I frankly think that crisis initiation is really
tough,
and it's very hard for me to see
how The United States,
president can get us to war with Iran.
Which leads me to conclude that if in
fact compromise is not coming,
that the traditional way of America gets to
war is what would be best for US
interest.
Some people might think that mister Roosevelt wanted
to get us into World War two as
David mentioned, you may recall we had to
wait for Pearl Harbor.
Some people might think mister Wilson wanted to
get us into World War one, you may
recall he had to wait for the Lusitania
episode.
Some people might think that mister Johnson wanted
to send troops to Vietnam, you may recall
we had to wait for the Gulf Of
Tonkin episode.
We didn't go to war with Spain until
the USS,
until the Maine exploded.
And may I point out that mister Lincoln
did not feel he could call out the
federal army until Fort Sumter was attacked, which
is why he ordered the commander at Fort
Sumter to do exactly that thing, which the
South Carolinians had said would cause
an attack.
So if in fact the Iranians aren't gonna
compromise,
it would be best if somebody else started
the war.
But I would just like to suggest that,
one can combine other means of pressure with
sanctions.
I mentioned that explosion,
on August 17.
We could step up the pressure.
I mean, look people, Iranian submarines periodically go
down. Someday one of them might not come
up. Who would know why?
We can do a variety of things if
we wish to increase the pressure. I'm not
advocating that, but I'm just suggesting
that,
it it it it's this this is not
a a either or proposition of, you know,
it's just sanctions has to has to succeed
or other things.
We are in the game
of using covert means against the Iranians.
We we could get nastier.
Could you please explain Tulsi Gabbard's role in
DOJ activity regarding the Fulton County search?
What do you mean her role?
It was reported that She was she happened
to be present in Atlanta? I'm not involved
in it, but they are inspecting and checking
the bell. Why is Tulsi Gabbard there?
I don't know. She took a lot of
heat two days ago because she went in
at Pam's
insistence.
She went in
and she looked at votes.
I was at Fulton County, sir,
at the request of the president
and to work with the FBI to observe
It starts with a simple question
and ends in objective
reality.
Through our journey from there to here,
we find one another
and ourselves.
And as the next twenty four hours
breaks free from our last,
we gaze onward in reflection of the day.
Welcome to the daily wrap up.
Thursday, 03/19/2026.
Thank you for joining me today.
Start play that clip of Patrick Clausen, Washington
Institute, plenty of times.
Many, many times, it feels relevant right now
for plenty of reasons we'll get into about
concerns of false flags, the kind of obvious
reality of The US and Israel.
You know, losing the war,
it's it's a there's a major there's a
lot of nuance to what that might mean
with the way this has been done, but,
effectively, not let's just say not reaching the
goals they they wanted to achieve, and it
appears there might be some level of pulling
back, but not the same as
decreasing the amount of manipulation,
fault, like, psychological operations, funding the Kurds from
within their government. That stuff never seems to
stop from what Israel's doing. But I am
generally worried about
where this is going. And we this will
make more sense as we go through it.
I mean, we will discuss the points of
why I think that may be where we
are. But, you know, what he's saying right
there? And this is just one example of
one think tank that very much I mean,
if we're getting into the larger conversation of
the influence of outside forces and foreign elements,
that's these think tanks are packed with the
that kind of conversation, Zionism and otherwise.
And realize that what when that whether you
agree with that or not, the point is
just The US. I'm just making sure you
understand that that's influence. But from The US
mindset of these politicians revolving door scenario
are just casually sitting around thinking about how
we get to war with Iran and and
then casually discussing how every war that this
country's ever been involved in was essentially started
by a false flag or rather just simply
waited for the opportunity because you always wanted
the war. Not how we frame our own
history, but how the people that write that
history collectively talk about it behind closed doors.
Tip, that's a perfect thing to understand in,
like, a microcosm of how what we're dealing
with in the world and our country.
But just think about that and what that
means for today. We're in the the game
of psych you know, I forget the exact
phrasing he just used, but, you know, we're
in the game of using psychological operations against
Iran, and we can get nastier at that.
Think about whether that's where we are right
now. Now, I also played on there the
beginning was just a clip randomly made by
some account about the just inconsistent statements from
this and any other administration, but this one
just is especially bad at what they're doing.
And that one was we talked about it,
the Fulton County Point, about the and remember
the importance of that if you if you
if, for that specific story, which is not
necessarily relevant to the, conversation today other than
what I showed you just about their dishonesty
or, I guess, lying or even not knowing
what the narrative is. But that story was
Tulsi Gabbard in Fulton County being sent, I
guess, arguably because of the the the claim
was or rather the concerns were a local
domestic kind of partisan vote count discussion, which
she shouldn't be involved in. If it was
about
what which would be the only, like, legal
justification for her to do what she did,
if it was involving some kind of foreign
influence in this conversation, well, then she would
have been required to inform the the intelligence
community of which they said that didn't happen.
So that's just why that hall went down.
But, clearly, there was something weird going on
there. At the very least, they're stepping outside
of their
legal roles.
And as you look,
Pam Bondi told her to do it. Oh,
no. Trump told me to go. I I
don't even know why she's there. This was,
like, day after day after day where they
just say and even Trump day after day.
We'll give you a different explanation. Say something
completely different. And this isn't an evolving narrative.
This is just dishonesty.
It's no different than past administrations, as I
said. But it's very, very on you know,
people see it, let's put it that way,
more than usual. I think that's because of
the change happening in this country, but it
is just worse.
And I want you to think about that
as we go through and important the parts
we we start today with Tulsi Gabbard and
her congressional testimony and around this exact conversation.
Now I didn't think this was gonna continue
to be this kind of conversation. I just
just didn't sense that it was, I guess,
maybe because of the past times these have
like, what I tend to see is that
these things go to this kind of point.
And then when they recognize they're just not
getting what they want, they declare victory and
back away even though they didn't like, that
was the twelve day war, guys. They did
not win in that exchange, if you understand
what actually happened. But they yelled that they
did, and they weakened, and we obliterated them.
And now these those lies are being exposed
today. But my point, though, is that I,
you know, I I kinda felt this would
go somewhat like it had in the past.
But right now, it seems like this is,
you know, at least the point of explaining,
like, why it's important to continue to rehash
and day to day go over, like, the
discussions of whether this was imminent and what
Tulsi Gabbard is saying from the DNI position
and how that contradicts Trump or her refusal
to answer certain questions as we discussed in
the last show. There's more of them we'll
discuss today.
It just has to show you where we
really are, that this is a very dangerous
position for them and why would they put
themselves in this position when nobody in this
country wants that? You already know the answer.
It's literally mainstream conversation today, which is kinda
crazy to me. I'm glad it's there, but
I'm also very suspicious of why. I mean,
I'll tell you my thoughts. I think it's
kinda clear, but I'm suspicious of why some
of the people are choosing to put it
forward, seeing as how their entire careers have
been built on claiming the opposite
for some of them. But
really take a step back right now. And
this is this is, you know, you can
claim I'm, you know, saying I was the
fur or whatever. That's not what I'm doing.
But you can demonstrating our value, that's for
sure, of how consistently we were right on
this point, but many before.
But aside of all of that, just look
at in whether me or Derek or anybody
in the IMA, we've talked about this a
lot over the last year because of where
this administration has gone.
But right now more than ever, and I'll
probably say this in a week from now
as it gets even more clear, I'm sure
you guys have seen it. You get this
weird pushback from some of them, but pretty
much the vast majority of the independent media,
even the mainstream, is in some way or
another grappling with the
stream, is in some way or another grappling
with the point of whether Israel's controlling our
government.
How long have we been talking about this?
Not saying it without evidence, but going through
the actual proof, rather the evidence that I
think has led to proof.
And it's very clear.
I mean, six months ago, most of the
people right now acting like Trump has suddenly
changed, which, by the way, he has not.
He's gotten more obvious, but he's the same
person that we warned you about in 2025,
and most of them called us Blackfield for
pointing it out. Now, again, if they're genuinely
starting to see it, that's great. I have
no problem with that. I do think it's
important to highlight that that's the evolution of
their understanding and why how in the world
they missed it when it was just as
obvious back then. But I want we I
think we should be on guard about people
who are being dishonest. Like a lot of
the ones we saw from COVID when it
became the safe dangerous. Right? It was dangerous
dangerous when we were breaking it down in
the midst of it and getting censored and
attacked. Then it became something that was just
obvious to most people who were not blindly
part of the mainstream conversation. That's when it
was safe dangerous. That's when you get the
Jones and the rest that grapple into it
and start taking over the part of the
conversation. And because of their massive reach and
because they're technically part of the mainstream apparatus,
that's where all the conversation swirls. People argue
Tucker and the rest, but you can decide
for yourself because now he's doing things I
think continue to challenge him. But I still
question that the same point, especially since Tucker
twenty twenty eight's coming around. But
think about how wild it is that we
talked about all of this, whether the Israel
influence, whether it's about the two party paradigm
breaking down. No one's really talking about that,
even though that's what this actually is in
part. Look at where we are. Look at
how much is happening in this conversation, where
you've got people like Owens and, you know,
Tucker, David Smith. I mean, you go down
the list of tons of people now. What's
her name that just went on here saying
MAGA is dead. I don't even recognize Trump
anymore. You know, it's it's it's important to
see that that's there and not just like
this, Oh, my God. We suddenly see this,
but this has been there. For years, we've
been calling this out from his last administration.
Anybody who's been consistent with his criticism with
their criticisms will recognize that Trump was doing
part
what's the right way to say it? There
were elements of the same things he's doing
today in his first administration. The same dishonesty,
the same tactics. It's just the evolution of
where it's gone. Now, the other thing,
rattling in my mind right now with where
we are, as I briefly said, is that
I'm worried about where this allhow it's all
happening, how obvious it is, how clearly most
Americans are
not okay with this revelation and then the
lack of any concern from either side of
our government, apparently, and that shows you the
point, but that there's now going to be
something
that drives support. And that's always in the
past been something serious,
major event. Right? A a jarring situation that
drives people to, you know, stand by the
team. Now we'll make a point about that
to some degree today because, you know, as
always, when you when they're conducting an illegal
war and they know it's unpopular,
they shift immediately. And remember, at first, there's
not gonna be flag draped coffins. That's not
when we're having to do boots on the
ground, and now we're seeing flag draped coffins.
And the same point as always while Israelis
are sitting at that mountain and watching it
all take place. The point is that that
did start to happen, and now we are
seeing Americans die. Now what are they doing?
Well, we have to now that they've died,
we have to honor their sacrifice. Well, and
I'm not even disagreeing with that you you
can think that way. But don't let politicians
who never cared about them in the first
place use their sacrifice. And I'm I shouldn't
even put in quotes because, as I've always
said, plenty of them still think they're fighting
for freedom. And that makes what they're doing
honorable despite the fact that I think it's
pretty obvious that it's not where we are
today. But I can't decide who and when
and where, but some of them are like
that, so consider that. My point, though, is
that that using that person, putting their life
on the line for whatever justification, in order
to get you to support something you don't
otherwise support because, otherwise, you're un American. In
the midst of the illegal war, we gotta
side with the team because, otherwise, you're not
part of this country. That is literally the
most un American thing in this country, that
statement right there. Blind support. As
Theodore Roosevelt famously said, that it is servile
and unpatriotic
to blindly support the president, whether they're right
or wrong. Funny how we don't learn our
own lessons.
But I'm worried about where this goes. We're
at the Strait Of Hormuz, which we'll get
into today. I'm worried about this this conversation
with these drones that have been mimicked to
look like Iranian drones. That's not to say
Iran is not capable of carrying out their
own illegal attacks. It's just that we have
to understand where this has always gone and
what Israel and the US government do as
a matter of policy. And that is, as
we heard Patrick Clausen tell you, conduct psychological
warfare. That I mean, they have entire teams
dedicated to psychological operations. They have videos they
put out about how they're dancing in the
background with their special I mean, we've played
these for you. And yet then when you
discuss whether or not they might carry out
an attack and blame it on Israel, how
dare you pearl clutching ensues. It's crazy.
So keep this in mind as we go
through because it's quite obvious, I think, that
we're drifting into this and that they're already
starting to pull back on the conversation about
where this may go, already suggesting that, you
know, Iran might not even go away. They're
just weakened, and that's what we were going
for. No, it was not. No, it was
not, and you do it every single time.
Your
claimed outcomes are not even close to happening.
So the moment they try to recorrect and
claim, like, the bombing destroyed them and we
obliterated them, it's not what they were ever
trying to do, and it's not even actually
what's happening. So to that opening clip,
and we'll get into a lot of other
stuff to update today, including some stuff here
to start. This was the account that it
came from and just that clip in case
you wanna watch it where it's just showing
the blatantly inconsistent statements. And, of course, when
you watch Todd Blancho, I'm just convinced as
a dishonest person at the core, is so
you know, the way he responds to these
kind of things.
Right? So they're asking a very simple question
like, Tulsi Gabbard in in the thing and
and the way he responds like, what? What
do you mean? And then immediately jumps in
and cuts her off and it starts to
well, you knew what she was getting at.
Then why did you act like he didn't
know? Because they're coming from a dishonest place.
Because they know that there's something weird going
on. They wanna act like it's outrageous for
you to even bring it up. That's not
left or right or light versus left. It's
just the government in power always gaslighting people,
whether it's the other side of the paradigm
using that point to gain clout.
They'll push back on anything that exposes the
larger agenda.
So on the Epstein part of this, a
couple points to start because you didn't see
this.
I there's also one more thing too that
I wanna add just kind of the general
sentiment today is we'll we'll touch on some
of the things of Joe Kent again today.
There's a part of me that's very skeptical
about what this is.
Now I wanna say again, like I said
yesterday, like, regardless of the like, whether this,
let's say, was something done by the people
controlling this to push you in a certain
position,
like, as a as a, like, a a
desperate effort because we see what's going on.
So they release the valve a little bit
and admit certain things, but then call it
a traitor and a loser, but then they
let that be acknowledged. Right? That's how this
can work, possibly, has in the past. Or
he just genuinely was not okay with what
was happening and called it out. Those are
that's just as likely to me with where
we are. But I'm I'm skeptical of what
this all is. And my point being is
that this is all happening right now at
a time where, you know, as I said,
and we'll get into this part as well
again, where Glenn Beck and Alex Jones are
essentially arguing that this is
doubling down on supporting the team and that
Trump is working this in a way where
he knew Israel was controlling it, but that
he did it so he would be the
one to control how it went for us.
It's just insane. Oh, no evidence, by the
way, to back any of that up. And,
in fact, plenty of evidence to prove that
that's clearly not what's happening, but they'll get
you to support the team even as they
admit to you Israel's controlling our government. It's
baffling to me. But my point is all
of this is coming out right now, even
through platforms that have been trying to gaslight
you away
from it. And so in this clip we're
gonna play, you have, Barack,
Tom, Barrick, or Barack,
admitting to you, as we all know, by
the way, that Epstein was just universal. He
was in everybody's lives, and it was big
business back then. And, as as Lowkey points
out, basically the existence of the Epstein class,
and that it was his ties to Israel
that gave him that.
Can you imagine saying this like we like,
you think he doesn't know what's going on
in the conversation?
That's by design to me. I don't you
can ask why. And if you think it's
because Trump is saving Israel for last,
my God, you need to the idea of,
you know look, if that ends up that
way and somehow he masterfully brings us all
back around and explains why everything he did
was not a violation of the constitution and
was not killing Americans, you know, then maybe
we'll all I'm obviously being facetious because I
don't even see a way you could possibly
bring this around. Let's just say he kills
Netanyahu and controls everything. Maybe he already did.
I already see that filtering through the conversation.
What does that what would that change? So
he double crossed his ally in the middle
of an illegal war? He's the one that's
saving us. You know, it just it's a
desperate point for them to try to make
it seem like it's always what they promised.
But back to the point. I worried
Kent or anything else, whether that's just being
used or maybe part of this, is a
design to
keep us like, basically, to put it as
simple as possible, to give the Donald Trump
supporters, the dishonest ones who don't wanna make
America great again but believe that just means
whatever Trump says, give them the out to
say, ah, I knew it, like Jones and
Glenn are giving you. It wasn't that he
was always lying and, you know, part of
Israel's agenda. It's that he knew the problem.
He saw that Israel was doing this. And
he even so, he put himself in this
position to make sure he could save things
where he could.
That's what they're giving you right now. And
so this is a last ditch effort, I
think, to when everyone is seeing the Epstein
files connections to him and more than anybody
and his administration or our government rather
and every other part of this, whether it's
the challenging of everything in Maha or MAGA,
it's the lies you've done. This is a
point where they're desperately unpopular,
and yet they're telling you they're a 100%
supported. That's what just came out yesterday. They're
drowning. So what do you get?
A secret plan that shows you this is
the old everything bad is happening only because
Israel's doing it, and that Trump has been
desperately trying to save you from within. Trust
the plan because he'll get there.
I'm telling you guys, that's what you're getting
from some of these people right now, and
it's alarming to me because it is partly
true. Some of the things are true, but
they're driving you right back in. That's q
and on. That's Russiagate. We've talked about this
over the years so many times. So back
to this clip. Here's what he says about
the Epstein class, or rather, that's how Loki
frames it. But why is he saying this
now?
I think it's to shift that blame, and
you're gonna have some tension with Israel. If
that's the case, maybe they're involved in this
massive organizational lie to get you into
the board of peace new global order, which
is also part of this conversation.
Just trying to ask you about
what I read in the Epstein files about
your association with him. Why did you introduce
him to Peter Thiel and Vitali Cherkin? What
what were your dealings with Jeffrey Epstein? Well,
I didn't introduce him to those people, but
all of us dealt with Jeffrey Epstein in
in the eighties as a as a business
person. He was
bigger than life. Bigger than life. He was,
you know, a thirty year story. Okay. So
right there, that means that they all all
of them.
And that's what we're all trying to show
you. We're interconnected with this person who was
collecting,
you know, blackmail
material
for intelligence networks on every person in power
they can get a hold of, and that's
Israel, and that's the CIA. And, arguably, I
genuinely think we're talking about the Israel Zionist
connection there, but that's my opinion. Either way,
Mossad's CIA connections, you can't deny that. Whether
he's an agent
is a different story. But the idea of
pretending like Blanche just again lied about that
there's zero connections to intelligence is just flatly
dishonest.
Of this that I think most of us
actually thought
that he had he had built his wealth
and his prowess over his international relations with
Israel. Oh, is that what you thought? Just
casually admitting that we all knew he was
doing that because Israel allowed that for him,
and then yet today when that comes up,
you act like we're racist? That's funny how
that works out.
That's always what kind of the background was.
I I I didn't see the rest of
it later in 2050.
In the files I I read, you're having
dealings with him after he became this convicted
sex offender. Why? And that's the major point
there. They always, like, try to avoid is
that almost every one of them you can
show were dealing, like,
Keel and Trump and plenty of them had
many dealings after despite their lies, and it's
not on the record now, and has been
quite frankly, that they dealt they worked with
him, dealt with him well after he was
a hear it, guys, convicted
sexual predator. Convicted on the record, and yet
they still work with him. They still hung
out with him.
Dealings, meaning he was emailing me, asking me
for access to
the president or a trans I was running
a New York Stock Exchange company.
He'd try and get a hold of me
for relevant information. That that was it. But
you met him and you met with Vitali
Chutkin. You met with Peter Thiel and Epstein.
Yep. Oh, never mind. Hi.
Yep. That's
that's not that's not easy to see. Right?
Oh, you're bringing up the things I just
tried to lie about? See you later. I'm
busy.
I mean, you this is the kind of
insulation. Like, you you really you even think
he would have the courage to say those
things
without knowing or at least believing that he's
completely protected?
I know, of course, you could also be
objective and argue that's not even the reality
and that we're all wrong about this. But
that there's basically nothing to back up that
argument. There's tons of evidence to back up
what we're considering,
but you can work that out for yourself.
Now as he just says, he just admitted
the existence of the Epstein class and kept
it moving.
Right. Now on another point,
following a committee wide vote, chairman, James Comer
has issued a subpoena to attorney general Pam
Bondi. Why?
I doubt this goes anywhere, I'm sad to
say, but to appear for a deposition regarding
her handling of the Epstein investigation, specifically the
compliance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act. So
here's another example. I hate to say it.
I know I'm I mean, I you know
I'm a pessimist. You know I'm jaded when
it comes to government. Our entire lives have
given you every reason to understand that's why
they I mean, you can look at how
infrequently, if not ever, they actually follow through
with what they're gonna do. And I I
mean outside of, like, specific wedge issues. Like,
these kind of things where Clinton gets in
front of Congress and, oh, she's going down.
Nothing happens. Or this administration every other day.
Pelosi, Bobaba, Comey, they're all going down. Oh,
by the way, Comey was subpoenaed for some
conversation about him investigating Trump. So now you're
getting these renewed calls for, see, we told
you he's going down, just like last time.
And just like last time, I told you
that there's likely nothing there. Now I haven't
gotten into the subpoena today, but just like
last time, my argument is that it'll end
up being nothing. It'll be in a a
bunch of back and forth, the big grandstanding
comments in congress, and nothing will happen despite
the fact that I do think you should
be in prison. So in this case,
they broke the law. We know this. It's
very easy to prove. They violated the very
explicitly outlined Transparency Act that showed that they
had to include, for example, the conversations between
Cash and Bondy or anybody else involved, and
they did not. Or they blacked out names
or they withheld information. I mean, it's just
all the time. Les Wexner, for example.
So the point is, if this ends up
with anything other than at least Bondy and
ever hopefully, people around her getting at least
some kind of a criminal charge, then there
is no honesty in the situation.
Or at the very least, if there's enough
control over it by the dishonest people that
it does not ever go anywhere. I don't
know how many times we can go through
this without acknowledging that basic reality.
They broke the law. It's unequivocal.
But I'm gonna argue
this is a bunch of grandstanding conversation, and
it ends up going nowhere because they're all
likely
majority, if not all, are on the side
of this conversation.
I wanna really stress that I get that
that's a very jaded opinion.
I just wanna, again, stress that I think
the history of what they do shows you
have every right to realize that's most likely
where it goes. While, as always, and I
always emphasize, having hope that it goes the
better direction, because I genuinely do. I genuinely
hope that anybody, for whatever reason, makes this
happen to where Bondy and then if it
makes you feel better, every other one before
in every other democrat administration gets arrested for
the same thing. Great.
I just doubt it will happen.
Now on the daily Daily Beast article, Pam
Bondi's DOJ forced to lower hiring standards.
Why? Because the lawyers have quit in droves.
Now you have to realize, just like the
last Comey situation,
and the guy, I forget his name now
off the top of my head, quit because
he said, he's a Republican. He said, there's
nothing there. I'm not gonna bring this to
court. I'm gonna embarrass myself. And that's when
Abba stepped in or Abba, and then she
backed away. And and, yeah, and then they
still went forward. And yet, ultimately, it didn't
go anywhere because why? There is nothing there,
and it ultimately got dismissed. And that's not
because he's not a criminal. You see how
crazy this is? So, what I want you
to understand is this is their people, guys,
in their department. And these are lawyers that
are they're leaving. We'll get into, I think,
if we have time, it's it's the end,
I think we should, the point of of
Kegseth being called out by his own people
and and saying he's drowning. He doesn't know
what he's doing. He's wildly outside of his
death. Doesn't that sound familiar? Yeah. Because that
was my opinion just based on what he
was saying. Turns out, by his own people
and his own administration, it's what they think
too,
which I don't think that's necessarily super insightful.
I think it's quite obvious that these people
aren't fit for these positions.
But it's interesting to think that how you
know, they're just fleeing their own think about
working under somebody like this, who is so
obviously juvenile and one-sided and has no understanding
of the real depths of the job, and
they don't wanna work for them because they're
being driven to do things that are whether
they're against their morals or integrity or, you
know, just basic law, which is what we're
talking about. But I want you to think
about this, that this is the administration that's
supposed to be winning for you, that's basically
just driving us into a direction that's I
mean, I I don't even need to like,
right now, because, again, the major part of
the Republican conversation is, oh my god. Israel's
controlling our government. Oh, I can't believe we've
never seen this before, even though it's always
been there.
You have to realize this is just one
part of a larger
failing direction of your government, not just Trump.
Now on the technocratic side of this before
we get into the Tulsi Gabbard conversation, I
won't play this again, but I'll include this
clip from yesterday that I really think you
should watch.
Decentral News included the entire, you know, exchange,
which you really should watch all of. We'll
come back to that.
Insider paper. First look at Twitter's upcoming region
conversation control feature. Now, you know, you could
argue this is just for your benefit, I
guess, in a platform that's just about, you
know, sharing, you know, ideas or whatever, but
we, you know, we all know what these
things have become.
And that's just because they've driven us here,
is what it is. I you know, we've
always talked about why these things are problems
and what the social media platforms have done
to children and their people's minds. You know?
But, nonetheless
and that's why my argument in the past
is I I weighed into this for you
because this platform, unfortunately, does have what I
argue is the most real time kind of
flowing information. But every day, I feel like
that's getting worse and worse because they know
that's what we're looking for. I just think
right now that it's it's
all of them engage with because it's information.
But you have to understand that if half,
if not more, is gonna be lies, misinformation,
outright deception, you know, whatever.
As long as you can understand that, engage
with it. Question it all. Engage with what
you can. Try to suss out the information.
That's the world we live in today. Like,
I've always been telling you, question everything. People
used to push back like, oh, it's so
exhausting. Well, welcome to the reality that we
live in, and now people see it more
than ever. We have to question what we
look at, consider all possibilities. It's the only
way to be honest with yourself. My point
is you can consider this as just a,
you know, a cool little feature to be
able to I only wanna hear from what
the, you know, people in South Africa have
to say. You know, whatever. That's what this
is.
But you know how this will be abused
because this is what this platform actually is
today. This is the one massive social engineering,
narrative control AI management is what it comes
down to. Users will be able to restrict
replies to their posts based on specific regional
geographic regions. Now right now, you who can
reply? Everyone, your subscribers. I think that already
exists.
But what I want you to think about
is whether this being applied to, you know,
only accounts from Israel, for example, or only
accounts from Iran, for example, and whether or
not that will be ease identifiable by the
post. Because what happens when you look at
a post that's claiming something crazy that we
that you could prove is false, but all
you see is massive support,
and it you and you eventually find out,
oh my god. It's only people that are
supporting the IDF. That is weird. And you
find out that they restrict your replies to
only one certain area. If you if Lustat's
notified,
where you can see restricted to only Israel,
well, then this is gonna be a way
to deceive you.
