The Last American Vagabond - House Approves Israel/US Military Merger, Major US War Crimes In Iran & Trump's New Gain-Of-Function

Starting point is 00:00:00 This paper, the one that happened even after this, which is already better, uses stable diffusion, uses the thing that you used to make art. Like, what should a thing that you use to make art have anything to do with reading your brain? But of course, it goes further. So in this one, they said, can they understand the inner monologue, the things you're saying to yourself in your own mind? By the way, when you dream, your dream, like your visual cortex runs in reverse. So your dreams are no longer safe. But we'll try this. had people watch a video and just narrate what was going on in the video in their mind.

Starting point is 00:00:34 So there's a woman, she gets hit in the back, she falls over. This is what the computer reconstructed the person thinking. See a girl looks just like me, get hit in the back, and then she is knocked off. So our thoughts are starting to be decoded. Yeah. Just think about what this means for authoritarian states, for instance. Or if you want to generate images that maximally activate your pleasure sense, or anything else.

Starting point is 00:01:03 Okay, but let's keep going, right? To really get the sense of the combinatorics of this. How about can we go from Wi-Fi radio signals, you know, sort of like the Wi-Fi routers in your house, they're bouncing off radio signals that works sort of like sonar. Can you go from that to where human beings are to images? So what they did is they had, you know, a camera looking at a space with people in it. That's sort of like coming in from one eye. The other eye is the radio signals, so sonar from the Wi-Fi router.

Starting point is 00:01:31 And they just learned to predict, like, this is where the human beings are. Then they took away the camera. So all the AI had was the language of radio signals bouncing around a room, and this is what they're able to reconstruct. Real-time 3D pose estimation, right? So suddenly, AI has turned every Wi-Fi router into a camera that can work in the dark specially tuned for tracking living beings. starts with a simple question and ends an objective reality.

Starting point is 00:02:06 Reality. Through our journey from there to hear, we find one another and ourselves. And as the next 24 hours breaks free from our last, we gaze onward in reflection of the day. Tell you your own equals, you're okay. Thursday, July. Welcome to the daily wrap-up.

Starting point is 00:02:39 Thursday, July 23rd, 2026. I've played that video many times over the years. I don't remember the exact date. That was, I think that came out around the time of like a year after the COVID-19 timeframe, the great reset time frame. But it's not new. Not even in the context. I mean, in the technological timeframe, you can clearly align it with routers and different points. But the reason I played it again, because I think we played that in the last show,

Starting point is 00:03:07 is how it connects today to something that I find incredibly, you know, I really am right in line with what's going on in the world today, very invasive, very, you know, manipulative. It's all about surveillance and like biosurveillance overlap with technology. It's a new DARPA discussion. Now, I'm not going to get into it to start because I have a lot to get to before we get into that. But the latter part of the show today is discussing something, in my opinion, based on the way I read the science and based on the way I see this going,

Starting point is 00:03:35 and pointing back to the conversation we had around Donald Trump's gain of function head fake, which is what it was. We'll reread that document again today to set that table because the reality is they weren't trying to stop gain a function. They were trying to make it look like they stopped gain a function while making it stated clear that they were going to be the leaders in the world and the ones they kept doing. I think that might be what this is. And this has to do with something that is a fange bacteria system, essentially.

Starting point is 00:04:00 Now, I'm not going to say it's the same thing. thing. Essentially, not even, I mean, you could argue by, you know, fine point definitions that it's not even necessarily gain a function. But I want to argue about this in that context. And I want you to look at it that way and consider for yourself, whether you think this, at the very least, definitions aside will amount to the same type of danger. That's what I was reading at this, reading when I, you know, reading into this when I was looking at this conversation today and how it seems to be some kind of a new setup to do the same thing with a little different lens. And if not, I still find it a large, in the sense of what it can create based on science I found peer-viewed and otherwise that

Starting point is 00:04:37 discussed this very thing. Look at as far as I could tell dated by the research about 2025 is when this was first sort of discovered and allowed, at least as we were told, and how this is something that could lead to the same kind of problems. At the very least, I believe it's, you know, playing God kind of dynamic. And it's not just Trump, but I use that in the title to make sure we knew it was now and the new evolution of it. But you know my opinion.

Starting point is 00:04:59 I don't think it's any different. This is the U.S. government. But before we get to the conversation of the new sort of, you know, biotechnology direction and how that aligns. And also, as I pointed out, which I don't want to get into, but relates to some sort of technological tracking around whether or not you've been infected by something and how that could be used for pre-crime and other conversations, which weirdly relates to just about everything we're looking at today. But I want to talk today about, of course, the House passing, the NDAA, which is being, I guess, covered by a lot of people as if that's it. And so it's, well, the Senate. I mean, look, you know my opinion. I think it's clear this is going to happen unless we as the population just do something,

Starting point is 00:05:36 don't allow our government to do what they're going to do whether or not we want it to. Take that for whatever you mean. You want that to mean. I never advocate for violence. The point being is that they don't really care what we think. But it still has to pass the Senate. It still has to be approved by Trump, which I believe will happen. But it's still important to see that it's not officially in place yet.

Starting point is 00:05:53 It's also important to remember that it's not the only thing. There's other parts that have yet to pass. there's other parts that already have and are in place and some that have been left kind of in limbo. But we'll talk about that and why that's important and relate that with, you know, the overlap of what Israel is currently doing in the world in a brief point just to make sure we don't forget that as they're integrating with this country, more so. And talk about some of the conversations coming from Congress around that. But an important thing I want to highlight around this kind of in between the two parts of the story is Iran and Israel and the United States. and the confounding reality of where it currently still is, the lies coming from the Trump administration about it,

Starting point is 00:06:34 and what that means for Americans, for this country, for the global, you know, dynamic, I guess. And how Israel seems to be sort of, like, I mean, we showed this in the beginning, quite frankly, but more so in the last few weeks, this isn't our war. This is for the U.S. government. In fact, you have people like Smotrit saying, or brother Ben-Gavir, saying, we don't want to get more involved.

Starting point is 00:06:56 situation works perfectly for us. Have the U.S. keep fighting our wars. I mean, they're basically laughing at us Americans behind, I mean, not even behind our backs, in our faces, because our government doesn't seem capable or even willing or, you know, who knows why, aren't doing anything about it. But it's insulting. Because in the beginning, what do we say? We're going to see flat-draped coffins while Israelis sit back and watch. And that shouldn't be an indictment of every Israeli, because this is the government we're talking about. But as we will show you in plenty majority senses, the population support some of the worst things we're discussing. But the reality of this and what it's doing to the world and what this means for the civilian

Starting point is 00:07:34 population as the U.S. government openly targets civilian infrastructure. Not for the first time, but brazenly, just continuing and saying, we'll do it even more if you don't do X, Y, and Z. And really how all of this ties together. So one thing I want to start with the shout out in case you hadn't seen it, I mentioned in the last show. but again, I want to promote the upcoming event, which is tomorrow. Derek just had a great one.

Starting point is 00:07:58 I believe it was Atlanta. He's now coming to Nashville tomorrow, which will be technically Franklin, which is the greater Nashville area. And it'll be at the DN Gallery and all the information will be here for you. I'll bring it up large screen for you. 6 to 10 p.m. And it's free. Case, I didn't say that last time.

Starting point is 00:08:15 Anybody's welcome. You know, honestly, I hope we get more people than we can fit in there. You know, why not? Line up the streets. Let's have a big, let's take over this. let's take over the downtown area. Why not? Let's see what happens.

Starting point is 00:08:24 My point, though, is to get as many people out here as we can. Derek will be performing. And just to, you know, it's about just what we're trying to accomplish here. You know, it's, and obviously what he's fighting for with the activation tour in general is to literally activate people to show them that there are other paths to take and then give them things they can do if they're interested. And that takes the form of any number of things we've talked about, whether that's the idea of, you know, homesteading or whether it's gardening or whether it's just finding pathways

Starting point is 00:08:51 within the system to pull away from it as best you can. All sorts of different things you can do. But July 24th, that is tomorrow. I'll be hosting. Come check us out. It will be fun. Now, to start with the NDAA, but briefly about the $3.3 billion that is,

Starting point is 00:09:09 which is always more than that, by the way, which also was voted in favor of by the Republicans and rather just the U.S. government because it always happens left and right. Now, don't forget whether it's the funding, every 10 years or the billions that we give Israel for whatever else they needed for and they don't really, but or it's the NDAA or any number of things that relates to that. What's important is, you know, to understand the, hold on, there's one point I was going to add to

Starting point is 00:09:36 that before I jump into the next part of it. But the $3.3 billion is money that goes to Israel that is voted for that they don't need. And this is something that I want to include because obviously this is something that is being voted for despite all that's happening in the world. Now, there wasn't the point I was going to make, but overall, this is something that's frustrating because it's been called out for a very long time. And it goes back left and right and left and right and always is supported. Oh, dang, I'm glad I remembered. The point is that you always have one side of this.

Starting point is 00:10:03 And it's not necessarily left or right. It's the power. It's the side of the government. And I hate even framing it like that because I really don't see it that way that I think it's just one thing, but it is the side that's currently not in power. And I believe that's the way this is used to make you think one side's always fighting for you. It's just a game, in my opinion. Frankly, I think her history proves. that. What I point is that in this case, for example, where you have, like with the NDAA, where you have, you know, here the Democrats have voted, almost all the Republicans voted for it. And the ones that Democrats pushed back, do you really think they pushed back? Or do you think that it was because they have the opportunity to know it's going to pass regardless, which it did in the House at least,

Starting point is 00:10:38 and that they then have the opportunity to present themselves as somebody who pushed back against the thing, even though if they were in the reverse situation, as we've seen repeatedly throughout history, they would have voted for it. And the Republicans would have been like, oh, we're fighting for the people. I mean, call me, Jaded, if you want. I'm sure that's the case. But history backs up my stance. And I think what we're seeing with this or with the NDA is a feigned kind of resistance when most of them get A-PAC money and, you know, and we'll go through some of that today. But Massey on the 19th foot out, I was the only Republican to vote for my amendment to cut $3.3 billion. Now, excuse me, frame that poorly. It was always already happening, but this was the

Starting point is 00:11:18 effort to stop it. But my point in the first place was that it happens every time and both left and right continue to support this. The GOP, he writes, can't seriously claim to be America first. Neither can the Democrats, by the way, regardless of what they're currently feigning. But end of the day, this is not about putting America first. Even if you agree with the funding, that means this is them first, then our needs. And that's what Americans are starting to see, even those that agree with this. Naomi Wolf came out and said in regard to Congress from William Timmons saying, I proudly voted no. So he's saying, I proudly voted no, which means I want the money to keep going to Israel, while they commit genocide, while Americans do not support the war, in any sense,

Starting point is 00:11:59 especially what Israel's doing. Feel free to do your best to dive into it. It's unequivocally obvious right now. So, no, I voted no, because what? Because Americans, no, because, I mean, because of your interest and clearly who is telling you, you know, what benefits you is going against American interest because what? I mean, you fill in the blank there, guys. You can only think of a few different things. There's no reason he would do this. Clearly, it's not about an ideological belief unless it's about Israel's perspective on the world versus America. It doesn't matter how you look at this. Americans don't want this. They're supposed to be representing American interests. He says, well, Democrats are tearing themselves apart over Israel. Are they, though? We just went

Starting point is 00:12:38 through this with Biden's administration and they were doing the same thing in reverse. Americans aren't this stupid. We don't have the memory of a house fly, guys. We can look back and go, wait a minute. Democrats were just going, we need to fund Israel. And Republicans were saying, wait a little bit of America first. And now it's flipped, just like the FISA, 702. And they were going, we can't let Democrats do this. And then they get in power and they go, Democrats won't let us do this. They hate America. But you just said it was not supposed to happen. I guess I just don't think people are this dumb. I mean, I think we can prove that at this point. But while they're tearing themselves apart, I know exactly where I stand with Israel. Okay. So,

Starting point is 00:13:16 Americans don't want this and you stand with Israel. Is that completely clear? It should be, guys. And Naomi Wolf, very transparently, I think, at this point, says, well said. People should understand that aid to Israel is not about Israel. Oh, it's not. It's about an ally dealing with terrorists who want to destroy America. Okay.

Starting point is 00:13:35 What a childlike view of the world. You know what I mean? Like, you're a terrorist, good guy. You're with us. You're against us. Thanks, George Bush. That's just a lazy take, not a journalist take. And the ultimate point.

Starting point is 00:13:46 here, guys, is this is what they do with everything. I don't take that seriously. If you actually hold that opinion, I mean, I would put that in the group of the children watching Fox News and CNN. The bottom line is that this is the same thing they're saying about it, Iran right now, literally going, it's a regime, an extremist terrorist regime that wants to build a nuclear weapon. You mean the country of Iran? Like, feel free to frame it to see them that way. But we're talking about an entire country with a very, very long history more than the United States, but it's a terrorist regime, you know, it's just this lazy, cowardly coverage. You can be all about it. You can call them bad guys, but have the courage to at least frame it accurately. But this is my

Starting point is 00:14:25 point. So everyone's against this and yet many people who want to frame themselves as the MAGA, which really the real MAGA team is the massive support for, you know, the majority of the people who clearly do not support Trump right now, who 30 seconds ago said they were voting for him. That's the real MAGA movement. And I think it's the majority. But Celare report, Catherine Austin Fitz, says actually Naomi, it's about integrating the Gaza method into America. Connect the dots to flock and the license plate cameras, AI and data centers. It's about putting a straw into the trillions flowing out the backdoor of the DOD. So consider this in integration with the Treasury as the launch backdoor programmable money and assets through private issuers,

Starting point is 00:15:05 some of which have demonstrated record of being above the law. My God, look at that trade. Look at that comparison. This is my point about people like what we do in the IMA. a Stu Peters, a Benny Johnson. If you looked at them next to each other, it's insane. It's a cartoon and it's something in real life. That's how I look at it.

Starting point is 00:15:23 And it's not about me or my, you know, I make mistakes like anybody. It's about understanding the principled action of people and the in-depth reality. I mean, just look at that. Yay, good thing for America, terrorist bad. And then what Catherine says. It's like, wow, somebody actually has an insight with information. And, you know, it's not just about narratives and teams.

Starting point is 00:15:40 Thank God. And, of course, you may not believe it's connected to all these things. I think it's obvious. I do. The reason I included it beyond pointing out the people who are being dishonest is about showing you this arc as we go through the show today. Because this is all connected, guys. It's very real. And everyone is starting to pay attention to this.

Starting point is 00:15:56 But it's about supporting a bad guy or allies against a bad guy. Okay, Naomi, well, what if nobody in this country wants that? You know, like what we're dealing with? We should just do it anyway because what? Like, I just don't even understand what that. So you guys are screaming about democracy and, freedom and liberty and all the things that we want Americans to believe that you guys represent, and then you just go, but we don't care what you think, fund Israel or you're bad.

Starting point is 00:16:23 I just think people see right through that. Gabby points out, new, APEC is no longer fundraising for the 18 Democrats. It endorsed the article from Jewish Insider.com, 15 of whom are up for re-election. What's interesting? who voted this week to end USA to Israel. Now, 71% of the candidates, APEC is funding are Republicans. 29% are dams.

Starting point is 00:16:49 Funny how that's literally the inverse of what it was when Biden, you know, it's because, guys, this is a game. I mean, part of it is about making you think certain things. But as Ryan Grim points out, if you ever suggested a link between voting and money that was this direct, you would have been censored on the floor, the House floor, a few years ago.

Starting point is 00:17:08 which actually happened or the idea that you simply just be called a racist anti-semit. I've been telling you this for a long time. Anybody with a brain already knew it, but people let yell and scream in partisan narratives and people get confused. The truth is, APEC is not, you know, lobbying is supposed to be something where they donate to politicians, not based on certain things they get back,

Starting point is 00:17:27 even though everybody knows that's what it is. The narrative, the rainbows and butterflies, I don't pretend the world is. America is the number one, blah, blah, blah. It's just not the truth, guys. I'm sorry to break the world to you. The point, though, is that it's about trying to, the argument was it's about lobbying people who you already agree with in hopes that, because they're going to do, you know, like ideologically, I believe in this politician, so we want to endorse you. We're going to give you lobbying money in hopes that you end up doing things that we agree with because we like your principles.

Starting point is 00:17:56 Like a, it's like a cartoon. It's not the reality. But see, even more so than what the rest of lobbying does, which is clearly try to get what they want by giving them money. It's usually not all throughout the system and all throughout the time. frame and the moment they go a different direction, they go, well, not you, back to you. That's literally in real time dictating votes based on money changing hands. That's just straight up bribery, which is what lobbying is. A-Pact just takes it to an insanely obvious degree, and I think you all know why, because

Starting point is 00:18:24 they're failing, and people see it. What else are you going to do? I mean, and we're going to go through a couple other points that make this alarmingly clear, especially with Trump's administration, but do not think this is unique to Trump, guys. This is just direct bribery. our whole government is like this, which why this is such an important conversation. There's a lot of ways to look at this people are pointing out.

Starting point is 00:18:43 Like, why would they be doing this now while we all see it? Well, you could argue it's because we do see it. And once this happens, it'll be too late. You could argue that it's because they see people in this country as an enemy growing against their power, which is obvious. I've been saying that for years. And suddenly now you have a different force under the guise of U.S. enforcement who don't really have qualms about hurting and shooting Americans. That may sound insane to some people, guys, you need to brush up on your history. Okay, we're dealing with a transition, a flux in this country.

Starting point is 00:19:11 And this is what tends to happen. Now, I'm going to include this article from the third. The new NDAA further integrates U.S. and Israeli militaries. I want you to remember that because it goes back a long way and there's plenty in there. I'll include two things that I really highlight, but there's more in that episode, one of which is still on the table. And even if this gets pushed out of the NDAA, this still exists. And it's still, right now the last I checked, the actions, I believe, were.

Starting point is 00:19:36 just simply that it had been placed on the Senate back in May. Select Committee of Intelligence, open measured, and then they placed it on the Senate legislative calendar. And then it's been stalled there. And this is S-4615 Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2027. Now, the main point was simply, and we went over all this in depth on the last show, but it was the United States Israeli intelligence sharing enhancement. So, but weirdly enough, even people that are pushing back on this are suddenly taking

Starting point is 00:20:04 cues from corporate and mainstream alternative and are now calling the NDAA version like a technological sharing deal. Come on, guys, we can't be this lazy. This is literal. And you want to read through it, look through the last show we just did, the one I just pointed to. This one right here. We go through that thing, every single part that relates to Israel, we go through that. And the point was, it is over. Like somebody else recently highlighted, which got tons of shares on Twitter, of course, which was that ultimately they have somebody who's supposed to facilitate this overlap. Like somebody literally in the Pentagon that facilitates the sharing and the coordination. And highlighting, by the way, stuff that originates in Israel and folding it into the United

Starting point is 00:20:41 States. It's not just technology, guys. This is about the military apparatus. And then we have the intelligence side of it, which I argue is kind of similar, the same thing. But to maintain and strengthen the strategy and partnership with Israel as a means of advancing national security, of course. And read through it, it's just about an enhanced collaboration. They become the same thing. That's what this really comes down to. Now, this one was something else. same kind of thing that was put out 24. And at any

Starting point is 00:21:14 moment, these things could be secretly put into anything, right? Now, this is the one I showed you before. The bill provides eligibility to U.S. citizens who are in the IDF. And I'll just read directly from, and this is the title, it's a long one, to amend title 38,

Starting point is 00:21:27 and it's all about trying to make this the reality. But I'll go directly from military.com to outline how they read this, because I've already gone over it in my own view many times on previous shows. in the 2024 IDF bill and the question of extending U.S. military protections. Now, this becomes much more interesting with what appears to be coming through the NDA. So I would argue that if the NDA does pass with that in it,

Starting point is 00:21:50 this would be something that secondarily gets pushed through later to then allow this to be even more clear. So if you merge the Israeli military, then it becomes hard for us to tell the difference, but behind the scenes, there's still going to be a differentiation between this when it comes to benefits. So this opens the door for there to be really no difference. that in 2024, members of Congress introduced H.R. 8445, a bill that would have amended federal law to provide for the eligibility of the United States citizens who serve in the IDF for certain protections. Now, even as this article points out, it frames it this way, but in material sense, it goes both ways. So effectively, what you end up with is any person in the IDF who has U.S. citizenship,

Starting point is 00:22:30 which you'd be shocked to find out how much that is. Because it's very common, right, because of all the partnerships and that's, passed. So you have a lot, and in many cases, you've had members of Israel, citizens of Israel being just given citizenship for numerous things that have happened over the years. So you now have tons of people in the military who have U.S. citizenship who are now treated like they're in the U.S. military. That's what this does. And it goes on to say the proposal explicitly frames IDF service as a deserve, as deserving of treatment similar to U.S. military service for certain practices or protections. Oh, and this article, by the way, from military.com was published this year

Starting point is 00:23:04 on April 27. Here we go. Hold on. This is my place. Approval explicitly frames IDS services deserving similar treatment as a reporting summary of the bill stated that would treat American serving the IDF in the same manner as service in the uniformed services. So basically you treat IDF members who have American citizenship as the same as being in the U.S. military. Now, the things that they ultimately give them through this, the service members civil relief act provides protections such as limits on. on interest rates, protections against eviction and foreclosure and relief in certain legal proceedings.

Starting point is 00:23:44 Now, you can see this as just benefits financially, which, by the way, there's tons of other things that this government gives Israel, is even in this country or Israelis, over Americans. But in this case, what I think this relates to is something that gets a little bit more, I would read into this more about, like, so hypothetically we're talking about the Israeli intelligence aim of creating companies they use as cutouts for their interests, as they'll brag about every single day. Now you have a certain opening that allows that to be easy. or and not be removed. And this is just a thought that I add to it,

Starting point is 00:24:12 just connecting into things we already know. The Uniform Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act guarantees that individuals who leave civilian employment for military service can return to their jobs and are protected from discrimination. Who knows? We're talking about Israelis. They're in the IDF. They get this benefit when they're in the United States.

Starting point is 00:24:31 That's what the article's going over as well. That it's clearly broadly more so about that than simply Americans who also end up going over of the IDF, which largely happened more than anything during the Gaza conversation, which is still happening, by the way, which will point to in a second, HR 8445 would have extended these protections to Americans serving in the IDF, effectively treating that service as qualifying military service under U.S. law for those purposes. Now, there is no comparable U.S. program extending those things to veterans benefit or veterans

Starting point is 00:25:00 benefits to Americans serving in any other foreign military, which, by the way, there's examples, you know, French Foreign Legion and different examples of U.K. UK, New Zealand, Australia. There's been cases, but it's nowhere near what we see with this, because the reality of it is it's not just Americans flocking over to the IDF, it's the fact that so many IDF members also happen to have American citizenship, even though they're born in Israel. And now, that's, it is what it is.

Starting point is 00:25:25 You could make that just about individuals making choices, but it still comes down to the government and the power utilizing that for their own purposes, which will overlap with the use of intelligence. The statutory framework consistently ties benefits to U.S. service. Now, it says, IDF so, will just receive benefits from Israel. And this just kills me because this is always how this works in my research in this, going over in different topics throughout the years, where something is given to Israelis or,

Starting point is 00:25:49 you know, for any number of overlaps. And through this kind of, you know, the kind of thing that they would call woke Democrat stuff funding for, you know, giving resources to people who need them around the world. The point is that on top of the things they may gain by having this connection, they also already gain from Israel. Received benefits from Israel funded through its national budget reporting indicates that conscripts received stipends ranging from, what is it, the shekels, 1,200, 3,000 per month, depending on the rule of experience. They also receive housing support in certain cases,

Starting point is 00:26:18 post-service education benefits, and access to health care through Israel's national system. And then also would be eligible for U.S. benefits. Extending these protections creates enforceable legal rights under U.S. law for people from another country, including obligations on employers or financial institutions. So just one to include that. suddenly this might be wildly more relevant. Now, if you just have a mashing together of these two services, U.S. Israeli military, if that already hasn't been happening.

Starting point is 00:26:49 Now, quickly, just to go over some points about what Israel's doing before we come back to the NDA, just to make sure we don't miss what's actually being merged with here. This was something that was going around. I thought it was relevant to include that there's a post was, an Israeli post went around that the actual translation is, this is the price, for Trump's betrayal. Now, obviously, you could argue this is posted by somebody pretending to be an Israeli, but these are very common. And what do you get? Oh, by the way, this is one of the American soldiers that was killed because of the ongoing Iran war. And we know it's more than they're

Starting point is 00:27:20 claiming like it always tends to be. We'll get our series of weird helicopter crashes and different justifications in the months following. But look at all the people laughing at it. Majority, 865, when only five different people putting fire, they're laughing at Americans dying. you can take that for what you will. I think it's obvious that there is a use happening. There's a, that this is being used, that they're laughing on the news, by the way, people are pointing out on Israeli media about how they're getting U.S. to fight their war and that Trump will stand there and act like you're a clown for even asking these questions because

Starting point is 00:27:53 he's embarrassed. I mean, how does he explain the way he acts about this? He is insecure. He knows we see through it. So he lashes out, my opinion, but you show me where I'm wrong. Now, the House has passed the NDAA, and it was 216 to 212. It's close, guys, even for all this. Now, it says we, Evan Kilgore wrote, we have been totally betrayed by the GOP for Israel,

Starting point is 00:28:17 but it's not, it's the government, guys. I know we can see this. It goes back a while. It's not just this current moment. He says, I'll be voting against GOP from here and out. Well, maybe we get to the point to where we realize voting is he not even affecting the outcome. Then we'll all be on the same page, but I agree. I think this needs to be acknowledged at least that these people are.

