DeProgram with John Kiriakou and Ted Rall - Israeli Settler-Terrorists Maul NBC News Journalists | DeProgram with Ted Rall and Jamarl Thomas

Episode Date: September 1, 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:• NBC correspondent Matt Bradley says his team is “recovering well” after they “all took hits” from Israeli settler-terrorists during an interview the day before with elderly Palestinian woman Aida Ahmed Abdullah, who was knocked unconscious in Saturday’s attack. While interviewing Abdullah, whose home has been occupied by Israeli thugs, a group of masked men in a car with Israeli license plates descended on them with sticks and stones, beating them. One of the attackers could be seen swinging a stick at the cameraman before the camera fell to the ground.• Laura Berlin built an interactive Google Map titled, “Who is Profiting from ICE?” The U.S. government found her website, too – and has labeled it a tool for domestic terrorism.• The Supreme Court lets Trump proceed with plans to build the White House ballroom. The 5-4 ruling is likely the final word on the project. The majority decision noted that the justices did "not pass upon the legality of the government's East Wing project." The real issue: Constitutional separation of powers.• The U.S. Postal Service could "derail" the midterm election if it continues rushing out "untested" technology as part of President Trump's push to restrict mail-in voting, a newly released whistleblower report warns.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

Good morning. This is the program with Ted Raul and Jamaral Thomas for Tuesday, September 1st, 2026. Hope you're having a nice day so far. I hope the rest of your day is great. Thanks so much for joining us. We're here Monday through Friday, 9 a.m. to 10 a.m. Eastern time. We will be back here again tomorrow at the same exact time. We also do Q&A shows 12 noon, Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. Yesterday's was pretty cool. You might want to check that out. It's on the re-upload on YouTube and Rumble. as always we appreciate your support and thank you so much for those birthday donations yesterday for Jamaril much appreciated and Jamaral happy birthday 49 plus one day and so anyway we have a lot of stuff to talk about today some of it kind of disturbing but anyway basically there's this attack on an

NBC news crew, not the first attack by Israeli Jewish settler terrorists in the West Bank, where they almost beat an elderly Palestinian woman to death right in front of the NBC crew. I have thoughts about this. I know you do, too. A woman who created a Google map that's interactive that shows which companies are making money from ICE basically has been marked by the U.S. government by the Trump administration as a possible domestic terrorist. Supreme Court rules on the ballroom. That has far bigger implications than just a ballroom. And finally, the Postal Service, a whistleblower from the Postal Service says

is being used in order to intentionally derail the midterm elections coming up in early November. So a lot to talk about. If you have comments, please put them in the live chat on YouTube, A Rumble. Producer Robbie, we'll go ahead and put those up. and if you have any questions that you really want to prioritize, that you really want us to pay attention to, we always appreciate the YouTube superchats and the Rumble Rounds.

Okay, housekeeping done. JT., where do you want to start? There's one more story I want to add to that, Van Jones. Let's do it. I don't know if you saw Van Jones giving up. I don't know what he was giving. I don't even know who Van Jones was talking to. He was talking about El Saeed.

And he made the point of saying, I work with El Saeed at CNN, these people are dangerous, basically talking about like DSA and these type of groups. And specifically Van Jones. And he made the point saying that he worked with them at CNN. Oh, okay. Basically like when Van Jones was come on for doing interviews and do spots and those type of things that he's basically saying, and I know these people from my time at CNN,

they are dangerous. Okay. And he goes in to make the argument. And I could play the clip. In fact, let me see. Do I have a thing below me? Okay, I don't have it on my end where I can do it. If the stream yard, we can do it.

If he sent me the link, I can do it. Okay, I can see the link. Let me see you the link. And then just keep- Ben Jones. Keep doing it. Basically, it makes the argument. He says, I work with these people. They're dangerous.

And then he says, it is a defensible position, maybe, for Democrats to say that Israel and the weapons that Israel get should be tethered to be tethered to be tethered to be tethered to, their behavior. And he's, and what's wild about that. It's dangerous to say otherwise. Well, he's arguing that he thinks it's a defensible position. He's not clear. He doesn't really know, but I think it's a defensible position to say that Israel should be, their weapons that they should get should be tethered to their behavior. And even if you stop there, you think to yourself,

it's very, it's like they are committing a genocide. What is wrong with you? Right. Like, Like, meaning this is, and by the way, the Democratic leadership follows suit with this. Because if you paid, like, if you saw the people who they are deciding to put into positions of authority in regards to issues of the Middle East are all rabbit Zionists. Meaning, we don't care what the overwhelming majority of the people who are in the Democratic Party think. Van Jones is only articulating what the Democratic Party echelon believes. So when he's arguing, well, I suppose it's a defensible point. position to, you know, tie Israel's behavior to the weapons that they get? I suppose so. Really? You suppose so? And what's wild about it? And I always argue this is the Democratic leadership's position.

They don't know whether given weapons to Israel and tethering it to the money that they get is. Oh, they know. They're unsure. It's like they're committing a genocide, fool. Let me know whenever you're right for me to play this link that you share, Jay. Oh, if you want to do it, go ahead. I had it ready to go too. But you're going to do a better job than me. Go ahead, Robbie. With it CNN, I know a fool.

His positions on Israel and foreign policy are insane. They're not reasonable reactions to anything. Look, some Democrats are going to say that we should condition military aid that, you know, Israel's gone too far in Gaza and the West Bank and Lebanon. We're going to put some conditions on it. I think that's a defensible position if you're a Democrat. That's not up to those position. There are people who say...

