The Last American Vagabond - The Entirely Preventable Impending Rafah Massacre, War/Border Bill & Blood Libel Or Verifiable Fact?

Episode Date: February 15, 2024

Welcome to The Daily Wrap Up, a concise show dedicated to bringing you the most relevant independent news, as we see it, from the last 24 hours (2/15/24).As always, take the information discussed in the video below and research it for yourself, and come to your own conclusions. Anyone telling you what the truth is, or claiming they have the answer, is likely leading you astray, for one reason or another. Stay Vigilant.!function(r,u,m,b,l,e){r._Rumble=b,r[b]||(r[b]=function(){(r[b]._=r[b]._||[]).push(arguments);if(r[b]._.length==1){l=u.createElement(m),e=u.getElementsByTagName(m)[0],l.async=1,l.src="https://rumble.com/embedJS/u2q643"+(arguments[1].video?'.'+arguments[1].video:'')+"/?url="+encodeURIComponent(location.href)+"&args="+encodeURIComponent(JSON.stringify([].slice.apply(arguments))),e.parentNode.insertBefore(l,e)}})}(window, document, "script", "Rumble"); Rumble("play", {"video":"v4b1zjo","div":"rumble_v4b1zjo"});Video Source Links (In Chronological Order): Week 2 of the #FluorideLawsuit: EPA Rests Their Case, Admits Harm Related to Fluoride Exposure (25) Derrick Broze on X: "Look who's speaking at the World Government Summit 2024 https://t.co/DVL3C21khA" / X (25) Taylor Hudak on X: "Twitter has locked Syrian Girl @Partisangirl out of her account. Twitter continues to market itself as a free speech platform, but locks its users out of their accounts! https://t.co/9VQx499PE0" / X (36) Mohamad Safa on X: "Elon Musk accused us that our followers are bots, which is why I constantly lose tens of thousands of followers and get censored here. If you're not a bot, reply with 🇵🇸. I’m trying to prove a point to Elon who claims you’re bots You can silence me at X, but you can't at the UN. https://t.co/X9qIefZYNR" / X (29) John Cusack on X: "I’m shadow banned by the free speech frauds at twiiter" / X (27) Wall Street Silver on X: "X is becoming the everything app. 🔥🔥🔥" / X wechat.mp4 New Tab The Rafah Super Bowl Massacre, UNRWA Tunnel Claim Further Debunked & Twitter Censors For Zionism (23) LastAmericanVagabond on X: "@EylonALevy Of course you go right to “you’re racist” since that’s all you’ve got. As I said, facts are racist today apparently." / X ‘Place the Material in the Wells’: Docs Point to Israeli Army’s 1948 Biological Warfare - Israel News - Haaretz.com (23) Quds News Network on X: "BREAKING| The Red Crescent released footage, which dates back to last week, proving that Israeli forces opened fire at a medical crew and beat up some of them while they were transferring oxygen cylinders from Nasser Hospital to Al Amal Hospital. Israel's military at the time… https://t.co/9TJ8tFMI4h" / X (25) Osaid - #NotATarget 🗝 🇵🇸 on X: "This is how the apartheid regime treat Palestine’s finest and most dedicated healthcare workers who remained in one of the last few hospitals in the south of Gaza that are still partially functioning (Al-Amal Hospital @PalestineRCS) #NotATarget #MedTwitter https://t.co/8DXd3sM5ed" / X (23) Mossad Commentary on X: "Earlier: https://t.co/GPVncqtlTC" / X (40) Arsen Ostrovsky 🎗️ on X: "@MOSSADil How about you wait for that official statement first before posting this ... and then Retweeting yourself? Or are you that desperate for some Likes? https://t.co/7i6lhUwHSz" / X (22) Quds News Network on X: "BREAKING| Nearly two hours after it cited Israel's military as claiming that it has reliable intelligence that corpses of Israeli detainees are held in Nasser Hospital, Israeli media say now that "expectations regarding finding corpses of Israeli detainees at Nasser Hospital… https://t.co/OhBwKV6wEv" / X (27) Tess1462 on X: "Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry: IDF troops are in Khan Yunis' Nasser hospital, removing dead bodies from temporary graves https://t.co/1ZCFkRLgYa" / X (39) Zionists Of 𝕏 on X: "@K_AminThaabet Sure https://t.co/aYe5UjYfhe" / X (23) AbuOlive on X: "@K_AminThaabet “Blood libel” 🤡" / X Get full access to The Last American Vagabond Substack at tlavagabond.substack.com/subscribe

Let me preface these remarks with I never, never, ever believe Israeli figures. I've been in the government too long to know that the Israelis are patent liars. In their intelligence community, in their propaganda community, certainly, and in their leadership, they are inveterate liars. Let me say that again. They are liars. So you can't believe anything that comes out of Jerusalem. It's all propaganda.

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. Thursday, February 15th, 2024. Thank you for joining me today. I told you I would follow up today with the border story that I wanted to make sure we talked about kind of just the evolution of that conversation as it kind of overlaps and dovetails with the, you know, the Texas border conversation, as people have lovingly called it, the World War III bill and showing you kind of where I think this is important

and how that obviously dovetails and relates to foreign policy. But it is important. It's an important conversation. Interestingly, how much the border conversation at its pitch moments ago has rapidly died off. It's still a very important conversation. It was whether or not people were, you know, breathlessly screaming about it. But ultimately, it's interesting to see how quickly people can be directed based on the,

you know, as I see it, the two-party pair. and I'm kind of influencers. But we're also going to talk to start about an important development in regard to Twitter yet again that I think is important that we point out. But ultimately the main part

we're going to discuss to start today. Well, the focus today is my goal was to get to the border conversation, but ultimately I've decided to do that last and shouldn't be too long, assuming I can get through this quick. And you know, trust me, for all those out there,

even what I'm doing right now, I hear notes and grievances. You know, mostly when there's, done in a constructive criticism way. But, you know, my thing is always that I'm going to be unabashedly myself. I'm going to do what I think is right. And sometimes that's me rambling and sometimes that's me getting distracted and so on. And I do try to get better at that as best I can.

But it's not, you know, I guess my point is that it's important that I don't try to change what I'm doing to meet some kind of like arbitrary metric of the way we view the way media is supposed to be, I guess. But trust me, I do my best to try to, you know, like, For instance, the point that I'm saying this on is somebody talking about me stopping in the videos. And I like shopping the videos and making points. And I'm going to continue to do that. But the point was taken that often, and I felt myself doing this in the moment where I'm wanting to make a point because of something they said.

And I'm stopping and kind of reiterating the same point. I get how that can be obnoxious and it's unnecessary. My point in general is, yes, I do hear you guys. And I do my best to try to fold that into the conversation the way that I conduct myself. But the reason I even said that there was because I ultimately tried to rearrange all of this. And I'm going to try to do this as quick as I can. But we'll see if I can get that done in a reasonable amount of time. But a lot of the follow-up today is kind of be at Rafa conversation,

kind of like the impending moment that we're seeing right now between seemingly everybody anywhere in the world, even their allies going, hey, don't do that. You're going to kill a lot of people. This is going to be a genocide on top of the genocide. and they seem to be going forward anyway. And I think the important point is hopefully you're laughing at the picture I use today that I created of Biden being blinded by the combination of senility and lobbying and Israeli influence that if they wanted to, whether that be Biden pretending he has any influence over anything

or the intelligence apparatus, the U.S. government, able to actually decide to stop funding or gaslighting. I mean, even just with funding, if they just stopped hiding all of what's going on, this would stop very quickly. I mean, same with Ukraine, by the way. It's U.S. funding that is keeping these things going. And so it's important to see that and see how, I mean, it's just, it's kind of an, it's, unnerving to see how this situation is developing, knowing this many people are going to die.

And it's like, you know, it's no, we can't do any more than we're doing at this point. All the people watching what we're screaming about, petitioning our politicians, but it's like we're all kind of just breathlessly waiting to see what this terrible thing becomes. It just makes me sick. It makes me feel like I'm not doing enough and that we could be doing more, knowing what they're about to do, knowing what it's going to do. I just feel helpless, doesn't it? Don't, don't you?

I do. It's incredible. So I want to make sure that we continue to talk about this and make sure people are at least aware of how wrong it is before they commit what appears to be an impending massacre. I hate even saying that, but it seems to be what is happening. So I'll get you up to date on that. We're going to have a conversation about it kind of intertwined with. that this discussion of what they're the turn not not necessarily the historical context i've already

gone over that and i will mention it again today of what blood libel is as i mean i could just say now it's a very simple concept of uh the the the allegation that jews were essentially kidnapping in i guess in some arguments children but it's really just christians as i understand it and and originally it was some kind of an attack but then it kind of developed into the story that they were trying to kidnap christians for their blood now there is provable examples throughout history of ritualistic aspects in pretty much all religions, quite frankly, that usually overlap with blood in some way. So I would imagine there's probably something historically around that, but whether that story is true, and that's not even the point of today. The point is about Zionist politicians

labeling things blood libel or just conspiracy theory or anti-Semitic. It's kind of one in the same conversation that are provably true. And or many things, by the way, that we don't know are for sure true, but that they would label that way whether they know or not because it's not advantageous for their agenda. And I want to go over, I think, three of those examples and then just really highlight how important it is to understand. That's why I played that Rookleson, Colonel Wilkerson clip again. This is what they're known for, like within their own circles, within leadership circles. And we have an important clip or have the, just a post I'll show you today of a leader in the Health Canada authority, the leader, not leadership, but

Health Canada apparatus. We'll use that for now. That is, that it got caught off, basically leaked documents showing that publicly he's acting like he's in line with Israel, but behind the scenes, he's like,

yeah, this is terrible. Israel's committing genocide. We all know that. This is the point. And this is the, one of the most important things that individual people that may not have been in the know up until now are beginning to see,

there's a really alarming distance between, like the authorities. This leadership, and that doesn't mean all-encompassing every one of them. I think we can prove some aren't like that, but that it's obvious that the majority seem to be, at the very least, more interested in their political dynamics than anything they pretend they're fighting for. Human rights, freedom, democracy, blah, blah, blah, all the stuff they push out. We all care about those things because that's what our lives are based on. Most of these people are proving to you like this guy that they're willing to say everything they need to say to keep their job going.

even if it's for some larger, greater good in the distance to lie and allow people to be killed, children to die, kids to starve to death, so they can not lose those political points. It's pretty harsh. So let's start off today with a shout out to Derek's amazing work on the fluoride trial.

Now this was the second kind of wrap up he did about this. This was week two of the fluoride lawsuit. Now, I was, I mean, I still am feeling pretty positive about it overall. one just because this in and of itself has awakened a lot of people to the story. And if they look into it, you'll find the actual draft, which we have in our source material, about the report they don't want you to see. And it's wildly damning. And so right there, that's a win.

A lot of people, you know, whether legislation happens, whether your politicians begin to tell you the truth, kind of is the most impossible and very, the least likely thing to happen in any circumstance involving politicians. but people see it. That then forces change over time, which is sad because in that long time, they dragged their feet. You know, picture the Vietnam War where they knew they were going to lose

in the first few years. They dragged their feet for 20 and allowed all the people to die. That's how they do that. Same with Afghanistan that they will allow this to stay in your water supply. So you continue to suffer. So they don't feel bad

or rather not feel bad, but, you know, have any negative consequences. Meanwhile, they stand up and profess to care about you and elect me and I'll do all the things you think you want me to do. It's just constant. Yeah, I'm Jada, can you tell, but you should be too. I think it's the reality.

Anyway, this is important. What I was saying is I do feel positive about it, but after this day, there were some things that made me kind of walk it back a little bit, and I'm feeling a little bit less positive about where this might end up. And that's why I said that regardless, this was still a win. But we'll have to wait and see what Judge Chen comes back with. Barrick will follow up. We'll be posting it.

And so it's, you know, to see where this ultimately ends up. And we will do kind of a final podcast, Eric and I. We're going to talk about it tomorrow, kind of wrapping up a lot of this stuff and giving you the final points. I believe he's going to be invited on a couple of the shows. I don't want to say it in case doesn't happen, but some reasonably larger ones. So it's important.

Follow this work. Make sure you check out that important work there. And on that note, well, actually, before I go forward, what I wanted to say in general, just on other notes before I go further into the show, Kim Iverson just invited me on the show today. I'll be joining her 9 a.m. central, 10 Eastern tomorrow. I'm not even sure what we're talking about, quite frankly,

but be looking forward to talking about, you know, any number of important things and get some good reach on that. So make sure you check that out. And I wanted to make a point about something that I haven't got a chance to really dive into, but I've been doing a little bit of legwork in the background. And Whitney and I talked about this this morning. And there's definitely some very alarming things building

with a story around the wellness company. And this is something that overlaps with a lot of stuff, sort of an important point to make in regard to the, like Children's Health Defense, RFK Jr., you know, that kind of overlap. You know my opinions about his morally indefensible stance around Israel, which makes me wildly suspicious about everything else, quite frankly, but it shouldn't then make you not, you should still be able to point out that things he did himself,

things that Children's Health Defense did during the COVID-19 discussion, whether for other surreptitious reasons or because he cares about that, we're still good. And we should still be mature enough to be able to say that was still a positive thing. that still had a good effect on X, Y, and Z, but I don't trust him now because of this, or however you want to frame that. So my point in saying that is there's a lot of people overlap with that. Dr. Peter McCola tied with this group.

A lot of them, there's a lot of stuff flying around. I'm not sure yet. I've seen some research. I've asked people that have been really deep in that to send me what they've got. I plan on doing a deeper dive on that. But I'll tell you right now, there is something there that seems pretty interesting. My point in saying the first part of it was, let's not jump the gun and immediately just cast a wide net over anybody that has.

some tangential connection to the company. Let's make sure we do our due diligence and objectively cover this the right way. Because right now more than ever, this is one of the things Whitney and I were talking about or really that she was expressing to me is that there's an alarming push right now from people that I would see trying to undermine the independent media. And that doesn't have to mean that everybody, well, just make it simple, that anybody, the people that I would see as genuinely trying to reach the truth in a lot of ways are aggressively being attacked.

I mean, I myself feel like that's happening to me right now. I think it's important to be careful the way we do that. But I wanted to make sure we talked about that because just my brief looking into this, there are some pretty interesting things there. And I think it's worth your time to look into, but be objective about it. And I plan on talking about that soon. Maybe with Whitney, I'll see where that ends up. But I will be doing my research there.

So make sure you do your research, follow up on this stuff, and be objective, always. Now, this next point, Derek speaking of, and I just use that as a segue because Derek and Florida trial, well, here's something Derek said to bring us into the Twitter discussion. I found this pretty interesting. He says, look who's speaking at the World Government Summit. Now, look, you guys know I'm very skeptical and don't have a high opinion of a lot of people in the realm of corporate media or the ones pretending not to be anymore like a Tucker Carlson. I don't know for sure whether I think he's honest or he believes, you know,

Maybe I'm wrong about everything and he's got it all right. It's certainly possible. But I just have a lot there that makes me feel suspicious and I trust my gut. And I know a lot of other people feel the same. But I just think it's, I just want people to be skeptical about all this. The same way I would ask you to be skeptical of me. We should not be blindly following anybody, especially with a person who is seemingly leaning into a platform that I think even their audience is quickly becoming aware is not what we were told it was.

You know, you should have been listening to a lot of us that were waving these red flags day one. But the point is that it's obvious, it's not free speech. It's some kind of weird amalgam of some things and not others. It's social engineering. It's very, very clear to me as they're tapped into every major problem, but because you put the Elon lens over it, it's like, oh, but it's the good version of the problem. Here's the good AI. Here's the good brain chip.

Here's the good social credit. Here's the good carbon score. My God, I can't believe there's anybody who actually falling for that. Anyway, the point is leaning into that makes me suspicious. So here he is about to speak at the World Government Summit, 2024. Now, I could tell you right now to be objective, maybe he shows up and he blasts him with some anti-world government stance. And I'll be honest, if he does that, it probably makes me because I'm jaded more suspicious

if that was, my thing is that I think this is about trying to set them up as like the, you know, suppressed hero fighting for the truth. And they've done this multiple times over as far back as I can look. People that end up being presented as the new forlorn hero, or rather, you know, suppressed hero trying to fight for the truth and turns out later that that was just, you know, you know what it's going. It's happened more than once. So just be cautious about that, we should care about what he has to say there, right?

If it, now, if he shows up and doesn't simply say this, you know, because what he said on his show and what his followers believe is this is a problem, right? So if he shows up and says something that's not, this is all bad and I disagree with all this, and that's going to be pretty interesting. And I'm sure they'll have a reason why it's not everything bad. You think it is sort of like when Trump would do something bad, it would be, well, he must know something we don't and simple as that. That's all they seem to need sometimes.

But speaking of Twitter, you know, Tucker on X and all these people leaning into this as if it's saving everything, well, Syrian girl. Another person who is outspoken about the Zionist agenda has been locked out of her account. As I can see so far, she seems to still be there, but she hasn't tweeted for so many days.

So she's been locked out. Which again, this absurd concept where they lock you out, like a tyne out, right? Like you need to think about what you. you've done or force you to delete the thing that's the problem before you can come back. That is literally social engineering. If I violated a rule, then delete it. Or at least tell me, like, say, here's a warning.

The tweet's gone because we violated our rules. To do it and make you delete it is about trying to train you to recognize you made a mistake. And it's about things that you may not even agree with. It's really creepy, but that's been going out long before Elon, but it's really prominent right now. Mohamed Safa, a very prominent outspoken person in regard to the, you know, cover. of what Israel's doing. He's just spoke up, and this was from the 12th. Elon Musk accused their platform, their group, or, you know, his account of, and their followers of all being bots.

They're not. I mean, you can engage with this and see for yourself, I mean, sure, I guarantee there's bots all over the place. But to say that this person who's very provably not, or all of his followers are, that's pretty interesting for him to say, right? He says, which is why I constantly lose tens of thousands of followers that get censored on this censor-free free speech platform. form. That's totally not that. He says, if you're not a bot, reply with this flag, you know, prove that you're not and so on. But the point is, there is a lot of prominent. I mean, he's got a pretty fault. He's got 438,000 followers. Here's John Cusack with, what, 5 million, 4 million? Oh, excuse me, I thought he had more. Well, you know what? I'm

pretty sure he did, by the way. Didn't last time we talk about this, he had 4 million? That does not surprise me. And that's what he keeps saying. I mean, you don't have to agree with everything he's saying or what he, you know, in general, all his beliefs, but he's been speaking. But he's speaking up about Israel, calling out the Zionist agenda, and now he keeps telling people. This is another account saying, oh, too, John, just to let you know your tweets don't appear on my feed anymore, like, at all, it's crazy. I see the same thing about a lot of people that I follow and have, like, you know, the check, everything you're supposed to see it.

It's supposed to come up in like the notifications where, you know, these people said something and it goes, nope, I'll go to their account and be like, look at that. There's new tweets today. It's not showing up anywhere. And what he said is, I am shadow banned by free. free speech frauds at Twitter. Here's Wall Street Silver, and I think this is so frustrating. And Whitney makes a point about this in the second, about the overlap here.

I'll just show you, I'll come back to it, actually. Many people who called Netanyahu a mass murderer for turning Israel into a Pfizer laboratory, right? People like these guys, lots of these right-wing accounts, don't complain about him mass-murdering civilians and kids in Gaza. Funny how that works. Now, Frank, honestly, I'm not sure whether I didn't mean to call it Wall Street Silver in particular. My point being that I'm not sure whether they've called out Israel, I don't think so, to be quite honest. My point, though, is that using this as a segue to the point,

there are a lot of right-way accounts that you remember were out, I mean, and rightly so, completely outraged that Israel was openly. As Pfizer even lovingly said, they called it the world's lab. That's what they said, because it was only Pfizer product used there, and it was basically forced on everybody. It was a perfect situation. And even Netanyahu spoke saying we did it to find out what it would do to people with diabetes and what would do people with this kind of disease openly saying you use your population as an experiment. Of course, everybody should be outraged about that. Her point is today the same person is murdering children on TV and they don't,

and nobody's talking about that in those circles anymore, the ones, some of them anyway. I just think that is such a stark example of how quick, and look, does it really matter at the end of the day? Is the argument that somehow because narrative that this many children dying is okay? but because this side's narrative, no, that's bad now. This all really takes a few words in between the thing and suddenly those children being killed is acceptable. So it really means narrative is what matters,

not the children dying. I just think that's staggering, but yes, we should know by now that that does affect people. Simple narrative spun by people and authority suddenly manufactures the situation into fighting for freedom against Hamas terrorist babies. Oh my God, it all worked out. But back to the point,

So Wall Street Silver says, well, X is becoming the everything app. Fire. Like, really? Like, I'm pretty sure that this account, like many others, and Wall Street Silver is a huge account, $1.2 million paying for the gold $1,000 month check and everything. I'm pretty sure he was one of the ones and still is prominently calling out the Great Reset. Right? The World Economic Forum, the Great Reset, all of this stuff, if it comes from the wrong people.

