Speaker 1: In a world of deceit, telling the truth is a
Speaker 1: revolutionary act. It's the David Knight Show. As the clock
Speaker 1: strikes thirteen, it's Monday, the twelfth of January of Our Lord.
Speaker 1: Twenty twenty six. Well, we're back again, and we've had
Speaker 1: some technical issues. Who has no equipment and we decided
Speaker 1: to take the operation warp speed approach. Let's just do
Speaker 1: it quickly, not test it sufficiently. So we had a crash.
Speaker 1: But we're back again. And as I said before, we're
Speaker 1: going to take a look now where we are in
Speaker 1: this country. Did we not learn anything from twenty twenty five?
Speaker 1: We learned a couple of things that are being repeated.
Speaker 1: First of all, no matter what Donald Trump does, MAGA
Speaker 1: and the MAGA media will make excuses for it. Secondly,
Speaker 1: the left and the right are both willing to accept
Speaker 1: complete erasure of all civil liberties and freedoms and go
Speaker 1: into an absolute police state. If they have enough fear,
Speaker 1: fear of a virus, fear of immigration, fill in the
Speaker 1: blank of fear, we'll be right back. In the wake
Speaker 1: of the Minnesota fraud, Governor Abbott is now directing an
Speaker 1: investigation in childcare programs. This is the heart of the issue.
Speaker 1: It's no coincidence that all this stuff is taking place
Speaker 1: in Minnesota, is it? That we've got how many another
Speaker 1: two thousand agents were sent in there to get more
Speaker 1: and more confrontational because they know that the right is
Speaker 1: hopping mad about the Smalian corruption and we should be.
Speaker 1: And this is a problem that has been going on
Speaker 1: for a very long time, mainly the fault of Waltz,
Speaker 1: but the Republicans have fault in this as well. The
Speaker 1: Trump administration knew about this. I reported about this nearly well,
Speaker 1: see what was it. It was about twenty seventeen, twenty eighteen.
Speaker 1: It was already well known, and you had people like
Speaker 1: Tom Emmer, the number three Republican in the House. The
Speaker 1: whip is also for Minuisla, and he was meeting with
Speaker 1: people and telling him, yeah, it's racist to criticize the Somalians.
Speaker 1: We love our Somalians, don't talk about fraud, and even
Speaker 1: set up a Somalian Congressional caucus. But I'll tell you
Speaker 1: this audio is really harsh. I really don't like it.
Speaker 1: So far, at least ninety eight people have been charged,
Speaker 1: including eighty five Somalians, for the role in alleged fraud's
Speaker 1: scheme targeting fourteen high risk Medicaid funded services through the
Speaker 1: Minnesota Department of Human Services. And so they're beginning an
Speaker 1: investigation into Texas because this is what you do when
Speaker 1: you have fraud or crime. What you start with an investigation.
Speaker 1: All crime prosecution should start with an investigation, and they
Speaker 1: proceed with the investigations. You get search warrants. Then if
Speaker 1: there's something there, you get indictments, then you arrest people.
Speaker 1: Trump is like, well, asress the people and we'll do
Speaker 1: the due process later. We've seen this kind of garb before.
Speaker 1: We saw it in New York City. Remember Adrian Schoolcraft
Speaker 1: who was talking about the corruption in New York City policing.
Speaker 1: He was a policeman whose father was a policeman, and
Speaker 1: he was he was very concerned about what was happening there.
Speaker 1: So they told us on Halloween, just go out and
Speaker 1: arrest a bunch of people. We'll figure out what to
Speaker 1: charge him with later. Are we seeing that now? At
Speaker 1: least in New York City they didn't have them wear
Speaker 1: masks and drive unmarked cars and so forth. But this
Speaker 1: is the way that a doctor worked. There should be
Speaker 1: a process, an orderly process, and that's all been skipped,
Speaker 1: just like we skipped the testing for Operation Warp Speed.
Speaker 1: Texas has also been a target of billions of dollars
Speaker 1: worth of health care fraud schemes involving Medicaid. In July,
Speaker 1: fifty five people involved in a fifteen billion dollar health
Speaker 1: care fraud scam were federally charged in the Houston area.
Speaker 1: The schemes collectively accounted for more than one hundred and
Speaker 1: seventy seven million dollars in fraudulent billings, seven million in
Speaker 1: illegal kickbacks, an unlawful diversion of over ten million opioid pills,
Speaker 1: said Ken Paxton. In Texas, charges included conspiracy to commit
Speaker 1: healthcare fraud, unlawful distribution of controlled substances, and violations of
Speaker 1: federal and kickback statutes. So in response, Trump has cut
Speaker 1: off ten billion dollars in funding to five Democrat states.
Speaker 1: The usual suspects California and Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota, New York,
Speaker 1: and they're also funding a block of two point three
Speaker 1: billion dollars will affect these states except for Colorado. Another
Speaker 1: nearly billion dollars eight hundred and sixty nine million from
Speaker 1: social services block grant coffers is being kept from all
Speaker 1: five states. And this is part of the issue. There's
Speaker 1: this long chain of command, so many fingers involved in this,
Speaker 1: such a complicated archaical bureaucratic structure that it invites fraud.
Speaker 1: You know what I was talking about the election issue.
Speaker 1: One of the guys that was a consultant to the
Speaker 1: Trump organization in terms of looking at the election issues,
Speaker 1: said that he contacted people there when he saw what
Speaker 1: was happening with the COVID funds that Trump is putting out.
Speaker 1: He said, this is going to be massive fraud. There's
Speaker 1: absolutely no controls for anything any of this money that's
Speaker 1: going out. And they said, well, we haven't had any yet.
Speaker 1: He says, you haven't even started the program yet. You've
Speaker 1: only got the outlines of how you're going to run
Speaker 1: this thing, and it's guaranteed to have massive amounts of fraud,
Speaker 1: which we have seen as well, and so we are
Speaker 1: right to be upset about the fraud. But what they
Speaker 1: always do is they get everybody so hyped up about
Speaker 1: something real or imagined. In the case of COVID, it
Speaker 1: was the imagined pandemic. Everybody got so hyped up about it,
Speaker 1: especially on the left. They're willing to accept any kind
Speaker 1: of draconian tactics. Let me tell you that these agents,
Speaker 1: this army of twenty thousand ICE agents, roaming around with
Speaker 1: masks on, doing as they please and attacking you physically
Speaker 1: or ramming your car if you film them, that is
Speaker 1: something that is far more dangerous than when they try
Speaker 1: to put masks on us. I wouldn't wear a mask,
Speaker 1: and I'm sure most of you wouldn't either, But this
Speaker 1: is something that is far more dangerous. When you have
Speaker 1: militarized police who put on the mask. That's a very
Speaker 1: different dynamic. And this is something that the idiots, the
Speaker 1: fools and MAGA are cheering. They want to see this
Speaker 1: because they think it's going to help them with this
Speaker 1: problem that the government has ignored and kicked the can
Speaker 1: down the road for decades. When you look at immigration
Speaker 1: issues and border issues. There was an amnesty back under
Speaker 1: Ronald Reagan, and that was going to fix everything. We're
Speaker 1: going to give amnesty to everybody this year, but they
Speaker 1: didn't change anything about immigration. You know, half the people
Speaker 1: that they gave amnesty to did not apply for citizenship.
Speaker 1: They didn't want it. And so it's been going on
Speaker 1: on and this is a football they kicked back and
Speaker 1: forth and a can that they kicked down the road,
Speaker 1: and neither side ever does anything about it. But when
Speaker 1: you look at what is happening with the Smalian fraud,
Speaker 1: here's Washington State attorney General. This is a report by
Speaker 1: the New American. He says journalists who probe daycares there
Speaker 1: face hate crime charges. Yeah, yeah, that's how bad it is. Well,
Speaker 1: it's just a Democrat, right, No, it isn't. If you
Speaker 1: remember that's what Tom Emmer was threatening these people. So
Speaker 1: that sounds awfully hateful that you're talking about the Somalian
Speaker 1: businesses and the fraud and that type of thing of
Speaker 1: these daycare don't say that, said the Republican leader. Well
Speaker 1: he's not the leader. He's the number three guy the whip.
Speaker 1: So you got the speaker, he got the leader, then
Speaker 1: you got the whip. And he was the one who
Speaker 1: was saying that the number three guy in the house
Speaker 1: Republicans was saying it's racist to criticize Somalian fraud. Now
Speaker 1: you've got the attorney general. Now this is a Democrat.
Speaker 1: Nick Brand, the state's top law enforcement official, is apparently
Speaker 1: worried that those journal what those journalists will do for Washington,
Speaker 1: Somalia is Samalian's what journalists Nick Shirley did in Minnesota
Speaker 1: to expose them as fraudsters, pleasing the tax payers. Independent
Speaker 1: Gonzo journalists Chris Simms and Danny Rebel three three three
Speaker 1: did indeed show up at so called the daycares and
Speaker 1: found exactly what you would expect, no sign of children
Speaker 1: at the daycare. They also found the majority of the
Speaker 1: Somalian daycare centers had serious violations. Komo News and Seattle
Speaker 1: found almost three hundred daycare centers in Seattle the list
Speaker 1: Somali as their first language. This is again, and it's
Speaker 1: not just it's not just Minnesota and Washington. Minnesota Washington
Speaker 1: don't want to do anything about it, but it's also
Speaker 1: in Texas. Maybe what we should do is approach this
Speaker 1: from the standpoint, do we really want to have a
Speaker 1: welfare magnet? Do we really want to have a welfare state? Well,
Speaker 1: I don't want to have either one of those things.
Speaker 1: And I've said for the longest time, the way you
Speaker 1: approach the immigration thing, the way you get people to leave,
Speaker 1: is to stop offering the massive financial incentives to come here.
Speaker 1: That's what our government is doing Republican and Democrat, and
Speaker 1: it hasn't stopped. And so in addition to those massive
Speaker 1: financial incentatives, incentives to come and live off the US taxpayer,
Speaker 1: they've now added these fraudulent programs and they are reluctant
Speaker 1: and slow to doing anything about it. As a matter
Speaker 1: of fact, if you point it out, both Republicans and
Speaker 1: Democrats call you racist. Now Emmer has changed his tune.
Speaker 1: Now he wants to deport everybody that Simonian, even if
Speaker 1: they've gone through the citizenship process. I don't care about. Fine,
Speaker 1: go ahead, but that's not legal. It's purely grant standing.
Speaker 1: He's not going to get away with that. And so
Speaker 1: the Attorney General said, my office has received outreach from
Speaker 1: members of the smalling community after reports of home based
Speaker 1: daycare providers being harassed and accused of fraud, and so
Speaker 1: he puts us out as a warning. It's actually beggars
Speaker 1: belief that there would be three hundred of these daycare centers,
Speaker 1: Smalian daycare centers in Seattle alone, and that he would
Speaker 1: not investigate this, that a large number of them would
Speaker 1: be empty. But this is the same type of thing
Speaker 1: that the number three House Republican did in his district
Speaker 1: when it was shown years and years ago. You know
Speaker 1: what were we talked about eight years ago? So his
Speaker 1: post was very blunt. Don't investigate fraud independently or else.
Speaker 1: He says, my office has received outreach from members of
Speaker 1: Smalling community, and we got people that are being harassed
Speaker 1: and accused of fraud with little or no fact checking.
Speaker 1: Well he's not interested in checking anything, is he? So Anyway,
Speaker 1: Sims and his partner continued to investigate. On December the thirtieth,
Speaker 1: they showed up at a Smali daycare center. They said
Speaker 1: they were very unhappy to see me. He said there
Speaker 1: was no signs of kids or of it even being
Speaker 1: a daycare facility. He pointed out, we went to six
Speaker 1: more Somali childcare locations today in the Kent, Washington area.
Speaker 1: I was told by a few that they weren't daycares
Speaker 1: despite receiving taxpayer dollars as a daycare. One yelled call
Speaker 1: the police behind the door, because this is the way
Speaker 1: it operates in the UK as well. Right, they come
Speaker 1: after the people who are pointing out the crimes by
Speaker 1: the migrants, rather than coming after the criminal migrants. Days later,
Speaker 1: another Somali daycare was very angry to see me, he said,
Speaker 1: no sign of kids or even of being a daycare facility.
Speaker 1: Haney Family Care LLC has received seven hundred and seventy
Speaker 1: thousand dollars since twenty twenty three, and taxpayer dollars. So
Speaker 1: then the Mayor of Seattle jumps in. So first it
Speaker 1: was the Attorney Journal of Washington State. Now is the
Speaker 1: mayor of Seattle, where they are thirty of these Smali
Speaker 1: daycare centers, and he says, I stand with the Smali
Speaker 1: childcare providers who have experienced targeted harassment, and I condemned
Speaker 1: the surveillance campaign promoted by extremist influencers. Again, Republican Tom
Speaker 1: Emmer did basically the same thing eight years ago in Minnesota,
Speaker 1: number three Republican in the House. So yes, absolutely indict, arrest,
Speaker 1: deport these people rather than jail them at taxpayer expense.
Speaker 1: But don't accept masked federal militarized police who are accountable
Speaker 1: to no one, who obey no laws. Don't accept that
Speaker 1: as the only alternative. Don't be fools about this. I'm
Speaker 1: so sick and tired of what I see on social media.
Speaker 1: I got to stay off of it. It's ridiculous. What
Speaker 1: I see people saying out there. I voted for this,
Speaker 1: I fully support this. Well, you're a trader. You want
Speaker 1: the immigrants to rape our women and steal our money.
Speaker 1: I actually had somebody say that to me. David Knight
Speaker 1: wants these immigrants to take all of our money and
Speaker 1: rape our women. What do you even say to somebody
Speaker 1: that's stupid? I said, well, I know it's difficult to
Speaker 1: think for you, but try I know it's hard, but
Speaker 1: still please try to think. So the Seattle Como News
Speaker 1: AO News found two hundred and eighty three childcare centers
Speaker 1: in our state. The list Somalia as their primary language.
