Badlands Media - The Daily Herold: 9/11/26 - Fresh 9/11 Documents and the $5,000 Dividend Cheerleading Fight

Episode Date: September 11, 2026

Jon Herold marks the anniversary by walking through newly declassified 9/11 era presidential daily briefings, noting intelligence hints of hijacking related surveillance before the attacks and drawing loose parallels to pre October 7 Israeli intelligence failures without claiming certainty either way. He spends the bulk of the show unpacking a heated Twitter exchange over Trump's proposed $5,000 dividend, playing an old Charlie Kirk clip blasting similar COVID era stimulus checks as "naked bribery" and methodically breaking down why he thinks the math behind the dividend claim does not add up. Jon also covers Joe DiGenova's surprise resignation from the Fort Pierce grand jury investigation and what conflicting statements from DiGenova and John Solomon might mean, framing much of the show around pushing back on blind "trust the plan" cheerleading in the truth community. Sponsor reads and a lively chat session round out a long, opinionated Friday show.

The Badlands, what are the Badlands? Explain those Badlands. That's a hell of their name. Well, good afternoon, everybody, and welcome to the Daily Herald here on Badlands Media. I'm your host, John Harold, and it is 9-11, and pretty much everything on every news page is just about 9-11. But we do have some new declassified documents, like as of the last 20 minutes or so, having to do with 9-11. and I did peruse through some of them and we'll probably talk about it. There's a few things I want to get into today.

I do want to have a little discussion and by that I mean more so just me kind of ranting a little bit about the whole dividend check thing. I don't even want to necessarily talk about the dividend part because that it's whatever. It's probably not even going to actually happen. But it's the behavior that has come about because of the whole dividend discussion. And so we're going to get into that a little bit. Joe DeJanova, our boy, the rug we've all been kind of standing on. Actually, maybe not everybody. I think I've been telling everybody to temper their expectations.

I think I just said this like the other day when John Solomon was out here pushing the, I hope we got some big indictments going out to people subpoenas or whatever. He's gone. And we're going to talk about that a little bit too. And then what else? I guess there's a few other random stories we'll probably also get into. But yeah, I'm going to start the show talking about actually, what I know what I'll do because it's 9-11 in honor of 9-11.

I will start the show going through a couple of the newly declassified documents. there's nothing like super damning in them that i've seen anyway but we'll start there then we'll get into you know the thinking critically in the age of cheerleading and purity tests because there's a lot of that going around and then we'll we'll talk joe deja nova or however you say it and go from there what's up anarchy good to see you and by the way i did message phil yesterday as i came in seriously this is me paraphrasing by the way but we should totally do a segment you can help me even produce it that's let's talk about one super positive thing awesome thing maybe even under the radar thing that trump has done that hasn't gotten enough love or attention and that should take all the ammo out of

the people who call me blackpilling for just trying to think critically it's up to fill now it's in Phil's hand he's working on it but he's going to help produce a little segment you know five minutes every day. Here's something awesome that is flown under the radar. Brett Hour, if someone remembers 9-11, they remember how Muslims did this to you. They are aiding the op. Yeah.

Yeah, we'll get in some of that discussion here in a little bit. Before we do, let's get a quick word from the sponsors of today's show. First up, we got Pet Club 247. I can find their ad here in, oh, there we go. Pet Club 247. Science proves that a healthy immune system is the body's first offense against the smallest of ailments to the most catastrophic.

Coriolis Versacolor is the most sought after all-natural supplement for both humans and pets to help boost the immune system. There are over 400 studies worldwide on its effectiveness in humans, including Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, and now from the University of Pennsylvania, School of Veterinary and Medicine, together, we can help reverse this terrible tide now plaguing your loved ones and give them the immune boosting supplements that they need. I'm going to be actually my second, I'm going to be doing a second interview with them for America First Stories that'll air this Sunday. I'm going to be interviewing them right after

the show. So check it out, everybody. Also, um, Let's do a soft disclosure spot, and we'll get to the Rumble one a little bit later. Court is now in session. Your Honor, the defense calls Mr. Dry Skin G. Money to the stand. We're going to pretend I didn't hear that. Mr. Dry Skin, isn't it true that soft disclosure is proudly made right here in the United States while directly supporting six American small businesses? I reckon.

Isn't it also true that soft disclosure is made with honest natural ingredients? without the harsh chemicals so many people are trying to avoid. Unfortunately. And isn't it true? It's made with the help of adorable baby goats. Can't argue with the goats. The goat reminds the gallery that Lobstock will conduct themselves appropriately. Bless your flaky little heart, Mr. Dry Skin.

Your Honor, the defense would like to submit Exhibit A. Proceed. Cindy H writes, honestly, the best lotion I've ever used. Exhibit A is admitted. Exhibit B. I use it on my favorite. and hands, get compliments on looking much younger. Mr. Drake, I appreciate your enthusiast.

Not greasy at all. Clean feel compared to other lotions. Vanilla citrus has a nice light scent. Well, that is just showing on. Tyrone writes, I find myself hydrating my elbows and moisturizing my soul a lot more frequently now. The defense rests. Softdisclosure.com, everybody, on this 9-11 remembrance day,

give yourself the gift of soft skin, good smelling armpits, awesome facial stuff because of the beard oil. I don't know, that's probably, is that a little bit insensitive? Maybe I don't care. Okay, let's talk about this real quick. So Ezra Korn-Wadnick about 37 minutes ago posted this saying, following years of work by the Presidential Intelligence Declassification Board, PIDB. A collection of key 9-11 documents has just been released, including a summary of the information presidents received

in the lead-up to the attack. Thanks to real Donald Trump for making this happen and supporting further transparency and see the documents here. So naturally, I went and clicked there. This first one is just a whole bunch of summaries of the presidential daily briefings that were prepared from between 1990.

to September of 2001, obviously when it happened. And they talk about the Bush administration, the Clinton administration. Here's all the summaries. Anything that's still redacted with this 25 times one, that's the 25 years has passed since, like normally these would be declassified, but they're still protecting their methods and sources. So that's what that means. And then they summarize some of the things.

Again, this part, like, wasn't all that interesting to me. And I did actually read through all this, this part. The next stuff that came out, which I'll show you in a second. Oh, by the way, this release right here was exactly 17 pages. So we know this is for the Normies and it's part of the plan. Okay. So don't question anything I'm about to tell you. This next release that he posted here, I'll show you.

In addition to the 9-11 commission, documents just released following the PIDB's appeal to President Trump, CIA Director has released a collection of presidential daily briefings that shed new light on the attack. Once again, John Rackliff shows he's a great advocate for transparency. And then there's one more, two more here, I think. One more. While the presidential daily briefing summary and underlying documents just released will attract much attention, Americans will also find new information in our leaders' thinking and actions in the lead-up to the attack in the release 9-11 commission interview memos. Having the time to go through these, I'm hoping, or assuming that's probably where most of the juicy stuff is.

