Speaker 1: I'm gonna say this, I challenge her to do a
Speaker 1: drug test. I will do one with her. We'll find
Speaker 1: nothing but nicotine and alcohol and very lit, long hauled
Speaker 1: a lot of nicotine. Candace, you, I want to say,
Speaker 1: and watching that, you can't fake crazy. That looks like
Speaker 1: adderall fuel schizophrenia to me.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well it's clearly some form of psychosis.
Speaker 3: That was my first thought, is like, you almost can't
Speaker 3: even blame her, like this is literally just psychosis.
Speaker 2: At this point.
Speaker 3: You could see it in her eyes, you could see
Speaker 3: it in those like she is totally sincere, She's totally authentic.
Speaker 3: She believes in what she's saying. And it's the craziest
Speaker 3: stuff I've ever heard.
Speaker 2: Candas owns has adderall fueled schizophrenia. And that's coming from
Speaker 2: the same figure who once said this to Joe Rogan.
Speaker 4: So you go back thousands of years, Merlin, the archetypal
Speaker 4: or or or these magicians or these these wizards are
Speaker 4: taking drugs in these temples and interfacing with these palanteers,
Speaker 4: these crystal balls, which aren't really crystal balls. It's their
Speaker 4: psychic focus of an intermittional connection while they're on drugs,
Speaker 4: looking Atlas to then be able to see the future
Speaker 4: and understand what's happening, to give them temporal power over
Speaker 4: this planet.
Speaker 2: I've said it before. I love Alex, but at this
Speaker 2: point I'm fairly convinced that he's most upset with Cannistons
Speaker 2: because she is simply on his corner, like she has
Speaker 2: taken his corner gang warfare essentially. And I've said a
Speaker 2: thousand times I don't buy into the dream scenarios that
Speaker 2: Kennis seems to take on, you know, extraordinary merit or
Speaker 2: extraordinary value in her investigation. I am very much in
Speaker 2: the physical I believe in physical evidence. I believe in
Speaker 2: you know, contradictory testimony that might raise an eyebrow, that
Speaker 2: might require you to dig a little bit deeper. And
Speaker 2: we've got a really important one today, and that's regarding TPUSA.
Speaker 5: Turning points chief security person talking about the day that
Speaker 5: Charlie Kirk was murdered. I point out the massive contradiction
Speaker 5: where he says they were not allowed to fly drones.
Speaker 5: Then I show the interview with Frank where he says
Speaker 5: he was watching drone footage with Charlie Kirk. This part
Speaker 5: is breaking news because I'm not aware this has ever
Speaker 5: been discussed. The lawyer in this letter says the following,
Speaker 5: there was no discrepancy. UVU prohibited Turning Point USA from
Speaker 5: flying drones for security purposes during the event, but did
Speaker 5: allow a Turning Point USA media production drone to briefly
Speaker 5: fly over the location before the event to collect limited
Speaker 5: b roll footage. First of all, how could this be
Speaker 5: defamatory if I had no idea about any of this? Second,
Speaker 5: I find this explanation absurd.
Speaker 2: So Alex and Nick, which have been very critical of
Speaker 2: Candie Oons, they both deal with security issues often. As
Speaker 2: you know, both of them have been attacked at different points,
Speaker 2: Nick very famously about a year ago. So this is
Speaker 2: not something that's outside of their understanding or outside of
Speaker 2: their purview. So I want to ask them. I'm going
Speaker 2: to put this question in their camp because they're so
Speaker 2: critical of candiss Oons. You tell me why that makes
Speaker 2: any sense. You tell me why a high level political
Speaker 2: pundit who's going to a college campus of which you
Speaker 2: know that there will be serious security threats the college
Speaker 2: campus allows for the media team to fly a drone
Speaker 2: to get b roll essentially just overhead shots of the crowd.
Speaker 2: But they refuse to allow the security detail to fly
Speaker 2: a surveillance drone to make sure that there are no
Speaker 2: threats on the roof from which a lethal round is
Speaker 2: then fired. Is that not odd to you? Does that
Speaker 2: not rub you the wrong way? Do you not go? Hmm?
Speaker 2: That does seem off. So set aside the more far
Speaker 2: fetched claims that Kansas has made and just deal with that.
Speaker 2: Just deal with what is actually meaningful here. And I
Speaker 2: think that's extraordinarily meaningful. Moreover, it's meaningful because if you
Speaker 2: are a high level security team, which Charlie Kirk's team
Speaker 2: does appear to have been lots of military veterans, guys
Speaker 2: that had decades of experience, you would think that they'd
Speaker 2: be more than equipped to deal with a college campus
Speaker 2: event like this, particularly given that they've done it countless
Speaker 2: times with Charlie Kirk as their protectee. And yet when
Speaker 2: they are told, sure, you can fly a drone for
Speaker 2: b role from the media team, but the security team
Speaker 2: cannot keep it a drone up during the actual event
Speaker 2: in which we are trying to keep our protectee alive,
Speaker 2: you say, okay, you say, no problem. Really, I think
Speaker 2: that's odd. I would say that it's unbelievable, But there's
Speaker 2: spend so much weirdness with this case that at this
Speaker 2: point it is believable. It's just bizarre, Like, why would
Speaker 2: you not go to the campus overseer and say, hey,
Speaker 2: we'll just fly a drone during the event for security
Speaker 2: purposes and not worry about the b role. Can we
Speaker 2: prioritize our protect ese security as opposed to the media
Speaker 2: production side of this event, seeing as that's probably more important.
Speaker 2: Apparently not. Apparently they didn't think that that was necessary.
Speaker 2: And the great irony in all this is that the
Speaker 2: only reason we know this is because TPUSA sent a
Speaker 2: cease and assist letter to Wolves and Finance the guy
Speaker 2: who just did that video, basically telling him to back off,
Speaker 2: that he got a bunch of things wrong and he's
Speaker 2: got to be quiet. Essentially, now, I haven't dug deep
Speaker 2: enough to know how accurate his reporting was, so I'm
Speaker 2: not going to go to the mat defending his evidence
Speaker 2: or lack thereof, But I will say, I don't think
Speaker 2: it's really helping your case. I don't think it's helping
Speaker 2: your street cred or your reputation. If you're going to
Speaker 2: start sending season assist letters to YouTubers. I assume Canice
Speaker 2: will be next, and I hope I won't be, seeing
Speaker 2: as I haven't made any claims about TPUSA. I've literally
Speaker 2: just covered this case and said what I think is weird,
Speaker 2: and what I think is often what I think is right,
Speaker 2: and what I know just a genuine inquiry. But it
Speaker 2: certainly doesn't scream transparency now, does it. It certainly doesn't
Speaker 2: make you feel content that this organization is being totally
Speaker 2: transparent and allowing for a full investigation, not just from
Speaker 2: the officials, the legal officials, but also the internet, like
Speaker 2: do you want to know who took out your boss?