Speaker 1: So where's the FBI? Are they playing golf in Scotland
Speaker 1: like Cash Mattel. The FBI would not comment on whether
Speaker 1: it was investigating fraud and why. Washington and state childcare
Speaker 1: officials offered a bland statement that crooks who robbed the
Speaker 1: taxpayers have to return the money. Oh, they figured that out.
Speaker 1: The FBI has investigated, and that's what has to happen. Right,
Speaker 1: Except they're completely a wall as usual unless it is
Speaker 1: something political that they can run for their political advantage.
Speaker 1: So then the news reports, mainstream media reports. They say
Speaker 1: they talked to one guy says, well, as a Somalian,
Speaker 1: as a small business provider, we're really scared. People are afraid.
Speaker 1: Well again, maybe you'd be happier than Somalia. Governor Rob
Speaker 1: Ferguson met with state and local leaders, including Somali community representatives,
Speaker 1: to discuss their concerns Monday afternoon in Seattle. So again,
Speaker 1: when you look at this as a Republican, it is
Speaker 1: a Democrat. They have both set this thing out while
Speaker 1: it runs rampant, and what we're left with now is
Speaker 1: a militarized police force from the federal government. Centralized policing,
Speaker 1: militarized policing, no rules, no laws, Folks. This is being
Speaker 1: used like nine to eleven was used to create homeland security.
Speaker 1: What was the purpose of that centralization of control, evading
Speaker 1: rules and laws of law enforcement? And what have we
Speaker 1: gotten from homeland security? Are we more secure? Do you
Speaker 1: think this sertilized policing thing is going to work out?
Speaker 1: You think you're going to get these people taken out
Speaker 1: that you want? You know, they give you a problem,
Speaker 1: they offer you a fake solution that's only going to
Speaker 1: give you another problem. In addition to not doing anything
Speaker 1: about the initial problem. It's just like the entire drug war.
Speaker 1: The drug war has done nothing. Not one single person
Speaker 1: has been kept off of drugs by force. You can
Speaker 1: get an overdose in prison. So it has done absolutely
Speaker 1: nothing for the stated purpose. But look at how much
Speaker 1: it has cost us. Look at how it has corrupted
Speaker 1: law enforcement. Look at how it's corrupted our courts. Look
Speaker 1: at how it has destroyed the Constitution in the Bill
Speaker 1: of Rights, the drug war, and now it is metastasized
Speaker 1: into a full on regular war being used as an
Speaker 1: excuse by And I think I'm going to start calling
Speaker 1: him this bebe Escobar calls Trump the neocoligula. I think
Speaker 1: that's a good way to describe him. He doesn't deserve
Speaker 1: to be called Caesar. Caesar was a smart guy, he
Speaker 1: was a disciplined guy. Trump is neither of those. He's
Speaker 1: a caligula. He is a moral degenerate who is trying
Speaker 1: to move the levers of power. Trump is a neocoligula,
Speaker 1: not a Caesar, and certainly not a king. He's an
Speaker 1: emperor wanna be. And so as I see the people
Speaker 1: out there on social media, I put out I said
Speaker 1: from the beginning, Trump's ice tactics are designed for immigration
Speaker 1: con not for immigration control, which I favor. But they
Speaker 1: were designed for confrontation and provocation. Ice is being used
Speaker 1: to ferment a civil war. Both right and left are
Speaker 1: taking the bait and like the cops who get in
Speaker 1: people's faces and scream at them, baiting them to push
Speaker 1: back so they can beat or kill them. Ice is
Speaker 1: being used as the institutional equivalent of cowardly schoolyard bullies. Now,
Speaker 1: when I put that up, I people saying I want
Speaker 1: the immigrants to rape people. Another guy saying, well, I
Speaker 1: missed the part where Trump told the left to stalk them. No,
Speaker 1: he didn't tell the left to stalk them. He didn't
Speaker 1: tell the left to film what they're doing either. He
Speaker 1: doesn't want to film. These guys don't want it filmed.
Speaker 1: They want to wear their mask and if you have
Speaker 1: a camera out, they're gonna come after you. And we
Speaker 1: have seen this repeatedly.
Speaker 2: Shame on you.
Speaker 1: Have y'all not learned from the past couple of days?
Speaker 2: Have you not learned?
Speaker 3: Learned?
Speaker 2: What? What's our last you want us to learn?
Speaker 1: And he knocks the phone out of her hand. Yeah,
Speaker 1: don't you film? Federal agency knocks the phone out. How
Speaker 1: don't you learned show me your hands, obey commands. You're
Speaker 1: a slave. Get down on the ground, kiss my feet.
Speaker 1: I'd rather die on my feet than grovel on my
Speaker 1: knees to these thugs. And you are a bunch of thugs.
Speaker 1: You get all hyped up with your militarized weapons and
Speaker 1: your body armor, and you go out looking for a fight,
Speaker 1: and if you can't find one, you're gonna make one. Right.
Speaker 1: It's hard to imagine if I worked this hard to
Speaker 1: find and arrest all the ups staying clients, right, said
Speaker 1: one person. I absolutely agree with that.
Speaker 2: So yeah, Another thing to point out is that you
Speaker 2: know whether Donald Trump gave the order. If you put
Speaker 2: two groups of crazy people together, two groups of people
Speaker 2: that are looking for a fight together, a fight will happen.
Speaker 1: That's right.
Speaker 2: These are groups that are diametrically opposed to each other,
Speaker 2: that hate.
Speaker 1: Each other, and they're tweaking everybody.
Speaker 2: Especially the scenario where it is bound to become violent,
Speaker 2: it's an inevitability.
Speaker 1: That's right. And so we got all kinds of provocations happening,
Speaker 1: but especially from law enforcement. I blame them more than
Speaker 1: I blame the radical left. Protesters you know, we got
Speaker 1: the usual stuff. Oh well, look this is this group
Speaker 1: gets money from sorrows and so forth. Yeah, really I
Speaker 1: don't care. I just you know, sorrows is bad. So
Speaker 1: is the federal government. This other group over here wearing masks,
Speaker 1: fully armed military armor, uh you know, armed to the
Speaker 1: teeth with weapons and aggressively fighting people. That one is
Speaker 1: also funded by an evil organization. It's called a federal government.
Speaker 1: And so you got the Border Patrol doing things like this.
Speaker 1: Now there's no sound for this, and so this is
Speaker 1: this guy gets upset, he just pushes the car out
Speaker 1: into traffic. And this is the kind of tactics these
Speaker 1: guys are doing. You know, this other person over here
Speaker 1: in this car is following them. They really don't care.
Speaker 1: As one person says, there, Now, this is this video,
Speaker 1: even though it doesn't have any sound, it was all
Speaker 1: over social media, so I couldn't verify. But we have
Speaker 1: seen this type of thing happening before. And look at
Speaker 1: the way this individual is acting here, and I believe
Speaker 1: that is Border Patrol. Border Patrol agents are now ramming
Speaker 1: civilian cars, forcing them through red lights, driving away in Minneapolis.
Speaker 1: And this video you can see an agent who has
Speaker 1: their bumper right up against the car stopped at a
Speaker 1: red light, no emergency lights, no sirens to say get
Speaker 1: out of the way. The agent then accelerates and physically
Speaker 1: pushes the car through the intersection with the light still red.
Speaker 1: The car turns, the agent turns, Then the agent just
Speaker 1: drives off. This is not law enforcement. This is reckless, dangerous, illegal.
Speaker 1: Federal agents do not have legal authority to hit civilian vehicles,
Speaker 1: force them into traffic violations, or flee the scene. That
Speaker 1: is vehicular assault. Weren't we just told over and over
Speaker 1: again that use of a weapon is use of a
Speaker 1: vehicle is a weapons terrorism. I think that's way our
Speaker 1: government operates, because terrorism is the use of force or
Speaker 1: the threat of force to achieve your social and political goals.
Speaker 1: I think that's what we're seeing here terrorism. So that's
Speaker 1: an abuse of power, puts everyone on the road at risk.
Speaker 1: If local police did this, people will be calling it
Speaker 1: exactly what it is. So why are federal agents being
Speaker 1: allowed to do it in plain sight? Because they're there
Speaker 1: to solve a problem, just like we had to have
Speaker 1: the masks and the vaccines to solve a problem. So
Speaker 1: we've got this dangerous problem and it's got to be solved.
Speaker 1: So ICE agents right now.
Speaker 2: They did a huge recruitment drive for ICE. Join ICE,
Speaker 2: Join ICE, Join Ice. This is another job where you
Speaker 2: want to be very selective about who you hire.
Speaker 1: That's right.
Speaker 2: You want to make sure that you are hiring someone
Speaker 2: that has the temperament for this.
Speaker 1: And if anything, if you look at the recruitment ads,
Speaker 1: what they're doing is recruiting people who've already got a
Speaker 1: chip on their shoulder. They're looking for people who are
Speaker 1: politically aligned with Trump. They're looking for brown shirts. That's
Speaker 1: what they're looking for out there, not law enforcement.
Speaker 2: Are you an angry, violent, potential criminal that wants to
Speaker 2: get some revenge on people that you dislike, come join ICE.
Speaker 2: That's right, we want That's not the type of ad
Speaker 2: campaign you want to run. You want to Are you
Speaker 2: a calm, collected individual that cares deeply about freedom, then
Speaker 2: help us bring freedom to the United States. But that's
Speaker 2: not what they're doing at all.
Speaker 1: And it's schoolyard bully tactic. Take a look at this.
Speaker 1: This is a guy who is filming ICE agent doesn't
Speaker 1: walk up and say, you know, move back, or this
Speaker 1: is that, or I'm going to rest you right, which
Speaker 1: is again not something that you should be arrested for
Speaker 1: filming the police. But of course these people aren't police,
Speaker 1: are they. We can come up with a name for them.
Speaker 1: But look at this, this guy is filming. Guy walks
Speaker 1: up to him, just kind of blind sized. They don't
Speaker 1: even give him a job that he's going to push
Speaker 1: him down, pushes. That's very dangerous. You know, people can
Speaker 1: hit their head and be severely injured. This is illegal,
Speaker 1: says Brian Cassenstein, as it is excessive in terms of force.
Speaker 1: Courts routinely rule that throwing or violently pushing a non
Speaker 1: threatening person to the ground for a minor obstruction is unconstitutional.
Speaker 1: The legal remedy here would be to pull the man
Speaker 1: away or gently push him or escort him away, but
Speaker 1: he doesn't do that because they've been trained to be bullies.
Speaker 1: The bully Patrol pp on Border Patrol.
Speaker 4: Uh.
Speaker 1: And then you have Ice, as instructed by Trump, trying
Speaker 1: to intimidate anyone who is filming. Look at this, we
Speaker 1: have your plate number.
Speaker 2: I agree, radically, very dangerous.
Speaker 3: There's a lot of effort to this, but we get that, Okay,
Speaker 3: doing interfering with your operation.
Speaker 1: Now you can be arrested, not under eighteen USC one eleven.
Speaker 1: Will not under the Constitution yesterday what you're doing numerous times.
Speaker 5: This you are no, I'm not.
Speaker 1: You can the head being handcuffed. You will be arrested.
Speaker 5: You will be crossing the.
Speaker 1: US Code one eleven.
Speaker 5: Get that through your head.
Speaker 2: A lot of numbers.
Speaker 1: A good job.
Speaker 2: I'm not breaking the law, and you can know it.
Speaker 2: You are not breaking you know it.
Speaker 1: Never got in front of everyone.
Speaker 5: Never one more time, and I will put you in
Speaker 5: then tuffs one more time, schoolyard, bully, big man.
Speaker 1: You got all the guns right right here. Pal, Oh,
Speaker 1: you're a tough guy, right old. These guys are no
Speaker 1: different than bank robbers. They're just robbing us money, but
Speaker 1: of our right robbers. Hold you, masked robbers. I'll tell
Speaker 1: you what you know. You can like me or hate me,
Speaker 1: you can turn me off, but I will never support that,
Speaker 1: And shame on the people who do. I work for
Speaker 1: a guy who did multiple documentaries about the police state,
Speaker 1: did multiple documentaries about how they're going to use militized
Speaker 1: police and cities. Now he's cheering this stuff. Why for money?
Speaker 1: For money? America watches one shooting and comes to two
Speaker 1: different conclusions. It's very true. That's Wall Street Journal headline.
Speaker 1: Some Trump supporters say his maximalist approach at home and
Speaker 1: abroad this week marks and overreach. It defines his character.
Speaker 1: He is a bully as well. So the question is
Speaker 1: you're going to live in the land of the free,
Speaker 1: are going to live in slave landia? And most people
Speaker 1: are more than willing. If they are hyped up enough,
Speaker 1: fearful enough, hyped up enough about a problem, and become
Speaker 1: very fearful, they go begging to the government. Put me
Speaker 1: in a mask, put those other people in a mask,
Speaker 1: arrest them, find them, take their job if they don't
Speaker 1: get the vaccine. Same stuff, just rhyming, right, History doesn't repeat,
Speaker 1: it rhymes, And here we are with Trump two point zero. So,
Speaker 1: as I said before, this is not a choice of
Speaker 1: either an open border welfare state or a lawless fascist
Speaker 1: police state, of a standing army of masked, militarized thugs
Speaker 1: and bullies like you just saw there. That's not the choice, folks.
Speaker 1: There's a lot of different ways that this can be handled.
Speaker 1: As a matter of fact, let's just start by not
Speaker 1: financially incentivizing people to come here.
Speaker 2: You know why, With all the.
Speaker 1: Noise and disturbance about drugs. Why for years has the
Speaker 1: US been giving a massive amounts of money to the
Speaker 1: Colombian government, the center of the cocaine trade. Why why
Speaker 1: is that the only reason that that got cut off
Speaker 1: was because he uh sassed Trump and taunted him. Oh
Speaker 1: you taunt Trump will cut it off. But hey, if
Speaker 1: you want to, you know, send in massive amounts of cocaine,
Speaker 1: no problem. You know, we got this drug war thing.
Speaker 1: That's not about stopping the drugs, folks, That's about power.
Speaker 1: That's about the addiction to power in Washington. It's about
Speaker 1: giving them cart blank to do whatever they wish. And
Speaker 1: so just stop the welfare magnet. That'd be the first
Speaker 1: thing that you could do. The Minnesota Minnesota FRA scandal
Speaker 1: is just the tip of the iceberg, says Reason magazine.
