The Last American Vagabond - Texas Border Crisis The New Jan 6th, Weaponized Migration & ICJ Rules Merit To Israel Genocide Claim

Starting point is 00:00:00 Well, one of the four principal functions of the CIA is to gather intelligence and ideally forward it to the president, the users of information, the policymakers, as they say. There are other functions, however, some of them more legitimate than others. One is to run secret wars, the covert action that's written and talked about so much, like what's happening in Nicaragua today from Honduras. Another thing is to disseminate propaganda, to influence people's minds. And this is a major function of the CIA. And unfortunately, of course, it overlaps into the gathering of information.

Starting point is 00:00:41 You have contact with a journalist. You will give him true stories. You'll get information from him. You'll also give him false stories. Did you buy his confidence with true stories? You buy his confidence and set him up. We've seen this happen in recent. recently with Jack Anderson, for example, who has his intelligence sources, and he has also

Starting point is 00:01:01 admitted that he's been set up by him. Every fifth story just simply being false. You also work on their human vulnerabilities to recruit them in a class extent to make them your agent so that you can control what they do. So you don't have to set them up sort of, you know, by putting one over on them. So you can say, here, plant this one next Tuesday. Can you do this with responsible reporters? Yes, the church committee brought it out in 1975, and then Woodward and Bernstein put an article in Rolling Stone a couple of years later. 400 journalists cooperating with the CIA, including some of the biggest names in the business. Welcome to the Daily Wrapup, a concise show dedicated to bringing you the most relevant, independent news as we see it from the last 24 hours.

Starting point is 00:02:13 Saturday, January 27th, 2024. Thank you for joining me today. Important show, I think, with what's going on in regard to the rising Civil War conversation. Now, I'm going to talk about this today. I've been following this story since it really started. I've been very skeptical about this, as you might expect, and I've just been kind of battling what I think is most important to cover. Now, clearly the story is building into something. And I wanted to discuss this today. maybe not from the angle you might think, but it's kind of, it's kind of that there are truths to both sides of the two-party illusion narrative, as there usually are. You know, their weaponized migration is a very real concept. I mean, it's been studied. It's a very real political, manipulative tool. As well as the fact that we're, I don't think anybody should be debating whether or not our intelligence or foreign intelligence utilize these things with their own agents, with people that they could pay to do X, Y, and Z. I mean, these are all very static, basic realities. Now, whether that is some of this, all of this, one person, you know, I think that's the problem here is that there's so many partisan assumptions taking place in all of this. I very much think that there's some of that taking place. And I'm going to show you where at the very least I think it makes the most sense today in regard to foreign policy. But at the same time, the conversation specifically around Texas and the border is a very interesting one. One that I think we all need to actually have, aside from the, you know, peter pitch partisan screaming that we see every time. And that's not to say this is not important. The state's rights aspect of this, if you've been following this show, I've been talking about this, and anyone that cares about constitutional rights has been talking about this for a very long time,

Starting point is 00:04:00 because it's something that has been slow, more than any of the, I mean, almost even more than something like the Second Amendment, which is also, in my opinion, under attack, you know, to a lot of reasons. But more so than even that, I argue, state's rights have been chipped away at manipulated with very little conversation around it, which shows you, I think that's how the partisan manipulation is meant to go, not to say that the Second Amendment conversation is unimportant. You see what I'm saying? It's still very important. But states rights are a central part of this. I mean, you could talk about entire, like, in my opinion, the federal government in and of itself today is unconstitutional because of basic things like the very presence of the Bureau of Land

Starting point is 00:04:37 Management or like the federal government has a, and we'll get into this today right in the beginning, has a very specific mandate, just like federal judges and the Supreme Court really do. And they often wade into the political side of things when really it's very clear. So what's going on in Texas, in my opinion, I for the most part, side with what Greg Abbott is saying. But at the same time, I don't trust Abbott at all. I think he's very manipulative. And I think he's got foreign, you know, other aspects to this that we'll get into. But at the same time, and the other part of it is if you do believe there's an actual threat.

Starting point is 00:05:10 and this would change whether you think he has a right to defend himself, which is an interesting stance and argument to make with what's going on in the larger foreign policy conversation. But we're going to go through this today and I'll give you my stance on states' rights, on what Texas seems to be doing. And even the broader concept of just immigration and how ridiculous it has all gotten, you know, where literally now from one side of this, everybody in any context that's involved in this is illegal,

Starting point is 00:05:36 even though that's not really the case. whether you're talking about some people that are in fact just seemingly trying to go through this process. But at this point, it seems like Texas might even just be blocking most everything that's happening. And just for my opinion, I mean, it's kind of hard to see what's really going on at the moment. But also just that there are people that are being used and manipulated as we talked about with weaponized migration. Does that make them themselves a problem or something to be derided and dismissed and attacked? not really, especially when you realize that most of these people involved in this weaponized migration, if you think that's what's happening, are largely in doing so or involved with it because of a

Starting point is 00:06:15 belligerent U.S. foreign policy that has driven this group. I'll go through all of this. But the point is, I think it's much more nuanced than we're seeing. And then over the top of all of these things, which again, there's a lot of real parts to it, I believe they're being played. I think this is another example of the MAGA trap. As I pointed it, as I put in the title, this is the new January 6th, right up before the election, all of a sudden, all the fever pitch of all the people you might expect, all of the partisan players are screaming civil war. And even if that's not real, it still could go there.

Starting point is 00:06:49 It's not something that should be dismissed. But the fact that it's almost that their rhetoric more than anything is what's driving it to this point seems to be very coordinated in my opinion that is going to, if we allow it, possibly even drive us to civil war, maybe for a purpose. But I don't think this is some China controlling Biden or some Biden trying to manipulate. I think it's your government trying to manipulate you. And this is always why the partisan sides hate what we talk about. Now, we're also going to get into the international court of justice ruling, which I really wanted to get to yesterday, but life happened that I wasn't able to. I just most of the show planned yesterday, aside from the Texas part, which sort of took the place of the COVID-19 stuff I was going to talk about today. But I'm going to get to a show tomorrow as well.

Starting point is 00:07:32 and I will ultimately cover all that. And there's some really alarming stuff in regard to the unwanted proteins in the conversation of the COVID-19 injections and how alarmingly that overlaps with our discussion about engineering plans to produce certain proteins or the idea that certain proteins can be used to manipulate the body or ferretin proteins in general, but hold of the conversation for tomorrow. Now, stay tuned to in the end, a lot to get to, a lot to talk about. But I want to start with this really nice letter that somebody sent me, You know, amazing, you know, and by the way, on that note in general, all the, you know, our, our addresses down below, it's important to keep that conversation going outside of the digital world, right?

Starting point is 00:08:12 And I always love getting notes and, and, you know, just kind words or, you know, tell me what I'm doing wrong. But this is a way that I think our, you know, a lot of our donations come through the mail right now because of everything that's going on. But just thank you to all of you out there who continue to support us and send words of encouragement and so on. But I wanted to read what Diana here wrote. Nothing personalized here. So you guys, you know, I always wonder sometimes whether you guys even want your first name to be put out here. And I get it. But I think it's important.

Starting point is 00:08:39 And I really wanted to thank her in general. It's just what she wrote. And this is a quote. If you want to awaken all of humanity, then awaken all of yourself. If you want to eliminate the suffering of the world, then eliminate all that is negative in yourself. Truly the greatest gift you have to give is that of your own self transformation. Outstanding. I'm not even sure.

Starting point is 00:09:01 Actually, I forgot I was going to type it in and find out where it came from. I forgot. But either way, obviously, this kind of is another, I don't want to say an adaptation who knows what came first, but sort of like the, you know, be the change idea, which really the full thing is, you know, if you change the tendencies within yourself, the tendencies of the world will also change. That's where that kind of truncated quote really comes from. That's an important one, right? To me, this is about the understanding that we can always look outward. We can always find problems of things around us. we can always point to somebody else or somebody's administration or if we just vote that person and

Starting point is 00:09:32 everything will change when the reality always comes back to it's you it's what you decide to change within yourself and the actions you take and change the world around you in that small little area that you affect and truly if we can do that individually we could truly change a lot if we just do it from you know it's opposed to looking outward and making it more about what we think the larger entity is doing and forget to care about the smaller things in our lives I just think it's a wonderful quote that I really think we should consider. Oh, and then I've seen if I didn't put this, I would have forgot. Links.

Starting point is 00:10:04 I wanted to tell you guys that in general, just a note that so I almost always, like I already did today, I bookmock all of the tabs before the show starts. Unfortunately, on the last show, I forgot to do that. And just circumstance, my computer crashed in the process of the after pro the show. And I lost all the links, which you guys know is very rare for us, which frustrates me because it's going all of the information in that show. I'm sure you guys can see the URL in the show. You can see what the titles are.

Starting point is 00:10:33 You could find them. But just I think it's at a point to recognize that this is how far out of our way we go to make sure you have everything you need, except the show yesterday where I, or before yesterday where I was, I lost them. I just think that it's very, because most platforms don't do that. Right. And then we have, you know, I think it's important that you do always get all the source material for you to look at, for you to come to your own conclusions and, and maybe disagree with. the way I put it together, right? But I apologize, or even though the crash wasn't necessarily my fault for

Starting point is 00:11:01 not doing that ahead of time, I've got to be better at that because there's so much manipulation going on. Nonetheless, it's too bad. All the links were, you know, lost in it so it's going to be a little more difficult for you, but, you know, we do it usually. So back to the point of the show today, let's start with Texas. Now here is a zero hedge article entitled Border Patrol says agents will not remove Texas razor wire barriers. And I just want to start with this. So, It's kind of like the current, this is from today, and we'll go through some of the current information, but we'll also kind of go back a couple days like Supreme Court discussion and, you know, what bearing that may have.

Starting point is 00:11:35 So this is in regard to the razor, which is so interesting to me that this all seems to, obviously it's about immigration, but really that's the, that, I mean, that's the primary part of it, obviously, but it seems the focal point became whether or not they should have this razor wire. It just seems so benign at the, with everything going on, even just in this country, that they, would end up bringing this like civil war level talk down to whether they can or cannot remove the razor wire. I just everything about this feels very disingenuous, very manipulative. And that's again, not to say that the migration discussion is unimportant or even, and it's the fact the opposite. It is very important as well as the state's right conversation, states rights conversation. But just because things are true doesn't mean they can't be weaponized against you.

Starting point is 00:12:20 Now it says in defiance of the Biden administration's wishes, senior figures within customs and border protection have stated that there is no plans to have border patrol agents, remove razor wire barriers, erected along sections of the border of the Texas National Guard. But that's a little bit of, the framing is a little bit omitting some larger parts, which are the, well, I think it actually says it in this. That really, they're not saying that they don't, they have no plans in this exact moment, but should anything arise where the necessity becomes they should, they will. So it's kind of a middle ground.

Starting point is 00:12:48 It's not like they're saying, in a way, they're citing with the fact that they have to leave it there. It's sort of like the way I read this is the border patrol, I think, agrees to the more so than what Biden's orders that what Texas is doing is stopping illegal migration, immigration. Nonetheless, I think they state very clearly that should they need to get past that to do their job, which is what Biden would be ordering that they would remove it. As it says here, while this issue plays out in the courts, the relationship between the border patrol, Texas DPA Department of Public Safety and the Texas military department remains strong. That's according to the official, adding that our focus is and will always be the mission of protecting this country and its people,

Starting point is 00:13:27 which it should be. Right. It should not be about the inner dynamics of the political game. It should be about whether or not this is the safest for, you know, rather what are this up here to the law? And then also whether or not it's humane. Like that does matter in this conversation, right? That's the problem is that you get one side in the two-party illusion.

Starting point is 00:13:44 And this is always how it works. That is basically like the only thing that matters is human life and literally nothing else matters in the context of protecting that, which there's a level of that that humanity should agree with. But it's not at all cost, no matter what, especially when people aren't in immediate risk of dying. It's like saying they might trip into this razor wire. The point is that obviously there's more to it than just worrying about how they may be hurt. On the other side of it, you've got people in the Republican side that act like the only thing that matters at the expense of anybody's life or suffering is that we adhere to what we see as the law. When I say we see as the law,

Starting point is 00:14:19 it's because there's a lot of points we'll get into that make it not so clear. The Supreme Court, you know, the idea that ultimately a federal government, you could make an argument, has more of a legitimate argument to defend the international border, right? Excuse me, the national border as opposed to the state borders. And this is both, essentially, right? There's a lot. And on top of that, if the Biden administration simply makes the argument that this is what we're going to be doing, even if it seems to circumvent the law, that happens to every.

Starting point is 00:14:49 single day in this country, governors, presidents, long before, I mean, Trump did it multiple times. My point in saying is that if they say we're going to give them asylum, there's an argument there about whether you agree with that. And even you could make a legal argument for whether that does in fact circum, you know, is just illegal because here's the law and that's not what the law says. But how many times in history, and I'm not saying this makes it right, have any president simply written executive order, which circumvents a certain law or a constitutional right. So I just find it very, and right now you could find a hundred examples all over the country. in my opinion, far more relevant and important than that specific point.

Starting point is 00:15:24 But anyway, the bottom line is it's a choice, in my opinion, to make this as real and right, you know, it's hypocritical, I think, to focus only on this, which continues to make me feel like this is more about driving conflict for some other purpose. Now, whether that's our government in order to keep us divided and travel, which I think is a large part of this, to basically recreate the January 6th possibility. We'll get into the new trucker's convoy that's happening about this in the. the United States. I mean, it's really simple to see how this could devolve right into exactly what they want because people are talking violence level. I mean, even Trump's comments talking

Starting point is 00:15:59 about sending the National Guard, they're already in the level of violence just by default by sending we're going to, we're going to take our border back. We're going to send the National Guards from our states to fight off the federal side. I mean, how do you not see that as an already at a potentially violent level? So right now, I would argue, they haven't something that they could try to mobilize about trying to claim insurrection or all not to say that that's legitimate they did it for far less in january sixth i think this is part of it now he says on the ground we continue to work alongside these valuable partners in that endeavor the official continued adding bottom line border patrol has no plans to remove infrastructure placed by texas along the border this is the part

Starting point is 00:16:39 that was that's important i think our posture remains the same if we need to access the area for emergency response which is what biden seems to make it about you know the that we can't get there to help people who are suffering, which, you know, this, this is where you get into the line about what's more important, being a human and caring that people are suffering, and I'm not even saying that's what he's trying to do, or is it more important to uphold the law of the, of the, of the border of Texas, right? I mean, you know, if you can't get through to save somebody who may be drowning, you know, I mean, you could, there's, I mean, both sides have an argument to where is it our obligation, but should we do it because we're just humans and

Starting point is 00:17:13 we help people, you know, again, the real point comes down to whether that's even what Biden is actually caring of. I don't think that. I think that's an emotional argument meant to make whatever he's trying to accomplish seem like that's what they care about. You know, I'm jaded, obviously. I don't think any of these people have your interested mind, whether it's the Republicans, any of them. I think it's all about their political benefit or the larger agenda. But what it's saying here is the emergency response. So if they decide to argue that, well, we have to get through, well, as it says, we will do so. So they'll cut it down. Should I guess Biden argue that they need to get there for some emergency reason.

Starting point is 00:17:48 So you see how it's not as sound as a lot of Republicans are making it out to be. They've defied the order and they won't do it. Well, that's not really what they said. It's always somewhere in the middle with the two-party game. Isn't it all the screamers on both sides? Our posture remains the same. It says if we need access for mercy responds, we will do so. When that happens, we will coordinate with Texas Department of the DPS and the military,

Starting point is 00:18:10 what was it, the Department of Public Safety and the military department, which means that they will do it, but they will, coordinate with them to achieve it. And that right there may be where they stand in the way and say, we'll know. And then, I mean, how do you go past that? That seems, I mean, ultimately one of them would have to back down for it not to become violence. I don't think any of these people, the individuals on either side, really want that. All right. So you've got the governor versus the president and it's sort of a continual standoff. Now, it says the Border Patrol Union has also issued a statement outlining that agents will not interfere with Texas National Guard members,

Starting point is 00:18:44 carrying out, quote, lawful operations. Well, that's pretty all over the place today, right? One side says there, I mean, this is what I was talking about with somebody earlier, is it's pretty flimsy these days because see people, and look, there's a valid point to be made. I make it all the time about law, just because something's a law does not make it legal, which does make sense. Just because something is a law does not make it constitutional, right?

Starting point is 00:19:05 So the point is, you know, you argue, like I'm saying before, about some kind of policy that says we can offer an asylum and they say, well, here's the law. that they're not following, well, the left is going to say, well, there's a humanitarian necessity or, whatever. So it all just becomes kind of moot when you see that they, neither side seems to care about what the law really is when it gets in the way of their agenda. And that's the way we have to look at this, right? If you always look at this from a two-party lens, you'll, one side will seem much more rosy than the other when usually it's just your government from different angles trying to manipulate you. Now, I'm going to get into tomorrow, a point that I was going to get into

Starting point is 00:19:41 today, but this took up more time than I expected in regard to the election and how this overplays it. Matt Taibi, you're a really interesting article that I'm going to connect back with that Time Magazine discussion about the shadowy group that saved democracy by literally ruining democracy or however you want to look at it. It's hilariously stupid and it just shows you that when they do it, it's okay. You know, another guy does it. It's terrorism. It's the same damn thing. But that's important, I think, because this seems to dovetail right with that. And in the discussion, it seems that they're pointing to this kind of thing already and have been all year. that the maga terrorists are going to make this problem.

Starting point is 00:20:13 And they're going to use that to justify action. The left's already saying that. The right's already saying they're going to do it. So we're going to do it first. And so both of them are going to cheat everywhere they can at the under the justification is the other side doing it. It's just cartoonish. So consider that in this larger conversation. I think there's more to the election side of this as well, but also foreign policy.

Starting point is 00:20:33 It says we want to be perfectly clear. And this is the, this is continuing from the same group speaking from the border patrol. there is no fight between rank and file border patrol agents and the Texas National Guard, Governor Abbott or the Texas Department of Public Safety. So they're just making it clear. Like, look, and I'll finish the last part. It says it may make flashy headlines, but it simply isn't true. And of course, they could be lying about that.

Starting point is 00:20:58 But that seems interesting, right? You're getting all of this really crazy talk about how everything coming down to and they're standing off at the border and they've defied the order. I mean, you'll see that stuff all over. Doesn't seem to be actually what happened. does it. They're saying, look, there's no big debate. We're all in line with each other. Like, we'll go through if we have to. They're telling us, we know, it's interesting. It could boil to something serious. I don't think it's there at this moment with what they're saying,

Starting point is 00:21:21 but of course, they could be lying. Now, it says the development comes as Texas Governor Greg Abbott told Tucker Carlson, the state is prepared for conflict with the federal government. Think about saying that. You're a governor of Texas, and all you're debating is whether or not you should be removing razor wire and you come out and say, we're prepared to go to war with the government. I mean, look, I am not somebody who is going to ignore the legality of any citizen of this country, having the right to stand up and say, you are not, like, you know, you have the right to alter or abolish it should they not be meeting what you believe to be their mandate. That's the Constitution, paraphrasing.

Starting point is 00:21:58 So look, if a governor argues that what you're doing violates something larger, I understand the argument to be able to say that you can stand against that. but to go from this to prepared for conflict. I mean, and I'm going to get into why I don't think Abbott is somebody, anybody left or right should be trusting, let alone any politician. But to me, this is starting to seem like you are being led by the nose. That's what it feels like to me. Now, it says 25 states have expressed support for Texas with 10 of them, according to Abbott,

Starting point is 00:22:28 deploying their own National Guard. I mean, look, you can argue that's already at the level of some kind of civil war, where you're deploying National Guard state level to one state to stand against, against the federal government? I mean, is that not exactly what it looks like? Now, but the point would be is that actually what's happening? It very well may be. Now, there's two ways to look at it. Either it's really happening, which would make me think, again, with the way I see this, which I could be wrong, that it's a foreign entity doing that, right? Or it's not really happening the way it looks like, and that's all of your government

Starting point is 00:22:58 using this to manipulate you internally, or a little bit of both. But something tells me there's more to this from the outside that specifically about foreign entities doing this, and it's not just through Biden. It's whoever, and there's a whole point about Israel that I can overlap to this. Now, you may argue that that is where I would go with that because of the way we're looking at what's going on in the world today, but I'm not arguing I know that's what's happening. You could research and find an argument that might make China appear to be something. You could always find what you look for, right? But there's some things I think are really relevant and interesting into how it seems Israel might, I mean, I don't see any entity in the world right now that is

Starting point is 00:23:32 more desperate to either cover up what's currently going on or rather destabilized entities that seem to be, you know, like the United States would have the most ability, the strongest ability to stop what they're currently doing. So factor that in into whether they might want to cause larger problems to, you know, it's that kind of a thing. Now, it's all hypothetical. But that's where I see this playing out that would make the most sense to me. Now it says, one of those states is Oklahoma with Governor Kevin Stilt, Stitt, and we'll play this in a second, saying Friday, that we have the right to defend our country. against invasion.

Starting point is 00:24:08 You see, and so this is just the rhetoric. Invasion, it's certainly possible. The weaponized migration idea is a very real concept, but is that what we see happening? I mean, that's not what I see. Right now, it's the hypothetical. Well, yes, terrorists have been caught crossing the border. So again, we'll get into one example that I think is interesting. I'm only saying this is the broad statement.

Starting point is 00:24:30 Is that what happened? Are they terrorists? Very well could be. Or are they Western-backed assets? Very well could be. or are they just Iranians that they claim our terror? Very welcome. You know, see my point.

