The Young Turks - Pathetic Petey's Pentagon - September 3, 2026

Episode Date: September 4, 2026

Cenk Uygur’s chair literally breaks during a heated argument with Piers Morgan, while Sen. Thom Tillis is calling for Pete Hegseth to be fired as pressure mounts on the Pentagon chief. Meanwhile, CodePink alleges that the Iranian wedding strike was carried out with three U.S. precision-guided missiles, Ted Cruz is already looking for staff for a potential 2028 presidential campaign, and Republicans reportedly fear Donald Trump could hoard super PAC money instead of spending it on the midterms. Daniel Bessner joins the show to discuss “Imperialist Realism,” and Alan Dershowitz gets demolished in a debate with Dave Smith. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

You're listening to The Young Turks, the online news show. Make sure to follow and rate our show with not one, not two, not three, not four, but five stars. You're awesome. Thank you. Don't you wish you could just hit skip on the worst parts of your life? You know the same way you can skip an ad. I get it. I'm Siaya and I live in Ice Cove. I've made some questionable decisions that didn't end up the way I planned.

And today I'm still figuring it out. somehow things usually get worse before they get better. Apparently, that's how I roll. So bundle up and come along for the bumpy ride. Stream a new episode of North of North Tuesdays on CBC Gem. We're just sitting over there in his cabin, doing some hunting and fishing. Thank you, Granite, Kusparin with you guys. Fascinating stories for you all today.

Is Pete Hegseth a goner? We'll talk about that in a little bit. Ted Cruz tries to take on Tucker Carlson, that's funny. Alan Dershowitz tries to take on Dave Smith, that's funny. Donald Trump is supposed to take on Democrats, but he's not going to. That's funny. So apparently in the midst of tragic news, we have plenty of funny stories. Casper, how you doing?

I'm a little under the weather, but other than that, I'm doing okay, hanging in there. Well, we appreciate you soldiering on and joining us anyway. We appreciate the nice sweater look you got going on and the Lego set in the background. and, you know, everybody's, everybody's a winner today. Yes. And today we also explain the mystery of the chair on Pierce Morgan. Oh, no. Let me play a little mashup of your nephew, Chang, has some pike it.

And the controversial things he said about this. Oh, here we go back to. Well, I'm just sorry. We're going to talk about Mike Rogers. There's so many funny parts about that, right? First, the chair gives in on me. Secondly, I just keep going. Third, we'll analyze what I actually said and I'll explain it.

And I'm going to also explain to you what actually happened. We're going to solve the great mystery of the collapsing chair. So Casper, what do you got on this one? Okay, so I watched the debate immediately after it was published yesterday. And I have so many comments. But honestly, Jillian Michaels and her unbearable facial expressions throughout the debate, which really is her only contribution to any debate, was so distracting that I almost didn't even notice your chair moment, believe it or not. So. Yeah, well, that is hard to

believe. But we all went on like it didn't happen. So, you know, it's hard to blame you on that one. The internet noticed afterwards. Of course, of course. Well, let me set this up for the audience in case you guys missed the debate. We're not going to show you highlights of the entire debate, but I want to show you what led up to this moment where it looked like Jenks chair like kind of gave out. So they were obviously debating the Iran war. And the woman that you're going to hear Jenk debating is Rana McDaniel, who used to be the head of the Republican National Committee.

Not anymore. There were some questions about where some of the funds for the RNC went under her leadership. But that's not what they're debating. talking about the Iran war, and more importantly, they're debating Hassan Piker and his influence over the Senate candidate in Michigan, the Democrat, of course, Abdul al-Said. Let's take a look. So since there are almost no defenders of Abdul al-Said and media, I'm going to declare myself an unsanctioned surrogate for Abdul, and I will take on anyone.

I will debate anyone on this Michigan Senate race. Mike Rogers has worked for Israel for 20 years, trying to drive us into this disastrous war for 20 years. He also, by the way, takes money from telecommunication companies, big pharma. He believes in on spying on you. After Stoughton, he wanted to spy on Americans even more. He's in favor of the surveillance state. No one asks him any of these questions. Why is the media so biased that they won't ask Mike Rogers a single tough question?

But all they ever do is, oh, Abdul al-Said, he's so Muslim. He's so Muslim. Well, you should hate him because he's Muslim. That's all this press ever does. And I'm ready to defend Abdullah. Yes, anyone. Go ahead, Ron. Give me your BS and let me kill it.

Let me destroy your nonsense talking points. Go ahead. First of all, you're so vitriolic. Can we just have a conversation? And it's not fair to say that people who disagree with us are law. I don't like our country being dragged into war. 18 Americans are dead because of your beloved Israel. That's why I'm vitriolic.

So that was the lead up. As you can tell, Jank is very passionate. typical jank passion, really peak jank passion in that moment. And then this happens. I don't like people saying, I hate America and I deserve 9-11. We deserve 9-11. Yeah, your nephew said that. We love America. We love America so much. We want to represent America instead of Israel. He put a picture of the twin towers being blown up behind him because he loves America. Okay, okay. Let me stop you there. Let me play. Give me a break. Let me play a little mashup of your nephew, Cheng, has a biker, and the controversial things he said about this. Oh, here we go.

Here we go back to. Well, I'm just sorry. Are we going to talk about Mike Rogers? Hang on. Okay, so you're going to address the chair, but before you do, Jank, I just want to address something else. I'm personally getting kind of sick of shows like Pierce Morgan Show, bringing you on specifically to play the role of defending objectionable things that Hassan might have said on his stream.

So he prepared a compilation video of Haas saying, man, I really hate America. I hate America. And so you knew what was coming. And I'm guessing that's why you got even more riled up. But I would get riled up too because obviously there's a game being played here. And I think it's so irritating because you just happen to be his uncle. And for, I don't know, I guess we believe in blood guilt in this country now. So I guess you are responsible for everything that Hassan has ever uttered because you guys are related.

to each other. Okay. Yeah. So okay, let's dive in. So first off, you're right, Anna. My issue isn't defending what Hassan has said. I disagree with some of the things he said pretty aggressively. And Hassan and I have multi-hour debates all the time, two hour, three or four-hour debates. It's not because we agree on those issues. We disagree. By the way, there's plenty of issues that he's great on. We totally agree on Medicare for all. the wars, getting money out of politics. So that's the core of the left and that's great and I'll defend that any day all day. Now I'm corny patriotic and Hassan will be the first to tell you, we, you know, he, I love America.

In fact, Hassan has said to me like me and Abdul al-Said are like, he thinks maybe the two most patriotic guys on the left and I'm super proud of that. And if people think, oh, that's corny or jingoist thing, I got no problems with that. We literally have the American flag in our background here. So what I can't stand is not critique of Hassan, who cares? You can critique Hassan, me, any, you know, host, influencer, that's no big deal at all. What I object to is the trick that's being played here. So the trick is, oh, I don't want you to find out about Mike Rogers.

Mike Rogers has been saying nearly identical things to Benjamin Netanyahu for the last 20 years. He's been trying to start this Iran war and said Iran was wrong. Right around the corner from having nukes in 2006, literally 20 years ago, and he's been saying it for 20 straight years, whatever Netanyahu says, Mike Rogers' parents. Now the media doesn't want you to know that because they realize that Israel is very unpopular now, so they try really hard to hide that from you. So Mike Rogers is also on several occasions, I'm gonna talk about this later tonight on the revolution, has taken a million dollars from the healthcare industry and has blocked

our ability to negotiate drug prices. Now if you're actually concerned about socialism or communism, you'd be super worried about that. Wait, Mike Rogers helped to kill the free markets. Don't ever, ever talk about Mike Rogers. Don't ever criticize Mike Rogers because we need him to win. That's what mainstream media has done. They have not told you either of the two facts I just told you.

They haven't told you one negative thing about Mike Rogers. Now the thing is they actually haven't told you anything negative about Abdul al-Said either. That's why they, because they don't have anything. So that's why they go to, well, he once knew Hassan Piker and Hassan, so and Hassan once said this and this and this, so we're gonna try to distract you as if Hassan is running and not Abdul. And on the issue that people get most upset about, you know, Hassan's lack of patriotism, I don't know if that's fair, but he certainly said a lot of harsh things about America, right?

Abdul's the exact opposite of him. But again, the media wants to lie to you. They don't want you to find out the truth, they don't want you to find out how pro-American America, Abdul al-Saeed is, by the way, is Sagar and Jetty talked about it with Tucker Crosson yesterday. And he's like, he's running a very pro-America campaign. The right wing now is more generous and accurate and fair than mainstream media. Mainstream media is a bunch of bigots who attack Abdul and anyone there like is vaguely

Muslim, just let's just, you know, just try to destroy them. So that's why I was super proud of that appearance there because I said, look, I don't care if I'm a surrogate or not and you want to attack surrogates. I don't care about any of that. All I care about is I'm here to set the record straight. Mike Rogers has been screw you over and you pay much higher drug prices because of Mike Rogers because he took a million dollars in bribes from the pharmaceutical companies, the health issues companies, et cetera.

And we're in a disastrous war in Iran, you're paying higher gas prices and all of that. He is hurting your actual pocketbook, your lives in Michigan. Why? Because he took bribes from the Israeli lobby. I mean, these things are obvious, empirical, and unquestionable. So that is why I care about this distraction technique that they're using. Now, in the midst of that, what happened with the chair? It's the most benign thing ever.

I mean, I get it. Israel wanted to send a message, so they played around with my chair, okay? But to be fair, that chair was promised to them 3,000 years ago. Oh, my gosh. So they could do anything they want with it, right? And so, and look, and if you question that they own that chair and all of your chairs and all of your houses, especially if you're in Palestine or in Lebanon, well, then you're an anti-Semite, right? Now, of course, the reality is just super random. We do these in like a lot of times in vans, and they've been great.

That one day, they literally might have to screw loose, and so it fell out of nowhere. And the first thing I say is I go, I seeped it. And I know. I caught it. I caught it. Yeah. Because like when a chair falls out of nowhere that you're sitting on, because guys, it's screwed into the ground.

So it's not like, oh, you're overweight. And I did it. By the way, have I lost 40 pounds? I have. Not a big deal. Okay. So less likely to happen because of the weight. But if you want to say it's because of the weight, have that at Haas.

I don't mind at all. Ben Shapiro tried that today. And I said. Oh, Ben is so clever and original. Wow. He's like, no, it wasn't because of Israel. Dude, I'm joking. of course it wasn't because of Israel.

He's like, it is because you are overweight. Ha ha, I got you. I'm like, boy, that's really clever. I bet no one has thought of that. Oh, look, literally every single comment. Okay. Has he thought about maybe writing some screenplays? Oh, yeah.

Well, people will buy it. Yeah, well, I know that's why he got into entertainment in the first place. And after he failed, he realized, oh, if I just do Israeli propaganda, people will pay me tens of millions, maybe hundreds of millions of dollars to do that propaganda. Anyway, I told Ben, I get it. You're a little bitter because you need to use ottomists to step into your chair because you're as tiny as your audience. So we're having fun back and forth.

But the reality is just the tech mechanical error. By the way, if you don't know what Hasikder means, it means, oh, F, in Turkish. It's like the most common curse in Turkey. And my wife's like, don't use that curse, you know, the kids, my mom comes over watching World Cup soccer and she's like, ah, sikder. So all of Europe knows that curse. And then I said, and then I can't, Anna, the thing I'm probably most proud of is can't stop, won't stop. I just kept going.

No, I know. I know. I know. I know. I know the feeling when there's like a big distraction in the middle of something you really want to communicate, you got to keep going. You can't let the distraction win. So I'm proud of you on that. But there was a distraction that did win, unfortunately because it unfortunately absorbed all my attention. And it was this, let's just do a quick, like, we get it, we get it. Like, please go back to acting school. No one's buying your little facial expression thing that you're doing throughout the entire debate.

It's so annoying. But anyway, just wanted to get that off my chest. Okay. And look, one last piece of irony there, Anna, is that it brought so much more attention to my attacks against Mike Rogers where people like, oh, really? Wait, he's been wanting this war for 20 years while I'm against this war. How come nobody told us that? Exactly.

Yeah, exactly, yep. And I'll say this too, one super last thing. Hey, everybody do likewise, you know, in your own way, if you're, you know, just a regular citizen, say it on social media, if you're another host who's progressive, I don't care what part of the political spectrum you're on, or an independent, or if you're honest, like Saga and Tucker Tucker flat out said, you know, that he, Abdul O'Side, is the better candidate, the more American candidate than Mike Rogers is. Saga agrees, right?

So if all though, if that coalition that believes in American sovereignty goes and votes together, this race will not be close. So everybody, influencers, hosts, get out there, it doesn't matter if you're sanctioned or official or unofficial, be a surrogate, be a defender in your own way, show Mike Rogers real record on so many of these issues. It's a disastrous on every single issue. Everybody go out there and fight. There is no cavalry. The Democrats are betraying Abdul al-Said. The mainstream media never liked him in the first place because he doesn't kiss Israel's ass. So he's up against every part of the establishment. So if the entire population fights back, though, we're stronger than they are, and he'll win this race.

