DeProgram with John Kiriakou and Ted Rall - 9/11: Did We Have It Coming? | DeProgram with Ted Rall and Jamarl Thomas

Episode Date: September 10, 2026

Conflict reporter/writer/cartoonist Ted Rall and political analyst Jamarl Thomas deprogram you from mainstream media every weekday at 9 AM ET. Today we discuss:• 25 years ago, 19 Al Qaeda terrorists hijacked 4 passenger jets and crashed them into the World Trade Center and Pentagon, killing more than 3,000 people. Hasan Piker has taken heat for saying America deserved it. (He has since retracted that.) Shortly before 9/11, Central Asian jihadis told Ted the war was about to come home for America. Given the aggressive nature of U.S. foreign policy, it’s a question we need to engage with: did the U.S. deserve 9/11?• Facing dwindling weeks until the midterms, deepening unpopularity and darkening political prospects for his party, Trump is tossing out a new idea: a $5,000 check for every American adult if Republicans keep control of Congress in November.• The Census Bureau suggests adding a citizenship question to the decennial questionnaire. The proposal argues that the census count should exclude any undocumented immigrants and noncitizens without permanent residency because they are “not true inhabitants, members of the body politic, or persons with a ‘usual residence’ in the United States due to their lack of a sufficient tie and allegiance to the United States.” Millions of residents could be excluded from the U.S. census, congressional representation could be reshaped and federal funds could be reallocated across states. Refugees and asylum seekers would be excluded from the population count. Trump administration officials also want to prohibit the Census Bureau from asking demographic questions, including about race, ethnicity or sexual orientation.MERCHANDISE: DeProgram.MySpreadShop.comLIVE ON YOUTUBE: https://www.youtube.com/@DeProgramShowLIVE ON RUMBLE: https://rumble.com/c/DeProgramShowhttps://x.com/tedrallhttps://x.com/JamarlThomas#tedrall #jamarlthomas #news #politics

Okay, so good morning. It's Thursday, September 10th, 2020. And this is D-Program with Chad Rawl and Jamaral Thomas. And, okay, so yeah, we'll let you know what we were laughing about. We're here Monday through Friday, 9 a.m. to 10 a.m. Eastern time. And we do a Q&A show Monday, Wednesday, Friday at 12 noon. Yesterday we did one of those, and things got heated. I think it's fair to say.

almost to the point of spicy. I think past spicy. I think we went past spicy. It became spicy. Spicing was reached. Yes, spicy is rich. Full spectrum spice. Okay, so we will, I guess we'll discuss that.

Okay, so just to go over what we're talking about today and then we'll get into what we're talking about here. In case you missed it. Tomorrow was obviously the 25th anniversary of the 9-11 terrorist attacks in New York, Washington, D.C. and Pennsylvania. Over 3,000 people killed. Did we deserve it? Hassan Piker, you know, made the argument for a long time that, yes, we did.

And then he walked it back because he's catching a lot of heat, particularly sort of directed at Said in Michigan. But we'll get into that. Trump is offering every American adult five grand as a tax of their own money, right? Because it's not like he's paying it from his own self, although he could probably afford it now. If Republicans keep control of Congress in November, which, of course, isn't going to happen. Census Bureau is conduct a census every 10 years. As we know, the next one's coming up in four years. The under Trump administration rule that they've wanted for a long time, they are now saying officially that they don't want to include any undocumented immigrants or

non-citizens without permanent residency because they're not really inhabitants of the United States. That's actually a big deal. That would be the first time since 1790 that they changed that rule. So they also want to stop the census from asking about demographics, like about your race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. I have like mixed thoughts about that. So, all right. So off we go. I guess we probably would be remiss not to have Robbie join us for this following conversation. Hi.

So. By the way, I explain this on my show also. Oh, really? Okay. Well, there are a lot of people who are on my show who came to the program. And they would, and, you know, somehow this came. I think what it was, we started talking about Robbie. Somebody said that it said that Robbie's son is going to the military.

And that led into a conversation about the program and somehow got on transition into what we were talking about yesterday with the guests. And I made the point on the show that the guests trashed us on social media. Yes, she did. Thank you for mentioning that. Well, you had a tepid interview. Like, right? Yeah. I was getting an ass while about being an interview.

Let me recap, right? And I was sending myself. Let me recap. There was tension in the interview. Like, look, for my, for my, a guest comes on. Ted brings her on. Her name is Sonali Kolhatkar. She's the author of a book called, um, fighting ice, breaking ice.

Breaking ice. And she's basically, it's like what it sounds like. It's basically a book of interviews with people who are anti-ice activists. And so she comes on. We had her on for about 40 minutes. And there's successes. Yeah. Ted asked her a question first. She answers the question. And she answered in a way where it brought questions into my mind of like, whoa, where does she stand?

Like if you and I were having a conversation with somebody, let's say Reese was on the show. And Reese says something that kind of implies that she's for abortions at eight months. And when it comes to my term, I'm like, whoa, wait, are you saying? that you're for abortions at eight months? Yeah, let's clarify. Okay, answer that, right? Don't get squarely with me. Don't say, well, you know, what is eight months?

Does anybody really know what time is? He knows. And I'm at the end of that, I'm like, okay, all that's nice. I agree with all of that. Do you think people should have abortions at eight months? It became that. But it became that. Yeah, my question was, we should talk about what it was.

I mean, my question was, well, basically, and you followed up, We both asked basically the question of, you know, do countries have the right to deport people? I mean, in other words, are you opposed, basically, are you an open borders person? Do you believe that borders are completely, she did say she thought borders were completely arbitrary constructs on a map, which is, of course, undeniably true. And the question was, can those arbitrage, so, but given that they, those arbitrary constructs exist around the borders of the United States, can the United States or should the United States deport people who are here illegally? She characterized that in social media as a right-wing talking point. By the way, I've never heard right-wingers even talk about that, really, that way. It's just the question.