My opinion. And will be used by the
very people who are screaming about your free
speech to convince you of what needs to
happen for a foreign power, most likely, but
simply not in American interests. My opinion. But,
I mean, have we not seen how these
things continue to get used and what Elon
has allowed to happen on this platform despite
the screeching screams of free speech while they
censor people on this platform. It's just it's
a we're in the it's it's a 1984
analogy is where we are.
We are in a world where things are
exactly the opposite of what they appear to
be, and you get enough people to stand
up and go, that's the thing. Either whether
they know it or not, don't care, or
making money, they just do it. And then
it confuses tons of innocent people.
But this is where we are going. And
I think Katherine Austin fits points out that
the Save America Act, which, don't forget, has
added on to but still includes the Real
ID discussion. That's Digital ID, as I've said
every time. If you wanna support this act
and you believe it's important because of the
voting discussion, well, guess what? You do not,
I repeat, in any way, do not need
Real ID compliance
to effectively do what they're claiming. You don't.
In fact, it actually overcomplicates the situation by
adding another level of of administration and control.
You could go back to basics and this
would be exact. Just make sure they require
ID of any kind, verifiable ID. To make
it specific and to box certain things out
is because they're eventually driving it towards only
digital versions of all of those things. I've
made I've proven this to people. And as
Catherine also writes, goal of the SAVE Act
in general, she writes, is to build a
control grid. Don't fall for it. Tell your
rep and senators to vote no.
Now my my argument would be if you
take away the real ID part of it,
in in in part at least, that would
be the digital ID issue.
But as she's writing, there's plenty of other
parts of the act that seem to build
out the control grid as well. But I
just really want people to think about the
con the the way that this has been
used. We called this out back in 2024
when it first came out, and they tried
to convince you it was necessary for the
next election. And then Massey came out and
said, Well, guess what? Even if you vote
for this, it won't even come into effect
until afterward. So they all lied to you.
Shocker.
Or they didn't even know that, which is,
you know, as always, stupidity or or dishonesty.
I don't know what's more alarming with where
we are right now.
Now, Julie Barrett adds something to this that
I think is important that I just saw.
America's newest digital ID proposal
just dropped in the US Senate. Republican Senator
Marsha Blackburn
has introduced a new AI bill that bundles
17 different policies into one massive 291
page bill. This is just like all the
other tech bills we've been seeing, a massive
digital ID framework.
Not even secret, guys, and it never has
been.
The the the Save ID Act the Save
the Save Act or Save America Act now
is simply just
one part of of creating this
and creating the part that once it comes
together, like the mobile driver's license part that
I often mention from Biden's administration, which is
now being pushed again in Republicans in Florida,
for example. This is how it all comes
together, and it leads to a place where
you have no option but to use a
real ID, digital ID component.
And now, a bill that will make sure
this framework is in place for when that
becomes the reality.
The bill includes mandatory age verification for every
existing account and freezing accounts until users verify
their age. This is the same thing in
The UK, and this is all about control.
They're using things you care about to convince
you, just like the voting part, to convince
you you need these things when you don't.
And as Owen Schroeder says, what bell is
it in? Does it say it back? And
she points out, no. Here's the link to
it from Blackburn's own site just introduced yesterday.
So this is on the eighteenth.
No billing number yet. It's still being proposed.
It's going forward, and it says, well, it's
not the Save Act. I think there's a
lot of overlap, and I could see in
the database as being intern linked, meaning that
I bet you this ends up being folded
into the SAVE Act. That's how this tends
to work. But wait and see. Either way,
guys, Republicans, left, right, whatever, it's all going
in the same direction if you just pay
attention and stop listening to screaming partisans online.
Aaron Day also adds the Board of Peace
as a CEO for life. That's Trump.
A private army
and no auditor.
Totally sounds like a not like a America
First national idea. Right, Alex Jones? Totally doesn't
sound like exactly what a globalist organization looks
like. They signed it at Davos because that's
not about globalism. Right? It's literally about globalism.
It's amazing the stupidity we can get from
these people. I should I like, I try
to be facetious to sort of make it
funny, but it's like I said, oh, you
need to make fun of it? Like, how
in the world can anybody take these people
seriously with what we're looking at? Now I'm
not I'm talking about Alex Jones and the
rest of them, like Glenn Beck.
They signed it at Davos. They called it
a peace board. And let's not forget, that
peace board
was literally called an adjacent UN Security Council
by the UN.
You can't get any more clear than that.
This is literal globalist discussion. And it says,
it's a corporation with 20,000
soldiers.
20,000 soldiers? What are we even talking about
right now? This is a the reimagining of
our society, like I've been telling you. Here
are the eight people running the Board of
Peace, apparently forever. Let this sink in.
Trump,
chairman for life, can veto any decision, remove
any member state, dissolve the entire board if
he wants to, retains this power
after leaving office,
not as president, not as a as a
private citizen.
Of course, Jared Kushner.
Totally makes sense, right? The unelected person has
no reason to be there. Affinity Partners, management,
billions from Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, the same
countries on the board. So, he manages their
money and directs where $30,000,000,000
in Reconstruction goes. And let's not pretend like
we all don't know directly what forces he's
working for. Mark Rowan.
Apollo Global, of course, 785,000,000,000.
AUM, val valued Gaza's coastline at $50,000,000,000
currently facing securities, class actions over Epstein ties.
Apollo shares dropped 15%. It's all the good
guys, right? Witka, of course. Now, can you
not see how this is already working out,
these two people that just happen to also
be in the conversations about
the Gaza discussion who are also met literally
about the profit wildly from the next step.
It's just incredible.
Trump's real estate partner, Witkoff, turned Epps Middle
East envoy randomly, apparently, sold his stake to
resolve conflicts. His son took over and kept
dealing with the same Gulf investors, just like
Trump's sons, so they lied to you. I
mean, it's it's just really a it's it's
a shuffle of people. The money is still
in the Trump family. It's the same conversation.
UAE bought $5,500,000,000
in World Liberty Financial days before,
inauguration. You know, that that coin that collapsed.
Right. So but either way, and and I
bet you that they sold it off before
it collapsed and probably made lots of money.
Tony Blair, the Iraq war architect. Tony Blair,
guys. Can you even imagine why he would
even be brought back into the conversation, one
of the most unpopular politicians in the world,
because of what he all got exposed? For
some reason, it seemed as if even Americans
focused more on Tony Blair being caught for
the WMD conversation, at least in some circles.
The reality is our government was obviously just
as much a part of that, and he
is a
proven
war criminal, like all of them. But he
lied about WMDs and just like Bush did.
And and Trump even called that out, guys.
He literally said that was a lie. But
here, come on in, Tony Blair. Be be
a part of the peace board even though
you created one of the most destructive wars
in history.
Aja Benga, World Bank president. The World Bank
president made a bank a trust made the
bank a trustee,
destroyed decades of institutional,
neutrality.
Rubio.
Rubio. Marco Rubio. His own state department condemns
the human rights records of the partner states
that he's literally working with.
Wait. This is a cartoon, guys. Robert Gabriel,
depart deputy s NSA commanding 20,000 troops. This
isn't diplomacy. It's an occupation with a business
plan. This is exactly what we've been telling
you for, I I mean, pretty much since
the beginning of this administration.
$1,000,000,000
membership fee, except Israel, of course. No independent
audit, no inspector general, 26 member states, and
only four rated free by Freedom House. France,
Germany, and The UK, which, by the way,
are not even remotely that. It's just because
West versus whatever else in their minds.
But this is where we're going.
You think this is not globalism? I mean,
guys, you need to be shoving this in
the face of people who are pretending that
Trump is fighting globalism. It's embarrassing.
And I'll include as well the conversations we
had. This is from the when Board of
Peace was introduced. Remember, he he literally introduced
this at Davos and then also introduced it
at the UN.
I I don't know how you can ignore
how how obvious that is. Gaza's Board of
Peace seeks to reimagine the global order,
the idea that this has always been a
fake globalist resistance,
ushering in the globalist plan that we called
in the beginning of 2025,
as well as and to bring this into
the conversation today, we discussed yesterday, ISIS al
Qaeda was created by The US and Israel.
It's an open secret.
It's just
that obvious.
Genuinely so. It's amazing to me the kind
of obvious conversations we just can't get our
minds around in this country.
Watch it. There's other stuff included. Well, it's
a long show, but there's a lot included.
And I think it's worth your time. Now
on that note, I'll include these. I I
posted these afterward.
This is only part one. There's three parts
to this, and I hope you'll watch them
all. But I posted James Corbett's actual video
on Twitter so people could see it. False
flags, the secret history of Al Qaeda, part
one. It is absolutely unequivocal. You will never
see it the same again if you just
sit down and watch the information. And every
single every single thing he cites, just like
TLAB, is listed below. You can prove everything
he's saying in there for yourself. You will
never find that on any of the mainstream
alternative media platforms.
Now Ben Swan, Truth in Media. Origin of
Isis, 2015. I think James is with 01/21.
I forget. The 2015, Ben put this out.
Whoops. And this is twelve minutes. It's well
done. I played at the end of last
show.
Now, James goes in much, much, much more
detail and I think much more damning. But
this is really important because this is about
the, you know I mean, basically, the surface
level, but the ones that nobody talks about.
The reality of, like we went over last
night, that the actions of The United States
in these locations
literally created the circumstances that were that allowed
this to happen. But then, Ben goes further
and points out it wasn't just a byproduct.
They
deliberately took action to make sure this happened,
as Ben highlights.
All on the record is easy to prove,
but yet here we are, we still get
lied to about it.
Now, keeping that in mind today, the idea
of what those forces are. And now, that
as they're claiming they're fighting terrorism, think about
the stupidity of this. While they literally support
Jelani in Syria, who is literally the terrorist
they told you they were fighting
years ago.
You can't make this stuff up. It's just
ridiculous. So we played this in the yesterday
show. Now, it's it's a four minute eighteen
clip. The point was he's asking her specifically
about her job.
And what and the job is very clear.
And and the the actual hearing is specific
about the threat assessment. And as the DNI,
director of national intelligence, her job is to
present that threat assessment from the intelligence community.
There's no misunderstanding that. Now, the game they're
playing, and it's only working on stupid people,
apparently, is that she's trying to convince people
because she doesn't wanna contradict Trump because she's
already been punished for that is
I just hand him a bunch of scattered
information, and he's apparently supposed to put it
all together because he's smart enough to do
that, apparently,
or has the time.
So that's not true. And he calls her
out, and he says, that's false. It's not
true. And I you can prove it for
yourself. You can look it up. You can
read the state department. You can ask Raab.
Do whatever you want. It is easy to
see. The reality,
and this is the nuance he's trying to
play you on,
is the DNI or the intel the intelligence
community is supposed to present their assessment because
that's what this is about, their assessment.
Now it's also then Trump's prerogative to take
that information and then decide if he thinks
that that's the correct assessment.
Now we can get into whether you might
criticize him for refusing to ignoring what the
assessment was. That's already happened in the past.
But the point is always the same. It's
about their assessment.
We believe this is the case. And what
was it before? They're not building a nuclear
weapon, and we know that. You can prove
this, guys. You can prove this based on
all the evidence,
including what they say, including the previous administration,
including the International Atomic Energy Agency. Everything other
than statements from Israel and their people they
work with.
So the point is that the assessment was
there is no immediate imminent threat.
That's the reality of the assessment because they've
already made this clear. But in this hearing,
he asked her point blank, was that the
gauge? Well, it's up to Trump to decide.
Clearly, that's the new talking point.
And he goes, that's not true. And it's
not.
The idea that you're gonna pretend out there
that they're that she's supposed to just give
them a stack of information that's not I
mean, even if it's an organized stack of
these categories and that he's supposed to sit
down and decide for himself in the the
idea is he's always told you through the
last administration.
It's because the people that are around him.
So they are the people is Trump an
expert in foreign policy? Is he an expert
in understanding the the the cables and information
they get across? No. He's not. Most people
are not. So, it's her job to collect
that, to contextualize
it for him. You can look this actual
description up about what their job is. And
they hand it to them as the assessment.
And the assessment is whether or not that
is imminent, whether or not they're doing it
okay. And then, I agree with the second
part that Trump's prerogative is to then decide
for himself. But what she's trying to do
is pretend that that first part's not the
case because she does not wanna contradict Trump.
So, they go back and forth and it's
undeniably clear in this clip. Now,
this is a new clip.
Is there any evidence that Iran at least
one we haven't played. Is is there any
evidence that Iran intended to conduct a preemptive
attack on The United States?
Well, no. The evidence has already been shown.
That's not the reality for
tons of reasons. First of all, one, that
it's already been very clearly proven by their
own assessments there was no imminent threat. But
you also have the proof that they put
out before.
Like, for example, the statement that was presented
to the United Nations that I'll show you
in a second that literally said,
if they attack us, we're going to bomb
the countries where they have bases. And that
would be then those those are legal targets,
you understand. Because they're refueling, they're arming, like,
Qatar and UAE. Right? So explain for me
how if if Iran came out and said,
if you attack us, we're gonna do this,
and that that's them planning to attack them,
and that's why they attack first? It doesn't
make any sense. And on top of that,
that Trump also said, we attacked first because
they were worried that Iran would attack Israel
or some variation because they've said both or
that they would attack us if Israel attacked
them, but then that was a lie because
Rubio said it wrong. And it's just every
day, there's a new variation, and it's just
just embarrassing to watch.
She won't answer the question is the point.
Is there any evidence
that Iran intended to conduct a preemptive attack
on The US prior to beginning this war?
Yes or no?
Congressman,
the answer to this question needs to be
reserved for a closed hearing.
I will Well, that's a different answer. Okay.
So what that tends to mean is top
secret. It's national security.
So now what are we talking about? Oh,
how much you wanna bet? Trump has now
labeled all this national security because we're getting
exposed.
That's what we're talking about, guys. That now
suddenly this is considered top secret information because
that's Trump's prerogative. And now the reality is
we can't even get into whether it was
imminent because that's top secret. But we swear
that it was, though, trust us, but we
can't show you.
You tell me what I'm missing.
Say, however, the intelligence community,
does provide the assessments of the threats that
exist See? To the president so that Yes.
So you provide the assessment. So pause, Gabbard.
What was the assessment?
It's up to Trump to decide.
That's what she said yesterday. But what you
just told us, it was your job to
present the assessment, not just present data that
could be led to an assessment. You see
the difference?
That he can make that determination within the
body of
does provide the assessments of the threats that
exist.
However, the intelligence community,
does provide the assessments of the threats that
exist,
to the president so that he can make
that determination within the body of information and
intelligence. Right. So just to be clear, she
disagreed with me. You provide an assessment of
the information and then allow the president to
make his own assessment based on your advice
and, you know, his cabinet and people around
him and, you know, whatever else he wants
to pull into his decision making process. That's
the reality. So for her to now refuse
to acknowledge or even state, which she apparently
won't do again,
that whether or not what the assessment was
from her perspective,
it just shows you everything. And as somebody
rightly points out, what a disappointment because she
definitely seemed like an honest person before. Right?
Now really think about that. Think about her
or Obama or anybody else that presents like
somebody who you can trust
even though they're, like, Obama's case, for example,
one of the most dangerous people in the
room.
The point is that that is how these
tend to go. Why today do we get
a bunch of bumbling idiots that then show
you what they're doing? I tend to think
it's because that's by design. Like, we're being
destroyed. However you wanna look at it, that
Israel's collapsing the West for their end times
prophecy. I don't even know what you wanna
think. Just recognize
there is a shift happening, and we're being
dragged into something. And I'm not even talking
about the war. I'm talking about what this
country is suffering because of these people, these
utter fools.
And activities within the region,
that ultimately he is responsible for, what is
an imminent threat, and and if there is
an imminent threat, what actions need to be
taken.
Okay. So, again, that's I'm gonna play more
time so it's clear
that that's exactly the point. No one's disagreeing
that Trump has the prerogative to decide based
on what you hand him. What she's refusing
to answer is whether the she or the
intelligence community decided that it was or was
not before they handed it to him, which
was their only job in this point.
We'll say, however, the intelligence community,
does provide the assessments of the threats that
exist,
to the president so that he can make
that determination within the body of information and
intelligence
and activities within the region,
that ultimately he is responsible for what is
an imminent threat, and and if there is
an imminent threat, what actions need to be
taken. Yeah. You're you know what? I I
knew I was gonna do this. Let me
grab this one really quickly because this will
make this flesh I'll just play a little
bit at the beginning because of this exact
point. Like, I do actually think this is
relevant. I was just trying to be redundant
today
because some you know, because, I mean, on
the show, I often like, we're we'll replay
things I think are important to bring the
point around. Because as I've said so many
times over the years, I don't see my
job as just simply continuing to, you know,
continuing to inform the people that I think
are already on the path or aware of
the reality or whatever you wanna call it.
That's part of it. So I wanna keep
you I wanna make sure we're always we're
all working together to see the truth and
keep informed. But my my primary job is
to reach the people that don't know what's
going on
every day. And and that does sometimes end
up being redundant for you guys. You see?
Because my my job my my my mindset
is not to get the most reach and
be the most popular and grow the most
some of the things I do are counterintuitive
to that degree. Because to me, it's about
the outcome, the truth. The the change has
always been.
Now, sir, then I wait. Did I grab
it? Let me make sure. I was, like,
I was speaking off the cuff to pass
time, then I've stopped doing what I was
doing.
Just crack myself up some time. So here
here is the
the clip from, yesterday, and you guys will
remember this one. I just think this and
you'll see what I mean of why I
think this is relevant to include after this
because of the
the claim of that imminent threat and how
she refuses to answer. So you could or
just for sake of conversation, let's pretend this
came afterward because either either way, it didn't.
It was before. But the point is that
she's directly being asked after you just heard
her say. It is the job of us
to to
to provide the assessment of the threat, and
then, yes, to let Trump then decide for
himself.
Director 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?
So right there, she just said yes. That
I represent the assessment of the threat, not
giving the materials for Trump to decide the
assessment.
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. And a point that
I'm not gonna get into again today was
that, remember, the part they did actually destroy
was the enrichment facility, which is why based
on every expert in the conversation, including the
International Atomic Energy Agency, that they're not even
capable
of enriching further right now.
You could I mean, you could disagree with
that, but there's only evidence on one side.
The rest is just screaming narrative of people
who disagree with everything that is seemingly fact
based.
The assessment of the intelligence community is that
Iran's nuclear enrichment program was obliterated by last
summer's air strikes. Yes.
And 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 Right there again, the assessment
was they were not even trying to rebuild
it.
Yet we're gonna be told today, suddenly, there's
an imminent nuclear threat.
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. Which, of course, they've they've
waffled with, and now, you know, well, to
missiles and and drones possibly too. And, you
know, it's but the the statement to begin
was the nuclear threat.
That's a statement from the White House. Yep.
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. Which, by the way, seems to
contradict your last assessment, which was that they
weren't even trying to. But I guess the
intent remained,
whatever the hell that means. And I don't
even think that's the case, by the way,
with all the rest of the evidence. But
you're gonna get into with the Ratcliffe
clip as well just what I would argue
is just blind partisan dishonesty. And I think
I mean, come on. We've been debating at
this point about how many times Gabbard has
already been shoved into the corner, Venezuela,
everything, guys. She's literally contradicting
everything that grew her her support
for Donald Trump or whatever else is controlling
her actions right now. Was 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 You see? So it's I hope
that was very clear because you can argue,
yes, that Trump is the one that gets
to ultimately decide, But he didn't ask that.
He asked if it was the assessment of
your not your the intelligence community, which as
you just heard, she told you is literally
her job to present that assessment. And then,
yes, allow Trump to make his own decision.
You don't you mean, look, she's not stupid.
She knows very well what she's doing, and
the reason I'm stressing this so much is
because you need to understand that somebody like
Tulsi Gabbard, somebody who you might even argue
is genuinely honest or whatever else you think
and has now been forced into this position
because of what this administration is doing, what
our government is doing, or because of an
outside force that controls it all. You can
decide what you think the influence is. But
this is a very important kind of stark
moment to see that she is
choosing to hide this information. Now you could
add a third possibility that maybe she's hiding
this and that second statement about being behind
closed doors, national security, is because that we're,
you know, bumping up against some very important
thing that we don't even understand. And a
year from now, we're gonna find out that
they just they saved the world and this
is what it all lit. I doubt it.
But that's possible, I guess. That's the whole
trust the plan kind of idea that maybe
we don't know, and we're still we're screwing
up their plan to stop Israel.
You can you can assume whatever you want
to if it makes you feel better in
the moment. I care about the facts. And
even if those facts turn out later to
be the wrong direction, I would still argue,
and I think anybody would, that in that
moment, the right thing to do was to
follow the facts. And point is you could
find you know, let's say you stumble across
a few facts that show you or suggest
that she's lying, and then a year later
tomorrow,
you have a 100,000 facts that prove that
she's not.
It was still the right thing to do
to let those facts guide you even if
they were limited. And this is just the
way this game is played today as they
try to get you to ignore certain things
because of a a subjective reason. That works
against you guys every time.
Well, I have to come back. Give me
a second, guys. We just the whole thing
just crashed. So as usual, when we're, you
know, getting too close to well, I shouldn't
I mean, I always joke, but that is
certainly possible that we were shut down for
some reason. But, you know, glitches happen. But,
ST Lab is used to. This stuff happens
every day. For the podcast, for whatever reason,
I was in the middle of that statement
and the whole thing just crashed and, you
know, threw away all my videos and all
of my organization. But who cares? We'll get
right back to it as always. So on
that note, let's, let me play this real
quick, and let me bring up back my
videos, and we'll get right back into it.
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 Brzezinski'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.
Okay.
Just how this works in this platform, guys.
So let's get back to it. So where
we were,
which I'm I think I was probably in
the middle of a point here. Hold on.
Let me just make sure I didn't miss
something, which is always how this works.
Open new things. There we go.
So the last point,
yes.
However Right. So we're talking about Tulsi Gabbard
and the reality of her dishonesty, and and
how important I think it is to recognize
that that's being driven
through her. Whether or not she's always been
dishonest, I think it's a an important point
for people to to see, especially if they
support her. So as we know,
Joe Kent came out,
which by this this has 98,000,000
views, by the way, which by the as
we get to a point in a minute
about maybe today, if we have time, about
the white the propaganda side for the White
House,
Just because you get that many views does
not necessarily signify support. I think it does
in this case, my personal opinion. But what
you're getting from the White House perspective is
these, like,
childishly stupid videos that have no meaning to
them, even if they claim they're trying to
correct the record of, like, bowling or video
games. It's it's sad. And acting like, oh
my god. I got 500,000,000
impressions that we could tell that we're winning.
That's what they're focused on in the White
House. It's pretty damn sad. And I'm pretty
sure that's not what those views mean, by
the way, seeing as how we're all going,
oh my god. Look at this. I know
people put it in videos and articles, and
it's we're kind of embarrassed.
My opinion. But Joe Kent comes out, as
you might have seen, and said, after much
reflection, I've decided to resign from my position
as director of National Counterterrorism Center. Now Trump
before said, oh, he's such a great guy
and a great career. He's so smart. And
then the moment he quit, he said, oh,
he's a loser, and he's never been good
at the job. So you can decide was
which one he was lying
at from, which from which position he was
lying. Because then you have to acknowledge this
is not if he was thinking he was
the worst person in the world, then why'd
he hire him? And if it changed along
the path, why did he do something about
that? It takes it's it's, you know, a
choice to pretend like that's not obvious. It's
obvious that he liked him, or maybe he
didn't, but used him because he wanted him
there. And then the moment he disagreed with
him, now he's the worst guy in the
world. And if he had always agreed with
him, even if he was bad at that
job, he would have stayed in that position.
I think we can see that with the
likes of Noam and Bondi and Cash and
Boccino and whether they've left some places. They're
all just bad,
like,
unprepared for the job.
He told you
he cannot, in good conscience, support the ongoing
war with Iran. Iran posed no imminent threat
to our nation. Now as we showed you,
I might even have this pop up. I
forgot to grab it.
I think this is it.
Nice.
Here's
Carrie at Caroline Levitt, who, by the way,
responded to this post going,
ah, un American,
and there absolutely was a threat, and he's
wrong.
Even though, as you all probably saw, on
the twelfth, this is the seventeenth. On the
twelfth, this is what she said.
To be clear, no such threat for Iran
to our homeland exists, and it never did.
Oops.
See? They lied because in that moment, they
were trying to contradict what the fake news
was saying. You know, and they all are
fake news, but this is ABC, you know,
it's the bad Democrats. And so they were
saying, Fake. That's fake. Because they were claiming
that Iran might attack California. So they said
not only was there no threat, but just
in general, there doesn't no threat to our
homeland exists from Iran. Never did.
And then a week later, she goes, you're
wrong. There's been an imminent threat. We knew
it.
You you just have to laugh at how
stupid this is, guys. This is what we're
being dealt. It's obvious if you aren't ridiculous.
They're lying to you. And so Carol
Leavitt is trying to convince you that this
is imminent because they need to to make
the argument that they are not conducting an
illegal war.
Oh, let me save this for you too.
So he said it's not imminent, or it
was imminent, and that Israel, importantly,
was why this was happening.
Literally says that we started this due to
pressure from Israel and his powerful American lobby.
Now regardless of his previous statements, which are
relevant in plenty of other ways, and even
in this to some degree, don't change the
fact that he said it. So you could
argue he has interest in something other than
the truth, but end of the day, the
evidence backs up this assessment even if you
think he's making it up. It does. And
on top of that, that it wasn't imminent
by every every possible data point.
But it also could be, like I said
in the beginning, that this might have been
an effort to give you a win, like,
to to slowly give you that release valve
in the interest of it was always Israel
playing us because everyone sees that now, and
so they might as well admit it. You
get my logic. And hopefully use that to
get you back into supporting the team, which
is what Glenn Beck and Jones and the
rest are doing.
So may maybe that's just how they decided
to read it, but I tend to see
there more being coordination in how this all
works. And in the past, it tends to
be that way.
So whether Joe Kent was part of this
kind of thing, if that's the case or
not, it's still being used that way, I
argue. That they're now using this to go,
oh, okay. That's our last effort, our last
ditch effort to make it Trump not responsible.
Right? That just Israel played him, and then
they'll add that it turns out that's what
Glenn Beck is saying that he's actually within
that fighting for us because he knew that
was what they were doing. He knew the
Democrats sold us out. It's just such lazy
arguments,
and everything proves the opposite of that. So
if they wanna find a way to pretend
Trump's not the one that did it all
to them and and every violation of every
promise turned out because it was he was
fighting Israel the whole time, it's something people
will grab because they need to.
Lindsey Graham, of course, comes out and says,
he's antisemitic
because that's what you expect from people who
are fighting for a foreign power, I guess.
