Badlands Media - Badlands Daily: 3/5/26 - Tariffs, Peace Talks, and the Art of Leverage

Episode Date: March 5, 2026

In this March 5 episode of Badlands Daily, CannCon and Alpha Warrior walk through the rapidly evolving geopolitical and economic landscape, focusing on the strategic use of tariffs, global negotiations, and how pressure can be applied without traditional warfare. The conversation centers on President Trump’s approach to economic leverage, particularly through tariffs, and how these tools reshape negotiations on the world stage. The hosts explore how economic pressure can function as a diplomatic weapon, forcing adversaries and allies alike to reconsider long-standing arrangements. They examine how media narratives often frame tariffs as reckless escalation while ignoring their role as negotiating leverage. CannCon and Alpha also discuss the broader implications of ongoing peace talks and how strategic pressure can create openings for resolution rather than conflict. Throughout the episode, they emphasize the importance of recognizing narrative framing, questioning headlines, and understanding the difference between economic confrontation and actual war. The discussion blends economic strategy, geopolitics, and media skepticism while encouraging listeners to look beyond surface-level reporting.

out of the Badlands. Explain those Badlands. That's a hell of a name. We're seeing the spell wear off, the hypnosis wear off. It's just a creation that exists in the minds of people who are still addicted to the Central America. Hey, good morning, Badlands. Welcome to Badlands. Jayley. Today is very, and I am stilling up here. Bye, my homesome. Welcome to the show, ladies and gentlemen. Got a lot to talk about today. So, yeah, let's just go ahead and jump right into it.

We will go ahead and, of course, start with our first sponsor of today's show. And first up, ladies and gentlemen, let's talk about frequency apps. Every day, people are fighting the same battles, cravings that hit out of nowhere, stress that derails good intentions, habits that feel impossible to break. And while the world pushes quick fixes, injections, and synthetic shortcuts, Most people are just looking for support that fits their lifestyle without needles, without drugs, without side effects that they never asked for. That's why frequency apps created the GLP alternative patch, a natural frequency-based wellness patch made right here in the USA, inspired by the body's own GLP1 pathway, delivering natural frequency-driven support for people who want balance, clarity, and control in their daily routine. peel it, apply it, and forget it.

It works quietly in the background while you live your day at work, at home, and in the moments where cravings usually win, no injections, no complicated protocols, no side effects, just natural, needle-free support for a healthier balance. But the GLP1 alternative patches only at the beginning. Frequency apps offers a full lineup of affordable, easy-to-use homeopathic patches, designed to support everyday wellness, whether someone needs help with relaxing, comfort, or clarity. there's a patch built for that moment. Each patch uses frequency-based technology

to support the body's energetic balance. No mess, no mixing, no learning curve. Just stick it on and go. It's part of a healthy journey that fits real life. And the other way, and no, there's not the other way around. Badlanders can now receive 20% off the new GLP, or $20, excuse me, off the new GLP alternative patch with promo code Freedom.

Subscriptions are available to saving up to 20% for ongoing support. Call 616-7. 555-8446 or visit frequency apps.com today again 616 755-8446 or visit frequency apps.com today. All right. And let's get ready to jump into the news. Not that story. Let's start out with this story right here. Where to go? Hey, there it is. If you have not done so yet, please smash that thumbs up. And let's get into it. who there we go all right so we've got now the confirmation of the other two u.s service members the fifth and six soldiers overall that have been killed thus far in operation epic fury we have major general geoffrey o'brien from indianola uh iowa and chief warrant officer three robert marzan from sacramento california uh these bought you know were killed in the same attack

I believe they're in Kuwait, took a little bit longer, I guess, to identify them and everything else. So absolutely tragic, six servicemen now that are all killed. And they all appear to be from the same unit or at least working in and around that unit. The actual MOS is of these two individuals. Let me see if I can find that real quick. I know they had published it. Let me see if I could find that real quick. So we get a full rundown.

We talked yesterday about the other members, the four members that were killed. And let's see. We got here. Major Jeffrey O'Brien died on March 1st in Port Shuaiba, Kuwait, during an unmanned aircraft attack, the soldier was assigned to the 103rd Sustainment Command out of Des Moines, Iowa. The suspect, this incident is under investigation. Chief Foreign Officer 3. was at the scene of the incident of March 1st and is believed to be the individual who perished at the scene.

Positive identification of Chief Foreign Officer 3 will be completed. The soldier was assigned to the 103rd Sustainment Command. So that's both of them were from this 103rd. And let's see. The other ones were also. Let me see. Hold on one second here. That's not.

That's Major O'Brien. And the others, I believe we're also from I'm not seeing it real quick here but yeah either way absolutely tragic to see that so fair wins and following sees to those men and women who have been killed thus far

in the attacks there. All right let's jump into our first story here from the New York Times. Justice Department under pressure from Trump fails to build auto pen case against Biden And this case is seemingly gone by the wayside now. And that's extremely disappointing. A lot of people have been concerned about, you know,

why hasn't Fauci been arrested? Why hasn't Schiff been arrested and all this stuff? And a lot of that had to do with the preemptive pardons and delegitimizing those preemptive pardons, an absolutely absurd concept on its face that a president can not just pardon you for any crime, which I'm with that. That's within our constitution. but a president should not have the authority, even outside of the concept of the auto pen and Joe Biden's cognitive decline and everything else, should not have the authority to carte blanche, pardon you for something that we don't even know what you did, right?

For all we know, these people could come up and you could have some hugely treasonous activity that they did, detrimental to the United States, and they have a preemptive pardon because somebody said, I am going to forgive them for everything they ever did from this time to this time. It doesn't matter what it was. We don't know what it was. We have no way of assessing the relevance of what they did, the significance of what they did, but we're just going to carte blanche. We're just going to, we're just going to pardon you.

It's absurd. The New York Times race, the department's failure to build a criminal case against Mr. Biden and his aides is the latest example of its increasing ability to follow through on Mr. Trump's demands and bring indictments against those he wants to be criminally targeted. Some of those cases were rejected by grand juries. Some were rejected by judges and some like the Autopenn case were abandoned by prosecutors. Now, there is a key distinction here and I don't know if this matters at all, but they are talking specifically here about bringing criminal charges in this, a criminal case. Now, I don't necessarily know if going after this criminally would be the best, you know, path to take. Or if you're more interested in delegitimizing the p the pardons themselves, the auto pen pardons themselves, verifying that these were in fact signed by an auto pen. And I think I think he was Tony Seruga who put on X that Biden was in St. Croix when the mass number of these, not the names we all know, but the criminals that were already locked up in federal penitentiaries where that was signed off. That particular pardon was signed off in Washington, D.C.

the Gateway Pundit reported on this. I remember you see this all the time pop up in articles, that he was in St. Croix, but the pardons were signed in D.C. while he was not present. Again, something that the president himself, who's given that authority, could be signing off on. Okay. So again, I don't know if a criminal case is the best way to go about this, or, you know, this could be kind of smoke and mirrors. Who knows? It says the fact that prosecutors even pursued the matter to begin with reflects the degree to which Mr. Trump has sought to use the levers of government to undermine Joe Biden's quote unquote presidency. The auto pen investigation was led by the U.S. attorney in Washington, Janine Piro.

The inquiry was quietly shelved in recent months around the time that prosecutors under Mr. Piro, excuse me, sought and failed to secure an indictment in a different case. That's the six Democrat lawmakers who posted that seditious video about the troops not not following unlawful orders from the president. A grand jury refused to issue an indictment, a once incredibly rare action in the federal court system, but one that has become more common as the Trump administration pushes the limits of the criminal justice system. Now, again, you know, I don't necessarily know that criminal charges was the best way to go about de-legitimizing the auto pen. I think, you know, you could make the 25th Amendment argument that Joe Biden was not cognitively there. That's absolutely possible. But, you know, just the fact that I don't think a preemptive pardon should be, there's only been one time when a preemptive pardon has been used in our nation's history.

As far as I know, I think the only time was Richard Nixon when he was preemptively pardoned for anything having to do with Watergate. But other than that, as far as I know, it hasn't been none. Now, President Trump has said previously that all of these pardons against, you know, the heavy hitters, the politicians, you know, the J6 sham committee, etc. Those are all illegitimate. Now, he did go on to notably say that Hunter Biden was the only preemptive pardon that was actually legit. it. So that was that was kind of fascinating when we got that clip from President Trump where he said that. So, you know, we will keep on monitoring this and see what happens, but it is not looking good for this Department of Justice. I got to say, I know, you know, do I think

there's a lot of things going on behind the scenes? Absolutely. Do I think there's a ton of friction that they're getting from the bureaucrats that are embedded in these agencies, the Department of Justice being one of them? Yes, absolutely. It is one of the most liberal professions in our country law is one of the most liberal professions in our country. And the idea that President Trump was able to come in here and clean it up instantly overnight is absurd. And it's got to be a longgoing process. But again, it's concerning. It is absolutely concerning that these cases are not sticking. So again, I think that this is maybe looking at this through the wrong perspective of a criminal case as opposed to delegitimate deletitimization but uh it's still

not a great look for uh for the president and for the well not for the president but for the doj i do want to go to this and and just you know talking about the cognitive decline uh this was a an old clip of speaker johnson talking about exactly that the president reaches over just like this we're sitting in the right next to the fireplace and the oval and he grabs my arm and he says the speaker and I just need a couple minutes together. Well, y'all just leave us alone. And I looked up on the faces of some of the staff standing around the law. And they're like, no, he did it.

So they called it. He's the commander-in-cheats. Everybody leaves. He and I are standing awkwardly in the middle of the Oval Office right over the rug by that coffee table. And I said, Mr. President, thanks for the moments. This is very important. I got some big national security things I need to talk to you about that I heard and I think you know and what do we do. But first, real quickly, Mr. President, can I ask you a question?

I cannot answer this from my constituents in Louisiana. Sir, why did you pause LNG exports to Europe? Like, I don't understand, you know, liquefied natural gas is in great demand by our allies. Why would you do that? Because you understand, we just talked about Ukraine. You understand you're fueling Vladimir Putin's war machine because they gotta get their gas from him, you know.

And he looks at me stunned with this, and he said, I didn't do that. And I said, Ms. President, yes, you did. It was an executive order like, you know, three weeks ago. He didn't do that. He's arguing with me. And Mr. President, respectfully, can I, could I go out here and ask your secretary to print it out?

We'll read it together. You definitely did that. And he goes, oh, you talk about natural gas. Yes, sir? He said, no, you misunderstand. He said, what I did is I signed this thing to, we're going to, we're going to conduct a study on the effects of LNG. I said, no, you're not, sir. You paused it.

I know I have the terminal, the export terminal in my state. I talked to those people this morning. This is doing massive damage to our economy, national security. It occurred to me, Barry. He was not lying to me. he genuinely did not know what he had signed. And I walked out of that meeting with fear and loathing because I thought, we're in serious trouble.

Who is running the country? Like, I don't know who put the paper in front of him, but he didn't know. So, yeah, you've got it there from, from Speaker Johnson, the actual cognitive decline of Joe Biden and the subversion that was taking place within the people in Joe Biden's inner circle, the gatekeeping, so to speak, where it was worse than just gatekeeping. They could just simply pass it off. and they'll just turn around and give it away to somebody else.

You can delegate it to, you know, I'm trying to think of the people that were in his immediate circle. We've talked about it so much, but it was so long ago that I've forgotten many of the names. But either way, once again, preemptive pardons, it is a question that I think needs to be brought up in a constitutional grounds, whether or not the president has that authority to look at somebody and pardon somebody as a person and not as a specific crime. And we'll talk a little bit about another constitutional question a little bit later on in the show when we get to Congress because yesterday was a pretty busy day in Congress. So let's jump into this story here from Fox News.