He doesn't know. Like, meaning some Democrats who I think is, like on the weaker side of this, to say the weapons we give them should be conditional. And he's like, I suppose that's a defensible position. So that means his position is to the right of that. Right. My definition of what he's saying. And the Democratic leadership, considering who they're putting into positions of authority,

if they win the House and Senate, they're in line with him. Can we hear the rest? So I just want to make that clear, right? And he's basically saying, Hakeem, El Zaid's position is just completely untenable. Bobby, let's hear a little more. We shouldn't be paying for any of the military, We shouldn't be in giving military A. Now, I think that's understandable,

but I think indefensible because it's not charity. We're building a strong defense sector here, and Israel is protecting a lot of Western interests in that region. But I can get why you would say, no more aid. They got to pay their own way. That's not Abdul's position. Abdul's position is a total and complete arms embargo

against the state of Israel, including defensive weapons. That's an insane position. That's as if Israel wants to pay. That's his point. It is indefensible to say you shouldn't give them weapons or anything. How is that indefensible? I would argue that's the main state of most of the public when they're watching a country murder women and children in mass.

Like, I would argue his position is indefensible. The reason why Kamala Hurst lost the race is part and parcel to this very specific position that the Democratic Party expels and maintain as they defend it and supported a genocide. That's outrageous. That is the Democratic Party from my point of view. I mean, Jamal, do you, I hear this. I wonder, maybe I haven't had enough coffee this morning or maybe my coffee this morning is a little weaker than usual. But I, to me, that's the difference between defensive and offensive. offensive weapons is a distinction without much of a difference.

Right. I mean, it's like basically when we say like, well, I mean, implicit in his making that distinction is his acknowledgement that Israel does use offensive weapons in order to start battles, wars against its neighbors, right? Yes. So, oh, well, okay, we won't let Israel engage in these offensive attacks against, let, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, et cetera, and the occupied territories. I mean, I'm forced to imply that because he's not very clear.

And, okay, so why would you then say, okay, we'll let you have defensive? I mean, it's like, look, when someone, when a country is behaving in a totally toxic, totally genocidal way, and by the way, not protecting any American interests, endangering American interests, particularly where American interests matter the most in the United States as they relate to Americans, but also in the Middle East. I mean, you can ask the UAE and Jordan and Qatar right now how safe they feel under Israel's umbrella, okay? I bet not very safe, right? I bet right now they kind of wish they didn't know Israel. Okay. So it's like, I mean, There's so many presuppositions, you know, it's kind of like, well, like Ian Esco's rhinoceros is currently getting a, you know, a revival in Massachusetts and it's going to probably go around the country.

People had forgotten about it. And one of the great, like, you know, Eanesco was an absurdist. And he would say, like, well, a cat has four paws. A dog has four paws. Therefore, a cat is a dog. And this is the kind of like, like, logic. It's like, well, Israel protects,

you know, is keeping the Middle East safe. Okay, therefore, but it's like there is no therefore, because that's not true. It's like, it's actually the most destabilizing force in the Middle East by far. It's not, that's, that destabilizing force is not Iran, not even close. You know, Iran has had some destabilizing influences, but it doesn't come. I mean, it's just so like,

and it's maddening, it's sort of like, well, if we pay you, let's just say there's really such a big difference between defensive and offensive weapons, which is really not true. There's such thing. If I pay for your defensive, quote unquote, defense, well, that frees you, that frees your defense budget to spend money on offensive weapons, doesn't it? So it's still helping you. It's like, you know, Robbie, if I'm like, oh, Robbie, my friend Robbie, I love him.

I don't like the fact that he's a fucking junkie and spends money on heroin instead of buying food for his family. But Robbie asked me for money. So, but Robbie, don't spend this money I'm sending you for crack. Don't, don't buy it smack with this. Just fry food. And he's like, I will, Ted. But that frees him to spend other money that he would have, you know, on crack.

So, I mean, it's money fungible. It just sort of makes no sense at all. And I know the American people aren't that sharp, but are we really, I think we're no longer retarded when it comes to Israel. And the numbers show that. Well, the crazy thing is Go ahead, J.T. No, no. Go ahead, Robbie. I'm sorry.

Well, first of all, I'm going to tell you hit the nail on the head. There's no such thing as a defensive weapon. It's an oxymoron. Yeah, I own multiple weapons. The purpose for them is to protect my home. That said, they're perfectly capable of being used in an offensive capability. I mean, there's the mitigating factor are these hands right here. This is it.

And the fact that. mitigating factor is what's going on here, right? It's all in your mind. Yeah, I have agency. I'm able to choose how I'm going to do this thing. The worst thing about it is, is that Van Jones, and I assume that the corporate Democrats as a whole, they're not talking about anything that actually got them elected or that people want.

They're not talking about homelessness, not talking about jobs or wages. They're not talking about health care, that's not about education. They're talking about Israel. and whether or not we should even consider even giving them a leash at all or just throwing it in the trash while we pay for the rabid dog. Listen, I am a fundamentalist Christian and I would vote for Saeed over what Van Jones just said. Saeed's position is contrary to Van Jones. In the general space of U.S. dialogue, extremely mainstream. Most Americans are where Saeed is.

Most Americans are not where Van Jones is. And you know what drives me crazy? I imagine you feel a little bit like this, too, Jamar. Van Jones kind of characterized himself as a progressive when he started out. And, you know, kind of like aligned himself as sort of like a Bernie type person. And so to see this sell out, it's like it's not quite, you know, Rachel Madagian proportions, but it's close. He's a corporate Democrat.

And this is what they think. This is what they believe. I mean, the notion. of saying, and look, I agree with you. I do think there are defensive weapons like PAC three or like a Patriot Air Defense Thad, et cetera, et cetera. But that's kind of irrelevant, right? The idea that we would give Hitler defensive weapons as he goes and pursues the murder of Jews, putting Jews in ovens and our response and strongest is for responses, well, we shouldn't give them offensive weapons. Only defensive weapons. Only defensive weapons. Only defensive weapons,

puts Jews in Evans. That's what we should get to. Which, by the way, I'm glad you made this analogy, because that makes me think, well, what needed to happen to Nazi Germany? What did happen? They were, they were destroyed by the Soviet Union. Thank God, right? And I mean, that's what needs to happen to Israel. They need to be destroyed by their neighbors as a nation state. I don't want to see the people die, but that nation state needs to go. And, and like, so, you know, I mean, You know, let's just say, you know, somehow the Lebanese army were to become inexplicably, militarily powerful. If they can march into Tel Aviv, awesome. God bless.