Speaker 1: Medicaid fraud has been endemic in that state and at
Speaker 1: federal levels for decades. And it's not just Minnesota. And
Speaker 1: so we've knew all about what was happening in Minnesota
Speaker 1: in the first Trump administration. Yet high ranking Republicans who
Speaker 1: were there, who knew about it, who called people racist,
Speaker 1: who complained about it. The outrage is justified because Americans
Speaker 1: are finally getting a concrete look at what happens when
Speaker 1: pushing public money out the door matters more than verifying
Speaker 1: the eligibility of the recipients, confirming services were delivered, or
Speaker 1: even ultimately being a good steward of taxpayer money. So again,
Speaker 1: what about Trump's massive COVID nineteen financial fraud. Trillions of
Speaker 1: dollars not billions. You know, when you look at the
Speaker 1: massive fraud in Minnesota, that was billions of dollars. Trump's
Speaker 1: fraud was trillions of dollars. No one needed to be
Speaker 1: locked down. And then even if you accepted that premise,
Speaker 1: that false pandemic, the remedy for that, the training wheels
Speaker 1: for universal basic income in order to move the Overton window,
Speaker 1: you know, his Cares Act and all the rest of
Speaker 1: this stuff massively invited fraud, and we saw it happening.
Speaker 1: And some of that has been exposed, but not much
Speaker 1: of it. Minnesota is not the exception, but it is
Speaker 1: rather the example that Americans finally noticed that's true. That's true.
Speaker 1: Medicaid fraud has been endemic in the state and federal
Speaker 1: levels for decades. Politicians haven't done much, even with scholars
Speaker 1: and journalists raising the alarm for over on this particular
Speaker 1: case for over a decade, but it's been going on
Speaker 1: everywhere for a very long time. It's tempting to treat
Speaker 1: the Minnesota scandal as a morality play about managerial and competence.
Speaker 1: And yes, Tim Waltz deserves the blame when red flags
Speaker 1: persist for years across multiple programs, failure of leadership as
Speaker 1: part of the story. But focusing on a single official
Speaker 1: or a single state, this is the deeper lesson. First,
Speaker 1: we need to simplify the structure of the programs that
Speaker 1: produce and proper payments and fraud. Federal matching grants, which
Speaker 1: Medicaid is largely built around, push states to build systems
Speaker 1: far larger than they would ever fund themselves, diluting accountability
Speaker 1: and encouraging growth for its own sake. Well, I agree
Speaker 1: with that, However, the first issue is that the welfare
Speaker 1: state is something for which I can find zero authority
Speaker 1: in the Constitution, none whatsoever. People, Oh, well, it's to
Speaker 1: promote the general welfare, so we must be able to
Speaker 1: have a welfare stage right there at the beginning of
Speaker 1: the preamble of the Constitution. No, that's not what it
Speaker 1: was talking about. But even if you accept that premise,
Speaker 1: that was amended by the tenth Amendment, ninth Amendment saying,
Speaker 1: you know, if you don't have specific authority to do something,
Speaker 1: you cannot imply or infer that you cannot usurp that
Speaker 1: from the States and from we the people. So no,
Speaker 1: that is not there at all. And even if it
Speaker 1: ever was there, even if you want to say, well,
Speaker 1: that was what was intended in the preamble, which I
Speaker 1: disagree with. Even if you accept that premise, it was
Speaker 1: shut down by the ninth and tenth Amendment. And from
Speaker 1: a practical standpoint, that's what we've said. From the reaping
Speaker 1: is what alexis to Toepel. One of the important things
Speaker 1: that he found when he came to America. He wrote
Speaker 1: about democracy in America. He contrasted it to France. He said,
Speaker 1: in France, we have these government programs that do this stuff.
Speaker 1: But then America is done in the community. And if
Speaker 1: you do it in the community, if you do it
Speaker 1: one to one, uh, there are so many benefits for
Speaker 1: both the giver and the receiver. And one of the
Speaker 1: things that happens is that you were able to for
Speaker 1: the most part out fraud. You can see it because
Speaker 1: you're there. So when you create this long chain and
Speaker 1: all these nested institutions like some kind of a Madrioski doal,
Speaker 1: you're inviting corruption like that. Let's fix the corruption problems.
Speaker 1: Let's do something about that. Yeah, certainly in Minnesota and
Speaker 1: the smalllies and that type of thing. But let's not
Speaker 1: accept as a phony solution masked militarized federal bully patrol.
Speaker 1: Let's not do that. Second, do away with authentic automatic
Speaker 1: enrollment and the pay now, scrutiny later style of oversight.
Speaker 1: Any beneficiaries eligibility has to be regularly reaffirmed. Third, Ultimately,
Speaker 1: no oversight regime can police a government so large and
Speaker 1: so complex. That's the whole thing about it. Even if
Speaker 1: you wanted to do welfare by the federal government, even
Speaker 1: if you want to do a welfare state, the worst
Speaker 1: possible way to do it is a structure that it
Speaker 1: is there. Now, it's a pragmatic issue as well. And
Speaker 1: so this is from another organization, Renee Goods killing reveals
Speaker 1: why fact based journalism loses the narrative battle. I disagree
Speaker 1: with this. This is a leftist outlet media height well,
Speaker 1: the audio just keeps kicking off of me. The kating
Speaker 1: is just really off. It's difficult to talk with it anyway.
Speaker 1: The aftermath of this, what they're saying is, well, you know,
Speaker 1: the people who are out there who are doing this
Speaker 1: for money and for audience, they get everybody really hyped up,
Speaker 1: and they want to say the fact based journalists they're
Speaker 1: trying to take it slow. They want to take it slow.
Speaker 1: They don't want to jump to conclusions. They want to
Speaker 1: wait and see what is going on. Is so you know,
Speaker 1: the lie travels halfway around the planet before the truth
Speaker 1: can get its pants on, is basically what they're saying.
Speaker 1: That old, that old thing. I think that was fun
Speaker 1: Mark Twain. One side saw a clear vehicular attack that
Speaker 1: justified lethal force. The other saw an unjustified killing followed
Speaker 1: by an official lie. Each of them accused the other
Speaker 1: of gas lighting, and each insisted that the facts were obvious. Well,
Speaker 1: you know, here's the thing. It doesn't have to be
Speaker 1: laid out the way they're doing it. You don't have
Speaker 1: to wait and wait and wait to look at this,
Speaker 1: and it isn't you know by the time when you
Speaker 1: see they see the video, as they say they locked
Speaker 1: in a narrative that was based on tribalism and somebody's
Speaker 1: political stance. I don't like her. You know, she's got
Speaker 1: a wife. She says LGBT, and you know these people
Speaker 1: he's lefties by you know, they've got to be wrong,
Speaker 1: that type of thing. And then you were told many
Speaker 1: people were told what had happened before they actually saw
Speaker 1: the video. And then you also had the people who
Speaker 1: were talking about it, like Trump and Christy nom who
Speaker 1: obviously had never seen the video before they told us
Speaker 1: what had happened.
Speaker 6: It was an active domestic terrorism. What happened was our
Speaker 6: ice officers were out in enforcement action. They got stuck
Speaker 6: in the snow because of the adverse weather that is
Speaker 6: in Minneapolis. They were attempting to push out their vehicle
Speaker 6: and a woman attacked them and those surrounding them and
Speaker 6: attempted to run them over and ram them with her vehicle.
Speaker 6: An officer of ours acted quickly and defensively shot to
Speaker 6: protect himself and the people around him. And my understanding
Speaker 6: is is that she was hit and is deceased or
Speaker 6: continue to gather more information, but this goes to show
Speaker 6: the assaults that our ice officers in our law enforcement
Speaker 6: are under every single day.
Speaker 1: Everything about that was a lie, except for the fact
Speaker 1: that he killed her. Everything else was a lie. And
Speaker 1: then Trump is no better. The guy was run over.
Speaker 1: He's in the hospital. It's amazing he survived. And then
Speaker 1: in the Oval office, he was arguing with some New
Speaker 1: York Times reporters and then he said to his assistant,
Speaker 1: go get the video and show it to him. And
Speaker 1: as they showed it to him, he went silent. It's
Speaker 1: like uh uh uh, and then he changes the subject.
Speaker 1: There was nothing he could say. The lie was so obvious.
Speaker 1: This is the issue. And when I look at people,
Speaker 1: I mean I've seen people like Janita Broaderick Ben Garrison,
Speaker 1: people out there who are jumping in. Well, they should
Speaker 1: prove it. And we got another video and that should
Speaker 1: prove it. And I'm going to show you that other video,
Speaker 1: the one that was being shot by the murderer. And
Speaker 1: I call him a murderer. This guy was not run over,
Speaker 1: he was not injured. This is the guy walking away afterwards.
Speaker 1: This is also the guy. Yeah, he looks like he's
Speaker 1: really torn up about killing somebody, right then, doesn't he?
Speaker 1: Poor fellow, poor fellow. Yeah, he had his balaclava friends
Speaker 1: wearing balaclava masks show up and take all his personal
Speaker 1: belongings somewhere. We're supposed to feel sorry for him because
Speaker 1: he's a hiding he should be taken somewhere where he's
Speaker 1: behind bars. But people see what they expect to see.
Speaker 1: They select evidence that confirms their belief. The observation describes
Speaker 1: how audiences receive information, but it understates how quickly those
Speaker 1: realities are constructed. And so, as they point out, by
Speaker 1: the time people saw the video, they already been told
Speaker 1: what happened. And in the case of Christine om and
Speaker 1: Donald Trump, they had already told you what it happened,
Speaker 1: even though they hadn't seen the video. They're just going
Speaker 1: to push their institution. They're going to push their politics
Speaker 1: forget what's in the video. A celebrity scandal breaks and
Speaker 1: immediately takes the takes hardened before the facts emerge, or
Speaker 1: a corporate crisis produces a polished statement within hours while
Speaker 1: details surface over weeks. A police shooting is framed officially,
Speaker 1: or video complicates the story. A large portion of the
Speaker 1: public never revisit their initial conclusion. If you say that
Speaker 1: you don't yet know, it sounds evasive, and video stops
Speaker 1: being evidence to examine and becomes ammunition to deploy. This
Speaker 1: is why I look at these pictures that are put
Speaker 1: up in One person put a thing up that it
Speaker 1: was the one from the side that I showed where
Speaker 1: you could clearly see that the guy was shooting at
Speaker 1: her from the side and not in danger, and they said,
Speaker 1: please keep posting this video. We got to get the
Speaker 1: lefties to see what happened. I think we can see
Speaker 1: that he's standing on the side of the car and
Speaker 1: shooting at somebody who is not running him over, who
Speaker 1: had the wheel turned. From the very beginning, she had
Speaker 1: the wheel turn. I think what the most likely explanation
Speaker 1: is is that again she thought she was going to
Speaker 1: be arrested. She's waving people across. She didn't block the
Speaker 1: entire road, including the car of the guy who shot her.
Speaker 1: She was not blocking the car. She's letting cars go,
Speaker 1: including ice cars go by. And I think when the
Speaker 1: guy came over wanted to get into her car and
Speaker 1: wanted to arrest her. I think she panicked, and I
Speaker 1: think you know she backs up. Why would you back
Speaker 1: up if you're going to run somebody over, You don't
Speaker 1: do that, and why would you turn the wheel if
Speaker 1: you're going to run somebody over. None of this matches
Speaker 1: what we saw from the very beginning, and I guess
Speaker 1: that's the problem. I guess I'll watch the video before
Speaker 1: I listen to their narrative.
Speaker 2: So as a matter of fact, you've got to let
Speaker 2: them tell you how to interpret what you see.
Speaker 1: Yeah, like the Supreme Court, right, yeah, Supreme Court. I
Speaker 1: can't trust my understanding of English. I can't read this
Speaker 1: for myself, so please tell me what this means, and
Speaker 1: please invent some new rights. You know, it's kind of interesting,
Speaker 1: Christine ome part of this might be that, you know,
Speaker 1: I don't how much of this do we chalk up
Speaker 1: to dishonesty and how much do we chalk up to
Speaker 1: just stupidity. Christine Hohm is doing an interview and listen
Speaker 1: to this. She says, you know, we can't trust government,
Speaker 1: and the person says, but you are the government. That's
Speaker 1: what I'm saying.
Speaker 4: She says, remember a time when Republicans were very careful
Speaker 4: about and worried about the government, particularly unelected people. We
Speaker 4: can't trust the government and having access that's our resental data. Yeah, Oh, absolutely,
Speaker 4: you are the government. Yes, that's what I'm saying, is
Speaker 4: that the American people now are saying that we have
Speaker 4: had our personal information.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and so you know, the Trump administration is out
Speaker 1: there massively escalating the surveillance state to go along with
Speaker 1: the police state. So video of the Minneapolis Ice shooting
Speaker 1: does not resolve the issue whether or not it was
Speaker 1: legally justified. This is reason, and that truly is the
Speaker 1: amazing thing. So you can have a situation where the
Speaker 1: police initiate everything just you know, just like the FBI
Speaker 1: goes out and initiates these things and they then run
Speaker 1: a sting. You can have the police go out and
Speaker 1: initiate an action and say, well, that made me feel threatened.
Speaker 1: So if I felt in fear of my life, I
Speaker 1: can kill the other person. And the Supreme Court says that,
Speaker 1: and Reason says that as well. Doesn't matter whether their
Speaker 1: life was actually in danger, They're allowed to kill you.
Speaker 1: Think about that, it might save your life or the
Speaker 1: life of your children. Just understand that any encounter with police,
Speaker 1: no matter how silly we jaywalking, they feel entitled to
Speaker 1: kill you, and the law will back them up on it.
Speaker 1: As a matter of fact. You know, when you let's
Speaker 1: see here. It is right here. Listen to this.
Speaker 5: Oh that was quick. I asked if someone could find
Speaker 5: the report, and they did. What are we talking about?