Now, I've said this before. We've seen the weaponization of the district courts against President Trump and this administration and his policy and the agenda that he has a mandate from the American people to effectuate. and we've seen a lot of pushback. And one of the things that, you know, President Trump has, has been able to claim is that he has a very high success rate in the appellate and at the Supreme Court with a lot of these decisions. Obviously, the tariff one was a pretty big blow to his policy. But again, something that they were quickly able to sidestep because I think they had contingencies in place if something were to happen with that. But one of the things that I think we need to look at when we're seeing the radicalization of the district courts right now is the idea that if you have a decision that makes its way through the appellate process up to the Supreme Court and you are unanimously ruled against at the Supreme Court, you know, I think that there needs to be an investigation into that judge. there is nothing in this country that is unanimous very little i shouldn't say nothing because you know of course

only a sith deals in absolute should have had that ready to go a little bit quicker but a majority of the times that the supreme court is unanimous on something i think the judge needs to be looked at i think the district judge that made that decision uh needs to be investigated but let's jump into this justin just justice Katangi Brown Jackson authors unanimous SCOTUS opinion handing Trump an immigration win. Justice Jackson authored the unanimous ruling on Wednesday, ordering federal appeals courts to defer to immigration judges when reviewing asylum decisions.

Now, immigration judges are administrative judges. They're not constitutional judges. They're not Article III judges. They are effectively, they answer to the executive branch, rather than to the judicial branch. Now, there's a process that leads to them making it through the cases that they see making it through the judicial branch, but it begins effectively as an executive action. Jackson wrote that immigration law requires federal courts to use a quote-unquote substantial

evidence standard when reviewing immigration judge's decisions about whether an asylum seeker could face persecution if deported. It's a high bar that courts must meet before overturning an immigration judge's findings, making it more difficult for migrants to challenge their deportations. The decision affirmed that the judicial branch must largely defer to the executive branch's findings about whether the migrant would suffer persecution if deported rather than start from scratch and conduct its own review. America First Policy Institute wrote on X that, quote, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that immigration agencies, not individual judges, determine asylum claims based on alleged persecution. A clear reminder, America's laws should be enforced as

written. Now, this is kind of interesting to me, and again, I have not read this decision, so I'm just going off of what's, you know, kind of reported here in this article. But this brings up an interesting question about the bureaucratic administrative judges, not Article 3 judges and their decision making here. So in this particular case, you're talking about illegal migrants. I firmly believe that illegal migrants, the amount of constitutional rights that are afforded to an illegal immigrant and illegal alien are very limited in the scope of what an American citizen, right?

An American citizen is afforded all of the rights granted under the Constitution. One of those rights would be due process under the law. And so this decision sounds like the due process is being, it's being determined by the executive branch and not afforded to the judicial branch. I don't know that that's how it was intended. However, for a U.S. citizen, I should, I should have clarified that. I don't know if that's how it was intended for a U.S. citizen for an illegal alien, perhaps. Now, the reason I bring this up is because Ash and I covered Neil Gorsuch overruled on Badlands Book Club. I think it was two books ago.

Well, yeah, we did Smedley Butler. We did Turning and now we're doing Stone Election. So four books ago. We did Neil Gorsuch overruled. And in reading that book, a lot of what Gorsuch hammers on is the administrative state that we live in, the bureaucratic state, the regulations and rules, some of them now involving criminal sanctions that, are basically put into effect by bureaucrats rather than the legislative branch. And again, I think that that is a in and of itself unconstitutional. However, one of the things he talks about in that book is these administrative courts.

And not just at the immigration level, the EPA has their own administrative courts. They all have their own administrative courts. Any bureaucratic agency that you can think of has courts that you can go through. and they're very limited as to what they can hear. They're also hugely conflicted because they're directly paid by the executive branch that is trying to enforce the rules and regulation. So in other words, if you're like, if you do something with the EPA and the EPA tries to give you like this massive fine and you challenge that fine, you don't go to a federal court to have your evidence heard. You go to an EPA court, you know, an administrative court to have that heard. And I just, I feel like that is not the way that our Constitution was intended to be, you know,

due process was intended under our Constitution. But anyways, I'm getting a little winded on that. The Supreme Court was tasked with reviewing whether the First Circuit examined the Immigration's judges' decisions thoroughly enough. The High Court concluded that the First Circuit rightly leaned heavily on the immigration judge's determination. So again, in other words, they're saying that the, the, courts didn't look at the evidence themselves they looked at what the evidence was that the immigration courts saw and and again to me i i just i'm i'm not happy with that when it applies to u.s citizens so all right um let's go ahead and uh take a quick break here and we will jump into our next sponsor

legend says on st patrick's day a beard without oil is just a chin ambition. But a beard with soft disclosure beard oil? That's true treasure. Spiced vanilla, naked, smooth as a lepricons getaway plan. Soft enough to impress your barber, bold enough to confuse a baby goat. And this bore bristle brush tames your beard like it holds the crown coin. Every bottle is American made, which means when you buy soft disclosure, you're supporting six American small businesses. That's not luck. That's capitalism with cheek bones. And while you're at it, try our mint green deodorant because even legends need fresh pits. Soft Disclosure, go for gold. Visit soft disclosure.com and use promo code tiny bright

of 15% off. He seems to not been evaluated by the FDA. Promocco cannot apply to bubble. Oh, man. The commercials, they just keep the hits keep coming. The hits keep coming. All right. Let's go ahead and we got one more sponsor before we get back into the news. And Let's see. There we go. I need my Bill O'Reilly. I need my Bill O'Reilly clip back. But yeah, let's go ahead and jump into this sponsor here.

Guys, they can freeze your accounts and shut off your cars. They can lock you out of your own money overnight. Banks don't protect you. They control you. And that's why real financial freedom starts with ownership. Introducing Rumble Wallet, a non-custodial wallet, built for people who refused to give up control. With Rumble wallet, you don't just buy digital currency like Bitcoin and Tether. You can own Tether gold, real gold on the blockchain.

Through Tether Gold, you get direct ownership of physical gold bars, each one fully allocated, verifiable by serial number, purity, and weight. This isn't paper gold. This isn't an IOU. It's real gold without bank vaults, storage fees, or gatekeepers. You can buy, sell, or move it 24 hours a day, seven days a week, even when traditional gold markets are closed. And if you want, tether gold can be redeemed for physical gold. Now, that's power. And when you support creators on Rumble, you can tip them directly using Rumble wallet,

peer to peer and outside the banking system, no permissions, no middlemen, no cancel button. The wallet is yours forever. All right. Let's jump back into the news here. And interesting clip that we had on the view, right? Let's jump into this. Elizabeth Hasselbeck schooling them on immigration. I think all lives matter to God and we're an uncommon time. So we need to have uncommon sense about things like this.

Yes, there will be mistakes made. But I think if Christine Omer up for promotion right now and she put forward the statistics at zero illegals release into the US for 10 months straight have not crossed. Okay, that nearly three million aliens have left the United States that we have the lowest murder rate in 125 years at fentanyl trafficking is down 56% of the border. And daily encounters have gone down 96%. Hang on one second. We need a strong border, especially now with our current global situation.

And I believe that you may say you don't want border control and you're against ice, but I actually don't believe you in your daily lives. How many people in the audience here had to go through security to get here? Raise your hand. Just be honest. Otherwise you go to jail, I guess for legal trespassing, right? This is an authorized audience. They had to go through security to get through the border to get right here to just hear us talk. We need strong borders more than ever right now.

We are being in. Okay, so she makes her point right there. Listen to the audience's reaction and then just listen to the absolute sheer retardation of a response you get from this panel of derps. On the border when Renee Good and Alex Pready were murdered and death is not a mistake. Oh yeah, let's all applaud for the people that were murdered. They were murdered. no they they interfered with a a a law enforcement operation one of them tried to drive a car the other at a at a nice agent i mean come on guys like and the crowd like they wanted so bad they wanted so bad to cheer for what that woman said i don't know if they were told not to or what but they wanted so badly to cheer for what hassle back says there and then all of a sudden as soon as they realized they were going to charge search here but what about Freddie. And what about Renee? Good. The people that tried to run over an ICE agent, the other one that had a gun when he was trying to stop ICE from detaining somebody physically.

Now, look, I've said all along. There needs to be an investigation into the pretty shooting. It was not the best looking look. But, you know, I'm not going to sit there and say that they were murdered. I don't for a second believe that they were murdered. But let's let's just use that logic there. and let's apply it to hear what we got from who is this is a representative I can never remember Cohen Cohen I can never remember this guy's name just so unmemorable They are very unlikely to commit offenses For the folks that are here and your families

I'm sorry it's terrible what happened to your children or your family members But they are more likely and citizens are more likely to be attacked by United States citizens who are not undocumented who came here and are born here. They are more than.

likely to commit these crimes. Okay, probably not a very smart thing to say to the American citizens whose loved ones were killed by illegal immigrants who had no business being here. Well, you know, it's it's okay that your family members died because, you know, they're more likely that they would have died from a U.S. citizen. Oh, so is that the logic that we're allowed to apply now let's go back to 2020 summer of love right we watch cities burn down billions of dollars two billion dollars in damages to our cities while these guys were kneeling in the rotunda remember that they put on the little the little african scarves you know the colorful scarves and they took a knee in the in the in the in the rotunda in solidarity

with BLM and the black men and women that are killed by law and enforcement. Well, Mr. Cohen, did you know that a black man is infinitely by orders of magnitude more likely to be killed by another black man than law enforcement? I mean, what an absurd thing to say. And what a double standard. They literally drummed up BLM for a whole year. Now, it was an election year and anything to get Trump out of office. And so if their retards latched on to that and we're like, hey this BLM thing is kind of cool we should jump in on this look Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer are taking a knee in the rotunda let's get behind this the FBI is taking a knee in solidarity with BLM let's get behind this then then that just goes to show the level of retardation of the of the left

but am I making sense on this like the the hypocrisy and what Cohen is saying there justifying to American citizens that well you know it could have happened some other way well you're more likely to be killed by texting and driving than you are an ice agent. So what are we doing about texting and drive? Well, we got to focus on Renee Good and Alex Preti. I just, I just, I mean, that's an absurd thing to say. Like, you can make your argument without making a comparison like that directly to the victims who lost their loved ones. And the level of hypocrisy in what they're saying there is just, it's, it's shocking. All right. Let's, um, let's, um, let's, um, let's keep moving along here.

We'll jump into this story here from Info Wars exclusive. Jeff Clark resigns from Trump administration, vows to continue the fight. This is from Info Wars. Now, Ash and I just interviewed Harry McDougal, who was the attorney that represented Jeff Clark in his disbarment hearing in Washington, D.C. He also has represented a lot of other cases,

especially dealing with the elections. It was a fantastic interview Friday nights, why we vote. I would definitely go back and recommend checking it out. McDougal, Harry McDougal is a fantastic individual and a lawyer that we need in this fight. But Jeff Clark resigning here, I don't know that I would necessarily look at this as a bad thing. I think, you know, he just resigned because he wants to go back into public life. It's kind of like the process we've seen, you know, Bongino leaving when he left,

Elon Musk leaving Doge. He had to as a special government employee. It's interesting. But I do want to highlight his achievement. because I read I read his resignation letter and I haven't I haven't been able to go levels deep on it yet but man he did a bang up job so it says Jeff Clark has submitted his resignation from the Trump administration where he served as the acting administrator so acting he was not Senate confirmed so this could have something to do with why he resigned right we saw what they did with Halligan and everybody else all the U.S. attorneys that were acting U.S. attorneys that the Senate you know because there's the Senate's too busy Senate is too busy. to get these confirm these nominations, excuse me, confirm. They're too busy doing their paw parades and not voting on the Save Act and running campaigns like John Cornyn out in Texas. Yeah, they're too busy doing all that to actually do anything for the American people.