God's work. God's work. Van Jones is also showing his imperialist colors in this, right? Well, our colony in that region, that is the irritant in that region, by the way, needs to be defended because it helps and advances American objectives. this. Okay, well, thank you for being honest. Right? Thank you for your honesty. I appreciate that. You now give me more of a reason to hate your party that much more. And before we talk about El Saeed, to add a wrinkle into all of this conversation, this is Detroit News. They said, in a private event today in Detroit, suburb, Abdul El Saeed pleaded with Jews to forgive him.

Quote, I am asking for forgiveness and a moment of grace. Unquote. Elsa E. Sidi-Burmaham to the Michigan Democratic Jewish Caucus, somewhere, I think this is called Simcha, quote, I made a mistake, unquote. What mistake? I mean, we all make mistakes. I don't know. I mean, look, obviously he was told, you know,

you've got to go and suck up near a tendon went and told him, you've got to do this. And so he's doing it, right? it sucks and by the way I would say when you're apologizing you're playing defense and when you're playing defense you are losing so you know I mean I have these days I have controversies about my cartoons almost every week right now I've got one going on and I had someone say aren't you going to apologize for the fact that some people are taking your cartoon in this way that's hurt that they see it as hurtful and I'm like I'm not gonna I'm not I can't apologize for what is true. true. And it's like, I'm not going to apologize for what is true. But even bigger than that, like even if you are wrong, you probably shouldn't apologize. You know, like Donald, apologize for anything. You didn't know anything wrong. Donald Trump has proven that, right? Yeah. And he didn't do anything. Right here, quote, I pull up the article, Detroit News.

I'm asking for forgiveness in a moment of grace, El Zaid said at the Jewish caucus gathering at Birmingham, quote, I made a mistake. Reporters weren't allowed into the Jewish caucus, summer Cimcha, but El Sayyid's campaign released the recording of the remarks which showed the progressive Democrat was attempting to reach out the Jewish members of this party. Quote, I am here because I may be your next senator. El Saeed also said at the event and I care a lot more about serving well than simply winning. Motherfucker.

Yeah, I mean, it's like this, that's the thing, right? That's why progressives shouldn't play with Democrats. You know, I mean, because this is what they are. I mean, and let's not forget, say you've never joined the DSA, you know, he, which is, the DSA is basically a Hubert Humphrey liberal, right? I mean, they're not like, you know, it's not, they're not radicals, sadly. No. But, you know, I mean, yeah, you just basically, you can look, you can try to take over the Democratic Party as a hostile takeover if that's your approach. But don't forget, 99% of the time, it's like the Manchu's invading China.

You end up getting eaten alive. They end up using you. You are the insurgents from the Bronx, the cute bartender. And then you end up, you know, licking Nancy Pelosi's vaj. I mean, that's what happens. And, you know, you sell out. That'd be interesting. That'd be interesting to watch.

Yeah, that's porn I would buy. I would pay for that. I would pay for that. I guess the same thing, that's weak. Momdami never apologize for anything he said. No. He's a better politician than Said. Well, it's a mistake.

Domani is smooth. And it's pathetic. After the debate you and me had JT where it got really, we've got bare knuckles to you and me about homosexuality. I got a bunch of emails saying, Robbie, I demand you apologize. What? You didn't say anything else? Sinner! To which case, I said no.

I mean, seriously, why would I ever apologize for something that I believe? And if I believe that Israel is an apartheid state, it is a wartyed state, it is a warty on the right butt cheek of the world. And it should be removed. Well, there you are hanging out with radicals like Jimmy Carter. I don't even know what that means. But seriously. I mean, Jimmy Carter just find it as an apartheid state.

Without controversy. You want to ever apologize for what they believe. Yeah. Why should you apologize for it? It never occurred to me. Never. That you should apologize. I'm damn sure it wasn't going to apologize.

You didn't say anything wrong. And I'm saying, El-Said said nothing wrong. In fact, I would wager part of the reason that he won that race was because of his positions. And true, you're trying to get all of Michigan. Fair enough. Look, go by all means campaign to Jewish voters. Jewish voters are obviously a part of, you know, they're Michigan. They're Michiganders, too.

And you should get their votes if you can. but don't sell yourself out in order to get their votes or any other votes, right? I mean, it's like, unless you really think you did something wrong, which you know he doesn't think. And by the way, that's the other thing, too. This shit won't work. You know, if you're like a hardcore Zionist voter in Michigan, you think that's going to buy you. You're going to be like, I know what this Arab thinks. Like, fuck that guy.

I mean, Jewish voters aren't stupid. And it allows the Democrats to say, see, see, he did something wrong. Meaning when, what's his name? When you apologize, yeah, that's an admission that you did something wrong, by definition. Which is more important to the reason that you shouldn't do it.

When Van Jones comes out, his position is indefensible. And then you hear this fool while he apologizing. Okay, well, it makes it look as if what Van Jones is saying is on some level. True. When what Van Jones is articulating, it's trash. You shouldn't do it. It's weak. You can

make your pitch to the Jewish voters. out apologizing to the Jewish voters. He started out well. I mean, when he said, you know, like, look, I'm going to be, you know, I might be your U.S. senator. I might be your next U.S. senator. I'm going to, you know, I care, he has said on other occasions, I care deeply about my Jewish brothers and sisters.