Speaker 2: I would hope so, and if not, well, then prepare
Speaker 2: for additional questions to be asked. Speaking of transparency issues,
Speaker 2: when it comes to the prosecution of Silo Robinson, you
Speaker 2: now have the judge essentially critiquing the videographers that are
Speaker 2: at one of the court hearings in which they filmed
Speaker 2: Tyler Robinson and were able to read his lips. Whether
Speaker 2: or not that was accurate, I don't know, but he
Speaker 2: says that that violated their rules about not having a
Speaker 2: camera on Tyler Robinson during the case, which now makes
Speaker 2: me fear that he's going to call for the cameras
Speaker 2: to be removed entirely.
Speaker 6: I do find that I'm not a lip reader, so
Speaker 6: I don't know what the standard is for lip reading.
Speaker 6: But I do note that nine seconds in that first
Speaker 6: clip one could see his lips move, and it is
Speaker 6: it is a significant time for as it relates to
Speaker 6: this particular issue. It wasn't a passing shot. It was
Speaker 6: focused on these two persons, and so I find that
Speaker 6: the decorum order to know visual recording is permitted of
Speaker 6: a person's lips so as to be decipherable by a
Speaker 6: lip reader. I find that that has been violated.
Speaker 2: So when we actually get to a real trial, we
Speaker 2: may not be able to watch it, which would be
Speaker 2: a tragedy because I don't think anybody is going to
Speaker 2: trust the outcome of this trial if we don't have
Speaker 2: full transparency, if we can't actually see what's transpiring in
Speaker 2: the courtroom. So let's hope that's not how this plays out.
Speaker 2: We've got one other new bit of information when it
Speaker 2: comes to the Charlie Kirk case, and this was an
Speaker 2: anonymous kind of testimony from an alleged relative of Lance Twiggs,
Speaker 2: the guy friend girlfriend of Tyler Robinson.
Speaker 7: I mean, both of them are super smart. I mean
Speaker 7: Lance was, I do know that, and I remember, you
Speaker 7: know his he was a I don't know, concert pianist,
Speaker 7: Like his talent for piano music was off the charts,
Speaker 7: like not normal.
Speaker 8: And that's kind of what I've heard about Tyler is
Speaker 8: that he was.
Speaker 7: Just so smart, and so it's just a shame that
Speaker 7: these kids, they had so much potential and so such
Speaker 7: a bright future.
Speaker 9: There's text messages between Tyler and Lance where they're texting
Speaker 9: after the event. A lot of people find them unusual.
Speaker 7: The world that they were in, like this gaming world,
Speaker 7: like that was a normal way that they kind of spoke.
Speaker 7: That this wasn't an abnormal The way they spoke wasn't abnormal.
Speaker 2: So this alleged relative of Lance Twigs says, no, there's
Speaker 2: nothing weird about these text messages because that's how gamers talk,
Speaker 2: which makes you think, I mean, if you know how
Speaker 2: gamers talk, that means that it's a provocative humor, probably
Speaker 2: some race stuff thrown in there, maybe threats of violence
Speaker 2: that are playful or maybe serious, but whatever. She seems
Speaker 2: to think that the text messages between Twigs and Robinson
Speaker 2: were in that vein, which means she's never read them,
Speaker 2: because this is actually what they were saying. Robinson, Delete
Speaker 2: this exchange, Robinson. My dad wants photos of the rifle,
Speaker 2: he says, Grandpa wants to know who has what. The
Speaker 2: Feds released a photo of the rifle and is very unique.
Speaker 2: He's calling me right now, not answering, Robinson. Since Trump
Speaker 2: got into office, my dad has been pretty die hard. Maga.
Speaker 2: I'm going to turn myself in willingly. One of my
Speaker 2: neighbors here is a deputy for the sheriff. You are
Speaker 2: all I worry about.
Speaker 4: Love.
Speaker 2: I'm much more worried about you. Don't talk to the
Speaker 2: media police, don't take any interviews or make any comments.
Speaker 2: If any police ask you questions, ask for a lawyer,
Speaker 2: and stay silent, et cetera, et cetera. He then talks about,
Speaker 2: you know, vehicle and says other weird phrases that kind
Speaker 2: of put people off. But it's clear to me that
Speaker 2: she has no idea none as to what these messages
Speaker 2: actually consisted of, or is able to verify the legitimacy
Speaker 2: of them. Based off of her defense of them being
Speaker 2: real is that while they were in discord chats gaming
Speaker 2: and so there's nothing really off about it. Two dudes
Speaker 2: saying my love and all that. Yeah, not normal in
Speaker 2: the gaming world, actually, ma'am.
Speaker 9: There have been a lot of questions about where Lance
Speaker 9: is now, whether he's in the FBI protection program. It's
Speaker 9: been a big mystery. He kind of has disappeared.
Speaker 7: Yeah, my understanding was for the first few weeks because
Speaker 7: there were so many threats against.
Speaker 8: His family and him that they had.
Speaker 7: I my understanding is they did have a little bit
Speaker 7: of FBI detail and they kind of moved around a
Speaker 7: little bit.
Speaker 8: But they're not anymore. He's he's with his family.
Speaker 9: Well, he still cooperate with the investigation.
Speaker 8: From what you know, I don't know.
Speaker 7: You know, when I first found out about how he
Speaker 7: was taking in and taught to by the.
Speaker 8: Police that you know. I know that they said that
Speaker 8: he was very cooperative, but they had to go get
Speaker 8: him and bring him in.
Speaker 7: He didn't voluntarily go in and say hey, I heard
Speaker 7: about this and I have some knowledge. You know, he
Speaker 7: had to go in then he had he handed things
Speaker 7: over when they asked for him, but he wasn't. He
Speaker 7: didn't give up any information until he had to.
Speaker 2: Now, after her defense at the text messages. I take
Speaker 2: everything this lady has to say with a grain of assault. However,
Speaker 2: that is pretty big breaking news if she is correct.
Speaker 2: And I have read reports elsewhere that claimed that Lance Twiggs,
Speaker 2: his boyfriend, had a FBI detail security essentially, and I
Speaker 2: also read elsewhere that it was four So he had
Speaker 2: a team of four FBI agents that were just pulled
Speaker 2: off of his security detail about a week ago. And
Speaker 2: I find that very very concerning. Why would we be
Speaker 2: beding that level of resources to defend a guy who
Speaker 2: was the significant other of Tyler Robinson. I want you
Speaker 2: to really think about this one, because you may be thinking, oh, well,
Speaker 2: that's maybe that's normal. No, No, that's definitely not normal.
Speaker 2: A four man security detail implies that this guy is
Speaker 2: an asset of some sort, and then we don't even
Speaker 2: know for sure that he's going to be testifying against
Speaker 2: Tyler Robinson, and if you are protecting him to that level,
Speaker 2: it implies he is going to testify, in which case, okay,
Speaker 2: maybe the security detail is justified. However, you pull the
Speaker 2: security detail after four months, anybody else feeling like there's
Speaker 2: something off about that, because I certainly do, That doesn't
Speaker 2: make any sense to me, and I'll tell you what
Speaker 2: it looks like to me, or what it makes me suspect,
Speaker 2: is that Lance Twiggs was in fact an asset of
Speaker 2: theirs prior. His relative is essentially saying he has no
Speaker 2: intention of cooperating. He just talked to them basically against
Speaker 2: his will. However, they then go to the end of
Speaker 2: the earth defending this guy. But they stopped the security detail. Well,
Speaker 2: he would still obviously be in jeopardy. If he was
Speaker 2: in jeopardy over the past four months, He's still in jeopardy.
