Like, what are
you, kindergarten?
Happened
in the last two weeks.
They weren't supposed to go after all these
other countries in The Middle East.
Those missiles were set to go after them.
So So, again, my point last time we
played this, he starts by saying they weren't
supposed to, but then says they were aimed
at those locations.
Why would that mean they weren't supposed to
if they were aimed at the places that
they know if they were supposed to attack
Qatar, the missile was aimed at Qatar. Does
that make sense? It doesn't because they were
aimed at Qatar. So anybody with a brain
is gonna go that might be where they
attack. Right? In addition to that, they told
you they would, which is right through I
just showed you. It continues.
They hit
Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain,
Kuwait.
Why does he say Nobody expected that. Weird.
We were shocked.
Okay. Nobody expected that. So you start by
saying they weren't supposed to. You send then
say they were aimed at them and then
say nobody expected that,
other than that they were aimed at them.
Right? And then other than the fact that
they told you they would if you did
this. Now you could argue that Trump didn't
know about that somehow, which would mean his
own team kept it from him, which kinda
makes sense when you understand what's happening. If
you believe he's being insulated and, like, manipulated,
then that is what we're talking about. Or
I think your only other logical discussion point
or consideration is that Trump is part of
this and working for something other than American
interests.
Honestly, I don't even care. At this point,
as long as we recognize where this is
coming from, I just want people to see
it. Because, guys, this is so obvious where
we are.
Now back to the point again. This you
could look it up. You could check it.
This is so wild to me, and I
didn't even know about this until I saw
Wyatt Reed Sherritt.
How was that possible? Right? I mean, I
and I look for this stuff. It's just
it's we're being manipulated everywhere. Now here's just
another clip that Steve showed me where he's
in this this this is crazier than usual
because it's not the next day. This is
the same in in this one case, a
minute later, he contradicts what he just said.
I'm not even trying to talk about, like,
being senile. I don't even know. It could
be that, but I think it's worse than
that. I think it's just the way that
he is, that he just is so willfully
dishonest about whatever he needs to say in
the moment that he's he'll he doesn't even
realize he's contradicting what he just said. And
don't take that as worse than anybody before.
They're all the same to me, but he's
just, I guess, worse at delivering the lies.
But it says, Trump was not con has
has not convinced himself about his own strategy
on Iran.
If we ever needed help,
they won't be there for us. I've just
known that for a long period of time.
We have some that are really enthusiastic. They're
coming already. This is a need. So we
you can't see it for the podcast, but
so it's like this is December
versus December.
Need would
be one of the big boys. If we
need their mind boats or if we need,
anything, any piece of apparatus that they may
have because of a situation that they have,
they should be jumping to help us. We
want them to come and help us with
Twelve nineteen.
The straight My Twelve eighty six. My tutors.
We don't need anybody. So we have to
understand that so this is different questions. Right?
So somebody asked him at 12:19,
and he says one thing. And then later,
when it's about him trying to look tough,
we don't need anybody. It's probably not gonna
come. And these are these some of these
are small examples. But the bigger point is
just about contradicting the sentiments about what you're
doing, the plan, just like all of them
were doing. It's a war. It's not a
war. I mean, you still have, like, conservative
podcasters
determined to not call it a war. What
a childish thing to do.
Obviously, it's a war. It's just, that is
just the typical team sport politics, that you'll
die on that hill and and then probably
later admit it anyway and claim you never
said it. Like, it's just sad. We're the
strongest nation in the world. We have the
strongest military by far in the world. We
don't need them.
Let's not forget, by the way. And I
I talked about this a lot. I mentioned
it on last show with Aim Wake Up
as well. But just in case you missed
it, I'm still seeing I mean, even right
now in corporate media,
they're still claiming that the street is closed.
It's not. Now this is actually a really
important distinction.
You could it's very much restricted. That's very
obvious.
I checked I've done this every time I've
been live, but when we're talking about this.
But you can literally
prove, guys, that there is traffic.
So by definition, it is not closed.
It's definitely restricted, but this is why this
is so important. When they started this, the
I believe Trump was told they would do
that, probably to drive him to think it'd
be an easy open and shut game. They're
gonna close the street. The whole world will
turn against him. It'll be boom, open and
shut. And he fell for it, or he
didn't care it was part of it. Your
decide your dis your decision.
The point, though, is that they didn't do
that.
Just like I told you, they lied about
tanks rolling into Kyiv in the first day
because it's, one, about setting the narrative they
want you to believe and, two, that I
think they project what they think will happen,
what they do. In this case, they didn't
do this.
The the reports of mines, look at how
that no no one's even talking about that.
I don't believe it was ever even happening.
They have in the past. I know they
can and would, but I don't believe they
did because Iran's playing the long game. They
recognize that should they have done that, the
whole world would indeed be angry with that.
So what they did,
and this is a recent statement, but they
did this in the beginning. They threatened. They
floated things, and people were worried, so it
did restrict. And it did affect the US
government. And in in the early parts of
it, people were mad. Americans at Trump because
of gas prices, and so they played it
well. But then they were clear. Look. Hormuz
Open or the Strait Of Hormuz is open
to most. It is closed only to enemies.
Now what's funny about that is that didn't
even come across the corporate media.
Why would that be? It's what they said.
You can prove it. Why wouldn't CNN and
Fox the report? It? Why think because all
of them are continuing to lie and say
it's shut because that's the talking point they're
supposed to relay. Not one or the other,
but the government, guys, all of it, and
the media apparatuses they use to reach you
and however they can. Manage your alternatives, CNN,
Fox News. When it matters, they all drive
the same points. So in this case, it's
not closed.
So they're only attacking if they are they
were and by the way, there was a
recent argument with them, a claim of them
bombing one of these tankers. I've been following
up with it. But the point, I we
should very much be questioning whether or not
that is Israel doing it. I'll make this
case in a second.
It certainly could be Iran, and it would
even make sense
other than the fact that a tanker, unless
we're talking about by the Israel's logic that
that means the fuel for their weapons, which
is not how it tends to work in
the past, but that they would I would
argue that's not a legal military target.
So I I would criticize no matter who
does it, including the fact that there are
civilians on those ships. That has to matter
to everybody if you care about the law
or simply human life. My point, though, that
that's to say that I don't think that's
actually being done by them. It wouldn't make
sense to me, but it's certainly possible. In
this case,
the reason they're doing this is because it's
about setting the the tone of letting anybody
else come through as long as you don't
push support Israel and United States,
which is actually a really savvy way to
play this because it's a very important thing.
And then suddenly, The US and Israel are
desperate to convince the world that it's always
shut because they need them to turn. So
all you end up happening is having The
US and Israel hurt dramatically by this process
and everybody else trying to like, right now,
Japan, Australia, last I checked, even The UK
has basically said, we don't want to get
involved with your straight that that it says
something, guys. It shows me that this was
always set up to lie to you to
keep you of the mind that they were
affecting you, not Trump, but Iran, and that
didn't work.
Check it every day. You'll see that it's
very much still active. There is a lot
of traffic. Now in the early days, they
said 94% shutdown. I just don't even know
if that was true in the beginning, but
it's pretty clear there was some restriction.
Now DDG politics points out what the foreign
minister of Oman said. Or actually, was this
the one,
oh, wait. No. This is a different one.
This is, this is,
according to The Guardian, Britain's national security adviser,
Jonathan Powell, attended the final US Iran talks
in Geneva and believed Tehran's nuclear proposal was
significant enough to keep diplomacy on track and
avoid escalation.
Sources said progress had been made and that
the Iranian offer was unexpectedly substantial, same thing
that the foreign minister of Oman said.
Quote, we regarded Witcoff
and Kushner
as Israeli assets
that dragged a president into a war he
wants to get out of.
Think about this and how this right now,
more than anybody, people in this country are
are trying to avoid the reality of what
the what we're currently dealing with.
The report also highlights concerns about the US
negotiating team led by Kushner and and and
Witkoff, both closely linked to Israel. One diplomat
with knowledge of the talk told The Guardian,
quote, we and I just read, we regarded
them as Israeli assets,
dragging Trump into this war. Critics noted the
lack of a deduct dedicated US tactic technical
team and Witkoff relying on the IAEA
chief for expertise.
But he didn't, though, seeing as how he
lied about what was actually stated. I just
showed you that. Now it says, shortly after
the talks, The US and Israel launched strikes
on Iran. But we know why. Because they
offered to give up their entire program to
hand over the enriched uranium.
It's the it's all very clear. Now that's
the foreign minister of Oman right there. And
now you even have a,
British asset telling you that's what he thought.
This is the whole point, guys, that this
is the infiltration.
Now
in regard to bombings, here is just Andul,
Andulu eight English pointing out The US Israeli
attacks, and Iranian retaliatory strikes have continued. This
is up to today. It says with missiles
and drone incidents reported from Lebanon and Israel
to Iraq and the Gulf countries the past
twenty four hours. So, I mean, all this
continued argument of just Iran is diminished. It
doesn't seem to be the reality
based on what we can see. But we
can verifiably show that The US and Israel
have burned through most of their interceptors. That's
a public conversation.
So, it this is the long game, as
they said. And they were clearly lying about
surrendering to other countries. They've been lying about
everything, which has to show you that there's
a sense of weakness there.
Here is a a, just democracy now as
a March 18 kind of ongoing headline.