But if Elon presents you with exactly that problem, let's not forget, the we chat, everything app was literally the point in regard to during the Great Reset focus, which is still there, it's just not being focused on as much, was about this overlapping, forcing you into a system that would then make you need a digital ID, which we forward through that with social credit and vaccine passports and whatever it all becomes. And that doesn't all have to ultimately happen. But just because those things don't doesn't mean we can prove to people as we have

that these things have been literally mapped out. The EU roadmap from 2018 forward. I mean, it's just because it doesn't happen, doesn't mean that these aren't real. That's the important thing they understand because we list those things off and people roll their eyes. You go, oh my God, conspiracy there.

Every one of those things have been think tanked, thought out, mapped. There's funding for certain things. It's just so clear. So when people are now praising, and look at the picture on this. And even using that old image of like the, you know, the Grim Reaper going from, like Venezuela to Iran, you know, and it's the U.S. kind of thing. Now it's got X as the Grim Reaper,

and he goes in the door and kind of kills all of the other social media platforms and then goes into Google Meet, Microsoft team, Zoom. Right. So is the argument that he's going to kill all the bad guys, but then become that bad guy? Like, why is it that the same thing is okay when Elon is behind it? But if it just, if it's Google instead, well, my God, well, it's a problem. Well, that means that you put all of your faith in this person, who, by the way, is doing exactly the same thing, but it's okay when he does it. I just think, I don't even understand that. Now, here's just in case you forgot, here is where he was saying that,

for those that, you know, have a short memory about this exact thing actually happening. Working on an edit button for a year. Well, it's a hard, it's a tricky situation. And it's incredibly complex. Yeah, it's good one, indeed. I mean, we don't have. And it still doesn't work for me. So I don't know about you guys.

It doesn't work half the time on some, half the time on the other. A math, that's as good as WeChat in China. In China, you can live on Weechat, basically. And that's the point. It is a one-stop. ID goes on there. Everything, you tell you bills on there. That's what they're trying to do.

Why is that suddenly a good thing just because Elon pushes it forward? That is just as alarming as the World Economic Forum putting it forward, or whatever else, whatever company behind it you see was putting it forward in regard to the, you know, at the peak of the whole digital ID. social credit concept. It's like, yeah, everyone's like, you live on Weechat. You do payments, you do everything.

It's like, yep, it's great. Wechacks kick ass. And we don't have anything like WeChat outside of China. So I was like, my idea would be like, how about if we just copy WeChat? Hey, we'll say. Copy them. Buy Twitter, copies We chat.

Yeah, pretty much. I guess. Hooray. Freedom, free speech. right, that's where it goes. Well, on that note, we'll come back to these topics. I'm going to have a segment I'll probably do in a future show, maybe tomorrow the next day,

around some developments in that direction. But just keep this in mind. I'm very, very concerned about where this goes using this kind of Elon shell game to, I guess, to pull people into the exact same things they were worried about before he was doing it. Now, one of our last shows on the 11th, we talked about the Hamas tunnel found under Unreal headquarters or the completely fabricated story that it really was, which is important. But we got into this in regard to a couple of different lies about this.

We followed up on that on the 14th in regard to the tunnel claim further debunked. Oh, in this discussion from that, we kind of broadened it out into a bunch of other lies around these different things, one of which was delivery of medical equipment to hospital. and pretending they were doing something positive, right? We talked about this. Now, just by the way, in case you missed that, the UNRah tunnel claim was a, I mean, spectacular failure. Even the corporate media that came were forced to look through some TV screen that they said they jammed a thing down into the ground and you have to,

no, no, you can't go look. You have to look at the TV screen, which that will show you what we're telling you is down there. And even in real time, it's been proven that they are lying about the location of where they claim the servers were, that they're in the basement of the building, not the tunnel. The tunnel is now, even according to the corporate media, not actually even connected to the building, and provably not under the headquarters, but way over here at the corner of a school yard that goes under that, not connected to it.

They had to dig down to it. So provably, in no way connected, accessible to the headquarters. But yet somehow it's been turned into he knew and he's a terrorist and that proves everything that there's a tunnel under the building that they couldn't get to. that wasn't under the building, but was way over here, like far down the way in the compound, but then even all of that is based on what they tell you they found in there, and they won't let you go down to see for yourself. I mean, it's bad, guys.

The kind of stuff that is, like, embarrassingly bad, that even people that would normally tow the lions are like, come on, guys. Like, try a little harder, right? So these kind of things are what we keep seeing. I'll sheaf a hospital. Even the Washington Post broke it down and said they lied about this. it did not connect, and they just moved to the next lie. Here's another example of that.

And this is why I wanted to cover the blood libel point, because this keeps being used. Like it's gotten way more extreme. At first, you know, racist, anti-Semite was, you know, extreme. Now they've got just blood libel. It's blood libel. That's all blood libel. Everything comes out that is a, and it has nothing to do with anything even in the context of that term

or Jewish people at all other than them telling you and the world at large, if you're pointing out this allegate, like if you say Israel did X, Y, and Z, they go wink, wink, wink. He means Jews are bad and he bloods blood libel. Based on absolutely nothing. And this is getting ridiculous. I mean, more than,

it's always been really ridiculous. Why did we ever listen to people who have a vested interest in convincing you that they're bad to tell you that what they secretly think is what makes that make sense? Why did we ever think that was logical? Or any, well, the point is,

nobody did. People who had an interest in progressing that narrative or lying for Israel or the Zionist agenda have muscled and bullied people into being scared of it, which is never to suggest that there's not anti-Semites or people that are racist. That's stupid to say.

But just recognize how aggressive this has gotten. And here's an example. We showed you this the other day where somebody's pointing out that they lied about this. Right? And so he says, it makes my blood boil that while our soldiers are putting their lives at risk to deliver medical supplies, a lie.

Provably a lie. I'll go even further today to patients in a hospital, a hospital that terrorists are using as a base, which I pointed this out yesterday. So you're telling me that you just said, that you just claimed that Hamas is using that base right there. And yet you delivered oxygen to a Hamas base and you want us to praise that? Aren't you the ones telling us that everybody else trying to deliver anything is helping Hamas, but you give oxygen tanks to Hamas, you claim, and that's a good thing?

Like, I just don't even, the point is, I don't think he thought that through. Or that it doesn't even matter if these lies don't connect because it's just about saying, you hate Jews and racist, and we did what you said, we didn't, and you're a liar, just shouting people down with statements that have no basis in reality. So either you delivered oxygen tanks to Hamas, which makes no sense at all, or you're pretending to deliver these because you want people to think you're doing something good. and ultimately it broke down to the Red Crescent exposed this. And so did a lot of other people who were there.

And let's not forget, this very hospital, they just shot a child outside this building. They just bombed people. They've been starving them for a very, they've been bombing the building. And in the middle of all those, they're going to stop and give them a couple of tanks that don't really know meaning in the larger context.

Anyway, the point was, he says, this is modern day Jews are poisoning the wells libel, which in other senses he, calls that what he means is that's a blood libel. That's a term they use broadly for any allegation that's supposed to be only Jews and it's only supposed to be blood libel because you're hate, you hate Jews and you're making it up to make them look bad. That's ultimately the point. So we go, hey, you lied about that. The Israeli government, the IDF lied and they brought fake things or they didn't bring them at all. What does it have to do with Jewish people? You see when we tell

you why Zionists are the ones making Jewish people far, far, far more unsafe? It's because of that. People are pointing out things that are wrong, and then you turn that into being about Jewish people, which then makes other people think maybe that is what we're saying, or even makes some people think that's the true. It gets ridiculous. And never would have happened if Elon Levy didn't step up and say, you mean Jews. No, I don't, bud. It's ridiculous. But here is the Red Crescent. The Israeli occupation forces claim to have delivered these cylinders, but in reality, they've actually prevented the oxygen from reaching the hospital for over a week. Now, what they ultimately did is they beat them up, they shot them, they stole these, and delivered what looks like either empties or not even delivering them at all.

And I'll show you as we go through this. But this is the follow up to that. Oh, actually, oh, that was the thing I was going to do in regard to, hold on, I did you get this mixed up? I think right there. I guess at the same point. So we'll come back to this. The point is that he's saying Jews poisoning the wells. That's a libel, right?

Here's Tourette's right here. place the material in the wells. Military documents from the Israeli government, from the army, prove what they did. Biological warfare, which was Jewish troops were sent to poison wells in air villages. Like how in the world do you think you can get away with keeping, continuing to pretend that this didn't happen when even your Israeli media proves that this did happen using Israeli military documents? Or, by the way, which we went into in this show, if you want to watch it for yourself,

a hundred other examples from, I mean, being facetious, I had like seven other examples. There was Al Jazeera documents. There was Al Jazeera coverage. There was, I think there was a BBC. I forget the other platforms. But going back years, even an article also on Tourette's written by Gideon Levy that discusses how settlers have been deliberately poisoned, dumped dead carcasses in the wells they're using, dumped cement in their wells.

And yet here he is going, you're a racist for pointing this out, which is basically as the same as posing the wells, which provably happened. They know this, guys. He knows this. This is about trying to hide the truth. So at the same point, back to the canisters they pretend they deliver.

They posted this today, or late yesterday. The Red Crescent, which I referenced this yesterday, they actually released their footage, which you can prove dates back to a week ago when this happened, like before they did this.

So basically they beat them up, they stole these, but stopped them from delivering it, and only now bring these which people, there was a people who work in the field that said, I can see by the way you presented those that, one, that they're empty because of the way you align them because there's no caps on the top, blah, blah, blah, they went off. Now you could disagree with that,

but the point in the less is they did not even give these people anything they need. According to people there, according to the Red Crescent, and then what they're telling you here is this is the footage they released that proves that not only do they open fire at the medical crew, not claiming their Hamas, just because their medical crew, the Palestinians, beat some of them up, while they were transferring the very cylinders that they pretended they were, that Israel somehow managed to bring them.

And you can see here, look at him. He got beat up. They shot the front of the ambulance, broke the window, multiple windows, and stole what they were trying to deliver. This was a week ago. So we're going to pretend they took it and just kind of waited, knowing they needed it.

Does that make sense? And then after a way, oh, well, here we go. Look at us doing a good thing. Doesn't everybody notice how good we are? Like, does that really add up for anybody? And here are some of the people that they took from this discussion. And this is specifically, I'll read what it says, this is how the apartheid regime treats Palestinians,

finest and most dedicated healthcare workers, who remained in one of the last few hospitals, the Allem All-All Hospital. Now, this one is specifically talking about delivering to the All-A-Mal Hospital. That's what they're talking about. So this is the same group that was bringing these exact things to the same hospital, and we're stopped. And we could go and beat up, robbed.

And in the process, they arrested a lot of other individuals that have later been released and are still just people working in a hospital. And pretended, as it says, claiming they were Hamas members and so on, and putting out images like they do. And then, no, no, they're all just going back to work. Some of them probably didn't make it. And I say that just because in every one of these circumstances, there's examples of people being shot for no reason.

Now here is going into another conversation about this exact kind of game that's being played. and this has to do with the same hospital discussion. Now, this one is actually specifically, he referenced in the, let's listen to what he has to say. This is Mr. Hamas calendar, okay? And he's telling you from the Moss account that they're going to be going into this,

this already happened, by the way. We're going back from the 15th, or rather, this was earlier. Now, this, I'll show you what I mean. This has been a developing story. Here's what he had to say before, saying we have indication. Provable intelligence,

which, by the way, has already been proven to be false based on their own statements. That's how great this is. Provable intelligence that there are remains of Israeli hostages there, which, by the way, probably means they killed them if that's the case in the first place, because it's been provable over and over that that's not what they're trying to accomplish with the people they took. It makes no logical sense. Either way, that they use that justification to go in and bomb and invade and kill people in the process.

Spoiler alert. Now they're going, oh, it wasn't there. We couldn't find them or whatever. have credible intelligence from a number of sources, including from released hostages, indicating that Hamas held hostages at the Nasser Hospital in Hanyunus, and that there may be bodies of our hostages in the Nasser hospital facility. There's no evidence. You have Israel claiming that's the case, and quite frankly, in my opinion,

based on the body of evidence that we can see, I don't believe that. I don't believe that any of these hospitals so far have been used as place. is overlap with Hamas. It's certainly possible, but all we have to, all we have is what we can engage with and the evidence that's been presented. Him saying that is, in my opinion, less than evidence because they keep lying to you. And I mean provably lying to you. So what we have is the evidence that has been prevented so far, presented so far, a combination of the many different people involved from many different groups, many of which come from outside of Gaza, who have testified publicly in Gaza and out that that's not happening,

not an al-Sheifa, not an al-Ali, not in all of them. That's what they're claiming. And I haven't seen the evidence of the contrary. Then you've actually got UN groups and different groups that are actually there and present, which they've come to just call Hamas, which is embarrassing while otherwise asking them to do things for them or delivering tanks to them because that makes perfect sense. So what do we have?

This person claiming that. And then claiming because of this provable thing that we didn't show anybody, we then move forward and acted. and the international community blinds themselves to it. There's intelligence assessments and information we gathered on the ground. Over 85% of major medical facilities in Gaza have been used by Hamas for terror operations. There it is. Proof, right? That's why we bomb every hospital, right? We try to pretend like we weren't doing it to begin with.

And now we're admitting we have been because now we can prove 85%. There it is. I mean, why does that seem logical? So why were they pretending they weren't doing it? Why did they lie about the All-L-L-E hospital to begin with? Oh, no, it was Hamas, even though they tweeted about it and then lied about it. Deleted the tweet, covered it up. No, no, it wasn't us.

Oh, but now it is, though, because now we have a narrative that makes that make sense. It's just, it's pathetic, how bad this is when they keep doing it. Now, even if you believe what they're saying, there has not been evidence presented that proves in any circumstance that they were, even the Washington Post. In regard to Al-Shefa made the point, there is no evidence of any kind that suggests it was used by military forces. Same with the one right now. But he just says otherwise.

So that's enough, apparently. Because Hamas terrorists are likely hiding behind injured civilians inside Nasser Hospital right now. And because it's likely they broke the law. Even if it's true, by the way, like Scott. Ritter pointed out. They need to prove that's the case. And especially the point I've been making from day one, there's civilians present. This idea they can just murder them now. Like in the beginning, they tried to make a seem a little more thought through. It's like, well, our hands are tied. They've got civilians, but we've done our due diligence. Now it doesn't even matter.

Apparently they've said it enough to where their argument is, well, we can kill civilians, as long as they're using their, we claim Hamas has some of them as human shields. So we'll bomb the whole area, 500 die, but, you know, Hamas was there. I don't think anybody, even their supporters are comfortable with that. That's outrageously ridiculous. It's a crime. It's a war crime. It's collective punishment. It's murder. I mean, you just can't get past how obvious that is, but they just keep screaming the same thing, human shields. And really, from the moment we said this in the beginning, what they did was effectively box it into where there's only three people, right? There are Hamas supporters. There are people that didn't try to flee. And there are human shields.

So no matter what happens in this open-air prison, you're all guilty. That was set right in the beginning. There's no way around that, right? Think about it for a second. And it appear to have used the hospital to hide our hostages there too. The IDF is conducting a precise and limited operation inside Nasser Hospital. Jesus. This sensitive operation was prepared with precision and is being conducted by IDF special forces

who underwent specified training for this mission. a key objective as defined by our military mission is to ensure that the NASA hospital continues its important functions of treating gas and patients. That's why they've been destroying every one of them, right? Let's pretend like that's true. So explain for me instead of why you would instead of going in

and trying to see suss out the terrorists because these are such important buildings that you bomb them to the ground and then bulldoze them flat as if in preparation for a settlement. Yeah, explain that for me. bud. We communicated this in a number of conversations. We had, Ah, they said it a lot. That makes it true. With the hospital staff over the last few days, we emphasized that there is no obligation for patients or staff to evacuate the hospital.

That's not true. All of them have said the opposite. Every single person you've spoken to from any of these hospitals, I mean, I literally just showed you images of people in that hospital being handcuffed and these are people working there. There's been doctors that have spoken up that have been shot. They've been people sniped in front of the hospital. This has been covered by CNN for crying out loud. And here he is, just

saying the opposite. Must be nice. However, we have been urging other Gazans in Arabic on the phone and via loudspeakers to move away from the danger that Hamas puts them in. Via humanitarian corridor, we opened

for this purpose. Right. So what that argument ends up being is that so you're not allowing them to say. What you're saying is if you don't leave knowing that they're using you, well, now you're complicit. So we can murder you.

So in what context are they allowed to leave? Right. Think about that. Like the point is that they are, these are people that most of them are hurt. Right? They're there because they're sheltering. They've already been displaced three times or however many times.

People are hurt. They have legs missing, arms missing. They're pregnant. They are crippled. They have your wheelchair. I mean, my God, we've talked about this endlessly. Where are they supposed to go anyway, is the point. But if they leave, they keep getting shot.

But if they stay, well, they're Hamas complicit. You don't think they've thought this through. They've made a situation where if somebody wants to pretend like they're doing everything they can, they can sure as I'll make a case. But what they do, using broken logic, is create a circumstance where no matter what they do, they're a legal target, legal in multiple sets of quotes. for the purpose of protecting uninvolved civilians in Gaza. We coordinated the transfer of medical supplies and equipment to the NASA Hospital.

So that's what, 20 canages of oxygen? It's supposed to be coordinated delivery of supplies. That's abandoned on a bullet hole and it didn't even actually happen. We sent oxygen tanks and fuel for electricity at the request of the hospital to ensure its essential functions continue uninterested. God, doesn't that just make your skin crawl? Like, the doctors, they are saying that's not happening. They're the ones telling you they're about to die because they aren't getting what they need.

And here he is patting himself on the back for doing something that we know didn't happen. And even if you want to pretend they did deliver those things, which they did not. One time in the middle of a four, five month process where they don't get anything that Egypt keeps telling you is not delivering what they need, that the U.S. is even speaking up and saying we're not getting enough aid in. And then Israel stands up and goes, there's nothing but unfettered aid coming in everywhere. We've got more aides than we know what to do with. It's just embarrassing how many lies are coming out. And there's not enough gumption in the corporate media to stand up and go, well, we can prove that's not true with basic logic and common sense.

Doesn't matter. So here he is telling you that we're going to go in to get the bodies. Now, Mossad, which was, let's see, basically before it happened, saying, we'll wait for official statement. by IDF on the news that bodies of hostage were recovered. What a stupid thing to tweet. So nothing changed. What we want you to think bodies are coming. So nothing changed at all.

So this is about just keeping the narrative flowing. Here's interesting, by the way, Arson Atropski, this other Zionish, you know, talking head commented underneath Mossad, and it is the Mossad account, and said, how about you wait for that official statement first before posting this and then retweeting yourself? Or are you that desperate for some likes?

Like this is such a perfect example of what it's like to live with people like this. I don't mean live like in a house. I mean like exist within this political spectrum. These aren't honest people. These Zionist manipulators are people in Israeli government and, you know, tangential to the Zionist agenda. These are people that we can prove we're watching it happen. There's nothing sacred.

They're lying about everything. They're murdering people and calling it freedom. So what do you think they're going to do when they have a disagreement? They're going to act the same way against each other. I think it's very fascinating to me to watch this. As Mossad seems to be towing the line about the narrative, and he's mad they didn't do it the right way. They're eating themselves alive. And again, desperation.