Speaker 2: So what changed there? That doesn't make any sense, And
Speaker 2: it kind of makes you wonder if he was on
Speaker 2: their radar prior. When these weirdos are communicating in discorder
Speaker 2: group chats and saying all sorts of strange stuff, perhaps
Speaker 2: they were entrapped. Perhaps that's the kind of the key
Speaker 2: to unlocking this case. Now, I'm not making any allegations.
Speaker 2: I don't know that for a fact. I'm just saying
Speaker 2: there's a lot of strangeness with the fact that you
Speaker 2: would have a four man FBI security detail on the
Speaker 2: boyfriend of a assassination suspect, very very strange, and honestly
Speaker 2: as strange as that was doesn't give a stranger than this.
Speaker 2: Apparently there was a movie that was being GoFundMe funded,
Speaker 2: crowdsource funded about a decade ago that was going to
Speaker 2: be about an assassination plot, and Erica was going to
Speaker 2: be in it. This was before I think it was
Speaker 2: before she even had ever met Charlie, and certainly before
Speaker 2: they were married. So I'm not saying it means anything.
Speaker 2: I'm just saying, what the hell. There's so many strange
Speaker 2: storylines in this entire story. I don't know what to
Speaker 2: make of it. It sure would be nice if we
Speaker 2: could get honest answers from I don't know everyone involved,
Speaker 2: his wife, TPUSA, Twigs, I mean, whoever was in the
Speaker 2: orbit of this story on that day. It would be
Speaker 2: great if we could actually get some transparency as to
Speaker 2: what people were saying to one another, what transpired, what
Speaker 2: other footage might exist out there. It just seems as
Speaker 2: if we need a heck of a lot more help
Speaker 2: before we're going to figure out or be content with
Speaker 2: the prosecution of Tyler Robinson. And speaking of you know,
Speaker 2: a lot of people keep saying we need more shows
Speaker 2: from you, we need more shows. I'm like, look, I
Speaker 2: am not going to flood the zone covering a story
Speaker 2: without new information. I'm not going to do the daily thing.
Speaker 2: I think that that has diluted this investigation. I think
Speaker 2: that Candice owns show like twenty percent of the episodes
Speaker 2: are of significant value when it comes to this investigation.
Speaker 2: The rest are kind of fluff or or you know,
Speaker 2: painting with too broad a brush that I think ultimately
Speaker 2: tarnishes a legitimate inquiry into this. So I'm not going
Speaker 2: to participate in that. I am only going to cover
Speaker 2: things when I think that they are meaningful, when there
Speaker 2: are new information, when there's things that actually jump out
Speaker 2: at me as being an angle that no one else
Speaker 2: has talked about. And that's that's what I'm doing here.
Speaker 2: So I will say, though, once the trial starts, oh
Speaker 2: you bet, you yeah, I'll be covering it daily because
Speaker 2: that's when we will actually get to hear from the
Speaker 2: people involved in this and we will actually get testimony.
Speaker 2: When we actually get evidence, that will be the time
Speaker 2: where I'm going to lock in because I still very
Speaker 2: much care about this case. I just don't want to
Speaker 2: flood the zone with you know, junk science and guessing
Speaker 2: that's I don't think it helps anybody. There are some
Speaker 2: really important things that are happening that we don't have
Speaker 2: to guess about. So let's talk about that for a second.
Speaker 7: Yeah, I refuse to answer questions without my lawyer present,
Speaker 7: So I really don't know how to answer that.
Speaker 10: Like I said in the speech in America, right er,
Speaker 10: I agree, we're.
Speaker 8: Just trying to see it's you and we're not talking
Speaker 8: to the right person.
Speaker 11: We want to go see the.
Speaker 10: Right Okay, how can I help him? So pretty much,
Speaker 10: it's just a statement that was made as far as
Speaker 10: you know.
Speaker 11: Remain him, He says, the guy who consistently calls for
Speaker 11: the death of all Palestinians, tried to shut down a
Speaker 11: theater for showing a movie that hurt his feelings, and
Speaker 11: refuses to stand up for the LGBTQ community in any way,
Speaker 11: even leave the room when they vote. And on related matters,
Speaker 11: wanting to know that you're all welcome clown face, clown
Speaker 11: face clownfience three days ago.
Speaker 8: I'm not going to answer whether that's me or not.
Speaker 11: Okay, the concerning part, I'm not concerning for the person
Speaker 11: who's posting it. We're just trying to preventage somebody else
Speaker 11: getting aged. Or agreen with a statement.
Speaker 2: Now, this one hits very close to home for me.
Speaker 2: This is a woman in Miami approached at her home
Speaker 2: by Miami PD. At first, I thought it was the
Speaker 2: FBI because I just assumed that local PD wouldn't be
Speaker 2: investigating social media posts. But nope, I was wrong. This
Speaker 2: is my backyard, and this is a woman saying something
Speaker 2: that is almost identical to things I've said countless times.
Speaker 2: She says, the guy who consistently calls for the death
Speaker 2: of all Palestinians tried to shut down a theater for
Speaker 2: showing a movie that hurt his feelings. And she goes
Speaker 2: on to talk about other stuff, but you get the point.
Speaker 2: I cannot believe that this is happening in my own town,
Speaker 2: my own city. I immediately tweeted at Governor Ron DeSantis
Speaker 2: obviously did not get a response despite it going fairly viral.
Speaker 2: And it's just, I mean, I think we're all thicking
Speaker 2: the same thing, right are we? British? Did I wake
Speaker 2: up in a red coat today? And my British I
Speaker 2: don't have a good British I don't have any good
Speaker 2: accents actually, come to think of it. But man, and
Speaker 2: I'm pretty sure she's referencing Randy Fine or some other
Speaker 2: Floridian politician, but it's just it's amazing to me that
Speaker 2: these cops after the entire lockdown era. Granted the lockdowns
Speaker 2: weren't nearly as vicious in Florida, but after the lockdown era,
Speaker 2: after J six and everything else that we've gone through
Speaker 2: as a people, as a country, they still take their
Speaker 2: marching orders. There's still these are American cops going door
Speaker 2: to door talking to people about what they say on
Speaker 2: the Internet. And just to be very clear, what this
Speaker 2: woman said wasn't a call for violence. It wasn't even close.
Speaker 2: It didn't even approach that. In fact, she's pointing out
Speaker 2: the hypocrisy of American politicians, her representatives, who are so
Speaker 2: hypocritical when it comes to the issue of GODZ. Basically,
Speaker 2: what she's saying is, this is her politician, her representative,
Speaker 2: who's constantly calling for the death of the Palestinians, simultaneously
Speaker 2: saying that you can't have a movie about the plight
Speaker 2: of the Palestinians because it hurts his feelings. Like that's
Speaker 2: a totally rational, justifiable claim to make. It's not threatening,
Speaker 2: it's not violent in nature, there's literally nothing wrong with it.