Israel kills Iran intelligence minister,
says Israel. Could be. But if they're just
assassinating people all over the place now realize,
guys, we're talking about, in many cases, things
that are technically, in most cases in the
past, not considered military targets. Intelligence might be
more on the line, but when you're killing,
for example, Khomeini,
that's the the the best way to overlap
that would be to claim, like,
Iran assassinated the pope.
Then what would would you would everybody stand
up and go, yeah. That makes sense. You
know, the war. No. That's what Americans did
because either they don't understand or they've been
ratted
driven to extremist perspectives about people on this
side of the world. But this is these
are crimes, guys, especially since there is no
legal declaration of war or war powers allowance
or authorization of military use. But
Iran continues to launch retaliatory strikes against Gulf
countries. I wanna get into this in a
second. I there's this to me, it's fifty
fifty.
Very much possible, likely, even if these countries
are continuing to support The US and Israel,
which I think some of them are. But
the question becomes, are some of them doing
so or some of them aren't, which I
think we can see. And then if they're
being bombed, that doesn't make sense to me
from Iran's strategic position. It just doesn't make
sense. Other than you to go, well, they're
just a maniacs.
It's never a logical argument.
Even if they are. It's just it's an
assumption. But in this case, we're gonna get
into why I think there might be more
going on. But Israel launches its air strikes
on Central Beirut,
continue to bomb Lebanon. It bombs an entire
high rise full of civilians, publicly covered by
just about everybody. They because, again, this is
not Gaza. There's people filming. There's international entities.
There's UN. They can see it, and they
don't care, guys. They just took down an
entire building.
I was just watching the clip the other
day. Iran's parliament speaker says Strait Of Hormuz
won't return to its prewar status. You see
my point? That doesn't mean it's closed because
it is not. What they're saying is we
will continue to do this because of what
The US and Israel are doing, and we're
only going to affect those that side against
us with their illegal war.
So I think this is a well played
tactic, and they're desperate to make the world
think that it's shut down entirely because they
need you to feel that Iran is against
you.
UN warrants forty five million people at risk
of acute hunger due to their war in
Iran. Here we go again. You think this
is an accident? This is a tactic. It's
what they do. And you can go on.
You know, there there's other headings that I
think the important part was just about Iran.
Now here is, frustratingly enough, what Fox News
allowed to be stated. And I just can't
even believe that anybody
thinks that this is this is a blind
partisan or rather just whatever side. This is
a supporting of the narrative.
I mean, this is the equivalent of saying
that executing children is okay because it if
he you know, I'll let a place speak
for itself. And this, remember, these people that
we're talking about, this woman, like, these are
people that are actively fighting from a US
perspective for a US controlled Iran perspective, for
the Shah, which is what not what Iranians
want.
Who were talking to Iranians in Iran saying,
you know, they're they're most afraid of the
bomb stopping because if the bomb stopped, they
believe The United States might be done. Think
about that.
The bomb so so first of all, we're
not talking about adjacent accidental things. We're talking
about targeting schools and hospitals
on the record. The MINAB, I mean, despite
the same as always. Despite the screaming, lying
Zionist manipulators and the blind partisan supporters,
every single data point has unequivocally proven, including
US intelligence, that they bomb that school. Even
Hegseth gave you a map showing you that
was the target,
whether Israel gave it to them or not.
They did this. They lied about it, and
we all know it. Then Zionists tried to
give you fake images. They showed you an
image that wasn't from the location they claimed.
That's what they're still pointing to. And that
was even fact checked by Twitter. So, just
my point is recognize they're bombing schools and
hospitals
and other civilian locations I just showed you,
a building full of people in in I
mean, for crying out loud, guys, they bombed
the middle of Tehran. That's packed more than
New York City.
So understand,
if you're of the mind that these are
Iranian that are going, yes, kill all the
civilians because I'm fighting for Iran,
That's insane. This is the same point they
make. If you wanna pretend that you have
Republicans, let's say, fighting against the people that
have overtaken the country. Right? You've got the
MAGA team fighting against Democrats that have overtaken
the country. And
then they start bombing their side, the MAGA
side. They start bombing
locations that kill Republicans.
And they go, no. It's okay, though, because
we're fighting for freedom. Just keep killing us
because we wanna take over the Democrat. Does
that make sense? Does it only make sense
when you pretend they're just weird Iranians and
they're don't understand, live in a cage, whatever
you wanna lie yourself about? The reality is
that they don't want to kill civilians because
that's insane. So what you're trying to make
the case of is that they cheer this
on because they just want them to keep
taking over. You mean, like every other country
they've done that to and utterly destroyed the
everything of any type of civilian life? And
you think they don't know that? I mean,
this is as stupid as them claiming a
100% of the team supports this.
They're just lying, guys, and it's so obvious,
and it really speaks to the level of
desperation. It has to. Absolutely. And when they
have the moment to tweet, they're Most afraid
of the bombs stopping because if the bombs
stop, they believe The United States might be
done. Absolutely. And when they have the moment
to tweet, they're tweeting and saying, please don't
stop. Because the worst thing that could happen
to us is if you leave this regime
in place, which means who is gonna pay
the price we, the Iranian people are? They're
gonna torture us more. They're gonna kill us.
They're gonna throw us in prison. You've got
to finish the job. They are celebrating. Every
time a bomb goes on, just It's just
disgusting. Like, she can barely even she can't
even she doesn't even haven't taken a breath.
Feel free to look into all of it.
Guys, it's just wild to me how clear
it is right now. The vast majority of
the Iranian people that's being discussed by corporate
media, not just left, by the way. And
isn't that doesn't make it the truth. It's
the truth because you can prove it.
And then you appoint to these people like
Pahlavi or or,
what's her name?
You know, just the the people that they're
pretending represent the Iranian people, and you can
literally prove that they don't. Even their own
intelligence will show that. But it doesn't matter
because Fox said, because we want the bomb
if the bomb stopped, then that means we're
not we're The US might not have won.
You mean the same US that is starving
their population for years, has been sanctioning them
into the ground? They know that. They've talked
about it. They've had to just
what Americans seem to be able to buy
partisans
will will continue to blow me away. And
I think it's some of them. As always,
remember, I think the vast majority are well
seeing beyond this, but there are some that
seem to be able to buy this stuff.
Yeah. It's just how low can they sink?
You know? It's just disgusting. Now let's not
forget, by the way, this guy that's in
that clip.
It's weird how this is the case. Why
this guy would even be in that clip
on Fox News talking about why Iranians need
to be bombed.
This is an Israeli. This is an Israeli
intelligence asset
who was this is the Gideon program. Right?
The guy who literally and I say that
because he's literally former. I former Israeli
military. The point is,
when this came out and Melania
called for the AI system to prevent crimes
before they happen, that's this guy. The AI
system that flags threats before the next attack.
You don't see any connection. Why would this
guy even be in that conversation?
Well, Cutter refinery attacked as well as Iran
missile strikes sparks fire. Now
this is a carryover, but the point is
still the same.
As it says, as as the strikes spark
fire.
Now, I want you to ask a question
about this. Now, this makes sense
because I think right now, especially if Qatar
was continuing to support the US government, which
it seems that they are and is real,
this would be a continued, as they said,
target them.
And on top of that, that the targeting
of these the the oil, which by the
way, Israel started by bombing these across the
country, as well as The US bombing them
in the water,
the the prices went up. So you could
see Iran arguably doing this to continue that,
to hurt what they're doing,
and or
it was a continuation of what Israel already
continued to do. Either one makes sense to
me, and we should question all of it.
But this is what I want you to
remember, and we just talked about this. The
this has been widely reported, and this is,
the WION, like, it was, I guess, a
Chinese platform. There's been plenty of different I
think Guardian covered as well. Is Iran being
framed? Abbas
so, one of the, Israeli, Iranian
government entities
claims The US is using what they call
Lucas drones
that match their their, Shaheed drones perfectly
to attack Arab nations. So a false flag.
The foreign minister Abbas
Aragat Gautchi
claims that US is using reverse engineered Lucas
drones. Now look.
That is obviously something they do. We know
this. Israel brags about this. But whether it's
happening now, we should question because it's not
something we should assume.
But knowing it's possible, we should be asking,
is what we're seeing something that they're doing
to blame it on Iran? And then the
question should be, is this in their interest?
With where they're at, would it be in
the interest of Iran to do something that
would turn the world against them?
No. Doesn't mean they wouldn't do it. But
like with Syria, we know how this works.
So in this
case,
Iranian barrage kills at least three Palestinians in
the West Bank.
I call BS.
I do not believe that. I don't think
that makes any sense in any stretch of
the imagination. Why would they even be bombing
the West Bank? Now, of course, you could
argue it was a mistake
or that they did it because they're just
crazy. All possible.
But, really, at the end of the day,
this does not make sense, especially as Israel
is literally continuing to take parts of the
this this adds to what the Israel government's
trying to do.
And they've done this before, where they're in
the middle of other things, and they use
that to justify destroying something else. They claim
it was a missile, and they take it
over. They've done this before. But question it.
It very well could just be Iran or
an accident or anything else.
But I don't believe this. I believe we're
talking about attacks using their drones or whatever
else to blame it. I I just don't
believe that Iran would
not because they're not capable, but not this
would doesn't make any sense. They're on, arguably,
the side of people resisting what Israel's doing,
and especially when you talk about the Palestinian
people. And the West Bank would be bombed
to what end? Why would that benefit them?
