TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @3rdGener
reSee.it AI Summary
Over the past four years, I've noticed that most ERO Boston arrest data involves s*x crimes against children. It feels like the Democrats prioritize criminals over the safety of women and children, despite their claims of support for us.
@3rdGener - Allison Dyer
The majority over the last 4 years have seemingly been s*x crimes against children. Every time I pull ERO Boston arrest data the majority remain crimes against children. But the Democrats will continue to “stand” for the criminals and NOT women & children as they are forever and always screaming in our faces claiming to be standing for.
Video Transcript AI Summary
71% of people are not from Mexico. There is allegedly no actual vetting process happening for migrants. Massachusetts does not consult with federal immigration authorities before placing migrants in shelters, and ICE Boston suggests potential public safety risks in state-provided housing. People entering the country may not be good, and there are allegedly no security or background checks.
From February 2024 to June 14, 2024, ERO Boston made 69 arrests of illegal aliens, including nine for sex crimes, 28 for sex crimes against children, seven for robbery/theft, 12 for homicide, five for assault, six for drugs, and two for other crimes.
Crimes have been committed by people in the country illegally due to reversed Trump policies and open border policies. A senator was asked if they have any regrets or remorse for their complicity in these crimes and if they ever call up the families of crime victims. The senator stated that all hearts break for the victims of these heinous crimes and their loved ones and that the criminals are responsible for their criminal conduct. The senator was asked if they admit their culpability and that their actions have resulted in deaths, murders, and assaults. Elections have consequences.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Percentage. I can certainly I can certainly You don't know, do you? I can certainly It's 71%, okay, are not people who are not from Mexico.
Speaker 1: So I saw that article this morning, and I remembered. Oh, yeah. It's exactly right. I mean, there really isn't, no matter what anyone tells you, any actual vetting process happening.
Speaker 2: Massachusetts does not consult with federal immigration authorities before placing migrants in shelters. We learned that today. In a statement, the director of the ICE Boston field office says people should be aware of potential public safety risks in state provided housing.
Speaker 3: In fact, the American people is right. Completely true. Who come into this country? They don't know whether, okay, I'm good, but how if they're not good? How they have to kill a psycho, what else?
No guarantee of that. Why like like, no no security be no security check. No background check.
Speaker 4: No security check. No background check. You're worrying about who's crossing the border?
Speaker 3: Yes. Yes. Of course, maybe we have some, like, people are not look normal.
Speaker 1: Then I figured I should probably check-in on my ERO Boston and and see what's been going on for the last, you know, month or so. So in reviewing ERO Boston from the months of February 2024 through today, 06/14/2024, we can see that it's been a hundred and thirty four days and in those hundred and thirty four days there have been 69 arrests of illegal aliens. Nine arrests were for sex crimes, 28 arrests were for sex crimes against children, seven arrests were for robbery and or theft, 12 arrests were for homicide, five arrests were for assault, six were for drugs, and two arrests were for other crimes like illegal entry and or major theft like, intellectual property theft. I'll also link that MaineWire article in the comments below.
Speaker 4: You read a list of a dozen people in the last four months publicized murders, rapes, a two year old caught in the crossfire, crimes committed by people in this country illegally. That had not been for your reversing of the Trump policies for for your open border policy. Those crimes would have been committed. I've got another simple question. Do you ever, when you go to bed at night, do you have any regrets?
Do do you have any remorse for the your complicity? Senator. In in these crimes, I mean, you've you have eight your open border policies aided in a betting. Abetted. The murder of Americans, the rape of Americans.
There are not there. People lost their loved ones because of this catastrophe, this open border policy. Do you do you have any remorse? Do you
Speaker 5: have any regrets? Senator, two points. One, very importantly, all of our hearts break for the victims of these heinous crimes and their loved ones. Secondly, the criminals. Who committed those crimes.
Are responsible for their criminal conduct. It would
Speaker 4: have been into this country. Had you not allowed them in. Through your open warp. Do you ever call up the families of the crime victims? Do you ever talk to do you ever talk to Lincoln Riley's family?
Speaker 5: Senator, as I stated previously, all of our hearts break for the loved ones of those who have been lost at the hands of criminal conduct.
Speaker 4: Good. Okay. So your heart is broken. Do you have regrets? Do you admit your culpability here?
Do you admit that your actions? Have resulted in the deaths and the murders and the assaults?