Speaker 5: The internal report produced by Customs and Border Patrol which
Speaker 5: stated that US border agents were intentionally stepping in front
Speaker 5: of moving vehicles to justify shooting at them. This article
Speaker 5: came out in twenty fourteen. It was based on a
Speaker 5: report that I couldn't find, but fortunately someone else found
Speaker 5: it for me, my good friend Victoria. And here is
Speaker 5: the report from CBP, and right here on page eight,
Speaker 5: they found that Border Patrol agents were intentionally stepping in
Speaker 5: front of vehicles to create justification to shoot the people inside.
Speaker 5: Most reviewed cases involved nonviolent suspects who posed no threat
Speaker 5: other than a moving vehicle. It states they were doing
Speaker 5: this out of frustration. Once again, Jonathan Ross, the man
Speaker 5: who shot the woman in Minneapolis, was a part.
Speaker 1: Of CBP during those years. He was there when that
Speaker 1: was happening. I will leave a link to that in
Speaker 1: the comments so you can read it for yourself. Thanks.
Speaker 1: So the guy who murdered her was that Border Patrol
Speaker 1: when they had an issue in patrols kind of a
Speaker 1: policy step in front of the car. Now we're threatened
Speaker 1: because I stepped in front of the car, so now
Speaker 1: I can kill you. He's already had a situation, and
Speaker 1: they made a big deal of this with the conservative
Speaker 1: influencers on X. Well, this may change your thinking. This
Speaker 1: is a guy who not too long ago was dragged
Speaker 1: three hundred feet by a car and had have thirty stitches.
Speaker 1: And so did he learn anything from that or is
Speaker 1: he going to keep repeating those same mistakes. So we're
Speaker 1: going to take a look at the video that he
Speaker 1: shot that's supposed to change everybody's mind. Well, I'll see
Speaker 1: if it changes your mind or not. But the bottom
Speaker 1: line is is that this guy has conducted himself in
Speaker 1: a way that is not only reprehensible, but threatens his
Speaker 1: safety and other people. And I talked about how going
Speaker 1: back even to nineteen seventy two, fifty four years ago,
Speaker 1: the New York Police Department said at the time, we
Speaker 1: are not going to shoot into cars just to stop
Speaker 1: them because it's a vehicle somebody's driving away, or even
Speaker 1: if they're threatening people with a car, We're not going
Speaker 1: to shoot into the car if they don't have a weapon.
Speaker 1: Why because you're most likely not going to hit them,
Speaker 1: you're going to most likely hit somebody else, maybe even
Speaker 1: a police officer. And those are the ones we care about,
Speaker 1: right not the innocent bystanders. So you're not going to
Speaker 1: shoot them because you're most likely going to hit somebody
Speaker 1: else besides the driver. And if you do hit the driver,
Speaker 1: they're just as likely to step on the gas as
Speaker 1: this woman did when she was killed, as to step
Speaker 1: on the brake or to have their foot just fall
Speaker 1: to the floor. And now you've got an unguided missile
Speaker 1: that is very, very dangerous. So he violates all of
Speaker 1: these rules that are there bystander video of the incident
Speaker 1: immediately cast out on accounts, footage from various accounts that
Speaker 1: is a self defense, as we were heard from Trump
Speaker 1: and from Christine Home. This is reason footage from various
Speaker 1: angles appears to show the agent later identified it Jonathan Ross,
Speaker 1: was not in the path of the suv when he
Speaker 1: fired three shots at close range. The Times reported on Thursday.
Speaker 1: The suv did move toward the Ice agent as he
Speaker 1: stood in front of it, The Washington Post noted, but
Speaker 1: the agent was able to move out of the way
Speaker 1: and fire at least two of three shots from the
Speaker 1: side of the vehicle as it veered past him. And
Speaker 1: here is if you take the freeze frames of the
Speaker 1: spots where you hear the gunshots, this is what it
Speaker 1: looks like. And person did a graphic of this, you
Speaker 1: see shot one, shot two, shot three, And what they
Speaker 1: did was to make it easier for you to see
Speaker 1: where this agent is. In the bottom row there they
Speaker 1: outline the person's body in green, and so you can
Speaker 1: clearly see that in shot two and three the car
Speaker 1: is passing him and he's well beside the car, and
Speaker 1: the other one you can see that he is not
Speaker 1: really in front of the car. And that's one of
Speaker 1: the reasons why he wasn't hurt, one of the reasons
Speaker 1: why he wasn't knocked to the ground. I said from
Speaker 1: the very beginning, how is that just? Oh, she ran
Speaker 1: him over? You know, and the lies that Trump told
Speaker 1: repeated pretty much by other people like Weannita Broadery and others,
Speaker 1: you know, saying that oh, well, you know, his life
Speaker 1: was in danger, and it's like, no, it wasn't. He
Speaker 1: was off to the side. Even that one shot that
Speaker 1: went through the windshield was off to the side, and
Speaker 1: at the angle where that shot enters the curved part
Speaker 1: of the windshield on the side near the A pillar.
Speaker 1: The only way that that angle could have gone through
Speaker 1: it from that side and hit the person in the
Speaker 1: car as if he's standing well off to the side,
Speaker 1: as you just saw and that picture. And we could
Speaker 1: also see from the very beginning that the wheel was turned.
Speaker 1: If your intention is to run somebody over, you don't
Speaker 1: turn the wheel like that. Maybe she was panning, maybe
Speaker 1: she's a poor driver. Who knows what was going on
Speaker 1: that situation, but it was not a Terrorice Thrett. The
Speaker 1: Post said the videos at analyies do not clearly show
Speaker 1: whether the agent is struck or how close in front
Speaker 1: the vehicle he comes to striking him. But nevertheless, says
Speaker 1: Jacob Sullom, at reason, he could still be legally justified,
Speaker 1: which endes on whether or not he reasonably believed that
Speaker 1: he was in danger at that point, even if that
Speaker 1: belief may have been mistaken. Yeah, this is the Peter
Speaker 1: pan defense. You know, you got to believe if you
Speaker 1: believe tinker Bell comes back to life. Lets everybody clap
Speaker 1: for that, right, And it's really kind of what you
Speaker 1: saw with COVID. Well, you know, we did the best
Speaker 1: that we could. It wasn't malicious, it wasn't intentional. We
Speaker 1: really thought that there was a pandemic. We really thought
Speaker 1: that there was a bioweapon that came from the WUHN Lab,
Speaker 1: And so we had to do all these things to
Speaker 1: you because of that. Not justified. It's not justified. Even
Speaker 1: if that were true, and even if this guy was afraid,
Speaker 1: what he did is clearly not justified. I don't buy it.
Speaker 1: The Justice Department's policy on the use of force jibs
Speaker 1: of the Supreme Court is said, deadly forced may not
Speaker 1: be used solely to prevent the escape of a fleeing suspect.
Speaker 1: Firearms may not be discharged solely to disable moving vehicles.
Speaker 1: You understand, how many times do they have to break
Speaker 1: their policies, how many times they have to break the law,
Speaker 1: how many times they have to recklessly endanger other people
Speaker 1: and themselves before they're blamed. Well, evidently they will never
Speaker 1: be blamed, not by Trump, not by NOME, not by MAGA.
Speaker 1: The Justice Department explains firearms may not be discharged at
Speaker 1: a moving vehicle unless number one, a person in the
Speaker 1: vehicle is threatening the officer or another person with deadly
Speaker 1: forced by means other than the vehicle. You hear that.
Speaker 1: That's Department of Justice policy number two. The vehicle is
Speaker 1: operated in a manner that threatens to cause death or
Speaker 1: serious physical injury to the officer or others, and no
Speaker 1: other objectable reason reasonable means of defense appears to exist,
Speaker 1: which includes moving out of the way. I had somebody
Speaker 1: ask me, well, what would you do if you're in
Speaker 1: a situation like him? I said, what has moved out
Speaker 1: of the way? He put himself in front of that vehicle.
Speaker 1: And when I play the video, you're gonna see that
Speaker 1: after she well, I'm not going to tell you. I'm
Speaker 1: going to let you see it yourself, and then I'm
Speaker 1: going to tell you what I say out of it.
Speaker 2: I will say, from a young age, you instructed me
Speaker 2: not to stand in front of cars. I got that
Speaker 2: lesson right around, you know, three or four, something like that. Yes,
Speaker 2: creating a scenario where you are giving yourself justification for
Speaker 2: lethal force.
Speaker 1: That's right, That's what the Border patrol people were taught
Speaker 1: to do, and that's what they were doing. You know,
Speaker 1: Let's let's put ourselves in danger so I can use
Speaker 1: lethal force, and I'll just kind of get on the
Speaker 1: side of here, so I can quickly sidestep it, and
Speaker 1: if anything, I get brushed by it, but I can
Speaker 1: use lethal whe It's because I'm really fed up with
Speaker 1: these people, right, he was taunted just before he shot
Speaker 1: this woman.
Speaker 2: As a general rule, people that are going to run
Speaker 2: you over are not the same people that are going
Speaker 2: to drive away if you weren't blocking them. So you're
Speaker 2: not really creating a scenario except for one where you
Speaker 2: get to shoot someone.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah, yeah. It looks more and more to me
Speaker 1: like road rage on his part, rage at what was
Speaker 1: said to him by the quote unquote wife of the
Speaker 1: person who was killed. So again, moving out of the
Speaker 1: path of the vehicle would be one of the things
Speaker 1: that you can do. The circumstances of the Minneapolis shooting
Speaker 1: suggests that Ross violated that policy. It's kind of like
Speaker 1: when you look at the Pentagon policy, and it specifically
Speaker 1: uses the example of people who are shipwrecked. Even if
Speaker 1: it had been a legit conflict, which it wasn't to
Speaker 1: start with, It really was not a conflict. There was
Speaker 1: nobody endangered by these people in the boats. They were
Speaker 1: not shooting at people. They were actually had turned around
Speaker 1: and were fleeing they were shot, then the military circles
Speaker 1: back and executes them in the water like a U
Speaker 1: boat commander. And it was specifically because the U boat
Speaker 1: commanders were doing that during World War Two that it
Speaker 1: was put in as an example in the Pentagon Manual.
Speaker 1: But now the Pentagon is under Warpeak and the Department
Speaker 1: of Justice is under NOME, and they probably don't even
Speaker 1: read the manual, and even if they did, they wouldn't
Speaker 1: obey it. Well, when the President does it, that means
Speaker 1: that it is not illegal, that's right, or when the
Speaker 1: Warpeak does it, or when the Christinome does it. Local
Speaker 1: and state officials said Good was acting as a legal observer.
Speaker 1: They said the any of her fatal encounter, her Honda
Speaker 1: Pilot had been positioned sideways on the street, blocking one
Speaker 1: lane of traffic for about three minutes. She repeatedly waved
Speaker 1: at ice vehicles on the street, indicating that they should
Speaker 1: go around her, and they did, including the person who
Speaker 1: went around her, got out and came back and wound
Speaker 1: up killing her. He says they also gave her conflicting instructions.
Speaker 1: One said she should drive away, while another told her
Speaker 1: to get out of the car. Video shows one agent
Speaker 1: grabbing the handle of the driver's side door, apparently in
Speaker 1: an attempt to enforce the get out of the car command.
Speaker 1: And again you know this is we are to show
Speaker 1: your hands, obey commands. And I've seen pictures of people
Speaker 1: who have done that, who have still been executing. You
Speaker 1: remember the father they were called, I think, is on
Speaker 1: a drug case or something like that, some drug call,
Speaker 1: and it was at a hotel and it was a
Speaker 1: father with a young family. There. They get on the floor,
Speaker 1: get on the yelling and screaming at him. He's got
Speaker 1: his hands up. He gets down on the ground and
Speaker 1: they shot him anyway, killed him anyway. He's doing everything
Speaker 1: they said, and he still shot them. You know, when
Speaker 1: you try to obey a tyrannical government, they will still
Speaker 1: kill you, folks.
Speaker 2: Yeah, specifically, they're making him belly crawl along the floor
Speaker 2: and his pants start to come down, so he reaches
Speaker 2: back to try to pull his pants up. Yeah, and
Speaker 2: that's when they shoot him.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah, it's amazing. So the suv backs up a
Speaker 1: little bit, then begins to move forward, the front wheels
Speaker 1: turned to the right away from the agent. That was
Speaker 1: the first thing I saw ross initially is standing near
Speaker 1: the left front bumper, but he quickly moves out of
Speaker 1: the way. He fires three shots at the car as
Speaker 1: it moves past him. Again, he was not even knocked down.
Speaker 1: You know, we've had people who have been knocked down
Speaker 1: like this. Here's a nice car boom hits the person,
Speaker 1: knocks him to the ground, you know, just like you know,
Speaker 1: ramming cars at intersections. They can do whatever they want.
Speaker 1: No wonder they wear masks, no wonder they get so
Speaker 1: upset if you film them because they're criminals. All right,
Speaker 1: So let's take a look at at the video. Wait,
Speaker 1: I got one more thing. I want to say. This
Speaker 1: is where it really got me upset with the Reason
Speaker 1: magazine article. And they said, so he may not have
Speaker 1: been justified in killing her. But you know, we have
Speaker 1: a system here where all the police have to do
Speaker 1: is say I was afraid for my life, and legally
Speaker 1: then he is now justified. That's all they have to do,
Speaker 1: local prosecutors. And one example here, well, let me let
Speaker 1: me give this example here South Carolina, Seneca, South Carolina,
Speaker 1: and this is a twenty fifteen fatal shooting over a
Speaker 1: two bit marijuana steam. Police had lured twenty three year
Speaker 1: old Tory Morton, who ultimately was arrested for possessing ten
Speaker 1: grams of marijuana to a Hardy's parking lot so they
Speaker 1: could arrest her for selling pot. She was on a
Speaker 1: date with nineteen year old Zachary Hammond, who drove her
Speaker 1: to the restaurant, and she was eating an ice cream
Speaker 1: cone in the front seat of his car when Lieutenant
Speaker 1: Mark Miller Mark Tiller, sorry, who was assisting the undercover
Speaker 1: officer who had arranged by marijuana from Morton, approached the vehicle.