It clearly benefits Israel. So who benefits is
quite obvious, but we just need to be
questioning. I think that's important right now.
Now, last few points here.
You might have seen this. We talked about
the boots on the ground and everyone's like,
no. They're just the Middle East. You idiots.
You guys don't know what we're talking about.
Well, guess what? Pete Sessions. I believe that
that what these 2,500
marines would be
is to secure the island. Oh, okay. So
the island Trump just bombed. So quite literally
boots on the ground. We knew that already.
But if you're out there still trying to
pretend like they didn't just violate yet another
promise, you're wrong because here they are. The
island is not, in my opinion, boots on
the ground in combat circumstances because, you know,
it's not in the cities.
Guys, I mean, come on. So what? Now
boots on the ground don't count if it's
on the shoreline? I mean, what are you
talking about?
These are desperate people trying to convince you
that this is not what exactly it looks
like. Don't trust your lying eyes. Right? That's
just my response to that. We're just not
this stupid.
Here's what Trump just said about the Lebanon
part of this, which guys,
you're in Trump's position. Why in the world
would you just casually extend your support
to another illegal war?
Regardless of whether you think you can rationalize
or lie about it, there's no US interest
whatsoever.
And he just kind of make he doesn't
even really end. He just kinda says, well,
the Lebanese family I talk to, it's terrible
what's going on over there. So you you
just tacitly support exactly what Israel's doing, wherever
they do it, no matter what. And that's
America First.
And in fact, it's quite literally hurting your
agenda, but you do it anyway,
speaks for itself, guys. And as I said,
this is starting to feel like a humiliation
ritual.
Israel is expected to expand its ground offensive
in Southern Lebanon to go after Hezbollah. Have
you discussed that with Israeli leaders? Yeah. And
does The United States support,
a potential Israeli invasion of Lebanon? Yeah. No.
I did. And, I I know the look.
Hez Yeah. Yeah. I did. You know, whatever.
Just the casual response of an illegal act.
This guy's contrived. I I've you know my
opinion. I don't believe somebody would that's a
silly thing to say when you know what's
going on in the world.
I don't believe he's able to do certain
things. And that doesn't mean in any way
that I'm removing accountability from him. Quite the
opposite. But when it comes to Israel, whether
it's Epstein files or whatever else, I definitely
think there's something pulling these strings. But it
could just be that he agrees with the
agenda. Hezbollah is a problem. It's been a
problem for a long time. Yeah.
I mean, the the illegally occupied Lebanon that
they've been killing and abusing white phosphorus and
has been roundly recovered covered by the UN,
that Greg Murphy has continually showed. Yeah. It's
been a problem for a really long time.
In what way? They have one Hezbollah, which
is the popular uprising supported by Lebanese people
because of what you continue to do to
the country.
And, it's it's a certain area because I
was with the other night,
a person whose parents live in Lebanon. This
is a very substantial per So if you
wanna talk about being manipulated, you could simply
argue that somebody goes, here, Trump, talk to
this one Lebanese guy that says everything's crazy
and trust Israel. And that apparently does it
for him. Bloomberg said everyone supports you. Oh,
everyone supports me. Like, that seems how this
works. The last person to yell something in
his ear is what he thinks out loud.
I mean, for crying out loud.
May very well maybe that one Lebanese family
has wildly suffered or
you
largely probably Hezbollah is the point because Lebanese
government's different conversation
in regard to US and Israel. But either
way, maybe they did. Maybe they they let's
just go ahead and say yes. They probably
murdered their family. I don't I don't I'm
not saying I believe that. My point is,
what would that change about the legalities of
illegally invading Lebanon? And why would that one
story be enough to make you justify doing
something like that even if you feel it's
justified? Shouldn't that be another act of war?
Shouldn't rather declaration? Shouldn't there be another imminent
threat? Doesn't matter. That never mattered to them.
Person, wealthy person, whose parents live in Lebanon.
I said, really?
How do you live in Lebanon? Your parents
are living oh, yeah. They live there.
And over the years, they've gotten used to
the fact that it's being bombed.
Are you serious? Is this guy that tone
deaf? You mean, bombed by Israel? That's exactly
what's happening.
So you're saying that you are you can't
believe they live in their own country because
Israel makes it hell for them? That's not
what he's actually trying to say, but that's
what he just said.
But they explained to me that it's really
a different section of Lebanon.
It's a section where Hezbollah is,
and they get used to it, I guess.
I don't know. See what you're trying to
do? So wait. You just now you're telling
me that that Hezbollah's bombing itself?
You can't this guy can't be this stupid.
I think he talks off the cuff a
lot and makes himself look I mean, that's
just bad. Like, just to be clear, he
just said they live in the area with
Hezbollah, and that's why they're being bombed all
the time. So you're either saying Israel's bombing
where civilians are, which we already know, or
you're insinuating that Hezbollah is bombing itself.
Whatever. Who cares about facts? Just yell out
things and say support Israel. Apparently, that's America
first today.
I mean, people live in Ukraine. I don't
you would think they would live in Ukraine,
but they live in Ukraine.
What are you you you mean their country?
Because you guys created this terrorist organization that's
been I mean, come on.
I mean, the statement of just saying that
they I can't believe they live there.
I just I got it. It just blows
me away. I don't even know how to
articulate how insane that is. That's the same
you say the same about Syria. I can't
even live there anymore.
Because of you, man.
I don't know that I'd do that, but
they live in Ukraine. They live in Yeah.
Because you're a billionaire, and you can just
do whatever you want, move wherever you want.
That must be nice.
Hezbollah is a big problem, and they're rapidly
being eliminated.
Okay. Yeah. So he's clearly okay in Nepal
then supports it.
That's a crime, guys. Is there a legal
justification? Is there an act of war? Is
there a declaration? Or just you just did
literally Israel's
currently invading Lebanon.
And that's apparently no big deal to any
of this corporate media, apparently even to the
adversarial Democrat media or Democrats who all support
this. But they hate him though, and they're
and they're deep state pedophiles who are gonna
destroy him no matter what. But they're like,
oh, good job, Trump. Keep going because we
support this. But next time, we're gonna get
you.
Dumb.
So just really quickly, I'm not even gonna
get into I just wanna include this for
you because this is still rapidly being talked
about. No, I mean, I get the interest,
the curiosity.
I still don't think there's evidence other than
what was it's subjective. And just to be
clear, as always, about Netanyahu being killed, I've
never said that it's I mean, in fact,
I've said every time. It's certainly by likely
even,
But I do not think it's been verified.
And I would say that right up until
the moment till it's literally proven to us
because I don't think it's been proven. You
know, it's not it's not about me guessing
right to look like I was always right,
like these ridiculous mainstream alternatives do and are
usually wrong. It's about the reality that the
evidence does not prove this right now. So
I'll include this. Yet again, this is an
account saying, Benjamin Netanyahu died on the ninth,
which is that kind of certainty without evidence
should be a red flag. But either way,
what they're trying to insinuate is that when
Trump
walked out of this meeting, which, by the
way, if you watch this full thing,
it was it was a ceremony, and they
left.
There was no there was no pre like,
it wasn't assumed that he would stop and
have a conference. It wasn't even that. And
so they frame this as Trump wandering out,
which everyone thought was so weird, and then
they come back around and go, Benjamin Netanyahu
died in the ninth, and that's why he
walked out so funny.
This is all QAnon stuff. Even if it
turns out to be correct, they didn't know
that right now, and I can prove that.
Unless they have information that they're not showing
you, which why then would why would they
not show you the thing that would prove
that they know the right thing ahead of
time? So, in this case, this is what's
rolling around as of yesterday.
I'm not saying it proves that he's alive.
It could also be fake, as always. But
here's a new video of from his account
on the seventeenth of him and,
Huckabee.
So
as the if this is fake, well, then
Mike Huckabee knowingly played this role, or at
least he would see a video of himself
and know it wasn't him, and they didn't
say anything. So, you will find out eventually.
I mean, right now, the evidence seems to
suggest that there's something amiss with the AI
video and what we think doesn't happen. I
mean, there's a thousand possibilities.
And this is him saying crossing names off
the list is good.
You're talking about murdering people.
This is just and, of course, doing it
with Americans is better. Yeah. Of course. Because
you can shuck off the responsibility to them.
Now
I'll give you the pieces people are pointing
to. This is one of them where they
they claim that his coat pocket warbles, which
I see it too. Like, right here was
a point at which his pocket acts funny,
like, where his hand goes in.
Right there.
Hold on. Let it go in.
Now whatever. I mean, you can watch for
yourself. There's a point I did see it,
though. It's a clip where you it just
looks like the pocket moves funny.
Yeah. Maybe it's AI. This was put out
in order to say in response to the
rumors that he was dead. Like, guys, it
could be that he's dead and they're covering
it up. Certainly. It also could be that
they, for some reason, want you to think
that.
Right? I mean,
think just think it through. Let's not assume.
So, I think there's a lot of people
out there pushing this as fact for some
reason that makes me skeptical.
But when it we when we know for
sure, I'll tell you that I think we
know for sure. And so, also, the video
of the AI hands, this is freeze framed
and one of the ones they claim shows
this I I agree. It looks funny. There
there's I've seen one of them. In fact,
I've seen one, by the way, that has
been altered that's not from this video. So,
you know, just there's something very strange going
on around this, but it doesn't mean it's
not the case. Just question everything and don't
claim it when you don't know it. Now
and like I said, if more comes out,
trust me, I will talk about that because
it's a big deal and it will show
that they lied to us. I wanna get
I wanna finish with this. I'm not gonna
play as much as I was going to
before, but this is just with everything we
talked about today.