I would protect them like my own family, leg it on a little thick, like my own family. But okay, fine. But like, fine, fine. That's all good, you know, like, you know. And I'm deeply concerned. concerned about anti-Semitism, which frankly everyone should be. And that's good, too. Just leave it. Okay. Like whenever, I mean, this is, this all rings of inauthenticity and weakness. It's the two things you never want as a politician. If my brothers or sisters were involved

with hunting down and killing innocent people, I would not protect them. I would condemn them and do everything I could possibly do to get them arrested and set to prison for the rest of their lives. Well, you're talking about that's Israel. Right now I'm talking about Jewish, Michigan, No, no, I get that, but you got to remember how it is that they play this thing. They always try to conflate Israel with Jews. Refuse to play. That is what they do. And so that's how I would do. You know, stop trying to qualify yourself. Do you think that is Israel a Jewish state? Yes or no. Yes. Okay, just check that box. That's your definition, not mine. Is Israel committing a genocide? Yes. Are we paying for it? Yes. Do you, does the Israeli lobby control our

political class. Let's go check that box again. Yes, it does. So don't quote, so don't lawyer me. Well, it's not all Jews. Well, if it ain't you, I apologize. They've got nothing to worry about. I'm talking about the other people wearing the little tiny hats who think that they are God's chosen people who are committing a genocide using my dime to do it. If that offends you, seriously, go to hell. Well, don't forget also, there's all of your buddies on the Christian right who are pro, who are pro-Israel too. They're the biggest. No, world and there's a biggest lose they are the biggest negotiations right they need to lose they are committing mass murder they need to lose and the idea that you find it's like i need to somehow

lower myself to these killers nonsense the people who the people who pay attention to him and get him as you point out to it apologizing it's not going to turn to zine is to say well he apologized It's okay. No, nonsense. You shouldn't apologize. And by the way, people who are looking at the Democratic Party as weak, as flaccid, as impotent, that they can't necessarily hold on to a particular theme and a particular narrative, those people are right. This is new AOC. This is just AOC.

It is AOC. I mean, like, he folded. Even before he got into office, he folded. He opened his ass cheeks wide. Immediately before we even got into office, he is getting bad, bad data for my point. Well, in keeping with the theme tomorrow, I have to apologize because as much as I'm enjoying our discussion, we have four other topics that we need to talk to. Yes.

I'm talking about at least. Plus, we haven't done a single comment, and we have 32 minutes left in the show. All right. So, and Settler attacks, whose price, ICE website, ballroom, or postal service? What's the Supreme Court ruling on the ballroom? Okay, so the Supreme Court decided to vote five to four. Justice Roberts wrote the dissent. He doesn't usually do that.

He basically, this is the final word. The president may continue to, he can continue construction and work on the ballroom and finish it without any discussion whatsoever about the legality of the, of whether, because, basically these were using funds appropriated from, remember he told us that this was all to be private funds, but it's not true. These are taxpayer funds, right? So under the Constitution, the power of the personalized with Congress, Congress never approved any of these funds. So billions of

dollars are being spent on this. The Trump administration asked the court to let them continue. The court said, basically Justice Roberts wrote in his dissent that the court would almost certainly find that this was unconstitutional because it violated they didn't get approval from Congress for the funding. So in this kind of weasley way that basically lets the administration have its way de facto without while pretending to continue to adhere to the separation of powers, the court said that the plaintiffs here did not have standing. This was the National Historic Preservation Trust, and they relied primarily on the expert opinion of one of the nation's leading architectural experts who specializes in government architecture. Now, here's the kicker. Going back to the 90s,

in a landmark opinion by Justice Scalia, the court had already decided that entities like that do have standing to sue the government, to sue because they say, well, you know, if you have a an expert, sort of a gust institution that knows a lot about a topic. Let's say, for example, the NIH were to sue the government over some kind of health-related matter. They'd be like, well, it's the NIH. They're smart guys, and we have to listen to them. So even if though they're not personally hurt, they have a huge interest in this and we're

going to listen to what they have to say. Now the judge that without comment, the court has reversed that ruling and just basically said, if you're not directly impacted and hurt by this, you can't, you don't have standing to sue. Now, the thing is, they're like, well, someone else who feels hurt is actually, and can prove it, is welcome to come and bring their case in front of the court. They can still do that. We don't know who that would be. And by the time it gets to us, the ballroom will be completed. So basically, de facto, you know, it's kind of like easier to, it's easier to beg forgiveness than to get permission is the Trump way. That means that the president can do anything. You can always make the

argument that you don't have standing for this. You can say that about anything. The president has just done something illegal. Correct. I mean, multiple times, right? With the tariffs, those were illegal. Right. There was no consequence, but those were illegal tariffs because the president didn't have authority to do that. That was the issue of Congress. And here again, the president does something that the president doesn't have standing to do, but the president does it anyway and then it's like okay well if that's illegal for the president to do that then what's the consequence well there is none because no one is standing according to this a republican supreme court this is nonsense this is just nullification they hate it when black people did this right

when they were like yeah i mean this black pressure responded um the court wants to put him in a cage for life and the jury says yeah no we don't want to do that obviously he did something illegal the jury is taking upon itself to not prosecute because the jury is looking at this as well the system itself is the problem we're not going to necessarily going to put this guy on trial for something that the person shouldn't be put on trial for oh we hate that that's bad we hate that what the hell is this the president is clearly doing something that he doesn't have the powers to do and the Supreme Court as opposed to following its own precedent and saying what the president is wrong to do it and this this is illegal by our own laws the president effectively gives the president immutable powers. That's an amazing thing. That just took place. Well, I mean, obviously this is Project 2025 come to life, right? That was one of their things. They assumed that if they flooded the zone, they would be able to pretty much rule through executive orders and ignore basic separation of powers and other issues and, you know, fight wars without getting con. I mean, all this stuff, right? But this is not even, I'm sorry to interrupt. This is not even flood the zone. This is a very straightforward case.