Speaker 1: And as always, my friends, stay safe and elections do have consequences.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Tom Homan said he is, quote, bringing hell to the city of Boston until it complies with his demands. One speaker said they would love Tom Homan to come to Massachusetts and do all the things that he needs to do, because what happens at the border does not stay at the border, and what happens in Massachusetts doesn't stay in Massachusetts and scatters.
Another speaker directed comments to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and every member in both chambers of congress, stating that American citizens are not safe because of failed immigration policies and that this is the second time in just two years that an innocent Hartford County woman has lost her life to a criminal in our country illegally.
One speaker claimed that fears and division being projected onto Boston are really the stuff of Fox News fever dreams. Another speaker countered that it's not just people watching Fox News to see what is happening in Massachusetts and in Boston, and that most people just check the ERO website. The mayor of Nashua, New Hampshire, Jim Donches, stated that Nashua is officially a welcoming city and that they value every person regardless of where they come from.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Border czar Tom Homan said he is, quote, bringing hell to the city of Boston until it complies with his demands. I don't know what that means. Boston is my hometown, and I'm glad to welcome our mayor, mayor Wu, and her one month old baby here today. But I don't know that Boston welcomes mister Homan or anyone else bringing hell to the city.
Speaker 1: And sir, sir, sir, like, I'm glad that your hometown is Boston, but as someone who lives 15 miles from the Massachusetts border, like, I would like to raise my hand and just say that I, like, I would love. Like, I'm all for Tom Homan coming here and doing all the things that he needs to do.
Speaker 2: So, look, if I I offend anybody today, I don't care.
Speaker 1: No. No. Mean, because as we very well know, what happens at the border does not stay at the border. And as a border to Massachusetts, I mean, one can only surmise that, what happens in Massachusetts doesn't stay in Massachusetts and scatters.
Speaker 3: And I want to now direct these comments to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and to every member in both chambers of congress. We are 1,800 miles away here in Hartford County. We are 1,800 miles away from the southern border, and the American citizens are not safe because of failed immigration policies. This is the second time in just two years that an innocent Hartford County woman has lost her life to a criminal in our country illegally.
Speaker 4: It's clear my colleagues across the aisle didn't do their homework because the fears and division they're trying to project onto Boston are really the stuff of Fox News fever dreams.
Speaker 1: And miss Ayanna Pressley, I mean, it's not a Fox News thing to know what's going on in Boston. It's not just people watching Fox News in order to see what is happening in Massachusetts and in Boston. I mean, most people just check the ERO website. I mean, have you ever looked at it? I mean, you can just get it right from the website.
I mean, it's all right here. I mean, and we all also heard in that hearing, like, you know, 200 times, welcoming city welcoming city ordinances. Well, as a reminder, as someone that is 15 miles from the Massachusetts border, my mayor of Nashua, New Hampshire, Mayor Jim Donches, is actually very good friends with Boston Mayor Wu. Here they are. And on top of that, Nashua is also a certified welcoming city.
Speaker 2: Hi everyone, I'm Jim Donches, the mayor here in Nashua. Nashua is officially a welcoming city. We value every person regardless of where you come from. We are a city that was built by immigrants from Canada, Lithuania, from Mexico, Dominican Republic, from India, and many other nations. We want you to know that you are not alone, that together we are celebrating the values which we all share, compassion, kindness, and caring for every single individual.
So whoever you are from wherever you have come, please know that there's a place for you and a welcoming right here in Nashville. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: And just a little reminder on our way out here from, you know, one of one of my faves, Rep. Biggs.
Speaker 3: Every one of you is exposed to criminal culpability here. That's the that's the reality
Speaker 0: of
@3rdGener - Allison Dyer
@MJTruthUltra Amazing! I love to see the support, this is an issue that needs to be addressed to the American people and everywhere abroad!
reSee.it AI Summary
During yesterday's Round Table on the DHHS’s Unaccompanied Children program, Senator Ron Johnson questioned the administration and Democrats about their actions regarding the situation. The full hearing is available to watch online.
@3rdGener - Allison Dyer
In the Round Table held yesterday on the failures of the DHHS’s Unaccompanied Children program, Senator Ron Johnson posed the question … “Why has this administration and Democrats, WHY are they doing this?” Full hearing 👉🏻 https://www.youtube.com/live/T5Mkwn2espg?si=C7pssbFmKsizFkxq #Biden #BidensAmerica #BidenAdministration #BidenBorderCrisis #BidenBorderInvasion #BidensBorderBloodBath #Trump
Video Transcript AI Summary
The Biden administration's border policies have led to a surge of unaccompanied children, creating opportunities for exploitation. Vulnerable children are being trafficked with taxpayer dollars due to a failure to properly vet sponsors. One interviewee shared that on her journey over the border, people in her group were robbed, several girls including her were raped, and she witnessed the decapitation.