These were interviews done by the 9-11 Commission of people in the inner circle. So I'm assuming there's going to be some good stuff in there. But going through the actual collection from the CIA, I looked at a couple things. And there's like 71 different presidential daily briefings that are in here. And these are all the ones that had anything to do with Osama bin Laden or Al-Qaeda in the lead-up to 9-11 and a couple of them afterwards. and I think the most interesting part, and this is probably not new information, but here,

and there's a few of these presidential daily briefings that say this. So I'll read this, and this will probably be the last time I talk about it. We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from some source service, in 1998, saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft

to gain the release of, blind Shaik, Shaikh, another U.S. held extremists. Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations

for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York. The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the U.S. that it considers been law-related. CIA and other FBI are investigating a call to our embassy, whatever.

So this is from what is the date on this one? I want to see this one is like it was right before the attack. Yeah, like August 6th. It's in August sometime. Okay. Now, I am not one to believe the official narrative of the 9-11 attacks by any means. You know, I don't know if we have definitive proof necessarily that it was 100% an inside job. But what if it was as simple as we had intelligence that they were going to do this?

and we just kind of like let it happen and ignored it. And whether or not we were like part of the actual planning of it and and more direct in like ordering the attack to happen, we obviously don't have those documents. But we could you could speculate and say that's possible. I'm just not going to like blindly say, oh yeah, I believe that to be true because it sounds good. But this is very much in line with like, look at what happened in Israel with the September, or October 7th attacks or whatever. Netanyahu allegedly had intelligence.

for over a year that they were planning that thing. And there's been more reporting that's come out on that since. Like it's been reported on multiple times. Multiple different groups or intelligence groups reported to Netanyahu that those attacks are going to happen well before it happened. And they just like turned a blind eye or, you know, negligence, willful negligence. Who knows? But the attacks happen regardless.

Is it similar to what happened here? I don't know, guys. But their own documents say that they had information that. that indicated patterns of suspicious activity consistent with preparations for hijackings, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York. And just because they have this intelligence and knew that the bombs were potentially coming,

if that is what happened, doesn't mean that there weren't bombs within the trade centers and those didn't go off to help bring them down. Like, there's so many conspiracy theories still around this. What's nuts is that even like this far out, 25 years out, I think most people probably think there's some sort of conspiracy here. And it was potentially an inside job of some sort of, like, whatever that means. But also, we still have like any necessarily proof of that.

You know what I mean? And I'm not going to assume that we're going to get that proof, maybe ever, but not in the declassified documents. Brand 84, oh my God, it was a demo those buildings. Yeah, probably. It could very well could have been. Like Brad's documentary on that was so good. A lot of stuff in there that I had no idea about.

Like it was too perfect. Too many parts about it. Was it a plane? Was it a drone? We may never know. Brad made a really compelling case for the drone. But it's also possible there were actually terrorist hijackers who just hijacked planes and flew right into there and then we helped bring it down.

Like we don't know. But anyway, I don't have to know what it was to know what it was not. Says G-A-N-N-N-N-A-N-17. and that's a great, great comment. Great, great comment. Mebitts, Komasad and Sierra responsible for this travesty. The big cahuna of false flags

have to go back to Pearl Harbor, also a false flag, to find something at this scale. Our government is just tyranny. Agreed. He thinks when it releasing the files that Sabin Laden was holding in Iran, getting aid in comfort,

help the current war narrative. You think that's a good point. Again, I haven't read through all of these things, these documents yet. So, I'm at 35, a plane didn't hit the Pentagon,

that's for sure. That probably is for sure. And while it is super, like, interesting and I am hopeful we get the truth on this stuff, there's so many people that are digging into this specific conspiracy. Like, I don't feel the need to be an expert on all things, 9-11 conspiracy.

You know what I mean? Beir of me, Broham. I remember September 10th, 2001, when Donald Rumsfield announced 2.3 trillion in the Pentagon spending could not be accounted for what happened the next day. Yep. Payote Piper. I'm going to start reading them now too. Let's see what we find. Let's see it. I'll go through the rest from later. But all right, kind of in our normal flow of

things. Gold is at 4383. Bitcoin is at 779. It was up to 79 earlier today. It's come down a little bit. Gas continues to go up $4.29. Up a few cents from yesterday. But let's talk, I don't even know what I want to talk about first. I kind of want to talk about the dividend thing. And again, I'm not trying to like beat a dead horse. I know we talked about this yesterday. Let me start with this. Okay, so I did this after the show, I believe.

Yeah, this is an after the show. So yesterday we talked about the Charlie Kirk and, you know, his thoughts. I think we did anyway, didn't we? Did I post that? I don't remember now. I'm pretty sure we did. God, the days all blur together. But I came across this.

Alex Bruchowitz, President Trump, like Charlie Kirk, recognized that the Republican Party must deliver unique solutions to counter the growing threat of socialism. I fully support his plan to provide financial assistance to the millions of Americans who both need it and have earned it. And let me play the actual clip here. And this is again on the anniversary of Charlie Kirk's death. And this guy is using Charlie Kirk's name to invoke like the justification for sending out the $5,000. whether you call it a dividend or a stimulus, which we'll talk about here in a minute. But take a listen.

Well, I think that Charlie understood the threat of socialism. I think he also understood why socialism was becoming more popular. And he encouraged the Republican Party to have an answer to a solution. And for Charlie, Charlie was very aligned with this populist movement that President Trump brought into the Republican Party. I think J.D. Vans articulates those positions. Well, last night the president offered up a solution. of some sorts of $5,000 dividend check to millions of Americans who probably need it. So Charlie understood why young people were drifting towards socialism, and he didn't want to settle for that.

He wanted to offer a solution and how the Republican Party answer these voters' frustrations. So do you see what he did there? He kind of like, Charlie Cook understood these frustrations, and he wanted to find solutions. And that's right, he did. And I wasn't like an avid Charlie Kirk follower. but whenever I see stuff like this, like there's such an op around Charlie Kirk, not just like his own assassination, who did and all that stuff, like whatever the conspiracy theory is. There's an op around these people who were Charlie's friends, like the people in Conn Inc. And them using Charlie's name and been like, oh, Charlie would have definitely been in support of this. Okay. So I was like, that just doesn't seem like he's that kind of guy.

And so I went and looked and I found an old clip of back in COVID, while Charlie Kirk was, while they were talking about the stimulus checks, that's what it was. The $1,200 stimulus checks, by the way. Charlie Kirk did a whole episode on why he was against the idea of $1,200 stimulus checks. And just be patient with me. We will get into the definitions of dividend and stimulus and all that stuff. We'll talk about it because I do understand the difference. But I want you guys to listen to this first.

And then we're going to get into the behavior of some of the replies I got on this post. And the behavior. The behavior that I'm seeing, and I've been seeing for so long, it's just this issue finally got me to like, I'm so sick of this. Like this is retardation. That's what it is. It's rationalization. It's retardation. And you guys are the problem holding us back.

Okay? Not you guys in the audience. The people that exhibit this behavior. Take a listen to this. I cannot speak more forcefully against sending 12. $1,200 checks to individual Americans. It is the modern day Roman equivalent of sending out bread to try to have people not rebel against you. People did not earn those $1,200.