It is a straightforward case. Any any, I mean, Judge Roberts, Republican, by the way. Right? It's like, this is outrageous. Yeah, he's unhappy. Or you let the president do this.

This is Justice Supreme Court ignoring the law. Correct. And that's what Justice, that's why Justice Roberts, who I think my understanding is this is only, he's been in for many years. I think this is his only third author dissent. So he obviously felt strongly about it.

Yeah. That's amazing. I'm just saying, That's amazing. He joined the liberal just allowed a president to do whatever the president wants and use this. I mean, it's a big fucking problem. I mean, it's like, I mean, I don't even know, by the way, how it works, like from a technical point of view. Like, so if the, I mean, so where does the money come from? I mean, this money is real money. It's in accounts, right? I mean, Congress, Congress approves money. Then the money has to be appropriated.

to a fund, and then it goes to the fund. And then, like, all the contractors, like Trump's buddies who are building the ballroom, they need to, you know, this isn't working for the Trump foundation, which may or may not pay you. This is working for the U.S. government, which is going to pay you. So where do these hundreds of millions of dollars actually come from? I would love a bureaucratic expert to tell me because they weren't appropriated by Congress. Let's come from the military budget. I mean, think about what we talked about yesterday. Pete Hankseth is talking about how Congress needs to infuse more cash because the military is running out of money to pay its service members.

Right. Well, if you know how many service members is that you have, then you're able to do this thing called math. You're able to kind of budget it out. If the money's not there, what's somewhere? So where did it go? But they can snatch it somewhere. Of course. I mean, like they're stealing money from Social Security, for example.

They snatch money from different places. Yeah. I mean, seriously, that's where it came from. Can I prove it? Of course not. But I mean, I'm able to use the brains God gave me. That's where it came from. They're looting other accounts.

And then they go to Congress. Oh, we have a new emergency. We're out of money. We can't pay the troops. Right. We can't not pay the troops. Our sainted beloved troops who we always treat with incredible respect after they leave. Yeah.

Yeah. I'm going to get tweaked on boats. Jumped off with us from shots. Big fucking thing. Okay, so this is a good comment from Douglas Hobden. I do get bored of the way you Americans bleed on bleeding, is one of my favorite words, about Congress and its powers.

If you haven't realized by now, your magical constitution is toilet paper and means fuck all. But so does international law, and so does the European Union's laws. Like these, it's just, it's there up into the point it becomes inconvenient. Yeah, yeah.

I mean, the entire point of making it a law, right, is a restraint. Don't do this. Like it's trying to restrain the powers of the government. Because obviously, it's an entity that has the capability of more bananas. I guess the point is they've just ignored it. It's not the balance of powers anymore, where you have these two forces that are aligned at each other with a certain amount of balance between them. And the balance goes out of whack dependent upon who wins a particularly election, et cetera. You have the Supreme Court that's like seven members of it are Republicans.

Hardcore. And they are given the president grace to do whatever the president wants. And I mean, yeah, I mean, and look, obviously the Constitution is out of date in this respect, right? Because it was when these English gentlemen who wrote it came up with the separation of powers, they lived in a time where the one thing you really cared about when you served in government, was not lining your pockets with crypto. you cared about, like, power. You wanted to do things.

You wanted to change things. You wanted people to remember, like, oh, like this, you know, this was the Thomas Rawl bill that they passed, right? And like, so that's what you were remembered for. You didn't want to just go to Congress and sit around and twiddle your thumbs and maybe grift on, you know, through prediction markets. You were trying to, and so the thing is, they didn't anticipate a time of party politics where in the future, you know,

know, a lickspiddle Congress would basically abdicate their powers and basically, you know, allow themselves to be scratched behind their ears by corporations and by the president and all that. And they're like, and bribed. They just, you know, that wasn't part something like you, if these guys who were who fought the revolution, you've seen those charts about like how all those guys like lost so much of their money and they all ended up bankrupt. I mean, they weren't doing it for the money. They were doing it for the power. And like, and, you know, now, It's, you know, people, you know, it used to be those two things went together. Now, really, it's just about the money.

So, of course, separation of powers followed by the wayside. Could take that power. Oh, sure. I mean, if Congress woke up on one and it was like, hey, we don't like what the president is. Yeah, and if nobody throws their shit out the car window, there's no litter on the side of the highway. But, you know, it's just, but that's not going to happen, like you would say. Yeah. Yeah.

Okay. So we should move on. So should we talk about this? what do you well what should i'll let you have the pick here what do you want to do next which was what there were two other stories oh yeah so we have uh the ice well we have the nbc attack by the israeli terrorists uh okay let's do it so nbc correspondent matt bradley led a team into the occupied west bank uh obviously there's these this whole spate recently of settler terrorists uh basically attacking palestinian homes uh driving people out of their houses

they're stepping it up because they smell blood in the air. And they know they have a very friendly government, even friendlier than usual in Tel Aviv. And they know the IDF is always there to run interference for them. They were interviewing this lady who's how she'd been tossed out of her house by these assholes. Her name is Aida Ahmed Abdullah. Anyway, these thugs in masks with Israeli license plates like, you know, basically drove down to where the news crew was interviewing her outside of her house.

and attacked them with sticks and stones on camera. You can see one of these thugs swinging his bat at the cameraman, before the camera hits the camera hits the ground. They eventually called, the IDF eventually showed up and arrested the Palestinians, of course, because that's how these things go. But the NBC guys all survived. The Palestinian woman was in serious condition, and there's no word on whether she made it or not,

but she was unconscious at the time NBC left her behind. I mean, having traveled in, you know, war zones, Afghanistan, Pakistani Kashmir, a couple other places, and the West Bank, in Gaza in 2014, I got to say, this is really outlandish fucking behavior. I mean, you know, when journalists get killed, it's usually one of several scenarios or when they get attacked. It's either they're being robbed by like random assholes because they have tons of money and they have expensive equipment. And these are desperately poor people and, you know, blah, blah, blah. Or they're being viewed as basically they're, what's the word I'm looking for?