You you need to see this. And this
is not just about Joan. It's about the
bigger point about the mainstream alternative and this
effort to constantly drive you back in to
the same thing that is being exposed every
single day.
Now we talked about this one as well,
and this is the same idea. Trump tells
the supporters you must worship the never Trumper,
neocon, Mark Levin.
And my point was simply that I remember
you calling us black pill for telling you
exactly what is now happening would happen. Right?
And I bet despite what we're currently seeing
and what you're saying that you will carry
on supporting him, which this was on the
sixteenth.
And this video on the seventeenth sure as
hell makes that clear. But we'll see as
it goes forward. Now what I want you
to hear in this is not just that
he's trying to, in a weird way, convince
you to keep supporting Trump even as he
tells you he's controlled by Israel, I guess,
but it's that he's actually admitting that. In
this very thing, and he's kind of waffled
around before, he's saying that the Israel is
or rather a foreign power, which he's insinuating.
I think he does say Israel is once,
but it's funny, a foreign power, in is
controlling this administration. Now just think about this.
This is the person that many of them
were telling you when Trump was about to
be elected that he the only choice to
save the world from the globalists, who he
somehow still paints as Trump fighting the globalist
while he's controlled by a foreign power. Well,
I'm gonna play it.
But what I want you to think about
is that then, when they were being fighting
to get you to support Trump, you have
to understand that everything he's talking about in
here was already well known.
Even some things you can quite literally prove,
we knew them.
So why did they push you to support
him?
And as I said, watch. I hope I'm
wrong, but watch as whatever they do here
and tap dance about how we that they
ultimately come to the point of still supporting
the team and still supporting Trump and voting
in the midterms and getting more patriots in
the team and despite knowing that our government's
apparently occupied by Israel.
Like, how you think that makes sense? We're
occupied by Israel, but go and vote for
the team.
I mean, guys, this is just painful.
One, because people are by it. They want
to hear anything that makes it all feel
like it's not as bad as it might
be.
He says, must watch. Joe Kent resigned to
publicly spotlight the fact that Israel has successfully
conducted a coup.
Do you see what I'm saying? Like,
we're talking about things from Israel influencing policy.
Now, I could argue I believe that they've
completely taken control. Do you think he has
evidence of a literal coup d'etat that took
place in this country? Probably not. Now, I
wouldn't even disagree with the sentiment, but it's
about evidence improving things. And this is the
same thing I do every time. Now that
it's something that everyone's becoming comfortable talking about,
he leaps over the top and goes, krolle
coup, World War three.
Even though just before, he was laughing at
how dumb we were because we were trying
to tell you when it wasn't easy to
say. As Steve says, the dangerous dangerous versus
the safe dangerous.
It's what they do. It's where they operate.
And it says he's now in control of
the Trump White House. He's telling you that
Israel's in control of the White House,
but yet somehow we need to keep supporting
the team. Alex Jones lays out the facts
by giving historical content. All he's doing is
convincing you it's important like a previous news
story. Walter con Walt Walter con
she's like, I can't even say his name.
Basically, in the past discussing the idea of
Vietnam. It's it's really irrelevant.
He's just trying to make this feel like
a big moment, even though it is, but
in a way that somehow keeps you supporting
the team
and calls for all Americans to peacefully
take action to restore our nation's sovereignty.
What does that mean? Does that mean over
to the Trump administration? Oh, no. No. No.
Totally not. Exactly the opposite. But somehow, by
peacefully you know, and I'm in no way
am I suggesting violence. My point is he's
doing that to be careful because there's gonna
be some January 6 suggestion before, but peacefully
take action to restore our nation's sovereignty. If
Israel has taken over the White House, the
only one that means is to change the
power structure. But what you just watch.
So important, I'm about to say, so people
understand how the head of the counterterrorism
Oh, by the way, one last thing. Let's
not forget that right before we got here,
right before we got here, and it's actually
really important for you watch this, what was
he telling you?
He said that they would all go to
jail. In fact, down here in 2024,
he says,
here's Joan suggesting that Trump is going to
prosecute Klaus Schwab, Bill Gates, Fauci, and Hillary.
It's not and and if as long as
we do this and keep Trump alive, we
can stop this.
Here he is saying, oh, big, big actions
coming down for Obama and Pelosi and James
Comey. Yep. Like I told you at the
time? Nope. Because I wasn't ridiculous. I looked
at the evidence, and I showed you right
then. There's no way this is gonna happen.
Big, big, big, and you know I don't
sense what he says. That's not true. So,
coming back to the point, now now that
that hasn't come to fruition, all the different
things and claims and how we're gonna save
the world and stop global are, Oh, but
now Trump's controlled by something we told you
in the first place.
But now let's get into the how we
fix it part.
National center,
Ronda Gabbard.
How this is so important, I'm about to
say, so people understand how the head of
the counterterrorism
national center, Ronda Gabbard,
how big
what he did
was as to strongly get Trump back on
course.
To strongly get Trump back on course. But
wait a minute. Didn't you just literally say
Trump was controlled?
The White House control? Oh, the white the
Trump White House. Okay. Maybe he needs everyone
around him, and Trump's the one fighting for
it.
That's how he starts. Or at least it's
not technically. It's a clip from the middle.
We'll play in a second. But peacefully take
action
against the resource sovereignty. But that Joe Kent
statement that Trump called a loser
is
him getting Trump back on track.
Guys, the mental gymnastics is hard to watch.
They basically say there's been an Israeli coup
over foreign policy.
Now they're trying to get domestic control of
the Republican Party and suits the American people.
This is all out in the open.
So
imagine how big this is compared to Walter
Cronkite coming out sixty years ago and saying,
basically, we hope we've lost the war. The
Pentagon knows it internally. They're cut. What do
you mean imagine how big it is compared
to that? What does that even mean? What's
the relevance of going, look at this major
story from before. Now imagine how important this
is compared to that.
I don't even know why that makes sense.
You're just trying to beef up up the
important just make the case. Here's the thing.
This is important. I don't even understand what
he's trying to do. Bring up. And then
Daniel Ellsberg, who was just a high level
analyst coming out and say he's seen all
the real intelligence that it was just a
big way to make money in a war
game and we couldn't win it without nuking,
North Vietnam.
Imagine how big that was ending the Vietnam
War. Yeah. And and and then remember doctor
David Kelly, who right before the Iraq war
in 2003
was their head analyst,
and he was getting ready to go public
and already leaked that it was all a
fraud in the line,
and so they murdered him. That's how important
this is.
Yeah. The guy who Trump called a loser
and said he's the worst person, and then
they're all attacking him, and now he's a
monster. And look, as we said before,
But that's the guy who's saving everything, which
I'm not even disagreeing with the fact that
he did the right thing. Clearly, you know,
I agree with that.
Foster also recognize that this just the scattered,
you know, rambling details, much of which is
wildly subjective and opinionated that you'll not be
able to verify for yourself, one, because he
never gives you source material, but two, because
most of it's made up.
And it shows Not just being in the
general sense of, like, the the global is
digging over inside sources, blah blah blah, not
not the Walter Cronkite part. Kent in stature
is even more high profile and a bigger
deal, than doctor David Kelly. To say that
we are Okay. Get to the point. Like,
this has just been mostly telling you why
it's just like A little disagree, a little
His last
but
as We're talking about life and death. We're
talking
about war and murder and chaos and genocide.
Like, these things are real. This is intense.
This is not the time
to politely disagree. I understand that we're you
know, but we a little disagree a little
bit. It's like, I don't know, one side
has made the worst decision anybody's ever made
and got us into World War three.
So I guess that's Trump's side.
Right? I mean, that's pretty clear. So it's
fun. Oh, but our we're World War three
again. You know? Which you know my argument
about the reality of the statistics or the
the the metrics in regard to previous wars,
But it's just funny. How many times can
they tell you we're World War three or
about to get World War three? Like, it's
my point is not that there's not a
valid case we made about where the world
is, but that this platform will use that
term every other day about whatever they want
to hype.
I think it's interesting, even though we're probably
closer at this point than we have been
before. But that's the point to make, that
they called everything World War Three going back
years ago.
That's so it's meaningless. It's like the word
anti Semite to that. It's meaningless.
Deliberately for no particular reason.
I think it's okay to be a little
bit, like, intense about this. I think it's
actually necessary. I think, actually,
it's a strategy to lull us into complacency
by just like, well, just calm. Let's just
approach this calmly.
It's like the guy with the knife at
your neck going, well, let's just let's just
relax a little bit. Let's show you. There's
no need to freak out. It's like, no.
You have a knife to our neck. I
it's okay. It's okay to In this analogy,
the Trump administration has a knife to your
neck?
Apparently. Freak out. But, of course, if you
freak out somebody with a knife to your
neck, you might die. So we have to
freak out in a controlled fashion if you
understand what If you get the way this
is actually going,
he's saying, let's not really get crazy with
the Trump administration. Like, yeah, they're crazy. They're
about to kill you. But, you know, we
they might if you if you jerk too
fast and call them out too much, they
might kill you. You know?
But support the Trump administration.