Speaker 1: Tiller said Hammond, who was unarmed, saw him panicked and
Speaker 1: tried to run him down, forcing him to fire two
Speaker 1: shots through the driver's side window in self defense and
Speaker 1: kill the driver. Tiller's account was inconsistent with dash can
Speaker 1: video of the incident, however, which showed that Hammond was
Speaker 1: already backing up as Tiller approached the car. Hammond continued
Speaker 1: on his way, making a sharp left. The only difference
Speaker 1: between these two accounts one of them turns left, the
Speaker 1: other one turns right, but they both turned away from
Speaker 1: the cop and the cop still kills them. Soller ran
Speaker 1: into the path of the car just like this guy,
Speaker 1: then backed up to avoid being hit. When Tiller fired
Speaker 1: the first shot, which entered Hammon's chest to the left side,
Speaker 1: he was no longer in the path of the car.
Speaker 1: Tiller fired a second shot, which hit Hammond in the
Speaker 1: back as Hammond was moving past him shot him in
Speaker 1: the back. There was no indication that Hammond aimed the
Speaker 1: car at Tiller, and Tiller was not in danger of
Speaker 1: being struck when he fired those two rounds. Local prosecutors
Speaker 1: nevertheless declined to charge the murdering cop. Tenth Circuit solicitor
Speaker 1: concluded that Tiller actually believed that he was an eminent
Speaker 1: danger of losing his life for sustaining serious bodily injury.
Speaker 2: So yeah, see if that works for anyone else.
Speaker 1: That's right, that's right. A Justice Department investigation of the
Speaker 1: shooting apparently went nowhere, but a lawsuit that the Hammond's
Speaker 1: family filed to the city of Seneca resulted in two
Speaker 1: point two million dollars settlement. Tiller was fired about six
Speaker 1: months later. So we've seen this Like the OJ Simpson thing.
Speaker 1: The jury because of their prejudice allows OJ Simpson to
Speaker 1: get away with murder. Same thing here, except the prejudice
Speaker 1: is for the police. But then you can get compensation
Speaker 1: through a civil lawsuit because the justice system is completely broken.
Speaker 1: So then we get to the video itself that was
Speaker 1: shot by the agent on his cell phone. And I
Speaker 1: got to say, I've got several articles even today from
Speaker 1: the New American that I agree with, and we'll talk
Speaker 1: about it later. This one, I think they're completely wrong.
Speaker 1: They've completely bought into this, which is really disturbing considering
Speaker 1: the fact that the New American should be leading the
Speaker 1: charge against the federalization of police, the militarization of the police.
Speaker 1: They've forgotten what they did sixty years ago. Now they're
Speaker 1: cheering this bs. Here's the headline from the New American.
Speaker 1: Ice agents cell phone footage clearly shows a woman attempted
Speaker 1: to run him down before the shooting. Well, let me
Speaker 1: play it for you and see if that's what you
Speaker 1: think is going on here. As a matter of fact,
Speaker 1: what I did was, I've got the clip that they
Speaker 1: say is proof of this, that's all in real time,
Speaker 1: and then I took the shooting part and put it
Speaker 1: behind it at twenty five percent speed so that you
Speaker 1: can see it right after the full clip. Here's the clip.
Speaker 1: This is a cell phone footage or the murderer shot
Speaker 1: he just got out of his car because she just
Speaker 1: let him pass. Is that I'm not mad at you.
Speaker 1: That's okay.
Speaker 5: We don't change our plates every.
Speaker 3: Morning, just so you know it.
Speaker 4: Don't do the same plate when you come talk to
Speaker 4: us later.
Speaker 1: That's fine. You have citizens for that's her quote unquote wife,
Speaker 1: you want to come at us? Who is taunting?
Speaker 5: Much?
Speaker 1: Big boy yellow ahead? Now the car.
Speaker 3: Card here, it is slow right now. Look she's looking
Speaker 3: off to the side now as she backs up, she's
Speaker 3: turning the wheel before she even starts.
Speaker 1: Smooth. But notice that when she stops after the backing,
Speaker 1: he runs up to the front of the car. Do
Speaker 1: you see that? Did you see that again? Jumping in
Speaker 1: front of the car, So he's got an excuse to
Speaker 1: kill her. She backs up, which is not what you're
Speaker 1: going to do if you're trying to run somebody down.
Speaker 1: She's clearly not an unhinged lefty as info Wars and
Speaker 1: others are trying to portray her. So she's backing up.
Speaker 1: You know, she just said the guy I said, okay,
Speaker 1: I'm not angry with you, dude or whatever. She's backing up,
Speaker 1: and then even before she starts to move forward. She's
Speaker 1: turning the wheel to the right. He runs up as
Speaker 1: she stops backing up, before she puts it in gear
Speaker 1: to go forward. He runs forward to the car. You
Speaker 1: can clearly see that. So again, he's walking around holding
Speaker 1: the phone. He was able to get in front of
Speaker 1: the car and she's backing up. You can see that.
Speaker 1: She immediately turns the car to the right, and then
Speaker 1: he runs rushes forward and then backs up a bit
Speaker 1: as the car starts to move and it starts shooting
Speaker 1: at her. And so again. The way this is reported
Speaker 1: in The New American says it shows the woman's attempt
Speaker 1: to mowd down the agent. Is that what you saw
Speaker 1: when Ada Broderick to the New American Ben Garrison, I'll
Speaker 1: say that she was trying to run him over. I
Speaker 1: didn't see that. I watched that over and over again.
Speaker 1: You should watch that yourself and see is that really
Speaker 1: what is happening there. I mean, forget your frustration with
Speaker 1: the left, forget your frustration with illegal immigration, forget your
Speaker 1: frustration with some ellis. That's a different issue than if
Speaker 1: we're going to give a green light to cops to
Speaker 1: execute us, to create a system where they say well,
Speaker 1: I was threatened by jumping in front of the car,
Speaker 1: by rushing forward to the car. That's what I saw.
Speaker 1: Maybe I'm blinded. I'm sure people will say that I
Speaker 1: just got to go with what I saw, and I'm
Speaker 1: not going to deny what I saw. I don't engage
Speaker 1: in double think. I know what I saw. So again,
Speaker 1: the woman looked at him and accelerated, knowing that she
Speaker 1: would hit him. No, she was turning the wheel before
Speaker 1: she even stepped on the gas, and she didn't accelerate
Speaker 1: to be the easiest thing in the world. If she
Speaker 1: wanted to run the guy down, she could just step
Speaker 1: down the gas and gone forward. Why would you back up?
Speaker 1: None of that makes sense that we're being told by
Speaker 1: the Conservatives. Trying to escape in apparent arrest, the woman
Speaker 1: accelerated toward the agent. He shot her three times and
Speaker 1: killed her. They failed to mention from the side from
Speaker 1: the side he shot her. You know, if she was
Speaker 1: running straight at him, she could have killed him. The
Speaker 1: fact that she did is the key issue here. So
Speaker 1: when DHS claimed self defense, the mayor claimed said that
Speaker 1: that was bs. Tim Walts then called it propaganda. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you know, when christyenoms says that they were stuck in
Speaker 1: the snow as they were trying to get their car
Speaker 1: out of the snow, she tried to kill them with
Speaker 1: the car. Yeah. I think that's lies. I think that's BS.
Speaker 1: I think that's propaganda. I think Trump saying the man
Speaker 1: was run over had to be hospitalized. It's amazing that
Speaker 1: he's still alive. Yeah, this guy right here, It's amazing
Speaker 1: he's still alive, isn't it. It's amazing they still believe
Speaker 1: Trump's lies. That's the issue. Democrats repeatedly called the shooting
Speaker 1: a murder and a cold blooded killing, said The New American. Well,
Speaker 1: let me say I am not a Democrat. I called
Speaker 1: it murder and a cold bloody killing from day one.
Speaker 1: As a matter of fact, that was my title of
Speaker 1: the show last week. Personally, it's not what we put up,
Speaker 1: but I put ice cold murder. That's the way I
Speaker 1: saw it from the very beginning. But I'm not a
Speaker 1: Democrat and I'm not a Republican, and I don't subscribe
Speaker 1: to either of their visions for America. I don't want
Speaker 1: a Welfare Great replacement, and I'm from the Democrats, and
Speaker 1: I don't want a militarized police state from the Republicans,
Speaker 1: and that's what both of them are offering us. I
Speaker 1: reject both of those false choices. Isn't it amazing that
Speaker 1: they always come up with two choices for you. They
Speaker 1: never say there's a third option. Right, let's go back
Speaker 1: to the COVID thing. Even if that had been true,
Speaker 1: we didn't have the option of, well, you stay locked
Speaker 1: up and masked up and isolated and all the until
Speaker 1: we can get a vaccine rushed out to you. That's
Speaker 1: the only option that's going to be allowed. Can't have
Speaker 1: anything else, can't have ivermactin, can't have HCQ, and you
Speaker 1: have to believe that this is a threat number one,
Speaker 1: number two. Nothing else will be allowed. To me, that
Speaker 1: was the biggest tip off, especially since I knew they'd
Speaker 1: been practicing that very scenario since two months before nine
Speaker 1: to eleven. So it isn't that they're stupid. They know
Speaker 1: what they're doing. And I stand by what I said.
Speaker 1: I think this is deliberate. I think this is deliberately
Speaker 1: trying to push us into civil war, and we're getting
Speaker 1: there faster all the time. So again the New American
Speaker 1: puts in, you know, the wife quote unquote wife, Rebecca,
Speaker 1: And I understand, you know, I don't believe in same
Speaker 1: sex mirage. You know that as well. That's a different issue.
Speaker 1: I also don't believe in killing people who do that.
Speaker 1: And I believe that a government that has no rules,
Speaker 1: no law, no oversight, that attacks people who try to
Speaker 1: look at what they're doing. I've seen this over and
Speaker 1: over again. Oh, you're not allowed to see the COVID data.
Speaker 1: Oh you're not allowed to see the climate data. Can't
Speaker 1: see the raw data that I based all these policies on. Well,
Speaker 1: then you're lying if you're trying to cover up this
Speaker 1: information so hard. And so I have seen this type
Speaker 1: of thing happening over and over again. They'll always go
Speaker 1: to an ad hominem attack, and it's very easy to
Speaker 1: do that with this individual. They you know, they're a
Speaker 1: different tribe. We're not the LGBT tribe. So let's kill
Speaker 1: those people, right. And I knew that this would blind
Speaker 1: a lot of people. Oh well, you know she had
Speaker 1: a wife. It would blind them to the police action.
Speaker 1: And so you know when I push back against that,
Speaker 1: just like I push back against the drug war. Oh
Speaker 1: well you want people on drugs? No, I don't, No,
Speaker 1: I don't. I just this is a separate thing. It
Speaker 1: doesn't solve the problem. And you know, if we have
Speaker 1: a country where people haven't caught on in fifty four
Speaker 1: years to the understanding that the drug war is a failure,
Speaker 1: that the attempt by the government to force us to
Speaker 1: not use drugs as an absolute failure and will never succeed.
Speaker 1: If people haven't caught onto that in fifty four years now,
Speaker 1: they're not going to catch on this other stuff, which
Speaker 1: is really what is so concerning. So when we look
Speaker 1: at the tactics of all of this, as one person said,
Speaker 1: one person who is a consultant to law enforcement said,
Speaker 1: what is a cop doing walking around carrying a cell phone.
Speaker 1: You're supposed to keep your hands free so that you
Speaker 1: can react to things. Right, and again, everything this guy
Speaker 1: did was in violation of common sense and law enforcement policy.
Speaker 1: But they're going to circle the wagons and protect them
Speaker 1: because they don't want to have a precedent where anybody
Speaker 1: in law enforcements ever made to be accountable for anything
Speaker 1: they ever do. As they point out, she doesn't look
Speaker 1: like a domestic terror she's smiling. She said, I'm not
Speaker 1: mad at you. Just before he killed her, but the
Speaker 1: quote unquote wife was and was taunting him, so NOME
Speaker 1: calls it stalking. Ice officers and agents approached the vehicle
Speaker 1: of the individual who was blocking the officer in with
Speaker 1: her vehicle, and they're impeding ICE by photographing them. Yeah,
Speaker 1: they've been stalking and impeding their work all throughout the day. Well,
Speaker 1: if you're not doing anything wrong law enforcement, you ought
Speaker 1: to be okay with being observed in public. These are
Speaker 1: the people who are putting flock cam everywhere. They've got
Speaker 1: cameras everywhere to record us. I had the same discussion
Speaker 1: with a TSA, remember that Travis. We went through two
Speaker 1: separate lines and they were going through Travis. I pulled
Speaker 1: out my phone and I started photographing what was happening there,
Speaker 1: and the guy got really angry with me. How dare
Speaker 1: you photographs? Said, look around here? Do you see there's
Speaker 1: cameras everywhere? You're being photographed all the time. Why is
Speaker 1: it that it bothers you that a member of the
Speaker 1: public photographs you, Right, but they believe that they are
Speaker 1: allowed to know everything about us. We are not allowed
Speaker 1: to know anything about them. Does that bother you? That
Speaker 1: bothers me? That is I think very dangerous and foolish.
Speaker 1: So the bottom line here is that I've got one
Speaker 1: more that i want to talk about before get to
Speaker 1: the bottom line. I know I've been going on for
Speaker 1: a long time here, Eric Peters. I'll look to see
Speaker 1: what Eric Peters had to say. Good Eric, always count
Speaker 1: on you to be principled and consistent. Eric Peters of
Speaker 1: Eric Peters Autos, He got it right. I mean, I
Speaker 1: have seen Alex Jones did documentary after documentary about the
Speaker 1: police state, and he's opposed to it when it's Obama,
Speaker 1: but when it's Trump, he's cheering it. Now he did
Speaker 1: documentary after documentary about fake wars and regime change, but
Speaker 1: now he cheers it because it's Donald Trump. Eric Peters
Speaker 1: is going to stay true to principle. He said, there's
Speaker 1: a tragedy, this behind this tragedy, and I couldn't say
Speaker 1: it as well as Eric. So I'm going to read
Speaker 1: you what he wrote. So people have generally taken sides
Speaker 1: yet again with regard to the shooting death of the
Speaker 1: woman in Minneapolis. But the thing to understand is that
Speaker 1: we're all on one side. Now. It's the side of
Speaker 1: those who face summary execution by armed government workers if
Speaker 1: we quote unquote resist in any way. This resists encompasses
Speaker 1: a tem to drive away, which is what the woman
Speaker 1: who was shot to death was trying to do quote
Speaker 1: unquote Conservatives, many of whom manifest a dog like admiration
Speaker 1: of armed government workers, which is hugely strange given that
Speaker 1: they say they are very leery of government. You know,
Speaker 1: Christine Olam says, you can't trust the government, but you
Speaker 1: are the government. I know. That's what I'm saying.
