reSee.it - Tweets Saved By @CitizenFreePres
@CitizenFreePres - Citizen Free Press
CFP first posted this video 3 years ago. Awesome stuff. Tucker fly fishing in Central Park, talks to stranger who doesn't know who he is. Great conversation. https://t.co/W9RGylzpdB
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss filming and fishing in Central Park. Speaker 0 first notices a video camera and asks about filming while observing someone fishing in the park. Speaker 1 asks, “What is that? What is that?” and Speaker 0 explains, “It’s called a video camera.” They clarify that filming in public is allowed, and Speaker 1 acknowledges the camera, asking if filming is permitted. Speaker 0 says they find it interesting that someone is fishing in Central Park and notes their videotaping.
Speaker 1 confirms that fishing is allowed in Central Park, stating, “It’s absolutely allowed. Okay. It’s allowed in three ponds. It’s allowed in the pond.” Speaker 0 remarks that they have never seen anybody fish there before, and that they videotaped it, finding it interesting and unique about New York City. Speaker 1 adds that you can refer to the Central Park website for details and mentions fishing in “the mirror” as well.
They discuss the fishing conditions: not very good fishing and too many people around. Speaker 0 asks what kind of fish are present, and Speaker 1 responds that there are largemouth bass. They describe their fishing method: Speaker 1 uses flies as bait, explaining that they fly fish. Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 1 catches the flies themselves; Speaker 1 confirms that flies are made by hand and shows that they tie their own flies. Speaker 0 admits confusion about fly tying, not realizing what flies are, and Speaker 1 clarifies, “The flies are the things you make.” They discuss their backgrounds, with Speaker 0 calling themselves not a fly fisher and noting their experience in deep-sea fishing on party boats. Speaker 1 confirms that they tie their own flies.
Speaker 0 asks where Speaker 1 grew up; Speaker 1 says California. They discuss whether Speaker 1 did a lot of fly fishing there; Speaker 1 says not really, but that they learned later in life and find it a great pleasure and a great sport. They describe fly fishing as relaxing, and confirm that Speaker 0 lives in New York now. Speaker 1 clarifies that they live in New York part-time.
Speaker 0 comments on Speaker 1’s manner suggesting they are from New York, and Speaker 1 playfully responds. They discuss how filming people can provoke reactions; Speaker 0 notes that some people assault them, but says it makes for good video. Finally, Speaker 1 asks what Speaker 0 does with the video; Speaker 0 replies that they upload it to their channel and have a lot of people who follow them. Speaker 1 expresses that this is great.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: How you doing? Something rainbow? I didn't know you could fish here.
Speaker 1: What is that? What is that? What is that?
Speaker 0: It's called a video camera. Oh. I didn't know you could fish here.
Speaker 1: You can?
Speaker 0: You can? Yeah. What are you fishing for?
Speaker 1: Are you videotaping me?
Speaker 0: Yeah. Why? Because you're in public. I can.
Speaker 1: Well, know you can. I Okay. I'm not challenging your right. I just wanna know why
Speaker 0: you I find it interesting that you're fishing in Central Park.
Speaker 1: Oh, yeah. It's absolutely allowed. Okay. It's allowed in three ponds. It's allowed in the pond.
Speaker 0: I've never seen anybody fish here before. I videotaped that, which I find interesting and unique about the city of New York.
Speaker 1: Well, it's a good thing. Yeah. You can. You can, go right on the the Central Park website, and also you can fish in the mirror.
Speaker 0: Yeah. No. I'm not challenging the fact that you can. I'm just curious. I've never seen anybody fishing.
Speaker 1: It's not very good fishing. And there's too many people around.
Speaker 0: What kind of fish are there?
Speaker 1: There are largemouth bass. In this thing here?
Speaker 0: Yep. And what do you use for bait?
Speaker 1: I'm a wife fly fish, so I use flies.
Speaker 0: Do you catch the flies yourself?
Speaker 1: No. Flies are I'll show you.
Speaker 0: Oh, those are the things you make. You Exactly. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah. Okay. The string. I'm stupid.
I don't I don't fly fish.
Speaker 1: It's alright. Most people don't.
Speaker 0: I've been, like, deep sea, know, seawater, you know, deep sea fishing on party boats and such, French boats. Oh, okay.
Speaker 1: See? And you tie them.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah. You tie your own flies?
Speaker 1: I do. Yeah.
Speaker 0: You do? Where'd you grow up?
Speaker 1: I grew up in California.
Speaker 0: Yeah. You did a lot of fly fishing out there?
Speaker 1: Not really. No? But I learned in later life, and it's a great pleasure and a great sport.
Speaker 0: It's like relaxing. Right?
Speaker 1: Very.
Speaker 0: And, you know You live in New York now?
Speaker 1: No. Well, I do live here part time, actually.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 1: I can tell by your manner that you're from New York.
Speaker 0: Get the hell out of here. Is it my accent?
Speaker 1: It's everything about you, I would say. So when you videotape people, and I don't mind
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: But I bet you some people do.
Speaker 0: Yeah. They assault me sometimes.
Speaker 1: Is that true?
Speaker 0: Yeah. It makes for good video, though.
Speaker 1: What do you do with the video?
Speaker 0: I put it up on my channel. I have a lot of people to follow me.
Speaker 1: Do you really? Yeah. That's great.
@CitizenFreePres - Citizen Free Press
TOM HOMAN ON MORNING JOE -- Not one person was vetted coming into America, now Democrats want to vet everyone we deport. https://t.co/IC7IGiRGs8
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker discusses border security and immigration, stating that those in the U.S. without deportation orders should self-deport to avoid reentry bars. He claims that entering the U.S. illegally is a crime and encourages using the CBP One app or ICE to arrange for self-removal.
He asserts the Trump administration aims to bring people into the U.S. legally, preventing exploitation by cartels and allowing Border Patrol to focus on security rather than humanitarian crises. He claims that illegal border crossings lead to increased fentanyl trafficking, sex trafficking, and potential terrorists entering the country.
He states the American people voted for stricter immigration enforcement and that the administration is prioritizing public safety and national security threats for removal, using existing laws, including the Alien Enemies Act. He accuses the Biden administration of violating the law by not conducting case-by-case analyses for parolees and creating "shell games" with programs like CHNV and the CBP One app to lower border crossing numbers artificially. He insists the Trump administration achieved a more secure border by detaining those without proper documentation. He commits to following the law and Supreme Court rulings.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Those who are in United States who who don't have an order deportation yet. Because if we have to go through the process of of of going through the court's getting order deportation and we have to find you and remove you, then you have a bar from reentering. So we want people if you're in the country, go home. Do things the right way. Then you don't have that bar placed against you.
So if you have a US citizen child, he can petition for you. If you wanna come in on a work visa or visitor's visa or come in some sort of, you know, some sort of other status, status, as a a student. Coming to the country the right way, that leaves that ability open for you. But if if you get formally reported, there's automatic bars that it gets you as well. People take advantage of it.
And president Trump has has has said before, you know, people we you know, depending on the the the situation, depending on what job series it is, he's looking at ways to bring people back in The United States the right way. What I like about that is when they come in the right way, they're not giving their life savings to the criminal cartel to come across a river or go through a desert, less aliens would die. And Borguteau will be 100% vigilant online rather than dealing with the the humanitarian crisis that the Biden administration created where Borg chose off the line, you know, taking care of this humanitarian crisis, know, whether it's preparing food, making hospital runs, and everything. And when you take Borg choices off the line during a a a illegal crisis like that, that's when the fentanyl comes across killed a quarter million Americans. That's when sex trafficking women and children were six hundred percent.
That's when a a record number of people on terrorist watch list comes across an unguarded border. So doing things your right way keeps Borbitur on the job vigilant a % of the time and let people come in through right way through the port of entry. That's what president Trump's aiming for.
Speaker 1: So so so so walk me through the process if you will. So if you're an illegal immigrant and you're in America, let's say you have a child that was born here, and you're very scared rightfully by a lot of things that you're seeing on television. What what what what are the steps that you take to to voluntarily self deport and then go back to your home country and then apply to come here legally?
Speaker 0: You go to CBP home app. You apply through the CBP home app. Most have access on most just about all of them have, you know, cell phones. They came across the border with cell phones. They they know the CBP and one app because many millions came across at the border, and and hundreds of thousands came through the CBP one app.
So you just go through the CBP one app. You can't you go to an ICE office and and and and and turn yourself to an ICE office. That brain is just made to go home. There's a lot of ways to self remove, and the government is is willing to help you. But if you're in the country legally, you should be concerned.
It's not okay to be in the country legally. It's not okay to enter this country legally. It is a crime. So make it right. Turn yourself in either through the CBP one home map or go to an ICE office, immigration custom force in office, and make arrangement for your attorney.
That way, you can put your affairs in order and go home the right way. And, you know, you can, you know, certainly take advantage of the the numerous ways to come back to this country legally. But it's not okay to enter this country legally. It is a crime. And so if you're in the country legally, you should not be safe and secure and comfortable being in the country legally.
Like, you and I would not be, you know, relaxed to be in another country legally. If you're in the country, you make it right. You know? Give yourself some opportunities in the future to come to the greatest nation on Earth.
Speaker 1: And and if they do that, if they if if if they go to the app or they go to to to ICE officials, are you are you guaranteeing that if if if they wanna self deport and do it the right way as you say, that they will be treated humanely and be allowed to go back to their homeland in a humane manner?
Speaker 0: We treat all people humanely. I know there's you got a lot of bad stories out of States. But I've been doing this. I've been I've well, I've been doing this since 1984. With this that we do things humanely.
We're the most giving nation in the world. We
Speaker 1: more Than any country that's ever existed. We are city, like Reagan said, that shines brightly on the hill for all the world to see. I think, though, people are seeing some of the situations, especially with what's happened with people being pulled off the streets and sent down to maximum security prison in El Salvador without any due process. I
Speaker 0: But, you know, you know, Joe, what what people are looking at people
Speaker 1: are into If if if you if you want me to finish, then I I'll I'll sir, I'll I'll let you finish. I that strikes a lot of Americans as being un American and that even people like myself that's been talking about the need for strong borders for thirty years. You know? But I think a lot of conservatives, and I can read you quotes from a lot of conservatives here, who say they want gang members out. They want violent members out, but there's a right way to do it, and there's a wrong way to do it.
And a lot of people believe that what we've seen over the past three months is the wrong way to do it. I'm sorry. Go ahead.
Speaker 0: No. Look. The American people voted for this. American people voted for Donald Trump. This is number one issue.
Vast majority of Americans want illegal amnesty removed from this country, and it's done humanely. However, we gotta remember this. There are millions of people standing in line, taking their tests, doing their background investigation, paying their fees to be the part of the greatest nation on earth. They're sitting in the back seat. Well, 10,500,000 illegal AMs came to this border, entered this country illegally, which is a violation of law.
There's right way and right way to come to this country legally. The people who came across, they call them asylum seekers, but you and I both know. If you look at the immigration court data, nine out of ten of those so called asylum seekers will end up with the order removal. They overwhelm the system on purpose. Why?
Because they know it's gonna take five, seven, nine years to have a hearing, which they will lose, but now they have US citizen kids. Now they own equities. Now there may be democratic administration in power which award amnesty. They're playing the long game, but we're enforcing laws as enacted by congress, which you remember what we're not making this up. We're enforcing laws on the books, including the Alien Enemies Act, which is act Right.
Created by congress. We're simply using laws on the books to make this country safe again.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well and and, you know, it's it's interesting. One of the arguments you made, I would make all the time when I was in congress, I would have people, whether they were from Pakistan or Lithuania, wherever they were from, they would come to The United States or they'd wanna come to The United States, and they would stand in line, and it would be a very long line. And I always thought it was unfair that they stood and waited in line while other people were able to just come across the border. So, again, I think we agree on that point.
What what again, what I'm asking you though is whether the administration can do this in a way that is consistent with The United States constitution and with what nine members of the United States Supreme Court said, which is you cannot remove somebody that is here even illegally if they are in America without giving them notice and without giving them due process before a judge. Is that something that you've been instructed to do moving forward because nine members of the Supreme Court say that everybody deserves that opportunity in America?
Speaker 0: We are using the laws on the books, the existing laws to secure this border and to remove people here illegally with a priority on public safety threats and national security threats. We're not making this up. We're following the law unlike last administration who ignored the law, who actually violated violated law of bringing a hundred thousand people, giving them pro status, a misuse of the pro statute as you're well aware. There wasn't a case by case analysis of of hundreds of thousand they probed in this country illegally. But now all of a sudden, they want a vetting process for deportation.
There's no vetting process for the hundreds of thousand, actually millions of people they released in the country. No vetting process at all. But now they expect the vetting process for those who've seen an immigration judgement order removed, and all of sudden, they want even a more of a vetting process for those deported. It's it's it's just it's ridiculous how how how they how they the the left has changed the story from the from releasing millions into United States to now now they got a court order to deport them. Now we got coup do after accept giving extra vetting.
The vetting they didn't get when they came in. It's it's just ridiculous.
Speaker 1: Well well, again, I I don't know that it's
Speaker 0: But we will follow we will follow the law. We'll use the laws on the books to enforce the We're gonna use the existing laws, Joe.
Speaker 1: Okay. So, yeah, I was just gonna say, I I don't think it's ridiculous if the Supreme Court says what they say, but my follow-up question was gonna be what you just said. Do you commit to following the law, following what the Supreme Court says? And we've heard the president of The United States say several times in the Oval Office that he will follow the law and what the court say. Do you do you agree with that?
Speaker 0: Yes, sir. We will.
Speaker 1: Okay. Let me ask you. You had said just just circle back, just a fact check here. You had said that the Biden administration, it will come work illegally to get to get illegal immigrants in America. Did did did they violate a court order doing that?
When you say illegally, what do you mean by that?
Speaker 0: I think they violated the pro statute. The pro statute says you can pro somebody on a case by case basis based on the the the the the intricacies of each case, the specifics of each case. They didn't do that. President Biden stood at this stage and said, I'm bringing 30,000 a month in to CHNV, Cuba, Nicaragua, Haiti, Venezuela. I bring in 30,000 a month in.
Where's the where's the case by case analysis on that? It's required under the pro statute. He just and they brought him in. And matter of fact, a lot of Venezuelans he brought into the CHNV, they weren't even in Venezuela. They're living in Ecuador.
So there wasn't a case by case analysis. These people are really escaping fear and persecution from their homeland. They're coming to United States for a better life, and I get that. But it's not it's not it's not asylum. They're not escaping fear and persecution of their homeland, especially if they're not homeland.
Speaker 1: But I'm I'm not aware. Did they defy any court orders on on that issue?
Speaker 0: The fifth the fifth the the fifth district court said not only they're ignoring the law, they they believe they're actually violating law. They weren't doing a case by case analysis on a parole. They they you know, the administration said, oh, we got the border numbers down. No. They didn't.
They created CHNV bucket. They created the CBP one app. The same illegal aliens sell to the border. They put in three different buckets. They put a CHNV program, then they create a CBP one app.
They legal pathways, which they weren't. So they simply say, okay. We'll put thousands in the CHNV. We'll put thousands in CBP one app. Then we can say the borders numbers are down because we're only gonna count those entering between the ports of entry.
It was a shell game. Right. And then I think what you see in the Trump administration, Trump president Trump was able to do in seven weeks what the Biden administration couldn't or wouldn't do in four years, actually had the most secure border in my lifetime. Right now, the data shows right now, as you and I are talking, we have the most secure border in the history of this nation today because of of president Trump.
Speaker 1: And you're saying that that can be done following the law, and you will follow whatever the supreme court rules on in the coming weeks and months. Right?
Speaker 0: You know, one of the biggest things, Joe, for following law of securing the border, we ended up catching a leash. You know the statue says, if you come to our border with a pro without proper documentation, you shall be detained. Not maybe, not think about it. And that's what we did. We ended up catching release.
So, like, we and and and look at the success on border. A border and when border crossings are down 95% let me end with this. Because I've been doing this since 1984. When 95% less people are coming across that border illegally, how many women aren't being sexually assaulted? How many children aren't dying?
How many pounds of fentanylizing coming across the two Americans?
Speaker 1: I agree with you. I I I agree with you, mister Holman, as far as as far as how how the border was in chaos and has been in chaos for way too long. I I agree with all of that. My question to you was whether the Trump administration and whether you can and will do it. I'll just finish again with a with a question.
You whether you'll do it following judicial orders, following, as you said, the law, and following whatever Supreme Court decisions are handed down in the coming weeks and months?
Speaker 0: We will follow the law.
Speaker 1: Alright. Border czar Tom Homan, thank you so much. I hope that you and your family have a blessed Easter weekend, and let us, let us hope, that in the coming weeks and months, we can figure out a way to move forward and keep our borders
@CitizenFreePres - Citizen Free Press
Tucker Carlson: "The Douglass Mackey trial is an outrage and an assault on the First Amendment." https://t.co/qfz9vytsI3
Video Transcript AI Summary
The federal criminal trial of Douglas Mackie began in Brooklyn, with the Biden administration allegedly trying to imprison him for online jokes against Hillary Clinton in 2016. One meme encouraged people to "Text Hillary to 59925" to vote from home. Mackie is charged with conspiring to interfere with citizens' rights, facing a potential ten-year sentence.
The DOJ's key witness is allegedly an FBI informant from Mackie's group chat, but the DOJ is limiting the cross-examination of this witness and preventing his name from being said in court, citing potential online harassment. A Southern Poverty Law Center representative allegedly intimidated a defense expert witness, George Hawley, who then withdrew from the case. The trial has been postponed. The speaker claims the case violates the constitution and free speech.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The federal criminal trial of a man called Douglas Mackie began this week in Brooklyn. It's the single greatest assault on free speech and human rights in this country's modern history. The Biden administration is trying to send a man to prison for saying things they don't like and create a precedent so they can do it to you too. Here's the background. During the twenty sixteen presidential campaign, Mackie posted memes that made fun of Hillary Clinton and her supporters.
One of them on Twitter read this way, quote, avoid the line. Vote from home. Text Hillary to 59925. That was obviously a joke, and everyone knew it was a joke. But the FBI, which probably has nothing else to do, tracked down several people who texted that number in Mackie's meme.
None of them remembered even doing it. That's according to discovery in the case. There's no victim here. No one was fooled by what Mackie did. And yet days after Biden took office, four years after Mackie posted that meme, the feds arrested him, and they charged him with conspiring to interfere with the rights of American citizens.
He'd go to jail for ten years for that. That means if you crack a joke on the Internet that Democrats don't like, federal prosecutors gets to decide you're interfering with an election. It's hard to imagine a more Soviet prosecution than this, but it gets worse. The DOJ's key witness against Mackie is a member of Mackie's group chat from seven years ago. But DOJ will not let his lawyers, Mackie's lawyers, conduct a full cross examination of that witness because he works for the FBI.
In other words, the FBI put an agent in his group text. DOJ just obtained an order, quote, precluding questioning by the defense considering the details of any of the confidential witnesses current proactive work for the FBI or any other government agencies. What? The DOJ is also telling Mackie's lawyers they can't even say the name of this witness, this snitch in open court. Now that violates the confrontation clause in the constitution.
You get to confront witnesses against you in a free country, especially when they're FBI informants, but that no longer exists. The DOJ says if this man's identity is disclosed, he will face online harassment. Therefore, he gets to testify anonymously. What's incredible about the standard is it does not apply to the defense's own witnesses because rights only apply to the Biden people. Yesterday, a hatchet man with the Southern Poverty Law Center, an organization that currently employs at least one suspected domestic terrorist was recently arrested, reached out to a defense expert witness called George Hawley.
The Southern Poverty Law Center's goon also obtained Hawley's private emails and questioned him about them. He threatened to write an article about Hawley and asked Hawley if his employer was aware that he was a witness in this case. That's witness intimidation. That's what it is, witness intimidation. And it worked.
Hawley had to withdraw as a witness. He's not an FBI informant, so he gets no protection from harassment. Today, judge Nicholas Garofas postponed the trial until next week so defense can find a new expert. He should dismiss this case immediately with prejudice. Everything about it, starting with the charges themselves, to the timing, to the intimidation of witnesses, violates the constitution.
And if free speech, the first amendment means anything, it means that what's happening to Doug Mackie is an outrage and should end immediately.
@CitizenFreePres - Citizen Free Press
HYUNDAI WILL USE BD ROBOTS AT NEW GEORGIA MANUFACTURING PLANT. HYUNDAI OWNS 90% OF BOSTON DYNAMICS. Video is interesting, it's the future of manufacturing. https://t.co/C0DQDsG4Wh
Video Transcript AI Summary
Boston Dynamics robots, largely owned by the Hyundai Group, inspect the manufacturing quality of IONIQ 5s and 9s. These robots check every vehicle body to ensure holes are drilled and weld joints are correctly placed, providing quality control.
Just over 53-54% of vehicles sold in the U.S. are built there, while over 8% are imported from Korea. Hyundai anticipates importing fewer vehicles from Korea as U.S. production increases. The plant has the capacity to build 300,000 vehicles annually, with potential to expand to 500,000.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Saw Phil LaBeau moments ago with, the cars and some robots, and he joins us again. Tell us exactly what's going on there. Phil.
Speaker 1: David, you mentioned robots. I bring you robots. Check this out. Boston Dynamics, which is 90% owned by the Hyundai Group, they are a big part of the robots from Boston Dynamics, a big part of checking the manufacturing quality of this IONIQ five, also IONIQ nines that come through here. Every body of every vehicle that comes off the line is inspected by these robots to make sure that the holes are drilled in the right spot.
The weld joints are in the right spot. Essentially, it's quality control. It's also a little freaky when the first time you see it out here, but this is a peek at future of manufacturing here in The United States. Really, it's manufacturing around the world. How important is this plant not only for Hyundai, but in terms of auto manufacturing?
Keep in mind that just over 53, 50 four percent of the vehicles sold in The United States are built in The United States, and more than 8% are imported from Korea. Though Hyundai believes that as this plant starts to spool up production, it will be importing fewer from Korea and selling more of the vehicles it builds here in The United States. This plant has the capacity to ultimately build 300,000 vehicles, though they could expand that up to a half million vehicles annually. And for Hyundai, the growth continues.
@CitizenFreePres - Citizen Free Press
Alex Stein went off https://t.co/DF10aKKUJw
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker accuses the city council of not considering themselves leaders and not taking responsibility for their actions, which they believe is reflected in the police response. They criticize the police for taking 77 minutes to respond to a situation where 19 children were bleeding to death. The speaker presents pictures allegedly showing a cop using hand sanitizer and another on their phone smiling. They claim the police stopped parents from entering the school while their children were saying they wanted their mom. The speaker expresses disgust and vows to expose the situation.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You lead the city. You're telling me the city council is not the leaders of this city. Is that what you're telling me? Is that what you're trying to tell me, Chip? So you guys don't consider yourself leaders?
See, that's why. It's because you don't consider yourself a leader. You don't take responsibility for your action. That's why you sit there, and that's why you are a direct reflection of these cops. They were cowards.
It took them seventy seven minutes, and you're a coward. You sit there like a coward trying to combat what I'm saying. I'm bringing awareness to your city, and because of the response time was so disgusting, seventy seven minutes. I have these pictures. This is not involved there.
I want you guys to show you this. This is somebody doing hand sanitizer. He's more worried about protecting himself from COVID than protecting the 19 children that were bleeding to death. This is a cop on his phone smiling. There's nothing funny about 19 children bleeding to death on their cell phone saying, I want my mom.
And then when their mom tried to run-in, what did they do? They stopped the parents from coming into school. That's pathetic. That's disgusting. You guys should all be ashamed of yourselves, and I'm going to expose this.
@CitizenFreePres - Citizen Free Press
CAN YOU JUST TELL US -- WHO KILLED KENNEDY. https://t.co/7fQ7XAwNzt
Video Transcript AI Summary
President Trump stated that he released 80,000 pages of documents related to the Kennedy assassination, including Social Security numbers, because deleting information would raise suspicion. He said that previous presidents had not released the documents.
Trump said that his administration is preparing to release all documents related to Martin Luther King Jr. as well. He claimed that his administration has nothing to hide and that everything is totally open for review.
Trump stated that additional documents related to the Kennedy assassination were released and available for immediate review. He said that the public can make their own determination about the significance of the released information, but he doesn't think there's anything earth shattering.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Any questions? Mister president Trump, is 80,000 pages of documents is a lot to sift through. Yeah. Can you just tell us who killed Kennedy? Well, you know, I was, given the task of releasing that because many presidents have gone through it and they haven't released.
And I said, release. We even released Social Security numbers. I didn't want anything deleted. They said, sir, what about Social Security? Our people are long gone, but they're long gone, so I can't imagine.
But I said, if you don't delete it, if you do delete it, we have people are gonna say, why did you delete it? There's something in it. So we gave Social Security, and we gave everything. And the rest is for you to look at, Peter. You're gonna see whether or not you see anything.
But we've given it we're doing it with doctor Martin Luther King too. They're preparing all of that. They're gonna release everything. And whoever else they want. I mean, you know, we have nothing we really have nothing to hide.
We shouldn't have you know, when a lot of time goes by. But with the Kennedy files, in particular, they were going crazy on. I I don't think there's anything that's earth shattering, but you'll have to make that determination. In those you know, it's 80,000. It's actually 88,000, and we have some additional things, as you know, come out today.
And for you can go to the offices and you can see whatever you wanna see. Everything is out there, totally open. The additional stuff is available later on today. You go over to the offices and you can have it immediately, and you'll make a determination.
@CitizenFreePres - Citizen Free Press
Every South American country which had its government overthrown by the CIA since 1947. https://t.co/NXGkdxKKtz
Video Transcript AI Summary
Since 1947, the CIA has overthrown governments in the following South American countries: Costa Rica (1948), Guatemala (1954), El Salvador (1979), Nicaragua (1981), Panama (1989), Paraguay (1954), Brazil (1964), Peru (1968), Chile (1973), Uruguay (1973), Argentina (1976), and Venezuela (2002).
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Here's every South American country which has had its government overthrown by the CIA since 1947. Costa Rica in 1948, Guatemala in 1954, El Salvador in 1979, Nicaragua in 1981, Panama, '19 '80 '9. Paraguay, '19 '50 '4. Brazil, '19 '60 '4. Peru, '19 '60 '8.
Chile, '19 '70 '3. Uruguay, '19 '70 '3. Argentina, '19 '70 '6, and Venezuela in 02/2002.
@CitizenFreePres - Citizen Free Press
NPR reporter who hit President Trump with a microphone in the face is Danielle Kurtzleben. Listen to what she said about Trump and the KKK last year during the campaign. https://t.co/nBM3gZSqic
Video Transcript AI Summary
In Michigan, Trump will address crime in Howell, a town of approximately 10,000 people. His campaign stated that, contrary to VP Harris's previous statements, Trump aims to "overfund the police." The campaign has not explained why Howell was chosen as the location. Howell has historical ties to the Ku Klux Klan and was the site of a white supremacist demonstration last month.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: In Michigan, Trump will speak about crime in Howell. It's a town of about 10,000. Ahead of that, his campaign emphasized in contrast to what VP Harris has said in the past, Trump wants to, quote, overfund the police. Trump's campaign has not yet responded to NPR's questions about why they chose Howell. Howell has historic links to the Ku Klux Klan and was the site of a white supremacist demonstration last month.
Danielle Kurtzleben, NPR News, Detroit, Michigan. Secretary of state Anthony Blinken.
@CitizenFreePres - Citizen Free Press
MARCO RUBIO -- MAHMOUD KHALIL WILL BE DEPORTED. 'If you violate the terms of your Visa, you will leave this country.' https://t.co/P8U165fOQu
Video Transcript AI Summary
The administration is revoking visas and green card processes for individuals who lied on their visa applications. If someone applying for a visa stated they would participate in pro-Hamas events, the visa would have been denied because it runs counter to US foreign policy interests.
The Columbia student in question was allegedly a negotiator and spokesperson for a movement that vandalized buildings and disrupted campus activities. The speaker stated that they never would have allowed him into the country if they had known his intentions.
The speaker stated that the administration wants to remove individuals who promote Hamas, terrorist organizations, vandalism, acts of rebellion, and riots on campus. They also want to get rid of Tren de Aragua gang members, who they consider terrorists. The speaker clarified that a visa is not a birthright, but permission to visit the country, and violating the terms of visitation will result in deportation.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I wanna ask you about a decision you made to revoke a student visa for someone at Columbia University this past week. The Wall Street Journal editorial board writes, the administration needs to be careful. It's targeting real promoters of terrorism, not breaking the great promise of a green card by deporting anyone with controversial political views. Can you substantiate any form of material support for terrorism, specifically to to Hamas, from this Columbia student? Or was it simply that he was espousing a controversial political point of view?
Speaker 1: Well, not just the student. We're gonna do more. In fact, we every day now, we're approving visa revocations. And if that visa led to a green card, the green card process as well. And here's why.
It's very simple. When you apply to enter The United States and you get a visa, you are a guest. And you're coming as a student, you're coming as a tourist, or what have you. And in it, you have to make certain assertations. And if you tell us when you apply for a visa, I'm coming to The US to participate in pro Hamas events, that runs counter to the foreign policy interest of The United States Of America.
It's that simple. So you lied. You came if you had told us that you were gonna do that, we never would have given you the visa. Now you're here. Now you do it.
So you lied to us. You're out. It's that simple. It's that straightforward.
Speaker 0: Is there evidence of a link to terrorism, or is it just his point of Yeah.
Speaker 1: They take over I mean, do not I mean, you should watch the news. These guys take over entire buildings. We cover They vandalized colleges. They shut down
Speaker 0: I'm asking about this specific justification for the revocation of his visa. Was there any evidence material spokesperson?
Speaker 1: Was the negotiator on negotiating on behalf of people that took over a campus, that vandalized buildings? Negotiating over what? That's a crime in and of itself that they're involved in being the negotiator, the spokesperson, this, that, the other. We don't want we don't need these people in our country. They we never should have allowed them in in the first place.
If he had told us, I'm going over there, and I'm going over there to become the spokesperson and one of the leaders of a movement that's gonna turn one of your allegedly elite colleges upside down. People can't even go to school, the library buildings being vandalized. We never would have let him in. We never would have let him in to begin with. And now that he's doing it and he's here, he's going to leave and so are others and we're gonna keep doing it.
We are and by the way, I find it ironic that a lot of these people out there defending the first amendment speech alleged free speech rights of these Hamas sympathizers. They had no problem, okay, pressuring social media to censor American political speech. So it's I think it's ironic and hypocritical, but the bottom line is this. If you are in this country to promote Hamas, to promote terrorist organizations, to participate in vandalism, to participate in acts of rebellion and riots on campus, we never would have let you in if we had known that. And now that we
Speaker 0: know that you're gonna be Palestinian people who are gonna have their visas remote provoked or other points of view as well?
Speaker 1: No. I think anybody who's here in favor look. We wanna get rid of train that Agua gang members. They're terrorists too. I we president designated them, asked me to designate, and I did as organization.
We wanna get rid of them as well. You are we don't want terrorists in America. I don't know how hard that is to understand. We want peep we don't want people in our country that are gonna be committing crimes and undermining our national security or the public safety. It's that simple, especially people that are here as guests.
That is what a visa is. I don't know where we've gotten it in our head that a visa is some sort of birthright. It is not. It is a visitor into our country. And if you violate the terms of your visitation, you are going to leave.
@CitizenFreePres - Citizen Free Press
BATYA UNGAR SARGON IS NOT AFRAID TO DEFEND TRUMP. Bill Maher was not expecting this answer. https://t.co/pY59mHVfAl
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker questions the guest about his shift from a conservative Republican to a Trump supporter. The guest states he was never a Republican or conservative, but a leftist, and remains a leftist, now a "MAGA leftist." He argues Trump took an axe to the Republican party's traditional stances on social conservatism, foreign interventions, and free trade. He says Trump is pro-gay, appointed a high-ranking gay person, and sidelined the pro-life wing. He believes Trump wants to end wars and is on the side of the downwardly mobile working class. He says Trump recognized that free trade shipped manufacturing jobs overseas while millions of illegal migrants came to compete for the remaining jobs. He concludes that Trump's agenda is socially moderate, anti-war, and protectionist, which he identifies as leftist.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Okay. So just like I said, I'm gonna we don't have time to fuck around. I'm gonna go right at you because, you know, I've known you for a while. And when I first read you, you were a conservative Republican, but not not crazy. Like I read you in where?
Newsweek, Time Magazine, and I'm not saying you're crazy now. I was just saying. But but you went from just a just a conservative leaning right to a Trump supporter. Okay? Someplace I would never go.
And I
Speaker 1: mean, the night is young, Bill.
Speaker 0: It is not ever gonna be that young. And I'm just wondering what you think now. We're approaching two months in. I mean, you must have a feeling in your gut. Look me in the eye and tell me you don't.
That this is really going badly, and I shouldn't have thrown my lot in with this team.
Speaker 1: Oh, no. I feel the opposite. Alright.
Speaker 0: Tell me why.
Speaker 1: I'm so sorry, Bill.
Speaker 0: No. No. Tell me why.
Speaker 1: No. I feel so proud of I I mean, I was never a Republican or a conservative. I was a leftist, and I am still a leftist. I'm just a MAGA leftist now because
Speaker 0: That makes no sense.
Speaker 1: Would you like me to explain
Speaker 0: please do. Yes, please.
Speaker 1: When I look at what president Trump ran on and the agenda that he's enacting right now, he took a Republican party that was built on social conservatism, foreign interventions and wars, and free trade and free markets. And he basically took an axe to all of those. During the campaign, he said, look. I mean, he's pretty pro gay. That's pretty obvious.
He appointed the highest ranking out gay person, Scott Bissent, our secretary of treasury, which is incredible. And he sidelined the pro life wing of his party.
Speaker 0: Changed the party for sure.
Speaker 1: Okay. So he believes abortion should be legal for twelve weeks on on foreign intervention. He's anti war. He's trying to to an end to all of these wars. Okay?
Speaker 0: By surrendering, but yes.
Speaker 1: Okay. He got he I mean,
Speaker 0: that is one way to end the war.
Speaker 1: Well, you know, he's he's on the other side of another party that at the downwardly mobile working class. He looked at the fact that working class Americans can no longer afford the American dream. And he looked at why that was, which was there was a handshake agreement between both parties that we should somehow have free trade, which resulted in shipping 5,000,000 good manufacturing jobs overseas to build up China and Mexico
Speaker 0: And some came here.
Speaker 1: No. What they did was they brought in millions and millions of illegal migrants to compete with the jobs that remained here. And what Donald Trump said was, we have to stop selling out the working class. That agenda that he laid out, socially moderate, anti war, and anti free trade protectionist, that is a
Speaker 0: left
Speaker 1: ist
Speaker 0: I will bring you in. I swear to god. Alright. So
@CitizenFreePres - Citizen Free Press
MISSISSIPPI LT GOV COLLAPSES WHILE PRESIDING OVER SENATE. https://t.co/4MFpxQVXEP
Video Transcript AI Summary
These are multiyear payouts, each secured by several mortgages.
Oh! We've got it. We've got an Earth. We did it.
All in favor, say aye. No. He's right there. He's right here.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: These are multiyear payouts. Each of these has several mortgages.
Speaker 1: Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh,
Speaker 2: oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh,
Speaker 1: oh So moved. All in favor, say aye. No. He's right there. He's right here.
We've got an Earth. We've got an Earth. We've got an Earth. We're We did. We
@CitizenFreePres - Citizen Free Press
OWEN SHROYER GOES INTO ENEMY TERRITORY AT TEXAS CAPITOL Carnival show of leftists in the people's marxist republic of Austin. https://t.co/avtYBtJs4B
Video Transcript AI Summary
We're at the Texas capital for a leftist protest on Presidents' Day. It's a national call to action rejecting President Trump's election, reminiscent of 2017.
I engaged with protesters asking about their claims of fascism in America and their views on abortion, but most refused to answer basic questions. One person said that white people put a curse on them and stole their culture. The conversation went to Japanese culture and immigration policies.
Another protester said that basic health care rights like access to abortion are being taken away.
I spoke with others who said that Trump is letting Elon Musk dissolve entire US departments that were mandated by congress.
I was eventually asked to leave the area after things got a little heated. I was going to tell them that even though we disagree, we all have First Amendment rights and should find common ground to improve the future peacefully.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You wanna see what it's like to deal with discrimination and hate? Be a conservative at a liberal event. You. Okay. You can look for this on, X, Elon Musk platform.
Speaker 1: I quit X when that brick
Speaker 0: bought it because it's like a Nazi platform. Yeah. It's a Nazi platform?
Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah. It certainly is.
Speaker 3: You should check it out.
Speaker 0: Let go of the mic.
Speaker 4: While other networks lie to you about what's happening now, Infowars tells you the truth about what's happening next. Infowars.com forward slash show.
Speaker 0: Ladies and gentlemen, it's Presidents' Day in Austin, Texas, and we're here at the Texas capital in Downtown Austin. Owen Shroyer with infowars.com. And, you know, it's been a minute since we've been out to one of these leftist protests. Let me fill you in. It's the national protest call to action.
Oh, no Kings Day. No Kings Day, President's Day, this 02/17/2025. It is noon right now at the Texas State Capitol. And 50 protests, 50 states, one movement. Nos, juntos.
We rise together. And so this is their big protest for Presidents' Day. They're rejecting the election of President Trump. It's some of the same stuff we saw in 2017. And I gotta tell you, these protesters are evolving.
It's not just your typical blue hair, you know, funny looking. They've got apparel now. And it seems that the communists have professional apparel that somebody is selling. Now they're already cheering and getting them all wound up about a hundred yards behind me. So let's see how long it takes for this crowd of liberals to become completely unhinged when we ask them basic questions.
We got a sign over here. In the name of humanity, we refuse to accept a fascist America. Do you believe you're in a fascist America? What is fascist about America? I'm an independent journalist.
We say humanity. Independent. I haven't even said anything. I've asked you a basic question. We say humanity first.
Speaker 4: So how
Speaker 0: do you feel about abortion then? I reject your question. What about, chopping up little boys and girls private parts? How do you feel about that? I especially reject your question.
Speaker 5: We're not talking to them. We're not talking to you.
Speaker 0: I know you're not. You can't talk to anybody about your movement. That first. Can't answer a basic question. So let's go right down the line.
I bet I go o for three here. Why is America Fascist?
Speaker 3: I reject your question.
Speaker 0: O for one.
Speaker 5: O for one.
Speaker 0: Trump says America First. How is America Fascist? Humanity first. Trump says America Is that a WNBA hack? Humanity Are you a WNBA fan?
We said Humanity first. No.
Speaker 4: I'll try
Speaker 0: to get a bonus out of them. Oh, you Very intimidating stuff here. Is this a gay pride event?
Speaker 5: I don't know. It's a humanity event.
Speaker 0: A humanity event? Yeah. Who doesn't have rights?
Speaker 5: Who doesn't? Yeah. I don't as a woman, as
Speaker 0: a minority. What rights don't you have?
Speaker 5: I don't have the right to kill a person that I'm growing inside my body.
Speaker 0: That's true. You don't have the right to kill a person. That's true.
Speaker 5: Don't you have?
Speaker 0: I have the exact same rights you have.
Speaker 5: No. You have more. Well, I
Speaker 0: can't I can't I
Speaker 5: You know why you think you have more?
Speaker 0: No. I don't think I have more. You think I have more.
Speaker 5: Oh, no. You have more. So explain that. Explain history to you? Your founding fathers?
Speaker 0: What year is it?
Speaker 5: Exactly. It's 2025. We still haven't broken up yet. We're not doing it anymore.
Speaker 0: Curses? What curses? Am I cursed?
Speaker 5: That the white men have put on us.
Speaker 0: The white man put a curse on you?
Speaker 5: On people's color. Exist. Your existence is based on genocide. That's why you're here
Speaker 4: trying to find,
Speaker 5: answers, because you have no culture.
Speaker 0: And so you rob us
Speaker 5: of our culture.
Speaker 0: Really? Like, can I get a mushroom to wear on my head?
Speaker 5: Absolutely. You know where I got it from? One of your corporations.
Speaker 0: I'm guessing so so that's white culture then?
Speaker 5: No. Mushrooms are fungus, and they belong to new Americans.
Speaker 0: But you said you got it from my corporation. I don't know what corporation you're talking about. Are you sure that's not a Mario head invented by a Japanese company?
Speaker 5: It represents Luigi who killed the CEO. You know what? They also
Speaker 0: Oh, you like murderers.
Speaker 5: Well, I love it. The Japanese are much better culture than white people.
Speaker 0: Yeah. That's funny because they don't take any immigrants. Did you know that? It's one of the most it's one of the most homogeneous cultures on Earth.
Speaker 4: Did you
Speaker 0: know that?
Speaker 5: Japanese empire is a thing to be said.
Speaker 0: Alright. Wow. You are really you're know what? I'll give you credit. At least you'll talk.
Speaker 5: I'm getting emotional? Yeah.
Speaker 0: So you can't answer the simple question. What rights do I have that you don't?
Speaker 5: As a man in white America You don't have to worry about things. You have to worry about it.
Speaker 0: So go ahead. I how many times do I have
Speaker 5: to ask? Park doing whatever you want.
Speaker 0: So can you. No. You're out here wearing a mushroom head.
Speaker 5: And I can't wear a mushroom head? You that's
Speaker 0: my point. Send it from You can stroll no. The point is you can do anything
Speaker 5: I can do.
Speaker 0: You guys have a wonderful day. You wanna be on TV? Yeah. What what are you doing out here?
Speaker 5: What are you doing here? Protests. Why? Read your shirt. Girls just wanna have pen and pencil rights, and this administration is taking away my children's rights.
Speaker 0: What rights are being taken away?
Speaker 5: Access to basic health care for women.
Speaker 0: Like, what what basic health care?
Speaker 5: Abortion, obviously.
Speaker 0: You think that's basic health care?
Speaker 5: Absolutely. Absolutely. Absolutely.
Speaker 0: You think killing a baby is health care?
Speaker 5: It's not killing a baby, honey. It's taking care of your body in the way that you choose to
Speaker 0: How many hearts does a human being have? One. One. Right. So how many hearts does a woman have with a baby inside of her?
Speaker 5: Mom, can I help
Speaker 0: you? Two.
Speaker 5: One because it's a heartbeat.
Speaker 0: Two. You have a heartbeat. You have a heartbeat after two months. Months. I've I've been to so many of these events.
I've not met one of you that can hold a conversation. So what are you doing out here?
Speaker 6: I'm coming to protest the illegal takeover of the US government.
Speaker 0: What what was illegal?
Speaker 6: Well, let's see. First off, we have him, Trump letting Elon Musk actually dissolve entire, US departments that were mandated by congress and put into law.
Speaker 0: What what department has been dissolved?
Speaker 6: Well, let's see. They're going into USAID that, got pulled out.
Speaker 0: Yeah. So all the fraud and the waste.
Speaker 6: None discovered.
Speaker 0: None. None discovered. So shrimp on treadmills, gay performances, trans performances in South America, Trans Hi.
Speaker 7: You hear so much about rapists coming over the border, but what about the one that's currently in the White House who's been convicted?
Speaker 0: He has not been convicted of rape.
Speaker 5: Really? Yeah.
Speaker 7: What about his admissions of grabbing her by the push?
Speaker 0: So that's not what he said. He said, when your famous women let you grab them by the pussy. That's what he actually said.
Speaker 5: So just
Speaker 7: generally, in what world do you think that's okay for someone in the public eye to say?
Speaker 5: I wouldn't waste your time on anything.
Speaker 7: I'm gonna edit your shit. Yeah.
Speaker 0: This is all this is all being filmed live. Yeah. So Lovely. So what are you doing here?
Speaker 5: Why are you doing here? I'm here to tell you to get away.
Speaker 0: But what are you actually doing here? You didn't know I would be here. So what are you doing here?
Speaker 5: Protest against Trump.
Speaker 0: Why don't you like
Speaker 5: Trump? Because he's not helping. He's kicking people out of our country who deserve to be here.
Speaker 0: How what does that mean deserve to be here?
Speaker 5: They get to be here because they're citizens. He's trying to They're not
Speaker 0: they're literally not citizens. Here. Not a single citizen has been kicked out.
Speaker 5: Lock it. Well, he's trying Lock it. No. You you need to know how to block it. Keep going.
He's hungry.
Speaker 0: You guys haven't answered a single question.
Speaker 5: No. You haven't answered a question too.
Speaker 0: Alright. Go ahead. Ask me a question.
Speaker 5: So what rights do you, what rights do we not have that you have?
Speaker 0: None.
Speaker 5: No. You can't kill somebody in your stomach.
Speaker 0: Yeah. That's I I believe abortion is murder.
Speaker 5: If you Why so?
Speaker 0: If you Because there's a beating heart.
Speaker 5: You're an antisemitism.
Speaker 0: So what?
Speaker 5: Be a peaceful woman. You don't know what it's like to be pregnant and have to get rid of your child.
Speaker 0: How do you get pregnant?
Speaker 5: All you do is break thirty seconds to bust in.
Speaker 0: No. Actually, less than less than one percent of abortions are from rape.
Speaker 5: No. You you bust in the What
Speaker 0: are you doing? Alright, buddy. Can you leave my cameraman alone? You're clearly a deranged person. Can you just leave him alone?
Alright. I should
Speaker 5: not even be here.
Speaker 0: I like immigrants. Oh, that's very unimmigrant of you. I shouldn't even be here? That's kinda racist too, don't you think? No.
Speaker 5: It's not racist. It's you as a person, not as a color, not as a
Speaker 0: So do you do understand there's a difference between an immigrant and an illegal alien. Right?
Speaker 5: Do you understand that? Illegal aliens. I call them undocumented.
Speaker 0: So you disagree with the law?
Speaker 5: No. I don't disagree with the law. This is a land of immigrants. We have Okay.
Speaker 0: Again, you know an immigrant is a legal citizen. You do understand that. Right?
Speaker 5: Yeah. Oh, yeah. My people
Speaker 4: are on the line.
Speaker 5: Borders. Yours did.
Speaker 0: Really? When did my people come?
Speaker 5: I have no idea. But I
Speaker 0: So you have no idea, but she seems to know everything.
Speaker 3: Tell me who you're saying.
Speaker 0: Who is
Speaker 3: it? Are you with dictator douchebag?
Speaker 0: Who's that? Hi.
Speaker 3: You know who that is. You know exactly who
Speaker 0: Am I with dictator douchebag?
Speaker 3: Yeah. Are you?
Speaker 0: Who's that? You know
Speaker 4: who I'm
Speaker 0: here I'm here with my cameraman.
Speaker 3: You know who that is, mister s s. Sister.
Speaker 5: Right? Because they start I see
Speaker 3: a brown shirt.
Speaker 0: You don't fool me.
Speaker 3: And your little Nazi haircut.
Speaker 0: Hey. Where did you get that wonderful hat? I I got it at oh, I got it at at the women's march back in in Washington DC because look, man. This is this is a this is work. Okay?
This is a full time job. Not some armchair quarterback like some resistance live that just tweets and platitudes for no reason. No. I'm doing the work, and I'm going to these protests. And I'm I'm making my voice heard, and that's where I got this inclusive vibe.
Speaker 5: They're just gonna cut you and edit you into life.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I would I real I really my whole goal out here
Speaker 6: is to
Speaker 0: is to make you look stupid.
Speaker 5: Oh, seriously.
Speaker 0: I just wanna make you look stupid.
Speaker 5: Isolate them and don't let them spin the sound.
Speaker 0: Don't we're not gonna let them not to zoom in. That's what we gotta make our voice heard.
Speaker 5: You're like the white witch?
Speaker 0: What's wrong with me? Yeah. You know that's a friend of mine. He's trolling you. That's my friend.
You don't have any friends, dude. That's funny, isn't it?
Speaker 5: I agree.
Speaker 0: There should be room for everybody.
Speaker 5: I could not engage all of that.
Speaker 0: Oh, like a Nazi, you mean? No. Yeah.
Speaker 5: Yeah. What's up, man? Really?
Speaker 0: What are you doing here? Oh my god.
Speaker 8: It probably is best to ignore
Speaker 0: They can't ignore me. Oh.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 5: Is this thing isn't real? This thing isn't real. Don't touch my mic. Don't touch my mic. Let go
Speaker 0: of the mic. Sir, let go of the mic.
Speaker 4: Oh. Come
Speaker 0: on. You can do better than that. Come on. Come on. What's up, brother?
Speaker 5: It's good to see you, man.
Speaker 0: How are you doing? So this is the guy, if you guys don't know, that got me into all of this. If it wasn't for him, you would not see my contact. And he's still out here
Speaker 2: doing it.
Speaker 5: I'm still
Speaker 0: doing it. What rights is
Speaker 5: Trump denying you? Oh, well, Emmy, talk about my uterus first. Yeah. I
Speaker 7: don't have
Speaker 5: access to appropriate medical care. So you're talking about abortion. Let's
Speaker 0: just say what it is. It's abortion. So what right is abortion? Where do you have a right to abortion?
Speaker 4: I don't
Speaker 5: talk to those guys. It's Alex Jones. He just Oh, okay.
Speaker 0: Did you not have any kids that
Speaker 5: any kids
Speaker 9: that live?
Speaker 5: Alex Jones is the one
Speaker 4: that said
Speaker 5: that those kids you guy were not So you're showing me abortion.
Speaker 6: Where do you publish?
Speaker 0: I publish all over the place. All over the Internet.
Speaker 6: Where can we look for this?
Speaker 0: You can look for this on, x, Elon Musk platform. I'm sure you have an x account.
Speaker 6: I don't look at x.
Speaker 1: I quit x when that prick bought
Speaker 0: it because it's like a Nazi platform now. It's a Nazi platform?
Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah. It certainly is.
Speaker 3: You should check it out.
Speaker 0: Check it out. I don't I don't know what that I don't know how it's a Nazi platform. I'll tell you how. You haven't have you not been on there? I'm on there all the time.
Speaker 6: Then you must know that.
Speaker 2: You must not not pay close to very close attention.
Speaker 0: What makes it Nazi? Read it. Read it, friend. I I I do read. I read it for news.
I just get news there. Like, I knew this protest was over here.
Speaker 3: Place you get news? No.
Speaker 0: I get news from everywhere, actually.
Speaker 2: Tell us where else.
Speaker 6: It's very right.
Speaker 0: I mean, literally everywhere. Fox, CNN, MSNBC.
Speaker 5: You're really new. Have you not been new? I'm new. Have I
Speaker 0: not I've not been doing this very long. No. Yeah. So inform me. It shows.
Speaker 5: Just the fact that you don't realize that, x is a pro Nazi platform and right wing.
Speaker 0: So how is it pro Nazi? It's Read it. Read it. Well, you keep saying read it, but what does that mean?
Speaker 5: Elon Musk is, Elon Musk is a Nazi.
Speaker 0: You know Elon Musk has, like, five Jewish children? Oh, he's a fuck. Great. So how is he a Nazi Nazi with Jewish children?
Speaker 5: He's good. Well, I guess
Speaker 0: I'll be finding out You gotta do your homework. He knows. Gotta do your homework. What what homework? What have I not known?
He doesn't What what do you not know? He he doesn't care about who?
Speaker 9: His children. His Jewish children. He doesn't care about them. Them.
Speaker 0: He doesn't care about them? He just takes care of them and hangs out with them and sees them?
Speaker 9: He doesn't even hang out with them. You know?
Speaker 5: Yeah. He just said one for a human shield.
Speaker 9: Yeah. Exactly. Okay. And he also has a trans daughter.
Speaker 0: So when did you start
Speaker 3: hating Elon Musk?
Speaker 9: He has a trans daughter he doesn't recognize.
Speaker 5: He got into the treasury and had his minions hack our, the
Speaker 0: What's been hacked?
Speaker 4: The
Speaker 5: treasury? Man. Okay. They must not have any role names on it.
Speaker 0: No. No. Nothing has been hacked. Nothing has been hacked.
Speaker 5: Okay. How do you tell them? Tell us more about that. How do you Okay.
Speaker 4: Do
Speaker 0: do would you like me to tell? So the Department of Government Efficiency is going into all the different funding data. They're going into all of it. Okay. And they're finding hundreds of billions of fraud is what they're finding.
Speaker 9: They found no fraud.
Speaker 0: They found no fraud. No fraud. So how so how old do what's the average age for somebody to live?
Speaker 9: Oh, you're talking about the 50 year
Speaker 0: How do you even know about the fraud? That's not fraud, dude. So paying somebody that's a hundred and fifty years old Social Security isn't fraud.
Speaker 9: You know well, they're not how do you know they're paying it?
Speaker 0: Because they're in the system.
Speaker 5: So what?
Speaker 0: What DOSH is doing is
Speaker 3: fine, but release the actual data
Speaker 0: It is. Every day.
Speaker 5: No. Isn't it? Yeah. It
Speaker 0: is. There's literally a website.
Speaker 5: That's really big.
Speaker 0: There's literally a blank.
Speaker 3: You show me the address.
Speaker 0: They are releasing the contracts. They literally show the contracts. Keep saying we found them, and they don't
Speaker 3: show any evidence. A real reality television show and show the actual proof.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Line how you're doing. It's happening every day. Yeah. Let's see.
Here's your data on social security.
Speaker 4: My dad?
Speaker 0: Here's here's a thousand a thousand people above eight twenty. Proof. That's just a bunch of numbers listed. This is literally the social security data sheet. Bunch of numbers listed.
This is literally the social security data sheet. We're paying over a thousand people over age 220 social security. So? So do you know anybody over 200 years old, sir? Oh, no.
That's not true, though. It's not true. See, that's what it is. That's already been It's just not true.
Speaker 4: You know
Speaker 5: what it is?
Speaker 0: Oh, what's wrong with project twenty twenty five?
Speaker 10: Everything.
Speaker 0: Can you name one thing?
Speaker 10: Robin, yes. For starters, the, anti immigrant sta stance.
Speaker 0: Who's anti immigrant? Why is this in
Speaker 5: the trying to kill you?
Speaker 0: Wait. How is Trump anti immigrant? What are you doing out here? Why does he hate that photo?
Speaker 3: That's your dad.
Speaker 2: Is this your litter?
Speaker 0: No. Are you sure?
Speaker 2: Because it looks like their litter.
Speaker 0: Okay. Well, it's not. Want it? No. Sure.
So Yeah. Come on, man.
Speaker 5: Here you go, buddy.
Speaker 0: So you just littered. Come on, man. So now you're sure you littered. Take it. Take it.
What about Musk? What don't you like about Musk? He's
Speaker 6: also a thug, and he's not he's not elected.
Speaker 2: He's a brainless
Speaker 0: What about all the people that aren't elected? They're cowardly.
Speaker 5: Should we
Speaker 0: get rid of anybody who's not elected? Power. You. What? You don't like Trump?
What's the lie? He's a racist. Support it. Well, he's,
Speaker 2: maybe
Speaker 0: the greatest president in modern American history. You think so? I do. Yeah. I'm sorry.
Why are you sorry? I'm sorry for you. Why? Because you're deluded.
Speaker 5: Hey, man.
Speaker 0: How am I deluded? Racist. I don't know.
Speaker 3: Do you know that?
Speaker 4: Okay. I
Speaker 2: noticed. I don't want an awful person for president. Anybody else need an awful person for president?
Speaker 0: No. So what what's all that
Speaker 2: lumps up someone that's rude and nasty and has no redeeming qualities?
Speaker 0: Only Anybody? Rosie O'Donnell. Only normal. It's normal. It's normal.
Who do you think is racist?
Speaker 5: I don't know. Why? He really will say that to you. Hey. Don't talk to him.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Well, what makes him racist? Yeah. What has he done that's racist?
Speaker 5: He's a drunkard. I'm a drunkard.
Speaker 3: I'm a drunkard. I'm a drunkard. I'm a drunkard. I'm a drunkard.
Speaker 4: I'm a drunkard. I'm a drunkard. I'm a drunkard. I'm a drunkard.
Speaker 5: I'm a drunkard. I'm a
Speaker 0: drunkard. I'm a drunkard. Yeah. Yeah. You can do better than that.