They're like easy pickings, right? Like you're just like, you're a foreigner. You're traveling through a strange land. We're just going to get you. And if there is a central authority of any kind, which they're often, is not, but sometimes there is. The central authority doesn't want that. They don't want the view to the outside world to be sent out like, holy shit, our people are fucking violent assholes and we can't control them. So they will assist usually a journalist in trouble. This is,

I mean, this is now happening on a routine basis where Western news crews are getting assaulted and by these settlers. The IDF doesn't do shit about it. It goes out onto international television. Obviously, it's only contributing to Israel's already deteriorated, you know, public standing internationally. But it's amazing to me that the Israelis have their head, their government has their heads so far up their ass that they don't think this is a big problem. I mean, you have some Israeli officials who have said these are terrorists, these are Jewish terrorists. Okay, that's, I guess, remarkable that they say that.

And you have the Israel, you know, Mike Hacobie, the U.S. ambassador to Israel. He called them Jewish terrorists. Okay, that's remarkable too because he's a big Zionist. But I guess I have a bunch of questions here. First of all, at this point, if I'm, if I, Ted Raal, am going to go report in the occupied West Bank, I don't know if I'm just bringing a camera. I think maybe I'm bringing an armed guard with me. who is, and I don't think I have a big problem if my armed guard or me personally shoots

the settler who does, who comes at me with a bat. I think I'm okay, I think that's okay for me. I don't think I have to have that cold, you know, upright detachment, the fake neutrality of the press. I think you're allowed to hit back. And also, what about, why didn't these guys fight to protect the old woman that they were interviewing? I mean, why didn't, you know, I mean? Like, are you a, you know, Matt Bradley, are you a man or a mouse? Like, this is an old, you know, just literally, you're a guy, you're a dude. You should protect an old lady, right? Under any circumstance. Yeah. Um, I guess my first thought is, um, it's honest. Like, meaning their behavior on camera is just honest. So I appreciate that.

I'm too, I'm glad that it was on camera, as opposed to it just being a normal Tuesday. where they would have beaten a woman to death in general. So there's that. Three, I agree with you about bringing some kind of security detail in that case because you're all vulnerable and it's good for you to know it. And so for the years that the U.S. media has printed about, oh, this is an Israeli state and blah, blah, blah, and they're fighting for American interests and they're the only democracy in the Middle East.

Okay, well, here's real reality. right this is the reality of things to which i like being published um where everybody can see for themselves you don't have to take jamal's word for it they nearly beat an old woman to death they probably would have beat her to death if there was no cameras on it the strength if any of their strength was in it was that they didn't kill her and assume she's not dead not for lack of trying yeah not for lack of trying these media people who are going to these areas and are getting their heads bashed in or nearly getting their heads bashed in, I think it's good. It's honest. It's what the country is. Like, I don't want them to put on suits. No, I like that part. When media comes and then starts

singing and crowing the moment that media leaves, like a singing frog, meaning in this case, instead of opposed to singing, you have death, murder, and rape and theft. I don't want them to pretend that that's not happening when the media is there. I want people to be able to see it for what it is. So yes, I want media to go. I want the media. I want them. I want them. them to continue to get their heads bashed in. I want all of that stuff to be aired on air, if it is indeed happening in earnest. And by the way, the IDF coming there and arresting the Palestinian that is normal. They would stand there and let the settler commit their murders in order to protect the settlers as they go about theft, murder, mayhem, violence.

So, yeah, I take no issue with the media being there watching what has taken place. I only take issue when they pretend that it's not what it actually is. It's a shocking thing, by the way, that media is going and reporting what it is. That's not normal. Balls out. Balls out. I'm seriously good for them. I kind of don't think they should scurry out so quickly, though. I mean, it's kind of like, fuck you guys. Yeah. And my question, Ted, you keep saying this is just like, you know, how is Israel supporting this? You know, what? You're like Israel's paying a price. Not paying a price. What price they are.

I agree with Robbie. That was the other point I wrote down. They're not paying a price. They're not paying a price at all. This is, I was like, this is not a big problem for them. They don't care. They're paying the same price that the apartheid regime of Republic of South Africa paid, you know, in the 1980s when images like this would come out of South Africa. And people would watch and they'd be disgusted.

And eventually, you know, public support, U.S. was a huge supporter of apartheid South Africa. And when public support basically got to isolated South Africa to the point where the regime was no longer tenable. Let's not forget, right, RSA, apartheid didn't go away because there was a revolution. There was never a revolution. It's like basically it just, they were pressured by, you know, a deteriorating economy in international isolation to pivot away and transition to post-apartheid. You know, that's what they did. And so I think so it did apartheid state pay a price? Yeah, they did. And I mean, that's what's happening now. It's just that it's in slow motion.

I mean, like you guys, I'd like to see this happen a lot more quickly. But yeah, they're paying a price. Every one-tenth percent declined in their approval rating rating is a price. Yeah, but they're not being isolated economically. China's their trades with them. Russia's through trades with them. Every other country, for the most part, they'll stay with them and have trading relationships with them. The European Union is one of their largest trading partners. And we'll go further. most of those European states agree. I don't care what they say.