Children are not going to their parents but are being trafficked, with government officials complicit. The HHS ORR program is a failure, allowing children to be trafficked on their watch. Over 500,000 children have arrived at the border alone and are funneled through agencies and contractors with little training to protect them. Children are being placed with sponsors with criminal history and gang affiliations. There is a market for juvenile organ harvesting, and cartels rely on gangs to facilitate trafficking within the U.S. Tax dollars are funding child and human trafficking, essentially slavery, sanctioned by the government and NGOs.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I'm honored to have this opportunity to share the stark reality of what unaccompanied illegal immigrant children face under the Biden administration's failed border policies. The Biden administration's intentional refusal to secure a border or enforce our immigration laws, which require proper vetting of foreign nationals, has led to an unprecedented surge of illegal border crossings, including hundreds of thousands of unaccompanied children. The Office of Refugee Resettlement strives to place vulnerable youth with supposedly vetted sponsors. However, due to the overwhelming volume, they cannot keep up, creating a perfect breeding ground for predators and those with malicious intentions to take advantage of those unfortunate circumstances.
Speaker 1: So I have made countless videos on this topic since Joe Biden came into office and opened the border. I will pin a couple of them to the top of my page.
Speaker 0: We interviewed a young girl who shared that on her journey over the border, people in her group were robbed, several girls including her were raped, and she witnessed the decapitation. This is the reality the federal government has created by failing to secure our border.
Speaker 1: So this roundtable discussion that happened yesterday got almost no press coverage, but I will link the full roundtable discussion in the comments.
Speaker 2: What I discovered was horrifying. Make no mistake. Children were not going to their parents. They were being trafficked with 1,000,000,000 of taxpayer dollars by a contractor failing to to vet sponsors and process children safely with government officials complicit in it.
Speaker 1: And while, yes, I agree this has always been a problem, the scale to which this is a massive problem now because of this administration is is undeniable.
Speaker 2: I have interviewed these children, and I have stories that will haunt me for the rest of my life. The HHS ORR program is the biggest failure in government history that I have ever witnessed. Despite raising case after case of trafficking, HHS ORR leadership and the contractor allowed children to be trafficked on their watch, and the taxpayers continue to fund it. I plead with you to give these exploited children a fighting chance. Please save
Speaker 3: them. Why are they doing this? What what why has this administration why have Democrats you you'll notice, by the way, even though they're invited, there's not one Democrat senator sitting here listening to your stories, asking questions. You know, that similar letter that I sent to secretary Becerra after your interview with the project Veritas, I sent that to senator Peters, chairman of Homeland Security now. We we've not held one hearing on the border.
We've had secretary mayor said a couple times, and we've been able to talk about the border, but no hearing on the border. Certainly no hearing on this. You know, senator Sanders, chairman of the health committee, no hearing on this.
Speaker 1: So I'll ask the same question that senator Johnson did to this panel, to everybody out there. How can you continue to vote for this? How is your vote in November going to be for Joe Biden to allow this to continue?
Speaker 4: It is unthinkable that the United States government would release a child to a sponsor associated with the gang. What keeps me up at night is wondering if Maria is safe. More than 500,000 children like Carmen and Maria have arrived at our border alone. Alone. These children are funneled through a network of US government agencies and contractors and nongovernmental organizations.
They have little or no training in how to protect children from trafficking and abuse. More than 8,300 of these children were funneled through the Pomona Fairplex emergency intake site where I had the privilege to serve as the deputy to the director of the federal case management team. I can tell you, if I had not seen with my own eyes these children, I could not believe that a federal government agency is using 1,000,000,000 of taxpayer dollars to place vulnerable migrant children into the hands of sponsors with criminal history, gang affiliation, to whom many are not even their parents. It is shocking and shameful.
Speaker 1: Isn't it time to take personality and emotion and feelings out of it and maybe just vote policy instead of person?
Speaker 5: Sadly, in my research, I found that there's a market for organ for juvenile organ harvesting. Unaccompanied minors are especially vulnerable en route to the border of this threat. Cartels bring trafficking victims to the border and rely on a network of gangs to facilitate trafficking within the United States, through research, have uncovered the inner workings of stash houses that exist on both the US and the Mexican side of the border.
Speaker 1: Because if you didn't fully grasp what they're saying here is that your tax dollars, my tax dollars, our tax dollars are funding child and human trafficking, what is essentially slavery, on a massive scale.