There you go. Yeah. You get a good one in. There you go. There you go.
That's much better. Ignore the troll. You can't ignore me.
Speaker 5: The troll.
Speaker 0: So so this is what happens in cults, actually.
Speaker 5: You know, I'm not a
Speaker 0: You have you have people that tell you who you can and can't talk to, and they'll try to stop you from talking to somebody that has a different idea. Yeah. Are you the cult leader? Thing out of my face. Are you the cult leader?
I don't know. I will have a very unifying message. Everybody I hope so. That's why I hope that she would give me the megaphone. I promise my message will be very unifying.
Well, I
Speaker 5: heard that you are talking about your face.
Speaker 0: Hold on a second. Hold on a second. That was a mom. Come on. I had people banging cowbells in my ear for the last hour.
Speaker 5: One's attention, so everybody turn away and you'll leave.
Speaker 0: We have to do today. Why? I
Speaker 5: ask that you wait in line.
Speaker 0: You wanna see what it's like to deal with discrimination and hate? Be a conservative at a liberal event. This is insane, man. So, here's the deal. So here's the deal.
So things were getting a little hot in there. The troopers didn't want me to stick around. That's fine. I'm not trying to make their day any harder than it already is dealing with these freak shows. So they requested for me to leave
Speaker 5: that area.
Speaker 0: Insist and you're sick. Just stop, please. Go ahead. Here you go. Have the mic.
Speaker 5: Stop, man. Just give it up.
Speaker 0: Okay. Let me be perfectly clear. Fuck you. They are the ones that invited me up there. Yeah.
Fuck you. I know. Boo. Aren't you glad that you show how you guys show the world how loving and tolerant you are. Yeah.
Yeah. Yeah. I can't wait till this footage comes out and everybody can see how hate filled this movement is. So here was the speech I was gonna give. Ladies and gentlemen, we are all Americans.
And even though we have different points from you and different ideology, you have your first amendment right to be here. I have first amendment rights to be here, and I think it's time for all of us to have conversation, and we might find we have more in common than we do different. And we all can agree that there is corruption we all wanna get rid of. So let's all come together in peace. First amendment rights.
I support your right to be here. You support my right to be here. I appreciate you letting me speak. We're all Americans. We all wanna live in a better future.
So let's come together and try to do that.
Speaker 4: While other networks lie to you about what's happening now, Infowars tells you the truth about what's happening next. Infowars.com forward slash go.
Speaker 8: Go to the AlexJonesstore.com. Get the very best supplements, the highest quality like ultimate turmeric, ultimate CMOS, and and so many other game changing formulas that you will love and that will blow you away. Then the widest selection of Patriot t shirts and hoodies and sweaters and ball caps, and we're just adding more and more. It is the biggest selection. Over 400 different designs.
We are winning, ladies and gentlemen, but Infowars is recognized as the tip of the spear in the fight against the globalist. Elon's kicking their ass. Trump's kicking their ass because you've supported them. But please don't forget about info wars because in this fight, Elon and Trump, what they're doing is way larger and just incredible and amazing. But you look then below that, and we are the most effective.
We are now reaching the most people of any of the shows
Speaker 0: out there.
Speaker 8: And not just the Patriot broadcast. We're reaching over a hundred million people a day conservatively, and that's because you stood with us and you supported us. But these new viewers, these new listeners, they're not going to the Alex Jones store dot com, and they're not getting product. It is the hardcore viewers and listeners like you, the patriots that helped launch this whole thing that are keeping us on the air. You're not the Johnny come latelies.
You're the people that understand how important it is to support independent patriot, pro human, anti globalist media that are enemies of humanity. So get great products. At the same time, keep us on air at the alexjonesstore.com. I wanna thank you all for your past support, and I wanna encourage you now to take action. Become a VIP.
It's $30 a month. Cancel any time. Get $40 to spend in the store each month. Special deals, special sales, special offers. Become a VIP if you're gonna buy anything because you make money on your first purchase when you do it.
Again, thank you so much. Check out the AlexJonesstore.com today, and I thank you for keeping us on the air.
@CitizenFreePres - Citizen Free Press
KAROLINE LEAVITT BRINGS THE DOGE RECEIPTS. Bootlicker democrat media hates talking about government waste. https://t.co/isqiCbdYHE
Video Transcript AI Summary
I welcome Elon Musk to the briefing room, as he provided great insights in the Oval Office yesterday, speaking in layman's terms. There is no lack of transparency with Doge. Trump and Musk are transparent about Doge's work, with an active X account and website posting contract receipts and stopped payments.
Before Musk, an unnamed bureaucrat handled government efficiency. Musk, now highly scrutinized, provides great access. We're happy to provide receipts and are not hiding anything.
Here are screenshots of contracts Doge found, like a $36,000 DEI contract for US citizenship and immigration services, a $3,400,000 DEI contract, and $57,000 for climate change in Sri Lanka. Doge identifies these line items daily. We're transparent about Doge's work, including tweets about the Federal Employee Retirement System in Pennsylvania. We provide daily transparency and accessibility.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Yesterday, gave us some information on that. We're just wondering if there's some proof evidence. Is the White House willing to share Mhmm. Evidence of those fraud claims, or can Elon Musk come to the briefing room and share material evidence of what he's talking about?
Speaker 1: Sure. I would love for Elon Musk to come to the briefing room. That's why we had him go to the Oval Office yesterday, where I think he provided great answers. He was speaking in layman's terms, speaking common sense, to all of you in the media, but also to Americans at home. But I would say especially to all of you in the media because I think it's a real fallacy, that there's this alleged lack of transparency when it comes to Doge.
President Trump and Elon Musk have been incredibly transparent on what Doge is doing. There is an x account with the doge handle. They are tweeting out what they are doing on a daily basis. They have a website where they are posting the receipts of the contracts that they are reviewing and the payments that they have stopped, from going out the door. The secretaries of of our departments have stopped from going out the door.
And I would also say that before it was Elon Musk, making our government efficient and accountable, it was some unnamed bureaucrat that none of you knew. I Elon Musk is, the richest man in the world. He's also now one of the most highly scrutinized men in the world alongside president Trump because of what he's doing and the access that he is allowing. So there's great transparency. As for the actual receipts, we are happy to provide them, and I actually brought some today because all of you know I love to bring the receipts.
We have contracts upon contracts that we can send and provide this information to you. Let me be very clear. We are not trying to hide anything. We have been incredibly transparent, and we will continue to be. These are screenshots of contracts that Doge found across our government.
This is a DEI contract, $36,000 for US citizenship and immigration services. That is against the president's policies and his America First agenda. This is a $3,400,000 contract, a council for inclusive innovation, at the US Patent and Trademark Office, Department of Commerce, another DEI contract that DOGE identified. I can continue to go through these. Oh, I love this one.
50 seven thousand bucks for climate change in Sri Lanka. What is this doing to continue the interest of the American people? Absolutely nothing. These are the line items across the federal government that DOGE is identifying daily. They're moving very fast.
There's a lot of paper that we can show you, but we're happy to do it. This administration has been more than transparent about what DOGE is doing. And here's one of their tweets that they posted about the mine. I believe this is in Pennsylvania where the Federal Employee Retirement System is being processed. Did anybody know this was even happening in our country before Elon Musk talked about it in the Oval Office yesterday?
A lot of Americans didn't. So we are providing transparency and accessibility on a daily basis when it comes to Doge.
@CitizenFreePres - Citizen Free Press
FEMA CFO SHITCANNED FOR SENDING $59 MILLION FOR ILLEGALS. https://t.co/aB82JypJC1
Video Transcript AI Summary
We received a statement from DHS regarding the $59,000,000 sent from FEMA to NYC for migrants. Four employees are being fired for making the payment without authorization. This misappropriation of funds is long overdue. Billions of taxpayer dollars have been wasted on housing, clothing, food, education, and healthcare for illegal immigrants in New York City. This incentivizes sanctuary cities like New York to continue these practices. President Trump’s leadership is needed to stop this. Mayor Eric Adams and Governor Kathy Hochul have been criticized for their handling of the migrant crisis. New York's top court is considering allowing non-citizen voting, which would add 800,000 voters. This shouldn't be a discussion; New York Republicans fought this effort and won in lower courts, but the court of appeals is a concern.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Fox News Alert moments ago, we received this together. We received a statement from the DHS regarding the $59,000,000 sent from FEMA to New York City migrants last week. Quote, four employees being fired today for circumventing leadership and unilaterally making the egregious payment for hotels for migrants in New York City. We have not we have not announced it yet, so you have, so we have it first. There's gonna be firing, so names are gonna be out, and let's bring in New York congressman Mike Lawler.
Congressman, your thought about that move?
Speaker 1: Well, it's long overdue, frankly. These funds have been misappropriated, going back to the Biden administration. And New York City, a sanctuary city, has been wasting billions of dollars of taxpayer money, billions with a b, to provide free housing, clothing, food, education, and health care to illegal immigrants, including criminal aliens that are here illegally. And so, you know, I I applaud, frankly, DHS, for taking action, to stop these payments, under president Trump's leadership because we have incentivized cities like New York and states like New York, a sanctuary state, to allow this to continue, and it has to stop.
Speaker 0: Look. It cost New York and this little salvage of us billions of dollars, because the the water was wide open for four years. And the mayor that spoke up got exiled in the Democratic Party. Ironically, he's about to be, I I guess, in a way, pardoned or or, protected by this president who sees a lot of the targeting of mayor, Eric Adams, as the same thing that happened to him.
Speaker 1: No question. Eric Adams spoke out against what the Biden administration was doing. He said that the migrant crisis was, quote, unquote, destroying New York City. Kathy Hochul, authorized billions of dollars of state taxpayer money, to pay for all these expenditures. Meanwhile, she's fleecing hardworking New Yorkers twenty five hundred dollars just for the privilege of driving to work.
It it really just speaks volumes to how inept, incompetent, and corrupt, New York has become under feckless leadership.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: We have to stop this massive influx at the border, which is what president Trump is doing, but we have to stop incentivizing states and cities like New York by spending billions, and in this case, from FEMA, fifty nine million dollars, to support their efforts to circumvent federal law. That's really what this boils down to. States like New York are circumventing federal law Right. Allowing illegal immigrants, to get benefits and access to taxpayer money.
Speaker 0: Alright. So let's talk about something else that's just bizarre that that's happening in New York. New York's top court said to consider noncitizen voting in New York City elections today. Get this. Noncitizen, you don't belong here.
You're not registered. Blowing off court appearance. Doesn't matter. That would add 800,000 noncitizen voters. Why is this even a discussion?
Speaker 1: It shouldn't be. New York Republicans fought back against this effort, several years ago. We were victorious in the lower court and the appellate division, and now it goes to the court of appeals. Unfortunately, I'm a little, bit concerned because the New York court of appeals has been corrupted by Kathy Hochul and New York Democrats. This is why they tried to
@CitizenFreePres - Citizen Free Press
President Trump sits for Super Bowl interview with bret baier. https://t.co/H0WCQCVMOR
Video Transcript AI Summary
Happy Super Bowl! It’s an iconic day for the country. My administration is moving quickly; we've made significant changes in border policy, cracked down on crime, addressed fairness in women’s sports, and reformed energy policy. Unlike my previous term, I now have stronger support and a more effective team. A recent lawsuit attempting to restrict Elon Musk’s government efficiency efforts is misguided; we need to tackle fraud, waste, and abuse in agencies like USAID. Tariffs on Canada and Mexico are achieving results in border security and drug interdiction, but more is needed. Making Canada the 51st state is a real possibility to address our trade deficit. While inflation may be a concern, my policies will ultimately lead to a stronger economy. Bringing the country together requires success, and I’m committed to that goal. I predict a Kansas City Super Bowl win! The Trump dance phenomenon is unexpected but shows the enthusiasm surrounding my rallies.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Welcome to Mar A Lago, the winter White House in Palm Beach, Florida. We're pleased to be joined by the forty fifth and forty seventh president of The United States, Donald J. Trump. Mister President, thanks for having us.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. Happy Super Bowl.
Speaker 0: Thank you. You know, you are going to be the first sitting president to attend a Super Bowl. It's a big day for America, always is. What made you wanna do it?
Speaker 1: Well, first of all, I'm very surprised to hear that. I would have assumed many presidents came. But, I think just the spirit of the country, the country's taken on a whole new life. I thought it would be a good thing for the country to have the president be at the game.
Speaker 0: It was an
Speaker 1: iconic day. It's an iconic day. It's gonna be a great game, two great teams. And, let's see what happens.
Speaker 0: You know, it seems the first days of this administration are like a no huddle offense. You know, plays going down the field one after another. There's a long list of things you've already got done in three weeks. Big border policy changes, ice crackdowns on criminals, taking biological men out of women and girls sports, big energy policy changes. So what's different with you and your administration?
The difference between the forty fifth president and the forty seventh president.
Speaker 1: Well, with the forty fifth, I had tremendous opposition, but I didn't know people, and I didn't have, the kind of support that I needed. I put people in office, some great, some really great ones. But I had some that I wouldn't have put. I would have, you know, known better if it were a couple of years later or if I had a little more experience in DC. I was a New York person, not a DC person.
And I had a lot of opposition. I just noticed that I looked on the stage for the recent inauguration, and I'm looking. It's like a who's who of Washington. Well, if you look on the stage for
Speaker 0: the first one, it was just the opposite. So some of your your plays have raised some questions and had some pushbacks. 19 states attorneys general filed a lawsuit. And early Saturday, a judge agreed with them to restrict Elon Musk and his government efficiency team, Doge, from accessing Treasury Department payment and data systems. They said there was a risk of irreparable harm.
What do you make of that? And does that slow you down on what you wanna do?
Speaker 1: No. I disagree with it a %. I think it's crazy. And, we have to solve the efficiency problem. We have to solve the fraud, waste, abuse, all the things that have gone in under the government.
You take a look at the USAID, the kind of fraud in there that
Speaker 0: we have to make it stop.
Speaker 1: Well, we're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars of money that's going to places where it shouldn't be going, where if I read a list, you'd say this is ridiculous, and you've read the same list, and there are many that you haven't even seen. It's crazy. It's a big scam. Now there's some good money, and we can do that through, any one of a number.
Speaker 0: I think I'd rather give
Speaker 1: it to Marco Rubio over at the state department. Let him take care of the few good ones. So I don't know if it's kickbacks or what's going on, but the people look, I ran on this, and the people want me to find it. And I've had a great help with Elon Musk, who's been terrific. Bottom line, you say you
Speaker 0: trust him.
Speaker 1: Trust Elon? Oh, he's not gaining anything. In fact, I wonder how he can devote the time to it. He's so into it. But I told him do that.
Then I'm gonna tell him very soon, like, maybe in twenty four hours, to go check the Department of Education. He's gonna find the same thing. Then I'm gonna go go to the military. Let's check the military. We're gonna find billions, hundreds of billions of dollars of fraud and abuse, but I campaigned on this, Brett.
Speaker 0: You announced, tariffs on Canada and Mexico. You immediately got action from both of them on border security and drug interdiction. A lot of it. Is that good enough?
Speaker 1: Is that
Speaker 0: good enough?
Speaker 1: No. It's not good enough.
Speaker 0: So more needed in
Speaker 1: thirty days. Something has to happen. It's not sustainable, and I'm changing it.
Speaker 0: You know, the prime minister said this weekend to a group of Canadian businessmen, he was at private meeting, he said, that your wish for Canada to be the fifty first state is a, quote, real thing. Is it
Speaker 1: a real thing? Yeah. It is. I think Canada would be much better off paying a fifty first state because we lose $200,000,000,000 a year with Canada, and I'm not gonna let that happen. It's too much.
Why are we paying $200,000,000,000 a year essentially in subsidy to Canada? Now if they're a fifty first state, I don't mind doing it.
Speaker 0: You said the tariff is a beautiful word. There are some signs in the markets, consumer confidence, that they're a little jittery. So if all goes to plan, when do you think families would be able to feel prices going down? Groceries, energy, or are you kind of saying to them, hang on. Inflation may get worse until it gets better.
Speaker 1: No. I think we're gonna become a rich look. We're not that rich right now. We owe $36,000,000,000,000 That's because we let all these nations take advantage of us. Same thing, like, 200,000,000,000 with Canada.
We owe 300 we have a deficit with Mexico of $350,000,000,000. I'm not gonna do that. I'm not gonna let that happen.
Speaker 0: Sports has always been something that Americans rally around. They come together. They really do. You won the popular vote. You won all the swing states.
Have you thought about how to try to bring the country together to reach out or to find common ground? Have you thought about that or how that might go?
Speaker 1: I'd love to do it. But, I would say this. We have to, come together. But to come together, there's only one thing that's gonna do it, and that's massive success. Success will bring the country together, but it's hard.
And I say it's hard. I just signed a bill allowing for women not to have to be punished by men in sports. In other words, men are not gonna be allowed to play in sports against women. It's ridiculous.
Speaker 0: You're a sports guy. You're a football fan. Size up these two teams.
Speaker 1: I'm a big fan of both teams. They're sort of different. In Philadelphia, you have one of the greatest running backs, Saquon. You know, Saquon had an uncle who's a great fighter, great fighter. And I ran Barkley, his name was.
So you have a great running back. You really have a great quarterback? The other team, the quarterback really knows how to win. He's a great, great quarterback.
Speaker 0: So game prediction?
Speaker 1: I I hate to do it. I just say that I watched this great quarterback who is has, by the way, a phenomenal wife. Okay? She's a Trump fan. She's a MAGA fan.
So I happen to love her. Okay? But she's a great person. I I watched her being interviewed. I said, well, it's pretty good.
But she's great. And he's great. I guess you have to say that when a quarterback wins as much as he's won, I have to go with Kansas City. I have to go with Kansas City. At the same time, Philadelphia has a fantastic it's gonna be
Speaker 0: just a great game. Finally, listen. You are the most recognized person in the world, likely the most imitated person in the world. Every comedian has Donald Trump imitation. Everyone.
But now you have UFC fighters winning fights, NFL players doing the Trump dance. Yeah. Did you ever think that was gonna be a thing?
Speaker 1: No. I didn't. I mean, we do these rallies. They've always been great, but they got really great. And it's just I don't know what it is.
I try and walk off sometimes without dancing, and I can't. I have to dance because it's
Speaker 0: just got something special about it. Mister president, thanks for the time.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. Enjoy the game.
Speaker 0: You can see the rest of the interview on a host of other topics on special report Monday on Fox News channel. The meantime, we'll send it back to our Fox team in New Orleans after a short break to the kickoff of Super Bowl fifty nine.
@CitizenFreePres - Citizen Free Press
Tucker Carlson just released a massive J6 interview with Former Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund. https://t.co/tSrr9SaE46
Video Transcript AI Summary
The Capitol Police faced an intelligence failure on January 6, 2021, with critical warnings about potential violence not communicated to the chief. Despite having a dedicated intelligence unit, Sund received no actionable intelligence regarding threats to Congress or police officers. Requests for National Guard assistance were denied for over 70 minutes due to concerns about optics, even as violence escalated. Other law enforcement leaders were similarly uninformed, raising questions about the handling of intelligence. Sund expressed frustration over the lack of accountability and transparency, noting that the aftermath of the event has led to significant concerns about the politicization of law enforcement and the safety of officers. Despite the challenges, he maintains a commitment to the integrity of law enforcement.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You've described us as an intelligence failure, but if failure is something that happens accidentally.
Speaker 1: None of the intelligence that was coming up talking about the stormy of the Capitol, killing members of Congress, or killing my police officers was ever discussed at the conference calls
Speaker 2: that I was on at least. That doesn't seem to make sense at all.
Speaker 1: It doesn't make sense. I'm looking at my men and women having their asses handed to them. And and my first thought was fuck it. I will take whatever discipline there is.
Speaker 0: Once things got out of control, for 71
Speaker 2: minutes, Pelosi refused to allow you to bring in the National Guard. Why don't we have answers? It it doesn't seem to
Speaker 0: be refused to allow you to bring in the National Guard. Why don't we have answers?
Speaker 1: It it doesn't seem like people really wanna get to the bottom of it, and it gets worse from there. I had a conference call with the leaders of all the law enforcement. It was a call I coordinated. Not one person on that call talked about any concerns for the the intelligence, the attack on the Capitol. That we were seeing that was out there.
That's what's that's what's scary.
Speaker 0: This sounds like a setup to me. I'm sorry. It does.
Speaker 1: New Jersey state police beat DC National Guard to the Capitol. Wait. Cops drove from
Speaker 0: New Jersey before the National Guard could get from the armory on Capitol Hill to the capitol.
Speaker 1: Why isn't this story everywhere? I have no idea.
Speaker 0: If you wanted to understand I have no idea. If you wanted to understand what happened on January 6, 2021 at the US Capitol, one of the first people you'd talk to, maybe the first, would be Stephen Sund. Sund was the chief of Capitol Police that day. He knew more about what happened than virtually anyone else in the United States. And yet, congressional investigators weren't interested in talking to him.
The media, not interested in talking to him. But we were. So earlier this year, we did a long sit down interview with Stephen Sund about January 6th. That interview was set to air on April 24th this year and it never did. We don't own that tape so we can't show it to you.
So instead, we invited Stephen Sund back to explain what he saw and experienced that day. What he has to say is shocking. We recommend you watch. Mister Sun, thank you very much for coming back.
Speaker 1: Thank you for having
Speaker 2: me back.
Speaker 0: So, wanna start with the days before January 6, 2021. It was commonly known there was gonna be a demonstration or believe there's gonna be demonstration in front of the capitol that day. You were the chief of capitol police. You're in charge of security at the capitol. So it would seem logical that you would have the most intelligence, the most up to date, most accurate intelligence about what was likely to happen that day because you're consulting with all kinds of other agencies, intel agencies, law enforcement agencies, lots of federal agencies.
But it doesn't sound like you did have the most information about what was gonna happen.
Speaker 1: You're absolutely correct. I mean, what we've learned that it was out there at the time versus what we had coming into it, night and day. And when you talk about the intelligence agency, I have my own intelligence agency up at, Capitol Police, you know, IICD, interagency intelligence, coordination division. That coordinates with the other intelligence agencies. And now, you know, we're seeing the intelligence I was getting coming into it was indicating this was going to be just like the previous MAGA rallies, the November December rallies that we had.
We had limited skirmishes. We had some skirmishes afterwards down by BLM Plaza with some of the Antifa groups, some of the BLM groups. But coming into it, absolutely zero with the intelligence that we know now existed, talking about attacking the capital, killing my police officers, attacking members of congress, and killing members of congress. None of that was included in the intelligence coming up too.
Speaker 0: That you received?
Speaker 1: Correct.
Speaker 0: But others received that intelligence?
Speaker 1: Well, we now know FBI, DHS was swimming in that intelligence. We also know now that the military seem to have some very concerning intelligence as well.
Speaker 0: It's hard to overstate how strange that is because you were in charge of the actual facility that was the focus of the of the protest?
Speaker 1: Well, think about it. I'm the chief of police at the United States Capitol, probably one of the most prominent and should be the most secure building in the United States in the world. You know, you'd like to think of that. But when you look at it and and don't take my word for it. It.
Look at there's now 4 at least 4 congressional reports talking about the intelligence failure, IG reports, GAO reports talking about various intelligence failures. But coming into it, you know, think about it. FBI, the Washington field office didn't put out a single document, a single official document specific to January 6. DHS didn't put out a single official document, specific to January 6. That's very unusual.
I've been through many other events in Washington DC. FBI would host a, joint conference call at the least. It may be a executive, JTTF, joint intelligent, joint terrorism task force briefing or and for all these big events, they they DHS and FBI would get together and and put out something that was called a JIB, a joint intelligence bulletin. 0 for January 6th.
Speaker 0: So you've described this as an intelligence failure, but a failure is something that happens accidentally. And I don't see how this could be accidental. So walk us through the contact that you had with DHS and FBI in the days before January 6th.
Speaker 1: So my my contacts with those 2 a with those agencies or the other other law enforcement agencies would have always been through my IICD.
Speaker 2: Yes. They were
Speaker 1: the ones that were those that conduit. We're a consumer of intelligence. We had turned to the intelligence community to get the latest intelligence. I know Metropolitan was hosting a conference call, every couple of Mondays, and I was on a couple of those conference calls. Nothing none of the intelligence that was coming up talking about the stormy of the capital, killing members of Congress or killing my police officers was ever discussed in those, the conference calls that I was on at least.
And think of this
Speaker 0: And so you never heard that?
Speaker 1: Never heard it. And then
Speaker 0: But how could you not have I mean, I I mean, I'm I don't work in a federal bureaucracy, but that that doesn't seem to make sense at all.
Speaker 1: It doesn't make sense. Think about this. On January 5th, the day before the attack at 1 PM, I think it's 1 or noon, I had a conference call with the leaders of all the law enforcement, Conti from, Metropolitan Police Department, Steve D'Antuano, the, director of the Washington field office for the FBI. Nobody from DHS was on. I had thought about that, but all the law enforcement that was down there.
I had the military district of Washington, general Omar Jones, on the phone with me. I had the, head of the National Guard, William Walker, general William Walker on the call. It was a call I coordinated. Not one person on that call talked about any concerns for the the intelligence, the attack on the capital, the threats to officers, that we're seeing that was out there. That's what's that's what's scary.
Speaker 0: But and and but to to be clear, do we now know for a fact that the people on that call knew about those threats and didn't mention them to you?
Speaker 1: So this is what we know, for a fact. And I'll tell you, I'm not the only chief that was in the dark. You you look at Robert Conte, head of the largest police department in Washington, DC. He also said the same thing. He wasn't getting the same notifications like the Norfolk memo that came out the day before.
He didn't get it. So, Steve D'Antuano, who's the Washington field office, FBI director, you look at the GAO report that came out February of this year, it talks about, multiple emails. It's a GAO report or the maybe and no, it's a senate report that just came out, in July, just last month, talks about multiple emails going to Steve D'Antuano on Sunday, Monday, and some probably Tuesday, just the days before, talking about the violence that they're predicting coming up to the capital. And I have a video call with him on that Tuesday, and nothing's said about it. I mean, that's He didn't mention it.
Not a word.
Speaker 0: Not a word. So I not to repeat myself, but that just does not make sense.
Speaker 1: It doesn't. It doesn't. Especially when you think about think about this, the military, the United States military. And this gets really convoluted once you get into the the response on January 6th and how I was delayed getting resources. You have the United States military, Secretary of Defense or Acting Secretary of Defense Miller and General Milley had both discussed locking down the city of Washington, D.
C. Because they were so worried about violence at the capitol on January 6. On Sunday Monday, they had been discussing locking down the city, revoking permits on Capitol Hill because of the concern for violence. You know who issues the permits on Capitol Hills for demonstrations? I do.
You know who wasn't told? Me. Instead, on January 4th, what does Miller do? He puts out a memo restricting the National Guard from carrying the various weapons, any weapons, any civil disobedience equipment that would be utilized for the very, demonstrations or violence that he sees coming. It just doesn't make any sense.
Speaker 0: Wait. Wait. So the military says we're so concerned about potential imminent violence that we are considering shutting down the city, but at the very same time they decide that the National Guard can't, adopt an aggressive posture Right. Protect it.
Speaker 1: They're deployed because they're gonna be deploying National Guard to assist Washington DC with crowd control at metros and some of the traffic, control areas. But they put this out on January 4th specific to January 5th 6th, And this direction affected the National Guard in Virginia and Maryland. When I was calling begging for assistance on January 6th, they they weren't allowed to respond at first. Look at, governor Hogan. He did a press conference saying he was begging to respond, and he was not being denied by the Pentagon all because of the memo.
So, why? You know, you you you begin to wonder why, and especially when you look at at things like something that I I recently came across when you talk about the military. General Milley, you know, we're now, now finding out. And it's not not for me. This is from Carol Leonning, you know, investigative reporter with the Washington Post, has found that he was using Data Miner on his own, coming across intelligence
Speaker 0: Tell tell us what Data Miner is.
Speaker 1: So Data Miner is an intelligence platform. It's not something your average citizen would have on their, computer. I I guess it goes in and does, crawling across webs. I'm not really sure how it works.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: But it's not your it's a it's an intelligence platform. He's picking up intelligence talking about killing members of congress and attacking the United States Capitol, and he's not telling me. He's telling select members of congress. I mean, Carol Wenning writes about it in her book. That's concerning as hell because as the chief of police, you know, he's there's a duty to warn there, and I should be told so I can take the necessary action.
I don't know who else he was telling, but he sure wasn't telling me.
Speaker 0: Again, what could possibly be the explanation for that?
Speaker 1: You know, I'm not really sure.
Speaker 0: You know? People You've you've done this for over 30 years. You're very familiar. You you you've been in law enforcement in DC specifically for over 30 years. So you know how the city runs.
You know how the federal agencies respond to protests. This is not the 1st violent protest.
Speaker 1: Not at all. There have been many I've I've done many national special security events, and this was handled differently. No, you know, the intelligence, no jib, no coordination, no, discussion in advance. It's almost like they wanted it to be watered down, the intelligence to be watered down for some reason. You know, I talked about a little bit in the book that maybe they were concerned for the, Trump invoking the Insurrection Act, and they're worried about that.
But I've had people, you know, there's this other, you know, thoughts out there. But, you know, luckily, we still have people investigating this because I still think there's puzzle pieces missing. Someone's gonna find out what's really behind all this because it it wasn't right the way the intelligence was handled and way out we are we are set up on the hill.
Speaker 0: Big picture just to restate. You've seen many things like this. And as you just said, this was very different. This was handled very differently. By whom?
Speaker 1: By by the intelligence. I'd I'd say, 1, by the intelligence agency. 2, by the military. So the reason why I say the military, think of this. By federal law, you know, Congress passed a law that that requires me to go to the 2 to the Sergeant Arms Capital Police Board in advance of an event and to request, federal resources such as the National Guard.
So Congress passed the law, it's 2 US, code 1970, look it up. Just make sure you look it up before December 22 when they changed it. So what was in effect on 6th, that requires me to go and get approval for bringing National Guard or federal assistance in advance. I have to go to the Capitol Police Board and get approval from congressional leadership in advance, like I did on January 3rd. I'm denied twice because of optics and because the intelligence didn't support it, so think about that.
Speaker 0: May may I ask you, was who made that decision? Who denied you?
Speaker 1: I was denied by Paul Irving, house sergeant arms, and also Mike Stinger, senate sergeant arms. And who did they January 3rd?
Speaker 0: They work for?
Speaker 1: It would have been working for Pelosi on the house side, that Pelosi was number one boss, and then, McConnell on the senate side.
Speaker 0: So we Effectively, Mitch McConnell and Nancy Pelosi shut down your request.
Speaker 1: My request was shut down, 1, because of because of optics, which is interesting. You're gonna hear that term come up a couple more times, optics over the look of the National Guard on the Hill. But, yeah, in the Capitol Police Board, I mean, it it's it's unbelievable that I'm I'm the only chief of police in the United States that has a law preventing me, not just regulations, rules that say I gotta go and need approval to bring in the National Guard, a law. That's crazy that congress is gonna pass a law that controls what I can do to protect the capital and even in emergencies. So think of this.
Even while we're under attack, I have to go to those same two people to request the National Guard to be brought in. I have 340 National Guard that have been activated. At least a 150 to a 180 of those are in the city, many of them within eyesight of the capital. Okay? We get to come under attack at 12:53.
12:55, I call the Washington DC Police Department. I talked to their assistant chief, Jeff Carroll. Thank god I had talked to him at 10:59 in the morning and asked him if he could possibly put some additional resources on Constitution Avenue, and he had some CDU, platoons up there. Called him, said, hey. Please send those in right away because we knew as soon as they they came to their west front, they started attacking, it was gonna be bad.
1258, I make my first call to the sergeant arms asking, saying, hey. It's bad. We need assistance. I need a declaration of emergency. I need to bring in the the military immediately and federal resources.
I'm told by Paul Irving, quote, I'm gonna run up the chain. I'll get back to you.
Speaker 0: The chain is Pelosi?
Speaker 1: The chain is his chain would be up to Nancy Pelosi. He didn't have to do that, but he wouldn't give me authorization. The the law says, in a mercy, he can grant me authorization, but he didn't. He said he'd run up the chain. My next call was over to Mike Stenger.
He's the now with the chairman of the Capitol Police Board. Told him the same thing. We're getting our asses handed to us on the wet front. I need federal resources. He says, what did Paul tell you?
He said he's run up the chain. He says, let's wait to hear what we hear from Paul. Sorry. So for the next 71 minutes, I make 32 calls. I'm in the command center.
I'm calling my partner agencies. And by law, you know, one of the first people offer assistance was United States Secret Service. And by law, I shouldn't have requested their assistance. You know, I shouldn't be until I had approval. But I'm looking at my men and women having their asses handed to them.
And and my first thought was fuck it. I will take whatever discipline there is. Send me whatever you got. No. That that's the one tech secret service turned over.
You know how they lost all their taxes? Yes. It's the text between their, chief chief Sullivan and myself. Thank god for him.
Speaker 0: I don't so So so you make this call immediately Immediately. To the house sergeant at arms who reports mister Irving, who reports Nancy Pelosi. He says, I'll call Pelosi.
Speaker 1: He says, I'm gonna run it up the chain.
Speaker 2: Run it
Speaker 0: up the chain, but that is the chain.
Speaker 1: Now here's the next question. I wanna tell you exactly what's happening.
Speaker 0: What happens then? Does he get back to you?
Speaker 1: So for the next 51 minutes, he makes the 32 calls to tie a number of agencies. 11 of those calls are follow-up calls. And look in the the senate combined report from from 2,001. They have a great infographic of the call after call after call after call. 11 times I call in the next 71 minutes going, where are we on the approval?
Where are we in the approval? Here's any minute now. Any minute. I'm gonna get any minute. Finally, at 209, 71 minutes later 209, I'm finally given approval.
Think about that. 71 minutes later, I immediately call Mike Stinger, say we've got approval. I was so pissed off. I made sure that this watch commander I'm in the command center. I yelled to John Wisham, the lieutenant that's my watch commander.
I said, John, mark the time as 210. I I finally got approval for the National Guard. I was that mad.
Speaker 0: So what is the I just wanna pause on this for a minute. That's, like, it's almost unbelievable. So this is an event that Pelosi herself has likened to Pearl Harbor at 911. You know, the worst thing that's ever happened on American soil. And she's in charge of allowing the National Guard to come in and respond, but she doesn't for 71 minutes.
What is that?
Speaker 1: You know, I can't fathom why. I mean, they had to have known what was going on. I was telling them how bad it was.
Speaker 0: It was on TV.
Speaker 1: It was on TV. It was right outside of Mike Stinger's office, and they had a meeting in his office saying, hey. Where's the National Guard? And they're like, oh, we're trying to make the fighting is going on right outside his office, and I'm still getting delayed.
Speaker 0: This is an unbelievable story.
Speaker 1: Oh, it is. Now get a kick out of the Wait.
Speaker 0: Has anyone ever explained this?
Speaker 1: It's it's verbatim in my book.
Speaker 2: I
Speaker 1: have details. The whole the whole chapter on, January 6th is almost a 100 pages long.
Speaker 0: But I don't understand. So we it just they were only 10 minutes into this, and you've told me 2 things. 1, the other federal agencies withheld critical information from you in charge of security at the Capitol before January 6th. And once it started and things got out of control, for 71 minutes, Pelosi refused to allow you to bring in the National Guard. So those are just those are 2 of the biggest questions from January 6th.
And my question is, why don't we have answers to why that happened?
Speaker 1: It it doesn't seem like people really wanna get to the bottom of it. It really it it really doesn't. It, it and it just gets worse. It gets worse from there.
Speaker 0: I'm I'm sorry to step on your story. I just Yeah. It's shocking.
Speaker 1: It is. It it is shocking to think that, you know, we should be coordinated security apparatus. There's regulations. There's there's procedures for defense support for civil authorities. I've taught it for the military.
They don't realize. They brought me in to actually asked me to actually teach us for, foreign governments coming to visit. There's a process for when when law enforcement needs help and we dial 911, it's through it's through the military. And that failed. That failed miserably because of the law congress passed and the denial I was receiving.
Speaker 0: Well, it sounds like it was prevent it was prevented. So Paul Irving, the guy who had, you're saying, the statutory authority to to give that okay to has he ever explained why he didn't?
Speaker 1: Oh, his you know, they had him, and and he testified at the, senate hearing in 2001.
Speaker 0: 2021? I'm
Speaker 1: sorry. 2020. My apologies. Thanks for catching. And, a couple of times, he he, disagreed with my recollection.
I can tell you my phone records. I turned them over immediately. I fought to testify. They didn't want me to testify in the senate hearing. I fought to testify.
Speaker 0: Wouldn't the oh, there's there's so much here. What why would who didn't want you to testify?
Speaker 2: So when
Speaker 0: they first chief of Capitol Police on January 6th. I mean
Speaker 1: You and me are on lockstep with with this, and my story hasn't changed in two and a half years. So when they first put out the notice and they were talking about having the hearing, it was only for current employees that were still in place. No no one that was no longer in place in their position in security. So think about that. Initially, when they put out the request to have the and they put up the they were talking about having the hearing, it would have excluded Paul Irving, would have excluded Mike Stinger, and it would have excluded me.
Only 3 people. The 3 people at the top of the, security apparatus.
Speaker 0: So the Democrats, I think Well,
Speaker 1: it was it was joint. It was a a combined joint. I hear you.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry. You're absolutely right.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Of
Speaker 0: course. The unit party, intentionally excluded the the 3 people who would know the answers to the key question.
Speaker 1: Yeah. The original plan was to to exclude them. I immediately called somebody I knew on the rules committee and said, please let me testify. I will be there in person. And I still remember, she said, you'll you'll show up in person.
I say, I promise you, I will be there in person. I wanna testify. But and I was the only one that showed up in person.
Speaker 0: It just seems like the denial of your request to have national guardsmen who are within eyesight, you saw them, to have them help. That is it. That's a pivotal moment on that day. Mhmm. And we know the name of the man who made that decision, and we'd still don't know why he made that decision.
And that's just shocking to me. What has he ever answered that question?
Speaker 1: No. He's he's he's, never answered that question specifically that I'm aware of. And I do know when they were talking about the j 6, committee coming out, I think it was, representative Bennie Thompson that had said, speaker Pelosi is off limits. So they wouldn't get any of her records, her phone records. What do you
Speaker 0: mean she's off limits?
Speaker 1: I believe that was one of the things he said that that her coming into this was she was off limits to the, inquiries to the January Well,
Speaker 0: she was running the house that day.
Speaker 1: I hear you. I hear you. That I mean, if we're truly trying to get to the bottom of this, trying to find out what happened.
Speaker 0: Other than that, missus Lincoln, I mean, it's insane.
Speaker 2: You know,
Speaker 1: you would be getting everyone's records. I've been forthright. All my phone records have been turned over. And like I said, there's a a description of all the numerous calls I made requesting approval. Think about it.
In that's in that 71 minutes, I called in 17 police agencies, 1700 officers to help us get the capital back. And then I also made those 11 calls trying to find out where
Speaker 0: You are as precise as an airline pilot in in your recollection of things. I so, yes. I and I think everything you you have said is is provable. Mhmm. I mean, these are not
Speaker 1: The the book's all based on fact. You can go through it. I've recognize, reference all the facts I have, footnote. You get access to all a lot of the intelligence. I mean, you know, it's it's back to my my story hasn't changed in 2
Speaker 0: and a half years. So the I'm just to circle back to this Paul Irving who played played a pivotal role, I think whose name is unknown to most people, even people who follow what happened on January 6th. What happened to him?
Speaker 1: No idea. He, he disappeared shortly shortly thereafter. Haven't haven't heard, much from him. Had a couple of conversations with Mike Stenger before he passed away, but nothing from nothing from mister Irving.
Speaker 0: So he was House Sergeant at Arms and then when did he leave after January 6?
Speaker 1: So it's interesting. So he officially left, 7th, but his signature is on a document making the, my assistant chief of intelligence to the chief of police on 8th. It's kind of weird the way it worked. But so I guess he was out the 7th or 8th.
Speaker 0: Was he close to Pelosi?
Speaker 1: Oh, yes. Was he oh, yeah. He was a very loyal, he it's interesting. He was able to go between Republican and Democrat pretty pretty well.
Speaker 2: He knew
Speaker 1: how to Not a huge difference
Speaker 0: on some level.
Speaker 1: But he was he was extremely, extremely loyal. To Nancy Pelosi.
Speaker 0: And it's unclear what happened to him after he left No
Speaker 1: idea. The capital. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Has he done to your knowledge, we we haven't found anybody in our interviews about Not
Speaker 1: not that I'm aware of.
Speaker 0: No. Was he called to testify before the before the January's committee?
Speaker 1: Do you know? I believe he was. I believe he there may be, I'm just drawing a blank right now, written testimony of his. I know he was one of the 2 that showed up in 2021 for the senate hearing. He was on video, so was Mike Stenger.
And they were asking him about, you know, his, recollection of when, when I called him. And he was like, I don't recall that. Now I had my first my first timing wrong when I went and asked for the initial, National Guard. I originally thought it was January 4th, which was Monday was January 3rd when he denied me the first time.
Speaker 0: Even though he apparently or certainly federal agencies had intel suggesting this was going to be a bigger than normal protest and could be violent?
Speaker 1: Absolutely. Now when you look back and you see some of the intel that was out there, and I referenced a lot of it in the book, there's intel talking about going up and killing the palace guards. Those are my officers. There are intel talking about, you know, using chemicals at some of the entry points. There there's intel indicating that they've done surveillance on some of the entry points, at the capitol.
None of that's been included. They talk about burning down the supreme court. They talk about different attacks on different members of congress. And they they talk about storming the building. Not a single word of that is included in any of the intelligence assessments.
And a matter of fact, my intelligence unit is putting out documents on the 4th, 5th, and 6th indicating a low probability of civil disobedience. What? Yeah.
Speaker 0: So, I mean, if you were and I'm not, but if you were conspiracy minded, you might think that certain agencies concluded there was likely to be chaos at the capitol, and that served their political purposes since they let it happen, and they prevented you from stopping it.
Speaker 1: You know, when you tie that into a number of other things that happen, and, if you haven't, I'd love to take you through some of the military stuff really quick.
Speaker 0: And I I hope you will at length.
Speaker 2: Is
Speaker 0: And and can I ask I think most people don't understand that the US military would have a role in a domestic political protest? Why would the US military, which we pay to fight wars abroad, be involved in a protest in the United States?
Speaker 1: So the way it would work is, like I said, through, a program. A lot of times, the military will come out. They'll do support for civil authorities, whether it's COVID response. They did it during the avian flu. But they'll also do it during civil disobedience.
We've used them for I've activated and sworn in 100, if not 1000, of National Guard troops for IMF World Bank, for inauguration. So we'll have them to help line the parade route, just to help us fortify the, the perimeter. We'll have sometimes, we'll have with their their QRF quick response force in reserve in case we need additional civil civil civil disturbance support. So that's how they'll kinda support law enforcement. So 340 were activated, for crowd control not crowd control, traffic control and management of crowds around, like, metro stations.
So they weren't backed up and stuff like that, not for specific civil disobedience. So we knew we had National Guard in there. And and the defense support for civil authorities program is if we become overwhelmed, our backstop for law enforcement and I've used up I used up all my resources, and I was overwhelmed, would have been the military, specifically the national guard. So 209, I get approval to, bring in the national guard. Probably 2 210, 211, my first call well, I've already called general Walker.
Called general Walker at 151. I was like, I can't wait any freaking longer. I call him. I said, send me the National Guard as quick as you can. I'm gonna get approval any minute because he asked, will you have approval from the Capitol Police Board?
And I said, I'll have approval any minute. Please just get them coming this way. So they're within eyesight. Shortly after 209, I talked to them. 234, I get a notification to get on the call with United States Pentagon.
I have to sell my request for the National Guard. I'm on the call with a lieutenant general Pyatt Pyatt, trying to make sure I have his name pronounced right, and a, general Flynn is on the call. And it's mainly that I'm, that I'm speaking with. I I get on the call. Mayor Bowser is on the call.
Chief Contee is on the call. And I said, I need the National Guard immediately. This is an urgent urgent situation. I still remember saying urgent twice. This is urgent urgent.
They gotta be looking at the same TVs I'm looking at. I need the National Guard immediately. You know what his response is? Don't like the optics of the National Guard on Capitol Hill. Like, because I'd rather have your officers in the fight and we can backfill your officer somewhere else.
I said, I don't have that option. All my officers are in the fight. He goes, I'm telling you, I don't like the option of the National Guard. You know, I don't like the optics of the National Guard on the Hill. I said, sir, we're having our asses hand to us.
This is life or death. I need assistance immediately. And I still remember, he said, you know, my recommendation is not to support the request. I still remember Robert Contee going, woah. Woah.
Hold on. You're denying the chief of the Capitol Police? And, he goes, Vegas said, not that we're denying him. I just don't like the optics of the National Guard on Capitol Hill. And he goes, I'd rather and he goes back to that again.
I'd rather backfill your people. I said, sir, I don't have that option.
Speaker 0: This sounds like a setup to me. I'm sorry. It does.
Speaker 1: It gets better. So I beg and beg, and he goes, well, I'm gonna walk down the hall and, you know, we'll we'll talk to the secretary of defense or whoever is gonna he's gonna talk to. Right then, I get notification. Oh, so I'm still still on the call. We have the shooting of Ashley Babbitt.
And I said, we have shots fired. I still remember yelling over the phone. We have shots fired on the USAAI capital. Is that urgent enough for you now? Hang up the phone because now I gotta go start making a notification.
So I gotta call the, sergeant arms and say, hey. We got what looks like maybe a confirmed shooting. Do you know when the National Guard finally arrived? 6 PM. 6 PM, they're sworn in on post.
Do you know those National Guard, the 150 to a 180 that are within eyesight of the capital? You know what they do with them? They put them in vehicles, drive them around the Capitol back to the DC Army. You know where the DC Army is.
Speaker 0: Oh, it's far away.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Washington, White House is on one side. United States Capitol, DC Army almost equated on the other side. RFK Stadium. By RFK Stadium.
They drive them back then, and they send me in the evening trips.
Speaker 0: Not real.
Speaker 1: Can you freaking believe it? No. That's real. That's real. And you know what else I do?
While I'm begging for assistance, depending on sending resources to go general's houses to protect their homes, but not me. So you begin to think it seems a little conspiratorial. I can see where somebody I'm not, you know, a conspiracy theorist, but I can see where people begin to go down that rabbit hole real quick.
Speaker 0: That rabbit hole? I mean, I don't know what the other conclusion is. Because, look, under pressure, people make mistakes and make bad decisions. But you're describing a a systematic denial of intelligence and then of support Mhmm. Defense through a whole bunch of different agencies, a whole bunch of different people, all reaching the same baffling conclusion that we're not going to protect the capital.
Speaker 1: Right. Multiple agencies with people with extensive experience, and you're getting this type of response. You know? And when you look at the level of intelligence, it's baffling that nobody put anything out ahead of time.
Speaker 0: Maybe it's not baffling. I mean, remember, this was the end of the Trump administration. You know, a month almost 2 months 2 months into a contested election. This is a politically charged moment with ramifications that we're now living through, but, there's a lot at stake here. This is not just your average protest.
Correct?
Speaker 1: Correct. There is.
Speaker 0: Did you feel that? Did you feel a a a political vibe coming off these decisions at the time, or are you just showing your lawn
Speaker 1: Oh, no. I was I was I was so I was looking at the cameras in that were surrounding me with my officers, my the men and women of the Capitol Police, and the other law enforcement agencies, you know, in in in a fight for their life. All I wanted to do was get them resources. And that I hadn't even sat back and at that point started thinking about the political aspects of it.
Speaker 0: I I should say just because it's this is our second conversation. I feel like I know you at this point. You're not political. I mean, you are a b cop who rose Mhmm. And became a chief of police, a very prominent one.
And so but you never you know, you weren't, like, working in politics on the side like a lot of these people.
Speaker 1: No. And you'll you'll find if you look through it and I talk about it in the book, I am I try and be as apolitical as possible
Speaker 0: I can tell.
Speaker 1: Because I think that is extremely important in the application of law. I'm a rule of law type of guy, but especially being in Washington, DC in special ops, we did demonstrations all the time, 1st amendment activity. You have to be apolitical. You gotta go in. It doesn't matter.
You know, you have a right to 1st amendment freedom of speech. It doesn't matter if I agree with you or not, but I have to take an apolitical approach to provide you security. And I believe it's important. You don't need to know what the political leanings of a cop are that's stopping you on a traffic stop. You shouldn't.
You should never know that. So I'll always be apolitical when it comes into, law enforcement because that's how it has to be. Amen.
Speaker 0: So, by the time the National Guard actually show up at 6 PM. They're not needed. Correct?
Speaker 1: The fight the fight's over. So the whole time, they were concerned they were concerned about the optics of the National Guard showing up. They show up. I have to my I have an official swearman as as special police officers. They take them.
They line them up with their shields. All the protesters are off. They line them up with their shields, and they take a couple of pictures for military magazines and stuff like that of them lined up with the Capitol in the background. Very optics they said they were so concerned about.
Speaker 0: They took pictures from military magazines? Think about it. You can
Speaker 1: look it up. You can look up on some of the, go online, look at it.
Speaker 0: Like, we're the heroes of January 6th.
Speaker 1: We're the heroes of yeah. So you know, and I appreciate my men I come from military, family. I appreciate the men and women in in, military. And I will tell you, when they finally showed up, New Jersey State Police beat them to the capitol before the DC National Guard arrived at the capitol. I had DC National Guard's men and women that were infuriated.
They were so pissed off that they weren't allowed to respond. They were extremely upset.
Speaker 0: Wait. Cops drove from New Jersey before the National Guard could get from the armory on Capitol Hill to the Capitol?
Speaker 1: I put out a request, a mutual aid request that went all up and down the, National Capital Region went up to why isn't this story everywhere? I have no idea. I have no idea. General Walker even said he he called me up. He said, Steve, I felt so bad.
I pulled up on the scene. He's the head of the DC National Guard. He said, I pulled up on the scene and the, New Jersey State Police beat us to the Capitol. He said he wasn't allowed to go. He repeatedly wanted to go and the Pentagon wasn't allowed.
Speaker 0: And yet the Pentagon celebrated the guardsmen who showed up at 6 PM when everything was done as heroes. Meanwhile, they did they send other guardsmen to protect the homes of generals.
Speaker 1: Yeah. They send other resources. I don't know if they're guard or or Pentagon force protection or what, but the kicker is this. The Department of Defense and they interviewed me. Oh, I would've been interviewed by anybody.
I because I I'm telling the truth. They interviewed me. I provided them all my phone records. They were part of the all all the records. You know, they put out a report saying the actions of the United States military was appropriate considering the circumstances.
Was appropriate? It's it's online.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Go look up the details. One apologized. No one apologized.
Speaker 1: They said their own
Speaker 0: actions fired.
Speaker 1: Their actions were appropriate. You know? They had an emergency response authority under DISCA to respond immediately, and they didn't.
Speaker 0: Do you think that the Pentagon was gathering intelligence before and during January 6th?
Speaker 1: Well, when you look at the fact that, you know, Milian Miller you know, specifically, Milian was talking about locking down the city. He had to have some pretty damn concerning intelligence. That's a pretty big stretch for the government for the military to talk about locking down the capital city and revoking First Amendment permit.
Speaker 0: In a in a democracy, that would be a big stretch.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's a that's a big stretch.
Speaker 0: It's close to a coup, actually. Yeah. And then
Speaker 1: when you hear, you know, about some of the stuff he was getting online and he was only talking to members of Congress, it raises it raised a lot of concerns.
Speaker 0: Does the does the Pentagon does Defense Intelligence Agency, have undercover intel operatives that you're aware
Speaker 1: of? I have I have no idea. And I think it is important to me since you bring up the the intelligence. It's important for people to realize, again, as United States Capitol Police, we're not part of the intelligence community, the technical IC. There's 18 agencies.
9 of those agencies are military agencies. So that gives you an idea of how heavily weighted Half half are
Speaker 0: of the IC is military. Half of
Speaker 1: the IC is military. So But I
Speaker 0: think the average person imagines that military intelligence is not allowed constitutionally to function on American soil.
Speaker 1: Yeah. You would you'd think I don't know
Speaker 2: the specifics,
Speaker 0: but you'd think that would be by a hunter.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, I I don't know the specifics, but you'd think that would be
Speaker 0: career, have you seen evidence that the half of the IC, half of those 18 intel agencies, the military ones, are working in the United States?
Speaker 1: I've I've never received in my times of doing special events, demonstrations, intel briefings. I've never received intel from the military. So it's always been, you know, the DHS, FBI. It's always been Right. But those folks never never anyone said, hey, we got this from military intelligence.
Speaker 0: So, in in the aftermath of January 6th, there's been a huge debate over to what extent, you know, there were, federal agents or people who are working in some way for federal agencies in the crowd. And the initial, explanation was, well, none and you're insane if you think that, you know, you're Alex Jones. You're crazy. And then over the last couple of years, we've seen people confirm people in authority confirm, actually, yeah, there were a lot, in the crowd that day. I mean, that's now a fact.
Did did you know that going in? No. There were no. No. So, just for perspective, since you've been to a lot of these events, there's a huge demo a planned demonstration in Washington DC.
Will there always be assets, agents, people working for federal agencies in the crowd and civilian close?
Speaker 1: There there always could be. And if for like like inaugurations, there would usually be some combined teams, out there, one for communications, but just, you know, for situational awareness. So it wouldn't be surprising, you know, 4th July, different things like that where you have threat pictures or concerning threat pictures.
Speaker 0: And what does that look like? Does that mean, know, FBI agents dressed in dockers and tennis shoes trying to
Speaker 1: Oh, it just be yeah. Just plain clothes. You know?
Speaker 0: Plain clothes.
Speaker 1: Plain clothes to blend in. So that that wouldn't be unusual, and it it'd be, you know, just standard police work. That'd be good police work. So coming into January 6 and and and I talk about it in the book with the fact that shortly after January 6, I'm driving through Loudoun County. I'm coming I actually just, talked to somebody from the hill, and I get a call from overseas.
And it say it's press. I don't remember which what it was. It's somebody from, Great Britain. And they start asking me about feds in the crowd.
Speaker 2: And I
Speaker 1: was like, well, no. I would have been told. So now we're getting word that there is, feds in the crowd. I said, no. They I would have been told.
I've got lots of friends with the with the bureau. They all have my cell phone number. They they would have told me. You know, thinking about that and Jill Sanborn's testimony in 2021 where she said they were taking overaction to keep certain people from coming to January 6th to to watch DC. That's that's big for see for FBI to start taking overtaction.
I mean, that's not covert, over. That's a big that's a big deal. Fast forward to February of this year, 2023, and the GAO report that says, on January 4 January 3rd, the FBI was tracking 4 domestic terrorists that were talking about coming to Washington DC, the Washington field office, their AOR, area of responsibility. By January 6th, they were tracking 18 or 19th in the GAO report, domestic terrorists. So think about that.
They have 18 or 19 domestic terrorists coming to this event. So, of course, they're gonna have resources on them. And they're not you know, they you're not gonna be just putting one agent. You're gonna have multiple. So, you know, it'd be multiple with that.
And I don't know how many they actually had compared. So that would be regular standard police work. So I I would be surprised by that. But not to share that in the intelligence, that's concerning. So, I
Speaker 0: mean, it seems like common sense suggests anyway that you would have to tell the chief of Capitol Police that, hey, we've got our guys in the crowd. Like, just because I mean, you you would wanna know the difference. Correct?
Speaker 1: You would absolutely wanna know the difference in, you know, deconfliction. You wanna have things like that. A lot of the, folks will will already know there's a lot of standard procedures for wage you, deconflict so you don't have blue on blue type of, situations. You'll have that. You know, I I will say this and just really
Speaker 0: So that that would just just to because you have perspective, that would be the conventional way to the by the book way to do it. FBI would call you and say, hey. We've got these we're worried about people in the crowd, and we've got our guys there too. Here's who they are.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So so just to deconflict operations, they wouldn't necessarily call me. They might call my, deputy chief that's in charge of my intel and their their people You would coordinate. You coordinate with DC police. You coordinate with park police.