Speaker 2: You can't trust me, no one especially me.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so he says, the murdered woman bumped the armed
Speaker 1: government worker, but was never in any danger. Who was
Speaker 1: never any danger being run over. And it is pretty
Speaker 1: clear that the woman was not trying to run him over.
Speaker 1: If she had been, she would not have turned her
Speaker 1: wheel to the right. She would have driven straight ahead.
Speaker 1: And we knew that she'd turned her wheel to the
Speaker 1: right before we got the video cell phone video from
Speaker 1: the guy, because we could see it from the back angle.
Speaker 1: You could see her wheel was turned. You know how
Speaker 1: that works. Have you ever driven a car? You know,
Speaker 1: why does somebody back up in the DRN. She's trying
Speaker 1: to do a three point turn and she's not a
Speaker 1: very good driver, but shouldn't be executed for that. She
Speaker 1: just wanted to get away, Yet for failing to obey.
Speaker 1: In other words, this is the ultimate crime in any
Speaker 1: authoritarian system, as evidenced by how severely it is punished.
Speaker 1: This is why I got so angry about that video
Speaker 1: that was put up by that one guy said show
Speaker 1: your hands, obey commands. It's like, what are you talking about.
Speaker 1: I put all that stuff together from they live. You know,
Speaker 1: we put some glasses on everything he sees is obey
Speaker 1: submit All the rest of this stuff. That is the
Speaker 1: ultimate crime in any authoritarian system. You know. I've been
Speaker 1: in a traffic court more times than I would like
Speaker 1: to have been for speeding tickets and things. And I
Speaker 1: got to tell you, I saw people who had dozens
Speaker 1: of drunk driving convictions let go, which I think is
Speaker 1: the most dangerous thing anybody can do in a car
Speaker 1: bar none And they were like, go, Yet the person
Speaker 1: who was there driving without a license. They hammered that
Speaker 1: person a year in jail. It's about authority, it's not
Speaker 1: about safety. So videos of armed government workers tackling, beating,
Speaker 1: and shooting people who aren't criminals in the sense that
Speaker 1: whatever they were being initially pestered over was some petty
Speaker 1: statutory offense that entailed no harm done to anyone. A
Speaker 1: man who gives an example and a link to it.
Speaker 1: A man ordered to get down on the ground. Now
Speaker 1: this is IDF Israeli Defense Force tactics beaten over jwalking.
Speaker 1: But his real crime was not to obey the orders. Right,
Speaker 1: how about a turn signal violation? Anything is like this.
Speaker 1: This is like again, we need to understand what is
Speaker 1: being put in place by so called conservatives. They're not
Speaker 1: trying to conserve the rule of law. They're not trying
Speaker 1: to conserve the content Stitution, the Bill of Rights, They're
Speaker 1: not trying to conserve freedom. This is like the creation
Speaker 1: of homeland, created under a false pretense, a dangerous, unnecessary institution,
Speaker 1: and change of an institution to centralize control and to
Speaker 1: avoid accountability. And it's hard to pin it down exactly,
Speaker 1: says Eric. But it is sometime in the mid nineteen
Speaker 1: nineties that hut hut hut got normalized. We saw it
Speaker 1: on TV. The cop shows became a huge hit, normalizing
Speaker 1: and even fetishizing the hut hut hut. I just showed
Speaker 1: you last week before all this stuff happened. You've got
Speaker 1: people in Japan going to unbelievable amounts of effort and
Speaker 1: they're LARPing live action role playing right pertaining that they're police.
Speaker 1: And they've got the cars wrapped with the same kind
Speaker 1: of marketing that you have a police car. They got
Speaker 1: full uniforms, they've got body cams, and they've got I
Speaker 1: think it's like airsoft guns or something like that, or maybe.
Speaker 2: It's uh, you know, the I believe airsoft.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I don't think it's paintballs. Anyway, They're going around
Speaker 1: and we were laughing at it because it was so
Speaker 1: absurd and so over the top. And yet to them,
Speaker 1: they're imitating what they see on TV about how cops act,
Speaker 1: and they're imitating what they know about America, which is
Speaker 1: America is a police state. You know, the very fact
Speaker 1: that they're doing this they want to play police. So
Speaker 1: what do you do? You you know, it's not the
Speaker 1: German police anymore. You know the old joke Hell is
Speaker 1: where the police are German and the chefs are British
Speaker 1: and I forget what the other aspects of it were,
Speaker 1: but yeah, that's you know, the bad food from the
Speaker 1: UK and the bad police from Germany. Well, now we
Speaker 1: are the Nazi cops, and so they're running around, you know, Parice,
Speaker 1: Parice open up and then they say the door rocked.
Speaker 1: They get down. But Eric Peters goes back to Randy Weaver,
Speaker 1: his fourteen year old son executed on their own property.
Speaker 1: And what did we see from that to this day.
Speaker 1: I remember the name of the sniper, the FBI sniper
Speaker 1: euphemistically called the hostage rescue team, and how he shot
Speaker 1: Randy Weaver's wife point blank as she was holding a child,
Speaker 1: shot her right between the eyes as she slumped to
Speaker 1: the ground holding the child. And it was a point
Speaker 1: blank shot. I mean, he was so close to that
Speaker 1: sniper rifle. It's the same as if he had just
Speaker 1: put a gun in her face, like that training killer
Speaker 1: in Nashville. I said so many times, how could somebody
Speaker 1: do that to a nine year old? That could somebody
Speaker 1: be so full of hate like that training killer in
Speaker 1: Nashville that she would just walk up to a child
Speaker 1: and shoot him point blank in the head. Well, that's
Speaker 1: what this FBI sniper did to a mother who was
Speaker 1: holding her child. What do we say about that? Well,
Speaker 1: the government, both Democrats and Republicans. Remember Ruby Ridge happened
Speaker 1: under George H. W. Bush, and a lot of the
Speaker 1: same people who were involved in Ruby Ridge then later
Speaker 1: did Waco under Bill Clinton. Those are not two separate things.
Speaker 1: The bureaucracy doesn't change, and it doesn't matter who you
Speaker 1: vote for. They're going to do their things. So they
Speaker 1: gave Lan Hryucci a medal, not a prison sentence, which
Speaker 1: he deserved. I've seen this happen over and over again.
Speaker 1: I've watched them and he mentions the Branch Davidians. They said, yeah,
Speaker 1: there were religious weirdos. You know. That's one of the
Speaker 1: things that really stuck with me about that. I remember
Speaker 1: when that happened, and I remember the Christians that I
Speaker 1: knew many of them. Oh yeah, those Branch Avena, they're
Speaker 1: crazy religious koops and everything, And it was almost like
Speaker 1: they had a death wish for these people because they
Speaker 1: were embarrassed by they are over the top actions and
Speaker 1: calling themselves Christians. Well, I'm embarrassed by what Pete Hegseath does,
Speaker 1: But I don't want to see him executed. I don't
Speaker 1: want to see him and his family burned alive, and
Speaker 1: I just want to see him remove from office. But
Speaker 1: I've seen that type of thing before. And that's the
Speaker 1: ultimate tribalism, isn't it that Christians can say I don't
Speaker 1: like their theology, like what they're doing, you know, and
Speaker 1: they're marrying kids at young ages and so forth, the
Speaker 1: kind of ages that people used to get married at
Speaker 1: throughout history. And I'm not doing a Megan Kelly here,
Speaker 1: I'm just saying that that, you know, we're not talking
Speaker 1: about consensual sex with miners. We're talking about parents engaging
Speaker 1: children to other people. And I'm not supporting that. I'm
Speaker 1: just saying that that was not that much of an
Speaker 1: historical aberration. But they wanted these people killed. I mean,
Speaker 1: they really applauded that thought it served him right. And
Speaker 1: so that's the mind of tribalism that we have to avoid.
Speaker 1: And how do you avoid that. You have to look
Speaker 1: at what is really happening. You have to have some
Speaker 1: moral principal foundation that you evaluate things from, and you
Speaker 1: have to be honest with what you're looking at, rather
Speaker 1: than getting into this kool aid drinking cult called MAGA.
Speaker 1: So the the operators were and are taught to regard
Speaker 1: the slightest act of recalcitrants as resisting, says Eric Peters,
Speaker 1: and to respond as if this constituted a threat to
Speaker 1: their safety. The President and his minions approved that message,
Speaker 1: no hint of empathy, no expression of rueful sentiment that
Speaker 1: just maybe things got out of hand. There is no
Speaker 1: uncertainty about it all. They cheered it immediately, They gave
Speaker 1: false details immediately. And I challenge anybody to show me
Speaker 1: the footage of these guys stuck in the snow. We
Speaker 1: can all see that we're all coursened by this. Humanity
Speaker 1: is diminished by this. The ice goon who shot that
Speaker 1: woman could have just stepped aside and did by the
Speaker 1: way and let the woman go. This is exactly what
Speaker 1: would have happened in America before the mid nineteen nineties.
Speaker 1: Cops didn't shoot at people who weren't shooting at them,
Speaker 1: so who was just people who were just trying to
Speaker 1: get away from them? Instead, the ice goon did what
Speaker 1: he has been trained to do and what government goons
Speaker 1: know they can do with impunity. The tragedy isn't primarily
Speaker 1: that it was done. It is that it can and
Speaker 1: will be done to any of us, because so many
Speaker 1: of us have accepted it as okay to be done
Speaker 1: to any of us. That's exactly right. They've all been
Speaker 1: trained not only to be Barney Fife, but they fully
Speaker 1: arm and armor them up and then send them out
Speaker 1: to push people. So again, Christine Ohm, I thought one
Speaker 1: of the best exchanges of this was that Christine Ohm
Speaker 1: and Jake Tapper and he brings in January sixth, and
Speaker 1: I said that from the very beginning. And when you
Speaker 1: look at this clip of Christine Om and Jake Tapper,
Speaker 1: you see the tribal blindness, I would say of them both.
Speaker 1: Jake Tapper is hopping mad about j six and he
Speaker 1: thinks all those people how to go to jail for life.
Speaker 1: And the peaceful protesters as well, understand that, you know,
Speaker 1: there's so many that in a nutshell you had people
Speaker 1: show up, and I knew it was going to be
Speaker 1: an entrapment and I warned people to stay away from it.
Speaker 1: I was fired because I called it a grift because
Speaker 1: Alex was funding it and making money off of it
Speaker 1: at the same time. And so when you look at
Speaker 1: what happened with it, there's a lot of evidence to
Speaker 1: show that the police escalated and even initiated a lot
Speaker 1: of this conflict, which is what I said would happen.
Speaker 1: And then as some people, not all people, some people
Speaker 1: fought back, you had the police. Then you know, that's
Speaker 1: where these guys start their coverage, the people who are
Speaker 1: fighting back, and so now we should take everybody that
Speaker 1: was there. And that's what they did. For five years,
Speaker 1: with the help of Bank of America, for example, the
Speaker 1: Biden administration went after everybody that was there, even if
Speaker 1: they weren't there, even if they were just in the
Speaker 1: general area of Washington and were conservative. They looked at
Speaker 1: their political background. They looked to see where they owned
Speaker 1: guns or whatever, or not that they had guns. They
Speaker 1: were threat to anybody, but they just looked at all
Speaker 1: that stuff and they came after people. And the punishment
Speaker 1: that they had, even for the people that were violent,
Speaker 1: even for the people who were destructive of property, was
Speaker 1: cruel and unusual punishment. But they wanted everybody to get
Speaker 1: The conservatives are doing the same thing now. They're lumping
Speaker 1: everybody together and they're giving carte blanc to law enforcement
Speaker 1: quote unquote to do whatever they wish. And Jake Tapper
Speaker 1: is blind to that, just like Christine om is blind
Speaker 1: to that. But listen to this exchange. It's not working?
Speaker 1: Can you do it? There?
Speaker 2: We go, Well, I think our hard drive may have
Speaker 2: just failed, so right.
Speaker 1: Okay, yeah, we changed everything late last night and didn't
Speaker 1: test anything. Okay, that's fine. We won't play that there.
Speaker 1: Let's just go take what can we take a break?
Speaker 1: I don't know. Just give me a minute, and it's
Speaker 1: just wonderful today. Yeah, thank you.
Speaker 2: The hard drive is the thing that's causing the issues,
Speaker 2: which is actually an old piece of tech.
Speaker 1: So I feel threatened. I'm gonna start shoot here in
Speaker 1: a minute.
Speaker 2: All right, give me just a moment.
Speaker 1: Okay, should I sing a song for you? I don't know.
Speaker 1: Even our green screen thing is not working apparently, so.
Speaker 2: Sorry, folks, I think our hard drive is dying. I'm
Speaker 2: working on it. Give me just a moment.
Speaker 1: Well, I don't want to continue with some of this stuff.
Speaker 1: I'll just read you the transcript. I've got that here
Speaker 1: in front of me here. So GNOM tried to insist
Speaker 1: that there was no double standard. So first they began
Speaker 1: by saying, those law enforcement officers are being physically attacked.
Speaker 1: Tapper said of the January sixth officers, by this standard,
Speaker 1: would any of those officers be justified in shooting and
Speaker 1: killing the people causing them physical harm. Well, you know
Speaker 1: they actually did that, isn't it interesting? You know, Actulely
Speaker 1: Babbitt shot in the head by a guy that he
Speaker 1: was not danger of his life, and of all the
Speaker 1: people that he could have felt threatened by, why would
Speaker 1: he pick out a woman to shoot in the head.