Speaker 2: Please understand. This is taxpayer funded child slavery, sanctioned by our government and brought to you by NGOs like Cherokee Federal.
@3rdGener - Allison Dyer
“DHS has acknowledged that Venezuela for example is emptying their prisons and their rehabilitation facilities with the understanding that you’ll get out if you leave here and go to the United States” #BidenAdministration #BidenBorderCrisis #BidenBorderInvasion #BidensAmerica #BidensBorderBloodbath
@libsoftiktok - Libs of TikTok
NEW: Booking photos for the 2 Venezualan illegals who r*ped and kiIIed 12-year-old Jocelyn Nungaray before dumping her body in a creek. Source: @BillMelugin_ https://t.co/k5zjNFsX2n
@3rdGener - Allison Dyer
“Leaving the American people behind. And destroying the economy from the bottom to the top. Because when I do that, I decimate the country.” 👩🔧 Fixed it for you 🙄 #BidensAmerica #Bidenomics #BidenLies #BidensBorderCrisis https://t.co/VGzRGh0xx8
Video Transcript AI Summary
Voters trust Trump more on the economy due to rising costs and stagnant real income. Despite claims of a strong economy, GDP fell short of expectations. Concerns about increasing debt and potential tax hikes for those earning under $400,000 arise. President Biden's statements on tax cuts expiring could lead to tax increases for many Americans. The White House aims to protect those earning under $400,000, but the impact on middle-class families remains uncertain. Economists predict economic factors will influence the upcoming election.
Translation: Voters trust Trump more on the economy due to rising costs and stagnant real income. Despite claims of a strong economy, GDP fell short of expectations. Concerns about increasing debt and potential tax hikes for those earning under $400,000 arise. President Biden's statements on tax cuts expiring could lead to tax increases for many Americans. The White House aims to protect those earning under $400,000, but the impact on middle-class families remains uncertain. Economists predict economic factors will influence the upcoming election.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: It's also true right now, mister president, that voters by a wide margin trust Trump more on the economy. They say that in polls. And part of the reason for that may be the numbers and you're aware of many of these, of course. The cost of buying a home in the United States is double what it was when you look at your monthly costs from before the pandemic. Real income, when you account for inflation, is actually down since you took office.
Economic growth last week, far short of expectations. Consumer confidence, maybe no surprise, is near a 2 year low. With less than 6 months
Speaker 1: the survey. For 65% of American people think they're in good shape economically. They think the nation's not in good shape, but they're personally in good shape. The polling data has been wrong all along. How many you guys do a poll on CNN, how many folks you have to call to get one response?
The idea that we're in a situation where things are so bad, the I mean, we've created more jobs. We've made we're in a situation where people have access to good paying jobs. And the last I saw, the combination of the inflation, the cost of inflation and all those things, that's really worrisome to people with good reason. That's why I'm working very hard to bring the cost of rentals down, to increase the number of homes that are available. Let me say it this way.
When I started this administration, people were saying there's gonna be a collapse in the economy. We have the strongest economy in the world. Let me say it again. In the world.
Speaker 0: Although GDP last week was far short of expectations.
Speaker 1: Oh, was it? Look. GDP is still look at the response of the markets. Overwhelmingly positive. Overwhelmingly positive.
And the stunning amount
Speaker 2: stunning amount of debt we're borrowing. We have 13 countries in the industrialized world that have cheaper 10 year bonds than we do. I'm trying to find some way to help this body sort of understand that now you have the responsibility. You're gonna come and argue saying, I wanna cut this spending. Great.
God bless you. Do it. But if you're gonna come behind these mics and say you wanna burn the place down, you may make markets here and around the world just nervous enough that a few ticks, you just cost 1,000,000,000 and 1,000,000,000. Because remember, we're borrowing about $8 a half $1,000,000,000 a day. So think of some of the debates we have here.
We're knifing each other for fractions of that because we're not willing to tell the truth. And the hardest truth, I say over and over, and maybe I'm the idiot for doing it. From today through the next 30 years and remember, I used to come here with a chart that says 30 year debt from now is a 116 16 trillion. And then I brought 1, it's a 130,000,000,000,000. And then CBO, what was it about 2 weeks ago, 3 weeks ago, said, no, Schweikert, you're wrong.
It's gonna be a 141,000,000,000,000.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I spent a lot of money doing these things, but guess what? I cut the deficit in half. In half. It's federal deficit.
Speaker 3: The current debt amount. It's about 34,000,000,000,000 Yeah. Which includes, debt, held by the, or intergovernmental debt as well.
