The Last American Vagabond - Dave DeCamp Interview - The Impending US Regime Change Of Venezuela & The Rising Global Agenda

Episode Date: October 24, 2025

Joining me today is Dave DeCamp of Antiwar.com, here to discuss the alarming rise in unauthorized US strikes on what the US government claims are Venezuelan “narco-terrorists”, yet some argue are merely fishing boats being unjustly targeted by the US for political purposes. The President of Colombia even publicly declared that one of the killed was a well-known fisherman and provided his evidence. We discuss the implications of these actions, and what might be driving them, both domestically as well as from a foreign policy perspective. We also discuss the ongoing genocide in Gaza, the false ceasefire offered by the US and Israel, and the failing effort to obfuscate the horrors they have both committed in occupied Palestine.Source Links:ICE Agent Shoots Deputy Marshal and TikTok Streamer During South L.A. Raid Gone WrongICE agent wounds marshal and TikTok streamer, who is charged with assault - Los Angeles TimesSan Bernardino man shot at by immigration agents taken into federal custody - ABC7 Los Angeles(22) Grok / XNew TabTrump’s first-ever Antifa indictment signals DOJ is opening a much bigger case against left-wing groups | The IndependentWhether Its Gaza, Antifa, Venezuela Or Epstein, The American People Are Being Lied ToNew Tab(22) Justin Amash on X: “The Constitution does not require the president to notify Congress; it requires the president to get permission from Congress.” / X(22) Brian Allen on X: “Jessica Tarlov just detonated the narrative: “The government has killed 32 people in 7 strikes with no proof they were traffickers. The admiral leading the mission quit. If we had evidence, they’d face a court — not a drone.” Seven strikes. Thirty-two dead. Zero charges. This https://t.co/4F4bpngGO7” / X(22) Dave DeCamp on X: “Antiwar News for 10/23/25: Venezuela: Trump Suggests Strikes on ‘Land’ Coming Soon, Another US Airstrike in Somalia, and More https://t.co/eleJxt8wFu” / XNew Tab(22) Caitlin Johnstone on X: “You’re telling me the entire western world just spent a week and a half shrieking its lungs out about Hamas clipping a few Israel-backed gang members, and it turns out that was exactly what needed to happen in order for Palestinian civilians to eat?” / X(22) The Last American Vagabond on X: “So as anyone honest has been telling you, it was always the ISIS-linked gangs (that Israel openly arms, funds, and all around supports) that have been looting and killing. Now even the WFP has made this clear. https://t.co/UEKZq36GXd https://t.co/qG2wBnuMeD” / XIsrael Caught Lying On Gaza Ceasefire & How The #TwoPartyIllusion Ushers In Authoritarian GovernmentIsrael Continues Bombing Gaza During Ceasefire & Netanyahu Aims To Swap ISIS-Linked Gangs For Hamas‘What’s Wrong With That?’: How Israel Trained and Armed an ISIS-linked Gazan Militia - Israel News - Haaretz.comG3uFumFWgAAtcKS.jpeg (1081×1351)New Tab(22) Zachary Foster on X: “Israel declares itself an apartheid state.” / XNew Tab(22) Thomas Massie for Congress on X: “These are the three billionaires who have spent millions bankrolling my primary opponent. They have one thing in common: they hate that I expose the wasteful foreign aid and senseless wars Congress spends your money on. https://t.co/C1MjqBcA5o” / X(22) Mel on X: “Marco Rubio is back in Israel today. He’ll be meeting with Netanyahu tomorrow after JD Vance left yesterday. This administration exists to serve Israel. https://t.co/EKmowajiDq” / XNew Tab(22) Derrick Broze on X: “So Fox News Host Pete Hegseth demands Pentagon reporters sign a loyalty oath and promise not to release unapproved info. The vast majority (including FOX) say no and leave. Now they announce new loyalist media coming aboard. How can people not see this isnt good for truth?” / XRobert Inlakesh Interview - What’s Next For The US, Israel & Iran?Stephen Miller takes leading role in strikes on alleged Venezuelan drug boats | Trump administration | The GuardianBitcoin Donations Are Appreciated:www.thelastamericanvagabond.com/bitcoin-donation(3FSozj9gQ1UniHvEiRmkPnXzHSVMc68U9f)The Last American Vagabond Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to The Last American Vagabond Substack at tlavagabond.substack.com/subscribe

Welcome to The Last American Vagabond. Joining me today, I'm excited to welcome to the show, Dave DeCamp of Antewar.com. As you guys know, big fan of their work. In my opinion, a foundational element of independent media and like the real genuine, nonpartisan independent media coverage, which I think is lacking and needed today. So I'm excited to talk with him today about a wide variety of things. This will be our first time connecting, hoping to do more in the future. So we'll just talk about some different foreign policy points.

I wanted to start today with something that interesting overlap with some kind of constitutional issues. But Dave, it's good to have you on the show, brother. Thanks for being here. Yeah, Ryan,

thanks so much for having me. Good to be here. Yeah. And as I said, I've just, really, I think I've been, you know,

we've touched base over the years, but it's like, this, it's funny. This hasn't happened before. I'm just, I thought me the other day, I'm like,

I can't believe we haven't crossed, cross paths until now. Because I really just think your guys's work. It stands out, you know, for a lot of reasons from, like me personally, not only just the amazing contents and like objective detail-oriented kind of coverage,

but that it's not, you know, it's not trying. To me, everything's clouded today with so much like PR and marketing, just nonsense and noise. And I just really value what you guys do. So I just want to make sure you heard that out of the gate. Let's go ahead and start with something that I thought was important. And let me actually start with this instead. I've got one thing that I want to get into early.

But right now with what you're doing, what you're covering, is there something that stands out to you right now that's like the most important topic in your mind that you think is you know maybe undercovered or maybe everyone's talking about it what would be right now in your mind like the first thing jumps to your mind to talk about right now it's venezuela and bombing these boats in the Caribbean and now they're starting to bomb them on the other side in the eastern Pacific you know i mean we've been so focused on Israel and Gaza just because of all the atrocities happening um which is you know and and not to downplay it but there is so much focus on that you know, from other media, which for good reason, because this is all, you know, we're totally

on the hook for this. Our government is funding it and supporting it. But the, you know, this drive toward what looks like a potential regime change war in Venezuela. It doesn't seem to be getting the coverage that it should. And also the precedent they're setting with bombing these boats. And, you know, it's like they're bringing the war on terror closer to home in our hemisphere. And then, of course, there's things on the domestic front. And I think a lot of what's been happening is about setting a precedent. I think that's the purpose of some of these, you know, bombing these boats. And also with the, you know, deployments domestically.

So, yeah, it's kind of just unsettling. Like the way that they talk about this stuff, I mean, Pete Hegseth, you know, just last night, he announced like, oh, we bombed another boat. We're going to do this. You know, we're not going to stop. And, you know, they're just not even trying to, like, provide any evidence or, or legal backing. You know, their, their attempt at getting legal authority to bomb these boats is like, it's just a joke. But they're just doing it and nobody's stopping them.

Well, let's go into that. You know, so what's your take on the inside around that? Because, you know, break it down for those, let's say from people that have no understanding of the constitution of reality. You know, what is it what's supposed to be happening? And why is it that what they're doing is outside of the norm and illegal in your mind? mind. Yeah, well, the thing is sometimes, you know, when we talk about the Constitution, you know, like even when I hear Rand Paul talk about it, sometimes it's like, man, the Constitution, like it's just, it's almost irrelevant these days. But I think it is important, uh, because

the idea is that we're supposed to be, you know, our government is supposed to be following it. And, you know, when it comes to waging war, the executive is supposed to get authority from Congress. And now, I mean, this has just been completely, you know, after 9-11, They got an authorization, you know, which they completely abused, this authorization to go to war in Afghanistan, which they're still using today to justify war in Somalia, Syria, Iraq. But now they're not even doing that. They're, you know, one thing, you know, when Trump bombed Iran, he cited the Constitution. He cited article two that says, you know, that the commander chief can take military action in self-defense. I mean, how is bombing Iran self-defense?

And Biden did this as well with some of his airstrikes in the Middle East. So they're just complete, like they're not even really trying anymore. And the sad reality is is that if Congress voted, you know, maybe when it comes to Venezuela, I think they might not be able to get the support for like a war with Venezuela. But if they had a vote on bombing these boats, you know, unfortunately, they probably would support it. But the way that they're doing it, I mean, it's like, it's like insulting to our intelligence. So they started bombing boats off the coast of Venezuela. They're claiming, and this is how they're justifying it, Trump has.

told Congress that we're in an armed conflict with drug cartels. And the claim is that drug shipments coming to America, they're killing so many Americans that it's self-defense. But there's no evidence, you know, for a lot of things, they haven't provided evidence that these boats are carrying drugs or, you know, they're calling these people narco-terrorists, which is basically just a term they're using to justify murdering them, just to carrying out extra judicial executions for a crime that in the U.S., you know, if you're arrested and convicted for, You're not getting the death penalty, but yet they're blowing these people up. But then you start looking a little closer at these things.