And that's the, I think that's the thing that was frustrating me in the interview. Because when you ask a basic question, like do countries have borders? And in the question, I postulate it. I said, look, I get borders of legal fictions. Countries aren't real things in real terms, but there's legalities associated with it. And in the context of those legality, those things, do those matter to you? Should they have those things? I mean, I even asked her like something basic, like if a country hurts itself by saying

we're shutting our borders, do you think a country should be able to do that? Wouldn't even answer that directly. Her thing was like, instead of just saying, okay, I'm taking your analogy and I'm running with it and answering the question from that, it became, well, I mean, why would the, you know, that would be in the, not in the U.S. best interests. They shouldn't be able to do that. What does it even mean to shut borders? Okay, all those questions are nice.

I'm actually a very basic question, right? I'm asking you very basic stuff of should countries be able to control their borders? Do sovereign countries have the right to do this? And her thing was basically there should be open borders. Yeah, although she didn't want to just say that. Exactly. She didn't want to just come out and say, I would have been totally respectful of someone who said, I'm a globalist.

I don't think, I think people should have free movement. of populations across all borders, people should be able to go live wherever they want on this big, beautiful, blue planet of ours. Fine. I mean, that's a lot of people feel that way. I mean, I mean, John Lennon, imagine no, imagine no countries, right? You know, so. And you're talking to two lefties. Right. I mean, you're not talking to people who are going to attack you for the position. I mean, inquire about it because, you know, it's like, okay, well, what about jobs? You want to know where you're coming from here. Right. I just want to know where you're coming from. That's all. I just want to know where you stand. But she took it. She was definitely... She didn't want to say it. She didn't want to. Yeah. And I don't know

her. You know, I've never, I've never met her. So, I mean, she's published by my same publisher. And so yeah, all hell broke lose. So rather than, by the way, so basically there was just, it was, I mean, it was edgy. And then after she left, you know, I knew Robbie was chomping at the bit. Yes. So I thought it would be, It was already wrong for me to have prevented him from having, you know, to talking to her. But I was scared of what might happen, I think, reasonably. And then, you know, Robbie. I mean, y'all should be the ones doing the interview, not me. And Robbie came on afterwards and had his comments.

Honestly, I felt like I was channeling my inner Robbie because I felt tension. Yeah. I felt like it was a tug of war for something. It felt like. Well, she was being dishonest. Well, she wasn't. She wasn't. She's not, she's obviously not used to confrontational.

questions. I mean, she obviously, you know, must have gone on shows like Amy Goodman or whatever, where, you know, basically if you're on, there's not going to be any tension. It's going to be like, oh, so tell me on page 36 when you interviewed so and so. Like, you know what I mean? And like, look, I'm sympathetic to the, I mean, I hate ICE. I think those people should all be in prison. And I mean, the ICE people. And by the way, we agreed with her. Yes, we told her that. And she wasn't, it wasn't kind of clicking, right? And she, um, she, kind of, I don't know if she came spoiling for a fight, but I think she came thinking this is going to be softball because we both have the same publisher. It's like, oh, Ted's a good guy. She was told.

And I mean, I think I am a good guy. I think I'm a fair interviewer. And I really wanted to have her, let her have her piece. And a lot of the viewers were thinking I was too easy on her. And I mean, I didn't want a confrontational thing at all. You, I mean, you didn't ask her confrontational questions. No, we didn't. Like, if I asked you, basically should abortions be at eight months? That's a yes or no. It isn't it is a yes or no. It shouldn't be a trick question. Yeah. It's not a true question. And my answer to that question would be no except if the life of the mother is in severe danger. Right. Like it's like, are you out of your effing mind? Yeah. Yeah, what the fuck is wrong with you? And I'm pro

choice. And I'm pro choice. But no, I think eight months it's fucking ridiculous. Yeah. But you can answer that to cancel questions straight. And I guess that's kind of the point. It's not confrontational if you just answered the question. Unless you just assumed the question was like she assumed the question was an indictment, which it wasn't. Yeah. No, I mean And then, of course,

she hung on a little bit after, after we, I failed to kick her out, but she was in the back, she was in the back room listening. She heard that. And so she heard she heard Robbie say deport that heifer. Oh, he did say that. I did. Yes.

Yes. Oh, more than once. More than once, more than once. I was a reference, as Robbie explained, too, the fact that she wears it. She's Indian. She was wearing a nose ring, as many Indian people do. I did know he said that. I thought it was, he was referring to her weight. Anyway, after all this happened, I was thinking of reaching out to her.

But then, she rather, she went to, you know, she did what all mature Americans did when dealing with, you know, an uncomfortable situation. She went straight to Facebook. and started talking shit about me in one post after another. Just about you? Well, mainly about Robbie, but basically, and then she, and look, I don't think she's wrong about this. She said, maybe one of the commenters was like, oh, all Ted was good for was nervous laughter. And that's true.

Okay, I was totally caught by surprise by Robbie's comment. And I love Robbie, and it's like, I'm always team Robbie. But like, even for me, I was like, okay, that goes a little far. On the other hand, I'm kind of like, you know, it's kind of like I'm just, I always tend to just let people talk. And so it was like, oh shit. Now, I have to say, if I'd say it's coming, I would have been like, Robbie, you can't use the H word. That's not right. And you can't deport her because she's a U.S. citizen.

But as far as I know. So the point is, but like, so that was where. And then basically then she even posted like the, the screenshot of the stream of the, of of the chat of like about to basically go after our viewers as though there are a bunch of Philistines which no no no that's and see that was the other part right like okay but why I talk to me directly like we're with the same publisher you know what I mean like we're sort of in the same extended family here what I knew I was like call me Tate is going to get some shit for this and then and then and then the publicist the publicist reaches that emails me and she's like

WTF and and she's like, I will never book any of our authors on your, on your show ever again. So I'm thinking, well, we don't have anything to talk about, do we? So I didn't answer her because it's like, well, if you, you know what I mean? Like, that's something people don't understand when they confront you. If they, if she had reached out and said, hey, Ted, what happened? Like, we've known each other for 30 years. What happened? Like, like, talk to me, you know, tell me your side.