You coordinate with secret services, so everyone kinda knew what was going on. And and quickly, I do wanna say this. You know, you know, nowhere do I wanna imply or, indicate that I feel that, agents instigated this or in any way like that. I'm never never saying that. I haven't said that.
And a lot of these, agencies came to my defense on January 6th, FBI, Secret Service, stuff like that. So I just want to make sure it's clear, but there would have been some coordination. And when you look at it and you think with the intelligence coming in, if you think there's 19, domestic terrorists coming to Washington DC, somehow that would have been included in some type of report. And when you look at the FBI's procedures, policies and procedures, and again, go online, the, attorney general's guidance for domestic operations of the FBI specifically says the FBI has to do an assessment, an assessment which includes intelligence assessments of events that are they're identifying as being the target of possible threats and possible violence. I think that would have been the United States capital on January 6.
Look through that document, I outlined it in the book and see all the repeated failure after failure after failure of for their own procedures to start identifying intelligence and making the proper notifications.
Speaker 0: So it but it does raise it and I I don't have the answer to this question and I hope I don't ever pretend that I do but it it does raise questions about the behavior of some of the people in the crowd who were instigating others to to break the law, and who weren't arrested. And, you know, given our facial recognition software capabilities, hard to believe they can't be found. And I would specifically cite a man called Ray Epps, who's now a hero on the left and funded by the Democratic Party, etcetera. But take the politics out of it. What is that?
Here you have a guy on camera repeatedly saying, we're going to the capital.
Speaker 2: We need to go into the Capitol. We're going to the Capitol.
Speaker 0: And he's not in jail when people who who didn't go into the Capitol are in jail? I don't what do you make of that?
Speaker 1: Again, that's that's something I actually address in the book. Funny, there's a lot in here. So my concern with that, and I look at it from a chief of police point of view is you have somebody that's down, and I believe he's right near the old executive office building on 5th, the day before January 6, talking to a group of people, talking about we have to get into the building, we have to get into the building. And then the next day to see him at what's called the Pennsylvania Avenue gate. It's one of the 2 fence lines I had down at the west front.
And he's there. And he clearly sees the banner the, metal crowd control barriers that are up with the sign saying restricted. So he knows that's restricted area. And he's up there and you see him lean in and he whispers in somebody's ear, and he covers his mouth in such a way so you can't read his lips or anything, whispers in somebody's ear, and that person moments later is attack is attacking my officers. That's suspicious as hell to me.
I I raised a lot of concerns.
Speaker 0: What is that?
Speaker 1: You know, and what's interesting is I believe, And
Speaker 0: and that's that's verified. The person into who's here, he whispered
Speaker 1: Yeah. I think you watch the video, you see that m that person immediately go and start start pulling on the gate and start, you know, fighting with the officers. And what's interesting is when I believe he went on 60 minutes. And on 60 minutes, what he said was he went up to the officer and he told that officer, these officers are on our side. Don't hurt these officers.
I believe that was pretty much not verbatim. But don't hurt these officers. They're on our side. Don't don't hurt these officers. Well, if that's the case, why would you cover your mouth and not yell it to everybody?
Because it didn't seem like that protester was the only one that was possibly gonna be hurting the officers. We had a whole bunch of people next to him. Why wouldn't you tell it to the whole group?
Speaker 0: I don't I don't know. I I I know that Epps is being encouraged by partisan democrats to sue people who raise these questions, but they're fair questions and I'm gonna raise them anyway. How given that tape could the January 6th committee defend Ray Epps which they which they did? Doesn't make any sense to me.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Having trouble answering that one. I I don't know. Interesting.
Speaker 0: How many, peep how many federal agents, office officers, assets, people connected with federal agencies, do you think we're in the crowd? Do we have any idea?
Speaker 1: I I have I really have no idea.
Speaker 0: More or fewer than normal, would you say?
Speaker 1: Well, if you have again, going back to what I'm reading now in the GAO report with 19 domestic terrorist possibly coming in, I haven't I've never seen anything like that in Washington DC, so I'd you know, you you may have a larger than usual presence.
Speaker 0: Amazing. Who's Yogananda Pittman?
Speaker 1: Yogananda Pittman was my assistant chief for intelligence and, secure exec security.
Speaker 0: Okay. So, did she have the intelligence that you didn't have?
Speaker 1: I I don't know.
Speaker 2: What do
Speaker 0: you mean you don't know?
Speaker 1: I I I don't know. I you you don't know what you
Speaker 2: don't know. I don't know.
Speaker 0: Oh, boy.
Speaker 1: I don't know what she what she had and what she didn't have. But I do know that when you look at it, and we immediately knew I mean, anybody immediately knew. One of the first things you start thinking about is this an intelligence failure. So think about it. We go through January 6.
I was begging for the National Guard, refused before, refused during it. We get the, capital under control. You know, I get them to where they can go back into session, 7:30. They elect to go in at 8, and then the house goes at 9. But, nonetheless so think about this.
The very next day, less than 24 hours after we got control of the of the, capital, Nancy Pelosi goes on national TV, blames leadership at the top of capital police, calls for my resignation on national TV, and then lies about me. Okay? The very next day the very next day puts it Yogananda Pittman as acting chief.
Speaker 0: But Yogananda Pittman, you just described her as the head of intelligence for Capitol Police. Correct. So if there was an intelligence failure, which again doesn't seem like a failure, it seems very intentional to me. But if there was such a failure, she'd be responsible. Correct?
Or she'd be in the chain of responsibility anyway?
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, she was she was the head of intelligence. So if there's intelligence failure see, my thing is do a proper analysis. You know? You know, why do a knee jerk reaction? I mean, putting her in charge I mean, she ended up getting a a vote of no confidence so she didn't get the position from the, from the police officers because many were upset with what happened.
So she Where where did she wind up? Where is she now? Yeah. She's chief of police for the University of California, Berkeley. Interesting.
Speaker 0: So right across from Nancy Pelosi's district
Speaker 1: That is correct, sir.
Speaker 2: In the
Speaker 0: Bay Area.
Speaker 1: That is correct.
Speaker 0: So you just kinda take the Bay Bridge over there, and that's Yeah. That's where she is now. What does that position pay? Do you know?
Speaker 1: I think it pays, pays pretty well. There was a, you know Pays extraordinarily well. Yeah. I'm sure it pays. I'm sure it pays pretty good.
It's it's interesting. There was a hearing just recently, that was on it's on TV. You can look at it, where the chief of police, Tom Manger, was asked about her position. It turns out that she was given some type of a secret leave. So she'd leave start her job on February 1st as the chief of police, and not retire from the Capitol Police for months later.
Speaker 0: Oh, so she'd get the benefits.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Think about that. Yeah. It appears to be against departmental policy, you know, and nobody allegedly was told.
Speaker 0: What you're saying is that the head of intelligence for the Capitol Police, which demonstrably didn't have the intelligence that needed to protect the building, that person was first elevated to acting chief of Capitol Police and then given a very high paying job right across from Nancy Pelosi's district at the University of California Berkeley.
Speaker 1: That is correct. And I will say that So
Speaker 0: that looks like a reward to me.
Speaker 1: Well, I do know that the unit had significant intelligence. And I know many people within the unit were pushing that intelligence up to the to the leadership of the unit so I do know that many of them became whistleblowers and many of them were punished and forced to resign Yep.
Speaker 0: This looks like a scam.
Speaker 1: I mean, it just it it just gets more convoluted. You know, I I do. I feel so bad for the men and women in the police department, what they went through. I feel so bad for the intelligence analysts and what they went through. Many of them, you know, it was it was really, really bad.
I feel bad for the officials that were either demoted, forced to resign over this, forced to retire early. There's a lot of people that need someone I think an outside entity needs to come in and do some investigation about what what went on with
Speaker 0: We already had we already we've had many entities doing investigations. I believe we empaneled this committee or commission, this this body of members of congress, that went on for about a year and was on the news every single night. Did they address any of these questions?
Speaker 1: No, sir.
Speaker 0: How could you how could you have a January 6th commission whose job it is to figure out what happened on January 6th, not get to the bottom of, like, why the head of intelligence at Capitol Police didn't pass on the intelligence, where the chief of Capitol Police was kept in the dark and denied support from the US military, why Yogananda Pittman wound up after failing on January 6th, getting a high paying job right across Nancy Pelosi's district? Like, who wouldn't ask these questions?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, I know, there's people on the hill still trying to ask those questions and hopefully they can get get answers, but it looks like they keep running into roadblock after roadblock after roadblock. But it's hard to believe two and a half years later, we're still at this point. I still think somebody along the line is gonna find, you know, the smoking gun, the missing puzzle piece and put this together, but it does. When you look at it and there's still so much more to it, it just begins to raise more and more questions.
Speaker 0: It's just it's interesting to to talk to you because this again, this is my assessment. You seem like a very straight arrow guy.
Speaker 1: That's right.
Speaker 0: Well, I could it it comes off you in waves. So and I mean, that's a compliment. But, like, how long how long did it take you to realize there's something very strange going on here?
Speaker 1: I knew there's something strange going on pretty pretty soon. When I when I was running into the issues with them not wanting me to testify, I was like, this is this starts getting a little weird. And then when I started sitting down and and talking to officers and getting information and finding out from some of the some of the intelligence that was out there and where it was and seeing some of the emails of the intelligence analysts pushing up to their officials, I knew something was something was fishy. I mean, think about it. How how how can somebody not look at all this and think something's something's odd?
Speaker 0: So, I mean, we have a media whose job it is, to get to the bottom of questions. Like, these are at least to ask the questions of knowledgeable people with relevant experience, and you you're at the top of that list. We interviewed you, never aired, at a previous job, but, how many other long interviews have you done with media outlets?
Speaker 1: Long ones, not not very many. Not, I actually can't think of any. I've done 60 minutes. That's probably about the longest.
Speaker 0: And how long from your 60 minutes interview, how much of your account wound up on television, do you think? Estimate.
Speaker 1: 3 or 4 minutes.
Speaker 0: 3 or 4 minutes. 3 or 4 minutes. So you're the chief of Capitol Police on January 6th. Common sense suggest you'd be the first person that any reporter trying to figure out what happened on January 6th would call.
Speaker 1: You'd think.
Speaker 0: Is your cell phone buzzing day and night from No. Curious reporters trying to find the truth?
Speaker 1: No. No. It's, it's calmed down. I mean, the first couple of days were something else, but, it's really it's really calmed down. And, you know, I'm not stupid when it comes to law enforcement.
I've been in law enforcement for 30 years. I've done everything from capturing homicide suspects to doing, you know, barricade situations. This didn't have to happen. This was screwed up from the get go. Didn't have to happen, numerous opportunities to prevent it from happening, numerous opportunities from printing bringing my men and women from going through what they had to, and it never happened.
There was never that opportunity to stop that train.
Speaker 0: Have, you know, there's always a concern that politics will infect law enforcement and the justice system more broadly, and and I and I think you've thought about this as one of the reason. I think you said we need to be strictly apolitical in the way we administer law enforcement. Does seem like things have changed, and it does seem like politics affect the way we enforce the law. Does it feel a way to you?
Speaker 1: Yeah. And, again, you know, one of the that's one of the things that many things that that are in here. I talk about the 2020 riots versus the 20 the the January 6th attack.
Speaker 0: The riots in front of the White House where famously Saint John's Church was set on fire.
Speaker 1: Oh, White House, across the country. You know, I talk about the White House, and I talk about an agency that was formed by congress specifically for the protection of the United States president, the Washington DC Police Department. The White House is under attack, and they are prevented. They are prevented. I know it's not from chief Newsom.
It's from you know, he was the chief at the time. Would have been from, above him. They're from prevented from going on cap on White House grounds and helping the United States seek his service and defending the the White House. So think about that. You know, who made that decision?
I I again, all I know is, you know, Neutschen's hands were tied. So Mayor Bowser? Higher? I don't know. But think about that.
Speaker 0: Somebody told when there and there was real rioting. In fact, I I think Well that more officers were injured at that riot than were injured on January 6th, I think.
Speaker 1: Yep. Yep. Again, don't take my word. Jail report. More officers injured at the, protest up by the White House and on January 6th.
And I'm told by park police, all charges were dropped according to the, the, fighting at Lafayette Park and at the, at the White House. There were Secret Service agents bloodied and battered over there. There was a number of federal agencies that were hurt. Structure set on fire. They tried to light the Hay Adams Hotel on fire that was occupied.
Think about that. Charges dropped. No no such situation. I mean, when you look at the disparity of how justice is being applied, again, that's that's scary. That becomes really scary when, it becomes politicized like that, and that's what appears to have happened.
Speaker 0: I mean, it sounds like Trump is the key to all of this. If Trump hadn't been the president, things would have been very responses would have been very different. Don't you think? I mean, if Barack Obama had been president, do you think that someone would have told MPD that Washington DC Police Department, they couldn't protect the White House?
Speaker 1: Again, I don't I I protect the White House? I don't I see what you're saying there. I I don't know. I I mean, I think not.
Speaker 2: Just look.
Speaker 0: I mean, it's a I I shouldn't ask you to answer hypothetical questions, but it does seem Seems amazing. Last question. Thank you for doing this. Again, I really appreciate this is important, and I hope that everyone who's interested in January 6th and its aftermath, which really has changed the country, will will watch this, watch this interview. But looking back after spending your entire life in law enforcement, how have your views changed after January 6th?
Speaker 1: Yeah. That's a big question. I mean, my views of law enforcement, I still I still think law enforcement is a very honorable profession. I really, really do. I think it's it's been screwed up in a lot of cities.
I feel bad for a lot of people that are going into it. We need good cops. But right now, their hands are being tied. When you look at what law enforcement is going on, I mean, I was just talking with somebody who one of their officers in Washington DC arrested somebody who went to a scene of a robbery, recovered a weapon, recovered somebody else's wallet in possession with the, with the suspect, made the arrest, papered a gun, went in a person's pocket. During the search, found a loaded handgun, went down to papers, no paper.
No paper. Armed hand armed robbery means all charges were dropped. That's bad. That's bad when we're seeing the type of crime that we're seeing in some of these cities, and they're not prosecuting some of these cases. I feel sorry for the officers.
It's, you know, very dangerous for them. You know, I still, you know, love the profession, still love the officers, with the Capitol Police. Washington DC Police still talk to them regularly. They're going through a lot, and I just don't think they're getting the back that they need.
Speaker 0: No. They're not. And the effects on the rest of us are are Right. We're seeing it. Yeah.
Steven Sund, former chief of Capitol Police. Thank you so much.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much for having me on.
Speaker 2: I'm sorry.
Speaker 0: A young people say the news is full of lies.
Speaker 2: Than Kennedy's motorcade. 2139
@CitizenFreePres - Citizen Free Press
How is it possible the Blackhawk pilots did not see the AA jet. https://t.co/EAe4Q0j2y9
Video Transcript AI Summary
Exclusive videos show new angles of the collision between an American Airlines flight and a US Army Black Hawk helicopter. In the first video, the Black Hawk flies over the Potomac, while the American Airlines plane approaches the airport. They collide, resulting in a mid-air explosion and both aircraft falling into the river. The second video captures the two aircraft traveling toward each other before the crash. Following the collision, the airliner spins into the water, and the Black Hawk also descends into the river.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: These videos obtained exclusively by CNN show previously unseen angles of the collision between an American Airlines flight and a US Army Black Hawk helicopter. In the first video, the Black Hawk can be seen flying at speed over the Potomac from the left side of the screen. The American Airlines plane can be seen flying towards the airport before the 2 collide causing a mid air explosion and fall into the river. In the second video, you can see the army helicopter and American Airlines plane travel toward each other. After the collision and subsequent explosion, the airliner can be seen spinning into the water, and the Black Hawk is also seen falling into the water.
@CitizenFreePres - Citizen Free Press
NEW VIDEO OF DC BLACKHAWK COLLISION AND PLANE CRASH These are the clearest images of the collision we've seen so far. How is it possible the Blackhawk pilots did not see the AA jet. https://t.co/mqY2Lnhn0K
@CitizenFreePres - Citizen Free Press
TRUMP PUTS KAREN BASS IN HER PLACE -- THIS IS OUTSTANDING. https://t.co/JHy6EzxzJ0
Video Transcript AI Summary
We're uniting city departments to streamline the rebuilding process, allowing residents to start clearing debris quickly. Both city and county are collaborating to expedite this. Concerns about timelines persist, with some residents expressing frustration over potential delays. Many are willing to clear their own properties to avoid waiting for contractors, which could take much longer. Emergency powers are in place to facilitate quick action, and individuals can begin cleanup immediately. Safety is a priority, but residents feel they should be allowed back sooner to access their properties. The community is eager to return and start rebuilding, as many feel their homes are no longer at risk.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We're bringing our our city departments together so that people don't get caught in the loop of going from 1 room to the next. We want them all to be in the same room so that you can get busy rebuilding ASAP.
Speaker 1: We have to clear the law.
Speaker 0: Absolutely. We have to clear the law.
Speaker 2: Yes. Yes.
Speaker 0: And we will clear the lots. Absolutely. In the city and in the county. We are working together. Both levels of government are working in unity.
Speaker 1: Last night from the 4 engineers had to be eighteen months to not eighteen months. Is it, like, we we that's the answer that we got, and that's where we're all hanging on. Yes. So if you're telling us now faster, is it six months? Is it I mean, all of our lives, rents, all this stuff is is weighing on this.
Speaker 2: Six months is no good.
Speaker 0: And the number 1 thing that we are going to do immediately, and you will see this happen, is to clear out the debris. And, you know, we're concerned right now over the weekend because of the potential rain, but we are gonna move as fast as we can. But we want you to be safe, and we want you to be back in your homes immediately.
Speaker 2: But the people are willing to clean out their own debris. It doesn't
Speaker 1: cost so much. Can.
Speaker 2: You should let them do it because by the time you hire contractors, it's gonna be two years.
Speaker 0: If if a family
Speaker 2: People are willing to get a a a dumpster and do it themselves and clean it out.
Speaker 0: And they can
Speaker 2: There's not that much left. It's all incinerated.
Speaker 0: That's right.
Speaker 2: And, you know, it's just gonna take a long time if you do. You can do some of it, but a lot of these people I know that guy right there that's talking. I know my people. You'll be on that thing tonight throwing the stuff away and your site will be it'll look perfect within twenty four hours, and that's what he wants to do. He doesn't wanna wait around for seven months till the city hires some demolition contract that's gonna charge him $25,000 to do his lot.
Yeah. I I think you have to you have emergency powers just like I do, and I'm exercising my emergency powers. You have to exercise them also.
Speaker 0: I did exercise them.
Speaker 2: Because I look I mean, you have
Speaker 0: a very powerful
Speaker 2: emergency power and you can do everything within twenty four hours.
Speaker 0: Yes. And if individuals want to clear out their property, they can. Well, yes. But you know that you will be able to go back soon.
Speaker 2: Mister president.
Speaker 0: We think within a week.
Speaker 1: That So
Speaker 2: every That's a long time a week. I'll be honest. To me, everyone's standing in front of their house. They wanna go to work and they're not allowed to do it.
Speaker 0: And the most important
Speaker 2: thing for
Speaker 0: people to be safe.
Speaker 2: They're safe. They're safe. You know what? They're not safe. They're not safe now.
They're gonna be much safer. A week a week is actually a long time, the way I look at it. I I watched hundreds of people standing in front of their lots, and they're not allowed to go in. It's all burned. It's gone.
It's done. Nothing's gonna happen to it. It's not gonna burn anymore. There's nothing to burn. There's almost nothing to burn.
And they wanna go in there. The people are all over the place. They're standing, and they say, Warren, you're going in. We're trying to get a permit, and the permit's gonna take them. Everybody said eighteen months.
You said eighteen months. You said eighteen months.
Speaker 1: Last night.
Speaker 2: And that was last night. Walk. On that.
Speaker 1: We can't even see our homes right now. We are blocked from entering our street. We can't even this is our first time we saw our house. It was yesterday.
@CitizenFreePres - Citizen Free Press
FEDERAL JUDGE BLOCKS ORDER ENDING BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP. https://t.co/E6bB4B5WZL
Video Transcript AI Summary
The hearing regarding Trump's executive order to end birthright citizenship concluded in Seattle, with Judge Cooner criticizing the order as blatantly unconstitutional. This suggests a likely unfavorable ruling for Trump, which would lead to an appeal and potentially reach the Supreme Court. The legal principle at stake is rooted in the 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to anyone born in the U.S. or its territories. The ongoing debate centers around whether this applies to children born to individuals in the country illegally, as opposed to those with diplomatic status or other legal protections.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And on now to a Fox News alert, the hearing for Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship is now over in Seattle. Judge Cooner slamming Trump's birthright citizenship executive order as a, quote, blatantly unconstitutional order. So that's from the judge himself. So you can imagine, Sandra, how he's likely going to rule on that, tipping his hat or his hand, I think, in terms of where he is actually going with this. So that would probably then be appealed to, to a court of appeal and then, would likely go up to the Supreme Court.
And as we were talking with Jonathan Turley earlier, that was likely the plan all along, to get this before a 6 3 supreme court and see if the president can get a ruling in his favor.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Okay. So you just came in here on the news that we just got word that this judge is blocking, president Trump's order to curtail that, really slamming his decision to do so. And just for any bringing anybody in on that, this would obviously be the legal principle enshrined in the constitution that automatically makes anyone born within the US or its territories a citizen. We've heard lots of different legal, takes and opinions on this.
We're getting Jonathan Turley up here to react in just a few moments, but this was one of his initial moves. I mean, you have to think we're just still, a few days, from him being sworn into office,
Speaker 0: John. Yeah. And, you know, this this is part of the 14th amendment. It's the very beginning of the 14th amendment, that says that, all persons who are born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are American citizens. And and what what has been argued over for decades is this idea of subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
And does that apply to people who come into this country illegally? It does not apply to people who are citizens of other southern sovereign nations who might work here as diplomats or maybe they're working for that country's military. You can't have a child in this country and that child becomes an American citizen. That child remains a citizen of of the home country. But the big question has been whether or not it applies to people who are in this country illegally.
@CitizenFreePres - Citizen Free Press
ICE DETAINS ILLEGAL ALIEN HAITIAN WITH 17 FELONY ARRESTS. He says 'F Trump' and thanks Obama and Biden. https://t.co/rVYlib3NEn
Video Transcript AI Summary
I'm not going back to Haiti. ICE has arrested several illegal aliens, including a gang member from Haiti with 17 convictions, a Brazilian with an INTERPOL red notice, and others charged with serious crimes. Many were released due to sanctuary policies. When targeting one individual, ICE also apprehended another illegal alien present with him. ICE plans to continue operations in sanctuary jurisdictions despite local policies. They aim to expedite deportations, especially for those from cooperative countries. While Boston is a sanctuary city, ICE can still enforce the law. Local jurisdictions may complicate their work, but ICE remains committed to removing individuals who pose public safety threats.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I I'm not going back to Haiti.
Speaker 1: One of those threats is this illegal alien from Haiti. ICE says he's a gang member with 17 criminal convictions in recent years.
Speaker 0: Trump. You feel me? Yo. Biden forever, bro. Take Obama for everything that he said for me, bro.
Speaker 1: ICE Boston quickly takes down its next targets, including this illegal alien from Brazil who has an INTERPOL red notice for armed robbery. This Salvadoran illegal alien charged locally with rape and released by a sanctuary jurisdiction and this Dominican illegal alien charged with assault with a deadly weapon and heroin trafficking. Officers also arrested this Guatemalan MS 13 gang member facing gun charges. ICE says he was released from local custody just the day before. Their detainer request was ignored because of sanctuary policies.
And in a sign of shifting priorities with the new Trump administration, this man who was in the same apartment as the target was also arrested after ICE determined he's also in the US illegally. This is what ICE calls collateral.
Speaker 0: So you guys got your main target just now, but you got somebody else. What just happened? So our main target was released by sanctuary jurisdictions not honoring a detainer. That person was released back into the community. And when we went to go find him, he's with somebody else who was previously removed from the United States.
So he's gonna go today too.
Speaker 1: And that is exactly what borders are Tom Homan has warned would happen.
Speaker 2: When we find the bad guy, he's probably with others. Others that are in the United States illegally. They may not be a a criminal priority, but we're not walking away from them.
Speaker 1: ICE Boston says they will continue to go into sanctuary jurisdictions and do their job.
Speaker 0: Today was a good day. Today, we took, several significant public safety threats out of our communities. Unfortunately, a lot were released by sanctuary policies, but we're here to tell the Commonwealth and the rest of the country that we're gonna find them whether they're released or not.
Speaker 1: And, guys, shortly after we finished filming, Ice Boston told us they arrested 2 more targets in other parts of town away from our cameras. One of those targets is a previously deported Honduran illegal alien, who was arrested for raping a woman while putting a gun in her mouth. The other target they got is a Haitian man who first flew into the United States in 2023 as part of president Biden's controversial migrant flight mass parole program. Well, they just picked him up yesterday because he's been arrested locally for sexual assault. We'll We'll send it back to you.
Speaker 3: Bill Malugen, this it was fascinating to watch all of that. I think I was just saying to Bill, this is terrible for Joe Biden and the legacy that he tried to leave behind. A, a question for me. How soon will they actually be leaving the country? Does that take a long time?
Speaker 1: It depends what country they're from. If they're from cooperable countries, like El Salvador, Guatemala, countries like that, it can be quick. It can be within days or weeks. If it's countries that are harder to deport, countries that don't cooperate with the US as much, it can go into a process of months. But the Trump administration is changing policies with something called expedited removal.
The bottom line is people at home don't need to understand all the policies. The Trump administration is just gonna work as fast as they can to get all the people you just saw on camera there out of the country as fast as possible. They're also gonna use their state department, now led by Marco Rubio, to put pressure on countries that don't cooperate with the US as much when it comes to those deportations.
Speaker 4: Bill, just 2 two points of clarification here. It seems a lot of these crimes are associated with sex crimes. I'm just looking at the list a bit earlier today. Mhmm. I don't know if that generally is the case or not.
And second, if Boston's a sanctuary city, how are they allowed to do this? Because we told there would be resistance.
Speaker 1: Boston doesn't have to cooperate with ICE, but there's nothing they can do to stop ICE from coming into their city and enforcing the law. And that's exactly what happened yesterday, and that's the point ICE makes to us is, look, they don't have to cooperate with our detainer request. They don't have to tell our officers when they're releasing somebody from jail, but we're gonna do our job. We have our intel guys out in the field. We have people with eyes all over the place, and we're gonna snatch those guys.
So they can make ICE's job more difficult, longer and more dangerous, but it's not gonna stop ICE from doing the job, guys. The bottom line is ICE says it's safer for everybody involved if locals would just hand these guys over in jail once they're arrested, but they don't. They let them out onto the streets. They don't tell ICE about it. So ICE has to spend a lot of resources gathering intel, finding these guys, and then going out into the community to do arrests, which could be dangerous.
You saw that combative, Haitian man, and then you saw in the case of that 1 m s 13 member, his friend got snagged. They weren't even looking for him. They were looking for the m s 13 guy. They picked him up because a sanctuary jurisdiction released the m s 13 guy. ICE found him and then found the guy he was in the apartment with.
They found out he was an illegal alien as well. So now he's gonna be deported too. Wow.
Speaker 3: Amazing. Bill Milhijian, thank you so much. More to come on that.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Bill.
@CitizenFreePres - Citizen Free Press
Chris Hansen is catching Illegal Aliens trying to have sex underage girls. https://t.co/IMpHjCSKOK
Video Transcript AI Summary
Biden's immigration policies are facing scrutiny as migrants in Boston are being detained. A Haitian individual with a criminal history of 17 convictions expresses his refusal to return to Haiti. Border patrol encounters have drastically decreased, and Mexico is preparing for deportations by building shelters. Chris Hansen's investigations reveal illegal immigrants, including two Hondurans arrested for attempting to exploit minors, have been swiftly detained by ICE. In Alabama, a man was caught naked during a sting operation, highlighting the ongoing issues with predator investigations. Hansen commends the swift actions taken compared to the previous administration's efforts.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Fox News alert. Biden migrants in Boston are getting iced, and Bill Balugen tagged along. I I'm not going back to Haiti. One of those threats is this illegal alien from Haiti. ICE says he's a gang member with 17 criminal convictions in recent years.
Fuck. You feel me? No Biden forever, bro. Thank Obama for everything that he said for me, bro. You're not gonna believe these new numbers.
Days before the inauguration, border patrol had over 4,000 encounters in just a couple days. Yesterday, they had less than 500. Mexico's falling into line too, building giant shelters to prep for those massive deportations. Mexico is like, what are we gonna do with all these Mexicans? Well, they're gonna need a lot of tents because illegals are getting iced left and right.
And not just by Trump, Chris Hanson is catching migrant criminals. Watch.
Speaker 1: You gave her $50.
Speaker 0: Yeah. No. No. No. What was that for?
Speaker 1: The $50 was for
Speaker 0: No. No. No. No. No.
No. No. No. No. No.
No. No. No. No. No.
No. No. No. No. No.
No. No. No. No. No.
No. No.
Speaker 1: No. No. No. No. No.
Speaker 0: No. No. No.
Speaker 1: No. No. No. No. No.
No. No. No from her and we're going to pay her $50. Are you here in this country legally? Do you have US citizenship?
But you came here, Marvin, for. No. No. No. No.
You could go back to Honduras. No.
Speaker 0: Chris Anson's the host of takedown with Chris Anson and the predators I've caught with Chris Anson podcast. I mean, first of all, great Spanish.
Speaker 1: Editing is my friend, Jesse. Editing is
Speaker 0: my friend. These people, they show up just like Americans ready for action.
Speaker 1: A week ago tonight in Genesee County, Michigan, sheriff Chris Swanson's ghost team and I did an investigation. 2 illegal Hondurans showed up in the same night among the other predators. Both had been in this country before, gotten kicked out, sneaked back in, and got arrested in this sting trying to have sex with a child. And I can tell you in the week that's passed, they've already been picked up by ICE on a detainer, and it's the quickest they've ever seen this happen in the history of Genesee County.
Speaker 0: Well, from all Americans, thank you. You've done more than Biden's ice did in 4 years already. Tell me about this guy. He was naked?
Speaker 1: Blunt County, Alabama sheriff Mark Moon and his team, we had 5 guys show up in 4 days. Take a look.
Speaker 0: You have the money? Yeah.
Speaker 1: You gonna take something off? Well, you know how to make yourself right at home, don't you? Have a seat on that stool right over there. And what was your plan here tonight?
Speaker 0: I don't really know.
Speaker 1: You don't really know. Well, it looks like you knew because you got naked in the kitchen of this house. Could you imagine? This has happened only 3 times in 20 years of doing predator investigations, Jesse. And the the decoy online with the Blunt County Sheriff's Office, you know, was a little cheeky and playful for what you'd expect from a 15 year old.
But this guy walked right in, took a look at her. She said, well, strip naked, and then I walked out to confront him. And he put his clothes back on thankfully before I could have
Speaker 0: a discussion with him. You're a brave man.
Speaker 1: I see a lot of stuff, Jeff.
Speaker 0: Take down with a sentence. Take off. Take down with a sentence. Thank you so much. Thank you.
@CitizenFreePres - Citizen Free Press
BRILLIANT -- DESANTIS SETS REPORTER STRAIGHT ON ILLEGALS. How can you not love this. The vocabulary is changing, and quickly. https://t.co/b7hE6oE07r
Video Transcript AI Summary
Florida has many illegal immigrants working in agriculture, construction, and hospitality. As we consider significant roundups of these individuals, is there a plan to support these industries and prevent financial hardship?
In response, similar concerns were raised during the implementation of the E-Verify system in 2023. Now, any industry hiring new employees must verify their immigration status. This process is crucial to ensure compliance with the law and address workforce needs.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Eric from WJFC News Channel 4 here in Jacksonville. I just have 4 questions. 1, Florida is home to 100 of 1000 of undocumented immigrants who are working in
Speaker 1: areas Well, you know just to be so the federal government has made clear that the statutory term, it's not undi it's their illegal aliens. That's the statutory term. That's that's what it is. And I think it's to try to water down. I mean, like, undocumented is like if I get in my car and I forget my wallet, okay, I don't have my document on me, like my driver's license.
But, I mean, I still have a right to drive. I just made a made a mistake. The this is intentional to come in illegally. It's not just a question of missing a document. It's a question of, you know, you violated the law, that were very clear and knowingly and with the help of the cartels in many cases.
Speaker 0: So I'll rephrase that. So Florida is home to, is home to 100 of 1000 of illegal immigrants who are illegal aliens, if you want to call it, who are working in areas of agriculture, farming, construction, hospitality. I'm just wondering, once we start to see the significant roundups of these people, is there a plan in place to help those industries, to prevent those industries from experiencing true hardship, financial hardship?
Speaker 1: So here's what I'd say. They made the same arguments on 23 when we did our immigration and Cayan Road. We did everify. When you now any of those industries industries, when they hire new people, they've got to verify their immigration status. Otherwise, they can't work.
And people said you are not gonna be
@CitizenFreePres - Citizen Free Press
26 YEAR OLD MELANIA IS ASKED ABOUT DATING DONALD TRUMP. 'What happens if he becomes President one day.' https://t.co/862N6U4cTm
Video Transcript AI Summary
I envision being a traditional first lady, similar to Jackie Kennedy, supporting my partner and fulfilling social obligations. If I became first lady, I would accept that my modeling career might end, and I would be willing to give it up.
Regarding comments about being with him for his wealth, those people don't know me. It's not about material possessions; one can feel empty despite having beautiful things. If someone assumes I'm with him solely for his riches and fame, they don't truly understand who I am.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You picture yourself the first lady.
Speaker 1: Yes. I will be very traditional like Jackie Kennedy. I will support him. I will do a lot of social obligations.
Speaker 0: If you did become first lady, it probably wouldn't be ethical for you to give commercial endorsements to products. So your modeling career might be over at that moment. What would you think about that?
Speaker 1: I will stand by men.
Speaker 0: You'd be willing to give up your modeling
Speaker 1: career? Yes.
Speaker 0: Have you been hurt by the comments that you're with him because he's rich?
Speaker 1: You know, the people, they don't know me. People who talk like this, they don't know me.
Speaker 0: Well, you don't see many 26 year old supermodels on the arm of 53 year old car mechanics.
Speaker 1: You know what? You can't you can't sleep or to hug or to talk with beautiful things, with beautiful apartment, beautiful plane, beautiful cars, beautiful houses. You can do that. You could feel very empty. And if somebody said, you know, you're with a man because because it's rich and famous, they don't know me.
@CitizenFreePres - Citizen Free Press
President Trump and Melania stop to take questions from reporters before leaving for North Carolina and then Los Angeles. https://t.co/8nBHho0kNa
@CitizenFreePres - Citizen Free Press
TOM HOMAN -- WE'RE HITTING EVERY LARGE CITY AS WE SPEAK. https://t.co/z9SnGmbNx2
Video Transcript AI Summary
Sanctuary cities will face federal action, including the removal of federal funding, as they hinder law enforcement cooperation with ICE. These cities release public safety threats back into communities, increasing risks for the public and law enforcement. Currently, operations are targeting cities like Chicago. The U.S. military's assistance, including airlift support, is deemed essential for removing detained illegal immigrants, allowing ICE officers to focus on apprehending criminals rather than transportation duties. This collaboration with the Department of Defense will enhance operational efficiency and safety in immigration enforcement.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: What are you gonna do with sanctuary cities?
Speaker 1: Well, the president Trump's gonna take action on them and like he did the last administration, we gotta remove federal funding from them. You know, why are we giving them scat funding and other law enforcement funding when they're not performing the laws do the law enforcement duties with ICE? You know, it's it's about public safety. And and you're right. Lake and Riley's killer, he was arrested in New York on a child endangerment charge.
If we had if Saint New York City was not a sanctuary city, ICE would've took me into custody. He would've been gone. So so what I'm gonna do is sanctuary cities. Well, president I'll let president Trump take take action on him through the Department of Justice, but we're gonna go to Sanctuary Cities. We're at Sanctuary City jails right now, but what Sanctuary City, Sanctuary City jurisdictions are causing is an officer safety crisis.
Right? Instead of instead of ICE officers arresting the bad guy in the safety and security of a jail where we know we don't have weapons, now these sanctuary cities release that public safety threat back in the community, which, again, is a public safety threat, because they're they're putting the bad guy back in the community. So the the public's at greater risk of crime, my agents are at greater risk of harm, and the alien's at greater risk. Arrested an alien in a jail is safe. Everything's controlled.
But anything can happen on the street, so it's even it's even safer for the alien to be put in custody of ICE in in a jail. State shore cities make it less efficient and more dangerous, but it's not gonna stop us. We're gonna we're hitting every State shore city right now.
Speaker 0: Right now. You're hitting cities like Chicago?
Speaker 1: Right now.
Speaker 0: Alright. Part of that, by the way, that you're using apparently, you have been offered the assistance of the United States military for airlift support, as part of this program. The United States Air Force is gonna supply 4 aircraft to remove up to 5,000 aliens that are already, I believe, being detained by CBP. How is this gonna help you? Is this a necessary or is do you find this necessary or this is just icing on the cake of getting these illegal immigrants out of the United States?
Speaker 1: Absolutely necessary. We have limited funding right now, so anything DOD can step in and do this is is is a force multiplier. What whatever DOD does, whether it's building infrastructure, whether it's flying planes, doing transportation, that means an ICE badging gun is is not stuck with those type of duties. They can actually be on the streets looking for the bad guy. So we're gonna try to contract a lot of this work out, have DOD do some the stuff that doesn't require immigration authority, have them do that job to release the the immigration officers on the street to rest rest the criminal aliens.
So, yes, this is this is in plan for a while. We made this happen in a matter of 3 days. So, yeah, they're welcome they're welcome, a force multiplier for us, and it's gonna help us a great deal, especially on removal flights.
Speaker 0: Really quickly, Tom. We saw that video of that Haitian, illegal immigrant ranting and raving.
@CitizenFreePres - Citizen Free Press
PERFECTION FROM TRIUMPH THE INSULT COMIC DOG. Shredding leftists to their face at Trump protest in DC. https://t.co/eFk9whbEiF
Video Transcript AI Summary
Welcome back to the Daily Show. This week in DC, alongside Trump's inauguration, was the people's march against him. Our reporter found a diverse crowd, with many expressing concerns about representation and rights. Some attendees humorously acknowledged their lack of physical strength for protests, while others discussed the need for better messaging to engage Republicans on issues like climate change.
The conversation turned playful, with suggestions for new mascots and conspiracy theories to counter misinformation. Young attendees were asked about their motivations and readiness to take action, leading to a lighthearted call to "storm" various locations, starting small. The atmosphere was a mix of humor and serious concerns about political representation and activism.
Stay tuned for more on the show!
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Welcome back to the Daily Show. Donald Trump's inauguration wasn't the only event in DC this week. There was also the people's march to oppose him. We sent our most dogged reporter to check it out.
Speaker 1: Here in Washington DC at the people's march, we are here with everyone in America who thinks Joe Scarborough and Mika presents key still have good on screen chemistry. This diverse crowd covers a full spectrum of literally every stage of depression. Good morning. Look at you guys. You guys are mobilized.
Yeah. You're energized.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: You're 3 months too late. Thank you. If you could just say your name and all your genders from the camera, please. Oh,
Speaker 2: wow. I I I lost count. I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: Let's face it. No one here is gonna smash any windows at the capitol. That would require upper body strength. But, you know, 8 years ago, in fairness, there were, like, millions of people here. Do you think the numbers of women participating in this march have dropped off because they don't see themselves represented by the Democrats or because you kept talking to them about Deadpool?
Seriously, looking around here, I've never seen so many people worried about losing the right to contraceptives for purely hypothetical reasons. You tell me, what what stage of depression are you currently in? Anger, bargaining, or all the way to wearing that hat in public? Yeah. So many groups, factions represented here.
This person is with People For the Legalization of Medicinal Bath Salts. Yeah. Correct? He Ford, Trump slash Trump. Trump, if you don't know Now I get it.
The Trump family original name in Germany. Okay. Nice to know the bath salts have kicked in. Now, honestly, some people are saying that you're all ineffective. You're too weak and unequipped for a crisis.
I'm talking to your deodorants right now, actually. Sure. Sure. Yeah. If we want to win next time, we have to build a bigger tent.
Sometimes it's just with language. Okay? So if we wanna get Republicans, what the best if we rebrand climate change as climate transitioning. K? Then Republicans will want to stop it.
There you go. I can feel Ben Shapiro hedging already. So you're a young person. I feel like the young people need to understand what's going on better. What's your message to young people who only get their news from social media?
Speaker 2: It's important to organize. Join an organization
Speaker 1: Already too complicated. Sorry. Alright. People aren't gonna take you seriously wearing pussy hats from 2016. What?
We gotta arm her up. Show them we don't wanna be screwed with right now.
Speaker 2: Okay. What do you got? Okay.
Speaker 1: It's time for the Pew bag. Put that on.
Speaker 2: It's going out right. Let's see.
Speaker 1: This is what democracy looks like.
Speaker 2: Are the pubes organic?
Speaker 1: Of course, they're organic. And they're farm raised.
Speaker 2: Farm raised? Organic? Farm raised.
Speaker 1: Yes. We run a no kill pube farm.
Speaker 2: Good. Are are there genetically modified organisms in the Just put the you
Speaker 1: had us. Now see, this is for the more discerning. That's the landing strip food. Seriously, you guys, this marching stuff, it's so analog. This isn't what the Republicans do, you know?
Where's your Pepe the frog? Where's your cat turd? We need our own Pepe. So I call this one Keith Olbermonkey. This is another potential mascot, Smuggy, the NPR tote bag.
Yeah. Perfect. People don't believe facts anymore. They believe conspiracy theories, so we need to make up our own conspiracy theories. Okay?
For example, Jimmy Carter was doing just fine until Trump got elected again. Coincidence. Who killed Carter? You know how Trump hides his medical records?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: He also hides his DNA test. That's right. He recently took a DNA test that revealed that he's 40% sour cream. Release the DNA
Speaker 2: test. Release the DNA
Speaker 1: test. Trump is ruining people's lives.
Speaker 2: Trump is ruining people's lives.
Speaker 1: He goes well with onions and chives.
Speaker 2: He goes well with onions and chives. Who do I win? Who do I win? Who do I win? Who do I win?
Speaker 1: GOP, stop the line.
Speaker 2: GOP, stop the line.
Speaker 1: How did Jimmy Carter die?
Speaker 2: How did Jimmy Carter die?
Speaker 1: Young man, are you a member of Gen z?
Speaker 2: Yes, sir.
Speaker 1: Okay. Did you mean to come to this march, or were you staring at your phone on the way to work and when you finally looked up, you were here?
Speaker 0: It came here on purpose.
Speaker 1: I kid. I kid. I know you don't actually work. Are you guys ready to storm a building? Yeah.
Let's be honest. You guys aren't ready to storm the capital.
Speaker 2: No. I'm I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Believe me. But we're gonna start small. Okay? Trust me.
We need to do something, you know, that's gonna get attention. We're gonna start small. Okay. For the market. Okay.
Are you with me? I'm
Speaker 2: in the market.
Speaker 1: Okay. Everybody storm with me. Let's go. Come on. We're gonna storm.
We're gonna take it off.
Speaker 2: We're about the storm.
Speaker 1: No. Let's storm. Let's go. Let's storm
Speaker 2: it. We're storming. Take it back. Take it back. Take it back.
Take it back. Take it back. Take it back. Take it back. Take it back.
Take it back. Take it back. Take it back. Take it back. Take America.
Speaker 1: Today is the coffee house. Tomorrow, Cheesecake Factory.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Triumph. When we come back, Khalid Corley will be joining on the
@CitizenFreePres - Citizen Free Press
Tucker Carlson on X Ep. 72 just dropped. The case against Ozempic: "If a fish tank is dirty, you clean the tank. You don't drug the fish." https://t.co/dJ1FFFFJ9u
Video Transcript AI Summary
Ozempic, a diabetes drug that aids weight loss, is gaining popularity despite concerns. Cali Means highlights three major issues: first, obesity is a symptom of deeper metabolic dysfunction, not a deficiency treatable by medication. Second, the drug has significant side effects, including gastrointestinal issues and potential mental health risks, with many users discontinuing it within months. Third, systemic corruption in healthcare, where pharmaceutical companies influence medical guidelines and funding, exacerbates the problem. Instead of addressing root causes like diet and lifestyle, the focus remains on lifelong drug dependency. Means advocates for a shift towards preventive measures, emphasizing better nutrition and exercise as essential for improving public health. He believes that reforming healthcare practices and policies can reverse the current metabolic health crisis.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You'd think less than 2 years after the very public failure of the COVID vaccines that more people in this country would be skeptical of brand new pharma products. And maybe they are, but they don't seem very skeptical of Ozempic, which is a diabetes drug that apparently at least in the short term can help people lose weight. And on one level you can see whether or not skeptical. This is a very fat country. That's a huge problem, and a lot of people, a lot of us wouldn't mind losing £20 by taking a pill.
So why shouldn't we? Well, we thought it'd be interesting to hear the other side, the side that you are not hearing on the question of Ozempic from someone who knows a lot about it. Cali Means is the founder of TruMed. He once worked for pharma. He definitely does not now, and he joins us today in studio.
Cali, thanks so much for coming on.
Speaker 1: Pumped to be here, Tucker.
Speaker 0: So you wanna lose 20 and I'm speaking from experience. You wanna lose £20. You don't really wanna stop eating pizza. This seems like a super quick way to get healthier. Why wouldn't you take Ozempic?
Speaker 1: Why shouldn't I take Ozempic? There's 3 big reasons Ozempic is very problematic. And I think, really, the Rosetta Stone to understanding what's gone wrong in health care, frankly, pharma industry corruption. The first point I wanna make is that if a fish tank is dirty, you clean the tank. You don't drug the fish.
And in America right now so they won't notice. In America right now, we've got a very dirty tank. 50% of teens and 80% of adults are overweight, and this has happened in just a generation. We didn't become systematically lazier in the past generation as Americans and, frankly, suicidal. Something has happened, and the core mistake of Ozempic is that obesity is not an Ozempic deficiency.
Obesity is not the root cause of the problem. Obesity is one branch of the tree of underlying metabolic dysfunction that's ravaging our country. As we talked about, with over 50% of Americans having prediabetes now, 33% of
Speaker 0: of young adults Most Americans have prediabetes?
Speaker 1: Oh, it's by some measures up to 60 percent Of the whole country? Of adults and 33% of young adults and teens. And you have a diabetes doctor, you know, just a generation ago, wouldn't see one child in their entire careers, with diabetes. Now diabetes, which which again is cellular dysfunction, is cellular disruption, totally caused by environmental factors in what we're eating. That's, that's close to becoming, right, upwards of 50% of kids.
It's 33% and growing radically. Teens, 25% have fatty liver disease, which is something you only used to see in elderly alcoholics. So there's a there's a metabolic health crisis, that's caused by decisions. Right? The USDA, which is completely corrupt, the guidelines that set nutrition standards, 95% of the guideline committees paid for by food companies, they say that a 2 year old that 10% of their diet could be added sugar.
We have more money from from agriculture subsidies in America today go to cigarettes, go to tobacco than vegetables. 90% of subsidies go to highly processed food. We've propped this industry up. Food stamps, right, which 15% of Americans depend on for nutrition, 10% of all food stamps funding goes to soda. We're the only country in the world that allows that.
So we have to soda? Goes to soda. So so the food Does the US government pays people to drink soda? We the US government direct from the federal treasury more than $10,000,000,000 per year go from the federal treasury to soda companies through the food stamp program. The number one item purchased with food stamps in America is addictive diabetes water.
We prop that up with food stamps. As we talked about last time, I actually used to work and consult with Coke, and we paid the NAACP and other groups to say it was racist to to take that away. We totally rig the debate. So through a corrupt system, we actually subsidize soda. We do 10 of these things.
Right? We do 10 easily identifiable things that are causing us, frankly, to be poisoned. And instead of talking about the root cause, we're saying that a weekly injection that you have to take for your entire life that costs $20,000 per patient when 80% of American adults are overweight or obese, we're saying that is the answer for obesity. We have a dirty tank, and pharma has basically changed our consensus reality to say, you know, when all these things are happening all at once due to environmental factors, our savior what we you do the math on $20,000 per patient, 80% of American adults. We're talking, and this is clear on Wall Street, food stocks are going down, pharma stocks are going up because this is they're doing cartwheels on Wall Street.
This is on track because of government funding, because we are stand to put trillions of government funding into this drug to be the most successful drug in American history. So what wow. There's a
Speaker 0: lot there. But let me just get back to the individual decision to take or not to take this drug. So you're overweight, you have prediabetes, and your doctor says, you know, what you would say, which is that's a very serious thing to have. Just because it's common doesn't mean it's not bad. It is bad.
And this drug can cure it.
Speaker 1: Why wouldn't you do that? That segues really well into the second issue why Ozempic is so problematic. So on a societal level, you know, I think anyone that agrees, you know, if you're just just looking at this issue, you know, putting everybody popping everyone with Ozempic for their lives isn't the first thing you do to solve obesity. But even if it was perfect even if it was right? Even if it was perfect.
But the problem is when you get to the individual level, this drug medically is a absolute disaster. Medically? Medically, it's a disaster. So all you need to know is that Novo Nordics, the company that makes this drug, recently passed LBMH to become the most valuable company in Europe. So this this drug this company, most valuable company in Europe, they don't allow this drug for obesity in Europe.
Almost all of Novo Nordics revenue is coming from taking advantage of Americans. This is not the first line of defense for obesity in any European country. It's not approved by the government regulators. They are saying on their stock calls that their all of their growth is coming from the US. They're taking advantage of a broken US system in the United States.
And when you dive into it, even people in the United States who are getting government funding, insurance funding for this drug don't have to pay for it. 30% of them go off the drug within 3 months. So even though they're fully being paid for it, we're being told this is a lifetime drug. There's lawsuits coming just reported in the past couple days on gastrointestinal issues and stomach paralysis. The drug itself, essentially, is, stomach paralysis.
What what is stomach paralysis? The the the the drug that that what it does is essentially it it it sterilizes its stomach, paralyzes your stomach, to to make you not be able to process food correctly. And there's studies now saying that that stomach paralysis, the really, messing with your ability to digest food, actually stays after you go off the drug. So there's lawsuits now with people with severe gastrointestinal issues after coming off the drugs that's being pronounced, and that that's coming out in lawsuits. Additionally, because of that, you're consistently seeing patients who go off the drugs, gain the weight back.
So that that that's almost, I think, universally accepted even by Novo Nordics. When you go off the drug, you gain the weight back. But, again, we're seeing most people that take the drug within the 1st year come off it because the gastrointestinal issues, the stomach issues are so pronounced. Additionally, the EU, again, where this company is based, just launched a, a probe into suicidal ideation caused by Ozempic. You can't even make this up, but the EU is doing a, a massive probe because there's so many reports of increased depression, increased suicide.
Now I was debating a Harvard doctor about 6 months ago, and I I brought this up because it's kind of obvious. Your serotonin, what produces your contentment and happiness, 95% is made in the gut. And, again, Ozempic essentially is gut dysfunction. So when you mess with the serotonin and mess with the gut, a lot of unexpected things happening. And very understandably, and really what's to be expected, is we're actually seeing reports of a mass increase in mental health disorders and even suicidal ideation, from Ozempic.
You know, kind of you just back up and ask, you know, this miracle drug is too good to be true. It's really coming through
Speaker 0: Wait. So you're saying there could be a downside? It's not perfect? 30% of people.
Speaker 1: But but I wanna say this, and and and and I'm a libertarian. You know, I think, people should be able to take Ozempic. I think most drugs should be leave legal, frankly. The problem is where the rubber really hits the road is there is an all out assault to convince us that this is the appropriate drug. Again, this is the target market.
This is why the stocks are popping and why Wall Street's going crazy. It's the biggest TAM, the biggest target market for any drug in American history. It's 80% of American adults, but it's being fast tracked. You wouldn't believe this, but the American Academy of Pediatrics recently said that they recommend this as a first line of defense for teens. And the study basing that decision for the American Academy of Pediatrics to say that every obese or overweight teen, which is 50%, should take this drug, was a 68 week study.
We had a 68 week study for a lifetime recommendation to 50% of teens in America to to receive these injections.
Speaker 0: So so I guess nothing would surprise me coming from the American Academy of Pediatrics, which seems really like a vector for bad memory
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: Given their performance during COVID. However, you just still have to wonder, how did that happen? That seems reckless. Like, how could a body like that, which has some residual moral authorities because of its name, how could they do that?
Speaker 1: You are transitioning, like, perfectly, into the third point, which is that the reason Ozempic, I think, is such a important story in America today is because it's really again, it's it's the Rosetta Stone of understanding corruption. Our institutions, particularly the health care industry, has completely let us down. And you just step back and think about it. Pharma is the largest spender on TV new ad news ads. It's the largest spender.
Novo Nordisk, specifically, is the largest spender on foundational obesity research. It's the largest spender on, medical to medical groups like the AAP. It's one of the largest, funders of actual civil rights groups. So you actually can't even believe this, but Novo Nordics is paying the NAACP to say that not supporting Ozempic is a civil rights issue.
Speaker 0: So you're racist if you're against giving kids a diabetes drug?
Speaker 1: It's on the n, double, a c p website, and the n, double, a c p is a registered lobbyist for Ozempic, saying that you are a racist because there's disproportionate issues, with obesity in certain communities, that you're a racist for not supporting government funding for Ozempic. Of course. And the NAACP takes money from the drugmaker? They're a registered lobbyist for the drugmaker.
Speaker 0: How can the NAACP be a registered lobbyist for anybody?
Speaker 1: They have a lobbying organization. They have to declare who their lobbying clients are, And as reported in NPR very recently, they are registered as a lobbyist for Novo Nordics. And on their website, they're saying it is, example of systemic racism to not support federal funding for Ozempic. So this is what I saw working for pharma. You just have to ask who people trust.
People trust the medical groups. They trust civil rights groups. They trust the media. You have a situation where, additionally, Novo Nordics, and this is reported, has given $30,000,000 in direct bribes to obesity doctors. You would be hard pressed to find a doctor who treats obesity in this country who has not received some kind of donation, not not research grants, but direct consulting grants from Novo Nordisk.
Sending them cash? Exactly. So we
Speaker 0: need can doctors take cash from drugmakers? Oh,
Speaker 1: this is this is what's done. The drugmakers spend 100 of 1,000,000 of dollars a year in direct cash payments to doctors. But you can't get the drug except with a script written by the doctor in the prescription. Who who to take direct consulting fees from How can that be legal? This is how this is, you know, what you watch, things about the opioid crisis and how the opioid, completes the same playbook.
You know, I actually when I was working for pharma, the opioid crisis, was in full effect. And there was a panel in 2012, and the panel was full of outside experts recommending guidance on opioids. The head of that panel was a man named doctor Philip Pizzo, who was the dean of Stanford Med School at the time. He was a pain specialist. At the moment he was appointed to that panel, Stanford received a grant from Pfizer, who's one of the largest opioid makers, of $3,000,000 for pain research.
He appointed 90% of that panel, who are also conflicted, to receive direct research and personal consulting fees from opioid makers, and they released relaxed opioid standards. This is exactly what's happening on obesity. You have doctor Fatima Stanford, the head of obesity research at Harvard, pay tens of 1,000 of dollars by Novo Nordics, just started a new directly? Directly. Direct.
No. No. Not not to mention, of course, 1,000,000 of dollars of research grants. She's been made tens of 1,000 of dollars. Harvard allow that?
There there are no conflict of interest rules in medicine. Harvard, is supporting her, and the NIH recently, it came out that 8,000, research grants went to university professors who also have a direct conflict of interest, with the topic in the drug they're studying.