All right, well, let's get to some other news today, namely the fact that more and more Republican members of Congress have been feeling confident enough to speak out against Pete Heggseth. Let's get into it. Pete Heggseth under fire. More Republicans joining Democrats criticizing the defense secretary. One senator calling his management inept. Republican Tom Till is saying, I have never witnessed more inept management of the brave men and women who serve our country. He is intimidated by competence and retreats to ginning up culture wars. Tillis urging the president to find a new leader at the Pentagon. That is really interesting because not only is a Republican senator like decimating the secretary defense, but he threw in a couple of references to drinking there. And I don't think that that was an accident.

So a full out assault, not just by Tom Tillis, by a lot of factions of the Republican Party against Hegseth now. So let's tell you the whole story and why are they doing it. That's really interesting. Anna, tell us why or tell us how. Well, you're you're absolutely right in that Tillis's criticism of Secretary of Defense or War. Pete Hegseth is pretty candid, incredibly harsh, likely because he's, let's keep it real, retiring and he's not seeking re-election. So usually when lawmakers don't seek re-election, they start to say things that they otherwise wouldn't say. But But there are some other lawmakers on the right who are speaking out. We'll get to them in just a minute.

But first, more from Tillis's letter, where he wrote the following. I have never witnessed more inept management of the brave men and women who serve our country. He is intimidated by competence and retreats to ginning up culture wars instead of soberly attending to the vital work of our national defense and the health and well-being of our fighting force. So to your point, Jank, he absolutely is making references to Pete Hegseth's battle with alcoholism. Now, Hegseth has been at odds with the military leaders and lawmakers over his handling of the Iran war. I don't think that there's any mistake about that. You can kind of see it playing out in real time because the way that Pete Hegzith has kind of treated his role as, you know, the head of the Secretary of Defense is everything's a culture war. We want more testosterone. Women are not going to be on the front lines.

You know, everything is about the culture war. And to be honest with you, that's not really conducive to being prepared for a major military operation or a war against a country like Iran. And so let's begin with the financial strain that the Pentagon is facing due to the war. I wouldn't say that this is only Pete Higgs's fault. I think the American people have been lied to again and again in regard to the very real costs associated. with this war. And some of the numbers I'm going to give you are underestimates. I want to be clear about that. But the House did pass a stopgap spending bill this week, basically to avert another government shutdown. And it does not provide the tens of billions of dollars the Pentagon has requested.

They claim that they need more money to cover Iran operations, replenish munitions, and sustained forces whose deployments have been extended. And that's another thing. Hegisth has just announced another extension for the deployed troops. We'll get to that in just a minute as well. Now the administration's $1.5 trillion funding request follow three tracks with $1.15 trillion moving through the regular appropriations process. That's the usual NDAA, $350 billion through the Republican-only reconciliation process, and a separate $67.1 billion dollar Iran supplemental to cover war costs not built into this year's budget. Now, here's the thing, though, the House has made moves on this, but there's a problem in the Senate, as is usually the case. Now, in this particular situation,

it's a good thing that the Senate is kind of, you know, blocking certain things that maybe we shouldn't be funding. But nonetheless, the House moved part of that strategy forward in July by advancing a $95 billion reconciliation package aimed largely at those. Iran war costs, but the measure is stuck because it lacks the votes to pass in the Senate, which I think is fantastic. I don't think that we should be allocating tens of billions of dollars to a war that we're fighting on behalf of a foreign country, Israel, and we are currently $40 trillion in debt. Now, House Republicans are pushing hard to get the Senate to take this bill up as soon as they come back in session on September 14th. And we've already, you know,

basically spent an insane amount of money on the war. Now, this is the very very very very very, very conservative estimate, but there are other estimates showing that we've already spent close to $100 billion on the Iran war. But nonetheless, Operation Epic Furi, the Iran War, so far cost the Pentagon more than $42 billion, led by $15 billion for missile interceptors and $10 billion for the U.S. targeting campaign. And that's according to the American Enterprise Institute, which make make no mistake about it, they love the war, which is why they would provide an underestimate in regard to the costs. Now the Navy is bearing the brunt of the problem, especially since they're forced into these extended ship deployments. Admiral Darrell Klaudele, who's the chief of the

naval operations, told reporters last week that the Navy was facing a shortfall of $6 billion to $8 billion just to cover the Iran war costs. And the Navy was forced to transfer money from its its payroll, you know, payroll for their soldiers and other sources to basically cover the cost of combat. And so despite all of this and despite the fact that several military leaders have told Hegsit that prolonging this war is actually jeopardizing their ability to protect the homeland, Hegsith ordered some troops deployed into the Middle East to stay until 2027 or through 2027. So there is no real end date to this war jank. At the same time, the administration refuses to even refer to it as a war in a press conference today. Vice President J.D. Vance was asked,

when is this war going to end? And his first response was, I wouldn't call this a war. So it's just, it's a nightmare. But I, even though Hexeth is a total clown, I wouldn't put all the blame on him. There's a lot of incompetence to go around in this administration. Yeah, and when you talk about, you know, managing based on his insecurities and incompetence, that sounds a lot like his boss. Donald Trump rewards people based on loyalty, not on competence. He's so worried that he's going to be found out as incompetent that he keeps firing anyone who is competent. He's jealous of people who are competent. So when Tom Tillis said that of Pete Hegseth, I thought, yeah, that's a really good point about Hegseth as well. And it's no surprise that Trump

picked him. So there's the issue of Hegsith in this story and the Republicans are fed up with him. And I'll get back to why in a second. But there's also the issue of the troops. So I want to read a quote from Wall Street Journal that goes towards what Anna was explaining. It gives a tiny bit more detail here, but I think it's really important. They said the Pentagon could also keep elements of the Army's 82nd Airborne Division in the Middle East well into 2027, according to a letter sent by military leaders of families, which was viewed by the Wall Street Journal. So that means they're getting ground troops ready, and they explain that throughout the article. We got 50,000 ground troops there, and they're not going anywhere.

We're keeping them exactly there. Now, Anna, I'm pretty sure that whatever they're planning for before the election is mainly stalling, you know, economic sanctions, tit for tad bombing, they don't want war to get too out of hand. But they're not keeping those ground troops there for no reason. So, and especially given how much it has taxed those troops and how much people are worried about it and how much strain it's put on the military and our preparedness for self-defense and said, they're like, no, no, no, they're staying to 2027 and potentially through

2027. So that means there's no question yet after the midterm elections. If it doesn't happen before, it's a near guarantee that after the midterm elections, They're gonna expand this war into a much bigger conflict and potentially use ground troops. So yeah, can I can I weigh in on that please, Jen? Because I think that you're right about that. And what I think the American people should be concerned about in regard to all of the firings that Pete Hagezith has carried out of military leadership is that he was specifically targeting individuals who had a direct line of communication with President Trump. Now there is reason to believe, and I've heard multiple people who are close to Trump say this in various podcast interviews and things like that,

there is reason to believe that certain information isn't even getting to Trump, that he's as delusional as he is because people like Pete Heggzith within the administration are really engaging in this effort to cut that line of communication to military leadership that actually know what they're doing and know the reality of the situation on the ground. because we're not winning this war. And there is no way to take control of the Hormuz straight away from the Iranians. Just geographically speaking, it is not possible to do so militarily. But it does look like Hegzith is gungho in pursuing whatever military operation they have in mind. And, you know, one of the things that Republican lawmakers keep bringing up is the fact that military leadership has been ousted. Don Bacon, another Republican from Nebraska, expressed dismay over Army Secretary Dan Driscoll's resignation. He, of course, had tensions with Hegseth.

Bacon says that he's disappointed with all the firings of the generals and admirals, calling it one of the big negatives with Hegseth. The secretary has maybe a constitutional right to do this, but that doesn't make it morally right or wise. This has been a problem for all the services right now. service chiefs, joint commanders like cyber command, and it's not been healthy. And here's more from Bacon. Quick video. Republican Congressman Don Bacon, a retired Air Force general, is also questioning Heggseth's leadership. He would not be on my team. I think he has not been a very good leader in many ways. All of this as the war in Iran escalates. President Trump last night praised Hegst's handling of Tuesday's airstrikes. You did a good job last night in Iran, by the way. You're

knock the hell out of them. Very good. And now the Wall Street Journal reports, Hegsef has extended U.S. troop deployments in the Middle East until next year, despite a report warning from military leaders that a prolonged conflict in Iran could weaken the U.S. military's response to potential threats elsewhere. That warning, reported in the Washington Post, was dismissed by President Trump, who insists the military will have the resources it needs. So anyone who's just kind of chalking up Hegsith's failure as nothing more than, oh, well, he's too obsessed with culture wars, isn't really giving you the full picture. I do think that Hegsith is ideologically driven in the role that he's playing in the

Pentagon. And I think he wants this war. I think he wants to continue with actual kinetic warfare against Iran. I think he's delusional enough to think that we're going to get something out of this. But the reality is we're in a really bad spot. And our soldiers are already in a lot of trouble. We are not prepared to engage in any type of combat with Iran. But you're right.

You know, when you look at the movements in the region, it does seem like the Trump administration is preparing for something bigger. Yeah, so first of all, almost all the people coming out against them are retiring politicians. And there's a reason for that, you know, easier for them to do it and not incur Trump's wrath because Trump's already taken out a couple of these guys, but that also means that they're speaking for the legislators, the Republicans in Congress now who are not retiring. They, I guarantee you they've been asked by their colleagues, hey guys, since Trump can't do anything to you, can you please go attack Hegsith? Now why would they want him to do that?

Well, so number one, they could be worried about his actual incompetence and the fact that it is actually hurting our war effort and our troops. That's, even though the politicians are barely human, they could still be upset that we're not winning the war, and that goes towards their political agenda. And they might maybe one or two percent care about the troops. That's probably an absurd thing to say, but overall, they certainly care because of the midterms. The midterms, they're in a lot of trouble because of how poorly the war is going. And one of the things they want to be able to say is, oh no, the war was going poorly because

You had the wrong guy in there, Pete Hegesith, you know, it's saucing too much. And that's, if we get a good professional secretary defense, then we're gonna win. Then everything's gonna be fine. You'll see after the midterms, everything's fine. So he's being scapegoated and it's easy because he deserves it. So it's very credible and very believable to say that Hegseth's screwing up. It doesn't mean that's the only reason why the war is going poorly. In fact, that's a very small reason why the war is going poorly.

the war is going poorly, it's mainly because we shouldn't have gotten in the first place. It was a dumb war that we had no chance of winning. And to that point, Anna, this is really important in terms of what's going to happen next. Because to your point, Anna, about how Iran has a permanent advantage there, because it's their country that borders the Strait of Hormuz. We say, well, we've temporarily opened up the Strait of Hormuz, even if you believe that, So that means we have to stay there to keep the straight open. Well, how long are we gonna stay there?

We currently have 19 ships in that area, two aircraft carriers, and 13 destroyers. So that is an enormous number of warships to have in that area, and we've pulled from the rest of the world, and it's costing us a tremendous amount of money, and we're running out of missiles. So that's why I'm worried that after the midterms, they're gonna try to end this thing in a really foolish, disastrous way where they use ground troops and what other weapons they need to use to try to win this war. Because otherwise, the only remaining strategy is to stay there indefinitely for year after year to try to keep the Strait of Hormuz open, even if it's true that it's open temporarily.

So you see how it is totally impossible unless they go bigger. And that's why they're almost definitely going to do that after the midterms. Right. And, you know, keep your ears open for talk of tactical nukes and how the administration or proponents of the use of weapons of mass destruction try to differentiate between nukes and tactical nukes. You know, they try to make the argument that tactical nukes not as bad, not as bad. They are. And honestly, using nukes isn't going to solve anything. Even that is not going to solve anything. And so we'll see how this all plays out, but it doesn't feel good knowing that someone as inept as Pete Heggzeth is really, you know, the leader, the person making some pretty important decisions about this war. Yeah. And so it's not either or is it Pete Heggseth or Donald Trump or Israel who got us into the war in the first place?

No, all of them. No question about it. But to Anna's point, guys, the leaks give you the clues you need to figure out what's going to happen next. For example, now Wall Street Journal article and another one I read today. They were like, now ground troops are there just in case, just in case. Now we don't want to use the ground troops, but just in case, but they're going to stay there and they're going to stay there through 2027, ground troops, ground troops, ground troops. They're signaling later, they're going to say, well, we didn't want to use them like we told you two months ago, but we had to use them.