Starting point is 00:24:40 It's very easy to throw that term out. But let's just be clear. I do think that there are unsavory characters like you would in any circumstance that have made their way across. And you could argue that the, you know, I don't want to, I don't think it's called. I don't, I really, whether it's an open border policy and that really means that is for you to decide. But just taking that as the statement, it's obvious to see that that would increase the likelihood of other people unsavory or otherwise making it across or assets of theirs or other governments, right? So it's not hard to see how this could, by default, be causing a larger problem. But again, you have to overlap of that with the humanitarian side, which does matter,

Starting point is 00:25:15 especially when you know that a lot of these people and the real people within all of this are simply being used by these governments and are doing so in their migration because of aggressive foreign policy. But is it an invasion? My point in saying all of that is that what we're certainly looking at right now is the argument that there is an influx and it is a lot of people coming across. and that is usually indicative of a lot of bad people. But is there an invasion?

Starting point is 00:25:40 Is it immediate? Are we like saying, here's 47 terrorists that we caught today? I don't see that. And maybe you think it's ridiculous for me to take that stance. I just don't think we should be calling us an invasion when we're dealing with human beings that largely are suffering because of your government's policy. We should be aware that that could be abused by your government or by foreign entities, but not immediately go to they're all bad because of a political.

Starting point is 00:26:05 stance. I mean, don't you see that you're demonizing innocent people because shouldn't you be aiming? I mean, if you're talking about this being a weaponized concept, is that their fault that they're being used? But that's how that ultimately boils down to. It ends up being their illegals when, again, how do we know that? Have they crossed the border yet? Are they all actively trying to cross illegally? Maybe some of them are going to try to go through the normal way. Like, it's just anybody in these caravans are just deemed illegals, which just shows you how it's just this insensitive mindset, which quite frankly, to in some cases racism. But an invasion.

Starting point is 00:26:39 We should be concerned about that, but let's not jump to conclusions. Now, it says White House has refused to rule out Democrat suggestions to federalize the Texas National Guard. Now, that's interesting. I don't even know how that would work exactly. To federalize the National Guard in Texas, I mean, again, that would look to me like abusing power in this situation, which I think all of them are involved with. Now, all that being said, so we're kind of current on where they're staying today.

Starting point is 00:27:05 let's first talk about state's rights. I think this is one of the most important parts of what's happening here. Does Greg Abbott have the right to take control of the border? Well, there's a whole dynamic, isn't there? Because really, it's a federal border, an international, or excuse me, a national border, which of course the argument, which we'll get into is that the government, the federal government, has that right, or rather the mandate to protect that, not Texas. But Texas does, that does align with the Texas border as well.

Starting point is 00:27:33 So there's an overlap, right? The argument would be when it comes to the national, like, you know, Mexico, that that's the federal government. And that's always how it's pretty much been. The argument today is that they're not doing their job. And that Greg Abbott is arguing that they're an invasion, that they're doing this to protect themselves. And so they stepped in and did this because they're not fulfilling their job. Now, again, you could, like a court of law, a legal argument. Does that stand? Can you simply say they're not doing what I think they should be doing? Therefore, I'm going to jump. Oh, aren't you then breaking the law?

Starting point is 00:28:04 because you feel that they are too or that you see how slippery this gets? Now, to be very clear, from my perspective, from the Constitution's standpoint, I believe that Texas does have the right. If you argue that there is an eminent invasion and the government's not doing anything. So to be very clear about that, if what he's saying you take a face value, of course, I believe the Texas state has the right to defend itself against what you would argue is in defense. flux of people. Now, that doesn't mean, again, getting to the defend yourself point, I'll save that for later. But do you think that's what's actually happening? And do you not, or is it not possible that Greg Abbott is abusing the situation to achieve some other aspect? But let's talk about states' rights, because people don't even understand this. It's so widely misunderstood. Here's the 10th Amendment.

Starting point is 00:28:54 The power is not delegated to the, delegated to the United States read federal government by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively or to the people. Now, to make this more clear, this is the article one, Section 8, overview of Congress's enumerated powers. So this is what they're alluding to in this amendment. So the powers not delegated to them. So in this point, which everything else, other than what's delegated to the federal government, is reserved by the states, respectively, or the people. So what is delegated to the federal government?

Starting point is 00:29:35 And that's what this is talking about. So you'll see very clearly in this. They're egregiously outside of their bounds have been for a very long time. And you could argue very clearly that there is something. There's what the Texas governor is doing. There's some legal avenue to argue he is correct. Now it says the Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, in posts and excises to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.

Starting point is 00:30:05 But all duties, imposes shall be uniformed throughout the United States, which I'm sure that's probably not even the case, but in regard to the defense of the country. Right. So right there is where you would argue that they do have the right to defend the country. Now, if they're not doing that, that's where this argument comes into play. But in that case, would you argue that Greg Abbott should then ignore their orders and, and go to what he thinks you should be doing himself, assuming that's actually his motive, or should he petition the Supreme Court or go a different direction? Right?

Starting point is 00:30:37 I mean, I would be the first to say, well, if there's an actual problem and these people are actually at risk, why would you take time to go through a legal process? Well, you just take the action to protect them, right? For me, it all comes down to whether you truly think there is a threat impending on the border. I know a lot of people do. You guys can decide for yourselves.

Starting point is 00:30:54 Now, on number two, it says borrowing money on the credit of the United States, which, you know, it's like I guess who else, I just hate the fact that our, the federal government, which I think is completely illegitimate in my mind is using you and your taxes to borrow elsewhere to spend on their illegal foreign wars that we don't want, but that's not part of this, to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among several states with the Indian tribes, which they later destroyed and didn't care about, you know, sort of thing like that. Let's see. Number four, to establish a uniform rule of naturalization and uniform laws on the subject of bank bankruptcies throughout the United States. Now, naturalization is a term that it's more broad, but it's the admittance of foreigners to the citizenship of the country. So the point would be there that they have the established the uniform rules of doing so. So you could argue right there, regardless of the

Starting point is 00:31:44 threat, that there is a federal oversight to the actual process of this, right? And so ultimately, from a constitution standpoint, you could argue that they have a right to, from a administrative level or from the administration to argue that they can change these things, right? Like that there's not a static law, but they have the right to, but as long as it's uniform. But, you know, I don't necessarily agree with that. I always, in my mind, go back to the concept of states' rights at the core of most everything. Number five, it says to coin money regulate the value thereof and the foreign court, which they've screwed us over a thousand times in that regard.

Starting point is 00:32:21 My point is always that I don't even think they're following most of this, but counterfeiters to provide for the punishment of counterfeiters to provide for the punishment of counterfeiting and securities and current coin of the United States, to establish post office and roads, to promote the progress of science and useful arts. You see, so none of this applies so far to constitute, I mean, not really, to constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court, to define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, to declare war, grant letters of mark reprisal, to make rules concerning captures on land and water, to raise and support armies, to, to, to, to,

Starting point is 00:32:57 And that's interesting. It says, and shall no longer than two years. Got to love that. Appropriation of money to that you shall be for no longer than two years. Is that being followed? To provide and maintain a Navy. To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces. To provide for calls forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions.

Starting point is 00:33:18 So that's important. Right. So this is, if you argue that they are not upholding that, I would argue it's incumbent upon on the Texas governor to take action. I just frankly, I mean, I know this can be confusing for some people that are stuck in the two-party paradigm, but my point is legally, I argue that makes sense. But is that actually what Greg Abbott's doing? I don't think so.

Starting point is 00:33:40 But it says to provide for organizing, arming, and displacing the militia, and for governing such parts of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states, respectively, the appointment of the officers and so on, you see where that's going, to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such district, not exceeding 10 miles square and may by secession of particular states and the acceptance of Congress become the seat of government of the United States. None of this has to do with that. 18, to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution, the foregoing powers and all other powers vested by the Constitution in this government of the United States.

Starting point is 00:34:18 That's important, though. The point is all of this power comes from the Constitution, which is very clear. there's so much going on today that it's completely devoid of any connection to the Constitution. Now, that is clear, in my opinion, right? So all of that is what's delegated to the U.S. federal government. Everything else is reserved to the states, respectively, or the people. So I think that's important to consider, right? I think the federal government has been overstepping, has been ignoring states' rights for as long as I can look back.

Starting point is 00:34:50 Now, that may be, in fact, what is the kind of central ploy to manipulate people like us. Or it may very, very well mean that very well may be that Greg Abbott is just doing this because he believes in it. I just don't think that. Now, the Supreme Court on the 22nd ruled that Texas can't block federal agents from the border. Now, here again, we come across a very interesting barrier. Now, I'm sure plenty of Republicans, especially after rulings like this, are going to say, they're illegitimate and they're corrupt and they're overtaking well that's always the case they're individuals put in place by other political powers so clearly they usually have political influence

Starting point is 00:35:26 even though as we said i said before it's basically have one job uphold the constitution which they rarely seem to do in my opinion so it's politicized but here's the point it's still the supreme court which by the way when they rule in a way the republicans like well they adhere to it and they it's just like it just like the same foreign policy conversation so now the supreme court has ruled that they can't do that. And when they continue to do that, well, who's actually breaking the law? Right? It's an interesting point because if you argue that these things have been used and are reponized and manipulated, well, it's a different dynamic. But at the end of the day, if your argument is Biden is breaking the law by not doing X, Y, and Z so we have to step in, well,

Starting point is 00:36:03 you're doing the same thing. It's just a selective choice to look at this and omit that. This is the two-party paradigm, guys. You know, that's why I'm trying to be very nuanced and clear about my core stance, but we still have to see that these people are manipulating little aspects of it all the way through. So do you feel Supreme Court ruling they can't do that? Should have been the last point or not. And the next time it goes in your favor and you tell other people they have to abide by it, remember that. I mean, my first, I have very little respect for most of these authority entities, but that doesn't mean you can't see the legal dynamic within it. Now, this is from the New Republic. I'm trying to go, you know, different points from different

Starting point is 00:36:41 website, you know, left, right, dynamic in the middle. This is from the 25th. Republicans push Greg Abbott to go all out in border war with Biden. This is from their perspective, obviously. Republicans around the country are throwing their hats behind Texas governor Greg Abbott amid his escalating border security standoff with the federal government, seemingly attempting to transform the dispute into a civil war, according to several conservative commentators.

Starting point is 00:37:05 I mean, it's not hard to see. I think, you know, there's plenty of the fact doesn't matter. You guys can come to your conclusions about who you think. are the people out there are a lot of them people i might cite usually right that that are going right to the level of civil war which seems very irresponsible if you want my honest opinion because simply putting that into the conversation becomes a very it drives that thought now i wasn't able to kind of point that drive it uh follow it back i'm very curious who was the first person to float the civil war idea based on this razor wire conversation i would if you guys know and you can

Starting point is 00:37:39 prove that it was the first person to say it i'd be very interested you're very interested did to find out. A lot of times you'll notice in these conversations that it tends to be somebody who is very connected or is, you know, X-CIA or, you know, whatever it is that say these things and then delete their tweet. That's happening a lot these days. And it's like, so they're almost trying to, even though people save it, and we do. But it goes on to say on Wednesday, Abbott declared the influx of immigrants across the border and invasion, a status that Abbott claims supersedes federal mandates and issued a statement on the state's constitutional right to defend itself. So that's the core point from me. Do you really argue that they're in the need to defend themselves?

Starting point is 00:38:16 Do you understand? That would have to mean like we're literally at the border and we can see them and they're all trying and, you know, they're armed or, you know, whatever. If you're literally just talking about an influx of immigration and there's not specifically any immediate threat, it's a nebulous idea that it could be present, that's not enough. Even if you argue that's a concerning reality, that's not enough to argue you're being invaded. Now, very well could be that extreme. I think there's a lot of manipulation going on, so it's very difficult to take it at face value, and I'll show you what I mean in the second. There's a lot of lies flying around.

Starting point is 00:38:47 Another caravan is coming. Oh, nope, that's from last year. You know, there's a lot of that. And let's not forget what happened with the Venezuela caravan and all that. Remember that? Did that end everything that destroy the country? No. Like, it's very disingenuous to always argue that there is this impending problem just because there are people in need.

Starting point is 00:39:06 Now, it can be handled other than pushing them all into the United States. And you could argue it's not necessarily the responsibility of the U.S. government or the state of Texas to deal with people that are asking for help. But there are other things that could be done. But the way this is being used is very, is weaponized in my opinion. It says that was just two days after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of President Biden by declaring that Texas went outside of this jurisdiction by erecting makeshift concertino wire fences, which doesn't that seem pretty minute? Like you're really getting that that's why I think this is sort of being orchestrated. That you're going to argue that by a some fences along the border where there's a lot of fences that somehow that is going outside your jurisdiction when it's your border. I mean, that just does not ring true to me. Now it says, oh, along the Rio Grande section of the U.S. Mexican border, effectively preventing the U.S. Border Patrol, that's what I think is interesting, from doing their job. Texas has continued building new wire barriers since that ruling. Here's what I've argued. I can't really seem to suss this out. Is there any immigration currently happening from Texas's

Starting point is 00:40:07 border right now? Have they just walled it off with wire under the guys that it's an invasion? That would seem like that makes sense, right? If you're letting through any level of immigration, doesn't sound like an invasion, does it? So if they have effectively blocked it all and the border patrols like saying we literally can't do our job, which seems to suggest they have, that's an overstep. You can't just shut down immigration unless you actually argue there's like an immediate war presence concept, which I don't think is what's actually happening. But even then, you're superseding your own mandate by actually arguing you just stop it in general. But that's where it goes back to the point of where if you can argue and prove that,

Starting point is 00:40:43 you know, there's an armed militia on your border. Well, that might make things different. And maybe you think that's what's happening. Finally, it says the Biden administration has turned every state into a border state. Interesting. He says, this is Yonkin. This is his tweet. Glenn Yonkin, personal account for the former, what is it, the governor of Virginia.

Starting point is 00:41:07 working the anyway he says they've turned every state to a border state we must stop the flow of fentanyl and save lives really you mean the fentanyl where i think 90 something percent comes to the mail from china really i've made this point very often in this conversation this fentanyl ms 13 focus is not accurate it's very i mean look they'll go out to china just the same way but when it comes to the border conversation this seems to always be the way it goes despite the fact that I don't believe they truly care about that. And secondarily, that the vast, vast majority does not come through the border, let alone the overlap of MS-13 with your own entities and security. There's so much going on there that we don't really talk about.

Starting point is 00:41:50 But I find that to be pretty disingenuous. And turning every state into a border state. So again, this is the idea. Are we proving that? Has this been some mass concept where these people are rushing through the United States and they're causing problems in every state? Doesn't seem to be what I see happening. Now here's the independent. It says, what's really behind the border showdown on Rio Grande?

Starting point is 00:42:14 It says, it may sound like a potentially dangerous, if not slightly absurd bureaucratic nightmare. But at the root of this standoff, it is a disagreement about the U.S. Constitution, which is funny because it should be pretty obvious what is the Constitution is pretty clear, in my opinion. But it says, and who ultimately has the responsibility to protect and govern the country's borders. That's not a fair way to frame that, right? It's not about who has responsibility. It's about who's doing it. Because you can clearly argue that the Biden administration was not doing what Texas felt was necessary.

Starting point is 00:42:44 And that seems to come from every level, even people currently working on the side of, you know, from the Border Patrol side of it. There are statements all over the place where I think it was even an interview with one of the local, you know, higher level authorities in the law enforcement was simply saying the same point where he kind of argues that, you know, it shouldn't go afoul of the law, but ultimately the Biden administration has been failing Texas. I think that's pretty roundly accepted in regard to the political. political manipulation. And I'm not talking about helping people who need help. I'm talking about doing this in a way that is so, you know, again, not a middle ground, but finding, you know, the open border everyone can come in because, you know, that kind of a thing, as opposed to the, you know, adhering to the law with some humanity. It's always one side of the other. No one can come in. They're all legal or they're everybody. And I don't think it's just about

Starting point is 00:43:27 the Democrats thinking that immigrants will vote for them. I think that's changed quite a bit over the years. I think it's much more afferious than that. But it says on one side, Republican states believe the Biden administration is not doing enough to prevent illegal crossings into the United States and have taken aggressive and potentially dangerous measures to do so in its place. I don't under dangerous. Like this is what I think is so interesting. What is the issue with putting up razor wire? Like when they put out those buoys that had razors on it, I mean, that's like,

Starting point is 00:43:55 that's like from some horror movie. That's crazy, especially since people can't, that would, that would likely hurt people that didn't realize what was going on. If you're walking up to a razor wire fence, I'm pretty sure you're aware. of what you're looking at. That's no different to me than just having a large fence, the razor wire on top, which we have too. So this seems like a disingenuous stance, right?

Starting point is 00:44:15 This is why I think this is just a flashpoint that's been created. I don't think this is really happening, but I don't think this is actually what is really happening if you get my point. Because that just does not make sense to me. The Biden administration, meanwhile, has asserted the government's constitutional right to regulate immigration and argue that preventing border aid patrol agents from accessing the area in peril of the lives of migrants

Starting point is 00:44:36 trying to cross. Okay. So it's an interesting conflation of points. First of all, let's laugh out loud collectively of the Biden administration acting like they can utilize the Constitution while they literally violated in every other possible way you could find. When they need something, of course, the Constitution, right? But next point, the right, the right to regulate immigration and argue that preventing them from accessing it, which again was my point before, if that's happening, then where is the immigration at all happening? But, it says, in perils the lives of them trying to cross the river. Well, again, nobody's forcing them to cross the river.

Starting point is 00:45:13 This gets specifically into the obligation that Biden would argue that we have to not do this because they might be hurt by it. Now, I am, again, the same point. Your foreign policy of this country is creating what they are going through to a large degree, which I argue then does put some obligation on this country to handle that. Doesn't mean they have to let everybody in the country, but there's some level that does need to be acknowledged there. And that could be as simple as helping the country you destroyed, right? But is it your obligation to have no blockage, if you think that's what that means,

Starting point is 00:45:46 in order for the hypothetical chance that they may be in danger and you just can't get to them? I think that goes way beyond what we would think is justifiable. The Department of the Homeland Security noted the case of a mother and her two children who drowned while trying to cross where Mr. Abbott's fortification that be placed near the Shelby Park. Well, okay, are they, I mean, you can, you've seen the images. You can see this from the other side. So again, I mean, it's a sad reality. And it makes me sad that some, a mother is in this position in the first place, largely because of what your governments are doing. And that maybe they were in some desperate situation. And so it's, there's some humanity to it. But again, that was her conscious choice to cross the river into an area where you can see there's a razor wire fence. So I just don't this, I mean, whether that person's even real, we should ask. I mean, I know that does have. happened to some degree. But it says for President Donald Trump waited into the dispute on Thursday, accusing President Joe Biden of, quote, fighting to tie the hands of Governor Abbott and the state of Texas,

Starting point is 00:46:46 which, I mean, I guess you could look at it that way in the argument that you're saying you can't put these fences up, which would then mean you can't do anything about the immigration. But that's not really true, though, because there are still Border Patrol. There are still authority figures there, and there is still a process. What you're arguing is they're illegally coming across in other locations, right? So this comes into the point to where he is still taking action. The point is, I think it's about blocking it in general. But it's a question of what you think is ultimately what should be happening. Should we be allowing immigration in general? Should be putting more fences up in other areas or more security in order to stop more illegal? Like, I think there will always be

Starting point is 00:47:31 illegal immigration. I think that's just something that will happen based on people from within the system, allowing it to some degree for their own benefit based on other ways they can, I mean, or the cartels having tunnels and stuff. I'm sure there will always be some level of it. So the question comes down to whether this one thing is truly tying his hands in regard to what you think. Again, to me, it always comes back to whether there's truly a big threat happening right now. It says, we encourage all willing states to deploy their guards to Texas to prevent the

Starting point is 00:47:55 entry of illegals. See my point? First of all, not only does he literally just say deploy your military to stand against the federal government, that's going to blow up in his. face. They are going to use that to probably knock him off further ballots in other states to claim he's trying to fight for a new insurrection. I don't think that's what he's doing, but I still think ultimately that that's a pretty dangerous and irresponsible thing. Like you could simply say, we should be politically supporting what they're doing, but to call on military forces to go there to

Starting point is 00:48:22 stand against other forces from the federal government, guys, that's a flash. That's dangerous. Even if it's all hype, that could blow up in its own way. So I think that's designed. I really do. I think that you are being trapped. If you are on the, Republican side of this. They are trying to create a circumstance where I would even argue you're justified to act, maybe even from a constitutional level with violence to remove an illegitimate government, but is that actually what you want to do? Do you think that's actually possible, whether constitutionally sound or not? I think it's ridiculous at this point, not that you should have a right to do it, but because they will never, ever allow that to happen. They will shut you down with violence.

Starting point is 00:48:59 They will call you terrorists, and then they will use that against everybody else. Now, to be very clear, That's not an argument for why you It's not to say that you shouldn't act within what you think is constitutionally protected Because I will support that Even if you end up getting called terrorists, I will make the point that you had the Constitution right to do it But we just have to ask what are we really trying to accomplish If they want to try to trick you in, coax you into doing another January 6th Even if you feel legally protected in it, do you think that's going to achieve what you actually want to achieve?

Starting point is 00:49:31 Valid question Now it says we, then he goes on to say, oh, he wrote that on truth social. And it says, and to remove them back across the border. Now, again, the other point was illegals. But he's saying prevent the entry of illegals. But that's not all that's happening. They're looking at everybody coming up right now as part of that problem, which maybe they are, but they're not illegals until they illegally cross the border.

Starting point is 00:49:57 And on top of that, again, the point is that there is a Biden administration aspect to this as the president. as the executive branch who has the ability to write executive orders and do whatever the hell they want, which I don't agree with, if they're arguing that there's an asylum being offered, that then becomes a dispute about what you want to be happening. Now, you could go to court and argue from a legal standpoint that Biden is not allowed to do that. But that happens every single time in these, our governments are all corrupt and illegitimate anyway, in my opinion, and Trump did the same thing, Obama did the same thing, maybe not in this context, but all sorts of other things.