It sets a precedent for universal basic income. It is not a proper role of government. We do not have the money. We'll have to pay for it eventually in either increased taxes, a deteriorated currency, less purchasing power, an erosion of American sovereignty. So this $1,200 to just individual Americans is outrageous, and it should be rejected by every single Republican. Now I get the whole part in the Senate where you have to give a little to get a little.

But here on the Charlie Kirk Show, we're going to tell it to you straight. We are going to call balls and strikes on these pieces of legislation. We are going to tell you when there is absolute nonsense that is anti-American, anti-conservative values. And there's $1,200 checks to individual Americans is just that. I think the $1,200 to individual Americans is nonsense. I think that it is actually insulting to a lot of Americans. I oppose any new stimulus right now. In fact, I oppose government stimulus almost always.

The only stimulus that I favor are tax cuts, regulatory cuts, and increasing individual initiative and freedom. I'm a strict fiscal hawk. I do not think that the federal government should be borrowing money any year, except in extreme warlike circumstances, and I think we should repay it back to the American people. I think debts and deficits are immoral, especially for future generations. And I say all of this as a committed Trump supporter who works tirelessly to convince people to get the president reelected, that I have my knuckles bloody fighting in the streets metaphorically against people that want our country to burn.

So I say all this in good faith that I want what is best for our country and best for our president. I mean, $1,200 to every American, regardless of whether or not they have worked, $1,200 to every American just because they exist. That's not conservative. That's not American. I'm going to tell you right here, right now,

this is bad economics, it's bad public policy. It's not something I'll put my name behind. All right. So that's what Charlie said. And I only pointed this out and posted it because it seemed like they were using his name. And now obviously, maybe his opinion could have changed. Maybe things would change. But based on the information we have of what Charlie said, like he was against a $1,200

stimulus check when the debt, and I'd encourage you guys to go listen to this full episode. The link of it is underneath this post. He was against the $1,200 stimulus check during COVID, while the debt was at $2,000, $7 trillion or whatever. And that's like that was his own words. And so that's why I posted that. Now, I'm not trying to say like the five, like I said yesterday, I am very pro Trump and very pro me getting $5,000 extra dollars of my own money, right? We have, you know, spent paid in taxes for however long, the government has abused it, they've stolen it, there's been fraud committed with it. They've spent us into oblivion. The debt that they've built up is, is not our debt,

but they've done it in our names. The deficit is insurmountable. It's all ridiculous. And they should give that money back. But that's not what they're calling. And that's not where the argument around this is coming in and where I'm having an issue with it. Because if us getting $5,000 is, I mean, you can call it a dividend and we're going to get into this. Because that's what everybody's calling it.

But you have to have the assets available to produce such a dividend. And that's what we don't have. And so where is the money coming from? That's my point. And if it comes from some sort of like a wealth future taxation, we're going to just have to do a reconciliation bill, which there are some people floating that around, people in Trump's admin. Because the plan for this hasn't been detailed.

And by the way, Trump has promised multiple different like dose checks, a different form of rebate, tariff rebate, all this stuff. We haven't gotten any of those things, which is why we're probably never going to get this. And the whole thing is just some sort of marketing op campaign, whatever to drive eyeballs to the midterm convention, which is totally understood. That's most likely. what it was. I'm not even 100% saying that I believe or necessarily disagree with them sending

out dividend checks. At some point, that is going to happen. There is going to be dividend checks from the equity positions that we have, the United States, in all these companies. And the list of companies is only going to continue to grow. But where it stands right now is those equity positions do not equate to an amount large enough to produce $1.3 trillion worth of, of, of, you know, of dividend checks. And so when I posted this, I got this response from, from somebody. And I won't even necessarily show it on the screen. I cannot speak more forcefully against, but what I'm going to do is $1,200 checks is read it.

Because I just, I couldn't believe the, what happened here, but it was so enlightening to me. So this person, they responded and they said, do you not have a personal stock portfolio? Do you not get the notices in the mail that ask if you'd prefer to receive? a dividend check from your quarterly or yearly investment earnings, or if you prefer to just reinvest those earnings? President Trump and Scott Besson have told us for literally months now how well our Intel stock was doing. And yes, you can actually like check on that in real time. It's up like, it's up to $40 or $50 billion, which is great. Great stuff. Only $40,50 billion. But what she's doing here is is pointing out how awesome the Intel stock is doing.

They reiterated it last night to let us know the investment was worth $5x the purchase price. we are simply getting a small dividend check instead of reinvesting this quarter's earnings. So this person underneath the Charlie Kirk post that I have about him not being in favor of $1,200 stimulus checks, meaning he's probably not in favor of the $5,000 one either. This is what this person said. How is that so hard to understand? On the deal with Intel, President Trump is going to be the only president of modern times that has created assets for the American people instead of debt. That's great. That's true.

President Trump has made $30 to $40 billion through this deal with Intel. I was in the Oval when he told the CEO of Intel that he would like a 10% stake. CEO turned it over and the U.S. government's made between $30 and $40 billion on that. And then this person goes on to take X22 report. Like who posts something and take somebody that's not even part of the conversation unless you're just trying to get eyeballs? Like what are the incentives behind that? So stupid.

Then I go ahead and respond. I say, are $9 billion stake in Intel? has grown to like 50 billion, which is great, but that's an unrealized capital gain, not cash sitting in a dividend account. $40 billion paper gain won't fund $1.3 trillion of dividend payouts. Where does the other $1.25 trillion come from? And I'm going somewhere with this, okay? I'm showing you the conversation and then I'm going to talk about the behavior because

that's what I'm actually taking issue with. The person responds, you're acting like Intel is the only stock in the account. It's obviously not because we've been told for months that the United States is now a shareholder in multiple companies on our behalf. Chips, mineral, steel, energy, Intel is just one they keep putting on the scoreboard because it's the easiest to show people rapid growth on investment. We do not have a public line by line list of every position, every warrant, every or every paper gain sitting in that portfolio. A 400 billion unrealized gain on one name does not have to fund the $1.3 trillion dividend by itself. That's like looking at one stock in your

IRA and asking where the rest of your retirement is coming from. You can take the cash dividend or you can leave it invested. They just told us that the Intel piece is worth 5x what we paid. The rest of the book hasn't been fully disclosed. Acting like Intel is the entire portfolio is why your doomsday attack simply doesn't add up. Again, watch the clips I found. I could easily find 30 more. And then goes on to say, I agree with you sometimes. Disagree lots. But this narrative you're trying to seed is ridiculous. I don't give a shit if anybody agrees with me. I'm not doing this for consensus. If I was, I'd be decoding and cheerleading constantly like the rest of you. And then I say, are you saying our total equity positions is greater than $1.3 trillion?