They preview that stuff, they test the waters, and they start getting you ready for that type of action. And what Anna is saying is super dangerous and true, and I did a whole, video about this over the weekend, you can check it out on our YouTube channel on the Young Turks, where I explained why that language about tactical nukes or limited nuclear strikes is super dangerous because they're setting up, oh, it's not torture, it's enhanced interrogations. So once they start playing word games with nuclear weapons, that means they're starting to think about using nuclear weapons. And if that happens, it is a catastrophe beyond anything we've seen in our lifetimes.

And so yes, this war is going that poorly. And yes, the people that want this war, Trump and the Israelis, are that monstrous where they're now thinking of not just genocide level, but Holocaust level action. Yeah. Well, when we come back from the break, we'll talk a little bit about a possible devastating war crime committed by the United States in Iran. It's the strike that hit the wedding in recent days. And we have some more details about what transpired with those strikes. So we'll be right back with that and more. Influencer Hassan Piker has disavowed those past comments he made.

A little longer as we had another chair malfunction, but it had nothing to do with collapsing. Things got wound up. Anyways, let's go to chair comments on t.y.t.com. Art guy says sabotage, clearly this chair related terrorism. to throw Jank off his game. Theater goddess says, I'm impressed by how quickly and professionally Jack moved past the chair thing.

There are professional performers who couldn't pull that off. No, when I'm, you know, when I get in a runaway freight train mode, ain't nothing going to stop me, okay? Wong John says, TYT's too strong, and that applies to the furniture too. True.

He also said, it's the great IKEA project. Get it? Greater Israel? That's funny. On Twitch, who's a boomer, says, I just love it, Jank. And Velvet Goldmite says, I love that you just kept going, Jank. Thank you guys.

I appreciate it. Now on to other comments, Jenks left tricever fury says, Jenk, the way they always bring up Hassan because they always bring up Hassan because they all put Muslims in a box because it's easier to be racist and attack them. And they want to get you to think like, oh, you don't want to vote for those Muslims. They hate America. Influencer Hassan Piker has disavowed those past comments. he made.

All right, back on TYT. I don't know what's going on the last couple of days, but the comments about Anna through the roof, now on X, we're back here on TYT and we're on X, we're on substack, we're on every platform, just type in TYT. Anyway, Don Thomas says, I love you guys. Thank you, Don, we appreciate it. Dio says, I love looking at Anna, hashtag respectfully, and drip Shapiro says, I love you, Anna, and I'll be your nurse if you need.

if you need and then has a laughing out loud emoji. Thank you. They're not the only ones offering to be your nurse, but yes, we love being on all these platforms. Check us out wherever you can. By the way, our 24-hour channels on almost all of your TV sets, the Samsung's, the LG's, Roku's, etc. Make sure you're checking that out. That's a great place to catch our entire network. All right, let's do the next story. So that is a Lego rendition of what happened recently when we bombed a wedding in Iran. We're going to share the facts of the story with you guys.

And we're going to show you one of the victims. It's heartbreaking. And there's one shocking fact about that bombing that'll get you to wonder what we're doing in Iran. Anna has got the whole story. Well, Jank, yesterday I discussed how the United States had basically expanded its airstrikes into southern Iran. Iran has retaliated since and the U.S. hasn't responded to that retaliation. Hopefully they don't, but we'll see what happens. Now, one of the strikes hit a wedding in a village in Syrac.

And, you know, the area where the village was taking place is a small coastal town along the Strait of Hormuz that's about 18 miles south of Manab. Manab, of course, is where we struck an elementary school multiple times, killing 150 little kids. And it's just it's disgusting to now see that we're potentially targeting civilian infrastructure and residential buildings. So the area that I'm talking about is comprised of densely packed homes and roughly 360 people live there. So it really is a like a small village, but it's very densely populated. And now we're learning that this small town was struck not once, but potentially multiple times based on. witness testimony. Now, of course, this includes the strike on the wedding, which took place at a

family home. And the strike on the wedding happened around 9.30 p.m. on Tuesday, local time. The New York Times worked with a weapons expert, and through visual analysis, they were able to determine and confirm that the strike was in fact carried out by American forces. You know, we have certain weaponry that other countries don't. And so the attacks on the area also hit a large, communications tower near the town's port, which then crashed across a street toward a corner store and residential buildings. Now, an important thing to know is at the time of the wedding strike, the U.S. was carrying out multiple strikes in the area, including toward this communications tower. According to Iranian state media, at the time that they reported this, four people,

two women and two children were killed at the wedding. The story was updated today, drop site news reporting that the death toll has now risen to five individuals. At least 68 others were injured. The Hormosgan University of Medical Sciences, where some of the people who are wounded or receiving treatment stated that at least 19 of those injured are under the age of 10. and the number of deaths could rise. So right now we know that five people have been killed in the strike. The youngest confirmed death was a four-year-old by the name of Amir Mohamed Karimi, just a little kid. So let's get into the news that makes this even more devastating, some of the bigger updates that we've learned about today. So there was at least one direct hit to the roof of the building where the wedding was taking place.

However, a state television reporter said three U.S. missiles were used in the attack. Three U.S. missiles. So obviously that there needs to be an investigation. We need to confirm that because that would suggest a triple tap on a wedding in a residential building. And with one penetrating through the roof and creating a 1.5 meter or 5 foot hole in the ground. And in a video released by Iranian state media, a woman with bloodied hands confirmed everyone present at the wedding were in fact civilians. She says, quote, this house was by no means close to any military site, she said, adding that it appeared the munitions were directly targeting the building. And so the attack on Kuzhak in the fourth episode reported by the Times in which strikes on structures with no military.

use were hit and civilians were killed. On February 28th, the first day of the U.S. Israeli war in Iran, a U.S. Tomahawk missile hit the elementary school in Manab, Iran, killing civilians. Most of them children, Iranian officials said. And, you know, if you don't trust Iranian officials, you don't have to because there have been independent investigations, including one carried out by the New York Times. And it has been confirmed that Tomahawk missiles were used in that Manab attack. And our government still refuses to acknowledge or apologize for it. Back to you, Jank. Yeah.

So I wanted you guys to see Amir Karimi's picture, the four-year-old, because, you know, Israel killed 23,000 kids in Gaza, but that's just a statistic. And, you know, Stalin had a great line about that. But if you see an actual picture and you see, oh, that's the kid we killed. And we're spending all this money to kill kids like that. Well, then it becomes more real. And that's why our mainstream media never shows you pictures of the dead in Gaza, because they know that if you see them, you'll relate to them as human beings.

And they don't want you to do that because they want you to finance Israel's war machine. And they want you to finance this war. So they try not to show you the pictures of the dead kids that either we're causing directly, in Iran or indirectly through our financing of the genocide in Gaza and now the West Bank. And so that's what our government's up to with your money. By the way, like are they doing anything to help increase your wages? Get you more health care, nothing. In fact, you're driving up your gas prices and all other prices just so they could have this war where we kill kids.

Now the shocking fact is the triple tap. I don't know that I've ever seen a triple tap. We've talked about double taps before. They're monstrous because usually you wait for the reason why you do a double tap is not to make sure you've killed everyone there, but for when rescue workers come, you kill the healthcare workers as well. And that's been perfected by the Israelis who do it all the time, and they're vicious, and that's why they're genocidal maniacs, and we still continue to fund them.

And just real quick, this is a triple tap. And that is so monstrous and especially against the wedding of civilian infrastructure that I don't know why they would have done that, Anna. I mean, is it the Palantir gave us the wrong coordinates, but they don't want to admit that that their AI and all their BS technology sucks? Is it that Israel gave us fake intelligence so we kill their civilians and they get upset and we get a larger war, which is what Israel wants? Is it just Trump and Hegs us incompetence?

I don't know, but you can't chuck it up to just incompetence because it's a triple tap which shows purpose and intent. You know, it's just to give you guys a sense of how much our government has devolved in this country. The reason why Chelsea Manning was arrested, imprisoned, put in solitary confinement is because she had leaked that video. of U.S. forces carrying out a double tap strike in, was it in Iraq or was it in Afghanistan? I can't remember. I think it was Afghanistan if I remember. It was Afghanistan. And so it was a video of the double tap.

And so you- Oh, no, I'm sorry. Kelsey's was in Iraq. Sorry. We hit a wedding in Afghanistan and Chelsea Manning Apache helicopter video was in Iraq. Apache helicopter, yes. That's the one I'm talking about. Okay, so yes, it was in Iraq.

And so when the first responders showed up, the U.S. military did the double tap. And Americans were outraged about it. They were outraged about it, you know. And so the government was embarrassed. And so they took it out on the leaker, which of course was Chelsea Manning. And now in this particular war against Iran, there are two instances. One for sure, it's clear that war crimes were committed with the Manab school bombing. And now this is potentially another example of the US potentially, we don't know for

for sure, there needs to be an investigation, but potentially carrying out intentional triple strikes on a freaking wedding full of civilians. And it's barely a blip on the radar. And so, look, we're going to talk to a friend of mine who just wrote a great book. His name's Daniel Bessner. He's also the host of American prestige, a fantastic podcast on foreign policy and imperialism. But, you know, what he focuses on in his new book, Jank, is that our empire, has now pivoted to a certain form of cynicism and you see it, it's open. It's out in the open,

right? You have someone like Trump talking about how like, yeah, we're gonna go and we're gonna take the oil. Whereas previously, US Empire was sold to the American people under the guise of, we're spreading democracy, we're actually improving the world, we're doing great things for people. Now, like all of that is gone. There's no facade at all. Yeah. And that scares me. Anna, to your point, so I just looked it up to confirm and actually the wedding strike we did back in 2013 was in Yemen, killed 12, injured 15. That was Barack Obama. So should you give Barack Obama a pass with that?

Absolutely not. It was atrocious, should have never happened, you should be just as angry about that. Partisan games are nonsense. Back then, I mean, there was not much, I mean, mainstream media didn't care. at all, they're like, oh, war for Israel is great at all times, it's no big deal. We've killed a bunch of Muslims, you know, good for business, whatever. They don't care, right? But there was some outrage by the American people about the Chelsea Manning double strike

and Obama hitting a wedding. Now what I'm worried about is the same thing you're worried about, which is we're normalizing outrageous things like double taps, triple taps, hitting weddings, murdering civilians, Trump constantly talking about how he's gonna wipe out their civilization and do, you know, something as big as D-Day and obliterate them and hits their bridges and civilian infrastructure. And now there's loose talk, as we talked about earlier in the show of tactical nuclear weapons and limited nuclear strikes. They're trying to normalize monstrous behavior, genocidal behavior.

And we can't let it become normal. Otherwise, you know, we lose ourselves entirely and we become a completely different country. And honestly, then we become the bad guys. And I don't want to be like Israel. I want to be the good guys. Yeah, I agree. I totally agree. Well, we got to take a break.

When we come back, we'll check in with Tel Aviv Ted. He's in the news these days. It looks like he's delusional enough to think that he has a chance at winning a presidential election. So we'll get into that and more when we return. Merge. All right, back on TYT. So let's go to Super Chat.

Kushranata writes in, even nukes couldn't affect a lot of Iran's weapons buried under a whole mountains. They used nukes, Iran goes all out on their closest ships and bases, which leads to ground forces, then draft, we are effed. So guys, if we don't throw out, I don't know how we're going to throw out the entire administration, but we should try them for war crimes afterwards if they use nukes. I don't want to hear a single person talking about how it might be okay. And I guarantee you what mainstream media will do is go, no, no, no, they don't mean

it, they don't mean it. They're just keeping all options on the table. And as soon as they do it, oh, we are outraged at Trump, just Trump, just Trump, just Trump, and then they'll fade into, well, it's kind of normal, it was just limited strikes, it was just technical, it's no big deal, it's no big deal. So it's no, it's a giant deal. And by the way, why do they want to use it? it's not gonna work it to like to your point, because Israel wants to send a message.

If you mess with us and you do not bow your heads and you do not destroy yourselves and submit to our rule over the Middle East, we have no moral boundaries. Either we will nuke you or we'll get our sucker cattle in America to nuke you. And so everybody better lay down and get on their knees for Israel. Otherwise, we're mass murdering fascists and we'll drop nuclear bombs on you. So that's what they're contemplating now because they are that monstrous. Mike or Dave says, is it just me or do the same people argue that Trump can rename Lake Ontario? Also argue that Palestinians don't have the right to call the land they have lived on for thousands of years, Palestine.

Yeah, it's the same people and you know who they are. Let me tell you about one of our sponsors that I think could help you. I like them. So you know that feeling that you're doing everything you're supposed to, you're supposed to eat healthy and work out, get sleep, take supplements. I do almost all that, no supplements. And you still wonder, is any of this actually working? I wonder that for a long time. So that's why I like true age tests from true diagnostic.

It uses epigenetics, which may sound complicated, but it's really about tiny chemical tags on your DNA that change in response to sleep, stress, diet. exercise in your environment. True age reads those tags to estimate how your body is aging. And unlike many biological age tests, their methods are published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and were developed with researchers at Harvard, Yale, and Duke. You get a clear picture of where you are and where you can improve. So if you're serious about longevity or even just curious whether your body is aging faster or slower than your actual age, this is one of the easiest ways to find out. Right now, go to truediagnostic.com and use code TYT for 20% off your entire order.