Starting point is 00:28:33 are not voting for Americans. House passes $1.15 trillion defense bill, $1.5 trillion, $1.15. This was the administration that was supposed to lower costs and less war. I mean, it's just, yeah, I don't need to always make that point, but there are still people who still somehow think that he's meeting what he, they're few and far between, but they exist. This is obviously more spending. And the reason largely, I mean, by and large, is because of what he's doing in Iran. The U.S. House of Representatives narrowly, passed its version of a sweeping defense bill. And remember, this is the end. The National Defense Authorization Act is something that is, I mean, arguably,

Starting point is 00:29:12 as Congress presents it, it has to pass. That's how they view it. Funds the national defense. I argue we wouldn't. I argue we could just say nothing. Put it down, tear it up. And we would probably be just the same situation. There's a lot of these jingoistic, you know, kind of scaremongers out there who act

Starting point is 00:29:29 like the moment we don't continually blow up everything around the world that everybody, you know, there is a conversation to be. had about people, you know, the decades and decades of murder and torture and rape and destruction that the U.S. government's been doing on our name that might turn around to be done back, which is certainly possible. I just do not believe that what we're dealing with in the world right now is that we have just, I don't believe people believe that Americans are doing this to them in like a real by and large steps. Some people, I'm sure do. I think most people recognize, and I think it's kind of what's happening in our time right now that these governments

Starting point is 00:30:00 are doing this. Most countries are getting around to some level. of conversation where they're pointing at the governance, right? Even in Iran, guys, the people that were protesting in the beginning when it actually was organic before it got taken over by the U.S. and Israel was because they were angry with the actions of their government in response to what's going on in the world. But they did not want outside involvement because when that happened, they all stood up and said, nope, this is something that's not us. They're taking over this. The point is that we're all there. I just think it's important to think about. Continuing, the U.S. House of Representatives narrowly passed its version of the sweeping bill.

Starting point is 00:30:32 a historic $1.15 trillion budget for the Pentagon amid uncertainty in the future of the Iran War. Increased budget from 900.6 billion. It's just unfathomable. A House passed, the House passed its fiscal 2027 NDAA in a vote of 216, 212, three representatives. Weirdly enough, by the way, even military.com, I guess it's a typo.

Starting point is 00:30:55 Put three representatives sustaining from voting. What they mean is abstaining, I guess it was a typo, but I still, I find it weird how nobody likes to talk about abstention. I mean, quite frankly, I actually put this down already. I want that picture real quick. I mean, look, you realize that in a league, like in the sense of what happens, and it classicly, going back to the founding fathers, you can, yes, no, abstain. Now, that doesn't mean you don't care.

Starting point is 00:31:20 It means I'm choosing to not engage in this vote for any number of reasons, and it should be tallied right there next to them. Now, it goes under no vote and V, but that's the case is, I mean, some of them didn't vote. But some of these people chose to abstain. That is a political vote. That could mean that you don't agree with the vote itself. There's more, that the options aren't being accurately represented,

Starting point is 00:31:42 any number of things. But that's why it's supposed to go down as a recorded vote, just like it should be in any presidential election. If 90% of the country abstained in protest because we don't believe we're represented and it's Israel or whatever you want to argue, then that should be listed as 90% abstained in protest. But they never do that.

Starting point is 00:32:02 show you the ones who do engage and they make that look like the full picture. That's how you get it. So I think that's strange. And in fact, I'll grab this for you in case you want to look into this. I wrote this a long time ago. I don't simply called why your vote no longer counts. Oh, actually, you know, the thing is was the show I did. Oh, that's right. Well, there's another article I did where I did the show on it. This video itself does good job on it. But abstention is something that absolutely should matter. I make that point all the time. I'd agree. Congress. So, and they abstained. Most of the, of that, the spending is for the president's Iran War, somebody is saying in the Congress, but you can easily look this up for yourself.

Starting point is 00:32:46 The reality is that this is an increase, as even Heggseth is arguing, because of that. We'll get into where most of that ends up going. The Iran War has cost the Defense Department. They write 37.5 billion. I think it's easily proven that it's more than that, but even that number is insanely more than what they told you was going to happen. Now they're acting like, like it's low because comparatively or whatever. It's the same reason Trump is now saying, you know, this many Americans have died in this period of time and compared to previous wars, right?

Starting point is 00:33:12 So the death of Americans I swore wouldn't happen. You shouldn't care about because it's less than before. It's to be insulting to your intelligence. He's using them like pieces on a game board. They always do. But this game where he goes, you're not you and you care. But Biden, if anybody who agrees when they do that is an infant in the conversation.

Starting point is 00:33:31 Who cares what by you're now. trying to downplay something you swore you wouldn't do because Biden did X, Y, and Z, that your child. That's insane. I guess it's, there's relevance to the fact that, but so the only thing that gets boiled down to is that I shouldn't be in, you know, held accountable for something I promised I would do because he didn't do it either. Tell me that's not a childish argument. That's what it comes down to. They're using your partisanship against you. Hegset testified during a hearing to request 67.1 billion more dollars in money. for DOD expenses.

Starting point is 00:34:05 With a straight face, they're telling you that they're upholding their promises. Now, AAPC comes out, course, and says the House just passed the National Defense Authorization Act, cheering, authorizing pro-Israel provisions that will help keep Americans in real safe. Always, right? As Glenn says, APAC always wins in Washington,

Starting point is 00:34:21 as public support for Israel collapses among Americans, a majority of Congress, almost all of the GOP, vote to merge parts of the U.S. and Israeli military. But stick it behind the Pentagon's top secret period. ocratic wall so nobody can see or debate it. Right, because they moved this to a place to where we weren't actually able to engage. This is exactly what it looks like, and I feel like most everybody in this country knows it now. Where it goes from here?

Starting point is 00:34:45 It's hard to say. Narrowly passes its gigantic bill. Melanie says the Pentagon, and she's right to point this out, has failed its last eight audits. They failed. Audit them, to be honest, and they keep telling you they'll get it done. Trump swore it would happen. They failed. The Republicans just gave them another trillion.

Starting point is 00:35:03 dollars complaining about fraud and waste. They just failed eight audits in a row and we give them more. Yes, because it's always what's going to happen. These people don't care about what you actually care about. And it's time we start acknowledging that. Thomas said, unfortunately, the rule passed just now and no debate or vote was allowed on Section 219. That's what he was pointing to.

Starting point is 00:35:25 Integration of U.S. military technology and supply chains with Israel's. The NDA will see that receive the vote that we just saw and it passed in the House. but the fact that they would go out of their way to make sure that people weren't able to engage. That's just dishonest, guys. I think Republicans are calling it out more than anybody. And Catherine says if your congressman voted for Section 219, in her opinion, they committed treason. I agree. Now, let's not forget that most of us pointed out back on June, was it third when I posted it,

Starting point is 00:35:55 but June 1st, June 2nd, June 3rd, when this was being discussed, Chris Manon reiterates that Benjamin Netanyahu made it clear in his letter to, Representative Stutzman, the plan of 219 was his plan. The number was, I think, what, 224 at first? Regardless, he says, I'm glad, I was glad to receive a proposed congressional resolution endorsing my plan to shift the framework for U.S. Israel Defense cooperation from aid to partnership, meaning the aid doesn't end. It just now no longer becomes aid because you're part of the government, the military.

Starting point is 00:36:25 So you just give it to them. It's not even denoted as some sort of aid. It's going to end up being a ton more, and we all know that. And here she is, meeting in Jerusalem, June 4th last week, to hand-deliver him a draft resolution. Now, for those that rightly question this stuff, you should. You can prove it yourself. Here is your actual post. Stetsman introduces resolution to transition U.S. Israeli relations,

Starting point is 00:36:47 and she posts the link right here to the actual document. And that's what he said. That's signed by Netanyahu himself. I was glad to receive your proposed congressional resolution endorsing my plan. I just don't know how much more Americans can take, guys. this is in your face. I just, I honestly can't believe it's happening now when it's this obvious. I don't know how to call that anything but desperation.

Starting point is 00:37:11 Now, here's Bobert. And I think there's this new generation of the congressional manipulators out there who play into the new media side of this, right? So, yeah, they're all a part of this, guys, all of them. And they always pretend that they're not. Now, my point is no matter how they vote, even the Democrats that voted no on this, in my opinion, largely would otherwise have done what they would have said yes if they were in the position where that was needed.

Starting point is 00:37:31 You can disagree with me. It's my opinion. In this case, all of them, in my opinion, support this. But you're going to get the tokens that come out and act like they're, one, that they're, you know, there's a couple things. Democrats are the ones trying to stop what we need. That's when you're going to get, right? You're going to get this one that's sort of like there's a secret backhand deep state

Starting point is 00:37:49 dynamic that we can't, we don't know. We're trying to do the freedom thing for you guys because you voted for us. And now the deep state, which is what we keep getting from cash and the rest. And the idea, Tim, that's why Tim Dillon made that clip. like just get stopped with the deep state thing guys you control every house of power you're literally the power right now so it's embarrassing they keep but they know that's the only thing they have working for them so that's what i believe this is this idea that there's some kind of a secret element which let's be clear we all know that exists the unelected power structure the corporations

Starting point is 00:38:19 the massive financial influence the lobbying all these things and all these things or just the deep the you know behind the scenes sort of um you know all that together like just the the nebubi unaccounted for influential people that stay there and never leave. I mean, that's what we're talking about. And it goes into intelligence and darker things than we realize. So those things exist. But is that what's happening here? Are we dealing with something that is superseding what Trump tried to accomplish

Starting point is 00:38:45 or what the Republicans wanted? Because that's how she frames this. I don't buy it for a second. I got a whole bunch of men trying to muscle me into voting for the NDAA. Men's. Who? Who are these men? I don't know their freaking names. They're staffers.

Starting point is 00:39:01 All right. Listen to my story. If you want my story, I want to give it to you. All right. So all these staffers are in there trying to get me to vote for the NDAA. I want to vote for the NDAA. Section 219 is still in there. It's a big tech swap between us and Israel. We don't do that with anyone. I understand in the past, you know, we've given them money for the Iron Dome and then

Starting point is 00:39:22 they get to keep the tech and we don't get any of it back. So I understand that. But it's a big issue on the left and the right. And many of my constituents have reached out. They don't want this provision in the bill. Well, the White House doesn't want it in the bill. I mean, do you really believe that? I mean, are you, I mean, how do you even say that?

Starting point is 00:39:39 The White House doesn't want this in the bill, the White House that's absolutely advocating for this exact thing? I mean, I just don't even know how to take that serious. I mean, you don't take that seriously. You laugh about that. So you're saying all of them and Heng Seth and Rubio and they all been lying to us publicly, or is it just Trump that you mean when you say that? So Trump can play the adversarial like forlorn hero that can't do it, but he's trying. Like it's, I just don't, I laugh at that. That's silly to me.

Starting point is 00:40:03 Secretary Hedgeseth doesn't want it in the bill. So I'm in the back waiting for a call from the secretary. I'm told that call is coming. I'm talking to someone underneath him. And I'm told the vote's going to stay open. They close the vote. And so now I'm forced to talk to TMZ. While I do have an issue that we talked about off record, I don't want to be on camera this week. And I've been on camera more than any other week. I am talking out of the side of my mouth like a damn politician. You are a politician. You see my point. What are you talking about? You're literally a politician, but you're not a politician like those guys that lie to you. This is the new media pretending not to be exactly what they are. It's just, it's a schick, guys, this is a ploy. It's crazy.

Starting point is 00:40:48 I mean, the only reason I would argue that like as an act, like, it's my opinion clearly, but how do you not see that? What do you mean like a politician? That it's just, that's like Fox and CNN going, I know, like, I have to do this like I'm some kind of journalist or some kind of media, you know, like more of a derogatory sense, right? Like I'm some sort of fake. I don't know. It's just, it screams dishonesty, disingenuous. My Botox hasn't caught up on this side.

Starting point is 00:41:13 Maybe in two days, this side will catch up to the other side. She's just a woman of the people, right? Anyway, so it's, it's, it's a, what do you think that means, guys? What do you think? The White House didn't want the thing they've been promoting. Hagsat didn't want the thing they've all, the literal. prophetic Zionists screaming about why Israel needs everything, fighting our wars, telling your military, you're fighting for Armageddon.

Starting point is 00:41:35 But no, don't give them more. I mean, it's just, it's laughable. Now, maybe she thinks that. That's certainly possible. But I mean, the reality has to be at this point that that's just trying to, as he says, that seems insane. I agree. And what do you mean you don't know who the staffers are?

Starting point is 00:41:50 So who would they work for? You don't know? I don't know why anybody actually buys that. Now, if you haven't seen this, this is, So actually, technically, I believe this is the fake account. Oh, no, this is him. Yeah. There's a, it's spelled correctly.

Starting point is 00:42:05 By the way, heads up, there's an account that's getting tons of reach that's not him. But it goes on to say, and this is, he's the foreign minister of Iran. But in case you didn't see this, and it's not, you should, you know, again, it shouldn't be something you dismissed because he posted. He's using it clearly because it benefits their agenda, but it is accurate. Time Magazine covered this. And it's very embarrassing for the administration, but it's not unique. This is our government. Democrat, Republican, this is where we are.

Starting point is 00:42:30 That's why, excuse me, this is happening. The point here is that this is, like, I would say uniquely obvious with this administration. Trump's ex-campaign manager is running an Israeli influence operation targeting the MAGA base. I'm sure you all saw this, Brad Pascal, or Pascal, Americans are being warned of foreign influence, he writes. How about the extensive Israeli campaign to bamboozle the U.S. administration into an unwinnable war of choice? Even worse, Israel's using U.S. taxpayer dollars to silence U.S. critics. Guys, I mean, you don't need him to tell you that. Americans know that. And yet they want to tell you it's about anything else.

Starting point is 00:43:08 You have Chris also pointing out, Laura Trump says she says talk of cutting aid to Israel is scary because it's indicative of rising anti-Semitism. She suggests America is not that far off from Nazi Germany as Jewish New Yorkers are terrified to walk down the street. By the way, not even remotely true. as it says with the star of David necklace, which by the way is the Zionist symbol and not a Jewish symbol, but as Max writes, Laura Trump is part owner of Salem Media alongside her brother-in-law, Don Jr. Salam Media's chief strategy officer is Brad Parscal. Let me know I'm saying incorrectly. I didn't look up the pronunciation.

Starting point is 00:43:43 Parscale is a federally registered foreign agent for Israel who uses the network to propagate Israel's messaging. The Trump family has merged with Israel. Well, maybe that, but you tell me again, why Israel's merging with the U.S. military is something they don't want. I mean, guys, that's insane. That's one person. I mean, that's his son working on a group and the strategic officer of the group he's working or that he manages or runs or is the name behind. He's literally a federally registered agent of Israel. I mean, it's, it's, if you might as well laugh instead of cry at this point, guys, but just acknowledge this. Make sure people see it. And these are all just passing points, by the way. We've covered all of this stuff.

Starting point is 00:44:23 not the specific point right there, but the reality of this kind of infiltration for years. Gen X-X girl also points out something we've been discussing, and I'm glad she did because people need to hear this. Mike Walts was removed from the National Security Council because he was spying for Israel. We reiterate this every time it comes around to the Signal Gate idea. The Trump administration didn't have enough balls to press charges and throw him in jail, so they removed him from the Security Council and simply appointed him a UN ambassador. Now he's siding with Israel Netanyahu instead of the New York mayor.

Starting point is 00:44:52 whatever you think about him. We'll get to that second about the Mamdani and the lie about arresting that in Yahoo, which we knew would be a lie. But I simply said, exactly. Do you think Mom Doni will do it? I think he's just playing the game like the rest of them. I hope he does it. Here's my show on walls getting caught in the media making it about Signal instead of the

Starting point is 00:45:07 Israeli telemessage app made to archive signal. Very clear, guys. He was literally caught in real time using telemessage to archive signal in the inner circle of the White House, which is it. You could watch the show if you want or do your own due diligence. It is an Israeli intelligence app meant to archive signal. And here we are. Or with all the other infiltrated technology that Israel is using.

Starting point is 00:45:32 And what did the media make it? Signalgate. Instead of recognizing the point or ignoring the point. You can decide. So check out, you know, she just breaks down the important information. Now, of course, this is, in my opinion, why you get Trump telling you China did it, China 2020. money, China did it all. Now there's all the conversation about how it proves that Russia,

Starting point is 00:45:55 X, Y, and C, look, because if you were not aware by now, which by the way, is exactly what Trump confusingly says right in this clip because that's what you do when you lie about everything, you always end up conjuring something, is that he's telling you, well, we all do it a little bit. Yep, just like Ryan has been telling you his entire career, that they all do this, they all spy and they all manipulate. This was about using either the lie or what they all know is happening regardless to accomplish something different. It was always Israel Gate, as we were saying then, as the evidence showed then, now Trump is doing his own little thing. And now it's ChinaGate.

Starting point is 00:46:23 It's the same kind of idea, guys. But here's the important point. He's going to do nothing about it, probably because it wasn't true in the first place, not in the sense that he wants it to be. And until they're ready to meet in a meaningful way, we have no interest in even. Mr. President, are you planning on putting any pressure or consequences on China for what you announced about them meddling in the 2020 election? Well, we're going to talk to them about it.

Starting point is 00:46:51 took place a long time ago. I think China's... Yeah, man, almost five years ago. Long time. Trump's still talking about it, though. Isn't that funny, though, Trump? You're still talking about that old thing. Well, it's not old when you want to make it about Democrats, right?

Starting point is 00:47:06 It's not old when you want to make it about what you care about. But yeah, that old story with China. You guys still care about that thing I'm always talking about? Get over it. Maybe a little bit different today than it was then. But look, they do things and we do things to them. I'll be honest. We do things to them, too.

Starting point is 00:47:22 It's not a one-way street. Yeah, yeah. An infant should know that by now, guys. And that's why when they go, it's unprecedented, no, not at all, because you're doing it back. And in reality,

Starting point is 00:47:32 when it comes to election interference, the U.S. government leads the world. Now, I would argue that that's what we can see. It's probably likely Israel or Israel doing it through the United States. And I only say that because Israel's entire focus in foreign policy

Starting point is 00:47:44 is about infiltration and manipulation. They'll literally brag about it. But either way you look at it, guys, you're going to point to anybody else. Russia, China, I guarantee they do this. Their government's like all the rest of them, but you can't take it seriously when you have the leading element doing it.

Starting point is 00:47:58 It's the same thing as them calling anybody else terrorists, guys. We'll be talking to them. Bottom line, yeah, we're not, we're a long time ago. This isn't much. I mean, I have to reiterate. He spent the last so many years acting like, I mean, his, like the real deep base on his side,

Starting point is 00:48:16 the people that still blindly support, they'll tell you why that, That is still the important. You'll get the fake guys who post the old content constantly pointing back. And there's the clip from Jesse Waters and Obama, it's all going to come down. The election was stolen. We can prove it.

Starting point is 00:48:29 And now you arguably prove it according to Trump. And then we go, nah, it's a long time ago. Okay, how do you line those two things up? So does it now suddenly not matter because it was China? Or did it never matter? Or was it never China? I mean, again, I'm belaboring the point. Everybody I feel knows this.

Starting point is 00:48:48 I feel like this is an inherent reality. It's like knowing that you, you know, anyway, I think it's important to see that this is obvious. And that's why China was thrown to the next because everyone's going to Israel. That's what I think anyway. And he says, telling Americans China stole an election, then not doing anything about it doesn't exactly build trust. So before we move on to the next part of this and get into the larger part of the Iran, Israel war, or Israel, U.S. war in Iran, I want to make sure we don't miss continually. Maybe those from new to the show.

Starting point is 00:49:21 I know most of you already know this. What's still going on, guys? Lebanon gets so little attention, even the larger sense. I mean, Iran is being, you know, just decimated in a lot of ways and a lot of civilian locations and civilian infrastructure. And I hope I'm wrong, but I feel like it's just going to keep getting worse. But if we're going to really just, you know, look at like, obviously what happened to Gaza is just, it's unprecedented in the context of what we're seeing. but Lebanon it's the next Gaza guys in the sense of that kind of destruction that's what they're doing in Lebanon right now so if you're going to go in a scale Lebanon is right there that's a

Starting point is 00:49:54 genocide level thing happening but Iran is going in the same direction but I just don't want us to forget as Sarah Abdullah who you should follow says this is this is how hola south Lebanon before and after the genocide an ancient village that stood for more than 2,000 years Israel wiped it off the map and you could find Gaza. I mean, you tell me what you think that looks like, guys. You know, you realize they're not even arguing that there's tunnels and human shit. They're just taking them down. And you can show Gavir and Smotrich and all the rest of them going, yeah, just take down this, kill their families. That's how you win. Burn their houses down. That's how you really get them. I mean,

Starting point is 00:50:32 I'm paraphrasing, but that's legitimately what they're doing. The way you really get them is you kill their children, stuff just like that in front of everybody. And your government still support him. That's why Trump is blindly bombing things now that are, I mean, there's no way around it. There were crimes, period. And not only is he not caring, he's doubling down. We're going to do it again. Why? I mean, they're just making it clear. We don't care what you think. We're not got bound by the same rules. Does that not sound like somebody we've dealt with so far? Does it sound like the kind of sentiment that comes from a certain power in the world like Israel, who our entire lies that told us they're not bound by international law, are not bound by your sovereignty, can legislate

Starting point is 00:51:12 anywhere in the world, these are their statements. Now suddenly, the U.S. government seems to be acting the same. Tennessee Holler, this is Ben Gavir marching down the street. There will be Jewish settlements throughout Gaza. Gaza is ours, he says. Everyone in this chat already knew this, but for those that might have not known that was still happening, it never stopped. And not only did it not stop, they're telling you the thing we knew was from day one,

Starting point is 00:51:36 the plan was always the plan. And we're taking everything from them. Israel's far-right national security minister Ben Gavir again says their plan very, very out loud repeatedly over the years, never stops. You think the media doesn't see this? No, they choose to ignore it. Or at least the people the top of their platforms do. Israel struck a funeral. A funeral.

Starting point is 00:51:58 Yeah, this is God. This is July 17, 2026. They struck a funeral killing seven, wounding 22. That's it. Just murder people at a funeral because nobody. he's going to do anything about it, at least where it comes to power structures. That thing alone, that one story, imagine this was a funeral in Israel. Imagine Hamas or anybody else had bombed a funeral in Israel.

Starting point is 00:52:21 We would hear about it for the next two years. But not when you live in Gaza. You know, the same people they tell you they're trying to protect from Hamas. Nope, just murder them. Murder them in Lebanon, murder people in Iran, murder people in Syria, murder people in United States. That's where we are. And your government clearly supports that.

Starting point is 00:52:38 you might want to reflect on that. Here's, this is what's going on right now in Gaza as they try to rescue people from the buildings they're bombing. Now for those in the podcast, all you're seeing, as the video keeps artificially stopping for some reason, is that this kid who seems half dead, they rescued him from a building that had been destroyed and pulled them into a second part of the building

Starting point is 00:53:09 as they're trying to work people out of the buildings without the tools they need to save people because that's never stopped in Gaza. The genocide continues while the world watches in silence. Okay. Now, Mammani, now as they're talking about all the stuff in Israel and Democrats, hate the, you know, trying to frame it as one side versus the other. You had Maldani come out and say,

Starting point is 00:53:30 we're going to arrest Benjamin Netanyahu. He's a war criminal, which he is, guys. I mean, it's not even a debatable point. The world has acknowledged he's a war criminal. Every entity in the, like, if you want to pretend that there's been ever a thing that has been acknowledged as a global war criminal, which there has been, which the U.S. government has used in the past. What do you think they get that from? From the ICC and the ICJ and the United Nations, okay, the global entities, whatever you think about them.

Starting point is 00:53:55 So they have all argued this person's a war criminal. They've found him. They literally have put out arrest warrants for him. So you can disagree with all that. But then you have to argue that what the U.S. government used in the past is also dishonest. And now they're just choosing to not align themselves because they don't agree that's whole hypocrisy. My point is, whatever you think, Benjamin Netanyahu in any sense, is, is they proven, in any sense that it can be legitimate, he is a war criminal, period, especially since he's been committing war crimes and murdering children and, you know, on and on and on. But do you think Mom Dani actually cares? Is the real question.