And Israel exposed makes a good point because
their people are calling him antisemitic. Why? For
claiming that the Israel government was forcing a
war that they wanted? I'm not sure exactly
why you think that's racist, guy. You know
why they're trying to make that argument. Because
you're not allowed to criticize Israel's illegal actions
unless you just somehow hate Jews, apparently.
It's stupid, guys. Nobody falls for that anymore.
And the point is, he blames Israel for
his wife's death because he knows very well
that ICE is funded and controlled by Israel,
Assad, and the CIA. I've added the CIA
to the statement, but this is the truth.
That this is what we're this is I
mean, this is his statement. This was a
lie and is the same tactic the Israelis
used to draw us into the disaster shock
war. As a gold star husband who lost
my beloved wife, Shannon, in a war manufactured
by Israel.
This it's important. Now what you're getting is
a lot of people who are calling him
racist and and so and saying it's antisemitic
and that you turned it all you just
went for the low hanging fruit and blamed
Israel. No. It's because this is what the
world is coming to terms with and you've
got these like, right now, it's becoming more
clear than ever. People who are not acknowledging
this still
like, there's tons of what I argue are
opportunists and are not honest people who are
now leaning into this even though they fought
for Trump their entire life and or just
the last year. And I I you shouldn't
trust those people, but at least they're saying
the right thing because they see an opportunity
in it. That's what I'm saying about politics.
But
all the people who at this point are
still like, I'm not saying you have to
go everything's controlled by Israel. I'm not even
saying you can prove that. In fact, I
don't even think that's the case. I do
think it's very easy to prove that Israel
influences
US policy, if not can control it with
certain tactics. Not everything all the time. But
you can argue, as I wrote in the
title, US controls you Israel controlling US policy,
which which is not the same thing as
saying controlling everything. My point, though, is there
are people out there who are no longer
or just in every way trying to avoid
even acknowledging the influence of their lobby.
Those people need to be seen for what
they are right now. It is all it's
been provable for a long time. Today, it's
now even being acknowledged by the corporate conversation,
and they're still trying to gaslight you. Take
note of who those people are, just like
we did during the COVID nineteen aftermath.
Take note of the ones who are still
trying to deceive you even to this day.
Mediaite
points out the White House boosts calls
excuse me, boosts
White House boosts posts calling Joe Kent a
loser and crazed egomaniac
because, clearly, the somebody who destroys their career
to put the truth out is clearly an
egomaniac. I mean, I guess you could argue
it's about their own personal perception, you know,
but 10 egomaniacs tend to be more about
their wealth and their job and their career
and in influence too. But after he resigns
in protests from Trump administration well, my point
in showing you this is just Trump's you
know, he's a loser. He's even though he's
right, even though what he said is correct,
it just has to call you have to
call it out.
Now Aaron Rupar post this post this clip,
and now I have to point out Gomez
here. He's really bad at this. Just I
did wanted that out. The way he's doing
this is just I I feel like it's
almost hurts the points he's trying to make
because he just doesn't seem to he's not,
like, assertive enough or something. You can see
from yourself. But nonetheless, the the exchange I
thought was kind of interesting. And it's and
it's really more so about Ratcliffe and then
and the next one as well and how
he chimes in and basically just gives you,
right here. Wait. This one.
Basically, this guy just this one this, you
know, MAGA Republican senator is just giving him
the, you know, this is happening. You know,
pay all all play let it speak for
itself. Basically, giving him the kind of quick
little presentation to deny all the things, and
that's what they're all gonna post even though
the evidence denies what they're saying.
But here is the engagement with Gabbard and
him. And the question being,
you know, when Trump Trump said she was
wrong and denied what she said, was she
wrong or was he lying? Of course, she
won't answer the question, but the assessment point.
Trump was asked about your,
testimony. He said you were wrong. Were you
lying or not?
I stand by the intelligence communities. Was that
Right. So what that means is what she
said, she stands by even though Trump said
it was wrong. So you can have fun
with that.
You I mean, they can disagree. Sure. But
what we're talking about is intelligence that led
to actions in the world. And so if
the intelligence is there and she still stands
by it and Trump didn't care about that,
then you might wanna ask what is guiding
his action.
Probably Jared Kushner, has he told you? I
don't know. But it's certainly not the intelligence
coming from the intelligence community. Whether or not
that's even what we wanted to listen to,
the point is in this moment, you can
see that it's not what she's putting forward
at least in some of these cases. You
know what I think, guys. I think the
evidence makes it clear, and I'll let you
fill that in for yourself.
Assessment.
Director Ratcliffe.
When it came to the director's testimony, she
said that Iran was not building the nuclear
weapon last
spring
in congress and said the supreme leader,
had has not authorized the nuclear weapons program.
Do you agree with what she said or
not?
Yes or no? The director's right here. She
can speak for herself. Oh, so
I thought this was intelligence community. Follow-up, man.
You just waffled that point because the point
would be, I asked you a very direct
question. I didn't ask you what she thinks.
I asked you what you think about the
intelligence he presented. Stop trying to avoid the
question. Even if he doesn't answer, that makes
it clear to people watching that he just
avoided the question. That's how you're supposed to
do this. You know what I mean? Like,
and so it just kills me that he
just lets that go because Ratcliffe just very
clearly avoided that in a dishonest way. Because
the question again was, what do you think
about the intelligence he presented?
Why would she answer for that question if
he's asking you your opinion, Ratcliffe? These people
are dishonest. I'm telling you. And this is
what the community this kind of community does.
Now, very quickly before we move past it,
spirit of age in the chat says, what
they watch I I I'm glad he brought
this up or they brought this up because
this is a point that I didn't wanna
include. They watch the Tucker Tucker already interviewed
Joe Kent. And apparently, he and a lot,
I did see some of these fooling around,
was apologizing for Trump, was basically arguing some
of these similar points. And right now, weirdly
enough, there's this sentiment going around about the
Iran proxies
in Iraq and elsewhere that that Trump
that The US was funding
to attack The US. Like, it it's basically
a misrepresentation
of the reality of information. What we're talking
about is the PMU and the different which
are not Iran proxies. But, yes, there was
a point at which they were being funded
through things The US was funding for Iraq,
but they're not terrorist organizations. And so they
they they're it can it turns this weird
thing into essentially The US, probably the Democrats,
by the way, is where that seems to
go, were funding these people to attack The
US, and it leaves open the point that
Trump is trying to stop all of that.
So I'm I agree with what they're saying
there. I get the sense that that's what
that that was one of the reasons why
I'm feeling skeptical about all this, that he
does kind of feel to be, like, bringing
this into the pro Trump protein conversation
with some criticism, which makes it feel easier
to to digest.
You know why? Because they know that everybody's
unhappy with this. And that's what you have
to come to terms with right now. They're
lying to you. Jones, the red, all of
them. The ones that they're trying to tell
you, we even CNN, by the way, that
everyone on the GOP agrees with this, they
don't. Rather the republican side, not the gov
the government always agrees.
MAGA, left, right, the American people, we are
calling this out. I think we can see
that. So recognize the ones hiding from it.
A briefing.
He just let he just let it go.
You know? He's sad. Let's move on. Trump
also said he didn't care what you thought
or said.
He did? Should he care about what you
have to say when it comes to intelligence?
It's obviously. That's a bad way to frame
that. Right? I mean, you you could do
it in a more tactful way. The point
is that you're literally the director of national
intelligence. You're supposed to be the one that's
presenting these set assessments like you're trying to
avoid talking about. And he said he doesn't
care what you think. Doesn't that seem important?
You know what I mean? Like, shouldn't shouldn't
it be important that the president cares about
the assessment? Apparently not. Seeing as how she
just is claiming that Trump's the one making
the decisions without their assessment or the way
she's trying to make this make sense.
I continue to provide the president with the
intelligence community's assessments on all matters. Ah, well,
look at that. What do you mean? You
just told me that Trump decides those assessments.
You just pay you said you provide Trump
with the assessments of the threat. When asked
about the assessment of the threat, you say,
well, Trump decides that.
So how do you she this is dishonesty.
She damn well knows it, and frankly, I
think you can see it on her face.
So let let me just kind of get
this straight.
The department,
you said that Iran was not building
a nuclear
weapon
last year.
President Trump said, he didn't care what you
thought and you were wrong.
They engaged in Operation
Midnight Hammer. He then says it was obliterated.
We hear later reports
that,
in open source reporting that it was only
set back by a few months. Now let's
be clear about that. Now that was a
so after the obliterated that were the claims
of obliteration. And the enrichment facility, one of
the things that were bombed, but it was
not obliterated.
And that was them that was Trump's effort
to make it look like he won, whatever
that was. And that's what he said. Mission
accomplished, ladies and gentlemen. And and but now
here we're back because they're still it's just
it's him trying to take a win from
something that was not. Because Because what we
if you understand the way it went down,
they had basically, Iran ended up bombing right
through their defenses and bombed a bunch of
important locations. And, ultimately, there was collaboration behind
the scenes about letting that waffle away. Basically,
the argument went that Israel pointed to locations
they already wanted to destroy because of their
technocratic ambitions. I can't verify that, but the
point
was those locations then got bombed. Now, the
why would that be would there be collaborate?
Why would they choose to bomb the locations
they wanted? Well, the only reason that would
make sense if that's what happened is because
and this has probably happened before. They get
to a situation where they don't want this
to continue, and so so they don't lose
face. They make an agreement. I'll bomb there.
You bomb there. We'll both back away.
That's happened before, guys. You can prove this.
And so that I wonder whether that's the
way that went down because Trump felt like
he was losing
and then yelled I won, and that's probably
something they allowed him to do anyway. But
either way,
they lied about what happened. One way or
another, you have to be all honest about
that now because if it was obliterated, then
they wouldn't be able to work back. But
if it was only a couple more months,
then, you know, it's either way's lying. And
the last point is that this is not
about a nuclear weapon according to all of
the intelligence. It is simply the civilian program
and the at levels, according to the IAEA,
at the 2025,
are still literally within the safeguards.
That's the number that Wyckoff lied about. 60%,
four sixty five kilograms. That's legally allowed within
the agreements they have. He tried to pretend
they were bragging about that because he's clearly
working for something other than American interest or
trying to stop a war from spinning out
of control and hurting American citizens
or anybody for that matter. And at the
beginning of this war, he said that they
were weeks away.
I just wanna kinda get a a sense
of were they weeks away of achieving a
nuclear weapon? Yes or no?
Congressman, this is a serious matter, and you've
made some very serious mischaracterizations.
Yes or no. Where what in the world
was mischaracterized?
Fine. Then characterize it correctly for me. Like,
I know this is just so impossible.
What he just said was basically exactly what
went down. Yes. In a clumsy fashion, but
nonetheless, that you look it up. That's exactly
what happened. So if if the mischaracterization
is they left something up, then fill it
in. But that's not what happens. It's just
about I won't answer because you didn't do
it right. Now, I will point this out.
This is why people like her are dangerous
because this is well done. Because in the
past, what do you get? Like, recently from
Noam or Bondi?
Just lashing out and you're a stupid one
and you're ugly. Like, that's the kind of
stuff, like, equivalent that you get from them.
Well, you said this in 2025
and you didn't care about your team. What
does that have to do with what we're
talking about? That's what you got from those
people because they're bad at this. Here's what
she did, which is very tactful, and I
argue you're gonna hear this a lot more
going forward.
That, an open source reporting
war,
I just wanna kind of get of were
they weeks away of achieving a nuclear weapon?
Yes or no?
Congressman, this is a serious matter, and you've
made some very serious mischaracterizations.
Yes or no. Were they weeks away? Yes
or no? Service to you and the American
people to answer this question. Time. The mayor.
Yes or no? Time. Well done.
You've mischaracterized everything, so it would be a
disservice to the American people to simply answer
yes or no. Damn it. That would that
I'd be in the audience and be like,
Well, shoot. Maybe she's right. I mean, that's
a that's a well crafted response, but that
she's not correct. You understand? Because the he
just listed off publicly available information and then
asked a very pointed question. Was it or
was it not correct that they had what
he said they did?
I mean, you have to be honest about
what is happening here. This is easy to
see. Were they weeks away or not?
The American people need to know if this
was an imminent threat or not. If they're
weeks away or not. And by the way,
weeks away
would not be an imminent threat, nor would
not having it at all. Both of which
well, the point is they the evidence shows
that that's the the the second part or
the the latter. They do not have it
at all. But even if it was a
couple weeks away, by the very definition of
what it means, that's not imminent. Because the
entire point for the War Powers Act is
that it has to be imminent, immediate, because
that would suggest that there's a bomb flying
or that they're being invaded. It's the only
circumstance. Because otherwise,
if you have weeks, well, you go to
congress. You say, hey. We have this coming.
We need an authorization for war because that's
the law. Or we need an authorization for
military force like in Iraq, which they probably
would have gotten. But they did not do
that because there was no imminent threat, guys.
It's very simple, and all of this is
very clear. If they're months away or not,
none of this dodging,
were they an an imminent threat? Yesterday
And she and he moved past. Why wouldn't
you keep pushing? You know what I mean?
Like, this is just part of me thinks
because that's how this is supposed to go.
Performative theater. Oh, they pushing it to them
and calling them out, and then nothing happens.
You know what I think about how this
usually works?
Now, just to include so you can see
it, here's Donald Trump telling you,
we attack first. That's alone enough to understand
what happened. They attack first. Now, if you
argued it was an imminent threat, well, they've
had ample time to prove that and would
they would be required to prove that if
this was the War Powers Act allowance. They're
not doing that. This is Congress just letting
this waffle in the middle with no poor
power. They they voted. They voted it down.
There's no authorization. There's no there's no congressional
there's no author military force authorization. There's no
congressional approval. And it's not War Powers Act.
So, we're just apparently just war is okay
no matter what.
Uncontained
war, no guidance, no congressional approval, no War
Powers Act. So, this is an illegal war
by every stretch of the imagination that they're
just carrying out because nobody in our government
is willing to do anything to enforce the
law as it
stands. How do you not see that as
an occupied territory, guys? We are absolutely lost.
Even whether it's just lobbying, you know? You
can order the pharmaceutical lobby, paid everyone, did
not care about anything. That would make just
as much sense to me with where we
are. But we know it's not just that
point.
We attack first, he says, because that is
obvious, and it shows it's not imminent. But
I thought we were going to have a
situation where we were gonna be attacked. They
were getting ready to attack
Israel. Oh, okay. That's important.
So this is the first response. They were
getting ready to attack Israel.
This is after Rubio made the statement, and
he felt like he was, you know, being
called weak. And so, no. No. Woah. No.
I attacked first because I'm the one. I
attacked. That's what he does. And then he
shot himself in the foot by doing that.
But then tried to lie again, then kinda
came back to that original statement. Because that's
how dumb this is. And I'm literally not
making that up. You can look for yourself.
And I've showed you on the show. My
point is that he said this.
They were getting ready to attack. They were
getting ready to attack. Okay. Bear that in
mind as we go through this next part
as he then contradicts himself about that very
point.
Where we were gonna be attacked. They were
getting ready to attack
Israel. They were getting ready to attack others.
You're seeing that right now. Oh, you mean
the the legal response to belligerence in the
war because you attack without justification? Yeah. Yeah.
We're seeing that now. What he wants you
to think is that's we knew they were
gonna do that. Well, as I showed you,
they told you in the UN before you
did this, if you do those things, we'll
bomb those countries. And he acts like, who
knew? Who knew? Well, he just told you.
We knew they were preparing for an attack.
A lot of those missiles that are hitting
in, those are stationary. Those were aimed there
for a long period of time. Which also
means that they very clearly knew they were
aimed at those locations because those locations are
housing US bases and US refueling and everything
we talked about. Legal belligerence, which means they're
allowed to be attacked.
These other countries.
So I think I was right about that.
We attacked first.
And if we didn't, it could have been,
you know, look. We're really,
decimating them. They're being Oh, they're so we're
Lew. We're winning so much
all the
time.
So keeping that in mind, just, again, that
we attacked first unequivocally shows you that there
was not
an immediate an imminent threat, especially since they
didn't just obliterate their ability to bomb. Right?
So they bombed them, and then Iran kept
bombing. So explain for me or rather
responded with bombing and then has continued to
bomb after that, showing you they didn't just
stop their ability to respond. Right. So if
the imminent nuclear threat
was about to happen and then you bomb
them and then they were able to keep
bombing, why didn't they bomb you with that
imminent nuclear threat?
Logic.
How frustrating for people who try to lie
to you. So the next point,
Wyatt Reed, as we highlighted before.
He's
nine days before
and also shows you that Iran
goes to the UN Security Council and says,
Hey, there's bad things going on. They're violating
the law. Yeah. That's what terrorists tend to
do. Right? Well, what's crazy is you never
see The US and Israel doing that. And
I think you know why.
Because
UN is Hamas, apparently. Nine days before The
US Israel sneak attack, Iran publicly warned that
it was if it was attacked,
quote, all bases, facilities, and assets of the
hostile force in the region would constitute legitimate
targets.
But, yes, let's pretend there was a secret
plan. We literally told you what we were
gonna do if you bomb us, but there
was a secret plan to attack according to
these children.
So he just told you. We knew they
were preparing for an attack. Well, here's what
he said later in this conversation.
Power.
Look look what happened.
In the last two weeks,
they weren't supposed to go after all these
other countries in the Middle East. Why not?
Did you make agreement or something?
He just told us they were planning it.
Those missiles were set Mhmm. To go after
them. Yep. Because that that apparently, that means
they weren't about to or going to. So
they hit
Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE.
But Like like they told the UN they
would if you attacked illegally.
Right? Bahrain,
Kuwait.
Nobody expected that. Oh. Oh. Okay. Wait. Let's
let's do let's have Donald Trump debate Donald
Trump.
They were getting ready to attack others. Oh.
Oh. I'm seeing that right now. And a
lot of those missile
Nobody expected that. We were shot
to attack
others.
You're seeing
Nobody expected that. We were shot
real. They were getting ready to attack others.
You know,
this is not like an oopsie. This is
not like the evidence evolved. He lied to
you, guys. He lied. He it wasn't even
probably about covering something. It's just about what
am I needing to say right now to
make it look like I'm always in control
or like I'm winning something and just why.
And the next time comes out, well, in
this moment, I need to make it sound
like we are not the ones breaking the
law. So, you know, who thought this would
happen? And it makes you look like terrorists.
I just don't know why anybody in the
room who's not a complete child supports people
that are so blatantly lying. And I think,
like I've been saying, that that's where we
are. I think we're at a point where
people in this country are so shockingly aware
of where we are because of this, because
it's ridiculous. We're watching a cartoon pretending like
that's the representation of the world. These people
are obviously not the kind of pea like,
we're this these are people who are being
put here in my mind to convince us
that this is what we're dealing with when
it's quite obviously whoever's pulling the strings, like
the picture we use today. Again, that's my
opinion. And but the reality of the evidence
showing you that influence, guys, is provable.
But to the degree, it's up for you
to decide.
Do it again.
Right back around.
Jeez, man. Does anybody anywhere else in in
this entire media sphere? Who else deals with
this stuff? I'm sure it's somebody, but for
crying out loud, guys, I have a a
a a gigabyte
fiber connection that's directly plugged into my computer
that is completely up in there. Right now,
I can see it. But somehow, these things
just crash and break down in the middle
of our conversations.
This is just so hilarious to me.
Well, so be it. As always, we'll just
keep going. Let me let me preface these
remarks with I never,
never, ever believe
Israeli figures.
I've been in the government too long to
know that the Israelis are patent liars.
In their intelligence community, in their propaganda community,
certainly,
and in their leadership,
they are inveterate
liars.
Let me say that again. They are liars.
So
My father told me when I was a
child,
people in authority lie,
and we all if we are gonna continue.
Yes. Yes. Good note from RFK Jr as
he's an authority and lying to you.
Never stops on this plot on this
it's just so crazy to me. So, anyway,
back to what we were talking about.
The idea that this was a a discussed,
acknowledged strike. They told you we were going
to do this because that's our legal right
if you illegally bomb us. All on the
record, and yet they just lie to Americans.
Very simple, guys. Every single time.
So they were getting ready to attack
others. You see?
Kuwait.
Nobody expected that.
Apparently not. Nobody expected what I told you
thirty seconds ago what was gonna happen. What
are you? Crazy?
Yeah. Apparently so. And keep this because this
will become more relevant, guys. This is a
legal document that's on the record proving that
they knew that they were going to illegally
attack, they were suspected, and that they were
not planning to respond or rather attack first.
But they told you we would respond if
you take this act. And exactly what they
did, they literally turned around and said, those
legal responses they told you they were gonna
take, we didn't say that part, but those
are illegal terrorist attacks against our allies.
There's such gross dishonesty in this. It's just
beyond the pale. Now, as we told you
before, as Ryan Rossiani is pointing out, they
came out and says
or said about Trump that it was a
feeling. That's what Levitt said.
It was a feeling based on the facts,
is what she said. Well, it's a the
feeling just means it's your opinion, which is
based on the facts or not. So there
you go. Add this to the court of
conversate. There is no legal imminent threat. If
there's ever any honesty in this conversation, if
there's ever any legal accountability, all of these
are on the record. They're just because they're
bad at this.
Also, here's what Trump said about how he
was told to do this because Kushner said.
But, apparently, that's evidence of an imminent threat
because Kushner and you what you kind of
insinuated is what that's his fault because he
misled me because that's what good leaders do.
Situation was very quickly approaching.
The point of no return and The United
States
found it intolerable, in my opinion, based on
what
Steve and Jared and
Pete and others were telling me. Yeah. You
know, the liars, the ones who've been proven
to have lied in the conversation, who are
called out by the other diplomats in the
conversation, who the foreign minister of Oman quite
literally told you are lying to you about
what's going on, and that's when they they
were about to give up their enrichment and
everything else, and they bombed them the next
day.
Every part of this conversation is very clear,
and you can easily prove it. Marco was
so involved.
Found
it intolerable,
in my opinion, based on what
Steve and Jared and
Pete and others were telling me Marco was
so involved. Yeah. Good guys. Right? I thought
that they were gonna attack us. I thought
they would All the people, by the way,
that the same MAGA team right now told
you were rhinos and were always lying and
hated Trump, and they were, oh, but, yeah,
now Marco. He's the one. He knows. He's
He's also on the board of peace. He's
gonna control our totally not globalist future.
Hashtag winning.
If we didn't do this
at the time we did it, I think
they had in mind to attack us and
Oh, yeah. Yeah. So, yes, and maybe we
kind of maybe but imminent threat. The evidence
is absolute. What leave it says, but it's
national security now. T. Cabot can't tell you.
Now just just to be clear, it shouldn't
always be, like, a dismissive, like, facetious thing
where it's, like, I'm kinda making fun of
it. But the reason I'm doing that is
because this is ridiculous.
This is not some, like, articulate debate about
the nuance of what the data shows. This
is just whole cloth lies as they get
caught from day to day lying to you.
And then we're supposed to engage with this
like it's not a joke.
You know? No, guys. No. This is dumb,
and these people are obviously dishonest. We just
gotta be real about that because if you
can catch them lying the next day, then
why are we even debating whether they're liars?
Pretty simple.
Based on what Jared said. Well, that's good
good advice. Well, here is well, here's Eric
Daugherty. Just in the big thing. We're winning.
Whatever the team just said. Ratcliffe has asked.
Now, what we we just went over the
information, just even just today. Just what I
showed you alone today is enough to make
you understand that they they're lying about this.
But you can go back through all the
last shows we did since March 1, and
it's very clear from the very beginning. I'll
even play what Rubio said in a second
again that this is not the case. Don't
forget, Gabbard said
in 2025 that they are not seeking a
nuclear weapon. The International Atomic Energy Agency just
have said every year since they're ever doing
this that they're not doing that, and they
can confirm through their watertight system that that's
not the case.
And yet, here's what Ratcliffe has to say.
And what what you're gonna see right here
is some kind of coordinated I'm gonna rattle
off five questions that are basically everything we've
already proven is not true in this very
setting, but I'm just gonna answer them directly.
And then this clip's clipped and put out,
and that's what you're gonna see right now.
All of the team that wants to blindly
pretend like we're all being lied to by
Democrats about what Iran's really doing even though
they also support the war because that totally
makes sense,
that ultimately, this is the truth. That what
Ratcliffe just says out loud despite the evidence
is what we should believe because
democrat lies or whatever, even though they're all
dishonest.
Iranian regime committed to America's destruction in your
opinion? Yes. Does the Yeah. Look. Let's just
first point.
Are they committed to the destruction of America?
Okay. Based on what?
Are they ever done that? No. Is there
any evidence other than what you guys say
they want to do? No. Other than the
funding of groups that in fact are not
actually proxies that you claim are but are
not the reality or groups that you in
fact have funded yourself? No. The idea is
insane to in any way insinuate that they've
designed to destroy America.
Then why haven't they taken that opportunity? You've
literally and then this is actually really important.
I just said this to somebody the other
day. Take a second to think about this.
What happened just now or the first and
and afterward?
We're told this is a terrorist organization that
is designed to kill the guy to kill
everybody in America and kill every Jew, and
they've got secret
nuclear weapons, so they're almost there. They got
missiles aimed at us, and they wanna kill
everybody. Okay.
Let's just pretend for conversation's sake that that's
the reality. So then, let's walk through what
happened. So then, Donald Trump and The United
Israel, even if you wanna pretend they were
to attack us,
bombs them.
Right? Okay. So what does that do? Well,
that gives them the legal opportunity
to do everything they told you they wanted
to do. So, you're telling me all this
time, they've had these secret, nefarious plans to
do this illegally.
And then you bomb them, and you give
them the legal opportunity to bomb everybody.
And what do they do?
They don't do that.
There's not been a single bombing inside The
United States. They bomb bases because they're legal
they're legal targets because you guys illegally attacked
them. They bombed in Israel because Israel's continued
their entire lives to attack them. They bombed
in I mean, but where's the belligerent,
mindless attacking of innocent people? Where's the terrorist
attack? Well, guess who is doing that? Israel,
The United States. Guess who's using white phosphorus
and cluster munitions? Israel, The United States. Guess
who's constantly lying to you with psychological operate?
Israel.
So just think about the opening. If you
wanna believe they were willing to do all
these crazy things, you gave them the legal
pathway to bomb everywhere,
and they didn't.
I just don't know how much more clear
this can get. That's not about good guy,
bad guy. It's about the fact that they've
lied about this country, this government, the people
of Iran, and that, at this moment,
they have self interest.
And their interests are telling them that this
is not gonna work out for them if
they do that, so they don't do it.
They don't mind the Strait. They don't bomb
the Strait Of Hormuz. They simply threat.