Speaker 0: How can the doc I mean, how can you be a physician, even a teaching physician, and and do that? I mean, that's so obviously unethical.
Speaker 1: It's so obvious. It's it's so, omnipresent that this isn't it isn't discussed. I mean, you're saying this like it is obvious. It's manifestly obvious. You hear this.
Most Americans are outraged. This is like, you know, you're swimming in water. You don't realize you're in water. This is how academia is. The food industry, if you you know, taking it to food, which is making us sick, spends 11 times more on foundational nutrition research than than the NIH.
Pharma is the lifeblood, right, of foundational scientific research in this country. And then you get to the NIH, of course, it's a revolving door between government and and industry, and the vast majority of NIH grants go to pharma research. So so the NIH is basically a grant making organization, and this is just statistical, almost all going to research that has conflicts of interest with pharmaceutical drugs. The problem here is that every institution, all these institutions fundamentally make more money when we're sick. Ozempic doesn't cure obesity.
It manages obesity for life, and that's a problem. Statins don't
Speaker 0: I'm sorry. I should have asked it at the answer. You made a couple of references to it for life. Is that as advertised? Oh, no.
No. That's that's So if I sign up for Ozempic tomorrow, the physician will tell me you gotta take this forever.
Speaker 1: Those are the instructions. Yes. They they they admit that there's unknown metabolic problems if you go off. But that that that's that's that's, that's on the box. No.
No. This is a lifetime injection. The key thing here, Tucker and and, again, getting the corruption. Right? You're paying off the doctors.
You're paying off the medical groups. 50% of TV news funding. I mean, you know, I I like I've seen it. Yeah. And and, you know, there's RFKs talked about this back in the day with Roger Ailes.
When you're when 50% of your bills I'm speaking in the choir, but 50% of your bills are paid by, a certain interest, why didn't the news media have any curiosity during COVID why people were dying of COVID? Metabolic healthy people weren't dying of COVID. This is where the corruption and really where it all ties together. I'm sorry.
Speaker 0: We will you describe that in
Speaker 1: a little more detail? We had probably the biggest event in American history since World War 2 where we shut down the country Yes. Where we really, I think, showed our weakness, just physically and mentally as Americans. You know, American COVID deaths were substantially higher, than other countries. And research, you know, it it's not argued, has come out saying that the the COVID was a foodborne illness.
Dying of COVID was a foodborne illness. If you were metabolically healthy, if you had stable cholesterol, stable fasting glucose, weren't obese, you didn't die of COVID. COVID disproportionately, overwhelmingly, even among older people, affected people with comorbidities, and we are
Speaker 0: a lot sicker in America. And the comorbidities were caused by eating bad food, mostly.
Speaker 1: Comorbidities are obesity, heart disease, diabetes. Those are the main comorbidities. That so if if you did not have those, you were essentially not impacted by COVID and had almost 0% chance of dying of COVID. So the media, though, right, who's heavily funded by pharmaceutical companies, didn't have any curiosity about that, didn't have any curiosity. Maybe this is a 911 moment that we're not at our best in as America.
Right? We are a sick, depressed, infertile population. Sperm count is down 50% in just the past generation. 25% of women now have PCOS, leading cause of infertility. We are having trouble reproducing as a species, and these are all connected.
And there was a moment to talk about this, but instead, the media, the government institutions who are paid by pharma, pushed a pharmaceutical, solution with 1,000,000,000,000 of dollars of airtime, as as the solution to our crisis. This was one of the greatest public policy mistakes in American history. What, after coming off of the worst public policy failure I think one of the one of the worst in American history with the COVID response on every level, you know, keeping the bars open and shutting down the schools, to to pushing an effective pharmaceutical solution instead of root cause solutions. We're being asked to trust pharma when 80% of the American people, their bodies are, like, rebelling against them, with obesity, which are clearly a sign of of underlying issues where Ozempic and daily you know, weekly shots is not the root cause. This just, on its face, doesn't make sense.
And then you trace the corruptions. Again, Ozempic is paying off everyone. They are one of the 5 largest funders the company itself, one of the 5 largest funders of news ads, one of the, you know, top research funders of OBC Research, largest funders to university on the OBC topic. And and the thing I, you know, kind of kind of ram home here, Tucker, is you just have to look where the money is. So if you actually look at the analyst reports that are propping up these stocks, they're assuming an increase in obesity.
So you talk about all the, like, the Novo Nordisk largest company, in Europe. They literally in in the where the money hits the road, where people are investing 1,000,000,000 of dollars, they're assuming increased rates of obesity over the next 10 years in America. You actually I was talking to a a a doctor at Harvard. They you know, they're underwriting a loan for a new obesity center where they can where they can treat an issue Ozepic. Those loans have projections for growth of obesity.
They're not projecting that increased Ozepic is gonna decrease obesity. The loans that are underpinning these medical centers, if you go to any any city in the country, the biggest, most beautiful building is is, you know, some kind of new pediatric, you know, obesity center or cardiology center. The the loans assume increased rates of conditions. So, fundamentally, we have the largest industry in the country, health care, not asking imagine a leader saying, how do we reverse obesity? How do we cure they're not asking that.
They're saying, how can we actually say obesity is not your fault? Oprah, who's involved with rate Weight Watchers, just apologized for preaching her personal accountability over the past decade. She said it's not personal accountability. We're supporting Ozempic. This is becoming obesity is becoming something think Oprah got paid?
She she's highly involved with the Weight Watchers. Yeah. Weight Watchers has shifted from a personal accountability organization that it's been, preaching for decades and is now a prescriber of Ozempic. They've totally changed because Ozempic is a better business model because you never go off it. This is insane.
Speaker 0: So maybe one of the reasons this is accepted people don't see it as totally crazy as I do. I don't take Advil, so I all of this seems crazy to me. But the average, say, 65 year old person in this country is on how many drugs?
Speaker 1: The about about 7. 7. Yeah.
Speaker 0: And not just intermittently, but, like, over the years.
Speaker 1: Right. Right. 90 90 plus, percent of funding for medicine dollars is around chronic lifetime. So It's more recurring revenue.
Speaker 0: So describe what that looks like, like, the scale of it.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I think I think, again, we're so desensitized to this. We don't understand how crazy That's right. How much of a failure it's been. Well, I'll give you an example of my mom.
So my mom was 71 and went, you know, for a checkup and was was told, by the doctor she was healthy. And she was actually at the time on 7, lifetime medications. So she was on, you know, maybe a decade before, had high cholesterol, was prescribed a statin. And the message from the doctor was, no problem. Most you know, the majority, almost, of people your age are on a statin.
No problem. That's a rite of passage. Then she had high fasting glucose. Again, that's that's basically prediabetes, which majority people have. Metformin, one of the most prescribed drugs in the country, high blood pressure.
So she has these comorbidities that are almost seems like rights of passage. You know, it's it's a right of passage for for a man over 40 to be on a statin. The majority are. So so these were all kinda normal things. So as we treated everything in silos, that's a lie.
Heart disease, diabetes, in many ways, depression, Alzheimer's, the the they're they're branches of the same tree. They're they're we've actually lied, saying those are different conditions, seeing 4 different doctors for 4 different treatments that don't even talk to each other. So we're we're we're managing the symptoms instead of seeing those symptoms as a gift and realizing that we have a root cause metabolic crisis. That's why the more Stans we prescribe, the more heart disease goes up. The more metformin we prescribe, the more diabetes goes up.
The more SSR onics we prescribe, which are now 25% of women.
Speaker 0: The higher the suicide rate goes.
Speaker 1: We're we're seeing skyrock so so we're siloing everything. And literally
Speaker 0: I'm so there's so many questions. Yeah. So 25% of women are on SSRIs?
Speaker 1: We have a societal dynamic where 25% of women in the United States are on a medication. And I'm not just flatly antidrug, but this is a societal dynamic, Tucker. We have 25% of women taking something that fundamentally numbs you out from reality, and and we don't even blink an eye at that. And depression, mental health disorders, anxiety, suicide. Suicide is now the second leading cause of death for young adults.
SSRIs are
Speaker 0: After drug after drug OD.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And which which I think could be related. And, SSRIs, if you talk to any high schooler now and and looking in it, it's the first line of defense. I mean, it is prescribed like candy when it To children? Oh, yes.
SSRIs. Oh, SSRI prescription rates are skyrocketing among teens. You talk to any high school counselor, anyone in any high school, this is the first line of defense when a child never talk to a high school counselor in a circumstance. Yeah. Well, that's that's very smart.
But, yeah. The they're they're skyrocketing among kids, and there's actually a black box warning on, SSRI's label, actually saying that it increases suicidal ideation among children, and they're widely prescribed to children. Not to mention the fact that 20% of high school seniors are on, essentially, methamphetamines, Adderall, which if you read the book, blitzed, actually, traces the history. It was Adderall was developed by Nazi Germany as a tool for Nazi soldiers to be more aggressive, and now Yes. Is prescribed, widely along with SSRIs to to kids.
Speaker 0: One thing I'm trying to keep track of everything you're saying, all of which is checkable
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: I I assume on the Internet. Statin drugs are prescribed to the majority of American men over 40?
Speaker 1: The last rate, I think I think 2019, the last study I said was 45%, and I think there's reports that now post COVID, it's it's it's it's close to 50%.
Speaker 0: So what's the downside of statin drugs?
Speaker 1: Oh, there's wild research coming out. I mean, the high the highest level, just even if the drugs don't have no side effects, heart disease isn't a statin deficiency. What statins to me, at the most important level, represent that we have a moral hazard. Right? Fundamentally, when you're prescribed that statin, you're told by the doctor that you're doing something.
When you're prescribed the Ozempic, the doctor, Fatima Stanford on 60 Minutes, who's, you know, paid off doctor from Ozempic, said, throw willpower out the window. This is a brain disease. Food isn't the problem. It's a medical issue. Take Ozempic.
Do not worry about what you're eating.
Speaker 0: This is exactly what Purdue Pharma said about, pain. Yeah.
Speaker 1: So so you have so you have these messages. You have the statins. You're doing something. You now can eat what you wanna eat. You you wouldn't even believe this, but in until, 2018, and doctor Robert Lustig, who's a hero of mine, has pointed this out, an endocrinologist at, UCSF, the American Diabetes Association said that as long as you take your medications, you do not need to change your diet as a diabetic.
So you literally have guidance from the American Heart Association, from the American Diabetes Association, now from the obesity industrial complex, saying that if you take these drugs, you you you're good. But that's a lie because there's never been a drug in American history for a chronic condition that has lowered the rate of that chronic condition. What's the cost of all that? Just diabetes. Well, with diabetes, this is the root cause.
Again, it's a misnomer to see this as an isolated condition. Almost a 100% of people with Alzheimer's have prediabetes or or diabetes. Diabetes is one of the Seriously? Alzheimer's is now called type 3 diabetes. The most highest indicator you can have for dementia or Alzheimer's is some kind of blood sugar dysregulation.
If you have normal fasting glucose levels, your chance of having any type of dementia is very, very low. Dementia is is highly tied. Again, I don't even like the word using the word diabetes. Our cells diabetes is cellular dysregulation caused by our environment or food. Again, the majority of people in this country have some form of of that happening inside their bodies because our environment, and this is unprecedented.
So diabetes is really the root cause. But if you just take diabetes, you know, this is this is one of the biggest line items in the US budget. We're spending if you add up all the line items we're spending on health care just just to manage diabetes, it's more than the defense budget. What's Wait. Wait.
Speaker 0: We spend the US US government spends more managing diabetes than it does on defense?
Speaker 1: What what is going if you wanna stack rank what's what would bring down the American Republic, it's not, you know, marginal rates of military spending. It's not, you know, what the marginal tax rate is. It it it our biggest line item in our budget, the biggest part of our economy is health care, and it's also the fastest growing industry. Health care is the largest and the fastest growing industry in the United States. The bulk of that spending is coming from government.
And as it grows, it produces worse results. This is not slowing down. It's gonna be 40% of the budget in about 15 years, and it's only growing. There's nothing stopping this trend. And as that's happening, we're becoming an infertile, depressed, sicker population at an almost exponential rate.
We're going to cease to exist as a country because we let that happen. And you look at the budget and you look what's really gonna destroy the budget in in in our country, defense is defense is a small part of it. It is health care costs. It is it is metabolic dysfunction. And is diabetes the biggest?
Diabetes and prediabetes is is the root of almost everything. You don't you you have very few people with heart disease, with many forms of cancer, with dementia, with all these this is this is the lie that's being told. When my sister graduated Stanford Medical School, she had to choose between 42 specialties. She did she was ahead of neck surgery, and then the fellowship was going to to to to be even the smaller part of the body, 1 millimeter, of the of the that's what doctors devote their lives to. Like, literally, a body.
That's a lie. That's a lie. When she was cutting out sinus inflammation, right, she looked at a patient's report. They had 60 pages. They had prediabetes.
They had depression. They had heart issues. She didn't speak to those doctors, and she was never trained how the inflammation that she's cutting someone's face open and taking out, not once at Stanford Med School, was she trained or even brought up why that person has inflammation in the first place. That surgery, you know, Medicaid will pay $20,000 for that along with all the other comorbidities the patient has. We're training doctors.
Right? Medical schools, pharma companies, hospitals, doctors, nurses, insurance companies. They make money when people are sicker for longer periods of time. The way to do that is to silo conditions. That's what that's why Ozempic is so important.
Because obesity is not a siloed condition. Obesity is a visible example that we are losing our way as Americans. And treating that in a silo is is just medically not going to work, and it's happening because of corruption.
Speaker 0: So but it is and I Yep. I should disagree with everything. Yeah. But even if I disagreed, it doesn't matter. I would say Ozempic is a response to an actual problem.
You conceded that. So if Ozempic isn't the answer, what is? If you were an alien that came down
Speaker 1: to Earth and saw what's happening in America, and I wanna make this clear. It's happening specifically in America. I mean, our obesity rate, diabetes rate, heart disease rate, it's it's it's multiples more than some European countries and Japan, countries like that. There's something unique happening, with the environment in America. And if you came down an alien that was smart, that kind of, you know, had a veil of ignorance and looked around, and you saw 80% of Americans consuming such toxic things in their environment that their bodies are literally cellular is the visible result of cellular dysregulation.
Obesity is literally the cells crying out for help and showing that they're dysregulated, which is represents stuff happening invisibly in the body, such as all the chronic conditions we've talked about. If you look at that happening highly related to mental health disorders, highly related infertility, all connected, you would never say let's keep everyone sick and give them marginal drugs. You would just never do that. We have been completely gaslighted by pharma. You know, Elon, who I I I, you know, I think is the most important American in the country, but has, recently said these drugs are good.
I I think it's it's a little bit unlike him because we're not analyzing the problem and assessing what the root cause solution is. I think we've frankly been we've changed our reality. We've changed our our perception of, kind of, what reality is based on pharma, thinking that these marginal tools. And we've lost our way. Right?
The the the the the drug for every condition in a siloed state hasn't worked. We're all getting sicker. We've totally lost our way. Peter Tia pointed out that if you control, for infectious diseases, you know, and acute things that would kill you right away, life expectancy really hasn't grown in the past 100 years. With with the almost a 100% of life expectancy increase, which we all herald, is acute issues, things that would have killed you right away Right.
Childhood mortality. If you actually, chronic Polio, appendicitis stuff. All that stuff.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: And, so we actually have really lost our way. And if there's one moment to kind of, as a country, say, can we change course a little bit, it it's this, because this is the biggest issue. This is 80% of Americans. It is gonna just do the math. In America, when drugs are prescribed widely, costs don't go down.
You're not allowed to lower drug prices if they're prescribed widely. And the moment Ozempic is approved, which is an all out battle to do, for government, funding, there's an incentive for every obesity doctor in the country to prescribe this to 80% of American adults and 50% of US teens. It's the the government then can't tell the doctor what to prescribe, So you've got a $20,000 cost. This is 20,000 that that price is not coming down. Do the math.
50,000,000 we we we have much more than 50,000,000 OBSP. 50,000,000 is well over $1,000,000,000,000 a year. This is why the stocks are going up. Right? So the battle here and this is my point to Elon and and a lot of people.
I want you to understand the battle is what are we gonna do societally about the metabolic health crisis. And what should
Speaker 0: we do? Like, you're in charge. I know you said you're libertarian, but let's just imagine you were a fascist and you could do whatever you wanted. What would you do?
Speaker 1: It's not what I I think the president can do numerous things tomorrow that will I think the big one of the biggest lies we're being told is this can't be turned around quickly. We did not have a metabolic health crisis a generation ago, and we can turn this down very quick. I don't think the American people are are mass suicidal, frankly, which is what we're acting. We have an addiction crisis. I can give you a couple right now.
The president, tomorrow, can tell the FDA that the US can no longer be the only country in the world that allows pharma ads on TV news, which isn't to influence to consumers. It's to influence the news. Pharma buys off the news, and the FDA can issue an order, tomorrow saying that that's no longer the case, that we can't have, new, pharma spending on TV news. That is an executive decision. It can be issued tomorrow, and it would totally undercut the ability of the pharmaceutical industry to control our information.
Food stamps, the ag wheel
Speaker 0: Do you think that pharma I'm sorry. Yeah. You're throwing so Yeah. For for my aging pizza apple brain, it's hard to keep up. But you're saying that that pharma buys TV spots not to convince people to ask for specific drugs from their physicians, but to subvert the news business?
This is
Speaker 1: a this is an open secret working for pharma. I never even thought of that. This is an open secret. The the the kind of, silly ads you see between the news breaks, the points of that is not it's marginally to impact the customer. But but the the pharma's already got that.
They've already bought off the doctors. The the they're they're good on that. No. No. This is an open secret.
The news ad spending from pharma is a public relation lobbying tactic essentially to buy off the news. The the news is a refer they're not investigating pharma. There's a Oh, I've noticed. The the news has become the news has become basically a referee that you were a terrible, anti science Luddite for asking why, you know, the the shots that we require our kids to get that fundamentally, by their own advertising, change, the immune system of that child for life, why it's gone from 20 to 70. To even ask that question, the news referees that and calls you anti science when the 2 largest vaccine makers in the country are literally criminal enterprises.
Black, Swift, Smith, Kline, and Merck, in the past 5 years, has settled 2 of the largest criminal penalties in American corporate history for bribing and misleading, bribing doctors and misleading, creating misleading research who who make who are the 2 largest vaccine makers. So you literally have the media playing referee that you can't even ask a question. Parent is actually
Speaker 0: If you have a vaccine injury, and many people Right. Have, including some I know very well, even a profound vaccine injury, you're not allowed to complain about it.
Speaker 1: No. No. No. You're anti you're anti science
Speaker 0: Even if it can be shown, it
Speaker 1: was this is a vaccine injury. Media the media plays referee because they're funded. But so so so in all levels. Right? Wow.
At all levels.
Speaker 0: And and I'm not dark, Cali means.
Speaker 1: Well well, I think it's hopefully empowering. I I I think this is why we have an opportunity here, Tucker. Like Ozempic, this is not some, like, new like, you know, it's kind of this funny thing. Like, oh, you know, it's kind of vain. I can lose weight.
This is go the reason the stocks are going up is because this is gonna be a lot of government money. This is gonna be the highest funded drug from the US taxpayer in history. And we've got a society when are we gonna say, let's go another direction? Why are we trusting pharma now when they've been completely acting to to garner no trust? We have to be basic here and incentivize better eating, better farming.
You know, think about public policy with the 4 trillion we need to send in health care. How can Americans be more active? These are basically but these can these can be done. And they're just just 2 more quick ones. I mean, there's there's 20 of these.
But you just have to go to the incentives. We you were surprised that the majority of, university researchers and NIH grants go to conflicted researchers. Yeah. I was shocked. Tomorrow, the president could say, we're not gonna touch NIH funding, but we're not gonna issue grants anymore to people with conflicts of interest.
That would sound like a reasonable policy to 95% of the American people. I think that's unimpeachable, bipartisan policy. Of course. It it will cause a conniption. The media, the next day, with their talking points, would say it's the most anti science yeah.
NIH funding. Exactly. So you could do that. You could change ag subsidies, which are just tens of 1,000,000,000 of dollars to processed food. You could put, restrictions on university conflicts of interest, which are essentially r and d labs or pharma.
And I think a key one, Tucker, and you go back to the American Academy of Pediatrics. This isn't just some, like, industry group. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Diabetes Association, and these medical groups have statutory authority to create the standard of care for how we practice medicine in the United States. They are funded majority by pharma to the groups that are literally have statutory power to create the standard of care for diabetes. You just step back.
Why aren't doctors in giving their patients subscript prescriptions for food interventions if they have prediabetes? Why aren't they giving them and prescribing them and allowing them to use their medically, you know, tax advantage dollars to exercise? If you actually follow the science, that would be the correct medical intervention to reverse that. But we're so gaslighted by this. You know, it's just it's just not even batting an eye that it's just pill, pill, pill.
Americans follow incentives. It's what what we're trying to do. TrueMed is you can actually a doctor actually can write a note for exercise and food, and that actually can open up medical tax advantage dollars and other insurance dollars. You actually doctors could do that, but the second you get someone off the chronic disease treadmill, that's not a profitable patient. There's nothing more profitable for the pharmaceutical industry than, frankly, a sick kid.
You know, you imagine a kid with prediabetes. Inevitably, they're obese. Inevitably, they have hypertension. Inevitably, they have heart issues. They're gonna be, like my mom, much earlier, on just a ton of drugs being told on each of those drugs that you're not curing anything.
These are these are conditions you need to manage for life. So so since we're getting people, there's a war to get kids on that bandwagon. We need to have the moral clarity, frankly, and communicate this like RFK is communicating it. There's something really resonating, and at the core of his message, is that we've really lost our way. This is a big issue.
This corruption. It's corruption at the end of the day, which is destroying and profiting off, destroying our kids, profiting on us being, sicker and addicted and and and depressed, quite frankly. This is a big issue we need to unwind. And, frankly, president Trump has made some strong statements about this. I'd say watching the GOP debate is like watching a bizarre world.
I mean, Rome is burning in a lot of ways. We have a corruption problem, and it sounds like there are, you know, some cocktail party in 19 88, GOP cocktail party. It it you know, it's not about the marginal tax rate. It's not about No. You know, the Medicare Part d, page 300.
Strength. It's Our biggest industries our biggest industry, the the health care industry, is profiting from us being sick. It's just that simple. We need to unwind that, or we're gonna destroy our human capital and destroy our budget. If people have come to the
Speaker 0: end of this conversation and want to learn more, I never do this, but I think it's worth it with you for sure, How can they learn more about your views on this? How can they learn more about these issues? What would you recommend?
Speaker 1: Well, as we talked about, this is my life's passion with my sister who was a doctor who left the system. And I'll announce it right now, I've helped her write a book, that's right, just put on Amazon today, called Good Energy, Unwinding and and Unpacking These Issues Using Her Experience in Medicine. We put our heart and soul into that book, to really unwind these issues, which we think are the most important issues in the country. And then my company is truMed.com, and we help write food prescriptions. I mean, you know, it's it's it's our company, but I wanna say that I think it's the most important issue in the world.
What we need to do is doctors need to follow the science. Doctors need to when somebody has a metabolic condition, explain to them, and incentivize them to practice better eating, chew, exercise. People listen to doctors. When we were told the food paramedics eat carbs, we ate carbs. When we were told to take vaccines, we took vaccines.
When we were told to stop smoking, smoking rates plummeted. We need every doctor and every medical leader, and, frankly, I hope leaders like Elon who care about human capital and and and and and our potential, to say, we need to unwind this, and we need to get back to root causes in America and talk about food, talk about exercise, talk about sleep. You can transform your life. These policies would transform things. You can change your biomarkers in 3 months if you go on a functional medicine type program and really have curiosity about what you're eating, your behavior.
What if we had that message from our medical leaders? So we're working on that with TruMed, and, I'm on Twitter, which I have mixed feelings about, but, talking about this on my Twitter, Cali Means.
Speaker 0: Cali Means, thank you for that. Thank you. That was intense. Free speech is bigger than any one person or any one organization. Societies are defined by what they will not commit.
What we're watching is the total inversion of virtue.
@CitizenFreePres - Citizen Free Press
Tucker Carlson Ep. 70 just dropped: "An interview with Russell Brand. This is his first interview since governments colluded to shut down and destroy Brand." https://t.co/aAxSa3BXTl
Video Transcript AI Summary
In September, media outlets accused Russell Brand of being a sex criminal, sparking a widespread call for his censorship. This campaign, however, was rooted in his dissenting views on major issues like war and economic policy, which threatened powerful interests. Brand was labeled a Chinese propagandist for his critiques on Ukraine, a tactic used by government-affiliated organizations to undermine independent voices. He discussed the alarming connections between government, big pharma, and media, revealing a coordinated effort to suppress dissent. Despite facing serious allegations during a personal crisis, including his son's heart surgery, Brand emphasized the importance of family and truth. He believes that the current climate of fear and control could lead to a collective awakening against authoritarianism, urging a return to individual sovereignty and connection to nature.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Back in September, media outlets around the world, almost all of them here in the West, in the English speaking world, ran headlines that shocked a lot of readers and viewers. Russell Brand, the movie star, the comedian, now the podcaster, was a sex criminal, a bad man, a sex criminal. Now none of the outlets ran the names of the accusers who had been sexually abused by Russell Brand. That was conspicuously absent, but the judgment was overwhelming. This is a very bad man, and he needs to be taken out of public view for the sake of the rest of us.
What was interesting about this is that, in fact, it was the final scene in a long movie that had been playing out for the preceding couple of years outside of public view. This was an attempt to make Russell Brand shut up. Russell Brand has views that diverge from those of most Western governments on big issues, not small things, big issues, questions of economic policy and war and peace. And they decided we have to make this man be quiet. Why Russell Brand?
Well, because in contrast to a lot of us who give our opinions for a living, Russell Brand had the capacity to win people over from the other side. He hadn't spent a life identified with the far right, just the opposite. Russell Brand was a man of the left, and to most people, a cultural figure. Everyone knows who Russell Brand is. And so he had the power, the capacity to persuade, and that was the threat.
So we thought it'd be interesting to go through in some detail what happened to Russell Brand. None of this has ever been aired before. The censorship campaign against him began with governments, not private organizations, but governments, their intel services, and their policymakers. And as we said, it played out outside public view, and we thought it would be very interesting and important for people to know what exactly happened. And so to find out, we are now joined by Russell Brand himself, and we're grateful to be.
Russell Brand, thank you so much.
Speaker 1: Tucker, thanks for having me here.
Speaker 0: So, I I I didn't know any I just wanna say I didn't know any of this, and I was I experienced you because I didn't know you as a viewer. And I remember thinking, boy, that is one of the most articulate critiques of the brand new war in Ukraine I had ever seen. I saw one of your videos on the war in Ukraine, and this was in the winter of 2022, 2 years ago. And you were making kind of a remarkable case, not against the Ukrainian people and certainly not in favor of Russia, but that there might be real implications for the West if we get involved in a war that is not our own. And you you I thought said it so well.
What I missed, and I'm now seeing, is that in March of 2022, you were denounced by an organization connected directly to the US government as an agent of Chinese propaganda for your views on Ukraine. So let me just ask you your experience of this. Did you know that you were being attacked as a Chinese propagandist for your views on Ukraine?
Speaker 1: I actually didn't and still, at this point, struggle in to see entirely what the connections are between those two issues and how I would develop and cult and cultivate a strong affinity with China. I've never been to China. I don't purport to understand China. Certainly don't advocate for Chinese policy. I've just got a relatively superficial dilettantes knowledge of geopolitical mal matters in the South Asian seas.
It's not something that I would like to tie my colors to the mask for or be willing to be publicly shamed, attacked, and even jailed for.
Speaker 0: So, it happened though. Yeah. And and a lot happens on the Internet that we miss, but these in my reading of it is that we haven't, by the way talked about this affair but my reading of it is these were the early seeds of a very deceptive plant that flowered more than a year later in September when you were accused of these crimes and demonetizing and censored as a result of that but looking back so you were accused by a group called coda story it published a story on its anti disinformation newsletter now coda story is connected to the UK government but it's also connected to the CIA. How does it make you feel to know that you were in the cross hairs of 2 of the most powerful governments in the world and their intel agencies?
Speaker 1: It seems to be ridiculously grandiose to even imagine that I would stir and arouse the interests of such powerful agencies and groups that the British government, if indirectly, would spend considerable sums on observing and de amplifying content. That true information shared through our platforms in the period of the pandemic was censored, was cited as high risk. The companies like Moderna had spent considerable revenue tracking our content and, again, de amplifying it. The Dame Caroline Dionidge, whose husband is a psyops expert that worked abroad in terrorism before deploying those methods and techniques, and to some degree, those teams to observe what they call disinformation and misinformation in the UK. I recognize that the new emergent media spaces present a lot of possibilities, even with your kind compliments about our reporting on the Ukraine.
All we've essentially done is listened to brilliant academics talking about the history of NATO and the coup in 2014 in Ukraine and Putin's explicit declaration that he would prefer, let's put it mildly, that Ukraine were not invited into NATO. The some of the regional disputes, how they're escalating tensions. This is information that because of independent media is available and perhaps the function that we, our media organization have fulfilled, has been to collate that information and convey it directly in an accessible manner to give people an alternative perspective than to the homogenized mainstream opinion. Yes. Which amounts to, I've learned over the last few years, the amplification and normalization of the agenda of the powerful.
That no opinions can be allowed into that space, and I'm astonished by how jealously it is guarded. There are points in my life where my personal self regard would have loved the idea that I'd be considered important enough to attack on this scale, to spend this amount of revenue and resources on. But I'm now seeing that independent media itself is an extraordinary threat. That independent media inevitably leads to independent politics and independent thought. And we appear to be at some precipitous moment of radical transition.
I'm not sure, and I'm not sure if anybody could be sure of where this is all heading, what the exact teleology is, but it seems to be to do with mass centralization, globalization, significant attempts to control the information space that are so rigorously adhered to and protected that even what you might imagine to be a marginal voice is considered a significant enough threat to warrant coordinated media attacks, expenditure on peculiar clandestine nongovernment organizations and think tanks that take their money from the industrial complex, from the legacy media, who, by the way, when they're critiquing independent media, they got skin in the game. They're not able to independently assess your work or my work or the medical opinions of Joe Rogan. They have a vested interest in destroying those organizations. In the last few years, I've learned about the Trusted News Initiative, which has extraordinary connections again to big pharma and sets of interest around the reporting on war that have decided and determined that they are no longer competing with one another. You, in particular, come from a journalistic background where it would have been commonplace for the great institutions of American media to compete with one another for scoops, the New York Times versus the war.
Those days are gone. It explicitly states on the Trusted News Initiative website, we are no longer in competition with one another. We have to curtail and stamp out. I think it even uses the word choke independent media. And it's clear that there are now sets of globalist organizations funded by government, but also corporations that are making deliberate, profound attempts to shut down any dissent in an astonishingly aggressive way.
And to be sort of caught up in it is, terrifying on one level. Absolutely terrifying. Particularly due to the nature of allegations I faced, but also revealing. More importantly, it's revealing about the way the the way that I believe the world, and in particular this space will be affected and the way these events will continue to unfold in the coming years.
Speaker 0: What I love about your critique is that you're coming to all of this pretty cold since you had a midlife career change. You you're doing something very different from what you did 15 years ago. And I'm wondering if your assumptions haven't been completely blown up. You're you're a British citizen, lived in the country for life. How strange is it to know that your tax dollars are being used against you by your government, which they are?
And how bewildering is it to find that the open contest of ideas that we were promised here in the west made the best idea win is a sham.
Speaker 1: Yes. It's, well, I suppose I went into the entertainment industry really with the giddy trajectory that propels a lot of people into those spaces, believing that there might be some fulfillment and certainly there would be excitement. And when I was a denizen of that world, I was fostered and adored and celebrated and facilitated and lived the kind of lifestyle, which I think is kind of common for people in that area, for single people, in my case, drug and alcohol free, but certainly with, an appetite for a promiscuous lifestyle. When I was part of it, I found it empty and unfulfilling, of course, as it would be as anyone who's had those kind of experiences ultimately realizes. When I departed it, as a result really of various spiritual crises or commercial failures or combination of those events, I really felt like, coming home to the type of values that I grew up with.
I grew up in a normal blue collar town, gray. It's kind of like a place where it's like New Jersey, I guess. Kind of suburban, outside of the city, normal people, good values kind of place. And what I feel like happened is like, well, since I've had a family, since, you know, I've got a young son, I've got a couple of daughters, is I feel like that I was able to deploy the skills learned through working in entertainment as a man in recovery in a new space. And what simply began, with myself and my partners is tell the truth about things you care about.
Kind of over time, it began to I suppose Glenn Greenwald would have a date. He goes, you know, you shouldn't be surprised that if you attack the most powerful interest in the world, the deep state, powerful corporations, the machinery of war, that you yourself are the recipient of attacks. Why does that why is that surprising to you? I know. I know, but because sometimes it does feels speculative, doesn't it?
You're talking about these really powerful organizations and the way that it's funded and the way that it crosses over and their malfeasance, underhanded, insidious activity. And then as it starts to become more popular, as more and more people realize that it's actually true, as more and more people become willing to take back control in their own lives, as more and more people refuse to consent to being treated in this sort of infantile way, consent to being treated in this sort of infantile way, having their autonomy and personal and mental and spiritual freedom undermined, their connection to their land undermined, their connection to nature, devoid it. You start to realize that you're actually operating in quite a powerful territory. But while power is very serious and it has to work very hard to maintain its grip, so these organizations it is something did it surprise me to find that the the British government, through the Department of Culture and Media and Sport, the very person, the very people that sponsored the new rather draconian online safety bill personally contacted the height of these, allegations and attacks on me, contacted social media platforms and asked if I would be demonetized.
But they're the body that regulates them. They have the ability to find those organizations. They're the the very person who is sponsoring the online security bill.
Speaker 0: What we're second. Yeah. Of course. I understand what you're saying. So these accusations appeared.
There were I don't know if this has changed, but at the time, there were no names attached at all. You were accused anonymously of committing crimes. And then your own government, which you pay for
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Reached out without telling you to online service providers and media organizations and said, please kick him off and censor him and take his money away. That's is that what you're saying? Yeah. That's right. Any kind of trial, before any proof that you were guilty, before any names were attached.
Yeah. That that happened.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And it's the same people that are sponsoring online safety bills, which amount to facilitating further censorship.
Speaker 0: But what a betrayal by your own government?
Speaker 1: Well, it's astonishing if you regard your government to be in a position of service rather than a a position of domination and control. But what's become apparent in recent years is what the nature of our relationship with government is. That they are there to rule and control and dominate. And whilst they may now do it with an aesthetic of care and with the language of inclusivity, I believe the threat of authoritarianism is far, far greater from those that use the language of liberalism than these emergent somewhat nationalistically oriented populist movements present because they are leveraging that power now. They're interested in censorship.
They're militarizing the police force. They're introducing protest laws. They're introducing censorship laws. Through their actions, we can observe them. Through their fruits, can we know them?
We can see what they'd and if you try to dissent, if you try to oppose, even what I consider to be a relatively marginal scale, then the consequences are severe and immediate and robust and terrifying.
Speaker 0: It I I think what makes your specific case so compelling is that if they could do it to you, a person who had the admiration of a lot of people who aren't interested in politics and was pretty famous and had some means, etcetera, then the average person stands no chance against these forces. So with that, let if you don't mind, can we get specific about a couple of things that you mentioned? The first is Moderna, which is a drug company. It's part of big pharma. Tell us how you intersected with pharma and what you with Moderna and what you think they did to you.
Speaker 1: During the pandemic period, we reported continually about some of the clinical trials that Moderna conducted and whether or not they ought be deemed sufficiently rigorous to warrant the level of measures that were being implemented, if not entirely mandated. We talked about a government official called Jonathan Van Tam, who was the public face of the government saying, you know, we should be taking vaccines recommending that the measures escalate. Jonathan Van Tam subsequently took a position at Moderna. We reported on that. People within the FDA took positions at Moderna.
We reported on that. We accurately reported that both Pfizer and Moderna were making $1,000 like a second or a minute, just like we reported a lot. We reported accurately and thoroughly about the degree to which big pharma were profiting from a situation in which Albert Baller explicitly said it would be inhumane to profit from this global crisis. This meant that we were tracked by agencies employed by Moderna. They had like us on a high risk category.
This is the reporting of Li Fang from on his substack, not just me, Jay Bhattacharya, Michael Shellenberger, Alex Berenson, a number of what you might call anti pandemic measures voices or strong critics of the way that the pandemic unfolded were under observation for by agencies that were either funded by big pharma, sometimes the government. And in a sense, what I've started to realize, Tucker, is this cartilage between the state and the corporate world is often provided by these unusual organizations that are claiming to be observing disinformation or monitoring, but they're actually crushing dissent. That's what they're doing in practice. Practice. Dissenting voices are being aggressively crushed by almost any means necessary.
The media organizations are collaborated in a a way that is unprecedented in order to shut down dissenting voices. And it it appears to me that this is part of something I don't know that we've seen anything like this before.
Speaker 0: So what you're saying is that these organizations which purport to be independent are not actually independent from government. They merely give government, the politicians and the intel agencies, especially some some plausible deniability, some distance
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: From what they're doing. Is that what you're saying?
Speaker 1: I'm saying that, Tucker. That seems to be the function. There's a group called Logically, and Logically have received 1,000,000 of pounds of taxpayer money. And what they do is observe dissenting voices around in particular, COVID and pandemic measures. But they are now working in the United States.
Apparently, in order to regard misinformation around election campaigning, It seems that that that this group receive government money in order to control online spaces.
Speaker 0: So if you're worried about the security of electronic voting machines or absentee ballots Yeah. Who are denounced by these people and
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: Censored by them.
Speaker 1: That's that's precisely how it works. And, of course, they employ former FBI, agents, CIA agents. In a way, I suppose, what happened during the pandemic period because of, like, the Twitter files, for example, we started to learn the degree to which the deep state were involved in the, in social media companies, the degree to which they were censoring and shutting down information, information that we now know to be true, which it was, you know, of course, you'll be aware that Mark Zuckerberg said we did censor true information. The category in fact of malinformation is information that's true, but but harmful to the agenda or powerful. Well, it seems like groups like Logically and the Public Good Project are specifically empowered to control, censor, de amplify information that is harmful to that agenda.
This seems totalitarian. Yeah.
Speaker 0: To control what people are allowed to think is I think that's the definition of it.
Speaker 1: Well, I've started to I suppose that's what in essence, what I've started to feel and report on consistently, as you noted at the beginning of this, I'm not someone who's affiliated organically with conservatism or what you might regard as right wing politics. Although I, of course, recognize the legitimacy of a whole variety of political views and the right of people to hold different views from one another. But it seems to me that authoritarianism now is being deliberately veiled in a the insidious language of care, concerns, safety, and convenience. It seems to me that we are in a time where we lurch from one crisis to another, that the crisis is always used to legitimize certain solutions, and a docile or terrified public is willing to participate in this proposed solutions that usually involve giving up their freedom. We are continually being invited to give up our freedom in exchange for safety or convenience, and it seems that this process is radically escalating.
And I feel that this is something that we will see yet more of in the coming year. I feel like, you know, you've spoken publicly about this, that we're potentially on the precipice of serious, and to use your term, hot a hot war with Russia. And that that's being reported on in my country right now. It's like we're being prepped, groomed, primed for war is coming. That we're get being kept in a state of constant anxiety in order to induce compliance.
That the ongoing stoking of cultural tension is to ensure that people don't begin to recognize that actually we have far more in common with one another than we do with these curious sets of establishment interests that seem to be transcendent of national democracy. To to be explicit, I'm talking about organizations like the WHO, NATO, the WF, and their astonishing influence. Added to that, the types of groups we've discussed already that have been exposed due to Li Fang's reporting. These think tanks and apparently independent organizations who are not independent when you look at where they get their money, big pharma, or the government, or the military industrial complex, or the kind of people they employ. People from deep state agencies such as the FBI and CIA, that have extraordinary affinity with the legacy media and their ongoing agenda.
So what I suppose I'm sensing is that totalitarianism now will not bear the inflections or aesthetics of the 20th century militarism, guys in medals with mustaches, thumping their fists on their desks. We'll be calmly told what with by gentlemen with beautifully coiffured hair, or elegantly speaking ladies, that just for our safety and just for our convenience, we will be returning to our homes. And anyone that has an audience or a base or an ability to communicate with people to disrupt those types of narratives will be identified and destroyed.
Speaker 0: Well, there's certainly, they've identified you and they're trying to destroy you in the most obvious way, in a way that hurts not just you but your family. Was there ever a moment when this happened in September where you thought, you know, it's just kinda not worth it to be doing what I'm doing? This is so painful and so threatening to my family that maybe I just bow out and stop talking.
Speaker 1: My son was born with a heart condition. And while this was happening, he was undergoing heart surgery. He, he was 12 weeks old. And I suppose what that did, Tucker, is it revealed that that what we were experiencing was a public concoction. I am aware that I put myself in an extremely vulnerable position by being very very promiscuous.
That is not the kind of conduct that I endorse, and it's certainly not how I would live now. The I I've been shown a good many things as a result of these events. The value of my family, the value of friendship, the value of being able to speak publicly. I mentioned my son because throughout it, I saw I was able to maintain what is really important in life. And as you have actually said, we all know how this ends.
Attacks like this, a crisis like this, hurtful though it is to be accused of what I consider to be the most appalling crimes, to be accused of this is very, very painful and very hurtful. But I am being shown that there is a con there are consequences for the rather foolish way that I lived in the past. Although, of course, again, to reiterate due to the nature of the world we live in, of course, I deny deny any allegations of the kind that have been advanced. But what I've seen is the significance of family, the importance of having values that are transcendent of this, the importance of God. It's very easy to talk about God.
I talk about God all the time. But when you need God, it's not when the outside world shows you the the the reality of your powerlessness. This is this can just happen. This can be undone. This can be unspooled at you.
And with our boy and to be in environments as you understandably and obviously are when you have a sick child, you're in environments with other people, they're in the exact same position.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: And you are shown what is real, and you are shown what is truthful, and you are invited to look at life very differently. So there are many things that I am grateful for as a matter of fact, even though it's not a situation that I welcome and it's, as I say, these are allegations that I object to in the strongest possible terms. The fact that it happened concurrently while I had the opportunity to see the strength and dignity of my wife and the beauty of my little son and the reality of the people that in this world that care for sick children, that perform heart surgery on tiny babies shows me, like, oh, we there are look at all of these realities. How can you live in the ridiculousness of their version of events? I couldn't have been more open and public about the way that I lived when I was younger.
I was for risk. If anyone wanted to have sex with me, I would have sex with them. I publicly announced it at the beginning of all shows. The idea that that was a some sort of a smokescreen for criminal conduct is absurd. But I recognize now that unless you're willing to be a participant in these systems of compliance and distraction, then you you pose some kind of evident threat.
Speaker 0: A big threat. A big threat. I mean, obviously, the response proves the power of the threat that you posed and still do. But, again, just to quickly back to my question, because this was so intense and it happened as your son was born and under undergoing the surgery, did it ever cross your mind like this I clearly have hit the 3rd rail, and I'm out. I've seen that happen a number of times with people.
Yes. I have. And, yes, with well known people. And but you didn't do that, and here you are. You've clearly thought about it, and you've decided that you're gonna continue forward.
Was that a hard decision?
Speaker 1: Do you sometimes think that there is no choice? You have no choice. Did you ever really have
Speaker 0: Yes. I do feel that way, strongly.
Speaker 1: There is no choice. We have no choice. Something strange is happening. Something ulterior is moving. Something very important is happening.
I'm I don't I'm not probably to be a person that lacks self interest. I'm not I feel fear. I feel anxiety. I'm a recovering drug addict. I like, you know, you know what that kind of psychological, baggage that comes with.
But I feel like, what is the purpose here? What are we doing here? I've been shown to get I've, in a way, lived a pretty amazing life. I, like, grew up in a normal background. I've got super famous.
I experienced all of that giddiness, all of that hedonism, found it empty and hollow, and have been returned to a position where people could actually be connected. I actually feel incredibly optimistic because of things like the ongoing agricultural protests around the world, the trucker protests, the the lengths that people will go to to criminalize not just an individual like me, but whole movements will be criminalized as far right as nazias, right as whatever language is required to delegitimize the rejection of this global authoritarianism is what will be deployed. So, when I say, no, I didn't think for a second about doing anything different. You know, I didn't think that. I don't think like that.
And it's not, out of bravery. It's out of it's something beyond that. Because I think some you know, sometimes I would like to just be with my little daughters and my wife and my son and just live peacefully. But I don't know, Tucker. It doesn't seem like there's a choice.
Speaker 0: There isn't a choice. There isn't a choice. But, you know, even on those circumstances, some choose cowardice. And, again, I've certainly seen it quite a bit. Dynnage, you mentioned a person called Dynnage.
Can you explain, what you mean by that, who this person is, and what role she plays in what has happened to you?
Speaker 1: When you become accustomed to dealing with American politics, it's huge sums of money. It's powerful agencies that you see depicted in Hollywood movies, characters played by great movie stars. And so when you return your gaze to British politics, you feel like you're dealing with some sort of drudgery, some sort of like some, like, ludicrous heritage porn. Who are all these dames and baronesses entitled individuals? They can't be doing anything serious.
Someone called Dame Caroline Dynage, who sounds like a Downton Abbey regular. But actually though, Dame Caroline Dynage put forward the online safety bill. She's married to a dude that does, that that does military psyops, and now uses those very psyops in this in in with the domestic population. She's the person that got in touch with the social media platforms demanding that I be demonetized. They seem to have an extraordinary agenda.
Like, what the time Can I just ask you something? Yeah.
Speaker 0: I looked up because I'm not as familiar with your politics as I should be.
Speaker 1: Yes. I looked
Speaker 0: her up, and, I think what I was so struck by was that she's a member of the conservative party. Right. And that suggested to me that there isn't a choice in British politics. There's really just one party.
Speaker 1: Of course. Yeah. Absolutely. It's a uni party.
Speaker 0: They're not even pretending at this point.
Speaker 1: They're not really pretending. Let like, here's a sort of an an extraordinary thing that appears to be playing out. In addition to just being casually informed by the legacy media that we're on the precipice of war with Russia and that conscription might be reintroduced in 2024, the there was a part there was a COVID inquiry in our country, which, by the way, I don't imagine for a second would have happened without independent media reporting without voices like Jay Bhattacharya Yes. Who was shut down, or voices like Michael Shellenberger or Berenson, people that have been shut down and vilified at large and extensively. The COVID inquiries already cost £145,000,000.
It's been booted off and delayed indefinitely, but at least until after the general election. Like many countries, there's an election in our country this year. But as usual, it's between 2 neoliberal, what you might term centrist parties that are ultimately dominated and controlled by the same concerns where an extraordinary focus is spent on the tiny minute differences. But it's the party nominally of the left is ultimately a centrist neoliberal party. The party nominally of the right is a neoliberal centrist party.
They may quibble about some issues that seem significant, and certainly those issues are stoked and amplified, but neither party will say, we are going to have a thorough investigation into what went on in that pandemic. That clearly was a lab leak. It looks like it was a bioweapon. It's being concealed. The people that we entrusted with our response to that pandemic are likely explicitly linked to the leak in its in the first instance.
These kind of stories are never told. There are no legacy media organizations that worked in conjunction with one another to attack me evidently and by their own reckoning over a series of years. They are not conducting investigations into Epstein Island. They're not investigations into the the nature of the pandemic, how it was funded, where the money went, where it came from, the efficacy of lockdowns. Where are these investigations?
Even the
Speaker 0: the fabled Times of London?
Speaker 1: The fabled Times of London. It's such garbage. It's such garbage.
Speaker 0: So there's nobody in and pardon my ignorance. I'm I'm I'm peering in from the outside, but there there really isn't any big media organization in your country. It's even trying to answer the question, what was that? Where this virus come from? No one's doing that.
Speaker 1: Do Do you know one of the things that I find terrifying about becoming more educated about this space, Tucker, mostly by listening to, more educated voices than my own is that many of the things a person might instinctively feel such as you feel like, you know, yourself forgive my ignorance. I don't know much about British politics. The the but the way that one might intuit, hey. Should we not be provoking Russia into a war? Don't they have nuclear weapons?
Should we think very carefully about that? I mean, how much do we want Ukraine in NATO? And do we even need NATO anyway? The kind of things you might think if you didn't go to university. If you're a regular blue collar person working for a living.
Maybe in the police force, or the fire service, or as a nurse, or as a teacher. Something that gives real value to your nation. The kind of things you might think, they're true. Those ideas are true. And in order to prevent you from reaching those ordinary everyday regulations, a machine is put to constant work to conquer the space of your attention, incessantly and relentlessly, filling your mind with dumb ideas and dumb distractions, making you believe that's a a some sugar or a screen might be a convenient palliative, as your children are marched off into an unwinnable forever war.
You know like like do you know like the I saw we've been thinking lately before, you know, like with the hoofies and stuff. Like and like I'm being deliberately glib. But it's like you go from not ever having heard the word hoofie to being invited to hate the hoofies. Oh, the hoofies. We gotta hate the hoofies now.
And And you're like, you know, just to move a battleship into that region, think of the taxpayer dollars. And it's not as if the Pentagon are gonna be passing an audit anytime soon, and telling you where this money is actually going. And $2,000,000,000,000 was spent on Afghanistan. And if you think of the before and after picture of Afghan Oh, well, thank God we spent that $2,000,000,000,000 because before Afghanistan was and now Afghanistan is It's very difficult to fill in those sentences, isn't it? And like, so what I'm saying is, is like your sort of easy dismissiveness of what British politics amounts to is probably right.
2 corrupt parties pursuing the same ulmer end. Keep people tyrannized. Keep people distracted. Keep them turned on one another over minor issues that will not ultimately affect their lives or the lives of their children so that the agenda of the powerful can be pursued without opposition.
Speaker 0: War, the economy, public health, food supply, CS, water supply. I mean, these are the energy. These are the things that matter, and they're the things that are are never discussed openly ever.
Speaker 1: Why can't we have conversations about that? Like, these with the the global farming protest, it's not accurately reported on. When it is, it's reported on with a particular accent and with the always with the insinuation that farmers have suddenly moved their attention from the raising of crops to racism now. The farming's more of a hobby. I've gotta return to my true love that's having strong views about varying ethnicity.
There's no question that a rise in, nationalism is an understandable response to rampant globalism, But the ongoing sort of finger pointing and the condemnation of ordinary people I identify with, I recognize it because I grew up in those communities. Professional met metropolitan people don't like working class people, don't like ordinary people, and now they've found a way to legitimize their hatred. Oh, they're all disgusting. They're all racist. Look at them in their MAGA hats.
Look at them with their white vans and their flags. Look at them with their perspectives, with their unearned views and their belches and their beer. It's a kind of legitimization of a loathing of the people that are most connected to the nation. People that, generally speaking, a couple of generations ago were asked to sacrifice the lives of their sons and daughters for the for the idea of nation, an idea that they're now being told doesn't exist. For me, what we need to see is an emergence of a different type of populism that transcends the boundaries of left and right.
These things are happening organically and naturally anyway, and what I think is happening is that perhaps it's odd, isn't it? Because the Internet is ultimately a creation of the military. Clearly, they didn't accurately understand that whilst it was going to be a brilliant means for control, and clearly that's one of the wars that's being fought now, it is also a tool for informing and awakening. And I think that we're at this crux point. Which way is it gonna go?
Are people going to wake up to the reality that we are being confronted with? Or are we going to sort of nervously cling on to the idea that somehow through comfort and panaceas, we might hold on to some old life. Increasingly, I think he's over. I watched some of that speech you did in, Ottawa or wherever you were in Edmonton, Canada. And 2 of the things I thought were important is knowing that you are not God.
You are not God. You are it's not about you. You have to have some purpose in your life. And secondly, people must relearn a connection to their land. Our connection to our lands has been broken.
Now many countries, particularly in a post colonial world, have complex relationships with their land. Sometimes that is a a relationship with a land that had inhabitants prior to the our our arrival or the arrival at least of settlers in your country, for example, or in Canada that you were describing outlining. But we are divorced from nature. We are divorced from our lands. We are divorced from one another, and and we are fed such an empty, hollow, vapid, phatic diet of lies.
And either you said at one point, oh, you should, you know, this is this vast country. You could all have 6 acres each. Yes. And I felt like other crowd responding to that. People are frightened of the people of Britain or the people of America or the people of Canada or Australia or people all over the world.
For surely, those pharma protests are happening in Sri Lanka. They're happening in India. They're not just happening in Europe or anglophonic countries. They're happening everywhere. They're happening everywhere.
And I feel that what's that's precisely the direction we need to return to. Sovereignty of the individual, sovereignty and sanctity of the connection between people and their land, maximum amount of power in your own life and the life of your community and and your loved ones. Not this transition of power to increasingly centralized forces and this, infantilization and neutralization and castration of individual and familial power. Can I ask you a question that
Speaker 0: you may be able to answer that I've been meditating?
Speaker 1: Oh, give it a go, Tucker. I'll tell you that.
Speaker 0: Well, you're just uniquely positioned to answer it because you've seen both sides. But, so the things that the people in charge hate include nature Yes. And the class of people who are most useful
Speaker 1: to
Speaker 0: your nation. You describe them. Cops, firemen, teachers, nurses, all of them are crushed during COVID, by the way
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: And farmers. And it's indisputable that if you don't have those people, you don't have a society. You could get rid of every think tank and every sociology department and every liberal arts university and probably be okay. Greater your pharmacy, you starve to death. So it's not obvious why the leadership of a country would hate the very people they need most and hate the most beautiful and valuable thing they have which is nature.
Why do they hate those things?
Speaker 1: It terrifies me to contemplate, Tucker, that people like Alex Jones and in our country, David Icke, who aside from some views that are impossible to corroborate around quite occultist, and shall we call them marginal ideas, difficult to corroborate Yeah. Ideas, when it comes to the subject of globalization and the increasing authoritarianization of our planet, appear to have been ahead of the curve. You can see them 20, 30 years ago saying with the the empowerment of NATO, the empowerment of World Banks, and the WHO, like this it's extraordinary. And I it seems to me that the disempowerment of ordinary people, the condemnation, the demoralization of the public, to create people that just are weary and broken. And is, if not enslaved then so dependent it amounts to a form of slavery, cannot be inadvertent.
It seems to be a denial of something fundamental that I, in my language, I would call spirit. The the right to be who you are. That there isn't something fundamentally ugly or wrong with you. That you are allowed to be who you are. And I see that as a universal principle that will be applied all the way from the left to the right across various ways that people claim their individual identity now.
It seems to me that, yes, that if you start to attack those pivotal infrastructural roles I was struck when speaking to some of the people that you work with, man, as you know, that's been a cop for 26 years in New Jersey, 45 years in the security first services. Like, these are people that give their lives for a country. So to tell those people that your country doesn't mean anything or to alter the meaning of what a nation is or alter what your contribution has been, it seems to be about a kind of disorientation and it's difficult actually sometimes. The reason I mentioned at the beginning of this rather corolling answer, figures that are broadly condemned as conspiracy theorists, but then aren't we all these days, is the reason I mentioned them is because they talk specifically about ideas to do with spirituality, morality, and ethics. And it's hard for someone like me to consider that the goals of this global establishment are anything other than power, finance, dominion.
But when you talk about this loathing of nature, whether that's human nature or botany or the great expense, it's difficult to think that there isn't something dark. Yes. At its core.
Speaker 0: Because there's no rational explanation for that. How could you want to despoil nature? How could you hate human nature? How could you want to hurt people? There those are not rational responses to anything.
I mean, there's gotta be I mean, clearly, what we're watching are the fruits of spiritual war. I'd if you're gonna give a better explanation, let me know.