Starting point is 00:54:28 So he came out and said, actually, I'll let me put this first. He came out and said he's going to arrest him. Now, House Republicans came out and said, this is the account on Twitter, Mom Dany's threatened to arrest the head of one of our closest allies, as he has global arrest warrants for, you know. That's what that's what you're dealing with. A group of power, you know, in this government, excuse me, a group of powerful people in the U.S. Congress who are telling you,

Starting point is 00:54:53 we do not care this guy's murdering children. We don't care what you think. We don't care that none of you like him. We are going to stand by and matter what. Over and over and over in your face. That's where we are. Is anyone confused? He should stop politicizing local law enforcement and interfering with U.S. foreign policy

Starting point is 00:55:11 and instead focus on the rising rent and house prizes. Right. I mean, you can agree. You can, I mean, that's not me the point. You may agree that he should be focused. In fact, I do, really, he should be focusing on local things that people actually care about in the place he was elected to be in. And you may think he is doing that. The real point comes down to whether you think, I said, when he ultimately does not arrest Netanyahu, which is what I predicted on the 19th, just remember, this is the very function of the false binary to make you think one side is fighting for you and what you want.

Starting point is 00:55:42 when in reality there's only one side and it fights for itself most often at your expense yep there we are so then it came out and he came out after and mom donnie promised to have him rested then he says but i can't do it so how do you think that weren't work do you think that he somehow just didn't do his due diligence then was like whoopsie i guess i can't do it well then why i make a big statement and a grand statement or how i'm going to write and then go oh wait a minute i looked into it and i guess i can't do that well he's wrong by the way he absolutely can do that seeing us how the guy has an arrest warrant and that anybody of any authority of any government can take him into custody and send him yes you absolutely can do that but i knew that wasn't going to happen so it was a political point and as propaganda

Starting point is 00:56:26 and co-rights mom donnie promised to have arrested but he can't do that but he can appoint a zionist as police commissioner and endorse brad lander for office a liberal zionist who proudly boasted of investing pension funds into an israeli weapons company during the genocide or numerous other examples where he's shown that it's more half-hearted to stand up against the Zionist problem that he pretended to fight against. My point would be that these people are seeking power within this government. And you know how you do that? You lie to the American people. You tell them what they want to hear and then you do what you want.

Starting point is 00:56:54 Do what the lobby has paid you to do. Again, you can call this jaded, guys. I think the reality is our history shows us that if you have 99 of 100 things happening in a row, maybe you should ask whether the 101 is going to be in that 99th category, right? That's where we are. They'll never follow through. I shouldn't say that. 99% of the time they don't follow through.

Starting point is 00:57:15 99% of the time they lie to you and don't do what they say. I know we can see this, guys. Now, Akron says, John Yu says the DOJ should investigate Mom Dani for his comments on possibly arresting that Niau. Which, by the way, in its own right is insane. But that's my point about the battle. There are the bad guys. Mom Donnie's right and where you. And it's just not true, my opinion.

Starting point is 00:57:36 But as Blakely rightly points out, just, if you want to dive into the partnership for a moment. These MFers said nothing when the U.S. government kidnapped Maduro, right? And now they're crying over a wanted war criminal. Now, look, there's a point you made. Like, just in the sense of you being a ridiculous hypocrite. You, Y, oh, this guy here, John, because you guys literally kidnapped a head of state and whisked him away based on what you, there's no process there.

Starting point is 00:58:03 And by the way, he wasn't even the person that you made him out to be like Iran isn't, like any of their adversaries or not. But look, you can disagree or agree. The principle's the same. And that's okay. There wasn't an arrest warrant for Maduro. It's brazen hypocrisy. That's where we are today.

Starting point is 00:58:20 Now, what's going on with Iran and Israel, I think, is very relevant for all of this. Now, first, let's not forget, you have Smotrich of Ben-Gavir. They're the two smuggly looking at you here, at least one of them. Israeli finance minister Smotrich, the one looking at you there at the camera, says Israel has, quote, no interest in joining the war or the wrong, adding, quote, the current situation is good for us. You're literally, I mean, Netanyahu has been dictating actions that Trump has been making. That's come out without debate, guys. I'm not going to say every single one of them, but you can prove at least in two, I think three examples where Netanyahu stepped in and

Starting point is 00:58:58 stopped or altered or, you know, what Trump was going to do. And so now you're going to pretend like they're not involved. Like Lebanon alone makes them involved. But Israel, has been bombing Iran. So how are you not involved? All they're doing is going, yeah, yeah, you guys keep doing what we need you to do for us. Keep killing Americans for our interests. It's working wonders for our population. Look how much they support us all of a sudden, because we're not, we're letting Americans die for our war. They're laughing at you guys. They're laughing at Americans. As Emmett Siegel points out, finance minister Smotrich, after the lengthy security discussion last night, quote,

Starting point is 00:59:34 the state of Israel has no interest in joining the contained confrontation between Iran in the United States. The current situation is the best one for us. Right, where they gain from it, but don't have to actually sacrifice for it. Right. Dave DeCamp says, remember, according to the State Department, Rubio, and all the rest, right in the beginning, the U.S. is engaged in a conflict with Iran at the request of Israel. You can't hide from this, guys. The United States, this was the post directly from the State Department. That's what he's highlighting. And they said that in the, and the collective self-defense of its ally Israel is engaged. It's in the conflict at the request of and in collective self-defense of its ally.

Starting point is 01:00:13 Rubio came out and said that we had to because they were going to and we had to get there for there's no way around it. They just lie right to your face because they're cowards and they're incompetent. As Sal the Agrius rightly pointed out, we went to war for Israel. Israel stayed out of it. I mean, again, laugh or cry. I mean, it's not meant to be, it's not, it shouldn't be funny, but it's obscene is what it does. Donald Trump, Trump Jr. comes out on the,

Starting point is 01:00:38 13th of April, 2024, and says, remember when they said Trump would get us into a full-blown war with Iran? Times like these should make us all realize how lucky we were to have Trump, his strength, and his resolve. Right. And as Massey says, well, my raw milk ages better than this. And of course, even Twitter says, well, Trump got us a new war with Iran. Just dumb. Now, here's Hank Seth. We did not start this war. So this is where we are. Like, one way you could look at this is they know they've lost. There's no way out of this outside of something extremely weight.

Starting point is 01:01:12 Like, you could talk about even Venezuela, for example, that you could argue they might not have been able to actually do what they did there had they not just taken a brazenly illegal action. Right? I mean, you could argue that nobody cares. They're terrorists. The bottom line is you could wonder

Starting point is 01:01:25 whether Venezuela thought they adhered to some level of international law or however you look at that. I don't think so. But my point would be that in this case, it's almost like they're trying to like push Iran to do something extreme. And then Iran knows that if it stays in this

Starting point is 01:01:38 position and they don't push it beyond like some nuclear weapon attack that they ultimately are going to win. But there must be a worry in their mind that that's where Israel or the U.S. will take it because they're that desperate and they're that maniacal in my opinion. But my point would be that it's sort of like it's obvious which one has that, you know, bottom line. We know what I was going to go with is we know that they're trying to re-of, like reframe the way this all looks now. Even though we all know it, the straight was open when it started, you know, there's common points. But it's obvious they started this. even according to their own statements they started this.

Starting point is 01:02:09 Even Israel said they started this. And now you want to kind of retroactively just pretend like that's not how it went. Maybe the point is to they know they've lost. And so now they just need to get it to a place to where they can get a certain narrative going and then act like, like we said in the very early parts of this, what they've achieved is the win. Certainly could be the case. What an embarrassing moment that would be. Crushed from the beginning, militarily.

Starting point is 01:02:31 Their capabilities are nowhere near ours. I would take issue with your characterization that we didn't start, that we started this war. Iran started this war 47 years ago and they've killed thousands of Americans, including our brothers on the battlefield in Iraq. Iran has been targeting us for a long time. Secretary. Secretary. We didn't start. Let me just ask. I mean, how embarrassing is that, right? Okay, it's the same old lazy thing. And that's what he knows. That's the talking points. That's what you're supposed to say.

Starting point is 01:03:00 They started it all that time ago when they overthrew what wasn't your involvement, right? Operation Ajax, we didn't overthrow Iran. That wasn't a CIA operation. You know, long they lied to us about that. So what's funny is inadvertently, you're admitting that that was a U.S. operation, which we all know, right? But so if your argument is when the Israeli people took back in 79, their own country, which is what he's doing there, well, then what your argument is is that you did overtake Iran. They just took it back from you. It's the same thing everywhere you look, guys, even if you want to call them terrorists. It still amounts to you would legally over through their country on record now, Operation Ajax, and they just took it back. We've been at war with them.

Starting point is 01:03:37 So wouldn't it have been that you've been at war with them going back in so many years? But when you first started the operation, yes, that would be the honest way to frame that, but they're not honest. But either way, it's stupid to go back to that because there's been a lot since then. And they've been manipulating and bombing and assassinating ever since then. I'm talking about Israel, the United States, against Iran. You go ahead and try to have fun pointing out all the things you pretend Iran has done in the world. What he tried to point there next was the idea of Iraq.

Starting point is 01:04:02 Well, surprise, surprise. Can we all remember who happened, the illegal invasion of Iraq? the lie of W&Ds. Like this is the game, guys. Pete Hegsseth is so far out of his depth. The argument, you can't pretend like most people think that Iraq was the freedom fighting war. They're going to treat us like, what did he say? Basically treat us like we saved them.

Starting point is 01:04:25 I forget the term he used. Same thing I say about Iran. Neither are true. They lied about W&Ds. They destroyed the country. They stole everything. And then they just pretend like we rescued them. They're still occupying them illegally.

Starting point is 01:04:39 And Iraq, what, four or five years ago, maybe more voted to remove them so they could return to their sovereignty. And the U.S. government said, no, we won't leave, but we respect your sovereignty. What a joke. So the reality was they invaded Iraq. And that's, by the way, that involves Soleimani as well. When they, with Iran and Soleimani, supported the Iraqi allies and pushed them back. That's the reality.

Starting point is 01:05:03 So you're going to tell me, as you illegally invaded Iraq on a four, on a false pretense that those who tried to stop you are the terrorists, nobody believes that. Guys, that's just lazy. That's what you get. And that's the best they can do. Or the car bombs when you're talking about the same thing in the same situation. Or the idea that you could have, I mean, I could go on forever. So it's just lazy.

Starting point is 01:05:23 Now, the bottom line is they absolutely started this war. And if your best argument is, no, they started it decades ago. But we only just initially, you know, it's nobody is actually going to buy that other than those who are already on your side. But the point simply is that that is a weak argument, which means we know they started. They know we know they started it. Hegseth in front of Congress will show a couple more clips here. I get the sense he's already being set up like the rest of them to be the one used.

Starting point is 01:05:51 I think this is how this administration was off. He's kind of set up to be a bunch of yes men, you know, easily expendable people. Like a Fox News host. There's no idea what he's doing. You know, or even the ones that have been sort of pushed aside. Nome, Bondi. I mean, go down the list. how embarrassing this is for anybody being honest about this.

Starting point is 01:06:09 So here he is. Yes, the clip from CNN. CNN is a propaganda platform and they're all trying to lie to you all the time, but it's in their interest right now to make this point. So they look like the ones fighting the power. That's how the game works if you're not lost in the partisanship. But here, nonetheless, of who posted it, it is accurate to highlight Hague said lying.

Starting point is 01:06:25 And then now his narratives being contradictory, which again, anybody can see if you, I mean, aren't just lost in the current statement of whatever the power is saying. He said one thing then. He's saying something different now. Simple. Epic Fury decimated Iran's military and rendered it combat ineffective for years to come. Iran's Navy is at the bottom of the sea.

Starting point is 01:06:50 They would try to impose their will on the waterways in ways that the world would not like. Call it a toll, call it a fee, call it an exchange, call it control. They would do something that they would try to hold it at issue. Yeah, you know, like the memorandum said they could. But you know, who cares about what we signed? Crazy conspiracy theorists. But also the fact that, well, the only way they could do that is, you know, with the Navy. Stupid.

Starting point is 01:07:13 Then you've got shrinking American munition stockpiles. Last month, Hexeth was dismissing concerns and it was even an issue. Today, it was a reason the military needs an urgent cash infusion. Yep. And again, this is a very fair point to make, right? you told us there's no issue we're never going to have a problem with that now to sell us on the idea that we need more money for the military you swore that it was a desperate situation where we need more money for it it's only one two one or two ways to look at that guys and it's not cnn should be

Starting point is 01:07:45 credited for this it's an obvious point they're just simply pointing out in like brazenly obvious hypocritical stands because it's useful for their their position right now you could go down and do 70,000 more of these and against their own you know they'll never do that either way, this is an accurate point. There is a crisis with those stockpiles right now and private industry. That is a manufacturing story that the media wants to peddle. And ultimately, we are, our stockpiles are great and they're only get stronger. We face critical. The question is, did he think that? And maybe because he has no idea we're talking about. Neither is cash Mattel. And this comes from the people around them, by the way. But or Trump told him to say that. Either one makes sense to me

Starting point is 01:08:28 that he just goes up there and does what he's told and lies as long as it. And, and, and, and, And now he's telling you this. And now who knows? Who knows which one the lie is? Maybe they're lying to you about the stockpiles to get more money. And it's not down. It's about the lie, the hypocrisy. The shortfalls that threaten our ability to also simply pay our service members.

Starting point is 01:08:46 Rapidly replenish equipment and munitions and sustain vital operations without disruption. When I was recently. Now, of course, now they're turning it into, you don't want to pay the military. You don't want to pay our fighting armed men and, you know, the menace, you know, you know, the me and the people that you're putting out there to die for foreign power. But that's the argument now, that their Democrats don't want to fund the people fighting for our freedom, you know, the lazy arguments. But there is one question where Hegsev never seems to waver. And it's this one. Who's to blame for all of this?

Starting point is 01:09:18 The disaster of what the Biden administration budgets gave us. It was not a priority to fund the Department of Defense under Joe Biden. It's neglected the Biden administration. I mean, the Biden administration ignored hypersonics. I don't know what Lloyd Austin did for four years. again that goes back to the Biden administration of yeah yeah yeah Biden's terrible and he's a monster too he's for Israel they're all the same thing so now how about you you know like a grown-up take responsibility for your actions no no no you know the the meritocracy the real men in the

Starting point is 01:09:46 room yeah that's that's not with these beta you know these people that are acting like they're the real tough ones the the super t military they've got to be some of the weakest people i've ever seen like some of the most insecure cowardly unwilling to take responsibility for anything like that has to be seen by the real leaders out there who maybe thought these people were that. Divest to invest. My name's titles missing. So here is a longer version. Now,

Starting point is 01:10:16 I don't know what to play all this. I might just do a quick part of the beginning and then skip to the end of the second part. But it goes over some of those same things. Now, I did find the value to this, only because the way that Hegset reacts to very obvious questions, what you're going to see is, what's his name, Asov, putting direct, straightforward question.

Starting point is 01:10:34 did you say this and what is it now with those same points i think it's valid i mean you'll get it from at least one of them but it's i think it shows you know a desperate need to just lie you know brazenly like knowing we see you knowing that that's not what's happening and just to lie because that's what trump demands of you senator usa i'll yield my time to senator Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you all for your testimony. And General Kane, let me just begin by expressing on behalf of all Georgians, our immense gratitude and admiration for the service members who are making tremendous sacrifices

Starting point is 01:11:14 and conducting themselves with extraordinary selflessness and professionalism on behalf of the United States. Oh, is that what's happening? You somehow just know everyone, everywhere in the world that with the U.S. military uniform is acting with great. Come on. You know, you know why he's saying that? It's because that's the tool that Hagsets will use to attack him as if he doesn't like the military. He hates the military personnel or you think they're failures. That's what they, that's just like, so he's using it to get around. None of them care about any of us, in my opinion, but just recognize that. What a dumb statement. That's like saying, believe women. Do you mean they can't lie? Or are you suggesting U.S. military personnel can't rape somebody or can't murder someone unjustly? It's just this. I hate this. Then you get accused of, you know, hating America. I said, guys, this is just about being a normal, objective person. To argue flatly, they all fight for freedom is just the dumbest thing you could ever say out loud, because that's not true. Do some of them? Sure. Do some of them realize that's not what they really are doing with the military, but they thought they were when they signed up? Yes, are some of them terrible monsters that sign up so they can shoot people.

Starting point is 01:12:14 Yes, it's just lazy to argue otherwise. But I think that's important to point out. One of the themes you'll see today is how both sides are the same thing and they just play different rules when it's in their interest. And of course, I hope that I'm wrong. But this is what history has shown me. And our state's unified condolences and grief for the families of the four killed in action and our hope for a swift recovery for the nearly 100 wounded over the last two weeks. And thank you to you for your service to the nation. Mr. Hegsef, you're requesting roughly $68 billion for the department through this supplemental, correct?

Starting point is 01:12:51 67, yes. And yesterday your department stated publicly, quote, U.S. forces struck Iranian military command centers, maritime capabilities, missile and drone launch sites, and air defense systems to degrade Iran's ability to continue attacking commercial vessels. That was a press release from your department. Is that a broadly accurate characterization of ongoing operations? That sounds broadly accurate, yes. On day 14 of this conflict, Mr. Secretary, day 14, nearly five months ago, you stated that Iran's

Starting point is 01:13:28 military had been, quote, destroyed and, quote, made combat ineffective. That was on day 14 of the war. Was that an accurate statement? They didn't have a Navy any longer. It was completely sunk. Their missiles were buried underneath a lot of their underground facilities and their defense industrial base has been almost completely destroyed. So as far as a military assessment of Iran's capabilities. It doesn't, didn't mean by any stretch of the imagination, absolute zero. But the lowest level, you stated that. Got it, got it, got it. Okay. So destroy, it doesn't mean destroyed. It means almost gone. Makes sense, right? Not combat capable means they can still take

Starting point is 01:14:07 ships and control the straight and still absolutely allow us to look like fools, but you know, not absolute zero. I mean, this is just embarrassing because you know what they were been, Trump has been screaming every other day. It's destroyed. Not a single ship left. There's a ship. Oh, look, they're blocking the straight. This has been embarrassing from the very beginning.

Starting point is 01:14:28 I argue still, or I ask still, is it because Trump is lying to you or because he's being lied to? And either way, how does he keep doing it? That's why then you have to ask, is he not even able to do what he want? I just, I don't know how you don't see that logical possibility. On day 14 of this conflict in the second week. of the conflict. You stated that Iran's military had been, quote, destroyed and quote, made combat ineffective. Was that an accurate statement? Yes or no? Iran's ability to... I mean, you can see right there, you could easily say yes or no, right?

Starting point is 01:15:03 But you see, the game is to try to rationalize, if you have to suddenly try to rationalize your own answer, well, then clearly you're not being honest, right? If that, yes, that's correct. And then you know, and then you could, you just made it clear why you would argue that was correct because I wasn't implying that was absolute zero. But you can't do that because this is always a good politics for both of them. It's the same thing. Challenge the United States of America at the level of which we're capable of. That's not what I asked you, Mr. Secretary.

Starting point is 01:15:30 So it's funny how that changed, right? Listen to the second part. Conflict in the second week of the conflict. You stated that Iran's military had been, quote, destroyed and, quote, made combat ineffective. Was that an accurate statement? Yes or no? Iran's ability to challenge the United States. United States of America at the level of which we're capable of.

Starting point is 01:15:49 That's not what I asked. Okay. So now it's changed. It's got to a new level, right? No, no, no. They'll be combat ineffective if they just can't bring the level of war that we can. Okay. But how are you ineffective if you're stopping what you're trying to accomplish or keeping

Starting point is 01:16:05 the straight closed again? The labor in the point. You all know the obvious here. It's right in front of you. Mr. Secretary, you said on day 14, Iran's military had been, quote, destroyed. and quote, made combat ineffective. Yes or no, was that an accurate statement? What the American military has done to the Iranian military is a historic military defeat.

Starting point is 01:16:28 Will you answer the question? And they're ineffective in that context. It's a defeat. Okay, so let's look up the word defeat. Are they still fighting you? Yes. Are they controlling the street? Yes.

Starting point is 01:16:37 Are you, okay, how was that in any world of defeat? You can argue that we've dismantled most of what they're capable of. I would even go, maybe. I don't actually think that's even accurate. My point is you just keep using words, you know, that have definitions that mean something and then go, but it's the, you know, it's lazy, it's embarrassing. And it's cringy.

Starting point is 01:16:55 Like, you feel bad for him in a way, but then remember he's a monster and, you know, same old thing. But it's hard to watch. Three weeks later, you declared victory. That was now nearly four months ago. Victory. Three weeks after you'd already said Iran's military

Starting point is 01:17:11 was destroyed and combat ineffective, You said, quote, Operation Epic Fury was a historic and overwhelming victory. You said Iran's military had been rendered, quote, combat ineffective for years to come. Years to go. And you stated, we had, quote, achieved every single objective. Were those accurate statements? Every single objective. It certainly was on behalf of the men and women in uniform a historic military victory.

Starting point is 01:17:36 See, that's why he says it like that. He tries to personalize it with them so his thing looks like an attack on them. it's a tactic right but if every single objective has been completed then what are you still doing right clearly you have an objective because you're still doing something and this is just again basic stuff guys anybody with the brain is going to go what's dumb and then immediately see him for what he is people who are team sport followings are going to hate him no matter what or support matter what the rest of us are either not paying attention or you know it's this is where we are we're dealing with a bunch of amateur sophomore act people they're just yelling out what they

Starting point is 01:18:11 need in the moment without any concern about how that affects the next thing they'll do or say. That's why you get these people contradicting themselves in one sitting because they're not good at this. For Iran. Had Iran's military been rendered, quote, combat ineffective for years to come? That was a statement that you made four months ago. They had 160 naval vessels in the blue water navy and they're gone. Their air force is gone, but they're controlling the straight.

Starting point is 01:18:36 Okay. And let's just even say fine. Let's say you shot a hundred, you sunk 162 ships. Well, as Robert clearly pointed out, and he's been shown to be correct, yet again, add to the TLAB list of the amount. And it's not like we were in, we were the only ones. We were reporting on something else people already covered. But it's just not really clear in the independent media. They had tunnels that they put the under mountains where there's water underneath where they had ships prepared for this.

Starting point is 01:19:00 And it makes sense because they've been preparing for this for decades. As again, why they went to the UN before February and said they're going to bomb us. And if they do, here's how we're going to respond, knowing they, look, how far ahead they were, this entire thing. Now, they knew this would be depth, like, there'd be a lot of damage and a lot of people, but they didn't want this, as it appears. They just prepared for it because Israel did.

Starting point is 01:19:20 And they knew that. This just becomes more, you know, more and more obvious that it's destroyed, but well, then how are they still capable in doing what they're doing today? Four months ago. You said four months ago. You said four months ago.

Starting point is 01:19:33 So describe to me a country that doesn't have an Air Force in a need. It just, it's hard. It's hard to listen to. But it goes on two more different points, just like that. It's the same stuff. But I want to get into this last part, too. Truthful statement to the American people as you sit here and ask for tens of billions more for the conflict. The senators time has said.

Starting point is 01:19:51 Are actually about the destruction of missiles. And yet the missiles that we saw hit recent targets are actually somehow more lethal, more deadly, more maneuverable than what we have seen in the past. Which is true, not just by Iran statements, but you can see and they did this on purpose. As Robert also told us that they held back some of their more advanced use, you know, weaponry because they didn't need to use it. And now they're demonstrating. They still have things that are able to get through, even more so than before. So they're stepping up their game.

Starting point is 01:20:21 And it just continues to show you. Now, of course, you could argue it was just a one-off and they did it to make it look like that. But the point is they're still demonstrating that they have munitions, that they have ships, that they are able to control the situation. And they just want more money. And they want to continue to, you know, as they're trying to jam Israel control over everything else. Obviously improving their munitions. the strait of Hormuz is still closed, reminding everybody.

Starting point is 01:20:46 It was open before the war. Prices were lower for everybody until the war, and it still remains closed. And of course, tragically, people, service members, are war fighters who we cared. And let's not forget that what was the point? We were liberating the Iranians. It was about the protest movement that they clearly manufactured. Funny how they don't even care about that. Funny how it immediately went to bombing people in civilian locations and bombing their infrastructure.

Starting point is 01:21:11 You don't need to be a whiz kid to understand this, guys, to be able to recognize that they've been lying from the very beginning, like they always do, left and right. Deeply about are still dying. So what's different, Mr. Hexler, so Secretary Hexon. I think your characterization of this incredible effort as a failure is reckless. And I think it's irresponsible. And I think it smears the sacrifice of the troops that are out there making on behalf of the American people to ensure that Iran. Think about how even worse, how much worse that is. How much worse?