So acting administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, a key regulatory oversight office within the Office of Management and Budget, it an exclusive letter addressed to the OMB, Director Russell Vaught. Clark announced his decision to step back into private life, emphasizing that he remains committed to the broader conservative fight and will not abandon the mission. The White House has not yet commented publicly on the resignation or named a replacement for the OIRA leadership role. Now, let's jump into the article, excuse me, the article, the letter, this was exclusively obtained.

it looks like Breonna Morello has her watermark on that. Before we get into the letter here, just quickly for those who may not know who Jeff Clark was, he was one of President Trump's co-defendants in the Trump RICO case. He was absolutely drug and raped over the calls by the J6 Sham Committee over a draft letter, a draft letter that he wrote to President Trump addressing the 2020 election. a draft letter it was never submitted it in other words it's not on the official record and they went after him for that now you know I don't know how much you guys I mean you guys we've talked about this right attorney client privilege in fact last week when I

had alpha when Alpha was here we talked about a story where Susie Wiles attorney was spied on her a conversation between Susie Wiles and the FBI was spied on excuse me by Susie Wiles and her attorney was spied on by the FBI. That breaches attorney-client privilege. One of the most important privileges in this country because it stops spying and malicious prosecutions. The idea that Jeff Clark could have been punitively, you know, reprimanded for a draft letter between him and his client because the President of the United States is his client. When he's with the Department of Justice and he's acting as, I think he was a deputy assistant attorney general at that time,

When he's acting in that capacity, the president is his client. And they went after him over a draft tweet. Meanwhile, we've got just absurd amounts of shenanigans taking place in our law right now, preemptive pardons for one. And nothing ever happens from that. Nothing ever happens from that. So let's jump into the letter here. So he starts out. together we achieve much in the first year of the ambitious deregulatory program that the executive

branch has ever embarked upon five quick examples that are worth highlighting this first one blew me away president trump issued executive order 14192 entitled unleashing prosperity through deregulation tasking us with achieving a deregulation to regulation ratio of at least 10 to 1 meaning for Every regulatory rule that is put in place, you have to take away 10. Again, if you didn't watch overruled Neil Gorsuch's book with Ash and I on Badlands Book Club, or if you haven't read it yourself, it is a fantastic read that will really begin to show you how the deep state actually applies in this country, how they work in this country. And it doesn't mean, you know, I'm not talking about the deep state like getting President

Trump thrown out of office and spying on his campaign. and all that i'm talking about the deep state that is keeping us pinned down in a sense with regulation you know with being able to interpret congress's laws however they see fit and applying them to american citizens and so the deregulation there has been a point that gorsuch has you know been very a a stark a strong proponent of and so president trump says you need at least 10 to 1 deregulation. It says despite the fact that this represented a five-fold increase from a more modest two-to-one mandate set in the president's first term, okay? So 10-to-one, Trump says, let's go five times that. His first term, it was two-to-one. For every two,

for every new regulation, you have to deregulate, you have to delegitimize two regulations. we actually achieved an astonishing 129 to 1 ratio in fiscal year 2025. That number is insane. For every one new regulation thrust upon the American people by bureaucrats, they took away 129. That's crazy. That is a fantastic number. Clark goes on the same executive,

order also tasked us with achieving a net economic impact of regulation at a level, quote, significantly less than zero, calculated by netting regulation against deregulation. On this metric, we achieved, along with our agency partners, a remarkable $212 billion in net deregulation for the national economy. This was roughly an entire order of magnitude higher than the amount of deregulation achieved in the entire second year of the Trump 45 presidential term. Now, I hope, I hope that all of this occurred because Jeff Clark put good people around him, because without him there, I don't want to see any of this undone. And I want to see this type of winning continue in the bureaucratic state.

President Trump issued executive order 14215 entitled the ensuring accountability for all agencies, which required for the first time in history, all. of the previously independent agencies with one limited exception for some operations at the federal reserve to submit their regulatory actions to the oir a for centralized review this may be this made me the first leader of o i r a to directly review such regulatory actions allowing us to repel serious incursions into the presidency as well as heal many decades of damage done to the separation of powers and you guys can read the rest of that letter i'll land that there. Absolutely fantastic effort by Jeff Clark and absolutely here. I got to try and get him

on either why we vote or I don't know why we vote's the most applicable place for him to come on, but maybe get a segment here on Badlands Daily because I would love to hear the story that that that Mr. Clark can tell. And by the way, guys, he has been, you know, one of the things we talked about with Harry McDougall on Friday was that, you know, he has been, he's gone from a really powerful, prominent attorney in Washington, D.C. to kind of a leper almost in the community because of his allegiance to this mission, to the America First agenda and to President Trump. And so I'm here for it. All right. And then before we get into the big news of the day was, was Congress.

There was a lot that took place in Congress. So we got a lot of clips on that. I do want to jump into this story here from CBS News. US court convicts Japanese mafia leader for conspiring to traffic nuclear material to Iran. It says Takeshi Ebisawa, 61, had been jailed since April 2022 on drug and weapons charges, along with his Taiwanese co-defendant following years of investigations by the USDA. In February 24, he was also accused of trying to sell military-grade nuclear material along with narcotics, including heroin and methamphetamine, to buy weapons, including surface-to-air missiles for armed groups in Myanmar. Ebassawa didn't know he was communicating in 2020 in 2021 and 2022 with a confidential source for the DEA, along with the sources associate who posed as an Iranian general.

quote after initially offering uranium Ebisawa proposed to supply the general with plutonium that would be even better and more powerful than uranium for Iran's use the Justice Department said on Monday Ebisawa told the DEA confident confidential source in 2020 that he had access to a large quantity of nuclear materials that he wanted to sell the nuclear material came from an unidentified leader of an ethnic

insurgent group in Myanmar who had been mining uranium in the country samples of the alleged nuclear materials were obtained in a U.S. federal lab found they contained uranium, thorium, and plutonium, and that the quote isotope composition of the plutonium was weapons grade. Ebisawak conspired to sell 500 kilograms of methamphetamine and 500 kilograms of heroin to an undercover agent to be distributed in New York, worked and worked to launder $100,000 in purported. narcotics proceeds from the U.S. to Japan. That is, I mean, if that's not the epitome of how the intelligence apparatus works, and again, I'm not going to pretend to know, you know, I know how our intelligence works

with cartels and everything else. You have to assume, you know, going back to the origins of Operation Gladiow and the Luciano connections with the mob and New York and everything else in the, in the 40s and 50s and 60s, you got to think that they have some connections in yakuza and you're literally looking at a guy that's using drug profits to buy weapons especially weapons grade uranium and plutonium and you got to wonder if there was did he just kind of set his his course was set and he just you know we don't need this guy anymore let's give him a victory here we're seeing this now i i don't know i don't know but uh again concerning that a Japanese mafia member was able to in any way, shape, or form get their hands on nuclear materials and sell them potentially to Iran.

Let's jump into the war stuff. Iran war. I had a lot on it yesterday and it disappeared. This is actually kind of cool. Again, who knows if this is video game graphics or not, thermal imaging of an Iranian ship being sunk by a nuclear sub. this is the first this is the first time that a sub has sunk a ship since world war two and this is just i mean that's crazy to see that i mean that thing just that that oh no everything trump does he doesn't go back there you go good movie oh man enjoyed it i don't want to listen to that go back go

back sorry got it now got it now maybe not there we go now we got it that's nuts man like look it right about here man it's got that ship lifted up out of the water uh i don't know it looks like the ship might already be on fire like it's already been attacked i mean this is thermal so that could be any heat source but it sure looks like fire to me and it blows out of there that's just massive uh here's what secretary uh secretary of war uh secretary of war pete hexeth had to say about it. In the Indian Ocean, and we'll play it on the screen there, an American submarine sunk an Iranian warship that thought it was safe in international waters. Instead, it was sunk by a torpedo,

quiet death. The first sinking of an enemy ship by a torpedo since World War II. That's crazy. Like in that war, back when we were still the war department, we are fighting to win. I guess, you know, the main reason why it hasn't happened since 1942 is, oh, yeah, because that's the last time we actually fought a legitimate war. Every other war since then has been against proxy states. Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq. I mean, first off, the last two that I just named are landlocked. Well, Iraq's not, but Afghanistan is completely landlocked. Iraq is landlocked, isn't it?

I never dawned on me. I'm pretty sure it is. Okay, it's not landlocked. It has a little bit of shore on the Persian Gulf, 36 miles. It's got 36 miles of coastline. So yeah, it's safe to say they don't have a very strong, they don't have a very strong navy in Iraq. Anyways, but that's the last time we fought a legit war,

was when we were fighting against, you know, Germany, Japan, and the Allies. Italy, Italy's got a lot of coastline. All right. So the war thing there will bring me into the next story here from the Hill. Senate Republicans defeat measure to halt Iran strikes despite growing anxieties. The War Powers Resolution Act has been challenged again and shot down again. The motion to discharge the resolution from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee failed by a vote of 40. to 53. Rand Paul was the only Republican to vote to advance the measure,

meaning to reel in the authority to conduct this attack. Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski both voted to block the resolution, but both included notes of caution about the operation. Collins said before the vote that the administration had done a much, much better job explaining the mission to Congress than it had done during the assault to capture Nicholas Maduro. Murkowski agreed that the administration did a better job of earning GOP support for the strikes against Iran that it did before military, than it did before the military action against Venezuela. A recent Reuters Ipsos poll found that only 27% of respondents approved of the strikes against Iran.

27% approve of the strikes against Iran. Keep that number in mind. John Federman, Senator Fenerman, was the only Democrat to block the measure. jump down here. GOP lawmakers warned that pulling U.S. troops from an ongoing military conflict while Iran is launching hundreds of missiles against U.S. bases and installations

in the Middle East would be irresponsible. Would be irresponsible. Oh, look who decided to join us. Perfect timing of words, too, as he bring me up. Irresponsible? I'm starting to wonder if you were even in the Marine

Corps. What's up? man what's up brother oh talking about the war powers resolution and how there's just a w tf about who's supporting what and what's supporting who and everything else what do you mean a w tf about well you've got rand paul voting you got ramp paul voting for it you've got merkowsky and collins voting against it you got fetterman voting against it you got democrats voting for it you've got an ipso's Reuters poll showing 27% support for the attacks in Iran, that's not a good look for this administration, man. That is not at all a good look for this administration.

Explain. Well, so the Rand Paul thing, I mean, where do you side with that? You know, and I'm not talking about you specifically. I'm talking broadly here. You know, a lot of people ran Paul with the tariffs and everything. Rand Paul's a piece of shit. Yeah, blah, blah, blah, right? Okay, well, now he's the one that's voting against a war or he's voting actually.

actually to pull in Article 1, Section 8 powers back to Congress before declaring a war and pulling in the war powers resolution. But then on the other hand, you've got Murkowski and Collins and a bunch of others, of course, a bunch of, you know, war mongering Republicans. It's not just Collins and Murkowski. But then you've got the poll showing a 27% support. Now think about that on the contrast, the SAVE Act, right? 81%, 83%, 89%, whatever percentage you're at, and they can't get that passed. but then they're passing a war powers resolution when only 27% of Americans support the war in Iran. I don't think I believe that number.