That's what I would have done. Instead, she's like, she's just like, well, you're dead to me. Okay. Bye. You know? For one, nobody torched her book. No. I would still recommend the book.

Right. And I still think I made the point there's a difference between ICE versus immigration. Yes. Which, by the way, if she'd even listened, she would have known if, you know, Robbie would have told, would have said that. He hates ICE too. I do. I mean, he would agree with her in the context of the law.

way ice behaves, obviously he's going to disagree with her in the immigration thing. Also, the audience wasn't insane. What the audience was noticing was, why doesn't she answer her question? The audience did notice that. If you just answer the question, the audience doesn't ask why is she being evasive. Right. I think she just wasn't used to be, she's probably not used to being asked. I don't want to say hard questions, that they're not hard questions. No, I'm real questions. Listen, I accused you of a glazinger. That's the first thing that came out. I mean, and the so for her to say that y'all being no mean to her, it's a crock of crap.

And for one thing, though, and we were talking about this before the show started. If you want to say borders don't exist, that's fine. But jurisdictions are a thing. Like, you know, people live under governments. Well, if you have multiple, multiple jurisdictions in a place, then you got to know where you pay your taxes to. Which military do you serve in? What laws do you follow? Well, if you have multiple jurisdictions that meet someplace. What is that called? That's called a border. Now, you can deny the fact that governments are even a thing. And the thing that really pissed me off the most about her was two things. One, this lady was invited in to the country to come and live here. She's an immigrant.

Then her stand is that we need to ignore the laws of the country that invited me in. We need to obstruct those laws. And I'm like, and I'm just thinking about this lady. You're literally, you're a guest in my house and you're going to probably piss in my sink. Well, she's not a guest. No, she's not a guest in your house once she gets a U.S. passport. But that's, once you, you basically, you married her and now she has, she has joint and several ownership of your house. You share the house with her now. Now that you can, you've given her a half deed, right?

Awesome. In the much case, we can divorce, we can divorce her and she can go back home. Only if she commits a serious. crime under our laws. But I'm using your analogy here. An obstruction of law enforcement is a serious crime. You know, it is. And if you're going to start picking and choosing what laws is, winching about law enforcement. And by the way, the way that ICE claims that activists interfere with, that's like that law is really, judges keep throwing out those, those prosecutions. Judges say that ICE is not right about the way they charge people. And first of all, I called her a

heifer and up because she's fat. It's because of the no. I live in Montana. She may be thin. I don't even know. I could have no idea. But I mean, she got this big old gnarly shiny nose ring. I live at Montana. Well, where's nose race? Cows. What the hell is another name for a cow? Yeah. Yeah. Well, okay. So no more ad hominem attacks. Okay. That's like the Yeah. That's the program promise. Okay. That is bad. Yeah, our next, our next major guest that we have currently scheduled is a very prominent Jewish intellectual. I would be very nice.

Who is an anti-Zionist, so I hope there will be no names. Ben Moser. You got, Ben Moser. It was going to be right back to Shapiro. No, Ben Moser, Pulitzer Prize winner, published a new book, which I'm reading right now, called Anti-Zionism of History. By the way, it's seriously a great book. He's an amazing writer. just in general it's bad to go after

I don't like to attack gas I get it otherwise hey they don't I'm back after that she came out of the gate and the first she should have reached out to me I mean honestly we could have worked all this out and then you know if she wanted a public apology which I'm look I'm kind of grateful that she went this route because that way I don't have to apologize

and when you apologize you always look fucking terrible Like we don't live in a mature society. In a mature culture, you know, we could, I could just be like, look, I'm sorry that happened. And really, you know, it shouldn't have happened and it wouldn't happen again. And but like every time I've done anything like that in my career, then oh my God, like the Karen's, they descend and like you are, you're going to be eaten alive. No apology. Nobody ever just says like, okay, Ted did the best.

He shouldn't have done that. But he apologized. Let's move on. Nobody does that. So it's like, on four, it's really fucking sad. Well, hold, let me. I'll do something that I normally don't do. Be careful.

I apologize for calling you a heifer. I do not apologize for attacking your stupid lack of an argument. All right. I thought about this sexy personally. All right. Well, listen. I mean, the first thing she did, she came out. Especially also, I hate to say it.

This is not a Gen Z nose ring, you know, it's just like an affectation. I mean, it's part of, it's part of a big part of Indian culture. A lot of Indian women have nose rings. Well, I've never been there and I'll take your word for it. But the point that I'm trying to make is Montana, ranches, cows, nose rings. That's what it came from. So all of these things can be true at once. Like, Robbie was wrong to call her that.

I was wrong to just giggle nervously like a little girl. And she was wrong to be a weasel. So I would like to point out, I was the only right one in the situation. That's true. Yeah, you were. You were blameless, Jamarle. You were a true professional, which is why you're the interviewer and I work in the background. You know, it's a while about it.

No excuse me. I felt like I was channeling my inner Robbie. I felt like I was asking questions that would be kind of like, it just felt tension. I don't know how to explain it. Well, I wanted to, yeah, well, because it's sort of like. Well, she was lying. I mean, for one thing that she's coming out, she says that immigration has zero effect on, on wages and that the country needs immigrants more than the more than immigrants need America.

Well, on its face, that's not true. Second, I was feeding you all questions in the background. With AI and automation, why do you need so much skilled labor because those jobs are unskilled labor because those jobs are going away, particularly in agriculture? Good question. And then the argument that she was making was Americans don't do these jobs. Correct. Why?

Because wages are too low. Why are wages low? Because they're left low by immigration. So those are questions that she cannot answer. and J.T. I mean, she was even ignoring the fact that nations even exist in terms of jurisdictions. That should be just easy one, right? Is gravity a real thing? Yeah, I think so.