Speaker 1: Now you know, Trump has defended her, He's called her
Speaker 1: a patriot. He said very bad things going to happened
Speaker 1: to this guy. He called him a thug three times
Speaker 1: from July of twenty twenty one to most recently twenty
Speaker 1: twenty three. And yet when it's on the other shoe,
Speaker 1: simply nothing has changed except the issue that they're fighting over.
Speaker 1: But the way that law enforcement engages people is exactly
Speaker 1: the same way. And so for Ashley Babbitt, she was
Speaker 1: not a threat. And but the people who disagree with
Speaker 1: her politics want her killed, just like the people disagreed
Speaker 1: with this woman named good. They disagree with her politics,
Speaker 1: they disagree with the fact that she's LGBT. They want
Speaker 1: her killed. It's just that simple. And that's what's really
Speaker 1: concerning to me when you look at the ground roots
Speaker 1: and how everybody wants civil war. I mean, they want
Speaker 1: somebody killed simply because their political beliefs, simply because of
Speaker 1: their lifestyle. They want them killed. And so Noam said, yeah,
Speaker 1: but they know that when people are putting hands on them,
Speaker 1: when they're using weapons against them, when they're physically harming them,
Speaker 1: that they have the authority to arrest those individuals. Oh, yes,
Speaker 1: you do. But do you have the authority to just
Speaker 1: shoot unarmed people in the head. Taper quickly pointed out
Speaker 1: that Trump views the two situations very differently. He said,
Speaker 1: the President pardoned every single one of those people. Noam
Speaker 1: tried to insist that there was no double standard. Taper said,
Speaker 1: I just showed you the video of people attacking law
Speaker 1: enforcement officers, undisputed proof, undisputed evidence, and I just said
Speaker 1: Trump pardoned all of them. And you said that Trump
Speaker 1: is enforcing all the laws equally. It's not true. He said,
Speaker 1: there's a different standard for law enforcement officials being attacked
Speaker 1: if they're being attacked by Trump supporters. We just all that. Now.
Speaker 1: He's right about that, But Jake Tapper also has a
Speaker 1: different standard. He wants to see people if they are
Speaker 1: Trump supporters, he wants to see them punished, But he
Speaker 1: doesn't want to see other people. Look, we have to
Speaker 1: support the right to peacefully protest or we lose all
Speaker 1: free speech. I mean, we've got Israeli billionaire shlow Mo
Speaker 1: coming over here and saying, Hey, we're going to have
Speaker 1: to destroy the First Amendment to save it. And we've
Speaker 1: got to create a database, and we've got to rank
Speaker 1: people based on what their belief system is. And that's
Speaker 1: exactly what has been happening over this last week. You
Speaker 1: see people ranked based on what their politics are. And
Speaker 1: guess what if you're down at the bottom of their
Speaker 1: ranking because they don't like your politics, you should be killed,
Speaker 1: sumarily executed. So it's more even than just the issue
Speaker 1: of whether or not law enforcement can do whatever they wish.
Speaker 1: So again, you know, over and over again, Trump had
Speaker 1: celebrated Ashley Babbitt, and then over the weekend you also
Speaker 1: had Jesse Ventura speak out and he was very, very angry.
Speaker 1: And one of the things you noticed about Jesse Ventura
Speaker 1: is that he is really, even though he's an independent,
Speaker 1: he is a hardcore Democrat in terms of his beliefs,
Speaker 1: and that came across in his video in his rage
Speaker 1: about January the sixth, However, he is right when he
Speaker 1: looks at the police state that is happening now. As
Speaker 1: he said, he kept referring to Trump as a draft dodger,
Speaker 1: rich white kid, and all that is true. But he said,
Speaker 1: I went to Vietnam, and he talked about when he
Speaker 1: was in another adjacent country when they declared martial law,
Speaker 1: and he goes, what do you see with martial law?
Speaker 1: You see military troops on the street, the fully automatic weapons.
Speaker 1: He goes, we see that today. He goes, that is
Speaker 1: what I'm talking about in terms of police state. Now,
Speaker 1: He's absolutely right about that. I disagree with this politics.
Speaker 1: I disagree with this take on January the sixth. I
Speaker 1: believe that what happened was a lot of people who
Speaker 1: were peacefully protesting were punished. And I believe that the
Speaker 1: people who you know, even with the physical contact, I
Speaker 1: believe that the punishment was unusual and cruel, and that
Speaker 1: is also specifically prohibited by the Constitution. So we've got
Speaker 1: a couple of comments here. We'll buy some time. So, yeah,
Speaker 1: you say the drive is back, you think it's working.
Speaker 2: I believe it to be working. The drive, however, is dying.
Speaker 1: Okay, Well, Stealth Patriot, thank you very much for the tip.
Speaker 1: Maybe we can put that towards a new drive here.
Speaker 1: Could it be that Ice is intentionally violating the fourth, fifth,
Speaker 1: and ninth Amendment in order to be discredited so that
Speaker 1: the Hilargy plan can go back into full swing like
Speaker 1: under Biden. Just the thought, Well, I think that the
Speaker 1: whole purpose of this they understand the time that we're look,
Speaker 1: they understand this is a fourth turning. They know the pattern.
Speaker 1: I mean, they use all the terminology about the generations.
Speaker 1: This is a millennium of the millennial generation. These are
Speaker 1: the generation X and Y and Z and all the
Speaker 1: rest of the stuff. These all the terminology from Strauss
Speaker 1: and how But they pretend that they never read the
Speaker 1: fourth turning because the central part of that is the
Speaker 1: cycle of about eighty years every four generations that all
Speaker 1: the institutions are basically changed. You typically have an economic
Speaker 1: crash and then all the institutions. Everybody loses faith in
Speaker 1: the institutions, there's something of a revolution towards the institutions,
Speaker 1: and usually there's a war. Why because when the government
Speaker 1: feels threatened, they take it to war. So they're pretending
Speaker 1: that they don't know all this stuff. But they are
Speaker 1: ramping it up, and Trump is busy making enemies foreign
Speaker 1: and domestic. I said, for the longest time, this fourth turning.
Speaker 1: Previous one was the Great Depression of World War II.
Speaker 1: Prior to that, the Civil War, part of that, the
Speaker 1: Revolutionary War. I said, I think this one is going
Speaker 1: to be a combination of all three. I think it'll
Speaker 1: be a revolutionary war, a civil war, and a world war.
Speaker 1: And he's working very hard to make that happen. A
Speaker 1: matter of fact, even when you look at his insane
Speaker 1: plans about Greenland and all the rest of this stuff,
Speaker 1: even as you know, the rhetoric just keeps escalating to
Speaker 1: the extent that now Denmark and the UK are saying, oh,
Speaker 1: we got special forces that we're moving to Denmark and
Speaker 1: all the rest of this stuff. I don't think it'll
Speaker 1: happen that way. I think he will take it over.
Speaker 1: I think you'll take it over by just moving a
Speaker 1: massive number of troops there, which again I always said,
Speaker 1: if you think that there's a defense issue, a national
Speaker 1: security issue, you've already got a treaty that allows you.
Speaker 1: We've already got a military base there. We had a
Speaker 1: lot of military bases there. We had a lot of people.
Speaker 1: They've taken that all down because nobody believed that it
Speaker 1: was necessary for national security. But if you're going to
Speaker 1: maintain that it is necessary for national security, you can
Speaker 1: put all the troops back tomorrow and he could occupy
Speaker 1: that country. And he's working very hard to try to
Speaker 1: bribe the people in Greenland one hundred thousand dollars each. Yeah,
Speaker 1: how much is your freedom worth to you? Right? Not
Speaker 1: thirty pieces of silver, but well, how about one hundred
Speaker 1: thousand American Fiat dollars. How about that? It's like continental currency.
Speaker 1: And he wants a continent. That's exactly what he wants,
Speaker 1: and it is the plan that the technocrasts have had
Speaker 1: since nineteen thirty eight. If you look at what he's
Speaker 1: wanting to do, it's exactly what they want to do.
Speaker 1: They wanted to unify everything from Greenland to the Galapagos Islands.
Speaker 1: They want it to all be one big technique. They
Speaker 1: want to unify North and South America. And that's what
Speaker 1: he's working on. I believe that's really is the issue.
Speaker 2: Yeah, those are going to be our tortoises.
Speaker 1: And don't you forget it, Marky Mark, thank you for
Speaker 1: the tip. He says, how can anyone see anything besides
Speaker 1: what happened? This obvious that Misgood turned away from the
Speaker 1: ice aging. You can see the wheel, right, I know
Speaker 1: how that works. I've driven a car before. I don't
Speaker 1: like what I've found out about miss Goood, but that
Speaker 1: doesn't justify a homicide. I absolutely agree. And I even
Speaker 1: said that about that guy Abrego Garcia or whatever. I said.
Speaker 1: You know, their first instinct was to come after him
Speaker 1: with an ad hominem attack, call him a wife beater
Speaker 1: and all the rest of the stuff. And it's like, okay, well,
Speaker 1: you know, still if he's here illegally, deport him, but
Speaker 1: give him due process. That's really what we need to have.
Speaker 1: And then they added to the lines. They said, look,
Speaker 1: he's got MS thirteen on his knuckles. They put that
Speaker 1: it was quite obviously put in after the fact with
Speaker 1: a photoshop or something. Actually, the words it was not
Speaker 1: even tattooed on his hand there, and he had some
Speaker 1: symbols that people said, well, that's not the way the
Speaker 1: drug guys do it. They're big and proud and loud
Speaker 1: about their MS thirteen and they put it all over
Speaker 1: their entire chest or their back, real big MS thirteen,
Speaker 1: So you know, that didn't look like any of that
Speaker 1: stuff was real. But at the same time Trump and
Speaker 1: Christine Om were pushing these personal attacks and fake information
Speaker 1: about Garcia. It also emerged that in Tennessee he had
Speaker 1: been involved in human trafficking and was caught by the
Speaker 1: Tennessee Highway Patrol. He had, like, you know, a half
Speaker 1: dozen or eight different guys in the car with him.
Speaker 1: None of them spoke English, none of them were citizens.
Speaker 1: The car that he was driving belonged to a guy
Speaker 1: that I been caught and convicted of trafficking human trafficking,
Speaker 1: and the Biden administration let him go, and they let
Speaker 1: this thing go on and on and on, and the Conservatives,
Speaker 1: not just Trump and Gnom, but all of the quote
Speaker 1: unquote influencers that were out there, kept doing these ad
Speaker 1: hominem attacks on Garcia rather than pointing out the fact
Speaker 1: this guy really was associated with one of these trafficking gangs,
Speaker 1: and I think he really was. Nevertheless, she still needs
Speaker 1: to have due process, and I said, it's because if
Speaker 1: you skip due process, you wind up turning our own
Speaker 1: government into the most dangerous possible gang that you could have,
Speaker 1: and that is unlimited amounts of money, unlimited use of force,
Speaker 1: and no accountability, which is what we're really talking about here.
Speaker 2: There's also the fact that multiple things can be true.
Speaker 2: This woman can be an obnoxious liberal scumbag that none
Speaker 2: of us would want to be friends with, that none
Speaker 2: of us would want to have their policies put into place.
Speaker 2: That's right, And this guy can also be a thug.
Speaker 1: But change. You know, you don't want to give up
Speaker 1: the rule of law. Here a Syrian girl say, she's
Speaker 1: not very bright. You saw how that reporter reminded her
Speaker 1: she was the untrustworthy government and it went right over
Speaker 1: her head. Yeah, we're talking about Christine om. She's so
Speaker 1: dense that she bragged about shooting her own dogs and
Speaker 1: thought that was going to be okay with public Paisano
Speaker 1: Avante seventeen seventy six. This was a filmed execution, just
Speaker 1: like Laboy Finnicam. That's right. That's another example. Isn't that amazing?
Speaker 1: I'll never forget that Travis had a chance to talk
Speaker 1: to him when he went up there, and uh.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think it was the last person from Info
Speaker 2: Wars to ask him anything.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, because you know he had what was that
Speaker 1: Pete sent tell. He was saying, Oh, you can't interview
Speaker 1: any of these people. I've got exclusive all this stuff.
Speaker 1: And Travis said, no, you don't. He went over and
Speaker 1: he talked to La Boy Fennicam, who was setting out
Speaker 1: in front of the compound, wasn't.
Speaker 2: He Yeah, he was just sitting there and said, you know,
Speaker 2: they want to arrest me. I'm right here. They can
Speaker 2: come get me. I won't fight back. I won't do anything.
Speaker 2: If memory serves, he just said, you know, come take me.
Speaker 2: We're not gonna, you know, have a firefight. You can
Speaker 2: just come arrest me right here.
Speaker 1: Yeah, except that they did have a firefight, didn't they.
Speaker 1: They set up an ambush and as he's getting out
Speaker 1: of the car and he's showing his hands and they
Speaker 1: executed him, shooting him in the back. They're already shooting
Speaker 1: into the car. He got out to save the lives
Speaker 1: of the people in there. Fuzzy Mateo. The same CBP
Speaker 1: that let in twenty million illegals are now tasked with
Speaker 1: removing them. They're yes men. They don't follow the law.
Speaker 1: They follow the leader. That's right, the lost boys. You know,
Speaker 1: that's the other thing about it too. If you look
Speaker 1: at Steven Miller's quota, right, I want this many arrests
Speaker 1: per day, and you go out and you do the math.
Speaker 1: You know the number of days that they're going to
Speaker 1: be there, which is about twelve hundred days. Let's say
Speaker 1: if they were following that quota every single day, they
Speaker 1: would only get about three and a half million of
Speaker 1: the twenty million that they brought in. So again, it
Speaker 1: is not worth turning our country into a police state.
Speaker 1: For Steven Miller's quotas Guard Goldsmith's liberty conspiracy good to
Speaker 1: see Guard. The problem of ICE is root caused centralized
Speaker 1: authority over freedom of association, meaning that it's sometimes sees
Speaker 1: the president's the president push migrants into the US, and
Speaker 1: sometimes it sees trumpest police statist invasion of states. That's right,
Speaker 1: that's whatever the policy is, they will follow it. As
Speaker 1: the other person said, yes, man, trump Berger says, Feds
Speaker 1: get mad when you don't lick the boot, that's right.