But even if that was the case, it all has to do with people on how they verbalize that poll. Because does anybody want to go to war and it's no? But our war is necessary at times. So what have they done to us in the past to make the support for war go up, false flags? And there wasn't any false flags for this war. But if you look, why was there so much support around us going to war on 9-11? Well, because look at how it was presented. And the entire thing was propaganda.

So, you know, this administration didn't do that this time. As a matter of fact, Trump's been very transparent with regards to this combat operation. You know, he's been transparent about the time frame he expects. He's been transparent about we're probably going to lose some. of our some of our people he's been transparent about that but he also said a very important statement this war is not about or he didn't say war but he said this is not about right now this is about the future and and not a lot of people and this is ongoing off that the first statement he gave that one that was like eight minutes and six seconds or eight seconds whatever it was that's an

important statement what was he talking about right then and there and you know myself and a few others have been talking about this is really about this war that's you know you could say going on or prepping with china and finally political came out yesterday i'll grab it right now and bring it up for you came out and explained how this war is affecting china and it's it's articulating some of the main points that we talked about and this has to go with the oil and the energy crisis that it's creating for them and and so that that would be my question you know none of us have the the briefings that you know the information that president trump's available to right no but but hold on because stop there because that's not that's not that's not that's not a justification it no it's not

because the once this passes the 48 hour mark we got to get congress has to approve of this and i they just have to be notified they they have to be notified and they can reel that power in he's called this a war president trump has called this a war okay and there's no declaration of war And this isn't, this isn't, you know, this isn't a slight against President Trump because this has been happening since World War II. Every single war that we've been engaged in since World War II has been an illegitimate war. This is another illegitimate war. So he's also, and the word that he's used predominantly 98% of the time is combat operations. So we're going to ignore the fact that he calls it a combat operations and focus on the part.

Well, he did say it was a war once. His address, in his address, which is the notification of Congress, he calls it a war. He says America is at war. So he can call it a military operation after that. You're arguing semantics at that point. It is semantics. That's what everybody focuses on. But he still has.

What is it? He does a notification in 48 hours. He has 38 days for Congress to give the approval. And then he still has 30 days to withdraw. So he still has 60 days where he can commit combat operations and nobody can complain about it. I mean, everybody can complain about it, but they can't stop them. Correct. Now, what's the justification we've got?

We've heard. The justification we got, you have during Biden's administration, 300 or 287 times, the Houthis, who are a proxy of Iran, bombed American commercial and civilian vessels. That's not conspiracy. That's open source information. You have, what, three weeks ago, the Kameen goes and puts out a video, oh, the Gerald Ford's on the way to the United States. We will put it in the bottom of the ocean.

You have, what, two years ago, the parliament of Iran right there on TV with American flags burning it chanting death to America on top and I mean there's plenty of reasons for us to articulate that Iran is a threat to the United States and none of those have been articulated there's three points that have been articulated to us as to why this war is taking place one Iran can never have a nuclear weapon two Iran cannot have ballistic missiles that can protect us from being able to stop them when they do achieve a nuclear weapon and three Iran cannot have a navy Those are the three justifications of war that have been articulated to us. We've known about the Houthi engagement for years, years.

Hezbollah, you can talk about all of that. We've known about that for years, and we've never engaged Iran. Well, that, well, that's not smart. Why would you go up to Iran directly address their proxies first? And he did that. He addressed it with the Houthis, whether people like Israel or not, Israel's addressed Hezbollah and Hamas, regardless of what people's personal position on that, they still, you absolutely address the proxies first.

And the other thing that's very important is Trump did address the Houthis coming right into this administration. Like that was one of the first things that he came and started doing it. Because remember, that was going to be the endless wars that everybody told us that we're not a part of. But the other part, too, is Trump knew that this was coming. And one of the things, a telltale sign of that, and Ghost talks about it. He didn't talk about it through this perspective, but he does lay out the groundwork is look at the relationships that he built out there during this first 13 months with Saudi Arabia, with Qatar, with the, with, with, um, with, um, with, with, with, with all of them. He created an environment where everybody was seeing, hey, we're going to prosper.

He provided military, you know, deals with some of the countries that are surrounding there. Like he, he was, he's bringing this area to realize that we can prosper for. we're destabilized here. And what you will eventually end up seeing is as Trump and them do these main, these main initial attacks, these combat operations, the 60-day window we have. As Trump starts to pull out, you're going to see these other countries that are going to step in and take care of it. You're going to see the stabilization of that.

And what's one of the big deals here for those that do have issue with Israel is you've removed the threat of the big boogeyman. You know, during that first one with the military, where he took up the nuclear sites you saw that well they can potentially create again they can potentially create again kind of you know it's created the rhetoric that that you're talking about right now and I understand that but what you're seeing right now is the complete obliteration you're going to see a regime change there in the government whether people like it or not I mean I talked about this two years ago you're going to see a regime change that's there and you're going to see these countries that are it's going to

bring stabilization there and there are there are congressmen that have brought up the point that I'm talking about. I get it that Trump didn't put that in his 48-hour notice, but the reasons that he put would be considered more of an existential threat, they're a greater threat than the one I'm talking about. I'm just justifying that even though he's talking about the real-time threat, I'm talking about like these guys have been an issue for us for a very long time. And the four years before Trump, that administration did not deal with the problem. The problem there is not I ran in the nuclear weapon program. The problem there is not I ran in the ballistic missile program. The problem in that region right there is that the CIA has been running that country for five decades now,

for five decades. And this is why when he made the initial address, I loved the initial address. I loved it. I was like, okay, I'm in on this. Hasn't mentioned a single thing about it. We're getting news that the CIA is now backing Kurdish fighters to go in there on, you know, boots on the ground that president trump during that first address said we're going to obliterate this regime which they've done we we we allegedly uh i think he might have already been dead according to you know me and ghost talk about this but uh commeney's out killed you know whatever it was 47 48 49 of the the people that would have been successors to him or legitimate you know people that could have risen up and taken that place and and so our way of

of stabilizing that region is to take the CIA backed Kurds who have failed us over and over and over again. And we failed them too to be fair. I mean, we failed them. Yeah, we have. We have failed them. But this is the CIA. This isn't the United States of America doing this. Now, and I hear you.

So this is, I mean, I think this is the ultimate question. Oh, not the ultimate question. This is a big question that I have. But again, but with the Kurds, it goes back to, gosh, I interviewed him on people a while back. he carried the nuclear football. Buzz. Buzz tells the story, specifically about the Kurds, where he goes into the president's office and he's just like,

hey, this general wants you on the phone. They need to talk. And he's just like, no, come back. And so, you know, Buzz keeps going back and forth. Finally, the guy that's the general calls him, he was like, dude, I need to be on the phone with them now. By that time, it was too late because the Kurds, they said we were in a position where if the Kurds would have went,

they actually could have won. But, but in this goes to the point you're saying, we failed them. So my thing is if we judge military operations off the past, including the ones that me and you were both involved with, if we judge off of that, and we know that those were designed to fail. Like the military industrial complex was never looking for the victory. You saw a fast we smashed military objectives. We had you with Afghanistan and me and Iraq. So why did they turn out ultimately the way they did? Because they were never designed for us to win.

So if we look at every operation that we've been a part of in the past, it's, we're, we. We have to also understand that those were designed to come out to the outcome that they did. It was never a failure because us or our allies didn't have the ability to accomplish the mission. So what it comes down to now is Trump using the apparatus, even the CIA, you know, and I have issue with the CIA too. You know, I'm sure there's 1% that are good, maybe a few more. But I have, if it was my position, I would say, you know, the CIA and create something else. but is Trump using the apparatus right now to accomplish something good? And if we look at his actions historically, he's given us every right to trust them.

This is not blind trust. This is not this is not cult mentality. He's he has he's batting a thousand with the things that he's done. He's earned our trust so far with everything with the Houthis, you know, with Taiwan, with Venezuela, with everything he's done. He has not failed. this, even in the first administration or this administration when it comes to military maneuvers. So why would we doubt them this time? Because we are going headlong into another

potential decades long war. What evidence is there for that? What, what, what, what, where's, where's the exit ramp for President Trump on this? That, well, there's two. There's the one that they can force them into, which is the one we talk. Then he's dead. So, you, The words we got in his address was once we obliterate the administration, it's on you guys. And so he's dead. It's on them. Leave. Leave.

Let it settle itself out in there. The civilian part of the government, which he hasn't touched, the ones that were meeting with Whitkoff and Kushner, when those guys tell them, hey, we now have the ability to fulfill the things we have, what we were really negotiating about that nobody knew. Now you can slowly back out. And I think this is where you're going to see the collaboration of other countries in that region come in there. It's not going to be us staying there and being, you know, the police force that we've always been. Because, you know, Eric Prince is dying for that. You know, he practically said it in that interview that he did with Bannon. So when people see that we don't.

Practically said what? That he's dying to get boots on the ground in there? He didn't say that. What he said is, you can't win this with just airstrikes at all. You have to have ground troops. What's he saying? But he also said under no circumstances should you send ground troops in there? Exactly.

Well, guess what? He didn't want ground troops in Venezuela either, but he was sending out what those, the memos or whatever, the, the, the discombobulator. The, gosh, the proposal for all the, because he wants to put operators. He wants the ground troops to him. He doesn't ever want that in there because that's, that's not his. business. He's saying, hey, you don't have to put ground troops in there. I have contractors for you guys to put in there, which is the military industrial complex, which is a deep state, which is the other part of the CIA. And he's wrong. Trump is showing you can absolutely do this

with, and we know it's not just air strikes. He does have ground intelligence that we'll probably never know about, but we know it exists. They've said, oh, it's Mossad, but we know damn well, we probably have special forces that are, that are on, you know, Iran's soil. Like, there's nobody will admit it no one's not going to convince me that's not the case but there's a reason they're so damn accurate with these precision airstrikes and you're going to see that you're going to see either trump forced out you know um the way we were talking about with congress not giving him the approval or you're going to see him you know beat that and be like all right you know we've accomplished it they're in a position where they can do this we've seen that they've taken because i think he just

still needs to take out that police force because that's just another version of the r gc but regardless of what he continues to take out, you're going to see him back out. You're going to see the region that comes in there and starts doing any combat operations that are left. That's going to be the exit strategy. And the reason we know this is because people like Tucker Carlson are already trying to sell that as a loss.

This is what he's going to say to make up that he didn't, that he didn't really win. And they know that. And why are they selling that as a loss now? Because they know that's always what was going to happen. If a lot of us were able to talk about that, before this happened and exactly when it happened because we knew what was going to play out, because we have been accurate about everything,

then Tucker Carlson is trying to sell a narrative to make it look like a loss for President Trump. Who's been accurate about everything? As far as the worst stuff, myself and Josh. You guys that Trump was going into Iran? Absolutely. When? I would love to see that clip. So not only, we didn't just predict, as soon as he struck Venezuela,

and everybody said Iran was next. And you can ask the people in the audience right now. I said, Iran's not going to be next. You're going to see operations that are going to take place in either Mexico or Colombia. Then you'll see Iran. And as soon as he hit Iran, ask everybody what I said. I said, now he's going to move back to South America. All right.

And all of a sudden, you saw the stuff with the cartels in Ecuador. And the reason being is because this is not about war in the Middle East. I don't have a, I don't have a crystal ball. Josh doesn't have a crystal ball. this is all about China. And when people start to look at it through the lens that this is about China, then you start looking at what he did for Iran by attacking the proxies. This is what he's doing to China.