You see Trump, other officials, they talk about fentanyl deaths. Fentanyl just simply does not come from Venezuela. It's not produced. It's not transported through there. And it looks like most of this corridor that they've been targeting from Venezuela to Trinidad and Tobago. Those drugs are not bound for the U.S. It's mostly cocaine. And also it could be marijuana, could be weed that they're blowing up in the water.

Right. I mean, it's basically not federally, but basically legal in our country at this point. So you have all that. And then, you know, he's just, you know, you see Trump. Like he'll announce one of these strikes and say, oh, if this drug shipment got to the U.S. 25,000 people dead. It's just, sir. Well, I mean, isn't it just on that the point on that side point of that? It is just astounding today. And I honestly think that most people see it as much as it doesn't get pointed to. that like it went from like well-crafted like half-lies to just like literally the opposite of the truth at a very bombastic way like everything today. I mean, it's just like things like that. It's like saying

that is their narrative. There's nothing to back that up. The evidence doesn't back that up. You can look on government reports like like you're saying. The point I saw Glenn Greenwald talking about it that the reality of this is there's like a minuscule connection at best. That's coming from US reports. But yet they just yell that out loud anyway. And then major, you know, million follower account. repeat that and I could share. And it's like we're, you know, how do you battle something like that? It's just like we're waving. It's like during COVID-19, which I know you're dealing with similar things.

We're trying to go like, look at the facts. Like look at your saying, trust the science. Well, here's the peer reviewed science. And people just don't want to look at it. You know, it's a whole other game today where we are literally battling some sort of like social engineering cult dynamic. It's like a like a psychological issue, not like a fact-based issue. But I still argue that what we're doing is paramount, like the facts and reporting.

But just on a side note, just that's why this is so difficult. because we're dealing with something other than that as well, you know? Yeah, no. And like you said, it's like they don't really have to try anymore to craft the narratives like they used to, like even with the war with Iran. I mean, there was just nothing there. It was so obviously like a phony pretext. Even Netanyahu, he did an interview on Fox News because initially he's saying,

oh, we did it to prevent them from getting nuclear weapons. They were months away, weeks away. And then he did an interview, I think, with Sean Hannity. And he's like, yeah, you know, they'd probably. It'd probably take them years to get a nuclear weapon. It's like, this whole war is based on this claim, and they're not even really trying that hard. He had U.S. intelligence saying there was no evidence. Like, that's the thing.

This time, the U.S. intelligence was saying the opposite. Yeah, and it's just like, it's just crazy. And so I know people kind of on the MAGA right, a lot of them do support the idea of bombing cartels and drug shipments because of the outrage over the drug overdoses in the U.S., which I obviously do not agree with. I think that's very misguided. I think the idea that we could bomb this problem away is it's kind of like sad that people think that. I think it says a lot about our country. Yeah, really quickly, even if that was actually, it was happening. Like that's something that, you know, there's a process.

There's a legal reality, especially in the middle of international waters. So it's like if we actually believe in these principles, then we stand by. You know, it shows a lack of principle, at least when it comes to a narrative that makes you feel otherwise. So, you know, continue. Yeah, no, exactly. And, you know, that's what Rand Paul, you see him on Twitter. or whatever, he's been, he's stayed consistent with this saying that this goes against like American tradition.

And he's just getting roasted and the reply, like getting ratioed on Twitter by all these mega people who are just like kind of blindly supporting this. But the thing is, is that like, I want these people to understand who do support bombing the cartels that that's not what this is about. This is clearly this push toward regime change war in Venezuela is something Marco Rubio has wanted for a decade at least. So, you know, they're really being taken for a ride here. Yeah.

Do you think that there's more to it than that? I completely agree. I mean, I was actually just, I think I've got your post right here looking at this discussion from your post. And, you know, and the idea that this is like strikes on like in Venezuela. Like, and even, I think even Trump's administration has been floating the idea that it might be more regime change. You know, but do you think it's more than that? Do you think there's other elements than just like the coveting the resources of Venezuela, like the political dynamics? You think there's something else like maybe related to Israel or some of their foreign policy element that is driving the action?

Yeah, well, when it comes to Venezuela, you know, so first off, I do think that, you know, they are expanding the strikes on the boats. Now they're saying they're bombing boats in the eastern Pacific. So it seems like they're going to increase that. And there's reports that they might even start bombing shipments in Mexico, which, I mean, that if it's against the will of the Mexican government, I mean, what could that lead to? Right. But when it comes to Venezuela, I think there's a few things driving this. one of them, obviously the resources, you have the opposition, the lady, I forget her name, who just won the Nobel Peace Prize, who wants the U.S. to invade Venezuela.

Machado, I think. Yeah, Machado, yeah. She's apparently offering, you know, you get us in there. We're going to open everything up to American companies. Of course, because that's in the interest of Venezuelans, right? Yeah, yeah, yeah. So that's obviously part of the, you know, one of the reasons fueling this. Another thing is that it's kind of ideological for Rubio and kind of the, the, the,

political faction that he represents the son of Cuban immigrants, the Venezuelan immigrants in the U.S., who are anti-Moduro, anti-cast, you know, want regime change in Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua. For them, it's like a, you know, you see a lot of this stuff on X, like Venezuelans in America who are really pushing this stuff, and sometimes they'll find you on there if you're against it and they'll really flood you. So that that's a motive here. Another thing is like the whole Russia, you know, Maduro's ties with Russia, China, and Iran, which when it comes to those countries kind of increasing their trade relationship, like it's been so obvious to me.

And I haven't been doing this very long, but since I've been like working for anti-war.com full time and doing the news and kind of following this stuff. I mean, it was it was clear before that that all these sanctions like the U.S. has become so sanction happy over the past few decades. every administration increases the sanctions, sanction, sanction, to try to get governments to bend to their will. It was very obvious that you're going to create like an alternative economic system potentially led by China and Russia

and targeting them both with sanctions. You were going to push them together. I think by design, like I think the reality is to get them to take totally benign normal actions or at least just what any other country would do in those circumstances and then point to the reaction as them saber-rattling or whatever. It's like causing that reaction to you.

Yeah, no, I think that's right. It's creating the enemies for like a World War III or just in Cold War. But you see, you saw it with Venezuela and Iran. I mean, it was like during the first, I think it was the first Trump administration or maybe towards the end or the Biden administration. But Venezuela and Iran started trading gas and oil for gold because they were kicked off the economic system and they started to shipping gold and gas back and forth to each other. And some of those shipments, the U.S. just outright stole. Just like, you know, actually unloaded the oil and forced the ship to go to Texas, unloaded the oil, and sold it.

Piracy. Yeah, it really is. To me, that just speaks to, you know, I mean, look, the entire premise, and this is why, you know, if we get into it, I'm glad we started with this, but the overlap to the U.S. side of things that are happening, it's all the same narratives right now, right? So the argument is inherently that they're, like, it's like Iran and nuclear weapons or anything else. So isn't that what everybody else does?

Yes. Okay, so them doing it's bad because they're bad guys, right? It's something that everyone's like trading or even like you're saying, just having trade deals with other countries that the U.S. doesn't agree to makes you a terrorist. You know, it's just illogical. And everyone knows that at the end of the day. So right now it's the same idea, saying, you know, if you are protesting this, if you say these words, we'd pretend you're part of this thing and we mean and we call that terrorism, you know, and it just creates the effort to go after benign things like funding something, you know? And of course, that could obviously overlap. But I think that's what this is like you're saying, like the deals.

Like why wouldn't Venezuela or others decide to start doing things in the interest of them, whether you think that's the government or the people, that's debatable what they're doing. But I think that clearly they're taking actions to continue to operate. And that's not what they want. You know, so like for the, I forget what it was called. They had that program that they were using their oil reserves to basically benefit the other South American countries before the U.S. kind of destroyed it all. I don't forget the name of it.