Because I would love to see the math on that. And then this person responds, I'm almost done, I promise. I didn't say the equity positions total $1.3 trillion. You are the one who treated a $40 billion paper gain on a single ticker as if it had to fund a $1.3 trillion check itself. that's simply not how a portfolio works. And it's not how the $5,000 dividend was even framed. I said, we do not know the fullest of companies they invested in our behalf,

Intel is only one of them. You're asking me to prove a number I never claimed. You assumed one stock has to fund the entire check. That's your math, not mine. And this is the behavior I'm talking about. I started with a post about Charlie Kirk was against $1,200 stimulus checks. I have a hard time believing he'd be in favor of a $5,000 dividend either, whatever you call it.

this person came in saying it was from investment earnings and used Intel as the example. And so I was like, okay, great. When I pointed out that Intel's paper gain of $40 trillion wasn't enough to cover the 1.3, they changed the argument to, well, Intel isn't the only holding, which is great. I know that. I agree with that. And then so what's the rest of the portfolio then? And then the burden shifted even further to you're asking me to prove a number I never claimed.

But what's happening here is it's making the argument unfalsifiable. They're working backwards from a conclusion that everything is great, everything is trust the plan, we cannot think critically for ourselves whatsoever. Everything that happens, we have to rationalize as this great thing. Something looks bad. Everybody else is just too stupid to understand that it's part of the plan. It's like, hey, those numbers don't make sense. Well, you just don't understand what a dividend is. Don't you have stock?

Don't you get quarterly notices of like whether or not you want to take a dividend or reinvest it? You just don't know what's going on behind the scenes. It's ridiculous. And then it's up to us to disprove, to disprove like what their secret insider knowledge that is in public is wrong. Like they are using stuff. It's the plan thing, right? they're using a plan that they can't actually describe, but fully trust, to prove something that is improvable because you're not showing the underlying claim, but we're the ones that are

supposed to disprove that claim wrong. It's completely backwards. You come in and tell me that there's this giant portfolio of government investments generating enough money to pay everybody $5,000. But then you can't tell me what's in the portfolio to get to that number. Because however where you slice it, whatever our investments are, they don't equal, like our equity positions, not just investments in the United States, because I know there's been a lot of infrastructure investments from a lot of companies, which is great stuff and that will benefit us long term. But I'm saying right now, our equity positions in all these companies do not equal $1.3 trillion. And it's very rare that, like, even if we, even if they did, would we

be selling all of our equity positions to cut checks to people? Because that's not. typically how that works. Dividends are a much smaller portion of what the actual portfolio is worth. Like if you have a $10,000 portfolio and they pay you dividends, they're not paying you $10,000. They're paying you like 1 to 3% of that depending on the stock or whatever. But this behavior of these people, they, you claim something and there's no possible observation or evidence or anything that could show it to be false, which doesn't even mean it's false, doesn't make it true either. But they're not taking into account both options.

And it happens all the time. And then they just move the goalposts. The claim changes. Every time you examine it or like ask a simple critical question. And it's it's the logical fallacies presented there that I'm struggling to handle with because these are people that claim to operate as if they understand that Trump is conducting 5G warfare. And just by saying that, if you believe that there is five,

gwee warfare going on and Trump has participated in that, which I fully do, that means Trump will contradict himself as he has done a million times over. And so then all of a sudden, just because Trump says, like, oh yeah, we're going to, we're going to do a $5,000 check. He might not actually mean that. He might be doing it for other motivations. Just because he says where it's coming from, doesn't mean we have enough there. Like, Trump being a walking Saab, which I believe him to be, because there's evidence of that, doesn't mean you can take him at face value when, like, pick and choose when to take him at face value. And then when you do take him at face value and it does contradict things, now you're picking

and choosing whether or not, like, Trump's just conducting a sciop here. And the COVID example to me is one of the best ones because during COVID when Trump was telling people to take the vaccine and yes, I understand he was also producing alternatives. But these same people were out here like justifying that. It's like, well, he just has to do that because he's conducting 5G warfare. He can't tell people not to do it. like think of the political consequences of that, whatever. You do that now, but or you do that then for that,

you pick and choose that that's a good time to use 5G warfare. That one was just a little too, too much. But now, now it's what he says here, we have to take that at face value. And if you don't understand like why the math is that up on that, it's because you're too stupid to understand. No, maybe we need to get to a point. And this is what I've been reiterating at Badlands and many other people have as well. you don't need to protect a conclusion that you don't actually see there.

I'm willing to believe there are bigger things going on behind the scenes and that Trump is up to something to say the least. Like I literally wrote the Devolution series, which outlines a theory. It's a theory outlining that Trump implemented some sort of secret continuity government program before leaving office. Like that's his secret behind the scene plans as it gets. And I never claim to know all the details of it.

Like one of the, I don't even remember who told me this, but there was somebody who told me a long time ago that sometimes like the best answer you can give is not an answer. It's just I don't know. Like that's sometimes the most intellectually honest question or answer that you can give to a question. But these people are willing to do that.

The intellectual framework that these cheerleaders have like trapped themselves into using is at any time somebody doesn't understand what's actually going or anytime there's like a narrative out there that is counter to what your traditional first principle approaches would allow you to examine or whatever like something that five years ago

would have been totally against anything you believed in there's these loyalty tests that come up and anybody who doesn't agree is either too stupid or or the enemy it just it drives me nuts I believe what Trump wants from us

is to be critical thinkers to think for ourselves the mainstream media isn't going anywhere There's there, we're going to be fed lies probably for the rest of eternity, even though I hate that. And so the only solution is to think for yourself. And when we're not getting fed the truth from the good guys or the bad guys, you can't blindly follow anything. You have to have some baseline principles to operate under. You have to.

And then you go from there. Still believing Trump is all the things you've believed all along, which I do. But that doesn't mean I'm blindly going to follow it. And so all I'm asking is when it comes to these dividend checks, which would be great. I would love to get $5,000. Show me the math on it. That's all I'm asking. You can find tariff amounts.

How much did we pull in tariffs this last year? It wasn't $1.2 trillion. The equity positions we have in all these companies, maybe $100 billion, and that's probably being generous. There's a couple out there that are like, we don't know the full details of how much we own. but the company itself is not worth $2, $300, $500,000. So again, the math.

All I've seen so far from everybody is that like Trump says he's going to get $5,000 dividend checks, a lot of cheerleading, a lot of people just being like, where is that money going to come from? And if it is our investments, that's great. But I don't want to sell equity positions

in any of those investments to produce that number. And if it's dividends of the equity positions, it's going to be substantially lower than $5,000 a person. So just show me the math. I'm sorry, my rant may be over. I'm just so sick of this behavior. I think they've built a business within this cheerleader ecosystem. You either agree or you're excommunicated.

And I've seen multiple people affected by this. And that's what they basically did with us, even though everybody in Badlands I know of believes there's something bigger going on behind the scenes. These people hate us. They hate us because they ain't us. and they're old faggots but whatever that that's besides the point they've boxed themselves in and and to me there's just there's no realities i see it anyway where the five thousand dollar thing works and when you operate as like okay well if that's not true trump's doing this for a different

reason he doesn't actually intend to do the five thousand dollars or maybe that's way down the line look at what kevin has had said this is his um i don't even remember what this guy's position is but listen to what he says here uh don't forget the president said that that $5,000 would be something that would happen should we win, keep the House or the Senate. And if that happens, then the logical place where something like that might happen would be through a reconciliation process where Republicans work at the White House to come up with a way to get some of the riches that have basically been pouring into the United States back to the American people at a fiscally responsible way. And I'm sure that that's what the president intends.