Well, I mean, look, but you could totally argue. You can argue, I don't want to live in a world that has national borders. And part of breaking those borders down is this fight against ICE. Fine. You know, if that's where she stands, I don't want to put, I don't want to put, I don't want to put words. She's probably not coming back, so I'm going to have to, I have no choice but to put words in her mouth. I don't know that I would have her back after she went on, so. I mean, seriously, the fact that she went on social media, I mean, okay, I'd have her back. But the social media thing

had to be interesting. I'd have her back. But the social media thing is childish. I wouldn't have them back individually, but as a group, I'd have them back. So here's the thing, calling someone, calling anyone a heifer is childish. And going on Facebook, He caught me a he caught me a heifer That's also childish Okay So basically That's America

We're all a bunch of fucking children All right Let's do some comments But here's the biggest She kept going She kept going I didn't read I didn't read her post

Well you're right winger It's on Facebook You're right winger Ted's a Nazi Yeah we're both right wingers According to her Is that what she said Yeah isn't that fucking hilarious

And here's the fun No she kept To the left of her She kept going after the so-called millionaire class. Did y'all remember what I said I would do to do to the corporations, the CEOs who hire illegal migrants? You told my airplanes.

Correct. So I would deport the migrant, send them back home, and I would throw the people who are hiring these people exploiting them out of airplanes. So I am to her left, which is crazy. Oh, God, that's hilarious. Oh, my God.

Okay, so child of God says, We should have let her crash out on the show instead of on her social media. Well, that's, I think, what Jamar and I were trying to do. Hey. He's heading down to Bute. You still have a year to change your mind. Okay. Okay.

I don't, P.W. Walker, I still don't know. I don't know if immigration has an effect on wages. Do you really think corporations would sit idly buy and let wages go up if immigrants didn't exist? it's very well established. They wouldn't have a choice. Yeah, I mean, it's really simple supply and demand. It really is. I mean, so, I mean, Sinali did reference that like, okay, you don't see an immediate response.

And that's totally true. But that's sort of like, it's sort of like when the housing market softens and the years will go by. And people still won't drop their housing prices. But when there's less demand, eventually those prices are going to come down. Similarly, if you got rid of, you know, if you eliminate 20% of the population of a country, of course, obviously, there's fewer workers. And at some point, you know, employers are going to have to start paying their workers more. I mean, that's just true.

But they won't, they'll be very resistant and it won't happen quickly. Well, more to the point, again, automation and AI are killing a lot of these jobs. Therefore, why do you need to import more people when you have homeless Americans living and dying under bridges all over this country? We have people who can't pay their medical bills. We have people who can barely pay their rent. We have got real problems here for people who live here, people who are born here, people who are American citizens. They should be put first. Resources are finite.

They're not infinite. Look, I agree. That's the question that open. Any country is government. In any countries, you address that. The first, yeah, the first duty of any government is to take care of its own people first. I mean, that's just true. The people, the government of Lesotho should take care of Lesothans first.

Okay, we got, it's, let's do 9-11, or shall we do the Census Bureau? Maybe the Census Bureau is related to this. Maybe we should do that, right? What do you think? Okay, so the census, the Trump administration has been wanting to do this. The Trump administration is now officially saying that, If they get their way, I'm not really sure. I guess Congress would have to approve this because the census is actually something that the Constitution provides for, right, directly.

So ever since 1790, the census has counted everybody who lives in the United States, period, full stop. And that census is important politically because it's used to apportion congressional districts and to determine how many, you know, how many electoral votes each state will get, for example. Look, this is really transparent. In the guise of nativism, the Trump administration is trying to gin up more votes for Republicans. They know that even this is not about illegal immigrants voting. They don't. This is about undocumented workers or even green card holders who are not allowed to vote, but we're here legally. More of them live on the coasts and therefore in blue states than live in.

in the middle of the country and therefore in red states. So demographically, this would have an advantage to the Republicans. That's it. That's all this is about. Adding to that, they want to get rid of all demographic questions, including about race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. That I'm not so sure why they want to stop collecting that information. I mean, part of me, I'm mixed about that.

But anyway, Jamarla, what do you think about all this? And not mixed about that at all. I think it's dumb. A census is there for a reason. Maybe this is software engineering, but you always keep data. Data is important. You don't even know what you may need the data for later, but there may come a reason that you need that data later into the future,

in which case you can look back and you have the data available, meaning you don't give up data. They have a census in the Constitution for a reason because competent people would want to be aware of the demographics of the nation, meaning this is not a political thing. this is a country thing, if that makes sense. This is something that a country just kind of, you would think,

ostensibly, would want to know. What are the components of my country? Needs to know. We want to know what's in the physical body. I don't know why a country wouldn't necessarily want to know the demographics that make up its body. So, like, that's my point. This is not a political, like,

it shouldn't be a political issue, but it's being made a political issue. This is a mechanics of a country issue. I would want to know how many blacks, how many Asians, how many whites, how many, I don't know, gay, how many people are transgender, how many people are here illegally even? I wouldn't want to know all that stuff. Why wouldn't I? How many, what's your age? What's your, um, you know, I want to know all of the day in that case. That's not a political issue. It shouldn't be.

Um, well, so look, I obviously you're right. Um, the reason that I have mixed feelings about it is because of France. So I'm a dual citizen of France, right? And the French don't collect, they stopped collecting this kind of information after World War II. The reason was because when the Nazis invaded in 1940, they inherited all the census data from the 30s. And the census data included who was Jewish and where they lived. And so that made it easy for them to go round up Jews. They literally had postcards, or I should say file index cards in every local police station that indicated where everybody lived in that district. And then when it was time to send people to be gassed, they like flip through and they're like,

oh, pull out all the Js. And it's like, go pick up those guys, put them on a fucking train. And so, you know, France being subject to invasion by Germany every 40 or 50 years, it was like, okay, well, you know, maybe it's better that we don't have this information available, not because we can't be trusted with it, not that the French have. been anti-Semitic, but you know, they never did anything like that. And they, you know, it's like, but in case it falls into the wrong hands. And given where we are in this country, I could see that data falling into the wrong hands. If that is, if that is true, then we should all

run to the White House and burn it to the ground. Probably. Every number of Congress should be hunk, including the executive branch. Because that, that's a, cynical fucking tick. I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying, Jesus, that's heavy. It's not that I think you're wrong.