Speaker 4: That's right.
Speaker 3: And can you also tell me what the projected debt will be at the end of the this budget period, at the end of 10 years?
Speaker 4: So normally, you look at debt held by the public
Speaker 3: Okay. We can use that number if you'd like.
Speaker 4: Which is currently about, 28,000,000,000,000. Right. And, in 2034, under our budget, I believe it would be around 45,000,000,000,000.
Speaker 3: Yeah. They When
Speaker 5: you testified at the the finance committee last month, you said, quote, the president does not have a plan to address the coming tax hikes. That was at the senate finance committee last month. Isn't it true that without a plan, the president would slash the child tax credit in half, which means parents lose a $1,000 from their pocketbooks for each child each year?
Speaker 4: The president has principles that will guide his negotiations with Congress over how to handle this.
Speaker 1: We do without increasing inflation, without increasing the deficit. Nobody making more than $400,000 a year, less than $400,000 a year will pay a penny more in federal taxes.
Speaker 2: Medicare, Social Security, and then our obligation to pay the interest on the money we've borrowed is primary driver of our debt. But we're gonna do clown show here and say, we don't tax rich people enough. And then I show up with the reports that basically, when you go over the numbers and I've done entire floor speeches just on this report. When you did every bit of taxes on the $400,000 enough, you maximize their capital gains tax, maximize their income tax, maximize their estate tax, maximize everything, and then you adjust for its effect in the economy, you get about 1a half, 1.6 percent of GDP. Last 366 days, remember it's a leap year, we've borrowed over 9% of GDP.
The running average, I think, for this fiscal year remember, fiscal year is different than a calendar year. I think we're in the mid fours, 4% of GDP. So the entire tax scheme well, except for unrealized capital gains, which is bizarre idea that the Democrats have is, Hey, you have a house, or you have a piece of real estate, You're over 400 we we want a tax gain. You haven't recognized yet, though. Most of that gain is probably inflation.
But work with me here. The Democrats' tax scheme of taxing the rich, if you do tax maximization, the concept of I maximize your income tax before the number rolls over. I we've maximized your estate tax before you start getting rid of assets building them, or we've maximized your capital gains before you say, I'm we're never selling this. You get about 1 and a half percent of GDP when you do the economic cut things, if if you start to look at the chart, remember, the blue is what we get to vote on. Everything in the red is, you know, Medicare, medic Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, interest well, now interest is much higher, other mandatory programs.
We only get to vote vote on about 25, 26 percent of the budget. And if you split out defense, out of that $7,000,000,000,000 spending in of your US government, we get to vote on about 965,000,000,000. So less than 1 7th is nondefense discretionary, and that's where all the cuts I can cut it dramatically. We could get rid of all of it.
Speaker 1: You know, you
Speaker 2: get rid of all $965,000,000,000 in nondefense discretionary. So there's no park service and no FBI. There's none of this. It's all gone. Well, we're heading towards borrowing about 2.8 trillion.
You don't get anywhere close to balancing the budget. And that's getting rid of almost everything you think of as government. There seems to be this unwillingness to understand the scale of the borrowing.
Speaker 6: Experts I stoked spoke to still scoffed at the idea that president Biden is personally responsible for having reduced the deficit. In fact, one advocate of deficit reduction, Mark Goldwein of the Committee for Responsible Federal Budget, told me that this claim is almost bizarre or worlds, a reversal of reality.
Speaker 7: You know, since Joe Biden took office, inflation's up over 19%. Joint Economic Committee estimate that Kansans are paying an average of nearly $1,000 more per month for the same goods and services, the same food, the same clothes, the same gas, the same rent that they did in January of 2021. And since then in total, the average Kansan household has spent $23,600 more due to inflation. At the same time, net income is down almost 4%. I know your boss and his administration like to point to rosier numbers, but the fact is for everyday Americans the chart behind me is the epitome of Bidenomics and it's a complete failure.
Speaker 1: No one let me say it again, no one making under $400,000 will see their federal taxes go up, period.
Speaker 7: I you mentioned earlier that, in the in the discussion with Chairman Smith that, President Biden was not going to increase taxes on people making less than $400,000 In fact, I have a tweet here from Joe Biden dated 1 week ago today, in talking about the Trump tax cuts and he said, this tax cut is going to expire. If I'm reelected, it's going to stay expired. I did some quick calculations and basically what that means is that there's going to be a 25% increase in the tax rate on people that make less than $44,000 there's going to be an additional $14,000 tax increase on people making less than $95,000 and additional increases on others up until making the $400,000. So if this tweet is right that came from president Biden, he is going to increase taxes on people making less than $400,000.