That's true diagnostic.com code TYT for 20% off. Obviously you could use that QR code on the screen as well. You always can when we have QR codes. And obviously my real age, once I look into it, will be 26. Everybody knows that. All right, so let's move forward. Let's give you the next story. Tucker Carlson has called for the president's impeachment and many accuse him of trying to jeopardize U.S. individual relations.

What do you say to those were uneasy with your close relationship with Carlson and claim that you're avoiding addressing a lot of these issues which may be causing divisions within the GOP? Well, look, I'm not avoiding addressing anything. Everybody knows that Tucker Carlson and I are friends. And I think it's very obvious that Tucker has said some things that I disagree with. He said some things about the President of the United States that I think are just wrong. I think yesterday somebody sent me a clip that said that he would support El Cyan over Rogers. I think El Cyan is a crazy person. So yeah, Tucker is a friend of mine.

Tucker is a friend despite the fact that we disagree on a number of things. And I'm not going to play the game where I throw friends under the bus because I have political disagreements with him. So it turns out this election on the Republican side is going to be all about Tucker Carlson. Because everybody's being made to explain, are you still friends with Tucker Carlson? You admit that Tucker Carlson is evil for criticizing beloved Israel. And Ted Cruz has apparently decided that he's going to base his entire presidential campaign on in his mind kicking Tucker Carlson's ass and kissing Benjamin Netanyahu's ass. So let's see how that works out for him.

Anna, tell us all about it. Yeah, I mean, look, it's really interesting to see how it's playing out on the right Because on the left, you see this cynical effort to tank Abdul al-Said's run for a Senate seat in Michigan through guilt by association. Oh, he did a few rallies with Hassan Piker, which means he agrees with literally everything Hassan Piker has ever said, which obviously isn't true. But it's used as a cynical ploy or plot to try to sink a candidate's candidacy. On the right, what's really, really fascinating to see is J.D. Vance's friendship, I guess, with Tucker Carlson, although I don't really know how deep that friendship goes. Just the mere fact that they've been friendly to each other and have some sort of association has led to, honestly, Zionists on the right, using that relationship to try to harm J.D. Vance's chances of winning the nomination in 2028. We all know he's going to try to run. To be quite frank, I think any Republican who thinks they're going to win in 2028 is probably delusional at this point.

The Republican Party, thanks to Trump, thanks to the fact that he dragged us into an incredibly unpopular war, is going to hurt Republicans in the 2028 ticket. But what's amazing to me is, look, Jay, I got to keep it real. Like Tucker Carlson says things that really do shock me. So if I were a right winger, like a hardcore neo-conservative right winger, which let's keep it real. That's what the Republican Party has been. And Trump gave people the impression that he was going to change things. He didn't change things.

But Tucker Carlson definitely gets under the skin of any neo-conservative Republican. And I think he's even starting to say things that go in the direction of true economic populism, you know, when he's calling out AI, when he's talking about how he would ban AI to say. jobs for truckers. Like, that is not the kind of rhetoric that you hear from even an anti-imperialist, anti-war right winger. So with that all in mind, he recently had Sagar and Jetty on his show, and they talked about the Senate race in Michigan and get a load of what Tucker Carlson had to say. Abdul al-Sayat, who's running in Michigan against Mike Rogers, who, as you and I know, probably the most pro-intel neocon. They couldn't find anybody else to run in Michigan for the United States. Who, by the way, lost already.

Why are they running him again? Anybody want to tell me that? Mike Rogers is really, I wouldn't vote for Mike Rogers at gunpoint. Right. And so that's the candidate, the guy, a literal loser who lost when Donald Trump won the state just to show you how much of headwind he had at his back. It's basically a tool of Israel and the intel agencies. How would you run someone like that?

Exactly. It doesn't even make sense. I mean, obviously, I agree with Tucker Carlson, but I don't agree with Tucker Carlson because I buy into the left-right paradigm. I don't think that paradigm makes any sense anymore. I agree with Tucker Carlson because I think it's far better for the United States to elect politicians on both sides of the political aisle who are committed to focusing on the United States of America, okay, focused on rejecting the constant pressure

to send our precious and finite resources to a foreign country that has not, acted as an ally to the United States, has acted more as an enemy that takes advantage of us than an ally would. And so when you're seeing past that left right paradigm, hearing Tucker Carlson say what he's saying isn't all that shocking. But it is shocking if you buy into, oh, I'm team left or I'm team right. I just want to elect people who want to focus on this country. I understand that I have some views that are more, I guess, ideologically liberal or whatever, progressive than conservatives. But that's fine. I would support a conservative who's an anti-Zionist who wants to focus on fixing what's broken here in the United States, as opposed to a liberal who is in the pocket of these Zionist organizations that want to send our service members to die off in wars that are being fought on behalf of Israel.

That's my worldview right now. But I'm curious what you think. And I think that little clip there was actually groundbreaking and potentially massively important in American politics. I'm going to explain why in a sec. So first of all, there's one thing I will address that they said that I think is kind of obvious. They're like, why would they run Mike Rogers again?

He's a proven loser. He's not very good at this. He's not very popular. All of his positions are deeply unpopular. We shouldn't negotiate drug prices. which just like drug companies charge anything they want. He loves data centers. He's been fighting for this war for 20 years.

But that's why they ran him because they know here's a guy who will do everything the donors tell them to do. That's the only metric by which they judge a candidate. Oh, is he a sock puppet for Big Pharma? Great. And that's our guy. And for all the donors. So now in terms of what's happening here, look, first I let me address the left.

Are we out of excuses yet? Because first I was told nobody's gonna break from Trump, then they broke from Trump. Then they say, yeah, but they're not gonna say they were wrong and apologize. Then they said they were wrong and they apologized for backing Trump. Now they're saying basically vote for Abdul El-Said, the Democratic candidate. Is there gonna be a moving of the goalpost and say, not good enough, not good enough? So if you're on the left and you're rejecting other anti-war figures that are independents or on the right, what are you doing?

Are you trying to help the mainstream? Like if you're trying to bury Tucker Carlson, not on a different issue, but on this issue, and you go, oh, he agrees with us on the war, he agrees with us on our candidates, but I'm gonna call him an anti-Semite anyway, the same exact thing the establishment is doing, and I'm gonna try to help the forces that are pro-Israel by attacking Tucker Carlson on this issue. Well, you're trying to divide us. You are helping the establishment and it's weird. So look, I get it.

Some people just can't get like they, if you disagree with Tucker on one issue, you just can't get past it. You can't, no, no, that's it. I hate him, I hate him. So I hate his position on the war, but that makes no sense. His position on the war is all of our position on the war. And for the billionth time, we didn't go there, he came here. I mean, my God, saying he wouldn't vote for Mike Rogers if there was a good, you know, he wouldn't

there was a gun put to his head, what more do you want? Take yes for an answer. Now that leads to the most important point, not of this segment, but maybe in American politics over the next couple of years. Anna, if this coalition stays together, then we could affect every single race. If the Tucker wing of what was the former Republican Party votes with us, or by the way, I know This now again to the left will be like unacceptable, no way, et cetera, et cetera. But like a Tom Massey figure, if we voted for him because he's for American sovereignty.

I know, I know. People on the left will say, no way, we'll let the right vote for us, but we'll never, ever vote for them because one issue, two issues, three issues. But guys, we have to regain our American sovereignty. We have to because what difference do any of these debates, including on the social issues, matter if we're not even running our own country, if we're totally and utterly irrelevant as voters. So first, we have to regain democracy and our freedom. Then we could have those wonderful debates about, hey, what do we think about social issues and economic issues, et cetera?

But right now, the politicians do not care what we think 1%. And this isn't just about Israel. They don't care what we think about drug prices or oil prices or subsidies or the fact that the Pentagon never passes an audit. They don't care about us at all. But this coalition could be super powerful. If you're not for America or American voters, we vote you out, period. We would win every single election with that coalition. By the way, you're right in noting that it's not just about Israel.

First of all, Israel isn't just a foreign policy issue. It is an economic issue. The reason why we are in so much debt is due to the fact that we fund Israel's wars that have been doing so since the global war on terror occurred following 9-11. But it's also an issue about the changing dynamics among the Republican voting base, which I do think that Tucker speaks to. So if you if you watch his show, look, one of the shows that he did recently, episodes he did recently, we covered it and we disagreed with him. We certainly disagreed with Greg Bevito on the issue of immigration. But putting that aside, a lot of the shows that he does focuses on economic inequalities in this country, which, you know, if you pay attention to what Republican voters are complaining about, they are upset about corporate greed, much like the left is. You wouldn't know it because of our filter bubbles and because of the fact that we are constantly conditioned to see each other as enemies and fight each other. But talk to ordinary people from across the aisle. Talk to them about what they're concerned about, what their lives are like, what they want to do to fix things.

And I guarantee you you're going to have a completely different picture of what you've been told about your fellow Americans on the other side of the aisle. So anyway, we do have an interview coming up. So I wanted to wrap this segment up unless you have something else to mention, Jane. Yeah. So no, just look, guys, the other thing is Massey already lost. They're like literally 100% of the Republican Party at the federal level is pro-Israel and anti-America now. So we have almost nothing to lose in this alliance. And so if you see people pushing away the alliance saying we don't want to win, We don't want their votes.

We don't want to agree. We just want to fight and punch each other in the face and punch ourselves in the face. And then have the super powerful donors win because we're divided. Be careful. That makes no sense at all. And if Tucker can actually deliver those votes in Michigan, his voting block, if it's real and it happens, and it puts Abdul El-Said well, well over the top, Oh boy, the establishment has got a massive problem on their hands. Because their whole thing is to divide us.

If we find a way to unite, they're in a world of trouble. That's why they're so panicked. And who are the two guys they're attacking the most? Abdul al-Said through Hassan and through everything else and Tucker Carlson. Because you don't, like, I want people to understand. And they're right now in a panic in Washington. They're panicked over you, that you found the right strategy to win. So lean into that, let's go.

This is the time to get animated. And that Michigan Senate race is everything. If that's stooch for the donors, Mike Rogers wins, it's back to the same old, same old. You'll have endless wars. You'll get terrible prices, lower wages. Nobody will ever do anything for you. But if that cavalry arrives, we win that race. The establishment is in a lot of trouble.

All right. We'll be right back with Daniel Bessner. Are you still talking about Jeffrey Epstein? Rich and powerful men abusing, assaulting, and abandoning young women. These rich and powerful men donate to the politicians in Washington, D.C., play golf with the elites in Washington, D.C. They are foreign leaders who we don't want to offend. They interact with our intelligence agencies that we don't want to disobey. There is something rotten in Washington.

And are people still talking about this guy, this creep? All those congressmen you just saw there are on the record as protecting the child rapists who were clients of Epstein. They have not prosecuted a single person outside of Epstein and Maxwell. Yep. Not one. Is Trump engaging in this cover up because he's in the Epstein files? I don't understand why the Jeffrey Epstein case would be of interest to anybody. It's pretty boring stuff.

So as the government keeps telling us, yeah, there's other people. Yeah, they rape those girls. So what? We're going to cover up for them. Why are you guys so mad? A nation that chooses impunity for the rich and the powerful at the expense of our children is a nation that has lost its moral purpose. Are you on the side of the people?

Are you on the side of America's children? Or are you on the side of the rich and powerful who've had their thumb on the scales and shafted Americans for decades? The rest of the news media says you should not fight for positive change. If you do, you're not really a reporter or a journalist because reporters and journalists don't care what happens. I don't agree. That's not written anywhere. That's not a law. It's just a rule that they invented so that reporters didn't actually challenge the people that are in power.

Well, we don't agree with that. We think we should challenge the people in power that that actually makes you a better journalist, not a worse one. Who do you guys use? We have AT&T. And how much do you pay per month? 3.45 and that includes a company discount. How many people? Five phones.

$70 a line, right? I've started a wireless company called Noble Mobile that is trying to cut everyone's bills in half. What would, like, a family of four costs? The average noble mobile user is paying 42 a month, but also they're using their smartphone 17%? less. Okay. How's that work out? We give you $20 back in cash every month based upon how much data you use or don't use. You know when you're doom scrolling or messing around on your phone, you're like, oh, wait, I'm actually costing myself money right now. The goal with Noble Mobile is to encourage us to look up at our children's lovely faces, like touch grass, appreciate life. A friend of mine calls these things are rectangles of sadness. So we're trying to change that and improve everyone's relationships with their phone.

It's a very noble cause. Well, thank you, sir. That's what he is. Been on YouTube for 20 years. The original political partner on YouTube, The Young Turks, the Young Turks, the Young Turks. Godfather of independent media. Favorite news platform by far. Oh, it's not even close.