But basically there was a program they had where they were pretty much selflessly. they were benefiting from it, but they were using this to give like basically zero interest loans to all these other groups. And it was benefiting all these countries and somewhat rising them out of poverty and they came in and it shut it all down. It just shows you what the real intention seems to be, you know. And so it all comes back to like control over, you know, just preeminence and them having any kind of influence. You know, China making deals in Africa, for example, it's not terrorism. It's just what every other government does, but they're mad because China does it. You know, it's pretty petty, in my opinion. Yeah, no, that that is a good point. They make,

benign things, you know, out to be something else. Like, and that's something that you hear because, you know, this term that they use narco-terrorist. And, you know, in some conversation I've had, I've, you know, been critical at. And then the people will be like, oh, do you know, Venezuela has ties with Iran and Hezbollah? And it's like, well, why? Why was Venezuela, you know, because a lot of people point to that trade between Venezuela and Iran. It's like, well, why are they trading with each other? And why is that even inherently bad? Like, Iran is bad guy, right? It's like a very childish mindset. And realistically, Iran, as I know you're well aware, is not even remotely what they claim it to be. And that's the same as Maduro.

They lie like they're breathing about these people. That is not the same as saying they're good people. I'm saying, I think all governments are inherently wrong in my opinion. So it's just a deception. And so pointing out that they're making deals with them, it's only bad because it's in it's against the interest of the U.S. government. You know, I mean, this is, guys, I mean, you know, this is terrorism. You know, this is economic terrorism. and the rest of what they're doing, like with these boats. Back to that. That is the most terroristic type action I've seen.

Like, that's the most like textbook action. And yet they're, because they frame themselves as the good guy and give you a narrative over it, and it's supposed to be okay. You know, it's insulting. Did you know that there was some survivors in that? I don't know if you had any more, if you saw any research on that.

What do you know about that? Yeah. And at least one of the strikes, there was an Ecuadorian and a Colombian survived. And the U.S. sent them back to their countries. And I know, I don't know what the fate of the Colombian was, but I know in Ecuador, they let the guy go because they said they had no evidence that he committed a crime. Right.

I'm interested to know why they did that. You know what I mean? Like, so, I mean, I have a pretty low opinion when it comes to the U.S. government or governments in general. So my first thought was like, why didn't they just kill him? And now people are like, well, I just like, come on, guys. Like, this is what they've done around the world. Well, yeah, no. And this is what they've done in these specific.

I was surprised by it, too, because Nick Turs at the Intercept has reported that in a lot of, of these strikes on boats. Like they just put out a video of like the first missile strike. But I know at least the first one, they had to launch multiple missiles to kill everybody. Which, I mean, it does make it seem like more barbaric for some reason. And then in at least one case,

they had to use a 50 caliber machine gun from like a helicopter or something to kill people in the water. So yeah, why did they not just kill these two guys? I don't know. Yeah. I mean, good. And then the question is,

why didn't they send them to Gitmo? You know, they're calling them terrorists. Right. And I think I saw some report, you know, you never know what this stuff, but they, that the administration thought it would be too problematic, like that they would get too much heat for it if they did that instead of just letting them go back to their home countries. Well, the president of Columbia made it very clear. And I think it was even proven as much as it can be in regard to their documentation that one of the guys that they killed was like a well-known fisherman and that he's a provable fisherman. That doesn't mean he couldn't also be, you know, trafficking drugs.

But it's like it just this is what it's same with what was happening in the U.S. part with immigration. It's like, well, you know, I could solve all this. Have a process, right? Present your evidence and make your case for why you know that they're terrorists and those never do that. Like to the chase of it, I'm of the mind very clearly that this is not drug trafficking, let alone terrorism.

Now, I mean, it certainly could have some little overlap with what they call that. But I mean, I'm of the mind that they're literally just killing fishermen. And I ask myself why that is. And that's completely my opinion. I mean, it's based on what I think the fact. facts represent, but why, if that was the case, why would they be doing that in your mind? What, what's the interest for them? Like, this seems to be nothing but negative attention. So what do you think their goal is, you know, regime change, but why do it this way in your mind?

Well, I think it's about setting a precedent, as I said. It's also, they're doing it. They're specifically targeting Venezuela because they can just do it and nobody's going to stick up for Venezuela. You know, nobody's going to take their side, really. And they're, and, you know, You know, I do think, at least in some of the cases, there are probably drugs on those boats. I know one of them, the Dominican Republic, said that they, like, some Coke washed up on shore or something. But, you know, I think in other many cases, they're just bombing innocent fishermen. I mean, they're all innocent. You know, it's not like, yeah, like, even if you're running drugs, like, it's just not, you know, these are people with lives and like, you can't just blow them up.

It's completely immoral and wrong. The idea that we argue that, you know, liberty and all these things and that we argue that the government can decide what you're allowed to put in your body, let alone what people in other countries can put in their body. You know, it's a little bit insane when you really break it down, you know, and so I agree with you. I think there's no world in which you know, decide without even proving it that people are doing something which I argue is a personal choice. Like, you know, it comes down to whether you're arguing, you know, worthy is going to go to the United States. And even then, how do you know that for sure? And even then does that mean that that's what's going to happen? And, you know, it's all just built on so much nonsense to me.

Yeah. It really is. No, go ahead. Like I said, it's an insult to our intelligence. Like Trump's saying, oh, if this shipment made it to the U.S., 25,000 people would be dead. Like, it just doesn't make any sense. Yeah. Right. So the question, you know, why are they doing this?

I mean, it's a big question, you know? Like, I think this is, again, it's similar to Venezuela. Like, there's a few different things driving this. One of them is just the fact that I think part of the thinking is, oh, we have this big military. why aren't we using it in our hemisphere? Just to appease the base? Yeah, I mean, I don't know if it's really. I mean, I think they're using some sentiment among the base when it comes to the drugs.

Like, they're kind of weaponizing that to do this. But yeah, I mean, I don't know. Like, what's the real goal here? I mean, do they want to bring the war on terror home? I mean, they already have, obviously, to some extent. But that's the unsettling thing about all this. Like when the U.S. government considers you a terrorist, that doesn't just mean they think they could kill you.

It means they think you could kill you in your entire family and whoever you're with. Right. Because we see this with Israel and Gaza and Lebanon. Of course, the U.S. in its drone wars over the years still in Somalia today. And, you know, that's what that means. And it's like, you know, they're bombing people in our hemisphere now. And, you know, when is it going to come, come home? Yeah.

This is an excellent question, man. And I think this is where I actually just like to get into Israel after this because I think that's going to be more of the time. But I just want to point to what I was going to reference in the beginning. And this is what I think, this is why I felt this very much overlaps. So it's exactly where my mind went, especially after I read this article. And it's Trump's first ever Antifa indictment signals DOJ is opening a much bigger case against left wing groups.

Now, the obvious point, the article, which is, you know, whether you like him, independent or not, the information is pretty easily verifiable that this is about a, like we were just describing, whether it's about these fishing boats or anybody else, but this is about Americans, where it's a broad scope, you know, if we argue you're saying the wrong thing and the wrong group at the wrong time, you're a terrorist, right? I mean, this is what they're doing. On top of it, though, this is my point. They make a very clear point that they're right now considering a foreign terrorist designation for Antifa. And I'm like, okay, that's really interesting. And I think what this all amounts to. And this is completely my opinion that it comes back to

the overlapping of what I always thought was the plan. And even from back when it was the right wing Nazi red hats, you know, the whole thing, it was, remember the vanilla ISIS thing they were floating about like jihadists working with, with no white supremacists? Like it's just so ridiculous. But it meets a lot of their narratives. It had a little bit of bioterrorism. It all comes together.

You know, so my thought is that this is another way to continue the same thing. We're now you're going to argue that you have a, and not even, let's just even remove all the other stuff before. What is Trump doing with the immigration part? Venezuela, but Biden, insurrection, invasion, right? So the moment that you overlap this with the idea of them being an foreign, even just an overlap, then you can open the door to insurrection, you can open the door to national emergency, even though they're already kind of doing that.

So that's what I'm really worried about when I saw that that was floated, you know, and then it all comes together with the other points about just simply what they're doing to Americans right now with basically no process. And this is just simply many examples of ice opening fire. And in this case, preferably illegitimately, claiming that they were run over by a call. and then admitting in court that didn't actually happen, you know, just wild stuff like that. And so I just, that's, that's going to your point, that is the war coming home, you know. So I'm glad you made that statement because I think that that is 100% where it always seems to have been aimed.

You know, what, what do you think about that. Yeah, no, I think that's clearly what they're trying to do here. And right now, you know, you see people on the right, you know, really supporting this. But I mean, how soon is it going to be that the Democrats are back in power and they're going to use all these authorities to target them? Right. especially with what Biden, you know, some of the things that, you know, the FBI was doing with, you know, under Biden. It just seems so foolish to me that so many people are just lining up to support this. But yeah, and I mean, you know, you look at some of this stuff.