The Trump administration obviously has like this racial animus or xenophobia associated with it. And who knows what's coming after Trump, right? Exactly. So agree. Like, meaning we could see the pendulum moving worse and worse and worse from the standpoint of either incumbent.

competent presidents or maniacs. So, no, I totally get that. But that would be more of a reason to burn the White House down. That means you fundamentally, even at the level of a government in comparison to some kind of fascist Nazi regime, it just can't be trusted. And we're looking into the future and that's a potential. Then, yeah, that means we've moved past a place of just not trusting government. we've moved to the place of government being actively hostile to the population itself.

You can make an argument. Now, I suppose, look, there's a workaround here. My friend Simpson, who is a data expert, he would say this. But there are statistical methods of collecting this information without attributing it either directly or indirectly to where it was gathered. So it's two steps. Basically, first, you would take... you would maintain account of, let's say, how many gays you have in the country, but you wouldn't say Ted's gay or Jamarles gay or Robbie's gay.

You would just know, oh, okay, we have, you know, 4% of the population, whatever. But even then, you would, you know, obviously they would know, oh, like, you know, 9% of the population of Brooklyn is gay. So there are ways using statistical analysis to sort of determine which 9% of the population of Brooklyn, who they are. you can figure it out, right? And so there's ways to try to basically misattribute that data in a random way so that you can't retroengineering it. So I'd say like that's probably the answer here.

Why can't you just somebody says, okay, Bob Cobb is gay, Bob Cobb is 23, Bob Cobb is so forth. And just not keep it and attribute it to Bob Cobb, just person A, person B. Does it make sense? Like, why do I need to put somebody's name associated with the data? I just need the data. No, I mean, look, that is a good question. And the reason is, I mean, there's been studies that showed, like, that you could basically figure out, like, I'm trying to remember the name of this thing.

You can still figure out, like, who everybody is just from certain data points. You can find out, like, the governor of Massachusetts was, like, at a form. talking to some data experts at MIT about it. And to prove their point, these guys, like, sat down at a laptop and found his private home address using these systems, right? So, yeah, I've got to find, I've got to find this, like, that I actually do cartoons for it. Differential privacy is what this is called.

So differential privacy is you. used by the Census Bureau, basically by introducing statistical noise. I even drew cartoons for this book, and it's a Simpson-Garfinkel book. It's dry, but worth reading. And it tells you how to do this. I don't know. I mean, it's just, I think given this country, that would be, this is a fascist country. It's moving towards fascism even more. I mean, you know, we don't have the cool uniforms yet, But we're getting there. You saw the Space Force uniforms. I did see the Space Force uniforms.

Yeah. Yeah. My favorite was someone asked, why Space Force need riding boots? And it looked. We're right. It's like they're very fashionable. It's like, okay, where are they going to be stationed? On the moon?

Do they have a space station? With horses. With space horses, moon horses. So silly. Okay. Let's All right, we have some questions here. And this probably leads us into 9-11.

APEC test dummy, my questions. One, why had changes preceding the 2001 attack that caused no one to access the roof of both buildings? Why had changes proceeding? Okay. I don't really understand the question. Two, the bloodhound FBI guy from the Middle East. attacks set up to quit over, okay, well, Robbie, if you can put up the rest of that question, that'd be great. I know about the Bloodhound. We all know about that Blackhound guy.

F you so, are you excited about the $5,000 Trump promised us all if the Republicans win? Yeah, we should talk about it. I have a feeling we will talk about that. Let's talk about it. I even made a segment of that this morning because it's so, it's bribery. Totally. it's a bit rich coming out of Republican. When they, when Democrats would be like, fiscal conservatives. Yeah.

Well, that, but also when Democrats were saying, hey, we're going to do something to Social Security. We're going to do something for, I don't know, $300 for child care on digital Biden, for example. They would say that's bribery. You're bribing them with benefits. You're bribing them with, what is the word they use for it all the time? It's like giveaways.

Oh, oh. He's said all the time. And now Trump is literally saying put Republicans in office and we give you money. We would give you $5,000 if you put us in office. Yeah. How is that? This is idiot. By the way, I don't believe it for a second.

I don't believe it for a second. This is if you remember in I Dicee, he promised one million dollars to each American. He's like, you don't need jobs. You need money. I'm giving you a million bucks. Well, Trump also promised us rebates cause of all the money that he's, you know, he's, you we bring back to the country from the tariffs. He says it's going to be a dividend.

That thousand is. It's a quote dividend. By the way, that tariff rebate, that's a direct transfer from consumers to businesses, right? Because basically, like, let's say I buy a, you know, whatever, and then I pay a tariff on it.

Then the tariff gets rebated. It doesn't go to Ted Rawl. It goes to the company that sold me the thing. And they're not going to give it back to me. And that's, I mean, literally, it's just, By the way, I asked that very question. I'm like, if we're paying for the tariffs, like if I'm going to Amazon for, let's say, I don't know, six months, do I get the money back? No.

I mean, if Amazon wants to be nice, they can. It is certainly within their rights to do so, and they can take a tax deduction and be, but they have to maintain. I mean, even if they were nice, right, for a corporation, that's still a lot of bookkeeping. That's a lot of, you know, that's issuing payments. that's there's fees associated with that i mean they it's a pain in their ass so why would they do it instead of just keeping the money right yeah i mean not it's scam it's like we had to pay more money and you're now you're telling us you're going to give us back a portion of the money that we had to pay out thanks yeah yeah i have to put you back in office in order to do it right right it's just deficit

spending too it's like so it's five i get five thousand dollars but i guess over the rest of my life my me and my kids will have to pay 25 000 for that five thousand dollars yep fiscal republicans yeah no i mean it's also you know what it reminds me of um it like you know like in so the first time i went to mexico was like in the 90s and the dominant party was the pr i like the you know revolutionary party um poorly named since there's nothing revolutionary about them Oh, is the institutional revolutionary party. Such a great name. So hilarious, right?