Speaker 2: It is as crystal clear protected First Amendment speech as
Speaker 2: you will ever come across. And this is exactly where
Speaker 2: we are headed. And this is exactly what the ihr
Speaker 2: A definition of anti Semitism leads us down the path to.
Speaker 2: And this is exactly why despite the fact that James
Speaker 2: Lindsay and others like to call my cadre of people
Speaker 2: the woke right, they are the woke right. I'm not
Speaker 2: calling No one in my camp is calling for hate
Speaker 2: speech laws. No one in my camp is calling for
Speaker 2: extra protections under the law for people that look like
Speaker 2: me or have my religion. I'm not doing any of that,
Speaker 2: literally none of it. In fact, I'm calling for the
Speaker 2: exact opposite. I want no one to have that. But
Speaker 2: this is the woke right. This is the right wing
Speaker 2: version of woke. This is the right wing version of
Speaker 2: a protected class. And we all know which class makes
Speaker 2: their exception. Whereas you know, LGBTQ whatever, as this lady's
Speaker 2: complaining about, that's the class that they want protected is
Speaker 2: Jewish or Israeli. And what's the very obvious counter argument,
Speaker 2: how about no protected classes? How about we're all Americans?
Speaker 2: How about if you violate my rights, that means that
Speaker 2: you violated my right. How about if you commit a
Speaker 2: crime against me, you committed a crime against me or
Speaker 2: anybody else, regardless of how they look, or what they
Speaker 2: worship or anything else. That's so obviously the American perspective
Speaker 2: on these things, and yet it is increasingly the minority perspective,
Speaker 2: and that ladies and gentlemen is something we should be
Speaker 2: concerned about. And I guess I shouldn't be surprised that
Speaker 2: Ron DeSantis didn't respond, given that this was him not
Speaker 2: that long ago.
Speaker 12: When you say from the river to the sea, you
Speaker 12: are channing in favor of a second Holocaust, that's what
Speaker 12: that means.
Speaker 13: Now.
Speaker 12: I do think some of these students are just ignorant.
Speaker 12: I don't think they understand even what they're talking about.
Speaker 2: You hear some of.
Speaker 12: Them talking about in the occupation of Palestine, and I
Speaker 12: just think they need a little history lesson. There has
Speaker 12: never been a Palestinian ara of state.
Speaker 2: I don't know if you guys have noticed, but gold
Speaker 2: has absolutely skyrocketed this past year, along with basically every
Speaker 2: other precious metal. Silver has gone absolutely crazy. If you've
Speaker 2: been watching Liberty Lockdown for any period of time. You
Speaker 2: already know why. It's economic uncertainty here in the markets,
Speaker 2: global chaos, you name it, and that's why people look
Speaker 2: for safe haven assets. That's exactly why I partnered with
Speaker 2: a company like gold Co. It's not just everyday hardworking
Speaker 2: people who are looking for protection for their assets. It's
Speaker 2: central banks and billionaires too. In fact, they are stockpiling
Speaker 2: gold and silver. So I think it's a worthwhile endeavor
Speaker 2: to try and protect your assets, just as I've done
Speaker 2: by at least looking into precious metals. Gold Coat specializes
Speaker 2: in helping people protect their savings with real assets gold
Speaker 2: and silver, and they make it very simple. Just go
Speaker 2: to Clint likes gold dot com. You'll get a free
Speaker 2: twenty twenty six gold and silver kit and you could
Speaker 2: qualify for up to ten percent in free bonus silver
Speaker 2: or gold, but only while supplies last. Head over to
Speaker 2: Clint likes gold dot com again, that's Clint Likes Gold
Speaker 2: dot com. Thank you again to gold Co. I can't
Speaker 2: tell you how badly I want to live in a
Speaker 2: country or in a time where our politicians are not
Speaker 2: especially local level politicians, state level politicians are not commenting
Speaker 2: on foreign matters. Whatsoever. But there is one area of
Speaker 2: the world that every American politician, all the way down
Speaker 2: to the fucking dogcatcher, has to have an opinion. That's Israel.
Speaker 2: Every single time. Unfortunately, the opinion is always slanted in
Speaker 2: one direction, as evidence by Pam Bondy, who was introduced
Speaker 2: by Miriam Adelson just yesterday.
Speaker 14: Under her leadership, the Department of Justice has made combating
Speaker 14: anti Semitism a top priority, especially in response to the
Speaker 14: alarming rise in incidents following October seventh. She brings moral clarity, resolve,
Speaker 14: and an unwavering commitment to justice to this critical fight.
Speaker 14: Please welcome my friend, the eighty seventh Attorney General of
Speaker 14: the United States, Tamela Bondi.
Speaker 2: So you've got Miriam Adelson, who is the top donor
Speaker 2: to the Trump administration, who is also her top goal
Speaker 2: in life is the defense and uplifting and protection of Israel.
Speaker 2: Saying that she introduces Pam Bondi, the Attorney General of
Speaker 2: the United States, and she says the number one priority
Speaker 2: of this DOJ has been fighting anti Semitism, to which
Speaker 2: I say, Miriam, excuse me, man, there are a lot
Speaker 2: of fucking problems in this country. Like I don't know
Speaker 2: if you noticed, but Donald Trump was almost assassinated the
Speaker 2: J six ole kerfuffle. You ring a bell, created a
Speaker 2: bio weapon, released it on us, forced us to get
Speaker 2: something that didn't actually protect us from it, and endangered us.
Speaker 1: What else?
Speaker 2: The FBI and trapped the Whitmer folks. The FBI and
Speaker 2: trapped J six folks. The FBI and trapped as many
Speaker 2: Trump supporters as they could possibly get their hands on.
Speaker 2: Oh and also the FBI framed the sitting president for treason.
Speaker 2: This is the guy who you funded to the tune
Speaker 2: of hundreds of millions of dollars multiple campaigns in a row.
Speaker 2: So why are you applauding her? Why are you applotting
Speaker 2: Pambondi and the Attorney General's Office of prioritizing anti Semitism?
Speaker 14: So who gave the arder to flag records related to
Speaker 14: President Trump.
Speaker 8: To flag records for President Trump, to.
Speaker 10: Flag any records which included his name.
Speaker 2: I'm not going to discuss anything about that with you.
Speaker 3: So eventually you're going to have to answer for your
Speaker 3: conducting this, and you won't do it today that eventually
Speaker 3: you will I.
Speaker 2: Yield this Chairman, when we have all of these other issues,
Speaker 2: all of these other issues, and you have zero concern
Speaker 2: with any of them because your only concern only is Israel.
Speaker 2: That is deeply, deeply unhealthy. Now, it's not unhealthy for
Speaker 2: Miriam Ailson to feel that way. It's her life, feel
Speaker 2: however you want, it's her money, it'stend it to whoever
Speaker 2: you want. I really don't care. What's unhealthy, though, is
Speaker 2: that we have a laundry list of politicians who all
Speaker 2: feel the same way, or at least parrot it, and
Speaker 2: then act that way in governance. They carry out these policies,
Speaker 2: they create hate speech laws in defense of one protected class,
Speaker 2: well simultaneously lamenting hate speech laws and all of this
Speaker 2: other woke nonsense when it came to these other protected classes,
Speaker 2: where all of the sane, rational Americans are saying to themselves,
Speaker 2: I just want equal treatment under the law, regardless of
Speaker 2: who you are, what you look like, what religion, whatever.