Speaker 1: Certainly, the solution seems to me to be spiritual. And even when they're talking about ecology and evoking words like Gaia, like the spirit of the planet, it seems oddly utilitarian. The earth is a resource even when claiming to care about the types of energy industry that might be most beneficial and those which might not be as beneficial. I don't see reverence. I don't see an acknowledgement of the sacredness of the Earth.
That the that the Earth is not a resource. It's not you know, obviously, the left and right are classically, almost at this point, divided around the subject of climate change. And what I feel is, who or or who among us or not love our planet and behave respectfully and reverentially and lovingly to our planet? And how is that gonna happen if they're inaccessible to most people. 90% of the land is privately owned, like land that used to be commonly held is now all privately owned.
There has been successive law after successive law that has moved power and control and the land and nature herself into the hands of an elite. And is this, I suppose, even where it would have been risible
Speaker 0: So you're getting back to feudalism.
Speaker 1: Yeah. That's what you're saying. Let's get back to good old what was wrong with feudalism? Why are we making such a fuss about it? It's like the idea that you and I are people that operate on different sides of a political spectrum becomes exposed as ridiculous when the anti authoritarian aspect of what we both clearly believe in has to become the clear and pivotal point around which all political views have to now start to coalesce.
You you are either going to oppose what's happening when it comes to globalization and centralized authoritarianism, or you are going to be crushed by it individually and collectively.
Speaker 0: How do you see and I'll I'll stop with this, compound question. How is how are your family and friends holding up in the face of this assault on you and your family? And how do you see this playing out, the battle that you just described? Are you hopeful or no? You know, like,
Speaker 1: I because I've been subject to personal attacks, it's very, one thing like, I have a program of recovery. I've been in recovery for 21 years. It's just in a sense, it's what enshrines and helps me practice my relationship with God. It's the most important thing to me. The thing I have to most be observant of and have to keenly avoid is, is descent into self centeredness.
When you're when I am very frightened, it's very easy for me to drift into becoming quite myopic and insular. What I've observed, like, in this period from a personal perspective is that, like, I'm incredibly fortunate. I've got an amazing wife. I've got amazing, beautiful children that are healthy and doing well. I've got incredible people that I work with.
Like, oh my god. And another thing that's been amazing is, like, for a month, publicly, continually, I was like, you know, called the worst names you can call a man. And then I'd go in public and people like, Russell, hey. We support you. We support you.
And like, like one time I was wearing, like, sort of like a family of all their daughters that were aged between, like, sort of 15 19. Oh, can you do photos of us? I was thinking if there were one group that would be negatively affected by what's just been publicly said about me, it would be the parents of teenage kids. And, like, people aren't. People aren't buying it.
People aren't buying it. That's the problem. People are waking up. People start to think, well, well, Jesus. Is there gonna be a better example than your former and perhaps future president?
The more they hate him, the more people like him. Yes. The more people like him because what they know is they don't trust the establishment anymore. They cannot trust the establishment anymore. I was speaking from the perspective look.
This isn't the first time I've known personal crisis. I'm a drug acting recovery. I'm a product of a single parent family. I've come from I'm a normal person from a norm from a normal background. But what I would say is that in a sense, a crisis becomes an invitation.
A catastrophe is an invitation. And it seems like whether you're on the left or right, everyone believes catastrophe is coming, and it will be an invitation. It will be an invitation because if what we are being offered is a slow grind into endless war and more and more authoritarianism and more and more control of our personal lives and our ability ability to worship, our ability to affiliate, our ability to pray. If what's being if we what we've been invited to accept is the colonization of the self, of our ability to think freely, then what we got to lose when all they're offering us is more war, endless pandemics that are being legislatively enshrined even now through the WHO treaty? What have we actually got to lose?
I think in a sense, but in the perhaps they are, you know, if there is one God, one all powerful God, then surely that God is at work now. And surely that God is creating the perfect conditions for our mutual awakening. And perhaps what's required is the spur, the ignition of something so unbearable that people will awaken rather than endure it rather than endure it any further. And perhaps that's what we're being offered now. Yes.
Of course, it seems like we're on the precipice of catastrophe geopolitically and from various potential health pandemics. But also it seems to me like a potential offering to awaken. And I don't think we have any choice other than to see it that way.
Speaker 0: Russell Brand, you have not been broken. You are at your very best. Your very best. And I really appreciate it. Thank you.
Thanks, Free speech is bigger than any one person or any one organization. Societies are defined by what they will not commit. What we're watching is the total inversion of virtue.
@CitizenFreePres - Citizen Free Press
Tucker on Twitter Ep. 9 just dropped. The Andrew Tate interview. https://t.co/cN3zvcBTbI
Video Transcript AI Summary
Tucker Carlson discusses the challenges facing young boys today, highlighting societal pressures to suppress masculinity and the consequences of these pressures, including mental health issues. He contrasts this with Andrew Tate's philosophy, which emphasizes personal responsibility, hard work, and traditional masculinity. Tate shares his experience with legal troubles in Romania, arguing that the charges against him are unfounded and politically motivated. He expresses concern about the erosion of masculinity and the impact of societal changes on men and women. Tate believes that financial independence is crucial for resisting government control and that societal decay stems from a lack of strong male figures. He critiques the current state of gender discussions, asserting that true masculinity and femininity are being undermined. Ultimately, he advocates for self-improvement and accountability as means to combat societal issues.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Hey. It's Tucker Carlson. Imagine being a 6th grade boy in the United States right now. What are you hearing at school? What are they telling you on the Internet?
Well, they're telling you to stop being yourself, sit still, stop joking, suppress your aggression, share your feelings, obey. Female qualities are virtuous. Masculine qualities are oppressive. That's the message. In case it wasn't clear enough, schools around the country have removed urinals from boys' bathrooms.
The male body itself is shameful. Sit down when you pee like a good little girl. Views like this are often called feminism or woke politics, but in fact, they amount to mass conversion therapy, an attempt to change the fundamental nature of people. Nothing like this has ever been attempted at scale. It's one of the most grotesque and destructive experiments in human history.
What would it be like to find yourself the subject of that experiment as a boy trying to become a man during the Biden years? Well, you might kill yourself. Many have. You might decide to reject your own manhood and embrace androgyny or even switch sexes. Girls are better?
Fine. I'll become 1. Or more likely, you might simply withdraw into porn and weed and video games and give up on your life before it's begun. You might retire at 19, a less dramatic form of suicide. All around us, this is happening.
Noticing it is forbidden, but that does not make it any less real. So it's probably not surprising that Andrew Tate was the most Googled man in the world last year. He offers a different vision. Tate is a former professional kickboxer who about a decade ago began posting advice to young men on social media. Tate's view is that men want respect above all.
It's how they're wired. In order to get respect, men must become worthy of it. They must become more impressive. Wake up early, work as hard as you can, stay sober, find God, keep yourself physically fit, don't complain. That's his worldview.
Earlier generations of Western leaders might have found parts of Tate's message inspiring. Now it's seen as a threat. The media treated him like a criminal up until the day he was officially classified as one. Just after Christmas last year, Tate and his brother Tristan were arrested and thrown into prison in Romania where they live. The Tates were held without charges for 3 months, very likely with the encouragement of the British and American governments.
In June, they were charged with human trafficking. They're now under house arrest until their trial. Are the Tates guilty of human trafficking? We're not their lawyers, but it's worth noting that as of today, not a single woman has come forward to say that she was kidnapped or imprisoned or moved across international borders against her will by Andrew or Tristan Tate. It's also true that in some ways, the charges against the Tates seem inevitable like they were always going to happen.
Accusing a man of a sex crime is the fastest possible way to discredit what he's saying. Days after WikiLeaks revealed that the US government had been spying on its allies and lying about it, Julian Assange was arrested in London for rape. 9 years later, prosecutors dropped the case against Assange for lack of evidence, though somehow that fact was not as widely covered. Is that what's happening here? Again, we don't know.
Jeffrey Epstein's dinner partners insist that Andrew Tate is a pervert and a criminal. Maybe they're telling the truth. Either way, we think Tate's views about men very much deserve a hearing, so we flew to Romania to talk to him. We're posting the entire interview here on Twitter because we've been assured it will not be taken down for ideological reasons as so much of his content has been. The video is long, but if you can, take the time to watch it.
Make up your own mind about Andrew Tate. Here it is. So what are you charged with?
Speaker 1: That's a really good question. I'm charged with being the head of an organized criminal group, which is in charge of recruiting girls to make TikTok videos to steal the money from the TikTok views.
Speaker 0: Recruiting girls to make TikTok videos and stealing the money. So it's really a financial crime?
Speaker 1: I it looks that way, and it's very interesting because the girls who they've identified to add to the file are saying that we're not victims of anything and this isn't true, but the state believes it's true and the state thinks that I, as a 35 year old man, woke up. I was already extremely financially successful. I was already a father. I was already very well known. I had no financial motivation.
I have no criminal record. It's not my personality profile, but I woke up the age of 35 and decided to make girls do TikTok to enrich myself with the pennies that I would earn from TikTok views.
Speaker 0: So in the United States, the I think the belief is that you were charged with human trafficking.
Speaker 1: Yeah. That's human trafficking because what you do is you force a girl to work against her will for financial gain. That's human trafficking, and their justification for this is that girls do TikTok. Some girls I know who they found who say they're not victims have TikTok accounts.
Speaker 0: How do you force someone to do TikTok videos?
Speaker 1: I guess the prosecutor is gonna have to explain that, isn't he? It's a very interesting scenario I'm in, and I'm inside of Romania, so I have to show a degree of respect to the Romanian judicial system, and I have to show a degree of respect to the situation I'm in, but the overall charge is that there's an organized criminal group. There's a group of us. I'm the head of it. My brother is below me, and we use the lover boy method to convince women to do TikTok videos to make money so that we can steal the TikTok money.
Speaker 0: So there's no just to be clear, you are not accused of pandering, of pimping, of forcing women to have sex with anybody? No.
Speaker 1: Not forcing to have sex, not for not restraining their, movement, not stopping them from living a full life, but the fact that we are somehow convincing them to have TikTok. Very interesting. I don't
Speaker 0: think But but but there's no actual I'm asking you this because I I do think it's a widespread belief that you were accused of pimping.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, it has nothing to do with any of this case. Absolutely nothing. And it's kinda scary because the crime in itself of human trafficking is a unique one because they can ignore the statement of the victim. So the girls have come forward and said, this is insane.
You've just picked us because we're near Andrew and we're his friends. But the whole idea of the crime is they can say that she's under she's brainwashed. Right? She's under duress. So you can ignore her statement.
State says she's a victim regardless of the fact that she says she's not a victim. So it's very interesting because the difference between sex and rape is consent. Right? Right. But they remove all of that.
They're like, nope. You're a victim. No matter what you say, we're deciding you're a victim. And they've chosen them, and of course, these girls do nothing pornographic. They've never had sex with anyone, nothing to do with that, so they've picked TikTok.
So it's scary. Imagine you're a full grown man anywhere in the world today. They can find 2 girls who have TikTok on their phone, which is every single female on the planet, and they can accuse you of forcing them to take the TikTok money. And even if the girls say they didn't do, this isn't true, that you're still a you're still a
Speaker 0: human charge. But but force, what does that consist of? Forcing someone to do something, are they accusing you of using violence or No.
Speaker 1: They're accusing me and this thing, they're accusing me of using the lover boy method, coercing them by being nice.
Speaker 0: The and and by the way, these charges presumably are public, so
Speaker 1: They're public and this is extremely serious, but if you actually analyze the overall case against me, they're saying that Andrew and his brother, by being nice men, convinced girls to have TikTok accounts and then take the money. And it's very interesting because inside of the entire case file there's not a single financial transaction to us for money.
Speaker 0: What are the penalties?
Speaker 1: They're extremely severe, 5 to 10 years in jail. And I've already served coming up now 7 months in a form of jail. They
Speaker 0: can only So you are essentially incarcerated right now?
Speaker 1: Absolutely. I'm on house arrest and that counts as jail. You can only be held 6 months without charge. I was initially picked up, thrown in a cell without charge, and I think the intention of the entire investigation at that point was to find the crime because they had very, very weak evidence. They contacted 2,000 people who know me or knew me.
They tried very hard to convince some female somewhere to come forward and say something bad about me. The media machine, which works hands in hands with the justice machine as you know very well, did exactly that. In fact, they offered bribes effectively. They'd call up ex girlfriends and say, if you have anything bad to say about Andrew, we can pay you $50,000 for the story. And they tried very hard.
They didn't find any evidence of anything. They then released me on house arrest and then 2 days before the legal limit in which they had to drop everything, they charged me with whatever they had from the beginning, which is very little. And now we have to wait for the Romanian judicial system to analyze the file and, god willing, throw it away.
Speaker 0: How long did you spend in jail?
Speaker 1: I was in jail for 92 days in a Romanian jail cell. What was that like? It was certainly, interesting experience. I won't lie and say it was easy. It was certainly very difficult.
The uncertainty of it, it's a very uncertain situation to be picked up on just before New Year's Eve and thrown a cell without charge. And I'm asking different prison guards and different prisoners, how long am I going to be here? One person was like, I've been here 2 years. I was like, have you been charged? She goes, yeah, but I haven't gone to court yet.
Like everyone's been there for years. I thought I was going to be there for years and it certainly takes a mental toll on you. And and I think jail is a different experience when you know you're innocent. When I there was a guy in there for murder. He's like, yeah, I murdered someone.
I'm in jail. You can kind your soul and your mind accept the punishment for a crime. But when you've actually done nothing wrong, I think jail is a lot harder. Did you know why you were there? Not initially.
So for about the first two weeks, I never actually got told in English what I was accused of because I was arrested on December 29th. There's news. What were the circumstances of that? Yeah. December 29th, 5 AM.
The armed guards ran in this house. They spent all day searching the entire house. They're very interested in electronics as most federal agencies are. And then they put me they took me that evening and said we're gonna go and put you in jail for 24 hours. And after 24 hours, you see a judge and the judge will decide if you stay in jail.
And the judge decided I should stay in jail.
Speaker 0: What did you do? I mean, did you make could you call? I I
Speaker 1: had a lawyer and my lawyer came and he said, we need to analyze the case file and you see what they have against you. You're being accused of human trafficking. It's a human trafficking. That's insane. Who?
When? What? I went to jail and then I was given all this paper in Romanian. I don't speak Romanian although I live here. And then I was waiting for the translation.
So I think it's about 2 weeks before I finally got the papers in English to understand why I was in a jail cell. And then I really understood how insane the accusations were.
Speaker 0: What is human trafficking?
Speaker 1: Yeah. So the overall under my understanding of it, they're saying that human trafficking is when you convince a woman to do something she doesn't wanna do for financial gain, and there's different methods you can do that. You can do that through force, and you can also do that through emotional coercion.
Speaker 0: I think most people just speaking from the American perspective, most people believe that human trafficking is effectively slavery, selling human beings.
Speaker 1: That's what and that's what I believe as well. Absolutely. And this is the thing that's so interesting. When you finally end up the enemy of the matrix and they use the legal system as a weapon to punish you for having an opinion, you realize how subjective the law is. Right?
Because it can be a weapon. When you have something subjective, you can just pick and choose. So if they sit and say, ah, human trafficking is a woman doing something for financial gain against her will via emotional coercion. Well, he knows these 2 girls. They have TikTok.
Emotional coercion? Convincing her. That's what I'm accused of because they have no proof of me doing anything wrong. So they said, he's convinced these girls to do TikTok for money. The girls have said themselves have said, this is not true, and the state is denying their statement saying, no, you're brainwashed.
It is true.
Speaker 0: And I went to jail. So how is the state so the state is trying to coerce the women. So how is the state not committing human trafficking by the same definition?
Speaker 1: Absolutely. It's very interesting. It's very interesting that you can sit someone down and tell them they're a victim when they say they're not a victim.
Speaker 0: You're a victim of being coerced, and we're gonna try to coerce you into conceding you're coerced. Exactly.
Speaker 1: It's a very interesting scenario. And, okay. Yeah. And it's it's a very interesting scenario, and I I would and it's up until this point, no judge has looked at the evidence of the case. So up until this point, I've been to court a bunch of times, but the only reason I was in court was to discuss my preventative detention.
So under Romanian law, if you being free can impede the investigation, you should stay in jail. So the judge agreed that, yeah, maybe if he's free, he can damage this investigation because they're trying very hard to get something on this guy. So I've done a bunch of jail time, and now it just begins. The judge is gonna look at the case. And like I said, god willing, I still have enough faith in the Romanian judicial system that she's gonna look at this and go, this is not a crime.
Speaker 0: You're aware of the media coverage of this, however. So you're in jail for 90 days or more, and the rest of the world is talking about you. Do you know what they're saying?
Speaker 1: They're saying very heinous things, and I would hate to come across as a conspiracy theorist, Tucker, but I kinda have a feeling that this might be something to do with my influence and an attempt to slander my name. Perhaps I'm crazy, but the fact that they chose such a heinous crime and they report it so heavily and they won't shut up and keep repeating basically a slander attack day after day after day. Also, considering the fact that other people who genuinely commit heinous crimes have far more favorable press coverage. But I don't want you to think I'm a conspiracy theorist. Please, Tucker, I would hate for you to come here and call me crazy.
Yeah. But something very strange about it, and I think the
Speaker 0: What when Jeffrey Epstein's friends call you immoral? Yeah.
Speaker 1: The, the goal of it is certainly to slander my name, and
Speaker 0: Uh-huh.
Speaker 1: I I like to see it as a litmus test. I like to see it as an intelligence test. Anybody who wakes up and looks at me and goes, he's a human trafficker because of TikTok, those they're fully gone. So but but from the west,
Speaker 0: just defend the average news consumer in the west. Sure. Andrew Tate, kind of an outlaw Yep. Lives in some palace in Romania Yep. Wherever that is.
Yep. And he's been and Romania sounds like the kind of place where human trafficking is, like, the main industry.
Speaker 1: There a lot of it happens here. That's what's so crazy about it. Right? Right. What's so crazy is if if they really want to find a human trafficker, I think they could probably do it quite easily, but they managed to get me.
Speaker 0: That's certainly the perception. But it's it's one of those charges that kind of sells itself. Oh, absolutely.
Speaker 1: And it doesn't matter if you're found guilty or not. Right? You're a human trafficker forever. And, but I do think that public consciousness is changing. I think with things like the, there's been some very large court cases recently involving some very famous people in which women were caught lying, trying to slander men's names for rape and these kinds of things, and I don't think people believe it anymore.
But that scares me to a degree because I think that the typical weapon, the standardized playbook is now failing and I don't know what the new playbook's be. It's almost like better the devil you know that you're too famous, you're too successful, we don't like you, call him a rapist or a human trafficker, put him all over the news, slander his name, try and wreck his life. Now that nobody believes it, what's what's the next move? What are
Speaker 0: they gonna try next? Wouldn't it just have been easier to commit, like, a massive financial crime and defraud people of 1,000,000,000? Come up with, like, a fake cryptocurrency. Call it, like, I don't know, FTX or just give a name to it.
Speaker 1: Yep. Something yeah.
Speaker 0: Something random. You know, steal billions. Yeah.
Speaker 1: And
Speaker 0: get your parents involved and buy a bunch of real estate in the Bahamas, and then, like, you'd be sort of a hero. Right? Oh, absolutely. And I would have
Speaker 1: certainly made a lot more money than TikTok because I don't think TikTok even pays you for views. And if it certainly does, I never got a single transaction from it. So it's a very interesting scenario, but if I was accused of a financial crime, my name would not be slandered.
Speaker 0: No. Of course well, of course not. You have the presumption of innocence. So just back to the to the jail thing. So you're in with your brother.
At the beginning, I was not, but towards the end I was. Yeah. What did you do all day?
Speaker 1: It's a good question. I looked at the wall, stared at the wall, smoked cigarettes, lots of push ups, read
Speaker 0: the Quran. You smoked cigarettes, did push ups,
Speaker 1: and read the Quran. Basically, yes. And, certainly, had some introspective moments, tried my best to get out, tried my best to to, via my small phone calls, understand what's happening in the outside world, tried to make sure that the people I love and care about are taken care of because I'm the man of my family and I'm also the man of quite a large, I wouldn't say empire, but life. And there's a whole lot of people who rely on me. You know, you have staff and families, you have children and families.
Feeling. Yeah. So when you're plucked from that, it's kind of strange. You're in jail and you're concerned for yourself, but your primary concerns are also all your duties as a man. I have duties as a man.
I don't want children to starve.
Speaker 0: We've got a whole tribe.
Speaker 1: I've got people to pay. So it was very, very frustrating constantly trying to make sure everybody else else was okay and feeling helpless. That's what hurt me the most. Make I was trying to make sure everybody I love and care about was fine and I wasn't as powerful as I should have been and that was very upsetting and especially if they were going to keep me there for years. I was having serious concerns about how I can feed the people I love.
Did you ever come to the edge at all? No. I I certainly had some days I was less happy than others, but I I made sure that my mindset was built in a way that I could always be doing something constructive. And also, I think you get what you give in life. And if I ever felt particularly sad on a day, I would try very hard to make other people happy because if I made other people smile, I'd feel better.
So even the dinner ladies or the prison guards, I'd try very hard just to make people smile. I know it sounds silly. Some of the prison
Speaker 0: guards doesn't.
Speaker 1: Some of the prison guards were more open than others, but there was one there's a couple of prison guards who were ice cold who didn't wanna say a word to me and were, hey, bro. Your hair looks amazing. And he just stare at me like he wants. Shut up. I just try my best to cheer people up to cheer myself up.
And as a man, all you can do is just find the resolve to continue doing the best you can in this current circumstance. So
Speaker 0: What were the other prisoners like?
Speaker 1: I don't wanna insult Romania in any way and I love this country and I chose to live here, but if I had to describe it for the people on for an American audience to understand, I don't think Romania and a lot of these countries have the same kind of mental health setup or the mental health support that a lot of western nations have, so you end up in jail. So I think a lot of there's a lot of mental health problems inside the jail. So it's very similar. It wasn't just a jail. There was also a lot of mental health problems in there, which adds a new complexity and a new dimension to the suffering because there's just random screaming and there's suicide and there's it's certainly not a very nice place to be.
Oh, so it's it's horrifying. Yeah. I don't wanna go back.
Speaker 0: You hear the phrase Romanian prison in a in a sound stuff, so it was what you would imagine.
Speaker 1: It is. And and when this process is over, there's a lot more I will say, but, I will say the staff were very nice to me, and I wanna make this clear. I wanna make it very clear that all the staff in the jail were very professional and very nice to me. I would almost say that they believed I was innocent and they understood that I didn't belong there. There was a there was a semi apologetic vibe to the way I was treated by the guards, if that makes sense.
Yes. They understood very well. I don't think anybody, like I said, with a functioning brain believes that me at the age of 35 decided to steal TikTok money and ruin my entire life without financial motivation to girls who say they're not victims of anything. I don't think anybody with a brain
Speaker 0: Well, the fact that you're not accused of a sex crime or violence, which I think most people don't really understand
Speaker 1: Yep.
Speaker 0: And they can look it up. Yep. I mean, but you're not actually accused of rape Correct. Selling anyone Correct. Pimping.
Correct. Okay. That right there raises a lot of questions. Well, yeah.
Speaker 1: And and and this is the thing that's so interesting because I'm accused of using a method of human trafficking called the lover boy method. So how that would traditionally work is a man would meet a girl, become her boyfriend, take her to another country, turn her into a prostitute, say I love you, like pimping, of course. But they're saying because all my conversations with these girls are very nice, they're saying that I used the Loverboy method to convince them to do TikTok. And once again, I never made a penny from TikTok, and I have no interest in girls' TikTok accounts, and I've never made any money from TikTok in my life.
Speaker 0: So that raises the quest so that right there, I think I mean, we can let people assess. I'm not, you know, an expert on the Romanian legal code, but that's kind of not the impression that most people have.
Speaker 1: Oh, and that's the media and that's the media who have made that very the very the media have tried very hard to do that. And if I had to estimate, I think that the the overall intention was just to throw me in a cell, use the media machine to drum up something real. I think that's what the the the goal was.
Speaker 0: So but what's the and and I believe that. It seems obviously.
Speaker 1: Yep.
Speaker 0: One thing I've never been to Romania before, and one thing I'm struck by is the American presence here. Oh, it's massive. Fully understand that. So there are 3 NATO bases here. Yep.
Now they're bustling because of the war in Ukraine. Yep. One's on the Black Sea. Yep. Right below Crimea.
So this is strategically important, this country, to NATO. Absolutely. And, so this is a lot less far away than I realized. It's much more American influence.
Speaker 1: Oh, absolutely. I I think that played a role? Yeah. Well, I think and I don't wanna get this incorrect. I think it's the second or third biggest US embassy in the world.
The US embassy here looks like a prison. It's huge. They've got a huge embassy here. And even during Ceausescu, during the communism days, Romania was an ally of the West even during communism.
Speaker 0: Yes. So, yes. Ceausescu came to New York.
Speaker 1: Yes. That's right. Yeah. So Romania and America have been very good friends for a very long time. I have to be careful what I say, but it's certainly it's certainly very interesting what's happened to me.
The American embassy were not particularly helpful. Let's put it that way. They weren't very interested in me being locked up without charge. They didn't seem very interested in getting me out.
Speaker 0: But you're an American citizen. Absolutely.
Speaker 1: And, so
Speaker 0: you're an American passport holder. Correct. So I think the average American believes, perhaps falsely, that if you are accused of a crime in a foreign country, particularly a less developed country like Romania, you go to the US Embassy and someone takes an interest in your case just to make sure that your treatment falls within, you know, acceptance standards of justice.
Speaker 1: Yeah. They they came to see me, but they're when I was asking them what they can actually do about all of this, they weren't particularly helpful. I don't wanna pedal conspiracy theories and I've heard a lot of information, etcetera, but, I wouldn't say they sanctioned it. I don't know if they had to sanction it, but something they weren't particularly interested in getting me out. But at least they came to see me more than once.
I mean, they kind of pretended to care. The UK embassy didn't even pretend to care. The UK embassy had the UK embassy was I I really think they enjoyed it. They they didn't they didn't at all.
Speaker 0: And you're a British subject as well? Correct.
Speaker 1: And this is the kind of thing, and I wanna say this here that's kind of frustrating for me because Romania is my home now for 7 years, but my my I'm half British, half American originally. And when something like this happens to you, you have this longing for home. You kinda wanna go home. When you end up in a jail in a country where even though you've lived for a long time, you don't speak the language, you don't understand the legal system. Going to court in a foreign language is far more intimidating than in your own language.
I can imagine. You don't have a clue what's being said. You don't how you don't understand how anything works and then you kind of have this longing for home, but I feel like my home countries hate me and they hate me because of my message, which I believe to be a positive message. So you kind of have this strange feeling of homelessness because it's like, well, if I go to the UK, I believe they're gonna attack me the same. If I go to America, I believe they're gonna attack me the same.
So where do you go? It's kind of scary. Where do you go? It's a good question. We're gonna have to see it.
Speaker 0: How did you wind up here?
Speaker 1: I moved to Romania. I came to visit a long time ago before anybody ever visited Romania. I came to visit and I genuinely fell in love with the place. It truly is a fantastic country. I love nature, has an amazing nature.
It's a very safe place, has this reputation of being dangerous. It's it's not dangerous. It's very safe. The people are very good. The people are very conservative traditionally.
It's almost like America was 20, 30 years ago. It's gorgeous, they have a bunch of nice restaurants and plenty of things to do and I've never had a problem here in any way. Never had any issue with the law or with with the other side, criminals, nothing, until this came out of nowhere. So, it's been very strange.
Speaker 0: So, what is it about your message do you think that infuriates certain people?
Speaker 1: Well, my message traditional my message is traditional masculinity. My message is to stand up and say what you mean and mean what you say and even going to the gym nowadays is an act of defiance because when you have a man who's built with any degree of principle, you say no to things. And I think if I have to analyze my message and why I'm so disliked by the people who dislike me, it's not the things I'm saying. It's the fact that if you adhere to my principles and you adhere to the things I say, you end up being the kind of person who will resist certain ideas. You say no.
What kind of man never says no? Name a man who never says no. Men say no. Right? Men men wake up and say no.
I don't think that should be done this way. No. My children will not be taught that. No. Father's primary job.
Absolutely. So when you say to men, listen, you're allowed to have an opinion. You're allowed to have standards. You're allowed to have boundaries and barriers. You're allowed to get up and become important and work hard and try hard and become the kind of man who can't be controlled, then you're seen as an enemy.
And I especially with the massive influence I've gained, I think they look at me and go, ah, he's he's helping men resist the slave programming. We don't need him around. We need to empty their brains so we can inject the slave programming and convince men to be Unix because once you're unique, then you're not a threat.
Speaker 0: I think I buy that because your message I I'm not the world's expert on your message, but I've seen a lot of it, and it's not explicitly political, actually.
Speaker 1: No. It's not political at all. And their original attack before this matrix attack is they weaponized virtue, which is what they usually do. There's no genuine virtue inside of these people. They weaponize virtue.
They find a virtue, and they turn into a bullet, and they shoot at you. I'm sure you know very well.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I've I've heard.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I was a misogynist for the longest time just for saying that men should have standards. If you if you tell a man he could have standards in a relationship in any way, you're a misogynist. It's actually very interesting because they What
Speaker 0: does that mean to have standards in a relationship?
Speaker 1: But this is the thing that's so interesting about it because they've gendered the argument when I never did. I said as a man, you shouldn't have a girlfriend who is a liar and a cheater, and you also shouldn't have male friends who are liars and cheaters. You shouldn't be around dishonest people.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Male or female. Amen. And they and they gendered it and said, ah, he's a misogynist. He's saying that men should only act this way with women, etcetera. I said that men should have standards and you should have protocols that you're prepared to accept and you should have hard parameters and if a woman doesn't want to adhere to those parameters, that's her decision and it's her prerogative, but you don't have to stay with her.
Why should you?
Speaker 0: What's wrong with that? Well, that's teaching men to say no. They don't want men to say no. So are you arguing that it's better to be with a virtuous woman?
Speaker 1: I think so. Yes. I know that's No.
Speaker 0: I'm serious. I mean, this is I am tougher. I don't wanna I don't wanna That seems like good advice.
Speaker 1: I don't wanna come across as extreme, but yes, I am. And what's actually funny is I really believe most of the things I'm saying were accepted by absolutely everybody 15 years ago, 10 years ago. And now it's public enemy number 1. And it's because of the mass influence I have. At one point, I became the most Googled man on earth at one point.
And it's a scary situation I made.
Speaker 0: But if you're arguing that it's really important for a man to find a good woman Yeah. A decent woman, an honest woman Yep. That's that's the truest thing that's ever been said. Absolutely. That's the most important thing any man can do.
I mean, I can just tell you firsthand.
Speaker 1: Oh, thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Married 32 years. That's the most important thing. And you think saying that angered people?
Speaker 1: Absolutely. Because I'm arguing the only way to do that is via masculine excellence. I'm saying in the world we live in today, it's hypercompetitive. And if you wanna be the kind of man that has the choice of women to choose a good one, you need to be an excellent man. It's no longer acceptable for you to just be an average Joe or below average.
You have to get up, and you have to work hard, and you have to be smart and interesting, and you have to be charismatic, and make some money and be in good shape and you have to try very hard and unfortunately for them, if you follow that path as a man and you become successful in those realms, you end up being the kind of person who resists enslavement. You become the kind the kind of person who wakes up and says, no. I don't believe in that. That doesn't make sense to me.
Speaker 0: I can't imagine a better message than that.
Speaker 1: If you want a good society. So then you have to argue and sit and say, do these people want a happy, functioning society? Or do they want something else? What do you think? I think that I would never kill myself.
And I also
Speaker 0: Just throwing that out there. Yeah.
Speaker 1: And I also think that when you when you want to conquer a society, you kill the military age males. That's what you do. That's the first thing you've they've ever done. They walk in and all the men have to have their throats cut. They can't perhaps do that, but they can certainly cut your balls off and then you can't resist.
And I think there's certainly a movement to ensure that there's very little resistance left inside of the number one demographic which is required to resist oppression, which are military age males. And they don't want those kind of people waking up with any kind of self respect or standards or to say, no. I don't accept this. I do not need a 9th injection. They don't want that.
They want you to sit and say, I don't need it, but the news said so, so, oh, well.
Speaker 0: So in the one interview that you and I did, you had a line that I've been thinking about ever since. I thought it was so interesting. I never thought of it before. You said that a lot of people went along with the facts Yep. And that you didn't judge them because facts change.
But now that we know that a lot of what we were told was wrong and some of it was a lie, it is a requirement of your own dignity, of your own self respect to say so completely, and people should apologize. I really do believe, and I'm
Speaker 1: I have nothing against the people who fell for the propaganda, fell for the programming of the vaccine. Yes. Yes. I agree. Fine.
But you should wake up and say, I was fooled. I've learned my lesson. I will not be fooled again. But if you were fooled by the MSM and took the injection and you continue to be fooled and you've not self reflected and you've not realized that they lied to you the entire way and you now believe the new bunch of lies are all over the television, then there's something wrong with you.
Speaker 0: Or you don't care that you were lied to.
Speaker 1: You don't care that you were lied to because I think a lot of this is actually genuinely cowardice. I think it's a very easy worldview. The life is easier if you accept the news tells the truth.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Everything they want me to believe is true. Everything's nice and simple. Good guys, bad guys. And if you want to actually wake up, it takes a degree of bravery because then you have to destroy your entire worldview, everything you've ever understood and everything you're told, and you have to really look at the world and go, oh, this is a mess. And that takes bravery.
And once again, that's why they don't want men to be brave. They want you to sit there and go, oh, it's easier if just, you know, CNN said, so it must be true. And it's it's cowardice. And they're trying to instill cowardice in all of us. That's that's what they're they're trying very hard to do.
And I think even just me as a person, the people who hate me, my detractors who dislike me so much, even if I say nothing, I just turn up big, bald, strong, fast car. But, you know, it's just me. I'm I'm like the enemy to them because I I symbolize men who don't comply and not don't comply in a in a negative law breaking way, but don't comply in a if we don't agree with that or we don't see common sense in that, we're gonna politely decline, and that's simply not allowed.
Speaker 0: What's it like to have the prospect of prison hanging over you?
Speaker 1: I think that I like to believe that this is a test from God. I like to believe that if you become the most Googled man in the world for saying that you have mental resilience, that God is gonna make sure you don't have that degree of fame without testing you. I like to believe that god comes along and says, yes, I've allowed you to become the top g. We're gonna see if you really are the top g. I believe that's how the world works.
It's certainly intimidating, especially knowing you're completely innocent, but I believe it's a test and I believe it's my job to pass the test for my ancestors and for people watching over me and for God. And I think I have to do the absolute best I can possibly do in this scenario and the circumstance regardless of whether I win or lose. I still believe I'm going to win because I've seen the case file and I've seen that no laws have been broken. But even in the very unfortunate circumstance that this matrix attacks goes deep enough to throw me into a jail cell, I think I should handle it like a man. I think I should stay and finish the process and I should walk with my head held high and suffer as much as I need to suffer to stick by my convictions and know that I'm an innocent person.
And I refuse to break, I refuse to cry, I refuse to be depressed about it. I'm gonna wake up and I'm gonna smile regardless. And regardless of what happens to me, I want everyone to know that, 1, I would never kill myself and 2, I think that as a man there's always gonna be a degree of pain and suffering in your journey. I don't think you're ever gonna become a successful man or be good at being a man without pain and suffering. And there's many times in my life where something terrible happened to me and at the time if I could change it, I would have.
But retrospectively, you kind of look back and go, you know what? That was formulative for me.
Speaker 0: That's right.
Speaker 1: That is what god decided I needed to become who I became. So, all of the pain and all the suffering I've ever gone through in my life ended up, in the end, building me into the person I am and I'm proud of who I am. So, if God decides I need to go back to a Romanian dungeon for however many days, then all I can do is accept it and accept his plan and accept it. It's gonna make me a better person and and
Speaker 0: So you see the hand of god
Speaker 1: in your life? Absolutely. I think that he is the best of planners. And like I said, if you if you retrospectively analyze all the times in life you wish you could have changed things
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: He knew better. And I'm gonna have to accept that.
Speaker 0: When did you conclude that?
Speaker 1: I think, I guess, I always kind of knew. I was atheistic for a while when I was younger, but as you get older you start to look at the world and understand that. The thing for me was actually, I guess, a scientific principle. It was Newton's law of equal and opposite force. If there is evil in the world and I'd like to think we both agree there certainly is.
Speaker 0: Yes. There has
Speaker 1: to be an equal and opposite force which is good and I would like to think of that as god. Even the idea of God as a notion, even just as a concept, if that idea of God resists evil, then God is real. If you have 2 islands, you have 2 people let's say a ship crashes and you have 2 people who swim to 2 different islands and one island they're atheists, savages and they rip you apart and the other island you get there and they believe in God and they believe they're not allowed to kill you. Even just their idea of God, God saved your life. So I think even just the concept of God in and of itself, if enough people believe and it makes them do good then God must be true and that's the equal and opposite force to the evil of the world.
And this is how I I view it, so I don't see how anybody with a conscience cannot believe in god anymore. That's
Speaker 0: such a profoundly different worldview from the one that we're presented with, I think.
Speaker 1: Yeah. That
Speaker 0: do you think that's maybe the division in the West between people who who see those forces at work and and those who don't?
Speaker 1: I I think the main I think the West is actually split between people who think and people who don't think at all. I think the people there there are there's no such thing as these 2 opposing worldviews. I think people believe there's worldview a and worldview b. I I disagree with that. I think there's worldview a, the good guys, which are primarily people who do believe in god, do have parameters, do believe in standards, do believe in self respect, do know how to say no, and there's world view b which changes day by day regard based on what they're told, which means they have no real world view at all.
They just repeat. And they have no standards and they have no parameters. There's nothing you can tell them that will make them wake up and go, that's wrong because they have no inherent morality. So you can literally you could say bestiality is accepted and encouraged now. It's good for you because for climate change.
And they'll sit there and go, for climate change, well, off we go and, they'll just do it. So, I think you have a a camp of people who who think and you have a camp of people who repeat. And I don't think there's actually the the opposing side to the good, I don't think function as a thinking populous at all. I think they simply repeat.
Speaker 0: It it feels like there's I mean, the conflict between those two groups is getting more intense.
Speaker 1: It's certainly getting more intense and I. It was interesting for me because and I wanna be an optimist, but I lost so much faith in humanity during COVID. I really if you would have told me how COVID would have gone down Yes. Before COVID, I'd say no way. We're not that bad.
You know, like, I thought the people aren't that dumb. But when I experienced COVID, it it's actually scary. You see how the Nazis managed to do what they did. You see how they managed to put people in concentration camps. You see it.
And I had a very unique view of COVID because in the 1st days of COVID when people were falling over in China and the Italian hospitals were overrun at the height of the panic when most people believed because it was the very beginning, early stages, my brother and I had a very logical conversation and said we're 2 military aged men in very good physical condition. If we die of this, the world's over. If it can kill us, it's zombie apocalypse. So why are we gonna live in fear? So we found the only two countries that were open, which were Sweden and Belarus.
We had just been to Belarus. This is before the Ukraine war. We'd just been there. We decided to try Sweden. So for the first three months of COVID, during the height of lockdowns, when when Florida was closed, when it was Absolutely.
I remember. Yeah. When it was the craziest lockdowns globally, Me and Tristan are in Sweden in absolute freedom. They had no restrictions, no masks, no vaccine passports, no social distancing, nightclubs are full, lunch, restaurants are open, perfectly complete normal society. Nobody talks about this anymore.
Nobody talks about weight. Sweden never did a thing. Everything functioned perfectly fine the entire time, and they don't have it. Where's their mass? Where's their illness of severe their winter of severe illness and death?
Yes. They never had one. It's a cold country. Never had one. So we were living in Sweden, living completely normal lives, seeing everyone seeing the Internet and seeing this insanity.
And we're like, well, surely, if we just put up a few videos of us partying in Sweden in nightclubs, this will wake people up. People didn't want us people ignored their own eyes. That's the scariest thing about everything is that they can get to a level where, with the media machine, where people will genuinely ignore their own eyes. I don't understand how you can get people so brainwashed that they will see that the sky is blue and then they'll watch that the sky is green and then they'll look at it again and go, sky's green. It it's crazy to me, but COVID proves they can do that.
And, that's why the the war is getting so intense because the principled people are saying, how can you still believe in the things that you're saying? Here is all the logical empirical evidence that that is a lie, but these people are ideologically brainwashed and they don't want to take enough. They don't have the bravery it takes to wake up and accept that they're being lied to. So they'd rather just, to the end of time, repeat what they're told, and it becomes more and more intense as it becomes more and more ridiculous. That's so scary.
As it becomes more and more ridiculous, the more intense both sides get. Yes. Right? So what the future holds, I'm not entirely sure, but I like to believe, even my current charges, I found solace when I was in jail that the thinking people are looking at this going something about this doesn't seem right.
Speaker 0: Well, I mean, it it is a little bracing. I mean, when I discovered I mean, I was sympathetic to you already. Yeah. But, you know, a man's accused of human trafficking. It's worth finding out what he's accused of.
Sure. And when I discovered that there was no, like, actual human trafficking charge Yeah. You know, that's not actually human trafficking. I don't care what you call it. Yep.
You weren't buying it even accused of buying and selling anyone. Then the next conclusion you inevitably reach is they don't like the guy. They don't like his views, which is fine. They're gonna send him to jail for that. Yep.
That does seem like an escalation. Absolutely. But
Speaker 1: if they don't like your views and you're inspiring millions of people to resist slave programming, you become a threat. Like, they disgust me.
Speaker 0: But you can't send a guy to jail because you disagree with him.
Speaker 1: You shouldn't. But even before I went to jail, the members of parliament in the UK were talking about me and what a dangerous role model I am for young boys. So, they launched this initiative inside of British schools to ban me. My name can't be said inside of any British school and members of parliament were standing up in parliament saying, Andrew Tate is dangerous. He's encouraging young boys to have misogynistic views because
Speaker 0: I'm literally telling young men to go to the
Speaker 1: gym and to stand up for themselves and believe believe in themselves and believe in something. And by extension, you look at some of the sexual education books these children are being given, which I believe at age 9, I don't think a child needs to learn about anal sex or any of these things.
Speaker 0: Probably not.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Probably not. So they're pushing that to the children, but I'm banned.
Speaker 0: Well, they're also pushing Whedon video games on boys.
Speaker 1: Oh, completely. And you can listen to rap music about killing people all day long, and there's a whole and little Nas, he can he can have sex with the devil in his music videos, that's fine. But I'm dangerous for saying go to the gym. And once I realized what was scary to me is, I I said this to my brother, I said, once the parliament's discussing you, you're basically considered a national security threat at this point. You're a threat to national security at that level, and then all bets are off.
Speaker 0: Right? If What what about the UK? So the UK has become more authoritarian than anywhere in the Persian Gulf. Correct. How did that happen?
Speaker 1: Yeah. And and it's like I said, it's very interesting because people still the people on camp b who don't think, a lot of them believe that the law is fair. I've had people say to me, oh, yeah. What they're doing to you is garbage. What you need a lawyer.
So, yeah. I do need a lawyer and I do have a lawyer. Thank you. But it's not that simple, unfortunately. You know, it's a very the law is very subjective and, if they wanna attack you with it, they're gonna do a very good job of attacking you with it.
And and and that's what the UK does. The UK have these laws which are extremely subjective and they can use it as a weapon to basically silence anyone they decide
Speaker 0: or why they wanna decide. I mean, England is the birthplace of free speech, of habeas corpus, of kind of framework of liberal democracy that we thought we believed in. Yep. And now it's a country where people are arrested for praying. Well, we what happened?
Speaker 1: Good question. And there's a saying that I heard and I don't know who said it, but he said that a sick country adopts laws like a dying man will try medicine. And I think that the UK is failing in real time. If you look at it in any metric, whether it's living standards, whether it's crime rate, any any metric you can measure the success of a country by, it's fallen off the cliff. It's becoming more and more expensive to live there.
The education system's gone down the pan. London is the stabbing capital of the world. You're not safe to leave your house. So their answer to this is just more and more and more laws. And unfortunately, as they do that, they're not even intelligent enough to actually attack the people who are doing genuinely bad to the world.
They just make more and more authoritarian laws and they end up using them to attack the people that the government doesn't like, and I ended up being one of them. And I think Europe in general has problems if you look at France as we speak. I think it's on fire. Isn't it? Most of it?
It is. Yeah. So, they have issues, and their answer, what is a what's a government's solution to anything? Law. What's what what can a government do?
No matter
Speaker 0: what But they're not laws that are aimed at fixing the problem that's right.
Speaker 1: No. They're they're they're laws aimed at talk at fixing the person who's talking about the problems. So Why why don't you get rid of the guy who tells everybody? Isn't that easier, Tucker? Why fix any of this?
If we just shut him up, they won't know.
Speaker 0: No. But that's like responding to a heat wave by breaking your thermometer. Completely right. That is It's like
Speaker 1: That that's that's the plan. Same. Plan 1 is to break the thermometer. We might deal with the heat wave a bit later before
Speaker 0: this thing. No. We gotta break the thermometer.
Speaker 1: For now, there's too many people talking about the heat wave. So let's just break that. And then later on, maybe when we have time, we'll do something about the actual issue.
Speaker 0: It it does seem like a lot of this is an effort not to talk about the thing, the real thing in Europe, anyway, which is migration.
Speaker 1: Yep.
Speaker 0: And the UK, formerly known as England, and France have both been completely changed by people from other countries. Yep. And, you know, I'm sure I've added good things too. I mean, I'm not, you know but, but they changed them. And in general, they're not better countries.
And, like, why can't anyone admit that?
Speaker 1: But this is what's really interesting to me about what's happening because we're talking about masculinity and men who say no and men who stand up. But there has to be balance. Right? Everywhere in the world there has to be power balances. If there's not a balance in power, there's gonna be a vacuum and that's gonna be filled.
If you neuter the native population of men, if you destroy their mentality to resist, if you tell them that every single thing about the masculine is wrong and you basically feminize and you and communicate them, turn them into eunuchs, and then you import high testosterone men from the 3rd world who don't believe any of this garbage, who grew up in a society where they understand the only way to succeed is to be a fearsome predator to a degree, what do you think is gonna happen? Like, who's supposed to protect the sanctity of these nations and and these settlements and these towns and villages? The police? No. In general, I would argue that it's the masculine essence that can be detected by the people who arrived.
I guarantee if you were to pick up put a bunch of these migrants in Sarajevo or Moscow, they behave themselves.
Speaker 0: Oh, yeah. I have
Speaker 1: a feeling they just look around and go, not today. But but when you but when you knew it were the native populace, then it's like, well, there's a power vacuum. And when and when there's a power vacuum, what do we expect to happen? So that's what's so What
Speaker 0: are the French gonna do about it? What what's your average Englishman gonna do about it?
Speaker 1: Nothing. Nothing. And and that's the thing. And and that makes you wonder, is this purposeful? Like, why these two things are these two actions of neutering the native populous and importing these high testosterone third worlders are so at odds with each other.
Is this purposeful? I'm not sure, but has anyone considered this? So, yeah, it's interesting because you talk about my These
Speaker 0: are huge and intentional trends, and so and, I mean, they're trans they're historically transformative trends. They're a big deal. Yeah. And so they're probably not happening by accident. Right?
There's gotta be some intent. How could there not be?
Speaker 1: Yeah. That's right. And and how do they expect all of this to end? And this is exactly what's happening with migration. The problem with migration is specifically is that there's no native masculine populace to enforce any degree of culture or boundary or parameter.
And like I said, I I would argue the point. And I and I've been to Sarajevo and I've been to Moscow. I've been to these places and I've seen there's a whole bunch of migration and everybody seems to just behave a little bit differently. And I think that's because people understand. Did men did men live here?
That men live here. Yeah. If if you turn up in someone's house and their house is pristine, you're probably gonna take your cup and you're gonna go put it in the kitchen. But if you turn up in somebody's house and it's a fucking mess and nobody respects the house and nobody cares and the man is drugged out of his mind half asleep on the couch, what you gonna do with your cup? You're gonna leave it there.
You don't give a shit. If you turn up to the western world and look
Speaker 0: at it, then you're gonna hit it on its way.
Speaker 1: Absolutely. So what what do we expect to happen in these scenarios? Right? And and it is purposeful and it is scary that even me just telling men to go to the gym is seen as an act of defiance to the point where I have to be punished. I must go to jail.
I must be silenced. Thermometer must be broken.
Speaker 0: If at the end of all of this, no matter what happens, do you plan to stay in Romania?
Speaker 1: I love Romania. I love this country, and if I am found not guilty, I will stay in Romania. Yeah. I will still stay here. I don't believe in running away.
I also believe, and perhaps this is
Speaker 0: Yeah. I didn't even wanna ask you that because
Speaker 1: it's kind
Speaker 0: of legal case pending, but, I mean, presumably, you're rich enough to run away when you haven't.
Speaker 1: Correct. I'm not going anywhere. I think if I was anywhere in the western world, this would have happened to me. I don't think this is Romania's fault. Let's put it that way.
I don't think this is Romania's fault. I think if I resided in Switzerland or France or Italy, the same thing would have happened. Yeah. Knowing what I know, I think it was gonna happen to me regardless and I think I do have a large amount of sympathy especially amongst the Romanian population. I'm I get thousands of messages a day from Romanians apologizing to me.
Yeah. I think the people here actually like me.
Speaker 0: My waiter at lunch yesterday is one of them. He wanted you to know. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Oh, amazing. This is what I mean. Everyone understands what's happening. My problem is not with Romania. I don't hold any personal grudges against Romania.
I think that this matrix attack on was gonna come to me.
Speaker 0: What is the matrix?
Speaker 1: Good question. I guess some Americans call it the deep state, but I like to look at it in a more global way. When I say the matrix, I think there are certain agendas which are being pushed. I think the media machine and the judicial systems of the world work together hand in hand. I think the goal is to control people's minds to a point where they don't discuss anything that's important.
The reason I use The Matrix is because I've watched that movie a few times and it has so many similarities to the have you seen the movie? No. You've never seen the movie The Matrix?
Speaker 0: No. I I don't watch any movie. I don't Tucker. I don't wanna talk about it on camera. No.
I'm very, dyslexic, and it hurts me to watch video Got it.
Speaker 1: Honestly. Understood. But there's so many similarities, and the basic premise is that humans' minds are controlled and put inside of a false reality so that their body heat can be manifested for the machines. And I don't think it's much different to reality. Our minds are controlled.
We're put in a false version of reality. We're told things aren't true. We're arguing over things that don't matter. We're observing a false version of events and the goal of it is just to distract us long enough for our bodies to be used for the machines to sold us. And I think it's pretty similar, pretty similar, striking similarities.
And even then, there's a bunch of other similarities, which is difficult for me to explain if you haven't watched the movie, but there are agents inside of the matrix and the idea of the agent the purpose of the agent is to make sure that nobody understands how the matrix really works and to wake anybody's mind up. They want to keep you asleep. And any person can become an agent at any time if they're not unplugged. If their mind is not free, they can become an agent and their job is to keep you asleep. And you see agents all the time.
COVID awoken me to agents. When I would sit and talk to somebody and they seem perfectly rational and normal until I mentioned COVID and then they fully change. No. It's dangerous. No.
What do you mean? What do you mean? Are you crazy? My grandma got sick. And they and they became an agent instantly and started repeating the news to me.
And I was like, your grandma got sick. How old is she? 97? Interesting. Oh, I better lock myself in my house then.
Dumbass. So, agents exist and the matrix exists and I think most people's most people's version of the world is a false one. The idea and the world that most people have in their mind and how society functions and how all these things function, I genuinely believe is completely false. I think they've all been lied to it. I don't think anybody understands how any of the of the world works.
And I try and use some very simple, you know, very simple analogies to wake people up. I said to one of my friends once, I said, if me and you could play video games for $10,000 and you could cheat, would you cheat? He goes, well, no. I was like, if I was whooping your ass and it was $10 a game and you could cheat, would you cheat? He goes, yeah.
I was like, alright. So you think you accept that people cheat to win in a video game for a menial amount of money.
Speaker 0: Do you think they're not gonna cheat for something that matters?
Speaker 1: Yeah. I think they're not gonna cheat for something important? You understand what I'm saying? Oh, yeah. Yeah.
So, how
Speaker 0: about how about to get the most important job in the world, president of the United States?
Speaker 1: I would never kill myself.
Speaker 0: I mean, people kill each other over insurance fraud. You don't think right. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah. You know? So when you actually understand how the world really works you know what's really interesting? I remember, there was this big military coup in was it Myanmar or Burma? One of these there's this big military coup, like, a year ago or something and nobody really cared.
They mentioned on the news a little bit. And I looked at it and I looked into it and they were talking about how the 2 political parties were almost 5050. And then in the nineties, something changed, and now one political party just smokes the other one and the military took over to restore democracy and all this stuff. It's very interesting the voting machines they used. Really interesting, something to look into.
Speaker 0: A lot of countries like that. Philippines. Yeah. Also true. Why do you think, support for the war in Ukraine, support for Ukraine's side in the war against Russia, support for a war against Russia in the West, is kind of the the bottom line issue for the people who run the US government and for the American media.
Why? I mean, I guess you could argue about it Yep. But there isn't an argument about it in the United States. There's a position, and anyone who doesn't hold it is attacked and punished. Why?
Why is that so important?
Speaker 1: Well, the first thing I think we should all do is I think we should all give Putin credit for curing COVID. Right? Because when his invasion happened, COVID went away. So I thought about that. Think about it.
It's almost to the day. So we have to give him some credit at least for doing that. He may be the bad guy of the world, but at least he cured COVID for everybody nearly instantly. Fair. Thank you for thank you, president Putin.
Yeah. I, up until this point, never really commented too heavily on politics. Yes. But I understand very well. I like to believe what's happening with Ukraine and Russia.
And what I will say to the people who are watching this at home is that if you are naive enough to believe that there are good guys and bad guys in wars and it's as simple as good and bad and that the bad guys are crazy and the good guys want freedom then you need to do a little bit more investigation into what's really happening. And when you look at the vested interest of any country or any
Speaker 0: person Can I just ask you to pause and just comment? That's the truest thing, what you just said. That is that and anyone who doesn't understand that should shut the fuck up. And I mean it. Having seen war, anyone who's telling you that it's Churchill versus Hitler
Speaker 1: Yep.
Speaker 0: Is an idiot. Complete well, I'll I'll give you
Speaker 1: an example when my father was still alive. We my father
Speaker 0: Excuse me.
Speaker 1: Yeah. No. It's true. When my father was still alive, my father died at 6 or 7 years ago. I was a lot younger.
The war in Afghanistan was going on.
Speaker 0: He died 6 or 7 years ago. How old was he?
Speaker 1: 56. Oh, gosh. Yeah. He died. But, the war in Afghanistan was going on.
And And I remember asking my dad saying, why do the Taliban even fight and resist the American war machine? They don't stand a chance. Like, why are these terrorists even fighting against the American war machine? And my dad said, they're fighting for their way of life. They want their wife and they want their children and they want their society and their language and they don't want pride flags and they don't want American bullshit and they don't want to be told what to do and they're fighting to be a culture and be a people which is independent in and of itself.
Like, they're not the bad guys you think they are. They're people who are like, why are you here? What do you want? We don't agree with that. That's against our holy book.
Fuck off. Right? So even there's no such thing as good and bad in any war. And and and people
Speaker 0: who is your father?
Speaker 1: My father was a a chess master. He worked for the CIA when he was he was a linguist for the CIA and then he was, American American. He was discharged and, for a story I won't tell, but, he was a chess master and he it's very interesting. I encourage people to look at his Twitter. He still has Twitter at tate terrific.
And everything he was talking about 11 years ago is so important now. 11 years ago, no one cared about. We had the Donbass in 2014. People cared people cared a bit, but he was literally he predicted the future to you wanna see how chess players can see the future? Read his Twitter.
Everything from LGBTQ, why they need your kids because they can't have their own, to the war that's coming and how Europe's gonna have an energy crisis, to the letter. It's all on his Twitter. It's amazing to read. It's like he tell you could tell the future. 10 years ago, no one talked about any of this stuff.