We'd love to do that. But do you hear what he said there, reconciliation bill? that is adding more to the debt, which I'm against. Again, I would love $5,000. But how do we pay for that? We need to stop paying taxes. We need to stop spending. There's so many issues.

I've been against any form of welfare or subsidy or foreign aid or any of that stuff. I would much rather that money come back to the American people. But we need more details on how it's going to work. But again, the whole reason I started this rant and got a little hot and bothered is just the disingenuousness of engaging with these people who won't allow for critical thinking and won't allow for dissent. You have to embrace the friction, guys. There is no growth in uniform thought. If everybody thinks the same, there is never going to be any growth from that. And you will never have progress if all you do is wail around those pom-pops. I expect the truth community

to be better. You can't simultaneously pretend that you understand 5G warfare and then take everything Trump says at face value. I can't stand it. Let's see what the chat says. Us complaining that we can't afford a single 5K payment to citizens while pushing a month of UBI as realistic as retired, how can we afford a UBI? I don't think we do that either. Like the reforms we need economically. And yes, you can tell me that

Trump, it's all fake and Trump's just going to wipe away the debt at some point and everything's going to be hunky dory. Like, that is an easy thing to say, but we also don't 100% know that is going to happen. I want that to happen. I would love a reset of the financial system. I would love for Trump to say, like, look, all that fraud, all that money, that debt,

it was accumulated by a group of illegitimate world, or elected leaders, selected leaders, that committed treason along the way and all these things. And therefore, we're not even going to bother. That that's on them. that's on somebody else. And here's a new financial system. We can just waltz right into this and this will be used.

That would be amazing. And I hope he does that. But I'm also not going to base all of my, you know, analysis with that being the case. Because I don't 100% know that is true. That is an option, but I don't 100% know that's true. Sometimes you have to deal with the things that you do have in front of you instead of the unseen things that you hope will happen. Does that make sense? So considering Trump, we don't know for sure, is going to wipe away the debt.

I'm going to operate as if he's not and still pursue. Like, this is unsustainable. And if that ends up not being the solution, what are the ramifications of this? I feel like it's a Friday. I should be in a much better mood than I am right now, but I'm not. Tattoo teacher, 25 years no justice. Another siop on top of another PSA up. New case, I already stopped paying taxes because Scott Besson advises to stop with payroll tax.

Oh, no, tattoo teacher. Don't go there. Yeah, let's talk about this. Relax, don't tell anybody ruin your day. Okay. Let's get into the next thing here. The next thing we can prepare rationalization for, and that's the Joe Dijanova prosecutor brought in

to lead the investigation of Trump foes, tells the AP that he has resigned his position. the grand jury stuff going on in Florida, the guy who came in. And I want to say a couple things about this too, because back when he first got a sign there, I'm pretty sure we did a baseless conspiracies on this. Me and Zach, we talked about it, and I talked about on the show for sure. I've always told people of temporary expectations, stand on the rug. What if we get to a point where we don't get the justice that we deserve and accountability in some of these cases?

because that's a real possibility. I've been trying to prepare you guys for that rug. Rugs all the way down. And just because I'm preparing people for that does not mean that I am anti-justice or accountability or that I'm anti-Trump or any of those things. It's the dumbest response that people give.

I'll never understand it other than those people are literally retarded. But I've been preparing you guys for this. Like, what if? What if we don't get what we want from this And this is coming from the guy who's read every single document that's come out related to the Rushgate stuff, every single one. Every one of these people deserve to be in prison. I could probably put together a case myself.

And what? Joe DiGinova, he actually said that same exact stuff many times. I did a little search on AI. Let me, how I share this screen? I don't know if I can. I'll just read it to you. 2017. These are all quotes from Joe DiGiGiGiGinova.

over the years. He said a reasonable prosecutor can get to the bottom of the leaks. Grand jury should start immediately. 2018. This is so obvious. A junior lawyer would want this case and run with it. This is all the Rushdiegate stuff that Durham was working on. And then the stuff that he was now looking into.

2019, pretty simple stuff for career prosecutors like Rudy and myself. 2020. The timetable was June or September and claims guilty pleas were already being negotiated. That's what he said about the Rush and Gate stuff. 2023 more recently these cases can all be brought within six months and then in the CNN report of him Jody's name of leaving he apparently said

he would bring charges in 30 days the AI could not find any claim of him actually saying it would come within 30 days every one of those other claims those are actual things he said and then you get into the reason of like there's a weird back and forth with this whole thing too like John Solomon earlier this week and late last week was like, yeah, guys, there's some movement.

We got some subpoenas going out. Things are looking interesting. I'm pretty sure we went over that on the show. And then this resignation comes out and kind of shocks everybody. And John Solomon, let me bring them up here, set a couple different things on this. Hold on. Let me scroll down.

It's like yesterday. Gosh, he posts a lot. Joe Dejanova resigned today as lead prosecutor in the Fort Pierce case, but not for the reason. the legacy media are saying yes disagreements over resources strategy and access to evidence are common inside the DOJ but the most telling sign is that in joe's last week on the job a grand jury in fort pierce saw its heaviest stream of grand jury witnesses and lots of big name defense lawyers tell me their infamous sorry their famous clients have been peppered with subpoenas over the last 10 days

and maybe all that's true which would be great if it is reporter suggesting joe resigned because he was being asked to prosecute crimes that didn't exist have it wrong an act of grand jury like that or like what was seen this week signals concerned there's evidence of wrongdoing and then um he says let me get back to the story an ally of president trump said Thursday that he has resigned from his post leading a justice department investigation to whether former law enforcement and intelligence officials conspired against the republican president the departure of joe ginova injects instant tumult into an investigation targeting former government officials who have scrutinized trump over the last decade including in connection with russian

interference in the 2016 presidential election and his retention of classified documents at the Marlago State. He says, I did in fact resign and called it an honor and a privilege to serve Trump. Although he declined to comment to the AP on the circumstances of his resignation, a person familiar with the matter who insisted on anonymity to discuss a personnel decision said the departure came amid mounting frustration from the Justice Department of White House over the pace and management of the probe. Maybe that's true.

Maybe that's totally made up. But then Joe D. Geneva later went to the New York Post and responding to some of the criticism of his management of the investigation by saying, if you want indictments where there's no evidence, you have an ethical problem. And then he later clarified it and says those comments were taken out of context. So he must have said you have an ethical problem because he didn't deny saying it. He said it was taken out of context. And it goes on to say there's plenty of evidence in all these cases to prove the theories of prosecution, it just takes time to get there.