So you mentioned the foreign terrorist designation. I guess what are they going to try to like just claim that they're getting foreign money or something? You know, I haven't seen the case they're going to make. It was just a floated statement. And a lot of times that can mean they're just doing that to rile people up. You know, it's like this administration, I'll give them that. They played that well, right? So you never really know what they mean or, you know, what's going to turn out.

You know, Greenland, it's a mean, but not really. You know, it's like you don't really know what they mean, you know. But I think that what I get from it is what I was saying is that it becomes an easy way to just label them foreign connected. I would argue Iran because they're going to be like Palestine. Basically, they've mashed together like Antifa, left-wing problems, Palestine support, even though there's a clear overlap. It's not partisan. And I think we're all beginning to see that. that it's, you know, anybody would obviously see what's happening.

But once you connect it to Iran or some level Hamas, whatever, you can then start making them the same conversation and say this is a foreign invasion that Israel needs to the hell. Like, I feel like that alarmingly checks all their boxes. But that's just my opinion. But I think I can see it coming together that way. Yeah, no, I think so too. And they've made it clear, you know, by trying to deport people for criticizing Israel.

Exactly. You know, and you see the rhetoric around that. They say, oh, they're terrorist supporters. They support Hamas. They're terrorists. when the reality is like with some of these people that there was it was just nothing like that it was literally just attending a protest or in one case it was writing an op-ed saying you know that the university i go to school at should not be uh you know invested in these Israeli companies that was

what the argument austrous right i believe those yeah yeah yeah and calil before that was just the first starting case when all both of those have spun out completely and they don't want to talk about it you know but they were proven to be lying you know and there's many cases by the way on top of those of people that were actually like adamantly not supporting Hamas. Like I don't support like calling out certain things, but at the same time, which I think is what a lot of people were doing. Like, you know,

look at there was, like, for example, the fact that there were some crimes that were committed. And I mean that legitimately, there's a lot of lies around that whole story we can get into, but my point is that there are things they did that were illegal on that day, very clearly. So you have to point that out.

But the point is there were a lot of people that were doing that and then they still got labeled as Hamas supporters because they say Palestine should not be murdered. You know, it's like, it just becomes like a really ridiculous. But this is our point from earlier. that these narratives, they're not even trying anymore.

It's just like the opposite of what the truth is. And everyone just goes, yeah, the thing. And they all just kind of stand by it. It's very weird, you know, but I'm starting to feel like that's not the majority because of how kind of weak that all is, you know, actually to that point. And then let's get into Israel. This is still on the Venezuela point. I found this really interesting.

This is, this is Fox News. I think you might have shared it. I forget where I grabbed this. Fox News talking about Venezuela. And, you know, yes, they have people on that are sort of like the other opinion. But to have this statement on Fox News, I feel as. kind of a tipping point. Well, I think that there's always a choice and you're right about the demand issue and I wish that we could do more about that. And this, I mean, there's been going on

forever that we have a drug consumption problem here and a drug supply problem coming from South and Latin America. So I totally get that. But when you're looking at how this fight is being executed at this particular moment, it doesn't make a lot of sense. First and foremost, the fact that No one can confirm that we've actually been taking out narco traffickers or. Isn't even that interesting? Like the fact that they're even going, which we haven't proven that. Like,

that's never usually the partisan argument. It's just blind acceptance of the side's argument. I just find that interesting. Huge drug traffickers. Go ahead. You were a comment? No, I was just going to say,

I mean, it is very sloppy, like the way they're doing this and kind of clownish, like the way Hegseth operates. I mean, to that point, there was actually a good clip that James Lee just made about, like,

you know, the real kind of money, billionaire, their like guidance day to day of the operations that Hague Seth is more of like a PR front. I kind of feel like that might be the like I was making the overlap to like the Ukraine, Zelensky one plus one radio TV station like became his cabinet, which most people don't even know that's really what happened. And then the same thing, like I feel like that might be we're dealing with like some Zionist

kind of like front team that is not really who's in charge. I mean, I'm kind of joking, but there's very, there's clear examples of people that like, I think Bondi and Cash and Dan are like out of their depth. And I think you see that every day with the way they conduct themselves. So it's like, I think there's. more to that point that we should be looking for you know and so same kind of thing yeah yeah want to say it oh go ahead go ahead with this we'll see what she says last week when we were talking about this Dana had just seen the alert that the admirable at the that the admiral in charge of the

southern command had resigned and he was the one who was in charge of this and the reporting is is that he wasn't comfortable with the mission and i've been pushing back within the pentagon and do you think he would have resigned if everything was by the book so we have 32 people that have been killed so far, seven individual strikes. We know that the Colombian president is alleging at least that an innocent fisherman was murdered. We know that there's a family from Trinidad who's saying that a member of their family was killed. And then it is really important that we have repatriated two people, one to Columbia, one to Ecuador, because that indicates that we don't have any evidence to prosecute them, that we didn't know who these guys were.

Because if you did have evidence, you would bring them before a court. And I know that you you're going to make fun of me and I am prepared for it each and every day. But drug traffickers also have rights. The law applies. We should have the evidence. They should be charged with something and they should come before a court of law. And Rand Paul was on the Sunday shows this weekend. And he said to Kristen Welker, when you kill someone, if you're not in a declared war, which we are not, Congress with the war powers, you really need to know someone's name at least. You have to accuse them of something. You have to present evidence. So all these people have been blown up without any. evidence of a crime. They're also saying that it's about fentanyl and people who analyze the area

are saying that there are drugs that go through, but it's mostly cocaine and marijuana that are headed actually to Europe and to Africa. Sounds like my show. Right. That's what's so crazy about this. I'm like, you know, and even that they're going to make fun of her for what, making very balanced constitutional, you know, it's just kind of funny. You know, pushing back on the narrative. And I do want to say that I think Rand Paul's statements, as much as I agree with it, we're a little bit soft. I think he could have gone a lot harder on the reality of what it was, but I just found that to be sort of important. I mean, I've seen moments like this before, but right now with what that is and how important that is and a lot of different fields of conversation, I found that to be kind of a tipping point. What do you think? Yeah. Well, again, I think it really shows how weak their whole case is. I mean, the fact that you've killed all these people and have not, and it's not that they just haven't made any evidence to, you know, public for Americans to see. You know, they haven't showed anything to Congress.

when Congress asked the Pentagon's top lawyer for evidence, he pointed to these videos that they're releasing of those strikes, which don't show anything. That's not evidence of anything. So yeah, I think it's, and you wonder, you know, would if a Democrat was in power, you know, is this kind of like a something that would be happening? You know, I think this might be more of like kind of a partisan thing, like a Republican Trump thing. This point. push of just bombing whoever they want. And, you know, and I bet, though, if, like, say, a Democrat wins, they're probably going to continue this because, as I said, I think a lot of this is about setting a precedent. Once they start doing this, you know, they're not going to stop. But you did have the Admiral, as she mentioned, resign. I mean, that's a pretty big deal for, like, a career four-star military officer, the first year into his command of a major U.S. military command,

resigning. That doesn't happen. These career guys, I mean, they're not going to resign in the last couple years unless they're, you know, there's something wrong or they're against what they're being asked to do here. And there's a lot of those like outside the military. There's a couple of the military, too, but like lawyers resigning when they're told to lie about Garcia. You know, like over and over this keeps happening. I don't know how many times you could pretend that it's, you know, these are people that Trump put there or that are part of the Republican team and are just going, I have principles. You know, it's, and it's, I think that represents back to that other point, what we're actually seeing in this administration is people that just are willing to sell themselves out to gain

a little bit of power. And I think that people that might have been more like educated, more insight, more, you know, an actual meritocracy, somebody who might have been good for the position. I was going like, I don't want anything to do with that left or right. Like right now, I think we're on like a downward spiral with this government and people like, on a quick note on that, what do you think the world's perception is? Like, I don't mean like, you know, in any political way, just like a general perception of like our, the way our country is operating.

Do you think that people look, think us, like, think we look ridiculous right now, or do you think it's business as usual? I mean, I think, uh, with the way this current government is operating, they probably think it's a bit ridiculous. And I think it is, especially with Trump's kind of tariffs, which have been very erratic. Um, it's going to kind of, it's pushing these countries, you know, again, toward that kind of alternate global economic system. Right.