Speaker 2: It shouldn't be relevant. But according to Miriam Adelson, that's
Speaker 2: why she loves Pambondi. And there's been exactly zero Deep
Speaker 2: State people arrested under her tenure of over a year now.
Speaker 15: I've said to people when they asked me if there's
Speaker 15: capital crumbled to the ground, the one thing that would
Speaker 15: remain is our commitment to our AID.
Speaker 8: I don't even call it.
Speaker 15: AID, our cooperation with Israel. That's fundamental.
Speaker 2: So who read So that was the Speaker of the House,
Speaker 2: Nancy Pelosi in twenty eighteen, saying that even if the
Speaker 2: capital were to crumble, the last thing that would go
Speaker 2: would still be our aid, our defense of Israel. This
Speaker 2: is the same exact conference that you saw Mary Madelson
Speaker 2: and Pam Bondy talking at just yesterday. So it's been
Speaker 2: eight years. Not a damn thing's changed. It's the exact
Speaker 2: same paradigm, the exact same and it's a bipartisan paradigm.
Speaker 2: Very important to recognize that Democrats and Republicans exact same rhetoric,
Speaker 2: not a coincidence. These people don't agree on fucking anything.
Speaker 2: If you were to say the sky is blue, the
Speaker 2: Democrats yell it's pink. That's just how it works, right,
Speaker 2: So you got to ask yourself, how is it that
Speaker 2: they all come to the same conclusion. They hate each other,
Speaker 2: they disagree on everything. But on this though blockstep you
Speaker 2: had Ben Shapiro and Gavin Newsom sitting down with one
Speaker 2: another yesterday talking about whether or not Israel Palestine was
Speaker 2: the genocide. They both agreed it wasn't shocking, right. And
Speaker 2: this is the crazy thing for Gavin Newsom. It would
Speaker 2: be incredibly popular for him to come out and say, yes,
Speaker 2: I opposed it genocide or ethnic cleansing or whatever term
Speaker 2: he wants to apply to it. I oppose it wholeheartedly.
Speaker 2: In fact, so much so I would stop aid to
Speaker 2: Israel over this indiscretion. Now he would lose Ben Shapiro,
Speaker 2: that's for sure, but he would gain a massive voting base.
Speaker 2: But you know what, he can't be the nominee if
Speaker 2: he says that because all of the pro Israel bucks
Speaker 2: will fizzle and fade away. So he's got to. He's
Speaker 2: got to even though he knows that in terms of
Speaker 2: the electorate, in terms of getting votes, it would be
Speaker 2: a huge win for him to see that. Because the
Speaker 2: reason I'm not putting this in moral terms is because
Speaker 2: Gavin Newsom has zero morals. He has zero unique thoughts
Speaker 2: that are actually founded in his own emotional calculus or
Speaker 2: his own intelligence. It is always one hundred percent based
Speaker 2: off of what advances him in terms of power. That's it.
Speaker 2: Trust me. As a California refugee. Let me just tell you,
Speaker 2: if you think Gavin Newsom ever says something you agree with,
Speaker 2: just recognize the only reason he's saying it is because
Speaker 2: it might get him a crumb of more power. That's
Speaker 2: his entire motivation in life. But point being even knowing that,
Speaker 2: because trust me, if I know what Gavin Newssen knows it,
Speaker 2: it would be hugely beneficial for him to say that
Speaker 2: I oppose what happened in Godza. That's all he's got
Speaker 2: to say. Nope, can't do it though, can't do it,
Speaker 2: And basically no politicians can because they are instantly unelectable,
Speaker 2: or in the case of mtg or Thomas Massey, they
Speaker 2: are instantly either thrown out or put under massive pressure.
Speaker 2: It's just it's awful.
Speaker 3: We're seeing a dramatic rise in anti semitism throughout the country.
Speaker 4: What do we do about it?
Speaker 16: Well, Elan, thanks for having me. I'm glad that people
Speaker 16: recognize the commitment of this president and the entire administration
Speaker 16: to fighting this evil amongst us. So I believe that
Speaker 16: quite a bit of what we're seeing online and in
Speaker 16: our universities and attacks on our houses of worship is
Speaker 16: funded by foreign governments and foreign evil actors, and that
Speaker 16: is definitely a focus of this administration to trace the
Speaker 16: money and understand who's funding it, because that's critical to
Speaker 16: stopping it. But on the law enforcement side, what we're
Speaker 16: doing is at every level, we are taking a zero
Speaker 16: tolerance approach towards anti Semitism wherever we find it.
Speaker 2: It's tar meat. Dylan another top press over at the
Speaker 2: DOJ under Trump, and again she's just repeating yes, and
Speaker 2: you know stopping anti Semitism is one of their top priority.
Speaker 2: Why Well, because their dunters say that's got to be
Speaker 2: a top priority. Well, now, keeping in mind simultaneously, just yesterday,
Speaker 2: Don Lemon, of all people, was with the leader of
Speaker 2: a protest entering a church in Minnesota to interrupt it.
Speaker 11: What do you think of it?
Speaker 17: I mean, this is unacceptable, It's shameful. It's shameful to
Speaker 17: interrupt a public gathering of Christians in worship.
Speaker 2: But there are folks, will I have to take care
Speaker 2: of my flock.
Speaker 17: But listen, we live in there's a Constitution, in the
Speaker 17: First Amendment to freedom of speech and freedom to assemble
Speaker 17: a protests.
Speaker 5: We're here to worship, We're here to worship Jesus, because
Speaker 5: that's the hope of these cities with the world, is
Speaker 5: Jesus Christ.
Speaker 2: To scream at them because of ice rates, which, by
Speaker 2: the way, is about as crystal clear a violation of
Speaker 2: the Face Act as you'll ever find, which is supposed
Speaker 2: to basically criminalize any sort of impedance or impediment to
Speaker 2: entering a building. Originally structured to prevent people from stopping
Speaker 2: or blocking the entrances to abortion clinics, Well it's now
Speaker 2: being used or it has been extrapolated to defend churches.
Speaker 2: So you couldn't find a better example of a Face
Speaker 2: Act violation than what Don Lemon did.
Speaker 10: As you can see all these pretend Christians, all these
Speaker 10: comfortable white people who are living lavish, comfortable lives while
Speaker 10: children are dragged into concentration camps. You're living real life,
Speaker 10: nice lives and your lattes, doing absolutely nothing for your
Speaker 10: Latino and Somali brothers and sisters. You come here to
Speaker 10: a man wearing a suit is a preacher? Did Jesus
Speaker 10: wear a suit? Did Jesus profit off the words no
Speaker 10: Jesus would die?
Speaker 2: But another you did not touch me.
Speaker 10: You touch it again and see what happens.
Speaker 15: You can't.
Speaker 10: No, you are a fake Christian. Why are you not
Speaker 10: standing with your Somalia Latino communities.
Speaker 2: Do you think that Harmey Dillon and Pam BONDI are
Speaker 2: going to lift a finger to stop that or to
Speaker 2: prosecute anybody involved with that. I'm not so sure. Now.