And some people want to get there a little faster than others, and you can't do that. But he kind of contradicts himself right now. Like there's plenty of evidence in all these cases to prove the theories of prosecution. Okay, if there's evidence of that, then you have a case. Or is he saying there's evidence that exists that he just hasn't seen yet? We just got to get there. And now he's taking, he's making it a time thing. People want to get there a little faster than others,

and you can't do that. From the guy who claimed he could get there in six months. CNN quoted him as saying 30 days. He couldn't find that. Like he was the one who put a time thing on it. He's like, we can get this done in six months. And what, five months later he's gone? And saying it's like, well, it just takes some time to get there.

Like, what is really going on here? Did he actually say the ethical problem thing? And what was the actual context of that? But we're at a point now where it's like, okay, how do we move forward with this information? Do you guys think we're going to get, am I saying the name wrong? I don't care.

Are we going to get Justice Incountability from this? 30 state election chiefs are under DOJ investigation. Says Phil, is it, is that true? I thought it was they're monitoring 30 states. Yeah, this is what they said. Justice Department warns 30 states

not to destroy 2024 election records. saying those officials are currently under investigation are part of ongoing litigation. Are the officials or are the things? I don't know. sued 30 states for data. That's probably open to interpretation. But that's besides the point. This one is especially frustrating.

I'm hoping the stuff continues. I know what's his name? The guy, the attorney, the election, Carrie Lake's attorney, what's his name? Kurt Olson. Kurt Olson. I know he's still working down there. He was like the second of command. Does that mean he's still in charge?

Maybe we're still going to get all the arrests and accountability that we've always deserved. But this is a weird one. Joe Dijanova. I do remember saying at one point, I think the guy that we need heading up this probe is Devin Nunez. But I honestly, what's most frustrating about the whole thing is like there's been more open source, like public people. public individuals who have put together such good connections and research. And I'm not even talking about any of the stuff I've done.

I'm saying like there's a whole community of Russia gay people who are still active and still on that. And they put together such compelling evidence that I think you can bring a crime forward just based on the stuff that they've done. And yet none of those people have been involved in any of this stuff. They haven't been provided any of the documents and understand because, you know, it's a crime potentially and you can't money the water. whatever reason. It doesn't matter. But I've said before, and I know you guys remember me saying this. Like the whole Q post, everybody always says, like these people won't be able to walk down the street. If you take that in its most literal form, it means they have the option to, right? And so what if we have all this evidence? They come out with all this evidence, but we don't actually

see them held accountable. That would be a situation where these people can't walk down the street. And we have to leave open the possibility that that may be where things go. We all want the just accountability, we got to learn to operate. And I'm hoping we've learned to operate after 10 years now of not getting it as if we aren't going to get it. And then what does that mean? And how do we how do we do this without blackpilling out? That's the part that concerns me most of all. So that's the last that's the last thing I want. It's why I've been trying to prepare people and why I typically tend to take a more what I think is realistic approach to things. But it's like it's a more tempered expectations approach. Also some people view it as

do mean, but it's for moments like these where somebody who's all in on the Joe DiGinova thing, and I went back and looked, by the way, there are people on Twitter, people Badlands used to associate with even, who told you that you just wait two more months to see what Joe DeJanova's going to do. You come back to me then. Nobody ever comes back. They forget they said it. But they put everybody's eggs into this one basket.

And they were wrong about that basket. They were wrong about that basket. Maybe there's a separate adjacent basket that bears fruit. But the basket they said they were right about, the same one that they said about John Durham and other people going down the line, hasn't turned out right. And then people see this and they're like, okay, I'm done. I'm done.

I can't do this anymore. You can't win an info war with people checking out. Phil Scarborough with a salty gear grinding show. This is why I need you, bro, to come up with a segment where I do all positive for five minutes straight like one segment i need you there's no accountability there is no law agreed with whole belief temper expectations withdraw your consent from every enemy system control the controllables key awakening amen pey poti piper it's why i file foias you man the foia i filed for like connoody government stuff i should you should help me devon nunez will power his t a fusion reactor with deep state commies

he's no longer there at true social though tmtg as far as we know he's just heading up the the president's intelligence board. Joe Jehovah. John needs an alcohol-fueled evening net card. I don't need to drink. I mean, I will have one on occasion, but yeah, this show really should be called temper expectations. Isn't that funny too?

Like, I don't know. People get so upset by that approach. Going back to the people we were talking about earlier in the behavior that they exhibit. Like, you're not allowed to even have tempered expectations. You have to have blind faith and loyalty in the plan, the plan that they can't actually describe, but what they assume everything that happens is part of, whether good or bad, when it's good, they're like, I see, we told you. When it's bad, it's like, well, obviously

you're just too stupid. You have to have full faith and loyalty to that plan or your excommunicated, you're a black pillar. Having realistic tempered expectations are not acceptable. So we've just got to find that happy medium of like optimistic hopium drip, right? Like maybe you need a little bit of that to keep you chugging along, but being realistic about it, like some sort of beta blocker that doesn't let it like get you too high on your own supply. You know what I mean? Tattoo teacher, bad plan is a plan that bears no fruit.

We are there. And PG-Stewart John has saved us from many rugs. How do we know blind faith and loyalty people aren't just neocon captures who want you to cheer on the neocons who capture Trump. I don't think all of them are, but there are people who, like, if that's a siop, right, if, if, I see the,

the cheerleading and the dooming as like the controlled opposition dynamic, they're keeping you within that sphere. They don't want you to explore the part that's outside of it. Whether these people are wittingly like doing that or not, doesn't matter, but they definitely could be participating in the sciop that prevents us from the progress. If you believe in Trump and the feedback loop stuff that we've talked about,

if you believe that's a possibility that that's what he's doing. He's like he's beta testing his own ideas just to see where people are at. The last thing he wants is people who always agree with him on everything he says. And he also doesn't want the doomers who hate everything he says. They're looking for the people in the middle. They're looking for the bell curve. Don't be on the extremes. Burning Bright's on the chat now.

Bernie right, you probably like this show. You should go back and listen to the beginning of it. Because I railed against the burden-shifting loyalty test enforcing plan trusters. I think you get a kick out of it. Mbjutor John is the rug Ayatola. John, the main teaching from Q was to be independent critical thinkers. The media is a sci-up. And yeah, that is what they're not doing.

Phil Scarborough, I'm still on the something big is going to be exposed before the midterms rug. It's got to happen. I agree too, it's got to happen. But guess what? It was that line of thinking that I had prior to the 2022 midterms. And remember all the shit I got for that? Because I truly believed. I was like, at some point this has to be exposed.

And I still believe that. If we are going to get to a place where we get our elections fixed, I do not see a path getting there where we don't expose the election fraud. So if that's what I believe, which I granted it could be wrong about, but if that's what I believe, it made sense. It's like, well, why would he wait and why would he put us through another election and got stuff for us? So I can still believe that is the case.

Like, we need that. But I'm done playing timeline games. I don't know for sure if it's coming before these midterms. Maybe Chris is right and we need another hose. And honestly, like, just as apparent and I don't want this to be a criticism. of my parenting because I feel like I'm a good dad. But you can think if you want, like if you're a parent and your kids keep doing bad behavior, right?