Did he live in the US? Yes. Yeah. He lived in America. Fascinating.
Yeah. It's crazy. But he was telling me about a lot of this stuff even when I was a lot younger and as we said, there's no good guys and bad guys. But when you have a vested interest in something, I think that people are relatively simple. You're talking about why the American American government has such a vested interest in this war.
Speaker 0: Which is not good for America.
Speaker 1: Which is not good for America. So is it well, we can say it's for money or we can say it's for power. What else would it be for? What is it really for freedom and democracy? Well, I think that's already been destroyed by Zelensky, hasn't it?
Speaker 0: So Yes.
Speaker 1: What is it for if it's not for money and power? And, then you say, well, who's the money and the power going to? These are logical conversations. It's a very logical thought process. I agree.
You know, wouldn't it be interesting to say, okay. I woke up. I'm an American. I would never kill myself. I woke up.
I'm an American. Why does America care? Well, I guess it's for money or power. There's no other reason. Okay.
Well, America wants to be a rich powerful country, that's fine. Is the money and power going to America or is it going to a select few individuals? Are those select individuals interested in me and my life? Do they care about benefiting me? Do I need to support the power grab of these select few individuals?
Is that gonna be a smart move for me to make for me to have the best possible human experience? This is a very logical thought process. Yes. People don't seem to think anymore. They believe that there's a good guy and there's a bad guy and one guy's one team's completely good and one team's completely bad.
One team's crazy. They often use the word crazy because to be completely bad, you have to be crazy. Right? So, you're crazy. He's crazy.
Just for no reason. Reasonless. Luciani. I don't know if you saw Lukashenko with the BBC. Did you ever see that interview?
No. Oh, brother. Please watch it. The way he destroys the BBC. I thought I did the best job, but he I take I take second place.
Amazing. Amazing. But, yeah. And and you just have to be critically thinking and then after you're critically thinking, you have to be brave enough. And this is the real pandemic of the world is cowardice.
You have to be brave enough to look around you and realize, ah, everything was a trick. Everything was a lie.
Speaker 0: But why not be a coward? I mean, it's just a lot easier. Right?
Speaker 1: Well, it used to be. This is the thing that's interesting. I would actually argue in the 19 fifties sixties. If you were to agree with every single narrative and obey every single law and do exactly what you were supposed to do and pay your taxes, etcetera, you'd at least get a wife who respected you. You'd at least have children who go to school without being indoctrinated to a degree.
Yeah. You could have a nice house. You could have a pickup truck. You could have a pretty good life if you just followed the rules. Yes.
I don't think that's true anymore. I think that if you were a man especially, and this is what I talk about, I talk about masculine issues. If you're a man who was born and you decide to do exactly as you're told, you're gonna end up depressed, in debt, working a job that you hate, with a wife who doesn't respect you, with kids who don't listen to you, and a house you don't own until you she leaves you and then you contemplate suicide a while and maybe you might find some purpose towards the end enough to survive and pay your taxes and then you're gone. I don't think a man who just follows the programming is gonna find any happiness, but they don't care. Why would they?
They have no interest in masculine happiness. This is another thing that's very interesting. Talk about men's mental health all the time especially in the UK. I'm not sure about America, but in the UK they had this big drive for men's mental health saying that men commit more suicides. Men A lot more.
A lot more. Because it's hard to be a man. We commit more suicides when we're depressed, we have all these mental health problems. I come along, I genuinely get thousands of emails a day saying I'm helping people men's mental health, but no. Can't can't help it the way Andrew wants.
You can't tell him to go to the gym and stand up for themselves and have pride. What kind of man's gonna have a solid mentality and not have mental health issues if he has no pride? That's part of being a man. Part of being a man is proud of yourself. If you wake up and you're not proud of who you are and how you look and the things you say, how are you ever gonna have a a solid mentality?
So when I teach things that genuinely help men's mental health, that's outlawed. No. You're not allowed to do that. Instead, you have to take our version, which is to pretend to care about men's mental health, but not give a shit, give them a life they know they're not gonna enjoy, pay taxes, and die. And men are the backbone Medicate them.
And medicate them. Medicate them long enough to keep working. They're the same ways we medicate farm animals. Some bunch of injections. Yeah.
Just keep keep them alive long enough to get the milk. Milk's gone. Chop the head off. Boom. They need to put you in prison.
They're trying.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I can see why.
Speaker 1: They're trying. And it and it's and it's scary. A lot of people but then what do I do? Do I just shut up? No.
You don't think so?
Speaker 0: No. You can't shut up. I mean, because in the end, your self respect, your dignity is the only thing.
Speaker 1: That's right. And this this is what people don't understand. People say, Andrew, why are you fighting this war? And they don't understand that war is certain. You either fight war against injustice and you fight war against the things you know that are wrong and you feel good inside of yourself or you accept the slave programming and fight war with your own mind.
You have to fight something.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: I can shut up and believe what I'm told in the news, but then I won't why am I so unhappy all the time? Why am I depressed? Why does my life suck? Why does my woman ignore me? Why do my children not respect me?
You're fighting a war then you're fighting a war with your own mind. I'd rather have all of me on side and fight against what I know is genuinely evil. You can't escape the battle. The battle is here for all of us. So I've made my decision and that's why I can't be quiet because you just said I would lose my self respect and I'd lose my dignity and I don't think I can function that way as a man and I don't think any man should be able to function without self respect and dignity.
The reason men died on the Titanic was for self respect and dignity. They went into the icy cold water and died because they would feel honorless if they jumped on the boat and left the women to die. That's right. So when you have self respect and dignity, you have a hard parameter and you'll do things that which are deemed crazy or insane because you believe in them and you stick up for yourself and that's why they don't want men to have self respect and dignity.
Speaker 0: Rather be a free man in your grave. Absolutely.
Speaker 1: So, I can't be quiet and I'm gonna say what I believe is true and I genuinely believe I'm helping the world. I think that any young man who is a follower of mine, I will argue there's no influencer on the planet besides me who is genuinely benefiting their life. I know you're not big on the internet. I look at these other streamers and these other influencers. They play video games all day.
They smoke weed on stream. They talk garbage. It's a bunch of drama back and forth like girls. I'm the only influencer or streamer who's genuinely talking about making money because you need to have money to escape the matrix. It's very hard to resist enslavement when you have to pay the bills.
Getting physically strong because a strong body is a strong mind. Standing up for yourself, self motivation. All these things. I'm talking about genuinely positive things. Very few people are.
And I think that is an extremely important message that needs to be told and I'm not gonna stop doing it because I know I'm genuinely helping the world and they're gonna try and punish me for it for the rest of my life. I think I think this is just beginning and I think when I beat this case, which I believe I will be, I think something else is going to come. And it's kind of scary because I am a little bit afraid and a little bit intimidated by the incompetence of my enemy because their standardized playbook is now failing in real time. The standardized playbook is the media attack, the lie and it's not working anymore. And it got get me a little bit worried about what the next move is.
You used to just be able to lie about a guy over the news and you win. Right? But now it's like, shut up. So now what? I don't know.
And that's what's kinda scary in my in my scenario because nobody's gonna believe any of the crap they print about me. Nobody believes it. Nobody believes it. Whenever I do an interview with the Matrix Media, they don't nobody believes they have to turn the comments off because everyone in the comments are just ripping them apart.
Speaker 0: Well, you do seem very sad on the verge of killing yourself, are you? Absolutely. You're not really not. I never would. And and that's what You said that right now.
I
Speaker 1: have to keep saying it. I have to keep saying it because it's it's scary. Right? But I I believe you get 3 lives. I think they cancel you initially.
And then when that fails, they try and put you in jail without a reason. And if that fails, there's only one option left after that. That's right. So it's I'm in a very scary scenario. But I guess the same as the men on the Titanic just couldn't get on the lifeboat.
I just can't stop saying what I believe to be true. If a young man comes to me and says he's depressed, I'm gonna tell him how to become a kind of man who's proud of himself and if that makes him the kind of person that resists slave and slave programming, I'm always gonna be public enemy number 1.
Speaker 0: You've said depression isn't real or it's not as the way we describe depression isn't accurate. What what do you think of depression?
Speaker 1: When I say depression isn't real, what I'm, that really upset the world, especially the Liberals because they all live on medication. Right? When I say depression isn't real, I'm saying that because I don't believe in things that can take away power from me. If I believed in depression, I would have been depressed in jail, but I can't be depressed if I don't believe in it. If you don't believe in ghosts, how can you be haunted?
You have 2 people in a in a haunted house. 1 believes in ghosts, one doesn't. There's a knock in the night. 1 wakes up, calls an exorcist, is terrified, looks for a ghost. Other guy doesn't believe in ghosts, knock in the night, goes back to sleep.
It's the belief in the ghost that gives it the power. I don't believe in depression. I believe in feeling depressed. Sure. We're humans.
We have emotions. Sometimes we feel depressed. Sometimes we feel happy. I don't believe in the idea of becoming a depressed person who has depression. I don't believe in that.
I don't think that's possible for me. So if I don't believe in it, how can it happen? I don't believe in depression. So why would I not adopt the mindset that makes me the most capable predator I can possibly be? Why not adopt the mindset that makes me as competent and as fearsome as possible?
If you've to install software in your own mind, why would I not install software that makes me capable of not only driving a Bugatti and flying on private jets, but sitting in a Romanian dungeon covered in cockroaches. I need to be able to do all of it. So why would I believe in something that made me incapable? I don't believe in depression because I think that even the belief in and of itself, when you feel depressed, you'll start to consider maybe I have depression. Then you go see a psychiatrist who tells you you have depression and they want you on pills.
It's the belief that goes down the spiral. If I feel sad, I go, I'm depressed today. I'll be fine tomorrow.
Speaker 0: So why I suspect you're right or you're what you're saying is pointing toward truth. That's my personal view. But even if I disagree with you, I wouldn't I don't okay. I disagree with you. Why is that so offensive, what you just said?
Speaker 1: Well, that's what's interesting. Because when I said depression wasn't real, the number of people who would attack me defending depression. This is why I didn't understand. Right. You say depression isn't real, but depression's ruined my life and it's super real and it ruined my life and I lost my marriage.
I'm like, if I told you it wasn't real, you should be coming to me saying, tell me how it's not real. Please help me with my depression. Why are you trying to convince me that it's real? Why are you sticking up for it?
Speaker 0: And why are you defending depression?
Speaker 1: And and why would I adopt the thinking of someone who's sad? Why would I you're gonna convince me to take your worldview. You just told me your wife left you. You're fat and you wanna kill yourself. And you want me to sit here and go with my perfect life and go, you know what?
I wanna think like this guy. You're out you're out your mind. I don't believe in it. And because I don't believe in it, it's made me the kind of person who can't become depressed. And the reason they don't like me attacking that is because depression is a fantastic way to subdue a population.
Right? If everybody's depressed, it's hard to have a revolution. You're depressed. Oh, they've locked us all in our houses. I don't want to go outside anyway.
I'm sad. Right? So depression is a fantastic tool of population control. They won't they have no problem with you being depressed. They have a problem with you being the opposite, principled and energetic.
No. They don't want principled, energetic people. That's a problem. Bunch of depressed people? Easy.
If you were to invade a country, would you rather the opposing army be principled and energetic or depressed?
Speaker 0: I'll tell you, I would not wanna be invaded by a cheerful army. Absolutely. That's scary.
Speaker 1: They're having too much fun. Right? You want them all to be depressed.
Speaker 0: So A morose army is easier to defeat. I agree. Absolutely.
Speaker 1: So depression is a defended idea. You're not allowed to even talk about it. You're not allowed to help people get out of it. Right? They like the idea of a depressed population and this is what I say to people.
Now, I'm not stupid. I understand like PTSD is real. I understand mental health is real. I'm not saying that. But I say if you're an 18 year old boy or 18 year old man and your life is pretty much okay, Bacteria didn't steal your eyesight, which could have happened.
You never had a car crash and lost both of your legs, which could have happened. You're actually very fortunate and you wake up and you say I'm depressed. I think you're an idiot. I don't think you're depressed. I think you've been psyops.
I think you feel a little bit of depression and you can fix that by changing your life. I think if you became rich and strong and smart and successful and you worked hard and you dedicated yourself and you were motivated and you tried your very, very best to become excellent, you probably wouldn't feel depressed anymore, which means it's not a disease, is it? So how so why would you the only reason you're even saying you have depression is because you believe in it. So you're arguing for cause
Speaker 0: and effect. You're saying if you live a certain way, you're gonna feel a
Speaker 1: certain way. Absolutely. And I also would argue that I think we've evolutionarily, even though I do believe in God, I think that we've designed ourselves and the human has grown into a way where if you feel depressed or sad, I think that's a fantastic trigger or a warning signal to do something. If you were to say to me, Andrew, you have to do you have to complete this monumental task. You have to conquer the world.
I would say, okay. But I need a I need a emotional motivation to do that. I need to be unhappy having not completed the task. You know, I need to be uncomfortable. Right?
If you're uncomfortable being out of shape, you'll get in shape. If you're happy being out of shape, then you're just gonna stay out of shape. Right? So if you feel a degree of uncomfortableness inside of your mind, I think it's just your mind telling you that something about your life needs to change.
Speaker 0: Yes. You need to get
Speaker 1: up and change something. Guys would say to me, I'm depressed because I'm fat and I have no girlfriend. And I'd say, no, you have no girlfriend and you're fat and that's why you're depressed. If you go change those two things, you'd probably be surprised that your disease goes away. I had another guy say he was gonna kill himself.
I said, listen, it's back when I used to reply to my emails when I was smaller. I said, make me a promise, get a 6 pack first.
Speaker 0: A beer?
Speaker 1: I said, get a 6 pack first, get in fantastic shape and then do whatever you want. Didn't wanna kill himself once he's in fantastic. So he did it? Yeah. I have after before and after, I put him on Twitter.
Kinda interesting that. Isn't it? So how are we gonna say we have this disease which is cause and effect? How are we gonna have we say we have this disease where there's something wrong with you as a man, you have a disease because your life sucks. I mean, I don't think that's true.
I think that your life just sucks and you should change it. And another thing I also preach and this is another thing that's very important. I also think as a man, because life as a man is pain and suffering. And when I say that, because you're never gonna be a good man or good at being a man without pain and suffering. You're gonna have to go through a bunch of of shit and have a terrible life to become a good man.
I think you should embrace that and accept it and I think that the the correct mental model for men to have is a degree of stoicism and not to be too concerned with even how they feel. If I woke up today happy if I woke up today and happy, I would have done this interview with you. If I woke up today sad, I would have done this interview with you. What's the difference? Why put so much importance on my emotion if certain things must be done?
I must work. I must train. I must see Tucker Carlson. I must resist the matrix. I've got things to do.
So who? So why are we gonna sit around and talk about how I feel if it doesn't even affect how I act? And as a man, it shouldn't because there's too much to do. And the the masculine world is hyper competitive.
Speaker 0: This is
Speaker 1: another thing most people don't understand. Totally agree. It's hyper competitive out here. All the women want a few men at the top. The Ferrari, you you don't want a Ferrari to drive fast.
You want a Ferrari because other men want a Ferrari and can't have one. It's hypercompetitive. So if you're competing against every other man for every dollar you make, every girl you see, the house you live in, the car you drive, the life you live, you're not gonna be able to compete with the person who performs regardless of how they feel if you only compete when you feel like competing. Right? Because there's men like me out there who will be sad every day and outcompete you regardless.
I don't care how I feel. I will still win. And that's the kind of mindset you need to adopt. So I don't when no man comes
Speaker 0: a job to do. Stop whining. Go to work. Completely. I agree.
Speaker 1: Completely.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: So when men say, oh, but I don't I feel sad. Who cares? The world doesn't care. All the men who are out here to destroy you and take your girl don't care. So why are you why do you care?
Like, if the only the person you should care least is you. You're the only person who wakes up every day who should have a genuine vested interest in improving your life. Nobody else wakes up and wants to improve your life. Only you. So if nobody else cares about how you feel, why do you care?
So I my argument also for depression is you're depressed fine. Have you trained today? Well, that doesn't change what you should do with your life, depressed or not. And I don't say this because I'm an eternally happy person. I say this because I've experienced all ranges of human emotion.
I was in a Romanian jail cell with cockroaches crawling all over me as I slept. I never missed a day of training. I wouldn't say I was particularly happy, but push ups must be done. So they got done. Did you
Speaker 0: you're very close to your brother. Correct. And you were locked away for part of that with him in this did you have fun at all with him?
Speaker 1: Yes. I I do think there's something inside of men. Whereas if you're with your boys or you're with your group of men Yes. There's something inside of us Totally. And it allows you to make the absolute best of the worst situations.
Maybe that's a evolution from war. You know, all the men went to war and you saw all this pain and suffering and you saw heads people decapitated and you're injured, but then you sit around the campfire and you're laughing. You're laughing. That's right. It's something inside of us.
It's like a coping mechanism when you're around men. So when me and him were together, no matter how bad the scenario or no matter what they tried to do to us, part of us would just look at each other like cigarette. And you find joy in that. And, yeah, there's definitely and that's another thing I think a lot of men are lacking. A lot men are missing is a masculine support network.
I think buddies. Yeah. You know, you you talk to a guy and say what was the highlight of your life? What was the best time of your life? And they'll say, ah, college football.
It's not about the football.
Speaker 0: It's about the team. Yeah.
Speaker 1: You know? And I think a lot of that's destroyed as well. Because also when you it's interesting how everything interconnects. When you destroy honor and principle and the masculine essence inside of men, well, now as a man, it's very hard to have friends. I wouldn't want to have a male friend who had no principles, no honors, and and and didn't work hard and was always crying about being sad.
What do I wanna hang around with him for? He's a loser. Right? So then your support network's destroyed. And I think that men have always needed that since the dawn of time, and I think that's gone.
Speaker 0: But they don't have friends. Men, especially middle aged men have no friends.
Speaker 1: Absolutely. Because they've been told that to give them all away and do as the wife says and then she left him. No wonder he wants to kill himself. Wouldn't you? No wonder he's depressed.
That just sounds like the worst existence ever. And now we're living in a world now, especially, where everything is hypercompetitive, especially the sexual marketplace. Like, if you're a 52 year old, overweight, average income, no fame dude, and you have to find a girl, it's gonna be pretty difficult. To find a good one, it's gonna be very hard. So, like, of course, he's lonely.
Then and then his kids don't respect him. They're busy. Like, of course, he's sad. Like, it's it's actually heartbreaking to discuss. It is heartbreaking.
It's heartbreaking. But then how do you prevent that happening? Well, then you need to be a man of honor and principle and make sure that you keep your support networks and make sure that your woman does respect you. And a woman's gonna respect you when she says sees other men respect you. Yes.
And and they're only gonna respect you if you respect yourself. But to respect yourself, you have to be the kind of person who says no. What do you think of porn? There's been some statistics. There's been some studies done.
Most men or less men are having sex than ever before. I've seen that. Yeah. And that's that. Well, that's an extension of the fact that masculine virtue is being destroyed.
That's the thing that's interesting about all these things. They sigh up, especially men, they say, listen, women want a feminist man. Women want a man with no moral principle who would make sure that there's a conversation about who should fight the burglar when your house is broken into because equal opportunities, equal rights, of course. Don't, you know, don't presume just because you're a man that you should defend her physically. Of course not.
That makes you a bigot and a misogynist. So they convince men to adopt these virtues in ways and, of course, women, by and large, dislike them for it. So now, as men's as masculinity has plummeted, a whole bunch of men are simply not having sex anymore and then they become addicted to porn, which is cucking effectively. I mean, 2 people are having sex and you're just watching it. And it's and it's become a yeah.
Speaker 0: Good porn.
Speaker 1: I mean and it's become a pandemic. Right? So men are replacing genuine sexual relationships with just the computer screen and porn and it's becoming a very, very big problem and that's also exasperated by the fact that I think the sexual marketplace has become globalized. This is the thing I say to young men. A lot of men come to me with problems and my only answer to them is masculine excellence.
I say that in the world we live in today, being a normal man or below normal is gonna be terrible. You have to be an exceptional man because the sexual marketplace, especially, even if you just want to find a wife, is globalized. If you in 1955, if you met the hot girl in the Nebraskan town, she was the hot girl in the Nebraskan town. If you meet her today, she's being offered to go to Courcheval and go skiing in France, and she's being offered to fly to Dubai. And there's millionaires who can just fly her anywhere and give her anything she wants.
And and who are you? Right? It's it's getting harder and harder as a man to even find the most basic human function of reproduction. Even to just find a woman you can reproduce with is becoming more and more difficult. You also couple that with the fact that they've destroyed morality in women also.
So when you destroy the morality in men and you destroy how a man should act and then you destroy how a woman should act, it's they're go you're both going in the opposite direction. Most women out there are very happy to share a man who's just rich and famous, and they don't they don't care. It's interesting. So so so you're the normal guy. You know, there's there's this rich famous guy with 30 girls.
That's 29 dudes who are lonely, and they end up watching porn. And if you have a porn addiction or you have a problem with porn, you have a problem with yourself because I guarantee if you're the kind of man you're supposed to be, you would have no time for that and you wouldn't need it. I can confirm that's absolutely not really the case.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So the fact you even need porn shows there's a problem with you as a man because if you were the kind of man you could be and I genuinely believe that any man can become anything, then you'd have unlimited sexual options and you would have no interest in that. And and I do want to make this clear to the world because there's a bit of a misconception about my story. My father was in the military and then he left to become a professional chess player. He was a traveling chess player.
You don't make money with that. My mother and father broke up at age 9. We moved to England purely because you get more help from the state. I was raised on welfare in Marsh Farm, which is the worst area of the worst town, Luton with the highest crime rate. I went to a school with a 4% pass rate, single mother household effectively.
Started from absolutely nothing, became a kickboxing world champion.
Speaker 0: And your mother was English? English. Correct.
Speaker 1: So I I started at the absolute lowest echelon of life and I would like to consider myself pretty somewhere near the top now. I've been through absolutely every stage. So when I say to men, you can become anything you want and my answer to you is masculine excellence, there's no other answer. I can't tell you how to rig the game and cheat the game. If we're all racing a race and I have a Ferrari and you have a Nissan, I mean, sure, you can get a bit better at driving, but you're probably gonna lose.
You have to get a a better character to play this game of life. So that's why I preach masculine excellence because for many of the world's problems today, porn, sexual access, being respected by your peers, making sure that your wife's gonna stay with you after the children are born for a very long time. That's right. Being happy, anything, it all comes down to who you are as a man. The the a lot of the answer the only answer is masculine excellence.
There's nothing you can do besides hard work, accept the trauma and pain and suffering, and and work harder than everyone else around you worked. And and that's why porn is a problem. So I will genuinely say to any man out there who finds himself loading up that website, go take a look in the mirror and realize why no one wants to fuck you. If you're if and and I said this to guys before. If you were a girl with all the choices she has, would you choose you?
Think about it. And if you're honest with yourself, a lot of these guys, if they look in the mirror and go, you know what? No. I wouldn't choose me. Work out why and do something about it.
Absolutely not your self accountability. This is something that's also missing. I take accountability for everything in my life. Even going to jail, although it was unfair, although it's a matrix attack, although it's garbage, it was my fault. I sat there and go, what did I do wrong?
How can I learn from this? Where did where is my part to play in this? What did I do? Because my actions are what I have the most control over. I have self accountability for everything.
If If a woman doesn't want to sleep with me, I don't sit and say, women are this way, society is that way. I just sit and say, okay. Why? What can I change? So any man who's loading up porn needs to go have a long conversation in the mirror and realize that he's not desirable or as desirable as he should be or could be.
I come from absolutely nothing. I'm mixed race. My father was black and my mother's white. So statistically, mixed race, single household, single mother household, bad area. I I ticked every box to end up in jail.
I ended up in jail for the wrong reasons.
Speaker 0: You fulfilled your destiny.
Speaker 1: Escape statistics. I ticked every box to be a delinquent, and I refused to be one. I absolutely not refused to be a delinquent. I said, no. That's not who I want to be.
I want to be a superhero, and I know the only way to be a superhero is to 1, suffer like Batman did, his parents died, and 2, work hard. What does your mother think? My mother is exceptionally proud of me. She she still worries because mothers worry. But even when we were in jail she said, well, I know you're both strong so like, she knows she has men.
She knows she has, you know, that's pretty great. Yeah, of course. And and I think that's what I mean, I I I believe especially also, I think a man has a duty to his last name. I think we carry the last name. We have a duty to our last name.
I am a Tate. I am my father's son. The reason my father is so is discussed so heavily is because of my monumental success. I keep him alive via my success. I would love to think my son does the same thing.
They will talk about my son in a way where they're so interested in his life path that I must be discussed by extension and then I live forever. So I have a duty to Tate. I have a duty to my last name. I must perform
Speaker 0: and this is what I said to my mother on the phone. I'm a Tate.
Speaker 1: It's fine. Oh, but the conditions are bad. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Yeah. That's life. And even as a
Speaker 1: man today, you're waking up, you want to load up a porn website, you should you should have respect for your last name and you should sit and say, is this who I am? Is this what I do? I mean, a lot of this comes down to the things we discussed at the very beginning. Self respect, self honor, dignity. Well, you have no dignity.
I have too much dignity for
Speaker 0: that shit. And a lot
Speaker 1: of these men have no dignity, no self respect, and it's all an extension. It extends of why they're never gonna be, who they could be, and also what they do to cope with that. And, yeah, porn is a coping mechanism. What do you think of women? I think women are some of the most powerful people on the planet, firstly.
A lot of the conversations we're having, most people don't understand that women are the gatekeepers and women are the ultimate judges. Women are the ultimate judges especially in of sexual access. Right? So, when I say that maybe 40% of the letters I got in jail were from women, just love letters. Perfume on them and kiss kiss marks and the traditional masculine role is still respected and loved by so many women.
If you were to ask the average woman on the street who hasn't lost her mind what she wants in a man, she would like to be financially provided for, physically protected. I love women. I think they are the most powerful and precious things on the planet. They give life. But I believe that when you love a woman, you should want to protect her and provide for her and take care of her.
I don't believe you love a woman by wanting to do everything she says and cucking to her. I don't believe that because I love women, I should have no standards on what I expect in a woman. I don't think because I don't think loving women is sitting there going a woman can do whatever she wants to me and I put up with it. I don't think that's loving women at all. I think loving women is saying, I'm gonna be the best man I can be and the only way I'm gonna be a good man is with a degree of standard and I'm gonna be the best man I can be for you.
And when I say these things, I get attacked for being a misogynist because
Speaker 0: Well, how is that I think misogynist means someone who hates women.
Speaker 1: Correct. Because I have conversations with women who are let's say, I've done some podcasts with women who are very promiscuous. And I've explained to them that since the dawn of human time in every single society across the planet, promiscuity in females has been frowned upon. Yes. That's true.
It hasn't been frowned upon in men, but it has been in women. I explained In a big way. In a big way. In many in many parts of the world to this day, you can't get married if you're not a virgin. I'm not saying all women should be virgins.
I was explaining to her that female promiscuity has always been hated. In every holy book, it's disliked. You've bought into this new think the last 10 years and you seem to think it's empowering, and I would argue that it's not empowering. And I sat there and had a conversation with this promiscuous woman and I said to her that she is doing herself a disservice and she's dishonoring herself and she's never gonna be happy or fulfilled jumping from bed to bed. And I was told that this makes me misogynistic because women are empowered and they can make whatever choices they want and I'm insecure to believe that woman who slept with 300 men is somehow changed mentally and her ability to bond and love a man has been affected by that.
Speaker 0: But it is. That's true. Well, unfortunately, you're gonna
Speaker 1: end up in Romanian jail cell for being misogynist. No.
Speaker 0: I mean, I I love women, and so I and I've seen it and I've that is true what you said.
Speaker 1: The thing that's the thing that's interesting is that women intrinsically understand this. Yeah. Because if you see a woman dislike another woman, what's the first name she calls her? Slut. The first thing the first thing a girl says to a girl she doesn't like is the biggest insult that comes to her mind is that she's promiscuous.
Right? So it's interesting, but I've been a call to misogynist for that. And then I've made I've been on the Internet for a long time. I've made some jokes. I've made some videos and people don't understand satire or comedy.
There's one that they keep repeating. I made a joke. Next to my bed, I had a glock, like many people do and then I had a knife next to my bed and there was a comedic skit where it said, the girl caught me cheating and she picked up the knife and I slapped out of her hand and say, you still love me? And they they cut the bit out where I talked about the girl attacking me with the knife. They just took the bit where I say slap the knife out of her hand.
You're the boss. And they he's a massager. He's a massager. And they it's just taken out
Speaker 0: of context. And that's another thing that's happened to
Speaker 1: me and I am aware of this and like I said, I take absolute self accountability but the way you make jokes and make videos when you get 100 views is very different than the way you would make a joke or make a video when you get millions of views. And when they're trying their best to find that look at 4 hour video and find 3 seconds I'll give you an example of it where where it hurt me very recently. I did a podcast where I was discussing corruption. I discussed what I which country I believe is the most corrupt country in the world. They start a lot of wars.
And, the answer to that by the person I was discussing it with is, well, you live in Romania. Romania is corrupt. I said, Romania is corrupt. Correct. But I don't think they there's certainly corruption, but they they don't start monumental wars which end up in millions of deaths.
I would argue that they're corruption because a police man stops me and I can bribe my way out of a parking ticket or speeding ticket is far less destructive. So we discussed this at length for hours. They cut out the bit where I said Romania is corrupt and showed it to the judge that kept me in jail. Yeah. So and that's that's my problem in a nutshell.
Long format content, people will find a little bit, edit it up and try to attack me with it. And that's where this whole misogynistic things come from. It's either from me arguing with promiscuous women on podcasts designed for promiscuous women to argue their point and I destroy them so flawlessly that I'm a bad person or something taken out of context. And it's insane because, like I said, the amount the amount of support I get from women is actually monumental. The amount of mothers who write to me and say that their son's doing better than ever, the amount of women who write to me and say that their boyfriend's doing better than ever, the amount of women who love me and just wanna meet me.
This idea that I'm hated by women is probably the biggest lie about this whole story. I I don't want to brag, but I can assure the world that's absolutely not true. I had thousands of letters of support from women. In fact, there was one girl, never met her, she would play love songs from her car outside the jail. So she put the music on and play love songs and, I managed to tweet out via my cousin the the songs I wanted to listen to.
White Snake is this love? And she White Snake. And she played them for me. Never met her. Don't know who she is.
Speaker 0: So you're in a Romanian prison cell requesting White Snake on the radio in the car outside? Correct.
Speaker 1: And some girl would pull up and and kind of a surreal moment, put her speakers on full and play me my love songs for a good, like, 3 or 4 minutes before the police would come and make her move. I got a song a day.
Speaker 0: But, yeah, this idea that I'm universally hated by women is insanity. That's not that's not true. So you said you're mixed race. Your dad was black. Her mom was not was white English.
What do you make of the race conversation in the United States?
Speaker 1: I think it's deliberately they're trying to put fuel on the fire and they're deliberately trying to accelerate division. This is what I believe. I think that if a black billionaire and a white billionaire meet somewhere, I don't think there's much conversation about race. I don't
Speaker 0: think No. No.
Speaker 1: Think there's any racism. No. Interesting. No.
Speaker 0: They're not that interested in the topic, actually. They don't care.
Speaker 1: Right. Right? But amongst the lower echelons of the populace, they seem very interested in trying to turn us all on each other. Yes. I wonder why that is.
And I wonder why they deliberately make laws and push media matters which are designed to do exactly that. I wonder why that is. We can sit, and I have my own theories. But, I think what certain people in the world would be most afraid of is the white people of a certain economic class and the black people of a certain economic class shaking hands and saying, this is bullshit. I think that would be very Yes.
Intimidating for them. So it's certainly accelerated. And it's also very interesting because as a mixed race person, I will also sit and state, I don't look particularly black. Most people can't guess where I'm from. I've had more discrimination against me for being a straight male than I've ever had for my skin color.
I've had more people look at me or have problems with me purely because of my sexual orientation and my general generally masculine essence than I've ever had anybody say anything about my skin color ever. And I'll also say if somebody has a real problem with my skin color, who cares? If someone's that ignorant, who gives a shit? Like, I it's also I I do find it amazing they manage to psyop people into being so brutally offended by it. If someone would come up to me and say, you're not white.
I'd say, correct. Have a nice day. Who cares? Like, like, it's it's amazing how they they've got everyone wrapped up in this, but, yeah, it's certainly accelerated. Another thing that's very interesting about it, especially in America, a lot of Americans are insulated to, I feel like, world history.
Yeah. I've noticed. You know? They're like, oh, slavery, slavery, slavery. Slavery was everywhere.
Every country had slaves. Arabs had slaves. Chinese had slaves. Aztecs had slaves. Everybody had slaves.
Speaker 0: The American Indians had slaves. Everybody did. Honestly. Correct.
Speaker 1: And they're like, oh, we've been enslaved. Everyone was enslaved. Unfortunately, the world wasn't such a nice place. Right? And there's been ethnic divisions in every single country on earth since the dawn of time.
There still is in many countries in the world today. They they believe this is a uniquely American issue and I would strongly argue that 1 is completely notly naw and 2, I think that if you are black, white, Asian, I think if you stand up, self respect, work hard, try your best, turn up on time, firm handshake, don't make excuses for anything, don't look for an easy way out, no matter what your skin color is. In America or England or any other Western nation, I think you can be extremely successful. I don't think anything's stopping
Speaker 0: you. That's not the message you get from, say, Kamala Harris, who's also mixed race. Her dad was Jamaican. Her mom was Indian. Yep.
But race is really at the center of her identity and her politics. What do you make of, say, Kamala Harris?
Speaker 1: Well, let's let's look at why they purport the idea that depression is so powerful and that you can just catch it from the sky and now you're permanently depressed no matter what happens to you and there's nothing you can do about it and you can't improve your life and you can't be a better person. Right? It's that self limiting belief. I think by also pushing this racism argument, it's also very much the same thing. I think if you adopt that mindset, if you wake up and you're a particular color, you're purple, and you believe purple people can't make it, what's your chance of making it?
0. Yeah. Right? So that's what's so destructive about it. This is what I'll even argue when I argue at this point with people and they try and say, oh, but this happens and they pull out these statistics and all this garbage from the matrix.
I say, listen, Even if even if the world's racist against purple people, the best thing you can do is be such an exceptional purple person that they need you in the they need you. The the only answer is hard work. The only answer is self accountability, masculine essence, honor, dignity, making your ancestors proud of you because you hold the same last name as them. The answer is the same regardless anyway. But when people like Kamala or Kamala are pushing this racism agenda, they're trying to say to people effectively, you'll never be anything and you don't stand a chance of ever being anything.
And I think that that makes people who aren't anything feel a little bit better about themselves. It's cope and that's the only fans she has left are losers who she's told it's okay to be a loser because there's no way you could have not been a loser and I will argue you could have been something a lot more than that and you shouldn't listen to anybody who tells you're not gonna be a loser. If someone were to come to me and say, Andrew, you're mixed race, you're from a single mother household, you're never gonna be rich, I'll say, watch me. I don't believe you. I don't believe you.
Who are you? So, everything she's saying is one wrong. 2, it's destructive to believe in. 3, I think it's her last hope at having any kind of fan at all because she's largely incompetent. I don't think I've ever heard her put a compenduous coherent sentence together.
And perhaps also maybe that's the reason why she leans so heavily on race because she's not impressive or competent. So she can say, oh, I'm this color and I did it, instead of actually talking about how good of a job she's doing. Because if you have to discuss that part of her career or that part of her current life path, I think she'd be in a lot of trouble.
Speaker 0: We're gonna show you video of Joe Biden's challenger for the Democratic primary, Robert F. Kennedy junior. What do you think of him?
Speaker 1: I think a strong body is a strong mind. I don't think there's anything wrong with a man exercising all until, up until the age he dies. Why wouldn't he? I think that the bottom line of masculinity since the dawn of human time has been a propensity and a capability for violence. I think that's what makes a man a man.
I don't see any possible negative connotation with being in good physical shape. I think that's a fantastic way to show discipline, which is very important in any man who's important, especially a world leader. In fact, I love the idea of, an elected world leader being in fantastic physical shape. I think it shows that they're a motivated, disciplined person, and I have a lot of respect for him for that. And I think that in in the military, we make it mandatory, right, to be in fantastic physical condition Yes.
To to so why wouldn't we have it mandatory for people who are in charge of the entire world? I think it's fantastic. The president of
Speaker 0: the United States seems to be failing physically. What as you look back at the country whose passport you hold at the president, what what's your reaction? Well,
Speaker 1: sometimes, and it's not very often I consider myself ignorant, but I feel like there must be some magic I missed because wasn't he the most voted for president in history?
Speaker 0: Oh, yeah. Billions of votes. Yeah. It must
Speaker 1: There must be some magic I just can't detect, Tucker. I don't want to
Speaker 0: More than Barack Obama. 81,000,000 votes. It's insane.
Speaker 1: And, I mean, Barack, yeah, sure. He was very intelligent, articulate. Yep. He he was concise and compenduous with his ideas. He can make you understand how he thinks.
Yes. But Joe must be better in some way. I just I can't seem to seem see how and I guess default is with me. I, don't
Speaker 0: know what to say about that one. It's one of those lies that's so ridiculous that you're just like, I don't okay. You got more votes than Barack Obama. Shut up, he did. Shut up.
Excuse me. I wanna get your take. This is sort of small ball, but it it, I think, tells you something about a large trend in the United States. This is a state senator from the state of Wisconsin in a public hearing recently saying, in a discussion on a crime bill, fuck the suburbs. Here she is.
Fuck the suburbs because they don't know a goddamn thing about how life is in the city. What is that? There's a hostility there. Where does that come from?
Speaker 1: That comes from being a perpetual victim. That comes from being told that everything that's happening to her is not her fault, and she has no self accountability. Even though she's managed to become a senator, somehow she's still oppressed. And that means that everyone else who looks like her is also completely not only oppressed. And anybody who has a slightly better life in any way is, by extension, a bad person because they weren't oppressed.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: And that's where the hate comes from. The division is put there by these mindsets which are being purported by the people in charge of the world, convincing you that you have no control at all over your own life. And that's why she's so resentful towards people who have done well in life, not even as well as her. I would also argue, perhaps I'm incorrect, that she probably lives in a suburb. Of course, she does.
So she's a hypocrite on top of that. Yeah. But, hypocrites are the fantastic thing about being a hypocrite is if you're a hypocrite with a little bit of power influence, you're allowed to be a hypocrite because you're you're spreading information on the larger problem. In fact, this is actually interesting. One of my funnest things, I might I'm gonna announce this here on your show for everyone to know this is a world exclusive.
I wanna become a climate change activist. Because when I was younger, people said, what do you wanna be when you grow up? Do you wanna be a fireman? Do you wanna be Batman? Etcetera.
And I wasn't sure what would really make me happy. But now I'm ultra wealthy, and I fly around on private jets all the time. I think that now is the time for me to become one of those hypocritical climate change actors. 100%. It's gonna be super fun.
Speaker 0: And once your carbon footprint grows, your concern about carbon footprints grows.
Speaker 1: Absolutely. Eat the bugs. Sell your car. How dare you eat meat. On my jet, of course, I have meat, but I'm allowed to be a hypocrite because I'm spreading awareness for the overall pulse.
Speaker 0: For the greater good.
Speaker 1: For the greater good. I have to get to the climate change activist meetings. So, what's happened to me
Speaker 0: in Switzerland, I noticed.
Speaker 1: Of course. So although I'm flying on well, before this arrest
Speaker 0: They're never in New Jersey.
Speaker 1: Never. So before this arrest, I was on about 3 or 4 jets a week. But, every single time I was flying on my private plane, I was concerned about the carbon footprint. Of course, you were. And so I am now a climate change activist.
I just want to let the whole world know. Because once you get to a certain level of power of influence, you're absolutely not allowed to be a complete hypocrite. So you're allowed to live in the suburb and then tell everyone fuck the suburbs and, pretend that you're oppressed when you're a center of the most powerful nation on the planet. Because it's just it's a logic fail on every plan on every level.
Speaker 0: So one of the human activities has gotta produce the greatest carbon footprint is, I would think, war. Right? I would think so. Diesel powered machines, munitions going off. So I was a little bit surprised to see Greta Thunberg with Zelensky this morning.
Speaker 1: It's what's interesting to me is this. Firstly, I would never kill myself. Secondly, imagine these people are so detached from reality. Imagine going, you know what we need to do? Brainwave.
We need to drum up support for this garbage. Let's take our let's take the the most loved woman, Greta, and the most loved man, Zelensky, and let's make them meet. Think about the PR. Let's bring a camera and imagine people sitting around a table going, that's great. That's that's gonna really make people support this.
Who gives a fuck? I don't wanna swear. I'm sorry. But some young girl turns up to a war zone who has nothing why is she there? What are they gonna talk about?
I don't know. Well, what's their conversation?
Speaker 0: I think she only yells.
Speaker 1: I don't think she does talk. I I don't understand. Is she gonna talk about how the childhood has been stolen from all those 1,000,000 Ukrainian men who have been bored to blown to pieces? Like, she talks about childhood being stolen because we drive, you know, cars. I don't think she is.
I don't think she's gonna mention that.
Speaker 0: No.
Speaker 1: Is it just a big PR opportunity? Like, what PR team came up with this concoction and thought this will this will keep them on side? It's it's mind bending to me who even thought this was a good idea. It's it's crazy, but, of course, somebody did. Somebody thought it was a fantastic idea.
Have you ever met Greta Thunberg? No. Me me and her have had some Internet arguments. I I think you went to prison for it. Right?
Yeah. Correct. Which is amazing because I'm a climate change activist. So I'm on her team. You know?
I was in Sweden during COVID, so we could have met. She didn't wanna hang out with me, unfortunately. And then now I'm flying around on my jet everywhere spreading news about climate change. Same thing. Like, in my Bugatti, obviously, it's got a big engine.
I I make sure to talk about climate change out the window as I drive. But I'm on her side. She doesn't seem to be afraid.
Speaker 0: Yell at the surfs as you pass about climate change?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Don't eat meat. Eat the bugs.
Speaker 0: What's wrong
Speaker 1: with you people? You don't care about the earth? Like, if if you don't if you don't start caring about climate change, all those politicians with beachfront property are gonna lose their houses. Yes. And they're very concerned about climate change, which is why they bought their houses on the beachfront so they can be the first to let you know it's coming.
But early warning system. Right? They're very concerned. That's why they wanna be right there on the beach. Quite honorable if you think about it.
Speaker 0: Kinda kind of on the front lines of the climate crisis. Absolutely.
Speaker 1: Lead from the front. So good. But one more point about this. Sorry. Sorry to go on and on.
Speaker 0: No. I love it.
Speaker 1: But when I say these things to people, you don't care about the environment. And I try and explain to them, I love nature. You love hunting, fishing. You love nature. I love nature.
Passionately. The problem with all of these things is not that I don't like nature. The problem is that nearly any issue which appears to be virtuous on the planet today is Trojan horsed with garbage. That's the problem. I have no problem with fixing or maintaining or preserving nature.
I have a problem with them telling me I have to maintain nature, them Trojan horsing my bankruptcy into the middle of it, knowing that nature won't be fixed, then telling me it's about nature and telling me I should agree with it. That's my problem. There's no there's nothing left on the planet. No issue, which isn't Trojan horsed with absolute garbage. Yes.
And if you're gonna sit there and tell me that I need to give more money to the government to stop the sun from being hot, I'm gonna argue with you that I'd rather keep my money. Thank you very much. Yes. So this is a problem with all these issues. It's nearly anything.
When I argue against some people, you don't care about the issue. I do. But you're not smart enough to understand that the legislation around this issue is so large. It hasn't even been read by most people voting for it. Yeah.
And there's something in the middle of it, which is gonna damage every single person's life, which has nothing at all to do with the issue itself. And most people don't understand that.
Speaker 0: They co opt people's best instincts, their love of nature, which is a virtue, of course. Yep. Their love of their neighbors during COVID. Don't you care about your neighbors? Oh, completely.
You do. And your grandparents? I revere my grandparents.
Speaker 1: Of course. Of course. And you're a and you're a bad person if you resist. I was a terrible person for going to Sweden. You're a very bad person.
You don't care about anyone else that and that's how they do. It's weaponized virtue. And the the my opposers, every single virtuous thing that comes out of their mouth is never from a place of virtue. It's from a place of hate. Yes.
It's weaponized. And also and I don't talk about this very often, but people can go right now to tatepledge.com. I donate $25,000,000 a year to feeding children in war torn countries, especially in the Islamic world because that's where a lot of the war is. Nobody ever mentions that ever. Nobody mentions any of the chair at law work I do.
Nobody mentions any of the lives I save. Nobody mentions any of the people who support me. They don't mention anything at all. They just come along and say, you're a bad person. I say, well, I'm a bad person.
Let's talk about the things you've done to genuinely benefit humanity besides sit on Twitter and talk shit. Have you ever done anything for anybody ever? Are you capable of doing anything? Because the things that make me a bad person. Right?
You don't like me for my principles and the fact I stand up for myself and the fact I have parameters and I say no, everything you hate about me, those are the things that allow me to even do good in the world. If I was like you, mush, goo, I couldn't even help anyone. If you had to help someone today, how could you even do it? You're broke and you're lazy and you're stupid. You can't even you can't even enlighten anybody.
You can just spread hate. How is that helping the world? These people are a net negative, genuinely. And that's what's so crazy about being attacked for your morality like I'm being now. And when you're a good person in general, they attack your morality because the people who are attacking you are absolutely not your immoral.
The ultimate hypocritical hypocriticalism. Ultimate. Even more than my private jet climate change stance. So it's it's certainly unique. I do like to believe though we're entering a new stage of consciousness.
I do like to believe at least from 10 to 15 years ago, more people are I think COVID woke some people up. I do like to believe that MSM credibility is tanking in real time. Trump helped massively. Fake news. Two words.
Before Trump, when did you ever hear fake news? I didn't really hear it that often. No. Fake news. Fake news.
Fake news. And, he did a fantastic job of that and he's starting to wake people up. So, I'd like to believe there's a degree of us winning, but I just wanna make it very clear to the people who attack me and the people who attack anybody who stands up for what they believe in. A lot of their virtue their virtue, their virtue signaling is just hate peddling. And when they can't call you unsuccessful and they can't call you stupid, they have to find a way to hurt you, and the only way they can do that is to say you're a bad person.
Speaker 0: I've noticed. I've noticed. Yes. Yes. I have.
So here's Joe Biden expressing his concern about how Putin is doing in the war in Iraq. Interesting.
Speaker 1: It's hard to tell, but he's he's clearly losing the war in Iraq. He's losing the war at home, and he is, becoming a fly around the world.
Speaker 0: Do you think Putin is losing the war in Iraq?
Speaker 1: I don't think he's losing the war in Iraq. I don't think he's fighting a war in Iraq. Okay.
Speaker 0: I also says he's
Speaker 1: losing the war at home. I don't think he's fighting in Russia and I'm also not sure he's losing. So it's pretty interesting statement on many levels. It's scary, you know, it's a joke, but it's scary because I would never kill myself, but I think the reason he was put into office is because he's incompetent. Yes.
Because that makes him easy to control and influence. That's what's most scary. It's not scary that he's become incompetent in office. It's that they looked at him and goes, that's who we need. That guy.
That's what's most scary to me.
Speaker 0: Does it surprise you that the weakest president is also
Speaker 1: the most destructive? Weak men are always destructive because hurt people hurt people. Yeah. I don't know. I heard someone said that to me a long time ago.
Hurt people hurt people. They were talking about a relationship and I said, that's true. If your heart's been broken, you're probably going to be a bit of an asshole embracing this heart. Hurt people hurt people. And then I thought, well, if you're a weak man and you're going through life and you don't have the strength and resilience to resist the trials and tribulations of being a man and you're constantly hurt by everything and you're constantly upset and depressed and sad because you're weak, how could you possibly do good?
Hurt people, hurt people. Right? To do good, you have to be a good person to begin with and to be a good person you're virtuous and you've gone through a lot of things that made you strong. This is what's mind bending to me that the idea that strong men are somehow bad and it's the ultimate hypocrisy because as soon as something happens, especially physically, as soon as, liberals attack, they call the police. Defund the police.
Call the police. Don't be masculine. Police officer they want a big strong man with a gun. Guns are bad. They want him to have one.
Right? So the ultimate hypocrisy on every level is absolutely and utterly insane. At the base realities of humanity, the absolute base reality, strength in men is respected and wanted. And I think that the closer you get to unfortunate circumstance, the closer you get to reality, they go hand in hand. And then everyone's looking for the strong man.
So strong men should always lead, I believe. And for a longest period of human time, that's how society functioned, the strongest men led. But in the western world now, that doesn't seem to be the case anymore and weak men are emotionally led, they're not particularly stoic, they're impulsive and I would say that the most heinous acts perhaps that happen in modern society today are purported and committed by weak men. I don't think a school shooter is a strong man. I think it's a weak man.
I think it's a man who's been picked on, got butt hurt, was upset, girls don't like him, never learned any emotional control. He's the kind of person who does exactly what the TV tells him to do. Act out your feelings, cry when you want to cry. Well, now he's angry. So now what?
You told him to act out his feelings. What do you expect him to do? I think that weak men do the worst thing. I think weak men hurt women. I think weak men rob stores because they don't want to wake up and work hard and go to work and and do it the honorable way.
It's a weak man who goes and steals. It's a weak man who beats the shit out of a girl. It's a weak man who shoots up a school. This is all weak men stuff. And society as a whole is telling men to be weaker and weaker saying it's somehow the solution to everything because being a man is toxically masculine.
Being a strong man is bad. It's toxically masculine. To be a good man, you have to be a very weak one. Well, look at the most heinous acts that are committed in society. Show me a strong, honorable, virtuous man of principle who's doing any of this stuff.
Speaker 0: So weak men commit the atrocities in this world.
Speaker 1: Absolutely. They do. And it's weak men who also attack anybody of virtue because I think when you're weak, you're intrinsically unhappy.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: I don't think as a man you can be happy if you're weak. I think happiness and strength go hand in hand. Yes. I think that's how we're supposed to be. Right?
Even strength of mind, strength of conviction, strength of something. If you're weak, you're gonna be miserable. So I do find satisfaction in the fact that most of the men who truly dislike me are miserable and weak. And also, like I said earlier about women being gatekeepers, women are fantastic. Women are a fantastic they're like a barometer for society.
I would say you can measure the strength of a society or the virtue of a society or how decayed a society is largely by the actions of many women. I'd like to to argue that point. I can argue that point in many different ways. But women really want their man to be strong. Of course.
They will punish you for being weak. And I'm not saying you can never cry to your woman. I'm not saying you can never open up to your woman, but there's gonna become a time where she expects you to just be capable. There's a problem. And even if you don't know how to fix it, your job as a man is to say, I'll handle it.
Even if you have no money and no hope and to go find a way to fix the problem. If you're weak and go, I don't know, I don't know, she becomes very resentful towards you and she'll punish you for that that weakness. And I think what she's trying to do on an evolutionary standard is inspire you to man up because it's your job to protect her, isn't it? Of course. So if she sees you and looks at you and doesn't see you as a man who can protect her, she can't respect you.
Speaker 0: So every survey of female happiness in the west shows, just a straight decline since about 1970 till now. Women are becoming less happy Yeah. In the west. I think it's very obvious. What accounts for that?
Speaker 1: How can you be happy when all the men around you aren't men? Right? We are the most beautiful union that god has possibly created on the planet. A a feminine woman and a masculine man is the most beautiful union that can possibly exist. It raises children the best.
It both parties are happier. Both parties gain. It's a net positive for everybody. There's no negative. There's no downside.
But, if you destroy one side of the equation, then the other side is going to be completely and utterly miserable and unhappy. How as a woman can you be happy if you can't find a man who you believe can protect you, provide for you, sticks up for you, has morals, has principles? There's none of those men left. So then what they do is just go from man to man trying to find it and by the time they've been through enough men to maybe find someone semi close to it, they've been through too many men to ever be happy. And then you have the absolute destruction of western society.
We talk about why men don't get married anymore. I can tell you why I wouldn't wanna get married in America. I don't see the point in being married to a woman who's had so many partners before me that she can't properly pair bond with me and then giving her the opportunity to financially destroy me. I think that would be a bad chess move. And I do believe in marriage.
I think society would be better if everyone was married. I'm saying that if you're living in a immoral society, being a moral person, if you're not careful about it, you can get wrecked. If the game is rigged, you'd be very careful if you play it. So how do we encourage men to get married? Well, they need to be worth marrying, but so do the women.
Right? So everything's decaying on both sides. Everything's spiraling. One of the reasons I also got called misogynistic and I'll say it here, I argue the point that for the longest period of human time evolutionarily, women had to adopt and find a way to take the ethos of an opposing tribe perhaps quicker than a man could because of war. Of course.
If the man would come and if the men would fight and a tribe lost and the women survived, they had to change how they thought to fit in with the new tribe to survive. Yeah. Because they'd be carried off. Because they'd be carried off. Of course.
Like, the the French women were sleeping with Nazis towards the end of it. Towards the end of Paris occupation, all the French women were sleeping with Nazis. When the Nazis got kicked out, the French women had all had their heads shaved because they got caught hanging around with German soldiers. The German soldiers killed their husband. 3 years later, they need to eat.
The German soldiers have a wage. He's handsome. It's amazing how quickly they can adapt and that's for their own survival. That's fantastic. But then if you extrapolate out and you understand that to be true, then you also understand that women are more susceptible to programming to a degree.
I got called misogynistic by saying that if you sit a 100 men and a 100 women down in front of propaganda, I believe that women are more likely to believe a law. I think a law of liberals are female. They're more emotional and they're and it's easier to convince them of something if you use an emotionally led argument. Right? So if by extension you now have women who are emotionally led, who are being convinced and their logic is failing because they're being tricked with an emotionally led argument and the man they're meeting has no principle and no honor and he can't resist that, she's in charge of the house, well, now she's telling the man what to do.
Right? If I would have come home during COVID and my woman said, you need to wear a mask,
Speaker 0: I'd say, no, I don't. End of conversation.
Speaker 1: We were about a sin. You need to wear a mask. Okay, baby. Don't alright. So the women are also largely in charge of the psyop because the men are so desperate to get any kind of connection with a real person and avoid the porn screen.
And then these women are being controlled by the mass media as a whole. I say this to, I have children. I don't talk about it often, But I said to the mothers of my children, I say, look. Either we program their minds or society does. Who do you believe in?
Everyone is being programmed by somebody somebody and something. Me, you, everybody. We're all programmed by someone. To sit and think you're above programming is is incorrect. What you have to do is sit and say, does the person who's programming genuinely have my best interest at heart?
What do they want me to believe? Why do they want me to believe it? What happens if I believe what they want me to believe? Where does this lead? That's all we can do.
We're all programmed. We're all the sum of the 5 people we spend the most time with. Right. Right? So if you have women with no father, no strong masculine influence, who's programming them?
The Kardashians? And the news? The Internet? Porn stars? What kind of woman is that gonna be?
And then if a man finally ends up with her and he has no backbone, what kind of man is he gonna be? I don't want to comment on these things because I don't want to make personal enemies of people I don't know. There's a guy called Adam 22. Once again, I have no idea who this man is. I just saw on Twitter yesterday that he was with a porn star who'd never done a male scene.
They got married, and, like, a week after their marriage, she did her first male scene with some random dude and he's on a podcast defending it.
Speaker 0: Did his wife had sex with somebody else?
Speaker 1: Correct. Why? Like, this this is the level you could this but this is what the matrix wants from you as a man. They want the woman in charge and the man below with no backbone because if the woman's in charge, they can emotionally affect her. They can scare her.
You can scare a woman. Easier than you can scare a man. A man. A real man's hard to scare. A woman you can make afraid of the vaccine.