It's quite obvious to me. But here's what gets interesting. Codd's News Network points out nearly two hours after what we just showed you, that it cited Israel's military as claiming that it had reliable intelligence that corpses of Israeli detainees were held in the hospital, not even getting into why they would be there and whether they were killed by the IDF, because it doesn't matter to them anyway. Israeli media now say that, quote, expectations regarding finding corpses of Israeli attainees at Nassir hospital must be lower. Now, to be clear, there's two hospitals in this conversation, the Amar and the Nasir. The Amar was one of the deliver in the tanks to. This one is about going into a different, and, you know, it's all, but seeing the hospitals in the same light of this conversation are important because they're all being treated the same way. And it all go through the same process where they start pretending they should have acted.

while shooting people when they try to leave, bombing around the outskirts. There's nowhere for them to go anyway. Then they drop some leaflets or whatever else it is. Now, they pretend like that removes any complice or any legal problem. It's not. It does not remove anything. These people are being illegally displaced. Whether or not you dump a bunch of leaflets in the air.

And even as amnesty is proven, they didn't even do that many times. But the Nassir Hospital is where the discussion is about the bodies. My point, though, is that all of these locations are being dealt with in a way that's essentially maximizing suffering and destroying infrastructure while torturing these people. But now it's gone too well. We have to lower our expectations for the thing that you just told us was certain intelligence. Which, by the way, which is why you went in and hurt a lot of people. See how that works out? So, like, going back to Scott Ritter's point, well, that means you didn't know for sure.

That means you took action on a protected building without full ever. evidence, which means that you just committed a war crime. Added to the gigantic list. But this is from Heretz. Israeli army operating in the Sear Hospital in Gaza. IDF says hostage bodies may be inside, but it says they're removing dead bodies from temporary graves.

Okay, well, wait a minute now. Is that because they're trying to pretend those were hostages? Or what else is happening here? Is this more about the... Here, I should include this for you. Shall we recovered, and it's... This might as well be a part of the blood level conversation. It's like all the rest of them.

them. I mean, on that point, I'll grab this one too. These are all the exact same conversation, really. This one being the open secret of Palestinian organ theft. I mean, if you just briefly, just type in Palestinian organ theft, you'll get 15 different articles from Arets, Times of Israel, both inside of Israel and outside being conducted illegal organ harvesting in sales by Israelis. Some of them directly tied to the government apparatus. It's insulting. And that we point that out, it's like, that's fake news, blood libel, how dare you? It's provable. And see, this is where it gets ridiculous is, why would you think that's implying Jews do anything? Does it say that? Are there only Jews living in Israel? No. So you're racist, right? It's about Israelis or Israeli government aspects doing this. Aspects, the wrong word. Assets, entities. And yet it's blood. libel, fake news. Well, the other one was this one. The open secret of Israel's use of human shields, which we'll get to in a minute. I think actually already have it open somewhere in here. Leave it there for now. But so what are they doing there? Maybe it's stealing more organs, which even

human rights, uh, EuroMed human rights monitor has expressed, I think I talked about it in this show. They openly said this. Even I think it was El Shifa. I believe that was the one where the doctor said when they got the bodies back, they're missing organs. I mean, you can keep just pretending it's all Hamas and they're lying, but these things are provable and you just don't want to acknowledge the dark and disgusting reality of what this government is doing. Now, on the same conversation of blood libel, here's another example of this. And you know, and you know I'm no fan of anybody in government, let alone to she,

Rashida to leave, but she says, we all have a responsibility to announce sexual violence in all forms, regardless of who is responsible. I mean, my point exactly is that, you know, I don't believe that if it matter, if it mattered for an agenda that she probably wouldn't call it out, you know, this is about politics for them. Like, you know, people, see, the way that the game works in two-party illusion, you might assume that I would blindly support her because she's brought Palestine. But that's dumb. I, blindly supporting anything is stupid. I think she's ridiculous whether or not I think she's right on certain things around Palestine. But either way, the point is denouncing sexual violence.

And she says, war crimes cannot justify more war crimes. obvious, who can disagree with that, but she says this resolution falls well short of also acknowledging the sexual abuse of Palestinians. Now, is that a fake story? Well, no, it's a prominent story. It's been covered by Human Rights Watch, United Nations, every outlet anywhere forever.

It's crazy how prominent the story is. Here comes a guy who says, the allegation that the IDF, which, by the way, she didn't even explicitly mention, engaged in sexual violence against Palestinian children, is also not, is another blood liable? Oh, is it? It's just so stupid.

Well, here's a guy who just post a whole bunch of different reports. Now, I don't take those as being as important because these are just individual actions for the most part. Israeli guards, rate Palestinian women, Israeli army of officers convicted. Well, in prisons and stuff, that's exactly what we're talking about. But overall, one person doing this, you know, you can't pretend that that means it's a bigger problem. But it is, though, and we can prove that.

But these are just many examples you can look at. But let's go through the stuff that I brought up. First of all, was the one we already just talked about. Thank you for Abu Olive for sharing this. Joking, blood libel, right? Well, here is Josh Paul's State Department official, who resigned over something very interesting. We've talked about it already.

You remember. On October 7th was an absolute atrocity, was a thousand atrocities. I think at the same time we condemn those atrocities. We have to condemn the atrocities that have to condemn the atrocities that happen every day to Palestinians in the West. Oh my God, you're a racist, you hate Jews. How dare you?

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought we were doing the Israel thing. Go ahead, buddy. You mentioned sexual violence. I was part of the human rights vetting process for arms going to Israel, and a charity called Defense of Children International Palestine drew our attention at the State Department

to the sexual assault, actually the rape of a 13-year-old boy that occurred in an Israeli prison in the Moskabia in Jerusalem. We examined these allegations. We believe they were credible. We put them to the government of Israel. And you know what happened the next day? The IDF went into the DCIP offices and removed all their computers and declared them a terrorist entity.

Case you didn't hear that properly, the State Department of the United States government found that this was a credible allegation based on the evidence, brought it to the IDF, which is kind of what you're supposed to do with like a foreign thing like that, bringing it to them under the pretend assumption that they're going to do something about it. and instead of doing anything about it, they immediately shut down the group that exposed it and deemed them a terrorist organization, all of everything they do in foreign policy. Oh, you don't like what we're doing? You're a terrorist. You must hate Jews.

That's how that works. The same thing they do with anybody. Iran, you're all terrorists because we don't like what you're saying. Oh, but you agree with us? Well, then you're good, even if you are terrorists, right? Here's all the moderate rebels. Here's your weapons. Here's Saudi Arabia.

You like what we're saying? Weapons, weapons, everything you want. But they're good guys. it's such a crazy thing we live in today, isn't it? How painfully stupid that is. The most open authoritarian government in the world in the sense of like being openly authoritarian, Saudi Arabia.

I don't even talk about it in the context. And they're even in the Middle East. They're even the war. The Wahhabism is the basis for every bad thing we pretend we're fighting. They pretend they're fighting Israel, the United States. That's ISIS. That's al-Qaeda. Hi, Charles Chaim.

It's just so pathetic. And we don't talk about them, though. They're okay because they, we like, them. I think it is vital that atrocities not happen to anyone, not sexual atrocities, not sexual violations, not any kind of gross violation of human rights. We are looking at a situation where there is so much dehumanification where people are not seen for the value that they have. And I think that's true whether you're talking about those who are attacked on their kibbutz or those who are attacked in their homes in Gaza. Right. And you're not allowed to say that. You see, you can't care about both.

If you do, you're a racist in the eyes of the Zionist manipulators, or at least that's what the they'll call you. And that's where this goes. Right. And you couldn't be more balanced to what he's saying. And that's the point. To them, there is no balance. As she said publicly, the member of parliament, there's no asymmetry. The children of Gaza breath is upon themselves. She said that verbatim when you try to pretend that there are Palestinian children that are hurt too. No, no, no. It's aggressive. And now, quite frankly, you will get some of that from the side of a Palestinian argument in some circumstances, but in my experience, it's few and far between. I mean, here's what you're going to get that they frame as that. You'll get people on a Palestinian side

that are maybe even go to the point, I think, unjustifiably, who begin to have a negative feeling against Jewish people because of what the Zionists are doing. But nonetheless, we'll still have a conversation about protecting innocent people, like children. And that, that is a broad, because this is the core foundational point of what they're dealing with, that they're fighting it oppressor who is actively murdering innocent people. So to have to spin around for them to kill all the innocent people in Israel, I'm not seeing that. I'm sure it exists, but I'll tell you what, if you step into the Zionist circles and a huge

predominant portion of the Israeli government and, well, all of it, and a huge proportion of the Israeli population that has been manipulated by the Zionist agenda over 75 years, they want these people to suffer. They want them to die. They want them to starve. It's not my opinion. They're cheering these things. But again, to be very clear,

there's also large groups of Jewish organizations, Israelis, and other groups that exist in Israel that are passionately against it. Broadstroking is always ignorant. Now, here's the report he's discussing Israeli interrogators sexually assaults, Palestinian children detainee. Here's one from Electronic Defada

discussing this story about him saying this. Israeli criminalized group, criminalized a group following a report. that they raped a child. But for those that would, you know, ignorantly dismiss these because you don't like the platform before you look at the actual source material

because that is ignorant. Here's times Israel. At least 10 freed hostages were sexually abused in Hamas captivity, they're claiming, right? But when you dive through this, you'll find very clearly that this is second-hand reports

from the IDF claiming this is happening. There's no provable evidence. Right. So in my opinion, this is about trying to kind of counteract what we're seeing, which is an, endless string of people provable evidence coming out being both beat up, assaulted, and sexually manipulated while being in the prisons in occupied Palestine, otherwise known as Israel.

Here is a human rights watch discussion from 2015. And guys, you'll find endless amounts of this. Security forces abuse Palestinian children. And this goes into both sexual and just simple violence. It's constant. And this is the same with amnesty. The rest of you can break these down. You can prove this isn't their opinion.

They're going through. They're speaking with witnesses. They're speaking with the IDF. They're speaking with the children. They're overlap with the UN. And they come out and they go, here is the body of evidence. It's very clear. And then nobody cares.

Or at least not for a long time. It's finally starting to change. Here's another one. This is kind of a research paper from, it looks like, I'm not even trying to pronounce that, but it's one of these, like, think the research platforms. Beyond male Israeli. soldiers, Palestinian women, rape and war. Israeli state sexual violence against Palestinians. I mean,

it's prominent. Here is ICTJ Palestinian children abused in Israeli detention. This one was from 2003. Here's another one from Mecca, Middle East Children's Alliance. Israel 240 Palestinian children sexually abused in Jerusalem detention centers in 2014. Here's Al Jazeera. Palestinian children abused in Israeli tensions, according to the NGIA. in 2020. Here is Middle East Monitor pointing out a UN expert accusing Israel of sexual abusing Palestinian prisoners. Here is the UN document.

And you can go through all this stuff, guys. As you can see here documented instances of, and it's documented, provable, on the record examples of torture, cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment, including sexual assaults, both women, children, and men. Gender and sexual orientation, and it goes into how they're manipulating this, saying, strip searches, sexual abuse, threats. I mean, it's, I don't know how much more you really need. And you could say it's all fake, sure.

But why then you wouldn't, you ask those questions in reverse? And on top of that, it's, this is not allegations. On one side, you're getting allegations. On this side, you're getting testimony, research. I mean, again, people like the State Department speaking up or actual IDF members admitting this stuff. Or how about something like this. And she's responding, oh, I think it's the same one.

Oh, no. responding to, is right here? Yeah, responding to that same clip. And it just shows you an example of a news coverage on, I think, NBC, discussing how there's a weird loophole where pedophiles can escape to Israel and nothing happens. CBS News investigation has uncovered a loophole that allows accused and convicted American pedophiles to escape justice by moving to Israel. Jewish Community Watch, an organization that hunts down accused pedophiles who flee to Israel from the U.S. exploiting a process called law of return, whereby any Jewish person can move to Israel

and automatically gain citizenship. Think about the overlap with like the Saudi Arabia. We just talked to, we touched on that again for the second time. The first time was a long time ago, but that there's a whole problem with Saudi Arabia nationals coming to the United States, most of them on like diplomatic immunity overlaps,

like with their parents, and raping. Raping seems to be the prominent thing in that discussion, but stealing all sorts of stuff, assaults, and then going through the court process, I think it was an Oregon newspaper broke this down, and then just flying back to Saudi Arabia.

Nobody cares. The government turns a blind eye. Like on the record, they just ignore it. Nobody says a word about it. Who cares about the women raped in this country because you don't want to ruffle the feathers of your Saudi Arabian partner? And same example here, right?

Yomtov pled guilty in 2002 to sexually abusing and committing lewd acts against three other boys. He served jail. time, but when he was released, he violated his probation and, according to J.C.W., fled to Israel with help from individuals within the Orthodox Jewish community. The same thing that's going on in the Catholic Church right now around the world, the exact same thing happens in our community. The rabbis say it's, you know what, he promised he's going to go for therapy, he's never going to do

it again. Boom, he's in another community. A few years later, he's at the same thing, and we hear more allegations that the person continue to abuse children. And what does it sound like? Is that exactly what we hear from the Catholic Church? The same thing, so it's not unique to this religion or this group. It's the point is power. You get a group that's where power is the only thing they're seeking. Like, you look at it's the best quote to use and always in the situation.

The power corrupts an absolute power corrupts absolutely. I think that might have been Lincoln. I think it's attributed to him. I'm not sure if that's actually you said it first. Or maybe that's even inaccurate. It doesn't matter. Look it up. But the point is it's the quote is valid.

And this is what I think happens is that you get people in positions of power that look, turn a blind eye to their supporters or their people they agree with. whatever, and you end up in a position like this, where it's just, it's because they're settlers, it because of Israeli or whatever it is, we just don't do anything about it. And that's just disgusting. And it shows you that they're morally ambiguous to begin with, at a bare minimum. And often those abusers end up in Israel. Why would someone want to help one of these pedophiles escape? Oftentimes there's some sort of community incentive. Either somebody owes them a favor or someone in the community, let's say an institution has covered up for them in the past. And they

know that if this goes to court, there's a lot of civil liability coming down the line. Shana accuses the Israeli police of not prioritizing accused pedophiles on the run. Why do you have to be the ones that do this? Because nobody else is. That's really, I don't have any better answer to that. My God, that's crazy. And if you guys weren't doing it, then nobody would do it. If American officials don't try to get accused pedophiles from Israel, then they simply escape justice and leave children at risk.

What do they say? Think about the Epstein Network, right? That was a Mossade CIA discussion. I mean, how is that not exactly part of what we're talking about? They facilitate these kind of disgusting proclivities. Or pedophiles aren't being apprehended. So it's very complicated when you leave the United States and go to Israel. First, they say that once these people are wanted, that they need to go to Interpol

and have that international arrest warrant put out for them so that the Israeli authorities can then start looking for them. Extradition is expensive. And a lot of these jurisdictions just don't have the money or manpower to really pursue them. A lot of the times these people have help. Right, but they'll sure as hell spend a lot of money to murder children in Gaza, right? But we won't.

We're too expensive to worry about pedophiles. It might be roaming free. Right. Help within the community, people that help them flee to Israel. These are elaborate schemes. They are, and they need a lot of people to pull off. And they say that there needs to be a conversation within the community about not protecting people. It needs a lot of people to pull off.

That's the important point. clearly. And it looks like he said, all the world stage saying, right, it's a Lord Acton said that apparently. I'm not, I'm not sure if it's correct or not,

but that's what they're saying in the chat. I think that sounds somewhat familiar. It's weird. I can't remember exactly what it came from. It's a good quote, though. It's important. Now, on the same point about blood libel just to end this segment,

it's stuff like this. It's stuff that's not even like necessarily insulting or, you know, this is what, and I believe it was even Eli David who made this statement about this exact claim in the beginning, which was they're going to try to drive them into each. Egypt. Remember when that was a contentious thing to say? Now it's just this, now you're, you're somehow racist if you don't think that should happen. Like, that's how this becomes

ridiculous. Or it was in the beginning. But the, it's sort of like the game where, you know, vaccine passports or conspiracy theory. And then one year later, you're a conspiracy theorist if you don't think we should have them, which actually happened. Like, it just is so stupid that people can't see through that. But here is, like David saying, you know, they have, he says, they have nowhere to go. And he goes, well, here highlights the got the crossing into Egypt. And I simply said, do you remember when that was an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory or blood libel a few months ago? Well, that's the overall point. Now, keeping that in mind, whether these propagandists on Twitter or their actual government officials using these kind of tactics, they're lying.

They continue to lie as the Wilkerson quote made. This is what they do. Never trust what they're saying. And by the way, guys, that shouldn't be unique to Israel. Quite frankly, that should be question everything. Every government, everybody you're talking with you, should not blindly take at face. base value anything. Period. Now, here's what Slow Newsday had to say, and this is what gets so, what's the right word for this? You get people like this that are acting like they care,

or maybe they do, about children in certain circumstances, right? But can't seem to bring themselves to care about all the children dying in Gaza. What do you call that? Obviously, you're a hypocrite, or just maybe a sociopath that pretends to care about children in some circumstances, I don't know. This is Rick Eason, Rich Eason, says nine children, period. Nine children who went to a parade

to celebrate their Super Bowl team. Nine children now being treated for gunshot wounds. So none of them dead, apparently. When we are going to collectively, when are we going to collectively realize there's a gun problem in our country and do something sensible for our kids? But sure, it's sad.

Of course it is. Children got shot. That's terrible. Of course, it has to be about the Super Bowl, and I'm sure they worked in Taylor Swift in some way, you know, because that's how it happens, right? But slow news day, Steve says, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you're currently in favor of the continued arming of Ukraine and Israel without a shed of irony sinking in whatsoever, right? So you're going to, even the waste nine children who went nine children. But you don't care about the nine children who died while you were writing that in Gaza, right? How about that discussion? I guess that doesn't matter.

This is my point that I started with. So narrative is all the differences. So you either don't care about life anywhere or you only care about the political narrative around it or maybe it's kind of the same thing. What you're looking at is an absurd reality where you care about a circumstance from nine kids in one location during the Super Bowl

but don't care about continual death of children at the hands of people that you openly support. Now, I'm not going to play this video because it's one of the most grotesque things I've seen all of this entire conversation. Now, we've already talked about this, and unfortunately I got to see the original video where you could see that they were dead.

I just want to make sure you don't miss this. Calisi shared this, and a lot of people have been sharing this, she says, remember, the premature babies that were left to die at the Al Nassir Hospital in Gaza, and if you don't remember that story, this became a provable discussion where the doctors who were there on the record because it got documented by,

I think it was other people discussing, they were giving interviews and so on. They were leaving and they said, look, we left, we were forced out of the hospital, we left children there. They left premature babies and incubators. And they said on the record, we told the IDF about it.

The IDF acknowledged that that was present. And they did nothing. They literally left babies and incubators a real version of this story to die. Maybe not on cold floors, but sure enough, to die. knowing they were there and in one of the most cold, inhuman examples of all of this, chose to leave these babies to die, to starve to death in the most disgusting, cruel, inhumane way

that you could possibly imagine. Now, all this time later, another person went back to the hospital. You might think since then they might have done something about that. Nope, they're still there. They're still decomposing in those beds right now. Despite mass media coverage, the Israeli occupation forces didn't arrange for those bodies to be removed or buried. They just left them there. Does that seem like a group that cares about these people's lives?

Now, you can watch it if you'd like. It's disgusting. It's not graphic. It's not censored. It's probably going to be removed from Twitter soon enough. But it's not blurred out. So I'm not going to play it. But it's in their show notes.

If you guys would like to see it. The point is that this is the kind of thing that this guy doesn't seem to care about. Right? Nine children starved to death in their incubator beds because the IDF didn't care. Nine children were left there to die. Nine children didn't get buried or left. I mean, think about that overlap, but let's keep talking about the nine that got shot and are alive today. As if that's the biggest story of your lifetime.

Well, as Whitney says, as I said before, many people who called Netanyahu a mass murderer for turning Israel into a Pfizer laboratory don't seem to complain about him mass murdering civilians and children in Gaza. funny how that works. And she said, I don't know about you, but my position is F child killers. Pretty simple, right? Not F them unless they've got a cool narrative that makes it seem okay. No, no, no. You F them in general because they're disgusting human beings and human beings is being kind.