Starting point is 01:21:40 So you're being called out for your failures and your mistakes, lies. And all you do is try to make it about them. You try to use them as some ideological or like theoretical human shield in this debate. That's what he's doing. How dare you attack the military? He responds, you know, in what I would do too. I never gets a nuclear weapon. Shame on you and others who call this a quagmire and a failure.

Starting point is 01:22:07 And then you want to turn around and say you support the warfighter. Calling of war, a failure is not attacking anything but the actions of the powerful doing it. What it is? Are you to suggest that that one guy fighting in the ground is responsible for all? You know, nobody thinks like that. He's just trying to use them like they do in every other circumstance. Do you do or you don't? Is the nuclear material still there?

Starting point is 01:22:29 I can get you a ticket out to Centcom and talk to what those Americans are doing, how committed they are to this effort, and how they want to ensure that Iran never threatens their families with a nuclear weapon. It's that's the kind of intensity that our war fighters have about making sure that Iran isn't capable of very much. Secretary Hegsoff, did you, if you listened to my comments, you told, you would have heard me say how amazing our warfighters are. I heard that's why they start with that and that's why they do that because they know the setup back and forth. But it only makes Hegsa's response even weaker when they've already started off by going, they're the greatest ever and we support them no matter what. It's kind of hard to make the argument. Failure.

Starting point is 01:23:02 The word heard. I will tell you how I use the word failure. because I use the word failure to their leaders. You, sir, are the failure. Not the men and women who are on that front line, not the men and women who hold up their honor with distinction. But if there's a lack of a winning strategy, they're in harm's way.

Starting point is 01:23:21 Their leaders have failed them. Yeah, it's true. I mean, who knows if that guy cares about that at all or really just cares about using this for a political benefit, but he's not wrong, regardless of why he's doing it. As Code Pink writes in that same clip, the truth, over half of the, of that $1.5 trillion will go directly to private companies who are essentially becoming the military

Starting point is 01:23:42 apparatus like Palantir, Lockheed Martin, SpaceX, Open AI, and that's going to save our country. They're just extracting wealth for the control grid, for the data center. That's what this is about. Because those things are not just about here either, guys. This is a, it's military technology and it's most earnest sense in how you would look at this. Here's another clip. Hank Seth talking about the same situation of being accused of something and blaming Biden in the same way I was discussing earlier, even though it was actually during Obama. Completely aware that the trade of the moves could be closed.

Starting point is 01:24:20 And obviously, sinking their ships has not affected their ability to effectively close the straits. Did you... We had U.S. boats that surrendered to Iranian ships under the Biden administration. So they're... No, no, bud, that was Obama. But what are you even arguing?

Starting point is 01:24:36 Like, this is the point. that make before. So, okay, so the argument is they, regardless of what you said, they're still able to close the straight. And your response is, but Biden and it's actually Obama, they had bad things happened that you would, what, that you didn't care about or what? Or just that it's, I'm allowed to do dumb and embarrassing things because that was embarrassing. Like, I just don't even understand why anybody doesn't laugh in their face when they do that. But you didn't care when they did what, what, all you're arguing is that you should be, one, essentially accepting that you during the thing we're accusing you of, and that it's okay

Starting point is 01:25:08 because you didn't care then. I just don't know. That is a desperate argument if you've ever seen one. If he was effective in expeditious ways in the past. We're talking about the war you started, not a situation in which oil was flowing freely. There was no conflict. We weren't losing personnel as a result of Iranian action. Whatever you think of Obama, who's just the same as all the rest of them, or Biden,

Starting point is 01:25:32 if you want to pretend this was under his tenure, the point would be during those situations, there were not Americans being killed. There was not, the street was not closed down. Oil was not skyrocketed, which is now over 100 last time I checked for crude. So it's just a, you're embarrassing yourself, but that's all he has. Your fallback to the Biden administration is just a very, very obvious excuse for what I think is probably, as you described, so often gross negligence. You did not fully inform the president that you would be in a situation where the strata moves could be effectively closed.

Starting point is 01:26:09 Oil prices could surge. Did you hear that? Heg Seth, you did not inform the president. You're the one. Watch. If they should, if Trump gets to a place to where he needs to, which it feels like he's been there for a while, Heg Seth will be the one thrown to the bus. That's what that feels like to me.

Starting point is 01:26:26 I mean, the guy is, I was surprised he wasn't the first one to go. But here we are. You should have told the president, are you really pretending like he didn't, the president and everybody wasn't aware? They know they're lying about this stuff, guys. And effectively, the Iranians could maintain their ability to strike back as they are right now. They just killed some of my servants last weekend. Yeah, right, because you started a war against them. And in a war, military personnel are fair targets.

Starting point is 01:26:56 I never would have wanted this. Nobody should have wanted this. Neither should your government have wanted this. but to pretend that they were a reaction in a war they started is somehow terrorism. It's just, it's, it's how stupid this is always what we get from this government. You know, making their actions always altruistic and the enemy's actions always terrorism, even when those actions are legally justified. Al Jazeera, Marco Rubio.

Starting point is 01:27:28 It says, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio says the U.S. is willing to negotiate and settle differences with Iran. This was on the 21st, but Tehran is not. serious about talks. Warning Washington will protect its interest in those about his diplomacy fails. If diplomacy fails, you know, how else do you read this? This is not something you need to work out for yourself, guys, which is what we'll get to in a second when he, Trump lashes out at that media personality for saying, but we know it's not where you don't need Trump's like, well, are you inside? Are you talking to Iran? It's like, look, you can argue that from today forward, there are things that we don't know. And even maybe there's things from previous that we have

Starting point is 01:28:07 we're not privy to. But like I keep showing people, you can prove for yourself where we are in all of this. Are you going to pretend like it's obvious that Iran was not willing to negotiate, even though they've continued to stand by exactly what the MOU, the MOU, any of it says. Trump signed and they still stand by that same point or the 14 points. And the U.S. has been violating from day one, whether it's Lebanon threats. I mean, you go down the list, guys, and this is easily provable. That's why they asked that question. question. It's not taking sides. It's being objectively, being able to acknowledge the truth in front of you. And so they just go, they didn't agree or they didn't follow suit, which is what they've done.

Starting point is 01:28:46 I've told you that my entire career doing this, Yemen and Saudi Arabia, Mike Pompeo, or whoever, they would tell you that the Ansarala movement, Dehoutis, which is now suddenly back in the conversation, were the ones violating the ceasefire. And you could prove every single time, according to everybody other than Saudi Arabia and the United States, that it would be Saudi Arabia who would push in the moment that they had their ceasefire and pulled back their lines, and they would take a little more territory. They'd do it again. The Ansarola movement and pull back and wait, and Saudi Arabia, pushing it a little further. It happened like four times when it's covering this. And they would go, the Houthis violated it. Same thing is happening here. It's just so obvious and we can all see it

Starting point is 01:29:24 happening. So, Iran has been willing to negotiate as you murdered their families. They've been willing to negotiate as you murdered their religious leader. They've been willing to negotiate, even as you try to bomb the second plane as they were, flying back and luckily didn't get killed. Then you continue to negotiate even as you violate the agreements you swore by. And this still, this point, I don't even know why they would ever continue, but I do actually think it's in their interest to let them continue to string this out. But it's obvious who is the one not negotiating. That's how embarrassing this gets. Here's what Marco Rubio said in public. I'm going to reiterate, once again, the United States is always

Starting point is 01:30:02 committed to diplomacy. We are open, open-minded and always willing to engage. negotiated settlements of differences. And that remains true in the case of Iran. Unfortunately, as of now, despite their direct outreaches and Iran has been reaching out to the United States, both. They haven't. I mean, the best I can tell, according to everybody with insight in the conversation. Now, of course, it could be a lie this time, but best I can tell and the people that have been correct thus far every time are saying that's not true. They want you to believe Iran's going, please Trump, make a deal. But how would that possibly make sense? with anything that we just saw,

Starting point is 01:30:34 anything we've seen so far, you know it doesn't. You damn will, no it does not. And you know that they're in control of the situation. And that's the way he frames it because they're children. I mean, in the sense of like, you know, an insecure, tiny person who has to make an argument that you're the one in control

Starting point is 01:30:48 while everyone around you is like, that's not true, bud. We know that's not true. But, you know, do your thing to make yourself feel big and strong in front of a group that knows you're not. In the sense of this situation, nothing else. But you could make similar arguments in other places.

Starting point is 01:31:01 The lie of what, You know, the lie of all that is the U.S. government power and control and righteousness. Directly and indirectly to engage in talks about settling the differences. Fortunately, as of now, despite their direct outreaches. And Iran has been reaching out to the United States, both directly and indirectly, to engage in talks about settling the differences with regards to what's happening in that part of the world. Unfortunately, so far, even though we have reached agreements, they have not kept their commitments. You know, aside from provably exactly keeping those commitments over and over and over.

Starting point is 01:31:35 That's my point. Look back. Maybe today for it, maybe not. Looking back every single time. I mean, like, as it ends up, now you could argue there's been narratives and lies going back between both. I can guarantee that. But what they asked for? They followed through on. The last time, what did they do? They agreed with the MOU, which gave them the ability to create a route, which they were enforcing, and the U.S. government made ships or told them to go a different route. And we're going to get to that same point again today. It's even now being acknowledged by the media that Iran's going, look, here's the route. That's the route we agreed on. And openly pointing out the Trump administration is making people try to circumvent it. You're trying to create a situation where it

Starting point is 01:32:13 looks like you're attacking ships, even though anybody can look and see that that was it, they warned them and said, well, I'll get to it in a second. That's his game. We did everything we were supposed to. Iran broke the deal. Well, this is the JCPO. It's everything the U.S. government's done in my lifetime. They do what they want and they lie about it. and they blame everybody else around them. I mean, it's, it's, I hate it being so, you know, because it's easy for somebody who wants to dismiss this. It's like you just hate them.

Starting point is 01:32:39 But it's accurate, guys. It's what my entire lifetime of doing this shows us. And this is what Glenn Deason said. This is incredible. The U.S. abandoned the JCPOA, which they did. Trump unilaterally pulled out, even as they were meeting their obligations. All you had was Netanyahu per saying they were secretly doing something that they later proved they were not.

Starting point is 01:32:57 And the enrichment increased because that was what the deal, allowed, then they turned around and pointed to that enrichment as the proof that they were dealing. It's a choice, guys, to manipulate people who don't know what they're talking about. Twice launched surprise attacks during negotiations. Everybody knows that. Then breached the MOU as soon as it was signed. Easy.

Starting point is 01:33:18 So now here's Hague Seth, and I'm going to make a point about what suppressed news is framing this as, but here's Hague Seth, trying to tell you the same thing. I was willing to stand up to him. President Trump was, and it continues to, to this day, Iran's been given every opportunity to negotiate to show that they're reasonable on the straight of war moves. It, by the way, might be very possible

Starting point is 01:33:37 to Hegg Seth is just the child in the room, has no idea, and actually believes that's what's been happening. Kind of fits for me. But either way, same point. Every opportunity to negotiate, I mean, what's been clear is Iran has made the case and you guys have been floundering around

Starting point is 01:33:53 at the entire time. I told you in April, 10 points became 14, and ever since then, they have stood by the same points. You could prove that for yourself right now as they do their little tap dance and jump around and barking seals and act like everything. And they just and they won't make a deal and they won't make an agreement. It's just hard to watch. But if they're going to shoot a commercial shipping, then we're going to hit them as the president said 10 times harder.

Starting point is 01:34:17 Yeah, the shipping that were going against the route that was agreed upon. And they fired on the turn back, warned them, right, over and over. And you guys keep making that happen. Simple. which every night would degrading them further and further. And the president has talked. They can talk. Otherwise, they can deal with the war department.

Starting point is 01:34:37 The war department. So, he says, look at J.D. Vance's face when Pete Hanksett blatantly lies saying that the Ron did not want to negotiate. Iran was bombed more than three times during negotiations. He's right. But you see, one of these kind of current like sub-narratives within what I argue is somewhat a, you know, partisan game with all this, is that G.E. Vance is somehow not a part of it. Tucker Carlson did the same thing. I mean, Dave DeCamp called that out entirely by going, well, here's

Starting point is 01:35:13 what Vance was just saying before this. Vance is 100% involved with this. He's had the same arguments. He's made the same statements on news. He's been involved with the negotiations making the same lies. To argue that he somehow doesn't agree with this is just it's wishful thinking for a different thing you want to believe in. Somehow, there's still a saving grace within this party. He's the same thing. He's also a Peter Thiel cutout for the same agenda and every other angle you want to look at. It's pathetic for us to argue that somehow Vance, like, really? That's not true. You mean, aside from Vance lying about this very thing 20 seconds ago, it's tire some guys. Ron Paul came out 21st and said, and I just think Ron Paul is a

Starting point is 01:35:55 opinion here is relevant because of so many people who believed that this was where this administration was going, who were manipulated in thinking that Ron Paul might even be on the administration, Massey might even be on the administration. Now Massey is like the number one enemy of the administration. It matters because these are the kind of people that they wanted you to think they were. Here's what Ron Paul says about what's happening. President Trump's decision to launch a war in Iran has been one of the greatest military disasters in U.S. history. Now, frankly, I agree in a very much in a political sense and potentially in a military sense. I just don't know if I can verify the metrics, but I agree with them.

Starting point is 01:36:30 I mean, if not now, it will be especially if this continues. Instead of listening to his own intelligence community, which, by the way, as we told you already, said there was no nuclear weapons, said they weren't doing that, as Gabbard admitted, also said that this was going to happen, said that this wasn't going to be his success. And he listened to Israel. Trump followed the lies of Benjamin Netanyahu and took us to war for the benefit of Israel. That's wrong Paul saying that.

Starting point is 01:36:53 But is there a silver lining in the disaster? Surprisingly, yes. You watch the show if you want to find out more. Now, here is Rubio, again, lying about the MOU. Which, if you really need me to break this down again, like, I mean, frankly, I should. It's just going to take too much time. The reality is, if you look it up for yourself, you can look at the example that was given by Fox News and by the people in his administration. It's the same 14 points.

Starting point is 01:37:20 Again, that was the point that was made on, what was it? friends or whatever where Jesse Waters laughed about it because they mentioned drop site news and guess what the point was they were right and they're so deris it because they're a bunch of their media personalities they're not actually journalists and the point is she's going look they reported about this lie the news before that was about the mow you about the fact that they came out early which they did and said here is the mowu and they go fake news that's a lie that's propaganda and it later turned out to be exactly those 14 points and that's what she brought up And they still left drop site news, like they laugh it off.

Starting point is 01:37:56 Like that's the kind of thing idiots do. Who cares what it's called? Who cares what it's from? Where's the source material? What's the argument? Not when you're the holy crap, you know, red light, holy crap guys like Jesse Water. The point, though, is that clearly it was the points they lied about. So why they lie about them?

Starting point is 01:38:12 Because they've been playing a game of propaganda and misdirection the entire time. So the MOU, they signed, said very clearly that they did have the right to create the navigation route. They had the right to create what would be happening going forward. It was outlined explicitly. It didn't say they could do this and do that and charge of toll, but the agreement, which was laid out by the negotiators that Iran said, the negotiators said, and as written in plain English, that they're the ones that decide the security protocol for how this goes forward. That's what it is. So then they step in and try to change that. That's all that happened. And here's what Rubio is saying about that. He's lying.

Starting point is 01:38:46 The MLU isn't the MLU inherently flawed because in paragraph five, explicitly acknowledges Iran has power in a straight-up her moves, whereas no other formal agreement before had acknowledged or recognized. No, I don't think that's what the MOU says. So that's not the way we interpreted it from the very beginning. We understood that to mean. No, we understood that to mean that they would ensure that no ships

Starting point is 01:39:05 were being blown up, and they chose to violate that. Okay. The MOU designed. I wouldn't have just written, we'll make sure no ships get blown up. You see what I'm saying? Like, they did this on purpose, guys. That's my opinion now. They did this for the main purpose of creating. That's why we're seeing that they're basically forcing ships, coercing

Starting point is 01:39:21 telling them to, it's a combination of these things, to go through, knowing they might get shot at, knowing they might even get sunk, even though it's not really what's happening because Iran's not attacking these ships. They're warning them away. And now it's getting more intense because it's now clearly part of the ongoing war tactics. So if it, and the recent ones are now being further bombed because this has continued. The 14 of them before this have been simply fired on and they turned around and left, just like with the Houthis-Dis-on-Sor-Lam movement in Israel before this, because they're not what they claim they are. But now they've pushed it there so they can turn around and go, see, just like you did when you first attack them illegally and then said, see, look at who

Starting point is 01:39:58 they bombed. You mean the countries, they told the UN they would? The countries that you've been working with, this is how stupid they truly think we are, or at least they hope we are. The bottom line is, it does say exactly what he's talking about here. No, I don't think that's what the MOU said. No, I don't think that's not the way we interpreted it from the very beginning. We understand. that to me. No, we understood that to mean that they would ensure that no ships are being blown up and they chose to violate that. The MOU does not give them the right to launch drones and missiles against commercial shipping vessels. That the MOU doesn't give them the right to do that.

Starting point is 01:40:34 Fair. Right. But if you create a situation where you don't dictate what their responses can be, then obviously they're going to fill in the blank. I mean, how do you think the U.S. government would fill in when given the opportunity to control the security of a location? Pretty sure they would use some kind of force, wouldn't they? Like every other location, but just go back to it real quick, just so you can see it. Here's the MOU, and look, check this for yourself. It is exactly what will be backed up by the sources coming from his administration. And what it says, guys, and again, in case you forgot that this current war assigning this

Starting point is 01:41:08 MOU to declare the immediate end. And what were the first, one of the first examples was that all the immediate, to declare the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts. including Lebanon, which as all stated, including the negotiation elements on their side, was that included Israel. As even Trump said, I'll tell them to stop. We all saw that. So the fact that it never did, so if you're going to argue they violated the MOU and you

Starting point is 01:41:35 never met it to begin with, well, then it was never even an effect. But even then, you can see that they still did actually maintain their side of this. But just realize that if you're going to make that argument, you can prove the U.S. never even met it to begin with on top of that. refraining from threats of force, which is what they trumped it every other day. Two times there, there's violations. United States, what was it, number, there's one more I'm trying to do quick. So number five is the main point.

Starting point is 01:42:00 Upon the signing of the MOU, Iran will make arrangements. That's clear and purposely vague, using the best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels with no charge of 60 days. I mean, you can't, the reason that I think chose to make it like within their purview is so they could make this argument. That's what I think. Because the argument going back now, and I do agree with this, is they never had any intention of holding the MOU. It was to try to find a way around this. They don't want to give them what they want. They want to gain everything. But they wanted to run to let down their guard. So they lied. That's why they sent that whole back and forth where they're going to give us everything. And it never happened because they're just trying to work this back

Starting point is 01:42:40 and forth. So here we are. We'll make arrangements so they get to decide what those are, apparently its best efforts, clearly that's up to them, for the safe passage of commercial vessels. So what they do? Well, what they told you they were going to do, we have a passage route that we're going to decide, which they were telling you before this ever happened. And then we will control that and keep it safe. And what does the Trump administration do for ships to go through a different route, which at any location, any straight or controlled area, they're going to say, wait, that's not the designated space. Is that a threat, especially during wartime? And we're forgetting that, that they're at war together. And so now a ship that is within

Starting point is 01:43:14 the unstable MOU, you have a ship going away from the designated security route. And you know the U.S. is all in the Israel are conducting secretive, you know, subversion tactics. Of course they're going to do. I mean, it's just, it's basic understanding. The traffic of commercial vessels will immediately start and considering the need for removal, technical, and this goes into that whole point about, again, the fact that we now have real traffic, there weren't, there weren't minds, guys. We must know that by now.

Starting point is 01:43:40 As I said from the very beginning, because I think the evidence showed that. I do think this is relevant because it's only going to keep getting more intense if they don't stop. But Rubio, I don't think that's what it says. I mean, you guys are just making it up. Now here is the point. This was the 17th, one of many different articles. Iran's Revolutionary Guard said it targeted two ships in the strait. The IRGC said it targeted two vessels.

Starting point is 01:44:03 There's been plenty others and claimed the others turned back after receiving warnings because they did. You can prove this. Any ship tracker has made this point. GPS and otherwise. And what does that show you? That they're not shooting ships because they're maniac terrorists, but they're going, hey, and by the way,

Starting point is 01:44:21 it's on record, you can show the radio communications, the Trump and Ruby, hope you're too dumb to know about, and say, turn back, that's not the approved route. Second warning, turn back. That's not the approved route.

Starting point is 01:44:32 Final warning, turn back, and then fire on them. You tell me how terrorists warn people to turn around. It's just lazy stuff, guys. And the point is, the force warn that vessels influenced by the U.S. statements and choosing what it described as an unsafe route will certainly face

Starting point is 01:44:50 consequences. You can argue they're not allowed to do that, but you, it's secondarily, which they clearly outlined are in the sense of control, Trump's actions and his team are creating this. They're reacting to it. And you can disagree with their reaction. My point, though, is either way, not acknowledge this isn't some irrational bombing because they're terrorists. They're telling you we're going to control this route. And if you try to circumvent it, we will turn you back. This is pretty basic, isn't it, guys? You can choose to be a blind partisan or you can recognize the facts of the case, and you're not taking anybody's side. The only side you're taking is the information. Now, in regard to the straight itself, we're right back at it. I believe it's

Starting point is 01:45:26 over 100 right now, last I checked, and here's Sentcom. The straight is open. But it's not, though, right? So they're lying again, today. Why do they do this? Because I believe, genuinely, that they want ship to try to go through their believing they can. So things like this happen so they can use it to justify what they want. So they're using everybody, everywhere. Either way, the point is, now you're getting bigger attacks because this has become part of the war, you understand. And you can feel free to blame Iran for that.

Starting point is 01:45:59 I mean, at the end of the day, it is their action. Even if they were driven to it aggressively, relentlessly, the point is that took, what, 14 different actions before that where they simply fired on and turned them around before it became something more. Blame them, sure. But realize why that happened. Realize who made that happen. As the Cabessie letter argues,

Starting point is 01:46:19 $100 oil is back. I remember a point when they told us over $100 barrels would collapse the world economy. But it says, Brent crude oil prices are now officially trading above $100 a barrel. Right back where it was. Remember all those Gunther Eagleman types

Starting point is 01:46:32 that were like, told you, now gas back to $3. Yeah, that lasted like half a second, even that day. Now, in regard to what's currently happening forward, of course, I want to make sure, well, actually, before that, though, one point as Galloway posted, hats off actually, documented footage clearly shows, which I hope you know by now, this is all very clear, the Tomahawk impact on the Minab Primary School for Girls, addressing Trump's skepticism. And we showed you this before. As Galloway said, this incident will damn Trump and is you in the U.S. for eternity. You targeted.

Starting point is 01:47:07 Now, whether that was U.S. intelligence, they lied to you. doesn't really matter to me at this point as you let them integrate into our country. The point is you murdered all those children on day one of your actions of your efforts to free the people of Iran. Obviously, that's not what they're doing. And as Mel points out, this is a different, what was this again? I'm looking at this earlier. I believe she has it down here. Basically an investigation, Sky News, but I thought there was a deeper. The point was simply that investigation into that bombing at the school. Now, what you might find alarming, but not new and actually pretty common when it comes

Starting point is 01:47:45 to the U.S., Saudi Arabia, Israel, is that they choose to double tap. I mean, they wait, which is an undeniable war crime, like killing children, by the way, wait for people to come to help and they bomb them again, killing the resources and the, rather the ambulance drivers and then fire trucks, right? I mean, like the textbook type of terrorism that we look for, you know, see for movies, for example. A months-long sky news investigation into the U.S. double-tap strike on the men-ups girl school found the Pentagon had tracked the site by satellite since 1987 and could still count children's shadows in the courtyard before firing anyway. What the evidence shows, three Tomok missiles fired from the USS Spurrence 116 kilometers away in the Arabian Sea,

Starting point is 01:48:31 hit the elementary school, February 28th, the opening day, of their war in Iran. Witnesses describe a second strike hitting exactly the same spot when a teacher had moved surviving students for shelter. Where? Moved some of the children for shelter, they bombed that place, killing nearly everyone who had taken cover there. A third strike followed the same side. Down tolls, death tolls range from 156 to 170, most of them girls age 7 to 12. The school had been walled off from the adjacent naval base, even like that even matters. Like right after this, my first point, well, here is the hundred different examples of

Starting point is 01:49:07 U.S. military bases around this country that have schools on them. So, if your argument is there's suddenly military targets for the children's school, will then have an equal stance on this. Now, realistically, though, in a military location, it is all a legal target in warfare. And how, you know, at the end of the day, the

Starting point is 01:49:23 context of the military base. But ask yourself why that's not happening in reverse. It's a fair question, isn't it? Bottom line, guys, they chose to kill these people, the teachers, the children, and they bombed them multiple times to make sure. And this, Mel rightly points out, this new investigation, you know, against the ICC certainly sounds to make sense, doesn't it? Because now there's more and more evidence coming out about what they chose to do. Now, overlapping this with the clear civilian targets that the U.S. government is bombing, Trump comes out and says,

Starting point is 01:50:00 from this point forward, this is yesterday, tell me this is not a desperate thing to do. From this point forward, any time the Islamic Republic of Iran shoots at a ship, remember the ships that they're forcing through, the ships that are knowingly taking a route that they know will bring fire. Whether Trump's force or not,

Starting point is 01:50:18 you have ships, the whole world knows Iran is a route, and there are ships choosing to go against that route knowing they'll fire on them. You go ahead and walk me through that logic. You tell me why anyone does that outside of, trying to create a response. From this point forward, any time that happens,

Starting point is 01:50:36 whether it be by missile, rocket, or drone, right, two of which they said they don't have anymore, by the way, since day one, or any other device or weapon. The United States will bomb and destroy one bridge or one power plant in all capitals, including those located next to or in the city of Tehran. I guess thank you for telling us that you're a terrorist.