The Young Turks. It's the largest online news show in the world. I watched you guys before I had a channel at all. And I watched Jenks. So Jenks really the start of it all. Big shout out to Cheng from Young Turks. Jenk Yugar, founder of TYT, a man who probably needs no introduction. Jenk, it's so great to talk to you.

Great to talk to you, David. San, you worked for a long time, man. Anna Kasparian is one of the most followed and influential progressive women online. I love Anna. Your presence has been essential for me to really grow. Do all of you know the young Turks? This is why what young Turks are doing is so important. I've watched you for many years.

You are insightful. I thank you for that. I was going to introduce myself, but it's just to do you. But it sounds like you guys might know it. Are back on TYT, Jank you, Granite, Kasparin with you guys. If you like what we're saying, you make it possible. We appreciate you guys.

Become a member now, hit the join button below or t.com slash join. We got a great interview for you guys. Anna, you got it from here. Well, there's been a lot of talk about how we're living in a new multipolar world with the United States, no longer being the main superpower on the global stage.

And there's a lot of discussion about American imperialism. Luckily, we have one of my favorite people to talk to us about this and his latest book. Daniel Bessner is a historian, journalist, and the host of the podcast, American Prestige. And he has a new book out titled Imperialist Realism, Politics and Culture at the end of the American Century. Daniel, thank you so much for joining us. Anna, always a pleasure to see you. And Jank, always nice to see you as well. Thank you very much for having me. So I'll start off with, you know, just a little bit about how your book is really kind of a playoff Mark Fisher's capitalist realism in which, you know, he provided a critique of neoliberalism and how it was negatively impacting pretty much every facet of modern life. What you did, though, is you kind of focused on, you know, using that same framework or dynamic, if you will, in the, on the topic of imperialism, right?

And so what he would do is he kind of created this notion of how impossible it is to imagine a post-capitalist world. And in your book, you're kind of focusing on how it's impossible to imagine what things look like after American imperialist world. imperialism or American empire. Am I getting that right? No, you're getting it exactly right. And you're exactly right that I built on this concept developed in the late 2000s by the British theorist Mark Fisher about how despite all of the things that were available to us in terms of technology and in terms of visions of the world. It was really impossible to think beyond capitalism. He had the famous phrase.

Some people have traced it to Slavoiegesia. or Frederick Jameson, the two great Marxist theorists, that it's easier to imagine the end of the world than it is to imagine the end of capitalism. And what he meant was that there was no way to really think beyond capitalism or to envision a post-capitalist world at the time that he was writing. And what I did was try to expand that theorist, that theory, and ground it a bit more historically in this idea of American Empire and American foreign policy. Particularly when I started to realize that a lot of Americans are actually much more

cynical about their empire and particularly its ability to do good in the world. But nevertheless, despite the cynicism and despite that implicit criticism, still can't imagine a world in which the United States isn't globally dominant. And so that's what I tried to do there. So I agree with the thesis because I look at our current moment and I don't see an avenue in which we can effectuate change. Janko disagrees with me on this. entirely. You and I are, I think, completely black-pilled at this point. But I don't think that it's just unreasonable black-pilled ideology. It's, I look at every avenue and every avenue just leads to failure. Violent revolution? Failure. I don't see that as something that's even plausible considering, you know, what our military is capable of. And plus, I don't want violence. And then you have our electoral system, which I don't have a lot of faith in. So, What am I, what is, what am I getting wrong potentially in, in looking at our options here? Well, well, I mean, I think you, you know we agree on this.

So what I, what I try to do is try to explain why it's that way. And I think to that could be identifying what precisely is wrong and diagnosing the situation could I think be the first step toward genuine change without being Pollyanna is about anything and not saying at all that Jank is or that people who believe in. I mean, I very well might be wrong. But I basically, from my perspective, I see that there was a project that was decided in the 1940s in the immediate aftermath of World War II. Really this moment when the United States becomes a global power, but also difficult to imagine from our perspective, really creates a modern state in a sort of complex 20th century sense. The United States historically had what we call like a weak state. It's a very large territory. It's difficult to govern.

federalism really puts a lot of power into the hands of local governments or really did until this moment in World War II and the post-war period. So during World War II, a modern American state is really created. And after the war, there's this thing that emerges, which is the Soviet Union. And very quickly after the war, Americans transfer their anxieties, and I would argue correct anxieties about Hitler and national socialism and Nazism, and they transfer them almost immediately onto the Soviet Union. And I think that basically was a mistake for a variety of reasons we don't have to get into. But essentially, policymakers become worried that the American populace is not going to want to fight another long war right after World War II. When you go back and read what people are saying in 1945, 46, 47, Americans were sick of war. They wanted to be done.

They sacrificed a ton. There's something called demobilization fever. All the soldiers want to go home. So these elite policymakers are super worried about the Soviet Union. They want the United States to be the world leader or hegemon. And so what they do is that they create a state structure that essentially insulates foreign policy decision making. And one might add economic decision making, it insulates it from the influence of the public and also from Congress. So just one quick example, you think about the National Security Council.

The National Security Advisor does not have to be approved by any Democratic group. The President just appoints the National Security Advisor, whoever they want. That's how someone like Henry Kissinger for its guests into power. Because Nixon just goes, I want you and that's it. And now we have Kissinger. And so that's just an example of a broader trend of the executive branch being insulated from public opinion and even congressional opinion, which is why, for example, Congress hasn't declared war since 1942.

And so what you see, and then I'll end here over the course of the second half of the 20th century, is this anti-democratic impulse, which really begins in foreign and economic policy. I think it expands into other issue areas. So this is one of the reasons that I think everyone feels a little bit insane today is that we talk about nothing but politics, but there's no avenues for change, which is something that social science research also backs up. If you're organized business, you're able to affect change. If you're just an organized public group, you're much less able to. So this is where, this is what I see the problem to be. Yeah.

So Daniel, before I get into how we could fix it where our slight, well, maybe very important disagreement, is let's talk about how this came about. So I have a theory and want to bounce it off of you and you tell me what makes sense for you. So I used to say it's mainly money in media, but now I'm gonna add a third part of this triand, that's Axis of Evil, which is the CIA. So my theory is look, the wealthy and the powerful want to keep their wealth in power, and they would like to add to their wealth and power. And so they have a wide range of interest, oil, drug companies, defense contractors,

foreign governments, et cetera. So, but what they share in common is this need to keep and add to their wealth and power. Now, we have media that tells us, no, they're all wonderful people, and it's a conspiracy theory that they would want to keep their wealth in power, which then makes me realize, oh, the media's in on it. So, you know, they use that wealth and power in money in politics. And so that's the easiest one to trace back. And I trace it back in my book, Justice is coming. And a lot of people have Sarota did with his master plan, you know, explanation for the lever.

And that's, you know, the Powell memo where he explains to the Chamber of Commerce, look, if we take over the Supreme Court, we'll be able to take over all of American politics because we just, you know, basically get them to legalize. corruption, legalized bribery, and that way business interests, the wealthy and the powerful, will be able to just buy the government. And they did it right in front of our eyes, right? So that part is clear. He talks about the media and how to affect the media. To me, that's maybe the most interesting part. But all of the giant media companies are multi-billion dollar corporations, the wealthy and the powerful. And they say, oh, you know what? We should keep our wealth and power and add to it, right? So, and then the third part of it is the CIA, which I now realize is what we colloquially

called the deep state. And I think the CIA is formed right as you say after World War II. And what they are is there a group within the government to make sure the interests of the wealthy and the powerful are served through violence, through intimidation, through skullduggery. And by the way, one of the things that the CIA does, especially back then, I'm a little It's still now, but mainly back then is they go to talk to Time Magazine, New York Times, and they start saying, hey, this guy in Africa, this guy in Latin America, he's actually trying to use natural resources for his own citizens.

Call him a communist so that we can murder him. And Time magazine goes, oh yes, well-known communist. And then, so you see how all of this works together. And the entire purpose of these three organizations is to deceive the average person, so they don't really that our government has been redirected in the interests of the wealthy and powerful. What do you think of that thesis? Yeah, I think it's correct. And I think it's a thesis with a strong lineage. To some degree, this was Noam Chomsky's major contribution when it came to American foreign policy,

this notion of manufacturing consent. And I do agree with it. And I think it operated particularly in the 50s and 60s and into the 70s. And it's interesting that you mentioned the Powell memo. So the Powell memo, from my understanding, is written in 1971. And what's also happening in 1971 is that the mid-century Fordist economy is stagnating, and it's stagnating for numerous reasons. But basically, you have this thing happening where the economic boom of the post-war period

is coming to an end. The United States is no longer responsible like it was at the end of World War II for something like 50% of world exports and manufacturers and just as overwhelmingly economically powerful. Other nations, and this is written about a lot in the 70s, particularly Germany and Japan, start really fully coming online as economic actors. And the average American worker is going to be disenfranchised over the course of the 60s, 70s, and 80s due to deindustrialization. So to my mind, the reason something like the Powell memo was written is because there's a recognition among the elite that you're no longer be able, you're going to have to basically

protect pieces of the pie, that there's not going to be large enough pie to distribute to everyone. And you're going to have to make a conscious efforts to basically, like you said, Jank, insulate your wealth and power. And to some degree, that's what neoliberalism is. It's an attempt by the elite to ensure that they've remained elites as everyone else under them goes away. And what also, I think, starts to happen in the 1970s and 80s and beyond is that you continue to have this manufacturing consent. But I think over the course of that period, elites begin to understand that you don't need to manufacture as much consent. as you might have in the past because there's this insulation of foreign policymaking from the public. And I think the apotheosis of that is actually something that we recently experienced.

It's a decades-long trend, but Trump didn't even care about manufacturing any consent in favor of the Iran war. At least during Iraq, you had this false manufacture of consent over WMD. But in the period in the last 40, 50 years, you've seen a slow drift away from this notion that you need the public on your side. So I totally agree, Jank, but I think that what has happened is that particularly in the last 5, 10, 15 years, that need to manufacture consent has gone away because the American public has just been totally depoliticized when it comes to policymaking, but totally repoliticized when it comes to identity and rhetoric. And I think this is probably the fundamental tension of our age is that all of us here, and I'm including myself, one of my core identities is that like I'm a left. But as Anna and I were talking just before, I don't think we could really change anything. So you have this profound tension in how people experience things in their daily life. And I think that's one of the reasons why, again, people feel so discombobulated because

there's a profound difference between how they psychically interact in the world and what they're actually able to do politically. And so I think identifying that problem and thinking about how to re-politicize society in a genuine way where ordinary people are going to be able to affect what I consider to be the central question of politics, which is who gets what, when. It's really about material distribution. I think that repoliticization will be the first step toward potential change. It's a very difficult task, but I think like right now, the thing, most things are mostly closed off. I just happen to agree with that out there. So let me let me give you a specific example that I want you to comment and react to,

Because in my view, and this actually saddens me because I don't think this is a good thing, we are witnessing the failure of liberal democracy in real time. Like I feel like the degradation of liberal democracy is pretty evident. And nothing makes that clear to me than what usually transpires after someone you worked really hard to get elected, someone who you genuinely thought was going to be a change maker within Congress, for instance, ends up acquiescing to the current power structure, the establishment, whatever you want to, whatever you want to title it, to the point where they are starting to regurgitate, you know, rhetoric that you wouldn't expect from these individuals, considering who they were

and what they ran on prior to getting elected. And so there was an example from yesterday that, I don't know, maybe I'm being way too hard on her, but we have, I have just witnessed genocide in 4K in Gaza. The war crimes committed by our own military in Iran with the bombing of the Monab School, killing 150 children at that elementary school. And so if someone asks me the question that AOC was asked yesterday, I feel like I wouldn't even skip a beat.

The answer would pour out of me immediately, but here's how AOC responded to what I think is a layup. Congresswoman in New York City next week, one week from today, the UN General Assembly will start, and Benjamin Netanyahu is expected to attend. Do you believe he should be arrested when he steps foot on U.S. soil? I mean, I believe that he's been, I mean, the latest development now from the ICC is what he's been indicted. He's wanted by the ICC. I think that what we should be doing is being in, I think we should be in alignment with the findings of the International Criminal Court. If there's a warrant out, then there's a warrant out. So should he be arrested when he steps on U.S. soil?

If there is a, well, here's the deal. The United States, shamefully, is not a signatory onto the ICC. We should be. The United States should be, I believe, a participant in the ICC. I think we should be a participant in our global justice system. We are not a signatory. So when there's the question of what should happen in a philosophical sense, I think war criminals should be held accountable. And then there's the legal grounds, and I'm not a lawyer. Thank you, Congressman.