Since this is an energy war, and the only reason the energy matters is because this is an artificial intelligence war. This goes back to a conversation that we've had before. And that's what he's doing. When he went after Venezuela, people were like, China doesn't get most of its oil from Venezuela. Well, if you just Google Venezuela, it'll be a very small amount. But if you dive a little deeper and you look into the shell companies, you realize, holy smokes,

China gets a ton of their oil from Venezuela. The next marker after that is Iran. He just went after two of the largest power sources for China when, and because China was capitalizing off these people, because they're getting at a very cheap price. So now China is going to be forced to buy oil from us with Venezuela at market value. They're going to be forced to do the same when it's. comes to Iran. You have China. I believe yesterday now. This I didn't confirm, but I did hear people talking about it that China saying, hey, we're not exporting diesel fuel or anything, these other

things. And why is this the case? You don't need oil for the AI part of the infrastructure, but you do need oil to build the parts that you need for the energy of the AI structure. And so what Trump is doing right now, this goes back to Hillary Clinton. There's a reason she's in this timeline right now, with her testimonies, and I don't think they ever questioned her about this, I haven't completely finished it yet. But when she gave up the SAP program, the special access programs to China with technology, we know that that probably included artificial intelligence. Trump knows what they have. He's destroying their ability for them to get there before us, or at least slowing them down.

And that's what this has all been about. We are going to have a war. It's not going to be with Iran. It's going to be with China. and one of the flags for when that's going to be coming in a few months is I would look for when General Flynn releases that book. My estimation after that is within six to eight months, we will be in a war with China. And what Trump's doing right now, he's positioning us for that. And we'll see.

We'll see. All right. We can move on from this. I thought we'll talk about this. Office schooling can't con. Frittman Dan just said we're ending a four. 47 year war. You bought into the Fox News. Crap. Keep going.

Look, this is going to destroy him in the midterms, man. It's going to destroy him in the midterms. Again, if that's the case, he just supported 33 people and all 33 people won. Tell me how that proves that people are pissed with them. It's the primaries, dude. It's the primaries. We don't get to say that he's going to lose the midterms that are only a couple months away. The primaries are fake.

Now, whether we like the candidates. that he endorsed or not and at grant there's you know probably two or three that we can make an argument for that people don't like it and i and i get it still all 33 or i think it's up to 32 or 33 i could be getting the wrong one i actually go with 32 because 33 people can call me free mason so all 32 people that he endorsed one that shows support for him whether we agree or not now here's the other thing too and and we actually talked about this on on on on daily and in some other shows is people are going to win that we're probably not happy with. And right now what people have to do is, is separate a motion and go with Trump needs to have Republicans in certain positions that are going to vote with him the majority of the time because he's going to win.

And that's why we knew Whitley was going to win. It was one of the names that talked about Montana guys right now. Susan Collins is going to win. And the reason being is there's not other people in those positions that are going to beat out the Democrats. And you've got to have Republicans that are in there. Regardless of what deals you make, you got to have Republicans that are in there. Now, this is, again, all contingencies to him not fixing the elections, which, you know, me and you agree completely on that part. But outside of that happening, this is the formula for us to maintain control of the Senate since we're probably going to lose the House.

All right. Well, there we have it. Four decades of president starting wars. We all heralded President Donald Trump for not starting any new wars. and now we're all celebrating it. So, hey, that makes me a black piller, guys. I will black pill all day long. I will black pill all day long. He hasn't started a war yet.

I mean, he declared his own war. He declared that he started a war. He's getting... I don't think he started it. And to be fair, I did go back and I said, I think he's responding to Israel jumping the gun because Israel wants that to be shot down quicker than anything, you know, the destruction of Iran.

And I do think they jumped the gun. I think Rubio was right. Ruby had to walk it back because the optics on that. I disagree with Israel wanting the destruction of Iran. Oh, yeah. They want the destruction of Iran. Oh, yeah. Because again, if Iran is destroyed,

they have no boogeyman. They have no boogeyman. Israel just, Israel wanted the threat of Iran to never be destroyed. That's what they wanted because that would have allowed them to keep expanding, expanding, expanding. Once you erase that, right now, But I would look is I started looking at what other countries is, is Benjamin Netanyahu talking about they're a threat because he's going to have to find a new boogeyman. And when he does, because he's going to, clip this part, he's going to, they're going to present another country.

That's going to make the American people as well as people around the world start to be like, man, you first you said, you talked about, you talked about Hezbollah, you talked about Hamas, you talked about Iran. And now you're saying this country is not that these other three people are going to put two to two together and finally get four. And when I say people, I'm not talking about our audience. I'm talking about like, well, I can't wait until people start like cheering on NATO again and like, yeah, NATO's in from the war. Turkey got hit. I can't wait to watch people just completely flip on this. What? Went from people who who were like, yeah, no new wars and everything.

And now they're fucking cheering for it. This is crazy to watch. Let me prepare you guys. Let me prepare you guys. You guys will start watching mainstream media again. Mark my words. Oh. You want me to tell you why?

Because mainstream media. They want to continue peddling narratives that we've been at war with Iran for 47 years. Well, we're not going to watch them as long as they're doing that. We're not going to watch them as long as we're doing that. People will start watching mainstream media again because they're finally going to start telling the truth. They're finally going to start reporting things. You're going to see the Smith Mutt Mac repealed before the end of Trump's presidency. and you're going to see mainstream.

And one of the things is you're seeing mainstream media starting to see this. They're starting to tell the truth on stuff. You're seeing people post on social media like, like CNN said that. I mean, they've always given out tidbits of truth. But not on major things. On major things,

they've always come after, I mean, unless there was something that was irrefutable, but they would rugpole. You haven't seen CNN come out and saying Trump can do tariffs. You haven't seen any political reporting exactly what I'm talking about. with the oil energy thing with China. And this is not a bad thing, though, before people flip out.

It's not a bad thing because what's going to happen is mainstream media is going to be the check and balance for alt media because it's going to force alt media to stop going so crazy on some of the conspiracy theories and being a little bit more responsible. Hey, this is fact. This is speculation. And so that balance of, hey, if alt media this completely goes, you know, extremist conspiracy, we're going to lose a good portion of the audience to mainstream because they're telling the truth now. And the mainstream checks and ballots is going to be this threat that they've now

experienced with all media. It'd be like, hey, we better stay consistent with our honesty and truthful reporting. And it will actually be a benefit for the audience. Well, I hope you're right. And this is a very short war. So we'll see. But then I hope you're wrong that it ends up in a Chinese war because that is mutually assured destruction. So I, I agree. I agree with that and and I'm hoping I'm hoping she is able to deal with the CCP over there because if he is I think the alternative because I do think it'll be a huge war the alternative will be guerrilla warfare and I think if it goes to guerrilla warfare which is what will be that would be better that's going to be because the CCP has lost its complete control over the entire you know country of

China and hopefully it turns into something where it's like Iran where we're assisting Qi with certain strategic strikes and things like that. We'll see because I agree with you. It would be damn scary for mutual destruction. Yeah, I think it will also be fought over proxy. Probably someplace like Taiwan first. Whether or not it escalates will show who has more, well, both sides have restraint to attack mainlands.

Somebody did put that, you know, they didn't like that. I'm saying that it's okay to attack China or set up this proxy war at China. And I get that. But also understand China's been doing that to us, folks. What do you think that that immigration crisis into the United States was? That wasn't free. China was a large part of helping to facilitate that. How do you think all those people from those countries got to South America?

So just understand that, yeah, you may consider it not right, but it's also unrestricted warfare. And China has been attacking us by proxy, too. All right. Let's move on here. This clip went pretty viral yesterday. I can't listen to it. So I'm going to remove my headphones. If you guys are sensitive, you might not want to either. But this Marine goes into the congressional hearing, starts yelling about Israel starting the war and gets his arm snapped. It's fucking gross. I'll listen to it. No one. Hand his hand. All right. Did it already happen? Oh my. gosh I hope we're on the same page on this one I hope man probably not well we probably are we

probably are I agree with what he's saying I don't think he should be putting his uniform on to say it and also that that's not the place to say it either so and then we well there's one thing other thing I'll add we agree so far freedom speech he can say whatever he wants so completely have no issue there absolutely have issue with him doing it in uniform absolutely have issue with him resisting arrest he had I I use this, you know, with, you know, the people I was talking to yesterday because of course, like you, I was getting tagged by everybody. Some people just want us to shit on the Marine Corps, which I'm never going to do ever, right? Listen, the Marine Corps could push the button launching a nuke when it's not justified.

I will still not shit on my Marines. I will then be considered a bad guy because I, Marine Corps forever, baby, right? But in all seriousness is, you know, you remember when we had show. dollar on yeah he did something he didn't do in the in the blues but he did in an in our marine corps uniform and he accepted owned and identified that what he was doing was wrong and that he would accept the consequence of that he said i'm making this choice because i i am trying to make a point here but i'm also going to accept the responsibility that comes with my choice and you know should should should shall have done that in uniform no he shouldn't have but again he accepted the responsibility

what you're seeing with these people and the other guy and gal um that that did it a couple months ago last year is they want to use the uniform for the notariding to send the message but then they want to avert the responsibility if they know what the UCMJ is every single one of us that was in the military regardless of the branch knows the UCMJ. And guess what? If you're going to violate the UCMJ, there's a consequence for that. So if you want to go in there and your dress blues and make the statement, go in there in your dress blues and make the statement and then man up like a real man did,

like Schaller did and take the responsibility of that action. Don't sit there and fight. He broke his arm for being a dumbass. But Scheller was commissioned. This guy's not active duty anymore. We can still be held by the UCMJ. not if you're not if you're not if you're if you have to be medically you have to be retired or you have to be uh yeah you have to be retired uh enlisted and you you've done your your uh what the fuck is it called the inactive reserves you're yeah until your i r runs out you you you the UCMJ still owns you he's got an Iraq ribbon and a car I'm pretty sure his IAR is out plus he's a sergeant uh so you know your your your IAR only applies if you

do four and done. If he did eight years, the IAR gets eliminated by those next four years. I will not argue because I'm not completely confident on that one. I would say we should probably look that one. I'm 100% sure on that. Because you just have you, are you? What could it's different? If you do, hold on. If you do four years and then you get out, you have to do four years in active reserves. Right. I'm not talking about that part. If you do four years, if you do eight years, active duty, your IAR is gone. You don't have to do IAR when you get out. So whatever time over your four years that you go into your next enlistment, if you only enlist for two more years, then you only have to do two years of IAR once you get out. Okay. That's fine. But the point I'm trying to make is I'm not completely, I'm not completely confident that you have to just be on IRR. And the reason being is you have some of these people that go and wear a military uniform that were never in the military and NCIS is investigating that and these are people that were never even in the military no you can't an enlisted you know service member that's not subject to like not

retired either medically or time you know based on your time and service uh they they can't recall you for the UCMJ now if you're if you're a commissioned officer they can that's what they tried to do with Mark Kelly they're going to do it with them I hope they dropped the hammer on them even harder. I don't think so, but he, I don't know that they're going to do anything. Shea he's in a lot of shit, man. Tim Shea he got out of his chair. Senator Tim Shea he got out of his chair and ran over there and was pulling on the dude when he got, when he got, uh, when he got his arm broke.

What's on with that? A senator? Yeah. Oh, no way, dude. Why? You don't do that. So let me ask you this. Let's just say that Marine, well, I won't say the Marine guy, I don't put the Marine guy.