Now, in regard to Rafa, Sir Chillibe points out that ahead of a ground invasion of Rafa, or rather offensive, since it's an occupied territory, Israel plans to push 1.5 million people into 12 square miles kilometers with less than 100 houses and hardly any infrastructure. Now, understand, this is the haphazard thrown together, patched up plan because they were told they needed one. Right? Like, that's how crazy this is, that they did all of this. They drove these people up against the wall in regard to Egypt and the border and are only just now going, okay, that spot. That work? Like they've been confronted with this over and over,

and Elon Levy has been contrived. He has been made look like the fool more so than usual because he keeps trying to sidestep the point and he was forced to say, well, like I said, we're going to make a plan. Oh, so you don't have a plan. And he got laughed at by LBC,

by these people that were like, okay, man, like you're not answering it. We ask you that. You won't say it's plainly evident he does not want to because they don't have a plan. Biden speaks up. and says, you have to have a plan for this to work, which just gave them an out, by the way. So they go, okay, here's the plan.

Move there. Is that enough? Apparently it is. There's no place for them to go. There's no infrastructure. They've got no access to any, even the small access they might have in this area. They don't have anything. And here is where this actually goes, guys.

This is about trying to create such a, like, think about this, in a situation that is already genocide, trying to create a situation that is so horrific that it forces the international community knowing they're supporting war crimes to help Israel move these people out of the way because Israel's not listening. So instead of doing something about the criminal, you help the criminal because, well, they're going to break the law anyway. We might as well move the people out of the way, which was the whole point. I hope it doesn't happen, but I see that building right now. Now here is, oh, it's an article just discussing this in case you wanted to read more.

1.4 million Palestinians expected to be squeezed into this small area as they get ready to occupy further into Rafa. Now, remember, we just talked about this. They claimed they rescued two people. There's dispute about that, but this seems to be ultimately the claim anyway. As airstrikes killed around 100 people in Rafa. Now, as Robert just covered in his article, and it is, you could, this is backed up by things that have developed since this story came out, that there were other civilians that were

remember. And doesn't this, it is interestingly overlaps with this story we're talking about. Like in the beginning, we're talking about them saying, well, we've got bodies to recover. Right. Well, we're talking about this discussion where they murdered people in Rafa, a hundred innocent people. And they said on the record, first of all, that they did that. I think it was this, it was it, uh, he says the excuse for the massacre that they committed against civilians in Rafa was that it was their word, a distraction from the operation. to rescue those two people. So they publicly admitted they murdered 100 people

to get people to look over there while they pretend they rescue these people or did. And then it turns out that there were actually other civilians, Israeli civilians that were in the area, they bombed. So they killed three hostages to save two and then along with 100 other people just to go look over there.

You're not going to get that story from the corporate media. You're not going to get that from Israel. even though they've already sort of admitted that without knowing it based on what they said publicly. So in all of this, why does this make sense? Why do we think it makes sense to allow them to murder innocent people to rescue two? Or to claim they've killed a Hamas member. Go back to the Alge, the Jablis refugee camp, which, by the way, has happened 55 times since then in other locations. We just don't have the same coverage where they murdered 400 people in a refugee camp to claim they kill one Hamas member that as far as I can tell wasn't even there.

and not even Wolf Blitzer could swallow that. Yet it just keeps on going, doesn't it? Now, here we go going forward in the Super Bowl massacre conversation. We talked about this in the last show where they murdered all of these people under the guise of the Super Bowl because nobody was looking. Nobody seems to care. Now, on Arson Ostrowski writes in regard to this, as well, Kenneth Ross says, at least 37 Palestinians have been killed in the Israeli strikes on the southern city of Rafa,

the one location, according to the Gaza health officials. As the Israeli military said, it had to free two hostages, right? So this is Kenneth Ross saying this, 37 Palestinians. He responds by saying, and by the way, all he did was literally the entire thing, quote, exactly what the Guardian wrote, right? So he says, you disgusting anti-Semitic piece of S-H-I-T, that's how he starts. You can't even for a moment acknowledge that two Israeli hostages were rescued. he didn't say anything.

He quoted what the Guardian wrote. And it says after they had been held captive by Hamas and used his human shields, you irredeable piece of garbage. Think about that response to posting something that we can prove at least 37 Palestinian. It's more than that after they did this bombing.

So his outrage is so misplaced. And what he's basically saying, and it's the thing I keep pointing out. It's not that Kenneth Roth came in and said, we don't care about those hostages. it's that you're not allowed to only acknowledge something bad happening to Palestinians. You either have to go, this happened to these people, but this happened too, which doesn't make sense in the context.

We're not talking about October 7th in this context. We're talking about what happened after that. We're talking about this operation on this day in this location. Now, those two people, by the way, there's a conversation to be had about that, but he's not commenting. He's simply saying how many people died because of the operation, right? his overreaction is very telling. You're an anti-Semitic P-O-S if you don't say what we want you to say on top of all these things.

So we can go forward for 45 years. And if you mention what happened in Gaza without overlapping it with October 7th, then you're a racist anti-Semite, even though it does not even compare at this point. It's not even in the same ballpark. We're talking about a provable worldwide acknowledged genocide that is still ongoing with 14 plus thousand children. 130 every day based on the numbers. And you're going to pretend like that's in the same ballpark as what you claim happened on October 7, overlapping that with four knowledge, overlapping that with the fact

that they funded the group that did it, overlapping that with the fact that what was the other point? Oh, that the IDF killed many of those people that we can prove based on Israeli reports. When you really take a second to think about all that, it's insulting even to pretend like we should be saying these two are the same thing. mostly what you're getting from Israeli officials are that October 7th is the only thing that matters in this conversation.

That's our 9-11 and you don't even understand how important it was and that's all that happened. So isn't it, by the way, isn't it the exact thing in reverse that you're saying only that without acknowledging the 14,000 children died? So aren't you the disgusting anti-Semitic piece? Yeah, because Palestinians are Semetic. Anyway, the point is human shields.

How dare you point out that we killed all those people to save two? Right. Elon Levy does the same thing. This is what Martin Griffiths had to say in regard to what is about to happen in Rafa. It's your number one priority now, Mr. Griffiths, when it comes to Gaza. What is the one thing that keeps you up at night? What is it the one thing that you want to achieve? And here what she asked, when it comes to right now in Gaza, what is the one thing? Not the entire picture of what's happened on October 7th right now.

Well, that's kind of obvious, this building problem that's happening in this most location where a lot of people are, where it's inevitable, there's going to be a lot of suffering. The one thing that keeps me up at night is whether the choice will be made to attack Rafa. You've been doing this for five decades, for the Balkans. By the way, that was a cut. There was more to that response, which of course, Elon doesn't want you to see. But the bottom line is, he says, you are an official, Martin Griffith was asked, what keeps him up at night?

He said, possibly the Israeli attacking Rafa. Destroy the rest of Hamas army, not what he said. But he says, and by the way, the rest? aren't we can prove that they're bombing and attacking down in the north you just don't like to talk about it or the fact that there's palestin Islamic jihad about 100,000 of them or any other number of other resistance groups that you're not even aggressing so let's not pretend like this has anything to do with Hamas while you're still funding the groups that sit in cutter and we can prove that you funded them before this that the massage chief in 2020 went to cutter to beg them to keep funding Hamas per net and yahoo's urging avidore Lieberman made a big statement about it like it's all public information so it's embarrassing to pretend

that's what's happening, but not the hostage being starved, he says. Starved. Okay, so why are they being starved? Oh, that's right, because you're stopping aid for coming through. He says, tortured. What indication do we have there being tortured? Every person that's come home so far has been well, and they claim they're treated well, they're fed, they're even giving medical treatment.

None of that's happening to Palestinians in prisons in Israel. On top of that, we can actually prove Paramis International, right here, They are torturing them. November 8, 2023. Horrifying cases of torture and degrading treatment of Palestinian detainees. On top of all the rape that we just talked about, right? So, executed. Okay, well, show me who've been executed.

Can you prove that? Like, my point is, none of this is verifiable. Tortured, executed, raped. Here's what I said. Oh, and then he says, if Hamas surrenders and releases them, the war's over. What about the Palestinian Islamic jihad? What about the other resistance groups? I guess they just don't matter.

He knows about them. He's lying to you. knows that. This is not about one group. It's about a narrative and a keeping the agenda going. But I said they're still there because Israel's repeatedly turned down their release. We'll show you that again in a second. They keep saying no. That's why they're still there. They could be home right now, but they're not because you don't like the deal. They're being starved due to the blocking of aid by Zionists. The fact that Egypt has said, Israel won't let the aid in, that even the U.S. has pointed this out, that you have Zionists who

are proudly sitting in front of the aid, won't, for weeks in a row, won't let it in. Masad puts out a post and says, good job. So who's actually starving who here? And it says they're being executed in the street by the IDF. Right now. Now, every single person that we can prove that has been killed in this circumstance in Gaza has come back because they were bombed by the IDF that's been proven by those people. They came home.

They said we watched them get killed by the IDF bombings. We were afraid we would kill two. They shot three of them in the streets. They killed some with poison gas. These are all individual examples that have been proven, even by Israeli media. I don't see a provable example. It doesn't mean it hasn't happened

that they killed anybody since they've been in Gaza. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen. My point is, where is the evidence? He sure as hell just gets to say these things without proving any of them. Rape? Well, I said, and since you wouldn't never just say that,

you must have evidence of rape, right? Go ahead and present it. I'll wait. No, of course not. So these people get to float these allegations. But if you say, well, how do we prove that? You're a racist that denies rape now. based on this ridiculous person who lies every day,

typing this word out on Twitter. Apparently that's supposed to be enough for the UN to take action, according to Elon Levy. No, this guy is making a clear point that right now, objectively, the thing we should all be worried about is the obvious 1.5 million innocent people who are about to be annihilated. Not the maybe, I mean, think about the multiple points here,

not the two people you claim you rescue. Like, obviously, nobody's claiming they don't matter. that's the binary way they present this. I guarantee you he cares about those two people. The point is if you're looking at 1.5 million people who are constantly or currently starving, who have no water, no aid, have nowhere to go, people are struggling in every possible human way. And then there's two people who are being kidnapped.

That is an objective reality there. The 1.5 million people is more important. But not to Elon Levy. That's his point. Those Israelis matter more than any Palestinian life. That's what he wants. That's the point behind what he's saying. And he's outraged that you don't think the same.

But if you just break this down to human life, it's a basic reality. Those 1.5 million people, there's a hell of a lot more suffering that could happen right there. Versus your hypothetical torture, execute rape, that most of which you're committing. On top of that, so you're telling us you just rescued two hostages, right? From Rafa? Okay, well, then isn't it just as likely that you're going to kill hostages when you push into, Yes, because you're bombing and all the things you're doing in a place that you just told us you took people from. So doesn't that mean you're going to kill hostages when you?

Yes, they don't care about this. They just don't. Same point here. Pierce Morgan responds after Benjamin Netanyahu says, total victory no matter what. And basically makes the point that he won't make a deal if it means they have to stop and see his pull back. Any of the things that basically they keep pretending is what they want. Only the hostage back.

He will not take a deal if it means they have to pull out of Gaza. There's nothing in that means they can't go back in the next day or that they have to create a ceasefire. Now, that's the diametric opposite of what we're being told by Israeli supporters online. I'll show you in a second. The diametric opposite. They're claiming that Hamas keeps saying no, and all they're asking for is a ceasefire and the hostage back.

No, that's what Hamas keeps giving them, and they keep saying no. But even Pierce Morgan, ridiculously enough, says, At what cost? Elon says, at no cost, if Hamas surrenders. I just get so tired of having to engage with this ridiculous statement. So what if they surrender? Let's just take any other circumstance. Let's take the, let's take a simple situation we can think of right now where there's a,

like, I don't know, you go back to any war situation. Let's take, you know, trying to think of something that's not involving the United States because it makes it much more complicated to make a fair point. But you have two groups in a battle and a war, whatever. well, you could always be like, hey, if they just surrender, it'll be over. Well, yeah, no, duh, man, that's obvious. But you can't pretend that until they do the thing that nobody will do when they're actually involved in a battle, that you just keep getting to kill all their children.

Well, it's their fault. All they have to do is surrender, and we won't be doing that. So it's not crimes we're committing. We're just trying to fight for our freedom, and they're the ones that won't stop us killing their children. Because that makes sense, right? Hamas isn't going to surrender. One, you call them a terrorist group.

So why would you expect a terrorist group to just surrender for no reason? Are you really trying to pretend that we should employ on their humanity? Isn't that the opposite of what you're telling us they are? On top of that, if they don't surrender, how is it everybody else's responsibility to stop you, or stop them first, for you to continue to do the bad things? It's illogical and it is insulting. It is a roundabout circular logic that makes you, I guess, gives them the feeling they're justified and continuing to murder people.

He says, barring that, so barring the one thing that will never happen, it's just as likely as Israel surrendering, barring that at a minimum possible cost. He says that's why we're trying to stop Hamas from using civilians as human shield. That's not, minimum cost is not, minimum cost would be X, going in individually and doing everything you can

to not kill them, including negotiating, but they won't do that. I'm not saying they should, but I'm saying is that's not everything. By claiming that because they got human shields, we can bomb the building, hey, we did everything we could. Nobody thinks that's true.

Only people that are on your agenda, think that's the case or say that's the case. If you're bombing a building full of hostages, that's you killing them all for your agenda, not doing everything you can to save them before you kill Hamas. But he says, but what the cost of its defeat will be, only Hamas can decide. Meaning, it's their fault if we kill everybody in Gaza. And only they can decide that. They could just surrender.

Yeah, and we're back to the same point. You know it won't happen. And you know that gives you the, in your mind, an endless run to do whatever you want. just keep cycling through it. They're not going to. You're going to keep killing people. We're back to step one. Well, let's not forget the idea of human shields is something that Israel has a policy for, but we don't like to talk about these facts, going back to the blood libel discussion. 2013, Palestinian children tortured, used as shields by Israel, per the United Nations. Reuters, Israeli soldiers who used Palestinian boy, a nine-year-old as human shields, avoid jail.

Defense for Children International, an international human rights group. Israel forces use five Palestinian children as human shields. That's 2023. This is from 2017. Generally, human shields. Since the beginning of the occupation in 1967, Israeli security forces have repeatedly used Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gansa Strip as human shields. Israeli soldiers routinely used Palestinian civilians as human shields by forcing them to carry out life-threatening tasks. It was also following a high court petition against this practice, which was filed by human rights organizations around the world in May 2002 that the IDF issued a general order prohibiting the use of Palestinians as a means of human shield against gunfire or attacks by the Palestinian side.

But then it goes on to say following the order, the use of human shields dropped sharply. However, the army did not construe as a human shield the use of Palestinians, provided they consented. The army continued the widespread use of this practice, which they referred to as the neighbor procedure. Following another petition filed by human rights organizations, the High Court of Justice ruled that this practice, too, violated international humanitarian law and that this thus was illegal. And guess what they've never stopped doing? Here is the Institute for Middle East understanding the neighbor procedure Israel's use of Palestinian human shields from 2012. Human Rights Watch. During military operations, Israeli soldiers routinely coerced Palestinian civilians, including children.

children to perform life-endangering acts that assisted military operations, the practice known as the neighbor procedure. Now, see, the most frustrating part about this is, so it's same thing in every one of these dynamics, you've got countless examples of documented proof from the UN, from international groups, from human rights organizations, and they report after report after report, documented statements from interviews, IDF, from the people that they did it to over and over and over. versus Elon saying it, right? That's what it amounts to.

They keep screaming they're doing it. Even the UN, as Robert Covered, did an investigation and didn't say it's not happening but said they couldn't find any evidence to prove it. That was years ago. And yet it just keeps going with this one-sided game where they do it and they're terrorists and we don't and we're good guys, even though the evidence and the body of that evidence is wildly slanted to one side. It's every single one of these.

and the problem is that we can make this point, but we're trapped in this weird little stifled bubble where only people who know where to get our work know how to find it. And the people that have the ability to get past that don't ever talk about these things. You know exactly the people we're talking about. We mentioned them earlier in the show. They will never do this until it's allowed

and then it will be, in my opinion, the effort to trap you into another game. That'd be my opinion. Yeah, I could be wrong. But here, is what Dan Cohen points out, adding to the human shield's point. And this is the thing I said

from the very beginning about how this even works, right? The idea, if you're an occupier, which is what they are, no matter what their narrative is, you occupy the territory, right?

Now it's supposed to go is you're supposed to pull, now you control it, but you're supposed to pull back and allow people to go back the return, the right of return. They never did that, and that's why this whole thing

with UNRWA and the original border, that's what they're hiding for everybody. They're hoping it drifts so far away. They can destroy unrub, remove all the records, and then you'll never believe going forward that there was ever even a displacement. That's what they're fighting for. The point is that if you're an occupier, and then instead, and even go through the UN and make agreements and resolutions about the 67 borders

for a two-state solution, and then ever since continue to illegally occupy and build illegal settlements on those very territories. What is that? That is the example of human shields. I mean, like a real world, full state-level example of constantly bringing in innocent. Well, innocent is a strong word of people knowingly taking illegal land in the Zionist agenda, but not military forces. But even then, once they officially deem them and give them weapons like what's happening in the West Bank,

there are military forces. But there's a lot of lines. My point simple is that Israel is taking people who are not part of this and bringing them into it, like from New York and elsewhere, putting them up in these locations, knowing that there is an ongoing battle, and the Palestinians are under the legal, have a legally protected right to fight back for those, and they're placing civilians in front of them.

What is that, if not human shields? And guess what? It's being proven because they're terrified to go back to those locations now. I wonder why. And so what they're doing is trying to bribe more of them. Dan Cohen writes, Israeli illegal settlements in the north and the south, deemed illegal by everybody, including the United States, are ghost towns because of the government's inability to provide security. Right. So again, explain for me why this location is the safest for Jews in the world. It's an insulting joke. And it's not because, you know, the bad Muslim is trying to kill them all. It's because of what the Zionists have created and they've created the most dangerous situation in the world for any Jewish person because they're using them essentially as human shields to hide their crimes.

And that's not just my opinion. And I say every time, there are Orthodox Jewish groups all around the world that are screaming for your attention to get you to understand this is what Zionism ultimately is. He goes on to say its solution is to bribe Jews from around the world to move them and live as human shields. It's exactly what's happening. Israel never learns. It only becomes more psychotic. Here's Arez. Israel's Jewish immigration minister, which by the way, all that really means is trying to find Jews anywhere in the world to come and take illegal land in Israel.

they plan to financially reward new immigrants to settle in Israel's southern northern borders or in the West Bank. All of it is illegal, guys. It's just incredible how much they flaunt this illegal action. Now, even their allies are pushing back. Canada, Australia, New Zealand have all spoken up and called for an immediate ceasefire. So it just shows you they're rapidly losing support for anything they're doing. Even from their chief allies who have been...

I mean, at this point, they're all complicit in genocide. There's no way around it. You have been turning a blind eye, most of them have been funding what they're doing. You can't say after five months, okay, maybe you should stop murdering everybody now. Too late. You're already complicit.

But it's still good they're calling for a ceasefire. And just the point down here was about people who can't read, saying basically, that's what points of making earlier. What they're pointing out is they want a ceasefire, and Israel continues to ignore that and say no. This woman says, and asking what the Israeli government is asking for four months. Ha, ha, ha, ha,

you didn't even read it. Well, we'll see what she's pointing to. And this is the letter put out by these governments who are, you know, arguably Israeli allies. Well, it says, we are clear that a sustainable ceasefire, again, this is Australia, New Zealand, and so on, it is necessary. A sustainable ceasefire is necessary to finding a path towards securing lasting peace for Israelis and Palestinians. I mean, right there, it's not what they want, very clearly. But it goes on to say, and it not they being Israel, any ceasefire cannot be one-sided. Well, just to be clear, Hamas has said repeatedly that they would absolutely abide by it if Israel did. You could say they're lying, but they said it so you can't pretend like that's not stated as

the reality. Hamas must lay down its arms, they say, and release all hostages. Well, guess what? That's verbatim what they have been offering. Now, there's nothing in there that says they have to surrender. But what they've offered is a ceasefire, which means everybody lays their arms down and all the hostages get released, which is what they offered. It says we again, unequivocally condemn.

Hamas, okay, fine. The point is that is not and it's obviously one, not what Israel's offering because that's what Hamas gets, even according to Reuters and Heretz and AP and BBC and everybody else, they present the full ceasefire, Israel says no, because we don't want to pull out of Israel,

or rather we don't want to pull out of Gaza, and we don't want to, what was the other thing, it was, essentially they don't want to pull back and they don't want to end the war, they want to keep going after Hamas. Okay, fine. that means that you care less about the hostages than you do about your war agenda. And I said that's literally what was offered by Hamas,

for all the corporate media that covered this, and it says, Netanyahu rejects East Fire Proposal. And she just goes, no, can't you tell? Because this is what they said. I mean, this is how kind of willfully ignorant people are. Here's an article from the day before, the one I posted, by the way. And it says, Hamas, response to hostage deal, a little over the top. Okay, that's not, nothing about that as any.