Speaker 1: You're gonna be raising those taxes? Yes. Anybody making more than $400,000 will see a small to a significant tax increase. If you make less than $400,000, you won't see one single penny in additional federal tax. I'd
Speaker 3: like to submit for the record an article from the Washington Post that shows the $2,000,000,000,000 and talks about, that being included in the budget and then shows a significant portion of that will be taken, by families who are earning less than 400,000.
Speaker 5: He's he's explicitly objection. He's explicitly
Speaker 4: said that he will not agree to raise taxes for people making under $400,000.
Speaker 3: So I think it's more
Speaker 4: And that is not any proposal of his. He's not said
Speaker 3: So I think he
Speaker 4: would allow everything to expire.
Speaker 3: It's more important
Speaker 4: to look just wrong.
Speaker 3: I think it's, more important to look at what he's proposed rather than what he said. And very clearly, the the $3,000,000,000,000 in revenue or in reduct what you're calling a reduction in, debt, comes includes a significant amount coming from families, who are earning under 400,000 free.
Speaker 4: Well, that will have to be paid for.
Speaker 1: It's gonna take expired and dead forever if I'm not elected.
Speaker 8: So and that actually means just about everyone in America will get a tax hike. The White House Communications Department trying to remessage what the president is saying. They tell me today the president wants the tax cuts to expire just for the wealthy while protecting Americans making under $400,000 a year, but that's not what he says and he can't pick and choose what part of the law expires. If the tax cut expires, the tax foundation calculated a family of 2 kids making 85,000 would see taxes go up by about 1700 a year. A single person without kids making 75,000 would pay the same in increased taxes.
A married couple with 2 kids making 165,000 a year would pay an additional 25100 in taxes each year. Now economist Steve Moore says this in combination with the economy will play in this election.
@3rdGener - Allison Dyer
@iluminatibot He’s not wrong. https://t.co/8dTyGNH4ia
Video Transcript AI Summary
The video discusses CIA involvement in media, surveillance, and misinformation. It touches on CIA funding of journalists, surveillance programs targeting Americans, and the spread of biased news on social media. The CIA's actions are questioned, including their influence on news reporting and their lack of transparency in surveillance programs. The video highlights concerns about government secrecy, manipulation of information, and the need for public awareness and accountability.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You have any people being paid by the CIA who are contributing to a major circulation American Journal.
Speaker 1: We do have people who submit pieces to other to American journals.
Speaker 0: Do you have any people paid by the CIA who are working for television networks.
Speaker 1: This, I think, gets into the kind of, getting into the details, mister chairman, that I'd like to get into an executive session.
Speaker 0: Do you have any people being paid by the CIA who are contributing to the National News Services, AP and UPI?
Speaker 1: Well, again, I think we're getting into the kind of detail, mister chairman, that I'd prefer to handle an executive session.
Speaker 2: Raise your hand if you know who this is. Ding, ding, ding. If you said William Casey, you would be correct. And what was it that he said? Oh, yeah.
That's right. So let's review that history. 1975.
Speaker 3: Well, I I think what we were what was being recommended was that they be employed in spite of the fact that there was a federal law that prohibited. But as in the kind of in in relationship both to male and to entry, there was and, of course, electronic surveillance. There was the whole question as to whether in essence the 4th amendment applied to the president the exercise of his internal security power. And I think that's where that's why I earlier said that when you asked me about our thinking. I think this is where the question arose.
In my mind, what we were talking about is something that I've been told had been done for 25 years. They've been done with the knowledge of the professional intelligence community, the people who had been here long before we got in town and be here long after we left town. The question really was the question of whether inherent in the executive power in matters involving internal security or the security of the state, the president could act contrary to the dictates of the statute, and I think that was the kind of dilemma that we have. Recommending you were recommending that the president in this case authorize mail openings even though such action was contrary to the federal statute. Yes, sir.
Yeah.
Speaker 2: Around 1979.
Speaker 4: As this 1952 CIA memo says, the aim is controlling an individual to the point where he will do our bidding against his will and even against such fundamental laws of nature as self preservation. 1986.
Speaker 5: And when McMichael spoke his mind, the CIA didn't like it. He was fired. But after 4 years of fighting, now the Nicaraguan government has suspended many freedoms. In the world's newsrooms, the CIA efforts at this information continued to turn out. In 1982, reporters were shown photographs of what the CIA said were Soviet bases in Nicaragua, identifiable by their Soviet style obstacle courses, training areas, and guns.