Let's just say a suspect was beating up on one of the people in the audience there. And Shehey runs over there and tackles that person until the Capitol Police get there or helps the Capitol Police with this guy that was attacking one of the people that was there observing. Would you know of us have issue with that? Say that again? Let's just change the scenario what he went for. Instead of him going over there because a guy was yelling, let's just say that there was a guy there that was beating up on one of the audience members. And Shehey runs over there to help Capitol Police stop this guy from beating up on one of the audience members. nobody would have issue with that you're you're you're you're stopping a forcible felony in doing

that this guy was not there was no forcible felony that was going on here it doesn't have to be a felony yeah it does it has to be a crime no no has to be a crime against another person like the guy's just being removed capital police had that under control show me the law or thinking things gonna happen to him but it's it's horrible optics no it's not oh he's getting in your algorithm They're hailing them as a hero in mine. And I agree with that. And I hope that every other person that goes in there acts like a loud mouth that there's brave congressman that'll get up there and open a can of whip ass on them. My algorithm shows a complete opposite, which is this is a good point for people to be aware of.

Is what you're seeing in your timeline reality or is it the reality of what just your algorithm is? Because obviously me and Cancon have two different perspectives off of this based of what we're seeing on our timelines. all right um let's see where are we going to go next because i did not plan on going off on an hour long detour on all that all right let's jump into this conversation though man because there's a there's a lot of people out there that are only getting like one perspective on that on which i'm not not talking about shahy and talking about the iran the iran conflict what's going on i mean yeah but i i think sit rep will be a much better venue for that conversation, than a daily news.

We've got to get a lot of news to get through still. All right. Let's jump into this story. House kills effort to release all congressional sexual misconduct and harassment reports. Please tell me you agree with me on this one. Have you seen this report yet? I have not seen it. Okay.

Nancy Mace forced a floor vote. I'm not a huge fan of Nancy Mace, but this bill right here that she, resolution, excuse me, that she introduced. She forced a floor vote on a resolution directing the House Ethics Committee. to make public all reports on allegations of congressional lawmakers and aides engaging in sexual misconduct or harassment. In a 357 to 65 vote, the House voted to refer the Mace resolution to committee, a move that effectively kills it in a joint statement. The Republican and Democratic leaders of the committee argued that, quote, it could chill victim cooperation and witness

participation in ongoing and future investigations, end quote, and would make it harder for committee for the committee to, quote, investigate and eliminate sexual misconduct in the House. Here and elsewhere, perpetrators of sexual misconduct should never be shielded from responsibility for their misdeeds as Chairman Michael Guest, but they added that, quote, victims may be retramatized by public disclosure of interim work product, excerpts of interview transcripts, and certain exhibits, and witnesses who often only speak to the committee confidentially or on conditions of future anonymity, could fear retouches. retaliation if their cooperation is made public.

So do you think Congress should be able to hide behind sexual misconduct allegations based on, you know, essentially no transparency? They don't have to release this information. But we as a taxpayer have to pay the settlements that go into it. No, hell no. I think it should be transparent, 100% transparent. Now, with that, I think that, you know, whether it's substantiated or whether it's proven to be unsubstantiated, that that needs to be immediately made.

available too because you could destroy people's careers by just making a bunch of false allegations knowing that it's going to make its way to the media. Damn, I was kind of hoping you'd push back because I wanted to see the chat start lobbying for concealing sexual misconduct crimes by our senators. I'm just kidding. They wouldn't do that. The war thing's contentious. I get that.

This is something that's not contentious. Holding Congress accountable is something that should not be contentious in any way, shape or form. And I'm with you. The fact that there was only, what was it, 65 votes to hold them accountable. tells you all you need to know about Congress. I don't know how many allegations made against them is what it, I shouldn't say that, but you can probably say that.

Now, let's go ahead and we got a clip here of Una-Panuna talking about that exact thing. And let's go ahead and jump into that. I support Representative Mace's subpoena here as well as the amendment to it. And I just think it's really disgusting how this institution protects itself because y'all just half of them voted to send this stuff to house ethics where you know it's going to die. We know that members of Congress are using taxpayer dollars to pay off sexual harassment. We just had a member of Congress literally sexually harassing one that then lit herself on fire and you guys all

protected him. You guys all protected my own side, your side. And so if you guys want to talk about victims, if you want to go out and virtue signal and then you guys are going to kill her stuff on the floor and then try to pass. Yeah, of course, we should subpoena all this stuff. But just I'm not going to sit here in play games. I think it's a complete fraud. I think that's why the American people hate us. I think the midterms are coming up and everyone should go on record for this. And I hope that members are exposed for this. I hope it goes back, I think it to the 70s, because it's wrong that it's happening. It's wrong that we cover up for it. It's wrong that we can't center our own side because people are busy making deals because you guys want to

center your side. It's a deal that's been cut. People hate us for it. So yeah, I support it. One of the most intelligent things I've ever heard from. So that brings me to and I was going to play a clip of Thomas Massey hammering on this from last year or two years ago, 2024. But, you know, I don't want to, I don't want to piss you off too much this early in the morning for you over there. I'm, you're happy. Your extra beauty sleep. I'm happy as hell with all the people that are starting to trash on mass.

I was like, y'all finally seen it. Let's go. Let's go. All right. Now I got to play it because it's not trash out. You know, Congress has paid over $17 million in hush money for sexual misconduct. conduct inside of the offices in these buildings. And what's more is that was taxpayer money, right?

The allegation is that President Trump paid $130,000 of his own money. But here in Congress, we have, there may be some on this dais. I mean, I'm for turning loose all of these records. Who in here has had the taxpayer pay for their sexual misconduct charges the hush money? I bet there's some over there. There may be some over here. I don't know, but I do know it's taxpayer money, and I do know not a single penny of it has been turned in as a campaign finance expense. I mean, is the FEC going to investigate the $17 million that Congress has paid to settle, you know, behind closed doors of these sexual misconduct allegations?

Congressman, if a complaint were to come to us about it, I'm sure it would be thoroughly investigated. sure would could you bring that up one more time but with massey not the other guy i go ahead say it i was thinking it sure looks like a different massy to me you just saying it i said dude i said it when we watched the last time we played a clip of him that is not the same thomas massy yeah he's he's he's got a new relationship okay he's like spider man when spider man gets the the symbiote on him and turns into boss spider man and and you see toby was it was it uh toby keith or toby keith toby mcoy do you have the ability to do like a side by side so people can see it i mean i get it i think a lot of people exploit that you know oh it's not the same person but

there are a few situations where it does seem kind of irrefutable i mean it just when you look at that mass and you look at this massy there are some significant differences you You know, little things like the nose and the ear size, you know, and granted, can it do lose some weight, especially, you know, in the loss? Yeah, I can go with that. But at the same time, I mean, a beard can do some crazy things, I guess. I don't know. Even his nose looks different, man. I'm with you.

It doesn't strike me as the kind of man that would go get a nose job. I mean, that would be a reasonable explanation, but I just don't think that. He might be pretty vain, you know. Maybe he lost his way, getting back on his, you know, getting back on the in the market. I'm willing to, to entertain that. That is definitely, it's logical. It is. I'm with that.

It's weird. I'm with you. I said it a long time ago. I'm with you. All right. So we do also have, uh, the Tim Walls and Keith Ellison hearing. And I want to play this clip here. I think this is Brandon Gill in this clip, uh, hammering.

Tim Walls over the Somali fraud. And when were you, when did you become governor? In January of 2019. In 2019. Okay, so using 2018 as a baseline, do you know what that program paid in Medicaid claims? I do not, Congressman. It's about $671,000. Do you know what that program paid in Medicaid claims in 2024?

I don't have the number in front of me. $342 million. That's about a 500x increase over six years. What, first and foremost, what program? Alpha, in what world can you have a 500 time increase, a 34,000% increase in an expense and not raise massive red flags? I can tell you this. And I think I've shared it with you. So I used to work for social services a very long time ago.

He told us that a while back. Yeah, for about three years. I was a medical eligibility technician here in California. I can tell you with personal experience all the way back to the early 2000s, right? That when we start to approve certain cases at a rate, and this is, at least as we believe, far beyond artificial intelligence ever being a part of computer software programs. This was just human people analyzing things.

The second, there was a slight increase that was recognized as an anomaly. it triggered meetings. Like people come, what's going on? Was there a crisis? Was there a flooding? Was there a fire? Was there a cat? You know, what's the word I'm looking for when there's a big thing that happens in states? I can't think of the word. Catastrophe. Yeah. Was there a catastrophe, you know, a catastrophic event that unfolded?

Like in the absence of that, the workers were being brought into saying, hey, are they understanding the formulas? are are is there a training issue that's going on here you're going to take 500x that is impossible impossible not to flag these institutions that are designed to pick up the smallest anomaly that means these anomalies were picked up and ignored picked up and ignored picked up and ignored that's the only way that that happens uh people disagreeing with me i'm just no no no no no i just think it's hilarious that you know somebody that like 20 minutes ago was like can con shut up alpha's right is now like massie's uh massy's playing a role he's not a bad guy get into a fight with alpha over that it's it's hilarious it's rich to watch that no i'm with man like any any type of increase

in an expenditure like that would would and and if if i had my business if i went if i had a 500x increase in my revenue over six or seven years the irs would be knocking down my door the irs would be all over me i wouldn't be able to breathe and meanwhile we've got all of this going on let's keep getting in here because uh brandon gill killed it like you could literally sum up the because i've been listening to clips all day all night and all morning getting ready for today and this one pretty much nails all of it was sort of 500 times the number of autism patients uh in in that time period i couldn't speak specifically to it but i will say congressman that that doesn't sound reasonable right you know i that was a 500x increase in

the number of autism patients in six years, right? Correct. And that's why we ordered on-site visits starting back in 20. So we agree that that doesn't sound reasonable. Would you also agree that a single taxpayer dollar wasted on fraud is a dollar too much to tolerate? Yes. Yep. And would you agree that as governor, ultimately you're responsible if tax dollars are defrauded? Yes, I would agree.

Would you also agree that calling somebody racist is a serious accusation? If they are racist, I think it's kind of acting you. Is that a serious accusation to make about somebody? I think it's just an observation of reality. All right, well, let's go there. Is it racist for a government official to identify fraud? No. No, is it Islamophobic?

Do identify fraud? Do I identify fraud? No, I don't believe it would be. How come multiple whistleblowers have said that your administration told them not to say anything about widespread fraud across multiple agencies because doing so would be considered racist or Islamophobic? I can't speak to it because it's not anything I would say. Well, that's what your administration has said and has told whistleblowers. And as you just testified, the buck stops with you.

That's what you stated in your statement whenever you announced you weren't running again. Are you familiar with Faye Bernstein? I, yes, I'm familiar with the name. She's a Democrat, isn't she? I wouldn't know that. She's stated publicly that she's a Democrat. She's only voted Democrat in her life. She's also stated publicly that she was retaliated against and called racist

and that her work responsibilities were diminished whenever she was highlighting fraud within your administration. Are you familiar with that? I couldn't speak. Why do you think she would say that? I can't speak with what you did. No idea? I do not.