Starting point is 00:50:27 So again, it's not about whether he's breaking the law. I mean, you could make the argument, but really about that you disagree with what's ultimately happening and you're willing to take a violent stance to stop that. I think that's an important way to look at it. Mr. Abbott enforcing a showdown on the Rio Grande hopes to, hopes he can persuade the Supreme Court to consider his argument that states have a right to play a greater role in protecting America's national borders.

Starting point is 00:50:53 So you see, in his own statement, what he's admitting to is that that's not the current dynamic. And now he's simply arguing that they should have a greater role, which I would argue, I agree with. But it says if he wins, it would represent a seismic shift in how U.S. borders are controlled. Again, which means that's not currently how it works. So is it their legal right to stand up and say, I want it to be some other way? Shouldn't that have been done before? But again, if you think it's an invasion, well, that would change it. Mr. Abbott laying out his justification in a statement on Wednesday that invoked the Constitution's authors,

Starting point is 00:51:25 Alexander Hamilton and James Madison argued that President Biden has, quote, refused to enforce. It's important. Laws preventing illegal immigration from entering the United States and claims he thus, he thus his state has, claims he, I guess this is typo, and claims he thus has state his the, but that's not right. Is it claims he thus his state has the constitutional authority to defend itself? Yeah, I guess that's a typo. But so, again, defending yourselves, is that actually what's happening?

Starting point is 00:51:55 I think it's interesting from the Israeli Gaza discussion of the right to defend yourself. And coming from someone like Greg Abbott, I find that even more interesting. Before we get there, just to show you on Fox News, Trump urges states to surge National Guard to Texas as Abbott stand up by it. So it's not just some left-wing misrepresentation. Trump very clearly was saying bring them at, which a lot of them have. As you might have seen, I hear, of course, you might expect. Here's info war is historic. All Republican governors back Texas as they stand up against the fed's border invasion.

Starting point is 00:52:24 I just don't know why anyway The way these things are framed guys It's always hyperbolic and it's all tipping over And boiling over and the point is You do see a lot of Republican governors standing up And at least supporting this Whether they're going to send military is another question But certainly all these seem

Starting point is 00:52:43 These kind of platforms seem to be screaming civil war Which seems like an irresponsible thing to do in my mind Now this is a clip from Fox News Texas lieutenant governor Warrens Biden of military confrontation. The Biden administration could make would be confronting law enforcement or our military, our National Guard at our border, at this park, when we're actually doing the job that the American people want.

Starting point is 00:53:12 Well, I think it's important to be clear that there's, it's not as simple as saying everybody wants this first. I think it's pretty split, not even just two ways. I think there's different opinions about how this should go. But as usual, you frame it as everybody versus. No, you know, that's kind of how it works. But again, it just simply comes down to whether you think what's more important, right? Is this about an illegal invasion or is it about helping people who need help?

Starting point is 00:53:34 It's definitely somewhere in the middle. But that's not what you get with the two-party illusion. So if they come down and create a situation, all of America already knows now. They will clearly see that the Democrats are willing to take on a state that is operating under the our constitutional right to protect our people and protect this country. I don't think even Biden will make that mistake. We're not looking for a confrontation. We're looking for them to do their damn job and protect the lives of Texans and Americans

Starting point is 00:54:09 and protect the borders in this country. And for every person that's died of a fentanyl overdose, for every person's been murdered by MS-13, for every law enforcement officer has been killed the line of duty because these people across the border, that death is on the hands of Joe Biden. and this administration, his policy is on the border. They should not come and confront us. They should just let us do our job.

Starting point is 00:54:30 Yeah, well, you could, the middle, then at the first and end part, maybe agree with, but the hyperbolic middle, you know, I mean, to argue that they would, to say that every single problem that has ever happened is, I mean, there's always been these issues. This is just how these partisan players work. It's, you know, I mean, think about it like this.

Starting point is 00:54:48 This very well could explode in something much bigger. I really hope that it doesn't. Or not. or this becomes some agreement and it drifts into the background and the biggest threat to our democracy ever becomes a story that nobody talks about anymore because it was all hype. Not that there weren't real parts of it, but this happens every single day in the partisan media. And a lot of us on the outskirts and the, you know, the understanding, the illusion will be the ones over here going, I don't know, it looks kind of manipulative. It looks like it's a little, you know, like the UFOs or the air, the, what is it, the weather balloons or all these different things that were like screaming about and it was this big plan and China's involved. it just goes gone. Oh, so it wasn't that then. Interesting. I just want people to ask whether

Starting point is 00:55:27 that's the case, right? Or, as I think is more likely, the further part of this, that it's being created to drive you in to take action. And that would be the ultimate point. Here is the one I was referencing before. Governor of Oklahoma openly discusses possibility of civil war. Like, don't you think it's strange that civil war is being so casually floated around because of this one situation? Doesn't that feel a little bit orchestrated to you? Biden should or may actually federalize the National Guard, take that power away from Greg Abbott. Let's say this showdown, I mean, that's what it is. It's a showdown. It's a showdown of power and loyalties and constitutionality. Let's say he does that. How many people say, no, you know what, screw you

Starting point is 00:56:10 Biden administration and how many people stay and fight with Texas versus the federal things? And does that put us on course for a force-on-force conflict? I mean, right now you've got the federal agents that cutting the wire and then you've got the Texas National Guard on orders to put up wire. I mean, this is a counter, a powder keg worth of tension. So it's very, it's a very weird situation. We certainly stand with Texas on their right to defend themselves. But Biden's going to be in a tough situation. So in other words, he's going to try to federalize these troops. In other words, put them on federal orders. And so now their allegiance technically goes to the United States instead of the governor. And of course, I think a lot of Texans, these are still,

Starting point is 00:56:58 there's still Texans that are weekend, you know, they're international guards, they do one week in a month or when they get called up on duties by the governor. And I think they would be in a difficult situation to protect their homeland or to follow what Biden's saying. I literally open it. Very interesting. But then, you know, then you've got Oklahoma and Florida and Tennessee and you got all these other states that would send our National Guard to help and to support the efforts of of Governor Abbott because every state is a border state you talked about fentanyl the deaths in Oklahoma since I've taken office are up 500 percent and we know that's coming across the southern border and then you yeah except 90 plus percent comes in the mail from China but let's

Starting point is 00:57:43 only make it about what's advantageous for your political stance think about the terrorists again I just don't know what their endgame is here and And I hope American people really wake up to what's happening. Well, Governor, one of my other things, too, on this is that, you know, so it's interesting to me that from a Republican standpoint, from people that are, you know, immediately skeptical about a false flag, a setup, you know, a psychological operation, which rightly should be. Or, you know, maybe this is a setup.

Starting point is 00:58:10 Maybe that's shooting is fake. Maybe they're lying to us about this. But this happens, and it's immediately believed. There's terrorists coming through terror, really the very same people who would tell you you're a terrorist if you're wearing a red hat. And there are Republicans that are in the same mindset that are, we're suddenly going to believe. You see what I'm saying? Like, I just don't get it.

Starting point is 00:58:27 And this, I do actually. It comes down to the two-party divide because they somehow see the ones on the right side of it as somehow more trustworthy. It's just naive. Your government is tricking you as always. Now here's an interesting, like this is one of the comments we're seeing. It's saying, I can't listen to this trash about the show today. The border is chaos and we shouldn't let people walk into our country. Now, explain to me anywhere so far at all where I said we should just let people walk into the country.

Starting point is 00:58:56 It's the very, very opposite. I'm just arguing that it should not be this all, like that literally everybody who is trying to cross is immediately legal and we shut things down and we act. And we don't acknowledge that there is a byproduct of what, but largely, I would argue, people in two-party illusion have allowed the government to continue doing it for overseas. Right. But the problem is that if you talk even somewhere in the middle, every side of the illusion freaks out and hates you because you're right. either not allowing every human to be helped or you're allowing all the illegals to come through, even though what we're actually doing is taking a balanced reasonable stance about the fact that we should care about both. But that bothers everybody. I think that's hilarious. But so here

Starting point is 00:59:34 is where we get into the weaponized aspect of this. This is from 2021. There's a lot of talk about this, a lot of studies, because it's a very real thing. This is just a point to cite this. You can read this for yourself. European migration as a political tool. This is just one one kind of evaluation of this concept. It says the recent, this again, 2021, the recent crisis between Morocco and Spain was just the latest example of weaponized migration seen by the European Union. Gatekeeper states will continue to use migration for political ends, the threat of which will shape foreign policy for frontline EU members. Now, there's a very real conversation to be had here. But then in some cases, you see a lot of places in Europe that end up becoming, you know, everybody

Starting point is 01:00:19 Brown in this country is suddenly a problem, right? And that's ridiculous. Or the fact that a lot of these people are just random people. And it's the governments and the players and the intelligence apparatus that are using them, creating the circumstances that drive them into other countries, like what happened in Syria, what's currently being used to put people in Gaza. These are tactics, guys, and they are used. And the problem is that the people at the highest levels of the two-party illusion, and I mean, in the sense of the commentators, don't care about that. And suddenly it becomes these people are evil and bad because one of them might be a terrorist. And it's just, it comes, it's disgusting. It is the worst, it's the lowest common denominator. I don't think that's what everybody actually

Starting point is 01:00:58 thinks, but that's what's ultimately paraded around as if that's the conversation we should be having. So first of all, just recognize governments, including your own government, actively use people's lives to manipulate the outcome. Like here's actually a really small, perfect example. Remember when they were, and probably still will, were bringing these people around to like Martha's Vineyard and letting them out. You know, the immigrants that are just randomly and just walking up and they don't know where to go and all of a sudden they take them back somewhere else. What a gross little ploy.

Starting point is 01:01:30 The point is they did it to make a point, but you're using human lives as pawns, which is what they do, guys. But so that's the same game. That is essentially a minor example of weaponized migration. You're taking them and going here, deal with that, right? Same thing. But now we're talking this case, we're talking about internationally, government to government.

Starting point is 01:01:48 right or or individual players or however you want to look at it but let's look at what happened from you know Venezuela the last conversation about this I don't think that was organic I think that there was real people that have always been migrating up because of their destabilization tactics all through South America but that was initiated there was a clear mobilization but how did it end up right there there was effort I mean the point is that even if you really truly just let all, every single person ever coming through into the United States, the real threat would ultimately be whether or not there are people within that that would be intentionally there to destabilize, carry out terrorist attacks.

Starting point is 01:02:31 Because if your problem is that there are just people that you don't like that have a different color than you, then there's a different problem there, isn't there? Now, I can, I'll be the first to tell you that any, like, let's just take the idea of weaponized migration in the broadest sense, that there's no terrorism, there's no, let's just even a of crime, the simple influx of a massively different society or ethnicity or population into another country will cause chaos. It'll cause all sorts of problems. People, and this is just seen throughout history. But the question would be, and this is for you to decide whether whether it's more important to help people that would need help than to protect what you think

Starting point is 01:03:09 your society is. Now, that's a hard question. I'm not even, I'm not even sure where I was down that. But then you overlap that with terrorism and intelligence. apparatus and, you know, Western Israeli, European-backed terrorism that they act like is coming from somewhere else that they've been funding and arming their entire lives like ISIS or Al-Qaeda or Hamas, right? That kind of problem. I think that's what this is really about. Now, here's where this gets interesting. Now, there's a lot of ways you could get into the idea of weaponized migration. So many different ways that it has been used most clearly because of the massive destabilization of the Western powers around the world that drive.

Starting point is 01:03:46 people away and then they get channeled and used in certain ways. But this is, I want to make this about a specific discussion, just because this is what makes most sense to me. I am not saying this is what's happening. I'm just going to float one of the possibilities that seems to make the most sense to me. But just so it's clear, I do think that's what's happening. I think that this is being politically manipulated. Now, that could be our country.

Starting point is 01:04:07 It could be Mexico. It could be anybody. But here, let me make a case for why I think this would make the most sense that Israel is desperate to try to destabilize what seems to be a almost fully mobilized United States against what they're doing. Like everybody around the world for that matter, but the United States has the most power as the government to stop what they're doing. So if you look at this as one of two things, if you think this is something being done to the United States, which is what most of the Republicans seem to think, but I don't think they would aim it at Israel. There's a couple

Starting point is 01:04:38 ways it could be used. This could be a threat, right, that will continue to. You know, do this if you don't if you know that will that this is what we could do if you decide to go against what our agenda is again totally hypothetical or it could just literally be about the larger agenda that a lot of people think has always been happening in regard to the manipulation of the population of this country people talk about the great replacement theory and all these things i don't really think that makes the most sense to me because it wouldn't be necessarily about replacement it would just be about destabilization but you know there's plenty of theories of course the theories that are in somewhat backed up by history in fact typically

Starting point is 01:05:14 we called racist or manipulative, which is usually an interesting point there. But this is the Baker Institute for Public Policy. And this is about right now, this is from December of 2023. Israel's mass displacement of Gazans fit strategy of using migration as a tool of war. Now, this is specifically about Gaza, Palestinians, and how using that migration, or rather the forced displacement, is very clearly part of their strategy, whether that's about moving them just out of the way or using them to manipulate other countries that they might want to influence Egypt, Jordan, right? It's very obvious. But you could read this for yourself. The point is simply, based on what we see happening, based of their rhetoric, it fits the strategy of weaponized migration. So very clearly we need to understand there's a history here that Israel has done this before. And your government, especially the United, well, if you're the United States, a government of the United States is a clear culprit in this regard. So the question that becomes, is that what's happening now and is that being driven by somebody like Israel?

Starting point is 01:06:16 Here's a point that I think is a little bit flimsy. And I think a lot of this is about kind of forcing this in to aim it, you know, really specifically to make this about Jewish people alone. But I still think there's an interesting point you made here. Now, this is Sam Parker, I'm not really familiar running percent of that I guess, saying, is Ben Shapiro funding the U.S. border invasion? Well, I mean, that's a pretty quick jump to make. What you can prove in this is that he's funding this entity to about $10,000 to $20,000. It looks like at least once or every year, even though he misquotes that right here. It's actually, and he does follow up below and say, oops, I made a mistake with the amount.

Starting point is 01:06:53 But this is a group called H-I-A-S. The, it's, this, it's, oh, wait, what does it stand for again? Hold on. The Hebrew immigrant aid society. Now, I looked into this, and I'm just like, okay, this is interesting because there's a lot of talk right now about this being a group that's involved with the flood in the flood of people coming up from the south. And it is a, I'll just read right from what they say here. It is, stands for a world in which refugees find welcome, safety, and opportunity. And it says, drawing on our Jewish values in history, H-I-A-S provides vital services to refugees and asylum seekers around the world, but interestingly seems to be predominantly about how.

Starting point is 01:07:48 helping in regard to migration into the United States. What I found interesting was I was like, okay, well, who founded this? That's very important to me. Because to me, it's never about just making it about one religion. And as we've said, very clearly, about the Zionist manipulation of Judaism. I think it's more so about always trying to make it about that as opposed to the Zionist manipulation of it. So I wanted to find out, was this a Zionist? Was this somebody else?

Starting point is 01:08:14 Was it somebody tied to the CIA, right? That kind of thing. Well, interestingly enough, no matter how far I looked, the only thing I could find, more than 100 years ago, the Jewish community founded this. How does it even make sense? Just the collective Jewish community, which to me almost is an insight into the fact that it's a Zionist concept. Because the Jewish community doesn't really make much sense to me. Otherwise, you know, because it was that people were all over the world until the illegal state of Israel came into being and they bombed people to force them into their country, which is what really happened. So to me, it's kind of an indication.

Starting point is 01:08:46 it's more so a coordinated political thing than just every Jew in the world suddenly collected and made this happen. Right? It's been very strange to me. Now again, just my personal thought. But what he says here, this is one of the most significant sponsors and facilitators of the mass migrant invasion wave at the U.S. southern border. It provides financial logistic support for these masses.

Starting point is 01:09:07 Secretary of Homelandry, Majorchus, who is dereliction of duty, he writes, is overseeing the wide open border used to be a board member, which is. is true of this group. In Ecuador, near the Darien Gap, this group helps oversee a migrant processing and support facility. Hordes of migrants pass through here on their way to the U.S. border. Now, you could argue this is just what their mandate is, that we're helping immigrants and we want to see them get to places where they can be safe, right? But I also sense a little bit of something different here. It says they're building bridges and roads on the way to maximize the amount. And a lot of these are his opinions. But I do find it interesting that you'll find that Ben Shapiro

Starting point is 01:09:42 is on here, which wouldn't, it's not going to be groundbreaking. It would make sense that he would, whoops, he would fund this. Hold on. There it is. So Ben Shapiro under the, up here,

Starting point is 01:10:05 so it's about the 10,000 to about 17,000, 99. So interestingly, first, to talk about the idea that this could be a group, and there are groups in general that seem to have a mandate, whether you think it's a ferreous or not, to sort of drive this action. Right? Like, so it's,

Starting point is 01:10:22 it's from a, you know, I guess legal standpoint, it's legitimate. But clearly this could be used in and of itself through legitimate channels to sort of just drive waves of people. Like that would make sense, especially knowing that weaponized migration is a very clear and practiced tactic of these governments, something we should be asking. So here's what I found even more interesting. Here is Netanyahu speaking with Ben Shapiro recently, where he essentially admits that the Israeli government has infiltrated the U.S. government. And no one really cares, as Hotspot points out. the wrong place.

Starting point is 01:10:54 And he said, why? He said, because you should be in America. He said, why America? He said, because America will be the rising power in the world. There may be a world conflict. America will emerge as the great power. And America can make Britain do what Britain doesn't want to do. That is, recognize a Jewish state.

Starting point is 01:11:11 Well, they went to America. Djiboutinsky died, and my father continued alone during the interwar, during the war years, agitating for Zionism. It was all of 32. And he began, that's in 1942. He decided to do something that no Jewish leader did before. He went to the Republicans.

Starting point is 01:11:32 And he went to Senator Taft, who was a very great senator, because Roosevelt would not hear of a Jewish state. It was absolutely opposed to it. He didn't want to antagonize the British. He thought that the British wanted to cater to the Arabs. He simply would not do it. He was a great leader, but it was for the Jewish people. that wasn't good.

Starting point is 01:11:52 So not being able to persuade the Democrats, he went to the Republicans. And he said to Senator Taft, to advocate to put in the Republican National Convention on the platform, support for unrestricted Jewish immigration and a Jewish state. Well, Roosevelt didn't like it,

Starting point is 01:12:10 but three months later he had no choice. The Democratic National Convention adopted a similar platform. So in many ways, my father was the progenitor of the bipartisan American support for Israel. But of course he did. Which, I mean, if you really break down what he's saying, they are petitioning and lobbying, which again is the same. They're manipulating through financial or political pressure what the outcome of American policy is. And let's not forget, there's

Starting point is 01:12:37 countless, or I should say countless. I mean, I know of at least two very clear and proven to be real videos of Netanyahu boasting about how we can manipulate and control the American government, or that 9-11 was good for our policy. Like it's just very clear. So when he's sitting there boasting about the fact that your ancestors and you yourself have essentially driven into reality what otherwise wouldn't have happened through your pressure or you're petitioning this government, I mean, isn't that alarming in and of itself, especially since we, I hope we all are beginning to understand that the state of Israel is illegitimate.

Starting point is 01:13:10 There's an illegal occupation of another country or another entity, however you want to look at it. And it's obvious. And so what you ultimately allowed was what he's saying is the unfurial, better migration into this to justify what you're doing. And this was about desperation, remember, as Avi Shalom has discussed, where they were bombing, I think it's right here, bombing Iraqi Jews in order to drive them into the state of Israel. Iraqi Jews were convinced that Israel had a hand in uprooting them. After the 1948 war, there was mounting popular hostility towards the Jews in Iraq.

Starting point is 01:13:48 Five bombs exploded in Jewish sites. The series of bombs created a panic which led more and more Jews to register to leave the country. I met an elderly friend of my mothers, an Iraqi Jew called Yaakov Karkukli, who had been in the Zionist underground. One member of his group, Yosef Basri, a very, very intelligent Jewish lawyer, and his assistant, Shalom, Siams, Salah Shalom, were responsible for three out of the five bombs. Basri's controller was an Israeli intelligence officer named Max Binet, who was based in Tehran. And by the way, I don't know if you guys got a chance to laugh at that ridiculous music video that Ben Shapiro just put out, which, like, I'm not one to, I mean, you know, it takes

Starting point is 01:14:42 courage to put yourself out there like that, but my God, it's pretty stupid. He literally called it facts. It's just like, okay, that's worth laughing at for a second. Okay, so the point here, though, is I'll include these other past articles. I mean, I've talked about it many times. This is just the ones that came up on a quick search. We talked about weaponized migration back here in 2018. Here's a really old article that I haven't read a long time from an old writer we had,

Starting point is 01:15:07 this is 2015. So it's very impossible that I don't even agree with what's in here at this point. But nonetheless, you know, somebody else's perspective on the concept of weaponized migration, it's worth checking out because you have to realize this is. has been used and it is still being used. But that does not mean that the people should always be demonized. Now, this is, this was the Tucker interview. I thought this was important that, but we didn't realize.

Starting point is 01:15:29 So he was in India, apparently, which I don't understand why a state governor would be doing international anything, quite frankly. It's very strange to me. But the point was in Axios, they make it clear that he, not immediately before this, but recently before this, he was taking another trip to Israel. I think that speaks to something, quite frankly, there's a very obvious overlap there. And here is some history on this as well. This is from 2017, but he has been aggressively pro-Zionist.