Speaker 2: I got to be really clear too. I don't know
Speaker 2: how I feel about this. You know, there's there's a
Speaker 2: real tendency like and I feel it too, that because
Speaker 2: of the abuse that I've suffered, that we've all suffered
Speaker 2: over the past six years since the lockdown era, that
Speaker 2: there's a tendency to want to just crush our opposition.
Speaker 2: And I feel it. Believe me, I feel it. I
Speaker 2: think about it all the time. But is that a
Speaker 2: winning strategy? Does that actually improve things long term? Does
Speaker 2: that improve our circumstances the condition of our nation? Does
Speaker 2: it actually improve it? And in this instance, I actually
Speaker 2: think it might, And I'll explain. First off, I think
Speaker 2: that there is something to be said for keeping holy
Speaker 2: ground holy, essentially preventing rabble rousers from entering places of
Speaker 2: worship to just stir shit, because that's really all they
Speaker 2: were doing. They just go in there, they scream at them,
Speaker 2: call them Nazis, and shit, these are just like Christian churchgoers.
Speaker 2: I mean, it's about as irritating as a thing. Now,
Speaker 2: is anybody truly harmed? I guess not. But do you
Speaker 2: want to live in a civilization where more and more
Speaker 2: of these radicals just enter, be it a Christian church
Speaker 2: or a synagogue or whatever else. And if it were
Speaker 2: limited to that, maybe I wouldn't have such a I
Speaker 2: guess retaliatory approach when it comes to analyzing this. But
Speaker 2: these are the other things that are happening in the
Speaker 2: same past couple days.
Speaker 10: Look it off, you take it off.
Speaker 4: Take it off.
Speaker 5: I got you.
Speaker 18: You're too halted up out of here.
Speaker 2: So first up, we've got what appears to be an
Speaker 2: Indian American who had the audacity to wear a jacket
Speaker 2: that said freedom on it with an American flag at
Speaker 2: a protest in Minnesota, and therefore he is obviously in
Speaker 2: support of ICE, and obviously, as an Indian American, also
Speaker 2: an effing Nazi according to the people who are forcing
Speaker 2: him to remove that and chasing him out of the area.
Speaker 2: Pretty crazy, But it gets way way worse than that.
Speaker 2: I'm gonna end it there before you see the result
Speaker 2: of the damage that he took from those blows. But
Speaker 2: let me tell you bad, really bad, just gushing blood.
Speaker 2: It was terrible. I'm cutting it so that hopefully we
Speaker 2: can keep this episode rolling. It's not just the protesters
Speaker 2: in the church. It's a confluence of all of these
Speaker 2: things that is making me feel as if someone's got
Speaker 2: to take a stand. And unfortunately, and I know this
Speaker 2: because a good friend of mine is from Minnesota. You know, Minnesota.
Speaker 2: Nice is what it's known for. The people there are
Speaker 2: so nice. And I really do believe, even though I
Speaker 2: disagree with Gad said on damn near everything, at this point,
Speaker 2: I do agree with one aspect of his claim, which
Speaker 2: is this is essentially toxic empathy or suicidal empathy, that
Speaker 2: the people are so nice that they won't even defend themselves,
Speaker 2: defend their hometown, city, state, country, nothing like. They are
Speaker 2: so beaten down that they cannot stand up for themselves.
Speaker 2: And you know, there is a side of me, as
Speaker 2: a Tenth Amendment guy that just says, look, if the
Speaker 2: people of California don't want to stand up for themselves,
Speaker 2: or New York or Minnesota, then just let them be overran.
Speaker 2: There is an instinct, like my libertarian instinct decentralized that
Speaker 2: is kind of where I come down on these things.
Speaker 2: But the truth is, with federal elections, you don't really
Speaker 2: have that luxury to just say, well, sure, California can
Speaker 2: let in fifty million people if they wanted to, Okay, well,
Speaker 2: then just recognize that through the Electoral College, essentially California
Speaker 2: and their voting, which will obviously go to the Democrats,
Speaker 2: will be just a landslide in favor of the Democrats,
Speaker 2: and every federal election, not to mention all the congressional
Speaker 2: seats that they would get. And you say, well, but
Speaker 2: these people wouldn't have the right to vote until California
Speaker 2: allows them to vote, Like that'll happen already is happening
Speaker 2: on very very very low levels. But that's the whole
Speaker 2: plan here, folks, obviously. So unless you're going to have
Speaker 2: a massive secessionary movement where like Florida becomes its own state,
Speaker 2: which now I don't feel really comfortable about given that
Speaker 2: they're doing these you know, social media post thing operations.
Speaker 2: But if we're going to remain the United States, whether
Speaker 2: we're going to have to have a few things that
Speaker 2: everybody abides by, and unfortunately, as long as we have
Speaker 2: federal elections, it seems to me that immigration law has
Speaker 2: to be one of them. And if the domestic population
Speaker 2: doesn't want to cooperate, or if they want to chase
Speaker 2: around ice agents and honk it them and threaten, what
Speaker 2: are we to do. Are we to just accept that
Speaker 2: paradigm and say, well, the local population doesn't want it,
Speaker 2: so therefore this state gets to have as many illegal
Speaker 2: immigrants as they befit. Is that really going to be
Speaker 2: an acceptable thing moving forward? I would argue probably not.
Speaker 2: Are we going to allow the most loud and violent
Speaker 2: amongst us to ultimately dictate the terms by which we
Speaker 2: structure our civilization moving forward? And I would say probably
Speaker 2: not a good idea. If you want lunatics that are
Speaker 2: almost all socialists screaming at the top of their lungs
Speaker 2: as to what they want to see moving forward, and
Speaker 2: we all just go, well, they're the loudest and the
Speaker 2: most violent, so that's what we're going to do. I
Speaker 2: would argue, you're going to regret that very very fast.
Speaker 2: You're going to regret that. And if you're still not sold,
Speaker 2: here's what Don Lemon had to say, about the churchgoers.
Speaker 17: And there's a certain degree of entitlement. I think people
Speaker 17: who are you know, in the religious groups like that.
Speaker 17: It's not the type of Christianity that I practice, but
Speaker 17: I think that they're entitled and that entitlement comes from
Speaker 17: a supremacy, a white supremacy, and they think that this
Speaker 17: country was built for them, that it is a Christian country,
Speaker 17: when actually we left England because we wanted religious freedom.
Speaker 17: It's religious freedom, but only if you're a Christian, and
Speaker 17: only if you're a white male pretty much. And so yeah,
Speaker 17: I absolutely one hundred percent, but it's an antimpt tactic.
Speaker 17: And you know, I said, I don't understand how I've
Speaker 17: become the face of it when I was a journalist.
Speaker 17: I do understand that I'm the biggest name there. My
Speaker 17: producers were saying, I said, how did I become the
Speaker 17: face of this? And my producer said, Don, You're a
Speaker 17: gay black man in America.