Institutional revolutionary. Is that great? Yeah, that's great. So PRI, right, they, the pre, they would, like, they would buy votes. And, like, to get you to vote for them, they'd pick you up at home and drive you in a van over to the polling station and maybe give you, like, a pot or a pan as a gift. And I'm like, well, I'm thinking they're getting more from their vote than I ever do. It's like, at least I, you know, hey, they have a pot to show for it. At least thank you, three.

But that's what this is. This is like a, it's basically a nice pot or pan. They do the same shit in Asia in Taiwan and Japan. You know, these are supposedly advanced industrial democracies. They do the same thing. They bribe people with like kitchen appliances, like, hey, have a blender or whatever and vote for our party. You know, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's really tawdry. I can't believe this is legal.

Like when, when I heard that, I kept thinking to myself, how's that legal? That, there will be no different than Trump saying, I will give you $5,000 for your vote. That's what he's saying. It's, yeah, I mean, I guess it's like it's not direct, right? It's, I think it would be illegal if they say, I will pay you, Robbie West, $5,000 if you vote for me. That's a breath. That's what he is saying. No, he's saying in the aggregate.

Is there a difference between Donald Trump coming to your house personally and say, Ted Raw, I give $5,000 if you vote in the elections for a Republican. And then he goes to the next person and the next person, that's the next person. And then he says, you know what, God, man, this is taking too long. Why don't I just give a speech and say, I would give each and every one of you $5,000 so you vote? They're the same thing. Not legal. One is just taking place individually.

The other one is taking place. in an expedited fashion. But not, you're right, but it's not legally different. It's legally very different, right? I mean, because if you, like, let's say the three of us, we can all, we would, even if Trump takes back the House, we don't, you know, I mean, we can all vote Democratic or not, you know, for third party if we want, we don't have to vote Republican. We'll still get the 5K.

That's the difference. Well, the thing is, it's the lobbyist model. That's why they say that lobbying is not bribery, because the world. way that the money is given. That's all this is. Of course, it's a bribe. And the thing is, it's a obvious bribe. Yeah, I mean, politically it's a bribe, of course. Well, here's the best part. It's not even our money. Our money's already been spent. That's where we're $40 trillion in debt. So if let's just assume that Trump's going to do this, he's going to go to, he's going to go to the Federal Reserve and say, I need you to print out all this money, creating more inflation.

to further weaken the currency to further push prices up for a one-time shot of what? Here's some crack for you. Enjoy it in circus. Go die under your bridge. I mean, it's outrageous. I find it to be outrageous. It's banana republic stuff. It is.

Like, it is. It's embarrassing. Yeah. For one, as you point out, I don't think he would do it. B, Donald Trump is one of the most dishonest people on the planet. And this charlatan is effective saying, hey, vote for me. I'll give you money after the election. I want a signed statement by the Speaker of the House and other top Republican leaders. I want it in blood.

Yeah, I want it in blood. Yeah. I want that name signed in blood. You will get $5,000 for this vote. I mean, it's outrageous. It's just outrageous. I want there to be a punishment. Like, if I, if I, if that $5,000 is,

coming by like February 1st. I want him to like cut off his finger or something on national television. Or he can go, or he can do what they did in the first episode of, of, of, Black Mirror.

Oh, Jesus. Not that I'd want to watch. Like, you want the prime minister, fuck a pig. The prime minister's like, oh,

they're not going to like me if I don't fuck to speak. Oh, it's such a good thing. It's so good. Do you think they would do it in real life? Do you think if Burnham, if they took the queen, took the queen, the king's daughter? No.

And had her held up and said, if you don't fuck a pig on live TV with these specifications to make sure that everybody could see you going into the pig, we're going to cut her finger off, we're going to take her life. Does Burnham. I mean, I'm trying to think who's the most, well, the most high profile, you know, hostages in history were kings, right? In modern history, maybe John Paul Getty the third,

might have been the biggest, richest, or Patty Hurst. See, it would have to be a woman. It doesn't be a woman. Because it would have to be, people would have to, I know this sounds bad. It is true.

Weakness or vulnerability can show itself in a way that is very engaging to a population. especially when it's context of young, attracted women. Oh, she's an angel. She's precious. She could be a horrible person.

And she's like, oh, she's such an angel. We have to save her life. Yeah. Does burn and do it. No. They can't. I think that was what fell short for me in that episode. I love the fact that they were so balls out that they had made that series one episode one.

Yes. But it was like, I was like, come on. be serious knowing what I know about politics I was like that's never that would never happen there's no way you know the princess because burnham didn't do it sucks to be the prince no they would it wouldn't even be seriously entertained I think it's just like no um initially they didn't by the way oh but yeah we got to talk about 9-11 here um let's see so one of the early questions here all right if you so um let's talk about 9-11 so that's the The anniversary is tomorrow, and I have a story to tell.

Do any of you three even believe that Pentagon was hit by a passenger plane? Jimmy Door interview was revealing. I think it was probably, well, here's what, okay, here's the thing, right? Like, I have a friend, a former friend who he was convinced that like none of the towers were hit by, they were hit by missiles, not by planes. I'm like, okay. What did the minister? Fine. First of all, that's not true.

I mean, people, New Yorkers looked up in the air and saw people looking out the windows of the planes, right? But here's the thing. If, let's just say for the sake of argument, this is all staged, like in plane site, right? Like, then where are the fucking planes? Four planes containing hundreds of people took off that morning and did not arrive at their destination with their passengers. Where are they? And like if it wasn't a plane that hit the Pentagon, fine, but there's four missing planes where, you know, with loved ones who never got those people to, they never came home. Where the fuck are the planes, right?