Starting point is 01:15:57 Texas governor signs anti-BDS bill on Israel's Independence Day of all days. And of course, this ended up getting voted back that it was unconstitutional, but they still act in this way all across the country. And this is where we get to the point about the people. Before I go past that, this is important to think about. So if Abbott is the one seemingly driving this conversation to the level of civil war, it's worth asking whether or not this is something bigger. Obviously, it makes sense to see the connections. Doesn't mean it has to be the way it is,

Starting point is 01:16:29 but I think it's interesting to consider whether this might be something that's being driven into reality. And it gets a little more interesting as we go forward about the natural gas aspect. But first, this is where we're seeing the fervor, the hype, which I believe is hype. This is almost hard to believe the way this is presented. It feels really almost, it feels very staged, if you will, but definitely could be real. Now it says, quote, this is Sarah Fields. Well, actually, I won't read the quote. I'll let you listen to it, listening to it.

Starting point is 01:17:00 But this is, but this everyone seems to be claiming is Mobb Samadav, a Azerbaijan, a terrorist who was arrested, who served his time and was released apparently, like, a couple years ago, and they're claiming this is him on the border. Here's what he has to say. You are smart enough, you will know who I am, but you are really not smart enough to know who I am. But soon you're going to know who I am. Very easy. The entitlement, the entitlement. No, believe it.

Starting point is 01:17:34 I'm much better than that. The entitlement, guys. Wow. So, first part is the important part. You are so who I am, but you are really not smart enough to. know who I am, but soon you're going to know who I am. So you're not smart enough to know who I am, but soon you're going to know who I am. Now, certainly could be a threat or not.

Starting point is 01:17:53 It could be some random person saying something, or what it seems to me, this is clearly something meant to drive the conversation we're talking about. Like, why would you say that? Certainly could be real. Could be a guy that's going, you're going to find out. But then don't you think somebody who would actually believe that would immediately track him down and arrest him? Right.

Starting point is 01:18:12 Like if somebody was planning something, that's not what they would do. Unless they're a ridiculous juvenile person that doesn't realize by saying this publicly that everyone's going to realize you. Like to me, that is about that being the point. That statement becoming the focal point, which then gets, which it did, parroted and spread around every single Republican media channel saying, oh my God, it's a terrorist. He threatened you. And this is what's happening. And Biden's allowing it.

Starting point is 01:18:34 Based off what? The assumption that he is what you think he is and everything else's assumption from there. This is, it's assumption upon assumption upon assumption. Now here is who they're saying he is. Mob some Samadav. Now, if you look at it, that picture to this picture, it looks pretty close. Right. And it very well could be.

Starting point is 01:18:56 Except when you realize that the image that they're pointing to, and if you want to read about this, you can, of course, this is where it really becomes the scare tactic for the Republicans about anybody who is part of the Islamic Party as a terrorist, which is really where this all stems back to, head of the Islamic Party of Azerbaijan. on. Now, in this specific case, this guy is arrested, but this is where you get to the concept of the term terrorist applying to just anybody you don't. The point is, this was a person who was arrested for basically he denounced the president over a ban on wearing religious headscarves and was arrested. Now, the argument is that he took action, you know, violent action and so on. You could argue as a terrorist, but I could point out 100 examples of how, you know, Americans have

Starting point is 01:19:41 fought back against unjust laws that they thought they should with violence. And we talk about, we parade those and we celebrate them. Right. So it's just so frustrating to me. And look, I'm not, I don't really know this. Very well could be. But I just think it's so gross how we constantly will create the dynamic, the, the circle, that we create the narrative that works for the political game.

Starting point is 01:20:02 It could just be a person that is fighting back into what he believes in and he gets called the terrorist and so on, right? Or just because he wears that headdraft people, you know, this is the two party all. But as Liam Cosbroe points out, the Middle Easterner filmed at the border is not Mopsum Samadav. Look at the image that's gone viral compared to this article about the real Samadav published on the day of his release one year prior to the border video. This is what they're showing. Everyone going, look, it's him, we caught it. It's kind of the same game. And that does look pretty close. The problem is this image is of this guy mob some quite a while ago. Here is his current

Starting point is 01:20:47 picture. Both of these looks a little different, doesn't he? Why? Because that's a really old image of him when he was younger. So it becomes very simple for people to go, so it's the same, and it becomes the narrative, and it's in every Republican channel everywhere. All of them. The big guys, too. Great due diligence, guys. Did you even check? It's not because this is the person after he was released after 12 years, which by the way, also served his time. So aren't we supposed to pretend like he's been rejuvary? You know, what's the term we use? I can't remember it now.

Starting point is 01:21:20 You know, that he changed because he served his time. It's just, you know, like that's, I don't know if that's even something that happens, but the point is we all pretend that's the way it works. But here he is. This is, this was in a case, it says three weeks ago, but the point is this is him post-released from jail. Look at him, guys. He's also got a big mole on his face. right there, which does not seem to be on this guy's face.

Starting point is 01:21:45 In any case, the point is, this is certainly him, because this has been coverage of him being released from prison. Here is his own channel him talking about this on YouTube. So the point is it's not him. Who it is? Who knows? Could be nobody. Rehabilitated.

Starting point is 01:22:03 Thank you, Sarah. That was the word I was searching for. Could be nobody. Could be a random guy who seems to think you're going to know him. because of some dumb thing is going to do or it could be another terrorist. We don't know. But the point is we don't know. But it's already become the reality that this is what Biden is doing.

Starting point is 01:22:17 He's letting all the terrorists through. But they're wrong. And that's not who you think it is. Now, if you, oh, and the other point that was going to make, and this is important. Just going back to this, this, you know, video here. This is, by the way, exactly what we've kind of become accustomed to in regard to the clumsy propaganda we've been seeing from Israel for quite a while now. And just in a broader sense, this is the kind of entity that we've seen, backed by the

Starting point is 01:22:46 West, backed by, you know, the Western Europe and the United States and Israel and the powers involved with the false flags and the terrorist acts that they blame on somebody else, which turns out there were the moderate rebels or the people they've been funding or the provable example that they fund, funded, armed and controlled the worst elements of Islam this entire time while fighting against the more moderate people that wouldn't go along with what they wanted. I mean, that's the fact of the reality. the Israel and the United States government have been funding the most radical elements of the very thing they claim they're fighting for decades. They funded Hamas.

Starting point is 01:23:14 And now don't talk about that. So if you can't at least consider the possibility that this guy and is very clumsy, you're going to know me when you know me. Sounds like something Obama, of course, that old thing. Osama bin Laden was saying back when he was in the context, that's the kind of thing they would do. And he was a cutout. So if you want to understand that more, I recommend you watch James Corbett's amazing three-part documentary, false flags, a secret history of al-Qaeda, which undeniably proves to you using

Starting point is 01:23:43 receipts and their own documentation that most of the people involved with this, including him, the al-Sama himself, were assets. It's impossibly obvious. So it's easy to see. And this guy is directly overlapsed Israel. Watch it. They were acutely involved. So I think that is what this looks like to me.

Starting point is 01:24:03 You're being set up. You rush in here acting like you're going to save the country from the bad guy terror. is you're going to be the one they call terrorists. Now here is what Biden put out yesterday in regard to the liquefied natural gas, which appears to generally have nothing to do with this. Maybe it does. Statement from President Biden on decision to pause pending approvals. It says, in every corner of the country and the world, people are suffering the devastating

Starting point is 01:24:28 toll of climate change. Of course, that's where it starts. Hardly. Not even remotely what's actually happening. But of course, this is the narrative, right? This is how you justify the action. So that's why right out of the gate, I don't believe that's what's real. I don't even believe that's what they think they're doing.

Starting point is 01:24:44 Does it have to do with something else? Does it have to do with Texas specifically? Does that have to do with Israel specifically? Well, let's look into it. It says, my administration is announcing today a temporary pause on pending decisions of liquefied natural gas exports, of which Texas is gigantic. It says, with the exception of unanticipated and immediate national security emergencies, of course. So we can do it should we decide we need to for emergencies, but you guys can't. During this period, we will take a hard look at the impacts of LNG or liquid natural gas exports on energy costs,

Starting point is 01:25:16 America's energy security and our environment. This pause on the new LNG approvals, see the climate crisis for what it is, the existential threat of our time. You see the point, though, they can just justify pretty much anything out of disguise, even though they have their own loopholes for continuing to use nuclear power or oil themselves. The UK and the United States literally argued that that's ESG compliant because they use it to fight for freedom. So it means nothing. You understand. These people are completely dishonest of a disingenuous about what they claim they're trying to fight for.

Starting point is 01:25:49 So I don't believe that's what's really going on. Now it says, well, MAGA Republicans specifically, just a special category of MAGAR, which when you really press that they, that's pretty much any Republican to them, willfully deny the urgency of the climate crisis, condemning the American people to a dangerous future. administration will not be complacent. We will not cede to special interests, except all the special interests that you actively see to. Other than that, though, you'll never do that.

Starting point is 01:26:14 Anyway, here's what Kit Clarenberg said. White House blocks Texas energy exports in response to border bust up. Now, very well could be exactly what just happened. But let's be clear about this. This is a nationwide thing. This is not specific to Texas. But it interestingly does specifically affect Texas. more than everybody else.

Starting point is 01:26:37 So what do you think? Was this, was this a sort of a crafty move to try to penalize Texas in a way that you could argue had nothing to do with them? Maybe. I mean, it says, meanwhile, Republican governors are backing Texas. This is, he says, this is seismically significant in every way and getting virtually no serious attention. Can you imagine if this, the immediate interest if this happened in Russia or China?

Starting point is 01:27:01 So this is interesting. This is, so right now, Texas. and I think this was a recent post. This is, I think this is just updated for the current data. The nation's number one producer of natural gas. That's pretty interesting. And the world's third producer. That's pretty crazy.

Starting point is 01:27:20 I didn't know that until I looked into this. If Texas were a country, it would be the third largest natural gas producer in the world. That's pretty crazy. Texas produced natural gas is driving domestic economic and environmental progress, safeguarding our national energy security and providing critical. fuel supplies for our trade partners across the globe. Aha. So does this have to do with more than just Texas?

Starting point is 01:27:41 Could. It definitely could. Now, these are all just hypothetical, right? I think the most obvious way to look at this is that Texas is standing off against the federal government. If you think that's actually what's happening, and quite frankly, I think it's more about a way to get you pulled into this. And this is just another step in making it look like Biden's taking action against Texas

Starting point is 01:28:00 for them to drive in to defend it. But if you think that's what's happening, the point is that this does seem directly targeted at Texas, doesn't it? I mean, it's kind of hard to see how this is like predominantly hurting. And this is what it comes down to. As of October 2023, Texas has produced nearly 10 trillion cubic feet of natural gas marketed production, which amounts to 43% of the total natural gas produced in the United States. And here is just their general output you can look at. And we're talking about in 2022, and this is, I believe it's a volumes in million cubic feet. prices in dollar per thousand cubic feet.

Starting point is 01:28:37 So we're talking about, and this is, there we go, export volume in 2022, which went down almost, or about 400,000, but to 2,934,586. That's crazy. And all they're using, or rather importing is 277 million cubic feet. Interesting, which is weird. I know why LNG is in cubic feet. I find that so strange, but it is, though. So that's a huge amount of export that they now are on pause for.

Starting point is 01:29:10 So, I mean, almost immediate financial suppression. That's pretty hard to overlook. Here's another point to this, though. Now, this is pretty abstract, but I just wanted to see how this might connect. Now, this is, this says if Israel invade southern Lebanon, which they're openly threatening they're going to do. As widely reported on social media, then say goodbye to any hope of exploration. for natural gas in the area's waters, which is something they're actively seeking. Gas pipelines from East, Eastern, East Med to Europe and are already pipe dreams.

Starting point is 01:29:46 So in the midst of this conflict, where it seems that there are projects they're trying to achieve that are being kind of held up, is there something to that? Is this going to be used elsewhere? Is the positive it meant to change the market in some way that will benefit somebody else? Just hypothetical thoughts. Quite frankly, I think the most obvious point is that it's against Texas. That makes the most sense to me. Or at least it's meant to look that way. But here's against another cheek point.

Starting point is 01:30:13 Here's face the nation that says we'll hear, and this was on the 26th, we'll hear Sunday from Amos Hachstein, a top advisor to President Biden on energy policy about the administration's decision to pause some exports of liquid natural gas. Plus, we'll ask about his efforts to broker a diplomatic deal with Israel, Lebanon. See, so they're clearly connected. In the same talking point, they're talking about the advisor to the energy policy, talking about the decision to pause this, and in the same discussion about their brokering a diplomatic deal between Israel and Lebanon.

Starting point is 01:30:45 Why would the energy advisor have anything to do with brokering a deal about some kind of diplomatic pause? Because the LNG is involved. So whether that's involved with the Texas decision, I don't know, but it seems interesting at the timing of it all. And let's not forget the hundreds of billions of buildings. billions of unrealized dollars underneath Gaza, which they're desperately trying to drive them away from to take over as they're openly talking about settling now. Not a hypothetical conspiracy theory.

Starting point is 01:31:12 They're telling you they're going to. They're planning for it. They've got documents ready. They have people who are dancing in there and putting up flags running back, which means they're allowing them to do that. Individual civilians. They'll talk about that probably tomorrow. But this is hundreds of billions of dollars in large and a lot of LNG. Bill B writes, one trillion cubic feet of oil and natural gas lies under Gaza.

Starting point is 01:31:36 Israel plans to construct a canal through Gaza and extend oil pipelines to Europe and India. This will make Israel a critical player in the global energy market and redefine its alliances. Now, what's interesting is Israel, at least on the record, seems to have some, like, I think it was something like 17 times their use of their output, or rather just 17 times more than they need on a regular basis in regard to specifically now. natural gas. But, you know, maybe that's not true. I mean, they've lied about plenty of other things. They lie about nuclear weapons and so on. So it's interesting. And seeing as how these efforts are seemingly driving, you know, the offshore drilling for Gaza, the Lebanon aspect. Could it just, is that just about profit? Maybe there's more to the story. Just all that being considered, I thought that was interesting. Now, again, the most logical point is simply that that's a

Starting point is 01:32:26 response to what Texas is doing. I just think it's interesting that there is a connection to Israel and a lot of this that I wonder whether there's more to that decision. Now, let's get into the couple points about the hype that I continue to see. Now, this is somebody saying, breaking, which you'll find. Actually, I didn't even do this. We should check to see if this is repeated, which it usually is numerous times. Just the exact typing. Let's see.

Starting point is 01:32:52 Nope, that one's just by itself. Let's do this. Oh, interesting. He seems to be the only one. Anyway, but you'll just exactly type like that. You'll find a lot of these on Twitter right now. This is just the one that I grabbed. Another migrant caravan is approximately 1,500 people, even has a number for it.

Starting point is 01:33:10 Where do you get that? It's headed for the Texas border from southern Mexico. This is going to escalate things tenfold with current standoff between. Nope, that's not true. It's from Christmas Eve from 2023. Which still makes it a migration concept, but it's not a breaking news. This exact amount of people are about to come up. No, it already happened.

Starting point is 01:33:30 this was December in December 24th when they were coming up. And this is written on January 1st. So there's been 27 days that had passed since this was taken. And this guy and people all over Twitter are doing things just like that. That's the exact same image is the point. That is the exact same image. So why are people lying about that? Does he know that he's lying about it?

Starting point is 01:33:53 It doesn't matter as the point. And when you see those kind of things happening like we saw with Lahaina or whatever, there's something going on there. That's not just, some of it's organic. Some people are just ridiculous. They just lie or they don't care to check. But when you see it to this level, my gut, my instincts tell me that there's agendas taking place here, just like I think we know for sure.

Starting point is 01:34:13 We're in Lahaina or elsewhere. Here's another one saying it is today the day of civil war. Chaos has erupted on the Texas border. Immigrants from South America try to force their way. My point is it's like, I don't, is this even real? Did it really happen? Was this from a year ago? I don't know.

Starting point is 01:34:29 The point is that. that there's so much hype flying around of things that we can't verify. And from what I can tell, if you find this elsewhere, please send it to me so I can talk about it. But what's interesting is that this is the kind of thing that happens. And this hype is building people in their minds of the fact that, oh, my God, it's about to blow up. We're just about to defend that.

Starting point is 01:34:47 And that drives its way into the conversation, which then the risk of actual violence becomes real. Now, we also have People's Convoy 2.0, huge cav, that's interesting. What does that stand? I think that just means the same thing. That's weird. Huh. It was bringing up something where you probably saw it.

Starting point is 01:35:13 Yeah, a procession of riders. Cabalcade. I don't think I've used that before. Huge cavalcade of truckers. So another trucker convoy. We'll head to border hotspots in bid to shame Biden administration into cracking down. Okay. I always support, you, I quite frankly don't think you're protesting has much of an effect these days,

Starting point is 01:35:35 but I support it. If you want to go out and protest, do it. I believe in your right to do so, and I believe that it does have an effect in other ways. People pay attention. They listen to what you're saying. My concern here is twofold. Obviously, I think this is, you know, just like with Canada,

Starting point is 01:35:50 this is going to be manipulated. They're going to make it out to be with the, which doesn't mean you shouldn't do it, just because they lie about what your objectives are. But the other thing about this is just like the last time. What is your goal here? They're going to head to the border with all of your trucks and then essentially to a degree block other people that have nothing to do with this just by default

Starting point is 01:36:08 because the trucks end up blocking. That's like we saw with Canada. If your goal is to do something to start, why wouldn't you surround the capital? That's what I said the first time. Because what you're really stopping then is government processes. That's the point, right? That you want to stop them to drive them to do what you believe should be done as the American people. I just think it's interesting.

Starting point is 01:36:28 So now we're going to have a bunch of trucker convoys, which at this point, I'm very suspicious about whether this is all being orchestrated. We need to ask these questions. But believe me, I support the idea of what Canada was doing as well as these truckers if they believe they can protest for what they're doing. But something about this being feels suspicious. Now, here's where it gets even more interesting. And this is why I largely feel that this is about setting you,

Starting point is 01:36:52 setting anybody up that is part of the what they, well, again, really not even about part of anything. If anybody going against the narrative is going to be labeled as domestic terrorist, MAGA support, just like I am, even though I'm not that. I think all the two-party illusion is quite ridiculous. But Ron Johnson put this out. This sobering letter from the, from former FBI, Homeland Security, and other law enforcement officials describes the chilling reality of why POTUS's open border is a clear and present

Starting point is 01:37:21 danger to America. And this, this comes down to the simple reality that there is an unknown, eminent threat. you know, like with Iran and Bolton, that there's an eminent threat. We can't really see it that you can't show me an image of the imminent threat lined up other than just average people that might be intermittent with bad guys that we think might be there. I'm not trying to downplay that actual risk. What I'm saying, though, is to frame this as an eminent danger without, maybe they know something we don't. It just seems like, you know, why would we blindly go along with what they're telling us is going to happen?

Starting point is 01:37:59 These are many of the same people that would otherwise tell you if you're wearing a red hat that you're a terrorist or the fact that they were telling you before this from the Democrat side that as Whitney and I talked about, you know, we have it. We see a threat. We just don't know how to stop it. It's all this same conversation. It's about creating the idea that you as an American are the threat if you don't go along to get along, which is how this would ultimately play out. One thing I find interesting too is the idea that we're talking about more control. Now, yes, in the mindset, it's applied to people over there coming across the border, but just just like everything we've talked about, it goes both ways. Do you have more control? It applies when you try to leave, too. We've proven this so many times over the years, and really it just becomes about your life being controlled under the guise of a threat that may be there, or it could be something like we've seen over and over and over.

Starting point is 01:38:48 But it says, as former senior executives of the FBI with deep experience combating dangers to the nation, do you trust the FBI? Do Republicans trust the FBI? Kind of funny how suddenly they believe what this is because it aligns to the agenda, even though how long have they been rightly so, in my opinion, attacking the FBI. I think it's an entity that has been anti-American from the beginning, in my opinion. But it says, we write to express our concern about a current, specific threat that may be one of the most pernicious ever to men as the United States, of course. Biggest election of our lifetime, the biggest threat to our democracy, whatever the current thing is, that tends to be the biggest thing we've ever seen, right?

Starting point is 01:39:26 The danger arises from the nature of the threat itself. Wars and espionage and bombings and riots are sadly familiar, delivery systems of instability, intimidation, and security. Well, you guys should know you're very good at it. Continues. Has faced these and more throughout its history and has held together not without stardom. The threat we call out today is new and unfamiliar. In its modern history, the U.S. has never suffered an invasion of the homeland.

Starting point is 01:39:52 And this is where it's going. Don't forget, they were just telling you, Hamas is going to be on your shore soon enough, it says one is unfolding now. Military age men from across the globe, many from countries or regions not friendly to the United States, are landing in waves on our soil by the thousands. Where are they landing from? Do we have documentation of these ships or airplanes bringing them in? Or are we just floating ideas that align with the idea that we're being invaded?

Starting point is 01:40:18 Of course, because the FBI, people who want to believe they're going to, well, they know, but otherwise we'd question everything they say if it doesn't align with your political stance. But the ultimate point is you're talking about landing in waves. So are we talking about coming across from Europe? Or are we talking about migrating from South America? And then how does that make sense? I think this is a narrative being set to make you think that you're in the risk of imminent invasion, which if we are, well, there's the same securities and setups that we already currently have.

Starting point is 01:40:45 So the real argument they would make is that this would be overlap with the idea that there's secret terrorists funneling in through whatever Biden's letting into the country, which certainly could be the case. but that doesn't seem to be the same as a pending invasion in the context that they're framing here. It says not by splashing a shore from ship or parachuting from a plane, but rather by foot across a border that has been accurately advertised around the world as largely unprotected. My point is that waves on our soil, you can't, you go not by plane or by boat, but then okay, then how do you argue people by foot coming across a border are landing in waves on our soil? It seems very weird to me. But the ultimate point,

Starting point is 01:41:27 largely unprotected and ready access granted. Now, I don't believe that's actually what is happening. Ultimately, I know that I do agree that there's very politicized action and the Biden's administration or the Democrats in general. Or really, as I would see it, your government wants to allow this for destabilization purposes. But I guess it comes down to one side acting like, again, it's wide open versus the other side acting like nothing. thing should be happening.