So my view of that was you're being asked what your values are. You're not being asked about complicated jurisdictional issues in actually physically arresting the leader of a foreign country. I she was equivocating there and I feel like she was calculating in real time for political reasons. Maybe I'm reading too much into it. But the main reason why I'm bringing this up is that I don't see voting our way out of this as a real solution. You know, because the whole point of AOC was like a hostile takeover of the Democratic Party along with other members of the squad. That petered out very quickly. I mean, Anna, your instincts are correct. Like they're almost always correct. No, I'll just say they're always correct.

Because what AOC is doing is that she's retreating to a liberal sort of proceduralism, that she's not going to really answer the question, but she's going to give an Obama-type thing that I wish these international liberal institutions governed and we should listen to them, but also we don't actually belong to them. But I wish we would listen to them. And she gave a very similar answer at that recent conference in Europe when people criticize her foreign policy take, where she essentially retreated into like a soft liberal interventionism. Like you're going to basically use the American military for good.

Oh, wait, like let's just totally ignore the genocide in Gaza. And I think this is a profound weakness of AOCs. And it's a weakness going back a long time. I don't think she's thought about foreign policy very much. I think she's clearly getting ready for a presidential campaign. Either herself or someone on her staff is anxious about alienating the American Jewish vote or the Christian. I couldn't imagine they're that worried about the Christian Zionist vote because they're always voting for Republicans. And that's how I read that answer is that she retreats into this proceduralism, which is like you said, totally besides the point.

This is a moral question, right? This wasn't about the procedures of an international law that the United States, again, isn't even signed on to the international criminal court. And I actually think, to put on my Politico hat for a second, I think that sort of answer isn't actually going to fly in the presidential election of 2028. I think that two things are true at the same time. I think that most Americans are most concerned about the economics of their lives and that they don't like what's going on in Israel, but it's not a major concern.

However, I think that the issue of Israel has become a proxy for whether you can, could believe a politician, whether they're BSing you or not. And so I think that this sort of answer in a post-baby boomer world is actually going to do significant political harm to someone like AOC. And so the question for her is that is she going to be an adroit enough politician to recognize that aspects of political culture are changing? In some ways, she's been a brilliant politician. How many people, you know, have been represented in both a Batman movie and the boys?

But another way, she stepped on her foot a lot or whatever the phrase is. She caught off to spite her face. And so I think this is really a question of political talent. I mean, I imagine, remember when Obama said like he wasn't yet ready for gay marriage or something along those lines? And like everyone with half a brain was like he clearly does not care about that. And it took Joe Biden slipping to make that happen. I mean, obviously, I think in her heart of hearts, what does the AOC think? I think it's probably what everyone would 90% of people think.

But is she going to be a wise enough politician to make what seems like a brave choice, but which I think is actually just going to become the standard. That I don't know. So to me it's really a question of her political talent. Yeah, yeah. So let's get to the heart of the, you know, whether we should have optimism or not hope or not. So look, when you look at that clip, yeah, I agree, it's not a great answer.

I think she's had worse answers recently. But what she's trying to do is appease Establishing Media, because Establishing Media loves her and they get a sense that she's not going to do any change and she wants to assure them, don't worry, don't worry, I'm not going to change anything, right? And so, and as Anna mentioned, you mentioned, the hostile takeover, well, you know, honestly, I'm one of the guys who planned that hostile takeover. And so AOC is not it. She's not interested.

We thought she was it, but she went in to Congress and decided, no, I'm not. I kind of like it here. I don't want to do a hostile takeover. I want people in this town to like me. I want the media to like me. I don't like it when they write mean things, right? But that doesn't mean that it's not possible. So Daniel, look, it's one thing if you haven't seen the ugliness of the machine behind

the curtain, right? And you're a little naive and you think, oh, we'll just vote and it'll be fine. And oh my God, all these Democrats are such good people. If we just elect Hillary Clinton, she'll be on our side. And so that's an issue we had to tackle in the past. But now I feel like Daniel were past that and people see the ugly machine behind the curtain. But at this point, I don't look at that as discouraging, I look at that as encouraging. Because it's just a machine and any machine can be beat.

So it's not easy, but there is a way to beat it and we just have to strategize around it. So if it turns out, Bernie couldn't do it because he can't criticize his opponent. That was a huge Achilles heel for him. Okay, we love the brother, but he couldn't do it. AOC fell in love with Establisher Media, okay, she can't do it. So then you keep moving and moving until you find someone. So look, I happen to think these days it's probably Rokana, but it doesn't have to be. But it does have to be someone who understands the scope of the problem, is willing to take it on and not half jump off a cliff, but go all the way, right?

Right, has to be honest, and has to lead a multiracial, multipolar, meaning we don't really care if you're an independent, maybe even some of you are right wing, a lot of you are Bernie supporters, etc. But I'm gonna build this coalition and lead the coalition. We still, as long as the voting is not rigged, still have voting as an option. I know how exceedingly difficult it is, but can you see that that route is clearly at least the possibility for striking back against the empire and regaining control, especially given that Trump just did it in front of our eyes. Now, he did it for illicit purposes, and he did it for himself.

But you can use that same exact strategy for good purposes to liberate the country. I mean, it's a really important point, and I should emphasize, I'm a historian, so I always study change, and change is necessarily going to happen. It could either happen indogynously in the way that you're talking about, Jank, or climate change or a meteor could hit and it could happen exogenously. So I look at American history and when you have like gigantic transformations in American history, I think we would have essentially had two big ones. The Civil War, which ended slavery and basically at an even higher level of abstraction decided the question is, is the United

States going to be an agrarian economy or is it going to be an industrial economy? It decided it was going to be an industrial economy. Then we have the new deal and the new deal basically said The United States was in which in the teens and 20s was one of the least social democratic countries in the world is overnight going to become one of the most social democratic countries in the world in response to the Great Depression. And I think what Franklin Delano Roosevelt did there was that he used the anger and the pain released by the Great Depression to build a super majority. And people forget the Democrats literally ran Congress for decades because of the success of the New Deal. And what's interesting to me as a historian is that you don't see something. similar like that happening today. To my mind, something like that could have perhaps happened with Obama. If he was a different person, if he wasn't such a proceduralist, if he wasn't such an

institutionalist, if he was more of a radical or more of a radical thinker, someone like FDR, who was a genuinely radical thinker in certain ways, he could have made use of the great recession and the total financial collapse to basically transform the American political economy in a more egalitarian and socialistic direction, pushing it away from neoliberalism. But for variety of reasons. Obama essentially doubled down on neoliberalism. Jane Canana, you know this. He basically put interest rates at zero and allowed the media conglomerates to gobble up every other media company. And now there's four media companies. So he basically made the situation worse. So what happened was both after the Civil War

and after the New Deal and then World War II was that there was a super majority of Americans who were basically behind the political project. Even if it didn't function perfectly, you had Jim Crow, you had redlining, you have the second civil rights revolution of the 1960s. But there were still these like supermajoritarian positions that, you know, the CEO only makes 40 times, not 4,000 times more than the average worker. And that has totally gone away, obviously. And that's a larger question. But I think what's interesting now when you look at MAGA is that MAGA and particularly Trump

have made no attempt to build this sort of hegem. that would require MAGA to become an institutionalized thing in American politics. Trump seems to my mind, at least, primarily interested in building his ballroom and enriching his family. And he's doing those things well. And these other things are essentially nuisances. So to some degree, not to some degree, that's very good. I don't think MAGA is going to be long for this world after Trump because they made no attempt.

But the problem is, is that the liberals have also made no real attempt to build a type of super majoritarian politics, at least Jake, that I think one would need to do something like FDR did, which was create an American state. Whatever politician comes in that wants to totally transform American politics, they're going to have an enormous, a titanic task in front of them, which is that they have to redo the American state in a way that it hasn't been redone since the late 1940s. And in fact, when, you know, I was a very, very small part of the Bernie Sanders campaign foreign policy team, one of the memos I wrote was like, let's say Bernie wins, day one, what do you do with the national security state? Like, what are the actual legal impediments in

impediments to like getting rid of the national security council. Like what would that actually look like? And I think that's the sort of creative thinking we need to have. So that one of Rokana or whomever gets in at one point, there's an army of people who are able to go in there and actually enact the radical policy because then I'll end on this. The only way the New Deal succeeded was because the progressive, capital P, progressive movement, the literal historical movement had been developing in cities since the 1880s. So for 50 years, they had been developing a cadre that was able to do things like create the Social Security Administration. That is not an easy thing to do to create the WPA, et cetera, et cetera. And so I think we need that right now, but there's no movement that is really providing that space.

Because I think, just connected to my earlier point, we've been depoliticized primarily due to the Cold War. And then once we won the Cold War, basically there was no repoliticization. I think it's a very complex problem to which there's no easy solution. And that one of the reasons, and then I said I already end, but I will end on this, I think one of the reasons that someone like AOC is captured by the establishment is because there's no one behind her forcing her to go in a particular direction. All she sees is the establishment. So what is she going to do?

There's no one behind her to be like, here's the 4,000 policy proposals that you're going to advance on day one, that you're going to do EOs like Trump is. Yeah. Yeah. A lot of the EOs are going to be overturned, but that's a different story. Just a real quick point of clarification. Those people did exist. She fired them all.

Okay. All right. Well, unfortunately, we have to go. But everyone, please check out, first of all, American Prestige, a fantastic podcast. Also has a substack page. So check that out as well. And please check out Daniel's book. Sorry, imperialist realism.

Sorry, I'm sick and I'm having super bad brain fog. Imperialist realism, politics, and culture at the end of the American century. Thank you so much, Daniel. We appreciate your time. Thank you so much, guys. And also I got a substack, imperialistrealism.com. Writing a lot about Hollywood. You two should check it out too.

But thank you so much for having me, guys. Have a great day. Thank you. See you soon. Bye. All right. We're going to take a quick break. And there's some breaking news.

Maria Bartaromo has left Fox business. We're going to tell you why when we return. All right. Let's go to our members on t.com. There's a little bit of discreetering. DURG says, oh my God, AOC, a politician with higher political aspirations didn't give a firebrand answer worthy of an online news host. Right, Durge, I see what you're saying. At the same time, don't you want your politicians to fight like hell for you? Like, we got used to accommodationists way, way too much, in my opinion.

But that's okay, wonderful, healthy disagreement. Lou B says, on the other hand, AOC is a victim of Pelosi-style incrementalism plus A-B-testing campaign advisors' recipe for destruction. I'm more on Luce side, but I hear you guys. Keep having that conversation internally, a.k.a. Delaware Dragon says, ordinary people finance and empower sociopaths

who think we should commit mass murder globally and destroy the biosphere. War is absurdly stupid. We should be spending on resources on addressing the harm we've already done, climate change. Humans are literally too dumb to live. Okay, I'm totally with you until the end. But yes, in the short term.

See, it's not about us being too dumb. It's about, again, those people on the top deciding that it's good for their business, their interests, their wealth, and they don't mind the harm they're doing to you. And that's why I get the most upset about media because they couldn't do any of that if the media didn't deceive you

into thinking that they were your friends instead of your opponents. Wong Jones says Ted Cruz trying to run for presidents like Ted Cruz trying to grow a full beard. It's never going to happen. And I'm out of time. We'll be back. Have you been there? All right, back on TYT, Jank and Anna with you guys.

At the top of the hour, I'm going to tell you Mike Rogers' record on healthcare, it's going to make your blood boil. YouTube member, Wee Dieter said, I have TYT playing on my Samsung TV and they're showing Newsmax commercials with a bunch of laughing emojis. I that's it is ironic and funny but overall I love that you're watching us on Samsung and all of our 24 hour channels just type in TYT anywhere you'll get the whole network check out everybody anytime you want so that's a great way to go we appreciate you all right let's go to our next story in a shocking development Maria Bartaromo has been fired from Fox business now there's a lot of speculation as to why some people even thought that it might be because she

might be the next press secretary or It might be because she betrayed Fox to help Trump. Interesting, which one is it? Let's find out. Anna, you got the story. Yes, well, there was a red flag in the announcement that Barturomo is no longer over at Fox business. And that red flag was the incredibly short statement that Fox News Corp put out. But they did announce that Bartowomo would be leaving the network.

And if you're wondering why there is a theory that, you know, She's one of the notorious Fox News hosts that were amplifying Donald Trump's claims that the 2020 election was stolen. Her coverage was central to the defamation claims made by Dominion voting systems, which Fox News settled for a whopping $78.5 million. And on December 15th of 2020, during a broadcast, Barteromo flat out stated that an intel source told her that President Trump did in fact win the election, which was a lie. Now that is very relevant to what happened today or what was announced today because the following is from Dylan Byers of Puck News. Here's what he is claiming. Barteromo backstory per multiple sources familiar. Maria Bartaromo wanted to pursue a story related to China and 2020 election to voting conspiracies, a major sensitivity for the network given its dominion and smartmatic lawsuits.