And when it comes to bombing the boats, I mean, this is kind of. of nothing new. You know, if you're just like in another part of the world and it's like, oh, the U.S. is bombing a place. It's not really anything new. So, you know, I don't know. Yeah. But there, you know, I think for people in Latin America, like, you know, besides Columbia and Venezuela, I guess we haven't seen much opposition from the governments, but I'm sure the people. You know, as she mentioned, you're killing people with families and lives. Like, you know, who knows what kind of blowback this could have. Oh, seriously. I mean, I don't even think we understand just yet. Like, whether it's with Columbia or Venezuela or just like a kind of a, another tipping point of just the peoples of the collective south, you know, whatever, just kind of going like, okay.

I mean, like, can you imagine what will be happening if this was, you know, international waters, but off the coast of Florida? And it was any other country they don't like, just literally killing American fishermen or let's just even say they were literally trafficking drugs. I mean, they would have lost their minds already because that would be seen as encroaching on their domain, right? It was just obvious to see how this will have consequences. To your point about Trump, I do agree, though. I mean, I agree first that I do think it would be happening either way. And I think we both agree it has been going on left and right for a long time. There's regime change undermining Venezuela starvation tactics and sanctions.

But I think that it's Trump's everything right now, whether it's him or just the decision that this is the time to do it all, later roll out the technocratic prison, whatever it is. But that Trump is different, you know, like, I mean, I guess we saw it in the first administration too. He just kind of takes the mask off. He makes it very clear. We're taking the oil, you know. I don't know if that's planned or just his kind of clumsy way, which is usually why I wonder if maybe that's just Israel kind of like dismantling our country, to be very honest about it.

But I don't know. I think that that's different in a very clear way. And it is over the top, like more so than I've ever seen. And so, you know, that's where it's kind of on a knife side right now, I think, very clearly. Yeah. And I would say, you know, when it comes to, you know, you got to get people thinking about this, like, you know, where I grew up, I grew up on Long Island. New York. And we were hit, we were like ravaged by the opiate epidemic and heroin and stuff.

And I remember like people I grew up with got involved. And there was like a pipeline from Brooklyn to Long Island of heroin shipments. And I remember, you know, I knew people that I grew up with that got involved with that. And sometimes you'd hear about a big bust on like the Long Island Expressway. And it's like, imagine if they were drone striked and they were murdered, you know, killed on the way home. Like, you got to think about it. Like, how would you feel about that even if you knew the person was into really bad stuff but they were just killed like that i mean it's just it would never be acceptable to anybody yeah i mean broaded it out to the what's been going on for our entire lifetimes right what if russia decided to bomb something in in florida because

they argued that was some kind of isis hot spot and never proved it i mean that's what that's that's the war on terror you know what i mean like and i'm not going to say there were examples of very extremists being involved or killed or you know even just genuine actions by people involved with the government that actually did good in some minor ways. I think overall that it's just obvious that they, you know, that's a precedent that nobody else, if done to them, would allow,

or Israel, for example. And we see this every day with that back and forth, where, you know, the smallest allegation is enough to spin everything out, but you can prove they're doing it and nothing changes, you know? Yeah,

especially with Israel. I mean, like they have like a unit, like a military unit, the dedicated to justifying killing people, like killing journalists and stuff. It's just like, it's so sick.

And you mentioned Trump, like, how he takes the mask off of everything. Did you see when he was speaking to the Israeli Knesset when he brought up the Edelson's? Yes. And he basically said, my biggest donor cares more about Israel than the U.S. And like, again, just such a mask off moment there. Yeah. And it makes you wonder what's, you know, he's not dumb. Like, there's places where I could argue that he's, you know, lacking.

But I think when it comes to like, you know, politics, you know, his maneuvering, he can be pretty devious. And, you know, just successful, let's say. If you write his books, you know, you understand the way he kind of sees this. So the question is, why? Why would he stand there and say something that he must know, that advisors must tell him that his base is uncomfortable with? You don't know.

To me, the logical is maybe he was told to and he doesn't have a choice, you know, or he's trying to change their minds. Either way, to your point, you don't, you can't deny what it shows you, along with the 100,000 other points of obvious overlap. Like, again, I don't think it's debatable at this point to even push back on the argument that Israel, at least to a certain degree, controls U.S. policy. I mean, it's weird that we have, I mean, we know why, but it's sort of like arguing like the influence that the U.S. government has in foreign policy

on like Al-Qaeda, for example. With Syria, it's like we just can't pretend like we don't know what these things are anymore, but the mainstream conversation, mainstream alternative media, they still kind of operate in that way. It's frustrating. Yeah. Yeah. But let me ask you something before we get into Israel that I think is something you said earlier

that I think is very interesting. And it's a good conversation to have right now. And this is what I was saying. I bring this up often. You mentioned the Constitution and you said that you feel like it's, you know, might be irrelevant today. Now, the way I would look at it is that it's irrelevant to them or rather you might see that because they don't care about it.

To me, though, I would still argue. And again, this is actually coming from like an anarchistic position. Like, I don't think the government should exist. I think we should not live in a state of society. However, because we're forced to, right, this is how I always make this argument, which some people don't like, but I feel like we're stuck in this, right? So unless we can, I fight every day to try to convince people about the realities of a world possible without government. But since we're here, I argue that the Constitution, as I've seen historically with where we are, seems to have been the best effort to actually, to some degree, have checks and balances on a possible government society if we're able to sort of maintain the principle of it. And things like fire in a theater, I think were moments of these principles getting kind of maneuvered, right?

So I think that the constitution within the society is very important. And I think that they don't care about it. And I think at the end of the day, if we were able to bring it back to like core principles and actually adhere to that, that we could to some degree keep them in balance. And especially if we keep it like not like the executive branch can do whatever they want, but actually branches that even if they all have self-interest and only that at heart, that they would check each other because they're meant to in that way. You know what I mean? That's how I look at it. Again, no government would be my choice. But is that what you would see it as or are you of the mind that the Constitution itself has sort of become irrelevant? Because I think Americans have to have this conversation, you know, like where we go and stop, you know, here's the last point. Republicans in particular right now make the argument that we're protecting and fighting for the Constitution, but we're doing it in ways that break it.

You know what I mean? It's like that's not a valid point right there. That's an oxy. That's a contradiction. So either we need to argue, I think, that we should have a fair conversation about why it needs to be changed or all. or remove because it's relevant or that we go all the back to core principles. And I'm open to both arguments. You know, so I was curious where you were on that. Yeah, no, no, I think, you know, I didn't, I kind of dismissed the Constitution before. And that, that's out of kind of just, you know, almost just being tired and, you know, with facing everything, everything that we're facing. Because they don't care about it. Yeah, yeah. But no, I think the Constitution is very important. And I think kind of, you know, because imagine if we went back to, you know, the government.

that the founders had in mind a constitutional limited government republic. Right. No federal government, you know, like that. Yeah. And if we had real money, sound money, like how much better off

things would be. So I think that's, you know, something that we should focus on, especially when you're talking to people kind of on the right. Like, that's who we kind of appeal to a lot at anti-war.com. I mean, obviously, like, we have people

from all over the political spectrum who read us. And but I think when certain people hear those arguments, you know, about, you know, what America was supposed to be, you know, was not supposed to be a global empire. It was supposed to be a limited republic. That really appeals to a lot of people. Yeah. And, you know, I think, again, we have, you know, we have people who read us who are, you know, anarchists, libertarians. And it's not like, we don't need to convince them to get on our side when it comes to war and everything. But, you know, in this kind of war of, you know, information that we're in, and, you know, like you, I, I pursue the truth. That's my priority.

But we are trying to get people on our side and appeal to people. And I think that's, right now, I really think the moment, uh, kind of calls for, you know, bringing people, uh, over to our side, especially people on the right. Because especially when it comes to the wars, like those are the people who are signing up to fight. Those are the people, a lot of young American, you know, MAGA voters who have been fooled by Pete Hegset to join the military. We see the recruitment numbers going up. Right. So, you know, it's good to get them around our, you know, line of thinking. And the Constitution argument is a great way to do that. Yeah, no, I agree.

Well, and the point just I was making is that, you know, I'm my opinion is very clear. And I will argue the points of why I think that and so on. But I think that I think it's important. It behooves us to have an open conversation about it. Like I say this about free speech where, you know, same kind of thing. Is there so many dishonest arguments out there where they're like free speech absolutists and then call for censorship? You know, it's like let's just stop lying to ourselves, right?

If you have a, if you're genuinely of the mind that, you know, whoever out there, that limited speech is where we should be, right? Make your case. Present what you think and back it up. And I can, I'll have, we can have a fair conversation. It's just that doesn't happen today. You know, it's like, it's just I'm trying to, I would like someone to make. an intelligent argument for why they think that might be the case. Maybe they'll win me over.