So it's like something hit the Pentagon, a plane is missing. I'm going to assume it's one of those fucking planes. Right. Yeah. I mean, I saw, there was a thing called Loose Change initially. I saw that too. I'll let in the question pretty much everything. it's it's it's very engaging but it's not going to convince in your life if that makes

sense well because it's all suggestion right it's all like oh it's like operation northwoods the u.s always had false flag operations planned what if what if what if but there's no evidence right it's like i mean the only thing that there's evidence against the official narrative is that that there was a successful passenger rebellion on united 93 that brought the flight down in Pennsylvania. There's really kind of evidence to oppose that, like the fact that parts of the plane were found miles away from the crash site, which seems to indicate a missile attack instead. There's a lot wrong with the official narrative. Yeah. I mean, everything from that official report was a whitewash, and it was whitewash and it was

whitewash and U.S. responsibility for those attacks. Tucker Carlson, I would put anyone to go and watch your series on this. It is stunning. And it is it is one of those things like when the Soviet unions start putting out fowls and people were like a gas by the shit that was in the fowls, like this is what your government has been doing. But that's a that's a come to Jesus moment where the government is reconciling with itself. This is kind of like that, to be honest, what tucker Paulson is doing when he's exposing a lot of the stuff that were just lies. The fb, the CIA involvement, the CIA bringing terrorists into the country. The CIA not telling the FBI, like all of this stuff. Now people can come to the conclusion to say, well, they were planning it.

Even what Tucker Carlson is saying is that it doesn't go far enough. And I've had guests on my show that would make that argument that this stuff is a cover up on some level. But even just to the degree and extent of Tucker Carlson, it is shocking. Like we are responsible in many respects for what happened on 9-11. And what the CIA did at the end of all of this was this kind of whitewashing of their hands of it, their responsibility, how they were involved. you get the 9-11 commission report. It doesn't. Yeah, they don't get into how the United States groomed and trained and cooperated with bin Laden,

helped grow al-Qaeda, helped spirit him out of Sudan to Afghanistan. You know, I mean, all of their roles in the perpetrators here, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the whole thing. And of course, obviously, the biggest thing of the mall. So let me tell my story. Blowback, right? So I'll make this short. People always say that. they don't. So in 1999, I went on an adventure travel trip for a magazine on the Karakoram Highway,

which is one of the highest altitude roadways in the world, connects the Kashmir, sorry, Kashgar in Western China, in Xinjiang to Islamabad, and it goes through Pakistani-occupied Kashmir. It threw the Karakur Mountains, thus the name. Anyway, unbeknownst to me, as my friend and I were traveling on the slow-moving bus, which took weeks, at that exact time, the new Pervez Musharraf was planning to overthrow the government of Sharif in Pakistan and invited the Taliban to fight a proxy war in Kashmir, which became known as the Kargil conflict or the third Kashmir war. our bus blundered into the third Kashmir war, into a battle zone.

The three Taliban guys came on the bus, collected everyone's passports, and they're like, you, I'm two, Americans, come with us. So they take us off the bus, and they're like, look, there's an order from Mullah Omar that says anybody who's traveling in Afghanistan has to be, who's an American, has to be executed. And I'm like, we're not in Afghanistan. We're in Pakistan. And it's like, well, this is now, you know, Afghanistan means any place controlled by the Taliban. I'm like, okay, but we just came from Xinjiang.

We had no way of finding out. And this was not the case. We would not have come if we'd known this was the case. We would have respected, you know, Sheikh Omar's, you know, deedict. And but nobody had any way of knowing that. You know, he's like, you have phones. I'm like, come on. There's no signals out here.

I mean, it's like we're in the middle of nowhere. And then we're just talking and talking. And basically, I was pretty convinced that we were going to be killed. And at one point, I realized this one guy, he speaks great English. And I'm like, dude, how do you learn your English? And he goes, dude, I'm, I'm 1983, NYU. And so I'm like, what? So, yeah.

And he's about to chop your head off? He was about to, yeah, he was about to shoot us, right? And so he's like, the tension sort of broke. And he kind of understood. And he did joke. And I was like, but we're not, I kept saying, but we're not in Afghanistan. He goes, yes, but sometimes Afghanistan comes to you. And we started laughing.

And then that's when the tension broke, right? And we had this long conversation. We spent hours over this fire on the side of the road, waiting for the road to clear, for the battle to clear out. And at one point, he goes, you know, you Americans, there's big things coming. You fight all your wars over here. You think you can kill us willy-nilly. Like, you know, and you never knows no accountability, no blowback, nothing happens to you.

That's not going to be true for much longer. Like, we've got things in the works. Like, it's coming to you. It's coming to the United States. And you deserve it. And so I thought about all this every now and then, I think, about this. Hassan Piker and his comment that he's, you know, being raked over the coals about that, you know, the U.S. deserved 9-11. And I'm like thinking, well, U.S. policymakers

definitely deserved 9-11. The 3,000 people who got up in the morning and just went to work in an office did not deserve 9-11, you know, unless you believe that we're such a democracy that anybody who lives in that democracy is responsible for the people that they elected. That's a valid that I don't believe that because I don't think we really have we don't really have choices in our democracy quote unquote but but the point is that we're yeah I mean we should overthrow the government obviously basic question are people culpable for their government oh I think we are attacking the country we don't care about the number of people that get kills we in fact even use the term collateral damage I don't think I don't think we are really not culpable our soldiers

when he called them small potatoes. All of these people are lives. All of these people have people who love them. All of these people have people that care. We considered the Germans to be guilty of collective guilt, right? After World War II. I mean, that's the question, right? Is a country responsible for the people who run that country?

And if not, who is? Sort of. How is it sort of? Ish. Well, I mean, so here's the thing. Let me put it this way. If you could wake up every morning and frictionously help determine the course of your government by pushing like buttons on your computer, then yes, 100% we're responsible.