To use threats to keep them hindered while
letting everybody else come through. We'll get to
that too. And the point is that if
they were what they said, they wouldn't be
doing any of this. Now it's in their
interest to make sure that they don't give
them the justification. That's not terrorism. That's not
lunacy. That's tactics.
I just hope that really make breaks through
people because it's these easy to see basic
points that really just bring it all together.
And so on that very point, back to
this clip, you've got Ratcliffe being asked, you
know, are they hell bent on destroying the
government of The US War the country?
And, yes, simply.
Okay. I'd love to see some evidence on
that. And if there's or if the evidence
is the state department says, well, there's no
it's never happened. They never try I mean,
it's the same thing.
It's tiresome.
Iranian regime committed to America's destruction in your
opinion? Yes. Does the Iranian regime have American
blood on their hands since its founding in
1979?
Very broad way to frame that, and that's
thousands, the same number we always talk about.
And what is it it? You wanna tell
me in the chat? I'm sure you remember.
It's when US government illegally invaded Iraq. Anyone
debate that? Anyone disagree with that framing? The
lies about WMDs?
And guess what? Soleimani and Iran supported Iraq
in the resistance of that illegal invasion.
We literally can prove that. That's on Wikipedia
about the dynamics. And yet then when you
point out the fact that that's where they
were killed, they never do that, you see,
because they don't want you to recognize that.
They call them terrorists.
So you're telling me that if if Mexico
invaded Texas Texas and then people
the the the people in Texas fought off
the invasion of Mexico, would they be terrorists?
Obviously not.
Nor are the people defending the invasion of
Iraq when you're doing it illegally. But that's
the game, guys. Did they kill the American
thousand? Well, as even Harrison pointed out the
other day, bee stings kill more people in
a given year than the than you claim
Iran's killed Americans over our entire lifespan.
They're just gaslighting you. And on top of
that, again, the numbers they're talking about are
people that were killed in an illegal invasion,
so you can't make anything out there. So
and then they then they assassinated Soleimani in
Iraq under the guise of that him being
the bad guy when, in fact, he's been
the only power sent the,
really in earnest, the element that's been fighting
ISIS on the ground while there had been,
as we just showed you, supporting him across
the countries.
Has Iran plotted assassination temps against Americans on
American soil? Yes.
Yeah. Okay. So this is based on what
even Tucker Carlson told you was infratilogence
that came from Israel, and the New York
Times verified that for themselves. Question all of
it, guys. I do too. But what I'm
always pointing out is what you got is
that versus what Ratcliffe says or what Trump
tells you. That's not evidence, guys. That's statements.
Well, I guess you it's still evidence, but
it's not,
high quality evidence. It's subjective. It's a personal
statement of somebody involved. What we're what we
can see is that this has been something
that's been manufactured. I mean, are we really
pretending like what happened at Butler was not
ridiculously obvious? It's obvious that we've been lied
to this entire time. The point is that
the lie of Iran trying to assassinate him
literally came through Israeli intelligence. That's all the
record.
But yeah. Sure. Why not? Because they said
so.
Was Iran developing a nuclear weapon prior to
our military action last June, and did Iran
remain committed to developing a nuclear weapon that
lead up to this conflict?
Yeah. So I wanna clarify on that.
So yes. The answer is no, by the
way, of all the evidence, including from his
own admit his own department.
The information shows the opposite, but he said
yes out loud. So all the MAGA people
who wanna rather, the dishonest people who aren't
even trying to make America great again but
call themselves MAGA, who are in the Republican
party, are the ones pushing this today because
it's a one stop shot of all the
questions that disagree with what we're proving today.
Because there's been much talk about about a
fatwa,
against the development of a nuclear weapon. Can
you come back to that one second? Of
course. Don't get into that. We don't wanna
know that, which means they have a religious,
a religious reason based on their own their
religious beliefs to not ever seek a nuclear
weapon, which you can prove that that exists.
Whether they care about it or not is
a different question. But, historically, you can see
that they do and haven't done that based
on the evidence, as always, what we can
see in front of us. Could there be
a secret bomb somewhere? Of course. I'd love
to be able to prove that if you
have evidence that I'm not just statements from
people that have always lied to us. Well,
let's talk about it. But that's how this
game is always played. If finished, do you
think that's okay? If left unchecked, do you
think Iran would have the ability to develop
missiles capable of reaching The United States? Yeah.
Missiles.
Capel do you mean, like, literally every government
in the world has missiles and ICBM that
can go as far? Yes.
So the only real argument is there they
they have the ability to to fight back,
and we can't allow that.
Did Israel force The US' hand and make
us take action as some have claimed? No.
No. Very well done. Fact based act you
know, like, okay. So because he just responds
with one word answers, we're supposed to act
like that just sat just bury that's what
they're doing today. Mister Gabbard, do you agree
with the CIA director assessment on that last
question in particular?
Okay. And she says yes, even though she
just told you that's not the case. She
literally told you that they weren't seeking nuclear
weapons, but she answers yes. There's no under
there's no misunderstanding this. Something's driving this, whether
it's just Trump pressuring them or something else.
She just literally under oath lied to you
based on what she said before. Even what
she said in this hearing contradicts what she
just answered yes on.
How pathetic.
That's your legacy, Tolsey. Good for you.
Eric Doherty. Yay.
Whatever the team said that day. Tulsey Gabbard
again. Are the goals of Israel aligned with
the goals of The United States? Well, let's
get into did Israel drive this and whether
Israel's influencing this government. Here's what she had
to say about this. And, like, we even
need to play this video. Quite clearly, the
on the answer is what Trump says our
agenda is is quite different than what Israel
was openly doing.
That should matter to people, especially since it's
now becoming clear that Israel is the one
driving this war.
But understand,
my mind is that this is the same
thing. Right? And all you're getting is that
Trump is just telling you what you wanna
hear while being well aware that Israel is
the one deciding how this goes. That's my
belief.
So my question
is, what does the intelligence community assess Israel's
goals in this will in this war to
be, and are those goals aligned with the
goals of The United States?
I'm thinking carefully here about what can be
said in this open setting versus a closed
setting. Of course.
Are the goals aligned?
I mean, it's a very objective question. Yes
or no? You won't reveal any inside information.
There you you have to understand why she's
being careful right there. I think we all
know. That have been laid out by the
president
are different from the objectives that have been
laid out by the Israeli government. Yep. Even
though that doesn't change his support, does it?
And how do they differ?
We can see through the operations that the
Israeli government has been focused
on,
disabling the Iranian leadership,
and taking out several members, obviously, beginning with
the Ayatollah.
Which by the way, despite their lies, Trump
was all was absolutely in support of. And
the evidence clearly shows that he knew about
him beforehand.
Despite the team's lie the the team sport
lying on Twitter today, despite what she said,
you can prove this. It's been widely covered
both from his own administration and many different
reports covering this based on the,
what was it again? I'll I'll bring up
the article in a second. There's plenty of
clear evidence showing you that this was on
the record beforehand, including Israel themselves
telling you that this was planned out. Or
you could point to the Kurds being funded
and armed for the very purpose of this
process
a month before while they were pretending they
were in peace negotiations. The supreme leader,
and they continue to focus
on that effort.
And how does that differ from our goals?
The president has stated that his objectives are
to,
destroy Iran's ballistic missile,
launching capability,
their ballistic missile
production capability,
and their navy, the IRGC navy. Oh, so
just normal things that every country is allowed
to have, but it's only bad when Iran
does it. So not nukes. No. Just their
their missiles,
which, by the way, is because that's just
what Israel moved into.
Well, their missiles are bad too because they're
bad
guy. Yeah. Very, very articulate. I mean, that's
what we're ultimately getting. Is that just they
can't have those because they do bad things.
Not really though. Not that I can see.
Nazir committed genocide, by the way.
But okay. So
their interests are not aligned.
That's pretty obvious. And even she just told
you. No. No. They have very they have
different agendas. Okay. Well, then explain something for
me.
One,
are we are we only just finding this
out? And if so, that's pretty embarrassing. Right?
That you lumber us into this action and
commit US soldiers that you told us would
never happen and now other people are dying,
you told us would never happen, and boots
on the ground, you told us would never
happen.
Did it all happen at once? Or were
these increasingly changing steps? And at what point
did you continue to support Israel even though
you knew they did not have the same
agenda, if that's even the truth?
I'm just making a point here. Right? Okay.
Well, the last time you sent them, what
was it, $10,000,000,000?
Was that because they were not agreeing with
your agenda or because you didn't care whether
it was the same path? I mean, you
just can't miss this stuff. If the case
was that Israel was conducting something against what
Trump wanted, why does he keep funding them?
You know why? Because I don't think he
has even a choice at this point. But
either way, that shows you that it's one
of two things. He's either bound to continue
supporting them whether or not he literally spits
in their in our face, does whatever he
told us they were weren't gonna do, drags
the US government into yet another war, or
he was always in line with that. And
it's just a lie to make you think
that he wasn't.
I don't know how else to look at
that.
The the the bottom line is that this
I think that the my opinion is that
they're both conducting this war rather than you
know, that's the same entity we're talking about
here. But that from Trump's perspective, he needs
to project that he's the one controlling everything
and that it's not the case. And that's,
I think, that's what explains this in my
mind, is that what she's telling you is
that what Trump's yelling is just not what's
happening. Because the real agenda is what Israel's
doing, and then Trump won't push back on
that. Now that may change based on how
how much they continue to get hurt by
this.
Even if they are bound or he's blackmailed
or whatever, there's always a breaking point where
you can just recognize that no matter how
much pain they can do to me, if
I keep going this path, I'm gonna lose
everything. That's what I kinda think we're getting
to right now, and I'll go into that
more in a second.
Mine lang.
Wait. What's that last part? Did I miss
that? Hold on. Oh, that was the very
end of it.
RGC Navy and mine laying capability.
Their ballistic missile. Oh, so basic and see,
this is funny. Basically, you're gonna stop their
mind laying capabilities. What does that even mean?
So being unable to make basic, like, just
bombs,
mines, or the ability to put them in
the water? Or, you know, it's just these
are it's such benign. Why not just ban
guns or whatever? No. You're I'm gonna you're
not even allowed to have training. You know?
It's like, why not just go all the
way? Because that's what they're doing. There's no
logic in this. There's no legal justification to
claim a government can't have things that everybody
else has. It's just because they wanna control
this. And, apparently, they know that Israel wants
this, and that's enough for everybody to ignore
the basic realities of fundamental international law.
So, Candace Owens and plenty of other massively
influential people, like I've been showing you for
a very long time and every day there's
more of them, are coming out and saying,
MAGA's dead. Trump has changed. Everything's different. It's
not. He's the same person. It's just becoming
more clear. Rather, my argument is that it's
now
impossibly obvious and they know that everybody largely
has come to understand this. And so, whether
this is that or she's calling out herself,
there are people that then come out to
try to release that valve
and say, yes. Like like I'm getting to
with Glenn and Alex, it's well, yes. Yes.
We see it now too. Even though they've
spent the last year trying desperately to keep
you to not see that, the point now
becomes, but keep supporting it. Because we have
to work our way through for the freedom
of the country. Whatever their narrative is, it
always comes down to keep doubling down. He
literally even says double down in his clip.
I played it yesterday.
But my point here is that what they're
calling out is the Zionist influence on this
government.
Everyone sees it, guys. It's literally every part
of the conversation now. Even the mainstream is
being forced to grapple with this.
And Candace Reed writes, read in between the
lines, because this comes out from New York
Post, just like telling us literally from CNN
that 100% of people on Trump's side support
what he's doing? A 100%?
Somebody pointed out the joke yesterday that Kim
Jong Un got reelected with 99.3%.
Kim Jong Un, in a place that we
literally Like, even they have the insight to
be able to go, Well, it's not like
a 100 because that's just obvious.
It's just you don't get a 100% in
any sense. That's never the reality in polls
or mathematics because there's always some kind of
variable. A 100% means you made a mistake.
That's kind of just classic understanding. Or that
you're lying to us. Or that you just
gained it at such a degree that you
literally said, who are you voting for? Okay.
Here's a poll. That kind of thing.
But it says,
Republicans overwhelmingly
back Trump over Tucker Carlson and Megyn Kelly.
Iran war. What that means is they support
the war because that's what this is about
right now. They do not. Other than Eric
Houdertie, Benny Johnson types, which are just we
should just be laughing rolling on the ground
laughing at these people today,
it's pretty clear that nobody supports this. I've
been telling you that long before that was
even it was as clear as it is
now because I felt that was the reality,
and I'm not afraid to make my arguments
based on the facts even when nobody else
is saying it.
Read in between the lines, she writes. Trump
is angry, and they need to show him
something positive, which would imply that he's being
handled.
Cowed, and maybe not aware of that. Now
I'm worried about that kind of sentiment because
I think it's important that we have you
know, we we should not assume that he's
not aware of what he's doing. That's not
in our interest. Even if it's the case,
then we can prove that he's accountable, guys.
And he always will be anyway because of
a thousand other reasons. But it says, Zionists
are now moving to Pravada, publishing fictional polls,
which I agree with, so they have something
positive to put on his desk in the
morning. This is like Loomer telling him that
90% support him, and that's what you end
up hearing from him even though it's provably
not the case because he's being handled by
people who are not acting in American interests.
No one, she writes, Candace Owens,
no one supports the war outside of a
never Trumpers.
No one supports this war outside of never
Trumpers who have always been Israel first. Think
about that.
Never like like Ben Shapiro, like Mark Levin,
who quite literally
I mean, this was, I don't remember the
date, actually, but said, I will never vote
for Donald Trump. There's headlines, articles that were
put out like that. And then when it
was in their interest, they gravitate towards them,
like Thiel and Karp and everybody else is
real to either side of the paradigm. It's
about the
real agenda.
So these people are now the ones that
are MAGA, apparently. And it's and that's what
that's some of these other genuine MAGA people,
whatever whoever you think that may be, the
ones that actually what whoever it is, my
point saying that is people who genuinely want
to make America great again. And we may
even disagree on what that means. Whether or
not we disagree about immigration or whatever else,
the point is none of us are getting
what Trump what was promised. Because even what
they think they want, even if I disagree
with that, that's not what Trump is giving
them. So everyone's being played, and I think
that's what's starting to happen. And the only
ones going along with it are the dishonest
ones who are getting what they want, and
it's not Americans.
Or rather, at least, not people who are
fighting for American interests. And it says they
are losing the war badly, and I agree
with that. I just don't think we can
prove that right now. Like, there's a lot
of information up in the air, but what
I'm seeing, that's the impression I'm getting. And
seek to further delude Trump into believing his
face wanted this.
That's certainly possible.
I mean, how can you ignore a Tucker
Carlson or even a Megyn Kelly? Somebody who
was who who told you that Palestinians would
rather watch their children starve to death than
than allow a Jew to lie to live.
Like, she made those statements. And yet we're
gonna now now she's suddenly calling out what
Trump is I just something is I think
opportunism probably
because they know that we are right.
Megan Kelly. She said this yesterday.
You wanna rip the GOP apart
right to its core?
Yes, please. Same with the other side. But
it says, and prevent a single America First
voter from participating in the midterms? What does
that even mean?
And it says, indict Joe Kent and Tucker
Carlson. See how that works out.
Because this is now centered around not just
the war, not even just Zionism in Israel,
but around Joe Kent and the idea that
he came out and did something that is
objectively honorable. Even if you disagree with his
intentions, the point is you can prove what
he said was correct. And he came out
and he said, I can't, in good conscience,
support this because there was no imminent threat.
Now even if he is a, like, diehard
Israel supporter, the point is that he or
however you wanna look at that. Like, I
argue this comes down to the Zionism issue
that we talk about with Charlie Kirk, that
a lot of these people are clearly if
you listen to his interviews, he still supports
Trump. He still largely, I think, he still
supports the the partisan agenda, the Iran bad
guy narrative.
However,
they wanna see it as Trump and America
first making that happen, not Zionism and Netanyahu
puppeteering Trump to make that happen even if
they get the same result.
You see what I'm saying? And I think
that's a huge part of this. And so
you're getting this divide where they're going go
you you're going after Joe Kent. You're going
after Massey. Like, you guys are showing what
you actually are. And whether Megyn Kelly cares
or not, this is what people are now
seeing. That is the majority of the conversation,
so you're gonna get the profiteers and opportunists
who lumber into it and act like they
always saw it every time.
But either way, the point is I'm glad
it's happening because people see it. You understand?
Now here is The Guardian. We showed you
this before. UK security adviser who attended the
talks with Iran,
who literally told you and this is, well,
this is the foreign minister of Oman. We'll
give you some points on that second. Sitting
with Witkoff and Jared Kushner. And what did
what did The UK element say about these
two? So this is an ally of the
United States government. One golf diplomat with knowledge
of the talks said well, technically, I guess.
The implication was this was from that side
of the conversation, but one of the people
involved, we regarded Witcoff and Kushner as Israeli
assets that dragged a president into a war
he wants to get out of. Again, I
don't believe he wanted to get out of
this, guys. I don't believe that for a
second. You can see his own rhetoric before
telling you Iran had to be taken out.
Why so why would he be telling you
that running up to you know, after the
election, but when when the conversation was being
driven by Israel, he kept telling you, we
have to go after Iran.
So if you wanna get out of it,
why would he be saying that in the
first place? You know? But either way, it's
the point is that people see that these
two are very clearly working for something other
than US interest. I think Trump is too,
but take take the point you can.
So Glenn also points out Netanyahu and America's
Israel loyalists
have long been clear that their supreme goal
was to lure the US government into a
war to destroy Iran.
Yes. This is this is basic understanding if
you're not a blind partisan follower. Israel's key
adversary once Saddam was gone was Iran.
That the Jake Tappers and the ADLs want
to suppress this very point as somehow antisemitism
is pathetic and it will fail. And this
is what Justin Logan points out, do not
say Israel pushed for this war. But also,
here's what the foreign time or four and
a half panels of times
literally reported. For Netanyahu, the war that ultimately
ensued was the culmination of a mission that
has defied his decades long career pa in
politics
to anchor The US in a confrontation with
Iran.
It's not true because the media says it.
It's true because it's provable.
It's it's like saying the sky is blue.
He's been openly telling you this his entire
career. And, again, the direct quote that we
played for you right after this started.
This alliance with The US allows us to
do what I have been hoping for for
forty years,
which is to drive The US to attack
Iran, guys. This is obvious. And he says,
strike the regime squarely in the face.
Netanyahu said this from the well, they claimed
it was the roof for the IDF headquarters.
People argued he'd left the country. But either
way,
how do we misunderstand this?
I'm glad that people like Glenn and others
are having the courage to call this out.
He's a Jewish person himself, so understand how
difficult that is to be pushed back on
by other people who believe they're fighting for
Judaism and are misguided about it.
Either way, whether you think it's the case
or not, how can you
reconcile that with killing innocent children?
Just don't know how anybody can make sense
of that.
Now, also, Lindsey Graham, Wall Street Journal, has
exposed that Lindsey Graham was coaching
Israel
on how to convince Trump to go to
war with Iran.
Now this is actually why this is a
very easy thing to see. We know he's
been doing this. What's now come out is
that there's behind the scenes information about how
before we got here, Lindsey Graham was going
to Israel and going, here's what you need
to say to get Trump to think this
is our in our interest.
Yes.
And yet, he's been endorsed by Donald Trump.
Not messy, you understand, but this guy. The
one that they all called a rhino and
that everybody hates and but apparently, that's MAGA
because that's what he said. That's
this has just never been more clear.
How in the world is this US politician
gonna be going to a foreign power and
convincing them, telling them what they need to
say to trick or convince the president of
his country
into a war for their interests.
This guy should be put in prison. Guys,
I mean, that's borderline treasonous. I mean, you
could just basically call that treason if you
understand what's happening right now.
And then I want you to think about
this yet again. I'll show you again in
a second. For the podcast, it's the same
meme
that I'm sorry you feel insulted by this,
and I'm not trying to make it about
literal citizens of Israel. I'm trying to make
it about the government and what ultimately is
the outcome, which is that what you end
up with is that government driving our government
into a war, and you end up with
what we told you,
flag draped coffins coming back while Israelis sit
back and watch. Now, look, there's been Israelis
that have been killed by the bombings. I'm
not trying to diminish that. What I'm trying
to highlight is the ongoing war, not just
the bombings that hit in low locations, but
the ongoing war, the deployments which are already
happening
to the island or otherwise, the Kurds on
the ground, the people who were there before.
Americans have already been dying.
Iran argues that's about 3,500.
Of course, The US disagrees. It's probably somewhere
in the middle.
But what was the thing we said in
the beginning? This is how we would end
up, whether Israelis or not, that Americans would
be dying for a war that is not
in our interest. And they said, no. That's
not gonna happen. We're not even gonna do
boots on the ground. It's limited strikes. It's
about stopping their leader. All the same talking
points. And then they extended it, extended it,
extended it, just like everywhere we've ever been
through. And now what are we doing?
Every day, we're hearing about more Americans dying,
more Americans deployed while Israel's government sits back
and lets it happen.
Now I'm talking about their government, not just
every Israeli in the world. Understand what I'm
saying, But that is the case, that their
government is letting it be fought by US
interests.
You can't deny that.
Why are is America first okay with that?
Now, here's what Clint Russell had to say,
and this is kind of a mixed bag
on this, where, of course, Trump comes out
and says, Israel, out of anger for what
has taken place in The Middle East,
whatever that mean
like, because they responded? It's just he's trying
to make it sound like Iran's just attacking
indiscriminately.
But he says, has violently lashed out, and
and we'll talk about this in a second,
at a major facility known as the South
Pars Gas Field in Iran, which is there's
parts of it that are also owned by
Qatar.
Now, early arguments where that wasn't damaged, but
now there's later reports that are showing that
it was, in fact, damaged, and Qatar's not
happy about that, which, by the way, led
to a massive spike in gas prices, which
I think is now I think the Brent
crude was over a 110, I think, last
I checked. I forget what it is now.
That what he keeps promising you. It's gonna
go down. Well, that's not gonna happen when
Israel keeps deliberately making sure it doesn't
because this is not an accident, guys. And
this was designed to make this
problematic
for Americans so they then can turn this
into Iran is making this happen for all
of us, and so we have to fight
Iran. That telling you, that's how basic this
is, at least in one part of it.
There's many moving parts. But But he says,
a relatively small section of the hole has
been hit. The United States knew nothing about
this particular attack. Well, there you go, seeing
as how they're making the decisions. And in
the earlier parts of this, when you were
talking with Iran and offered a ceasefire
on day two and they denied it through
Italy, that's all publicly available,
And Israel spoke up and said, why are
you talking to them without us? And the
White House told them they wouldn't do it
anymore. Also, easy to look up.
And so here we are. Israel's carrying out
the attacks that represent their joint war without
even talking to Trump. And it says or
at least that's how he says it. It
could very well be that he's using this,
like I'm gonna get to, to make it
seem like he's, you know, calling out Israel
even though he's still funding them and still
supporting what they do every single day.
But it says The United States knew nothing
about this attack, and the country of Qatar,
it was in no way, shape, or form
involved with it or did have any idea
it was going to happen. Well, we don't
know that for sure. Ultimately, unfortunately, Iran did
not know this or any of the pertinent
facts pertaining to the South Pars attack and
unjustifiably
and unfairly attacked a portion of Qatar's LNG
gas facility. That's not what appears to have
happened. You see, the argument appears to be
this was bombed by Israel and this is
an effort to to make it out that
somehow Iran responded by bombing
in the same location. Like, that would make
sense.
Now, technically, these are separate things, but you
have to understand. This does why why would
their mindset be that Qatar is the one
that bombed a location that it's in their
interest to not bomb? This is just lazy
arguments in my mind. I think this is
quite clearly Israel doing what it's continued to
do, Bombing oil fields that caused chaos for
Lebanese people, for Iranian people, for everyone in
the world, and hoping you just
lazily blame Iran.
Like every other thing they're doing. Starvation. They're
killing everyone. What's you guys doing those things?
Their their money's collapsing. Look how bad they
are. You guys are sanctioning them. That's just
very they're they can't even manage their oil
infrastructure. You're sanctioning them. Like, it's so lazy.
But that's what seems to have worked from
the past, so I guess they keep going.
No more attacks will be made by Israel,
he says, protect which, by the way, has
already been proven false.
So he wants you to think, I'm so
in control because it's in capitals.
No more attacks. And while he's riding, Israel
keeps attacking.
Pertaining to this extremely important valuable southpars. Well,
that location, you could argue. But my point
is that if Israel wanted to, they'd bomb
it right now. And you damn well know
it.
And it says, in which instances The United
States Of America, with or without help in
cons on our consent of Israel, will it's
weird that he says consent,
isn't it? As or aside from coordination or
discussion,
consent, meaning that up until this point, they've
been getting the consent of Israel, is basically
the way you would read that, but not
no longer. But I still doubt that.
And it says, I do not want to
authorize the level of violence and destruction because
of the long term implication that it will
have on the future of Iran. But if
always fantastic, Qatar's LNG's attacked again, I will
not hesitate. Great. So Israel attacks it again,
blames Iran, and suddenly just the everything you
can see how this goes. We're getting into
the false flag territory here, which I'm convinced
is already happening.
You have to understand that what he just
said, first of all, which I believe is
based on a misrepresentation, is that if they
bomb it I don't wanna do the thing
that will destroy Elviraan. Why is that even
the framing? But if they attack this one
location, I'll just gonna do that.
I don't even believe that's what's gonna happen.
This is just him muscling his blustering narrative
as he pounds his chest while showing weakness
as usual.
But here's what Clint says. They are simultaneously
calling Joe Kent a liar while the president
is openly chastising Israel for escalating the war
of the run. No. He's not. I mean,
do are we at the point, journalist, where
we just blindly accept what Trump says as
the reality?
Good journalism. The point here, guys, is Trump
is telling you what he wants you to
hear, as he always does. Consider that it
could be the reality. But as we know,
Trump was well aware of this. They were
well aware of because it was planned.
And
he says, seems to me that Joe Kent
told the truth, and you're all cashing in
$7,000 checks,
sir.
Because that's just the thing. Apparently, it's all
7,000. Everyone's doing it's a sentiment. It's a
meme. Yes. There was examples of $7,000
coming from Israel, but that's why that became
a token conversation that then makes us all
look ridiculous for claiming that somebody's being influenced
or fund by Israel because it just becomes
an allegation that gets floated with no verification,
and it's always $7,000.
But the point is to make the sentiment,
but let's, you know, let's care about the
facts and care what we can prove. But
overall,
as Dominic Michael Trippi points out, he's flatly
lying.
Trump. Big surprise. He not only he not
only knew
about it, but approved the strikes.