You would agree that the tone in your administration comes from you ultimately, right? The tone is that? The tone of how you might deal with whistleblowers. Right, and we protect them. It doesn't sound like you're protecting them. We heard from Representative Kristen Robbins, quote, we have dozens of credible whistleblower reports saying the exact same thing that people were told not to say anything

because they'd be called racist or Islamophobic or it would hurt the state. Do you think it's racist or Islamophobic to highlight and try to stop fraud? It is not, and I certainly don't know. It's not, but that was the message your administration was sending multiple whistleblowers. I can't speak to that. So it wasn't just the whistleblowers. So in the Feeding Our Futures fraud program, a company that went from a nonprofit with $3 million in revenue to a not for-profit corporation, they lost their nonprofit status, became a for-profit organization, and their revenues increased to over $200 million behind COVID. And this is the group that was, you know,

allegedly feeding school children that weren't able to get meals in school. They were feeding them at restaurants. Huge fraud program. The whistleblowers tried to sue them for that and, you know, stop it. And in the case against feeding our futures, they literally called the people racist for trying to stop them from being able to feed these people. Nobody threw up the red flags. Have they quoted how much the amount of fraud is? recently. I know back, you know, at the beginning before Tom and all got out that there was some numbers, but do we have like an updated number?

No, I mean, you see nine billion and 19 billion are the two numbers that are thrown about the most. We haven't seen like any official numbers yet. We haven't seen any action. You know, one of the stories you miss before we got in here before you got here was the auto pen story, you know, about that going away now. and, you know, I said that the criminal case against the auto pen is going by the wayside, but I still think there's a legitimization case that needs to be made against preemptive pardons as a whole, like whether or not preemptive pardons are a legit thing. And the reason I bring this up is I think that this is playing into the Doge thing and everything that happened with Doge and whether or not we're going to see this fraud get exposed. We haven't seen the DOJ prosecute anybody yet.

But again, like you said, we don't have any solid official numbers yet other than what they tell us in these congressional hearings, which they're protected by speech and debate. So it could all be utter bullshit. But it's probably not. Yeah, there's that. We'll see. Has the administration come out and confirm that? Because I do know that there was two articles. And they were saying this is what was told.

But I haven't seen any confirmation. But again, I haven't looked for confirmation since probably. early this afternoon yesterday. But I was kind of curious is it's going to be one of those ones that Trump comes out, like the Pentagon one and be like, we didn't say that. I mean, he's,

I know he's posted the nine and 19 billion, you know, I'm talking about the auto pin. Oh, the auto pen. Um, no, they're,

they're saying that, uh, uh, Janine Piro is the one that has, they're being told that they drop the case. Now, again, I don't think there was a criminal case to be made in the auto pen.

at least not against Joe Biden. And there was there was solid points for that. I remember that. But I think there is a delegitimizing. I don't, you know, prosecute the people that that may have, you know, run this, you know, subverted the president. Prosecute them. But I'm more concerned about delegitimizing the pardons and getting those things thrown out. Which he did.

Well, he did, but they're still protected. Like, we don't have a court case yet. Like we haven't tried to prosecute Adam Schiff yet and see. Oh, no, no, no, but what I'm saying is he did do the, I was, I think it was executive that revoked all those, those partners because they weren't legitimate. And I think the whole pumping up of the auto pin was to get the court of a public opinion to support that. You know, so nobody, nobody could argue it. So, and the other thing people have to remember and actually had a, dude, I was kind of shot.

I'll be quick about this so we can get on with the news things. But a detective I used to work with. said, hey, man, you guys are kicking ass on that show. And I was like, you watch? One, and he does. So, you know, shout out to him. That's watching. I don't know if he wants me to say his name or not.

Probably doesn't. Because he's still there. But one of the things he says is he goes and I was like, dang, that's a good point. He goes, remember that when you arrest someone, now if you want to bring them in for questioning on other investigations, it's not as easy as before because this is someone that's probably now retained counsel and all that stuff. So as long as you haven't formally charged someone, it's easier to continue to go back home visits,

bring them in, go by their work and do these things. Just because if someone's charged, yes, and they lower you up. You're done asking questions in that scenario. And technically you can regarding separate uninvolved investigations. But if you know that those uninvolved investigations,

ultimately can be involved because you're establishing a criminal enterprise, you violated that person's rights. So it was a solid point. I just wanted to bring that to everybody's attention because I even forgot about that. Okay, so we're going to start to wrap up here. I do want to play this clip here. Jordan Connorsen over at Gateway Pundant got the opportunity to ask Representative Tim Burchett, who is quickly becoming one of my favorite congressman,

epic response, epic response to all of the shenanigans that, you know, we just saw in that hearing. we just played Brandon Guild. Jim Jordan had a fantastic segment with him. They also went after Keith Ellison for the same thing. You know, why you're not prosecuting this fraud in that kind of thing. But here's Burchett. What do you think so far of this hearing, Tim Walls, Keith Ellison, are you convinced? No, man, look, $19 billion. I was in the state legislature, and that was the budget for the whole state of Tennessee. $19 billion have been stolen. They're covering. They're not going to do a day in jail. everybody's going to ring their hands and talk real tough. We need to get some guts and start arrest in some of these things.

That's DOJ, right? Yeah, they need to step it up. People are fed up. I don't care if a Republican or Democrat or whatever. You're stealing my goddamn money. I want it back and I want your ass in jail. Let's go. We need more from that.

Again, I still think, and I said this at Gart, Vegas, I don't think we start seeing the arrests until after the midterms. And so I'm not going to, you know, I'm not going to go. I'm not going to black pill like I am on the Iran war. I'm not going to black pill on the arrests until after the midterms. But I am, I am getting a little antsy on the election stuff because that is coming up very quickly. And we got to get moving on all the election stuff. So what else we want to talk about?

Speaking of elections, Ken Paxton. So President Trump is supposed to endorse somebody in that race. Ken Paxton, John Cornyn. And we've got a couple of stories on that real quick here. First, let's just get into the reporting on how much they're spending on it. This is what makes a lot of people at home just go, er, about politics. This is the most expensive Senate race in history. $71 million spent just in favor of Senator Cornyn, the Republican incumbent.

$71 million spent for one candidate who's probably going to be a runoff. So they're going to probably have to do it again. But then you look at the other races there. Pro Telerico, 24.3 million. right where does that money come from bro exactly exactly 71 million dollars in a primary for one candidate and by the way he's running neck in neck with the guy that spent four million four point four million is what paxton spent and if we if we if we if we pair that up with the anti-coran then that's what seven eight point one million

8.1 million. Now, what's interesting there is they don't have anti-Paxton money on that chart. Do you see anti-Paxon up there? No, just pro-Paxon, pro-Paxon, anti-hunt, yeah. That's interesting. I am very curious to see who President Trump endorses in this. There's a lot of speculation that Trump is going to endorse Cornyn because the endorsement is a is a bargaining chip to get them to put the Save Act on the floor. and you know if he does do that again it's one of those situations where you use your discernment i'm still going i'm still pulling for paxton in that race um well it's our job to to try to amplify the people we want like doc chambers like paxton you know i agree um and just do our best to try to understand the geopolitical maneuvering that trump does you know what the with the with the people he endorses but it's our it's not our job and i i said this in the when when john brought me on

devolution power hour it honesty is the only way we have to act however we honestly feel about whatever it is that we're witnessing now granted we got to do research that way we know that you know the the you know the reporting we're doing or opinions that that we're doing are not just emotional base you know where our honesty is based off of our research that's important But I think the biggest mistakes that a lot of people make is, well, if he's going to do this endorsement for this to do this to do this, then that's how I feel about that because that's a whole lot of what if he to come to a conclusion. It's just be honest in the moment. And then as things develop, then your opinion can change on those things. Like for instance, you guys all know my position on Massey, right?

Is there a possibility that he could be playing a role like somebody said? Yeah, that's a possibility. but that's not going to change how I feel about them. Now, if that ever comes too light, then it would change the way I feel about him. But in the moment, the way he's pushing back and the things that he's saying and the lies that he's telling, I don't call him out on that.

All right. Let's play this clip just real quick of Paxton. Well, we don't have to play the clip. Paxton basically says here that, you know, even if President Trump does endorse Cornyn and calls for Paxton to drop out of the race, that he's going to stay the path. And he's going to fight it out.

And I think he's going to win, to be honest with you. I don't see, I don't see President Trump is tremendous influence, more influence than anybody. And I think I don't know if it will hold up against Paxton versus Cornyn. I think Cornyn is so, remember when Cornyn was supposed to be the Senate majority leader and they had to pull that? Like President Trump couldn't get him across that finish line. You know, he was getting absolutely, they were getting blasted for promoting Cornyn. And then it ends up going to Thune, which is equally as bad, if not worse, potentially worse. I don't know one way or the other.

But yeah, we'll see. Keep your eyes on Texas. A couple of the guys that I talk to pretty often. These are Texas folks, right? Like these guys are in the mud of Texas politics. And man, they are struggling with some of the stuff that that's been unfolding. But they're saying that if Trump comes out and endorses Cornyn, that he is going to create a lot of people that don't normally vote and runoffs. You know, you already got bad numbers for primaries.

You get worse numbers for runoffs that he is going to create a lot of people to come vote. Like that's one of the considerations. I don't know. I do not know enough about voting strategy and all that stuff. I just found it interesting that that was a take. You know, you always have to remember when you look at a lot of this stuff, Alpha, is that even for the audience that's watching right now, we are a very small minority in the in the in the in the grand scheme of things in terms of you know most people are still watching the fox news is in the cnons and all that stuff not most but a chunk of people and a lot of people don't watch any news whatsoever and so you know they're going to go just based off of what president trump says in this case now um i would hope to think that texans are a little bit you know do their own due diligence and all that i think anybody should but i think that i don't i don't i i think that i don't i i I don't know if if Trump endorses Cornyn, I think Cornyn wins, unfortunately.

I mean, is he that much, is he that much despised by Texans in general that a Paxton would win? Well, I don't, you know. I don't think that it's Trump to because I, and I agree with you because again, every single endorsement Trump pulled one. So, and I presented that to the guys that brought up that point. I was like, y'all playing with fire with that theory. But again, I don't know to access politics. But I do agree with you on that perspective that if Trump gives endorsement, that that's going to be a hard one to be.

Here's my question, though. Did Paxton have to relinquish his position in order to do this race? Like, let's just say he loses. If he loses, does he still be the AG, right? I don't know. Let me look it up. It says that he did not have to resign to run. So he would still be the Attorney General.

Yes. Yes, they only have to relinquish if they're a district clerk, county judge, district attorney, or sheriff. Or if they win. Under Article 16, yeah, and if they went, if under Article 16, Section 65 of the Texas Constitution, a person is only required to resign from their current office to run for another if they hold one of the specific roles listed,

such as district clerk, county judge, district attorney or sheriff, Texas Attorney General is not among those offices. It's one of only five states with a resigned to run law, but it applies only to a limited set of local and judicial offices. So we still keep him in position to fulfill the things that he's been working on. Yeah, but I want Cornyn out. I want that to be a. Oh, yeah, I'm with you, Cornyn's establishment. I don't disagree with you.

you know but same thing with with with with weatley you know out there you know he's I've asked some people and they're like he's not bad guy is just he's GOP establishment it's just as I understand it the information that's been shared with me and forgiving my throat's been just killing me um is it's not just about winning the primaries these people have to be able to win the seat and you know when you get to the midterms you know what I mean with with other races you know not not I'm talking about like the governors and stuff like that but when you get a lot of the endorsements that Trump does especially for stuff is you got to be able to win that seat when we get to midterms you know and and and we have to weigh that into consideration too it may be someone we really like but do they have the name recognition or do they have the support system behind them to win because as you as you saw on that one that's crazy dude 71 million dollars

that is also the kind of money that's going to be out there to try to take on the Democrats. Because again, this goes into the conversation from last week is, and earlier today, if we lose the House, we cannot lose the Senate. And not only can he not lose the Senate, we have to try to gain at least a seat or two. More than that. If we don't, if we don't pick up more than that, well, well, we did pick up one. It's just people haven't realized it yet because it's not. Oh, God, he's already voting with them every single. time he voted he voted to advance the art to to shoot down he was the only

democrat to vote against the war powers resolution dude anywhere assume I am not celebrating that I am not fucking celebrating that man let me ask you this let me just ask you this hold on hold on just just just so you guys know because somebody actually sent me a DM and they're like here you and can we are talking about uncle Fester somebody sent me a message actually I'll send it to you and they're like hey you can't con cool like you guys been arguing on these but Me and can't control the argument while they were good. Like we will, I will battle on any trench with this guy.