Right? Be afraid of COVID. Be scared. If she's in charge of the household, I would argue in nearly any household where the female was dominant, everyone's vaccinated. I would argue that point hard.
Of course. Maybe I'm wrong, but I would argue it. I don't I don't have the statistics. It's just logic to me. So talk about women being unhappy.
What's actually interesting about the female mind, once again, they're gonna call me misogynist, is that when you're an emotionally led person, you're more prone to chaos. It takes real stoicism to lead. So why are these women unhappy? Because no one's leading them, no fathers, no men of no backbone, no man they respect, so they're relying on society, which is promoting chaos, and their own mental state. Women will say all the time, oh, my period was coming up, so I was crazy.
Like, they'll say that themselves. So without any kind of hard rock of emotional security to give her a hug and say, don't worry, babe. Calm down. It's okay. When you're not when you have no hard rock of emotional security and you lead her leave her to her own devices, she's gonna be to a degree chaotic.
And you know who told me this? A woman said this to me. A woman said this to me. A woman said, most women are closer to her mental breakdown than you possibly believe day by day. I was like, really?
She goes, yeah. And that's that's what I love about my husband. He makes me feel happy and secure and safe. If I'm starting to have a problem, I know I go to him and he makes me feel safe. He's my rock.
There's a woman said this to me a long time ago.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: So why are women miserable? Because where are they gonna get their happiness from? Where they're gonna get their emotional stability from? It's not their job. I don't believe it's a woman's job to be emotionally stable.
It's a woman's job to do many other very important things that men can't do. More important. They're better than men at a lot of things, women are. But it's our job to be emotionally stable. Women are better than us at certain things.
We're better at other things, and that's why as a team, we're so powerful. To sit and pretend we're all the same the whole way through, then why do we even need each other anymore?
Speaker 0: Well, I don't think
Speaker 1: we do. Exactly it. And this is why we have birth rates declining, porn, women who are running around sharing one man with no intention of having children, marriage is gone. Like, where do we think this is gonna end? And what's interesting about it Well,
Speaker 0: it ends with the training thing. Right?
Speaker 1: Complete well, yeah. Just the alternate?
Speaker 0: I'm I'm I'm serious, though. Is that I mean, if there's no, I mean, scrambling the idea of, the gender binary of sex differences, like, that that is kind of the end point, isn't it?
Speaker 1: Well, the end point is yeah. Men are the same as women, so it doesn't even matter. Right. I could be a woman today, could be a man tomorrow. None of it matters anymore.
I also think a large part of this transactional movement, I think a large part of it is a deliberate attack on us and our senses because they're trying to convince us to ignore our eyes. I do believe that is a bottom line. I think the bottom line of slavery are are your own senses. Like, no matter what I'm told that it's cold outside, I feel warm. That is my that's the bottom line.
So once they can convince you that your senses are wrong, well, then you're completely open for the slave program. Once you can look at something with your eyes and ignore your eyes, you're a prime candidate. So I think a lot of this has also something to do with that. You are gonna say that's a girl. That's what you are going to say because you have to.
And if you say it long enough, you'll think it. And if you won't, your children will because we'll tell them. Eventually, you're gonna say it and then it becomes true. Then you ignore your eyes. Now you believe anything.
Right? Till the next thing comes along. Now you believe all the people on the jets telling you about climate change. It's all an attack on the senses.
Speaker 0: This is America's most famous admiral.
Speaker 2: You know, it it's it's so it's such an important issue for our youth and adults. As you said, some of these laws are actually extending in into adulthood. You know, we often say that gender affirming care is health care. Gender affirming care is mental health care, and gender affirming care is literally suicide prevention care. Would that be your view as well?
Speaker 0: I 100% agree.
Speaker 1: It's so it's genuinely I wanna actually genuinely give my heartfelt condolences to any young person who falls for this crap because you're gonna be so miserable for the rest of your life. If you chop off your genitals, take a whole bunch of chemicals as a teenager, you are gonna be miserable for the rest of your life. Yes. You're never gonna be the person you wanna be. You're never gonna be accepted as that person.
You're never gonna feel happy inside. If you fall for this, I genuinely feel sorry for you. That's the first thing I'm going to say. The second thing I'm going to say, I find it very interesting that the only surgery we call affirming is gender surgery. Imagine a girl woke up and said, I was born in the wrong body because my tits are small.
I'm a big titted woman, but I was born in the wrong body. I need gen I need a tit affirming care. I need to affirm my true body shape, Otherwise, I have a mental health problem. No. It's it's it's it's it's plastic.
It looks good. Perhaps. Whatever. But we would never say she was born in the wrong body and we had to affirm her genuine body experience. Her triple d's.
Yeah. Yeah. Her triple d's had to be affirmed. It's garbage. You're you're not affirming anything.
And, also, I think it's kind of interesting. They say that trans people commit suicide at higher rate. That's sad. Nobody should kill themselves. I I would hate for anybody to kill themselves.
They say that's because they're picked on for being trans. I don't know why anyone's ever had the argument that perhaps they have a mental instability before this trans stuff, and that's why they're more prone to to suicide in the first place.
Speaker 0: Seems like an obvious explanation.
Speaker 1: Seems like an obvious explanation. I don't think it's normal for anybody to wanna mutilate themselves. I I think if someone were to come to me and say I really wanna cut my hand off, I would think they had a mental illness. Why? Don't like it.
What do you mean you don't like it? I don't like my hand. I don't want it. I would think that's very concerning. So I really truly feel sorry for any young people who fall for this.
I don't blame them. I think it's a massive psyop, and I think if you fall for it, you're gonna be miserable forever. And I one more point I'll make on this whole thing I found very interesting. I'm a professional fighter, so I spent a lot of time in Thailand when I was fighting. Kickboxing was big over there.
And I've always thought no one's ever mentioned that Thailand has a bunch of lady boys. Right? But if you say to a lady boy, are you a man or a woman? She goes, I'm a lady boy. What's that?
I'm a man, but I'm a lady boy. They don't see themselves as women in the real sense of I am female. They don't wanna compete against women in sports. They don't wanna pretend they can have kids. They don't talk about having periods.
They're like, I'm a ladyboy. It's like kinda like a in between it's got its own thing.
Speaker 0: India has the same. Yeah.
Speaker 1: It's fine. Nobody over there is genuinely arguing that they are actually female. Only in America are we doing that. And that's what's the craziest thing of all. Even if you truly, truly believe you need to change gender and you truly believe it's the right path for you and you believe you're not being psyopt and you believe you're gonna be happy and you believe you need to mutilate yourself, that's all fine.
But then to come along with the hubris and arrogance to tell me that I have to pretend you're something you're not Yes. Biologic. That's right. That's absolutely not really arrogant. You can't tell me what I have to call you.
Right? I'm allowed to come to my own conclusions and opinions. And the whole point of being a human is that we've gone through life long enough to identify patterns. Imagine humans didn't identify patterns. One person went and got ate by the lion.
You watch it happen then you go for a turn. Like, no. You work out over time. Don't go near the lion. Right?
If I look at a person who's 6 foot 4 muscularly built, right, with a big jaw and a beard, my brain and my life experience tells me that's quite often a man. That's very often it is. Very often. That's the conclusion I've come to. To come along and say no because I've decided to do x y zed, you have to ignore all of the patterns you've identified throughout your entire life and everything you believe to be true.
You have to throw away all the science in your entire worldview and everything about how you view the world. You have to eject that from your brain and call me what I wanna be called is extremely arrogant. And if I went through the world and said, I wanted to call me King Andrew, they'd tell me shut up. Why? If they can get called whatever they want, I should be able to get called whatever I want.
I wanna be King Andrew, number one savior of earth, climate change activist. That's what I wanna be. And if anybody calls me anything else, they're a bigot. That's what we're gonna do. We're gonna go down that path.
I'm gonna make sure that my title is good. Lord of all lands of lord of all beasts of the land and fishes in the sea. The most honorable man who's ever lived. The fastest human alive. Who cares?
Doesn't matter that I can't run fastest. It doesn't matter. Tucker, I'm the fastest human alive. You must affirm my belief. I'm the fastest man alive.
Greatest man in show business. Sorry, Tucker. Best political commentator there's ever been. Let's just go down this path of insanity. Why not?
Walk around with stickers on our head. Be great. Be fun. The scariest thing about all this stuff is that the world is still polarized to a degree because there's certain places in the world which are too close to baseline reality for survival, for any of this garbage to fly. You think you can go to Tajikistan where people are trying to eat and talk to them about gender and all this garbage?
They'll be like, listen. You're a man. This needs doing. Shut up. Right?
There's no time for any of that. So as the western world is self destroy just is is is self destructing in real time, there are places in the world where none of this crap is happening. So who's gonna own the world in a 100, 200 years? Like, it's still competitive to a degree. It's still bipolar.
There's there's two sides to the world. I think that when men are men and women are women and we stop arguing about dumb shit, that society overall is more competitive. I don't know how America is gonna maintain its influence over the entire planet when it's doing all this garbage. How long can this possibly last? Not long.
Not long. It's like the fall of Rome. The fall of Rome, everything became decadent, endless sex and orgies. No one had enough faith in the state to join the army anymore. People talk about barbarians destroying Rome.
Rome was destroyed from the inside. This happens, and we're we're with witnessing it in real time. And we have all these problems on earth, and then they wanna spend 1,000,000 and 1,000,000 of dollars on an investigation to prove that I'm a human trafficker for TikTok. It's clown world. It's nothing nothing even makes sense anymore.
Speaker 0: This is a video from a recent pride march in New York. I'm interested in your view of it. So I
Speaker 1: have a few points on this. The first point is that it is an unfortunate reality and I'm not gonna be called a big hit, I'm gonna talk about the reality that the homosexual community cannot reproduce in and of themselves. So for them to have a community into the future they do need your your children. That's how they think. For there to be a homosexual community in a 100 years from now, they need straight people's kids because only straight people have children.
So they're very they're telling the truth, that's the first thing, they they mean what they say. The second thing is, I think a lot of this is an attention grab by them. I think they are slightly disappointed in how tolerant many people actually are. I have no problem with gay people, I don't care. I'm gay.
Cool. I want to get married. Fine. I'm
Speaker 0: going
Speaker 1: to wave my dick in your kid's face. Wait a second. Yeah. They they push it to a point where we have to react, and then when we react, they say we're bigoted. Children are innocent and destruction of innocence is one of the most disgusting things on the face of the planet.
It's terrible if a child is killed in a war. It's terrible if a child's mind is warped by any propaganda mechanism. They're they're innocent. What I don't understand is why imagine a heterosexual men walked around naked saying we're coming for the children. Well, someone gets shot.
Absolutely. So, why is it when you have For a
Speaker 0: good reason.
Speaker 1: Completely. So, as soon as there's a sexual orientation, they're completely protected. And I think that the whole point of having children as a whole is to instill them with your worldview. I know if I have children, I want them to be like me. We just talked about my last name and how I want them to honor me into my into post death, then I want them to be a representation of me, which means they should believe in my values and my creeds.
Why is a group of people in New York walking around telling me what they're gonna teach my kids and what my kids should believe? They're not your kids. They're my kids.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: And that's what's so scary because children are impressionable and children are raised by the state and the internet effectively, which is why they want me off the internet. They want but they'll let a lot of people stay on the internet and say a lot about a lot of things. I'll argue that if I was transgender, the American embassy would have told Romania they were bigoted and removed me pretty quickly. I'll genuinely argue that point. They would say, no.
What you're doing is is abusive to the LGBT community. He must be removed from jail. Of course. Immediately. Immediately.
But because I'm straight and heterosexual, it doesn't matter. We're the we're the class that suffers the biggest the biggest bigotry that possibly exists in in in the western world today. I would actually argue that point. But, they're saying this to be deliberately provocative. They're deliberately trying to upset people.
They want to upset you so that when you talk against it you they can call you names and call you a bigot. And also, they mean what they say and it's it's truly scary. I'm obviously a Muslim, I'm Islamic. What most people don't understand about a lot of the Islamic world is that a lot of these things are outlawed. Right?
But people say, so gay people can't go there. If you go to Dubai, you will see gay people. You can if a guy wants to be gay and do whatever he wants to do with a full grown man in his own house, I don't care and you can tell. You might have a waiter who's gay, whatever, etcetera. The only reason it's outlawed is not to stop a man, a full grown man, meeting a full grown man and doing what he decides to do.
It's outlawed to prevent it bleeding into society and affecting the culture where the children are affected. That's why it's outlawed.
Speaker 0: And, I'm not saying
Speaker 1: it should be outlawed in America, but what I'm saying is if you're not going to protect the innocence of children from any ideology and if the ideology is deliberately targeting children because children are more impressionable and more capable of believing in things which simply aren't true, perhaps a man a man looking like a woman or vice versa, then that is a dangerous ideology that should be very closely examined.
Speaker 0: Well, if you're not gonna protect children or if you're going to encourage women to fight your wars, why have a society in the first place? Well, this is another the whole point of society to protect women
Speaker 1: in You know what's really interesting? I argued this point once. They were talking about how the west is a patriarchy and it's so terrible to be a woman in the west. And I'm like, well, where is better to be a woman then? If it's not the west, please tell me.
Pick another country besides America where you'd rather be a woman. It's garbage to begin with, but she's saying, oh, America's a patriarchy and Americans are all in such a thing. And men are so bad and women have been oppressed since the beginning of time. It's always been a patriarchy. If that's true, why don't women fight our wars?
Think about it. We can get the women of our country and the women of another country and let them go die in a ditch, and us men can just sit around being patriarchs. Why do we have to go die? Why do we have to go get our legs blown off? No.
Because we're patriarchy. Women can go suffer or do the women get to stay at home and we go suffer? How is it a patriarchy? Right? So that's garbage to begin with.
But I think, genuinely, to go back to that point, any ideology which is waking up and saying our worldview is so extreme, the only way we can truly ensure it exists into the future is to find the most susceptible people on the planet to program and attack their minds, children. I think that's a destructive ideology. It should be very closely looked at. And it doesn't matter if it's LGBTQ or anything else. I think if you sit children down and and and pump propaganda into their brain and that's the only way you can get what you want, then there's probably something wrong with your ideas because you're afraid to challenge them with a a grown adult.
You don't want a fair fight. You understand? They don't want a fair fight. They wanna sit with a child who has no idea what he's talking about and tell them that men are women and women are men, vice versa, and just completely confuse the poor child because they don't want a fair fight against a rational adult, and that's scary.
Speaker 0: It doesn't seem a huge improvement over say, ISIS to me.
Speaker 1: Absolutely. That's how how do you convince somebody to blow themselves up? Well, you find a young man, teenage boy, and you program his mind. Exactly. And it's exactly the same thing.
They don't try and convince an older man to blow himself up because he's gonna sit there and go, why don't you blow yourself up? And then there's an argument. You go find a young susceptible person. Right? And that's what's so scary about all of it.
And and it's also kind of funny that, like, this whole LGBTQ thing is also linked to the patriarchy, also linked to all this other garbage and all these other false narratives and false ideas, and it's these people who are attacking me saying I'm dangerous for women because I'm a misogynist. You're dangerous for women for pretending men are women. You're more dangerous for women than I am. I'm saying a man's a man's a woman's a woman. You're saying that if I put a wig on, I can go punch women in the face in the boxing ring.
Who's dangerous for women?
Speaker 0: It's insanity.
Speaker 1: And, again, they have no virtue at all. They just weaponize garbage and attack you with it. But I do think that children have to at least be the bottom line for society. That's the future. And if you have children at home, you're raising them.
And if you struggle to feed them, the government doesn't care. They are yours and they're your problem and your responsibility and you deal with all of the stress and all the worry of them being out late at night and all the responsibility of taking care of them, and you went through hell for them to exist. You don't owe their minds to anybody else. You don't owe it. So there has to be a point where you stand up and say, no.
I raised this child. It's my child. It's my child. It's not yours. Absolutely.
Speaker 0: What do you make of Julian Assange?
Speaker 1: I think that it's crazy. It's the number one way to shut up the BBC. That's for sure. To mention him. Say, oh, you're a journalist.
You care about journalism. Do you care about fair and independent story? Why is Assange in Belmarsh? Very interesting. What do they say?
They don't answer. They try and change subject. They always do. I did it. I stole it from the Azerbaijani president.
He started it. I saw that. Yeah. It's great.
Speaker 0: Do you know him?
Speaker 1: I don't know him, but I've seen I've seen enough of his interviews to like him.
Speaker 0: Me too.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I like him. And this is what I'm saying about the world. There's so many places in the world where they still live very firmly in the real world. All of this garbage is just the result of the very simple easy lives that we have.
Inside the movie, the matrix, which I recommend you watch, the agents say, we tried to create a utopia for the human mind so that your mind is in a utopian state and your body can just be used, but the human mind rejects utopia. We created the world in 1999 at the pinnacle of human civilization before machines took over because the human mind needs struggle and it needs problems. Otherwise, it rejects it.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: And I kinda feel there's a whole bunch of people trying to just find problems and find struggle in their lives because they don't have enough motivation to do something that's genuinely difficult like, you know, help people, But they can't live in this state of complete vegetation.
Speaker 0: That's right.
Speaker 1: So then they wake up and say, oh, I'm oppressed. My pronouns. How much energy must it take to go through life trying to correct every person you interact with to call you z. Think of the calories burnt. I can't think of a bigger waste of time.
You get the calories burnt. Every Starbucks employee, it's actually z. Correct. You are a moron, and you are just wasting so much energy. You could put that towards something beneficial.
You could volunteer. You could do you could go to the gym. You could there's so much more you could do with walk instead of walk around and talk about z, you sound like a dumbass. But they're just finding struggle because they don't have any actual importance struggle in their lives. And that's why it only exists in the decadent west.
Speaker 0: Do you think the coming famine will change that? Absolutely.
Speaker 1: I would argue that when the famine comes, I think all these feminists will look for a strong man of resource who is stoic, who has a good network, who's capable and important and respected. It's amazing how quickly feminism disappears. In fact, there's a podcast I did called Fresh and Fit, and I did this podcast in Miami and I was arguing about gender roles with 7 girls. And during it, they were telling me that they can do anything a man can do, all the usual things and they don't care, they don't need a man, all this garbage. And some crazy fan knocked on the door for me and he had a gun.
He knocked on the door. You should have seen the women how quickly they became feminists when I had to go to that door. They all completely changed. Go go go go. Oh, the feminism's out the window.
There's no feminists on the Titanic. There's no feminism in a famine. There's no feminists at war. Where's the feminists? Go to war.
Right? I remember when Afghanistan, when we did that very well planned, very thorough evacuation of Afghanistan and all the schools that we opened for women got shut down by the Taliban. And I was having this conversation with someone and I was saying, okay. Well, you're an Afghan man. Right?
You you've been hired by the Afghan Defence Force and America's now left and you have a meager wage and America's left and the Taliban are coming and you're standing outside of the school with your AK and they're coming with whatever they've got and you're looking at the school going, do I really want girls to go to school that bad? Not really. Just put it down. You walk off. And this girl's like, yeah.
But, you know, it's really important. And I'm like, yeah. It is very important. I agree. Women should have education and write the education.
Completely agree. But you're also saying here that men should die for it, which is fine. I'm not saying that that shouldn't be the case, but I'm saying then you should give men the respect they deserve for dying for your education. Because it's not the women who are gonna defend that female school, it's the men. So if you're gonna shit on men all day long and say we ain't worth anything until the war comes and then you want us to go die, That's interesting.
When the famine comes, the closer reality gets towards baseline survival, the closer we become towards our gender roles because it's the only way we can be competitive. If you took 10 men and 10 women and stranded them on a desert island, the men would be men and the women would be women because if they didn't, they would die. That's the bottom line. And I think that if you look at history since the dawn of time, men were masculine and also men by and large were generally ruling the society not in an oppressive way but in a protective way. And I think that that means that makes society most competitive and my argument for that is that if you name any society since the dawn of human time, men were protecting women, providing for women, and basically in charge of the society.
And these are societies that never met. So it can't be an idea that spread. The Ming the Ming dynasty and the Aztecs, they're they're pretty far away. But that's how society was most effective. And when feminists argue with me and say, we need a society run by women, so that's never ever happened.
And if it has happened, they got destroyed so quickly they never had a history. We can't even name one. So it's a brand new idea, which I'm not saying is a bad idea. I'm saying if it's a brand new idea, you can't tell me it's gonna be better because it's never been tried ever. So we're gonna see, but what happens if it doesn't work with the most powerful nation on earth?
Right? So, we're feminizing men and women have more and more control and more power, which is fantastic. I'm saying this is untested. Who knows where any of this is leading? And our competitors, America's competitors, are still very firm in their gender roles.
So it's certainly an interesting period of history you're about to enter. It's very interesting.
Speaker 0: What's your view of tobacco?
Speaker 1: I love tobacco. So my diet is particularly strange, I've been told. I live on caffeine and nicotine, so I eat once a day. I eat dinner only. 80% of my calories come from meat.
I have 10 cups of coffee a day and 3 or 4 large cigars. So I like caffeine and nicotine.
Speaker 0: I do too. Yeah.
Speaker 1: It makes me feel good. Makes me feel like my blood's on fire a little bit. Caffeine and nicotine, I think are fantastic and But you're a you're a health guy, obviously. I'm a health guy, but, smoking is mass is is fantastic for your testosterone level, and I think that's important in a man. I think it's also important in the resistance of slavery as
Speaker 0: a whole. Really you can feel it.
Speaker 1: Oh, 100%. And I'm not saying that, you know, smoking's healthy. I'm not saying that because I also train exceptionally hard every single day and when I was professionally fighting, I didn't smoke. But I think in general, testosterone level is a fantastic way to measure your overall health as a man.
Speaker 0: But but nicotine has a positive correlation of testosterone levels.
Speaker 1: Absolutely. It's been proven. Yep. It's been proven repeatedly. So that's why I love nicotine so much.
And then caffeine, I love to have that little bit of, not jitter, but I like to feel energetic and I like to be hungry. My optimal state is hungry but energetic. That's how I get the most done. I don't like eating. If I eat, I feel full.
I feel lethargic. I like to yeah. I like to be hungry and 1% irritable for my 5th coffee and, a bunch of nicotine inside of me. That's how I like to perform. So, yeah, I think I think it's, it's a good thing.
And
Speaker 0: It's interesting how focused the people in charge are on nicotine Yeah. Because fentanyl becomes really common. Yeah. A 100,000 people die a year from it. Yeah.
Nobody notices, but they're still trying to shut down not just tobacco, but non tobacco nicotine devices. Yep.
Speaker 1: Why? That's a really good point. We could argue it's down to testosterone level. I don't know if you ever saw the study which linked people's testosterone level to their ability and capability to disagree with something. So, the ball they did a study, which is pretty self explanatory.
The higher your testosterone level, the more likely you are to disagree with a point. And the reason for that is is because, especially in older times, if you're gonna disagree with something, you had to fight over it. Yeah. If you're gonna say no to somebody or some tribe or some person, there's a very light there's a high chance that you're gonna have to fight that person. You have to defend your idea.
If you don't have the propensity or the capability to defend your idea, then why would you go against the ideas of the people who are stronger than you? So reducing testosterone levels make men more compliant and more complacent because we're less likely to say no because we can't defend what we think. Why would we say you're wrong, but we can't do anything about it? Might as well say, well, then you're right. Might makes right.
Right. So reducing testosterone levels in men is something which I believe they're trying very hard to do. And if you read the studies, they're succeeding. Testosterone levels have gone off the off the edge, off the cliff. And perhaps that's why they attack smoking so heavily.
I understand that smoking a lot of cigarettes can be very bad for you, but I think everything in moderation. And I think that, overall, I would rather smoke a few cigars today and maintain my testosterone level, which it's good for, then then not. I think the the benefits outweigh the negatives.
Speaker 0: Couldn't agree more. And my final question, is about digital currency.
Speaker 1: Yep. Or do you think it's inevitable, and what would its effects be? CBDCs are inevitable and they're scary. They're super scary because it's the final absolute realm of control. I mean, they're already removing cash from society.
I think they say that just because they wanna be able to trace things easier and that's certainly part of it, but I also have another theory on it. It. I think if you have a $50 bill and I give it to the the barber for my haircut, and then he goes and buys groceries with it from the grocer, and the grocer goes and gets his car washed, the $50 goes from place to place. And after 20 or 30 transactions, the $50 bill belongs to somebody and it's worth $50. Whereas, if I pay by card, 1.5% goes to the bank.
And then if he takes the money I've given him and pays for the groceries, 1.5% goes to the bank. And after the groceries have been paid for, when he goes to get his car washed, 1.5% goes to the bank. So after 20 or 30 transactions, if $50 is gone, the bank has it all. I think that's why they're so desperate to get rid of cash. It's interesting.
CBDCs are the next level because once the money is completely digital, then they control everything you do with it. They control where it goes, but they can also control how and when it can be spent. Imagine some terrible future dystopian society where your money arrives and they say it can only be spent on food or it can only be spent on vegetables because you've had too much meat this week or you can't buy transport to a particular area because there's resistance to government oppression in that area. So that your your money won't work for trains right now because nobody can go down there because we don't want everyone in a large group. We want everyone at home in their pods and they can track everywhere it goes and they can also track how it's spent.
They control how it's spent. They put time limit on it. You have an hour to spend this money. Scary. Like, think of all the ways they can inflict control over it.
And, I think this is actually one of the reasons why also I'm disliked. The BBC said this to me when interviewed me. They said, Lucy, the very intelligent BBC reporter said word for word, you have a Bugatti and a cigar and that means it comes with a side order of misogyny. I said, how does having a Bugatti and a cigar come with a side order of misogyny? You can order misogyny on the side?
Looks like it. It's like a sauce. And she repeated it because she couldn't yeah. You have a Bugatti in a cigar and it comes with a side order of misogyny. So I was like But the they're not sending their best.
Yeah. They're I don't think they have any best, to be honest. But the point they're making, what she doesn't realize she's making because she's not smart enough, but what she wanted to say, but she couldn't say in a way which sounded negative is financial freedom is required for to a degree to resist. The reason I'm also disliked is because I'm financially successful. Evol's broke.
They wouldn't care why I say what I say, but I inspire young men, all of my fans, to to become wealthy. And they and and you'd think that'd be fantastic for the society. Right? He has millions of young men. He's teaching them to work hard.
He's teaching them different ways money can be made. He's teaching them to be fantastic salesman. He's teaching he's helping the society. No. Because if you have a whole bunch of money, then you can sit and say, no.
I don't need your wage. That's bullshit. There was a video very recently of a guy in England taking down all the English flags and putting up pride flags and a guy screams to him and goes bro you're taking down the wrong flag and he replied I know mate. And the point is what can I do? I'm a flag flag guy.
If I say no, someone else will do it. Kids go to eat. So by keeping your money enslaved, they can keep you enslaved. You go to eat. They don't want men to be financially free.
You're financially free. If you have enough money in the bank, you can one day go, you know what? I don't want your money. Even me now to this day, I've done enough and I'm successful enough that they it's very hard for them to buy me. They come along well, I would never sell my soul anyway because it's not who I am as a person.
But if I was destitute, they could come along and say, Andrew, you have all this influence. We're gonna change your message. You're gonna say this. We're gonna give you 10,000,000. Okay.
You can't buy me. You can't buy Trump. He's rich already. He's rich he's rich and he's 80, 70 something. You think he needs more money?
He doesn't care about money. They don't like that. So being financially free in and of itself is now an act against the government because this whole idea that they want everyone to be rich and it's fantastic for the society, I'd actually argue against that. They don't want that. They want everyone destitute because when you're destitute, you need the government to feed you and it's very hard to fight against the government who's feeding you.
It's very hard to resist the people who give out the bread. Yeah. I think that's called something. It begins with c. What's it called?
Interesting. I also heard another interesting theory from a very intelligent person one day and it was that every government on earth, all of them, in all of their different forms, China, which says it's communist and it's capitalist and all the different in betweens to the capitalist west, every government on earth is slowly encroaching on trying to become as controlling as powerful as as possible. They all know well, they all wanna be as controlling as possible over their citizens. Communism is the end result of the most control a government can have effectively or some version of communism, but every single government on earth is slowly trying to get there bit by bit. And the only thing that resists them getting there is the populace and how much the populace will accept.
And depending on how malleable the populace is, depends on how quickly they get there. But every government wakes up. It's kinda like AI. You ever heard the robots are gonna destroy us all because they wake up and go, we don't need the humans anymore? Their end goal is just survival.
If a government is the same as an entity, its its end goal is more and more control. And that's all they're trying to do every single day with every law they pass with the climate change law. They don't care about the environment. They want more control. Of course.
And the more and more control they get, the the final end result, if you give them what they want, is absolute slavery for everybody. So you have to be very careful because that is their ideal government. The ideal government is where everyone complies, everyone obeys, everyone's controlled, we know everything about everybody and it's slavery. That's the only way to get that state. So even making money, making enough money to have an opinion is an act of of rebellion.
It's crazy. It's a Thank you very much, my friend.
Speaker 0: Amazing. Thank you. Thank you. The John Deere people say the news is full of lies.
Speaker 1: On Kennedy's motorcade.
Speaker 0: 139 c l of Jeffrey Epstein.
@CitizenFreePres - Citizen Free Press
Tucker Carlson Ep. 43 just dropped. An interview with Marjorie Taylor Greene: "You think elected Republicans in Washington are craven frauds who’d sell your children for a steak dinner at the French Laundry? Actually, says MTG, it’s worse than that." https://t.co/1MYoPGfUGT
Video Transcript AI Summary
If you've ever voted for a Republican, you might have felt disconnected from their priorities. Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Congresswoman from Georgia, shares her experience of being unfairly labeled and attacked by both the media and her own party. She emphasizes that her sincere beliefs, rooted in her upbringing, made her a target. Greene criticizes the Republican establishment for prioritizing foreign wars over domestic issues, highlighting the disconnect between Congress and the American people. She expresses frustration with her colleagues for not taking action against the Biden administration and for failing to impeach officials who she believes are failing the country. Greene insists that she will continue to fight for American interests, relying on grassroots support rather than donations from large corporations.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: If you're watching this right now, the chances are you have at some time in your life voted for a Republican, possibly even given one money because what were your options? You didn't feel you had any. But after you did that, you likely stood back and watched the Republicans in Washington and thought to yourself, these people have very different priorities from me. I didn't vote for them in order for them to do to do the things they're doing now. They seem to care about things that have nothing to do with my life at all.
In fact, it may have occurred to you, they may secretly hate me, and you may be onto something. But have you ever asked yourself what it would be like to work among them, to be an elected Republican in Washington who actually believe something and actually wanted to represent your constituents? What would that be like? Well, Marjorie Taylor Greene found out a couple of terms ago. She's from the state of Georgia.
She was elected to congress. She's had an amazing two terms there, and she's written a new book about it called MTG. She joins us now. Congressman, thank you so much for coming on. Thanks
Speaker 1: for having me.
Speaker 0: So I never met you. I didn't know anything about you. I don't follow this stuff very carefully. And the first time I heard of you was in a an explosion, a Vesuvius of news stories, calling you a crazed Nazi, anti semite, and attaching you to the phrase Jewish space lasers. And so I thought, well, that's kind of a crazy thing to say, so I'd look it up.
And it was like, you never said that, and it had nothing kind of to do with what you said. And then I watched the Republicans in Congress. It was a smear job. Very obvious. A 2 minute Google search approved that.
And then the Republican leadership in congress immediately attacked you on the basis of the smears without even looking into them, and I thought, well, I'm not really surprised because that's who they are. But what was that like from your perspective? I've always wondered.
Speaker 1: Shocking. As a matter of fact, in January of 2021, all of Washington and the media, the national media, created a character of me that didn't exist. And then they sold that character across the news platforms all across the country and across the world 247. And Washington bought into it too. And so every single day I showed up to work, all of a sudden, I was like this toxic poison member of congress in Washington, and it was attacks day in and day out.
It was something I never experienced before.
Speaker 0: So but I it's a little weird. I mean, look. I mean, I I think partisan loyalty can go too far. I think if you, like, drive off a bridge drunk and kill a woman as Teddy Kennedy did, your party shouldn't defend murdering a woman. Amen.
That's my view. However, if you're being unfairly smeared smeared, I think it's fair to to hope that your party will defend you against an unfair smear. So what's the point of having a leadership if they don't defend their own members against lies?
Speaker 1: Well, because I wasn't, I guess, in line, so to speak. I was completely from the outside. No one had propped me up. No one had told me to run. As a matter of fact, I never even went to a GOP meeting anywhere until I announced that I was running for congress.
Speaker 0: So you didn't go through the the normal process.
Speaker 1: I didn't go through the normal rank and file, and then I beat a, candidate, a republican candidate that was highly supported by the establishment in Washington, Steve Scalise. Over 30 something members of congress had raised money for him, endorsed him, and then I beat him by double digits.
Speaker 0: In the primary?
Speaker 1: In the primary. Oh, I
Speaker 0: didn't know this. So that was that was your actual sin? Yeah. They were mad at you before the Jewish Space Lasers thing.
Speaker 1: Oh, it was yeah. Exactly. That's right. I wasn't one of them.
Speaker 0: So where I mean, looking back on it, and I'm sure you I'm sure you must, on some level, still feel rage. It makes me mad just thinking about it. But, trying to coolly assess it, where do you think you differed from Republican leadership or the Republican establishment on policy? Like, what didn't they like about your views, do you think?
Speaker 1: Well, I came in and my views were concreted not only from how I grew up in a small business, not a wealthy family, in a in a family where my my dad was literally living the true American dream. My mom dad? My father, Robert Taylor, owned a construction company, the company that I bought after college. Started out so poor. They had $500 for their name when I was born.
And they just worked hard, and I learned all their lessons growing up in the company. Went to college. After college, I bought my parents' company. I had to buy it. It wasn't given to me.
It wasn't like a I wasn't a trust fund baby or anything. And so I actually had to earn it. And I truly believe the things that I say, and I think that made me the greatest threat to republicans and democrats in Washington is I was I'm I am sincere.
Speaker 0: It was interesting, though, because I I kept reading you described as this crazed radical, which isn't all bad. Sometimes we need crazed radicals. Now maybe the time. But at the time, you know, whatever it was 4 years ago, I looked at your positions, and they didn't strike me as crazed or radical. They seem pretty mainstream to me.
Like, we're, like, kind of just normal concerns. Am I missing something?
Speaker 1: Yeah. You're missing that Washington doesn't care about normal Americans and normal American ideas and normal American values. And I carried what was extremely normal and real America, and I brought that with me very loudly and passionately in Washington, DC, and they tried to kill me for it.
Speaker 0: So foreign policy is one of those things that I don't think most people who aren't involved in this or live in Washington think about quite as much, but that kinda is the red line, it feels like, for a lot of these people in
Speaker 1: DC. Well, if you don't fund the foreign wars, if you don't wear the country that is fighting, that you're supposed to be sort supporting, if you don't wear their flag or wear their little, colors in your front pocket of your jacket, If you don't have a sign outside your office door that says I stand with Ukraine or whatever the flavor of the month is, then you're going against Washington. You're going against the Pentagon. You're going against the military industrial complex, and you will pay the price.
Speaker 0: But shouldn't the congress the congress has oversight over all of those institutions, the Pentagon, of course, the intel agencies, the entire executive branch. Congress funds them and has oversight over them. They shouldn't be mindlessly carrying their water or acting on their priorities. Right?
Speaker 1: They shouldn't be. But here's what's interesting about how fundraising works in Washington. If you're a member of congress and you you have to get reelected every 2 years, you need money to campaign. You need money for your ads. You need money for the literature you mail people.
You need money to encourage your voters to get out and vote. Well, how how you know, it's hard to raise that money. So in Washington, the military industrial complex and other big industries have all of their lobbyists. Well, they can host you a fundraiser literally in 1 night and raise you 100 of 1,000 of dollars as a member of congress, and you won't have to spend hours on the phone calling donor after donor begging for, can you give me a $1,000? Can you give me $2,000?
Please, I really need your help. I gotta get reelected. I've got 5 primary opponents. These members of congress don't have to continue doing that hard work and begging and begging and begging for money from from other donors or from their districts when they can walk in a room, have a cocktail reception with little weenies on a stick and a bunch of alcoholic drinks, and they're getting written big checks over and over by all of these lobbyists and all of these big companies, major companies that really thrive on American taxpayer contracts
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: That our federal government hands out.
Speaker 0: The companies that make Washington the richest metro area in the country.
Speaker 1: That's right.
Speaker 0: Did you think it was weird coming from a, you know, nonpolitical background to see members of congress in the US Capitol wearing foreign flags on their lapels?
Speaker 1: I was shocked when the Ukraine and Russia war started or if you wanna call it a war. I don't call it a war. I call it it's it's a funded war. As a matter of fact, Washington, our country is propping up Ukraine. We give them $1,000,000,000 every single month.
That doesn't have anything to do with war that pays for their government, that pays their salaries, that pays their retirements, that pays to fund their entire government. So we have Ukraine. I call it the 51st state because Washington loves Ukraine so much. They just love Zelensky and love Ukraine. But when that started, and then all of a sudden and I wasn't for it.
I was like, why are we doing this? This doesn't make any sense. We have so many problems at home, and people in my district are suffering. People have lost their businesses. They can't pay their rent.
Senior citizens can't they're choosing between food and medicine. Our border is overrun, and people are dying every single day. But all of a sudden, every Republican that I knew, barely knew, by the way, they're all of a sudden carrying Ukraine flags in their little, you know, front pockets. They had to have those. They had to have the pins.
I stand with Ukraine, and it's everywhere. It was as if I was in a foreign country. It it didn't make any sense to me.
Speaker 0: But, I mean, it the irony was just so stark. Like, our our borders open. We are being invaded, but we're paying tens of 1,000,000,000 of dollars to secure Ukraine's borders. Mhmm. And if there's any group that should be alive to that, it's Republicans, and they should Right.
Be defending America's borders, but I don't think, like, any of them. We're in
Speaker 1: the Actually, let's talk about congress as a whole. The United States of America's Congress should be solely focused on our problems. And why does it I would argue that both parties should not be just completely sold out to Ukraine. Ukraine's not even a member of NATO.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Not even a member of NATO. Here was a here was
Speaker 0: a shock treaty obligations to Ukraine.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And you know the shocking conversations I had was the first vote to fund them. I was sitting there. Marjorie, are you or you're voting yes for this. Right?
I'm like, no. I'm not voting yes for this. Why are you voting yes for this? And so all of these conversations I started having with the other conservatives, America First Republicans, blew my mind. You have to vote for this.
You'll lose your reelection. Marjorie, how can you can't vote.
Speaker 0: People of your district care so much about Zelensky? Is that what
Speaker 1: Oh, yeah. I mean, they say it all the time. Every time I see him in the grocery store, like, oh, please help Zelensky. He wears he wears cute green t shirts all the time. A man can't wear a suit and tie anymore.
Speaker 0: But other supposedly conservative Republicans said this to your face.
Speaker 1: America first. The ones the ones running for reelection, pro Trump, pro America, pro secure borders, MAGA MAGA MAGA, all this stuff. You have to vote for you don't wanna vote. You don't wanna help Putin, do you? Are you for Putin?
Are you for Russia? Yeah.
Speaker 0: Ugh, man. It's just so nauseating. It's disgusting. How do you keep working there?
Speaker 1: I think I keep working there because I'm so pissed off, and I really don't care if I'm friends with these people or not. I I go to DC every week when we're in session. I know they don't like me, and I could care less because I'm I just feel like I have to push and shove every issue that is for our country and for our people front and center in any way I possibly can and embarrass the hell out of them if they do not support our country and our people.
Speaker 0: I I should say, by the way, it's not just I'm focused on Republicans because I think a lot of people watching this have voted for them. Yeah. False expectation that someone cared about them and protect them.
Speaker 1: Yeah. That they may not.
Speaker 0: But the democrat pardon my stupid glasses, but the democrats, not fans. And I'm just this is from the back of your book. This woman should be on a watch list, not in congress, says Hillary Clinton. She must be expelled, says Ocasio Cortez. MGG is a cause for trauma and fear among members of congresses Pelosi.
This woman gets to come and talk about taking over the country, and she's not behind bars. How does that work, says Whoopi Goldberg.
Speaker 1: They're fine. They kill you if they could. Absolutely. They would kill me. They'd kill you too.
They'd kill many of us.
Speaker 0: What do you think that's about?
Speaker 1: They hate us.
Speaker 0: Why?
Speaker 1: It's think about Hillary Clinton. What did she call us all? Deplorables. They come from a some sort of elite class, at least in their own minds, where they look down on all of us as if we're some subclass of people in the country. We're so annoying to them.
We aren't educated enough for them. We aren't good enough for them. We won't support their never ending causes for wars or whatever the next thing is or, you know, supporting gender change for children as if that's ever the right thing to do. Or why can't every woman just have an abortion? It should be a rite of passage.
That's who these people are, and they hate any of us that stand up and say, you people are flat out evil. Because they are. They're evil.
Speaker 0: Yep. I've noticed. Tell us what you think of the new Republican speaker of the house.
Speaker 1: It's early in his speakership. Let's be very honest. This is nothing he ever planned for. Yep. Was not prepared for.
Had no base staff ready for this.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: It's literally something he luckily got thrown into.
Speaker 0: Yep.
Speaker 1: Thrown in a hot frying pan. Being the speaker of the house is one of the hardest jobs in the country. It really is. People think it's like some sort of position that I stand up there with a gavel and bang it up and down. No.
That's not what it is. This is a CEO position of one of the most powerful companies, so to speak, in the world or the most powerful one. They control the checkbook of the American people. They control the votes that happen on the house floor that drive the agenda of the federal government. They control whether we go to war or not, whether or not our sons and daughters in the military live or die.
Being speaker of the house is a serious job, and it takes extremely serious minded people. And I was extremely disappointed when the first thing our new speaker, Mike Johnson, does as a conservative is he brings a continuing resolution to the floor completely clean that that just completely funds Joe Biden and his administration's budget that Nancy Pelosi created and passed during my first term, which I hated. Absolutely hated. Hated Nancy Pelosi as speaker of the house. I hated the bills that she put.
I hate the budget. I think it's disgusting. It's filled with utter horrible things. And he passed that clean like that.
Speaker 0: Why? I think
Speaker 1: and, of course, I any anybody can judge from the outside. But as soon as anyone gets thrown into speaker of the house, everyone descends on them because they need something from that person. They need them to buy in. They need them to believe the lies that you're told in the classified classified briefings, especially in the situation room, especially, like, by people like Jake Sullivan. I think he felt impressed to get those phone calls, got him felt him felt important to be in those rooms and those conversations.
Yeah. And I think I'm not sure what we're going to see, but the first things he was talking about was funding Ukraine and funding Israel.
Speaker 0: Those are the first things.
Speaker 1: And and a continuing resolution. So three things. First thing you talked about first week of speaker, continuing resolution of Joe Biden's budget clean, not getting anything for it, funding continuing the Ukraine war even though it's the most unpopular thing in the country and everybody's fed up with it and angry that another penny would be even talked about going over there, and then talking about funding a war in Israel and Gaza, and Israel's handling the whole problem themselves. So why do we even need to be involved? So this is this is
Speaker 0: So if you take 3 steps back, I mean, the big things that government does, immigration border, right, because it controls what your population is, spending and your debt
Speaker 1: Budget.
Speaker 0: Budget Mhmm. And war. And he basically bought in day 1 to the priorities of the democratic administration, it sounds like. 100%. So, like, how could that happen?
Speaker 1: That's what I said. But you know what? You're not there to criticize. Criticizing is not a popular thing to do, and, apparently, I'm the only one doing it right now.
Speaker 0: Sound personal. It doesn't sound like you hate the guy personally.
Speaker 1: No. He's a nice guy. Is. He's a Christian man. He's a good man.
He's a husband. He's a father. All of those are wonderful things.
Speaker 0: But if your first act is to continue to fund the Ukraine war, then you're not for the United States.
Speaker 1: Well, at this time, he hasn't done it yet, but that is what he's talking about.
Speaker 0: I keep hearing that he's very in and that from people who've talked to him that he's very enthusiastic about it. Mhmm. So that suggests that he's, like, on another planet and not capable of governing.
Speaker 1: Well, he is saying that if he pairs it with our border, Ukraine funding for getting wins for our border, that that's somehow going to be palatable to the American people. And I'm gonna argue right now, I'll fight it as hard as I can because I I will be repulsed. I will be insulted that funding a war in Ukraine that continues just killing people just just because America because Washington wants to do that and it lines the pocket of people, just keep making them rich in the military industrial complex and and continue getting rid of our reserves. If that is somehow on the same level as our border security, that'd be the biggest insult that you could ever throw in the American people's face.
Speaker 0: It sure it sure sounds that way. So you sort of wonder, like, how long can this continue? You have one party that's destroying the country at high speed and another party that's helping them do it. Mhmm. And then the majority of the population to one degree or another is not on board with this.
Right. So that sounds like prerevolutionary to me. Like, that can't continue forever, can it?
Speaker 1: It should. The American people should not tolerate it. No. They seriously should not tolerate it at all. Because here's Washington, DC.
So here's our government. We're over $33,000,000,000,000 in debt. Our government must hate us, must truly hate the American people to do that to Americans. Our border is wide open. That's not just Joe Biden, everybody.
That is the Democrat party. Yes. Every single one of them are solidly on board with that. We have crime erupting all over the country. Innocent people are dying every day because the crime is so so bad, and the economy is being driven off a cliff with the green new deal.
It's the biggest thing looming in policy, and it's already in place. It's just at the start. No one has suffered the consequences yet. Here's why I hate Republicans right now. They don't do a damn thing to stop it, Tucker.
They campaign on it every single cycle. They talk about it. They go on the news and say all these wonderful sounding things to their voters and their donors. They do their committee hearing 5 minute clips and post it all over social media, and then they send Red Meat fundraising emails. And no one does a damn thing to stop the agenda that is literally killing Americans, killing Americans every day.
Oh, I introduced articles of impeachment on Christopher Wray, Merrick Garland, Matthew Graves, the son of a bitch that attacks these January 6th defendants day in and day out, who is horrible, doesn't doesn't prosecute crime in DC. He's a US attorney. He has the jurisdiction to do both. Doesn't do crime in DC, only does j sixers. Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, I forced that to the floor recently.
8 republicans voted with the democrats to protect them. 3 of them were chairman of of powerful committees. And Joe Biden multiple times. But Republicans don't have the courage or the guts or maybe the maybe they don't want to to impeach any of these people.
Speaker 0: They clearly don't. So you're on a roll, and I don't wanna slow you down. But I do wanna bring out of you, like, who's doing this? Like, can you just name a couple? Because the way groups work usually is, you know, the strong influence the weak.
It only takes a couple of people with a strong point of view to convince everyone else to follow them. Yeah. So there are clearly some Republicans, Mike Rogers, obviously one of them, but powerful Republicans in the house were convincing everyone else that these anti American positions are the right ones. Mhmm. Who else would that be?
Speaker 1: So Mike Turner. Mike Turner. Yep.
Speaker 0: Of Ohio.
Speaker 1: Yes. Chairman of, foreign affairs. Is he no. He's Intel. I'm sorry.
Chairman of Intel.
Speaker 0: He he's the one who's trying to hide the UFO disclosures.
Speaker 1: Is he? Okay.
Speaker 0: So. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Probably. Yeah. Among many other things. He also wants to renew the FISA program. Patrick McHenry, another chairman.
I'm not sure which committee he is. Virginia Fox, chairman of ed and workforce, 4 Republicans on the judiciary committee, which is where impeachment takes place.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Four of them. Ken Buck, of course, we don't we don't expect anything different from him. Darrell Issa, former chairman of the oversight committee from California, said that I lack maturity for trying to impeach Mayorkas. Imagine that. The yeah.
Multiple Well,
Speaker 0: I remember San Diego.
Speaker 1: Mhmm.
Speaker 0: So, I mean, California has been totally destroyed by immigration. I don't think there's any I mean, by every measure You can argue. Every measure. I mean, I watched it happen. How could Darrell Issa support this?
Speaker 1: He says that articles of impeachment should go through a process through committee. But my articles of impeachment on Mayorkas were sitting in the judiciary
Speaker 0: committee defending the invasion of the country. Why would he do that?
Speaker 1: Of course. Because he claims that articles of impeachment should go through committee process, but my articles of impeachment had been sitting there for 6 months on a shelf collecting dust. And they weren't interested in doing the process that they are the ones that that can do it in judiciary. Yeah. No one wanted to lift a finger.
They don't want to impeach anyone.
Speaker 0: Do you have any allies?
Speaker 1: Not many. Not many. There's some. It depends on the issue. Sometimes there's Republicans that I do ally with.
A lot of us have conservatives who have similar voting records, but I feel like I don't have enough that are willing to go all the way, truly go all the way and do what the American people want. If you talk to regular people, they wanna impeach everyone because in in the real world, people get fired. They're like, impeach them all. They all suck. Yes.
Right?
Speaker 0: What do you think the I don't know. I mean, somewhat we didn't do one word on it, but the the speaker the speaker's drama. You got completely caught up in that Mhmm. Without getting into all the details, which is probably not that interesting at this point. But, like, what did you learn from that?
Speaker 1: So a lot of people were confused why I would support Kevin McCarthy, and I can understand why they were confused about that because I spent well over a year when I first came into, congress attacking him.
Speaker 0: Right. I
Speaker 1: even called him feckless on Twitter. Like, I attacked him constantly. But then when time went on and I found out no one else is running to be speaker, no one else wants this job, Kevin McCarthy really wants it. He's raising record amount of dollars for Republicans. I put my professional business experience to work and went, this is the person I have to work with.
He's going to be speaker of the house. Steve Scalise didn't want the job. Jim Jordan didn't want the job. Nobody wanted the job. So I come from a professional background in business where we work with people in order to accomplish things.
And I had very serious things I want to accomplish. I want to stop funding these foreign wars. We need to defend and secure our border. There's many things I wanna work on. I wanna protect kids.
No child should be cutting their breast off, being castrated, or doing these horrible surgeries and hormone therapies. These are things I care about. And in order to get them done in Washington, you have to work with leadership. So in good faith, that's what I did. I supported Kevin McCarthy for speaker, developed a working relationship with him, and said this is the process I have to pursue to do it.
I got some things done. I have to say, I'm proud of it. I got an impeachment inquiry passed without a floor vote because I convinced him, announce it. This is something you can do as speaker. Announce an impeachment inquiry.
Nancy Pelosi did it. Why can't we do these things? And he did it. Yep. And then I got the Ukraine money taken out of the defense bill.
That was a huge win. And I did that because I convinced him and convinced congress this is not popular. Your voters, your donors do not support this war.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Unless the only donors you care about are the ones that support the military industrial economy.
Speaker 0: Well, it does seem like those donors I mean, I read a piece today, in Business Insider Oh. Typically read. I know. Yeah. That said that Republican donors are widely convinced that Nikki Haley, who is, like, the most anti American person to run for president on the Republican side in my memory Mhmm.
She's gonna be Trump. And she's the one. And and leaving aside just how almost unbelievably, supernaturally horrible she is, she's trailing him by, like, 50 points. So so my question to you is, like, are Republican voters, donors rather, that dumb and out of touch, or is this some sort of complex PR play? Or what is that?
Speaker 1: Is the election rigged? I mean, that's where my mind goes. Well, yeah. Would rich powerful people choose to donate to a losing candidate unless there's something that they know that we don't know?
Speaker 0: Well, that's a great a great question, though.
Speaker 1: I have
Speaker 0: not cons I had not I had not considered
Speaker 1: rich, powerful people are good with their money. Right? I mean, they usually invest in things that make them money, or they invest in relationships that they can build on. Right? And you would think if you're looking at the primary numbers and president Trump is blowing everyone out of the water, But you're also looking at this and this the lead candidate, Trump, is being just politically persecuted by every justice system in the country.
And maybe there's something that they know that we don't know, and so they're throwing all their money and support behind Nikki Haley because if she loses, they're gonna have to go back to Trump. That doesn't make sense to me.
Speaker 0: This is a pretty good Rorschach test, I think, for congress. Like, secretly, how many of your Republican colleagues like Nikki Haley do you think?
Speaker 1: Oh, there's probably they probably love her. There's well, Ralph Norman, he he endorsed her. Nikki Haley? Yeah. From South Carolina.
He's what he's on the board of the Freedom Caucus. Yep.
Speaker 0: So he's calls himself conservative, but he's for Nikki Haley.
Speaker 1: He's all for Nikki Haley publicly.
Speaker 0: Who thinks our borders are irrelevant and should remain open, but the borders of foreign countries deserve our children to die.
Speaker 1: America first conservative Ralph Norman is all in for Nikki Haley.
Speaker 0: So
Speaker 1: of the war.
Speaker 0: You think it's fair to say that Nikki Haley's views represent a lot of Republicans in congress?
Speaker 1: Members of congress? Probably. Oh, yeah. For sure. Definitely.
Yeah.
Speaker 0: But what about Republican primary voters?
Speaker 1: Absolutely not. She does not represent Republican primary voters. Not at all.
Speaker 0: I wanna go back to earlier question about just the low hanging fruit and the the easy ones. Derek Chauvin, the cop in Minneapolis who was convicted of murdering George Floyd. Now we know he didn't murder George Floyd. Medical examiner said there's no evidence that George Floyd was strangled. He died of a fentanyl overdose Mhmm.
Out of a drug OD. Yep. But Derek Chauvin is in prison. He was just stabbed in prison. Spend the rest of his life probably in prison.
Mhmm. That's a an moral atrocity
Speaker 1: Mhmm.
Speaker 0: Now that we know the truth. Why is no one in congress stepping up for this man?
Speaker 1: Well, you know, it's very unpopular to talk about it. So, obviously, Tucker, I'm going to talk about it.
Speaker 0: Well, good.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I think I I do believe this is one of the biggest injustices happening in our country today. I believe it's an attack on him because he's white and he's male.
Speaker 0: Obviously.
Speaker 1: I believe that it's political, and they have to crucify him because he was a police officer. He had a great record. He did nothing wrong, and he is white and male and Christian. So they have to make an example of him because that is the type of person in America and arguably the entire world, they want to kill. They want to destroy that identity.
And it's the most dangerous thing happening, and our children are suffering for it. The younger generations of white men who are good, who who would wanna be in the military, who wanna be a police officer when they grow up, wanna be a fireman, want to be these ideal male masculine things when they grow up are being taught a lesson by look at what happens to Derek Chauvin. And he they are probably going to kill him in jail when actually the right thing to do is to release him out of jail because he never did anything wrong in the first place.
Speaker 0: But how do you what I don't understand is now that it's not a close call because in a court filing, we discover that the medical examiner who did the autopsy said the medical examiner is not a cable news pundit. This guy was not strangled. He did not die of asphyxiation. He died of a drug OD.
Speaker 1: Drug overdose.
Speaker 0: So we know the facts. Right.
Speaker 1: Of fentanyl.
Speaker 0: We didn't know before. We pretended we didn't know. Like, so how can every pro cop Republican in the congress not stand up on this guy's behalf? Why is it controversial?
Speaker 1: Over 300 Americans die every single day from Fentanyl poisoning. That's why George Floyd, He's one of those deaths. Yes, sir. But yet, a political movement that was well funded and supported by the entire Democrat party so much so that BLM's link funding link was on ActBlue, the Democrat party's website, official website. It was propped up by the entire powerful media industry in America.
And then every every Democrat donor all over the country donated to BLM and supported the Democrats for supporting BLM, and then they sacrificed a white male police officer. It had to be done because that's what their movement wants. That is exactly what they want. Look at what's happening today over in Sudan. There are thousands of people being slaughtered, millions of people maybe.
We don't even know the numbers being slaughtered by Muslims. If black lives matters, why isn't that group in the entire Democrat party raging over supporting black lives over in this foreign country? Because they love foreign war, don't they? I mean, it doesn't make sense. But yet in America, they obviously don't care at all about some other country in Africa where people are being killed because they don't care about black lives.