It gets better. I'm saying, but I'm not
black filled in the slightest. Yeah. I I
But don't worry, guys. I'm not claiming we're
screwed. Everything Trump no. Hashtag winning. Don't worry.
And being more intense, I'm using more, you
know, know, deliberately provocative language because we have
them on the run. Now Woah. Woah. Woah.
Hold on.
You have a knife to our neck. We're
about we're we're overtaken by Israel, but we
have them on the run?
Okay. I'd like to let let's keep going.
Was the time to double down.
Oh, double down. Okay. So, again, if you
the only way you can understand that is
double down on the team.
Okay, guys. I'm not I'm not reading the
tea leaves here. This is exactly what they're
saying. Double down. So you start by claiming
that it's crazy, and they World War three,
and they tricked us, but doubled down.
Got it.
Play the game. Keep supporting the team. Hashtag
winning. Trust the plan. Now is not the
time to like, the last thing I wanna
do is to put across the idea that,
like, oh, it's the all hope is lost,
and we've been betrayed, and they've won. And
They being what? The Democrats?
I guess that's the only way you can
read this broken, you know, the left, right,
I guess. But
all hope is lost. We've lost Well, you've
been lied to about every single thing they've
done. Every single I mean, what have they
actually accomplished? Even the immigration point, most Republicans
are wildly unhappy about the number that they
put forward. So I'd love to hear where
in any way this is not an utter
complete I mean, that's the point though. But
don't worry, I'm on your side still. We
still love Trump and everything. We're still winning
and it's all great. That's just a pandering
effort to your audience, which shows a level
of audience capture, which is exactly what you
deal with when you lie to people and
push partisanship. Now just to be clear, I'm
not there's plenty of stuff Harrison does that
I agree with. And that's typically how this
platform has gone, and I'm not even arguing
through all. But we saw this work with
Owen Shroyer, who admitted that he was manipulate.
He did manipulate the show, and he did
force him to say things afterward.
Or everybody else we've talked about. Going back
to Cooper or or,
David Knight or or Reese or every one
of them have a screamingly angry opinion or
rather just that they're exactly what we tell
you they are. They lie, they manipulate, they
deceive, they're partisan manipul- It's it's everything we've
always told you and everyone that's ever left
them has told you that. But, yeah, let's
keep pretending like it's not.
My point to say is that it's about
the general sentiment of the platform, and I
think explicitly driven by don't by,
Alex Jones.
But here, I think what you're gonna see
too, when Jones gets cut into a show,
it's almost you can almost see it on
his face. And, again, Owen told you this.
It's constantly how this works. You are there
for him. You're not your own person in
this platform. You know, we can't do anything
about it. That's not it at all. No.
Because we have them on the run. Now
is the time to double down.
Now is not the time to like, the
last thing I wanna do is put across
the idea that, like, oh, it's the all
hope is lost, and we've been betrayed, and
they've won, and, you know, we can't do
anything about it. That's not it at all.
Now in this on the battlefield of the
information war, their line is wavering. Now we
send in the cavalry charge.
What are we talking about?
So I I I'd like to believe he
doesn't mean Iran. I mean, I'm pretty sure
that's not the case. But so what's the
cavalry charge?
The only thing you could think of is
Democrats versus Republicans. And so, why does this
make sense in the midst of what's going
on? Are not the Republicans, the one you
just told us, are manipulated by Israel and
that they're controlling foreign policy and it's Trump's
administration, but now we need to help work
with them to fight whatever the other side
is that you're framing? The globalist, I guess,
even though this is a globalist organization or,
agenda that we are watching play out.
I don't even know how you can make
sense. I'd love to be in this room
to be like, woah, woah, woah, hold on.
Who who are you talk who are you
supporting, and what side are you taking? I
mean, if you're the the only way to
take it is you're now siding with the
Israeli controlled administration.
Right?
That's how this works. They're freaking out. They're
scrambling. They're trying to figure out how to
pull victory out of the jaws of defeat
They who? In a total Iran? Again, I
mean, you can consider that, but that would
mean that you're now starting with the idea
that you support the ongoing illegal war with
Iran even though we just got told that
we'd trick into the war with Israel, and
they're controlling the administration. I mean, there's really
no way you can spin this without this
being ridiculous.
Quagmire. They're trying to figure out how to
end it quickly while also trying to figure
out how to make up for all of
what we've lost so far. They're scrambling. I
also wanna point out that this has been
a bunch of, like, scent
like, it's just a sprawling thing that doesn't
even I'm not even you you could honestly
argue that you don't even know exactly what
he's talking about. It's just this kind of
weird argument about don't get too sad, but
we're losing, but don't worry because we're still
on your side. And, you know, it's just
it's weird to me. It's weird. They're
disorganized.
They're routing. We
run them down. That's the play now. That's
what we have to do now. Double down.
Run them down, but we're occupied. That's where
we have to push now. There has never
been a greater opportunity for both exposure and
removal of the poisonous foreign influences
that have strangled our country. Woah. Okay. So
there's never been a better opportunity? So you're
siding and doubling down with who? The Democrats?
Or are you what are you I do
not understand how you can make these arguments
without making the case that you are saying
continue to side with, at the very least,
a part of this administration that has to
be Trump in order to help fight away
the foreign influence
that is concurrently that administration is conducting a
war that you told us, or rather drones
did, was tricked into by Israel.
So how what what constitutes the continual support?
I don't I the war?
Trump's telling you to continue the war. So
I don't understand how this makes sense. This
is a blind effort to say support the
team, but not really because they're bad, but
we're being tricked, but keep keep doubling down.
Like, I'm gonna keep going, guys. This is
hard. This is an opportunity,
not a crisis, and it sucks that it
got us to this point.
And I would have loved to be sitting
here today
reminiscing on the last year of victory. I'd
love to be sitting here going another 100,000
deportations a day. Look at that. And, James
Comey has another broadcast from prison where he's
been sent for the crimes he committed. Where
do we get to the news, guys? Where's
the news? Well, the point is, as you
would have known if you cared to look
at the facts from day one or watch
the last American Vagabond,
that was never gonna happen, even though it
should because I agree. Comey should be in
prison because he's a criminal. But they did
it on purpose.
And somebody who's intelligent could see that because
it was set up that way. And the
people that that quit because they told the
Trump administration that there was nothing there. They
put somebody else in place and they got
removed and it never happened. I get I'm
willing to bet you Bolton won't happen either
because that's still up in the air. But
Letitia James, Comey, they've been dismissed. They won't
even talk about it anymore. I'd love to
be sitting here telling you about how we
won, but the point is that's not where
we are because none of the things they
promised have happened. How can we not be
honest about that? He's how can we even
argue or even,
like, flirt with the idea of doubling
down if that's where we are as he
just said?
That's just blind support, guys. That's insane to
me. But that didn't happen, did it? None
of that happened.
And so here we are a year later
at war with Iran, no deep state
convictions,
very few deportations.
I'm not downplaying the good things that Trump
has done. Oh, yeah. Which ones of those?
I mean, yeah, you could argue there's some
things you agree with, but how are you
gonna ignore literally every argument, every main thing,
the wars, the increased spending, the larger government,
Stargate vaccines, COVID shots? But, you know, I'm
not downplaying all the wonderful things that he's
done. This is just a pandering statement to
people that were going, oh, I thought you
were hating Trump. But as long as you
clearly, blindly support him, then we're gonna keep
listening.
That's not a good that's not that's that's
not a that is a you know, it's
propaganda.
But if we don't get a handle on
this thing now,
it's only gonna get worse. Alex Jones What
do you mean a handle on it, though?
Like, now Alex Jones cuts in, but a
handle on what?
There was no real sentiment there. Was this
kind of
meandering argument about doing things when we need
to against the team? You know, it it
where was the I'd love for someone to
break down for me the exact thing he
meant for us to do right there.
It's basically like, just keep supporting. Don't ask
why. Don't really think too hard into it.
But we're we're occupied.
And if we support still and double down,
we can fight that occupation off, I guess.
That makes sense. But here's Jones to come
in and make it all make sense. Joins
us from the road. Are we ready to
go to Alex live now?
Alex, welcome to the show, sir. How are
you? Yeah. And I'm sure Harrison had a
choice about that, didn't he?
Harrison, you're absolutely right. We should all be
white pilled because the global awakening is here.
Wait. Right about what?
So just to be clear, he made it
very clear right there. We all should be
white pilled because the globalist awakening is here.
After what he just said, we're occupied by
Israel. He hasn't met the promises,
but we're globalism bad. We're winning.
I mean, I'm just blown away by I
mean, I I feel like even Alex could
do a like, could lie to you better
than this or whatever you wanna call it.
James Comey is another
from the from the road. Are we ready
to go to Alex live now?
Alex, welcome to the show, sir. How are
you?
Harrison,
you're absolutely right. We should all be white
pill because the global awakening is here. Global
awakening. But we should be realist about
their political movements we put in to do
our bidding are not always gonna fall all
the way through.
Oh, got it. Got it. So you are
essentially saying that the people that we put
in positions that we all control just didn't
really follow through with what we liked,
but we're occupied by Israel. So I've got
some very historic parallels.
This is so important, what I'm about to
say Not really. So people understand how the
head of the counterterrorism
national center,
Rander Gabbard,
how big
what he did was
as to strongly get Trump back on course.
I don't understand what if if Trump is
right now saying you're a loser, nobody supports
you, you're the worst person for that job,
and and and clearly,
actively,
like, passionately telling people to support the war
in Iran.