You know, it's just it's so difficult, as you likely know, because there's so much partisan kind of just mania, team sport politics, right? It overtakes everything right now. But going to Israel, because I think this, you know, I've said this, I mean, well before October 7th, but October 7th forward more than ever that I think that, you know, this is undoubtedly the most important, most, you know, this is something that everyone should be acknowledging. We should all be covering. But to your point, though, I go through the same kind of frustration where I'm like, you know, there's so many other important things, even especially for like an American-centric view that I have to cover that it needs to be discussed. So I kind of some days will over-focus on one or the

other. But then even then I'm like mad at myself or not, you know, it's like I should just be making sure they see it, you know, it's difficult because it is so absolutely jarring. You know, what's going on is I never, ever, ever would have thought you could have, if you would have told me that this was going to happen before, I almost wouldn't have believe you, you know, because of like, why would, you know, just because of obvious it is, how much has completely spun out or even just the idea that anybody would have told me that at this point in time that everyone would recognize what Zionism was or a large degree of people, what Israel has always been, the occupation, like things that have been like hardcore, you shall not pass.

So just an interesting time in all of this. So let's go ahead and start with kind of where we are. Well, I mean, you want to give me any thoughts you have on it in general. And I wanted to start with the idea of like right now with kind of like the reality of where we are, ISIS-link gangs, the future of it, you know, but any thoughts before we get into all that of just like the general situation? Yeah, yeah. So you mentioned the way people are coming around and becoming much more critical of Israel in ways that we never really imagine before. And I know, I'll just tell you an anecdote. I have a good friend of mine who's a Christian, you know, he gets mad at the labels. He's like a Protestant. I'm a Catholic. So I, you know, I consider if you're not Catholic, I just think you're a Protestant, but he'll tell you he's something else. But anyway, he's, you know, very Christian and he used to be very pro-Israel. And, you know, I think he's, you know, I think he's he looked at it from a theological way, and we used to argue about it a lot.

I haven't seen him for like two years, and I just saw him recently. And he's done a complete 180 on the whole Israel thing. And we were talking about it. And basically he's like, oh, I looked into it. Like I looked into the kind of the theological reason. And he really, you know, from his perspective, he didn't think that held any weight, but that it was a false, you know, interpretation. The reason I laugh is just that, you know, the idea that's like, you know, I looked into it.

Like, why didn't get it before, you know? Yeah. Well, and, but I think that's kind of, that's why we're seeing this big shift. Right. Because people are looking into it because of what they've seen over the past two years. Yeah. A live stream genocide, massacres of women and children. I mean, every single day.

And, you know, so I know for it for him, I'm sure for other people, you know, he'd been like, okay, why do I need to support this? Like, huh? And, you know, you start looking into it. And that's why we're seeing kind of designers are really freaking out about this. And they're making a lot of desperate attempts to reverse this shift. But I don't think it's going to happen. I don't think it's possible. I mean, I don't think that, you know, they've always had just power structures,

a large control over the narrative and information flow, you know, for a lot of different reasons. But a lot of ways were, you know, like especially from this perspective, just like brute force, just you're a racist if you say that. And a lot of power structures would enforce that. And people could be completely shunned from society. We used to pretend that was a left thing. Clearly it's not. You know, it's like very clearly it goes both ways.

But I think what happened after October 7th, as you're saying, was you just, you know, you can't stare at dead children every day like the average people. The liars out there, the people opportunists, people that are blindly on the side of the agenda, they'll find ways to ignore it. But the average mom that has been convinced that Israel is from, you know, from the Bible or whatever because they called it that after the Belford Declaration, they are just people that don't know. So when you go on these platforms and you just are bombarded, which is what they were trying to stop,

reality reality reality you you just can't let that go moms are going to be like what is happening like all of this can't be fake you know and so it just ended up they shot themselves in the foot now an argument that i was point out that dave smith made in an interview a while back was that and i think this is exactly the right way to always think about this or like what could have happened so had israel regardless of what they always were and what they've been doing the well before october 7th had they after october 7th went right to the u.n and said we were attacked this is a crime against humanity we're and went through the right channels, right? And did that, you know, and did the whole,

they would have never had to ask for, I mean, they weren't anyway, but that, I mean, think about that. That would have forever been on their side. Instead, they just went completely immediately genocide, and they thought everyone would support them. And just, you know, they could have gone through the channels and still done everything they've been doing for, for 70 years, you know, literally manipulating the process,

but they just chose to take it all the way. And that was, you know, for whatever reason, it just, it felt over the top. And people can't put that away anymore, you know? And so right now, I think it's so interesting that we have this situation where, you know, obviously the ethnic cleansing, interesting is wrong word, but I was thinking about when I said that is the ISIS linked overlap part. But, you know, we have the genocides taking place, the ethnic cleansing, the yellow line. They're all being pushed into the, you know, toward the water.

And the idea that that was never like, remember in the beginning, it was like fake news. That's not possible, you know, whatever. Or the idea that they weren't stopping aid or, you know, every single day these new lies are becoming right in front of you. And now even crazier, they're basically going. yeah, that was the case. Right? Yeah, we want to take Palestine. Yeah.

So where are you at on this with where it currently is? The, like the current argument of the ceasefire and the reality of like the groups that are actually doing the killing, like, just give me your take on it before I even get into it, I think. Yeah. I mean, so, you know, the situation now, what appears to be like the new status quo after the ceasefire went into effect is you mentioned the yellow line, which the IDF occupies, you know, more than 50% of Gaza.

if people go near this imaginary line they created, they get shot and killed. So it's not like a real peace that we're seeing or a ceasefire. It's more of like a de-escalation. And we're left with this Israeli occupation of Gaza. They're still restricting the aid. They haven't led in nearly as much aid as they agreed to. And you mentioned the ISIS-linked gangs. So there's a few ways that Israel has tried to break the ceasefire so far.

The first one was they claim that Hamas didn't, live up to it because they didn't release all the bodies right away of the deceased Israelis who died in captivity in Gaza, even though it was very clear from the deal that they signed and that they weren't going to get all the bodies right away because many of them are buried under the rubble. So Israel said, oh, that's it. We're going to cut all the aid and basically threatened to restart the bombing. But the U.S. said no. I said Hamas was not violating it.

And then the other thing is, so we've seen Hamas kind of reassert control of these areas that the IDF has left. And we've seen a crackdown on people who are alleged to have been Israeli collaborators or criminals. And we do know that Israel has been arming gangs and militias in Gaza and at least three of them that I'm aware of control territory in the Israeli occupied part under the protection of the IDF. But, you know, the crackdown that we saw from Hamas, Trump initially backed it. He said they're taking out some very bad gangs. So, you know, Israel tried to use that.

And it was interesting. Trump said, oh, yeah, we approved that. We said that they can go in. Because, you know, you look at a war zone like that, I mean, the destruction, the desperation, the starvation, obviously there's going to be a lot of crime. There's going to be a lot of people trying to get, you know, but apparently the looting has stopped. And so, you know, Israel tried to use that to break the ceasefire. And then there was this attack this past Sunday or alleged attack. They claimed a Palestinian militant fired a rocket and killed two IDF troops in southern Gaza.

There was reporting that they ran over an explode either an unexploded Israeli bomb or an IED that was planted months ago. Right. But either way, whatever happened, they tried to use that to blow up the whole ceasefire deal. They unleashed the bombing. They killed like dozens of people in one day, just basically back to the rate that they were bombing Gaza before. But then again, the U.S. said, you know, basically told him to stop. So, and I'm not trying to give credit to the Trump administration or anything with this. It's just the fact that, you know, this, right now Trump has put his credibility on the line with this deal.

You know, he went over and had this summit in Egypt, you know, basically, you know, declaring peace in the Middle East and that it was over. So it's too soon for them to let Israel just completely blow it up. But this kind of new status quo that we're in, it's not going to lead to a lasting peace. You know, there's been no fundamental changes to kind of the problem. Yes. You know, isn't that the crux of the point? Doesn't this represent just the exact same situation, but Israel has more property?

Yeah. I mean, I don't see the difference. Oh, yeah. Yeah, no, it's the pre-October 7th situation, except Gaza is completely destroyed. And Israel controls more than half of it. And we see Jared Kushner saying that they might start reconstruction in the Israeli-controlled part. I mean, could this end up? could they end up building settlements there?

You know, could do your settlements? I mean, you know, I think the Ben Gavir, the Settler movement, I forget her name off top of my head, that one that's become very famous for. Daniela Weiss, I think. Yes, yes. They have outlined documentation of where they will go. Also in Lebanon, by the way, with names in Hebrew. You know, Ben Gavir is dancing with them and talking about it, these conferences.