Starting point is 01:51:00 Okay. And Adam says, hey Congress shooting at a bridge or power plant even when attacked is a literal war crime. The president's window of action, this is important. We don't even talk about this anymore because clearly Congress is not what it pretends to be, or rather just isn't what we should, what it's supposed to be, I guess. The president's window of action against Iran for his claimed eminent nuclear threat ended two months ago. Now, if you forget what he's talking about, guys, look, there's only three ways to legally have a war. that is for Congress to approve that war, they did not do,

Starting point is 01:51:35 to have the, under the War Powers Act, to have an eminent threat, which means you're literally about to be bombed. People are invading the country, none of which actually happened. And they later proved that's not the case by claiming it's been an eminent threat for 47 years. Which is just embarrassing because that's, they mean they don't know the definition of words. But so that creates, and the third one would be, what was it again? So you have the War Powers Act, you have the eminent threat and you have the there's somebody's blanking on all of a sudden. That's frustrating. Regardless, the point is none of them met by what's happening. And they know that. And that's why they tried to go back and forward. That's why Congress tried to stop them two different times and failed. And then I guess just gave up. Even though now we're well past this, even this whole pausing for 60 days and this whole, you know, this war powers moment where you have time to figure it out. And then you have, then you can extend it for 60 days to remove the troops, not just continue for 60 days. The only process in which that happens in the War Powers Act is you gain 60 days to actually remove.

Starting point is 01:52:31 the troops under the point that you're leaving. And yet they turn that into we can just kind of go on and off. They don't even doing that. They're just continuing with the agenda, guys. And so you don't have any legal standing for this. There is no legal standing for this war whatsoever in the eyes of Congress, in U.S. law, international law. And then they bomb civilian infrastructure.

Starting point is 01:52:51 They really don't care. It says you passed a resolution expressly agreeing with that and demanding U.S. troops to remove from the region, Congress. now the president threatens war crimes instead of just defensive engagement and you're nowhere to be seen there's not a single damn spine left on the hill yeah long since been the reality this will just make it clear now while they target civilian infrastructure in particular water desalination i want to bring this back to what robert argued and he was right yet again i mean it's so often how much i want to i want people to think about if you go back and look at our website you just go back and

Starting point is 01:53:28 look, go back 10 years ago and just start perusing the different titles. Now, always you should look into it, read it, look at the source material. My point, though, is look at the titles of the shows. Look at the date where I'm saying these things. And then realize it's an argument that wasn't even being remotely discussed largely in most these cases. And then later became something that was verifiably proven. And in most cases, we don't get acknowledged for that.

Starting point is 01:53:50 Hey, that's not why I do this. I do it so we can actually change something. And I think that's why we get so suppressed because it would. like imagine this kind of conversation being at the level of some of these massive influencers it would change the entire thing and i don't mean just me any of us doing that there's plenty of us who are being kept underneath some kind of you know blanket of cover you know some of some of some kind of wet media twitter blanket whatever you want to call it anyway the point was he called this out a long time ago march 25th 2026 trump's contradictory iran strategy unravels and he specifically talks about this

Starting point is 01:54:28 in regard to the water and made it clear that right now, if they decided to do this, Iran will be barely affected by this. In fact, that's what this guy's pointing out, Dimitri. If the Trump regime provoked strikes against water desalination, U.S. allies in the region will suffer. And they know this, guys, which is the percentage of drinking water in these countries from water desalination. In Bahrain, it's 100%.

Starting point is 01:54:52 And it shows you that we're in very, there's basically Iran could bomb specific locations and utterly destroy the water resources for Bahrain. Qatar, 99%. Now, Iran, 3%. Not only is it 3% that's relying on that, but even that is not necessarily

Starting point is 01:55:10 it's scattered amongst different locations. They're planned for this situation. So Robert was arguing back in March that should they do this, Iran relies on desalination, excuse me, I'm trying to go quickly. Iran relies on desalination facilities for only a tiny fraction of its water needs,

Starting point is 01:55:26 he writes. low single digits, while Gulf states like Qatar and Kuwait depend on it for 90% or more. And he gets into the reality is what we're highlighting is that ultimately they know that this could be something that would hurt them dramatically. I'm starting to think this is about the U.S. government setting them up for failure to use and to generate support for their war against Iran. Suddenly you have people dying of thirst and in Bahrain. Well, that's easy to go Iran terrorists.

Starting point is 01:55:51 That's why it's not in their interest to respond in kind, which I hope they don't do. but just recognize this has been a long time coming and this is such a desperate effort to push this into a level that they can gain support from. Now here, now I might just skip this actually. So this is, well, let's play it real quick. Here's what Teg Seth said, and this was, what was it, right the beginning of this.

Starting point is 01:56:14 This is right after when they had basically initiated that we are going to just start bombing and they made the case about we're not playing fair, we're going to hit them while they're down. Remember all that? and of course saying very clearly that this has been given, this authority's been given directly from Trump and himself. Worth hearing, because it's, think about where we are right now,

Starting point is 01:56:34 while they're targeting civilian infrastructure, bombing civilian centers all over these countries, and basically, I mean, borderline praising it, guys. Here's what he said. This is the kind of thing that will be played in front of the Hague, should we get there. And fixing their leaders and their military leaders, flying over Tehran, flying over Iran, flying over their capital, flying over the IRGC,

Starting point is 01:57:01 Iranian leaders looking up and seeing only U.S. and Israeli airpower every minute of every day until we decide it's over. And Iran will be able to do nothing about it. B-2s, B-52s, B-1s, predator drones, five. controlling the skies, picking targets. Death and destruction from the sky all day long. He told you. We're playing for keeps. Our warfighters have maximum authorities granted personally by the president and yours truly.

Starting point is 01:57:40 Our rules of engagement are bold, precise, and designed to unleash American power, not shackle it. This was never meant to be a fair fight. And it is not a fair. fight. We are punching them while they're down, which is exactly how it should be. I mean, just think about that. You know, I mean, like, really think about what he's actually saying that we should, I mean, it's like, I made this point last time. I need to go it all again. But you're talking about, like, in any context of any, anything, war, a boxing match, you know, integrity, not hitting a while they're down. Like, that.

Starting point is 01:58:23 That is the act of a coward, guys. You're owning cowardice right there. And that just, this is a image of Pete Hankseth as Sid from Toy Story. Toy Story. I just think that's very relevant to where we are. This guy is a kid stomping around who believes he's acting like the tough thing. He thinks this is what people want. He thinks this is what he thought he saw in this when he was a kid.

Starting point is 01:58:45 Like, that's what I get from this. You're not acting like an adult. You're not acting like a responsible entity, like somebody who understands the type of power that you're wielding. You are this kid with a toy. That's what it feels like to me. I just think it's alarming how clear this is. Now, here's the White House post, as we just read for you.

Starting point is 01:59:06 From this point forward, any time they shoot at a ship, even if they're the ones that make it happen, by the way, or if it's, you know, I mean, think of it like this. Like, what if one of those ships is running straight at one of their ports? Like, or anything, it doesn't matter. You shoot a ship in the Strait of Pruz. We are going to bomb a ship or bomb a bridge. Like, I may ask you this, why wouldn't you bomb a military?

Starting point is 01:59:24 Why wouldn't you bomb any of the things they're using? Because they can't because they're floundering, because they know that Iran has set this up to a degree to where they don't know what to do anymore. So they're just going to start punishing people. That is what your government has done my entire life. As long as I've been doing this, that is the action I expect from them. Just want to make sure you're clear.

Starting point is 01:59:47 From the White House, they reiterated this post on Twitter, on the White House account. here interestingly enough is murkly being uh excuse me uh what was it uh cane being asked directly what about these targets and have they happened and guess what he has i what do you may i don't know what what are you sale the nation i don't know how to check with the team i mean think about that think about what i'm saying that is everyone in the world can see this happening trump has posted it on his on true social on twitter not only that they have but that there'll be more to come if you don't do what we say. And here's what the military has to say. Currently, there are reports that

Starting point is 02:00:28 we have hit the Bonji desalination plant that provides watered about 20 villages or about 10,000 people. And we also... Yeah, yeah, civilians, guys. No way around that. The whole world knows what this government is doing. The damage the desalination plant at Kesham Island. Were these deliberate targets by the United States? Honestly, I'm not aware of those as being particular targets, nor am I aware of those reports. have to go back and get back to you on that. Oh, right. He's not aware of the reports that everyone's talking about that he knew was going to be discussed in this conversation.

Starting point is 02:01:00 I'm not aware of those. We'll have to get back to you. Don't you love that they do that all the time? And then they never get back to them. And both sides don't seem to care. Common. If you could, I'd appreciate that. You are aware that infrastructure that civilians rely on to survive is not generally

Starting point is 02:01:15 considered legitimate military targets. Sir, as you know, we have a robust process which considers a target that goes through a system that looks at a variety of considerations to include what you're alluding to around. A system. I'm sure you can guess what that is today because it hasn't really been touched on. They're using AI to kill people. Welcome to the 20. Welcome to whatever we want to call the technocracy. I mean, think about this, guys. We're talking about the Bidab, whatever else. Probably why this happened. But we haven't really gotten into that. And I think it's beyond, it's beyond. I mean, guys, there's no way it's possible that they're not using AI like Israel is, because

Starting point is 02:01:52 That's what they're building. They're trying to spearhead this. Now, maybe that's why he doesn't know if that's even the case. I doubt it. But this is where we are. And it's, I mean, whether it's civilian infrastructure or girls schools, it goes through a robust system of checking that. You mean a person who's deciding in the military chain of command?

Starting point is 02:02:10 No, no, no, a system that we put it through. Thanks, Palantir. Both purely civilian or dual-use targets. I have trust and confidence in CENTCOM that they're looking at the range of those things on it. Also, don't miss that he just literally said dual-use targets. Great. So all that does is water down the reality that you're talking about innocent people who are being used.

Starting point is 02:02:34 And I mean, by both sides, regardless what we're talking about. Could be people using them to block, which the U.S. and Israel do all the time and plenty of other people in the world. Or it could be that you're using them for your agenda and killing them claiming they were actually being held when they were not. Israel's been doing that since they start for, I mean, as long as I've been reporting on them. It sounds like you are assuring us that we will, the United States, not target, even in retaliatory sense of infrastructure that is generally considered to be primarily for civilian survival. Sir, as I mentioned, we have a robust process and, you know, we have the most professional

Starting point is 02:03:14 military force. It would just be nice to have you say yes, because this is international law. Yes, sir. If you understand the international law. I do, sir. I've got a lot of lawyers that help me understand. Just to make sure what you understood what he was doing right there. Yeah, yeah, the system, the system. I keep telling you guys, it's about pushing off the responsibility to the system.

Starting point is 02:03:33 So instead of going, oh, well, it's a crime, that guy goes to prison, you go, oh, it's a database, it's a system. We'll tweak it. And it doesn't get tweaked at all because it's made the way it's supposed to be, right? Well, oh, it's just a malfunction. We'll fix that. You know, when the robot enforcement on the streets or whatever you want to call, it starts just killing people, oops we'll just tweak the programming no one goes to jail but what about the person who programmed it oh he didn't mean for that to happen or maybe they did i mean it's i'm not saying i'm going to

Starting point is 02:03:59 assume one way or the other but we know that's possible in this case you're already seeing this built into where oh it was the system that it's not we have the said lawyers and we know the system did it and i'm not saying that's what he's doing that's my intake on what i feel in there you can look at my track record on things like that speaks for itself thank thank you yes sir uh you'll will you will get back to us on that question of whether we targeted the excellingation plants. Of course. Of course. Of course, we won't. And of course, Mercury won't care.

Starting point is 02:04:28 You think I'm wrong? Look back at these things. The point is you should have been prepared to talk about what was obviously the discussion of the day. But we'll have to get back to you on that. So here's Trump on the American soldiers that have been killed. The small number that are clearly covering the larger number in the soldiers that have been killed in the war, he said wouldn't happen.

Starting point is 02:04:50 And, you know, the ongoing kind of acceptance. The idea being somehow this is not a bad situation because Biden killed more. Look at all the people killed Vietnam. Shut up. That's what you're getting from this guy right now. And on top of that, the idea that the soldiers that were killed, he somehow knows to a man, woman, were saying all of them said strongly that we can't have a nuclear weapon in Iran. I mean, something about this made me sick to my stomach.

Starting point is 02:05:20 Not just that he's using them. And as I'm sure you can, I mean, are we, do you? really think that every one of the people that have been killed all equally with, hey, Trump, good job, keep Iran from a military weapon. Or are we recognizing that most Americans don't agree with that, even in the military? So what you're getting right now is two things, my opinion. He just used them. He used them. He doesn't even know their names, and he made up a story about how they agree with what he wants from this, which he put them to keep, they were killed for his agenda here, or however you read it, Israel's through him. And he uses them and says, no, no, they

Starting point is 02:05:52 supported me to their deaths. No, they did not. We're our heroes and they are indeed great heroes actually. They said and they all of them said very strongly. We can't let, you cannot let Iran have a nuclear weapon. They won't have a nuclear weapon. Even the way he did that, is anybody even pretending like you don't sense that he just made that up? Great heroes actually. Opportunity.

Starting point is 02:06:24 You can almost see it working in his mind. Oh, here's an opportunity. I'm going to go ahead and use them. are indeed great heroes actually they said and they all of them said very strongly we can't let you cannot let Iran have a nuclear weapon they won't have a nuclear weapon so we're going to honor them gross I don't know why that more than most really does just it just makes me sick they're using people guys are using them as always now here is what Trump said in another clip in regard to you being not against this war and then points to some new poll that just absolutely

Starting point is 02:07:06 nailed it to the ground and we'll make a point about that here's what you're going with us to honor our heroes and they are indeed great heroes actually one of the hardest things to do for me it's one of the hardest things to do as a president but uh has to be done they're going to pay a big price they're getting they're getting uh they're being decimated Americans aren't against the war The, a poll just came out. Americans don't want to have gasoline prices, but they're not against the war. That just came out loud and clear in a poll. Nobody wants Iran to have a nuclear weapon.

Starting point is 02:07:44 Do you want Iran to have a nuclear weapon? Is it just a lazy plateau? Okay, so are we really talking about that still? You're making it about the straight. You're telling us it's about the straight. You're telling us it's about bombing these ships. You're telling us it was obliterated. And on top of that, if you're actually not lost in the partisanship,

Starting point is 02:08:00 you already knew they didn't have it in the first place. His own administration told you that. But we're still pretending like, do you want them to have a nuclear weapon? Do you support Hamas? It's the same tactic, guys. It's a relentless focus on one thing that if you don't say properly, they all shout you down. That's how this mainstream, mainstream alternative game works. The point was, though, the new poll, the new poll that we all know that he lied about, by the way.

Starting point is 02:08:23 But the point was it's one poll. Like, hasn't he shouted down polls for being inaccurate? Now the one thing that says what he likes is the one you get. Of course. because that's what they do. But here's the White House. This is the one he's referencing. Trust in Trump. Voters overwhelmingly support the Iran peace deal. Well, first of all, they support you ending the catastrophic war. And if you frame it as unsure, or pose or support, the ending of the war in your deal, well, of course, they're all going to

Starting point is 02:08:47 go. That includes 60% of people that hate your guts. 60% of people that know you did the wrong thing want you to stop it. It's just a trick. That's why I frame it's a nice try. But on top of that, it's just ridiculous. The cited data poll from late, this is a poll from June showing 60% support for the then active peace deal. Not anything other than that. Trump declared the deal over on July 8th. And he post this on July 20th. So this is either him being played by people like Miller around him and not even carry it or he just lied to you because that's what they do. And then goes out publicly and goes, do you see that new poll that came out? It's not new.

Starting point is 02:09:25 This is just how embarrassing this is. And they just lie because I don't know how else you see this, but not having any other options. I've been calling them desperate since January. Felt that way, to me, it's just becoming embarrassingly clear. Trump, a raw nightmare, daily mail. Trump's a raw nightmare deepens as damning poll reveals Americans' brutal verdict with war nearing five months and U.S. death toll rising. Okay, it's another poll.

Starting point is 02:09:53 But in my opinion, not by polls, but just generally my, you know, looking at information and what people, everyone disagrees with this. And I mean that in like a general sense, a majority, clearly. And here, on top of what he just said from July 21st, another poll is the day after he said that, saying nobody supports it. And this is from Daily Mail, guys. Two weeks after the latest ceasefire collapse, Donald Trump's handling of the Iran work continues to face broad public skepticism. Everybody sees it, pushing down his approval rating and leaving Americans with little hope it will end.

Starting point is 02:10:24 Only 32% of voters approve of his handling of the war. 49% believe he's wrong to even launch the attacks resulting in the death of 17 troops with over 100 injured. It's way more than that. We're paying attention. But so what I'm highlighting here is just this, he goes out there and makes this whole statement about,

Starting point is 02:10:39 didn't you see the poll? What he's doing is going, if you blindly support me, you're supposed to say everyone supports this, right? You're supposed to repeat what I say. So he goes out there and gives the talking point. Well, guess what, Trump, you no longer even have the majority influence on people that repeat you.

Starting point is 02:10:53 Most of them now are embarrassed to pretend that they repeat you. That's where we are. And so now he's lost that kind of control. And now nobody, so he yells that out and everyone laughs. Because this is what you get. It's crazy. On top of that, as I've been saying for a long time, what weak leaders do is push off responsibility to those around them, those under them.

Starting point is 02:11:15 That's just weak. They did slip something through in Jordan. This is in regard to the attack from Iran that slipped through. No, it was very clear. They weren't able to do much when Iran attacked him this time. and Iran bombed multiple locations and was very effective and one of them killed American citizens. Here's his response to that. They did slip something through in Jordan and if we had other operators, you know,

Starting point is 02:11:41 would have not happened unfortunately. Oh, right. Jordanians suck apparently. If we had other people there, that wouldn't have happened. But we because we have the best equipment in the world. You know, we've stopped. Oh, yeah, you mean the equipment that is there? Because that's the case because that's the reality is that they're using U.S. That's, okay, so the equipment was the same, but no, because we weren't there.

Starting point is 02:12:01 Guys, it's just a late, it's about going, you know, it's Jordan's fault. The one that is like blindly, all of these Middle East Daly, who knows why they're even supporting him anymore? Probably because they're co-opted governments like all the rest through Israel and through the Abraham Accords, and they're not even of the ability to disregard or to say no or whatever it is. The point, though, is that Jordan is now being called incapable or incompetent because they allowed this to happen. Because of what the U.S. and Israel have done, all of them are suffering. They must be able to see that by now. But that's just weak.

Starting point is 02:12:34 Like, if you were a real leader, you don't blame everybody around you when your people die. How could you possibly even know that? Were you there when they were operating your materials or your equipment? Almost everything. But when you let other people do your job, the United States, we let other people do the job. And sometimes it doesn't work out so well. Oh, so what's your implication that we should be literally controlling Jordan?

Starting point is 02:12:56 Because, guys, that's pretty much what he's saying. that we need to be there doing it ourselves because nobody else can do what we do. Pretty insane, if you ask me, pretty obvious. And, I mean, you're at this point, you're going to lose your so-called allies even faster than you can count them. Weak leaders will always shuck responsibility

Starting point is 02:13:16 for their actions and blame those around them. He's done it his entire career. Now, in regard to the actual circumstance, 22nd forward, for the most part, on the 22nd, Trump comes out and says, the Moolahs have requested talks for a ceasefire. By the way, the same group that he told you was completely destroyed and there's a different regime change groups.

Starting point is 02:13:36 Oh, yeah, that was a lie. You didn't know that. Now we're back to the other one. But he tried it. He tested that layout to see if you'd buy it. Nobody bought it. So we went back to the other one. Every other second, that's what he's doing.

Starting point is 02:13:45 But the point was the ask for ceasefire and the U.S. said no. Okay. Why? Aren't you the one saying you've won? Are you the one saying you're in control and that you have everything and you've accomplished everything and so why wouldn't you go good let's end it because we're in control we want no okay I mean there's no other way to look at that as we need to pretend we're saying no so we look like we're in control and as saide says fake news Trump's losing the war no of course he could be lying about that

Starting point is 02:14:13 you can go back as long as you want they keep doing this they keep standing by the same points and Trump keeps swirling around them and they keep getting lied I mean it's every other moment here is Trump and this is when a media person asks him him about the reality. That we all see this. We all can see that we're not, you know, like saying, for example, the straight's closed. And we all know that. Even though he's screaming, it's open.

Starting point is 02:14:37 And we know we're winning. Well, you could prove it to yourself right now if you're not a moron. And here's how he reacts. Now look, all these fake journalists in the room working for corporate media aren't real. You have the ones that are being adversarial because of their interest to frame themselves as the Democrats fight in Trump. And maybe they believe that. But at the end of the day, they wouldn't be there doing that if it wasn't something

Starting point is 02:14:57 and they want us to feel what's happening, in my opinion, the larger game. So you can look at it to pushback if you want and side with that. It's about the information, always. And the way you respond to a question, no matter who it comes from, I think is very relevant. President, Mr. President, there are no signs that Iran is ready to stop fighting. So what is the plan? Is the plan to just keep bombing? Mr. President, Mr. President, there are no signs that Iran is ready to stop fighting.

Starting point is 02:15:21 So just really quickly. So she says, there's no signs Iran is willing to stop fighting. You know, evidence by the fact that they've said that repeatedly, that they've continued to fight, are able to close the straight, are bombing locations in response far more than what you're seeing from the other. Okay, like, it's not like you can guess at this. Like there may be plenty more we don't see. Maybe Trump has a masterful plan is about to come to fruition. The point is from an obvious reality, it's the signs do not show any kind of decrease in action.

Starting point is 02:15:51 Here's how he responds to this. It's just very telling. There are no signs that Iran is ready to stop fighting. So what is the plan? Is the plan to just keep buying into the thinking of them? How would you know if there are no signs? What? Do you know something that I don't know?

Starting point is 02:16:04 Well, how would you know there's no signs? You know something I don't know? I mean, my God, that is, that is a insolent child. Like, you realize responding like that as the president of the United States has got to be one of the most basing things. I mean, you're at you, you are insecure to the point to where you're lashing out at somebody why? Because you're not supposed to think that.

Starting point is 02:16:24 You're not supposed to think that. You're not supposed to listen to what I. say, which is we won already. Now let's come back to the war. You know, it's obvious. There's no signs of stopping. They're clearly still fighting. So you could argue, well, that's incorrect. Right? That's incorrect. They're about to lose. That would be somebody who is secure in their position just going, yeah, you're wrong. So next question. Instead, you have to make them, you're dumb and you're wrong and you're a fake news. Nobody likes you and you're ugly. That's the equivalent to what Trump does in this circumstance. And it's very embarrassing. How would you know if there are no signs?

Starting point is 02:16:56 What, you know something that I don't know? Well, they continue to attack our allies. You don't know what the dialogue is behind the scenes that they don't be desperately to try and end it because they're getting decimated. You don't get that when you listen to your fake station. Yeah, fake news. Right. Okay. So the point is that, you know, that you don't get the information.

Starting point is 02:17:19 I've lost what he said. Hold on. Because they're getting decimated. Right, right. So Iran, her point was, well, they're bombing our allies and they're. telling American citizens, which he just brushes right off, doesn't matter, right? And goes on to say, you know, but they're desperate and they're asking us for, show me that.

Starting point is 02:17:35 So they offer a ceasefire and you say no? Like what, how do you even explain this without realizing that this man is spinning out? I don't know. And as Chris says, five months of Iran begging for a deal because he's been saying that. Everyone in Trump's vicinity must go along with the delusion. Doesn't look like anyone who does. I mean, he doesn't, he doesn't like anyone who doesn't, he says. tell me where he's wrong.