A Fox business executive sent a text to Fox business producers informing them that that story could not go to air. Bartaromo took a screenshot of the guidance and sent it to senior White House officials. Fox News leadership learned about that after receiving a call from the White House, which they viewed as a fireable offense. Fox pulled Bartoromo from air after August 9th. She was fired today. have also learned that her executive producer, Patrick Ignazzi, was also fired after the announcement. So apparently Fox News saw this as a major betrayal, you know, the fact that she ran over to the White House and showed them that screenshot, indicating, you know, what the programming guidance was, which, I mean, the media is supposed to hold the government and power accountable. They're not supposed to be in bed with power. But obviously, we live in America.

And that's a completely different reality here. Yeah. So it was a fun theory that she was leaving to become press secretary. But I don't think that that's like if they do it, it would be only coincidental. And Trump going, oh, what? She was fired? Oh, she was trying to help me. Okay.

But it's not why she's leaving because Fox would celebrate her leaving to become press secretary. And she'd be like, we're super proud of Maria Bartaromo and her great service here. and they wouldn't have randomly fired her producer as well, right? So it appears that the theory that she betrayed them and gave the memo to Trump is the correct one, as far as we can tell right now, and it just happened. And I would say about that, I think that there's a rare situation where I would say Fox News is right. Correct. So if there's somebody working for you and they give a memo, internal memo to someone who they think is going to attack you,

Why are you helping someone attack the company you work for? That doesn't make any sense. And if you say, well, Trump's not necessarily gonna attack him, are you crazy? When Trump gets a memo saying that Fox Business doesn't, or Fox News doesn't want to talk about your stupid stolen election theory and they're telling the anchors don't engage in that because it's dumb and it's wrong, of course that's gonna trigger Trump. And then Trump's gonna attack Fox News and Fox business. And so as her employer, yeah, that makes sense.

Why are you punching us in the face? And if you say, well, she has a right to do that, does she? I mean, she doesn't. Are you kidding me? What do you mean she has the right to do that? First of all, the network suffered a major lawsuit and had to pay like, I think, an unprecedented settlement. And so they don't want to talk about these stolen election theories because there's no

credibility behind them and they don't want to get sued again. And so what she did was wrong. What she did was wrong. And look, she's totally off her rocker. Trump is off his rocker. So this like new theory is that China rigged the election or something. Like what? Dude, you are president of the United States right now.

And you are bungling it, okay, to epic proportions. For the love of God, please stop talking about 2020. It is so embarrassing. Like if I were a Trump supporter, I'd be embarrassed. I'm not a Trump supporter, so I'm dunking on him. But bro, you are president right now. And he's still whining about 2020. There's something wrong with this guy.

Yeah. Like total lunatic. Well, so my last two things on that. First of all, let's just take about non-examples. It's not political, right? So let's say there's a host on this network as opposed to Fox News. And we know that you can't do copyright violations. If you do copyright violations, you get sued.

Then that costs us a lot of money. And we tell a host, don't put up pictures you don't own. That's illegal. Don't do that. We have to pay a lot of money. And they go, no, I'm not gonna listen to you. I demand you pay me a lot. And I'm gonna violate the law, I'm gonna violate your rules,

and I'm gonna cost the company a ton of money. And I think I have every right to, that's not a thing, guys. No, you can't just go rogue and decide you're gonna attack your own company and cost them a lot of money. And in our case, that would be a small amount. In their case, it was $787 million. So that's not a small thing. And to your point about Trump being a lunatic, Anna, but so is Maria Bartaromo.

The reason why she leaked that to Trump is because she agrees with Trump. And she's like, can you believe we're not talking about this? Of course, China stole our election and so did the ghost of Hugo Chavez. I mean, like, we, like, what drives me crazy is the gaslighting. Maria Bartoromo is detached from reality. Everything she says is mental. And just because she supports Trump, everybody's like, no, it's normal. To be fair, it's not everybody.

A lot of people think she's crazy. But since she's on cable news, people say, well, that's so, she has such high status. So we have to treat it like she's normal. She's not normal. She, you know, I think her next job, well, not job, but next residence might be at a mental asylum. She's just as nuts as strong. I mean, she's very wealthy. So just enjoy your retirement. Retire already. Go live your life. Go to Sorrento. Anyway, one final story for you all because it's important to cover it. And it's the amazing Dave Smith, Alan Dershowitz debate. Let's get into it.

Zionism, recognizing that Israel has the right to exist as the nation state of the Jewish people is good for America, which the vast majority of Americans believe, is not dual loyalty. Is not disney. Really? Still? Shame on you. Shame on you. Shame on. you for invoking a trope that goes back thousands of years, actually to the book of Esther in the Bible, to the book of Exodus, dual loyalty, disproportionate loyalty. Shame on you. To you calling me an anti-Semite. It's like, dude, you're like a cartoon character of the archetype of evil, like Satan's spawn who mastered legalese or something like that. The guy who gets O.J. And Epstein off. You're going to sit here and morally judge me. I'm sorry, man.

So I have so much to say about that debate, but first what we're going to show you is Dave Smith absolutely annihilating Alan Dershowitz. So that was a debate they had about Iran and Israel on Mario Nafal's show. And of course, if you don't know, Dave Smith is Jewish. So when Alan Dershowitz called him an anti-Semite,

it was comedy gold. Anna, tell us all about it. Yes, look, if I could show you just one video from the debate where I just was so proud of Dave Smith. It would be the video that I'm about to show you, one of his strongest moments, and there were a lot of them. This is where he explains. And I think it's really important for people who are sympathetic to Israel, even at this late date, to understand why there is an increase in their minds of anti-Semitism in the country. Take a look. Look, man, if you're, this is the real problem that

people like Mr. Dershowitz have, if you're going to attach every criticism of Israel or every criticism of people who are clearly fanatically supportive of this foreign country and say that that's anti-Semitism, that's why you get this huge rise in anti-Semitism where you can claim it's the biggest civil rights issue of our time. Because now you've married viewing how you feel about the Jews with the Israeli government. And the reason why anti-Semitism is you define it, which as we've already established is pretty vague and ridiculous, The reason why that's been exploding over the last few years is because Israel committed a genocide in 4K in front of the world and forced the American people to fund it against their will. And so they didn't very much like that and they turned against it.

And then they dragged us into another war, which they openly brag that they did. And it's a disaster and the American people didn't want it. That's why there's this big rise. Listen, I don't very much care what Alan Dershowitz's moral judgments on me are. He thinks I'm an anti-Semite. I mean, the fact that this devolved after you couldn't put up an argument, all to you calling me an anti-Semite. It's like, dude, you're, you're like a cartoon character of the archetype of evil, like Satan's spawn who mastered legalese or something like that. The guy who

gets O.J. and Epstein off. You're going to sit here and morally judge me. Like, I'm sorry, man. Like, I was trying to be reasonable through this thing and go, you know what? You're a guy. We're having a sparring match. I appreciate it at your age. But screw you, man. You're sitting here smearing me. I'm arguing against a war, dude. There's been seven catastrophic wars in a row. And I'm using the little bit of platform, the little bit of influence I am to say that people of your generation need to let go of the goddamn wheel. You've given us enough disasters. 40 trillion in debt and millions killed. Enough of this. Where's the lie? Like seriously, for any Zionist watching this, anyone who's a defender of Israel watching this, okay, go ahead and call

us whatever names you want to call us. But after you're done doing that, can you just address the arguments that were made, like the substance of the arguments. And if you can't, then I'm not interested in hearing anything you have to say. Yeah. Because like, and that's what we keep dealing with again and again and again. What did he say there that was incorrect? Yeah. That pony only has one trick. That's why they're like, yeah, you're Jewish. I don't care. I'm going to call you an anti-Semite anyway. Because I don't know, I can't debate you on the facts. You're right on every single point. So I have to try to do an ad hominem attack and try to tear you down. And so, So it fails spectacularly here, but that's why they do it every single time.

And so now, that dual loyalty, the thing that he does? So first of all, what Zionists have done is they've developed these things that they call tropes, and they're political landmines that they plant. And so, and then they pretend that if you criticize Israel in a certain way or in an unacceptable way, that's that you stepped on a trope landmine, anti-Semite. So I don't have to answer your questions. Hey, why did Israel murder 23,000 kids? And why did they make us pay for it?

Anti-sammitrope, whatever, right? Oh, bloodline. Will they just make up nonsense crap? Now, in terms of dual loyalty, first of all, it's not a winning argument from Alan Dershowitz to say that, hey, us Jews have been accused of dual loyalty for thousands of years. I don't think that's a win you think it is, right? But he's doing a worse argument for Jews than I will, which is, no, don't, no, no, don't say that. That's crazy.

don't have dual loyalty, but do Zionists? And by the way, you could tell in that debate, they're both Jewish, and one of them says, let's represent America, the other one says let's represent Israel. So religion is not the tying bond. So what is the tying bond for people who have dual loyalty? Zionism. What is Zionism? It is Israeli nationalism.

And people who are radical Zionists like Alan Derschwitz, they don't have any other priority, which Dave Smith proved later in the debate. So when you say my only priority in life is helping Israel, I don't even think you have dual loyalty. I think you have only one loyalty and that's to Israel and definitely not to America. That's not a trope. That is you saying my ideology is Israeli nationalism above everything else. So thank you for telling us who your loyalty is to, a different country. So the whole point of the debate was to debate whether or not we should support the Iran war,

obviously Alan Dershowitz is a huge supporter of the war. In fact, I'm sure you'll all be shocked to find that Dershowitz believes the Iran war is literally the most important war of the United States has fought in the modern era after World War II. And so what I love, by the way, he also seems to think, even though we're losing clearly and have caused a lot of damage to the global economy, thanks to the Strait of Hormuz issue, he argues that, no, no, we've actually accomplished some pretty fantastic things. Like we've taken the steps to denuclearize a country that didn't even have nuclear weapons. Okay, whatever you say. But Dave comes in with the sucker punch, because he reminds everybody what the initial objectives of this war work. Take a look. The goal was regime change. The people were supposed to take over the government.

That was goal number one. Number two, we were supposed to recover the nuclear dust. We were supposed to abolish their nuclear program. We were supposed to abolish their ability to support Hezbollah. We were supposed to take out their intermediate missiles and the goal of opening the Strait of Hormuz, which wasn't a problem before the war, but became a goal after the war. Those are six very clear goals that were laid out, and absolutely none of them have been achieved. and there is not the slightest reason to think one of those six will be achieved in the near future.

All three of us know that the president of the United States of America is lying the American people into war right now. Lying us into this war and lying to keep us in this war. His claim is that Iran was two weeks away from having a deliverable nuclear weapon and they were going to wipe Israel off the face of the map and that they've killed over 100,000 protesters. Those are his claims right now to justify the current war. We all know those are lies, completely unsubstantiated. There is just absolutely no one who can back them up with anything in the world, and I'd love to see Mr. Dershowitz tried.

But if he can't, then in essence, you're backing up a president as he lies the country into a war. I'm not here to defend President Trump. I'm not here to defend anything he said. You're defending his war. I'm not here to defend his war. I'm here to defend a war. No, we're done. I'm here to defend a just war, an attack on the nuclear facilities that slow down and set back Iran's obvious desire to have nuclear weapons.

We have limited time left, so I'm going to toss it over to Jank to get his thoughts. Yeah, Dave also did a brilliant job pointing out that we have no American interest there. None of those six things, you know, before the war, the sixth thing is our problem, it's just a straight of hormones, but that's only because we went into the He said, these are all Israeli interests and none of our American interests. And he pointed out to Dershowitz, you know, you claim dual loyalty and all this garbage, right? But you literally went on Pierce Morgan and said that you switched from being a Democrat to a Republican, even though you agree with the Democrats on everything except Israel. So that's you saying, I value Israel more than every other issue in America combined.

So don't, you told us what your loyalty was to. And it's so a different country. So I just, he eviscerated him and I love it and make sure you check out the whole interview. And then Haley Stevens jumps in almost like at the same time because a lot of times the radical Zionists work in coordination and they do talking points at the same time. Haley Stevens, who's by the way not Jewish, attacked Bernie Sanders who is Jewish and said that he's doing a jihad against Jews. What? So this is now a new Zionist attack. We're gonna attack Jewish Americans and we're gonna say they're also anti-Semites.

Why? Because that pony has only one trick. They have none of the facts on their side and people are beginning to catch on to the fact that they're against America and are trying to betray our country to serve the country they actually care about Israel. Thank you to Dave Smith and other proud Jewish Americans for standing up for America. We love that. All right, I'm going to come back and rip Mike Rogers.

I want to tell you about a new podcast series I'm enjoying from future hindsight, Occupy, and Unfinished Uprising. Occupy Wall Street is the story of the improbable becoming possible. In 2008, millions of people were devastated by an economic crash caused by Wall Street greed. But it wasn't until 2011 that there was a mass response from the left. A call to protests went out and thousands of people responded. I know, I was there. They raged against a system that was rigged against them and tried to create their own anti-capitalist village in a small Manhattan park. The movement quickly spread across the country inspiring hundreds of occupations and a new generation of activists.