Starting point is 01:41:54 Or rather that it's, you know, that there's justifiable protections. It says it would be difficult to overstate the danger represented by the presence inside our borders of what is comparatively a multi-division army of young, single adult males from hostile nations and like, where is this? I'm not saying it's not possible or that's not happening. My point is that why would we just take at face value this entire boogeyman threat that now turns it into exactly what we've been warning about? The threat is here.

Starting point is 01:42:21 You. You may not think about it like that. You may be thinking you're pointing at the bad brown people coming in from the country. But when they look in, it becomes anybody. We're now suddenly under scrutiny because, well, there's terrorists everywhere because of what happened. This is turning the war inward, which, by the way, it's always been. The war on domestic terrorism has been very clear, but it's always truly been their focus. You.

Starting point is 01:42:42 And however, they can make that the case. But it says from hostile nations and regions whose background intent or allegiance is completely unknown. So, wait a minute. They're hostile nations, but their intent and allegiance completely no. If they're hostile, then that's obviously, I mean, the point is you're making this out to be people who are dangerous because they come from places that this country has deemed dangerous, like Iran, right?

Starting point is 01:43:07 Bad guys. Every one of them. Isn't it the exact opposite your government argues? Aren't they the ones saying we're fighting for the Iranian people? Like, it's, it's, you, I'm not, you can see the flimsy nature of the way they frame this. They want you to think any of the same. out there is a potential threat because then you are part of their agenda. See something, say something.

Starting point is 01:43:24 Look at that person. He may be a bad guy because he looks like an Iranian. How have we gotten here again? It's ridiculous. Now, it says they include individuals encountered by border officials and they possibly released into the country, along with a shockingly high estimate of gotaways, meaning those who have entered and evaded apprehension. Okay, so I'm not seeing the terrorist elements you're talking about.

Starting point is 01:43:48 I'm seeing immigration, illegal in some cases, that aren't being dealt with. And then the floated hypothetical, undefined worry that there is multi-division armies of young, single adult males from hostile nations. Where's that? Now, to be clear, let's not forget the argument, like with Venezuela, for example, remember when they were hyping the same thing? It's all military age males coming across. And I showed you video after video after video of all sorts of people, women and families and families, and children and everybody, but of course you get these special clips of people that look, that's being deceived by very clear partisan manipulation.

Starting point is 01:44:27 But it says, and again, that's not anything to say that they're not being used in that way, but it's important to recognize how many times we've been played just like this. In light of such a daunting, unprecedented penetration by uninvited foreign actors, is it necessarily unprecedented? I felt like what we were seeing during the Venezuela caravan was way bigger than what we're seeing right now. It says it is reasonable to assess that the country possesses, dramatically diminished national security at this time. Is that true?

Starting point is 01:44:52 So this one razor wire area is suddenly our entire national security is at risk. Doesn't seem like that makes much sense. We still have all the same securities and protections and federal border. I mean, we have more security and surveillance and personnel than most countries, guys. Doesn't mean they're still not abusing the border. My point is to make this seem like we're suddenly at the, from a Republican mindset, trusting the FBI, apparently, it is that, We are diminished, our securities down, we're a threat, and everyone's coming to get us.

Starting point is 01:45:23 Is that actually what's happening, or is it the reverse? The nation's military and laws and other natural protective barriers have been provided traditional security in the past. Have been thoroughly circumvented over the past three years. I don't think that's true. In 2021, and by the way, well, of course, in the past three years, which makes it unique to only vote Joe Biden, which is, of course, the frame here. In 2021, the demographics of those crossing the porous southern boundary started to shift. Young men from around the world traveling alone and holding questionable motivations dramatically

Starting point is 01:45:55 increased in number to become the most common profile of those breaching the nation's borders. Now, there's a real concern there if you believe that's accurate, which to me would be indicative of weaponized migration, which would then argue that there's somebody doing that to us. And that needs to be sussed out. What's the actual point here? And is this an effort to destabilize this country for somebody else's benefit? That's a real concern. A startling number have been found on the terrorist watch list or are from countries designated

Starting point is 01:46:24 the state sponsors of terror. You know, that completely meaningless thing they do to countries that won't align their government with Israel, like the Sudan, who are terrorists one day and not the next because they do what you're asked. But they didn't change anything they're actually doing. That's how meaningless that is. Or that they label countries that are completely not, like countries like Iran, which people who are in the mindset of the two-party paradigm might lash out about and say,

Starting point is 01:46:47 how dare you say, that aren't terrorist nations. And in fact, are wildly technologically advanced that are more, at this point, seemingly more democratic than what we're dealing with in this country. But the point is that because of the framing of the religious differences, people don't know any better. But that becomes a designated person from a state sponsor of terror. And then they're a bad guy by default. This is a particular, I mean, you realize they're talking about people from Yemen, people from Gaza.

Starting point is 01:47:13 These are people that have been starved and suppressed and manipulated their entire lives because of your country. This is particularly alarming in light of the Hamas terror attack. There it is. On Israel, last October 7. Those of us who have fought terrorism know that historically successful terror attacks invite mimicry. So we're not worried about the ongoing genocide of 30,000 plus innocent people. We're worried about somebody else acting in the same way, again, in this country. How does that even make sense?

Starting point is 01:47:40 Where's the logical connection to Hamas? who was funded by Israel, clearly and the United States, to suddenly carrying out an attack here. You know, what they tell us, a 30,000 group that's existing in Saiban open-air prison that has no presence elsewhere other than Qatar in its offices of what they work with right now. To me, that sounds most likely like your government's

Starting point is 01:47:57 going to utilize its asset to justify this. It says, we know as well that terror leaders intentionally cultivate throngs of young men possessing a certain easily manipulated personality type to carry out atrocities. They're speaking about themselves, guys. That's what the FBI does. Exactly that.

Starting point is 01:48:12 It says it is stark to say so, but having a large number of young adults now within our borders who could begin attacking gatherings upon armed citizens. So because they're men and from bad guy countries, this is ambiguous, really, who could just start randomly attacking everybody in imitation of 10-7 and the behest of a foreign terror group must be considered a distinct possibility. Okay, that screams false flag to me. Of course, you could disagree. Call me a conspiracy theorist. How many times we have seen this coming. you're telling us about exactly what even Israel warned about, which many of us took as a threat. Should you do this, if you don't let us do this, Amos will be on your shores.

Starting point is 01:48:54 Yep, that's my opinion. I very strongly think this is about setting the table for what they're going to accomplish. We would be remiss not to call out this potentially grave threat in the most direct terms. The warning lights are blinking. We've heard this so many times, in many cases where nothing ultimately happens. And yet, it says this very real concern does not seem to be getting the focus it logically deserves. The director of the FBI has correctly assessed an elevated threat since 10-7. Of course, of course you have.

Starting point is 01:49:21 But relatively little discussion has followed highlighting unsecured borders as a significant cause of this increasingly dangerous environment. It is troubling concern that needs elimination. Now, let's stand back for a second. What do we actually have here that suggests this? We have FBI, former FBI and government employees writing a letter. letter about some ambiguous, unverifiable threat. We've got the Israel aspect driving that concern that we might be at threat from the thing they're fighting. And we've got some razor-wired disagreement in Texas, which is building into some massive civil war hype, which very well

Starting point is 01:49:58 could be there. And states rights conversation is paramount. And so too is the idea of whether that's the border is secure. But where's the actual threat here? I know a lot of Republicans would shove a lot of things into your face about, you know, things like we just showed you, like that guy who they misattributed. That's the kind of stuff you get shown. Where is the bigger, give me some evidence that shows me the documented reality of what the FBI just tried to explain. And I will talk about it because these things matter.

Starting point is 01:50:29 But I do not think that's what we're seeing. So my worry is that this is another setup to get people hyped up. Oh, hold on. Did I skip the, uh, thought it was the, the last page. Here, let me go forward in case I missed that. Oh, yeah, just the signatures. Here's the last part.

Starting point is 01:50:51 It says, any violation of the nation's immigration laws increases risks. But the surge in numbers of single military-aged males descending upon America's cities and towns is alarming and perilous. Now, where is that information coming from? Right? We should, at the very least, ask whether that's not true. And if it is, then we should ask why that's happening and where it's coming from. Like, it's weird that we shift into this immediate internal focus and only about Biden and Texas dynamic instead of going, okay, well, who the hell's doing that?

Starting point is 01:51:18 Where's it all coming from? It says, additionally, they are not just from terror-linked regions, but from China and Russia as well, hostile adversaries. So really? So you're telling me that we've got random and, like intermittent military age males that are coming from multiple countries that you name is bad guy, China, from Russia, from over here, and somehow that's all some collective single threat? That seems like, I think to me that is about floating as many possibilities as possible.

Starting point is 01:51:44 They don't know who you individually care about more. Do you think China's the biggest threat? Do you think Russia is the biggest threat? Do you think this random terror-link group threat? Well, they put them all out there for you. Whatever sticks. You take what you like. It says, for these reasons, elements of this recent surge are likely no accident or coincidence.

Starting point is 01:52:02 These men are potential operators in what appears to be an accelerated and strategic penetration, a soft invasion designed to gain internal access to a country that cannot be invaded militarily in order to inflict catastrophic damage if and when enemies deem it necessary. Do you think that's ever not been happening? That doesn't, this is something, of course, we should be concerned about. But I think the only reason, like my question about this is, why now? Do you realize this has been an ongoing thing for a really long time? You could argue there's a bigger surge right now, but quite frankly, I don't think so.

Starting point is 01:52:33 I think you can prove that there's been past examples that were bigger. Maybe it'll get bigger now. My point is, why now? right why does why did suddenly everybody care about the razor wire today or yesterday the day before when this conversation not the razor wire but the actual issue has been ongoing why are they only just now suddenly saying that right now we're seeing this you know it seems very deliberate to be now based on the election based on the inner the israel foreign policy conversation based on the fact that they're building the idea that you are an internal threat to the safety of

Starting point is 01:53:07 this country because you said the wrong thing that's what we're we're going to what this feels like more than anything, and I desperately want to people to hear me, especially the MAGA Republicans, the Republicans in general, don't take the bait. Care about this, speak out about this, to rush down there with weapons or to act in some violent way is only going to give them exactly what they want. Now it says, this new reality, this never seen before threat. Now, what's never seen before about that? That's my point from before.

Starting point is 01:53:37 This idea has been studied and talked about. I mean, good. This paragraph is literally weaponized. migration. That's what it is. Or rather specifically weaponized immigration. So it's not new. They've been entire studies written about it. It's been talked about. It's been done before. And now suddenly it's a never seen before threat that we've talked about many times. Seems pretty wrong to me. The borders need to be secured against these young men and those already here illegally must be identified and removed without delay. Well, I mean, the obvious argument is if

Starting point is 01:54:04 somebody's here illegally, they're breaking the law and that should be dealt with. You can't just disregard the laws that you force everybody else to follow. That's always been the stance there for me. but that is a problem. But then that becomes anybody who is a migrant suddenly becomes illegal in the sense of the, you know, partisan level arguments. But it says this will take the coordinated cooperative efforts of the FBI, of course. Department of Homeland Security, of course, and the rest of the intelligence community. Great.

Starting point is 01:54:32 So let's unleash our intelligence apparatus to suss out the bad guys along amongst you. How do you think that's going to work out for you? Well, one more round of McCarthyism. Let's get this rolling all back around again, right? You anybody suspected. See something, say something. Call on your neighbors because they're all suspect terrorists. That sounds fun. We encourage these actions and much greater congressional attention to this threat. The country has been invaded. That's a static. They're just saying that. This country has been invaded. An invasion that will continue as long as the nation's enemies perceive it will be

Starting point is 01:55:02 tolerated. How can you state something like that without actually showing anything you can actually wrap your mind around? Like, the things you actually hold. Those ambiguous threats based on unprovable numbers that I haven't seen anywhere. That could be true. It says until it is stopped, which again is how exactly, there will always be a level of illegal immigration. So really, I get there arguing to stop the open flow, which I don't think is actually what's happening.

Starting point is 01:55:29 Until it is stopped, the United States is extraordinarily less safe and secure. Knowing all of this, it would be a shameful travesty of some terrible attack, a preventable attack, where to occur. That sounds pretty ominous. against innocent Americans, an infrastructure that keeps the nation safe. You know, a shameful travesty if some random attack should happen. I just hope you recognize that there's not really a reason this is taken, put out now, versus a month ago or a year ago.

Starting point is 01:55:56 It just happens to be right now, and that makes me really concerned about what later happens. So I'll include these conversations so you can understand where I'm coming from. January 6th, the failed false flag meant to blame Russia and you, using the CIA grown Ozzov Battalion, as well as the follow-up on this later, which was January 6th, was always a very clear government operation. And I really feel strongly that this is happening again. Don't take the bait. Now, Thomas Massey also had an interesting point. All this screaming and, you know, civil war conversation, he says, everyone's overthinking this.

Starting point is 01:56:33 Congress can simply render the five to four Supreme Court decision against Texas irrelevant by simply refusing to fund Biden's removal of border security. measures. It's really that simple. Interesting point. Right. So you could argue this, the only reason I think that's important, I'm usually, you know, not a fan of the inter-political dynamics, but the idea is that we're talking, we're bringing this fever pitch to a level of civil war at this point, some people are, when he's simply pointing out that, look, if you wanted it, you could take political action that could stop this immediately. I don't think that's what they want. You see my point? I think this is about driving the division and the destabilization for their benefit when really there's a simple way you could just using your own already

Starting point is 01:57:14 power, the power you already have to stop the funding, which would stop his action. If you agree with what he's saying, I just think that's an interesting point. Now, let's bring this into the other conversation. Interestingly enough, here are Jews and Muslims and Christians, together, marching in unity in Texas. Not that there's a connection. I just think it's interesting to show you. There's a lot of other big things happening in the world, and I think it's important to

Starting point is 01:57:36 recognize that razor wire and the hypothetical fears around it all. are not the largest thing happening in the world that we need to care about. But we should care about it because I'm happy to see the conversation of state's rights actually being had. But I get the sneaking suspicion that will become a secondary topic very soon, if not already, because they don't want you thinking about that. But I think it's important to see that around the world, in this case, Jews, Muslims, and Christians, and anybody, people just who can recognize that Israel's committing genocide, whatever their nationality, wherever they're from, whatever their religion, just willing. to go, you're committing genocide. You're murdering people and you're acting like the victim. We cannot allow this around the world. So let's talk about this conversation. Let's see how time we got about two hours. I think we should be able to get through most of this. Tiberius, I just want to

Starting point is 01:58:25 start with this statement. And by the way, going forward on this conversation, guys, if you've got more you want to send me, like I guarantee there's plenty of people that were infuriated about my take. And it's always the case. Just speaking from the heart about what I think. If you think there's something important that will change my opinion about X, Y, and Z, sends me. Even if you think that I'm some kind of, you know, the point is, as much as you may disagree, assumptive-wise, I do care about other people's opinions and I care about facts, right? So if you've got something like that and you want to show me, like I was having this conversation with my brother actually about, you know, to what degree are these illegals and to what degree are these simply people that are involved with this process,

Starting point is 01:59:03 that aren't even being allowed the opportunity to go through that process or are and are still being called illegal or the case of I said before of the Biden administration just making like a unilateral policy decision and saying we're going to offer them asylum. Now you can argue that violates the law, but it's interesting to see that there's precedent in that sense of the president being able to do certain things. And it just becomes a disagreement on how it should happen. And you could argue the action is going way over the top that during this to some civil war level when it's just about we disagree with how you should handle that.

Starting point is 01:59:34 Before that, they would argue you should go through your political process, which, you You know my opinion on that. In any case, I'm interested to see if you've got facts to back up certain things about how many people and these military-aged males. Everything about this tells me, and that's why I kind of drug my feet on even covering it, because something tells me that this is going to fizzle out into nothing. Or it is my biggest worry that it is what I'm worried it is, which is an effort to drag people into a violent confrontation to justify and possibly give Biden more political

Starting point is 02:00:05 points before the election, help with something going on internationally, all these different elements of it, but using you to achieve their ends, which is pretty much always what the government does. So you've got more. I'm interested. Reach out. So starting with this Tiberius point, I think this is interesting. Good morning to everyone who supports a free and sovereign Palestine.

Starting point is 02:00:27 Today, and this on the 26th yesterday, today, thanks to the incredible steadfastness of the Palestinian people in the face of massive U.S. back tyranny, who merely asked. for their basic human rights and dignity in being able to live free from brutal occupation and daily oppression, you know, God forbid, the whole world gets to find out whether international law exists at all. We owe them so much already. We have, as a so-called international community, let them down in ways I've never witnessed in my life. I hope today we begin to repay that debt. Good luck to South Africa and those supporting good luck to justice, good luck to liberation, good luck to human rights, good luck to dignity and reason, good luck to peace, good luck to humanity,

Starting point is 02:01:10 and most of all, good luck to the Palestinian people who deserve so much more than the course decision. Now, unfortunately, he did this early on 26, which I would have got to yesterday, but talking today, unfortunately, they did stop short of demanding a ceasefire, which I would imagine you all know by now. But I do not think this is as bad as a lot of people made it out to be. and let's go through this so you can understand the decision. And just so we, first of all, before we go past, I want to start with this. This is, and by the way, I think I'm only just now realizing stupidly enough that her hearts stand for Palestine. I've been saying, we are all hearts.

Starting point is 02:01:51 Her name at the current moment is we are all Palestine, which I appreciate. Does the math on this, and this again is posted on yesterday. So this was later in the day, as I understand, I believe, yeah, or no, it's actually 4 a.m. So the point is, though, while they're being accused of genocide, while this ruling is taking place, not only have they not stopped. And I'll tell you afterwards, even after the statements, they only went harder. They've increased what they're doing. Gassan Abusita, who is the doctor who I believe is now back in London, but he was working in El Shippa. I forget where he is currently now.

Starting point is 02:02:24 But he says, Israel has killed 13,022 Palestinian children in just 111 days. 13,000 children in just 111 days. And then she does the math, which breaks down to 117 children every day. 117 children every day. That means right now in the process of today, which now at this point it would be yesterday, for Gaza, 117 children died. In the process of their not genocide, I just don't know how anybody can imagine that this is not exactly what it looks like. Al Jazeera has done something that I think will shock people and, you know, that will wake them up, hopefully.

Starting point is 02:03:03 It's called know their names. Now, remember, Israel did this about the names they put out about the people from October 7th. And, of course, that kind of in a way blew up in their face. I think that I think that's why they don't put it out anymore. It turned out that you could very clearly see that most of them were military. Sergeant this and Colonel that, right? Nonetheless, sad that innocent people were taken. But this is just children.

Starting point is 02:03:24 Palestinian children killed in Israel attacks on Gaza. It says the Gaza Strip is a graveyard for thousands of children, the United Nations is said. At least 10,000 children, if not more. How many are buried under the rubble? I don't even know. But it says one Palestinian child has killed every 15 minutes. More than that based on the last number we showed you. But one out of every hundred children in Gaza has died.

Starting point is 02:03:53 Thousands more are missing under the rubble. Now you can see just barely in the background, the names. And what this says, and look how much this is. And it says, here are just some of the children that have been killed, that image in the background. But then you can go through, and this is hard, this is hard to wrap your mind around. Zero year old, didn't even reach the first birthday.

Starting point is 02:04:23 I mean, I don't even know how we can ever be okay with that. just zero and it goes on one year old killed before they took their first steps and just goes on and on and on two year old i mean this is the most painful scroll i've ever done i mean it just sickenes me how how far do we go and to realize that we're you know these aren't hamas members hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of children but they're only going after hamas right or human shields or people you mean, what about the children? What about the seven incubator babies that were left to rot when the IDF were told they were there and that was later proven even by their own outlets? Was that because of Hamas? Or the controlled demolition of an untold amount

Starting point is 02:05:13 of homes of people just because they want to create settlement locations, which is all provable to anyone of the brain and willing to be honest about this. They're telling you what they're doing. And let's just really quickly before we get into the ICJ, I just want to wrap, I want to kind of act in an abstract way, wrap, well, let me put it this way, make it simple. The chief entity that is supporting Israel's genocide, who is clearly complicit in all this, is the U.S. government. Just in case you wondered why that might be, let's make sure we stand back and realize, this is from 2023, 4.5 million deaths and counting in post-911. war zones. That is the legacy of the U.S. government. That's worse. I mean, compare that to history.

Starting point is 02:06:00 It'll blow your mind. These aren't all terrorists, guys. The reality is the value. Let's look at Obama's record of the, how many people, it was something like 90% of the people that were killed were civilians and the drone bombings they did. And they still do them anyway. Four point five million deaths and counting. That's not democracy. That's not fighting for freedom. That's terrorism. That is what terrorism looks like. If you really want to understand this, and it's not stopping, it's only getting worse. More and more and more. And now Israel's aspect to it has only driven this into a further discreth, like right now, this literally drew the U.S. back into aggressively and openly bombing Yemen, a country they've been starving for over a decade, hundreds of thousands of

Starting point is 02:06:42 deaths, cholera outbreaks, they've designed, attacks on the food infrastructure, and a legal blockade on the Bob Elmandib straight, rather the port of Hodeda, which we're currently now understanding, even though I've been trying to show people why that was so important as we're seeing the Bob Elmanded straight and the Strait of Hermuse come into the way they're controlling the flow of everything. This is what they were trying to accomplish. And they took 4.5 million deaths to achieve what they want around the world. And that's freedom to them. Or at least that's what they scream at the top of their lungs.