How does this look like what he just
said? This is blind
support. You are shilling for Trump and convincing
people that what he did, which I agree
is the right thing, is going is is
driving Trump in the right direction?
There's nothing to make that as make sense.
There's no evidence about that. In fact, everything
shows you the opposite.
And remember, he starts with the the he
posted it saying Israel occupies the White House.
They basically say there's been an Israeli coup
over foreign policy. Now they're trying to get
domestic control of the Republican party. And since
the American people, this is all out in
the open. Yeah. He must be watching TLAB
from a year ago or or
Adam Green from five years ago. You know
what I mean? By the way, Adam has
been calling out Alex Jones his entire time
doing this doing his show because of things
like this. So
imagine how big this is compared to Walter
Cronkite coming out sixty years ago. Why this
is even a lot of people? We've lost
the war. So it's big. It's big. It's
important because that was important. That that's why
this is important. That doesn't make sense. The
Pentagon knows internally they're covering up. And then
Daniel Ellsberg, who was just a high level
analyst coming out and say he's seen all
the real intelligence, that it was just a
big way to make money in a war
game and we couldn't win it without news
feed. Yes. Vietnam. Good news. We get it.
North Vietnam. Yep.
Imagine how big that was in the Vietnam
War. And and and then remember doctor David
Kelly Okay. Who right before the war in
2003,
and so they murdered him Kevin Kelly. So
first, I'm gonna go to a clip 30
something. Walter Cronkite.
Then we'll go back again to Daniel Ellsberg
so that's on record, the Pentagon Papers.
And then I wanna put up their the
I think this is your show. You're Harrison.
You're like,
you know, okay. Yes. These things happen in
Vietnam, and there was and this happened, and
it was a big deal.
This is happening too. Completely unrelated, totally different
thing.
Right? We're talking about, in one case, the
ongoing Vietnam War that they refused to end
and allowed people to die for. In this
case, we're talking about Israel manipulating US government
into a war. Now there's parallels you could
make, but what why would Walter Cronkite's statements
make that
He's just trying to, like, give himself gravitas,
I think. It's just weird. I think I
put for daughter David Kelly. Just search his
name, and it all comes up about him,
though, the weapons of specter. And
Seems now
lived Ask Wilson to basically break down the
Pentagon,
and lied to everyone. And when we post
this to x later,
I'm gonna ask Wilson to post the full
or at least the first five minutes. Yeah.
We're live. Contacts.
In there so people can get the full
context of that. Tom Harrison. Then Daniel Ellsberg
comes out and confirms he'd already been leaking
information.
Official Pentagon reports this is going on. Now
instead of us having to be in Vietnam
for many, many years before this first came
out,
The office of national intelligence, 16 other agencies,
including the one that Kent headed up, 11
time combat veteran.
And and they'll walk us straight to Hormuz,
and the whole thing will go from bad
to worse.
We'll sit Bush
towards w point two two point o I'm
a casted.
That all this is lies. This is really
propaganda,
and they'll walk straight to Hormuz, and the
whole thing will go from bad to worse,
so don't do it. And this is what
they were telling Trump.
And, again, this the the law the sentiment
was they'll do this. It'll be over.
And so we saw all that unfold,
and they still did it. And now how
many days
are we Labbing Trump administration.
Yes. Into this now,
Harrison?
Well, it's we're coming up on three weeks.
We're in the third week.
Yeah. Yeah. So so it I mean, it
started March
March 1. So what is today?
Today's the seventeenth.
That's seventeen days into this. Now they're saying
at least September.
Yeah. Which was also another lie.
Right? Two weeks to flatten the curve. Oh,
excuse me. That's another one. Third or four
weeks. Far, what are they? Six weeks.
Oh no, now September. Only until next year,
which is what Israel's saying.
Are we getting to the point where you
go, Trump deceived us? He lied or we
didn't he's not following through. Never. Never. First,
it was gonna be four days long.
It's about regime change.
And just because we brave of you, Alex.
Very brave of you to say what we
were all saying before, and now you're feeling
it's safe to say it out loud. Hey,
Kamala. Just because we hate the Islamises
Oh. Doesn't mean when we walk right into
a neocon trap, do we have more Muslims?
You see, just because we all hate Muslims
doesn't mean we fall for this trap too.
What? Moved here or less since 2001.
We have 15 times in the West on
average. Okay? So so
this is the globalist plan. Customs. Globalism. This
As Trump is creating a new globalist order.
This is how they operate.
Israel
you you made the twenty minute documentary that's
got 20,000,000 views. Israel's what? You should re
reear that in the third hour today or
Oh, yeah. Just watch it. Post the this.
Like, when when we post the text, also
just post the documentary,
at the end where it's hundreds of times
Israel saying, we're gonna suck the American empire
dry. We'll be the new center of the
world with Israel as a new superpower and
a great Okay. So here's the thing. This
is what I was saying earlier. That's something
that he that's something from before.
So under explain for me why you can
express that you know that, that you know
Israel had designs to take over the world
and control the US government, you know, despite
that being publicly available information should you care
to look.
But but that you knew this then is
the point, and you're acknowledging it now. So
why, Alex Jones, did you tell us to
vote for Trump? Why?
As he stood stood up and told you
that, I support Israel no matter what, and
I'm fighting why? Why you tried to gaslight
us into doing so and called us blackpilled?
And then immediately like, this is the same
old thing.
If he knew that, then why would that
be the case? Because that was his job
in my mind. And now it's about trying
to water this down to the point to
where we we know you all see it,
so we have to give you something. We
have to go, yeah. Yeah. We see the
bad thing, but watch as we fold this
in clumsily to you gotta keep supporting Trump.
Israel and all the solutional stuff. Yeah. Then
Greenblatt says, anybody saying that Israel's behind this
to be censored or arrested. Yep. Exactly. Which
is what Trump supports as I've shown you
a thousand times, but he'll never point that
out. And then now we played the clip
yesterday
where he says very clearly
the same thing we use with pagers and
violence. We need to do that for people
domestically in The United States. I mean, I
mean, do you hear what I'm saying? Like,
it's almost like he's just scrabbling, rambling off
things that we've been explicitly showing you with
source material for years.
Right there, he's talking about the example of
using the the art the the Mossad former
head of Mossad, literally telling you they booby
trapped things all over the country. We know
this. We've been telling you forever.
And yet he's only just now rambling all
this off in one long sentiment while he's
driving on Harrison's show as if it's somehow
something he broke down
while still telling you to support Donald Trump.
This is megalomania.
Everybody knows I've never been just an anti
Israel guy. They do a lot of predatory
stuff like a lot of other big powerful
groups, the Chinese, you name it. I just
oppose it. But now Israel sees the Democrats
falling apart Oh, yeah. And they're really trying
to enter the power vacuum. Oh, got it.
Okay. So weirdly enough, it's totally not the
Republicans. It's it's the Democrats who are falling
apart, which apparently, I didn't I didn't see
that. And they're rushing in to take control
of the Democrat side. So vote Republican, guys.
Vote Republican. So, again, Daniel Ellsberg will put
that on screen. The Pentagon, papers.
High level analyst. That was the end of
it. That finally came out. He's still making
notes on how to frame this. You're live,
dude, on his show.
They're impressive. Lack of respect. Doctor David Kelly,
they weren't about to let that happen.
So they
killed him. I remember I've interviewed Ellsberg before.
Higher level stature and background, his wife dying,
a gold star family. They're gonna have real
trouble like you said, demonizing him. So here's
what I'm telling everybody.
We continue to expose Democrats, open borders, pedophilia.
Woah. Okay. So continue to expose Democrats,
open border, pedophilia. Okay. So far, I'm not
seeing how this connects to Israel controlling the
White House. Nuclear war in Russia. K. They're
even worse.
But the Democrats
became so anti Israel because that's what they
promote at the universities. You know, the same
Israel he's telling you is illegally occupying our
our our White House. But they're so anti
Israel. They're just disgusting.
And a lot of leftist Jews came over,
put their money in Trump. K. But they're
Israel first. And so Right. Like we were
telling you, and you called us blackfield. Right?
I don't wanna blow up Israel. I wanna
blow up the Muslims. I wanna run our
own country.
We have real trouble, like you said, even
as a him. So here's what I'm telling
everybody.
We continue to expose the Democrats, open borders,
pedophilia, nuclear war in Russia. They're even worse.
But the Nuclear war with Russia, by the
way, while your Israel's literally threatened nuclear war
right now.
But
became so anti Israel because that's what they
promoted the universities that a lot of leftist
Jews came over, put their money Wait a
minute. Why would so what they promoted the
universities while these people are, like, fifty, sixty,
70 years old somehow influence how they think
now? Or are you saying that it was
all the way back then and somehow, you
know I mean, it's just it's just these
things don't make sense. Like, of course, I
I argue that there's a political these I
agree with the general point of what these
schools were doing and teaching. It's not the
point. But it's this idea that somehow that
that's there's this this straight line from the
thing I was talking about to what they're
currently doing. It's just lazy and there's nothing
it's if there's a thousand steps in between.
And the truth is it's not one side
of the paradigm. It's obviously our entire government.