Only after seeing how bad of a decision
it was did he publicly reverse course because
it was a major
it was a majorly bad move. This is
a because the gas price the the Brent
crew shot up. The gas price it's not
smart.
Israel probably convinced him somehow that it would
be in his interest. While Qatar didn't know
of the Israeli attack,
advance, Trump did according to Israeli officials. Prime
minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Trump coordinated about the
strike, and aim was to try and deter
Iran from continuing disrupt oil supply. Of course,
by doing that, you bomb oil supplies. Totally
makes sense.
But you have to understand, guys, at the
very least, this is what Israel is telling
you.
They could be lying. But then ask yourself,
why is Israel countersignaling
the leader of The United States and claiming
that he told them about these because either
he wants them to look that bad and
Trump still doesn't call him out for it,
or it's the truth and Trump is trying
to lie to you. Either way you pick,
it still shows you the reality here.
Now
what I want you to highlight here is
chastising Israel for being against his will. So,
what this is be what I'm reading into
right now that you're getting is the sentiment
that, of course, Trump is against it now,
and he's being you know, he's gonna
push back on Israel. And, ultimately, I just
don't think that's where we are.
And as well as the fact that I
showed yesterday from him and others, the com
the the sentiment is, what happened? Why did
he suddenly change? But he didn't.
As I said, we were telling you this
was the person back in 2025.
We were called blackpilled for it. Right? So
you knew because we told you. So it's
not some brand new sentiment. It's clearly what
we already warned was going to happen.
So anyone claiming they're shocked and surprised by
this new sentiment that's not new at all
is either, I guess, this should reflect on
their ability to see things in basic reality
until they're told to look at it, which
isn't that's not a journalist, by the way.
Or
we're talking about
well, I mean, I think that the, the
where was it? There's one other thing. The
the real point that I was gonna give
you more thoughts on, but then I just
lost it.
What was that? Shoot. Anyway, so the the
the general the general sentiment back to the
the,
other post about this
was the reality that we're talking about Israel
influencing this government and giving them the pass.
Like, the idea that somehow Trump is being
played by Israel, therefore, he's not responsible for
all of the actions. That was the end
point, but I'm there's no I was gonna
make another point there. I just lost the
thread. But this was the one I want
to end with because this builds to the
next clip, which is that that's what they're
actually doing right now. Now I'm not suggesting
he's doing that. But that's the sentiment that's
circulating, which he's sort of leaning into whether
he knows that's what it's going into or
not. That's what happened in partisan media. But
this guy, Glenn Beck,
I I just can't believe this because we
just showed you this yesterday.
This is now this is Alex Jones. Posted
this literally saying, Israel has successfully conducted a
coup, which, again, my point yesterday was, well,
I'm not I'm not even making that argument.
Are we are we now arguing can verify
that there was a coup d'etat that took
place and that they've now shifted people in
different positions?
I can't verify that. As usual, he tries
to jump ahead and make the Bambosta claim,
acting like he was always the one leading
this conversation. No, guys. He's the one trying
to glom on to what we've always been
showing you. He called us black billed everybody
else who tried to call this out, the
entirety of the IMA before we got here.
But now suddenly, bombshell breaking news. Israel conducted
a coup and is now in control of
the Trump White
House. Okay. Well, I agree with the fact
that Israel is very clearly influencing US policy.
He goes, calls for all Americans to peacefully
take action to restore our sovereignty. Well, guess
how he means?
Doubling down, supporting the team. He literally tells
you in this clip to support their next
appointments.
Mark Twain. Right? Because it makes sense when
the White House is controlled by a foreign
power to support whoever they put into the
next position. Right? Double down. Midterms. That's what
he's talking about. Fighting globalism. As we literally
just showed you, you've never seen a more
obvious example of the government leaning into that
direction from the doesn't matter.
Just understand, this is about trying to use
the reality to then fold you back in.
It's the Qanon Russia gate point I've made
over my entire career. It's about trying to
get you in a position where the actual
solution is to yet again support the team,
but maybe only part of it. Right? That
was my point about Russia gate QAnon. Either
side of that happening simultaneously,
what was the ultimate point? Trust this side
of the government.
Right? Over here, it's because these are the
ones exposing that Russia controls Trump. Well, over
here, it's because they're the white hats fighting
the other bad guy Democrats.
So both of them effectively convince you to
trust the government.
How's how obvious is that? So here we
are yet again with the situation where they're
trying to get you to re to think
that we have to support the white hat
anti globalist ones who are apparently controlled by
Israel, though, but simultaneously
support their next appointments.
And then Glenn Beck today.
After I saw president Trump call out Israel
oh, because that's what they did. Right? That's
why I used the Clint point. For striking
the South Par gas field, something clicked for
me.
Oh, really?
It's just so this is this I mean,
I'm more even than Alex Jones. I feel
like this guy is such a he's a
shit it's a it's performative theater, almost always.
He didn't join Israel's war with Iran because
he was duped. Oh, okay. He stepped into
it to control the outcome.
Yeah. Totally lines up. Right? Aside aside from
the fact that he was
talking about this war before it started and
telling you how Iran need to go away
and how he's been doing that long before
he got to this position or the fact
that what we're really talking about
is that you're saying he did something that
Americans did not want and supported something he
could have called out because he wanted to
control how it went?
Why is that even a positive thing? So
you're saying he did he challenged what Americans
wanted because he wanted a certain outcome? Wasn't
that the same point?
You just have to understand. These guys are
so desperate in my mind to get you
to continue supporting the very team that a
waterfall of of Republicans are calling out.
Think about trying to do this in this
moment because this isn't out. This is for
people who are going, no.
No. I I was so I I thought
I was right, and I was yelling at
everybody who disagreed with me, and I'm so
desperate to want this to be what I
thought it was. And they go, oh, okay.
Fine. There is an out. This is a
thing right here because he just needed to
go the right way. It's just a blind
assumption in order to hope that it was
always what you thought despite Stargate and glyphosate
and every other star, Every other thing we've
talked about or the other wars that are
still ongoing.
But sure. And I said, this is what
Alex Jones and this blind partisan clown are
pushing now.
Any evidence to back up this wildly self
serving assumption, Glenn?
I doubt it.
Just curious. We see you know, what the
response.
Oh, and then here's, you know, the the
intelligent,
insightful political commentators like Roseanne Barr.
Roseanne Barr claims Trump is actually
disrupting the hidden global cabal network tied to
British power who are behind the big banks
in war profiteering. Like, she's just you know,
it's certainly possible.
But, of course, you know, this is the
blind assumption, like the idea that we're just
gonna grasp it. It's really who know who
cares about all the broken promises?
It's only because what he's really doing, everything
that he makes a promise, is because he
had to make the promise in order to
to bring down the global cabal network, Well,
allowing the FC network to continue because they're
not a part of that, apparently, or to
not arrest anybody or not go after Pelosi
or Obama or anyone that Roseanne told us
was part of that cabal. When it all
work out, trust the plan, you know, the
new haircut really makes it all work together.
I mean, it's just it's just sad. Why
anyone even gives these people the time of
day? Like, that's insane. Like, of course, as
I said, it is possible,
but there's no evidence to back it up.
And on top of that, everything we're talking
about, everything shows you that what you're being
what's being done to us is the opposite
of what was promised.
The cabal behind
the big banks and the war profiteering, and
yet he's conducting war and works with all
big banks. Literally, his buddy buddy with Larry
Fink and
Bill Gates. And, I mean, come on. Like,
it just this takes such a special level
of willful ignorance
to not acknowledge where we are.
And then if you got someone like this,
Dan Bongino.
Of course, red light just in, flashing, breaking
news for Nick Sore. Dan Bongino goes off
on those claiming Trump was goaded by others,
and they're launching strikes on Iran. You know,
like like Rubio told you was the case.
Okay. And he goes, you don't know jack
squat about this guy if you think he's
getting dog walked by anyone. He's the one
walking the damn dog, I promise. Oh, oh,
whew. Fact based argument. Right? All flash, no
substance.
So you couldn't
the so he made his argument. This is
clearly what Dan passionately thinks, but there's nothing
in there other than his stressful statement that
makes that would convince you otherwise.
He's not the one. He's the other way
around. I promise. Whew. Well, that that sold
me. Right? Well, the obvious reality is that
you could prove it's not the case. Why?
Because everybody told you. Because literally everybody, even
Trump told you that Israel was gonna take
that Iran might take action, and because Israel
was involved, we might have to do something
about that. So in and of itself, that
shows you that they felt they had to
because Israel might take action,
as he says right here. Now you could
argue that's not the same as controlling policy,
but that would not be
not being watched or whatever you wanna call
it. That would be Trump being led into
this or coerced or forced or, you know,
driven to it whether they when he argues
they didn't want it because of what they
were gonna do. This is just partisan BS
to get you to convince to think that
Trump's always in control. Whatever happens, it's exactly
what was supposed to happen even if you
don't like it, so shut up and trust
the plan. These people are embarrassing,
and I think right now, to most Americans.
The second question that been asked is, why
now? Well, there's two reasons why now. The
first is it was abundantly clear that if
Iran came under attack by anyone, The United
States or Israel or anyone, they were going
to respond and respond against The United States.
So explain for me how that's an imminent
attack. Right? This is what really frustrated Trump.
And why he tried to change it into
we attack first. But they all shot themselves
in the feet. The reality here is that
if you attacked
because if they were attacked, you knew they
would respond, that doesn't even make sense, even
especially in an imminent threat. That's you initiating
war. Simple. This is that's like a perverse
manipulation
even of the Bethlehem doctrine that is preemptive
self defense. Like, that's not even that doesn't
even get met by what he just said.
Had been delegated down to the field commanders.
It was automatic. And in fact, it bear
to be true because in fact, the within
an hour of of the initial attack
on the on the leadership compound,
the, missile forces in the South and in
the North for that matter had already been
activated to launch. In fact, Yes. As we
told you, because they told the UN, we
see what you're doing. And if you bomb
us, we will respond. He knows that. He
knows that. He's playing on the ignorance of
everybody
because it's all on the on the record
that you Israel brought or rather Iran brought
it to the table in the UN and
said, we know what you're doing, and we'll
respond in this way.
Now, again, though, this is a point that
I mentioned earlier. Listen to what he says
right here. The orders have been delegated down
to the field commanders. Right.
As I keep telling you. So what does
that mean? That means that there's a break
between the executive branch and what our military's
doing.
So is it not possible that that it's
Hegseth?
Hegseth is a religious Zionist. Is it not
possible that he's not taking orders from the
people you think he is? Or is it
possible that even whether he's there or not,
it's Feinberg who's actually in control? Or even
beyond that, that it's actually just Israel in
its own way just conducting this war with
our military? I mean, I'm not saying I
can prove any of that. What I'm saying
is it's absolutely insane to me these are
considerations is my point. It's insane to me
that we're at a point where he just
admits in the midst of starting an illegal
war, that you're not even the ones giving
orders on the ground. The executive branch, I
mean.
That's not how this is supposed to go.
I've never agreed with that logic. The and
and by that very logic, then, well, you
know, I could go in a lot of
directions about the having experts around you and
how that contradicts other things he said. But
you just have to be clear about this,
guys. This is
obviously
not imminent. I mean, everything we've every point
we've made so far, just what he's saying
here seems to make that clear. It was
automatic, and in fact, it bear to be
true. The assessment that was made that if
we in fact, that those are even prepositioned.
The third is the assessment that was made
that if we stood and waited for that
attack to come first before we hit them
Which which wasn't happening. As Dave testified to,
there was no evidence of that. And, again,
why would they come and say, here's where
we're going to bomb if you attack us
if their plan was to attack first?
And, also, that there's never been an example
of them ever doing that in the first
place. Always been a response. But But let's
just take their word for it because, you
know, Rubio is an honest guy. Right, guys?
We would suffer much higher casualties.
And so the president made the very wise
decision. He we knew that there was going
to be an Israeli action. We knew that
that would precipitate an attack. You can't miss
that, guys. We knew that Israel was going
to do something because that's what actually ended
up coming out even before he said this,
that Israel was already planning it. That's why
they talked about the curve. They talked about
the assassination.
This you can't deny that either Trump is
involved the entire way or he was completely
snowed and played in the situation.
Israel would attack, which means Iran might do
something, so we had to act. Against American
forces. And we knew that if we didn't
preemptively go after them before they launch those
attacks, we would suffer higher casualty. But think
about what he just said. That if we
didn't preemptively go after them, that they that
they would get those attack. But the attacks,
he means, would only happen if Israel attacked
first, unilaterally
without justification. It's just you just can't miss
this, guys. Again, you need to understand. That's
incompetence.
Or for some reason, Rubio was trying to
let you see what was happening. I don't
believe that.
It's just wild. And here they are trying
to convince you otherwise as you, on the
record, can hear them tell you the thing
that contradicts their current lies.
But don't you think for one second, Jack,
that he was walked by his dog or
whatever stupid thing you say. It's just, I
promise, says the guy who quit because he
couldn't do he was being called out for
not doing anything, and now he's out there
telling you the same nonsense.
Now Netanyahu
says, no guarantee of a war Iran regime
change after the war on March 12. Well,
it's just interesting to me. Wait a minute.
Didn't you guys tell us that the moment
you removed Khomeini that the whole thing would
come down because they were so desperate for
somebody else? Well, that's not true. And And
it never was true, and you could prove
it wasn't true like we told you.
So he comes out twelve days into this
and goes, well, you know, maybe there's nothing
we're gonna be so already showing you that
they were walking back the outcome, which is
what I said before. Funny enough, today,
earlier, I was talking with somebody, and I
said, you know what I think is gonna
happen? That, ultimately, this is gonna end up
where, like we saw before, they don't meet
their goals. And just like the twelve day
war, they then just go, we win, which
Trump and and Netanyahu have already done. And
then end up going, well,
they're weakened and they're we or that we've
got them in a place where they're easily
controllable, so we win and we're done.
Even though that's the that's not even remotely
what you promised. You said, we're gonna take
control of this, we're gonna remove them, we're
gonna put some in a place because Iran,
the terrorists are So to end up allowing
them to continue to be there doesn't even
remotely make sense with anything you ever told
us up until now, but apparently that won't
matter as it hasn't before because we win.
Mission accomplished.
That's what I believe is and this is
my point was I said that earlier,
today, that's already starting to happen. I wanted
to show you that it was already being
floated, March 12. Can't guarantee that we'll get
the only thing we claim we're trying to
accomplish here.
Netanyahu on the thirteenth, the next day, says
he doesn't know if Iranians will oust regime
threatens new leader. So, again,
we were promised, guys. Promise that a pro
they just like Iraq, they lied to us
about. The Iranian people want this so bad.
Like that woman on Fox told you, oh,
yeah. They just we're worried the bombing's gonna
stop because that means we're not
talking about innocent people being murdered, and they're
like, please do it because freedom. Nobody in
the world thinks that makes sense. Republicans wouldn't
want their own people bombed to be able
to take over. It's not how that actually
works. So, in this case,
he's telling you, well, we don't even we
don't think they're going to oust the regime.
Oh, how quickly that changed. Now suddenly, they
don't support your new puppet? Well, they never
did, guys. And so all it shows you
is that now they murdered this guy who
essentially you could you could for comparison's sake,
it'd be like Israel murdering the pope in
The United States. That that's Khomeini in their
sense. They murdered him. He wasn't a military
target. And then they go, oh, they, you
know, they're gonna rush in and take over.
No one did. Now we're gonna kill the
new guy.
Okay. So what point do we acknowledge that
they lied to us and they not they
don't support what you want in there? They
don't care. Trump doesn't care. And, Mori, maybe
he's being lied to. Well, Israel has won
the war with Iran,
says Israel
on the seventeenth.
But but but the goals remain unmet.
Oh, what now? Hold on. So you won
the war, but you haven't reached your goals.
So that one of the goals wasn't winning
the war?
Okay. But, no, that's it's obviously a joke.
This is just like Trump. This is their
mission accomplished moment. It's pretty pathetic. They came
out and said, We won, but there's more
to happen, or whatever. That's not even the
truth. In fact, you don't say that in
this moment where you can clearly see it's
not even close, unless you're obviously failing, guys.
I don't even know how to frame that
thing any differently.
On the March 9,
vague and contradictory Trump says, The wrong war
won, but not won enough.
Perfectly Trump statement right there. So you can
see both of them already floating it out.
Where we won already. You wouldn't say that
with what was happening unless you wanted to
frame it the opposite of what was happening.
At least, that's what I would think makes
the most sense.
So today,
Netanyahu says the Iranian regime may survive, in
fact, but it will be weak.
I just fell out of my chair. I'm
like, jeez. I just said that today, and
here we are. And so the reason I'm
bringing it up is because I think what
this signifies is the two things, the indication
that they know they're already losing, and they
need to save face by making you think
they somehow won, but also to create the
sec the the kind of the situation.
And I'm this is where I'm leaning, and
this is more my opinion
where you create the situation where Israel sort
of backs away and lets The US continue
in some kind of dynamic and then carries
out false flags and makes this a a
sole US war,
which is kinda where we are here to
be honest, but you'll see what I mean.
But just recognize this.
Going within eighteen days from we're gonna remove
the regime, we're gonna save the world to,
well, you know, they may survive, but they'll
be weak. So you're losing is what you're
saying? Okay. Understand.
Hear me close some eyes real quick.
So
onto the false flag potential. Okay? So this
is something that happened over the last twenty
four hours. Drone detected above Washington DC Army
Base
where Pete Hegseth and Marco Rubio just happened
to live.
I thought I thought that was very interesting.
I I actually hadn't picked up on this.
I've I've seen some reporting about the weirdness
of them moving to these per secure locations.
I'm not sure everybody knows this.
Top Trump officials this is on the October
30.
Top Trump officials are moving onto military bases.
That just screams support from the American people,
doesn't it?
Guys, this is not about Iran attacking this
country. I'm telling you. This is about the
fact that they know and that's what I'm
telling you. I can see it like anybody
can who's being honest. The American people, since
a year before that, people are changing. They're
becoming aware of the two party illusion. They're
calling this stuff out. And that's why I
think we're being transitioned into some new control
structure. And this is why they reckon people
are not happy with our government.
And so they're hiding.
I genuinely think that, but you it could
mean something else. So drones detected above this
army base. And that's what made me think
of that. Like, why are they an army
base? Drones have been detected above an army
base in Washington, DC, where secretary of state
defense
p secretary Hegset live.
The US officials have not determined where they
came from, of course, but they said multiple
drones have appeared.
And what can you already assume is happening?
I shouldn't say it like that. What is
already happening in Twitter? Tons of MAGA people
are going, Iranian drones are attacking Pete Headset
at their home.
Yep. Both of which are are unverified or
at least, you know, they're not at their
well, technically,
you're saying it like that to make it
sound like it's their residence
in a normal sense. No. No. They're in
a military base. So what happened was Iran
attacked, if that's what actually happened, a legal
military target where they happen to be living.
And then
claiming it's Iranian drones when even they're telling
you we're not sure about that right now.
Just typical partisan nonsense. It happens every day.
This triggered a meeting at the White House
over how to respond and whether to increase
security measures, argue clearly about, you know, framing
it as Iran no matter what. The military
is already operating on a high alert threat.
And the Iran war, and The United States
and Israel have been engaging the illegal war
that suddenly is a war by everyone's account,
even though we were quibbling about whether it
was a war. Funny how it works out.
It's not a war. It's an operation. Oh,
now it's a war. Everyone said, even Eggset,
it's a war. You know? So why we
why we fight about that in the first
place just to distract, I guess?
So, one, they're living in military bases, which
I'll get into in a second, but, two,
the idea of this attack.
Well, we already went over this.
Now this is a real thing, but whether
that's always the case, is it me who
can say? But that there's examples well before
this, by the way, where you can prove
that they have you know, like, for example,
from a a hacking perspective, Vault seven showed
you that they have the tools to make
it look like somebody else conducted the attack.
It's a cyber false flag is what it
is. In this case, we know that they
have technology. I showed you this during the
Iraq, during Syrian war that they literally have
have the ability they they buy old Russian
weapons and use them and blame Russia or
whatever. In this case, we know that they
can reproduce
weaponry
or drones that they claim are on. So
in this case, this is being called out.
Abbas,
our our Gachi, The US foreign Iranian foreign
minister, claims The US is, using Lucas drones
that match theirs perfectly to blame Arab nations.
Other framing that is more from the, like,
Israeli
joint US agenda,
but we know that's possible. We know they've
done it before, so we need to consider
that. That's all.
So
is it
one in the interest of Iran to do
this? Well, it's hard to say seeing as
how it's where they're located, but I would
argue clearly either way, it's a legal target.
It's a military base. But now we're talking
about in The United States, which is my
whole point.
I don't think Iran did this. I think
whether there's even a drone there, quite frankly,
but if there is, I think we know
what's going on here. I think is Iran
why would they suddenly send a drone to
to maybe attack a US location when they
could be legally bombing The US right now?
Maybe because they wanna hide they did it,
but look, they didn't even do it. It
didn't actually bomb anything.
This just feels very obviously suspicious. And I
wanna highlight that the fact is that if
they did do it, though, it would be
a legal target. But that will be a
major line that was crossed in regard to
the way the world views what's happening. So
I just argue they're not gonna do that
until they're pushed to. And I argue they
won't ever unless it becomes a desperate, like,
this is not gonna stop unless we do
something more severe. Okay. I was talking about
this earlier as well, that it's a compounding
situation
where Iran, over the years, has shown tremendous
restraint in any number of locations where they
don't just respond when they're attacked unilaterally.
And they said this in this last twelve
days discussion. They said, look. We we've we've
come to learn clearly that we show restraint,
and you guys just attack us more. You
perceive it as weakness and you attack more,
which because they're belligerent.
So at this point, ask you where their
minds are at, whether you wanna frame those
terrorists or not. It doesn't change the legal
reality of what every country can do, and
they're not, by the way. But the point
is that now they're in a situation where
they go, okay.
They illegally attacked us. We're we're not we
we could bomb The US right now by
every rule of law, but every law law
of war, but we're not because they don't
wanna push that line. But the point is
that if they just keep showing restraint and
they keep letting them do it, well, how
long until Israel keeps going harder and harder
until they go, well, what else are we
gonna do? Because if we don't take further
action, then it's only gonna be seen as
weakness. But if we take the further action,
it will be used to justify their next
step. So you basically create a circumstance where
they become just as luni just belligerent and
illegitimate
and, you know, just unconcerned with international law
as what you've created because that's the only
answer that they can find.
I hope we don't get there, but how
do we not see where The US and
Israel that's some of these articles that have
been written about where they're driving the global
situation, where they're driving this this nuclear threat
with just chaos because they're creating a situation
where nothing means anything
ever. It's all up in the air. There's
nothing sacred. There's no agreements. We're powerful. We'll
take what we want. No,
no
what was the term?
No something give no no quarter given as
Hegseth said. Meaning, we're gonna kill everybody even
though it's against the law.
There's no there's no air in that conversation.
It's very simple.
So in regard to the drones, consider what
is actually driving this and if this is
the next step. So, again, with the point
of maybe this winding down a little bit,
well, suddenly, you'd have a drone attacking US
bases in Washington, DC.
Now, would Trump act on that? What if
they bombed the location? What if somebody got
killed? Do you think Trump would then feel
he had to respond, and would that then
make it no longer Israel's situation? Is Israel
gonna back away from this and allow this
to be what they've always wanted to be?
Probably.
That's just my opinion, but I think I
see that's where it's going. And here's what
Mario Nofal puts out. What are the ones
I was talking about?
Drones detected over the base where secretary of
Rubio and Higgseth live, And it says the
war in Iran isn't 7,000 miles away anymore.
Oh, it's Iran now. Are we certain about
that? Does anybody claim that? No. No. They
even said explicitly that we don't know where
it's from.
But we now but we know Iran. And
it says unidentified drones are now flying over
the homes of the two official.
Well, you just said it to Iran, and
you said, now it's at home. See, this
is the sentiment. We're supposed to be feeling
that now it's coming home. Well, if it
does, in fact, come home, it's because of
the people in that very picture. It's because
of their illegal war and their unjustified actions
that drove the legal response that Iran could
do.
In the that's the last thing that I
want, but it would be their fault.
Now onto this article.
Christy Stephen Miller, Marco Rubio, Christy Noem, you
know, all the totally not Zionist America first
people and others have taken their homes to
military bases.
Of course, it stems back to Stephen Miller.
The former White House adviser, Katie Miller, mother
of three young children and wife of the
presidential right hand man, Stephen Miller, right hand
man, the unelected,
you know,
advisor who suddenly has more power than Marco
Rubio according to pretty much everybody in the
room, walked out of her front door one
Thursday morning and last month and was confronted
by a woman that she didn't know. You
know, just because we're in the world and
people are outside. Okay? And it says, when
she told the story on Fox News, which
she wildly embellished according to plenty of people,
she described an encounter as a protest that
crossed a line. Did what happened? Did you
get punched? Did you get assaulted? No. Apparently
not. There was a person there meaning saying
mean things.
The stranger had told Kate Miller, I'm watching
you, she said. This was the day after
Charlie Kirk's assassination because apparently that's why. No.
It's not. Guys,
the government is on watch.
People that that that would it would probably
make more sense to me that that would
be a Republican.
It doesn't even matter to me, though. The
point is Americans
are critical right now or their government or
we know what they're doing to it. Look
at the Epstein file. Look at everything. And
so these people are trying to frame that
distrust with our own government as some kind
of outside force. You know what is the
outside force? Stephen Miller.
And then turning this around on itself and
creating them as the the the victim class
and moving into military bases because they're protecting
themselves from Iran?
No.
From you.
That's my opinion anyway. And, of course, even
Grock will tell you this is something starting
with Trump's administration.
Part of the broader trend
of several Trump administration officials, we just listed
them, it's not all of them, it's those
people moving into military housing
because they're unpopular, because nobody likes them other
than the lying partisans that pretend everybody does.
The primary reason reported across multiple sources, guess
what? Enhanced personal security. That also folds into
the ice and the lie about, you know,
what they claim domestic in America because that's
the case. Americans are
looking to them as criminals. So they wanted
to turn it into a domestic terrorism
democrat plot. Well, that's they've never verified the
reality of that even though I know there's
elements of parts of what they're saying that
you could prove on either side of the
conversation
that come back to them, in fact. But
look. I mean, do we just gonna pretend
we didn't go back? What happened?
What happened? Where's where's the Antifa home base,
guys? Where's all the terrorists that Cash told
you were all coming down? Oh, I got
their names. Oh, it's all coming down, he
said on, like, three podcasts over the last
month, year,
what, six months?
Oh, yeah. Oh, so nothing. Got it. Nothing.
What about the terror Halloween plot? Oh, yeah.