You actually read this whole thing, the bottom line in this, is it come, and then, oh, actually, excuse me, this is the one I was going to read to you. Well, all this was, you can see by an angry response. The point was that, so I give you the explicit details of the deal. And Netanyahu's public statements saying, I will not do that because I don't want to do this. And it's public. It was all people and laying down arms, all of it. and your response is to say, here's what they're saying about it.

Can't you tell you're wrong? And then even more so saying, well, here's what Abbas said about. And you read it, what he says is everybody should have a ceasefire and it's everybody's responsibility for not doing it. But because you read the headline and glean that to mean what you want it to mean, guys, there's a lot of people like that out there. The point is to keep continually trying to inform and show the facts. And there will be dishonest people or people too stupid to.

see through it who are going to keep trying to lie. I hope it's clear that the only thing happening here is the offer for a full ceasefire, which includes laying down your arms and a full exchange and aid coming in. That's what people that are supporting Israel are pretending they want and saying that Hamas is refusing. But any facts you look at anywhere in this conversation, make it clear the exact opposite is happening. Add that to the segment about blood libel, just lying, while pretending they want to.

to save these people. And here's what Freddie Pontone points out, explicitly showing you how surreptitious this is. After Netanyahu prevented a delegation from leaving for Cairo, Egypt, the head of the CIA, William Burns, arrived in Israel and also met with the prime minister. Now, Netanyahu's decision to block

the departure of the delegation for the follow-up talks, now they're claiming they're getting close to a deal. And right when they act like we're about to get there, Netanyahu pulls the plug. Because he totally wants that, right? It was made after the Israeli representatives reported progress during their participation in the meeting to renew the negotiations for the ceasefire. Now later, it became clear that Netanyahu did not inform ministers, any of the Gans,

gallant of his decision to not send an Israeli team to continue negotiations on the hostage deal. The representatives of the abductee families, which I'll show you in a second, will make a statement and that apparently today at some point, maybe they already did when they announced their next steps, which will be launched this evening. He says basically Israeli families are furious. They have been the entire time, which again, people like her either don't know that the very people she pretends she's fighting for are screaming that Netanyahu is not saving their families and in fact putting them at risk every time he does not take the deal.

And she speaks up and says, you know, people do in general, you're racist for not blindly supporting the deal because it's fighting for the families of these hostages. Those families are telling you the opposite. It says this is a very clear indication that Netanyahu will never accept a ceasefire or humanitarian pause. Now, I would say that's the case, but it's still possible he could be forced into it for many different reasons. The Israeli prime minister has never, has very little regard for the lives of hostages in Gaza. B.B. is too anxious to fulfill his goals in the Gaza Strip, whatever the cost. Completely agree with that.

Now, here is a video of the families. And I've shown you this so many times. This is right after Netanyahu refused a follow-up, which would have potentially led to a ceasefire, and they rushed to protest outside of his personal home. The contradictions of the occupation are tearing it apart from within, says the person who posted this. I'll completely agree.

I mean, it's so embarrassing that people can continue to pretend like these people are fighting for these families when those families are the ones going, they don't care about us. Now, like we need it anymore, we already covered this. This was back in December, 2003. They on the record said the hostages weren't our top priority. And then now they're pretending like they've been fighting the whole time and the Amos won't let us do it.

This was the 972 magazine article. We talked about this. But there's many different discussions where they made this point. Right? Now, this is from the 11th of this month. Because of Rafa. Netanyahu promises safe passage to Palestinians ahead of the Rafa. operation, right? So you're acting like we can move them again. But remember, they've bombed the

locations they send them to. They bomb the ways on the way to the new locations and they bomb the locations they're going to all simultaneously. Right in the very beginning, three days after the started, after October 7th anyway, they told them to go to Rafa crossing and they bombed that crossing the same day. Egypt made that clear. Actually, I think I might even have that to be able to pull up. Yeah, I think this is it. October 10th, Israel said to bomb Rafa crossing to Egypt after telling them to flee through it. I mean, it's been publicized from day one, guys. It's so insulting. But he's telling them to go. It's safe. It's safe. But let's not forget they've been using their most destructive bombs in exactly the locations that they say are safe. Per of the New York

Times, Heretz, using U.S. delivered bombs. Now, going further in that conversation, let's realize the point that I was making earlier, right? I'm really worried about what's going to happen there. I think we all are. And that's what makes me so unnerving is that we, it's like watching a slow motion train wreck. We can see it or car wreck. Right. It was We can watch it developing. And none of the people who have authority or power to stop it care to do that while simultaneously pretending like they're the good people fighting for freedom in the world, right?

But as I said, as I predicted, the world sees that the Israeli government will kill more innocent people in Rafa, despite allies at all telling them to stop. Instead of stopping the impending, ongoing genocide used to justify mass displacement, some call to help it along. Out of fear of Zionist attacks, I would argue.

All we're seeing is now Egypt, and I'm not ultimately trying to blame Egypt. I find that to be a pretty impossible situation they must be in. And that's not to assume good intentions or anything like that. It just is a very difficult situation, whether or not they care about Palestinians. But the point is they're now building reports are coming out that they're building a buffer zone

that they report are to receive Palestinian refugees. So local contractors say that they fortify the area is designed to receive people fleeing into the border. order. Now, this is what I've worried about. Now, it may ultimately be the only way that people can be saved. And that's ultimately what I want. But let's realize that most of these people do not want to go to Egypt. What they're, what they're pleading desperately for is anybody, anywhere in the world who was fighting for their lives, fighting for their self-determination, their human rights, their freedom, to stop the murderer trying to kill them all. It seems pretty simple when you think about it like

that. Please stop them from murdering our families. And instead, think of it like this. You're in your home sleeping at night. A maniacal murderer breaks in and starts trying to kill your family, right? And you get blocked in a, like a room by the front door. And they're telling you, get out of the house. This is my house now. Now, there's a couple things you could do, right? You can call police and try to fight back.

Now, in that circumstance, of course, you fight back. And you're a terrorist all of a sudden in this dynamic. That's how that would work. But either way, the point is that you call the police and the police go, we'll leave. Let's move you into the house. house across the street. Does that sound okay? Well, why would that be the case that makes sense? This is my house. I live here. They broke in. They're trying to kill me. Why am I the one that have to move to the new house? That's what's happening here. But of course, they're going to pretend

like this is not the reality. It's not an occupied area and all the games they play, but all you're really doing is siding with the murderer. You are allowing them to get what they want, which is the house. That's what's happening. So it makes me very sad to see this, even though I know somewhere in my heart that if they keep pushing that that's the only thing that may, and that's how this has been developed. Using their suffering that they've created to actually, as a coercive tool, to get other people to help them do it further. Talk about, I mean, that's psychotic. Now, here's one of these people blindly supporting the psychotic agenda who's been, this is, you know, Elon Levy as a woman, saying, just throwing it out there.

totally not propaganda planned out totally not she says maybe just maybe the terrorists who murdered raped and abducted is really civilians you know so one of those at least provably not happening with no evidence it says maybe maybe the terrorist who murdered raped and everything else civilians lie when giving palestine casualty figures okay well there's two things to point out first of all so now you're saying that the entire gaza health ministry are all terrorists humas murdering rapist members right? How many time? I mean, they're not very tactful about they really want you to think they're only going after bad Hamas, but every other thing they say makes it clear that they despise every Palestinian.

Are you alleging that the entire Gaza Health Ministry are all Hamas members? Or are you just making it clear that you hate all Palestinians no matter what? And that you think they're all going to rape, murder, and steal because you're a racist. Well, either way, none of that matters, because their own intelligence apparatus has publicly stated that they are using those numbers. So I simply said, oops, due diligence is key. Oh, well, only if you care about the truth, of course, and I forgot that doesn't apply to you.

Carry on deliberately misleading your followers. Because you think she doesn't know that? They do know that. But instead, your narrative is to wake up that day and just lie to people and go, well, they're probably lying. No, they're not. And it's not just this one dynamic. As you can see in the Vice article,

Israeli intelligence has deemed Hamas-run, health ministry's death toll figures generally accurate. That was January 25th this year. But guess what? It's happened almost every single time before this. And again, anybody honest has pointed that out that over the years they've come around and compared and it looks like they're basically the same. And that's why today the intelligence apparatus is just using those in their own reports, which is what this is about. They're actually using Gaza Health Ministry data in their real-time intelligence reports they exchange in the midst of this war.

Think about that. you're using their reports to conduct your operation. How does that not confuse people? Either way, Aviva Klampas, you're either too stupid to see that you're wrong or you're lying for the agenda. Now, pretending like they don't want to kill all these people, let's give you just one more example of how maniacal they are.

Here's Ben Gavir openly and proudly on the record, calling for them to shoot children and women because they just might turn out to be a threat. That's not a joke. It says there cannot be, I think it was, I just read you directly from the tweet. Oh, no, that wasn't that. So he says, there cannot be a situation in which children and women approach us from the wall. Anyone who approaches in order to harm security, which how could you know what they're approaching, intending to do?

So basically, anybody, as we've shown in that video more than once, who is near the fence, murder them. Unarmed doesn't matter, right? Oh, it's up. It's up. It's up? What's here? What's it? Yeah, I can't see.

Because of the T'ltlis. No. It's the Tulletka, come here. Come here, go to here, go to here. There's a minute. Can't? No. How he's gothuff, Tum.

No, I'm gonna gov. I'm gonna, I'm. Whoa! Whoa! It's! Ben of Zona! Oh, man, yeah? Totally.

Never happened. right? The point is that this is not new. It's not because he said so. It's because this is a stated policy that even generals in the army have admitted. But they kill people no matter what, because you hate Palestinians and you use the excuse to say that they may be a threat. Where else in the world can you murder a child who is unarmed because who knows they may be your threat later? Only in Israel. And here he is tweeting after that to just reiterate this. Do not apologize. Now do not stutter. Anyone who approaches the fence and endangered citizens of the state, of Israel and our heroic soldiers should be shot.

This is how it is done in any normal country. No, it's not. The point is this is his follow-up. He proudly stated this. Kill the woman, any woman and child who approaches the fence. No matter what. That's what he ultimately discussed. Now, same interesting point to Ben Gavir.

Member Shane O'Connor, a staunch supporter of Palestinian rights. It turns out that she publicly discussed this. She was threatened publicly by. specifically Ben Gavir. He threatened to kill her. Think about that. It just doesn't surprise me at all. This is the kind of people we're dealing with. Now here, just to get a really horrifying vision of what's happening, this is Gaza City. 70% of civilian infrastructure has now been destroyed. 84% of health facilities have been affected. Now think about how funny that is, as they're telling you, our stats show that 82% of hospitals are used by Hamas. Gee, I wonder where they got that

number from. Is that just exactly how many hospitals they've destroyed? What do you know? Of course, supporters are going to say, well, that's because they're Hamas members. It's because they're destroying everything. And just going, how much have we killed? Let's pretend that's what we could prove Hamas. They're not proving any of this stuff. And here is all you really need to see. You don't pretend this is pinpoint targeting anything. Wholesale slaughter destruction, dead bodies littering the streets. Not Hamas members. Right here's UN buildings. It's crazy. It's really that first picture that does it for me. Just looking into destruction.

Look at that, guys. I mean, it's just unreal. That is an entire city. Just rubble. Which, you know, the U.S. has done it in Raqa and Iraq. You know, that's what they do, guys. Now, Arnaud Batran points this out. I was saying this before.

The guy from help, it's always key liberal member of parliament. I thought it was with, well, I miss, maybe I misunderstood. He says, yeah, his job is to defend health Canada's foreign policy. I swear, maybe I'm conflating this other story in my head. I thought it was a health Canada overlap. Anyway, he says,

Rob Oliphant, whose job is to defend Canada's foreign policy in Parliament, got recorded in a private phone call, admitting how disgusting Canada's defunding of UNRWA is and that he does believe Israel's committing genocide. So the main point here, and you can read it, there's the clip, you can listen to it,

is that these people are standing. up and publicly defending this, calling you an anti-Semite, and then secretly admitting that they think this is all gross. Now, how can you possibly rectify that? How do you sleep at night? They probably are a sociopath. I don't know. But either way, even if they aren't, even if it wrecks them at night and they can't sleep. The point is that this is what politics is. They are lying to you. And that's why everybody seems to see this right now, and they're slowly kind of dragging their feet into this because they recognize they've lost control. But realize behind the scenes, they're all, they're aware of this.

Now, just a quick point that I wanted to shout before we get into another conversation to finish, you know, another half of the show, this is really unnerving to me. Not that it, who knows, maybe it could about nothing. But just how, like, kind of public this is. This is a random account. 25,000 followers, Shiron Collective saying, Breaking Operation Global Insight, to what it's called, joined the Shuron Collective's first undercover operation.

become an agent embedded behind, quote, enemy lines at this weekend's protest. What's the protest? Global March for Rafa. Okay, that's pretty crazy. So a global march to, you know, stop killing. Of course, that's taken as you hate Jews for, you know, really ridiculous people who are either too ignorant to know that's ridiculous or who are blindly supporting of Zionism. But let's be clear. Enemy lines.

So you've already labeled these people as enemies, not just like political adversaries, enemies, but it says making our first global operation that combines the efforts of volunteers with more seasoned internal teams. This is not some, we're going to pretend like this is just a grassroots organization that's created a spy operation. I mean, come on. This is very clearly a coordinated, in my opinion, I'm not saying I'm proving that, but in my opinion, a coordinated, just like everything else we've seen,

massad sort of Zionist manipulation, which I agree with the person who posted this. We should be really on guard, not because Sharon Collective is making this the case, but that something will happen through this. Some kind of operation or false flag or lie or something that will be used to create this, because let's be clear, we can prove it,

and I have proven it, that people that are using who are, this is like the Canadian trucker convoy being called Nazis. These people are fighting for actual de-escalation and peace. And they're being called terrorists. What they're saying is who we're looking for. Individuals who can maintain cool, calm, and collected demeanors under, get this, triggering Jew hate and pressure. Setting the people up to see them as Jew-hating people, you've realized that most of the people supporting this are Jewish voices. Part of them are Jewish voice for peace.

But apparently, as long as you support peace, you hate Jews. Now, as his volunteer is willing to wear, basically to wear Palestinian garb, to go in there pretending like you're part of their crowd. Now, why wouldn't, now, let's just say this group has no intention to do something wrong. So if you go there dressed like a Palestinian supporter, maybe you get angry. Maybe you decide to do something and then everyone will blame it on the Palestinian side. You don't realize how often this happens? Individuals with Arabic sounding names, Middle Eastern appearance.

I mean, they're going so far as to try to get people that look Palestinian to dress like Palestinians, to do what? What's your objective here? Maybe uniquely positioned for deeper infiltration. Look, key locations. Ireland, Australia, Canada, this is a international objective. Let's pretend like this tiny account is going to make that happen. Now, what are they going to do?

Engage in unique global initiative to uphold Western values. That's really opaque. Learn new skills, disguise, documentation, discrete intelligence gathering. Right. Totally not massad at all, right? work alongside a team of like-minded strategic action. This is intense and crazy. DM for more info.

Disclamer, this operation is entirely lawful. I don't even know if that is actually true. Based on what they're outlining, I think there's some lines being crossed here, but it says, carries minimal risk due to extensive safety measures. Again, how is this account supposed to be deploying? They're working with somebody, or this is a puppet account.

In any case, they're saying, pending false flag evidence. Maybe decide for yourself. But you can go through, look at these and see what they're actually saying. It's pretty incredible. This is a spy operation. Now, nowhere in there do they say, what's your objective here? Are you trying to trap them in damning evidence of them hating Jews?

Or are you trying to manufacture something? Why would you go so far as to take Middle Eastern Palestinian speaking slash looking people that dress like Palestinians to go in and infiltrate these groups and not execute something. I agree. This is very indicative of something bad. Oh, and by the way, we're talking about February 17,

two days. So if you're involved in any of this, keep an eye out. And it's important that you do this and engage with this the same way we talk about in any of these things. Active and explicit peace,

no violence, no weapons. And, you know, it's like you got, immediately when something happens, everybody needs to swarm and call it out. That's not us. We're not supporting this. And even if it is somebody that went there in support of what you're doing, they need to be immediately called out.

We don't support that. That's not what we're here for. I'm telling you, I get the sense that something is going to happen here. So let's come back to that. Now, same kind of point. Speaking of false flags and sciops manipulations, let's finish with this segment about the border bill and how this falls back into overlapping with Israel.

Now, we just talked about this. I think it was on this episode here. I think it was one before this, too, on end of January. And the point I was making then, and this is reasonably, this is from the 13th. Georgia governor, Brian Kemp, says he will basically send military in a standoff with Biden. Like that is some wildly contentious statements.

I said that then. They're literally talking about a military standoff with the federal government. That's civil war stuff. That's wild. My point was this was being floated by governments and the likes of the Alex Jones of the world were really effing, hyping this. And it doesn't, it seems to have largely peed,

out in the conversations of the people under in the two-party paradigm. Isn't that seem wildly strange? I'm not saying it's gone. Some people, it's the only thing going on. But it's the fever pitch was there and it just, you search for border bill. You've got a few things now, but it's not the, oh my God, it's all coming down kind of conversation. It just seems so hilarious to me.

I keep making this point that, you know, North Korea is the thing is toward democracy. And then on a dime, it's looking over over there. We don't even care about them anymore. Venezuela is going to kill us all over now. here. And sure enough, I stand with that and I stand with Israel. I stand with whoever you tell me to today. Now, the same thing was happening to Republicans here, in my opinion. I feel like this was a trap. They're being set up. Not to say the border conversation was not an important conversation. If you want to hear me talk about it, I went through it in depth on this. I very much think this is weapon.

Oh, that's what it was actually. Let me grab this. This one. Maybe not. Let me see real quick. I wanted to grab you the, I think it was the first one where I talked about this. this one. No? Oh, well, I'll just include this, this tag for weaponized migration. I very much think this is weaponized migration. I think that's part of what's happening, for sure.

Now, on this point, my point was that it kind of seems to have, you know, at least dissipated, which doesn't seem to make sense with a building problem they were framing it as, right? So I just think that's really telling. It's either not what they said it was or it's weird that nobody care.

It seems like there's something very weird going on. Now, my point in all of this was this kind of hype. which doesn't mean we should. This is something I looked into as well. False flag alert, Info wars put out. Exclusive, which wasn't really, but FBI memo warns of white supremacist attacks

on the migrant centers. Well, okay, when you listen, I listened to what they said here. Now, if I were covering this, what I would say is, well, I don't know why we would trust what the FBI is to say. We should be very worried this is going to be,

my point would be, that's ultimately what they're kind of saying, false flag alert that they're going to do this and frame you, but it came out as a story that stem directly from what the FBI was saying. And if you actually listened to it, It was more so about, you know, like China and, you know, that kind of thing where somebody else was going to carry out some kind of an attack, not necessarily that the FBI was framing Republicans in that kind of way.

But there was a part of that. Either way, my point was all of this hype came to a fever pitch in the beginning of February. And nothing seems to have happened so far. Here's what Texas Lindsay. And I should know, to hear me correctly on that, I'm not talking about the immigration and all that. I'm talking about the context of the standoff and how the border was going to play out. Texas Lindsay says this on the 11th, same kind of point. Here's the FBI or, excuse me, Ohio Sheriff's Department speaking about this.

I just don't know why we believe, I'm not suggesting that she does. She's posting what they said, but this is more than them hyping the threat that's necessary to get you in the mindset and the political position they want you in. FBI warns of National Sheriff Association of eminent terrorist threats and local law enforcement begins targeting civilians to prepare for when the disaster hits. Sorry, now you're profiling based on this impending threat that the FBI lies about everything, it seems.