Like, it's not a secret. Now, whether or not that is, like, at the highest level, like, actionably happening through Reti Yahoo and who knows, but I do believe that. I think it's something that they're all very aware of, and the plan has always been to take this. I mean, what do you think about that? Do you think that the plan from the beginning was to ultimately take all of Gaza and this was just all narrative to get there?

Oh, yeah, yeah, I think so. From the beginning, they've wanted ethnic cleansing, all the Palestinians to go. Yeah, I'm pretty like the problem many times. Yeah, and I mean, the problem for them, you know, and I think what we saw over the past two years was how, like, a modern country in 2025 commits genocide. Like, they put all this plausible deniability on top of stuff.

Like, you know, they say, oh, anybody who crosses this line is a terrorist. If we shoot them in the head, we could say they were a terrorist. Like Obama's combatants, right? If they're in a place we bomb, then they're combatants. That was Obama. Yeah, yeah, exactly. And the strikes, you know, collapsing entire apartment buildings full of women and children saying, oh, there was a Hamas guy there. You know, like they always have their little justification.

But if you're doing that over and over and over again, it's clear that the purpose is not killing a Hamas guy or two. the purpose is killing Palestinians. Yeah. And interesting overlap again. It just keeps jumping to my mind. Look, I very much believe I think that's clear by now that this is coming home to us for, you know, however you look at it, in Chicago, Donald Trump's, the ice, well, I think it was more than ice, but they remember the whole military coming down from zip lines and helicopters. It turns out in that whole building that they completely rated, they claim there was one guy that was linked to Trendy, Aaragua, and that's not even provable. Everything they said.

So it's really the same ultimate point. They didn't bomb the building, but it's just, it's the overlap. You know, whether that's because they just see that being normalized or not, I just think that terrifies me coming home, you know? Yeah, yeah, that is scary. Yeah, that parallel there. I wanted to ask you about the ceasefire violations, right? So, I mean, I've read through the documentation that I can see,

but it always seems to be so new, like, deliberately muddied, like where Netanyahu's got, like, his own point plan. It's like five, I guess they've got the eight point. Like it just, and they all, like, act like they're on the same page. I think that's by design, but my point is, I'm of the mind that these things were immediately ceasefire violations. And your insight on whether that's the case, like the yellow line itself. Now, see, they claim it's like where we can control and that we're going to build where we're safe.

But I thought the argument was they were allowed to go back to the north. And the point is they were shooting anybody that tried to go back there acting like they were the ones violating it. Isn't that in and of itself a violation on top of the food and the bombings that were taking place every day since they claim they were doing it? Oh, yeah. Yeah, I would say it's a violation, shooting people on armed people. Well, I mean, the line itself and any other things that you think were violations? Like, what did you see and all that?

Yeah, no, I mean, I think the line, like, you know, the deal was clear that Israel would pull back to this line. It was very vague. I mean, it was literally like a line that they drew on a mat. So I think Israel has the ability to kind of justify that to the U.S. to say, oh, you know, this is our line. This is what we agreed to. But as I understood it, the Palestinians, regardless of the line that Israel controlled, were allowed to cross that to go back to their territory in the north. Was I wrong about that? I actually don't know.

I don't know if that was spelled out. Yeah. But they were allowed to go north. Like, they did go back north through the area that was beyond the yellow line. That's what I thought. Right. Yeah. And then the people.

So if you look at the line, like you're able to travel north and south, you know, in the west of Gaza on the edge. Oh, right. In an area that's not controlled by the IDF. Yeah. But where we've seen, I think, most of the killings happen is in Gaza City, where in the neighborhoods in the east, parts of them are occupied by the IDF. Parts of them aren't. And you have people just go in and see like the condition of their house and they would get shot or drone strike.

Right. Which, I mean, again, there's just no world where this is acceptable, like under a ceasefire, unless you think these people are animals, unless that's your view of Palestinians. Yeah, there you go. So, yeah, so this is good. I forgot I had this. This is 58% for crying out loud. I mean, this is such an insult. But so what I was on the impression of is that ultimately that these,

the entirety of the Gaza Strip, they were allowed, like you're saying, if they had their home. And I thought that was like a central part of this, that they were allowed to go back to wherever that might be. And that this was just what is you were controlled. Now, the point is I guess we don't know for sure. And I don't either. But it's like, I think the whole point is they create these opaque,

kind of like undefined elements that they then just argue they violated. And you know the U.S. government's going to back what they say. That's how I read it. And there's plenty of examples like that. Do you see any more openings like that that you see that might be exploited to claim that they're violating it? Yeah, well, they did that with the bodies. Right. Right. That's right. Yeah. No, but that's a good point about this because especially for just the people on the ground, like, okay, there's a ceasefire. We could go back north and like nobody's told us about this line that we can't cross. And, you know, like it's just setting up people to be killed almost. Right. But yeah,

I mean, the whole thing now is the disarmament of Hamas. Yes. And to say it out of gate, Trump's the one that already argued that they would be allowed to rearm. And that's not getting much discussion. Yeah, yeah. He said that they gave them permission to do it. Yeah, right.

To go back and kind of reassert control, crack down on crime. So that's the big thing. And I think that's ultimately what is going to blow the thing up is that they're not going to reach any deal that, you know, on this. And because Hamas hasn't agreed to disarm. The 20 point plan that was released by the White House said that Gaza would be demilitarized. What Hamas agreed to was enter a ceasefire, release all the hostages, and then negotiate on those points. And the thing about, you know, it's not even, it's not about Hamas.

It's about, I mean, their position is that in order for them to give up their weapons, there has to be a basically a Palestinian state or a Palestinian military force that can replace them. Right. because, you know, if they give up their weapons, you know, Israel, they know Israel is going to, or they think Israel is going to find an excuse to just go in and, you know, kill everybody. I mean, it's already kind of what they're doing, right? I mean, you know, the argument that they violated that, there were some, they were something, they were bombing the entire time. But essentially, that's what's already happened, right? I mean, because Israel's already made the claim.

Maybe they haven't gone back to full war like they were before, but isn't that already kind of the de facto reality? Yeah, no, it is. it is already kind of like that. So, but I think that's going to be the major sticking point. And it's interesting because Trump, some of the things that he said about Hamas, he said, you know, some of the, he said, a lot of these Hamas guys, you know, they're young. They weren't around when things started. And I think what he's kind of saying there is acknowledging the fact that, you know, it's something, this is a question I see Pierce Morgan always asks, like, people who are critical of Israel, like, what would you have done on October 7th if you were in Israel? What should they have done?

And he says, you know, the context, the history, that doesn't, you know, it's irrelevant to the question of what would Israel, like, what would, what could they have done after October 7 that you would have been, been happy with? And the fact is, is that, you know, Israel was going to do something, like, you know, despite all the context and history and everything. So what should they have done? Well, now the same, you could take the same view of the Palestinians in Gaza. if you were just a regular guy living in Gaza, October 7th happens and Israel bombs and kills your children or your mother.

What are you going to do? What is that guy going to do? And that's how Hamas has been able to, you know, recruit people. Right. And I think that's kind of what Trump was kind of acknowledging there when he said, you know, a lot of these people were young. Like if Israel kills your family and you want to resist, I mean, there's really only one game in town, Hamas or Palestinian Islamic Jihad. And all the leadership has been killed. Hamas's leadership in Gaza has been wiped out. You know, obviously you have people replacing them. But, you know, it's just, this is a reality. Like if the U.S. Trump really wants peace, they know that they're going to have to accept that whoever's in Hamas now is going to be part of Gaza, is going to be part of maybe the government or military or whatever. You know, that's just the reality.

Yeah. So, and the thing is that I don't think they're going to be. going to really can be able to continue to maintain this pressure on Israel, you know, to, to keep the ceasefire deal. I mean, you see what's happening this week. It's like every U.S. official is going over there. Right. So, yeah, the way the whole thing is set up, I think it is kind of bound to, it's just not going

to lead to a lasting peace. On the other hand, things are changing when it comes to the U.S. Israel relationship, all these goals that Israel has for the region, expanding into Lebanon, Syria, even though nobody he talks about the invasion of Syria. Or Lebanon, for that matter. It's wild to me. The ceasefire violations, Craig Murray, maybe, but like nobody talked about it. Yeah, and that's just going on like every day.

I mean, today they just bomb Lebanon again. But all this stuff requires U.S. support, military support and political support. So, and the Israelis know that they might not have that forever, you know, at this point. Which is a more reason for me, by the way, why I argue that there's effort more. or so than I think we already see for Israel to bully its way into controlling this administration, which is what I think is already happening, by the way. But that's my opinion. You know, like the Zion administration. Go ahead.