Like they're doing this thing and you keep telling them like, guys, stop doing that. Stop doing that. You're probably going to get hurt. Stop doing that. You're probably going to get hurt. Like I could go and forcefully remove them from the situation and then they don't get hurt, but they also don't learn anything. Right?

There are certain times, like as long as their life is not actually in danger, where you allow them to learn the hard lesson. It's like, okay, you are probably going to end of getting a bruised knee because you keep rollerblading without your knee pads on or whatever. Keep trying to jump over a little piece of chalk in your rollerblades. You're probably going to fall. I wouldn't recommend doing that. But no matter how many times I tell them, they keep doing it. Eventually, they're just going to have to fall and scrape their knee and realize like, okay, well, now I'm never going to do that again. Like, maybe that is what Trump is putting us. through. He wants us to stop doing stupid shit because if you keep doing that stupid shit, you are

going to hurt yourself. And instead of coming in and forcibly removing us from the situation, he's like, you guys are just going to have to keep getting hurt. Because if you save your kid from every learning experience where they could learn the hard way, but don't allow them to ever go through that hard path, that is going to be detrimental to them long term when they're older. learning the hard way when you're younger and it's not as like not as painful as when you're older and it could totally kill you and destroy you

what would you rather your kids go through so maybe Trump himself is like I cannot believe these kids keep doing that like they're obviously going to hurt themselves they're obviously going to get hurt but the whole you can't tell them you have to show them thing

that is what he's putting us through the truth community it's ridiculous I think Chris wants a level of waking up that is beyond human biology. It's not even, it's not even, it's not even waking up. It's the whole Aaron Rogers clip from yesterday, as I said on the show, like that mindset where everybody's like, yeah, politics is a sham. I'm going to play that as the outro again.

I don't care if it's too negative on Trump or whatever. Some people don't like it. That is the mindset we need people to have. And do you see people in the truth community coming close to exhibiting that behavior or that mindset? They are worshipping the Trump administration and the government. Trump even made a lot take an oath last night. That was hilarious.

Trump is so funny. I listened to some of what he said yesterday and he's just hysterical the way he described who was it. Ken Paxton. It was so funny. I'm not going to tell you what I said about the guy, but I'm going to tell you what I thought about saying. So fun.

That's comedic genius. It was gold. It was like so good. I can't even like steal it. It was so good. Then he goes on and he like makes all these people literally make an oath to the state and the fraudulent election system. Like, the dude is, he's walking him right into it.

Do you think the founding fathers had that mindset? Or do you think the founding fathers had more of a mindset of like what Aaron Rogers exhibit? Even if we don't agree with everything he said. I think he obviously doesn't see the bigger picture of Trump and all those things. And that's fine. I don't, we don't need everybody to believe that Trump is, is working on something bigger behind the scenes.

We really don't. We don't need anybody believe that. He doesn't need us to believe that either. But what he does need is people to like use some critical thinking and be like, Yeah, that's illegitimate. You can't do that. Yeah, that's fraudulent. I'm not going to do that anymore.

You withdraw your consent from the system and start thinking for yourself. You don't do that with blind worship. I mean, if I would have had the Aaron Rogers clip ready, this would have been a perfect moment to like just end the show on that note. But I think I have another ad I got to read and rants. I should almost just rewind myself. I did not, I did not organize the flow of my show very well today. It's already 103. You guys are getting a long show.

That's like four days this week, by the way. You're welcome. Let's do a quick soft disclosure read. And then we're going to do the Rants. And I'll see what the chat says for a little bit. And then we'll get out of here. So Rumble Wallet, my favorite ad read. This is a paid advertisement for Rumble Wallet.

They're sponsoring this portion of the show. All right, chat, real talk. If you actually want my attention, there's now a clear line to it. Here's how it works. I'm prioritizing Rance sent through Rumble wallet. If you send when I see it and I respond, it's as simple as that. For limited time, you can start your wallet with $20 in U.S. Stablecoin,

tipping Rumble creators like me and those of us here at Badlands directly. And all you got to do is use the exclusive promo code, Harold 20 when you sign up now, whether it's questions, hot takes, or stuff you really want me to react to. Don't bury it in the chat, put it in a rant. Because let's be honest, the regular chat flies by. But when you use Rumble wallet, it cuts through everything. So here's the movie. You scan that QR code or use the link in the description of this video.

Download Rumble wallet and try it for yourself. And don't forget to use the code Herald 20 and claim your free $20 for tipping in U.S. stable coin. This is what the VIP lane looks like. Restrictions apply. There are a limited number of these entries available. And terms and conditions also apply. See the description below or visit rumble.com

slash promo official rules for details. All right. A couple of rants here. Sergeant Nick Fury 87. What about the sovereign wealth fund? It's on the US debt clock or the $14 trillion that can be confiscated from the NGOs. You guys realize the US debt clock is just random. It could be the Q decoders,

putting those numbers on there. As far as we know, there's no reason to put any stock or belief in that being, like, oh, the U.S. debt clock, this is how much our sovereign wealth fund is because the U.S. debt clock says it. Just like you shouldn't believe the numbers the government gives, you don't know who's operating that thing. And I'm not just going to blindly assume it's like people part of the plan and they're actually telling us and detailing us the plan could be a total rugpole.

So I don't know. The sovereign wealth fund as far as I know what Trump issued an executive order to start it, which was awesome. But the illegitimate Congress we have did not codified. And so as of now, we don't have a sovereign wealth fund. And in terms of the $14 trillion that could be confiscated from NGOs, it would be great if that would happen, but it hasn't happened as far as I know. So I'm not going to operate as if like the $5,000 dividends are great because the U.S.

debt clock website says we're going to confiscate $14 trillion from NGOs. That is a few leaps of logical thinking. I'm not willing to make. The real mega mama, I replied to your comment agreeing. In the last few days, I've had my ex-accompliant, attacked on everything I say. Started with your post, then it moved to another post. That is what happens to me all the time.

People follow me around Twitter. Hayden, not me, disagreeing with me, calling me a black pillar, doomer. It's the most pathetic behavior. I've never followed anybody around on social media with the intent to like, I'm going to respond to everything you say and call you this. It's just a pathetic life these people live. But if I see something, obviously, that is worth, coming to not, I will.

Here's a great Well, Hammer Guy 35 says best rant ever John I should share these Thank you so much Hammer Guy Appreciate you man Babbage 3 Trump on true social Oh this is a real true social post too I bet The Daily Harold swear jars

Income has dried up Its savings have been decimated Its profits are destroyed Their Beijing office is closing forever Their stock prices plummeted And they sold their beach house They're wearing a barrel as clothing I thought that was only an old-timey cartoons.

Our number one goal is and always will be that the Daily Herald can never have an F-bomb. Thank you for attention to this matter. That is an all-time rant right there, Babbage. That was amazing. Thank you so much. Monty 710 for $50. Thank you.