The states and the power structure. 100%. I'm just pointing out that they're not paying a price in a sense of a price, like meaning they're not being isolated. They're not being, people may say, we don't like Israel. And the public may say we don't like Israel. The leadership and the power structures of all of those European states and the United States and Russia and China for all of their strong.

strongly word of statements continue to trade and do business with the settler colonial state. All they have to do is, they have to say, be a good little boy. Remember the Holocaust. And if you don't, you are the R word. You're racist. You're anti-Semitic. And white people have been so conditioned. They just beat over the head, rightly or wrongly, with the racism stick, that that's the worst thing that you can call someone with my, with bicycle. and complexion, especially everybody access, and you're going to do whatever it is that you can possibly do to prove that you are not a racist. That's number one. Number two, South Africa, Ted, did not have the lobby that Israel has. They didn't own Congress. They didn't have a South African version of APEC. They didn't have the Jewish committee, or I guess in this case, the Boar Committee

going through. You must stand with the Boers because you know what the British did to the Boers in the 1890s. That never happened. That's what happens here. As a combination of Money, it's a combination of a punch in that white guilt card as hard as you possibly can repeatedly. And also, it's business interest because China and Russia and every other country, they're in a business making money. And guess what? If you're going to, if you're going to make sausage, you've got to slaughter some pigs, brother. And if you think they give a single crap about what they're, about what Israel's doing, they has committed a genocide like Shinebomb.

You know, we talk about this on TMI. She sent a strongly worded email. Okay, and did Mexico impose sanctions? Hey, many of those words were multisyllabic, Robbie. Don't forget. Did Mexico impose sanctions or break relations of Israel? No. Putin, we really think that you should probably stop doing this.

Okay, well, fine. What are you going to do to stop it? Nothing. Xi Jinping, same thing. What are you going to do to stop it? You have the power to turn Israel off today. Oh, no, me, nothing. Israel is not paying a price.

well i mean that's objectively not true their economy is in the fucking toilet they have international boycotts from all over the place we got a we got two other important stories to cover but i mean who cares about their economy ted we're we're financing their economy we are there okay oh okay you do realize this is not going to go on forever right i mean you do realize it's like this is this is like the end is nigh okay i mean you can see it coming well there's a god in heaven he's going to judge the hell we're all going to live i mean i'm the oldest one here i'm going to live long enough to see it, okay? I am. By the way, I don't think this is white guilt. I mean, it's anti-Semitism. It's not the same. It's white-guilt in Germany.

Like, in Germany, because they fucking give it into genocide. I'm saying it'll be. Yeah, sure. But again, but you have to define the term because if it being anti-Zionist is equivalent to anti-Semitism, and that's what they're teaching in colleges and stuff, if you make those two things the same, by definition, that's why they're wrapping others, that's why they're by the wrapping this up up. That's why they're doing it. I know, but all these people are white. You're saying it's white guilt for the white people. It's okay, you can say it for Germany. You can say that for Austria,

even though Austria tried to pretend as if Hitler is an Austrian. But ask Ben Shapiro if he's a white man. You know, he'll say that's a couple of question. It's so complicated. The dude's righter than I am. But that's the card that they play. You have to like it, but that's what they do. I'm just saying anti-Semitism is a little bit. Okay, okay, I'm not going to find that. move on. Let's move on. One more comment here before we move on. Killwright for president. Thanks for the donation. Try to send during the Q&A sing tomorrow. Happy birthday.

Okay. Thanks, man. Happy birthday to you. But I do appreciate it. We all know how this goes. Yeah. I had a cab driver once when I was in Egypt. And I was like, so you know, you're supposed to be praying five times a day. What do you do when you're in the camp? He says, God knows I'm hearts. And I thought to myself,

then why do you need to pray phantoms? Right. Yeah, no, I remember always thinking that too. Like, like, if you're like, you know, why do you go to church? Why do you, you know, like, why do you go to the mosque? God knows my heart. It's like, okay, well,

God knows your heart. Carry on. I mean, I would think that's true, right? So, yeah, yeah. All right. So, okay, we got the postal service. We got the ICE thing. Let's do the postal service.

So there's this, we talked a little bit about this postal, service whistleblower a couple weeks ago. So without getting into that, basically, this person has basically been down, has been debriefed by, by, by, by, by, by, by US senator. I forgot his name from Connecticut. Anyway, the issue to report. And long story short, this report says that this is kind of a system that's that the Trump administration has created that is designed to fail. So today is the deadline by which all the secretaries of state under Trump's executive order are supposed to send the designs of their mail-in ballots to the U.S. government,

which is then going to compare those and check them against the list of voters that they have somehow extracted by threatening to deny highway funds and all sorts of other sleazy methods. And they're going to compare the voters. Role-Roles, long story short, according to the whistleblower, this was designed with what they call a zero-failure option. So if they find a minor mistake in the QR code on the form, if they find one voter in a district who, things are a little off, like the wrong middle initial, or their birth dates off by a day or something, the entire county, the entire state, whatever, the entire city, the entire municipality, all of their mail-in ballots are automatically banned to be shipped by the Postal Service. Good.

So basically, obviously, that is an impossible standard. Okay. And so the argument here is the intention here is to effectively make mail-in balloting impossible in the United States this coming November. I don't see at this late stage anything short of an emergency injunction issued by either a federal judge and have that not heard by the Supreme Court or a Supreme Court emergency injunction. I don't see how that can be stopped between now and the first Tuesday in November. It's just too late. I mean, I think, you know, basically the Trumpies are very smart at running out the clock and they know the courts are a massive delay mechanism.

and they know that like, you know, this is, they've, they have, and the thing is, mail-in balloting is not something like, I don't know about you, I'm old enough to think of mail-in-balloting as something like, oh, that's probably 3% of the vote, and people who are on vacation or traveling on business or whatever or they're at the hospital. That's why they cast a mail-in vote. But that's not the truth, the case anymore. Post-pandemic, most Americans vote, literally over 50% of Americans, vote by mail-in-balled, because it's more convenient.

Wow. I don't know the number was that high. It's massive. In some areas, it's like 60, 70%. So, I mean, basically, it's not like a rounding error at all. This is the main event. This may surprise you, but good. I mean, Americans voted this fool in.