Okay. Nothing. What about all even
bust bluster and lie and hype? Then nothing
happens. You know, some some, small like, basically,
arresting people under claims of terrorism and all
this stuff and ends up being some kind
of misdemeanor charge. You know, it's constant.
But what they told you was we're under
attack by the that's why they need personal
security. And, which, again, just to be clear,
means protection from Americans,
protection from potential threats,
protests,
harassment.
So just in case it's unclear, the Trump
administration,
some of their worst people are living on
military bases because they're afraid of the American
people. Meanwhile,
here's the Iranian president wandering in the open
public down to Iran because that's something important
to understand. And as much as people wanted
to pretend like this is not true, guys,
you can you
this just does not suggest that they're the
best person in the world, that everybody in
the country loves them. But what it shows
you, just like when Assad would do it,
just like when Maduro would do it, it's
not because it's North Korea, it's because people
there support them. And it's actually very easy
to prove if you're not completely blinded by
State Department talking points and partisan nonsense.
It's obvious that these people have mass support
in their countries.
When's the last time you saw any one
of these monsters walk down any street? They
know people walk up to them and go,
You're a liar. You're a terrorist on either
side. And you know it.
I think this is really important to understand.
Now, back to the point about the false
flag discussion is we I think this is
gonna be added to the conversation because this
is what's needed because they're losing.
And so what I'm worried about is where
this ends up going. Now I just wanna
include this because I find it interesting.
This is what Mike Davis put out on
the seventeenth.
So first of all, it's a clip that
we'll play for you. Now in in case
we haven't talked I mean, if you haven't
seen me talk about this, this ridiculous argument
about Sharia law, there's a there's a reality
of that in the world. But first of
all, understand that that's wouldn't be legally possible
in this country. It doesn't mean it can't
happen, but it's unconstitutional.
So, again, we've seen what our governments are
doing, but the reality is there's no legal
mechanism through which that would even happen. But
certainly possible.
Also, then you could take a second to
look, and you can even ask rock if
it makes you feel better, and realize what
a small sliver of even the people that
they claim or want. The the Muslims in
this country, by and large, do not want
any of that. I'll read it to you
in a second. According to their own discussions,
according to what they say out hey. Hey.
If you wanna get into the the secret
behind the scenes, wink, wink, what we think
they mean, well, that mean that's your opinion
of what you think they mean. They're over
here doing different things and saying different things.
There are people in any category that are
ridiculously extreme. Left, right, Muslim, Jew, Christian, black,
white, all of it, because it exists. There's
extremism in all of it, and any one
of them should be called out. It's not
unique to a certain color or religion.
Anyone saying otherwise is a disgusting person who's
trying to deceive you, I think, because they're
blinded by their own hatred or because they're
dishonest.
My opinion.
All that aside,
what the argument is here is that they're
bringing Sharia law. They wanna impose it on
us. All that is about is trying to
convince you that there's Muslims trying to take
over our country while the whole country is
becoming aware that Zionism has done that already.
And what do you think Zionism hates them
all? I don't think you already know where
that goes. So the point
is that Mike Davis playing this clip which
says, terrifying
Islamic scholars in The US reveal their plan,
which is not at all what they say
or happens in this video, but it says,
there are not enough Muslims in America right
now to demand full Sharia law and replace
the secular system.
That, by the way, is not even a
quote in this discussion. Let's play it in
a second and call out these disgusting people.
What they say in there is about
influence for their communities.
And the idea that what they wanna do
is potentially find them find themselves in positions
of power and influence and and try to
change their communities. You know what that's called?
Democracy.
It's amazing to me, and I don't support
democracy mob rule, but realizing that what they're
actually criticizing is what they tell you they're
fighting for everywhere in the world. The idea
that people can move here, become a part
of their community, and then try to change
it for bet the ways that they want
it to be, whether Christian or Jew or
just because you like things a certain way.
It's wild to me. I'll play it for
you. It'll blow your mind how disgusting these
people are. And it it it it's for
them
just because they don't like Muslims, and they
think these people are dangerous. Now look. You
could argue that that's the case.
But I can show you tons of examples
of people who are like the same thing
about a person who practices
Muslim culture or Muslim religion, but is not
very ardent to it, like a Christian who
doesn't go to to church or a Jew
who just, you know, per it's the same
thing everywhere.
And the idea that they're all the same
is just disgusting. It's not true. And so
here's what he says in response to the
statement that he didn't check because it's not
what actually he said, but that they don't
care because it's about trying to push this
narrative. Mike Davis says, dear Islamists,
which is not even a term they meet
what they that's not even what they think
it means. What they're talking about is terrorist,
but they use Islam as a as a
synonymous with terrorism because they're disgusting.
It says, try it. Try it as in
to make this plan happen that no one
down there is calling for.
Dear Islamist, try it. We dare you.
Unlike Europeans, Americans have guns. Well, Europeans have
guns too, you moron. The point is that
he's
saying, we dare you?
Come and try and make that I mean,
think about what a child that is, first
of all. And secondly, realize all he's trying
to do is make himself look tough when
he's responding to a video that doesn't even
say what they claim it does, and all
he's pointing to is something that's not even
like, that's not what's gonna happen. Do you
believe if Mike Davis was standing face to
face with people that were threatening violence, he
would go, go ahead and try it. Bring
it on. Probably not. In this case, what
he's trying to do is look tough about
fighting things that aren't even happening. Secondarily,
if it was happening,
why would you goat them into doing it?
Who cares if Americans die? Bring it on.
We'll fight you back. Yeah. That's the mindset
of your government. You're expendable.
We'll we'll we'll go bring it go ahead
and try. Because I'm not gonna be the
one fighting. My family's not gonna be fighting.
You guys will fight it, but bring it
on.
Just ridiculous. Now let's watch this video.
Shoot. Did I miss that? Hold on.
Pretty sure I grabbed that. I'm gonna grab
it right now. Either way.
How strange.
It's weird. It's got feedback right there.
So why I think this is interesting
is first of all, there's it's a group
of of what appear to be,
Islam, you know, Muslim academics,
which I don't know. I can't speak to
because there there's no information about it. They're
not giving you any insight into what they
think, what they believe, and where they've got,
you know, which clearly matters because to them,
Muslims are all the same. Totally not a
bigoted perspective.
And they're speaking about how you influence your
community for the what they believe is the
right Like, are we pretending that Christians don't
do that? That Christians don't sit around, whether
in this country or not, and discuss how
they can bring Christian values to their community?
Is it only wrong when it's values you
don't agree with? Then you're gross. It's just
ridiculous. Or is it when do do Jewish
people do it in this country. Is it
wrong? No.
It's not wrong when Jews or Christians or
anybody
try to influence what they believe is in
their community. Yeah. There's people in this very
conversation would argue, well, it's bad when the
Jews do it because they're the problem, and
you're just the same as the ones doing
this about Muslims.
Some of them, in any conversation, you're right,
but not all of them because that's just
not accurate. So here is the clip.
Okay? If we don't want them to implement
secularism.
Not the same thing, by the way. Now
understand the Sharia law conversation is varied depending
on different extremists. The point is it's about
a sort of Muslim culture influence that is
like religious law, just for the easy sake
of the conversation. So what he's talking about
is secular versus nonsecular. Right? So a gov
a government that's that separates,
religion and state versus those that blend together.
Israel
blends them together
just like Iran.
Funny how we criticize one but not the
other, even though one is wildly more extreme,
and I'm talking about Israel.
Do we want them to implement? They say
that America Here's what's funny.
Now he cuts off so if if you're
believing what he just was about to say
about implement Sharia law, then why would he
cut that out? The reality is, like, you'll
see what he's talking about here. But, see,
what they're constantly trying to do is is
to convince you with things like
if you want, buy Israeli intelligence.
Current and former Israeli intelligence, founded and run
that platform, and that's what Jones and Alec
and and Laura Loomer and all the rest
use. I just saw Naomi Wolf share something
from MEM. It's that that red circling little
plot. It's and it's what they do is
either pluck out the worst people they can
find who are it's, you know, their unique
opinion about why every Jew should be killed
or whatever and make that out to be
all every Muslim, or they have literal agents
has by the way, has been exposed over
the years. Like, literal people pretending to Palestinians
saying certain things or it's just gross. But
if we don't think that's happening, I don't
know what you're watching in the world. My
point, though, is that they're deliberately trying to
present this as something, then why would they
have to manipulate you into thinking it if
it was so obvious and everywhere?
Now, okay, there is not enough Muslims for
them and to implement this. But now Again.
It is our challenge as Duaat,
as intellectuals, as academic
Right. So but, you know, but the extremist
monster academic intellectual
present solutions
based on Islamic values Oh, yeah. But in
And again, to some people in the mag
in the well, not mag not the real,
with the dishonest I shouldn't say it. Who
knows where these varied opinions go? But people
in the partisan side who believe they're all
Islamic values are terrorism. That's what that's what
Loomer would tell you. That's what Loomer literally
said in front of an entire room of
Indian people or, I guess, in an Indian
location, which is predominantly Indian,
where there's a lot of Muslims. And she
literally sat there and told them why their
very religion was disgusting and ruined the world.
This she's horrible.
The second level
degree,
not to tell them replace secularism with Islam.
It won't work. So just to be clear,
he said not to tell them that. And
and not to tell them, which you could
argue means to secretly do it, but all
he's really talking about is to change the
culture to where that's what what they believe
it should be. Now you could argue that's
dangerous, but this is not surreptitious.
This is not where there this is some
kind of public conversation about how they can
change and influence their communities in a place
that we argue is supposed to be evolving
based on the community.
Democracy, whatever else we call it. If we
don't agree with that, then say that. Then
say you don't you want a only white
Christian country or whatever you think it should
be, that's the way it is because that's
what it was, not to sell the truth.
But then be honest about what you actually
think. If you want it to be an
all brown country, an all white country, an
all Christian country, an all whatever, clearly, people
seem to want a certain category. Maybe just
a certain color, maybe only Christians and Jews.
I don't know what they want. My point,
though, is to understand that if you pretend
that we are the country we've always said
we were, it would include anybody
from anywhere who can come in and influence
what they want. That doesn't mean it's gonna
happen. It's about supposed to be a majority.
Right? So, unless there's a majority, and this
is where, like, the Dearborn Michigan point comes
into play.
Isn't that important to think about the reality
of what we talked about there? And first
of all, recognize they have aggressively misrepresented that
situation every single time, but that there are
there is a large Muslim population
and they're there in this community and they
rep they have a community and they want
certain values represented and so they vote for
those things and it happens. That's not Sharia
law. It's not even close. It's not even
legally possible. I I mean, it's just the
same old tired conversations. I'm I'm taking too
a time on this, but I think it's
important. I have a whole section that I
haven't gotten into yet of just this aggressive,
like, coming from the meme, therefore I am,
and cat turd, and that whole same kind
of, like, but, honestly, the group that I
think is, like, this own little island right
now because most everybody in the conservatives are
starting to see that they're just blind support
no matter what, but that they're just pushing
this
hardcore anti Muslim sentiment. It's right it's like
post nine eleven stuff. And where did that
come from? Israel. It's the same thing. And
now they're in war, so Israel's pumping it
back through again. That's my opinion.
Yeah. Presenting Islam as a civilizational,
alternative.
So different than forcing it. Right? Presenting them
with the alternative and let them
This
needs from us
a different way of,
addressing,
this generation,
addressing, in fact, the whole world,
trying to get into Just imagine watching this
and acting like this is representation representative of
Islamist extremists trying to overtake your country,
you know, while the obvious point is happening
we're talking about today. I mean, you could
argue that's what they somehow mean behind all
of this, but this is just a very
basic intellectual conversation about how they could potentially
influence what they believe the world should be
like in communities with their values, and that
they're telling you that we should present them.
I mean, it's just seems very clear to
me. Key
positions where you are influencing the decisions. Yeah.
Right. And this is my point from before.
That's what they jump on and go, oh,
they're trying to work their way into government.
Yeah. Maybe that's what they mean. But what
he just said was try to gain your
way into positions to power to influence what
the outcome. Is that not what democracy is?
Is that not what we claim every group
is doing? Is it only bad when certain
colors do it? I mean, you have to
understand. There are Jewish organizations that fight for
that very thing in this country. There are
Christian organizations. And, oh, you could argue that
there's weaponized points of all of them. And
if you have an issue, then it shouldn't
be about one. It should be about all
of them. The bottom line is this is
just how this country operates.
I just think that's very important to reiterate.
Decision making.
If we are,
whatever we do, and we are not in
would like to see the not completely clipped
up and edited thing. Like this how do
you understand? This is their effort to make
it bad, and it's not with all the
clips. We
if we are, whatever we do, and we
are not influential,
we cannot
influence the
the how politics is running.
We are not influenced the decision making processes.
We know that Right. So that was in
the middle of a point. What he was
getting to is that, you know, we're not
influential, and we're not influencing that. And the
ultimate point it seems he was making without
further context is that we should do do
our best to explain what we believe and
and hope that people like, he's his argument
in the beginning was that we shouldn't just
come out and and just push the, you
know, the the, you know, Islam versus this,
the whatever he framed at the beginning, but
rather explain the difference and talk about, you
know, it's just it's it's such a fundamentally
different stance than,
like than what Zionism does
everywhere.
And whether you think that's terrorism or not,
it's just forceful,
like, pushing that you have to feel this
way. And if you don't, you're bad.
It's just very different. Now, look, there are
Muslims that act like that. That's the point.
Now for whatever reason, they just cut it
in with this other random guy who I
have no insight and I don't know what
he believes. I don't know. What I believe
based on the way they cut this is
this because this the guy that mentioned Sharia
law is the a guy discussing what those
guys were actually doing or what Muslims want.
Listen for yourself.
If we were to do this from zero
to 100, the people are We being what?
Context matters. The country? If the country was
to shit switch to Sharia law, that's not
happening. It's not even possible right now. But,
hypothetically,
should that be the case No. I say,
we're not gonna have this time. Look look
Afghanistan. Look other places. And people understand they're
not gonna go from zero to 100 overnight.
Suppose a Muslim part an Islamic party comes
in and they start changing. You know what?
Yeah. So, like, democracy. Right? But understand, as
he says We wanna make sure there's no
alcohol being sold. Okay. Like in places in
Utah and plenty of other states in this
country that already happened like that after certain
points in time because of their religious beliefs.
Oh, but it's bad when it's a Muslim
guy doing the exact same thing. But understand,
what he's actually highlighting there is what we
like, okay. So you say a Christian group
that comes to a certain community, they even
say Michigan, airborne. You wanna influence it away
from what they're doing. Would that be evil?
Is it only value the idea that comes
from certain groups that believe that it's an
only Christian country or whatever, which is just
not the reality based on the way this
country started. If you want that, then make
the argument, as always. Just don't hide behind
your dishonesty and pretend that you want things
you don't to, I think, very clearly hide
your bigotry, which is rooted in this entire
conversation. So can we, for the time being,
because here's the point, any type of stuff
we do, it's not astaghfirullah astaghfirullah to substitute
the Sharia. No. It's a program to eventually
apply the Sharia. Right? Great. I mean, that's
that's it, guys. That's the whole point. I
don't even know how those things connect or
what it was really getting into. The context
is not there. Point
is that that's not even happening. There's no
anywhere. Look it up however you want. Ask
ROC. Look it up. Look at the the
the legislative points on every single state. There's
no effort of that. You what you will
find is ridiculous scientists like Randy Fine
trying to push legislation that says we're not
allowing that even though it's literally not happening
anywhere and would be illegal if it even
started.
Doesn't mean it can't happen. Of course. But
it's obvious they want you to think this
is happening to drive you in a position
to where you can, coming back to the
point, believe that somehow they're you know, go
ahead and try it. We dare you. It's
just this disgusting adversarial stance against Israel's enemies.
That's it.
I hope this is raging people, guys, because
the point is not that there's not extremists
in any of these religions, including Muslims, but
that it is being misrepresented
about invading one the obvious point that most
even Republicans are seeing is that it's not
Islam that's doing that.
Oh, and this is to grok. I just
said, what percentage of Muslims in The US
believe in Sharia law?
Evidence from reputable sir reputable surveys suggest that
only a minority of US Muslims supporting applying
Sharia in any official or compulsory way with
the American legal system. Now, of course, it's
a poll. Take it for what you will.
You could you could argue it's lying. You
could argue it's the polls. You could find.
The reality is the evidence as a whole
backs that up. And on top of that,
here's what Grok says run by Elon Musk.
US Muslims generally prioritize
constitutional law and show high levels of civic
integration compared to Muslims in many other countries.
For the most accurate, current insights refer to
sources like you or I okay.
So, you know, sort of like when you
ask this question
in regard to,
immigrants.
Ask ROC. Look it up in the stats
from the US government currently. And what do
you find? That most immigrants I mean, the
the that the the the numbers
almost con I mean, consistently, immigrants are committing
less crime than the average American.
Now you could argue it's gained, that there's
more nuance to it, that it's a part
you're missing. Fine. Fine. The point is that's
there and it does exist.
So this argument that they're all the ones
raping and murdering and it's it's just it
is a construct, guys. And there are some,
sure, just like there are Americans doing the
same thing. The point here is that they
will tell you every day Muslims are Laura
Loomer. They're taking over everything, and it's just
not backed up by the facts.
Now here is John Fetterman
sharing a lina job,
quite literally somebody paid by the US government.
We I mean, again, same point. It is
on the record. If you have a state
department website saying that, you can ask Roc,
and he'll tell you, yes. She is funded
by funded by and, again, I only say
that because people will try to push back
on these
data points because of where it comes from.
It somehow makes it more influential for you
to look at what Elon says on through
Grok than you can look for yourself.
And it says she is paid by the
US government. So what she says today, literally,
today, the nineteenth. And let let's be clear
before I even say this. There was already
a lie floating about how Iran, like, killed
all the Olympic team because they didn't do
well enough or whatever that wasn't true, guys.
It was very easily shown to be false.
Didn't matter, though. It was shared by all
these ridiculous people and half of the MAGA
team,
the dishonest ones. And she says today in
Iran, in the middle of a war,
the regime executed a 19 year old national
wrestling champion for the crime of joining January
protests.
Not true. Not as not as far as
I could tell based on all the evidence.
After signaling to the world, including president Trump,
that they would, and here's the point, halt
executing protests.
That never happened. First of all, they weren't
even doing that based on I mean, other
than Israel and The United States, every data
point we can find, including from the
Iranian, labor,
unions
that were supporting the protest, which they pointed
to, which Trump said, look. Look. We're the
protest. We support.
And then those unions stood up and said,
well, it's not protests anymore. These are armed
mass men for foreign countries. And then they
told you Pompeo, Trump, Assad, Netanyahu. We're arming
them. Oh, yeah. We're finding the Kurds. We
told you that was a month ago. Guys,
this is obvious. And so what the point
was, they created an obvious insurgency, and Iran
was killing people that were attacking their police
and burning buildings down. Does that mean they
didn't kill innocent people? No. I I argue
that they would be capable of it like
anybody.
Point
is that they never once stood up and
said, Okay, Trump, we promised to stop doing
something we weren't doing, or we promised to
stop executing protesters. That didn't happen. This is
a woman who's working for the State Department,
and it says, The regime has done the
exact opposite. They promised to stop killing its
people. Now, they started again.
Why does that even make sense to anybody?
This is such lazy propaganda. And it says
three young protesters
were hanged in comm after a sham trial.
Reports indicate torture, forced confessions.
Okay. There's nothing to back this up. Now
it very well could be true,
but there's nothing to back it up. I
I looked at this all day.
Of course, John Fetterman comes in and goes,
the Iranian regime executed. Do you think for
one second that he actually checked this?
Anyone wanna offer a guess as to whether
he did his due diligence on this claim,
or did he just reflexively share the allegation
of this US paid Iranian activist without any
investigation?
You can decide for yourself.
As always, the reality,
the core claim in the quote in the
post by Fetterman does not appear to be
true based on a failed one formation. There
is no credible reporting of the confirmation of
Iran executing a night hero wrestling champion.
And, you know, and I you could look
anywhere you want. There's nothing about it. There's
no information. It's just basically coming through Iranian,
you know, the Israel controlled, US controlled Iranian
activists.
And and, also, just before this, they lied
about assassinating the entire team. That turned out
to be false. I just don't know how
many things we can keep I mean,
and what this needs to do is call
up people like John Fetterman. Like, this guy
is clearly just a player, and it shows
you the overlap of the team left and
team right, but they're just clearly on the
side of the agenda. They'll share whatever, weirdly,
just like the the mainstream alternative media.
Now, in regard to the facilities that were
attacked, to get into some of the bombings
and the, you know, actions, and this is
an important one because this is a big
deal in regard to the location.
One thing I'm gonna do really quickly, actually,
play one thing,
grab one thing, and I'll be right back.
Actually, let me see if this one
let's see. Yeah. I'll just play this one.
Just give me thirty seconds.
This starts and it's it's really fascinating to
go back. It starts, in
1996
with Netanyahu
who wrote a book called Fighting Terrorism.
And the thesis of the book is quite
straightforward and
and
very dangerous. He says, you know, there are
there's Hamas, there's Hezbollah.
They oppose Israel. It's not good for us
to fight them directly.
That that won't work.
What we need to do is topple
the governments
that that back them. So what we need
is regime change throughout the Middle East. And
he actually gave a long list of seven
countries,
that included,
Syria,
Libya,
Iraq,
Iran,
Somalia,
Sudan,
and Lebanon.
And systematically,
The United States has done Netanyahu's
bidding for almost thirty years now going to
war
with every one of them except for the
big one, that Netanyahu
so much longs for, which is the war
directly
between The United States and Iran.
Well, it's good timing
and actually important to play at that moment,
even though you've seen it many times. Okay.
So the the attack
on this facility, which as we just talked
about, is is being misrepresented in my opinion.
And what we're discussing is an attack on
a
oil facility
that has already been or rather that
the oil facilities have already been attacked by
Israel
after the fact that Trump said that wasn't
supposed to happen, and then the US government
attacked multiple tankers.
I mean, so you have to understand that
Trump tried to make it seem like that's
not what we were supposed to be doing.
We didn't want that, and then bombed oil.
So, there's only two ways to look at
that. They lied to you to make you
think that wasn't gonna happen and did it
anyway, or he genuinely didn't want it to
happen, and then Israel made them. I I
I you could decide for yourself because that's
how that went. And then we have things
like this.
And so what it shows you clearly in
my mind is that Israel is creating the
situation
to drive up oil prices even though that
hurts Trump, because this is what they'll use
to kind of drive the world into a
point of chaos, which is what they do
to justify its actions.
Could you think of it like a form
of global sanctions. Right? So Israel is basically
creating a situation where everyone's gonna start to
suffer because of what they're doing. Everyone knows
they're doing it. But at some point, they're
gonna go, You know what? We don't wanna
suffer anymore. We know you're doing it, Israel.
Fine. Let's take out Iran. Let's get this
over with. And then, we can and we'll,
you know, that's what I see this as.
Energy facilities attacked in Iran and Qatar sending
prices soaring.
Now, it says Iran and Qatar on Wednesday
accused Israel of attacking the Iranian part of
a giant offshore natural gas field that the
two countries share, sending the prices of oil
and natural gas soaring on what would be
a sharp escalation of strikes on energy infrastructure
in the war.
And this is particularly an important one. Hours
after the strikes on the Iranian facilities, the
state owned Qatari energy company.
It was arguably on the side of Israel
and United States, at least in the con
in the, you know, this action and, you
know, pretty much because of the like, most
of these countries have been overtaken and manipulated
by outside forces.
They said that a major energy hub in
the country,
Ras Laffan Industry City, has sustained, quote, extensive
damage from missile attacks. That's Qatari officials, and
they blamed Iran for the attack, Qatari officials.
International oil prices settled above a $107
a barrel, their highest settlement level since the
war started on February 28. Natural gas prices
are more regional, but they climbed in Europe,
The United States, and Asia. Or Iran's oil
ministry said on social media that air strikes
had damaged a number of its facilities connected
to the offshore South Pars field,
part of the world's largest offshore natural gas
reservoir.
One of the part of the world's largest,
which is shared by Iran and Qatar. It
appeared to be one of the most significant
energy sites to be hit since The US'
real air war against Iran began nearly three
weeks ago. Now this is what I find
so interesting about this. Well, first of all,
let's be clear, Qatar is obviously on the
side of them in this engagement. They were
already bombing or rather helping them bomb Iran.
That's why Iran responded to them as one
of the locations.
And that's important. Let's remember. I think it
was the,
what's the I forget the the location, but
the the the installation, $1,100,000,000
installations, they bombed there. That was so The
US and Israel couldn't utilize that technology.
My point is if Cutter stands up and
says that, it should be questioned.
It it's like I said before, it's just
as likely that Iran decided to respond because
it would be, I guess, an easier action
than direct bombing of Israel and United States.
It would be seen as kind of a
a sidestep, but it would still be a
response if they are maybe trying to walk
it back to some degree. But I just
don't to me, and this is my opinion,
it doesn't make much sense
because I'm waiting for Iran's response to say,
you know, if you know Israel did that
or see what they said. Because to me,
especially since it's in the same basic general
location, they're not necessarily the same thing, but
they're close.
And idea being that Israel would bomb this,
why wouldn't they bomb I mean, I guess
the point because Qatar would be upset with
that, but maybe it's because they wanted to
blame Iran. Like, we have to start thinking
about it. Either way, Israel did in fact
bomb or rather, excuse me, the the the,
the
US Israel coalition
bombed these locations, and their their arguing is
that Iran packed the Qatar location.
Omar Badar points out Israel's creating an environmental
catastrophe in Iran and a global economic crisis
by forcing an unprecedented disruption to the world
energy supplies. That's what I was saying. You're
creating a situation where even though you're doing
it, you're gonna there's so much fallout from
this, you know, for the billionaire elitist class.
So but the but, you know, average gas
prices, everything else too. If if genocide
in Gaza wasn't a red line, he says,
we know Israel's rogue regime will stop at
nothing to get regional domination.
And this is drop side news. Israel has
struck Iran's South Par gas field, the world's
largest natural gas field and a core pillar
of Iran's energy supply.
So then do you think Iran responded by
bombing Qatar, which is right next to it,
especially since they're trying to make sure that
I mean, also and this is again, there's
so many angles. To consider the false flag
point, whether this wasn't Iran but a drone
made to look like Iran, but also that
they told Qatar that they would not bomb
them if they didn't if they if they
stopped bombing or helping them do that.
So the question is, was Qatar still helping
fuel and, you know, help them use their
bases? Probably. So So, then it would justify
the response.