Speaker 6: I used to laugh and say, look at that Soviet style baseball diamond over there, you know, I think. You know, this is this is almost foolish, really, you know, to talk about this. First of all, they're not Soviet military bases. That's that's the whole point. The second is that the barracks is a barracks.
You know, obstacle course is an obstacle course.
Speaker 2: Early 2000?
Speaker 7: I I think that the public is owed an explanation of the motivations behind the people who make these disclosures that are outside of the democratic model. When you are subverting the power of government, that that's a fundamentally dangerous thing to And if you do that in secret consistently, you know, as the government does, when it wants to benefit from a secret action that it took, It'll kind of give its its officials a mandate to go, hey, you know, tell the press about this thing and that thing so the public is on our side. But they rarely, if ever, do that when abuse occurs. That falls to, individual citizens, but they're typically maligned. You know, it it becomes a thing of these people are against the country, they're against the government, but I'm not.
I'm I'm no different from anybody else. I don't have special skills. I'm just another guy who sits there day to day in the office, watches what happening what's happening, and goes, this is something that's not our place to decide. The public needs to decide whether these programs and policies are right or wrong.
Speaker 8: Last year Secret CIA surveillance program, and it's allegedly been collecting data in bulk, including information about lots of Americans. That's the accusation from 2 Democrats on the senate intelligence committee. Senators Ron Wyden and Martin Heinrich say the program has been operating without any oversight, and they're now accusing the CIA of hiding the details about it from the public and from the Congress. The senators are calling on the agency to declassify the information about the program.
Speaker 2: This year.
Speaker 9: Yes. It is not well understood, but in in a nutshell, here it is. The CIA and the NSA are forbidden to target Americans, as you know. They often and as you said, the numbers are in vast numbers where they pick up Americans most of the time just by incidental collection and the Americans are not really doing anything wrong. If they pick up information that an American is breaking the law or is somehow a threat to national security, those other agencies, the CIA and the NSA, are supposed to provide that information to the FBI for appropriate action and action can't be taken on it.
But in reverse targeting, which John Brennan during the Russian collusion thing acknowledged they were doing, they would target a foreign person who was close to an American they were really interested in. And then when they picked up that information on the Americans, uh-huh, we got it in incidental connect collection, which that was all phony and false. It wasn't incidental collection at all. That is another thing that you in the Congress on both sides of the aisle can address and correct. You can make you can institute penalties for them pulling this monkey business like that.
Speaker 2: So just keep that in the back of your mind because if we as normal citizens were to lie to the government, pretty sure constitute some type of criminal felony. But when they lie to us, it's just politics.
Speaker 8: But We are concerned about how
Speaker 6: China is possible. One side of news stories plaguing our country.
Speaker 2: Plaguing our country.
Speaker 10: The sharing The sharing of biased and false news has become all too common on social media. More alarming, some media outlets publish these same fake stories without checking facts first.
Speaker 6: The sharing of biased and false news has become all too common on social media. More alarming from the outside of the parliament. The stories that Unfortunately,
@3rdGener - Allison Dyer
This is the “why” … actualization of answers for what’s happening with #Diddy or the #EpsteinClientList can’t, won’t or don’t manifest. 👉🏻 https://youtu.be/6ZwxHlWfIxM?si=on9aGVstigMa9vHj https://t.co/RPakXizfmM
Video Transcript AI Summary
The video discusses the Franklin cover-up involving Larry King and Boys Town, detailing child abuse, corruption, and cover-ups at high levels of government. The story warns of the power to control media, justice, and police to manipulate truth. The speaker draws parallels to historical cover-ups like Watergate and Iran Contra, emphasizing the importance of the press in exposing such scandals. The message concludes with a reminder of the consequences of elections.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So I read
Speaker 1: that book about 10 years ago. And it's the reason why anytime in the news, things like the Diddy stuff or the Epstein stuff comes up that I know nothing will come of it. So I encourage you also to read that book so you know why I feel that way. And then it's gonna lead you down some other rabbit holes like this. Then there's also this, which is a never aired documentary about the Franklin cover up, which you can still find on YouTube.
So I will include links for it.
Speaker 2: A republican from the Midwest, Lawrence E King, is serving a 15 year prison sentence for a multimillion dollar fraud. But financial crime is only half the story. This is the true story of Laurence King. It is the story of an evil at the heart of America, of a cover up at the highest level. One man is attempting to uncover the full story.