But it says the FBI is now seeing more red flags than before 9-11. Now, I don't know if I'm the only one, but I immediately feel suspicious when this kind of statement gets made. More threats than 9-11 was a complete lie. Everything about this story was completely manufactured. So my point here is when they're building this, just like they did before COVID or before many different things, it seems like a setup. It seems like hype. And it doesn't mean that real things aren't happening,

but it means that our government is trying to trap us, in my opinion. And to some people, that's going to sound so stupid. I guess you're just not that informed about how our history has gone down. But it says, I can't tell you everything that the FBI said, he says, but I want the public to know we're in a terrible way right now. I just, this hype makes me very, very nervous. The key takeaway is the United States is on the defense and we have no offense. Really?

that doesn't even make sense. That's not even true. This is about trying to create the feeling that we're so vulnerable. I just don't think that's actually the case. The president of the United States is refusing to meet with the nation sheriffs. And, you know, bottom line, be afraid. Maybe you should be. I'm not saying it's false.

But what I do feel is that it is creating the narrative that's going to justify whatever happens next. And basically make the argument that their political opponent was responsible as, you know, multiple underlying factors. But let's realize that this is not going away. This was five days ago. CBS News says, Hamas terrorists penetrated Israel.

Is the U.S. next? Hamas terrorists. 30,000 strong group living inside of an open-air prison, and somehow they're going to invade the United States. How does that possibly make sense? With handguns and grenade launchers, which is what they have capable of? How about the fact that they're not even talking about the group

that's 100,000 strong, Palestinian Islamic jihad? Why aren't worry about that one? Because the focus of the propaganda hype is around Hamas, because it's interest of Israel. My point is they really want you to worry that some bad guy Hamas members are going to go 30 seconds ago. It was 13. Before that it was China. Before that it was Venezuela. It doesn't matter.

It's about keeping you afraid. Why? So they can lock you in. Get you basically to hand over your rights and freedoms to make you a wealth threat, just like we did with the Patriot Act, like we did with COVID-19. They were going to say, okay, we need to shut the border down. Which, by the way, a lot of Republicans are actively calling. for acting like that's a solution, even though that is not freedom, as I think even what's Sal Diagoras points out, that that's the opposite of what you think it is. But the point is that

they will do so. They'll put biometric control structures and walls and we'll act like we got what we wanted, right? Until you try to leave or come back in, logging all of your biometric information. This is already how this ultimately works. It's already happening. Then we should step back and go, is this even real? Now here, oh, excuse me, this was from, this one from the end of the, of January.

Preventing Hamas for exploiting the Biden border crisis. Is that what's happening? It seems cartoonish to me. But this goes back a long ways. Look, this was direct, this was October 23rd. Hamas militants may potentially try crossing the border. US officials warned, of course,

then they came back out later right after that and said, but wait, no, that's not true. Just keeping you off your, your feet or off balance, but they did say that. Here's October 23rd as well. Border Patrol, sound the alarm on Hamas or Hezbollah or Iran or, you know, let's just throw in China, maybe too. Who cares?

Whatever group makes you scared. Here is October 23rd as well. San Diego border officials warn of Hezbollah Hamas crossings. Counts down San Diego too. Why not? What's the evidence behind that? Well, government officials said, here is October 11th. Just a few days after October 7th, are terrorists trying to enter the U.S. through the southern border?

Here are the facts, which read it. There are none. It's all hype based on the idea that Israel says it's coming. This is what we're talking about. Now, the one thing they don't seem to care about is the fact that we already saw a Mossad member, or rather specifically, what we could prove is somebody who worked with Mossad, who already got caught. Now, the right-way media seemed to go out of their way to make him sound like he was an Azerbaijani terrorist, who was arrested before this.

And then it was very quickly shown that that's not who he was, that it was embarrassingly. They took an old picture and confirmed it and said it looks the same, but the guy is old now. It doesn't even look like the picture they're showing. But research was shown

that this guy is actually a, on the record, somebody who was arrested in Egypt for working for Mossad, for recruiting for Mossad. And what do you know? The story vanished. Don't you think the right-wing media

would be obsessed with finding out who the Sarjibijani terrorist was. Don't you think they would be harping on that? Because you can prove he's a terrorist. Nope, they dropped it and turned away. Why? Because you're not supposed to talk about Israel. That's why.

Or because it shows you that the whole thing wrapping at the border is not who you think it is. You can't blame Russia or China or bad migrants from South America. It turns out it might be happening because Israel's doing it. I'm not saying that's what's happening. That's one of the things we should consider. Quite frankly, I made a case for one of these articles

that is the most logical thing we're looking at right now. This is about desperation, acts of destabilization, weaponized migration to get concessions. That's what it has historically been used for. Who right now is their chief supporter, the United States? Who right now has stopped supporting them would end their agenda, the United States? Who right now is slowly starting to stop supporting them, the United States, at least publicly? And what do you know? We suddenly have a weaponized border crisis going on.

Obviously, that makes the most sense to me. I'm not saying we can prove that. Now, to get to the current reality of the bill around all of this, I found this one before that actually. I saw this is interesting. This is as of today. Federal judge disputes Texas' invasion claim during sweeping immigration law hearing. Now, what's interesting about this is multiple factors on the bill, the laws are trying to pass

and at least one federal judge's discussion about how he doesn't think this constitutes an invasion. That's up for you to decide. Here's what it says. the state of Texas squared off today, actually today, in federal court against the U.S. Department of Justice and a coalition of immigrant rights groups that argue a sweeping new state border enforcement bill is unconstitutional. This is different. This is not the federal bill. This is about a local Texas state bill. Now, this gets really interesting. I points on kind of both sides of this. You guys can decide for yourselves. Senate Bill 4, which was approved by the Texas

legislature late last year and around the context of this very conversation authorizes a judge to order a migrant to return to Mexico, regardless of their nationality, which is really interesting. There's a lot to discuss right there because what we're talking about is a state authority being able to effectively put somebody outside of the country. Now, that's a really uncomfortable scenario there. Now, look, first and foremost, but if it wasn't about the state, the, the, the, the, the, the, the national border, 100% the state has that right. The state's rights will always, and part of the Constitution, will always trump the federal

enforcement, federal law, the federal government in general. They don't pretend that's the case, but that's the constitutional reality. They just don't respect state's rights today. But in this case, specifically, let's say this was about Texas arguing they could deport them outside of the state. Well, 100%. They passed it. It went through their legislature.

Yeah, that's their right. but assuming that aligns up with other laws they have in the state and it seemingly would if they're illegally you can deport them right i mean that makes perfect sense but when it's talking about outside of the border the national border or arguably it's still the same point but i just see a very big problem that could arise from that you can see how the you know mission creep could become where suddenly they're just deporting people that they assume or you can see where that could go i don't think it's, I think it's a little bit over the top to argue a state official could deport people out of the country. But again, it's a, it's a debatable point for you to think about.

But it says, the measure was signed. Or wait, no, it says, where was I authorized those to regardless of no, it says it also makes it a state crime to enter Texas from Mexico without authorization. Well, isn't that already a crime? Like this whole dynamic is so strange to me, where you got one side acting like, even though they're breaking the law, we're looked the other way, but then the other side of it, like on the, right here, like, why would you need to pass a law to make somebody being illegally in the state a crime? I mean, that's already, that seems very strange to me. But it says the, and maybe that's just speaking to how ridiculous it's gotten in their battle against people claiming that they're not there illegally, even though

they are. But it's just, it's redundant. It becomes meaningless process that's taking your tax dollars to reiterate something we've already proven. Like making a bill about lynching people. I've made that point many times. Everything's already. Everything's already. There's already a crime. But it says both the Justice Department, oh, it says the measure was signed into law by Greg Abbott, December, scheduled to go into effect March 5th, which is why they're debating it now. Now it says both the Justice Department and coalition of immigrant rights groups filed lawsuits against the state. So you've got the federal government and these rights groups arguing that what they're doing is illegal, rather unconstitutional slash illegal. And these lawsuits were filed, which were consolidated and heard in the federal court for the first time.

today. Now it says, this is what a quote says, SB4, which is the bill, is clearly invalid under settled precedent, says the deputy assistant general, attorney general, which is a very stupid, that's a strange manipulative statement in my mind. Because, you know, look, the word precedent means an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances. So there's not this thing as settled precedent. There's precedent, period. And then precedents can very easily change because of new precedents. So to say it's a settled precedent is as stupid, in my opinion, is saying settled science. But that's how dumb a lot of this politics get today. It's about, you know, manipulating the

mind of the person you're trying to manipulate. But it says arguing for the Justice Department, Boynton said the law is in direct conflict with federal immigration law. Well, right there is my point. For the sake of conversation removing the national border from it, states rights circum, circum will trump federal excuse me, states rights or state's law will trump federal law. That's the constitutional reality. States rights supersede federal control over it.

That's in the Constitution. They just pretend that's not the case. My point is that by saying that their state law that went through their legislature contradicts federal law, well, that's not a problem for me. That their federal government is here to enforce the Constitution. And, you know, national borders and the military. That's it.

but they've grown wildly outside of that bound. And this is the whole reason the founding fathers outlined the fact that the very presence of the federal government is problematic. But of course, people in that very room from the very beginning of that conversation wanted the kind of thing we have today. My point is I think we, you know, if we understand it correctly, the side of the Republic won out, but it was very quickly taken back by people that didn't want that within a few presidencies. That's how I see it. And that's where we are today. The authoritarian federal top-down government that still pretend.

it's a democracy. But it says, Bontent told federal judge David Erza that those orders, like deportation, fall under the purview of the federal government. Oh, I think I skipped the line. Yeah, I said direct contradiction or conflict with the federal law, but he goes in part, that's because of its provision empowering magistrates and judges to return migrants to Mexico, which again, that's kind of the line that I saw, too.

There is a conflict there that needs to be debated about whether the states have the right to do that. because that does kind of edge into the national border conversation. But he goes, the federal judge told Erza that those orders like deportation fall under the purview of the federal government. Which he's right. That's the cat's typical understanding. But it says, but Ryan Walters, the chiefs of special litigation, the Texas office of the attorney general argued that the measure does not conflict with federal authority. He says the orders are orders to return are not removals.

They are not expelling people. that's an interesting take on it he's not wrong you could make a fair argument that these are people that are not being i mean it's kind of a word game because they're they are removals just because somebody came in illegalism and you're not removing them it's just a play on words but the argument is simply that well they're here illegal right they did and we're not and this is my point about the way this conversation has gotten out of control right now a lot of republicans some of which are just because they hate people like that look different are racist that does exist really on both sides but in this conversation, it seems very prominent to me. But others, because they think this is right or whatever else. I just want to point out there is a part of that. It's like that. But that they just ultimately, I think ultimately,

okay, hold on. I was going to make a point there. I lost my train of thought. Shoot. God, there was something I was going to say that was important. But regardless, the point is, you know, where I was going to go, I think generally that partisanship will lead you astray. But if the orders are not removal, they're not expelling people.

Anyway, I hate when I try to remember what I was going to say. it comes down to the fact that you're talking about a boy that you are effectively removing people from the country oh i mean so that's what it was also so thank i'm glad i remembered that you can't just the reason i meant the racist point in some cases because in a lot a lot of ways you're getting broad stroke discussions that they're all illegals but that's provably not true there are some people that even they they said they're people that were on the other side of the border fence that they were calling illegals they haven't even tried to engage with the process yet how do you know what they're going to go through but you see this is how bad it gets where they're all illegals because they're brown.

That's pretty disgusting in my opinion. Right? So my point would be that it, proving that they are technically, have crossed into this country illegally, whether with the intent to or not, that I don't care about. If they broke the law, they broke the law. The point here is that they should still have to be removed because that's the law, isn't it? So the argument is making is, well, it's already the law. They're here illegally.

So we're just facilitating the process that we're all supposed to protect. is the law, right? He's kind of highlighting that the federal government is ignoring the law in that case. But they're still, they still have an argument from a legal perspective that they're not allowed to expel people out of the country, which I do think will probably go their direction. But he says, he said that that's contrary to current law, which allows asylum to be a defense against removal. Because what they're saying up here is essentially that they can, a court may not abate the prosecution of an offense. But there is a loophole. I wouldn't even call it a loophole. The point is that knowing, and this is my point, I always come at this from a very humanitarian perspective,

because nobody in the paradigm seems to truly acknowledge, even people on the left of this that argue humanitarian side, that our government are murdering these people. You are, I mean, it's not just, it's destabilization, it is theft, it is stealing of resources, that's theft, to continue to starve these people, to bomb these countries, right? I mean, all of these things cause a situation that is untenable. Venezuela people were starving to death because of what they were doing. So a lot of them fled up. They weren't fleeing to, you know, the American dream.

They were largely fleeing to get away from the situation that our country made or our government put them in. And what better place to get away from that than in that country? They're not going to starve their own people, not yet anyway. So my point in this is to point out that there is a dynamic that should be acknowledged where people actually come claiming asylum. Now, if we don't like that as a country, the argument should be made that we need to address that as a law, that the asylum is being abused, and here's why. Which I'm the first to point out that our system is ridiculous and broken and there's probably, but nonetheless, that's what we're told by them that we should engage the political process.

You can't just, this is where our, I mean, it's a perfect analogy for this next faux election is going, where everybody's already made the allegation that they're already cheating, so I'm going to cheat. So just this broken reality already before it's even started. My point in saying is the same thing. You don't just get to go, well, they're not going to care and they're going to stop me. So I'm just going to jump over this and just say that there is no asylum anymore. Well, you can't do that. There are people that are fleeing from our government's belligerent foreign policy or other things for that matter. And the asylum does exist.

So we either need to radically change who we say we are, give us your tired, your hungry, poor, and all that. or allow this in some circumstances and actually enforce the illegalities around it. You see, that's the problem, is it always somewhere in the middle. Both sides are part of creating this dynamic, maybe by design. But it says, but the state argued migrants have the option to return to Mexico. But you just made the point that you're returning to Mexico, whether they're from Nicaragua or from Australia. It doesn't matter. If they're illegal, you deport them to Mexico.

I don't think that makes much sense. But they don't have the option. That's like saying you have the option to refuse the vaccine or not ever work again. That's not an option. That's coercion. But it says if they don't choose the option, they'll be prosecuted. Right. So you come in here hypothetically, and I'm not saying all of them.

Like I said, there is weaponized migration taking place here. I don't think we agree on who's doing that. But there are still people that are fleeing and want asylum or just want to come through the process. And the point would be, in this case, they have two choices. Go back to Mexico or go to jail. Well, by the way, we still pay for that when they go to. jail. So I don't think they've thought that one through. But it says, you won't get removed. You just go to jail, he says. Get this. The state argued, and this is going to bite them in the

butt, that it was safer for migrants to be inside a Texas prison than to return to their countries. I mean, you literally made the case for them. The whole argument of asylum or why the left, I guess, would argue that all of them are fleeing, you know, are one thing, is because they're dangerous. You can't send them back to a dangerous place, but that's what they're saying. Now, I'm not saying I even agree with that. I think that there's a whole bigger conversation to be had around that, and it's not every single one of these people. But it's interesting, you would literally say that we're going to send them back to that dangerous place. Like, it's just, there's no humanity in that. Now, yes, that is being abused. But the point is not to say all or nothing. That's how the two-party

paradigm operates. We need to engage with the law, right? There is an asylum aspect of that, and people that are illegal, deal with it properly. The Biden administration is not doing that. Neither is the Republican administration. They're just not. And people are fighting for two extreme sides, neither of which are actually engaging with the law or what's right.

That's what gives me so much frustration. But it goes on to say, Judge Ezra and Walter spent much of the hearing talking about the state's argument that Texas is under an invasion, and that's why this bill is needed. Now, even if that argument is proven, that it's an invasion.

There's a reason this is being, pushed back on. The bill is applied to anybody that they deal, that they, and this is the point that says in here, that they believe might be there illegally, not necessarily as provably there. But it says, quote, I haven't seen, and the state of Texas can't point me to any type of military invasion in Texas.

Now, I would argue it doesn't have to be military, even though that's kind of the context for it. But wouldn't we all argue that they should prove that? to be able to use that as the justification for action? Because look, I believe that there is surreptitious action happening here. But does it amount to an invasion by a foreign country? Look, I also push back on that that I think that's a little bit over the top. I consider that it might be the reality.

But I, too, would need to see proof, even just evidence, not insinuations from Brett Weinstein about how people looked and why they answered a weird way, but actual evidence is being done by a foreign country to be able to deal with it that way. Now I'm not saying we should do nothing, obviously. The worry that that's part of a foreign country's actions should be folded into the way we deal with this. Height and security at the border, sure. But not to say, shut it all down

because of what we can't prove or create laws that give us the ability to displace anybody we don't like. That says the state argued cartels of the border operate like paramilitary forces. Well, right there. They admit they don't have the evidence. So the right seems to be screaming invasion

because that's the talking point, even though they don't. have that evidence. And it says, and that Texas military department is very active in efforts at the border. Walter said the state's decision of putting razor wire along the border as well as buoys and the Rio Grande are part of a military function. Well, it's from your side. None of that proves an actual invasion, which certainly may be the case. As we argued, Texas is definitely under pressure and acknowledged the high number of legal crossings into Texas. However, he rejected the state's characterizations saying there's no evidence. Texas is at war, which is what an invasion

would mean. So it's sort of like the abuse of these terms in other cases, whatever we're talking about. It's a manipulation of the term as far as I can tell so far. Now, look, I've seen videos on unreal, crazy crowds of people at these stations, which is something's wrong there. That doesn't make much sense to me. That doesn't happen organically. But even though I would argue that I also think this is being done, I just don't think I would go as far as to call it an invasion. Because right now, there's not like a forceful. Like I don't even want to use the violence.

Forseful or overlapping with violent effort to push in. You're still having to go through these processes. Some of them are going in illegally, but you can deal with them in the same way you're talking about. I just think it is an effort to create this feeling that we are under invasion. So the FBI can say, we've never seen this many threats since 9-11. And guess what?

All of that points back at you, America. It does every single time. So same with the biometric stuff on the border, which even on Trump's point went both ways, or any other context of these conversations, the Patriot Act, has always been aimed at Americans. But it says if implemented, opponents of the law said there would be a big statewide implication. The legislation doesn't only apply to recent border crossings,

but instead makes undocumented immigrants subject to arrest anywhere in the state. Well, here's the interesting part about that again. Now, it's a wordplay there, is undocumented, if we're talking to, talking about illegal, well, then that shouldn't be a problem. If they're breaking the law, should be dealt with, even though I'm the first person that's going to say that the law is not always legal or constitutional, right? That has to be folded into conversation, too. But the point is the same that if they're legally, illegally coming to the country, well, then we have a law that argues they should be deported. To just not deal with that makes that, you know,

you're superseding the law. But if it's undocumented and that means something else, well, if they're going to broad, you know, kind of broad stroke all of them. What about people who are here on asylum? What about people who are who are here in a car other context? I'm trying to think about like the green card is still documentation. So I would argue that largely means illegal, which means they should be deported. But I worry, the only reason I'm talking about it like this, I worry how that could be abused by people with less than honest intentions behind us, which by the way would apply to anybody. Now, we don't tend to think about it as much. Like if we go forward 50 years and we find ourselves inside of a technocratic prison, which seems to be happening.

Well, suddenly, this changes quite a bit, doesn't it? Well, suddenly, you're illegal, not because you're from a foreign country, but because you didn't apply the right logic. You didn't say the right thing online. Your social credit ran out. You don't have the digital ID. Like, I don't know why the people who have been just screaming about the Great Reset for the last five years, three, four, three years, can't acknowledge how that could be the same thing. Undocumented, I mean, take away the word. immigrant. You're an illegal. Funny how that became the term, right? You're an illegal. You don't have the right state. You don't have the right ID. Where's your digital ID? Where's your vaccine passport? Right? Your IRA scans not out to date. You're in here illegally. Suddenly,

you're being pushed into Mexico. How does that make sense? I think, some people are going to laugh about that, but I'm telling you, that is where it comes for me. But it goes on to say SB4 has statewide application turning every immigrant or somebody who looks or sounds like an immigrant into a potential criminal and subject to state deportation. That, I don't think anybody honest can get on board with that. The idea that it becomes this basic, you know, you're profiling. You're creating a situation where now anybody who appears to be a foreign person is going to be accosted for that. And if you can't produce documentation, well, guess why? You're going to get arrested. But that's not how that's supposed to work.

It says that includes, what I mean, not documentation, I mean, you just don't happen to have your wallet on you. Maybe you have a license. It's just not with you. But if you're brown and speak Spanish

or whatever else, well, they're probably going to put you in jail. But it says that includes those are already here and have permission of the federal government to be lawfully working in our state. Now, I don't know about that. Now, I argue that it will be abused,

but the point would be, are you talking about people that are legally here working for the state with a green card? Or are you talking about people that have been kind of way, in because of the policy of the current administration to sort of go, well, we'll give you asylum because, you know, that's not the same thing necessarily. You know, I've talked about it in the past.