And anybody who's not ridiculously dishonest can already
see that. Plenty of Republicans have been calling
this out for a long time. He's big
he's, like, grudgingly
catching up to make it as always,
to make it look like he was always
doing this. Mark my words, you're gonna hear
it. Alex was right about this four year
like, a year from now as if it
was somehow always saying this is always how
this goes. And it's not about him in
particular, but he is a very important and
clear example because he's one of the largest
influencing platforms. He has a larger audience than
most of the mainstream platforms.
So he's the mainstream media. If you're talking
about the most influence on people that we're
trying to reach, it's someone like this. So
just like we would break down why Fox
is lying, it's the same point. I'm saying
that because people tend to try to make
this about some kind of a personal thing.
It's about per it's about end
media and deception. And now this guy has
been deceiving people my entire life. In Trump,
but they're Israel first. And so I don't
wanna blow up Israel. I wanna blow up
the Muslims. I don't wanna blow up Israel.
I wanna blow up the Muslims,
which I believe is what he said. I
was just making sure I get like, you
could see maybe don't in there, but Go
first. And so I don't wanna blow up
Israel. I wanna blow up the Muslims.
Don't worry. Just wanna clarify. Yeah. We all
hate Muslims. That's that's clear.
This is
what is going on? Like, how is that
the the reassuring sentiment?
I wanna run our own country.
Have to point out what's happened. We're gonna
run our own country. Yeah. Well, let's let's
work toward that.
What? Yes. Obviously.
Trump's gone full neocon.
Oh, Mark Let's support him. Well, then it's
not a litmus test. He says you must
follow his worldview or you're not MAGA. At
this point, how does that saying this will
make us lose the midterms. It's out of
control. But as kids said, we gotta put
a lot of pressure on Trump, turn back
now before it's too late. Oh, is that
what he said? The one he called a
loser and is now literally going every Adam,
like, nuclear style to try to undermine him
as a person. But, yeah, he's getting him
right back on track. I mean, there's no
way you could take this without realizing where
this is going. You already sense it. It's
already about getting Trump back on track. That
sentiment alone shows you that we're not going,
Trump is a bad guy. Trump lied to
us. Trump's occupied by Israel. If Trump is
occupied by Israel or his White House is,
how do you get him back on track
without exposing that they're all corrupt?
This is a really humanitarian thing he's done,
and and, yeah, he I bet money gabbers
get ready to go out. Nope. General Flynn's
no fan of the middles, but he is
all about us running our own sovereignty. If
America really just I mean, all about us
running our own sovereignty.
That's like saying all about being alive.
It's just of course, it's been it's it's
a sin the idea that we are sovereign
is not like we're fighting to get there.
Or in reality, you could argue that. But
the sentiment should be not that we're you
know, it's just a weird thing to say
that I'm all about, you know,
having freedom.
Just as if it's some kind of passing
fad. This is weird. I'm gonna go take
out the rules. That's one thing. But
don't sleepwalk us into this situation. But I'm
gonna say this.
Everybody should be white billed. Been awake for
a long time because the red billing worldwide
not just here is at record levels.
What how can you go from we're occupied
by a foreign power to somehow we're winning?
I just I really, it's just like this
is uncomfortable. Like, I feel almost so bad
for him. And so these globalists
can play their old games and be above
the law, but the court of public opinion,
they're being destroyed. Oh, they are. Are they?
By destroyed, do you mean building a new
global order of, you know, peace board with
multiple foreign countries involved, literally a tangential, as
the UN called it, a tangential UN Security
Council, or his $2,000,000,000 proposal for a new
WHO or any number of examples, the literal
network state technocratic agenda of Rio Nouri. I
mean, everything happening in front of us or
the fact that he's currently invading and occupying
multiple countries at the same time with Israel.
But, apparently, the globals are losing their own
run.
Their systems are falling apart. Oh. Half the
fraud, waste, and abuse. Over a trillion bucks
has been cut. Oh, yeah? Fraud and abuse?
Is that why you started a new thing
to do that tomorrow?
This is ridiculous. No. It's not, Jones. Where
are you pulling this from? Higher spending, bigger
government, period. The amount of fraud is off
the chain.
But that's just we're supposed to say that.
Right? We're lower money and lower cost, and
everything's winning. Half time it's A lot of
good still be in the press room. We
just have to look at it, but major
pressure on Trump where he's bad. Oh, yeah.
Pressure on Trump place of abuse.
Over a trillion bucks has been cut. A
lot No. No. A lot of good still
be done by Trump. A lot of good
still be done by Trump. Don't worry.
Bad, bad, bad, bad. But don't worry. There's
a lot of good that's happening. I won't
say them now, but a lot of good.
I mean, you get the point. I'm just
this is
just effing incredible to me that this is
ever considered something worthy of your attention at
all. It's just first of all, again, it's
just a bunch of scattered points. There's not
is there source material? I doubt it. I
shouldn't even say that. I know there's not.
Never.
But this is just wild to me. And
this last point is it. This is the
last part. We just have to look at
it, put major pressure on Trump where he's
bad, support the good appointments where it's good.
Oh, okay. So, again, the appointments where it's
good, meaning the controlled occupied
Israel White House as he just posted.
How can you support the appointments within an
Israel controlled White House, Alex Jones?
Unless you're insinuating that somehow, even though it's
occupied, that Trump is secretly within fighting for
your side. Oh, I finally get it. This
is the new way to turn it into
the rebels fight the deep state. Because even
though you're in the control of the White
House and you control every government, you know,
that you have the most power you can
hold in this situation, you still love to
frame yourselves as, like, the adversarial
rebel fighting against the power. So I guess
you found a way to make that look
that way even though it's ridiculous and hard
to believe. That somehow it trumps the insider
fighting against the Israel controlled White House that
he allowed to happen that he brought in.
Hashtag
Build up towards the midterms to get more
Midterms. Patriots
More into government, more people like Ed Martin
into the justice department in the future. Will
go back and vote
in the system that he just told you
brought in an occupied White House because didn't
we vote these people in?
Yes. We did. Or if you believe that's
how this works
You know, Ed Martin doing a great job.
Everything he did Anyway,
wow.
That is hard, guys. I mean, I've just
you know? And I point this out often.
Now look. This is again what it says.
This is the video he posted.
The fact that Israel has successfully
conducted a coup,
that that means they control
the power structure
and is now in control of the White
House.
But go back and vote.
Support his next appointments.
Meaning,
Mark Wayne moron over there who has barely
tie his shoes, but apparently is gonna I
mean, guys, I don't even I I have
I have a whole thing lined up. I
feel like I don't even need to. This
guy is so objectively ridiculous. He's a he's
a juvenile type person. The way he responds,
he can barely speak clearly. And at the
end of the day, this is the new
gnome.
But yeah. But support. That's what he says.
Support the new appointments.
So you mean the Israel controlled White House
who clearly would then influence the appointments. We
should support that because hashtag the team. Right?
Alice Jones lays out the facts by giving
historical context.
Look at what look at the thing Cronkite
did. We're that. We're cool. We're doing it
right now.
And calls for all Americans to peacefully take
action to restore nation's sovereignty.
And by supporting the next appointment, would that
be the way to support the new sovereignty
that will come?
Fill it in, Jones. I'm still curious how
this works out.
Well,
as well as I said the day before,
I seem to remember many of us who
tried to warn Americans about exactly where we
currently are that you're now finding safe to
call out. And you instead called us black
pilled and said it was a purity test
while driving people to blindly support Trump. And
again, while you seem to have known what
Israel's designs were. And I said, and I
bet, despite this post, you'll carry on doing
just that, which was that Trump's trying to
commit political suicide to hand Congress over to
the Democrats.
The next day,
you just saw it, support Trump and the
team. So I guess I was right.
And I just for time since it's, you
know, it's it was only twelve minutes, but
it were well well over what I planned
today. But I recommend you watch Ben's documentary
about ice about about Isis. I mean, it's
it's and and Al Qaeda. It's very, very
clear. He goes over the whole discussion. Right?
Truth in media, the origin of ISIS, and
how obvious it is.
Lastly oh, that's what I just added. So
that just to end with that in general.
I mean, you know what? I'll probably I'll
just play a little bit at the start,
and then we'll wrap up. We're almost at
five hours anyway. So, you know, wait. What
do you guys think? Should I play it
anyway?
First person to respond. We're already we're already
at four hours and forty five minutes. Don't
think it's gonna make that much of a
difference.
But, we'll wrap up here in general.
Thank you for tuning in today, guys. I
think this is all,
you know, just more obvious than I've ever
seen it, which is which is a good
thing. You know? Like, we're at a point
where this is that clear, and it's not
this is again, this is if you were
to bump run across somebody who had never
even heard of politics and you showed them
this information, they'd be like, well, obviously.
At least I believe so. I think this
is self evident. So, it's important
that we
engage it like that. Like I've been saying,
to acknowledge the obvious reality that that like,
for example, ISIS and Al Qaeda are very
much influenced, if not controlled, by The US
and Israel. That's a fact. It's easily proven
as we just did. We just
I mean, just to be clear, I went
over tons of stuff today that I hadn't
covered in the past. There's tons of stuff
that we didn't even include today. Just adds
to the larger point. But as I said
in the beginning, watch James Corbin's documentary. Watch
what we're gonna play right now, guys. I
think it's very clear. And it will show
you not only is this the reality,
but that they know that.
That that arguably, even the Jones of the
world know that. And yet, you still see
the same petitioning you for support.
See that for what it is.
Thank you for tuning in.
I love you all. As always, question everything.