John de Camp is among the most highly decorated Vietnam veterans. A former Republican state senator in Lincoln, Nebraska, he is now a lawyer fighting the legacy of Lawrence King's evil network.
Speaker 3: It's a web of intrigue that starts at our holy of holies, Boystown, Nebraska,
Speaker 4: one of
Speaker 3: the most respected institutions in the United States, and spreads out like a spider web to Washington DC right up to the steps of the nation's capital, the steps of the White House, involves some of the most respected and powerful and richest businessmen in this United States of America. And the centerpiece of the entire web is the use of children for sex and drug dealing and drug couriers, the compromising of politicians, the compromising of businessmen, but worst of all, the corruption of key institutions of government that have the duty and responsibility to make sure these things never happen. Probably worldwide, there's no institution other than Boys Town that has done so much good for so many children over such a long period of time so successfully. When an institution like that gets contaminated, purposes of abusing children instead of protecting children, then you better, if you got any decency at all, do something about it or at least get it cleared up.
Speaker 2: John de Camp lays the blame for the contamination of Boys Town on the one time leader of the National Black Republican Council, Larry King.
Speaker 3: Larry King was the fastest rising black star in the entire Republican Party of the United States during all of the 19 eighties, and he was also one of the most evil individuals in this country in terms of being a dealer of children, in terms of being a thief, 40,000,000 that they documented he stole, and in terms of using and compromising and corrupting one after another politicians.
Speaker 2: The base for his network was a small people's bank in Omaha, Nebraska, the Franklin Federal Credit Union. Larry King was its general manager. Despite the investigation, Larry King remained free to feed his pedophilic parties with child victims. But in 1988, a routine review brought the boystown cases to the attention of Nebraska's State Foster Care Review Board.
Speaker 0: And the information presented to the Foster Care Review Board either via the telephone reports, the personal reports, or the reports we reviewed Larry King's name was consistently present as someone that the youth were making allegations against I mean I turned that information over to authorities and nothing happened I would say we handed over at least a foot high, amount of material. Generally speaking, the allegations were ignored.
Speaker 2: Omaha police now accept that Larry King may have been abusing children.
Speaker 4: Good morning, Roberta. Good morning, King.
Speaker 2: But its most senior detective claims he never received any evidence.
Speaker 4: It is certainly possible that mister King was involved in illegal acts with children. If there was sufficient evidence evidence of those types of allegations, he would have been prosecuted by the county attorney's office.
Speaker 0: For me, it was very clear that the case was not investigated and not pursued because of the alleged perpetrators. Lara
Speaker 5: King was, I would say, the center of transporting the children around the country. The airplanes were usually in his name, leased in his name. They were paid for by Larry King.
Speaker 2: King's partner in sex crime was powerful Washington lobbyist Craig Spence. He took youngsters like Bonacci on midnight tours of the White House.
Speaker 3: So you were in the White House then? Yes. And how how did you gain access?
Speaker 0: Well, I
Speaker 6: came down with, Larry King, but Craig Spencer is the one that arranged the trip for us. And it was kind of a a gift for our services that we were doing.
Speaker 2: For John de Camp, the story of Larry King's corrupt empire holds a dire warning for America.
Speaker 3: If you can control about 3 or 4 key elements, you can totally own a state. You can make right, wrong. You can make truth, falsehood, falsehood, truth. If you control the media, if you control the Justice Department, if you control the police, you own the system.
Speaker 4: It's beyond belief that arguably the most powerful person in the world, the president of the United States, in the form of Richard Nixon, could not prevent the investigation of Watergate or that president Reagan could not prevent the investigation of Iran Contra. And yet somehow this group of unnamed, unknown, anonymous individuals in Omaha, Nebraska have such power, they can control and protect all of these people from being investigated. Those allegations are ridiculous.
Speaker 3: Well, first of all, Nixon did cover up Watergate. Number 1. Bush did cover up Iran Contra, at least officially. And Omaha has successfully covered up this situation. In each case, it was the press that exposed the problem.
It wasn't institutions of government. They had been corrupted. They had been compromised. They were the ones doing the cover up. The justice department acting through FBI and the US attorney's office in Omaha emerges from the record of the Franklin investigation, not so much as a party to the cover up, but as its coordinator.
Rigging grand juries, harassment of witnesses, incitement to perjury, and tampering with evidence, Federal personnel were seen to apply all those techniques in the Franklin case.
Speaker 1: So that was 1993. It's 2024. Does it sound at all familiar as to how things are still today? And as a reminder my friends, elections have consequences.