But if it requires going up against the agents of the state in forming vast organizations of resistance and risking death and torture and death and prison to overthrow the government in order to change your government, then that's really, really fucking hard. And that's asking a lot. And history shows that for the most part, people can't do. do that moat very often so so therefore i think it's it might be asking too much you mentioned blowback the book charmers johnson yeah and you know the fantastic book by the way both of the books that are read from his were very good sorrows of empire was one day 11 we didn't even know who hit us

we could from from our point of view it could have been from somebody from south america it could have been middle east it could have been etc because we had been killing or at the very least supporting the killing of so many people that we created anger around the globe, which is reasonable considering if you kill my mom, uncle, grandfather, or something like that, I'm going to hate you forever. And I'm going to want you to die. And I'm not going to care that the people of your country die because you don't care that the people of our country is dying. Meaning you have a country of 320 million people that don't give a shit about the fact that their government is going around the globe getting people killed. The death squads in South America,

America, or in this case, the Middle East in the conversation that you have with the guy of U.S. policy where we got a million Iraqis killed. Yeah. Not to mention the release of ISIS going all throughout the Middle East. We create chaos, havoc, and pain and mayhem, and the population in America plays their Xbox. We don't care. I guess I'm trying to get the point of saying, is there a culpability about a population

that doesn't care, but pays his tax dollars, sends his sons and daughters over to do these horrible disgusting things is there culpability the answer is yes there is let me think about this how many ukrainians have died since the beginning of this war that trump and then biden started against the russians for the for the for the purpose of trying to bankrupt russia and then break it to 12 smaller countries because you can't have a peer competitor and then you have no arguably half maybe more the american population doesn't even bother to get out and vote. And so what they do is they sit there and they complain.

To your point, J.T., they pay their taxes. They're on social media, maybe rage against the imaginary white supremacists for calling them a name or in reference to livestock. And they do nothing at all to actually change anything. And then you have another group of, then you have people like me. You're like, you know, the government's the problem. Maybe we should take care of the home folks first. And in order to do that, you've got to stop fighting foreign.

wars all over the place. But then you get called a conspiracy theorist because you don't believe the 9-11 official story because the government lies about everything. Why would I believe them about this? I mean, yes, the American people is responsible for this. We own it. We own what our government does. If it is government by the people, for the people of the people, that means you, Joe

citizen, you have an obligation. It is. By definition, it is. People say, but it's not government for the people by the people. I mean, I didn't choose this government. I would never have chosen this economic system, this political system, this two-party system. None of it. I wouldn't have picked it.

I mean, there's very little here that I like about and what can I personally do about it. Do I deserve to be, do I deserve to be blown up in an elevator in the World Trade Center? Because, you know, I just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time because I happen to live in a country that's run by assholes and psychotic capitalist pigs. I mean, I mean, I should, I would love, let me put it. I would risk my life to overthrow the government. I'm not going to give my life for nothing because there's literally no revolutionary organization I can join.

That would just mean I'm risking my life. Isn't that kind of the point? That's the point. The country hasn't necessarily looked at what the government is the one that was horrified by it. Let's put it in context, right? Maduro is sitting in a gulag. And many Americans are against this.

It's not like Israel where, you know, very, very, very few Israelis give a shit about the Palestinians and what's happened to the people of Gaza. They're fine with it, right? So it's like if, you know, a bomb happens to fall on Tel Aviv and blow up 10 random Israelis, nine out of 10 of them probably were totally cool with what happened in Gaza. That's not true in the U.S. If that bomb randomly blows up 10 people on the streets of Wichita, probably eight out of 10 didn't like this government in the first place. the point and here's where the argument kind of falls apart is for example Israel has record low

approval here the United States a couple months ago a congressman from Kentucky named Thomas Massey the only person in Congress who never took a dime from APEC lost to an APEC owned prostitute because the majority of people in his district could not get up from their blessed assurance take 30 minutes out of their day and go and cast a ballot. Representative government means just that you get the government that you deserve. If you don't. If you have representative government, this government doesn't represent us. But the thing is, though, is that the reason why it doesn't is because the American people

don't enforce change. We have the ability in this country. How would they do that? How would they do that? Through electing congressmen, through electing county. sheriff. Two out of three races in this country are literally unopposed. There's only one party running. I get that. And that's the whole point. So if you want to have real change at that point, what you get, you get enough people who are pissed off enough to go meet at a VFW hall or wherever,

at a Shriners convention, whatever, and actually do something at the local level to take your power back. no one took our power from us as the American people. We surrendered it. We could take it back if we just simply would. It's so entrenched apathy. And that's the problem. Meaning, look, we weren't like what Obama was doing in regards to the drone war. Okay, we didn't see it.

It was conceptual. What Trump was doing in regards to Maduro and killing fishermen was obvious. Everybody saw it. And people might have just like, oh, I don't like that. That's, you know, that's unseemly that he's effectively. murdering people. But do they care? Is there still apathy about it?

There's apathy about it. Well, there's apathy because people think they can't change the situation. Unfortunately, it's 10 o'clock. So I'm happy to look, tomorrow is 9-11. So why don't we talk about it? We'll continue this tomorrow. Does the United States? Did the United States have 9-11 coming?

Clearly there's more to this. So unless there's major breaking news, we should talk about it. Just before we take off, I wanted to hit horses. question what do you guys think about the idea that Israel knew 9-11 was going to happen and chose to do nothing I've heard that they had intel or they might have had intel that masahed with all of the ends that it had throughout the Middle East and everything else that it had to have known and just didn't tell it suited their objectives it wouldn't surprise me I would be shocked there's a clip of Net and yahoo a paraphrasing basically says the best thing that could have happened for

Israel because now the Americans are going to step up and fight their wars for them. Absolutely. So the American people, I think he said, is that they're hard to get started, but once they do, they never stop. Or that's a paraphrase. So yes, the answer is absolutely yes. I mean, the fact that they had Mossad agents dancing on rooftops and cheering as a Well, but that doesn't mean they knew it was going to happen in advance.

That's not the same thing. Being happy that something happened is not the same thing. Well, the fact that they were, the fact they were that they were prepositioned cameras is pretty damning, Ted. We will resume the 9-11 talk tomorrow. In the meantime, TMI show is coming up right now. Stay tuned. Thanks, everyone.