Starting point is 02:18:02 Now, on the other side of this, and this is interesting, by the way, Adam is this larger account, I forget, shared a lot of Israel stuff, but he says they want Iran to be another forever war money laundering scheme. Retired U.S. General Rob Spalding just told Fox News that he expects the legal war to last 20 years. Now, the best of my research, I could certainly be wrong. Didn't take too long on this. There was a post going around that framed it that way. But what he said was, we're going to be there a long time.

Starting point is 02:18:28 I did find the original post. I think it was on Instagram. So what I get the sense of is you get people like this that kind of just gravitate to certain points and then use Twitter to get them greach, which is a useful tactic there. My point is, here's the actual interview.

Starting point is 02:18:41 You can watch for yourself. He doesn't say 20 years in there. As best I can tell, unless this was cut off or, you know, I miss something, which is possible. I just find that interesting. The point, though, is he did say this.

Starting point is 02:18:50 He did say, we're going to be there a long time, which is different than what Trump and the rest of them want you to believe. It's a forever war is what it feels like. And it feels like that's probably by design. in some ways. But overall, there's another thing I was thinking about in general. This happens a lot. And I'm not even necessarily saying it's a bad thing, but it's something I want to think about. Like, this is the ecosystem we're in today. You get people like what I do where I spend a long time,

Starting point is 02:19:14 you know, organizing long form thought kind of conversation, you know, four hour shows, three hour shows, like not just going headline breakdown data points, you know, but getting into it, discussing theory and opinions and break, you know, that's, I think is important. And obviously, people will support us, believe that there's more depth than just understanding what they stated and understanding what side they're on, but understanding like the nuance and the history. And, you know, that's why I think James Corbett is the, you know, he's why I do what I do, frankly. And that's, I emulate that in a lot of ways because that's, it's important to truly get academic about it in a lot of ways, you know? But the reason I'm saying that is that, so you have

Starting point is 02:19:50 that, like James Corbett is a perfect example. And what you get then is, you know, so he'll take a long form time, breaking down a certain topic and be way ahead of the story. And then and have somebody on Twitter, for example, who doesn't really have a platform or even a channel, but just has like a, you know, 500,000 followers on Twitter, and then kind of grabs that general idea and uses their own insight and probably AI more so today, but uses their ever to, you know, kind of frame it and break it down in some kind of model that is digestible for a viral thing on Twitter, right? And then that content goes viral and it's a million views and it sort of becomes the focal point on these platforms for that story being broken down,

Starting point is 02:20:28 even though the reality is it wasn't, the work came entirely from someone like Corbett. Now, that's happening every day today. And I'm not even complaining. Frankly, I think at the end of the day, if you're good about like finding ways to manipulate this, and you're doing it in my opinion for what is good information, there's a game out there to be played.

Starting point is 02:20:46 But I want you to think about that as in regard to where this stuff really comes from. And the legwork, I made this effort before, I was making fun of Alex Jones when I said this, but a lot of us are out here doing this. It's an envision like a, you know, a jungle, we're out there with the machete hacking down this really thick part of it. We're getting to looking for something important, you know,

Starting point is 02:21:03 and we find something and we do good at this work to get to there. And then someone like him steps over the top and goes, oh, the thing and yells about it. And that gets the attention. You know, it's like we all see that happening. And, you know, there are probably people that frame me in doing that to them. That's why I do my best effort every day to point to where I find anything, even if it's some, you know, person on Twitter with one follower, because I find that to be important.

Starting point is 02:21:24 Anyway, I didn't need to go into all that. I think I just thought it was an interesting thought that I thought. thought of earlier. There's like a new category of this kind of information relay where you have people who are like a middle ground between like the breaking down deep form information and just some kind of a digestible viral clip or viral post. What I'd love is to have somebody doing that for me every day on everything I do and getting ahead of that, but resources, money. Anyway, I digress. The point back to this is, again, I don't believe he said 20 years unless I missed that, but that this retired general believes we're going to be in Iran for a long time, which contradicts what.

Starting point is 02:21:57 Trump is saying. Now, bringing this into a couple of points about Saudi Arabia and the Houthis, which rather the Ansarala movement, which is what it's really called, Trump says U.S. will hold Iran responsible for Houthi-Ansarala movement attacks on oil tankers targeting in Red Sea. Now, if you remember how long we've been talking about the Bob El Mandeb straight, the Strait of Pramu's, and the importance of that, which is why they're at war with Yemen, to take control of that and they failed. And what's interesting here is that now all of a sudden, not really all of a sudden, but, you know, Ansarala movement, as they call the Houthis, popular movement, consider like Hezbollah, like Hamas, whatever you think about them, largely groups that

Starting point is 02:22:38 rose up in resistance to illegal occupation. Same thing with Saudi Arabia and Yemen, guys, to how this works. So the point here is that they were involved during the Gaza genocide that's still happening, and they stopped effectively a lot that was going to Israel. Now, what did they do? The same thing Iran's doing right now. They basically deterred them. They did, as far as I can tell, and correct me if I'm wrong.

Starting point is 02:22:58 They didn't sink any ships. They didn't kill anybody. They didn't steal anything. Good luck trying to call those pirates. They did effectively deter what was going to help a genocide. Of course, Trump hated that. So did Biden. They hated that.

Starting point is 02:23:11 Now, in the sense of they would be Biden forward in the genocide. My point was this goes well back before the October 7th forward. Trump, Pompeo, were fighting a war against them and, you know, a war. They were starving to death, eating leaf paste. To this very day, they're still struggling because of what the U.S. has been doing to them. This point, though, is that now in the context of Iran's war on Iran, they've stepped up. You really got to give them credit for being one of the groups that truly out of anybody in any circumstance, even though they're, I mean, not the efficient or the

Starting point is 02:23:42 resources they have to bring to the table are pretty minimal. And yet they still stand up in moments when the world should. And now they're standing up and saying, we are going to stop them. Now, Yemen's Houthis, the Ansarala movement, said they have targeted two Saudi oil tankers with drones and missiles for violating their maritime blockade. Now, I find this almost hilarious if it wasn't so disgustingly dark for what they're dealing with. They have, I mean, people don't even probably know this right now. Now again, you're probably going to have somebody put this together in a viral thing and it'll become, I hope so. But you've been hearing us talk about this forever, which is the blockade, the U.S. and Saudi Arabia have been using against Yemen and starving them

Starting point is 02:24:22 for decades. One of the biggest starvation problems in the world forever. I mean, now Gaza, I think, is leaving the charge. But the point is that these people were being blockaded because they wanted their people in charge, which was the guy Hadi, who lives in Saudi Arabia in Riyadh, last I checked, who was supposed to be the president of Yemen, but Yemenis people didn't want that. They sided with the movement to support of their actual independence. And so they tried to starve them to death.

Starting point is 02:24:47 It didn't work. Now, you can show on the map that the U.S. is like little ISIS pockets all throughout their control. territory in Yemen that never moved, in fact, grew within their area. And so my point would be that now you have the Ansarala movement deciding to blockade them back. And now they're terrorists, right? But wait a minute, they're doing the same thing that you did to them and now their terrorist.

Starting point is 02:25:07 It's funny how that works out. But so now you have Saudi Arabia getting attacked for them trying to violate the other side of it. They can truly, if they can hold this, completely shut down all of this, which will hurt the whole world, but it'll be because of the United States government and their illegal war and Israel. who's to say whether this works against them or not. It's hard to say.

Starting point is 02:25:27 Oh, and then in a true social post, here's what Trump put out. And this is just embarrassing, too. This was today. A year ago, the United States, America of America, attacked very powerfully the Houthis for their interference with commerce and trade. Oh, you mean when they try to stop the ships helping the genocide that nobody in the world cared to try to stop and then completely beat you? This was what actually happened by shooting at ships.

Starting point is 02:25:51 Yeah, you left out what they were doing that for. they told you they were doing and they didn't fire, sink, steal, or kill, did they? They just deterred. Look it up. And this is how, and since that time and during our conflict with Iran, they've acted very responsibly. This guy, this guy lives in a fantasy land. Again, I don't know whether he's being misinformed or he's just bad at lying these days.

Starting point is 02:26:11 The reality was obvious that the Ansarola movement completely shut that down for a large period of time until they found other ways around it and so on. But at the end of the day, they didn't just bomb them until they stopped. they just weren't able to effectively stop what they were doing. And now clearly because they're still there and they didn't get stopped, now they're able to do it on the other side as well. And your argument is that they interferes the commerce and trade by shooting at ships. And so we have to stop them because they were,

Starting point is 02:26:36 and what do you mean acting responsibly during this time? You're talking about a group that you've called terrorists every single day you've talked about them, Biden, Trump, anybody, because you support the other power. Houthis in their minds the same as Hesbola. And now they've acted responsibly. this guy is just spinning out. Unfortunately, now they are starting up again, okay? Shooting at two Saudi shifts.

Starting point is 02:26:57 Please let this truth serve as to represent that if they do this again, they already are, the U.S. will hold Iran responsible. Okay, that's the game. So we're just going to go, well, we're going to blame Iran for what they're, well, good. That's what they want. I mean, this isn't the game you think it is anymore, Trump. That's what I'm laughing about. You think Iran, you can yell and lie all you want.

Starting point is 02:27:19 I'm going to bet you anything. They're coordinating with them to make this happen. And that's because they're shutting down your absolutely, like, on the record illegal war that everyone in the world can acknowledge as such, that your own statements have retroactively proven you were doing illegally. And it says, and the Houthis are a surrogate or proxy of Iran. Well, that's the lazy game they keep proving, guys, or, you know, anywhere, has below. I mean, you pit you even outside of this location, but it was a lot of,

Starting point is 02:27:49 always Hamas, Hezbollah. They want to pretend these are surrogates or proxies. We'll know what they are as allies. And on top of that, if you want to make it their proxies, well, they have some of the, like, look at what they're talking about. Look at the Houthis, the Ansarola movement, firing and not sinking and not stealing. And you want to call them terrorists. Well, you're out there bombing fishing boats and murdering people in the sea. I mean, look anywhere you want to, like, I don't even think I need to go through this for most people. We're so far past even pretending this government is anything other than what it is obviously doing in the world. Bad. But that's where he is.

Starting point is 02:28:23 They're going to use it to go after Iran while they're losing. Now, on top of that, this just makes it even more hypocritical. Trump's, and this is what Reza points out, that Trump has admitted that Iran's nuclear program was, in fact, for non-military use, which we already know, and we know that they ultimately know that. Here's what he posted. The civil nuclear deal, and he goes, there will be no enrichment of material, or no enrichment material.

Starting point is 02:28:46 We will touch on that. But the deal being made, if you would have heard of this, with the United States, and Saudi Arabia. So while they're stressing that Iran can't have a nuclear program, even civilian, even though Trump kind of waffled on that with the missiles too, he now makes a deal with Saudi Arabia and says that we will allow you to have enrichment, but only civilian, or rather not enrichment, but a civilian nuclear program, but not an only civilian. And it says, which pertains only to non-military use. But then goes on to say, such as the ones that Iran and UAE already have.

Starting point is 02:29:21 So the argument then is they have a civilian one. We know that and you'd admitted that. But if you're going to argue what you've been fighting is that there's a secret military one, even though you obliterated it in one sense. The International Atomic Energy Agency has been routinely verifying it doesn't exist. Tulsi Gabbard told us it never existed. You know, end of the day, you could only keep pretending that for so long. And he just, I don't know why admits that, probably because he doesn't realize what he just said.

Starting point is 02:29:45 And it says, we'll be approved, but is totally subject to Saudi Arabia. joining the Abraham Accords. Great. So apparently no matter what Trump does, it's for Israel. Because now you're going to make a deal that makes you look hypocritical with Saudi Arabia, which is an Islamic, I mean, authoritarian country. Like, that's what's crazy. The idea of them telling you, no matter whether Sunni or Shia, well, if you haven't understood

Starting point is 02:30:09 this by now, Saudi Arabia is predominantly Sunni. What you can easily look up, I was even going to do a segment on it, but I decided not to. You can find this anywhere you want to look. The vast majority is clearly Sunni. Now that is the base for all, their Wahhabi Sunnis, which is with the family, the Saud family. That's connection to basically every level of terrorism. We know there's ISIS, Al-Qaeda.

Starting point is 02:30:30 And yet they're not the one we focus on. And even though, of course, the overlap with 9-11, even though it's not really what actually happened in regard to what it really started from, the point, though, is that you're going to then aim Iran, try to make 9-11 about Iran, try to make them a leading state sponsor of terrorism, when everything connects back to all of you,

Starting point is 02:30:45 including the U.S. and Israel, you're funding, you're arming, you're working with your Mossad elements. And this stuff is like surface level, guys. And it's so easy. But don't get back to the point. We're going to take a authoritarian group that still cuts people's heads and hands off, and we're going to give them a civilian program with the capability. I mean, bottom line, not even go further.

Starting point is 02:31:05 A program that we tell you that Iran's not allowed to have. And then we'll say you can only have that one, though, if you normalize with Israel. I just think this is embarrassing for everybody. he said there was never any justification for this war of aggression i agree now what they're offering them which i found very interesting guys but that's why trump said no enrichment because as far as i understood you needed some small amount of enrichment even for civilian now 90% of the time like by and large that seems to be the case there's something called a can do i believe it's a canadian um i forget i forget it now i just i didn't want to do too much deep on it it's it's the can do versus the normal

Starting point is 02:31:44 the white light water reactors, which is what most people use. Now, the light water reactors, even for civilian, need a small level. That was the 3.75 or Iran, you know, two point, whatever it was. That's the minimal needed for that idea. Now, Trump's saying we're going to give Saudi Arabia one, which is the can do, which they don't need enrichment, I find interesting. And this is not super new, but it's not like, these aren't like, bottom line is most people still use the light water reactors.

Starting point is 02:32:11 Can you guess what the two things? That's what this graph is, that are. lower what they can do versus a which is c a and d u versus the one they currently use well it looks like they've got benefits in almost every category except where it comes to power and cost you got to love that so the can do is gives you less power and cost more and they're going to shove these and all the people that you are see under you do you not see the problem there now look you can do you can argue that it shouldn't exist in the first place and i'd even agree with you the point is that all these powers clearly still lean into nuclear power for military performance

Starting point is 02:32:44 purposes and then force everybody around them to not. That's obvious, guys. The reality is from a legal sense that not even Saudi Arabia can be forced into this. Every country in the world has the legal right to deal with this however they see fit. That's the reality. Now, every single year comes up where the, I think it's Iran. Bottom line is Iran is involved every almost, I mean frequently, routinely, bringing up a petition to make a nuclear free Middle East.

Starting point is 02:33:11 And can you imagine what happens every time? I'm not making this up either. You can look it up. Every single time, Israel says no. And then the U.S. supports that and says no. And every other country was in agreement. Now, as I say every time, you can say they're lying, but they're not.

Starting point is 02:33:25 You can prove it. And the truth is that they want that to happen. Israel makes it not happen every single time. So this is just a step from that. But I just want to point out, one, the hypocrisy of letting Saudi Arabia do this with the comparison, which is insane, and then realize that you're forcing them

Starting point is 02:33:39 to get something that actually produces less power and costs more. but overall, I just think it's a ploy, quite frankly. It comes down to this, joining Israel. Can you imagine him doing that with everything that's happening? You know, the bridge right on the surface. You will give you what you want as long as you do what Israel wants. That's the world, guys.

Starting point is 02:34:01 Now, Wall Street Journal, President Trump has formally approved a landmark agreement with Saudi Arabia that will provide a country with a civilian nuclear program and potentially open the doors to Iranian enrichment. Now, I bet you that's where it goes. even though he's saying that, I'm willing to bet you. He's saying that now to alleviate the pressure from the hypocrisy. I argue.

Starting point is 02:34:18 I'm willing to bet you that's not what's going to happen. We'll find out. Dave DeKamp, when a country, Iran, has that much oil, it doesn't need nuclear enrichment at all. Trump said the day after launching the war with Iran. So if Saudi Arabia ends up with it, it'll be one more example of hypocrisy. Now, to finish,

Starting point is 02:34:41 today. This might take longer. I mean, it might probably have another hour or more to get into this, but I find this to be really, really interesting. Complete new, new, well, actually before we even jump into it, we're going to get into this entirely. I think it's a really alarming topic and we're going to, you know, probably go long today. But just, you know, with all of that, I mean, you guys tell me what you think. I mean, you know why I do this. And I do this mostly to reach people that don't know what's happening. Even though I, to some degree that may sort of box out, you know, like there are people that are doing with, you're here with the show every single time.

Starting point is 02:35:17 And for that very reason, some of this can be redundant, you know, where we go through the same thing or show the videos. But I like to believe that you understand why I do it because you're with me in this practice, right? You're here with me helping us reach people that need to see it because that's what our job is, right?

Starting point is 02:35:30 All of us together. And so it's like, you know, I guess the question is, or just a thought, you know, with Iran and all of this. Like,

Starting point is 02:35:36 is it even necessary to keep going through this. This is something I've been thinking about over the last week. Because it's like, you just, I get so, like just so kind of exhausted by the cycle of this. Like with just taking Ron alone, this going on this long makes this almost clearly a tactic to some degree,

Starting point is 02:35:55 even if it's a retroactive sort of like, or rather a reactive tactic that it wasn't to begin with, but now it's become that because you don't know what else to do. My point would be that it's like, let's say it went on for two weeks. It's very much important to highlight the process of that, how it went there. But now that it's been months, it's like you didn't need to hear the bow round you know he said this and they're wrong and it's a lie over

Starting point is 02:36:15 i mean we do it's important to actually know it but you know you if you're not tuned into the show constantly you stand back week to week and it's like the same repetitive thing i kind of think that might be the point but you tell me what you guys think you know because i i mean i'm going to do what i think is important as you know is i that's what drives this not what the audience wants but i care what you guys think and wonder whether you think that this is taking up too much time or whatever it is. Let me know what you think. Because I really do think it's important for C. Well, once this gets to some kind of culmination or whatever, it'll be much more clear looking back. But let's get into this because, man, I'll tell you this, this conversation is where I think the future,

Starting point is 02:36:55 like with Iran and all that, we're talking about kinetic warfare, which I don't think ever goes away. But we're going into a world that we all see building that goes beyond a lot of that. And I think this is something, this is a building stage of one part of what we're, We're always discussing the control grid, the technocratic change that's happening in this world. Now, Steve is the one who brought this to my attention on Slow Newsday. And if you guys watch that A& Wakeup show, I said on the show, like, I'm going to have to go into this. I'm going to have to go through this and understand what this is really about. Now, Steve is framing it as sort of like the, you know, X-Men kind of a point, like using this, as they call direct evolution, to rapidly increase the amount of the evolution, specifically of these pathogens.

Starting point is 02:37:39 and what that relates to. And so I looked into this deeper. And what I found is that I feel like this is potentially the next stage, the next kind of, you know, break off to the gain of function direction. At the very least, like you can even look at it like if that's something they're not doing that this is just the next best thing or however you look at it. My point in all this is this is something that can be abused. So with what we know has happened and what we all seem to be concerned about when it comes

Starting point is 02:38:06 to gain a function, is this something we should be calling out as well? If not the same thing. So we'll start with this video. This is the one Steve played on the show. And this is, how do you say that? Three Drake Nea saying, do you ever, do you want a real-life F-E-V? And it says the LIDIC selection and evolution platform, or just, I think it's just, what was it again? It's L-Y-S-E.

Starting point is 02:38:32 Is how you get a real-life F-E-V virus and super mutants. Now that's how they frame it. Say for yourself. Here's just the first clip. We'll start with that. And then we'll go into the actual documents, the science, the, you know, full picture. And then connect it with where I think this potentially goes in regard to a DARPA program that can track something like this within your body.

Starting point is 02:38:53 Scientists have designed a virus that makes an organism evolve more quickly. Scientists have designed a virus that makes an organism evolve more quickly. This virus causes the organism to mutate 160,000 times quicker. than what it should do. And I'm not joking. Evolution normally depends on random mutations, and if those random mutations are beneficial, it gives the organism a survival advantage. But the rate of mutation is often slow, and hence evolution is slow. And scientists wanted to speed up this process by a lot. And here's how they did it. They infected bacteria with a designed virus, and the virus was designed to cause rapid

Starting point is 02:39:35 mutation of the DNA in the bacteria. After the virus has rapidly mutated the DNA, the virus then bursts out of the cell taking with it the mutant DNA. The virus that burst out of the host cell can then infect other bacteria. And those newly infected bacteria now also contain the mutant DNA. If the mutant DNA contains a survival advantage, then those infected bacteria will thrive. And this allows the bacteria to evolve at a rate much, much faster. faster than they would in the wild. And what they saw as a consequence of this was really insane. After just five cycles, they evolved bacteria that had the ability to cope with 25 times

Starting point is 02:40:17 the amount of a specific antibiotic. But it's not all fear. We can actually do something incredibly useful with this technology. The scientists were also able to evolve bacteria that got better at feeding off the breakdown products of plastic. Showing the ability to control evolution allows us. to evolve organisms with incredibly useful functions. And now this technology is out there, I wonder what we should evolve them to do next.

Starting point is 02:40:48 Interesting. So, you know, it's framed as obviously sort of, you know, potential, right? But let's get into this more in depth. Because, you know, obviously, just by the quick look at this itself, it sounds like gain of function, right? But there's a different practice to all this than I think is very, very, just as a lot. in my opinion. So here's the actual study. At least this is the study that this is discussing in this. Now, this bridging continuous and discrete evolution through a controllable hypermugetic

Starting point is 02:41:25 phage phage bacteria system. Now, this is the main point right there. Now, it's like, what's interesting before we get into it, a couple notes. During the COVID-19 conversation, you know, there was the terrain theory conversation that came up. And it's important. I think it's a valid conversation to have. I think that neither is really, in my opinion, germ theory, train theory really, I think there's parts that aren't, like this is my,

Starting point is 02:41:50 this is exactly the point that I always made. And I got a lot of this pushback from people in the community about the, you know, about worrying, like basically my point was, just cut to the chase. That many of them believe that bacteria exists, even if they believe virus is not.

Starting point is 02:42:06 Now that, even within that community, they're divided on that. My point would be if there is bacteria, which many of them argue, then that means the bacteria can infect you. It can cause symptoms. It can spread.

Starting point is 02:42:19 In certain cases, it very much can. You can look it up. And that's one of these things we're going to discuss today. So that would mean then that it becomes a moot point. If you're saying the virus doesn't exist, but you have something you agree does exist that can meet the same exact outcome and perception. You know, so that's an important thing to think about. And that's a point that I always threw out there. In this case, now we're talking about something that is using an overlap of the two.

Starting point is 02:42:41 and I think this becomes very interesting in how this may be going forward, especially if people are now sort of like disregarding all of this. Now it says here we engineered a method called LIDIC selection and evolution, LYSE, for a near continuous evolution of bacterial gene clusters. This is just a couple extra points from the actual study. Read the whole thing, it's interesting. Directed evolution enables discovery of new protein variants, which in and of itself right there can overlap with plenty of things we've talked about,

Starting point is 02:43:14 and is an indispensable tool for bioengineering. This is where it's all going. Classical directed evolution platforms based on discrete cycles of mutagenesis, selection and amplification have produced remarkable success across diverse applications. The feange-assisted continuous evolution. Now, PACE was the precursor to the LYSE. And there's a couple of other ones, too. sort of the same kind of process.

Starting point is 02:43:41 Just remember that because that's what comes into play. And I'll point the other ones out as we go through. They're probably right here. A couple other terms in general as well. I think G-I is a gene of interest. You'll see it come up in the document. But the point is just to realize that a fange-assisted continuous evolution pace is the same thing we're doing here.

Starting point is 02:43:59 And this one's called L-Y-S-E. Now, basically you're taking a fange or this bacterial process to create something that will then be able to rapidly evolve. And the sense of, as we'll get into, have some kind of a benefit. Dual use, as you'll find. LYSE combines continuous evolution with discrete evolution cycles, enabling directed evolution of large gene clusters,

Starting point is 02:44:22 while maintaining stringent controls of remutational trajectories. I mean, the idea that you're even rapidly driving evolution of something that could be dangerous feels pretty crazy to me. But as always, just like with gain of function, it's like, well, the benefits outweigh the risk. Well, clearly that wasn't true. and I don't think it, I think that wasn't even something that even cared was true.

Starting point is 02:44:43 I think that was it largely. So that was the main study. It'll be in there for you. Now, one thing before we get back in, you know, get into the meat of this, that I found very relevant to this. Now, this is what came into my mind, not before, but after I went through all this.