I appreciate your passion on the subject, John, but we'd like to see you enjoy your day as well. $50 certainly helps. If there's a $5,000 dividend, it'd be even better. But no, I'm having a great day, guys. It's just, you know, every now and then I get in these things where I see something and I'm like I used to interact with this person. I used to talk to evolution with this person.

Like I thought this person was intelligent. And then all I've seen is them buy into the the cheerleading sciop. Like everything is cheerleading all the time. And most of the arguments made by the people cheerleading are totally not based in reality. They could be. It might be real, but we don't know that for sure. And so they're basing all their arguments on this fantasy land like, trust the plan things and they when when you disagree or if you like put a counter argument

that destroys what they just said because it actually is like based in reality you're they're done with you and they try to destroy your business and all these other things not saying that that's what this person that i use as an example today did but that is what's happened in the past for sure but i'm going to have a great day i think it's a football game tonight probably go go to that maybe or hang around the house kids don't have any activities today So that's going to be a good day. Keith O'Higgins, the $1.3 trillion can be secured with the Venezuelan oil reserves valued at $17 trillion. Also, gas prices coming down in two weeks when winter blend gas goes back online.

That's true. Those are great points. And maybe that is where the $17 trillion, you know, we have $17 trillion worth of potential oil reserves or whatever. That's great. But again, those aren't like stocks right now. Those aren't cash right now. And I know they can just print it, but if they just print it,

then that's the behavior I'm trying to avoid. And Lee Walden says, Ahoy, John, you sir are a steely-eyed missile man at the right stuff. All right. Thank you guys. Okay.

Let me see if there's anything else good in the chat here. Escape the Matrix. I love John Rance. Frederick Leathers. I don't really know what all these pills are, and I don't care. You got haters are doing something right.

our debt is now 17, 17, 17. Key decoders were doing the deck clock when all the numbers just be 17s. That's true, but pretty much all numbers are 17s. Didn't Ron just stand on in solidarity with his team members over George Floyd? I don't know if he did. And I don't care about that either. He might have.

Nobody's perfect about everything, right? Like at some point people grow. At some point, people learn. Sometimes people change their opinions. I've certainly done that over the years. But I haven't like changed in terms of, terms of like I'm changing how I operate or like changing my pursuit for like the truth. Maybe I've become a little more cynical of some things or skeptical of some things,

certainly. But I feel like my approach has always been the same. Like I've, I've always been the documents guy, right? Like I'm not going to blindly believe something that I don't know to be there. I don't even fully claim to know everything about the devolution stuff. So anyway, this week made up for those slow news weeks. Anyway, John, if I have 5K my savings account and Trump gives me 5K,000,

they know where or what I spend my money on. That's another good question too. I think I made that point yesterday. How are we going to, like, how are they going to know that we spend in the United States? I am going to end it on the Rogers clip one more time because it's so awesome. And then, and then I'm going to get you guys out of here.

But again, you can ignore the stuff that you disagree with, like some of, like some of the naive thinking when it comes to Trump. But it's, it's just the mindset of like this. This is all a sham. This is the word.

government's illegitimate. That is a good, good mindset to have. We need more people sharing that mindset. We actually have a potential connection to Aaron Rogers. We may get them on a show in the future. Not going to guarantee it. Maybe when he retires, maybe after they don't win the Super Bowl. But anyway, you guys have a great yesterday.

I will see you. I don't know if I'm going to be on basis or on Onlylands tonight. I might try to be for a little bit, but we'll see. We also have the Guard exclusive live stream, so make sure you guys get your GART tickets for that. That is coming up at, let me confirm what time. Where the heck is our GARC show? Did we schedule it that far back? In the world, I can't find it.

I don't know. I'll post it while you guys. Oh, here it is. It's going live at 9 p.m. Eastern. So get your tickets, whether it's in person or virtual, and join us here. You'll get email the link. It'll be a good time. But anyway, you guys have a great yesterday.

I'll potentially see tonight. If not, I will definitely see tomorrow at 10,000. 30 p.m. Eastern on the power hour. You shouldn't trust the government. They actually, and you shouldn't, the government's a uniparty. Like I was saying is they want to pin me as, you know, like the right didn't like me because I played golf with Obama. And then, then they think because I'm, you know, anti-vax and I'm like a right-wing

conspiracy theorist, you know, Trump or. And I'm like, first of all, I don't trust anybody in politics. Maybe Ron Paul. But it's all the uniparty. It's one party. They don't give a fuck about regular people. They just keep doing the same policies. You know, everybody was cheering on ice when Obama was in.

And Tom Holman, I think his name is, or whatever his name is, who's the head of ice, or running that whole operation. He worked for Obama. They like them. They're deporting people. Then Trump gets in office and they're all, you know, racist. And then those guys are, you know, not wearing, they're wearing masks now, which is super weird. And Trump gets into office running on all the.

these policies, you know, he's going to go after the swamp and go into Fort Knox and cut the vaccine stuff and not going to foreign wars and in the Ukraine stuff. And what's what's actually happened? And transparency in the Epstein files. That's the biggest one. Absolutely nothing. Yeah. And I was actually excited because, you know, that moron cash Patel. He goes on Rogan, which I watch a lot because I like Joe and Joe's a friend. And he says day one, we're going, when we're opening up the Epstein files. There's been nothing but the obstruction of transparency with this entire administration.

Anybody who even liked Trump or thought that things would change. Like, this is a pro-Israel first administration. And when you dig into it, that's the Uniparty. It's how many members of Congress are sponsored by APEC? So all the, there's no MAGA movement. There's no Make America Great Again movement because the guy you elected hasn't done any of his campaign promises. And it just realizes you think something's going to actually change.

You know, when Obama's president, you think that everybody's like, oh, there's going to be hope and change for a better world. Like, has anything in the black community gotten significantly better? Is anybody better off? Did the Affordable Care Act make a major difference in the world besides being an extra-tebrose? tax, you know, for the rich, is health care that much better in this country? And then Trump's going to come in and drain the swamp and do something and nothing happens and nothing changes. Then they roll out that old bag of bones.

That was a wild four years. And then you just bring back in the, you know, the guy from the TV show who's going to, okay, now he's, this is second administration. Now he's really going to change things. Politics is a total sham. Remember he had the influencers go there where they gave, they gave them the fake. It's all fake. They're holding them up.

And like that total thing, never got it, never got anything in there. And that was my biggest issue with it is they said, first day in office, I'm going to release the Epstein files. And we've all been waiting for it. This is a big sigh up, the whole thing. The whole, the politics is a crazy siop. If voting actually mattered, they wouldn't let you do it. That's the truth.

I don't know if Mark Twain said that. Somebody, George Carlin probably would have said that for sure. But it's like George Carlin, who's way ahead of his time. He'd be incredible in this time. But he said there's a big group. And you ain't f*** in it. Yep. You ain't a part of it.

You ain't a part of it. And that's the truth. So we should be skeptical of all of it, everything they say to us. So does it make you hesitant, sorry to interrupt you. Does it make you hesitant to question things because you know you're getting so much for it? So you can question it in your own personal stuff.