My my simple point is to question who
is responsible for it. But, again, either way,
Israel is the one that targeted the South
Pars gas field, which is the real like,
the most important part of this because it's
a massive,
natural gas field, and that's something that's going
to affect the global prices. I think that's
by design.
So here is Ryan Grim
citing on Albert Rand saying he says, I
was unfortunately in the right ballpark.
Cutter Energy just announced
that they have to declare for a force
majeure on long term contracts
for up to five years.
As I wrote, he says, we're deep into
worst scenario territory.
And it says, Qatari Energy CEO tells Reuters,
we may have to declare force majeure on
long term contracts for up to five years
for LNG supplies to Italy, Belgium, Korea, and
China. So that adds, in my mind, to
the more likely that Iran did it because
this is something that was a response I
knew if that's the way that went out
went down would affect
the
I guess, you know, well, it's I see
it's so hard because China, that doesn't seem
to line up with what they're aiming at.
But, you know, Italy, possibly. Yeah. So it's
just hard. But I think that you could
see a world that might make sense. But
I would think that my gut is leaning
in the direction that this is done because
of this that original point of creating a
a supply issue and blaming it on Iran.
And then, in this case, even claiming that
Iran did it.
And so what he or not said this
yesterday. I hate to be the very bad
news, but if infrastructure like this, and points
to that exact place, gets blown up, as
of this moment, it will take at least
a decade to recover from this war.
And the truth is that the the world's
energy picture is probably changed forever. Now think
about this in a larger context. So you're
in a situation where you're losing and you're
Israel.
And, clearly, your point was to make it
that Iran was the one holding us all
hostage with nuclear threat. Didn't work. No one
buys it because it's not true. So then
you turn it into a situation where they're
the ones that are starting the war and
that didn't work either.
So then you're in a situation where, oh,
they're blocking the strait and they're causing oil
prices. No. No. They're not. They didn't do
that. They're letting everybody through except you guys.
Yep. And I proved that right in the
beginning. You still have mainstream alternative claiming it's
closed. How embarrassing. Mainstream still says that. How
ridiculous. It's been open since day one. They
never closed it, guys. It's very easy to
look. I'll show you in a second. It's
right here.
It's been open the entire time. Now, what
they're telling you is they restricted,
specifically,
Zionists.
That's what they said. Hormuz is closed as
only to Zionists. That's what they just said.
We'll come back to it. The point, though,
here, is they shifted into they're blocking the
straight and everyone's gonna suffer, but that wasn't
happening.
They put minds in the water. Trump
clumsily created by saying, if they do, it's
not happening yet. And then, like, an hour
later, though, they're doing it. Doesn't seem they
did.
Otherwise, that would be a big deal right
now. I just I don't think it happened.
Even though they haven't, it's happened before, I
think that they knew they didn't wanna cross
that line because what would happen? They would
turn the world against them. They're tactful. They're
they're very they're tacticians in all this. So,
now, it switches to
Iran bombed the main thing
that will cause
a decade of issues for our supply line.
But was it Iran?
Ask that question.
Ryan Grim says outrageous murder suicide unfolding,
essentially The US and Israel doing this to
themselves in the world. Right? For no reason,
he says. And this is the most important
part. As we told you before, Iran put
a strong deal on the table.
Oh, The US and Israel decided to destroy
the world instead,
which perfectly lines up with ushering in the
new structure, doesn't it? So
build back better.
Don't forget that because this isn't very much
part of it. If you understand where this
goes. But overall, the deal,
Foreign minister of Oman wanna tell you that
we they offered to give up their enriched
material. Right?
So this comes down to the idea that
they're trying to stop that. And they have
to do this to stop that, even though
we already know that it was not even
a problem to begin with. But it gets
even more interesting.
Here's what they just put out. This is
from,
today.
Trump faces his most difficult Iran decision.
They're literally thinking they're discussing, considering about deploying
US troops to seize
the uranium
in Iran.
So you already realized why that's insane? Because
one, they don't have anything enriched to a
point that's it's violating any kind of agreement.
And two,
that the main thing that they offered was
that they would give up their enriched uranium,
and then they bomb them. Right? So they
offer through the deal, which the the foreign
minister of Oman will tell you, and I've
already played this for you. And here's the
actual article
that they agreed to give up their stockpile,
which is what they're now saying we need
to go in to get.
You see how crazy this is? So the
reality is they either didn't want this to
happen so they could make the justification to
invade Iran and Trump's a part of that,
or he is being wildly played
Because the reality is that they were gonna
give it up. So if you're gonna send
American troops into Iran to take the thing
they were already willing to give to you,
this is Israel destroying this country.
Within hours of Oman, foreign minister saying, quote
and he went on I made fun of
this because Face the Nation was, like, unable
to accept that that was the case. She's
like, so they're making bombs elsewhere?
It's like, no. They're willing to give it
up because they don't want bombs. So they're
making some bombs? That's that was basically how
it went. It was really bad. But he's
very clear. He agreed the article. They agreed
to zero enrichment uranium stockpiling.
And he said that they would either downgrade
or both. They would downgrade what they currently
have
in use and that they would give up
their enriched uranium that they have stockpiled
entirely.
But we have to go in to get
it.
The point is
the next day, they bombed them.
Peace within reach as Iran agrees. No nuclear
material stockpile.
Israel immediately bombs Tehran, and US promptly joins.
This can only mean that it was never
about nuclear weapons. Well, we know this because
they didn't, and the evidence shows that. But
we also know that they were planning it
before they ever got to this point. As
Israel told you, weeks before this, they already
planned the day they would bomb.
They also told you, and Trump admitted they
were arming the Kurds a month before this.
So this was always planned, just like every
other illegal war they've been in, and Israel
seems to be driving it like before.
So Trump says he's not afraid of,
long forever Vietnam's type war. But don't worry
guys. No more forever wars because that's just
not how this is gonna work. In fact,
let me,
where was it? There's a there's a clip
from Hegseth.
Yeah. So this he says, the media here,
not all of it, but much of it,
they want you to think just nineteen days
into the conflict that we're somehow spinning towards
an endless abyss of a forever war. Nothing
could be further from the truth. Well, maybe.
I mean, like I said, maybe they're gonna
stop because they're losing.
But meanwhile
oh, by the way, we need $200,000,000,000,
not 21,000,000,000.
We need $200,000,000,000
for for the Iran war that we're gonna
spin up really quickly.
Totally likes makes sense, doesn't it? On top
of that, the point
is that, well, if it's not a forever
war, then why is Trump willing to say
that he's not afraid of it becoming a
forever war? That's just crazy where we are.
And on top of that, I just have
to point out this is it just may
it's cringey is the right word, that this
person asked a very point a very clear
question. Are you afraid of this becoming a
long term war? Fine. Use the word concerned.
But, ah, they use the word afraid, and
Trump is just too small of a person
to admit that he's afraid of anything.
Because the Iranian regime has told Sky News,
if you put boots on the ground in
Iraq, it will be another Vietnam. Are you
afraid of that? No. I'm not afraid of
I'm really not afraid of anything. Mister president
mister president mister president mister president Oh, it's
so tough. I'm not afraid of anything.
That's not even the effing question, man. Are
you worried about this becoming a long term
war? I'm not afraid of anything.
What if just he's just such a small
person and it's just anybody who's not blindly
supporting or blindly hating can see. Not not
either of those things. It's obvious that's a
very childish thing to say. Not afraid of
anything. Everybody has something they're afraid of. The
point is it's not he just I one
is because, obviously, this is where it's going.
And money and everything else is showing you
this is turning into just another long term
war, Probably what which which is internally in
their own discussions, probably the plan, if you
want my honest opinion. But either way, it's
not gonna be the thing that we always
know it's always gonna end up and has
always ended up. But I'm not afraid of
anything.
Does that does that in any way give
you the feeling that he's not afraid of
anything? Does that in any way give you
the feeling that he's tough?
I mean, to me, it screams the opposite.
Weak people do that. I've never known a
truly strong I don't even mean, like, muscle
strong. I've never known a truly strong person
to need to pound their chest and scream,
I'm the strongest one in the room. I've
never known somebody like that that wasn't inherently
wildly insecure and weak.
So, on the next point,
he gets asked about this.
Right? Saying, well, when when you basically, in
regarding when this is from person from Japan,
one of the government elements saying, you know,
why didn't you tell them before this was
happening and so on? And Trump responds by,
why didn't you tell us before Pearl Harbor?
And this Eric guy is like, holy smokes.
That's what he actually says. Holy smokes. Trump
just dropped the bombshell.
And I said, who wants to tell Eric
from the new media what actually happened at
Pearl Harbor? You know, that it wasn't a
surprise attack?
The new media, guys.
We jump in to see Well, one thing
you don't wanna signal too much, you know,
when we go in, we went in very
hard. Meaning, we don't wanna tell our allies
that we might be doing something. And, look,
there's some logic to that. If it's, like,
if it's a clandestine operation, you don't wanna
broadcast to the world what you're doing. Sure.
You
know, aside from the fact that we're talking
about an illegal war, that should from a
benign sense, yes. I get the sense of
not wanting to just to to close
your plans.
And we didn't tell anybody about it because
we wanted
surprise. Who knows better about surprise than Japan?
Okay. Why didn't you tell me about Pearl
Harbor?
Okay?
What a weird and, like, uncomfortable thing to
joke about. You realize a lot of people
died. Right? Those were American citizens that were
killed because the US government allowed that to
happen. I mean, this is it's the same
as talking about the the reality of the
bombing in the World War two and bombing
after you knew they were were
restraining.
You can easily prove these things, but the
narrative from the government is the opposite. And
so people blindly repeat what Trump said as
opposed to the facts that you can prove,
which is that they bombed them even when
they were treating because they both wanted to
see what happened and scared Russia.
Well, they murdered all these people in Japan
with that bomb because they just wanted to
use it. Right? In this case, we can
prove that there was I mean, multiple examples.
I've done shows on this, that there was
knowledge and insight into the fact that it
was coming. And as I just played for
you from Patrick Clausen,
we had to wait for Pearl Harbor to
get into the war. It's exactly what he
told you. So, does Trump not know that?
Certainly possible. But my point to laugh about
this is, one, first, the point is about
disclosing what's going to happen from troop movements,
which is the next point, But that you've
got people like this Eric guy going, bombshell,
why didn't you tell me? You know, and
everyone's everyone is laughing if you look at
the comments. Just like, really? I think Max
Egan and everybody else, are you seriously that
misinformed on what happened? You know, he's all
over the place.
This is as soon as Trump said Pearl
Harbor, they're all just these these are just
young people, like, mentally, whether they're 45 or
not. Just these are, like, the holy smokes,
holy crap, Trump thing, and we're all so
excited about the team. It's just it's gross,
and it's embarrassing. And these people, I honestly
they might this is probably AI for all
I'm concerned. Like, I don't even think these
are real things. These people like, we just
got an insight into what one I think
it was done through Eagleman. People were suggesting
he told people that he just can't wait
to stop doing this, but he's getting paid
too much. Who knows? Could be a lie.
But I think we know that element exists
in all of this. And right now, more
Republicans than I've ever seen are going, This
guy's a clown because we are all aware
of what's actually going on, and this is
blind cheering for whatever they're doing. This same
guy was like, No, war with Iran because
Kamala's the worst. And now he's like, Yay,
war with Iran because Trump's the best.
Laugh at people like this.
And so who wants to tell them? But
they don't care about it. It's about narrative
control. And, of course, Eric Trump jumps in
and goes, one of the greatest responses to
a reporter in history.
Yeah. There there it was. The US knew
very well Pearl Harbor was gonna be attacked.
Guys, this is basic, basic, basic stuff. It's
not conspiracy theory. It's documented information.
And everybody, not a government blocky and blind
partisan is down here going, you're an idiot.
We all know that's not the case. Doesn't
matter, though.
Okay. Back to the point. Independent.
Trump on Iran. This is from today, at
least reported today. I'm not putting troops anywhere.
But if I were, I certainly wouldn't tell
you.
Yeah. Exactly. And that's that's kinda it's the
same point. Right? Same conversation.
So,
yes, guys. And this is the point is
that, well, we even he says he's not.
But if he was, he wouldn't tell you.
So that is a meaningless answer. So we
know that they're doing it already. We know
they're funding the Kurds. We know that they've
deployed 2,500, which I know were done. There
were people before that. There always are. And
on top of that, we just got told
that, well, deploying them to the island is
not the same thing because it's not the
same land. It's not boots on the ground.
It's just it's always it's like Ukraine. It's
not boots on the ground unless they're marching
just like this and yelling these words. It
doesn't count. It's like it's just dumb. Like,
it's not a war, but now it's a
war.
Everyone sees this.
So, reality is that if they are going
to, which is pretty clear they are, he's
not gonna tell you anyway.
So, why would you pretend that him telling
you it's not happening is enough to convince
you because you're a blind follower if that's
the case?
So here is what Mike Johnson said. You
know, the rhino that everybody hated before he
was the best guy on Trump's side. It
is that it's not going to be boots
on the ground or rather a war regardless.
Well, I'll let it sleep. I'm doing a
bad job explaining it. If there are ground
troops, should they come to Congress first if
there are ground troops? So, if there's ground
troops, which there already
are, will you go to Congress?
It's a good question. Right? Because, well, you
know, you could argue it's an imminent threat
even though the War Powers Act is clearly
not involved in this.
But if they if you're gonna put boots
on the ground, well, yes, that's very clearly
an act of war. There's no I mean,
so too is bombing a country. So, I
know you know where this is gonna go,
but obviously, boots on the ground, there's not
anybody in any world could argue that that's
not a war or it doesn't need congressional
approval or whatever it is, or some form,
whether it's War Powers Act, authorization like Iraq,
or actual congressional approval. That's boots on the
ground stuff, guys. He asked them, if boots
on the ground, are you going to Congress?
Again, all the details matter. This if,
if we're completing the mission and it's a
limited,
scope, then that's not a declaration of war.
If we complete the mission, I don't even
know why that has any bearing on whether
it's legal in the first place. If we
just win, that doesn't matter, apparently, and there's
authoritarian elitist mind. But that we don't need
it.
Then that's not a declaration of war. That's
not a declaration of war because
If we're completing the mission and it's a
limited,
scope It's a limited scope. It's not. So
it just doesn't matter. Like, so we'll all
for it doesn't matter. We can have a
100,000 people, but if we if we call
it limited and and it's just a specific
thing we're doing that we're claiming is imminent,
but we don't use that to claim it.
Like, this is just dishonest, and everyone can
see that. You're saying you're if you deploy
troops on the ground against Iran, you're not
gonna declare war?
Yes.
Anyone supporting this
needs to be called out for what they're
doing. And I don't mean that you can
support that Iran needs to be removed, and
I'll disagree with you in the case of
what the what they claim is happening. But
if you support these so blatantly dishonest things,
then you are fundamentally destroying this country for
your team.
A momentary win to destroy the very thing
you claim you're fighting for in the long
run.
Some of them genuinely don't care about these
things, and that's what's so alarming. But, again,
with all of this and the $200,000,000,000
they're asking for for this Iran war that
apparently will be over in a week, This
is what Hegsa says.
My 13 year old son popped into my
office last night while I was editing these
remarks.
He asked about the war
and the families I met at Dover.
And I looked at him and I said,
they died for you,
son,
so that your generation
doesn't have to deal
with a nuclear Iran.
God. I mean, it just makes me it
makes my skin crawl. Right? First of all,
I'm willing to bet you that never happened.
He just uses his son. I could be
wrong, my opinion. But I just with what
we've come accustomed to, how much you wanna
bet that didn't even happen? But irrelevant.
So his son comes down, we were we're
they died for you. All the Americans you're
currently covering up that actually have been killed,
or the fact that they were killed in
a war you said wouldn't happen, or in
fact that they were deployed in a war
that you said wouldn't even be deployed, there'd
be no boots in the ground, or, I
mean, on and on and on. You're talking
about the idea that these people died for
you?
How in the world is invading Iran for
Israel dying for Americans in any way? And
on top of that
doesn't
have to deal
with a nuclear Iran.
The claim that we all know is not
true, based on all the evidence that they
have, that somehow by doing this is for
you because we're stopping a nuclear threat that
we all know doesn't exist. It's based on
evidence that we presented, that the IEA that
we point to has told you doesn't exist.
That Witkoff lied about that the foreign ministers
around them told you they lied about and
even claimed they're working for Israel, mister Zionist.
Just makes me sick, like, truly.
It's the truth.
Oh, yeah. It's the truth. Because you normally
stress that it is true when you tell
the truth.
So to the families I mean, that's actually
funny, by the way. It doesn't always mean
that. It's like somebody can say that, and
it could be the truth. But it I
it's a classic thing, like psychology.
When somebody goes, you know, trust me or
it's the truth,
it's it's sometimes a good indication that they're
not telling the truth.
Said finish this.
We will.
And I say the same Oh, yeah. Son
said finish it, dad. Finish it. Do you
believe that? To every American who wants peace
through strength.
Male Apparently, that means peace through genocide.
What's happening? I mean, all of it, not
just Iran, but they're supporting the genocide in
Gaza. They're supporting the invasion of Lebanon. They're
supporting the terrorist overtaking and ethnic cleansing of
Syria. Peace through strength, guys. Pretty clearly. Mighty
god, continue to bless our troops in this
fight. Disgusting. And again, to the American people
The idea that you fold in Christianity when
you are literally killing people for no reason
at all, and in fact, killing them for
a religion that's other than Christianity if you
understand the Zionism perspective from Israel.
How in the world does that even possibly
make sense? Everybody should be outraged that he
would even include the idea that god supports
whatever he's doing, which by the way, they
believe because this is a religious war for
them. They're not even hiding it. He told
his people. That's come out in a 100
different reports that their own military are telling
them, Why is our government telling us this
is a religious war to bring on Armageddon?
That's a direct quote. How in the world
is that not the biggest part of the
conversation? Guys, that should have stopped everything. That
we all stand back as Americans and go,
Woah, woah, woah. You're telling we were fighting
for Armageddon?
Pretty sure we didn't vote for that. That
doesn't matter because the left or the right,
Fox and CNN,
nobody really talks about it. I don't know
how you can miss that.
$200,000,000,000
k. That that that's it's just incredible. That's
a 100% jump or even more. It'd be,
maybe you have to whatever. It's,
bad with math. The two we we start
what was the actually change? It was a
100 11,000,000,000, then it was 21,000,000,000.
200,000,000,000.
I mean, you have to understand. This is
a group that we're supposed to be told
is fighting this operation. Like, so you're talking
about involving of Democrats here. So you're telling
me Democrats
and Republicans
jointly decide to increase the budget to 200,000,000,000
for a war they wanna stop?
It's just it's it's just hard to wrap
your mind around. I mean, this is, like,
not that it's it's an easy lie to
see, but that we're even here.
Like, that they I mean, I can't see
it as anything other than desperation that they
keep going through this even though we all
see it. On top of that, Trump now
calls for war reporting
treason.
Now, of course, what he says is the
fake news lying about what's going on, which
they do all the time. Fox, CNN lie
every day.
But what he means is the ones that
are just simply pointing out the truth, by
the way. Now I shouldn't even frame it
like that because I'm sure people can lie
about him he also doesn't like. But realize,
he's not talking about people who are,
you know,
you know, coming out with false information that's
in his interest. He doesn't care about that.
He cares about people coming out and saying,
you were tricked into this war. The Israel
situation has driven this to reality that you're
you know, all the things that we know,
that there's no imminent threat, things that their
statements have proven, and yet he calls treason
because he's trying to scare people away from
reporting it. That's also a massive crime. This
is unconstitutional
whether they're lying or not. You see, this
is the understanding of free speech, whether it's
CNN or not,
and they don't care.
But you think it's free speech? You're an
idiot, like he says about the rest of
the examples where he threatens free speech, and
people cow.
Well, as Iran says, take it with a
grain of salt because it's usually somewhere in
the middle, but Iran is claiming, as Trump's,
what, fifteen, twenty, 3,200
American casualties. I've seen it thirty five hundred
depending on who's reporting it, which should add
more salt. The point is that they're claiming
a lot more than what Trump's administration is
admitting. And based on the evidence, that seems
to be the case, just like the last
bombing in Iraq where they lied about it.
Yet one hundred traumatic brain injuries, but no
one was killed. I don't even think that's
possible unless it's some kind of sonic bomb
with no explosion, but that's not what it
was. So the point is that I think
we can clearly see that they've been bombing
locations that have troops and they're just hiding
it from you. And watch as we get
a weird series of random plane crashes and
helicopter things that, oh, woah, woah, a couple
of Marines died over there.
My opinion, but that weirdly happened after the
Iraq conversation and it just, like, a couple
petered out of many different things and then
all of a sudden, you know.
I think we all know that they would
try to hide things like this from us
because they don't want you to know what's
going on.
All my opinion, obviously. So here, he comes
out and says the point we just read,
but my 13 year old son popped into
my office.
Don't have to deal with nuclear Iran, and
as Kirsten Ball says, what a lying sack
of SHIT.
The first Trump administration, as we just went
over yesterday, ripped up the nuclear deal that
was working. I literally showed you the deal.
I brought up the JCPOA. I showed you
the actual agreement. And in fact, it was
article 36 that said explicitly that if one
of the groups, which includes The United States,
violates the deal exactly like, excuse me, exactly
like they did,
that that would be justification for them to
do what they did. It's all very simple,
which was increase enrichment until they went back
in the deal.
They didn't. They then blamed. They pointed to
the very enrichment that I proved to you
at the time, which I can still show
now, was allowed
because of what they did. And they said,
terrorism, look what they're doing. Just like Trump
is now saying, look at what they borrowed
afterward, which was a legal act because of
their attack.
They know all these things. They're just trying
to play the stupid people in the room,
or maybe they're that stupid. I don't know.
But so the reality was that they created
it, then drove them a position to where
they tried to make it seem bad. And
then still to this day, they have not
gone past the the reality is, as I
just showed you, the IAEA in 2025
proved to us that they were well within
their safeguards at that moment and even cited
the number that Witkoff lied about saying it
was a crime.
Wild.
The Iranians had offered extraordinary concessions in the
latest round as we showed you. They they
offered to give up their entire stockpile and
they bombed the next day. But let's continue
to pretend that this is about you stopping
the thing that was never there.
And he says, We will finish this. We
will honor their sacrifice, as I was saying
earlier.
Right? What this means to me is we're
trying to use the people who died, who
we told you would never happen in the
first place, to convince you that we have
to keep going because, well, they're sacrifice.
You know, the very sacrifice you promised wouldn't
happen and now using to coerce people who
never wanted this into supporting what they still
don't want.
Very horrible, Exeth.
You know what I'm saying? Like, this is
disgusting to me because you guys lied us
into the situation to begin with.
Yesterday
at Dover Air Force Base, president Trump,
the chairman, and I stood in solemn silence
as heroes came home.
Flag draped caskets. Yep. We honored them. We
grieved with their families,
and we listened.
What I heard through tears,
through hugs, through strength,
and through unbreakable
resolve was the same
from family after family.
They said finish this.
Kills me.
Despite the fact that that's not what's happening.
And you can like, literally, one of the
people they've already used, their family stood up
at a press conference and said, this is
not okay. We don't support this. Even though
they just stood up and said they support
the war. These guys are disgusting. They're using
you. They're using everybody. They don't care about
you. This guy is fighting for the end
times, which in his mind, as that states
the fall of the West.
So work work work out that for everybody.
At the end of the day, this is
him using people dying. And it's the flag
draped coffins that we told you this would
lead to that they swore were not going
to happen, that we weren't even gonna get
involved, limited strikes, no boots on the ground.
I mean, it's not like we all knew
for a fact that this is where it
would go, but we told you this is
what they've done before. This is what we
know Israel wants. This is what they usually
get driven into.
And what I think they actually, in my
opinion, truly from behind it all are trying
to accomplish from the global perspective.
But I didn't know for sure and then
here we are. And like every other example,
like the conversation of Israel and influence and
everything else, isn't it frustrating that you don't
have, like, this waterfall of people going, Holy,
holy crap, Nick Sorter tells you. I can't
believe Ryan called us all that time ago.
No, that's not gonna happen. I can't believe
Whitney was on this that long. Nope. Not
gonna happen. Despite the fact that we were
being pushed back on by everybody for calling
this, all of the IMA, and none of
this is really getting acknowledged as the Joneses
of the rest, use what they said wasn't
true to drive you to support them again.
Like, I I don't even care about it
being like, We got it. It's about understanding
that this was clear in 2025,
and we called it out in 2025. And
now those people are trying to grapple onto
that to use it to keep you stuck
in the thing we tried to call out.
And people like this are using the very
death they told you would never come to
pass to convince the good people out there
that they just have to fight for their
sacrifice. Why? Because they're good people. Because you
can use their morals and their wish to
care about these people to drive them to
do something they don't want. That's what they
do. It's exactly like that sentiment we read
the other day.
Oh, it was actually from that from JP's
video about Zionism, the idea that ultimately,
this is some people I forget the term,
but they it's bad people to evil people
convincing good people that what they need to
do
is the right thing, but, really, it's the
evil thing. So you've got them thinking they're
doing it for the right reasons. I keep
talking about this, but it's ultimately evil or
bad or whatever you wanna call it.
So on that very note, just like I
told you before, this is where we are.
Like they promised it wouldn't happen, and now
he's trying to convince you that those coffins
that they promised wouldn't happen is why we
have to keep going. Demonstrate for me how
Israel's government's involved at all
as The US is deploying troops, as The
US is largely the one on the face
of this while Israel is the one conducting
the actions.
We told you guys, anybody with a brain
because of like Jeffrey Sachs just told you,
every war before this has been the same
thing.
And here we are again. And just to
be clear, what I'm talking about, this is
the Israel government and then the people they
might use, which would be Israelis too. But
that's not how this is going.
Watch.
I'm worried it's gonna go aggressively in the
one direction, even more so when I think
when Israel might just back away.
Now, lastly,
the reporting from, Khan News, their Telegram channel,
which is Israeli media. And this this is
the actual post. It's on their Telegram channel,
but they are news media platform in Israel.
The are the the statement was that Trump
was planning to take control of the Strait
Of Hormuz
by force.
Now this should be very, very we should
be very skeptical.
Many things this could be. This could be
Israel reporting this to drive the action,
whether Trump wants to or not. It could
be that this is what they agreed on
and this Israeli platform got an inside word
and is spoiling the game. But it says
in a move that could could also last
several weeks,
Keep tacking on the time, according to an
Israeli source. See? Israel is also preparing to
increase operations in the state of Hormuz.
Nobody else wants to, but clearly Israel does.
And they guess nobody jumped up. So, Israel's
like, We're gonna do it with The US,
like every other time before. So, question it.
This may be hype, may be false. What
I find interesting is this is on the
seventeenth. This comes out on the Telegram channel.