Speaker 2: So any instinct that I have to defend Don Lemon
Speaker 2: goes out the window after that one. Just being honest,
Speaker 2: I mean to describe these people as privileged as they're
Speaker 2: what Because they're white people at church, obviously that means
Speaker 2: they're privileged, or to say that the whole reason that
Speaker 2: you're the face of this controversy is because, oh you're
Speaker 2: the most famous. You're barely famous, you were on CNN,
Speaker 2: You're basically a laughing stock at this point, I think
Speaker 2: you do less views on YouTube than I do. So
Speaker 2: calm down with the ego thing there, and then the
Speaker 2: cherry on top of the woke Sunday is, oh, I'm
Speaker 2: a gay black man. So that's obviously why we're upset
Speaker 2: with you. No, Don, we're upset with you because First
Speaker 2: Amendment protections don't really cover private property. I know, really
Speaker 2: controversial stance there. You don't have a right to come
Speaker 2: into my house and protest. And last I checked, most
Speaker 2: churches are private property, if not all, and therefore you
Speaker 2: don't have a right to protest there. You are at
Speaker 2: minimum trespassing and at maximum violating the Face Act. So
Speaker 2: do you think that Don Lemon was in defense of
Speaker 2: Owen Shroyer, who was covering the protest on j six
Speaker 2: and ultimately got jailed for a while, I would argue
Speaker 2: probably not. In fact, I'm pretty certain Don Lemon was
Speaker 2: not speaking out in defense of Owen. So I'm not
Speaker 2: going to defend Don Lemon on this one. Sorry, but
Speaker 2: I will say this, this situation is so complex it
Speaker 2: actually requires additional nuance. Let me show you what I'm
Speaker 2: talking about.
Speaker 18: Yeah, opening the door, Oh god, god, God, oh my god,
Speaker 18: why let them go? You're not here at all, You're
Speaker 18: You're just.
Speaker 4: Like, we don't know.
Speaker 2: So that's Jake Lang getting assaulted and not okay obviously,
Speaker 2: But I will say Jake Lang is a right wing provocateur.
Speaker 2: I think that's a fair way to describe him. He
Speaker 2: goes to these types of events and he basically tries
Speaker 2: to get into violent altercations, and so far it seems
Speaker 2: to be working for him. He gets a lot of
Speaker 2: headlines by doing so. I personally think that doing things
Speaker 2: like that is ultimately reckless. I mean, not just for himself,
Speaker 2: But I don't think it helps us moving forward to
Speaker 2: try and bring out the worst elements on both sides
Speaker 2: of this just to make some sort of political point.
Speaker 2: It's not dissimilar to kind of how Antifa behaves, where
Speaker 2: it bleeds, it leads. There's no such thing as bad press,
Speaker 2: you know, I just don't like it. But let me
Speaker 2: show you what I'm talking about. The clip I just
Speaker 2: showed you actually happened before he was assaulted in the vehicle.
Speaker 2: It's what sparked that secondary attack. I want you to
Speaker 2: pay attention or rewind it if you need to go
Speaker 2: back and look at how many cameras are there. There
Speaker 2: are basically as many cameras as there are people, and
Speaker 2: there's probably fifty people in that shot, and it looks
Speaker 2: like there's about fifty cameras and I'm not talking like
Speaker 2: cell phones, I'm talking professional cameras. Jake Lane knows exactly
Speaker 2: what he's doing. He goes right to the heart of
Speaker 2: the media and he basically as a provocateur, it provokes
Speaker 2: people into attacking him. Now that doesn't justify them attacking him.
Speaker 2: They shouldn't be and they should be absolutely charged for assault.
Speaker 2: But I'm just saying, does that look organic to you
Speaker 2: to be as salted in front of fifty, you know,
Speaker 2: street journalists. I would argue that didn't happen by accident.
Speaker 2: So now to the macro point I've been building too.
Speaker 2: As many of you are already familiar with the term
Speaker 2: Cloward Piven, and essentially it's a situation in which you've
Speaker 2: been led down a path where you have two different choices,
Speaker 2: and both of them result in what the powers that
Speaker 2: be want you to do, and we are in one
Speaker 2: of those right now. So I want to be very
Speaker 2: clear that while I personally think that the illegal immigration
Speaker 2: crisis is so important that there has to be major
Speaker 2: deportations for this country to have any hope of a future,
Speaker 2: that does not mean that I am just lockstep defender
Speaker 2: of ice. For instance, that woman that was shot a
Speaker 2: couple of weeks ago, I didn't do an episode on
Speaker 2: it because I thought it was marginal enough of a
Speaker 2: case that I didn't really have a firm opinion on it,
Speaker 2: and I still don't really have a firm opinion on it.
Speaker 2: I think that she made terrible, terrible miscalculations. I also
Speaker 2: think that that cop really didn't need to fire that
Speaker 2: second and third shot and take her life. Now, it
Speaker 2: could be argued that maybe that first shot was fatal,
Speaker 2: in which case, you know, you drive your car into
Speaker 2: somebody even if it's unlikely to kill them. They don't
Speaker 2: know that in that instant and they react. So anyways,
Speaker 2: setting that aside, I want you to understand the circumstances
Speaker 2: by which we got here, because I think it's really
Speaker 2: important when you're you're too deep in the weeds. You
Speaker 2: got to take a step back and actually look at
Speaker 2: how did this forest bloom. I know I'm mixing my metaphors.
Speaker 2: After the Heart Seller Act in the I think it
Speaker 2: was the nineteen fifties, maybe the early sixties, there was
Speaker 2: just massive amounts of immigration that started to take hold
Speaker 2: in America and it basically grew exponentially, and then just
Speaker 2: a fever pitch under Joe Biden where it was Some
Speaker 2: estimates are between three and five million annually, so anywhere
Speaker 2: from twelve to twenty million came in over the past
Speaker 2: four years. That is such a dramatic change of the
Speaker 2: demographics in this country that you really don't have a
Speaker 2: choice but to react. But it didn't just start then.
Speaker 2: You had decades of this. And to be clear, this
Speaker 2: was really a bipartisan issue. For the longest time. There
Speaker 2: was not a party that was hardline deport them all
Speaker 2: the way the Trump Maga movement is. Even in the
Speaker 2: two thousands, the George Bush administration had a term for this.
Speaker 2: It was very popular. They talked about comprehensive immigration reform,
Speaker 2: but what it usually included was both pathways to citizenship
Speaker 2: plus some sort of embassy for the illegals that were
Speaker 2: already here, and it was going to be comprehensive. You
Speaker 2: were going to have immigration reform on all sides so
Speaker 2: that the legals that were here become citizens, are some
Speaker 2: are deported, and then you also have faster path for
Speaker 2: immigrants to come in. And that was just twenty years ago.
Speaker 2: So the point being is that the changing demographics in
Speaker 2: this country, the opening of the borders, or the increasingly
Speaker 2: opening of our borders has been a bi partisan affair
Speaker 2: for about fifty years before the Maga Trump movement came along.