Yeah, no, I think they could, Netanyahu could see this administration as like his last shot to do the things that he wants to do. I mean, I'm corner more getting at the idea that over a long period of time and how this has been changing, I think, you know, we know that governments operate this way. Like the idea of trying, and especially with the special relationship of like kind of the blurring the line between IDF and the U.S. military. you know, all these different things that I think we've literally seen a, an infiltration of our government, you know?

And we can just talk about that in one of the latter points in all this. Like, what are your thoughts on this? Like, of not just political, like, maneuvering, but like, man, like, I don't think Manuring candidate be the right term, but like, you know, somebody who is working on behalf of these Israeli government that, you know, for, like an intelligence level that ends up working its way into an American position in the government. However that plays out, whether it's from a long-term play or,

or just whatever else. Like, even a Brian Mast in their IDF, I just find that to be insane, you know, whether a Chinese military or a British military, you know, and so as you see all this, I mean, what do you think the reality of that is? And it's just, you know, we're talking opinions here, but do you think this is more about, like,

you know, even back and forth where people argue that the U.S. controls Israel, you know, I think it's pretty objectively, the influence goes the other way predominantly, but to what degree do you think Israel can potentially control U.S. policy? Yeah, no, I agree. that the influence mostly goes, you know, from Israel to the U.S.

But I think right now what we're seeing is a very pro-Israel Trump administration, kind of being like, all right, you got to take it easy for a little while. Because of their reputation. Yeah. Yeah. And who's been negotiating this, Steve Whitechoff and Jared Kushner? I mean, you talk about Israeli infiltration, like Kushner's ties with Netanyahu going back to when he was very young, his family has known Netanyahu for a very long time.

you know these are the people negotiating the deal i mean that's another sign that it's it's probably not going to really lead to anything lasting because you had Kushner involved in the first administration's so-called peace plan that they unveiled for the west bank right which was just never going to be accepted by the Palestinians it was probably designed that way um and as you mentioned by the way the west bank is i mean i mean it's funny how little attention this gets as well but the west bank is they've now declared that they're taking control right and that's something that trump has come out and said is she is not a being allowed to happen that Jordan said they would never allow it to happen.

You know, and it's just, it's, you know, Mary Madelson paid him $100 billion to let it happen. And now it's happening. You know, it's on top of everything else. It just is such a slap of the face. Yeah, yeah. Well, there's a whole thing today, actually, Vance said because the Knesset advanced a bill to annexed to West Bank while Vance was there. Right. And Vance said it was a political stunt.

It was stupid and that, you know, they're not going to annex the West Bank under the Trump administration. But they are. But, yeah, I think focusing on like official annexation kind of misses the point. because they're expanding settlements and the Israeli settler like terrorism terrorism that's happening in the West Bank is all increasing and increasing and increasing.

And you have the U.S. ambassador there saying that God gave them the land. So it's like the de facto annexation is continuing. And there was a U.S. journalist that just got ambushed by the IDF and a bunch of settlers recently, which is wild to me. And that's what it appeared to be. You know, it's, yeah, this whole thing is, it's just there's so much,

I think there's so many desperate elements of this that things are just very unsettled. Like, you know, this could go in any number of directions because people are acting irrationally, you know, like whether we're talking like Samson option or just like burning it down, you know, like in regard to, you know, any number of things. I think that people can act in very desperate ways when they're up against the wall, you know. But so in regard to like the rearming the like, we'll kind of end with this in regard to where this might go, you know, because I think my, the way I view this, and I'll just show

these as well since I had these included, and I'll put this all in the show notes. They were even discussing this from the World Food Program that they're saying, look, like, we can literally see right now that the looting has stopped because Hamas has removed these gangs from the conversation. So it's like, you know, pretty clear what's been the cat, what the problem, these ISIS-linked gangs that have been looting that, and that's not to say that there's not other actions of Hamas or crimes. It's just about acknowledging the large picture of what they've always been claiming is

Hamas the entire time. And so ultimately, we have this evidence of the gang overlap, the in their Knesset discussing that they're working with ISIS-link gangs and why that's not the biggest story in the world is insane to me, or which one was, I forgot what this was, but just my point is that I'm thinking that it looks like, at least as one of the possibilities,

that this ISIS-link gang element is what they're trying to sort of swap out for what's currently in Gaza, and maybe even calling it Hamas, just a thought that I had, but ultimately trying to kind of use them, as you said, even civil groups are controlling territory now as sort of like the element they'll switch to

and it ends up being just like they did with Hamas. Now, it's not to say that Hamas was entirely under Israel's control. People can debate about that. But that they funded them right up until pretty recently. It's not debatable. That doesn't, by the way, undermine the act of armed resistance for an occupied territory. All that being said, what do you think about where this may go with that the groups, or Hamas or the future of it in general, just kind of wrap up.

What do you think will, this will go? Well, yeah, no. I think that's a way that Israel can really, you know, screw up the ceasefire deal is through supporting those gangs. militias because you have Hamas saying they said that they would give amnesty to any armed group if they turn their weapons in but these groups are saying that they're not going to give up their weapons. So, you know, the idea of stoking kind of like a, you know, inner Palestinian internal conflict is something I think Israel wants to do here. And, you know, you mentioned the Abu Shabab gang, which is like the biggest one in southern Gaza, this guy who leads the

gang. According to the UN, he was responsible for the most aid looting his gang in 2024. And that's who Israel decided to arm. And then Israel used and they targeted the Hamas police force, you know, bombed them, killed them when they were providing security for aid shipments. And then they armed the looters. And then they use looting as a justification to cut the aid and starve the people. So, I mean, it's just like so sick the way that they did it. So yeah, I think yeah and like could they use one of these gangs and say okay you're the official i forget like the name for one of them but they have like an official sounding name be like okay this is going to be the force in in gaza and then prop them up for a while and then you know maybe maybe as the resistance

group like we saw in syria right like they're the ones fighting for freedom from the population it's an organic uprising like it they just it feel like they never have a new narrative so that seems to fit you know yeah yeah and then that that could and you know turn to be the Israeli strategy, especially if they pull out of more of Gaza, it's kind of stoke the, you know, the civil war. Yeah. Right. Yeah.

I mean, they're not going to stop messing around there. Like, it's not like they're just going to give it up. Yeah. Unfortunately, I agree, you know, but I think that what you're doing with anti-war.com and everybody else on the team and, you know, just anybody out there who's genuinely, I mean, which is just crazy that we have to act like this, you know, that it is unique, is wild to me, but just that we care about the truth more than anything else, right? It's about just finding the facts, breaking down the reality of it, ignoring partisanship,

ignoring. It's just about being objective, you know, standing by your principles. It's just that seems to be very lacking in the field right now. And there's a lot of people, though. I'm not going to demand it. There's a ton of people that I think are outstanding. But the people that get pushed into our view and the mainstream alternative media and everywhere else, I mean, it's a dangerous time. And so I'm really thankful for the work that you do. And hopefully we can connect again in the future because I think that conversations like this is just, you know, it's very helpful for people to watch, they kind of flesh these things out to consider possibilities where it may go, you know, and I hopefully, hopefully we can do something about it, man, because I got to be honest,

this, of all the things I've covered, you know, I have an ability to sort of be able to put things away, you know, and I think that's why I'm good at this. I can, you know, I care very deeply about this stuff, but I'm able to sort of go out, you know, my garden and just kind of, you know, put it out my mind, but of all the things I've recovered, I have hard time doing this for obvious reasons because it's just, it makes you feel like you're failing them in some way by not, you know, because it's so obvious and yet it still goes on, you know, it's like, am I not doing my job? But, you know, it's that we are, I think, and that's why, like, this whole thing is so desperate.

Like, the power structures are so obviously up against a wall that I just, you know, we got to keep pushing at the very least because we know what we're fighting for, man. So thank you for all you do. Anything else you want to leave us with last time? Yeah, well, I really appreciate all that. And thanks for having me on. I've always liked your work and everything. And it is surprising that this is the first time we've actually talked. Like, I remember when you invited me on, I was like, didn't I go on there before?

But no, I haven't. So, yeah, it's really cool to talk to you. And I really enjoyed the conversation. So, yeah, let's definitely do it again sometime. And people could follow my work at anti-war.com. I do a show. It's like a daily short news show of U.S. foreign policy of the news that I cover.

It's called Anti-War News. It's on YouTube and all the other platforms, Rumble and X and stuff. So yeah, people can check that out. Well, I'll include all that and your links in the show notes. So make sure everyone can follow up on that. And thank you for being here. And as always, question everything. Come to your own conclusions.

Stay vigilant.