But my, so my question is, do you agree that we are in a fifth generation warfare? Yeah, absolutely. So you, you know, like Gil was said, then you would agree that there are going to be things that just don't make sense to us. You're not getting me on the John Getterman is not a complete brain dead. DIRP. Is John Federman, really John Federman, bro? He's another massive person, dude. If people go back and look at John Federman over the last couple years and look at the one that we've seen.

Which version of them? I don't know. It's just, I'll, listen, there's just weird stuff going on, man. There's weird stuff going on. Oh, I do support fracking. and I don't I don't I support fracking and I stand and I do support fracking all y'all motherfuckers that go over and they're like yeah fetterman I'm going to remind you guys of the mehemet Oz dr. Osrace and that might be backing Federman might be worse than the

yeah no new wars and now yeah right I read how about you bring up some of his recent soundbites we're like, damn, that sounds like good. He's still pretty, pretty out there. I do want to correct one thing. We're going to wrap up here. Yes, I saw in the chat that Ken Paxton is not running for a or is not, you know, he's termed out now, but he's still going to be the AG. And the distinction there is in, like in Florida, you have to resign unless you're

Ron DeSantis and they pass a law to allow you to not to, but you have to resign to run. So he would have had to relinquish the position of AG. That's what I was making my. point not that he's rushing for AG or yeah he keeps that he gets to finish whatever he's working on is is the thing because I saw people bring up he's done this and this and he still has a window to finish it I don't know what that window is but he saw as a window to finish it yeah all right we'll see what happens man and unfortunately we're not going to get any any uh cloture on any of this stuff or any closure on any of this stuff

the we got to sit here and watch what happens as it happens and uh does this turn into a long-term war does it turn does it end in 60 days 30 days i hope i pray to god it does i really really pray to god it does and i will talk more about this tonight on sit rep for sure uh jb is going to be joining us i'm pretty much going to be moderating i'll jump in you guys will see i'm i support alf on certain things i i will fight him tooth and nail on certain things uh but jb man i'm going to have to I'm going to end up being the referee to calm down. That one, that one's going to shift play. As a matter of fact, we should just tell Cam, hey, we know you're not a veteran,

but you should just come in and be the moderator, bro. Like, be the guest moderator for us. There's no way you're going to just be able to moderate. There's no way. There's no way. I have a mute button. I don't think J.B. has power in that, in that room. I did

I put the link to that political article in the private chat I don't know if you wanted it to be able to if you can share that with the YouTube people I can't it doesn't let me join the chat over there do da da da da there you go what is this that we're looking at this is the political article that talks about

the effect that China has because of what we're doing to Iran it's a solid article I mean I think you would enjoy it as well. Iran and Venezuela export most of crude oil to China. Oh shit. I'm not sharing it. I'm sorry.

You should have told me I wasn't sharing it. Oh, no. I meant shared in the YouTube chat so they could actually grab the link. I mean, you can share it on the screen too. Like I said, I think it's a good one. But there was somebody who wanted to see it. There we go. All right.

Shared it in the chat there. All right, let's jump into some rumble rants. I think we had a few. Oh, we got a lot. All right, Archie Joan. I love solo, Brian. God bless. Yeah, well, I'm getting a little used to it.

50 minutes. You broke your record today. 50 minutes. All right, Lee Wald and morning, Brian, you consider exploring the Article 5 Convention of States. I've looked into for years, lots of mixed opinions. Since there appears to be attacks on it, it might just be good. Convention of States is dangerous.

very dangerous. Broadly, I love the concept, but good. Can you just break it down a little bit? Because some people have presented it to me, and I don't know if people may be just doing a bad job of presenting it, but the few people that I've talked to kind of explained it to me, I was just like, that doesn't sound good, but people keep pushing it.

So I'm like, am I missing something? So in Article 5, there's in Article 5 of the Constitution, there's two ways that you can amend the Constitution. either Congress brings forward an amendment, two-thirds vote, goes down to the, you know, to the states, and three-fourths of the states have to ratify it, right? Congress can, that's the way of Congress ratifying or amending the Constitution. The other way is the people can do it by having the state's legislatures call for a convention of states.

And you have to have, I think, I think you have to have two-thirds of the states call for it, and then three-fourths would have to ratify anything that's done. And this would essentially turn into a constitutional convention like we did in 1783. The problem I have with the convention of states is while they go in with a very specific and narrow focus, they can ultimately do whatever they want in that convention. That's what happened in 1783. In 1783, they were called to ratify or excuse me to amend the articles of Confederacy. And that's when, of course, you know, James Madison and everybody else got together and said,

you know what, let's scrap this entire Articles of Confederacy and draft a whole new document. And they had they had the authority to do that because that's the authority that was given to them. You can essentially do the same thing in an Article 5 Convention of States. So when you send your delegates from each state to go and amend the Constitution, even if, you know, we're only supposed to add term limits and a balanced budget and, you know, maybe define the speech and debate clause a little bit better, whatever the case might be, they could essentially go in there and be like, you know what, let's, let's make this, the second amendment more specific and you know it only applies to handguns and rifles and

let's also go in and amend you know free speech to it doesn't apply to internet talk or whatever that's dangerous when you don't have very dangerous appeared elections it's very dangerous but it also is something i feel like congress will never do it themselves and there's a lot of things that need to be done to real in congress about forcing a balanced budget requiring a balance budget you know forcing term limits you know things like that so it's it's a gray area man it's a very very gray area uh artsy joan alpha god bless you too let's see 11 51 or 10 51 when he finally made it i'm gonna give you shit for that man until you until you do it again like two ones and and and seriously i'm just gonna i'm gonna text you every morning from now on and and if you don't respond at least with a thumbs up

I'm just going to like call up Ash and be like Ash, come on. And then Alpha's going to show up and I'm going to be like looking at you down there. And I'm going to be like, hi. Lee Walden, we have been at war. 47 minutes just so you guys know. What's that? I said that's what he did to me today for 47 minutes. He was only about 15 seconds late and I was just like, I'm not bringing him up.

No, I'm just kidding. Lee Walden, we've been at war our whole life. Trump is the tool to stop all that shot. Check out Kim Clement and his amazing prophetic words for Trump and his mission just because. I did see that video recently. Pretty wild, man. Oh yeah. Pretty wild, man. Some of his prophecies were fantastic.

Well, I had seen a lot of Clint's videos, but there were about like Trump in the election, things like I never saw ones about Iran. Oh, I haven't seen those. Send those to me. Oh, dude. It's, it's crazy. It's creepy. I mean, I don't mean creepy because it's bad. is just creepy because it's it's like one of them from 2005 it's almost 11 years ago wow

yeah crazy man rules for thee don't give them an inch expose the brunson case let nature take its course brunson case is done folks i was about this are we still talking about the brunson case it is a shout out to them um have solid dudes yeah solid dudes but that that's that's that's done I mean, they were they were spot on. They were not wrong about anything that they were arguing, but it just never went anywhere. Lee Walden, freaking love you guys. Keep it up. Boys. Appreciate that. Lee Walden. Semper Paratus to our coasty friend out there. John W. Ryan the 4th. I heard some ministers from Israel say Turkeye. Turkey is a major threat the other day.

This supports what Alpha was just saying. I think we're going to see a whole bunch of shenanigans in this quote unquote military operation that Trump called a war. I think we're going to see a lot of shenanigans in this thing over the next week or two. Also, it could just completely disappear from our minds forever. It's already starting to wane out. People are like, eh, whatever. Big Gouda, when is Trump going to attack Zamunda? I wouldn't even know.

I got to lock up Zamunda. I don't even know what he's talking about there. What is Zimunda? Now I got to know because it's Gouda. So it could be like Fremunda. Oh, okay, because I was like, I'm good on geography. And I don't remember. Sumunda is the name of an African.

Oh, we're Eddie Murphy's character. I didn't know who's called Zimunda. That's from the Eddie Murphy coming to America movie. That's funny, big Gouda. Glad I looked that up. That's a good one. Lee Walden, that's my point. Article 5 gives we the people to overcome the legislature. Yes, but who are the people? You don't think that if we run a convention and states that there's going to be undue influence on the delegates that we choose to go in there to do certain things that we can't undo once it comes out.

Now, granted, when it comes out, they still got to ratify by three quarters of the legislatures. This is hilarious. You need a fine. It's one of the recent ones. Seaman 265 Alps doing Marine Corps math again. You're right. You're right. 2005 was more than 11 years ago. Wow.

Marines. I didn't catch that. I should have corrected that because I am actually very good at math. All right. Lee Walden, there's too much more to it than your, there's much more to it than your explanation. Brian,

that's why I've that a that you do the dig on article five. I've done Article 5. I've had the, I can't remember the guy's name from Cause on the show before. I think it's got a lot of potential, but I think that there's a lot of risk in it too. I'm generally a supporter of the Convention of States, generally. You just have to have a absolutely irrefutable secured election so you know that the people going are the people you actually voted for. In the absence of that, you're giving a weapon to the Democrats. Yeah.

Yeah, to be honest with you, I'd rather see Congress actually get off their lazy asses and do it. But they can't because they're an illegitimate body and because we have fake elections that keep everything balanced about 50-50 so that we can never actually do anything meaningful in this country. And until we fix that, none of it matters. Nothing matters. Not the war with Iran, not the Somali fraud. Like, none of it matters until we fix the elections. that's it i i completely agree with you on that all right ladies and gentlemen tune in tonight if you got melted down if you melted down over alpha and i's discussion on iran now wait until you see sit rep

when we're unfiltered and we can put on the boxing gloves and whoop each other's ass and i don't have to worry about letting the conversation die out because we got a other shit to cover and i can keep debating because i know how alpha he'll just he'll just keep on going And no, it's mainly going to be J.B and Alpha. So tune into that 9 p.m. Eastern. Alpha, you got anything else coming up, brother? Yeah, St. Pink 70 in the chat says Alpha once brought a knife to a gunfight just to even the odds. That is so awesome.

However, we can't use that. Never bring a knife to a gunfight anymore. They now have knives. That shoot guns. That shoot, bro. I saw that too. It's like a 22 with like a revolver built. It's six rounds in it, dude.

was six rounds so you got a knife that shoots i was just like that's crazy man some of the the shit that i'm seeing on my feed with with guns and stuff is nuts all right we got to get out of here john's going to start yelling at me uh uh see you guys tonight 9 pm eastern be sure to tune in no alpha and i are not at each other's throat it's funny to see that but uh yeah we're we're gonna be boxing each other out now there's no problems there we we have differing opinions guys you can have a differing opinion and still get along with people my father-in-law is a bleeding hard liberal and I love the guy to death all right friction at badlands friction absolutely friction is fantastic so all right we'll see you guys tonight 9 p.m. Eastern love you guys we're out

thank you so much for joining us and don't forget to hit the thumbs up on this video and a special thank you to all of our advertising partners please remember to shift your dollars to support those businesses that support badlands media