Speaker 2: And I'm not sure at what exact point the Democrats
Speaker 2: recognized that a majority of the first generation illegal immigrants
Speaker 2: would come in and vote for the Democrats. But at
Speaker 2: some point they did realize that and they said, well,
Speaker 2: we're going to let in all of them, and they
Speaker 2: just stopped doing border control, and certainly that happened effective
Speaker 2: twenty twenty. And the circumstances that that creates is essentially
Speaker 2: waking up one day and not recognizing your hometown, feeling
Speaker 2: as if you're a stranger in the state you grew
Speaker 2: up in. I felt it myself in California. I'm sure
Speaker 2: many of you have felt the same way. So here's
Speaker 2: where the Cloward Pivens strategy comes in. You were left
Speaker 2: with two choices. You have one choice, which is to
Speaker 2: just say, well, these ic deportations are too disruptive and
Speaker 2: the people are just not having it, so we're just
Speaker 2: going to stop, which is kind of the Joe Rogan pathway.
Speaker 13: Well, there's two things that are insane. One is the
Speaker 13: targeting of migrant workers, not cartel members, not gang members,
Speaker 13: not drug dealers, just construction workers showing up in construction sites,
Speaker 13: raiding them gardeners, Yeah, like really passing students on college campuses.
Speaker 2: Or you have the alternative pathway of saying, I don't care,
Speaker 2: this is so important, we have to get rid of them. However,
Speaker 2: we have to do it, we have to do it.
Speaker 2: And then you roll out Palenteer and you know, big
Speaker 2: tech surveillance stuff, and then you have ICE that's funded
Speaker 2: to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars, and
Speaker 2: you start to basically look more and more like a
Speaker 2: papers please police state. So either pathway, you're having diminished rights.
Speaker 2: If you don't do anything about the border, then you
Speaker 2: just have a slow demolition of your rights through electoral
Speaker 2: politics and ultimately the bankrupting of your country and diminishing
Speaker 2: of your centate of living. Or you go the police
Speaker 2: state route to get rid of the immigrants, in which
Speaker 2: case you live in a police state, and that's not
Speaker 2: much of a win either. Now, setting inside the fact
Speaker 2: that Joe Rogan voted for Trump, and it's a little
Speaker 2: bit bizarre from the thing Trump was talking about deporting
Speaker 2: like ten or twenty million people. You thought he was
Speaker 2: just going to be deporting gang bangers. You think there's
Speaker 2: that many gang bankers legals like, No, So yeah, there
Speaker 2: was going to be a lot of people that were
Speaker 2: going to be deported that you probably don't feel was necessary.
Speaker 2: But I think the bigger point is this, after Reagan
Speaker 2: gave amnesty in the nineteen eighties, California was lost forever.
Speaker 2: My beautiful home state was lost to the Democrats forever. Now,
Speaker 2: when I say it was lost to the Democrats, don't
Speaker 2: take that as an endorsement of the fucking Republicans. That's
Speaker 2: not what I'm doing. I'm just saying there is an
Speaker 2: expeditious demolition of your way of life when Democrats are
Speaker 2: in power. There was a slightly slower demolition of your
Speaker 2: liberties when the Republicans are power, especially at the state level.
Speaker 2: Trust me when I tell you I watched it happen
Speaker 2: in real time. California was destroyed both by illegal immigration
Speaker 2: in the decades of Democrat control with a brief hiatus
Speaker 2: when Arnold Schwarzenegger was the governor as a Republican who
Speaker 2: was in fact a Democrat. So it's been Democrat control
Speaker 2: for forty years. So my position is this, and it's
Speaker 2: a very complex one. I'm not going to tell you
Speaker 2: how to feel about this or what to do. I'm
Speaker 2: just going to tell you the conclusion I've come to
Speaker 2: for our survival's sake, supporting as expeditious and as civil
Speaker 2: liberties defending a deportation regime as can be mustered, that
Speaker 2: is what needs to happen. Simultaneously, and equally as important,
Speaker 2: we should be demanding that our civil liberties be upheld,
Speaker 2: that surveillance technology like Palanteer does not get greenlit. It
Speaker 2: is happening right now, I might add. So my protestations
Speaker 2: and my warning about this has not worked so far,
Speaker 2: which is why I wanted to dedicate this portion of
Speaker 2: the show to it. Because I think public understanding as
Speaker 2: to what's happening when it comes to our civil liberties,
Speaker 2: our privacy rights, the diminution of them. It's very important
Speaker 2: that we're all aware of the game that's being played,
Speaker 2: because it's basically a head's eye win tails, you lose
Speaker 2: type of circumstance, with I being the government, the federal government,
Speaker 2: the powers that be. I don't believe that it's an
Speaker 2: accident that they put us in this lose lose position.
Speaker 2: But I do believe that of all of the bad
Speaker 2: options on offer, that is the best answer. That there
Speaker 2: does need to be deportations, but there also needs to
Speaker 2: be serious voicing of our concerns when it comes to
Speaker 2: civil liberties and rights violations, and if we can walk
Speaker 2: that razor's edge, we might get through this and salvage
Speaker 2: what's left of our country. I do want to say,
Speaker 2: big surprise interview. I just heard about Josie the Red
Speaker 2: Hill Libertarian got to interview Nick Fluntes in person. He
Speaker 2: was on IRL last night, so I wanted to give
Speaker 2: her a plug.
Speaker 8: Okay, let's get into some controversial stuff now.
Speaker 13: Yes, First, why are you controversial?
Speaker 8: Do you hate women? Should women vote? Should women shut
Speaker 8: the fuck up? Am I a baby machine? On Tucker you.
Speaker 5: Called Zionist Jews enemies of conservativism?
Speaker 8: Do you believe Jewish people have a place in America? First?
Speaker 11: What about non whites?
Speaker 2: And also lets you know that she handed my phone
Speaker 2: number to mister Funtes and she says that he wants
Speaker 2: to do it and he's going to be on Liberty lockdown.
Speaker 2: So I don't know if he's going to do it,
Speaker 2: but at least now we know he has my number.
Speaker 2: He didn't respond to my emails, so we'll see if
Speaker 2: it can happen. I still like Nick a lot. I
Speaker 2: still think he's a really interesting guy, but we definitely
Speaker 2: disagree when it comes to Venezuela and a handful of
Speaker 2: other things. So I think it'd be a very interesting conversation.
Speaker 2: I think we're both sincere about America first and putting
Speaker 2: this country first, but I think we have slightly different,
Speaker 2: maybe significantly different prescriptions on how to get there. So
Speaker 2: I think it'd be a very interesting conversation. So hopefully
Speaker 2: that'll happen. If you want to see that happen, make
Speaker 2: sure you subscribe because that will increase the likelihood he
Speaker 2: wants to come on Hit the like button, Leave a
Speaker 2: comment down below, and I will catch you guys next time.
Speaker 2: By the way, sorry, I'm going to be out of town,
Speaker 2: going to Texas to do a bunch of live sporting
Speaker 2: events with my brother and my stepdad. It's going to
Speaker 2: be a blast. But I'm gonna be gone for six days.
Speaker 2: So I will see you a week from today, most likely.
Speaker 2: Love you. Someone mentioned, hey, you should go on with
Speaker 2: Liberty Lockdown. I said, I don't know that I've ever heard.
Speaker 4: Of the guy.
Speaker 2: I went and watched him, and I thought, how have
Speaker 2: I not heard of this guy? The guy's dope. I mean,
Speaker 2: he's great on air.