Starting point is 02:07:11 Here is important to understand. The International Court of Justice has ruled against Israel. All the corporate media is already downplayed. playing it and acting like it didn't act. The point is clear. First and foremost, they ruled that what is, that the allegation of genocide has merit, which by the way is quite literally the opposite of what the U.S. governments were saying, that it's meritless.

Starting point is 02:07:38 And now they're literally at odds with what the International Court of Justice has found when historically they would always say you should follow what the court's ruling would be, right? Not now. Now they're tap dancing around answering that question because they know they can't say it because they would go afoul of their, however you want to look at it. Their chief ally, their controller. The point is that it does have merit.

Starting point is 02:07:58 Now, understand that this can go on for years, if not a year, I hope, at less, where the court will come to a final ruling. This was because they know there's so much, there's human lives at stake, 117 children a day, one every 15 minutes. So they felt obligated to push out some preliminary rulings. Now, yes, they fell short of seeking, of claims. claiming they need or rather the they fell short of ruling that a ceasefire was demanded but i'll show you why the lack of declaring a ceasefire in this context was not like the point is that as i'll

Starting point is 02:08:36 show you that the everything they demand the only way to achieve that is through ceasefire so i see this is sort of a very i mean we've always known the i cj is it is political in and it's in and of itself it's a politicized entity that's you know so it's important to see it that way but even though that's the reality, I think that they still did what they felt like. This was them coming out and saying Israel's doing this. But they didn't say C-Spire because I think they knew that was a very sticky point. So they played their political game,

Starting point is 02:09:07 knowing that what they argued still would demand C-Spire, they just didn't go as far as saying that. So it's like, you know, it's a meek step, I would argue. I think if you care about this, you would come out and just say what you really believe, even if it would get changed. But maybe they kind of realized that if they didn't do it that way, they would get less.

Starting point is 02:09:24 I really don't know. It's upsetting to me that they did not rule, that did not demand a ceasefire, but let me show you why I still think it's a win. I mean, it obviously is either way, because they're ruling the opposite of what everyone's been saying. There is something here. The International Court of Justice ruled that Israel's actions in Gaza

Starting point is 02:09:40 plausibly breached the genocide convention. The ICJ ordered several injunctions on Israel, but stopped short of ordering a ceasefire in Gaza. On Friday, the ICJ announced it ordered several limitations on how Tel Aviv should wage war in Gaza. The court right of the gate understand Israel said, we don't care. We're not going to do it, which is just what we told you from the beginning, which makes the U.S. government look really stupid because they're acting like the rules-based international

Starting point is 02:10:08 order. And then when Israel just ignores it, they go, well, it's a ruling we disagree with. Oh, so you're telling me countries could just disagree and then not do it? Not by every other statement before this, but they're such hypocrites. It's just so overwhelmingly obvious today. Thank God. People are finally seeing it. But they've ordered this. The court ordered Israel to punish soldiers who commit war crimes, which they won't do, and allow more aid in the besieged strip, which they won't do. The ICJ was not expected to rule if the actions of Israel's politicians and military accounted to genocide. Wait, so it was not expected to rule if the actions of the politicians and military amounted to genocide. Still, the court deemed South Africa's claims that Israel was committing genocide in Gaza had merit to have sufficient merit. to move forward, right? That's important. So just fair, the point is that it is, does have married, despite what the U.S. government keeps dismissing, because they're complicit in

Starting point is 02:11:03 genocide. The ICJ judges voted on the decisions 15 to 2 and 16 to 1. The no votes came from Judge Julia, Sabun, Sabunti, how do you say that? Sabutin not, Saputin. That's weird, of Uganda and an outhoc judge, Aaron Barak of Israel, of course. The Ministry of International Relations of South Africa, Nalidi Pandor, celebrated the ruling as a victory. It says, quote, I would thank the judges of the ICJ for dealing with the matter expeditiously. The state of Israel is called upon by the judges to act to protect, protect civilians, and to protect the massive level of harm that we have seen since the Israel action began. Now, it says Pandor argued the ICJ ruling amounted to a de facto ceasefire, which is important. I mean, as he said, I'll show you the clip.

Starting point is 02:11:54 How do you provide aid and water without a ceasefire? If you read the other by implication, the ceasefire must happen. So it's political, but they still ultimately argue that these things need to happen. And as well, that they are, in fact, putting people at risk. So I just don't know how you get away from this as the U.S. government, because Israel doesn't care. I told you they wouldn't care. As the U.S. government, though, who's pretty much the barrier between, you know, you get the State Department briefings that are putting it to them all the time. like, what do you think? What do you think? It's impossible for them because they're twisting

Starting point is 02:12:25 themselves into pretzels to argue that what they're doing isn't a violation of what they literally said should happen before. So they ruled and they are putting people at risk and they need to take these actions. Israel said no and they're just letting it go. So this is the point they were making in the article before. This is that we thanking Palestine, or rather that Tobias was making, thank Palestine for showing you that international law doesn't really exist. I mean, there's a, there's an outline and some people, abide by it, but you can see that the ones using it as a political tool couldn't care less about it. It says there is resentment towards the court for failing to order the Israeli ceasefire.

Starting point is 02:13:00 It says, quote, there is a great deal of frustration and resentment because of one element that every single Palestinian across the Gaza Strip, including children, were waiting for. It is an end to this madness, a secession of all hostilities and the ongoing intense bombing. That's for Malazir. I know the point is, let's not forget, as much as they scream lies about it, even the corporate media covers it honestly, which is crazy. Hamas has been offering a ceasefire deal for a full exchange for all hostages really since the very beginning. And there was a moment where they pulled back on that waiting for something up.

Starting point is 02:13:33 But then now they've offered it numerous times. As I understand it, there's a new development where they're now going back to negotiation. But the point continues that Israel offers some three-day ceasefire for a small exchange, which is meaningless because I've already proven to you that over the next week they scoop them back up. and round up even more. So all it really amounts to is a pause, where they can pretend they brought in some aid, and they go right back to killing them all, and they scoop up more people. So it's a ploy.

Starting point is 02:14:02 So what Hamas was calling for is a real ceasefire and aid and real hostage exchange. Now, as Israel pretend that's what they're really fighting for, which is their hostages, it becomes a false premise when you see they refuse it for the war, which at the very least, as I've been saying from day one, which has been proven now, they care about the war more than they do about the people on the ground. Even if it's just a secondary point, it says, well, Tel Aviv has said that it will ignore the ICJ ruling, and Washington has routinely dismissed South Africa's genocide argument as meritless, exact opposite of what was found, the ruling will likely do significant damage to Israel's reputation around the globe, which is one of the positive things here. Not that, you know, that it's a attack on the reputation because it's a, you know, we hate them.

Starting point is 02:14:50 it's because their reputation is illegitimate. They are not what they pretend to be. They are an illegal entity, a legal Zionist entity that is murdering people as fast as I've ever seen. That reputation deserves to be seen for what it is. Executive Vice President of the Quincy Institute, Trista Parsi, explained that the ruling was a massive victory for the Palestinian movement. It says this is a devastating blow to Israel's global standing.

Starting point is 02:15:13 To put it in context, Israel has worked ferociously for the past two decades to defeat the BDS movement. you know, manipulating through Greg Abbott, boycott divestment and sanction, which is funny because that's exactly what they would tell you to do when you're going, you know, you're out there fighting with guns, even though you have a legal right to resistance. And they say it's because you're terrorists. Why don't you go through politics? Then they go through politics. And they go, you're terrorist because you're trying to boycott or you don't believe we should exist.

Starting point is 02:15:39 So it's just, the point is they don't want anything. They want you to sit back and accept your annihilation. But it says not because it will have a significant economic impact, but because all of this, because of the manner that could de-legitimize Israel internationally. Now, it says Parsley's post continued. However, the ruling of the ICJ that Israel is plausibly engaged in genocide is far more devastating to Israel's legitimacy than anything BDS could have achieved. I mean, I don't know if I agree with that, but I think the moment it seems to be more

Starting point is 02:16:08 powerful. President Joe Biden has maintained his unconditional support for Israel. Of course, yes. He's completely complicit with this. Even if he doesn't feel that way, you're locked in now. Washington has continued. to supply Tel Aviv with bombs, even as Israel has used American weapons to attack civilian targets, which has been proven by Amnesty International and plenty of other groups independent.

Starting point is 02:16:28 And even, I think it was, I'm blanking of CNN or somebody else. But they recently just covered that showing this exact dynamic. As well as the fact that I'll include this almost every time, threats covered the New York Times investigation that proved that they are in fact using the most destructive bombs, specifically in the areas they're told are safe. and they're using the 2,000 pound bombs, which are provided by the United States. They know what's going on, guys.

Starting point is 02:16:58 They've got people on the ground. This is all a big lie. They know they're annihilating Palestinians and they're okay with it. At some level, they know, because it's unbelievably obvious. And they do not care. It is unclear how the White House

Starting point is 02:17:11 will respond to the ruling. I'll show you how they're responding, essentially. On Thursday, when asked, which I'll show you if parties would abide by whatever they rule, which if it was literally anybody else, this is about Iran, they would be like, absolutely. Because Russia, they'd be like, of course, you have to follow what they say.

Starting point is 02:17:26 It says, I would not opine or anything like that, given this is a legal process, and I'm not going to hypothesize and speculate. Ridiculous. Obviously, you could say, yes, if they rule, you should abide by it or not. You can't just be like, well, based in the context, I'll decide them. So you're ridiculous. You're a hypocrite, obviously. Now, here is what the South African foreign minister said. The order to comply with this, the ruling, it did in fact, even though it wasn't specified,

Starting point is 02:17:54 it means they have to have a... The order cannot be implemented in any way, shape or form. How do you transport humanitarian aid without a ceasefire? Exactly. How would you provide water, access to energy, how do you ensure that those were injured, have health care and so on? Without a ceasefire, none of these things can be done. So if you read the order by implication, a ceasefire must happen.

Starting point is 02:18:23 Yes. The order cannot be implemented in any way, shape, or form without a ceasefire. It's as simple as that. I mean, they're right. The point is Israel is not going to do any of it. So the simple reality is that they were never going to abide by it, which is what we told you. But this is a process. And the reality now is just to show you how illegitimate they are.

Starting point is 02:18:44 but they actively are ignoring the ruling simply because they argue. And now what you might expect is happening, which is, I'll come to it in a second, which is the obvious reality, which always takes place, no, it's all right here. They're all anti-Semitic. They hate Jews. Everybody is against it. It's all, well, they work for Hamas. It's just clumsy.

Starting point is 02:19:06 Just anybody, anywhere that comes out in power, they must be, they're just Hamas now. UN is Hamas. These people work for, you know, that's all their, doing. We'll come to it. It's embarrassing. Francis Boyle spoke up on the order and said, this is a massive overwhelmingly legal victory for the Republic of South Africa against Israel on behalf of the Palestinians. The UN General Assembly now can suspend Israel from participation, which I doubt will happen, in its activities as it did for South Africa and Yugoslavia. It can admit Palestine as a full member, and especially since the international criminal court has been a farce, it can establish

Starting point is 02:19:44 will say tribunal to prosecute the highest levels of officials of the Israeli government, both civilian and military. I doubt that'll happen. Yeah, so he says, do you think this will actually happen? Sam Hussein says, I don't. I need him back on the show. But it's important for us to push for it. I would agree with that.

Starting point is 02:20:01 The interesting thing about it, though, is another interesting argument was recently made about, I think it was Article 6 in regard to removing the United States government from the UN discussion, which I'm in no way saying I have fate in the UN body. But what's interesting is that if you were to remove, and my point's always been that you, the U. body is corrupt in my opinion. But the individual nations and the seats they have, even if they, you don't trust the individual

Starting point is 02:20:25 governance, you never should, their own interests are at odds all the time. And you can argue that that, you know, some, like I've said before, sometimes what we see as right just happens to align with their agendas. And so my point would be that if you remove, or what they're arguing, you remove the U.S. and their veto power, which is basically what controls all of this. You know how many times literally everybody, but the U.S. and Israel vote yes and they just vote no veto it? It happens all the time. So the whole thing is moot.

Starting point is 02:20:52 And their point is, well, if you remove the U.S. from this dynamic, there might actually be some real process. Or it'll be co-opted a different way. Nonetheless, I do agree with that. It's obvious that you can't have single veto power over the every other country in the world because then it means nothing. That Selim spoke up, the Israeli human rights group, and said the only way to implement the orders issued today is by International Court of Justice in the Hague is through an immediate ceasefire. It is impossible to protect civilian life as long as the fighting continues.

Starting point is 02:21:21 Everybody knows this. Now, Clayson Manjella makes a great point here. He says, read the order carefully. And I do have the full order here, by the way, you guys can check out. He says, the state of Israel shall ensure with immediate effect that its military does not commit any acts described in point one. And these are killing of members of a group. Alistinians, be causing serious bodily or mental harm.

Starting point is 02:21:46 That's in order to halt military operations immediately. It really is. So ultimately what they're saying is that this, they're not saying ceasefire, but in a sense, not just because of what would need to happen to effectively achieve what the ICJ put out, but these individual points make it pretty clear. But again,

Starting point is 02:22:04 they're not going to follow it anyway. But I do agree with what he's saying. It's like, I think this was a tactful move by them, which I disagree with, to make it essentially a ceasefire without saying, that to save themselves some political problems. But it says here, to be clear, the ICJ has effectively ordered an immediate ceasefire

Starting point is 02:22:20 and for Israel to halt military operations, as you described before. Arnaud Betran says that's actually a very important, excellent point. Maybe the ICJ did actually order a ceasefire after all. It's kind of what I think happened. But I still think it's a weak move. Come out and say it, man. That's what we need today. Honesty.

Starting point is 02:22:37 But it ordered Israel to ensure the immediate effect that they stop these things. So I kind of think that that's what's happening. Now, Ali Abunima from the electronic at the Fata says, a ceasefire, in quotes, is what you demand in an armed conflict. In a genocide, which is not, you know, an equal battle, it's what we're seeing today, an occupied entity being, you know, fish in a barrel, essentially. In a genocide, you demand an immediate end to all genocidal acts. And that is exactly what the ICJ ordered with immediate effect. So he says, please stop helping Israel spin its historic defeat as a win. that's an interesting point.

Starting point is 02:23:13 I do think that some people out there, I mean, like myself, I have criticism. I still think that what they did was falling short, but in no way should this be framed as Israel winning, which is by the way what the corporate media seems to be doing. And I'll even, I think I might have included it. There's even a mainstream discussion where they're saying, you know, that, oh, I hope I included that, where basically what they're saying is that they agreed with Biden, that the ruling of the ICJ was agreeing with Biden, which is, I mean, my God, these people are desperate to make it what they want it to be.

Starting point is 02:23:42 Saying that the accusation of genocide has merit is literally the opposite of what Bible was saying. That it has merit, that it's meritless. So it's pathetic. But it says equally important he goes on, Ali says, is to remember that the ICJ ruling is not about what Israel will do.

Starting point is 02:23:58 And I agree with him. Israel's going to ignore any ruling. I agree. This is about forcing the rest of the world to take seriously their obligations to stop an entity now officially accused of genocide by the world's highest court. Because you have to understand. per the Geneva Conventions and international law, the point is that these other signat, well, actually, no, I think it's specifically to the ICJ.

Starting point is 02:24:19 I forget which, which I think it's all of it in general, but the point being that they're, because they're signatories to this, they're obligated to stand up and stop what is being called genocide individually. So his point is that this ruling is, they know Israel's not going to care, but now it's on these other countries to show whether they will abide by the legal argument that they have to stop what this, be. being called genocide. And now it officially is. Now, you can read this. It's not incredibly long, but it's the entire ruling. I will just play you the clips here of what they effectively read out.

Starting point is 02:24:52 Burkan Guza-Kara is the one that shared this. Here's what she said. It's four minutes. I shall now read out the operative part of the order. For these reasons, the court indicates the following provisional measures. One, by 15. votes to two the state of Israel shall in accordance with its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in relation to the Palestinians in Gaza take all measures within its power to prevent the Commission of all acts within the scope of Article 2 of the Convention in particular a killing members of the group be causing serious

Starting point is 02:25:36 bodily or mental harm to members of the group C deliberately and on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part, and D, imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group. In favor, President Donahue, Vice President Gavorgian, judges Tomka, Abraham, Benuna, Yusuf, Shway, Bandari, Robinson, Salam, Iwasawa, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brandt, Judge Adhok Mosenk against. Judge Sabatinde, Judge Adhok Barak. By 15 votes to two, the state of Israel shall ensure with immediate effect that its military does not commit any acts described in point one above.

Starting point is 02:26:30 In favor, President Donahue, Vice President Kivorgian, judges Tomka, Abraham, Benuna, Yusuf, Shui, Bandari, Robinson, Salam, Iwasawa, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brandt, Judge Adhawk Mosenike, against Judge Sabatinde, Judge Adhawk Barack. By 16 votes to one, the state of Israel shall take all measures within its power to prevent and punish the direct and public incitement to commit genocide in relation to members of the Palestinian group in the Gaza Strip. Now really quickly, to both those points, the problem from, you know,

Starting point is 02:27:13 Israel's perspective and what U.S. will, in the sycophant nature, they always act with Israel will defend is that they claim that's not happening, right? What the people said individually is their own, say, say, whatever, that the bull ultimately saying that even the Amalek thing was that you don't understand the passage, right? Or that we're not committing acts of aggression or targeted attacks or whatever. That it's Hamas and it's human shields and therefore it makes sense. So their argument is already laid out. It's illegitimate. It has been from day one. That's what we, collective punishment is is there for a reason. This whole their human shields aspect is just a momentary sidestep that they hope people

Starting point is 02:27:49 would abide to, abide by, but it's obvious that what you're doing is just using, even the best example is the 400 people at the Jumblia refugee camp to what turns out to not even have been a person that was there. And that's, but that's justified to them. Think about that for a second. In favor, President Donahue, Vice President Givorgian, judges Tomka, Abraham, Benuna, Yusuf. Shwey, Bandari, Robinson, Salam, Iwasawa, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brandt, judges ad hoc Barack

Starting point is 02:28:22 Mascenike against Judge Sabatinde. By 16 votes to one, the State of Israel shall take immediate and effective measures to ensure the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance to address the adverse conditions of life faced by Palestinian in the Gaza Strip. In favor, President Donahue, Vice President Gaborgian, judges Tomka, Abraham, Benuna, Yusuf, Shui, Bandari, Robinson, Salam, Iwasawa, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brandt, judges ad hoc Barack Misenike, against Judge Sabatinde.

Starting point is 02:29:07 By 15 votes to two, the State of Israel shall take effective measures, to prevent the destruction and ensure the preservation of evidence related to allegations of acts within the scope of Article 2 and Article 3 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide against members of the Palestinian group in the Gaza Strip. Do you really think that they're going to protect the evidence that proves they committed genocide? You know, it's just if these are just statements that are meant to state the reality so you can later prove that they're illegitimate or illegal or criminal, But, you know, the argument that you're going to mandate that they have to not destroy evidence that prove they're guilty, it's never going to happen.

Starting point is 02:29:51 In favor, President Donahue, the judge should list off. Usseson, Charlesworth, Judge Sebatin, the state of Israel shall submit a report to the court on all measures taken to give effect to this order within one month as from the date of the order. In favor, President Donahue, Vice President Gaborgen. So that's the point is we have to know. wait a month, but they're already telling you what they're going to do, which is nothing. Fandari, Robinson, Salam, Iwasawa, Nolte, Charles. I think that's it. So really, I just, that's just so you can see kind of the quick overview and the voting.

Starting point is 02:30:31 But I want to be clear, this is the part that I think is important to hear. The court concludes on the basis of the aforementioned considerations that the conditions required by its statute for it to indicate provisional measures are met. it is therefore necessary pending its final decision for the court to indicate certain measures in order to protect the rights claimed by South Africa that the court has found to be plausible. All right. So it's very clear. So first of all, the ruling will continue, but they needed to prove that there was some reasonable issue here for them to have the preliminary things that they discussed. So they're telling you, look, right already this early in the process, it's clear that there is merit to this. They are committing crimes, whether that's genocide.

Starting point is 02:31:21 That's the real question. That's what this is all about because that's a legal term. But I think what's very clear is that if there's merit to these allegations, well, they're committing crimes, potentially war crimes. But crimes for sure. I think it's obviously war crimes. You're talking about human life. So let's just be clear about that. That's a gigantic win for the reality of what they're doing.

Starting point is 02:31:40 Of course, stopping short for that one point is now being turned around to make it seem like they agreed with Biden, which is just showing you a desperate their position is. The Court recalls that it has the power under its statute when a request for provisional measures has been made to indicate measures that are in whole or in part other than those requested. In the present case, having considered the terms of the provisional measures requested by South Africa and the circumstances of the case, the Court finds that the measures indicated need not be identical to those requested. which is an interesting statement. You know, you've got to remember how political all of this is.

Starting point is 02:32:22 Overall, I very much think this is a positive. Now, Rami Araya, who is the Tunisian American journalist covering events to the UN, says worth remembering that U.S. government officials described South Africa's genocide case against Israel as meritless, counterproductive, and completely without basis in fact whatsoever, right? But the world's top court, which they otherwise tell you, you to abide by, including its American president, strongly disagreed today by ruling against Israel and in favor of provisional measures. Just really hear that. And I want you to listen.