The point would be that they're unilaterally circumventing the law, and in many cases it seems to be for their own benefit. That doesn't, you can't, that's, there's breaking the law, period. Now, I think this is very concerning to me. Now, like I said, this is complicated. I, there's a lot of ways this could go. I think it needs to be discussed, but the problem is that I do think it will be abused. Now, here's where we are with the current deal, the bill. First, you know, for the point was, first of all, the Senate day yesterday approved the bill minus the border stuff. Now, as of today, it looks like they moved, they went into winter recess, thank God, but have not voted on this, which is going to infuriate people. I think it's a great thing.

House recesses without taking up the $95 billion foreign aid package for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan, because they pushed off the border stuff. Now, the House representatives left D.C. for the winter recess without voting on this bill. The Senate has stayed in session last weekend to pass the foreign aid package, which does not include revisions to secure the U.S. border bill. Now, real quick point, by the way, I don't understand, like, we all realize how this works, right, where the Senate is a separate body that does this process, then the House does the same thing, right? And they, and they can change it, and it goes back to them again,

and they have to vote again, and they go back and forth. That's how this works, which, by the way, is infuriatingly impossible sometimes when it just never ends. And they can do that a purpose. These things can take months and years to pass, and sometimes half a day, gone for Israel. Shocker. But what's interesting is the way they presented this from, and I think they're constantly trying to play on the ignorance of people that don't follow this stuff enough, where they acted outraged that the house was like not going to just rubber stamp what they handed them. well that's not how that works just because you had a bipartisan agreement on the senate side does not mean the house just goes you're good it's stupid that's that's not a check or a balance right but that's what they they want people to think that them deciding to go through it again was like them insultingly not wanting to help their allies or whatever it's it is so much gross political manipulation right now more than i've ever seen that's i think i know i've said a lot lately but i really do believe that stems from a kind of a desperate feeling that they're losing control But it says Republicans had initially demanded border security measures be included in the foreign aid bill.

But then Senate Republicans rejected the bipartisan deal and those provisions last week and the and and the provisions rejected the bill that didn't give enough that they thought was necessary for the border discussion. Now, let me ask you something, guys. Why is it that we pretend any of this makes sense? Why couldn't they have multiple bills? Why couldn't they make a bill for Israel, make a bill for Ukraine, make a bill for the border security, make a bill for every other dumb thing they try to shoe horn into this bill, like fentanyl? Of course they could. Are we pretending they're all that busy? They just went on vacation.

I mean, really think about this for a second. And we're going to pretend like they have to jam in 14 completely contradictory things that they all have to vote on that are all crossing party lines. And if it doesn't come to an exact agreement, really? Like, it's almost like they're deliberately trying to make themselves seem. more necessary. I don't know, these people don't even, we don't even need these people. This could be executed by, you know, blockchain voting on some app or whatever. I don't, I'm not actually calling for that because I know that's probably super, that will be

manipulating like anything else. My point would be there are ways we could probably work this out today where we can all actively tap into some voting process where we can publicly be taught. My point is there's so much interconnectivity today. We do not need these people at all. Now, really think about that for a second. What they're pretending to do is vote for what we want. They never do.

They vote for what lobbyists want. They vote for what Israel wants. My point would be they jam all these together to make it complicated so they can pretend this is a process that we need them for. We do not. The Senate went on to pass a standalone package of aid stripped of the border security measures. Why? Like, as like a penalty.

The point would be that if you're really going back and forth, it would be okay, what do you need? Well, here's what it has. What do you need? Let's come to an agreement. No, they just remove it. And then get angry when they don't rubber stamp it for them after they remove what they wanted. Like it's just this, they are really childish about this. The bill faces an uncertain future in the House where Speaker Mike Johnson said he would not bring it up for a vote.

Now, House Democrats are considering how to get the bill on the floor. One strategy is a maneuver. This is after essentially it didn't happen. Remember, they went to break. Apparently, they're now trying to figure out a way to do what's called a district. charge petition in which our 218 members can force bills to a vote. Now, once newly elected Tom Souso of New York is sworn in, Democrats will have 213 members, requiring just five Republicans to force a vote.

It says, quote, Ukraine has to be funded. Oh, it doesn't. There is literally no reason. And frankly, the vast majority of Americans do not want that. You guys don't care from either side what Americans want. We don't want war. We don't want a fund foreign war. We don't want to fund foreign countries for their own.

We don't want this. I mean, like the vast majority from any poll taken anywhere, they don't care what you think. They've even made that public. Remember, they've said, we're going to fund them whether or not the people want it. The moral imperative. Well, the moral imperative doesn't...

The point is, you pretend you're acting upon our will. So all you really said right there is what I think is correct, circumvents what you guys vote for, or pretend you voted for me to do. Even though what we know is that this isn't about moral anything. It's about who's paying you, who is pushing you. But it says Ukraine has to be funded. We have to respond to Russian aggression.

Is that what's happening? I'll wait until you see the part we're going to get to an end where the Ukraine just murdered a bunch of people in Belgrade. But it says, or we'll have a border war there, a broader war, excuse me. This comes to the argument that they keep pushing that somehow Russia is going to invade the world the moment that Ukraine's not fighting back anymore. There is literally nothing that makes that case. you know who clearly keep saying that the aoz-up movement over and over and over and then CNN goes but you don't understand you misunderstand their culture no they speak in plain England we want to take over the world they keep saying it spread the white race around the world yeah we don't misunderstand that clearly but it says in an interview on face the nation he says everybody recognizes these are national security threats and we need to find a path to get those done no they're not nothing about Ukraine is a national security threat nothing about funding Israel is a national security threat. Nothing about funding Taiwan is a national security threat.

Our national security is not about Israeli borders. Our national security is not about Ukraine borders. They're just playing on people's ignorance and their emotions. National security is about the security of the nation and the border. Technically, what Texas is dealing with. That is part of national security. They've conflated this with like every foreign policy agenda because they say that if we don't do this, it could come back to hurt us.

and there you go, national security. So much dishonesty. It says neither Trump nor any other House Republican has said publicly that they would join this discharge petition. So that means they don't have enough votes anyway, assuming that they don't want to do that. But it says there's more writing on the bill than just foreign aid. Again, that's what I said in the beginning. The package includes the Fendoff Fentanyl Act, which would target the illicit fentanyl supply by imposing sanctions on anti-money laundering penalties.

Well, that's stupid, seeing as how 90-something percent comes through the main. from China, and they know that. They're not really trying to stop it. I hope we can see that by now. But it says, it's our best opportunity to protect our national interests. By giving money to Israel and Ukraine? This is ridiculous. It says, it's our best opportunity to keep fentanyl out of our country.

I want to see it done. How is this bill? Anyway, it's the same point. So overall, they've jammed all these different things together and acted like because they can't agree that it's our, we have to, you know, hold off. All they would have to do is vote on these separately and do individual bills, which, yeah, gives them more work to do, but I don't care about that. Clearly, that's how it should work if this is so impossible.

And ask yourself, oh, wait, I was going to get into it right here, the different things that are in this bill. The Senate jettisoned from the package the bipartisan effort to boost immigration enforcement after Republican senators deemed it inadequate. Again, I just find that wildly childish, abandoning the border proposal, because You can't understand when they did that, they then knew that they would not want to pass the bill without it. I don't know how you don't see that. But it says abandoning the border proposal brought the price tag of the bill down to $95 billion.

Yeah, only some small $95 billion, added to the trillions and trillions of debt that we don't care about. Now that the Senate has approved the emergency spending package, why is it an emergency? Not national security. It's not an emergency. It is up to, and again, that's actually the point about why they've been doing this. Hamas is going to come to the border, hurry, fund everything they need no matter what without thinking about it. Speaker Mike Johnson cast new doubt of the package saying that it could be weeks, months before they did legislation, if at all, on this topic. Now, what's going in this?

I'm not even talking about the border. This is just the money for foreign wars. $60 billion would go to Ukraine. Now, that hasn't happened yet. Weirdly enough, I saw a clip of Rand Paul. insinuating that it had already been sent. Now, if that happened, tell me. I don't know how that's possible if they haven't even confirmed it yet. I found that very strange. A lot of contents been going out acting like Zelensky just got $60 billion, and I don't think that's happened yet.

Tell me if I'm wrong. I don't know how it could if it hasn't actually been confirmed by the house yet, but it says to defend itself from Russian invasion, all these narratives, $14 billion to allow Ukraine to rearm itself. So $60 billion for when. whatever they want. Take this to defend yourself however you want, all the cocaine you need. Then $14 billion on top of that to buy more arms from Lockheed Martin and Raytheon and, you know, to bolster what you're basically money laundering, right? Or in shell game here. 15 billion more to support military training and intelligence sharing. Why does that make sense? Why would we spend $15 billion to train their military?

If we're training them during the war, they're not going to win. I think we already see that that's the case. This is money laundering. I'm only to bet you that most of this is not even going to what they say it is. I know that's not shocking for all people in this audience. Going forward, eight more billion on top of all of that to just help Ukraine's government continue basic operations. So we're literally keeping the doors open.

Well, people in this country are suffering from all sorts of things. If you think this is about national security, explain for me why $8 billion is going to maintain government operations. Don't you think Americans have more needs that are more important than training their military? Because what you're saying is the operation to hurt Russia is more important than making sure Americans have what they need. Making sure Americans have border security. Making sure teachers have effing pencils. But nope, make sure we give them everything they need on top of just 8.000. billion for basic operations or 1.6 billion to help their private sector. That's just a bribe.

What do you think private sector means? They're giving almost $1.6 billion just to the private sector of Ukraine, of wildly that even they will tell you is the most corrupt country on the planet right now, it seems. And that what? Billions have been lost. They've admitted that. But here's 1.6 just for whoever. I mean, it's just insulting, and I hope we don't pass this. This is counterintuitive to American interests. It says there's also about 480 million to help Ukrainians displaced by the war, right? But who cares about Palestinians? How about going to Israel? 14.1 billion on top of the 30 billion plus we give them every year to support Israel. What does that mean? Support Israel. Okay, why would you just say here's 60 billion to support Israel?

Because the point is you say 14 billion to support Israel, then you go on to say $4 billion to boost their air defenses. Well, isn't that supporting Israel? So wait, let's take a step back. What is $14 billion going for? What's this analogous sport Israel category? What's that doing? If $4 billion is boosting air defenses,

then what's $14 billion supporting? Who knows? We don't get to know. Here's $14 billion, Israel. here's on top of this support, which is undefined, $4 billion for air defenses, $1.2 billion for Iron Beam. They don't need any of this.

This is not a destitute country. We're giving them money to fight this war when they don't need our money. Your tax dollars are paying for a genocide right now. Or, I mean, when this passes, but it is also happening right now. There's also $2.5 billion to support U.S. operations in the region. So they're using this bill pretending they're funding their allies while giving $2.5 billion to the military to keep fighting in this war.

The legislation contains also $9.2 billion in humanitarian assistance to go food, water, shelter, medical care to Gaza and the West Bank. Which, by the way, means to the Hamas members in Qatar that Israel's funding and supporting and keeping hidden and the people in the West Bank like a PLO that will take that money as well. This does not go to Palestinians that need it. The bill includes about $1.9 billion to replenish U.S. weapons provided to Taiwan. You're just trying to start wars. That's what this feels like. About $3.3 billion to build more U.S.-made submarines in a support of a security partnership with Australia and the United Kingdom.

This is a war bill. It's what it is. The bill includes $400 million for grant programs that help nonprofits in places of worship make security enhancements and protect them from hate crimes. How much you want to bat? It's all synagogues. What do you think? Either way, the point is it's about $400 million to stop to protect them from hate crimes.

How is this what we actually talk about, guys? This is incredible to me. Taiwan, $2 billion to a entity of China's control that they tell you that this is crossing red lines about. well here's a clip by the way Syrian girl shared showing you US foreign aid since 1946 to Israel it's shocking

oh actually I'll just just show you right here you can see on the top right there the date's increasing 52 53 and her point is that right about 72 is when you can see the Israel

funding just explode this is what's interesting by the way we're at 1960 right now Israel's not even on the map but in the regard to the funding, at least in regard to the lowest number. So that's way past what happened, 1948, right? Very interesting. So her point is, at what point did the Zionist lobby essentially take control over interest of the United States government?

So let's wait and see. And on top of all that, look at all this money flying out the door to foreign countries. That's all your money, tax dollars that you need. Okay, Israel comes into the scene at the bottom. $13.7 billion. $1971. Now between then, in the next, it just explodes. Israel is now to $67 billion.

We're only in 1979. $67 billion. Past $100 billion, 1985. It came the number one U.S. foreign aid recipient in 1990. $135 billion so far since 1946. Really since 1972 is when it seems like it started. In earnest, anyway. 1995, $160 billion so far.

are $2,000, $185 billion. Can you imagine what a factor that would use for the American population? Or for Palestinians, you know, places that might actually need help. All this money. My God. 2020, $259 billion, which, by the way, constitutes 10% of the total foreign aid since 946. So, 2023 is where it stops.

$263 billion. And it's only exploding. I mean, right now, they're talking about. 10s, 20 billion, however many adds up together. Just in one bill. This is the reality of what this is. This is not in your interest. It never has been. Now, here's what Corrine says you're doing if you oppose the bill. She says the bill has passed the Senate. Well, the article says, bills pass the Senate, but is considered dead on arrival in the House, where Mike Johnson says it won't at the floor. But it says House Republicans have opposed the bill for a variety of reasons.

Many believe that it does not actually provide border security and simply legitimizes the status quo, allowing thousands of migrants to enter the United States daily without proper authorization, which is essentially what is happening. It says in addition, the bill funds the ongoing war in Ukraine, which has become increasingly controversial as progress is stalled. The bill also provides security assistance to Israel. That's crazy. I feel like I had the wrong. Anyway, the point was ultimately, I think I put that together when I covered this already in these parts. Bottom line, Corrine says,

you're siding with Trump, Putin, and Tehran by opposing this bill. That's how, like, childish. Maybe just that she is or they are, that's probably part of it too, but how childish the narrative has gotten in general. Oh, you don't like that?

Well, you're Putin's puppet. Oh, yeah, you got facts for that, any documents? No, no, you're like Putin because you said the wrong thing. Oh, you don't like our bill? Well, you're supporting Putin and Tehran. I mean, it's just, it's really stupid.

And I think we should laugh at this kind of stuff. You can't, I mean, by literally by arguing that by voting in what you argue is the, what you see the interest of this bill, at least how we pretend this goes, that politicians vote on behalf of their constituents, by simply voting the opposite of what some of them vote that you're citing with a foreign government, how don't they just disagree with it? You see, but that's how like the fever pitch of all this. It's gotten to where if you lose an election, will they collude it with a lot? foreign government, which probably in some cases, but it's just a narrative being floated. Because that's what, instead of just trying to, I mean, I'd go off forever on it. The bottom line is that this is not something that I think they even actually think. It's a political tool that's thrown at them.

You support Putin and hopes that that somehow moves people away from supporting them or makes them think that if you support the bill, then you somehow support the evil Putin. they really think we're in kindergarten. Like that that's how your mental capacity, that you just see boogeyman. And if you side with this thing, well, you fight against the boogeyman. If you side with this one,

then you don't, then you like the boogeyman. I mean, is that any less, any more or less childish than what she's saying? Here's the Washington Post said, which I find this very interesting in regard to this happening, the bill and the back and forth of it,

the removing the border parts. Now, it says after the border bill failure, the removal of those parts of it, ICE considers mass release to close the budget gap. Now, again, this is the kind of childish nature I'm talking about. So you pull the border funding, right? So ICE argues that to kind of fill the gap of the money that they don't have now, they're going to just release people who are there illegally, release criminals they've caught. Because that's all we can do, right?

really? I mean, that's the equivalent to saying we don't have money for this prison, so just let all the prisoners out. That doesn't make any sense, even though there are some interesting overlaps at that point from like COVID and stuff. The point here is that this is, I think, a threat. This is about trying to say that if we don't get what we want, we're just going to release all the people that are in prison.

I think that's ridiculous. Because, I mean, really, that that's the only choice they have? There's an endless amount. Pull funding from anywhere else. But it says U.S. Immigration and Customs of, enforcement has drafted plans to release thousands of immigrants and slash its capacity to hold detainees after a failure of the Senate border bill that would have erased $700 million budget shortfall, meaning they don't have that now. Now, I don't know how to read this. Is this ICE trying

to release these people to pressure them to feel that they need that part of the bill? Or is this them? I just don't, I think ultimately it's about, you know, trying to coerce action. and why that would mean release people that you've arrested already. The bipartisan border bill that Republican lawmakers opposed last week

would have provided $6 billion. But the point was that they didn't say they wanted it removed. They felt like it was an insult based on what was really needed. And so in all maturity, they just remove it. Fine, is that what you want?

You didn't like it. So we just took it out. My ball, I'm going home. Like, we should really see it in that kind of a lens. the right response would have been like, okay, well, what do you want? Well, I don't want that. So let's come to a middle ground.

That's how we all pretend this works. It's not. It's all special interest in lobbying and backstabbing and childish actions. That's who these people are. But it says the bill's demise has led ICE officials to begin circulating, so threatening a proposal to release thousands of detainees to cut that down. Get back to our even balance sheet. it says some of the proposed cost savings would occur as deportations reduce ICE detention levels.

But much of it would have to happen through the release of mass detainees, set officials, who just spoke on a condition of anonymity. I don't buy that for a second. That's stupid. That's, there's anywhere, I mean, I'm not saying it's going to amount to something we want, cutting, you know, more enforcement or whatever else. At the end of the day, that is not what makes sense. you are doing the thing that is the opposite of what you're supposed to be doing as a threat to coerce action that you want.

Now here is Politico, House lawmakers are going to offer their own Ukraine border bill. So the Senate is coming up with their version in the House now saying, well, we're going to create a role. My point in showing you this is that the one thing that stays the same is funding for Israel and foreign wars. Now, there's a little bit of dispute over Ukraine. You can read that however you like. The point is, blind support for Israel's genocide. and both sides are okay with that as long as they get the money they want for their agenda, for the border.

So let's not pretend like this is some kind of, you know, righteous objection to the fact that they're not what's happening. It says some Republicans also contend aid should be limited to Israel, not in the sense where they should stop it. What they're saying is that we should have a bill that is only for Israeli aid. First of all, why does that have anything to do with American processes? Why are we voting to send money to Israel at all? But on top of that, if you were going to make a bill,

I think for anything, I don't know why, like I said before, they would be jammed together. Sure, make a bill just for Israel. But I hope we would acknowledge that doesn't seem to suit national interest in any way. But these are Republicans saying, not only do we want to give money to Israel, but let's make one just for them. To make sure that happens while we debate over the border. That's what's happening. House Republicans have twice voted on Israel-only aid bills while ignoring Biden's request for Ukraine and Taiwan. Quote, the sentiment among people I talk to is that they want to see a call.

clean Israel bill go back. Are you kidding me? So the real issue is that they just can't get money to Israel fast enough? Yeah, that's the one thing. The two-party paradigm ignores, and that has to tell you something because it's the central crux of all of what's happening. The Zionist influence over these politicians. Now, Majorcas just got impeached. Now, you can decide whether you think that's the right thing or not. Frankly, I don't think any of these people are honest. So it's always, I think it's less government. It's always a good thing, but someone's going to replace him. The point, though, is I don't think this guy is honestly acting in the interest of the border or Americans. But it says here, you know, 200, 214 to 213 votes.

So like, razor thin. Republicans barreled past the solid opposition of Democrats and basically to impeach him, which apparently was the first sitting cabinet secretary in U.S. history. That's pretty embarrassing. It says history will not look kindly on House Republicans for their blatant act of unconstitutional partisanship that is targeted an honorable public servant. Yeah, because it hasn't happened against Trump and Biden and everybody else, every single time. People are so ridiculous.

Everything they do is unconstitutional, childish partisanship. That's all they do. He's acting like you're outraged when you do it to us. Oops. Oh, it's already saved anyway. So here's the next tab. RFK Jr. says funding a proxy war that's taken the lives of hundreds of thousands and only benefits the military contractors is not.