Starting point is 02:45:04 So I went through all the information and I was like, you know what this completely rings true? This pies back for me to something that was happening. And the way they framed this in their document about gain a function. Now, you'll see it as we go through, but I wanted to start with it for a reason. So this was the show we did on May 9, 2025. Gain a function head fake. Because what they did was exactly that. They pretended, like with the vaccine conversation and said, no more COVID shots, except for the ones we're still making. You know, like just lied to people and people bought it. Like, for example, here was even Children's Health

Starting point is 02:45:35 Defense, even though they had been very critical on events came out. They said, President Trump has gained a function. Research in the U.S. That's not even remotely what actually happened. except yes that's not what happened and here oh i forgot this was the link i included let's see what he said oh that's weird but it says executive order includes provisions that allow gain of function research to continue under strict or oversight that's exactly what i found as well when this first came out here is the document now let me show you in now even the title itself i remember laughing about this when it came out so that the document that says that we're ending gain of function is titled improving the safety and security of biological research.

Starting point is 02:46:17 That's not ending the research. That's improving the reason. Okay. So right out of the gate. But you could argue that means improving the safety by stopping gain of function. People will work it into whatever they want. But let's read it, as we always should. Like the document that said they were ending COVID shots in that very document that made

Starting point is 02:46:33 clear that they were not ending COVID shots. Dangerous gain of function research. Now, one thing I made clear that when they list this in any context, they call it dangerous gain of function. Not because they want you to believe it's dangerous, but because they're carving out certain kinds as it's clear in this. The dangerous gain of function has to stop. The ones we feel are safe, we're going to continue. That's the message from this, and you'll see. Dangerous gain of function research on biological agents and pathogens has the potential to significantly endanger the lives of American citizens, if left unrestricted. That's unrestricted. Wait, that's not,

Starting point is 02:47:09 So there's canceled, there's ended, and then there's restricted. So if you're, if left unrestricted, the implication is it's going to be restricted, not ended. The whole thing is like this, and it's very clear if you're not just choosing to hear what you want to hear. Right. And that's just, these again, it states in there, not just that point, but that's clear in and of itself, in my opinion. But yes, I agree.

Starting point is 02:47:32 It's very dangerous. And it shouldn't exist in any form, in my opinion. Now it says the Biden administration, allow dangerous gain of function research. So did you. Very clearly, so did Obama. Like this is that game they always play. So you're supposed to pretend only Biden? No, Trump's first administration absolutely increased this, absolutely did it even though they wasn't supposed to,

Starting point is 02:47:51 just like Obama. And so did Biden. So it's lazy of them and they just hope you're that stupid. That's what our government thinks. Biden allowed dangerous gain of function research within the United States with insufficient levels of oversight. Whoa, okay. So there's a type of that that is okay with sufficient levels of oversight.

Starting point is 02:48:08 The implication is clear throughout this whole thing. It also actively approved through the National Institutes of Health, federal life science research funding in China. So did Donald Trump, guys. Ine provable, I mean, examples that I've made going through all of the COVID-19 conversation. As I made the case, even during his first administration, that you can look and prove they were still doing, when they canceled the Wuhan lab, there was multiple examples of the same research happening in China.

Starting point is 02:48:33 Either Trump didn't care, didn't know, or you fill in the blank. Now, it says my administration will balance. the prevention, balance, not ending, but balance the prevention of catastrophic consequences with maintaining readiness against biological threats. Both those things mean gain of function research. So we're going to balance our need for gain of function research with our need for gain of function research. And driving global leadership in biotechnology. Oh, so now you're going to become the leader in that category. Biological countermeasures biosecurity and health research. Guys, that's exactly that category. That's what they're talking about. And it goes

Starting point is 02:49:08 on to say, shall establish guidance for the heads of relevant agencies to extend, to the extent, consistent with the terms and conditions of the funding to immediately end federal funding of dangerous gain-of-function research conducted by foreign entities and countries of concern. So first, just people outside of our country who are conducting dangerous versions of this that we don't, it says, or in other countries where there is not adequate oversight. So the implication is clear. In a country that we agree with that's adequately with adequate oversight, then we don't have an issue. I mean, this is just basic reality.

Starting point is 02:49:50 It's logic, guys. There's an implication either way you look at it. And it says occurring in countries of concern or foreign countries where there is not adequate oversight. Same point. Shall establish guidance for the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the heads of other relevant agencies. with respect to suspension of federally funded dangerous gain of function research. You wouldn't put it like that if you didn't mean to separate it from other versions. Now, it says pursuant to the terms and conditions of the relevant research funding,

Starting point is 02:50:18 at least until the completion of the policy called for in Section 4, you're creating caveats everywhere. This is only about stopping certain kinds and certain groups and certain places in certain ways. And at least until this is played clearly defined the scope of covered research while ensuring the United States remains the global leader in biotechnology, biological countermeasures, that's gain of function, and health research. This is the whole point. Anybody who understands this knows that the biological countermeasures conversation is about creating things before we're there.

Starting point is 02:50:54 That's a lie that they're somehow going to be able to predict to the billionth possibility of what will be the thing that happens tomorrow and you'll make a dangerous thing and make a vaccine for it. that's called weapons research guys ensure compliance with all federal policies governing dangerous gain of function research ensure compliance with all federal policies governing not ending the research in gain of function to ensure it takes a common sense approach and effectively encourages providers to minimize the risks of misuse see it's easy to read when you remove all the internal of you know and the caveat the point the sentence is clear read it for yourself. This is all.

Starting point is 02:51:34 The framework is to ensure it takes a common sense approach and effectively encourages providers of the things they list off, which is this conversation, to minimize the risk of misuse, not end it, shall develop and implement a strategy to govern, limit, and track

Starting point is 02:51:49 dangerous gain of function research across the United States that occurs without federal funding. So now you've created an opening where you're allowing, but limiting and tracking the gain of function that's done by who, by whom,

Starting point is 02:52:07 the people who are privately funded. You can fill in that blank, guys. Now, guess what? They're doing this stuff in Prospera. They're doing this stuff in C-steading, you know, network state locations around the world. Now, what he's also saying is what if they're just doing it? You know, I don't want to use a buzzword, you know,

Starting point is 02:52:24 what's a good example like a, you know, Palantir, but it's not the best example for this. Like a group that is focused on biotechnology. Like you could just take any one of these alarming, groups that they work with, that is not a foreign country, that they argue is doing what they want, and all they're saying is we're going to implement a strategy to govern control, limit, and track, but allow in the United States people doing it without federal funding and other life science research that could cause significant consequences. So if you have other life science

Starting point is 02:52:57 research that could cause significant consequences in the United States, all you're saying is you will implement a strategy to govern, limit, and track that. Not end it. I mean, I don't know how anybody could have read this and actually believe they're ending this stuff. Includes a mechanism whereby research institutions that receive federal funding. So we covered the part where they're not receiving federal funding. Now, this includes a mechanism whereby research institutions that receive federal funding must report dangerous gain of function research.

Starting point is 02:53:29 And to the maximum extent permitted by law, include research that is supported by non-federal funding mechanisms. I mean, that doesn't seem to suggest anything other than pointing it out. This report shall be conducted in a way that does not compromise. This last, this sentence just opens the door to whatever they want. This reporting shall not be conducted in a way that does not compromise national security. Does he not first? This reporting shall be conducted in a way that does not compromise national security or

Starting point is 02:53:58 legitimate intellectual property interest of subject into institutions. Great. So now there's all sorts of caveats and holes. Well, if it compromises the intellectual property of the institution, well, then we can't do it. Sorry, you just have to let your children die. You can pretend to make it too much of this if you want. I think it's obvious that they're still doing this and in a way that does not compromise national security. So all that means is they can rationalize that the dangerous thing is okay for national security. And this thing allows it. It says that it does not operate, participate, in or fund any dangerous gain of function research. The counterparty recipient to certify. So, I mean, the end of the day, all of this does is create the opening for them to do it in certain ways. And that's what anybody can read from this, that they actually, you read through it entirely, it's even more clear.

Starting point is 02:54:49 So let's go back to this point. So keeping this in mind that not only do they allow themselves an opening for this direction without knowing exactly what direction that would take, let's consider that through this lens. So this is the same conversation of the study we pointed to, the clip we opened with. May 5th, 2026. A virus that kills bacteria in 17 minutes is being used to hack evolution. Lab engineered virus, well, we're already on the, okay, we're there.

Starting point is 02:55:18 We're already there, by the way, derives bacterial evolution 160,000 times faster than normal. Yeah, sure seems normal and safe to me. I'm sure we can totally predict what 160,000 times faster evolution can do to a virus or bacteria. No big deal. Researchers at the National University of Singapore engineered a bacteria-killing virus into a precision mutation machine that can evolve bacterial genes in roughly a day called lice, L-Y-S-E, or L-C-E. in lab tests, Lice, I'll say Lice, just so it's not confusing. Lice evolved 25 times greater antibiotic tolerance in just five cycles.

Starting point is 02:56:09 So right there, my point is, okay, in the logic of how this has always worked, just as easily as it can create greater tolerance, it could create something more negative. That is the basic reality of how these dual-use things work. guys. Unlike most competing platforms, LISC requires only, and this is alarming to me, only requires basic lab equipment and could eventually help scientists engineer bacteria for applications ranging from studying drug resistance to processing plastic link compounds or, you know, fill in the blank with whatever negative thing that could possibly do with it.

Starting point is 02:56:41 So the point would be that you're creating, so you're going dangerous gain of function and we can't allow it, but you're creating something I believe or have already that can be done with basic lab equipment that could become dangerous, the whole world. Consider that. A virus that kills bacteria in 17 minutes is now being used to speed up evolution itself. No big deal, right? Small things turned a bacteria infected virus, infecting virus into a turbocharged mutation engine. Lytic selection and evolution.

Starting point is 02:57:14 Lysi. At its core, the system exploits bacteriophage T7, a tiny virus that naturally hunt. E. coli bacteria, copies itself inside the E. coli cell and bursts out in about 17 minutes. Releasing roughly 180 new viral particles in the process. How was that not potentially dangerous? Like you want, okay, in a lab, fine, because it's never been an issue where something can get out of a lab, right, guys? But all we're talking about is the idea of creating the unknown reaction. Now, their argument within this is that they are controlled. controlling the way that it changes.

Starting point is 02:57:56 I guess we just have to accept that at face value. But even then, why is it not possible for one of these people to do it for military purposes and make something that actually is bad or dangerous and control it that way? I mean, I don't need to sell you guys on this. I think it's pretty obvious already, but we're going to get into it more. My point is that I don't want to, we shouldn't assume that's what this is either, though, but all I'm highlighting is the possibility for the same misuse. researchers rewired T7's DNA, DNA copying machinery, to make deliberate targeted errors at extraordinarily high rates.

Starting point is 02:58:30 I could also see a world in which this could be done to somebody, it sounds like, and that would be pretty alarming. That's kind of what Steve was hypothesizing about, about how it could be used to cause rapid evolution in humans or even other things or even a small scale that could lead to something larger. But on top of that, I can see a way in which this could cause death. Maybe I'm wrong. my mind seems to make sense of it, flooding specific genes with copying mistakes. For decades, scientists have used a process called directed evolution. Why? To engineer proteins and biological pathways.

Starting point is 02:59:03 In the classic approach, researchers manually introduced random mutations into a gene, test into a gene, test which versions perform best, and then repeat the cycle. E. coli cultures and other experimental materials used in the study. Early variance reached mutation rates roughly 70 times higher than the normal enzyme. From there, the team displayed or disabled, excuse me, the enzyme's air-catching function entirely and fused it to a protein that chemically alters DNA letters as they are being copied. One intermediate version called V8 reached a mutation rate approximately 160,000 times higher than the baseline rate seen in the host of E. coli. Right. Take something that can kill people and let's just rapidly evolve it is 160,000 times faster.

Starting point is 03:00:00 A refined final version V9 had a somewhat lower but still very high mutation rate while maintaining better viral packaging efficiency, making it the better practical choice for running. Lysi campaigns. In a second test, the team evolved a five-gene pathway that allows E. coli to use ethylene glycol. Not the same as polyethylene glycol, but interesting that it comes back up. We're talking about plastics and stuff. After five Licey cycles, the best-performing bacterial strains showed a 50.9% increase in final cell density compared to the starting version, according to the study published in nature microbiology, links right there. Licee requires nothing beyond standard lab tools, right bets, culture tubes,

Starting point is 03:00:45 incubator, opening the door to evolving multi-gene pathways that have long been out of reach for rapid, directed evolution. I don't know about you, but that sounds pretty crazy to me, but let's go in a little deeper.

Starting point is 03:00:58 Here is a, this is from the Institute for RNA-based infection research. Fange research hacked. So that's exactly what this is. Okay, this is September 10th, 2025. This is when it first became

Starting point is 03:01:12 this was possible, at least as I understand it. It says, bacterial fanges, what we're discussing, or fanges for short, are viruses that infect bacteria. Using fanges, so a virus, therapeutically, using fanges therapeutically, like you're talking about here, could be very useful in fighting antibiotic-resistant pathogens. But the molecular interactions between fanges and host bacteria are not yet sufficiently understood. So if you want to believe that in less than a year, a little more than a year, they could sufficiently understand this new process,

Starting point is 03:01:48 well, good for you. I don't. Especially since it doesn't seem they even care. That's where this image came from, by the way, since we're dealing with this, Fange research hacked. So it is July 2026, and they're doing it.

Starting point is 03:02:02 Like in ways that can affect the human species, is the way I understand this. February 2021, Fange-assisted continuous and non-continuous evolution. So let's get into a couple studies, peer-reviewed, that highlight why this could potentially be a problem. Which you're not going to hear. I mean, outside of this kind of platform,

Starting point is 03:02:21 or even, you're going to hear the mainstream background. Abstract, directed evolution, which applies the principles of Darwinian evolution to a laboratory setting. Cool. Sounds great. Is a powerful strategy for generating biomolecules, with diverse and tailored properties. This technique can be implemented in a highly efficient manner

Starting point is 03:02:42 using continuous evolution, which enables the steps of directed evolution to proceed seamlessly over many successive generations with minimal research or intervention. So even then, just being like a continuous process post just one cycle. And it says, Fange-assisted continuous evolution.

Starting point is 03:03:00 That was the pace, right? That was before the Lycee, enables continuous directed evolution in bacteria, by mapping the steps of Darwinian evolution into the bacterial phange life cycle and allows direct evolution to occur on much faster timescales compared to conventional methods. This protocol provides detailed instruction on evolving proteins using PACE, you know, and consider that in the context of, you know, the spike protein, other points of this, and Fange assisted non-continuous evolution or pants, which is one of the others.

Starting point is 03:03:33 So getting into the concerns in some of these, or is this the one? Oh, no, okay, that's just the abstract on that. Overlapping the different groups, the different kinds. Next one. This is 2020, 2021 in October. Integrating evolutionary aspects into dual-use discussion. The cases of influenza virus and enter-o-hemorrhagic echolic. Now, it says under the abstract, such dual-use risk in this case is potentially high for highly patho-pathy.

Starting point is 03:04:09 genetic microbes, or genic microbes, such as risk group three, bacteria and R4G viruses. That's the category we're talking about, which could be used in bioterrorism attacks. However, oh, excuse me, it was RG2. Excuse me, I take it back. This is the group we're talking about. Basically, it's there. It's a category scale of the potential risk use or just general reality of these different varying pathogens, which are not just viruses.

Starting point is 03:04:34 Now, it says the other pathogens such as influenza virus or E. coli usually classify as RG2 pathogens also demonstrate high dual-use risk. So the first point is highlighting E. coli itself is highly risky in the way that it's being used. Now, introduction, it says findings in pathogen research, there's a space issue when I highlighted, so just know that like that says right there in pathogen. in the spaces there for the normal version. Findings in pathogen research run the risk of being misused to harm humans, the environment or the society at large. This dual-use dilemma depicts the double applicability of scientific findings for good or for harm. It includes any technological development or research that can be misused to cause harm.

Starting point is 03:05:24 With regard to life sciences, dual-use research of concern denotes research that is intended for benefit, but which might easily be misapplied to cause harm. Now, under evolutionary aspects of the dual-use discussion, talking about exactly this. The dual-use discussion on infection research currently revolves around gain of function mutations and directed engineering of pathogenic microbes. That, ladies and gentlemen, is exactly what these things are.

Starting point is 03:05:56 While evidence suggests that the products and outcomes arising from experimental and clinical evolution, that is, R&Ps, are closely comparable. Therefore, the naturally experimentally evolved pathogen, sorry, that's pasting again, evolved pathogens space may have equivalent pathogenicity and thereby comparable dual-use potential. And the experimentally evolved microbes, what we're talking about, might be generated through either mutational experiments or directed engineering at direct and evolution point. So here's the first example I found where they're saying, yeah, these are comparable when it come to the use of the potential risk, rather, of dual-y-old technology, which this includes.

Starting point is 03:06:45 Now, the question is, is that something that's been chosen for that reason to sidestep what we see as gain a function? Or is it just something that, you know, is it not even relevant to them? minutes, it's about achieving the goal in the moment. I don't know. Next article. Let me sure I'm missing anything. Hold on.

Starting point is 03:07:05 Okay, good. So next one, and this is where it gets even more interesting. This one is an article from a, one of the groups involved with this research, and they have to put out what's called human practice is basically an outline of the kind of different directions and values of what they're doing. And so what you'll find in this is a breakdown of the ethics of this actual practice from people in involved in it. Oh, I was there. I forgot. Damn it, hold on. Not that it matters for you guys. The screen will change for you, but I have to move this out just a bit. There we go. So, bioethics of directed evolution. That's specifically what we're talking about. The primary goal of directed evolution, whether conducted in your body or in the lab, is to create novel gene sequences

Starting point is 03:07:50 with previously unforeseen functions. How was that not gain a function? This powerful technique enables the design of new proteins and enzymes that could have a wide range of applications, from industrial processes to environmental solutions. That's what they were just saying about the plastic side of it. However, as with any technology that manipulates genetic material, directed evolution comes with inherent risks. One must remain mindful of the potential for unintended consequences or even misuse of these newly evolved genes. A critical concern surrounding directed evolution lies in its versatility. Under the right selective pressures,

Starting point is 03:08:28 it is possible to engineer proteins or genes for almost any desired function, regardless of their original purpose. That just gets into this weird, kind of the ferret nanoparticle stuff. Like the idea, I mean, here's actually, funny enough, on this exact point, I think that's the one.

Starting point is 03:08:53 And that's exactly what I'm always talking about. Yeah, gain of function's newest brain virus. This is when they were making that, of course, in 2024. and genetically engineered proteins to control everything. That was the design is the point. They're working to make these things that can be done, like fill in the blank. Like, we'll engineer it and it can be used to, you know,

Starting point is 03:09:11 then from that point forward can, you know, we can make it make you sleepy or make it make you hungry, you know, whatever, fill in the blank with something that can cause, you know, an action, a control, an outcome. So in this case, that's what they're saying, that with these concern around this kind of work is that under the right, selective pressures, it's possible to engineer proteins or genes for all,

Starting point is 03:09:29 almost any function. It's insane, regardless of its original purpose. This transformative potential underscores the need for stringent ethical guidelines and regulatory frameworks to ensure that these powerful technologies are applied responsibly and do not serve harmful purposes. Directed evolution on a protein that has pathogenic or toxic siblings, you know, like E. coli, for example, might potentially lead to variants with such properties. Surprising, right? Shocking. Examples can be found in the literature where feing-assisted, continuous evolution revealed hepatitis C virus drug resistance mutations Dickinson et al-2014. Right here.

Starting point is 03:10:11 A system for the continuous directed evolution of protase rapidly reveals drug-resistance mutating. So the point is not just drug-resistant stuff, but that you can have unforeseen consequences with exactly what they're doing, specifically with... Fange-assisted continuous evolution. And in this case, they ended up with drug-hepsi drug-resistant mutations. But if you read these things, you read the science study for yourself, it goes into the reality that you have unforeseen consequences.

Starting point is 03:10:41 Based on what you're working with, if you're working with E. E. coli, you might end up with something alarmingly dangerous as one of the 160,000 times faster mutations. It says the host of the gene of interest, and this Fange-EVO is one of those platforms like PACE before this. It says, is the bacterial fange M13? Thank you for the post of the donation, Rumble. A non-lictic phange of the... Oh, let me start over.

Starting point is 03:11:15 I just know, somebody donated Rumble. I appreciate that. Just saying it was complicated stuff. But thank you for looking at it. Thank you. The host of the gene of interest in Fange, EVO, is the Bacterial Fange M13. Remember, bacterial fange being fanged,

Starting point is 03:11:30 simply just fange. is what we're talking about, a non-lictic fange of the enovirus genus that affects only bacteria. And then E. coli, on the contrary, excuse me, is a well-known human pathogen with some strains causing severe diseases, causing high levels of mutations on the genome of a laboratory strain can potentially lead to the appearance of pathogenic traits and lead to harmful effects, primarily on the lab staff, these are people who are literally involved in this work, and they're telling you that can be bad. It can be dangerous.

Starting point is 03:12:08 Now, the real question, you're on top of it, if you understand, at least what I think we know from the past, is this might not just be some accidental byproduct. This might be the design, something made to be used that appears innocuous that ends up hurting you and blamed on somebody else. I mean, this is how our history has been. This platform system enables targeted mutations

Starting point is 03:12:27 supposed to occur on a gene of interest only. neither the other genes on the fange nor the genome of the bacteria. Eventually, and this is just like the vaccine, the leaky vaccine conversation, eventually leakiness of the terminators flanking the gene of interest or could result in a limited amount of mutations outside of the gene of interest on the fange, meaning there's ways this could go awry. To prevent the risk associated with these technologies, France, European Union, have adopted legislation to regulate it.

Starting point is 03:12:57 How about we just make it not happen? That's what Trump wanted you to think he was doing. I think that was it. As always, for those new to the platform, all this will be included in the show notes when I'm done. So here is, oh, and this is the actual platform. You can look it up. So you can check them out if you want.

Starting point is 03:13:21 I gem, I guess, shaping the global bioeconomy. It doesn't seem like they're working all the same stuff. Oh, and this was the study, if you want to look it up from 2014, talking about how they created drug resistance mutations by accident. that's what they're working on same stuff now on unsaid journals march first 2010 goes back even further almost a decade bacterial fanges are bacterial viruses that consist of a single or double-stranded DNA or RNA protected by a protein capsid they are able to infect bacteria by injecting their nucleic acids inside the host the viruses multiply and induce lysis of the host cell or they're

Starting point is 03:14:04 stabilized as profange, either inserted in the bacterial genome or as independent plasma molecules. Now, bacteriophages represent the most numerous microorganisms found on Earth. That seems weirdly relevant and play a major role in bacterial evolution by serving as a genomic reservoir in the environment and by promoting lateral gene transfer among bacteria through transduction. Now, think about this. If 2025 was when this was like hacked and discussed, look at the timing of this.

Starting point is 03:14:38 It might be that the shift from gain of function point was just to highlight, you know, head fake in earnest knowing this was a new direction. Either way, if bacterial fanges, so the very fanges they're talking about in this and the feigns bacteria system represent the most numerous microorganisms found on earth and now they're toying with that, I just, I don't know, guys, you know, maybe this is beyond my understanding. I think it seems pretty clear in the concerns that I'm highlighting. My point in saying that is this to me sounds like you're toying with the stuff of life. Like you're working into potential rapid evolution byproducts in the very thing that is the most numerous

Starting point is 03:15:16 microorganism found on the earth. Bacterial phages as well as their recumbent derivatives are now used in a multitude of applications in the biotechnology and medical fields. Maybe they shouldn't be. Vectors for protein and DNA vaccines. Or, as gene therapy delivery vehicles. I'm going to point to that in the next article. Because guess what? There's even a mechanism through which this could go in the exact same direction. But it's saying simply that this is, you know, I was the same sentence.

Starting point is 03:15:45 Bacterophanes as well as there become derivatives are now used in multiple applications, biotechnology, medical fields, vectors for protein and DNA vaccines. So now you have an overlap with bacteriophages being a vector for the very protein vaccines like the COVID shot. Now, that's not the same as MRA, but the spike protein COVID shot. Well, technically all of them are, you know, vectors, the protein, even the DNA, I said that confusingly. The point was I'm wanting to think about the protein overlap in this and how bacteriophages

Starting point is 03:16:16 can overlap with the vectors for proteins and vaccines. But it says, or as gene therapy delivery vehicles, that is the COVID-19 shot and could be MRA. Now, it says, although most bacteriophages do not represent a threat to human health, unless they are carrying virulence factors, factory, excuse me, or excuse me, factors, you know, like an E. coli conversation, the use of recumbent viral particles in some instances

Starting point is 03:16:41 might raise some biosafety concerns by bringing and potentially disseminating new genetic traits among bacterial populations. Yeah, so unexpected consequences. Now, this is about normal stuff. This goes back decades or a decade plus. We're now talking about some rapid, 160,000 time evolution process.