Starting point is 02:32:55 Oh, you know what? I don't think I downloaded this. Hold on a sec. Maybe I did. Hold on. Shoot. I forgot about that one. This is a clip that Orwell shared with me. Yeah, I got it right here. So this is Kirby asking, ask point blank or directly. You know, how are you going to respond? of this. I think it's just hilarious the way these people act. Delay and with that. Okay. Thank you. Kirby, I wanted to ask about the moral court decision ordering Israel to prevent acts of

Starting point is 02:33:29 genocide, but it stopped short of ordering a ceasefire. You have suggested multiple times that South Africa's claim does not really have merit. And I'm wondering, how does the U.S. repair relations with South Africa, which is a big voice for non-aligned countries in the global south. How is that your question? You guys are so bad at this. How you were saying it was a effing layup. You've been saying it's meritless and the biggest court in the world with multiple nations

Starting point is 02:34:02 involved just ruled that it has so much merit that we have to put out provisional actions to stop what they're doing. What's your answer? It's like, my God, but you have to shift it into the, how is it going to affect your bilateral relations with South Africa? Like you made you totally buried the lead You didn't bury the lead you lost it That's so frustrating

Starting point is 02:34:21 That's why I wish there's so many more people Like the ones we see at the State Department briefings asking real questions But listen to how he responds Alligned countries in the global south How does the US repair relations With South Africa Which is a big voice for non-aligned countries

Starting point is 02:34:37 In the global south I don't believe that our disagreement Over the founding claim of the allegation causes any permanent damage to the bilateral relationship with South Africa. We just happen to disagree on that point. But we're also going to keep working on that relationship as we do many others. So you fundamentally believe the U.S. They claim that the U.S. is supporting a genocidal state.

Starting point is 02:35:06 That is not going to impact relations with South. I don't believe I heard that from South Africa. Oh, no? Did you not? Oops. South Africa to sue the U.S. and the U.K. for complicity in Gaza genocide. Or he doesn't want to hear it, right, since this was January 15th when this happened. He's very, very aware of that.

Starting point is 02:35:24 These people are shifty, slimy manipulators, guys. That's what they do. I don't believe I heard that from South Africa. South Africa filed a case based on allegations that they believe genocide was being conducted by Israel. And you, because you're complicit, and they made that astoundingly clear. In Gaza, I don't believe. it was directed at us at all. Yes, it was.

Starting point is 02:35:47 We simply have said consistently, we find that that claim is unfounded. See, you had the nerve to say that after the starting of the question was that the ruling international body of court, the world court, which is also known as, ruled that it does have merit. It's just so inherently stupid. Like this whole game, the main point to take away is that these people will lie about anything.

Starting point is 02:36:12 At any expense, as long as it benefits, them. And, you know, the court also did not find Israel guilty of genocide. Yeah, well, the ruling hasn't happened yet. They did, in fact, find that there was merit to the allegation, which is the opposite of what you're saying. Yet to pretend like they didn't rule the genocide, well, no, they haven't finished the case. That is just a political tap dance. And again, yeah, they really did, Kirby, and I know you know that. They're literally suing you for complicity in the genocide. So the point of the question was, how do you go forward with a group who's calling you murderer? and he just tap danced around it because that's what they do.

Starting point is 02:36:48 Now here, going back a day before, this is from the 25th, and I find this to be hilarious as well. This is what's his name here, Vindat Patel, who is meekly moving around the question. I mean, look, again, I probably could have found historical context. If you ask them, should Iran abide by the ruling, they would be like unequivocally yes, no matter what, because it's an important body.

Starting point is 02:37:12 And that's what he even says before. And they call it out that this is an important, but now because it's not something that will work for them, well, they just act like it's not important and we're not sure or the context matters. Well, not for anybody else that you don't like. Something from the International Court of Justice tomorrow. The U.S. has obviously said the South African case against Israel is meritless, but you also said, you know, in your statements related to the case that the ICJ, as you know, is a principal orcun of the U.S. and it plays a vital role in the peaceful settlement of disputes. So, you know, ahead of this ruling, is there anything you would say regarding, you know,

Starting point is 02:37:52 if provisional measures are advised by the court, should parties abide by them? I would not opine on anything like that, given that this is a little process, and I'm not going to hypothesize or so. No one's asking you to hypothesize. The point is, should they ask them, demand of them action? should they follow it? Obviously, that's the easiest question in the world. Anybody else, especially Russia, China, they would be like 100%.

Starting point is 02:38:22 Absolutely. And then go back to the thing he said. It's a whatever he said. Central part of the whatever acting. That no longer matters when it's about people that you are on the side of. Speculate on any kind of outcome. What I will just say again. And we spoke to this when the arguments are on.

Starting point is 02:38:42 I mean, just be clear, that's like saying. saying should the UN decide something, should countries follow that? You don't go, well, I don't want to guess about what's going to happen. That has nothing to do with what's going to happen. It's a hypothetical, generalized question about whether they should follow rulings of the world court. He knows that. All this does is prove to you these people are dishonest.

Starting point is 02:39:01 Ongoing is that the allegations that Israel is committing genocide, we believe, to be unfounded, but simultaneously we will continue to make clear. with our partners in Israel that they not only need to comply with international humanitarian law as it conducts this operation against Hamas, but they also have a moral and strategic imperative to take feasible steps, additional steps. You know how infuriating it is to just keep saying that as they do explicitly the opposite and destroy all in civilian infrastructure and kill 30,000 of people? And they ever say, well, we would implore them to do everything. okay, so you went from they're doing everything to now you implore them to do. So at least you can argue that they're no longer doing everything they can just by deductive logic.

Starting point is 02:39:50 But they see they've trapped themselves. Everybody sees through this. I really believe that. I think literally everybody, the only people supporting this are people that have already agreed with the agenda and don't really care about the outcome. To prevent civilian harm and that they also have a responsibility to investigate credible allegations of violations of international humanitarian, law when they're just stumbling through his words i mean god this guy it's i you know i can't tell whether this person is somebody who doesn't care or you know is just found himself in this job and it's probably going to drop out in six months because it's just so hard to be a deceptive lying monster all the time

Starting point is 02:40:25 right but the way he's responding right here it's like you can see it feel it that he does not believe what he said or might but i'm not going to get ahead of the process on this but does does following that does following international humanitarian law extend to following humanitarian international law when, you know, the one of the world's courts that can enforce international law of rules on something, should, you know, should countries be expected to follow that? I'm just, the, he even made it more broad for you. Let's just remove it from the conversation. Should something happen tomorrow?

Starting point is 02:40:58 And should they rule on it? Should people follow that? I'm not going to guess about things. He's just so meek and cowardly. I have no way to ascertain or guess what the ruling might be. so I'm just going to refrain. What are you asking? You're waiting to see what the decision will be,

Starting point is 02:41:14 and then you'll decide whether you... Get them, Matt. See, Matt, I forgot Matt said that. That's a perfect point. You know, so you're suggesting to wait to see what they say to then decide whether you should follow it? Yep. That's exactly what you're doing.

Starting point is 02:41:27 Should, you know, should countries be expected to follow that? I'm just, that's... I have no way to ascertain or guess what the ruling might be, so I'm just going to refrain from it. But in general, in general... That's suggesting. You're waiting to see what the decision will be, and then you'll decide whether you agree with the verdict or not. And if you don't agree with it, then you'll say no.

Starting point is 02:41:47 But yes, in many other cases, one that comes to mind is China and the Philippines and South China City. You have called for the Chinese to respect those decisions. Right. Are you saying now that you're withholding judgment on whether countries should. obey? Not at all. Not at all. Over the course of this, over the course of this, we've been pretty clear that

Starting point is 02:42:17 it's our expectations that all parties, including the government of Israel, comply with international humanitarian law. I will note that. See, he skipped over it because he didn't say the rulings of the court. He said international law, which they'll argue they're not abiding by.

Starting point is 02:42:33 Like, they're giving them out. It's very intentional. Though that throughout all of this Hamas certainly has not been, But what does that have to do with anything? Like you see, he's reading off talking points provided by Israel. What the hell does Hamas have to do with ruling on what they're doing in Gaza? Like, just because they're fighting Hamas, which is what they're claiming, does not change. That's what the ICJ said from the very beginning.

Starting point is 02:42:55 We'll acknowledge what Hamas is doing. That's part of this. But that put aside, we're ruling on your actions against Palestinians. That's it. Regardless of whether, I mean, let's take a face value. What you're saying about Hamas is true. Going forward, that's still a crime. That's the way they framed it.

Starting point is 02:43:08 And he just has to sidestep into, but Hamas hasn't. So are you acting like Hamas is a legitimate state that you weigh next to your state? Or are they a terrorist group? And why would you compare yourself to a terrorist group? Very clumsy. All parties, including, not at all. Over the course of this, we've been pretty clear that it's our expectations that all parties, including the government of Israel, comply with international humanitarian law.

Starting point is 02:43:38 will note, though, that throughout all this, Hamas certainly has not been. But other than the one thing you're actually talking about, which literally was protected international law, which is the armed rebellion. I mean, that's what they're really pointing at when they say that. They're not talking about the individual actions of kidnapping civilians or shooting civilians. That's not what you're really talking about. But that doesn't matter. So they're lying about everything.

Starting point is 02:44:01 I'm saying is I'm not going to opine on any forthcoming ruling on this. And I will reiterate again that. at the crux of this when these arguments started the week before last that was rooted in this notion that and these allegations that Israel is committing genocide and I will say again that we find those allegations to be unfounded. Ben in general when a court is ruling on something you can you can argue that you don't you don't agree with with South Africa's argument but it sort of undermines the legitimacy of of the whole system if the U.S. is not, yeah, it's not saying ahead of time whether

Starting point is 02:44:44 whether this ruling is meaningful or whether you would expect countries to follow it. Again, I will just say, and you've heard me say this before, our expectation is that Israel needs to must comply with international humanitarian law, but I'm not going to get ahead of tomorrow. He won't say it. That is very deliberate or any expected ruling on this. Setting aside opining on how the preliminary verdict might come out, would the U.S. at least commit to not vetoing enforcement of whatever the court rules one way or the other? This comes into play the way that we mentioned earlier, but after it, right? So that applies to now. That applies to the preliminary, the provisional ruling, but it will also apply later to whatever they rule. The point is the United Nations can now, from the Security Council, could create other resolutions that will argue that they are obligated to take the provisional measures that the ICJ put forward. But of course, as I just pointed out, the U.S. could just veto that. It doesn't change the provisional ruling from the ICJ, but then all of a sudden, sudden you have the United Nations not have, you know, it becomes toothless ultimately, right? So the point would be they're simply saying, will you at least argue, well, you at least

Starting point is 02:45:57 take the stand by not vetoing the general ruling of literally everybody else in the world? Of course they won't. Would the U.S. at least commit to not vetoing enforcement of whatever the court rules one way or the other? I'm not going to commit to any action from up here. But to pick up on Matt's question from earlier, does. Doesn't that undermine the U.S. insistence that other countries ought to follow these court rulings? What does it leave of the kind of rules-based order if countries can pick and choose decisions?

Starting point is 02:46:31 That's certainly not what I was indicating. He's so lost. Again, I think we need to take a step back here because a decision has not come down and no one here. Let's see. It's not what he's. They're asking if and when it does, and he knows that. knows unless you can tell the future what exactly that will be. And the point implicit in that is if we don't like the ruling, then we'll disagree, which is the whole point of the question. He's trapped himself logically here.

Starting point is 02:47:00 I'm not going to commit any U.S. government action from up here within the auspices of any body. What I can say is that we believe that the allegations that started this process, Israel is committing a right back to the talking point. We believe those to be unfounded. Simultaneously, though, we'll continue to raise with our Israeli partners. Right back to the moral and strategic imperative that they need to take additional steps to minimize deaths on civilians. There you go. But I'm not going to get into this process beyond that.

Starting point is 02:47:36 It's so painful. I mean, my God. And I agree, as Kaylee says, which I've said every time. This is why I think decensored news is a great job clipping these up. Thank God for them, because otherwise I would never even see. it because I can't stand it. I used to watch these things religiously. And it would take like 45 minutes for me to go through because everything they say is ridiculous and wrong. I mean, it's like they lie about everything. And that's what she says in the chat. What an epic waste of time

Starting point is 02:48:00 these briefings are. They know they're lying. Their job is to obfuscate. That's what it is. And then the people asking the questions know their job is to obfuscate. So their job is to try to do what they just did right there, which is through logistics, like logical holes and language, trap them into essentially accidentally not saying, you see my point like they will never tell you what they're supposed to say. But you can suss out the truth by trapping them logically like that. And just because I think it's a funny time to play this,

Starting point is 02:48:30 this is exactly what the real point is, and they all know it. Anyway, welcome to the State Department. I think we have some interns in the back. Welcome. Good to see you in this exercise and transparency and democracy. Is that what it is? That's Matt Lee's Google.

Starting point is 02:48:51 Sorry. I thought it was an exercise in spin and obfuscation. All right. Yeah. Very real. That's a very real clip that really actually happened. And Mattley, the point was the guy is just, I think he, I don't know, I think he lasted much long after that.

Starting point is 02:49:09 They broke into laughter about transparency and democracy. Oh, my God, that's so dumb. because they all know, guys, it's ridiculous. Now, going forward, Arnaud Trant writes, this is quite a sign. Seems like Israel has even lost Chatham House. The very heart of the Anglo establishment with its director themselves saying,

Starting point is 02:49:31 Israel has always had objectives that are difficult to reconcile. One is getting hostages back, and the other is pursuit of Hamas. What do you know? A logical statement that's very obvious to see that those two things directly contradict each other. He goes on to say, I am unconvinced, as are a lot of other people, that the technique they have chosen, which is bombarding Gaza and flattening it, is going to achieve either of those things. They've lost it, guys.

Starting point is 02:49:56 Everybody sees through it. I don't think it's because they care. I think it's because they recognize that the peons, wherever you want to say, the average people, everybody like that is very aware of this. And so these powerful people, the authority figures that want to maintain their power are like, whoa, okay, they've lost it. So we have to walk this back. That's what I think is actually happening. Both media, people in power, politicians, they see the writing on the wall. And they care about first and foremost their own power.

Starting point is 02:50:23 So this is Chatham House, which is the, you know, the Chatham House rules. It comes from the original Chatham House, which is that they aren't allowed to speak about what they talk about and so on. So this is a kind of core concept. And it says she was also very critical of, quote, Western countries above all, I guess the woman, excuse me, above all of the U.S. for allowing the Israeli-Palestin conflict to fester and for Israel to abuse its power to expand its settlements in the West Bank and in land earmarked for future Palestinian states, which is what it is. The consent and the people talking about the two-state solution know that they keep taking parts of what they claim was part for Palestine and just keep pretending like that's going to happen. Now we're hearing Israel finally admit openly everywhere that it'll never happen.

Starting point is 02:51:05 but if you've paid attention, they've always been saying that, which shows you how disingenuous the whole thing is, especially when you remember that they funded Hamas in order to stop that exact concept. I always secondarily think about it. I'll grab it really quickly. One day, this won't be there anymore. But, you know, as Harretz very clearly covered, that the point was if they want to stop the two-state solution, which is what they keep pretending they wanted, they argue in 2019, which wasn't on the record at the time, that they have to keep funding Hamas. It says right there, and that's part of their strategy. Right? So what we're talking about is the U.S. government saying,

Starting point is 02:51:41 no, we all want to do state solution. Well, they are supporting the illegal occupation of more Palestinian land and the funding of the group they used to not justify doing it. It's crazy. I thank God, people are finally starting to see all this stuff. The consent of many countries for supporting the older order, excuse me, is unraveling. And this is partly because of the accusation from many countries that those that wrote the rule 70 years ago wrote them in their own favor and respect them only when it suits them.

Starting point is 02:52:10 Yep. It needs to be answered if support for international law and institutions is to continue. There are not many countries that initially denied Israel a right to respond to the deliberate slaughter by Hamas on October 7th. But Israel's bombardment and constraint on humanitarian aid has lost it much of the world support. Yeah, that's exactly what I've been saying. Now, I don't believe that Chatham House here is going to care about the reestablishing some kind of rules-based order. It's going to be just a vying for who gets to set the new rules that benefit them in particular. That's hopefully we can potentially change that, but hardly think it's going to happen.

Starting point is 02:52:46 Call me a pessimist. Add this as I always do. So how they responded, which is kind of hilarious. Now I'm going to try to wrap this pretty quickly since we're getting close to three. Wyatt Reed, simply pointing out, it's, you know, here's how all these Israeli people that responded. specifically officials. Outrageous, anti-Semitic, disgrace, like all what you would expect. You're all racist and you suddenly hate Jews simply because you point out that we're murdering people in Gaza.

Starting point is 02:53:14 Does that make sense to anybody? Only people that are manipulators. Now, look, I've always said, sure, maybe there's an overlap somewhere, but you can't just dismiss genuine criticism as racism because it suits your interests. Now, here is one of the Israel Defense Minister, Yov Gallant. the state of Israel does not need moral preaching to separate terrorism from a civilian population in Gaza or to separate terrorism. The International Court of Justice in the Hague went above and beyond when it granted South Africa's anti-Semitic request to discuss that you already know

Starting point is 02:53:45 what's going. That's where all of this goes. Here's what Netanyahu said. In English, of course, because it's always aimed at an American audiences. Commitment to international law is unwavering. Equally unwavering is our sacred commitment to continue to defend our country? It's the same stuff. The same old things. Just skipping right past the fact that the world court ruled you're a liar, and that's not true, but you just go, we abide by the rational law, we care about it, and we're only doing this for our freedom. It's the same things you get from U.S. politicians. And defend our people. Like every country, Israel has an inherent right to defend it. Same old, same old. I mean, I'd have to waste your time. It's the same stuff. We don't

Starting point is 02:54:24 care. We're not going to abide by the ruling, and they're all racist. Does that sum it up? That's exactly what just happened. Slams the ICJ as anti-Semitic that Israel should ignore the ruling. Right, but they'll force it on anybody else if the ruling goes against Iran or China or anybody else they don't like. Here's another one. Israeli Prime Minister's senior advisor and spokesman you've seen him. Mark Ragev claims on a TV's interview that now apparently South Africa has manipulated the convention to serve Hamas. So now what is it a, is it a stolen election here we're talking about or are now suddenly undermining the voting process?

Starting point is 02:54:59 Like they're desperate, guys. And guess what they've never done with any of these claims? Proven even a fraction of them. Are we now to believe South Africa is working with Hamas? Where's the evidence? They've manipulated the convention process. Prove it. They just float whatever.

Starting point is 02:55:15 And everybody that supports them blindly will go, I do it. That's what happened. It's just like the two-party paradigm in this country. Here's the representative, I guess, for life of the October 7th. You know, it's just which I continue to think is ridiculous. But more and more and more, they continue to genocide people in Gaza. Israel takes seriously, it says, it's obligations to prevent genocide.

Starting point is 02:55:35 It's interesting he would say that on the 26th. Well, all of the rest of the leadership is going, we don't care. You're a liar. You're a racist, which is the exact opposite of its obligation to prevent genocide. It says that is why we are fighting the terrorist monsters who burned whole families to Ash on October 7th. So his response to being accused of genocide by the world court on a real way is to go back to the lying atrocity propaganda. Because that's desperation. Because remember the point was that wasn't Hamas.

Starting point is 02:56:04 The ones that were burned ash were provably not by Harat's investigation, by multiple Israeli outlets proving this by people that saw it happen because of hellfire missiles, tanks firing on homes that burned down. And that's why they conflated those 200 Hamas members that they burned alive alongside the other members of their people that were burned alive because they did it at the same time. It's very easy to prove the 40 beheaded babies, the people burned alive, all these things. Orrin Jones from the Guardian said there's no evidence of this. It's all been shown to be lies.

Starting point is 02:56:34 And I said, you're still using lies after that has all been debunked. The bodies were provably burned due to IDF attack since Hamas did not have the capability to create what we saw. That's the biggest point. And numerous tank operators, helicopter pilots have admitted firing on civilians. But again, your response to that high-level accusation is go right to the lies. Clearly that's what his job is. Might as well work at the State Department. He then says Hamas's response to the.

Starting point is 02:56:59 ICJ decision has been to fire rockets at Ashkel in Israeli city and released sick propaganda video with three women hostages. Is that the response? No, here's the response. Do you want to hear it? The Hamas movement is following with great attention, the discussions taking place within the International Court of Justice following the lawsuit that was put forward by the government of South Africa in order to put an end to the war of genocide against. are people in the Gaza Strip. In light of this, the stance of the Hamas movement is actually built on the principles of reciprocity and international law represented in the following.

Starting point is 02:57:43 Three points here. First off, if the court in the Hague decides to enforce a ceasefire, the Hamas movement will commit to the ceasefire as long as the enemy commits as well. And that's interesting, right? Because the whole argument they keep pretending is we're not going to ceasefire where Hamas fires rockets. Well, you clearly don't understand what ceasefire means or you're pretending not to. And you could argue that the terrorists won't abide by it whenever you want to frame it as, but they're telling you at the very least that we will abide by it if they do. So the point really becomes that Israel does not want to relinquish their military campaign. Because obviously it's in the best interest of Hamas at this point to have a ceasefire. So that's the point is they don't want that to stop. It's not about anything other than their agenda. So The only one acting against international law at this point. They're not trying to include other things that have happened before this. Just right now in this moment is Israel. You know, if they continue firing after Israel will stop,

Starting point is 02:58:40 well, then you could say Hamas is terror. That would prove your point, wouldn't it? Wouldn't you want to do that? But I don't think that's what will happen. I think obviously they'll stop and Israel will stop and it's not what Israel wants. So they keep going under the guys that Hamas won't. You're just using, you're accusing them of that which you are guilty. Classic.

Starting point is 02:58:56 Second, the Hamas movement. will release the Zionist detainees. It is currently holding if the occupation state releases Palestinian detainees being held in Israel, all Palestinian detainees being held. Third. So important. One of the key parts of it is they will release all of their hostages. This has been the state of reality for a while now. And yet what they go back to is that the obligation is on them to release everybody and then we'll decide going forward.