The most important vote. Now, I'd forgive you for misunderstanding what he's talking about. No, he's not talking about Israel. He's talking about Ukraine. Now, that is only going to be slightly funny for people that don't understand that there is a proxy war dynamic happening within Israel. But nonetheless, RFK Jr. says, this is not the most important vote because we're funding a proxy war that's killing lots of people. And that's what we care about. Yay, he's on the side of, oh, wait a minute.

Here comes Comrade Misty saying, but unconstitutional support for a brutal apartheid state committing genocide. Hooray, I'm all for that, because that's what he said. Not explicitly, but as a president, my support for Israel will be unconditional. That is what he said. He doesn't seem to say a word about Israel. I don't know how anybody can side with that. No, I will agree with the logic that him not saying something about Israel, but having right stances on a lot of other things,

makes him objectively better than I would argue Biden or other people, but it doesn't make me feel any better knowing that he's lying about one of the most central issues that control what we do. That very well means he could mean he's lying about everything else. Morally indefensible that cut. Right now people that are supporting genocide in Israel, you should second guess everything they're doing and you should anyway, by the way. But again, I'll be clear, but Biden and Trump and I think I think we need to recognize

that every one of these people are compromised. That's what I think. But either way, Israel is still going on and that's all they can care about. But don't worry though. Okay, because I know it looks bad and a lot of bad things are happening and I know a lot of these politicians are vying for dumb political childish things, but it's all going to be okay. You know why? Because we have the first congressional hip-hop task force. So it's all going to be okay. It's not just music. It's not just an art form. It's a culture with a multi-billion dollar economy,

but we haven't harnessed the power of it yet to make transformative change in legislation. The Black Music Action Coalition is an advocacy organization that's committed to utilizing the cultural capital of black music to influence the music industry and greater society on the issues of racial justice and equity through policy, philanthropic, and educational initiative. Yeah, that's real, guys. That's not Saturday Night Live. That's not the onion. That's real.

And as Cloud rightly said, I'm so confused. Can we just get a minimum universal health care and a ceasefire in Gaza and a higher federal minimum wage, please? People didn't ask for a hip-hop task force. I can't even like say that out loud. I mean, are we living in a cartoon as Steve often says, come on. A hip-hop task force? Why does that even make sense? What is a task force?

Like a task force is like a drug task force. We're going after, you know, I just can't even believe that's what's happening. This is the decline of Western society. This is the decline of the United States. This is pathetically stupid. You're utilizing American tax dollars to create a hip-hop task force. Acting like that means anything you're pretending with your high-minded statements. That's embarrassing.

Now, of course, people will want to make it about racial kinds. It's not, but sure, have your ridiculous statements. Have fun with it. This is about utilizing your tax dollars. for meaningless political social justice or, you know, points that don't mean anything. Why, even if you think that matters, right now, that's when you're going to do this. We're literally burning down from inside when people are worried about being invaded, where people are dying from genetically experimental injections.

I mean, everything is happening right now, including that there are still are people struggling financially in this country. we're going to send billions and billions of dollars to foreign authoritarian governments and start a hip hop task force. It'll all be okay. This is sad. Now, I'm going to end with the point about the threat I mentioned briefly, just since I said it the other day. It has, in my opinion, kind of petered out like I expected to be not what we thought it was. But either way, the point was about, and this is how they always do this.

And this is usually a pretty good indication that this is hype and propaganda when they come out and go, breaking news. have breaking news tomorrow. Oh, okay. Breaking story. We're going to have something to tell you tomorrow. That's so stupid. That is about hype and getting you on your feet and your toes go, oh, my God, something's happening. Let me look worried about a national security threat. And then people apply it to whatever they want. It's about keeping you confused, but they said a national security, a serious national security threat. Update. CNN gets an inside word about it has something to do with Russian capabilities. The House Speaker said there's no need, a public alarm.

Feel confused. Over here, we're telling you, we're super scared. And he comes out and goes, no big deal. That's a tactic, guys. They've talked about this. They want you feeling confused and off center.

We don't know what's it happening. It's not. What's going on? And this is, again, this is, Aramette has a good point about this. This was the day before saying that, you know,

the House Speaker is saying, we're not going to be rest for this bill. Money for, you know, to fight Russia. He says the Republican House will not be jammed or forced into passing a foreign bill. President Joe Biden has warned the refusal take up the bill would be playing into Putin's hands.

That's where Corrine just regurgitates it from. It's ridiculous. So I wonder if it has something to do with this weird threat that rises up right as they go, hey, we're not going to pass this bill for Rush to fight Russia. Uh-oh, breaking news, Russia threat! Yeah, they really are that simple sometimes.

Here's what Aramonte says, wow, what a crazy timing. Just as the Senate Speaker is stalling on a bipartisan neocon bill to funnel another $61 billion to Ukraine as well as Israel and everybody else. If he doesn't obey, he'll be accused even more of failing to confront the serious national security threat from Russia. That does seem to make a lot of sense. And that's what we got.

Hypes about national security threats that we can't, but they urge come. CBS News the next day following the House Intel chairs alert about national security threats. CBS has learned it's linked to the launch of a Russian rocket carrying. a classified military payload. It comes as the White House urges Congress to pass the bell. It's all coming down. I know I'm hyping it for fun. Now, you know, it's certain. There's obviously, we should be aware of a foreign country. Lot of it. My point would be, first of all, nobody owns space. It's not your, you don't have any right to control what people can do in foreign areas. But this is my point about what the hell is going on in space these days. I'm really worried about what

the hell. They've had ability to be doing things up there and built for a very long time. my weird my personal opinion based on nothing about my gut feeling is that there's like a wild west going up there right now all sorts of things happening how would we even know anyway different conversation at some point that's going to be one that we really get into but Russia launches a rocket sort of starts to feel like bolton telling us a credible threat is coming from Iran that turns out to be moving boats in their own harbors is this that equivalent is this Russia launching a rocket in its own air base and has nothing to do with, who knows? I don't know why we would trust what our government tells us about their adversary. That seems pretty stupid. But either way, well, the point was simply that, you know, so it's a Russian threat in space or a rocket that we can't verify that comes right on the heels of them needing to justify sending more money to Ukraine.

That seems like a perfect setup. But who knows? Either way, do you realize how many times have been lied to about Russia or anything else? the Russian, you know, inflicting Trump and the Russian propaganda and the elections and the fake, I mean, I can go on forever with Biden's conversations or the dossier. I mean,

they've lied, top of lies on top of lies that have been like literally proven, even in corporate conversations. And now we're supposed to just believe what they tell us about what Russia did. Consider it, sure. Should be. But even then, if Russia launches a rocket that carries a military payload, Does that worry you?

I mean, it would worry me as much as it would worry from any government doing it, but I would be quite frankly far more worried if Israel, the United States was doing that, and I can promise you they've already done that. Now, Ozzy Kossack points out something. Again, I'm not going to play it, it's very graphic, but you can watch this. It'll be in the show notes. The point is the reports have come out that Ukraine has bombed Belgarad. Here is the breakdown from your news.

Russian border city of Belgarod hit by missile strike. This was today. killing six people, including a child. Now, state-owned media reported that a shopping center had been struck in the southwest of the city. The governor of the shop, of the network, of the neighborhood, reported that a school stadium had also been hit. That's why he says a playground, so it's a school overlap. But he says, the six people were killed, according to the Russian official, while he's team were injured. You know, question it, of course, because we, any coming, anything coming from the government, we should question.

The government of the Belgrade Oblast claimed that there were five children among the injured. Now, of course, here is somebody covering this from the, you know, Western corporate media perspective saying, is Russia trying to deflect questions over the sinking of another warship? See, if the Western media were covering me saying that, they would call that conspiracy theory.

And in fact, that's what it would literally be. I don't mean that in a derogatory way. You're grabbing from whole cloth here. Could this be a lie to cover this thing up that we haven't proven either? It could be. That's not news. that's hype about something you think may be happening.

My point would be, sure, everyone is the right to do that. But when corporate media does it, it's insightful estimation about the reality. It's sort of like when you're playing with fast company in a poker game, you know, real poker players, and they decide to bluff on a very bad hand. Well, it's because they're good, right? They know what they're doing.

But somebody sits down and has never played before and they just play with a bad hand. Well, how dare you do the thing that he just did? But it's okay when he does it because he knows what he's doing. It's you're all playing with the point is, it's anybody telling you this is the case or even just floating

a completely independent of fact statement should be regarded as that you're hyping something you don't know but it's okay to talk about things that might be happening but in the context of the corporate media you're taking an event

that appears to be based on many different examples Ukraine murdering children and just going could this be Russia trying to frame this and hide that okay maybe you should start with proving

that they even had something to do with it then go maybe this is them trying to hide this. But you're jumping to the conclusion at first they did it. Then here's why they might have done it. I hope you get my point. That is a guess upon a guess upon a guess. That's them trying to drive you in a very certain direction.

This says, according to Russia's Ministry of Defense, Air Defense systems destroyed 14 rockets over Belgrade. So in case I didn't make it clear, this is in Russia. The ministry claimed that Ukraine had launched their RM70 vampire, multiple-want rocket systems around midday local time. Elgarada has been the target of multiple air attacks as Ukrainian military tries to make the war as visible and tangible as possible within Russia.

Which, by the way, is... Can you imagine if anybody was bombing inside of the United States? Can you imagine how they were responding? They would be bombing the entire country. Russia's not doing that. And you have to understand the kind of restraint that comes along with what... I mean, with Syria, with any of the other examples,

You can read that as good guy if that's how binary your worldview is, but it's not. It's just a government acting in its own interest. And the point is that they have never taken the bait in the Syrian conversation. They've constantly, I mean like incessantly over the years, not responded to acts that the U.S. government would have gone to nuclear war for. That's restraint. It's the opposite of the way they frame the Soviet Union or Russia. So here, the point is that you have Ukraine literally assassinating people in the capital of Russia,

You've got U.S. military helicopters dropping off Ukrainian assets in Russia. That was a U.K. Times article wrote that. Here we have Ukrainian military literally bombing civilian locations. Do you hear about this in the corporate media other than articles like this? Do you CNN, Fox News? Nothing. Now, here's my point about this. Ukraine is trying to pretend like this wasn't them. Certainly could be.

Consider the possibility that Russia bombed its own city to blame it on Ukraine when they know nobody's going to pay attention to that. My point would be Ukraine has already bombed Belgrade. The day earlier in this is an article from a month old. Ukraine carried out strikes on the Russian city of Belgarad that came one day after an 18-hour aerial barrage across Ukraine that killed 41 civilians, according to this article. Now, it certainly could be, though. I just haven't gone into confirm that.

Explosions in the center of Belgarat on Saturday killed 21 people. My point is about the bombing of Belgarat. on the record countless times that Ukraine has already done this. So explain for me why it would make sense in this context that while Ukraine is publicly committing crimes that are way more grotesque than this every day in Donbass and Ukraine everywhere else, that this would be what happens when all of the evidence suggests the obvious. And they're trying to send money to these neo-Nazis who are bombing children in Russia and killing people in Ukraine who are making it illegal to do.

anything Russian who are literally committing acts of war crimes right now. Now, a few other examples of how I see this, the reason this is being included stemming off of the point of the bill, as well as the security threat, is where I think it's all leading into this hype about trying to create the dynamic, whether just for the bill or something bigger. This is something that came out that I checked with Freddie Ponton and people that speak French in general,

that he seems to think this is a fake story. And I trust his instincts on this, because I can't confirm what this person's saying, and this is recorded from a screen and so on. Overall, what it was saying, and I think just the propaganda side of it, it's important. This guy is a pretty large account, I think. No, 20,000.

It was bigger than that. Basically saying, according to French media, Ukraine tried to lure President Macron into Ukraine to kill him and blame it on Russia, which sounds like exactly kind of something they would do. But based on what this report is saying, basically he feels like this is a fake news story. My point is I think that's why these kind of things are being seated.

is to create this kind of error in general. Like to keep the war dynamic going. I think that's important, things like this. It is abundantly clear, this is Project Syndicate, that if Russia is not defeated in Ukraine, that they will attack other countries. So European governments must pledge their support. I mean, where is that even coming from?

Has Putin said that? No, he said the opposite. Has any element of the Russian government claimed that's what they do? Nope, nobody. So what it amounts to is the U.S. elements who have lied endlessly about all of their adversaries, especially Russia, telling you that they secretly wink, wink, are going to take over every country just after they take over this country that you forced them into invading. Because that's what happened.

You literally drove them into it with constant incestion, red line crossing, poking eyes, bombing, and then they finally went, oh, I knew it. They were going to do it. I knew it. And they were going to do this. It's just so ridiculous. And again, that is literally while the group that they're funding, they're arming, they're spending money,

want to send $60 billion to is publicly telling you that we will spread the white race around the world. That is the Ozzov movement, the right sector. They've publicly said this. They've had hear up meetings where they come up and say, I know the U.S. is saying this, but that's not true. This is what we're going to do. I've played these for you. I just can't get past how dumb that is.

They were watching that and they're just inversing the reality. It is a grotesque inversion of what's actually happening, which is everything they do. And to end on a clip from RT that's talking about something that's very interesting that will kind of segue into the things we'll get into and probably one of the next shows. And the reason I'm playing it today,

one is to show you how crazy this is, but overall that this is largely what I think, or I shouldn't say largely, in part, is what's being protected in whatever the hell they're doing in Ukraine. It is not about supporting human life, human rights or freedom, as they literally fund the worst people on the planet and support the ongoing genocide,

this is the kind of stuff that they're hiding from you. It has found evidence suggesting that Western pharmaceutical companies had been carrying out drug trials on Ukrainians for nearly a decade. Even newborns were said to have been involved. Now, this all allegedly took place following the 2014 coup. R.D. Steve Sweeney picks up the story. Reconstruction work is taking place across Mariupol, with many of the buildings here destroyed during the fighting.

More is being discovered about what happened in the city along the way. In December 2023, construction workers at this former psychiatric hospital made a shocking discovery. In this basement, they found a trove of documents and medication, indicating that mass clinical trials had taken place on the local population for many years. Many different drugs have been tested according to the files and the documents that we found. This map indicates the scale of the operation, of the operation with experiments taking place at least eight centres across the city. Authorities believe that this is just the tip of the iceberg.

We found documents that suggested thousands of people have been involved in experiments, with trials carried out for major pharmaceutical companies, including Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline and others. Bloods and other samples were collected and then sent to labs and clinics in Europe and the United States for testing, the results of which are unknown. Most shockingly, children and newborn babies are included among the list of those exposed to the testing, which one doctor says is not only unethical, but potentially unlawful. First of all, the illegal participation in such research and the illegal conduct of such research

violate one of the most important laws, the law and the value of human life and the value of health. In addition, any such research involves sending biological material, including that containing sensitive information. such as genetic data or certain genetic polymorphisms to third parties who can use this information for completely different purposes. We can't be sure what happened, how the ethics of such experiments was considered acceptable, and the clinical trials approved.

We didn't see any documents and were unable to trace the patients involved, with what really happened in Mariupol, shrouded in secrecy. But Ukraine has a history when it comes to children and drug trials. In 2013, scandal broke out in Ukrainian Rada, when concerns were raised over orphaned children being allegedly used as human guinea pigs, tested on without consent, with the regional hospital in Poltava not having the necessary approval to carry out clinical trials. Procedures for clinical trials of medications submitted for registration have been carried out in Ukraine with numerous violations.

A glaring fact is the conduct of tests involving orphans, including after the expiration of their insurance contract, or without the permission of one of the parents, and even worse, with violations of the information consent of minor patients. But instead of taking action, the Ministry of Health went on the offensive, with the lawmakers who raised the issue threatened with having charges brought against them. As officials denied that children had been tested on in Poltava, they said, Such trials were against the law, opening serious questions about what happened in Mariupol. The Prosecutor's Office, the Regional Health Administration of Poltava Regional State Administration and the Ministry of Health carried out an investigation and concluded that no clinical trials or testing of any drug or vaccine in the Palatawa region or in the whole of Ukraine were performed. Firstly, it is forbidden by law.

Drug companies often seek to offshore clinical trials on humans to developing and emerging countries, where they can find a large pool of vulnerable people, along with a lax regulatory framework. Post-Soviet countries remain fertile ground and given the level of corruption in Ukraine, it became a prime target. The first clinical trials took place there in 1996. In 1998, just 20 international trials took place in Ukraine.

Within 10 years, this figure reached 466, with an upward trend continuing. 888 clinical trials were taking place in Ukraine in 2022. The number of sites approved to conduct clinical trials followed a similar trend, rising from 175 in 2001 to more than 1,300 in 2009. One of the drug companies listed in the documents found in the Mariupo Basement, Sanofi, was so keen to continue its trials that they evacuated people to Western Ukraine. Sanofi's teams on the ground have made really heroic efforts to move patients from the study out of Ukrainian territories affected by the conflict and to the relatively safer west of the country or into clinical sites in neighboring countries.

Of course, perfectly legal and above board, even if morally suspect. One name crops up in the documents over and over again. Dr. Andreg Nilaribov. He is now understood to be in Kiev. Kiev an expert rheumatologist his career built off the back of the tests that took place in Mariupol. Grylovov is well-paid and lives a comfortable life unlike many of his former patients. My mother got sick they gave her drugs. I asked her what medications she was taking but she didn't give me a clear answer. She said that the drugs were simply given from a white box. Her condition worsened

over the course of a month and then she died. They did not take any responsibility, did not find anyone, and did not provide any help. Big pharmaceutical companies ensure their contracts contain clauses that exclude such payouts as they make bumper profits for their shareholders. These boxes of documents contain the secrets of the mass trials and experiments that took place here in the Donets Republic. Full investigations will take time and may reveal just how the people here were used as human guinea pigs.

Well, I mean, it's, I mean, first and foremost, obviously, like any other source, question it, right? Whether it's RT or Last American Vagabond or Fox or CNN, question it, do your due diligence on it as we have many times on this show about these very conversations about the bio labs, which it's very real. Now, whether or not the evidence they found is real, we should question. obviously you could argue Russia specifically has an interest in framing that, but you could also argue should that be the truth that their interest is showing you that. That's the kind of point where I always point that out where oftentimes what we see as the right thing just becomes advantageous because of circumstances for people in government positions. Doesn't always mean they're fighting for the right side of things.

Either way, you can see how exposing that would be in their interest, but also manufacturing a lie about it would be too. But my gut tells me that's exactly what's happening. The evidence is overwhelmingly obvious whether Russia's pointing out or not. And we've seen, I mean, Brooke Jackson exposed one of these exact things. The very first interview she ever had about this topic was with me about how they, how Bentavia was caught with working with Pfizer, fraudulently manipulating data.

I mean, it's provable. We have the receipts in the three interviews we did about this. It's just overwhelming corruption. And this is no different than that. Utilizing children, I mean, this is the kind of stuff they do with their bio labs, just ask, people that live in Georgia, the country. It's a scream about these bio labs run by the United States.

They make people sick. They put out weird color smoke and they all get sick the next day. It happens constantly. I mean, it's so disgusting. My point is that's just one thing. Imagine that goes well outside the realm. Like, we tend to want to make it about one important thing. And maybe it is.

But the biolab conversation, right? The money laundering aspect, like the Hunter Biden over a lot, all these things are simultaneously. in one of these kind of situations. And there's multiple situations like this all over the world. It's bigger than we think. My point is that these people are doing dark and surreptitious things with your tax dollars under your name telling you they're fighting for good things.

And that's not me being jaded, guys. That's our history. We can prove that. Look, I'll hope like anybody else that it's on a better path today. But as they keep funding the most obvious genocide we ever lived through, I kind of find it hard to believe. thank you for tuning in, continuing to stand up for what's right, and in finding the time to not only research and understand what we're talking about, but share this with people who need

to be, you need to see it, who need to understand this, people who, you know, I mean, really anybody, but obviously people who are objective enough to be able to have a conversation about it, try with everybody, but find the courage to walk that path, even though you know people might give you a weird look. It's important. Do the right thing at all costs. Thank you for tuning in today. If you'd like to support us, all the links are down below, all the different ways you can support this platform because as we continue to move forward,

we need your support. And if you believe in what we're doing, if you believe in me in our effort to do the best we can with the truth we can show you and do our research or do diligence and to fight for that objective truth, the objective research concept, and to help people see that the Twitter files version

of the current journalism world is not what it really is, well, support us. We would like to keep pushing that. So thank you for being here. I love you all. As always, question everything. Come to your own conclusions. Stay vigilant.