Occupy, an unfinished uprising, is told through the voices of activists who camped out in Zucati Park for almost two months, getting inside the drama of a movement that grew rapidly, felt both transcendent and chaotic and then violently flamed out. Occupy changed the national conversation about capitalism, popularize the language of the 99% and inspired a generation of activists. As we approach Occupy's 15th anniversary this September, this series offers a reminder that collective action can reshape what seems possible. To listen, search for future hindsight wherever you get your podcasts. Real Canadian Superstore has everything you need this back-to-school season.

Save on lunchbox savers like Ziggy's sliced deli-meat products for always 375. and get life brand pure Vita shampoo or conditioner for $8 each. At Real Canadian Superstore, when you're ready, we're ready with a whole world and more. Revolution, I'm your host, Jane Hugar. So right now there's a revolution going on to try to get our freedom back here in America. But there are a lot of politicians out there who refuse to represent their voters. They represent the donor class. Mike Rogers is a classic example of that.

So he's running for the Michigan Senate race against Abdul al-Said. Now, you might have heard that Mike Rogers, has been supporting the Iran war for 20 years, saying, oh my God, Iran's about to have a nuke for 20 straight years. Same exact lies as Benjamin Netanyahu. He's taking tons of money from the Israeli lobby and served the Israeli lobby. Well, if you heard that only because you watch some online shows, of course, mainstream media would never tell you the truth. They will concede that that is definitely true, but they will never cover it because then Mike Rogers, who represents a donor class, might not win. And they definitely,

desperately want him to win because almost no one in mainstream media is objective. They're all propagandas for the establishment. So that's why you would have only heard that from an online show, but you might have heard that these days because a couple of folks have covered that. And then he loves data centers and why, because he gets money from those donors. He loves war, he also gets money from the defense contractors. But today I want to tell you about what his point of view is on negotiating drug prices. Because our country is in disastrous shape when it comes to drug prices.

We pay the most by far than any other country, including all the other developed nations. And why? Because we have a ridiculous, preposterous law in the books that the government, on behalf of the American people for programs like Medicare, Medicaid, etc., cannot negotiate drug prices. Well, I mean, the press is constantly talking about socialism or communism in that race, trying to tie Abdul al-Said to DSA. He's not in the S.A. He's not a socialist, he's a capitalist. But there is one guy in that race

who has tried to destroy the free markets, and it's Mike Rogers. So now I'm gonna prove that to you definitively here and show you why he did it. In order to show you that, we're going to go back to an article from a couple of years ago from the Michigan Independent. This is the last time Mike Rogers was running for the Senate. And they did a great job of explaining what his position on this is, and I wanted to share it with you. They explained that over seven terms in the US House of Representatives, Michigan Republican, the US Senate, nominee, Mike Rogers, repeatedly voted against allowing Medicare to negotiate lower prices with drug manufacturers.

Now, that is an unacceptable and inexplicable position if you actually lived in a democracy. Why would you block the ability to have lower prices for your own voters? And especially with such a maniacal rule that we're not allowed to negotiate or have free markets when it comes to drug prices, we simply have to accept whatever the drug companies tell us is their price. And if you can't afford that, you go die. That's insane. Literally no other country has this.

We're the only country on earth that unfortunately has become so corrupted that we have this rule. Now, why would Mike Rogers agree to something like that? Well, let's find out. Rogers has received more than $1 million in contributions to his campaigns and his political action committee from the far. pharmaceutical and health products industry since 1999. They have been bribing them legally for now quarter of a century, and those bribes have worked. So, but wait a minute, did Rogers really have anything to do with this?

Well, let's find out. Congress first created Medicare Part D, the prescription drug benefit portion of the safety net program in 2003. Rogers was one of 220 representatives, 204 of them Republicans, who voted for. for the legislation which contained an industry back provision explicitly prohibiting the government from negotiating drug prices. So yes, they gave him money and then he said, let's destroy the free markets on behalf of big pharma. Let's make sure that our voters are all paying higher drug prices.

Why? Because I got bribed. I got money from the drug companies. And I made them so much richer at whose expense? At your expense. That's who Mike Rogers is. But then he did it again and again every time he voted with the drug companies and against his own voters.

Let's give you more details from the Michigan Independent. With drug prices outpacing inflation, congressional Democrats have repeatedly attempted to lift the ban on negotiations. In January 2007, Rogers voted against the Medicare prescription drug price negotiation act, which passed in the House but was Philip mustered by Senate Republicans. So again, Democrats say, hey, can we negotiate drug prices? We're not asking you to have like some sort of price cap or a socialist program. We're asking you to go back to capitalism and negotiate in a free market.

And Mike Rogers goes, no, no way, right? And then they give him more money. These are obvious bribes, obvious. Why else did the drug companies give him money? Why else did he vote in this direction? Is it the theory of mainstream media that Mike Rogers just loves higher drug prices? That was his ideology from day one. I can't wait to get into Congress so we could all have higher drug prices.

I love higher drug prices. Okay, well then tell us that, Mike Rogers. Tell us that mainstream media. Or is it their theory that, well, yes, the drug companies gave this money to Mike Rogers, who then voted with them every single time. But the drug companies didn't do that for higher drug prices and higher profits. No, they did it for the benefit of Norway or oil companies or the general welfare of Michigan because they believe that if everybody in Michigan paid artificially high drug prices,

that no other country pays, they pay way less than us for the same exact drugs. that if they didn't make massive extra profit, the voters in Michigan would be so upset. Oh my God, I didn't get robbed on behalf of drug companies? You didn't funnel billions? Actually, now in the last 25 years, trillions of our dollars to them because you killed the free markets? Oh, golly gee, I really wanted that. Thank you, drug companies for buying off Mike Rogers. Is that what mainstream media is contending?

But of course they're not contending with any of this because they're in the Mike Rogers protection racket. They're in the establishment and the status quo and corruption racket. So mainstream media never wants you to find out any of these things. That's why they're like, Hazan Piker, Squirrel, Muslims, hate Muslims, bigotry, Hassan Piker. Well, how about Mike Rogers? How about that guy in the race?

They're like, shh, shh, shh, don't tell people his real record, then they'll hate him. They'll know that he's corrupt and works for all the donors. Yeah, you're supposed to inform people if you're in the news business, but you purposely hide all these facts if you're in the propaganda business. Now, more credit to Michigan independent, they pointed out one more thing that I wanted to share with you guys. It turns out, by the way, you can do journalism right, but everyone in national media is choosing to do it wrong. Oh, golly, cheat, did we hide the corruption again?

Hey, where did all that money in politics go? Oh, right. They spent it on ads on our publications and our channels. Oh, so all the corruption is burning a hole in my pocket. Oh, golly gee, I don't know what facts are. I can't cover the. Hassan Piker, Squirrel, Trash Panda, chair or something. Hassan, Assad, Assad, please don't look at Mike Rogers' real record.

So let me give you one last piece of this. In the early 2000s, they explained many Americas purchased prescription drugs in Canada. So they're desperate to find a different way to get lower prices and other countries where the same medications were significantly cheaper. Rogers voted in July of 2003 against the bill that would have allowed reimportation of drugs from foreign countries. Again, guys, same exact drugs in Canada. Sometimes they pay four times as much, a quarter as much. Sometimes they pay like a tiny percentage. Sometimes we pay 20 times more, 200 times more.

Why? Because they literally changed the law in this country saying that we must pay whatever drug prices they give us. And they hide it because it goes through Medicare, Medicaid, et cetera. If you went to get your gas and they said, well, the market price is $5 today, which is already tragic and terrible, But the government says we're not allowed to negotiate with oil companies. So now you're gonna have to pay $50 a gal. Well, so that's outrageous. And in Canada, they're paying $5, why do I have to pay $50?

They're like, shut up and serve the oil companies. By the way, they do do that in a different way. They make us give $35 billion in gifts. Those are called subsidies to oil companies every single year. That's 10 times what Israel gets. 35 billion. Mike Rogers is also in favor of that. No, no, no, no.

you're making too much money in Michigan. Your money should go to drug companies because we don't let you do capitalism in this country. And give me your money, give me to me. I'm gonna give it to the oil companies. ExxonMobil made billions in profits, tens of billions of profits this year and every year. So I don't care, they bribed me, so I wanted them to be richer. Oh, and of course, Israel. Oh, I want you to do their wars.

And in that one, it's not just you gotta pay for their genocide, you gotta We've got to pay for their wars, but if you object, you're an anti-Semite and we're going to destroy your life. And on top of that, you have to, maybe if you live in Michigan and you're in the armed forces, you have to go die for Israel. But guys, that's not the only thing you die for. A lot of these people can't afford drugs at these prices. So they start rationing.

And then what happens when they start rationing? People die. In fact, because we're stuck on this private health insurance system, Yale just came out with a study that says we lost 114,000 lives per year, because people can't afford insurance. You know that there's universal health insurance in every other developed nation on Earth. We're the only one, even though we're the richest country,

we're the only one that doesn't guarantee you healthcare. We let you die in the streets. That's why 114,000 Americans die every year because of this corruption. And by the way, it costs us over a trillion dollars extra to do this system. So, you know, when you see this, propagandists like Jake Tapper shouting out, how are you going to pay for that?

And Anderson Cooper is also famous for that. How are you gonna pay for that? It's never when it's war, ever, ever, ever. It's never about oil subsidies. It's never about how they killed the free markets on behalf of drug companies. It's always whenever you're gonna get something. Oh, universal healthcare, how are you gonna pay for that? Well, Jake, we're gonna pay for it because we, it costs less than what it costs now.

It costs well over a trillion dollars less. Like saying, in fact, do you guys know that healthcare in the countries that have universal health care, basically Medicare for all under our system? Those countries pay on average, all developed nations, not poor nations, okay? Europe and other places, all rich nations, on average, they pay half of what we pay for healthcare. And they get much better results, because there isn't someone in the middle robbing them blind and denying them drugs and denying them healthcare. And making a profit, private health insurers makes a profit by denying you care.

And if you die, that's good, they saved a lot of money. They don't have to pay for your healthcare anymore. This is the sick, barbaric system that we have, brought to you by disgustingly corrupt politicians like Mike Rogers. But as, if you watch the young Turks on a regular basis or anything on the TYT network like this show, The Revolution, you know I get just as angry at the media as I do, Mike Rogers and politicians like him. Because everybody in media knows this, but they never share it with you guys. That's because they're part of the corruption. They want to deceive you.

They don't want you to get the real news. They want to make sure you see a fake version of news where the wealthy and powerful are your beloved benefactors. And oh, give more of your money to oil companies. Give more of your money to Israel and to drug companies. Oh, they're your friends. And these politicians who betray you, no, they're honest. actors. Oh, they're just having ideological debates. And look, Mike Rogers won the debate. Let's

murder capitalism and make sure that we rob our own citizens to pay the drug companies who bribe me a million dollars. Oh, what an ideological debate that I won. And everybody on television lies through their teeth to pretend that that's his real philosophical position. And when you say, hey, he got bribed a million dollars, they're like, how dare you say bribed? You are outrageous. I'm not mad at the bribery. I'm mad at you for pointing out the bribery. That's a conspiracy theory. Really?

I think it's a conspiracy theory that a scum politician who gets bribed a million dollars doesn't do as he's told. I think it's a conspiracy theory that the drug companies gave Mike Rogers all that money through all these years and didn't expect anything in return. The cable news anchors are so incredibly dishonest. By the way, also the writers at the New York Times, Washington Post, and all those papers. They're so fundamentally dishonest that they say, no,

the drug companies and the oil companies and the defense contractors and the Israeli lobby gave Mike Rogers all of that money throughout all of those years because he didn't deliver for them. Come on, obviously they gave him the money again and again and again because they're like, add a boy, add a boy, add a boy, you deliver for us every time. You screw over your voters and viciously deny them, free markets, decent wages, a decent way to actually stay alive. You deny them all of that, they say, because Mike Rogers is so wonderfully honest.

And he just ideologically believes you shouldn't have any good things, only his donors should. Well then obviously mainstream media is part of the corruption. And they're not in the news business, they're in the business of covering up the news, so you never find out how evil these politicians are. So that's who Mike Rogers is in the Michigan Senate race. So if you're in Michigan, how are you gonna vote for that guy? If you wanna vote for your own robbery, you wanna vote for a politician who in my opinion has been criminally corrupt his whole life? All right, have that it, Haas, but then don't come crying to us.

Somebody killed capitalism and killed the free markets, and oh my God, it turns out there's a swamp in DC. Mike Rogers is the swamp, and you have a chance. to make sure he doesn't go back to DC. So make sure you participate, get the real news, get real information, and go vote. All right, guys, out of time right now. I am going to do a quick bonus episode where I interact with you guys. So hit the join button below on YouTube or t.com slash join, and I'll see you there in a minute.