Starting point is 02:59:29 I don't care if you think it's a terrorist group or not. Why would that make sense? They're just going to give up their only leverage and then just hope that you deal with them properly. Israel will completely annihilate them like they plan. And quite frankly, I think that what we are seeing is the interest of the Israeli government in not wanting these people to come home.

Starting point is 02:59:45 Look, the Hannibal directive is all proven. I mean, they've admitted it, their own colonels, multiple people in the military. They're killing their own hostages, guys. We have to come to terms with that. The enemy must put an end to its block and I mean the Zionist entity must put an end to his blockade that has been going on for 18 years against the Gaza Strip and must allow for the complete and unobstructed entry of all relief aid for our people in the Gaza Strip

Starting point is 03:00:18 as well as all the necessary requirements for reconstruction after the destruction that was sewn by the enemy in the Gaza Strip. In the same context, we call upon all governments, all countries, all humanitarian organizations in the world to continue to file lawsuits in the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court against the Zionist occupation, as well as its political security and military leaders in order to bring to light their act of aggression and present them to trial as war criminals. We also call upon them to ramp up. lawsuits against Zionist officials in all countries and all capitals of the world that they're

Starting point is 03:01:02 visiting in order for us to prosecute the leaders of this fascist entity in order to expose this entity and bring to light its act of aggression against the whole world. And an example is what happened recently in Switzerland, the lawsuit that was brought forward against the criminal, the president of the Zionist entity Herzog, who was signing the shells being launched by Zionist artillery and airplanes against our people and killing our women and children. So what's really interesting to me, can you imagine how much it infuriates the Zionist people out, the Zionist manipulators out there who are, you know, their whole argument is this is an illegitimate terrorist group, and suddenly, and that very well may be the reality or what you think.

Starting point is 03:01:47 The point, though, is that they, and again, the group, they've been funding to be the manipulator, and now all of a sudden they're getting like this international attention, And ultimately, they're getting, it's like, think about how infuriating that must be. Now, what he says here, their response has been to fire rockets. Well, you, nothing's changed, right? So you're arguing that somehow Hamas should respond to their ruling when it's aimed at you, but you shouldn't. So you're going to deny what they're doing and then call out Hamas for continuing to fight.

Starting point is 03:02:16 Why would they feel obligated to stop what they're doing because of the ICJ ruling aimed at Israel? Like, again, this just screams desperation. These people are drowning right now. they're just pulling up whatever they really so are they not in the middle of an ongoing genocide as though firing a rocket back is somehow you know it's it's so contorted or could can manipulate it and they put out a video by the way of three women hostages in the same way they keep doing saying you're killing us you're going to you're going to let us die because that's what they're doing my point is i said you're lying as usual below is their response which you just watched what

Starting point is 03:02:51 you're discussing though is defense right by your own broken definition right by firing rockets because you're being attacked isn't that self-defense oops i guess only when you do it the video is again showing the hostages your government has been killing and continuing to try and kill the world sees this now now you i'll include this video or no uh this one from uncaptured from from dan cohen which is three minutes is important to watch it really does kind of sum up the reality of all the different israeli hostages as well as people that were involved with what happened in kibbutzv a area on the record saying they killed civilians were watching them kill civilians families that came back and say they watched them bomb them next to them.

Starting point is 03:03:28 I mean, again, the colonel and other IDF members on the record saying this was a mass Hannibal. It's impossible not to understand this. They want to think it's hilarious here. This person responds, the ICJ decision for Hamas is to release hostages unconditionally. Is that how you took that? So their argument is the, like, so everything they keep saying, ceasefire, oh, yeah, then good. Release the hostages and we'll lend this. Well, that's not what they're asking for.

Starting point is 03:03:52 They're saying stop killing people right now. and then we can do that because your point is you're bombing them into freedom. You're killing your own people as well as anybody else there. But now that the ICJ says you have to stop, they go, okay, we will as soon as they release the hostage because that's what the ICJ said, right? Stop this, so release the hot. It's like a sickness, like a mental sickness. Like you can only put this in the context of they have to do this first,

Starting point is 03:04:14 otherwise we'll keep murdering, but it's not murdering because we're the good guy. It's painful. Now, rapidly, rapidly here. Biden is being, I'm going to go over the rest of this. probably in the next show. Biden makes history, first sitting U.S. president to be sued for complicity in genocide. Good. And quite frankly, if Trump was in power or anybody, it's not a left, right thing at the point. It's not just Biden. Okay. Every one of them are wildly pro-Zionists, and they all make that clear. He just happens to be the one in the seat when this went off.

Starting point is 03:04:44 And the government is complicit. And it is happening right now. This person, Dina Takari, is inside the U.S. federal court where Palestinian plaintiffs, are suing Biden and Blinken and Austin for failure to prevent and complicity in their ongoing genocide. And it's not, it's not something small. Like this, she's going over this and saying, they arguing, they violated international law by failing to prevent genocide. And that goes back to the point we made before because of the international law. They're obligated. And she's saying, cases of childbirth in the streets are widespread at this time, heartbreaking testimonies from Palestinian plaintiffs. The part I thought was so interesting. She's saying the Biden administration

Starting point is 03:05:24 as two lawyers here as his defense, she's sitting in there. She's sitting 15 feet away from them. Watching them take in this devastating testimony of how Israel's U.S.-backed genocide and Gaza has killed family and friends of the Palestinian plaintiffs, how Gaza is no longer what it was.

Starting point is 03:05:38 Animals cannot survive these kind of conditions. Watching them deal with that and ignore that and go right back to arguing that it's illegal or not genocide, it's disgusting. Point is, it doesn't seem like it's just going to disappear. I'm glad to see that. They deserve to be held accountable. Now, two last points on this, I think is interesting in the ceasefire context.

Starting point is 03:05:58 Iran spoke up and said the U.S., or rather, I take it back, the reason it wasn't Iran, but the point was they're framing it as Iran says, U.S. will be hit hard if no ceasefire in Gaza. Let's not forget that there's already people connecting the Texas discussion to Iran because they'll connect it to whatever they can for partisan talking points. But it could be, sure. Or Hamas coming through the southern border like they keep pretending. The point is it's going to be whoever you want it to be. But guess what? This was Muhammad Reza Ashtiani.

Starting point is 03:06:31 Not a small person, but a brigadier general. Okay. So every time Millie says something, do we argue that's what the U.S. government's going to do? Every time Lindsey Graham comes up and says, nuke them. Does we believe that's what the policy is going to be? But that's always how this goes in reverse, right? Anybody Iranian says that over there, we go, Iran threatens X, Y, and Z.

Starting point is 03:06:52 Well, what he said is they'll be hit hard if they do not implement a ceasefire. You could argue that means violence, and maybe it does. Maybe he was legitimately threatening them. But it's quite a bit different to kind of contort this into what you wanted to look like than literally someone like Lindsey Graham going, assassinate him, murder him, like just openly being the very thing. So I think it's interesting, and this is Newsmax, of course, because it's very, very, very partisan. But I think this is where it all comes back to.

Starting point is 03:07:18 You're creating the justification here to make it look like there's an immediate threat to the U.S. At the same time, there's a Texas border threat from outside threat. Like, it's all building in very obvious ways. And here is what the Israeli government just said. Iran is now a legitimate target for Israeli strikes. What? Think about that for a second. Now, I don't know if that's going to translate because I think it would be a pretty stupid move of Israel to do this right now to actually striking Iran.

Starting point is 03:07:43 But think about how dangerous that is. And why? I know they love to scream that everything going on is Iran's fault, but there's no evidence to that. I guarantee they support what's happening. And you know what? Maybe they are doing it all. But they love to say that when I've proven to you that it's not true about any other group we're talking about the PMU, about the Houthis, about, or excuse me, the Ansarala movement, about Hamas, about any of them. They love to make a Hezbollah.

Starting point is 03:08:08 It's not Iran entities. These are real entities that are popular groups from the government or from the peoples of these countries. And Iran supports them both ideologically and their obvious plight. To make them a legitimate target, that's going to, This is what I feel is Israel driving this into a level that cannot be walked back from that will drive the U.S. to take action that will distract everybody from what they've been doing. Now, the genocide has continued. Despite being accused of genocide and the ICJ and everything that's happened,

Starting point is 03:08:37 they went not just back to usual, but went harder. Murdering people in real time, children, 200 dead Palestinians just in 24 hours on the 25th. Here's an image of them of Israeli soldiers. on their own channels, proudly publishing them destroying an ambulance. Because that's totally not a war crime. It totally is. They don't care. Here is a video simply saying there's no place safe in Gaza.

Starting point is 03:09:03 And you can watch as they are shooting people everywhere as they walk places they're told to go. I've shown you this so many times. This is now, today, yesterday. Here's a crazier part, which continues to show you that one or two things, that they're literally shooting anybody that moves, which is what most Palestinians are telling you, which includes, by the way, their own hostages. Or that they just don't care and it's frivolous. An extra Israeli soldier infiltrated Gaza alone, and this is Per Horat's, unarmed, he claimed to fight single-handedly.

Starting point is 03:09:33 Or rather, as his family says, was his argument before he left. He walked 500 meters unimpeded, which is pretty interesting. Then an Israeli drone bombed him into pieces. This is basically after he began to walk back. They killed him. His family says, why kill an armed man? where are the open fire regulations? Yeah, you get the point.

Starting point is 03:09:57 They're lying about everything. They're killing anything everywhere they want no matter. This is Wild West. Really, it's about combination, in my opinion, about ethnic cleansing, just murder when they want to and driving and creating the settlements and controlling the oil and everything else is going on there. As well as much larger agendas. The point is, you know, it doesn't matter if you're Israeli, if you're Palestinian, if you're Jewish, if you're Muslim, you're going to get killed because they don't care. And quite frankly, I think it's because they're trying to kill what they perceive as the hostages. I think that's proven.

Starting point is 03:10:28 But just think about how to crazy that is. And then here is the chairman of Europe, European Med, Human Rights Group. And this is even CNN, which continues to show you. And you can all include this later. The point is an unprecedented TV investigation by CNN captures cases of sniper operations, killing Palestinian citizens, while carrying white flags. But there's been so many, and this is the one you've seen.

Starting point is 03:10:56 We've shown you this one. So this is just CNN breaking down one we've seen before. But you could clearly see them wearing, carrying white flag, waving it, getting shot, and then having people run away. And this happens over and over and over. Don't care. While they're committing genocide harder than ever, up to 117 children a day, Belgium just gave them 16 tons of gunpowder.

Starting point is 03:11:17 Because, you know, we support genocide in Belgium. And then, of course, the United States continues. you just sell them F-35s, 25 F-15s, 12 Apache helicopters, after 112 days of genocidal Gaza war. This is times of Israel. Advancing Deals with the U.S. to purchase all these different things, 25th. And of course, this is a political article. A bill that will be due.

Starting point is 03:11:41 Pentagon's Middle East buildup costs $1.6 billion that apparently they're unable to figure out right now. That they can't get the law. Lawmakers can't pass a budget because, you know, we're brink. broke. That's why, because they spent all the money on war, and $6.2 billion was an error that went to Ukraine to show you how they play the games of this stuff while you're being taxed to hell, and they're destroying everything to get there. Now, I'm going to go over this probably tomorrow, just because I'm going to want to talk about this more, but just briefly, there's the allegations being floated about the United Nations Palestinian refugee agency. And I think it is painfully ridiculous. And that's not to say that there might not be some member of Hamas that happens to work at a UN agency. The point is, First of all, as Ryan Grimm writes, I think this is the most important point. Oh, and I guess I didn't say it first. The State Department has now put a hold on funding for the United Nations Palestinian Refugee Agency,

Starting point is 03:12:33 which, by the way, is the one of the only, if not the only location that has been actually giving refuge to people in Gaza. That's why they keep bombing the locations that they hold them in. Tens of thousands of people, if not hundreds, the hospitals, whatever else. And those are the schools that are there for the children, which they argue are trained them to be terrorists, but there's intermittent examples of certain things, even though you can show to the teeth, these type of examples they're doing in Israeli schools by teaching them to hate Palestinians,

Starting point is 03:13:00 which is egregiously obvious. Check out Abby Martin's discussions on this stuff. And his point is, so the U.S. does apparently know how to stop funding from flowing after allegations of war crimes. It just doesn't apply it when it's happening to Israel, right? So you're willing to stop funding during a humanitarian crisis, if you have whatever you want to call it,

Starting point is 03:13:19 that we know was happening because of allegations, knowing that that will hurt people on the ground even more because that's like the only, I mean, think about how gross that is. He says the head of the UN agency said the contracts with these 12 people have been ended in investigations underway. And that's based on, that's not approvable. They just ended these 12 contracts because they were allegations floated and they're taking the right steps. the IDF soldiers and the media regularly post direct evidence of Israeli war crimes, yet there hasn't been a single announcement of investigation beyond the three people they kill.

Starting point is 03:13:57 Like, how do you not see how gross and crazy this is? It says for context, more than 10,000 Palestinians work for the United Nations Palestinian Refugee Agency in Gaza. It's one of the larger employees. So you could argue simply that there may be some kind of overlap, but you should damn well prove that when you're immediately stopping funding during a genocide in the starvation campaign based on the fact that they might just be people that work there that happened to also be part of Hamas,

Starting point is 03:14:24 which is a gigantic political group that by the way was funded by Israel. But on top of that, how do we know that their allegations are accurate? Because guess what? Well, he also, oh, that was just something else was deleted. I'll come back to this later. I'm going to cover this more.

Starting point is 03:14:38 US pauses funding. After the fact, and of course, here comes Mr. Propaganda. Unra and just is a Hamas front. great so you've got 12 people you think are connected to Hamas and yet all of it now becomes a Hamas front because you're pathetic it literally covers Ramas what he's showing in here is a bunch of UNR tweets where they're going you can read it for yourself in a hot covering up for Hamas if you want to see a cover up

Starting point is 03:15:02 look at what they're doing right now in regard to 30,000 people they've killed over here but here's the best part guess what the source comes from from Israel the source of the evidence against UNR are interrogations by the shinbet FBI of Israel or the occupation forces, who are provably known over the years for extracting false confessions, which the UN has written about via torture, blackmail. And here's just a bunch of examples of different articles covering this. The shin bet breaks you.

Starting point is 03:15:30 You'd be insane enough to give a false confession. Israeli interrogation could lead to false confession, says Israeli court. What do you know? Now, just in case we always find the actual information. Here it is. Sack staffers who allegedly participated. It says Israel provided, of course, right there. That doesn't mean it's fake, but my God, don't you think they have an interest in making this case?

Starting point is 03:15:51 Israel provided intel that incriminated these 12 employees. And they immediately removed their contracts, which is kind of crazy if you ask me, because we don't know what's really going on. And that then still makes them supporters of, I mean, it's just pathetic. It says the UN agency for Palestinian refugees said Friday that it had sacked several employees. It says, and this is the main part. A senior Israeli official told Axios news that Shinbet and the IDF were the ones. ones that provided the information that pointed them to this. Really?

Starting point is 03:16:20 It says, this was strong and corroborating intelligence. The officials told Axios that we don't get to see. That's how that works. A lot of intelligence is a result of interrogations of militants who were arrested on October 7th, who we've already proven to you, many, many, many of them were not even remotely connected to Hamas and have been forced, two of which we can prove into saying things that we later proved were false. Remember?

Starting point is 03:16:44 One of them was forced to say they raped all these women. one of them was forced to talk about beheading people. Both of those things have proven out to be false allegations. At the very least, specifically, the beheadings. There's no proof about the rape allegations, but who knows things could ship. Bottom line, these things turn out false statements. And yet here is Mr. Eli David himself. Hamas!

Starting point is 03:17:07 Well, actually, no, though. That pretty much looks like a security guard, though. As I said, the policeman carrying a baton to guard aid going to distribute center is a crime. it's just desperate, guys. It's desperate every which way you look. Now, let's just say that was a mosque. You are the ones that keep telling us that they are the ones that manage Gaza, even though it's not true, really.

Starting point is 03:17:30 So the point is that you're telling, so they would be involved in processes. And what are you going to, what are you pretending these hospitals and groups are going to do? Fight against what you tell us as a terrorist organization? Like, just logically think about it. Even if it was a member there, it's just, it's not the same as saying that that proves anything that they're arguing. But overall, to realize that they're the ones that force confessions of things that you can't prove,

Starting point is 03:17:52 and they've given you no evidence to back up, sort of sounds like everything else we've been hearing. And here's another side of it. Israel's permanent representative of the UN accuses the head of the WHO, someone who we know is corrupt, by the way, of collusion with Hamas. Like, they're eating themselves at this point. He is on your side of most of these things we're talking about. But they accuse Tedros of collusion with Hamas simply because he apparently broke into tears while speaking about what's going on in Gaza. They can't abide by that. So suddenly, with no evidence, it becomes you're with Hamas because you're now doing things we don't like. There's no evidence, though. We just love to say

Starting point is 03:18:28 things like that. That's how dumb this is. And he responded by saying he refutes the accusations. They didn't collusion with Hamas, turning a blind eye to the suffering of hostages, as they literally kill them. You understand how dumb that is? Such false claims are harmful and can't endanger staff and then so on. Of course, Elon Levy has to respond. Hamas abducted hostages into Shifa. Oh, yeah, now you're bringing that back up. The example of when they brought a hostage to get medical treatment, which is the opposite of what's been happening in anybody you put in Israeli prisons.

Starting point is 03:18:59 And even then, through the front door, this is the same point that I'm making. So what do you expect the doctors to do when they come through with a gun in an area you're telling us that they control when these people are just trying to help civilians? Are they supposed to fight them? You see my point? This is just becoming so self-serving in every way they go. But remember, we cover this. It wasn't even remotely what they were claiming. He says, you said nothing and continued to cover up Hamas's abuse.

Starting point is 03:19:25 No, he didn't. I hate this person, but no, he didn't. Of hospitals for military purposes. No, that was your broad allegation that we later proved definitively false in almost every way, especially at the Shepa Hospital. But who cares, right? Narratives are fun, right? These people are lunatics.

Starting point is 03:19:41 And I'll do, I'll get into this later. This is just about a clip that I thought was interesting. And we'll end with this. He says, for years, we wondered, if the Holocaust happened today, where would people stand? Yeah, you know what? We're all kind of asking the same thing, except you frame it as then October 7th happened and they showed us. The rest of the world is going, and then you committed genocide and proved to us that you didn't care. That's the point.

Starting point is 03:20:04 Everybody cared about October 7th. I mean, literally everybody. Even people that were like myself who are critical of Israel, were like, wow, that's crazy. people that die. We talk about it. But the only time we realized there was a massive group people that couldn't care less about genocide was when you committed genocide against Palestinians. That's why I showed you this down here. This is from today. Ministry of Health, which they've now remember proven of their own intelligence apparatus that what they're saying is correct. Israel committed 18 massacres, 18 in the past 24 hours, killing 174 people and wounding 310. That's after the genocide rule. You think

Starting point is 03:20:39 they care, my God. But thank God, people are paying attention. Thank you for tuning in today, guys. It's so important that we get more attention to this. Now, the first topic I think is very important. I'll continue following this. I want to stress again, I believe this is a manipulation. I can't really suss out just yet, assuming that that's correct, where it's really stemming from. I have my concerns, but I believe strongly that your government is actively trying to trick you into something, please do not fall for it. The last thing I think you should be doing is rushing out there to stand in some violent resistance to your federal government, not to say that you don't have a legal right technically to do that. It's enshrine to the Constitution. I do not support

Starting point is 03:21:21 violence and I do, I think violence begets violence and I think they're desperate to drive you to violence. There may have been a time in history where that was the way to solve things. At this point in time, you're dealing with a nuclear powered country. I do not think it makes sense. Or even let's just take it to because I don't think that would be logical. their weapons are so advanced, their surveillance, the things that we don't even understand they're using are so, the idea being that they will manipulate a situation to be in their benefit and they're asking.

Starting point is 03:21:49 I think they're pleading with you and their actions to get you to do it. Don't fall for it. Thank you for tuning in today. I love you all. As always, question everything. Come to your own conclusions. Stay vigilant. Hi, I'm Foxx-An-Antonios Jessica Headley.

Starting point is 03:22:06 I'm Ryan Wolf. Our greatest responsibility is to serve our Treasure Valley communities. The El Paso-Luss-Cruces communities. Eastern Iowa communities. Mid-Michigan communities. We are extremely proud of the quality, balanced journalism that CBS4 News produces. But we are concerned about the trouble and they're responsible. One-sided news stories plaguing our country. The sharing of biased and false news has become all too common on social media. More alarming. Some media outlets publish the same things.

Starting point is 03:22:36 stories without checking facts first. The sharing of biased and false news has become all too common on social media. More army some media are true without checking facts first. Unfortunately, some members of the media use their platforms to push their own personal bias and agenda to control exactly what people think. And this is extremely dangerous to our democracy. This is extremely dangerous to our democracy. This is extremely dangerous to our democracy. This is extremely dangerous to our democracy.

Starting point is 03:23:10 This is extremely dangerous to our democracy. This is extremely dangerous to our democracy. This is extremely dangerous to our democracy. This is extremely dangerous to our democracy. This is extremely dangerous to our democracy. This is extremely dangerous to our democracy. This is extremely dangerous to our democracy. This is extremely dangerous to our democracy.

Starting point is 03:23:32 This is extremely dangerous to our democracy. This is extremely dangerous to our democracy. This is extremely dangerous to our democracy. This is extremely dangerous to our democracy.

The Last American Vagabond - Texas Border Crisis The New Jan 6th, Weaponized Migration & ICJ Rules Merit To Israel Genocide Claim

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