Speaker 1: And even if you do lick the boot, the future
Speaker 1: is the boot stopping you in the face forever says orwell,
Speaker 1: as one person said, you know, it's really it's really
Speaker 1: getting tired to keep using this phrase. Or well, in
Speaker 1: when you talk about the new things that Trump does
Speaker 1: every week. But it fits. If the boot fits, wear it,
Speaker 1: you know, as they'd say, I guess New Republic rising
Speaker 1: eighty three. If you watch the video, you can see
Speaker 1: him observing the rear of her car, looking at the
Speaker 1: swag and sizing her up. It looks to me like
Speaker 1: that's when he decided to execute her because he didn't
Speaker 1: like her. Yeah, he obviously did not like her, and
Speaker 1: the the other woman didn't do anything to help that.
Speaker 1: So again, you know when I kind of wonder what
Speaker 1: kind of a face he was making when the woman
Speaker 1: he killed it said Hey, it's okay, dude, I'm not
Speaker 1: mad at you. I mean, was he scowling at her?
Speaker 1: Why did she say that? I don't know. Chris Owe
Speaker 1: Marines says, what as crazy as this? On Info Wars,
Speaker 1: they were doing a vote to see if the shooting
Speaker 1: of the lady was justified. More than ninety percent said yes,
Speaker 1: only nine percent said no. Truly sad already selling the
Speaker 1: lie that people buy. Yeah, I've seen that over and
Speaker 1: over again. I mean they bought the lie about stop
Speaker 1: to steal, They bought the lie that it was a
Speaker 1: sugar water that it was Trump's vaccine. It wasn't bad
Speaker 1: like Gates's vaccine. They bought the lie that, yeah, you can,
Speaker 1: you know, buy the info war's mask and all the
Speaker 1: rest of this stuff. Twenty twenty, I saw Alex deny
Speaker 1: everything that he had ever pushed in his life. Come on,
Speaker 1: you can take the vaccine. It's just got aluminum and
Speaker 1: these other things of formaldeheide and it's a little bit
Speaker 1: of adjuvants, and I bet you can take that. And
Speaker 1: he had talked a great deal about the harm of
Speaker 1: just ordinary vaccines. For the longest time. He had opposed wars,
Speaker 1: he had opposed militaries, centralized federalized police. He abandoned all
Speaker 1: of that for Trump because he wanted audience and money.
Speaker 1: And you can see how that works out. I mean,
Speaker 1: it is a business model. It's not investigation, and it's
Speaker 1: just disgusting to watch what it's become. I got some
Speaker 1: other things I want to talk about. As a matter
Speaker 1: of fact, I want to talk a little bit about
Speaker 1: the crumbling empire and the Fiat currency that is the
Speaker 1: foundation of the empire. If you don't know what shaky
Speaker 1: ground we're on, just take a look at the dollar
Speaker 1: and again, it's not just the not worth of continental
Speaker 1: which is this is zero hedge article. But they go
Speaker 1: through it and they talk about, well, you know, in
Speaker 1: Germany they had the one hundred billion in mark banknote,
Speaker 1: one hundred one hundred billion million marx and one piece
Speaker 1: of paper. The paper mark was printed mass quantity to
Speaker 1: buy foreign currency in order to pay back reparations. And
Speaker 1: what happens is you wind up having as they say,
Speaker 1: how does a very rich person go bankrupt? Well, I's
Speaker 1: one person, you know, hemingway how the character say, well,
Speaker 1: gradually then suddenly, and this is the way hyperinflation always begins.
Speaker 1: Gradually then suddenly. And Hungary they had one hundred million
Speaker 1: billion denomination there in nineteen forty six. Hungary was severely
Speaker 1: strapped for money as a result of World War Two.
Speaker 1: The central bank was instructed to issue currency proportional to
Speaker 1: whatever the budget required. Sounds like Trump was running it.
Speaker 1: Silver coinage disappeared. By the way, Trump is now filing
Speaker 1: criminal charges against Jern Powell. He can't wait for this
Speaker 1: guy to get out. That's how eager he is to
Speaker 1: manipulate the financial system. I'm telling you this. I think,
Speaker 1: in my personal opinion, if gold was in response to
Speaker 1: economic instability and problems that we had. You know, Trump
Speaker 1: is stepping on the pedal like a crazed leftist radical
Speaker 1: that he wants you to believe this one was. You know,
Speaker 1: it is just amazing how he's accelerating everything. Yugoslavia, nineteen
Speaker 1: ninety three, they had a five hundred billion dinar banknote. Yugoslavia,
Speaker 1: economically weakened by regional war, had used up all of
Speaker 1: its hard currency reserves, meaning gold, and decided to loot
Speaker 1: the savings of its citizens. That did this through the
Speaker 1: printing of money and increasing restrictions on citizens' savings and
Speaker 1: government banks. As always, the governments are always certain that
Speaker 1: they can control inflation until they can't. In Zimbabwe, one
Speaker 1: hundred trillion dollar banknote that was in two thousand and eight,
Speaker 1: the civil war emptied the country's treasury. In the beginning
Speaker 1: in nineteen ninety eight, Mugabi took land and other assets
Speaker 1: from white farm redistributed them to less experienced black farmers.
Speaker 1: Food exports plummeted, prompting Mugabi to print more currency. Revenues
Speaker 1: to government suffered as a result, with wages failing to
Speaker 1: keep up. Hospitals and schools developed chronic staffing problems because
Speaker 1: nurses and teachers could not afford bus fair to get
Speaker 1: to work. The capital of Harari was without water because
Speaker 1: the authorities had stopped paying the bills to buy and
Speaker 1: transport the treatment chemicals. By two thousand and eight, prices
Speaker 1: were doubling every twenty four hours. So there's a lot
Speaker 1: of different paths that political leaders can take destroy country's
Speaker 1: economy through hyperinflation. But leaders who followed the standard checklist
Speaker 1: of the most common components to collapse can generally be
Speaker 1: assured that the economy will be destroyed. So what are
Speaker 1: these And he's got five different things? See how many
Speaker 1: of these apply to us right now? First one, first
Speaker 1: checkbox war. It can be a major war, or it
Speaker 1: can be a perpetual small wars one after the other.
Speaker 1: Second one depletion of gold reserves. The third one excessive debt.
Speaker 1: I think we clearly check all three of those boxes,
Speaker 1: especially the debt one. Thanks to Trump, the evaluation the
Speaker 1: currency print massive amounts of currency to diminish debt, quantitative easing,
Speaker 1: and Trump has just taken upon himself to do another
Speaker 1: form of quantitative easing, purportedly to help the home mortgage market,
Speaker 1: because every time they cut the rates it wouldn't help
Speaker 1: the home mortgage market. People would say, well, these rates
Speaker 1: are going to be inflationary with the kind of deficit
Speaker 1: debt that we have here, So if it's a long
Speaker 1: term mortgage, I'm actually going to go up. So when
Speaker 1: they would cut the rates, it had exactly the opposite
Speaker 1: effect on home mortgages. So he's going to do it directly, right.
Speaker 1: And then the fifth and final one is the loss
Speaker 1: of control of inflation. So I'd say that we have
Speaker 1: checked fur out of five boxes of that. As this
Speaker 1: person points out, most of the world has done the
Speaker 1: first three or four of those boxes and is reaching
Speaker 1: the tipping point at which the fifth one kicks In
Speaker 1: the fifth one, hyperinflation never is actually anticipated by governments
Speaker 1: and always occurs suddenly, always, and so as the point
Speaker 1: it's out. In seventeen eighty seven, Americans Founding Fathers took
Speaker 1: the highly unusual step of enshrining in the Constitution a
Speaker 1: control to assure that private banks would never again create
Speaker 1: fiat currencies because of their experience of the fiat currency
Speaker 1: of the Continental The seventeen ninety two Coinajack provided for
Speaker 1: a coin of the land, the American Eagle, which was
Speaker 1: to be made of gold. The interesting thing is that
Speaker 1: the silver certificates that they've had, the gold certificates they
Speaker 1: have had, have long since disappeared. But we still have
Speaker 1: US gold eagles being minted, and the eagle has the
Speaker 1: same purchasing power that it did in seventeen eighty seven.
Speaker 1: One ounce of gold purchases the same amounts of goods
Speaker 1: as it has throughout history. Gold in essence does not
Speaker 1: go up and down. It is the standard by which
Speaker 1: currencies go up and down. Over the course of history.
Speaker 1: There have occasionally been anomalies in which gold is down
Speaker 1: for a brief time, or it is overbought and a
Speaker 1: bubble briefly occurs. But gold is like the seas. It
Speaker 1: has tides, but like water, it seeks its own level,
Speaker 1: and it invariably continues as the standard of value. And
Speaker 1: that's what we are what we're looking at right now.
Speaker 1: You know, as we look at the massive debt that
Speaker 1: is out there and the things that Trump is trying
Speaker 1: to do in terms of Venezuela, there's no way that
Speaker 1: he's going to be able to run that country or
Speaker 1: rebuild the the oil industry that's there. He had a
Speaker 1: lot of the usual suspects in a lot of these
Speaker 1: big oil companies, and he browbeat them on Friday to
Speaker 1: commit fortunes into building an infrastructure in Venezuela. Chinese have
Speaker 1: been there for a while, but as we've seen in
Speaker 1: so many different examples of the Chinese Belton Road initiative,
Speaker 1: they would come in and say, we're going to build
Speaker 1: this infrastructure for you, and the infrastructure would be flawed,
Speaker 1: not functioning, and yet you would still be on the
Speaker 1: hook to the Chinese to pay for it. And that's
Speaker 1: basically what they're seeing. They said, you can see how
Speaker 1: shoddy the infrastructure is from space in terms of the
Speaker 1: amount of methane that is coming up from Venezuela. What
Speaker 1: that tells you is that there's inefficiencies, there's leakage, and
Speaker 1: all the rest of this stuff. And I said, it
Speaker 1: is incredibly bad. What is there. And then to that
Speaker 1: you add the geopolitical risk I should not say geopolitical,
Speaker 1: but the political unrest that is there, and the fact
Speaker 1: you have these collectivos that are going around stopping people
Speaker 1: and looking for anyone that they think is sympathetic to
Speaker 1: America and especially for American citizens. Are the oil companies
Speaker 1: going to send their people in and that kind of
Speaker 1: a situation. Can they trust that an American government is
Speaker 1: going to provide security for them for a long enough
Speaker 1: time that they can get their investment back. The only
Speaker 1: one that actually made any concrete commitment was Chevron, which
Speaker 1: never left in the first place. Exxon got out and
Speaker 1: all the other oil companies got out, but Chevron stayed.
Speaker 1: And as a matter of fact, you go back and
Speaker 1: you look at it, it's interesting that these people are
Speaker 1: financial backers of Trump, like Singer, who stands to gain
Speaker 1: a lot from the normalization of relations. For Chevron, they've
Speaker 1: committed to a lot more investment and increased production. But
Speaker 1: nobody else is really looking at that, and it's going
Speaker 1: to be very difficult. He's actually making it more difficult
Speaker 1: for them to go back in and rebuild the infrastructure
Speaker 1: because now there's going to be a guerrilla war. What
Speaker 1: Trump has done. Everybody, you know, this is so old now, right,
Speaker 1: we're not talking about Venezuela too much anymore because now
Speaker 1: we're talking about the shooting. But it's only been a
Speaker 1: couple of weeks and everybody thinks, oh, everything is fine.
Speaker 1: Now you know, we've decapitated the leadership there in Venezuela,
Speaker 1: so to speak, and we're now in control. As a
Speaker 1: matter of fact, I think I talked about it last week,
Speaker 1: the fact that in Russia you've got hardliners like Alexander
Speaker 1: Dugan whose daughter was assassinated by Ukrainian spies, and he's
Speaker 1: a real hardliner on Ukraine and all the rest of
Speaker 1: the stuff. And he, as well as some Russian politicians,
Speaker 1: say why isn't Putin kidnapping Zelensky? And then over the
Speaker 1: weekend we had Zelensky and the the UK Minister of Defense,
Speaker 1: the UK Minister Defense says we should kidnap Putin. See,
Speaker 1: this is the effect of the Trump precedents. He's making
Speaker 1: the world a much much more dangerous place, both domestically
Speaker 1: and internationally. He's creating conflict where none existed before. We
Speaker 1: never had any problem with Canada before. He's created this
Speaker 1: stuff out of thin air, making enemies, making you know,
Speaker 1: turning the Apple card upside down. I'm all for change
Speaker 1: in terms of a better deal for America, but I'm
Speaker 1: not for just coming in and turning everything upside down,
Speaker 1: which is what he did with his stupid tariffs, And
Speaker 1: I got to say that his political politics are just
Speaker 1: as dumb as his You know, Steven Miller is just
Speaker 1: as stupid when it comes to geopolitics as Peter Navarro
Speaker 1: is when it comes to economics, and their politics are
Speaker 1: very destructive of American interest. If you want to say
Speaker 1: American interest are the American people. It's very destructive for farmers,
Speaker 1: for small businesses. It has been horrific in terms of
Speaker 1: what it has done, the number of small businesses that
Speaker 1: are going out of business. And it's not just in America.
Speaker 1: Same thing is happening in Germany as well. Small businesses
Speaker 1: are dying at a rapid rate. So you see this
Speaker 1: happening across the world as the debt is stacking up
Speaker 1: across the world. And so I think we're just going
Speaker 1: to stop the feed because we can't get anything to
Speaker 1: play so normally, I guess I could have a Travis
Speaker 1: Whistle the tune to play me out here. That's it again.
Speaker 1: We have never I apologized, We have never had so
Speaker 1: much technical problems as we did.
Speaker 2: Okay, and I finally actually diagnosed what's wrong with it.
Speaker 2: Oh good, obs popped up a bunch of tiny windows
Speaker 2: behind it. That let me know that the drive was full,
Speaker 2: but it didn't actually bring them to the front to
Speaker 2: let me know.
Speaker 1: So okay, well, we'll have things corrected by tomorrow, I
Speaker 1: assure you. Thank you for joining us, have a good day.