And again, they voted in a president, everything in his power to steal an election. Let's put, like, people need to sit with that. Like, when they went after him for impeachment, Trump should have been in a cage for what Donald Trump was trying to do. He was trying to gang the political system either through getting members of Congress to basically throw it in turmoil, not to mention getting people to put in fake electors and all of this other nonsense. And of course, even though this wasn't necessarily connected to Trump,

the Wolverines waiting on the outside of Virginia with their guns to bring on the revolution. I'm trying to say that this could have been a perfect storm. And we put this fool back in office. Like the idea that he was even in contention is breathtaking. And yet we put this fool back in office. What did we expect? Well, the Democrats put this fool back in office by what the bullshit they did with Biden and Harris. All of that stuff.

I mean, well, but we also voted for him. And the Republican Party put him in as their stand in. Like, meaning the Republican Party didn't have to put him in as a stand in. He was chosen despite what he did earlier. And you can say, well, the Democrats also screw things up and put Donald Trump in office. I accept that argument. But I'm just making the point of saying the country. There's so much blame to go around, I guess is my point.

And this is, again, after he tried to steal the election at first. Right. Nobody accepts Donald Trump's claim that he lost the election. And again, they still put that fool back in office. What did you expect a narcissistic liar to do once he got back in office? Oh, I know, something like this. Also one who's got a lot of fucking illegal shit to be. be investigated and hanging over his head, right?

Yeah. So what happens when entire cities and all of the votes that they put by mail in go up and smoke? I'm very curious. I'm curious. As am I, too. Oh, by the way, one more thing. We still have to talk about this ice thing. Because because there's nothing like it.

Oh, I understand. No, I know. What did you expect? I get it. Secretary of the Army quit, right? Dangerousical. Pissed off it. pissed off at Hegsa.

Good for him. Yeah. The resignation on based on principle, something that had been pretty much extinct since the 70s, is making a good comeback. Yep. I mean, because from my understanding, it's like the secretary of the military, the secretary, like there's several high-profile

positions that just not fill now. And of course, you got the weeks that came out effectively saying that major people, three out of the five heavy top branches, This was like the Navy, the Pacific Command, didn't believe that they could fight this war or win this war. Sentcom. It's basically telling him to stop.

We can't keep up operations in Iran. And even though we disagree with this order, we will follow this order. They're leaking this stuff like a Sith. Yeah. Yeah, they're literally like, well, you're assigning us to do things that we can't do. I mean, look, everybody who's ever had a job and an unreasonable boss knows what that's like, right? Yeah. So, yeah, that'll be, no, anyway, I'm interested to see if any details come out on that.

So this lady named Laura Berlin wrote, she created a Google Map interactive website that became viral, and it's used by ICE activists, anti-ice activists. It's all over the country called Who is Profiting from Ice? And it looks at like the companies that are servicing the ice gulags, the transportation companies that are conducting the ICE deportation flights and so on. Anyway, she's been flagged as a potential domestic terrorist in official missives that have gone out from like DHS, even to local police departments like the Philadelphia Police Department, and they're continuing to disseminate it. I mean, this is pretty chilling stuff. I mean, look, I had similar things happen to me in 2004, in the run-up to the RNC in 2004.

You can look it up in the New York Times, just Google my name, and you'll find it. So it's, I mean, I guess the thing is, she says, well, she's going to keep going. Again, I'm going to channel my inner Jamaral here and say, where the fuck is the accountability for this kind of shit? Like, you shouldn't be allowed to weaponize actual serious police concerns about national and state security against individuals exercising their First Amendment rights. But that's what's happening here. Yeah, it's outrageous. Like, it's, she is doing nothing wrong. I would not just nothing.

She's doing God's work. She's on God's work. She's just using publicly available information. She's just doing the first member right to do so. Yeah. Like, meaning, she's not. She didn't steal any classified documents or anything. Yeah, she's not setting a police station on fire.

She's losing information that is already in the public sphere in order to put more detailed information out where you can make a determination if you want to deal with the companies that are supporting these goons of the state. Right. And so they don't like that. And now they're weaponizing laws that were meant for other things that she doesn't fit into to go after her, to put a chill on what she's doing. God bless her for keep going. Yeah.

No, I mean, totally. This is insane. And there's, as you point out, zero accountability for maligning and using laws in this fashion that weren't supposed to be used in this particular way. She has every right to do this. She's doing nothing wrong. All of this stuff in the public sphere. She's not leaking my top secret statement. she's asking you a choice.

And she can't sue, right? Like, like, I mean, I know this because, like, you know, I remember, like, when I was, when I had my LA Times thing, every lawyer in LA told me the same thing. Like, you have an amazing case against the LA Times. It's like, but if you want me to sue the LAPD, forget it. Like, you can't sue the government. The government agencies are totally protected. The laws, the procedures are all, like, basically.

you can't subpoena them. You can't, you know, you can't depose them. You can't, discovery doesn't work against them. They've just, they, they've, they've, any lawyer will tell you the government, it's almost impossible to successfully sue a government agency. When you hear about the innocence project, like getting, you know, someone exonerated after 20 years and finally released, that's like almost, it's like herculean what they had to do to accomplish that. And all they're doing is reversing criminal case. If you want to like hold the government, like if the government's been polluting someplace, good fucking luck. You want, like Aaron Brockovich, she sued a quasi public, right, a public utility. That was hard. But like, you know, if she'd been suing, let's just say the state of California

had been dumping those toxins causing cancer in the groundwater. Uh-uh. Impossible to sue. Well, then there's never accountability. There's never accountability. Absolutely. That's it. Well, on that cheery note, we head off to the TMI show. Thanks tomorrow. See you tomorrow at 9 a.m. Eastern Time. See the rest of you tomorrow at 9 a.m. Eastern Time. Take care and see you then. Bye.