Starting point is 03:17:03 So I'd imagine that that goes that fast. There's going to be a lot worse and a lot faster. But again, I'm not the scientist. A thorough risk assessment evaluating the properties of the manipulated bacterial changes may be required to implement adequate containment and control measures to protect human health and the environment. Right. The risk assessment that I bet this is not even being discussed around.

Starting point is 03:17:25 You know, likely did not happen the way we think it should. This is an article from 2017. Scientists use directed evolution to better develop virus-like capsules. And so this is, we're talking about the same conversation and the way this is working, but, and specifically talking about, like, I mean, look, if we're breaking it down, the other conversation, Lise is talking about engineering, manipulating a virus to be able to infect essentially bacteria and then using that bacteria in the same way for, you know, potentially rapidly evolving it,

Starting point is 03:17:56 which then could cause side effects, which could be in the same category. Either way, you're talking about a virus being manipulated. So your starting point is the same. But I'm even more worried about what we're talking about is the outcome. But here it says, viruses are pretty simple. There are small DNA or RNA genomes enclosed in protein containers called capsids. Scientists have designed and engineered proteins that can self-assemble. We've talked about all of this.

Starting point is 03:18:21 And there's many ways that's got graphene oxide is one of them, by the way. There's plenty of points. That's not a fake story. Tons of science revolves around using graphene oxide for vaccine delivery. even though it got, you know, I think by design, as Stu Peters told you was 99% of the vaccine and then it got dismissed as something that we should be concerned about. That's how this game is played for the new media.

Starting point is 03:18:39 But the point was that they've engineered proteins that self-assemble into virus-like containers that hold cargoes, such as drugs, vaccines, biomolecules, you know, whatever they want to secretly put in your body. David Baker of the University of Washington and co-workers have now devised the first, 2017, so-called nucleocapsids, official capsids that enclose their own RNA genomes.

Starting point is 03:19:04 Thank you, Mystic Joan. A repetitive protein mutation and screening technique to optimize the properties of these protein containers for drug delivery applications. So my point is that this, talking about the use of the development opens the door for researchers to use directed evolution to optimize the properties of drug delivery application. So directed evolution is something being used in this process. My point, though, is that you can see how all of this can overlap in the same direction. Now, to end, again, this is just where my mind went with this and why it seems related and

Starting point is 03:19:42 connected, but this in its own right is a story that you should care about. But just consider that this, whatever the intention is that this could eventually become something that is used to become sort of like a medical pre-crime dynamic. Now, again, I'm only highlighting information. I could literally lay out multiple possibilities for what I think that might amount to. One of which would be, if we're talking about the most, you know, the micro, the phange, the bacterial phages being the most, what are the numerous microorganism on the planet or whatever they framed it as. So hypothetically, now you have a situation where if you were manipulating this in a mass scale,

Starting point is 03:20:18 you could then use this to manipulate people and argue that they were infected, I guess, hypothetically. You could argue this could become the same thing as a delivery system for a new, you know, you could argue as a million directions. So whatever it ends up being, the first one I highlighted is relevant because this is something being done by DARPA, which effectively is medical pre-crime, guys. So that being interestingly connected, I find relevant and you'll see more as we go forward. In fact, timing-wise, I might just end it right here, but Johnfleetwood.com, DARPA's Echo Project, and this is from 2018, guys, the actual document. He posted this in July 21. A computer system that declares you've been exposed to a biological or chemical

Starting point is 03:21:01 threat with no physical evidence. Whitney's been talking about this. I mean, she points out Bill Barr and Trump being the really spearheading the actual pre-crime direction. And now with actually, of course, Ivanka Trump and the ARCAPA age and, you know, all of this, it's not, I mean, it's weird. It's really not just about Trump, but it's funny how obviously that seems to be a constant spearhead, but it's been about pre-crime. Take the guns first, due process later. I mean, it's all like that. In 2018, DARPA proposed building a portable computer system,

Starting point is 03:21:34 allegedly capable of determining whether a person had been exposed to biological or chemical threats, including weapons of mass destruction and their precursors. Here's the actual page. I'll show you more in a second. Even with no physical evidence, isn't that relevant? I mean, you could even overlap this with what happened during COVID-19. and why they immediately started pushing the asymptomatic, you know, carrier, which even their own previous discussions showed you was not even remotely the case,

Starting point is 03:22:01 like in a dangerous sense. DARPA proposed accomplishing this by comparing purported changes inside the person's own biology, seems relevant, against a government-built reference library, and algorithmically identifying both the alleged threat and when the exposure supposedly occurred. So you have a algorithmic system here that is basically, so this necessitates a medical baseline, which is what they're doing right now, guys, which would mean they have everybody's medical information and everybody's info entirely at some kind of baseline to compare to.

Starting point is 03:22:34 Then they have a system, who knows if it's actively looking all the time or used in certain circumstances, if and when, is my point, that would ultimately say we're comparing your current biology to what we know it was, and you have something going on. It's just so dystopian. Viewed alongside DARPA's broader pandemic era, and of course, rife for abuse, which is what they will use it for. Alongside DARPA's broader pandemic error research portfolio,

Starting point is 03:22:58 the proposal also raises a larger question explored by this publication in silico, silico theory. As governments increasingly replace direct observation with computational models, you know, like an AI system telling you, you did something you didn't. Reference libraries, algorithmic determinations, where does objective evidence end, and, excuse me, end, where does it end? And computer-generated conclusions begin. Well, that's the question of our time,

Starting point is 03:23:26 and it's where we are right now. I'm going to grab this really quickly. Oops. Because this is totally what they're referencing right there. Whoops. Whitney's article for T-Lab in 2020, coronavirus gives a dangerous boost to DARPA's darkest agenda. Some of these articles are still,

Starting point is 03:23:46 it's like, it's amazing. These are still incredibly like bombshell type of breakdowns that seemingly nobody has done. That's still, I read through this again, you're going to go, what? Like stuff that you don't even, that we have barely even gotten into yet, that all of which is now becoming relevant. But, you know, we live in an algorithmically channeled world where this stuff doesn't get

Starting point is 03:24:04 acknowledged the way it's supposed to. Or if it does, it doesn't get shown to be that case. But I'll include this for you. Coronavirus gives a dangerous boost to DARPA's darkest agendas, many of which have already come to fruition because of what they did. The point was, though, right? This database compared to what we're talking about. and they get to decide for you.

Starting point is 03:24:25 It also raised, and what it was saying was their broader pandemic era research portfolio, it was some terrifying stuff. It also raises an immediate practical question, he writes, if an algorithm operating on a government-controlled reference library determines that someone was exposed to a dangerous biological chemical threat without physical evidence, what meaningful mechanism exists for independently verifying or successfully challenging that determination? Nothing. He includes the documents.

Starting point is 03:24:52 for you. You can read through it. He goes, it's a lot more in depth. Epigenic characterization and observation. Echo. Well, not alarming. Now, weirdly, Echo does feel relevant to what I wanted to point out next. I almost find that almost two on the nose. But the point here was Department of Defense, DARPA. What else was? There's someone who's going to show you in here. But it was March 13, 2018, program will utilize an individual's epigenome. to reveal their history of exposure to weapons of mass destruction and precursors. The program will build a field deployable platform capable of using epigenome to diagnose biothreat exposures and infections and support military forensics operations.

Starting point is 03:25:42 Now, of course, it's always framed as in the field, military, until it comes home. Now, let's see where we got. Oh, here, let me do this forward. It's always drives me crazy. for the podcast. I make the window the right size. But so where are we at on time? I mean, we already went long.

Starting point is 03:26:01 I mean, I think I'll go through this quickly. But I do think it's relevant to just overlap with this. Now, and again, this is just my opinion, are just things that I thought sounded relevant with what we're otherwise highlighting. It may be that there's no connection between these two things. And between this and what I just highlighted before. But you see the relevance.

Starting point is 03:26:17 You see a world in which you could create something that could be massive, you know, like something that could be, especially with the world we're in today with like nanotechnology and different things, could be utilized in certain aspects and applied when necessary or applied ubiquitously that they can then argue this if they want. You can decide either way, this is insane levels of pre-crime, medical pre-crime, and tracking and surveillance internally, you know, the bio-surveillance, internal biosurveillance.

Starting point is 03:26:41 How long have we talked about that long before this? But moving beyond this in a totally unrelated conversation, or I don't believe so, I'll talk about, well, that's why I played that clip to start today. This is very real. And so now we're talking about something overlapping with, you know, some kind of surveillance dynamic. And we're still talking about the technological, you know, let's not forget what came from the COVID-19 timeframe.

Starting point is 03:27:09 And we're talking about with the worries about what was involved. We're dealing with something that takes this to a whole new level of surveillance. Wired, 6G is coming. Here's what to expect from the next generation of cellular tech. I'll play just a little bit of this clip and then we'll just kind of rapidly break up because I don't want to take too much longer on this, because then the information gets buried even more. But this is from cybersecurity leaning, radio detection,

Starting point is 03:27:32 and ranging radar. All right, let's dive right in. We're going to talk about the next massive leap in wireless tech, 6G. And look, this isn't just about your downloads getting faster. We are talking about a complete reinvention of what a network even is, a network that doesn't just connect. By the way, I'm pretty sure this is an AI voice, which I hate. I can't tell for sure, but I think that's the case.

Starting point is 03:27:54 Just really quickly on that note, by the way, Derek Whitney and myself are putting together a, you know, like I just a general pledge for anybody that wants it and applying it through the IMA. And it's not even being like forced on anybody in the IMA. It's just a general thing that we want to create, which people can utilize if they want. That basically is a AI transparency pledge. And it's basically we're going to, it's going to be basically something that we utilize that you can sign. Derek and I, Whitney, you're planning on posting on our individual websites and just basically saying, you know, we don't use AI in the creation of content at all.

Starting point is 03:28:24 all. And even on that note, by the way, just because of this, we want to go with it, I've decided I'm not going to use any more AI pictures, even though I feel like it's not the same thing and ultimately help me work around the censorship of copyright attacks. Nonetheless, it's a principle that I care about to the point to where I think we should go all or nothing. And so either way, I said that because I hate the fact there's so much AI content out there that you just can't tell or don't know. People are using it to create articles and think for them. Now, I don't want to judge. Maybe there's people that they're doing that, that are helping them fight the power and do the right thing.

Starting point is 03:28:55 I just, I personally feel like it's a line it has to be drawn. So Derek's the one that actually initiated this, and we're working through it right now. We're going to show it to the IMA, I think, tomorrow or the next day. But the point is, we want to put something on your videos or articles, you know, like a creative comment symbol, like an AI with a line through it. That basically shows you that you can trust based on, you know, it's also only trust in the person.

Starting point is 03:29:16 So still question us, question everybody. They might be lying to you. But we're going to put it on and we're going to guarantee you that that means there's no AI in the creation of that content at all. I think that's very important. And I frankly feel that that's what almost everybody wants right now. So I should have said in the beginning, I just forgot. But we'll be announced to that when it's official. You'll see it on the site. I'll make a point about it all the time. Back to the video, you'll see what I mean. I feel like this is AI. And I don't know for sure. So information.

Starting point is 03:29:43 But one that actively senses the world around us. Now, this creates a huge problem. I'm sorry, one more quick thing. Because look, the point could be, this could very well be some machine like not AI. You know, there were devices online a long time ago that you could feed information to and it would give you a robot voice, right? Now what's the distinction? Why is one bad, not the other? I mean, I know why I have an opinion by pointing out something that becomes important for you to think about and understand why. Back to the point. How can one system be great at two totally conflicting jobs at the same time? Well, there's a really clever AI trick that solves this, and we're going to get to it. But first, let's unpack this incredible new power.

Starting point is 03:30:22 I really want you to think about this question for a second, because it is the heart of everything we're about to cover. What if the very same network that brings you video calls could also spot an unauthorized drone near an airport, or see a pedestrian step onto a foggy highway, or even watch your hand gestures to control a machine? I know it sounds like something out of a sci-fi movie, but this is exactly the world that 6G is promising to build. Right. Of course, you frame it with all the things you can help, the wayward citizens stepping under the, you know, the wayward citizens, stepping under. do a platform. It's like, well, I don't care. I would honestly, to be very frank about it, I would rather that person do what they were going to do, even if that includes them accidentally getting killed, then have the government spy on us to frame it as they could keep that person safe.

Starting point is 03:31:05 That person made their own choices, and I'm sorry to say, it's hypothetical, don't forget. My point, though, is that we cannot start making these discussions, these exchanges where we give up what are essential to our freedom so the government can pretend to keep us safe when they never really do and have in the past. So first up, a network that sees. How on earth do you give a network the sense of sight? Let's break down the core technology that really separates 6G from everything that's come before. The secret sauce behind all of this is a technology called integrated sensing and communication,

Starting point is 03:31:40 or ISAC for short. And you know, the name says it all. The network is no longer just a pipeline for data. It's also becoming a massive distributed sensor, using its own signals to map the physical world in real time. It's not, of course, you add AI to that in the sense of where, I mean, it's, that's a fully functioning autonomous thing. I mean, this is where it becomes very alarming, especially, you know, when you understand

Starting point is 03:32:02 that we're not talking about like a sentient AI, but something that can function independently, but can be manipulated with faulty information. And then they can go, oh, well, the machine made a mistake. And there's always where this world goes. Nobody's no, nobody's responsible anymore, even though there's clearly an Oz back there pulling the strings. The total game changer. This right here really shows you the fundamental.

Starting point is 03:32:21 mental difference. 5G is fantastic, right? It's great at connecting things that want to be connected, your phone, your smart TV, all that stuff. But 6G with ISAC, it adds this whole other layer. It can sense passive objects, things with no electronics, no chips, no way of talking back. Think about that. So in one case, you have a system that is designed to tap in, so you can connect to it if you want. 6G is a world in which you're connected no matter what, or the very least, that it is aware of you and is tracking and monitoring, and you overlap that with where this is. With the AI and with the algorithms,

Starting point is 03:32:56 guys, this is a recipe for disaster, at least for people who care about their independence. Talking about a person, a car, a piece of equipment in a factory, the network is going from just connecting participants to being aware of its entire environment. Wow. Okay, so that brings us to the next big question. How is this even possible?

Starting point is 03:33:16 To get our heads around that, we need to peel back the layers and look at the, physics. And you'll see it's not magic, it's actually a brilliant new take on a technology that's been around for a long time, just supercharged for the 6G era. The core idea here is radar. We're all familiar with it, right? Air traffic control, the speed gun and police officer uses. It's the same basic principle. You send out a radio wave, it hits something, and a very faint echo bounces back to you. Like a Wi-Fi router. And by analyzing that echo, you can learn a whole lot about whatever it hit. So here's how it works in practice. A cell tower sends out a

Starting point is 03:33:49 its normal communication signal, usually something called an OFDM waveform. Now, while part of that signal is heading straight for your phone, the rest of it just radiates out, bouncing off everything in the area. All of which still very much has an effect on your body, health-wise, and plenty of other points. Despite how crazy it is that even as I'll point out the wired article that's breaking down somewhat the dangers will tell you and sell you on the idea that 5G is completely safe and we know it, is wrong or lying at a high-low, I mean, my God, it's undeniably, I mean, I'll recommend more than anything, the 5G documentary that Derek Brose put out, or the fact that our own government will admit they've never even really studied this properly.

Starting point is 03:34:28 Guys, I mean, it's not, these things are hurting you. If you could prove that 4G before it was causing potential cancerous issues, and I'm not talking about everywhere all the time, but when, you know, it has that effect in many circumstances. Then you increase that with 5G, it only became worse, 6G, even more. You're making this a problem. Like right now, if you can prove the connection, between your phone and cancer and other things, which is very clearly there,

Starting point is 03:34:53 we're just pretending this isn't there. They know it is, and all you're doing is ramping it up. Why? Because they don't care if we get canceled. They'll make money off it. They want to control. They want to surveil. Now, I don't mean this is some kind of evil they all in this room making decisions.

Starting point is 03:35:05 They're just talking about at the core level, people at the highest levels of power are interested in their control over that power. And all of this relates to the same general idea. They all of their facets and their focuses at the end of the day, that's where we are. And we can watch with their own actions, what they continue to fight for, what they continue to lie about. And I mean as the people in power, the individuals in Congress or the people that are actually in power that are funding money on all of them who are controlling us through corporations. Or, you know, it's the same point. A tiny, tiny fraction of that energy might hit a car and then reflect back to a receiver.

Starting point is 03:35:40 So by measuring exactly how long that echo took to get back, the network calculates the car's distance. And by measuring the tiny shift in the echoes frequency, that's the Doppler effect, it can figure out its precise speed. And that brings us to the hardware that makes it all work, MIMO. Now, 5G already uses what we call massive MIMO, panels with dozens of antennas. But 6G is moving towards something called gigantic MIMO, with maybe hundreds or even thousands of tiny antenna elements. Think of it like this. A single antenna is like a flashlight, with one big wide beam. Gigantic Mimo, on the other hand, is like having a little.

Starting point is 03:36:15 thousands of tiny perfectly synchronized laser pointers that you can steer electronically instantly. This gives the network unbelievable angular resolution. It can tell the difference between two objects that are right next to each other. And with that kind of precision, you're not just detecting a car. You could potentially detect the subtle vibrations of a bridge, or monitor a person's breathing from across the room, or even track the individual hand movements of a worker in a factory. It's like the network is painting the world with radio waves and seeing the reflections in high definition. Now, the network can arrange its eye.

Starting point is 03:36:47 You get the point. That's funny, even though I made this point to start, somebody in the chat. I mean, obviously, I mean, you could argue you know it's AI, but you don't. It could, I mean, I could, I can send you a link for the many different platforms online where you can enter in text and it can feed you back well before AI, a, a, a recording, a created online technological voice, not an AI version. But my point was, what's the ultimate difference? I'm not supporting either.

Starting point is 03:37:11 My point, as I said earlier, is I'm going to stop using any of it for any context in regard to content or at all, for that matter. But I just think it's funny that it becomes like, well, cars, we can't we all just tell and say, well, don't know. Let's not, let's not chock full of false certainty, pretend we know these things. We don't. But I agree. If that's what I said to, it felt I just don't know.

Starting point is 03:37:28 I wasn't sure because I don't sure is different than having an opinion. I'd like to think we all know that at the TLAB audience, right? But going back to this, finish. Oh, actually not this one. I'll just play this on the way out. Why not? Because I started with it. But at the same point he was making in this clip, we, and I have the full version.

Starting point is 03:37:48 of this we shared this like this was remember like a on the cusp tail end of like covid 19 great reset conversation it's just it's you know right now i'm seeing a lot of this reverberate through the conversation so again the point that i tend to make guys i sure wish we could have done something about this when it wasn't in you know everywhere like in the sense of i don't mean necessarily the Wi-Fi routers but that too why not the idea that this was something that we could have gotten ahead of but now that it's you know we're not just the head of, we're past it looking back, it becomes a focal point to the mainstream alternative media and the idea of the radar tracking of everywhere.

Starting point is 03:38:22 We'll see. Now it's there. It's too late. We're yelling about the system while the system is on top of us. We need to start being proactive, not reactive to the mainstream alternative media, proactive like this show is and get ahead of the stories and do something about it like we try to every time. And I know you all agree with that.

Starting point is 03:38:41 I'm speaking to the people that might be new to this. Now, this is wired from 20, from March 13. 6G is coming. Now, just quickly, my simple point with this, you know, they promised the world and it never delivers. But 4G was going to, 5G was going to bring all these crazy things and really just gave you some faster internet. And so it's the same idea.

Starting point is 03:39:00 They really want to sell the world and what this will change. All it's going to change is their control, in my opinion. And it says, get ready to hear some aspirational forward-looking and sometimes diluted language about this time to lead up to 6G that won't ultimately happen. Yeah, I'm just going to leave it there for time. But yeah, I'm going to just, let me see if I have a, anything jumps out of me. Not really.

Starting point is 03:39:30 Just leave it there for today. But in the end, just because it's relevant to the larger conversation of surveillance, I just wanted to highlight this because, you know, as we recently discussed, you know, and rightly so, somebody pointed this out in the conversation that I decided to make a point about because I thought it was a very relevant point, you know, concern. Is anybody worried this flock thing is sort of a head fake, a lie, you know? yeah, as we highlighted right in the beginning. But it doesn't make the intention, like I can speak for myself individually.

Starting point is 03:39:58 I want it to stop. I care about it. What does it really change of that, that this guy lied about it to get me to talk about him? Now, I still want to stop. I still care that it's unconstitutional, but we can consider that maybe he wants me to do this for something, you know, maybe he wants me to go out and commit violence to arrest me, he being a power structure, you know, but it doesn't change that we actually want.

Starting point is 03:40:16 So the point is, I think on top of this, it was being used to sort of stop people from actually caring about what was happening, feeling. like you're being trapped. Even if it's a trap, you should still be going, doesn't matter, we still don't want these cameras. They're still unconstitutional. But even aside from all of that, I really believe that this stuff is like an organic thing that's happening. Now, we talked about, though, the axon, flock, bait, and switch, which again, since this, days following, a lot of these kind of things I was talking about, sort of like the viral Twitter versions of this kind of conversation, which is good, I'm glad. But if you want a deep, in-depth, you know, source material

Starting point is 03:40:50 conversation, here it is for you. And it was about the idea. that 53 that I could find swaps to Axion, mostly quietly when they told them they were stopping their thought cameras. That's a bait and switch, even if it's, even if it's reactive, right? But again, the proactive point is to get ahead of this stuff and make sure we're fighting it before it comes and being aware of those things, but not being dissuaded by some kind of, you know, you're falling for it, even though we want that. You know, it's kind of like a same kind of thing that happens in any of these situations where they convince you that what you're doing is ultimately what the other side wants, for example.

Starting point is 03:41:23 Well, it matters if the sense that it might be used, but do you want that thing or not? It shouldn't matter whether it's being folded in with some other people. That's a game. But overall, this, as I said, well, these sure aren't bots, right? Here are some people on an overpass.

Starting point is 03:41:38 Surveillance is not safety, deflock.org. I'm simply highlighting, as you all know, that people all around this country clearly do not want this. And even if that got started by some kind of government up, it doesn't change the fact that we all agree. this kind of surveillance is unconstitutional. So they sure shut themselves in the foot with that one. Keep fighting it, guys, because the reality is,

Starting point is 03:41:56 we're having momentum with this. People are seeing this. It's changing things. But don't take the bait on some kind of an agenda. They don't attack the other side. Don't pretend like, you know, it is obvious what's driving this. Now, everything we talked about today, I think just adds to this dark direction of people that are,

Starting point is 03:42:11 like, it's not even not even about making it evil or good. These are powerful people who want to hold on to that power. That is the story of history, guys, and we're watching that in a thousand different ways, especially as they fail in front of you, makes it even more desperate to maintain that control. I'll talk about this another show. Leak document shows the surveillance tech at ISIS fingertips, which is just insane. Stuff we've been talking about, though. You already know this, but this is the enforcement arm for the national element going forward.

Starting point is 03:42:40 And then to end? Just in, Donald Trump. This just in. We are in the golden age, he says. quote, this is the greatest will ever be. Do you believe that? Do you feel that we're, I mean, as we don't have what he promised, as, I mean, so what's the argument that so he's now saying that we'll never be able to do the things I promised? Too bad.

Starting point is 03:43:02 This is just the best it's going to get. Tough it out. How can you be selling us on it's so great when you haven't delivered most of what you said would make it great? The guy is desperate, guys. I know you know that. I know you sense it. if you're if you still have yet to do it call it out you'll be surprised to find out even the people with you know the republicans around you are thinking the same thing you just don't

Starting point is 03:43:28 disregard the dishonesty the lies unless you don't care about your own interest unless you don't care about the very america that you claim you're fighting for first this person just like Biden and obama before them all doesn't really care about that as far as i can tell looking at their own actions. You don't have to take my word for it, guys. Just question it. It's all it comes down to. Ask the questions.

Starting point is 03:43:53 Be critical. We'll leave it there for today. Now, tomorrow again, we'll be at the, depending on time, I might be able to do something in the morning, but either way, I'll be doing the activation tour with Derek, downtown Franklin tomorrow night. Make sure you come join us.

Starting point is 03:44:08 But we'll leave it there for today. I'll see you on the next one. Thank you for tuning in. And if you want to continue to support this platform, guys, we need it. I hate even mention, you know, I just try, I don't like to get into it. We definitely need support. So if you want to support this platform, you know, send us good words of encouragement. Check out the links below. Send us what you can because we put this out as our product, as our content. This is what we create. You know, it's not for free. If you think it's worth

Starting point is 03:44:34 nothing, then that's okay. I'm okay with that. As long as you care about it, you share the content, but show us what you think it's worth because we need that to continue. Thank you for tuning in. love you all as always question everything come to your own conclusions stay vigilant

The Last American Vagabond - House Approves Israel/US Military Merger, Major US War Crimes In Iran & Trump's New Gain-Of-Function

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.