Actually, it was specifically
yeah. The seventeenth.
Here's Jerusalem Post.
The seventeenth.
Trump's operation in Strait Of Pahomuz
could extend
war with Iran by months.
Now to be clear, what they're talking about
is his,
you know, discussion of, like, guiding ships through,
which nobody wants involvement with, I guess, other
than Israel. But I'm I'm pointing to the
timing here of them telling you that what
they're gonna do is seize control militarily.
At the same time, you have Jerusalem Post
generally as referencing the larger conversation, but, you
know, it could extend. So, how generally could
that extend it by months? Well, if it
was war.
Always, I'm telling you, Israeli media lets the
cat in the bag to benefit themselves and
makes the US government look weak and manipulated
and they never do anything about it. I
think that speaks for itself. Now this is
on the seventeenth as well. US drops five
five k pound bunker buster bombs on
underground missile sites near the Strait Of Hormuz.
Okay. Well, it's starting to feel like something's
going on, isn't it? It? It's starting to
feel like this is exactly where it's going
and that The US is now bombing in
preparation for something they're gonna do. But, again,
this could all be window dressing. Well, understand
that this is the US government continuing to
bomb
legal locations without a declaration of war. Because
every country has the right to have missiles
and bombs and whatever else, and just there's
it's still ongoing.
But
the idea of whether the stratum for moose
will become a focal point. Now, again, I
wanna reiterate the reality
that it is open.
It does not close. Now, restricted, different word.
Arguably, restricted. I can't really I don't know
how to really verify that. But the point
is the claims that has been dramatically restricted.
I honestly think the claim of restriction being,
like, 94% they claimed whenever in the beginning,
I think that was overblown. I think it
was done with the idea to make the
case that everyone's affected.
But look at this. It's a live map.
You could check it all day long, and
there's tons of traffic in there.
You know, the the the point, in case
you missed the last show, was that this
is something The US needed to claim,
that they shut it down. And just like
tanks rolling into Kyiv, there was a lie
in the beginning because they wanted to pretend
that Russia took over all of Ukraine, but
they did not. So too that Israel or
Iran not block the strait. They did not
put a blockade. Like like, Asim's, everyone told
Trump that they would
to get him into the position to say,
look. It'll end quickly because they'll do that.
Everyone will be unhappy. The world will come
to back us, and it'll be over. Not
what happened because Ron's not stupid. And so
they didn't. But what they did do was
threaten them and say, we'll bomb you if
you go through, and apparently didn't do that.
And then it comes out, and this is
what I said right in the beginning. I
said, wait a minute. So I'm hearing it's
closed, but I'm like, but it's not, though.
And yet you look back. Fox, CNN, MSNBC,
every major alternative ridiculous person, the straight's closed
because they're all just parroting each other.
And it was not. And even I was
like, Am I missing something? Like, is this
I thought I figured, Well, is this like
a lie? Is Iran lying about that? It
it just was it wasn't. They all lied.
And it now it's come out, as I
showed you before, that they said it's only
blocked to the enemies. And here is actually
what he said,
the foreign minister.
This is an additional one. I've already shown
you points where they've said
this. They are asking other countries to come
and help them so that the Strait Of
Hormuz remains open,
which, of course, from our perspective,
it is open. Yep. Exactly.
It is only closed to our enemies.
To those who carried out unjust aggression against
our country
and to their allies.
We have not sent any message.
We are not asking for a ceasefire.
But this war must come to an end
in a way that it will not be
repeated again. You see my point? That's what
I was saying earlier. They they've come to
the understanding
that going through the normal, you know, like
okay. For sake of conversation, because I don't
I I'm not gonna say I know for
a fact that they're honorable and doing but
they demonstrate that with their continued actions and
restraint. My point, though, is that you could
argue that it's a ploy,
but then ultimately, we're talking about oh, god.
Did you oh, I just lost it. Hold
on.
But this war must come to an
end. In a way. So the point about
the change of their action. Right? The idea
being when I end up clicking things, I
I lose it. But so the you know,
we we can see the change in the
way that they deal with this because their
restraint, that's why I went into that about,
you know, maybe it's just because it's a
ploy, but nonetheless, their restraint has been demonstrated.
Like, they continue to show you that they're
not just diving back in and can causing
this to cascade bigger and bigger, which is
what Israel and The US will do. They
do it every time.
And, arguably, if they did, this would already
be consuming everything, and they don't. But so
what they're arguing is, look. Every time we
do nothing, you guys just come back and
bomb again. You use it over and over.
So they're driving them to change their action,
which is not in the interest of anybody.
But even when they're midst of that and
even given the legal justification to return the
bombing, which is what they claim they always
wanted, they still don't do that. All they're
saying is we're no longer gonna treat with
them. We're not gonna allow them to give
negotiations. We're not gonna let them do the
straight. They did this, and we're done. Like,
you know, we're standing our ground, essentially. Where
it goes is up to them. I mean,
I think this was a artfully done tactic.
Whether they're good guys or not, this is
done in a way that creates a situation
that puts the ball in their court and
you're proving they're calling their bluff, and you're
proving to the world that they're the ones
causing the problem. I think they did that
they they handled this very well.
So as I said, anyone who was ever
reporting this rate was closed, and especially those
still claiming this today, is either not an
honest person or somebody bad at their job.
Make sure you take note of that. Now,
I'll always include this link, by the way,
the maritime link. You can do this in
it's air it's the whole world. There's plenty
of these out there, by the way. Just
important to keep an eye because, you know,
this is how easy it is to prove
that people are deceiving you.
Now here's Netanyahu.
And I Saint got a point, guys. How
long have I been talking about this? And
and plenty of other people. It's not unique
to me.
I think that what
has to be done is to have alternative
routes.
Instead of going through the choke points
of the,
of the, Hormuz Straits
and the Bab El Mandeb Straits
in order to have, the flow of oil.
Mhmm. Just have
oil pipelines,
gas pipelines
going west
through the Arabian Peninsula, right up to Israel,
right up to our Mediterranean
ports, and you've just done away with the
choke points for forever.
That is definitely possible, so I see that
as Now here's an important thing to think
about here.
So what did you just described, guys?
That is
one of the major drives behind all the
pipeline conversations.
That's what we're talking about. This has been
an issue. The the seven year seven countries,
five years, the clip I just played for
you from from Jeffrey Sachs, I mean, the
the conversation of driving this very thing with
the endpoint being Iran. Well, they always knew
that Iran could do this, and it would
supply it would manipulate the supply of oil.
So, ever since then, you've seen The US
and Israel trying to create workarounds, trying to
force pipelines, but they've got pushback on, bombing
ones they don't like, like, trying to create
this. And on top of that, the main
thing I'm constantly pointing out is the war
with Yemen
or against Yemen, the war against the people
of Yemen. And it's this is what he
just described. Now what what I think he's
doing right there
is basically admitting that they're losing.
Because you don't come out and go, like
the idea is that why wouldn't you just
take over Iran, which is what you want?
If you took over Iran, the threat wouldn't
be there. Now he's standing back and going,
look. We need to work around this.
That is not what Israel does. It shows
me that they're admitting that they are ultimately
not winning this war. That's my my impression
of it. But just remember this. We've talked
about this for so long. What he's talking
about is the Strait Of Hormuz. Right? That
this is what Israel or Iran can control,
which he's offering the choke point.
So for the longest time, and what he's
saying is we just need some way to
get the oil from the the peninsula just
directly to Israel. So either directly through Saudi
Arabia and through Yemen and Oman or whatever.
Well, you know, that that's what he's talking
about, which hasn't happened because there's been resistance,
and part of it's been Yemen. And so
then they talked about the taking over Yemen
to control the other side of the mass
so they could at least get it down
the Ba'al Mamedev Strait, which is what he
just named. That's right here.
Right there. Or where it'll show it to
you closer.
That's the name of it. I just don't
know where the name is on there. The
Ba'al Mamedev Strait is right here. So the
point is that they've been trying to overtake
Yemen, and they have not successfully done that
in order to control that waterway. Now my
point the whole time has been because once
they can control it, they would go after
Iran. Now for whatever reason, I think Netanyahu
just feels like this is his last chance.
That's why Lebanon got pulled into it even
though that's clumsy.
So he just literally told you, what we
need is another way around this, which shows
you both that they're not winning in this
regard because otherwise, taking out Iran would solve
that problem, but also just that it's always
been about this. All of these wars, at
least in part, have been driven by that
need.
And that's human lives, guys. Starvation tactics, sanctions,
just murderous actions
while claiming everybody else is the bad guy.
Back to the point.
So as I said, this is an admission,
in my mind, of failure against Iran.
Decentor News points out that Trump on 03/14.
Countries of the world that receive oil through
the Humor the Strait Of Hormuz must take
care of that passage. By the way, he
he and I I saw it for myself.
He posted it and spelled straight wrong and
deleted and reposted it. Yeah. The peep I
I think I've done that before. Syspawdy. You
know, somebody who's involved with this and you
can't even spell it. But it says,
or could it be a typo for that
matter, with that they must take care of
the passage with US help. This should have
always been a team effort, and now it
will be. It will be a world together
because he thought they would sign on, and
nobody did. Japan,
Australia, I mean, all of their chief allies.
Even The UK was like, we'll find a
viable option, but it's not that. Now that
may change. It might have already changed. But
as of right now, like, I can see,
it has not. Trump on 03/17
because clearly nobody was involved and they didn't
want to be. The United States has been
informed by most of our NATO allies that
they don't want to get involved with our
military operate. Yes. Because it's obviously one of
the most unpopular things we've ever seen. And
it says we no longer need or desire
the NATO country's assistance. We never did.
It might just what a child.
Like, you
I mean, you just said you did, man.
You just said right here. We need that
help. We want you to come help. But
now you don't wanna help. We didn't need
it anyway. You're dumb and ugly. That's what
it feels like. Just childish flailing. And it
says, likewise, Japan, Australia, South Korea, we do
not need help of anyone.
Then why'd you ask for it, man?
You know what I mean? Like, it's just
it's just a embarrassing series of events where
this guy just keeps saying whatever he thinks.
Like, it's almost like he don't think we
can just look back at what they just
said.
Maybe he is getting old. I don't know.
As Aaron says, this is literally the dumbest
war in human history. No hyperbole. Guess what?
The US may unsanction Iranian oil,
you know, the ones they're fighting right now,
and to ease pressure from their actions against
Iran and the oil and the price fallout.
I mean, that that's just a decree. I
mean, that's incredible. You know, if I it's
I've pointed out in the past, like, for
example,
what was one of those examples? Like, just,
you know, the Guido point where they just
drop him like a bad penny the moment
they don't need him anymore. You know, they
don't care about anything they're doing. But what's
hilarious to me is that you're sanctioning Iranian
oil
to stop Iran for benefiting from the oil.
And then you attack Iran, which creates an
oil issue, which everyone in the world saw
coming, and then you have to unsanction the
oil that will help Iran to stop what
you created with an illegal war while you're
still fighting Iran, which will increase the price.
It just doesn't make any sense.
Unless, again, that there's a bigger point to
this, that there's more coordination is worth considering.
But every day, it feels less and less
likely to me in regard to specifically the
way Iran fits into what they're trying to
accomplish. But that it doesn't mean it's they
could all be fighting for a different globalist
outcome if you wanna look at it that
way. But it's clearly I think there's a
divide here. It's worth considering that it's more
coordination, but I don't see it. Not right
now.
US may unsanction Iranian oil.
Even percent came out trying to argue, well,
it's okay because, you know, we did it
with Russian oil back to Nick. Well, that
was stupid too. Not that it, it shouldn't
be sanctioned in the first place, but the
point is that you're talking about
unremoving the very thing that you, first of
all, told us would collapse the country. The
sanctions are so strong and they're always working,
they never were because they worked away on
it just like Russia did. I mean, it
it hurt them dramatically. People were starving, but
they survived.
So they kept trying to claim that they
were all they were doing was hurting the
innocent people, which is the way this works.
We unsanctioned Russian oil in the coming days.
We may unsanction Iranian oil that's on the
water.
This guy with his
where are you?
That's how he talks. In other words, Iran
would be able to sell oil at a
premium rather than send it at a discount.
So the the group that you're telling us
are the terrorists of the world,
literally working with ISIS who wanna nuke everybody.
You're gonna let them profit from their oil
sales. You know what? Just like they let
ISIS do, which is actually a bad point
to make because it's not to suggest that
Iran's the same. But it's just funny to
me that in whatever they're fighting, there's just
nothing sacred to them. They'll literally let a
ISIS sell oil from Iraq for the longest
time, which they wildly benefited from, or Syria.
You know, it's it's just that they were
the US government was just stealing all that.
It's just it's so gross how the corruption
is so obvious.
Hey, Seth. There's a reason we call Iran
the number one state sponsor of terrorism.
Listen to what he says, and then we'll
go back to the the other point.
As an energy rich country, could be, should
be. Oh. Instead, like so many other places
driven by a radical ideology, they've spent that
money instead of investing in their people. That's
why you had millions of Iranians protesting. Oh,
is that why? They felt like their condition
quality of life didn't match what it could
be or should be. And what was the
Iranian state? Actually, that's actually entirely not the
truth. Like, literally posted by the people protesting
and the union supporting it, not at all
the truth. Very clearly. So well, I've gone
into it all, but, you know, it doesn't
matter because he's just giving you probably what
somebody handed to him. The reason we come
call Iran the number one state sponsor of
terror Which is verifiably not true. Because they
took the the money they they make Oh.
And they invested in tunnels, and they invested
in missiles. Oh, tunnels and missiles. What are
we in Gaza again? And they invested in
launchers. Why? What are you talking no. We've
proven that they have the like, in the
desert secret spots of launching, but we're not
tunnels.
What what are we talking about? This is
not some insurgency. We're talking about a run.
This is in a majorly high developed and
advanced to call. I just guys, this is
just so lazy. And at the end of
the day, what did he just start with?
Iran is an energy
rich country. Could be, should be. Instead, like
so many other places driven by a radical
ideology, they've spent that money instead of investing
in their people. They spent it on massive
war fronts that end up using all of
our tax dollars like that, like you guys
do our entire lives? No. Not like that.
We're fighting for freedom, Ryan. The point is
that he literally just argued by the way,
this is Israeli talking points about anyone they're
fighting. Insert tunnels and shield.
It's like the same thing they do everywhere.
They've always been proven to be lying. Not
that they don't or can't do them, but
they make up stories even though there's
the reality mostly in Gaza too is that
Israel was involved in building most of those
tunnels. It goes back to well before proven
this on their own documentation.
The ones under the Shefa hospital, by the
way, were built by the Israelis while it
was being used. Easy to look up. And,
anyway,
that they use that money to build their
tunnels and things that are
and that's why they're not an oil okay.
But wait a minute. Didn't we just go
over this? We did.
The reality is that they are sanctioning
Iranian oil. Okay. Wait a minute. So you're
telling me that despite
restrict them from being able to become an
oil rich country, that they should have just
done it anyway, somehow magically?
Or or suggesting that the money that they're
not getting because you're sanctioning them was somehow
still spent on tunnels?
Hegseth, you're a moron. And I think that's
what everyone's starting to see, quite frankly. And
I think either way, it's the person who
is just parroting the narrative.
But in a way that I think it
sounds like he's just reading off a card
that someone handed him.
You can't stand there and tell me we're
gonna unsanction their oil that we've always been
hindering. And then in the others in the
other press conference, tell me that they're not
that they're they could be the greatest oil
rich country if they just weren't using the
money they're not getting through that thing because
you're sanctioning them on things that they shouldn't
be spending them on.
Just do I mean, the the ridiculousness of
this administration just continues to impress me.
Now in gen in general, for time, just
because it's just longer I'm I'm gonna I'll
get into this into more depth. But today,
we'll end with this. Pete Hegseth
hits embarrassing behavior exposed. Defense secretary doesn't understand
anything, and he is over his head during
classified briefings.
Now this this is with democrat there's democrats,
but there's also people involved with the if
the
secure the, which one is it? The subcommittee
on the house committee and or the,
where was it? Military and foreign affairs subcommittee
on the house of
wait. Is that that's really weird. Military and
foreign affairs subcommittee
of the house committee on oh, I just
read it weird. So, again, military and foreign
affairs subcommittee
of the house committee on oversight and government
reforms. So somebody within that is is expressing,
I see Pete Eggseth in the classified briefings,
and I'm embarrassed for him. He can do
nothing beyond read the script that's given him.
And this is,
where was it? It's reports to Midas Midas
Network. He added he can't answer detailed questions.
He doesn't understand the strategy, not that there
is one. He doesn't understand the tactical operate.
Okay. Now clearly, you could argue as one
as Democrats, one of the people in here
saying this, that they hate him and it's
because of partisanship. Always probably the case to
some degree. But it's also the fact that
we can just quite literally see that this
man is out of his depth. And the
idea that he is not qualified for this
position, so that should matter right there in
the beginning. He's never done this before. He
has no reason to understand what he's doing.
But no. Yeah. He's got the best people
around him. Well, guess what? The people around
him are the ones telling you that he
doesn't know what he's doing, and he's in
fact more focused on memes.
Because that's the ultimate point here.
Literally
says
jump to it.
A senior White House official,
so in their team,
was closely involved with the video making effort
described as a collegial creed of endeavor.
We're over here just grinding away on banger
memes, dude,
says the person in the White House working
for Exeth. Also granted anonymity to speak candidly.
There is an entertainment factor to what we
do, but, ultimately, it boils down to the
fact that no one has ever attempted to
communicate with the American people this way. You
mean, like, every other time before this, though,
with memes and and that's just not true.
But what they're actually talking about is these
ridiculous things they're putting out, And I'm gonna
go into this in more depth. I just
wanna point it out before we finish, where
they're trying to tell you that, no. No.
We're we're we're course we're we're correcting the
narratives. We're making sure you understand that this
is not the this is what it is.
A a bowling meme where the guy bowls,
strikes, and then it overcuts that with something
else
of bowling pins saying we're we're not we
we won't stop making nuclear weapons. It's supposed
to be Iranian, I guess. And
then he gets a strike with American bull,
and and that's it.
Pretty sure there's nothing of a substance there.
That's what I keep telling you. It's all
just a bunch of flash and no substance
and there's no point. They're not correcting anything.
But if you read this, they're convinced that
what they're doing is changing the opinion about
what's really happening by pointing out
or giving you things that show
Grand Theft Auto and then a bomb blowing
up and that's it. It's over. And that
literally the whole thing. It goes back and
forth, back and forth.
What's supposed to be corrected right there? Guys,
this the whole point of the people criticizing
it, this is literally just about,
like, entertainment.
While they're letting Americans die, while they're fighting
for a foreign country, telling you're working for
American interest, you're putting out slop. You're putting
out nonsense that's supposed to, what, convince people?
And all they keep saying is, oh my
god. Look, it got 17,000,000 views. We're so
popular.
I'm not kidding.
You don't you could factor in that that's
a lot of people who, like me, think
you're ridiculous. Right? That we're watching it because
we're going, oh my god. I can't believe
some of us at least. But somehow, all
the impressions are all they care about because
this is the social media plot for presidency.
This is the
the performative theater that we're living through.
It's painful because it's embarrassing and the world
sees it. And there's tons of them, guys.
I'll go over them. Each one of them
is even more ridiculous than the last one.
None of it has any substance. None of
it even has a point that you could
really discern other than we're cool and they're
a bad guy. And that's exactly literally what
it's trying to prevail or relay, excuse me.
And, of course, you know, this post back
from the fourteenth where it says, one mission,
clear objectives, destroy Iran, cherish proxy, and then
that's not what we're doing. There are no
different new clear mission every thirty seconds.
Did we destroy the proxies? Are we talking
about Hamas and Hezbollah now? Are we talking
about, the Houthis? Are we bombing? No. No.
No. We're bombing the civilians in certain locations
and other facilities, and then, I guess, just
bombing oil stuff.
But trust me, it's about the proxies because
the promise that was the one clear objective
no. It wasn't.
Because that one clear thing changes every twenty
seconds you talk to somebody in this administration.
And just to end
the brutal reality of what's still happening to
people in the West Bank, which I actually
can't believe the New York Times also Palestinian
man recounts brutal sexual assault by Israeli settlers.
Linda points this out as well. This is
the first New York Times headline actually acknowledging
sexual violence against Palestinians. It's been going on
for decades.
I don't know how much people can deny,
guys. This is insane. I mean, it's very
clear what this group is. You have this
person who is supposed to be the moderate
person in the Knesset
who is literally screaming about starving people in
Gaza.
You have drop side news highlighting that there's
currently fifty one percent of Palestinian children who
are being held in Israeli prisons who are
there without charge, which we've covered
well before October 7. It's just much worse
right now. 351
Palestinian children are currently attained in their prisons
with no charge, or rather with 51% without
charge. The rest of them there under other
kind of administrative allegations and whatever else they're
doing. It's insane, guys. Throwing rocks or whatever
else.
But this is the the democracy we're fighting
for. Right? Well, that's not happening in Iran.
They they have all kinds of claims about
the weird thing, but they always end up
like, I shouldn't even say it like that.
But the reality of what they continually claim
about Iran, every day I do this shows
to be false.
That's not to say Iran is not capable
of doing terrible things. I mean, that's my
point, guys. You have to understand.
Just because they're being lied about does not
mean that they're not capable or haven't done
other things. But it should still matter to
you that what they do is lie about
them in the midst of a war that's
killing Americans.
As Israel quite literally demonstrates that it's one
of the most egregiously brutal and just I
mean, you tack on the things that you
just they're committing genocide, and this is what
we're doing. We're fighting with the genocide group
to fight against the people they don't like.
They're bombing in Lebanon.
Airstrikes,
apartment buildings in Beirut. It's like bombing New
York City, guys. It doesn't matter. On the
record, public and plain daylight videotape
literally killing it. And the idea is, well,
we gave them time to leave. Okay. Fine.
So Mexico says, guys, get out of Houston.
We're bombing there next week. You gonna leave?
Is it do you I mean, it's your
your home. You live there. Secondarily, they don't
have the legal right to bomb this location.
And on top of that, what you'll always
find out is they go, we're gonna bomb
there in an hour, and they bomb in
three minutes.
Every time. I've gone over this extensively in
Palestine. It's the same thing here. And they
kill all these people and they go, well,
we warned them. Well, what about the law?
Just because you say, look, Lindsey Graham goes
to drop leaflets.
Okay. What legal rights do they have to
do this? Is there a act of a
declaration of war? No. They're killing civilians? Doesn't
matter. They drop leaflets.
And even when they do that, they I
mean, I can go through this. So it
just makes me sick that we have to
continue to pretend that these are not monsters.
Actively murdering innocent people in their homes and
acting like what they're doing is the right
thing.
Yeah. We'll go into more of this later.
They're they're they're bombing. This was something we'll
get into in-depth.
They on they bombed another Reuters journalist in
Lebanon.
The guy was literally giving a report, and
one of these bombs dropped down behind him
and and seriously hurt one of the people
with him.
And just before, here's what he posted. Targeted
journalist is a war crime. And Israel saw
it and said, oh, yeah?
And then bombed him.
This is what we're dealing with, guys. And
and I already showed you in Lebanon, this
happened early. This was 10/13/2023.
Reuters journalists killed by Israeli bombing. I cover
this at the time. Not even Reuters was
willing to acknowledge this
right here
when it first happened. I reported on this
before Reuters admitted it happened. And then finally,
Reuters admitted, yes, it was. They were killed
by an Israeli bomb. And you can prove
it. Even even Twitter came in and told
you, yes, it was killed by an Israeli
airstrike. You know what happened? Nothing.
Nobody was ever charged. There was ever a
crime. Doesn't matter.
And by the way, in case you understand,
you can prove they targeted this area. They
actually told you they were gonna bomb it,
then bombed it and killed these journalists because
they were there. That's my opinion. But you
can prove that they targeted a location that
they told them they were in. They told
them they were journalists, told them they were
there, and then you can prove that Israel
ordered somebody to bomb that location.
I went over all of it. It was
in it was different points in the conversation,
but the timelines were exact and obvious, and
even they had to cover it.
Now it's happening again.
But nobody seems to care who's supposed to
be fighting for the freedom of the world,
and it's all very clear.
We'll leave it there. We'll come back tomorrow.
But, guys, you know, the reality is that
this stuff is clear, and we just can't
hide from that. Like, there's just no reason
not to be honest about what we're seeing.
That the obviousness is one that this country
is dramatically being driven into a position that
is in the interest of anything but Americans.
And on a world on a global sense,
you got both of these elements, I think,
trying to recreate some global structure where they're
in charge forever, apparently, for the emperor and
chief forever Donald Trump with Rubio and Heggs,
and Jared Kushner and Witkoff and some kind
of forever board of peace that runs. I
mean, it's just insane how we can't be
honest about what that is. And the people
that are out there telling you they're fighting
globalism,
how we can't see how ridiculous they are,
how embarrassing it is that they're still trying
to push for this.
And anybody that is now shifting over to
the other conversation, at least give them credit
for calling it as it is. But consider
whether they're opportunists and not truly caring about
the truth. But either way, the ones that
are still there, guys, you've gotta be clear
about what this is. But I just hope
people can see this because right now,
where this is drifting into is we're this
is pre stage rack stuff, guys. We're watching
this happen. People called it out then. We're
not gonna be welcome to zero. This is
going to be chaos. It is going to
kill more Americans. It is going to affect
the global conversation. And guess what? In every
single case before this, Israel has stood by
and watched and benefited every single time.
But today is different because the different thing
today is that I think right now, especially
Americans,
can see that.
They're literally talking about Israel doing this to
our country to the point to where they're
using that to argue that Trump's somehow within
it fighting back.
Hey. I hope so. But if that's the
case, then you have to ask yourself why
he gave them $20,000,000,000
You have to ask why he sides with
them in every conversation. You have to ask
why he what he does is clearly in
the interest of what they want. You know?
But aside from all of that, clearly, he's
fighting from within. But question everything, guys, because,
yeah, if they are like, aside from the
fact that there's plenty of crimes that have
been committed regardless of whether he's secretly fighting
from within, if it ends up in a
way that this stops what they're doing and
evil, I'm even I will say I'm glad
that it ended up that way. But I
will never be the one to say that
the the
meet the ends justify the means because that's
not true. It matters how you get there.
And I also just don't think that's what's
happening. In case you wanna know from my
my gut, it's pretty clear that the evidence
and my gut back up the fact that
Trump is either a willing participant in what's
happening or he has no choice. That's what
the facts light up with, but we'll keep
covering it as it goes forward.
Thank you for tuning in. I love you
all. As always,
question everything.
Come to your own conclusions.
Stay vigilant.