Come to your own conclusions.
Stay vigilant.
It is the most important story in the
country. The next major war for The United
States is with ISIS.
But what media and politicians are not telling
you the truth about, where ISIS came from,
who created them, and why before one more
dollar is spent, one more American life lost,
you need to know the truth.
The first step toward truth is to be
informed.
The name ISIS is one that every American
knows by now. The biggest threat to our
national security since Al Qaeda. Right?
They are a brutal savage group known for
public beheadings and mass executions.
They are the face of the new war
on terror.
Right now, the US military is conducting air
strikes in Syria in a supposed attempt to
take out ISIS targets.
Meanwhile, the White House and military leaders are
talking about possible boots on the ground in
Iraq again, only three years after the war
in Iraq was declared over.
In fact, this war, according to former defense
secretary Leon Panetta, could last for decades. We're
looking at,
a kind of
a thirty year war,
kind of history here.
So who exactly is ISIS? And where did
they come from? Entirely a creation of The
United States' behavior in Iraq. That's how we
got to where we are because of war,
because of occupation, because of torture.
For answers, we traveled to Los Angeles to
meet with Angela Keaton, the founder of antiwar.com.
We destabilized
and wrecked Iraq. I mean, it it caused
it to to fail miserably, and that's entirely
the responsibility of the United States government. There's
no one else at fault there. I mean,
as horrible as Saddam Hussein was, there was
you know, Iraq was not unstable. It was
a functioning country as much as those sorts
of things go, and was not a particularly
horrible hellhole hole if you were a religious
minority. To understand where ISIS comes from, you
have to understand two story lines.
The first is what Keaton just said.
When The US first went into Iraq, we
blew the country apart.
We destroyed the government, toppled Saddam Hussein, destroyed
infrastructure,
and most importantly, left behind a power vacuum.
One that would have never have existed had
Hussein not been overthrown by the US government.
Daniel McAdams with the Ron Paul Institute says
this is an historical fact that media just
won't discuss.
All of this has to do with US
action in the region, which destroyed the infrastructure,
which destroyed Iraqi society, which destroyed the government.
You had a lot of people who lived
under Saddam Hussein,
who may not have been as as happy
as Larks.
Nevertheless, they were living somewhat normal lives. The
US put a government in
power in Baghdad,
that all of a sudden was was their
enemies that treated them very, very badly. Now
that is the easy part of the story.
The US created conditions in Iraq where ISIS
could get its start. But here's the other
storyline that you have to understand.
That even with Saddam gone,
ISIS still couldn't have risen to power had
it not been for what happened next.
ISIS actually began as a small insurgent group
in Iraq in 2006.
They had no money, no real ability to
recruit, but they did work to create very
limited problems for the US military.
It wasn't until 2009
that ISIS shifted its focus from Iraq, where
it was largely unsuccessful in developing a foothold,
and focused on the civil war in Syria.
Even there, ISIS struggled to gain any foothold
because the two largest groups fighting against president
Bashar al Assad were al Nasr Afrant or
Al Qaeda and the Free Syrian Army.
Then came a pivotal moment that most Americans
aren't even aware of. In June 2013, a
northern general for the Free Syrian Army spoke
out on Al Jazeera, Qatar, and stated that
if international forces
did not send weapons,
the rebels attempting to overthrow Syrian president Bashar
al Assad
would lose their war in just one month.
Well, only months before I had personally confronted
president Obama about why The US was covertly
funding those Syrian rebels. And yet there's some
concern about The US funding,
the Syrian opposition when there are a lot
of reports that Al Qaeda is kind of
heading up that opposition. How do you justify
the two? Well, I, I share that concern,
and so,
what we've done is to say we will
provide non lethal assistance
to Syrian opposition
leadership
that are committed to a political transition, committed
to a,
an observance of human rights.
We're not going to just dive in and
get involved with a civil war
that, in fact,
involves some elements of people who are genuinely
trying to get a better life, but also
involve, some folks who would, over the long
term, do The United States harm. So even
as the president acted as if he was
being careful,
politicians like senator John McCain demanded actions.
So it's a totally unfair and unbalanced fight.
And now the rebels are the freedom fighters.
The,
the Syrian National Army are,
are being beaten every place around Syria because
of the overwhelming firepower,
and air power is really the deciding factor.
So you've got to take their air power
power out of it. You've got to have
a safe zone where they can operate, train,
and equip,
and,
we've got to turn this thing around. So
what happened? Well, within just a matter of
weeks of that Syrian general making his plea
for international help, The US, the Saudis, Jordan,
Qatar, Turkey, and Israel began providing weapons and
training and money to the so called rebel
free Syrian army.
By September 2013, American media outlets including CNN
and the Washington Post were reporting that CIA
funded weapons had begun flowing to Syrian rebels.
The weapons were not American made, but funded
and organized
by the CIA.
The artillery was described as light weapons, some
anti tank weapons, and ammunition.
But where it all fell apart,
weapons that The US insisted would be used
by freedom fighters would be in less than
one year in the hands of ISIS fighters.
So where were these fighters coming from?
Actually, from the Free Syrian Army, the group
that John McCain insisted would help The US
to overthrow Assad.
That same group actually giving weapons,
selling weapons, and sending fighters to join with
this new group called
the Islamic State.
It was in June 2014 when suddenly, after
being a no name group in Syria, that
ISIS emerged
heavily armed and trained by US and coalition
special
forces, making a dramatic entrance by crossing back
over the Syrian border into Iraq, capturing Mosul
and much of the northern part of the
country.
One of the most important facts that mainstream
media ignores time and time again is that
ISIS was able to grow so fast because
of all The US military equipment they were
able to seize.
Equipment that our military left in Iraq.
Truckloads of Humvees,
tanks, and weaponry that instead of taking or
destroying,
the US government simply decided to leave behind.
Even when the US government knew that ISIS
fighters were capturing that equipment, for crying out
loud, these guys were posting pictures of themselves
driving and standing on US Military equipment, making
video of themselves with it,
we did nothing.
Why?
How is it The US had no idea
that this threat was coming?
How many billions do we spend? Maybe a
100,000,000,000 on the on the total intelligence community
budget over over the year. How is it
that they had no idea? How is it
that if this was such a threat as,
as,
John McCain and Lindsey Graham are fond of
reminding us? How is it that it was
missed so unbelievably,
so egregiously?
Over the past few months, the US government
who acted like they had never even heard
of ISIS,
suddenly with the help of media has turned
the Islamic State into the new focus of
the war on terror. Now as ISIS has
continued its rise, recruitment is exploding, and the
group is becoming stunningly
wealthy.
ISIS is the is the best funded terrorist
group in the world. They make some I
think it's $2,000,000
a day selling oil,
much of it to Turkey,
interestingly enough.
And if you look at The US response
to this,
The US response to ISIS becoming extremely rich
by selling oil and undercutting the competition is
to blow up the oil fields, which to
me makes no sense. You're blowing up the
infrastructure.
It happens to be in Syria, so you
might think that there is a, another motive
there. But why wouldn't you The US sanctions
anything that moves when it's angry. Why can't
you sanction the banks that are helping finance
these deals? Why can't you sanction the oil
companies that are participating in this? Why do
you blow up the oil fields? It's a
great question. And here are some other questions
that defy logic when you start looking for
answers.
Why is The US sending $500,000,000
to the free Syrian army to fight ISIS
when the FSA is one of the biggest
suppliers of fighters and weapons
to ISIS?
Why are we sending new and more powerful
weapons to the FSA like anti aircraft missiles,
weapons that we know
will end up in the hands of ISIS?
ISIS, of course, is going to now have
anti aircraft missiles provided by The US and
the Saudis. The Saudis
got are getting them from the Chinese though
now, so there can be plausible deniability because
inevitably, these sweethearts in the sweetheart rebel groups
in Syria are going to start shooting down,
if they have the ability, passenger with passenger
jets. And then we're gonna want the plausible
liability and say, no. No. No. It's the
Chinese weaponry
as if it's going to make any difference.
Well, there are so many questions that we
could ask, but let's just cut to the
chase here because what you need to know
about this is that ISIS
is not the creation of American inaction, which
is what the media is going to tell
you.
No. They are the product
of direct action.
First, the action of creating the power vacuum
in Iraq, and secondly,
arming violent jihadists hoping they would overthrow a
leader in a neighboring Middle Eastern country.
McAdams says the US government is a victim
of its own insane policies.
Well, I think The US is really a
hostage to its own regime change philosophy.
You know, The US is very good at
blowing things up and destroying societies,
but it is very, very bad at putting
them back together. Is that true?
Well, you decide.
Fact.
Our government armed Osama bin Laden and the
Mujahideen in Afghanistan
and created
Al Qaeda.
Fact. Our government helped supply Saddam Hussein chemical
weapons for him to use against Iran in
1980
and then overthrew him in 2003.
Fact.
Our government trained rebel fighters in Syria who
would become the group today known as ISIS
or the Islamic State.
We have watched them commit
every violent atrocity that you can imagine
to people living in Iraq and Syria.
And now we want American taxpayers to fund
a thirty year war against them.
No. It's not the US government being held
hostage by these crazy policies. It's the American
people.
And it's time that we reject the destruction
of people groups around the world for the
sake of foreign policy that makes so called
defense contractors rich and perpetuates
violence, death, and destruction
of entire people groups
because humanity
is greater than politics.