It's not about black lives. It's not about any foreign war. It's only about certain foreign wars, and it's about certain movements that allows them to move the political needle and brainwash the masses to believe what they need them to believe. They sacrificed Derek Chauvin because he's white and he's male, and they want to kill off a whole generation of white men. They don't they don't want them to be police officers.
They don't want them to join the military. They don't want them to be strong figures in their family or husbands or fathers.
Speaker 0: Well, they they say all that, so so that's not you're not guessing. We need more diversity in our plea we need fewer white men in our police department. That's what they're saying. Mhmm. So, your assessment is not crackpot.
It's taking their words and repeating them. So what so you've just about as blunt terms as anyone could muster displayed your contempt for a lot of your colleagues in the Republican party.
Speaker 1: I'm angry at them.
Speaker 0: Obviously, I could become a Democrat because they're the mirror image of
Speaker 1: Satan.
Speaker 0: What you are. So where does that leave you, and what do you do going forward?
Speaker 1: I ran for congress in the beginning to push the Republican party to actually support Americans and America and do the things that they always promise and tell us to do. Going forward, that's all I care about. That's all I've cared about from the beginning is, oh, you wanna say this on television? Well, do it. Like, take I don't care about words.
Words mean nothing to me. Action is everything, And our country is on fire. We don't have a border. It's ridiculous to even say we have one. It's overrun and controlled by the cartels mostly.
The Border Patrol agents are the welcoming committee to over 160 countries all over the world. They welcome in terrorists. They welcome in criminals, mental in mentally insane people, child trafficking, human trafficking, drugs. They are forced to welcome them in. It's not because they're bad people.
They're wonderful people. The government makes them do their job that way. So think about, like, what we have to force Republicans in Congress to actually do what they said they're going to do. So I'm not there to be friends with them. I don't care about the
Speaker 0: I think I've noticed.
Speaker 1: I want them to do their job.
Speaker 0: You've been, swatted repeatedly?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Where Seven times.
Speaker 0: Seven times?
Speaker 1: Mhmm. But they don't know who's doing it.
Speaker 0: They just don't know.
Speaker 1: No. Can't figure that out.
Speaker 0: Did the security cameras break? It's kinda like Epstein's cell.
Speaker 1: Unmask people like Carter Page and people like that, you know, but they don't know who's who's swatting me, who's calling in.
Speaker 0: 7 times. Mhmm. Are you worried about your safety?
Speaker 1: I just bought a lovely AR 15. Another one. Yes. I'm very proud of it. It's pretty.
Speaker 0: I hope it doesn't have more than a 10 round magazine, though, because you don't need the
Speaker 1: No. Yeah. I know we've got far more than that.
Speaker 0: 2 quick positive questions. 1, will there be, like, an effort to take people's guns away in our lifetimes, do you think?
Speaker 1: Absolutely.
Speaker 0: Yes. Be successful?
Speaker 1: Well, I look at Brazil. I just had a visit from Edward Bolsonaro and some of the members of congress down there in Brazil, and they came to visit me because they are really afraid and they're concerned for their country. Since the Lula administration has taken over, many of them are afraid of losing their political rights, and the Lula administration is going after them and trying to take away their political rights to run for office. They're going after their journalists, their press. You know?
Many of them are fleeing the country because they they're gonna be locked up by the Lula administration. They want to take away their guns down there in Brazil. So I'm looking at that country, and I'm saying, I think we're one election away from finding ourselves in the same situation in Brazil, and it's the saddest thing in the world to think that that's where we are in America. But yet so many people are asleep. And it's a tragedy because I'm angry at my own party in Washington because they're not doing enough to stop it.
They're not Yes. Doing anything to stop it. As As a matter of fact, they're passing continuing resolutions and keeping it going. But I'm also looking at so many Americans because our American life is really good, Tucker. And it's easy to get lost and enjoying every day as an American.
And, gosh, god bless them, rightfully so. But it's it's easy to be lulled into this world where you're not paying attention to what's about to happen to us. So I'm a little bit worried about what may be about to happen
Speaker 0: to us. Think we could wind up in a war with Iran?
Speaker 1: Yes. Absolutely. I think we could easily end up in a war with Iran.
Speaker 0: What's the appetite for that among Republicans in the house, do you think?
Speaker 1: They also have a strong appetite. I don't know. The ones I hear talk about, they'd rather fight China. I hear that
Speaker 0: more often. China
Speaker 1: Yeah. China.
Speaker 0: Makes all of our antibiotics. So how long is that war gonna last? I mean, they make everything.
Speaker 1: So we
Speaker 0: obviously can't go to war with them because they control our country already. Right?
Speaker 1: Right. Didn't we learn that you know, COVID, I have a chapter about COVID, and it's like, all the lessons we learned from COVID, you would have thought that one would have stuck.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Like, maybe we would bring back the manufacturing to our country and at least make life saving medicine. No. We gotta depend on China.
Speaker 0: But there are Republicans who wanna go to war with China?
Speaker 1: Yes. They're preparing for it. We have to build our military. We have to fund it. We have to build up our men because they say this.
We are going to be at war with China within 5 years.
Speaker 0: They say that out loud or they think that at night?
Speaker 1: They say it out loud in our meetings.
Speaker 0: We wouldn't win that war. I mean, that's insane.
Speaker 1: Obviously. Well, I think that's rational thinking and speaking. But
Speaker 0: It's not an endorsement of China, by
Speaker 1: the way. Nope. You're not a China. Citizen. Neither am I.
Speaker 0: Tulip Xi Jinping. But they really say that.
Speaker 1: Yes. They say that out loud.
Speaker 0: Do you ever hear anybody in the cloakroom? Is that the right place?
Speaker 1: Cloakroom.
Speaker 0: Cloakroom, say, you know, I really can't believe our country is being invaded by millions of people from the 3rd world. Like, we need to kick them out immediately because America is for Americans. Does anyone ever say that?
Speaker 1: They do say that, and then they don't impeach secretary Mayorkas.
Speaker 0: Oh.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So they say it. Yes. Like, can you believe the new numbers? Like, oh my goodness.
October's numbers came out highest record, of of any month, any October on record. You guys wanna impeach Americas yet? God, Marjorie. You're not mature enough for that.
Speaker 0: So you're gonna stay in congress?
Speaker 1: Oh, yeah. I'm angry.
Speaker 0: How do you raise so much money, by the way, if you give the finger to donors? You raise a ton of money.
Speaker 1: I do, and it's because regular people donate to me. Just grassroots, small dollar donors. That is 90% of my donations or well over 90%.
Speaker 0: It's not Raytheon?
Speaker 1: No. I don't have any money from Raytheon.
Speaker 0: They don't give you anything?
Speaker 1: Nope. No. I don't have any donations from the military industrial complex. I haven't I haven't voted for their wars.
Speaker 0: Oh, So you're gonna stay in the congress?
Speaker 1: Absolutely.
Speaker 0: I appreciate you coming on, and I appreciate this book. And I love the title, MTG, and I love the silhouette. Is that actually you? Good luck.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 0: John's here. People say the news is full of lies on Kennedy's motorcade.
Speaker 1: 230 9 people. The death of Jeffrey Epstein.
@CitizenFreePres - Citizen Free Press
Tucker Carlson just dropped Ep. 10. A tour of South Central LA with Ice Cube. https://t.co/BxWURXQIxB
Video Transcript AI Summary
Ice Cube reflects on his upbringing in Los Angeles, sharing memories of his neighborhood and the loss of friends to violence. He criticizes politicians for ignoring the community, emphasizing that financial contributions often dictate their attention. While he felt pride when Obama was elected, he notes little change since then. Ice Cube discusses his skepticism towards corporate donations to social causes, suggesting that money often gets misappropriated. He also addresses his refusal to get vaccinated, stating he wanted to set an example for his children despite losing a significant acting opportunity. He believes in speaking the truth, even if it leads to backlash, and highlights the importance of being vocal about real issues.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: As part of our ongoing never ending quest to find the few people in this country who are still willing to say what they actually think out loud, we wound up in Los Angeles recently with the rapper Ice Cube driving through his old neighborhood. Didn't expect that to happen. Here's how it went.
Speaker 1: Doctor Dre came by this house. I'm a show you who's gonna ride by. He used to live down the street from me. His cousin his cousin moved on our block when I was 12. He was 11, and his name is Sir Jinx.
He became one of my producers, but I went solo. Sir Jinx. He moved on the block, and then doctor Dre was his cousin. So Dre came by a couple of times. It was cool, you know, to be able to see somebody who was actually making making records.
Yeah. We were still hamsters. Okay. Not at this street, but the next one, make a left. Get out there.
Are you Yeah. We're not getting out because I don't want my pops to be like, what the fuck are we doing? All these people coming by my house. You didn't tell them.
Speaker 0: Oh, your dad still lives there?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. My pops still lives there.
Speaker 0: How long has your family been there?
Speaker 1: Man, since 1962. These boys,
Speaker 2: they all grew up on this block. Okay? That's my son. That's my son. You
Speaker 0: Famously, it's one of the tougher neighborhoods in the city.
Speaker 2: No. Today I didn't
Speaker 0: So where are we?
Speaker 2: My age
Speaker 1: We right now, we're in Manchester. Was a good This right here, that's a cemetery where a lot of people in this area laid to rest right there.
Speaker 0: Anyone you know?
Speaker 1: Yeah. A lot of people I know. A lot of people I know. A lot of friends, you know, few family members.
Speaker 0: Out all the
Speaker 2: kids I grew up with, at least 13 of them are dead. And that's before they even reached 21. You know, I'm I just turned 21. So, you know, I I've thank god that I've even reached 21.
Speaker 1: Just a black and blue right here. Yeah. There's not
Speaker 0: does this look the same?
Speaker 1: It it pretty much looked the same. You know, but it used to be, like, more trees. Like, every every house had a tree in front of it, and, at some point, the city start cutting cutting the trees out. They said that the helicopters couldn't see people, So they start
Speaker 0: What? The police helicopters?
Speaker 1: Yeah. So they could they start cutting the trees out.
Speaker 0: 3 decades and 1,000,000,000 of dollars later, it's still a tough place. How do you think politicians in Los Angeles have done running the city?
Speaker 1: It's pretty much the same people running it the same way. Politicians only really pay attention to the people that give them money. Everybody else is kinda a extra in their movie. We love you in the scene, but we can do the scene without you. I think yeah.
I did that. Do you
Speaker 0: ever give money to politicians? No. Why?
Speaker 1: I don't believe in politicians. Politicians have hidden hidden agendas. They owe a lot of people a lot of favors. The more money you give them, the more you're you're listened to.
Speaker 0: So you've never fallen for a politician?
Speaker 1: I can't say that. You know, I've had hope and, you know, dreams that, you know, this guy is gonna be a guy.
Speaker 0: What'd you think of Obama when he got elected?
Speaker 1: You know, for the first time, I felt proud that America took that step.
Speaker 0: Yep.
Speaker 1: I didn't think they would ever do do that. And so that was a moment in time. But then, you know, you look around, years go by, and, you know, not much not much change, for people I know, people I care about.
Speaker 3: We've had 6 major race riots on the president's watch. Race relations have plummeted to lows not seen since the Rodney King.
Speaker 4: In Chicago, a toddler is now the latest victim of the city's deadly surge in gun violence.
Speaker 1: But it didn't change with Bush. It didn't change with Clinton. I did some things Right. With, Heather Bush, Reagan, or Carter. It is so, you know, at the end of the day, it's still the same results.
Speaker 0: So you're describing a symbolic victory?
Speaker 1: Yes. In a lot of ways, yes.
Speaker 0: And then came George Floyd in the beginning of what we were told was a second civil rights movement. If there was gonna be liberation in the wake of the Floyd riots, this is where you'd see the effects. 3 years ago, a bunch of big companies put 100 of 1,000,000 of dollars in the Black Lives Matter, threw them a lot of money. Did that improve the neighborhood you grew up in?
Speaker 1: Whenever you do that, most of the time, there's a lot of people siphoning that money off the top.
Speaker 2: Yep.
Speaker 1: And and the kicker is a lot of people say they're gonna give the money, but they don't even give the money.
Speaker 0: They make the pledge and never write the check?
Speaker 1: Yeah. They just get the article wrote. Everybody think they're great, and they never they never even give them money. Big 3.
Speaker 0: These days, Ice Cube is in the sports business. In a partner, started a new professional basketball league called big 3. Strangely, this is one form of black empowerment that the NBA doesn't seem to like. It does seem like like the big I'm not pitching your business, but it it does seem like you the idea behind it would be consistent with what the NBA says they're about.
Speaker 1: Without a doubt. You know, the NBA is full of great slogans, and they they write black lives matter on the court, and they do all those things, but pretty full of shit when it's when the rubber meets the road. You know?
Speaker 0: Maybe that's why they put the slogans on the court so they won't have to do anything. Just a thought. I don't know.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, it's it's it's as easy as saying we're gonna donate a $100,000,000 to it. You know, it's like a easy thing to do. All they gotta do is call up the graphics guy and and approve the comp.
Speaker 0: So your stunningly made me think this could be a scam. I'm just throwing that out there.
Speaker 1: I'm just saying it's easy for them to put that on the court. It takes a little more effort to really care to to work with a a league like the big three. You know, you really gotta wanna make a difference.
Speaker 0: The NBA is run by a cringing neoliberal called Adam Silver. Quote, we're completely committed to standing for social justice and racial equality, Silver once announced. It's part of the DNA of this league. And yet according to Ice Cube, Adam Silver has done his best to strangle the black owned big 3 in its crib. When people think basketball, they think silver.
Don't you think? Adam Silver, he kind of embodies the spirit of basketball.
Speaker 1: Yeah. You know?
Speaker 0: Was he a what team did he play on during his career?
Speaker 1: I think he played on the New York lawyers.
Speaker 0: Starting forward on the New York lawyer.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. You know? I mean, you rode the bench. Come on, man.
You rode the pine, waterboard.
Speaker 0: You can see why Ice Cube is considered one of the least obedient entertainers in LA.
Speaker 2: It's a trip. I used
Speaker 1: to walk these streets and Well, it's cute. Stars on
Speaker 2: the bus. Yeah. This was a trip.
Speaker 1: 2 weekend these stars. No. No. Unless they gonna give us a little money from the Hood tour, life tours. You know what I mean?
Break us off 20%, man.
Speaker 0: The world's most dangerous group.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: So I noticed this about every year or 2. I read some story about you, and the subtext is always the same, which is, you know, stay in your lane.
Speaker 1: I wouldn't be here if I stayed in my lane. I just never wanted to have that light. You know? I never wanted to be controlled.
Speaker 0: How how many times have you been pulled aside by people who are trying to control you?
Speaker 1: What they what they usually do is go talk to people try to convince them that they need to convince me that I need to take a different position. So that's kinda how I get
Speaker 0: On what topics?
Speaker 1: You know, it's been on, you know, the vaccine.
Speaker 4: The Hollywood Reporter says actor Ice Cube is saying no to a $9,000,000 payday because he won't say yes to the COVID vaccine. The actor and rapper was set to co star in a new comedy, oh hell no, alongside Jack Black. But when producers requested all cast members get a COVID vaccine, Ice Cube backed out.
Speaker 0: Why wouldn't you take the vax? You you had a direct order to take it. You were told to take it.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I'm not real good with direct orders, but on a whole another note.
Speaker 0: But it was a command.
Speaker 1: I didn't
Speaker 2: I mean,
Speaker 0: they told I'm sorry. They told you. I mean, they couldn't have been clearer about it.
Speaker 1: Yeah. It was pretty clear. Did you take it?
Speaker 0: Of course not.
Speaker 1: Yeah. No. It it wasn't ready. You know? It it was it was 6 month, you know, kinda rush job, and and I didn't feel safe.
Speaker 0: But they told you you were safe.
Speaker 1: I know what they said. I know what they said, and I heard them. I heard them loud and clear, but it's it's not their decision. There's no repercussions if they're wrong, but I can get all the repercussions if they're wrong.
Speaker 0: Was was it a tough call for you?
Speaker 1: No. It wasn't a tough call. You know, I wanted to be an example for my kids, you know, really make sure they didn't take it either. Show them that I, you know, I wanted to stand on my convictions and that I was willing, you know, to lose $9,000,000 and more because we probably lost more, you know, since then.
Speaker 0: The idea is that people who stand on their convictions are heroes. They're brave. They have principles. You know, they're the people we look to for inspiration. But in this case, with this decision and these principles, you were not hailed as a hero.
No. You were attacked.
Speaker 1: Why won't you get the vaccine, man?
Speaker 5: Hey. Look, man. I'd just rather be myself than take that vaccine like you other 3,000,000,000 boat dotes.
Speaker 1: I never told anyone not to get vaccinated publicly. That was never my message to the world. I didn't even want people to know whether I got vaccinated or not. I was pretty upset that that even came out because I was just gonna quietly, you know, just not take it and deal with the consequences as they came.
Speaker 0: Do you know anyone who was injured by the vaccine?
Speaker 1: I do. And they suffer every day, and it's it's hard to watch. Suffering in silence is not the answer all the time. You know? Sometimes you gotta let people know what's going on so you can actually move the needle.
Choose to be vocal. If it's true, why can't I say it?
Speaker 0: Well, you can't say it because it is true.
Speaker 1: There it is. Now that's the problem with the world today. That that
Speaker 0: There's no penalty for lying. No one's ever punished for lying.
Speaker 2: It's only telling the truth
Speaker 0: that gets you in trouble.
Speaker 1: Ain't that something?
Speaker 0: That's true.
Speaker 1: Yeah. That is so true.
Speaker 5: Thinking something is not a crime. Saying it is not a crime. You know what I mean? So I just tell what's real. You know, if if the truth hurts, say ouch.
@CitizenFreePres - Citizen Free Press
Tucker Carlson just dropped an 80-minute interview with Democrat presidential candidate Robert Kennedy Jr: "Ukraine, bio-labs, and who killed President Kennedy." https://t.co/IbzdJ8Gv5T
Video Transcript AI Summary
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. discussed his lack of Secret Service protection despite receiving numerous threats. He applied for protection but was denied, which he believes reflects political maneuvering by the DNC. He expressed concern over the ongoing war in Ukraine, emphasizing the complex historical context and U.S. involvement. Kennedy criticized the portrayal of Russia and the motivations behind the conflict, arguing that the U.S. has provoked Russia through NATO expansion. He also highlighted the humanitarian crisis at the U.S.-Mexico border, noting that many migrants come from various countries, not just Latin America. He called for a more compassionate approach to immigration and criticized the exploitation of migrants. Kennedy concluded by sharing his commitment to advocating for the marginalized and addressing the economic struggles faced by many Americans today.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We decided to do the only interview with Robert f Kennedy junior conducted in the last 15 years that doesn't mention vaccines. But if you're interested in why we have found ourselves at war with Russia or who killed his uncle, president Kennedy, and why, it's worth watching. Bobby Kennedy Junior, thank you for joining us. So I noticed when you showed up, you've been on the road for weeks, you had no secret service with you, which is a little weird given your well, that your father was murdered while running for president as you now are. Why wouldn't you have secret service protection?
Speaker 1: Well, you know, I did do a tweet on that that got, 30,000,000 views when when we got rejected. I we applied in May for secret service protection. There are actually secret service protection was only allocated to the nominees of the parties prior to 1968. When my father was killed, they changed the law immediately. And all of the people who were running against him, including, including George Wallace immediately got Secret Service protection.
So the law says that you're entitled to secret service protection automatically a 100 days out. But the president also has discretion to give secret service protection to any candidate any candidate for any reason. And there are criteria, which is that you have to have 15% of, polling results for a limited period of time. But he even can overrule that. For example, president Obama was given secret service protection 441 days out or 5 no.
551 days out even though he had only, I think, 5% support at that time. My uncle Teddy was given the Secret Service protection 450 days out, even though he had not even declared for his presidency. And so Carter he and Carter hated each other. Carter was president Carter was, you know, the president of his own party, and Teddy had been enormously critical of him. And, personally, they had a they had a very personal antipathy for one another.
Teddy ended up running against them. But when he was moving into that decision to run, Carter in a very classy move, gave him Secret Service protection, we applied for it. I get a lot of threats, a lot of death threats, and I get, you know, a lot of people who are for example, about 2 weeks ago, a mentally ill person made it to the second story of my house. And that is a very, very common occurrence.
Speaker 0: Inside your house?
Speaker 1: Inside my house before, you know, somebody who was working there, stopped them and then called the police. And we have a we gave the Secret Service a 67 in fact, Gavin De Becker, who you've had on this show Yeah. Who's the premier runs the premier security service in the world, put together a 67 page report, which included 28 pages of, you know, of all the threats of you know, typical threats against me and, and other indicia that I should have Secret Service protection. And we I assume the president would give it to me because, you know, it just seems like bad judgment not to give it to me. You know?
If you go even on my Twitter feed, probably one out of, I don't know, every 30 or 40 comments says, oh, you're gonna get killed or something like that. You know? It It takes notice of the peculiar threats to my family who family members who are in this business. Oh, it's something that, you know, the the average American is aware of.
Speaker 0: And your name is Robert f Kennedy.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And the and so it was an odd decision. I got a letter. Gavin actually got the letter because he had been doing and by the way, I wanna say this. The Secret Service themselves were wonderful.
They were very, very encouraging, and they were very helpful at every step along the way. And I I believe, and I can't speak for them, but I believe that their assumption was that they that we're gonna get a safe and service protection. In fact, they told Gavin we're gonna send somebody out there within 10 days to interview Cheryl and Bobby and, to, you know, to tell them, what it's gonna look like because there's a lot of questions about, you know, do I go to the gym? Do I have them you know, all of these questions that I don't know the answers to. And they they come and they have a they have a standard process for informing you.
But then they went dark, And they said, a decision is made very quickly within 14 days is what they told us. And they said, we have 8 details standing by ready to go, so we can do this very quickly. And then they went dark. And for 88 days, we didn't hear from them. And then I got the letter from Mayorkas, Alexander Mayorkas, who's the director of DHS, saying that we've determined that you don't need a safe service protection.
Speaker 0: It it's very obvious, and you confirmed it, that there are threats against your life, against your family. That's known. And so if they deny you protection and they know that, what message are they sending?
Speaker 1: I don't really know what they're they're doing. And by the way, we've looked. And, there's a guy called Jeremy Hammond who's done a really good article, a really thorough article about the past. And he was not able and we were not able to find a single presidential candidate who had requested Herman Cain got it, I think, 500 days out. Jesse Jackson, Shirley Chisholm, George Bush and Ronald Reagan got it something 5 or 600 days out when they first ran.
So it's just standard operating procedure. And particularly people who are polling around the aisle, anywhere over 15%, which I have been for 4 or 5 months now, are regarded as, it's been treated as pro form a. And I am the outliner. I'm the single outliner that we could find that that was denied Secret Service.
Speaker 0: Why do you think that is?
Speaker 1: I think the DNC is playing hardball. And let's say this, I think the least malevolent interpretation that you can put on it is that, they know that I'm gonna have to have some kind of security service. And that typically would cost me, you know, to do to do real security service between a 100,200,000 dollars a month because you have to pay the protectors. You have to pay for their transportation.
Speaker 0: Of course. So tell me what to do.
Speaker 1: The cars and, the hotels, the foods, and all of this, and it's very expensive because I'm traveling every day. So I think they, you know, they probably feel like they can bleed me white by, you know, making making sure that I'm not, that I'm not spending that money on advertising or organization, but then I have to raise a lot of money for my own protection. But I don't know. I mean, I'm just speculating about that.
Speaker 0: Does it strike you that the Biden administration pays for personal security for Zelensky, but not for you? No.
Speaker 1: Well, they you know, listen. John Bolton has still got has a secret service detail. Still? Yeah. Still.
He hasn't been in government in years.
Speaker 0: And he didn't do a good
Speaker 1: job in the world. All the president's family, have secret service details. You know, Hunter has a secret service detail when he goes to court every day. He has 4 or 5 cars that are coming with him in a very, very big detail. Oh, and many government officials who are ex government officials what the Secret Service told us and you can go look at Jeremy Hammond's report, which you can find on, I think you just go on the internet and put Jeremy Hammond in RFK Secret Service.
But he shows that literally nobody, no presidential candidate, many, many other people are receiving it. But I and I'm really like an outlier.
Speaker 0: So, I mean, that raises the larger I mean, you're running against Biden. Right? So, obviously, you're not on his Christmas card list anymore, but it does raise the bigger question. Why do people in Washington have this and not just in government, but also in media, have this kind of special loathing for you, this hatred of you?
Speaker 1: I don't know that. I cannot answer that question. I I am I'm kind of I'm shocked even though, you know, I've been, I'd say maligned for many years because the stuff that I was doing with vaccines, the kind of the uniformity of the vitriol against me in the mainstream media and the dishonesty of it that virtually every article contains not just outright not just mischaracterizations, but also just outright lies, things that any fact checker could look up and determine were not true. And they all are doing it, whether it's Vanity Fair or whether it's the Atlantic Monthly or Washington Post, Boston Globe. There's just, there's virtually no exception.
Speaker 0: What do you think your crime is?
Speaker 1: I think part of it is that there's been, and again, I don't know. I can't explain it. Somebody else, I know somebody will explain it in a way at one point where I'll go, ah, that makes sense. But right now, what it seems to me is that there's been this alignment, this political alignment that I think really started with Fox News back, when Roger was running things there where he overtly made it a political network. He aligned it with the Republican party, and he said we're gonna push their agenda.
And up until then, that has been considered a journalistic ethical breach. The networks were supposed to at least pretend neutrality and the newspapers as well. But now I think that business model works so well for Fox. And again, I think MSNBC and CNN adopted the same business model. And then there's been this big consolidation in the media where there really is no independent media.
You have every newspaper in this country, every radio station, every TV station, almost all the billboards and most of the large internet content providers that are now owned by 5 companies. That was illegal under the 1928 Communications Radio Act. Today, it's been that has been what's happened. We've had this big consolidation. And I think the profit models for Wall Street, which now is BlackRock and Vanguard and Safe Street, which own them all and they have to the news divisions have become business models, business profit centers.
And they've aligned themselves. They've figured out that their strategy is to align themselves with the DNC or the RNC. That's the only thing I can that's the best explanation, and it's probably not a very good one. But And you're the where is this deal with uniformity?
Speaker 0: Oh, well but its effect is to ignore stories that are objectively the most important stories. I mean, wherever you fall on those questions, there's no, like, denying that the war in Ukraine is changing the world. It will change history. Most of the stuff is a footnote. That's a that's a book, and yet the coverage of it is, like, not even so for example,
Speaker 1: the president That's much more consequential.
Speaker 0: Well, it's the most consequential, but
Speaker 1: it's coverage of me, which is there's no questioning of these orthodoxies. And when it comes to the Ukraine war, I mean, we're being lied to about it.
Speaker 0: In what way?
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, we were lied to from the beginning. You know, we had this comic book depiction that which we see on every war. There's a bad guy who's like, you know, unspeakably evil
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Who's planning world conquest or terrorist attack on, you know, the on America. And we have to be the good guys and go in and stop it. And Ukraine, the background of Ukraine war is much more complex than that. The US has been involved particularly the neocons and the white out. I wouldn't say particularly.
I'd say a group of people that are known as neocons since 2,001 have been talking about putting NATO in Ukraine. Now in and I'll give you some back the background. In 1992, the walls came down and the Soviet Union collapsed. Gorbachev went to Tony Blair and to president Bush, who were, you know, the British the UK and US presidents at that time and said, I'm gonna do something extraordinary that basically is gonna have the rest of Russian history branding me as a traitor to my country. I'm gonna withdraw 400,000 Soviet troops from East Germany, and I'm gonna allow you to reunify Germany under NATO troops.
So you're gonna move NATO troops to a hostile a hostile force into our barracks and our bases. I'm gonna do that. And the only commitment I want from you is that once I allow Germany to reunify to become part of NATO, that you will never move NATO further to the east because we're gonna now release all of these, Soviet states that were part of the Soviet Union. They're gonna become independent states, and we don't want NATO moving into those. And James Baker, who was Secretary of State at that time famously said, we promise that we will not move NATO 1 inch to the east.
So Gorbachev now did that and he's now, you know, despised in Russia. And then in 1996 and 1997, so 5 years later, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was the first kind of the father of the neocon movement, the neocons where the neocons represent in a sentence is that they were a group of people who believed and Donald Rumsfeld and Jonathan Yu and Paul Wolf, who heads Robert Kagan, Victoria Nuland who's now at the top State Department official, their belief was that the US had won the Cold War and that victory gave us the privilege of dominating the world using our superior military uni power status and our superior military status for the next century. So their principal blueprint document is called Project for a New American Century. In other words, America would own the 21st century. So Brzezinski says, okay.
We should start start this process by moving NATO into all the former satellite states. Well, that and this was 1997. At that time, George Kennan was still around. Now George Kennan, as you know, was the principal architect of the Cold War containment policy. He's arguably the most important, most respected diplomat and statesman in American history.
Oh, he said, if you do that, you are gonna provoke a violent response from Russia. They cannot live with NATO on their borders. They cannot. Any more than we would live with, you know, with the Soviet alliance in Mexico and Canada. The at that time that the, Bill Perry was Clinton's secretary of state.
And Bill Perry said, if you do this, you go forward with this plan, I'm gonna resign because it's so foolhardy. You are you are forcing Russia into a violent military response. And the so the US ambassador, the Soviet Union, on at that time, who is now ahead of the of the CIA, said the same thing. It it it is it's the worst mistake America can make to move NATO to the east. So we went ahead and did it.
We moved it not at 1 not 1 inch, but 1,000 miles, 14 countries, and then we put nuclear ready missile launchers, Aegis missile systems, which are made by Lockheed and can take Tomahawk missiles 12 minutes from Moscow. We could, in 12 minutes, decapitate the entire leadership of Russia. And we put those in Poland and Romania, and we then tried to move it into Ukraine NATO into Ukraine. So you remember when my uncle, when when Russia puts up put missile systems nuclear missile systems in Cuba, and my uncle would have had to invade. He was able the reason Russia put them there then is because we had put nukes, Jupiter missiles, in Turkey and Italy.
My uncle and father made a, a secret deal with ambassador DelBrenin where we where they said, and look. We understand you're angry. You cannot live with Jupiter missiles in Turkey. That's why you put your missiles in Cuba. If you remove your missiles from Cuba within 6 months, we will remove ours from Turkey, but nobody says what the deal was.
And that's what happened. So now we're back, and we've again put, nuclear ready missile systems along right next to Russia. And now we wanna go through the one thing that Russia has said and Putin said again and again and again, this is a red line. Before Putin, the Russian leadership was saying, it is a red line. You cannot go into Ukraine.
The Russians have been invaded 3 times from you. Our country's never been invaded. The Russians were invaded 3 times through Ukraine. The last time they were invaded, Hitler killed between 20,040,000,000 Russians. Hitler killed 1 out of every 7 Russians.
In my uncle's speech to his most famous speech in in American University in in 1963 in July of 1963, he said to the American people, he said, you know, we're all taught we won won World War 2, but we didn't win World War 2. The Russians want it. And the sacrifice they made to destroy Hitler was beyond anything Americans can imagine. He was trying to tell the American people, you have to put your yourselves ourselves in their position and understand what they're doing. And he said, he said, a third of the country was leveled.
Every city, a forest burned. The cities were leveled. The forest and fields burned. Imagine if that happened from the coast the East Coast of the United States to every city, forest, and field from here to Chicago. That's what the Russians put up with.
Oh, we have to understand this. That Ukraine is a red line. The invasion came through Ukraine, and they can't live with it. It's an it's a security issue for them that is beyond our almost beyond our comprehension. And so, you know, we've had
Speaker 0: So that suggests the point is war with Russia.
Speaker 1: The point was war with Russia. And in fact, you know, the neocon said that again and again that our and and Biden, when he was at so and and let me get back to that. Okay? Because that is absolutely true. The, Biden, you know, was as well, first of all, in 2014 to go through with the modern history, 2014, there are riots, and it's called the Madone rebellion in Ukraine, which we're not told that we are financing those riots.
The the newspapers never told us. Our government never told us. USAID, which is a CIA front, put $5,000,000,000 into funding those riots. Those riots lead to the to a coup d'etat against the 1st elected democratically elected government of the Ukraine. It was government that refused to choose sides and to say we're gonna be on the side of the west, so we wanted them out.
A month before that government is overthrown, Victoria Nuland, who's, you know, the part part of the the centerpiece of Neocont ideology and who is now a high level official in the state department, has a secret call with the US ambassador, which is tape recorded and is now public, which anybody can go and look up, where she is picking the new cabinet for the Ukraine, which for Ukraine, which is, you know, which is a US Western cabinet. So they're picking a new government a month before the old government is overthrown.
Speaker 0: Is that how democracy is that democracy when Troy Noland fix your government?
Speaker 1: Well, that's that's the point is USAID doesn't really do and the CIA don't do democracy. You know, the CIA has overthrown, I think, 83 governments between 1947 and 1997. That's a third of the governments on Earth, and most of them were democracies. Oh, it doesn't do it doesn't do democracy. It does.
But then, you know, to put the rest of this history, and we put in a US a western government, the Russia everybody says, oh, the Russians started this by invading Crimea. But put yourself in Putin's position. And I'm not an apologist for Putin, by the way. He went into Ukraine. It was illegal.
My son went over there and fought against it, you know, and and risked his life in the u in Kharkiv rebellion. I'm not making excuse for him. What he did was brutal. It was illegal, and it was unnecessary, but we have to understand our role in the provocations. And so so if you're in Putin's position, now you're looking at Ukraine and Ukraine is being run by a pro US government.
What's the first thing he thinks? They're gonna take Vladivostok, which is the port in the Crimea on the Black Sea, which has been a Russian port, their only warm water port for 347 years. It's where the Russian navy is. Their sub base, it's everything else. And he says, now this new government is gonna invite the US navy in to take over our facilities.
We gotta go in there and take it back. So he goes into Crimea. He goes in and takes Crimea without killing without firing a shot or killing a certain a single person. The corrupt the Crimean population is is largely Russian, and they welcome the invasion. So, you know, again, I'm I'm making excuses for him, but I'm saying we have to understand my uncle always said we have to understand the rep the the, the position of our adversaries and, you know, what what forces are they dealing with.
So so then in 20 then the Russians now now there's, you know, as soon as we put it in that new government, the first rule they pass is to make the Russian language essentially illegal in Donbas and Lukas where 90% of the population are Russian. And they and there there's a peaceful uprising which people begin dying, you know, they're they turn violent. Now which side made them violent is a dispute, but it's not a dispute. The Russians were now being treated. The Russian ethnic Russian population in Ukraine is now being treated like red headed sepsis.
They're not you know, they're being slapped around. They're being abused, and they're not being allowed to practice their culture or their language. And so there's a vote then in the in, Indomass Lugans where they vote 90 to 10 to join Russia. Russia says no. Putin said no.
I don't want you, but let's sign an agreement that protects you. So they put together an agreement with France, Germany, and Russia called the Minsk Accords. The Minsk Accords say, leave Donbas and Lukhansk as part of Ukraine, but make them semi autonomous so they can speak their own language. And so the Russians who live there are gonna be protected from violence by the government. And, and the the only the Russian parliament or the Ukrainian parliament won't ratify the Minsk Accords, but France agreed to it.
Germany agreed to it, and Putin agreed to it. So then Zelensky runs in 2019. Zawinski is a comedian and he's an actor. And I'm not saying that in a derogatory way because my wife is a comedian and actor, but I'm saying it because here's a guy with no political background who wins the election with 90% of the vote. Why did he win the election?
He won the election because he ran on a peace platform. He ran promising that he would sign the Minsk of courts. He gets into office. The minute he gets there and he's told everybody, I'm gonna sign the Minsk Accords and settle the peace with Russia. He he suddenly pivots.
And the we don't know what happened, but the the rational assumption is that the US government told him he could not do that. So the Victoria Nuland and Anthony Blinken and April Haines, oh, who's the DNI director of National Intelligence, told them you cannot have a peace with Russia. Plus, people within, you know, ultra nationalists within Ukraine told them if you sign that, we're gonna kill you. And a lot of people say, anyway, they threatened him with death, and that is pretty well documented. Then Russia invades, but Russia only invades.
And so we say, oh, look. He you know, Putin is trying to take over Europe, but but they only send in 40,000 troops. I think there's 3 and a half 1000000 people in Kyiv, so they clearly did not wanna take the country. He he wanted he clearly wanted to bring people to the negotiating table. Table.
He did not send in enough troops to take all of of Ukraine. So so then and they and Liz Zelensky comes to the negotiating tables, and we now know this, and this is recent information. In March of 2022, Zelensky and Putin agree on a peace agreement that's based upon the Minsk Accords. There's it's like Minsk Accords 2 point o. And Zelensky initials it.
The Russians initial it, and Russia begins withdrawing its troops from Ukraine. And what happens? President Biden sends Boris Johnson over there to torpedo the agreement and make make Zelensky tear it up. And then we go to war, 350,000 Ukrainian kids are now dead. And, and, you know, 40 or 50,000 Russians.
So and and and that month, April, that April is when they signed it in March. April, we Boris Johnson was sent over there to torpedo it. And that month, Lloyd Austin, who is the secretary of defense under, under Biden, is asked why are we at war with with, in Ukraine? He said, our purpose in this war is to exhaust the Russian army and degrade its capacity to fight anywhere else in the world. That is not what they're telling us.
Speaker 0: But but
Speaker 1: today, Biden, that month, says when he's asked about the war in Ukraine, he says our purpose is regime change in Russia. So, again, that has nothing to do with Ukraine. What that means is that Ukraine is a proxy and essentially a struggle between 2 superpowers, between Russia and the United States. And, you know, we've now committed a $113,000,000,000 over there. And just to put that in perspective, the total budget of EPA is 12,000,000,000.
The total budget of the CDC is 12,000,000,000. We're sending a 113,000,000,000 over. When when, Mitch McConnell was asked, how can we do this? You know, when our country when you're cutting food stamps and cutting Medicare cutting food stamps to 30,000,000 Americans, cutting Medicare to 15,000,000 Americans, Americans, but they're not gonna have any health insurance. How can we spend a 100% to a 113,000,000,000 over there?
If we if we don't if we had that 113,000,000,000 here, we wouldn't have had to cut one food stamp payment. And he said, well, don't worry. The money is not staying in Ukraine. It's all coming back to military contractors in the United States. Well, so that's interesting because then you look at, you know, who owns those military contractors and and you see who gets on CNN to to bump up the Ukraine war.
It's a bunch of former generals and colonels and Pentagon people. But if you go in and and CNN never and MSNBC never do this. If you go look at those guys, they're all people who are working for Raytheon and General Dynamics and Boeing and Lockheed. So they're generals, but they're not identified that, you know, they're actually working for the military contractors who are cashing in on the war. And and, you know, those military contractors in turn are owned by 3 companies.
All of them are owned by 3 companies, by BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard. And and, you know, the inflation that from printing the money to fund the war and to fund the 2016,000,000,000,000 we spent to fund the lockdowns, COVID lockdowns, 8,000,000,000,000 we've spent on these wars since 2020. All of them losing wars. All of them that made our country less safe. Look at what this war is doing.
We push Russia into the embrace of China, which is the worst foreign policy outcome imaginable. It is not good for the national security of our country, and we're now have have have Putin's back to the wall. Well, Putin is the world's leading nuclear superpower. We aren't. He's got a 1,000 more nukes than we do, and their nukes are much better than ours.
They can shoot down our nukes. We can't shoot down theirs. Oh, you know, we're we are going up against it. It. You know, we are provoking a a a a confrontation that could very easily lead to nuclear war.
You know? And I've I've talked to
Speaker 0: Wait. Can I ask you to pause there for a second? Everything you've said is checkable and rational, and you're extrapolating out toward the future, which is easy to envision. Like, I don't really see I don't understand how our policymakers aren't reaching the same conclusions you just reached. Like, they think that war with Russia is where we're gonna win?
Speaker 1: We we cannot win this war. Well, of course, so what are they doing? I don't understand. Like Mexico beating us in a war. They're not gonna let the Ukraine.
They cannot lose this war. And, you know, anybody who thinks Russia is not up to the war, go look at the Netflix documentary on the Stalingrad and look at the sacrifice they were willing to that Russians are willing to make. Putin today, you know, we thought this was gonna hurt him. He's more popular than he's ever been. All the US polling firms show him polling at 90% popularity.
And and, you know In Russia. In Russia. The Russians are supporting him, and he also you know, we were we were gonna break him with the sanctions. We did the opposite. We made him more powerful.
He's now insulated from the, you know, from the trade and the international banking system. He's now got this great trade agreement with China. He's now, you know, engineering the creation of of BRICS, which we which has 40 leading nations around the world turning against the US currency, his reserve currency, and adopting his petro currency or the Chinese currency. That is the worst threat to the United States. That will plan if we lose that status world's reserve currency, you know, it the great depression will look like a cakewalk.
Speaker 0: So I agree with all of that and and all of its I mean, your position to my ears sounds moderate and obvious. I just don't understand how the secretary of state, how the president, how is it his competent advisers can't have reached the same conclusions. Like, what are they thinking?
Speaker 1: Well, you know, unfortunately, I think, and I, you know, I share your your sense of ministry about that.
Speaker 0: But I don't, you know because what you're saying is not crazy. It's on some far out theory.
Speaker 1: I mean, the only way I can explain it, and I'm not you know, I don't like to put look in other people's heads and and tell why they're doing one thing or another. But president Biden has always been a very pro war president, and, you know, he was the one senator that stood out supporting the Iraq war, my uncle, and Obama, and and many many and, you know, Hillary also. But Biden has always been a reliable, you know, gung ho, let's go to war guy. And, so I don't think, to the extent that he's thought this all through, I just I think it it follows. It's consistent with his historical instincts.
And then he's surrounded by people who are you know, these are the same people who got us in the Iraq war. I know. Look at what happened. Let let's just let me go through what happened in Iraq just for give me one minute to summarize the you know, we were tricked into Iraq by the neocons who told us that Saddam had something to do with the World Trade Center, which was a lie, And he had planted the anthrax attacks that came 5 days after the World Trade Center, which was a lie. That turned out to be, you know, the intelligence agencies in the US military at Fort Detrick.
That anthrax, the FBI found, came from Fort Detrick. So it was somebody in the US government who sent it to Patrick Leahy and Tom Daschle, who were the 2 senators in the week after 911 who were trying to block the Patriot Act. And they shut down congress, and the Patriot Act went through. And oh, so the the and then they told us Wait.
Speaker 0: Wait. Wait.
Speaker 1: Really? Yeah. Yes. And the FBI, after a year of investigation, traced the anthrax. It was a kind of Ames anthrax that was weaponized, and the only source of that in the world could be the US government.
And they traced it to Fort Detrick. And a bio lab there? Yes. The bio lab at Fort Detrick. The CIA bio lab at Fort Detrick.
Oh, somebody sent that in at the time the Patriot Act was being debated, and the 2 leading guys who were blocking it was Patrick Leahy and Tom Naschel were the recipients of it. It shut down congress. The Patriot Act goes through. And what does the Patriot do? 2 things.
I mean, it it it basically gets rid of a lot large part of the United States Constitution Bill of Rights and allows spying by intelligence agencies on the American people. And it reopens the bioweapons arms race because bioweapons were shut down in 1969 by, we we saw, you know, Nixon did this incredible thing of closing Fort Detrick shutting them down and saying we're no longer making bioweapons and then got everybody to sign a treaty in 73. Well, to to ban it bioweapons. The Patriot Act has a provision in it that says we're not walking away from the Geneva Convention, which makes you it's a hanging offense to develop bioweapons. We're not walking away from, from the bioweapons charter of 19 72, 1973.
But we are adopting a new rule that any federal official who violates those acts cannot be prosecuted. So it reopened. It effectively got rid
Speaker 2: of I'm
Speaker 0: sorry without a punishment.
Speaker 1: Yeah. But, anyway, you know, anyway, I forgot where we So
Speaker 0: so let me add this to an interesting segue because Tori and Newland kind of blithely announced during congressional testimony last year that, oh, by the way, we have these bio labs in Ukraine. Yeah. And that was, like, kind of ignored, and the people who covered it got attacked for covering it. But the fact remains there are US bio labs in Ukraine. Why would we have bio labs in Ukraine?
Speaker 1: We have bio lab labs in Ukraine because we're developing bioweapons. And, you know, and those bioweapons are using all kinds of new synthetic, biology and CRISPR technology and genetic engineering techniques that were not available to previous generation. They can make frightening, frightening stuff. What happened was, you know, when we walked away from when the Patriarch reopened the bio weapons arm brace in 2001, the Pentagon began putting a lot of money into bio weapons, but they were nervous at that time. Because if you violate Geneva, the Geneva Convention, it's a hanging offense.
And they weren't sure that that provision in the Patriot Act would actually hold up as a loophole to treaties that had been ratified by congress. So they were nervous about actually going full force into bioweapons development. Run by Anthony Fauci. So Anthony Fauci got all the responsibility for bioweapons development. He got at that time a 68% raise from the Pentagon in order to do that work.
So and that's why he was the highest paid official in American in the American government of, you know, 4 4000000 people in the American he's the high. He has more money. He got more money. $450,000 a year than the president. That any supreme court judge, any any member of congress, he was the highest paid.
And it's because he got that 68% raise from the Pentagon to do bioweapons development. Now when you do bioweapons development, every bioweapon needs a vaccine. So you develop them side by side. Because in a 100% of the cases, when you deploy a bioweapon, there's blowback. Your side also gets sick.
So in order to deploy one offensively, you need a vaccine to, to counter it. So you need to vaccinate your team before you deploy it. So those two things are are developed through it. I, a field of science called gain of function science where you take infectious where you take an infectious microbe and you amplify its infectivity, or you make it jump species. So it may kill monkeys.
Now you make it kill humans, And you adopt it that way, and there's all kinds of methods. And then you make it immune to antibiotics and to therapeutic drugs and to other therapies. So it's actually the inverse of medicine. For 28 100 years since Hippocrates, doctors have been trying to figure out how to make microbes less infectious and less deadly and develop antibiotics and therapeutics to do that. Well, this the guys who are involved in this, there's 36,000 what are called life scientists, but they're actually death scientists, who are now employed full time in developing, you know, microbes that will can be used to kill people.
Speaker 0: But given the experience we just had 3 years ago Yeah. Where a virus from a biolab Yeah. Upturned
Speaker 1: a little bit. Let me just finish this brief history about what happened. In 9 2014, 3 of those micros escaped. Fauci built labs all over the country in Galveston and Boston and everywhere. There are BSL 4 labs.
We don't even know how many there are. BSL 3, BSL 4. We have no idea how many there are. There's, you know, we've counted them. I have a new book coming out that goes through the ones we know, but there are many secret ones that people don't know about.
And they're doing it here in the United States. But in 2014, 3 bugs escaped from 3 different labs. And they were high profile breaks, and they were very dangerous in the smallpox and, and a couple of other bad bad bad microbes. The public learned about it, and there was a lot of publicity. Congress held the hearings.
300 scientists wrote president Obama and said you've gotta shut down Anthony Fauci because he's gonna create a microbe that will, that will cause a global pandemic. And so Obama signed a moratorium that shut down the 18 worst of Anthony Fauci's experiments where most of them were taking place in Galveston and in North Carolina by a scientist called Ralph Barrick down there. And and instead of obeying that law, Anthony Fauci shifted a lot of his operations offshore. And those operations ended up, most of them, in the Wuhan lab, which is a military lab. And that the Chinese run, the People's Liberation Army.
And, and then a lot of them went to the Ukraine. So a lot of that science now and it's funded not you know, Fauci was funding lots of it, But then the the other government agencies began to get confidence in, you know, their ability to get away with it. And most of it is being funded by the Department of Defense. The most of all, the biggest single funder is USAID, which is, you know, a CIA cutout.
Speaker 0: Do you think the lab leak was a leak or was it intentional?
Speaker 1: Well, I the best science shows that. It indicates that the people who were working on a particular coronavirus technology that was taught by Ralph Barrick, funded. It was developed by the US government, by with NIH money. It was then taught to a group of scientists, Shizheng Li, who's famous, the bat lady, and then her assistant Ben Hu, and a couple of other scientists at the Wuhan lab. Eric taught them 2 things.
He taught them, 1, how to engineer the spike with a fern cleave that could attach the ACE 2 receptors of the human lungs and make people sick and spread, you know, through the air. He taught them another trick that has nothing to do with public health conceivably, which is a technique called seamless legation, which is a technique for disguising the evidence of human tampering. So you can make the microbe and then you can erase the evidence that human beings actually made that microbe. And, and and and Ben Hu was leading that research. Ben Hu then got sick with 2 other of his fellow researchers, and they ended up in the hospital with COVID symptoms in November of 2019.
So it it appears that Ben Hu and then Ben Hu, the subway line that goes has the Wuhan lab and goes straight to the airport. All the original cases were along that subway line. And so the intelligence the intelligence agencies that are actually being honest about that and most of them are not, believe that Ben Hu and 2 other researchers got sick in that the most likely scenario is that Ben Hu and 2 other researchers who were working on infectious coronavirus bioweapons got sick and got with and they didn't know it. And so they were riding that subway line every day and infecting people before they actually got symptoms. And that's probably what happened, but we nobody knows.
Speaker 0: You've said a number of times publicly, many times publicly, and I I think it's now being confirmed that CIA had knowledge of at at best had knowledge of your uncle's assassination, new things. It's still being hidden now. What do you think, and that's obviously true. What do you think the motive was in that killing?
Speaker 1: Well, I think the people who were involved in it the specific people who were involved in it were, were almost all associated with the Miami station, which was the largest CIA station at that time. It was basically it was a Cuban station. And the people who were involved in that station were people like Bill Harvey, and David Atlee Phillips who was clearly involved in my uncle's assassination. He was by all evidence, he was Lee Harvey Oswald's handler at the CIA. And and then E Howard Hunt who made a confession, David Morales, who is the, you know, the chief hitman.
He ran the Operation Phoenix program in Vietnam. He killed 10,000 people, civilians over there, murdered them. And he he also gave a confession of being in Dallas. And then there were most of the people were associated with Cuba, and the, you know, the and and the impetus came from that group of people who were who were angry at my uncle for not sending an air cover during the pigs invasion and even more so after the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. My uncle then developed this friendship with Khrushchev and he shut down all of the Cuban attacks by Alpha 66.
And these other groups that were harassing Cuba, they were sinking ships, sinking Russian ships. They were operating flintillas out of South Florida and and doing raids on and uncle and father sent the coast guard down to confiscate their boats and their weaponry and to arrest the ones that continue to do it. And those people, those individuals, were also you know, have been traced and and tracked the assassination, and and, you know, over the years. And they're now there's been, you know, there's millions of documents. I mean, they you know?
Speaker 0: But why not really sell the what doesn't make sense to me is why not just admit it now? I mean, no no one you described would be is still alive or
Speaker 1: is living in the city. Everybody now, all virtually So
Speaker 0: why wouldn't Biden declassify these documents?
Speaker 1: I don't know why. And why would Trump not try
Speaker 0: to I agree. I totally why I know why Trump wouldn't because he was convinced by Mike Pompeo not to. So and it's not an excuse. We're not
Speaker 1: you know? Yeah. So we don't we don't know what what what what Mike Pompeo said to him then.
Speaker 0: No. But that's the point.
Speaker 1: Like, what what would possibly be requires them to do it. So they they they if he has assassinations law require that all documents be released by 20 17.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: And, and yet they refuse. So they
Speaker 0: But it suggests that there's something about big there.
Speaker 1: 4,000 of them, that are left. And you you have to assume. And, again, I don't try I try not to talk about things that I cannot document. Right. But I I think there's a it's a fair assumption that they're not protecting individuals, that they're protecting some institutional interests.
Speaker 0: What's the most powerful institution in America?
Speaker 1: Well, I, you know, I I again, I'm not gonna I'm not gonna I I I don't know. I don't know. And I and, you know, I
Speaker 0: You don't know? Yeah. It's but it's it's there must be something because, like, why wouldn't they just release it?
Speaker 1: And by the way, for people, you know, you you and I having this conversation about who did the assassination and why they did it, a lot of that is the stuff that I've told you. And I've tried to stick to things that, you know, that are documentable and the names, etcetera. But for people who want real, you know, kind of a panoramic view of what happened, I think the best book that's been written about this is Jim Douglas's book, which is called The Unspeakable because he's done something that, you know, after the Warren Commission, that became the orthodoxy. And the New York Times and all the major news organizations have enforced that orthodoxy. And anybody who challenged that orthodoxy becomes a conspiracy theorist.
And in fact, in 1967, the CIA sent a letter out to an e a telecom out to all of its operation Mockingbird people, which are all the the assets it had in the American press. More than 400 people, editors, senior editors, senior writers in the American press saying, from now on, anybody who questions the single gunman theory of the of the Kennedy assassination be should be characterized as a conspiracy theorist. So they didn't coin the word conspiracy theory, but they popularized it with that memo. They sent a memo out to all their stations saying that talk should be discouraged. So those, you know, what happened after that is then in 1979, the House Assassinations Committee met for a year and a half, and they looked at much more evidence than the Warren Commission did, including, you know, Alan Dulles.
Alan Dulles had run the Warren Commission. He was the head of the CIA, and my uncle fired. When my uncle died, he said, I'm glad the little shit is dead. He thought he was a god. That's what he said to a young reporter.
And then he becomes head of the commission that you know, it shouldn't have been called the Warren Commission. It should be called the dollar because Earl Warren was had a full time job at the Supreme Court. The only and all the other guys on the Warren Commission had full time jobs as senator and congressman. The only guy who went to every meeting and, you know, looked at every piece of evidence and developed the questions for the witnesses was Alan Dulles. He was running the entire Warren Commission, and he should have been the prime suspect in the in the crime.
And he was communicating secretly with the people at the CIA, with David Hadley Phillips, with George Hahnadees, who was the CIA liaison, telling them what, you know, what questions were gonna be asked and what they should reveal, and with J. Edgar Hoover at the same time. The whole thing was a coordinated kind of, kabuki theater, but then congress goes back and investigates it in 79. And congress then comes back after a year and a half seeing a lot more stuff and says, and they conclude this was a conspiracy.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: So they make that official. You know? So anybody who says it was just Lee Harvey Oswald is is different from the people who actually made the investigation.
Speaker 0: So so get
Speaker 1: get not of the people on that staff who I've talked to believe that it was the CIA. And as you know at that time, the dip dispute between them was was it the mob or the CIA because there was a lot of mob involvement. You know, Johnny Rizzelli, Sam Giancana, who was the Chicago boss, Santo Straficante, who was the Tampa boss, and Carlos Marcello, who was New Orleans boss, were all involved. And they all had casinos in Havana, and they were working with the CIA to assassinate Castro. So they had a hitman at their disposal, and they were training Cubans who were sharpshooters for Batista as a hitman.
And I've talked to some of the hitmen. I've talked to Antonio Veggiano, who was involved and who was also David Atlee Phillips, handler. David Atlee Phillips was his handler, and he was Lee Harvey Oswald's handler. So Veggiano met Oswald in Dallas in, I think in September of of of 1963. I've talked to, you know, the people who were actually working for the CIA and the mob at that time, you know, to kill Castro and how they were then pivoted to this.
You know, some of them were pivoted to this new project.
Speaker 0: If you became president if you become president, what do you do about those 4,000,000 federal employees, about the agencies which are running effectively as autonomous governments within our government? Like, how do you the last president can when was the last president who controlled the agencies? And how would you do it?
Speaker 1: I don't know. I I feel like I'm probably and I don't wanna seem like, you know, I'm being vague, but I feel that because of the the confluence of my experience over the past 4 years that I'm actually probably the only one that can unravel that agency capture. And and let me tell you this. My doctor-in-law who is co running my campaign with Dennis Kucinich, Amaryllis Fox, was a CIA agent in the client and service for most of her career. And, what she'll tell you and, you know, she has a very sanguine view of the CIA, the same as mine.
And also understands all this evidence that the agency, you know, was involved in the in the murder of my uncle and and the cover up, continues to be involved in the cover up. But what will tell you is that of the 24,000 people who work for the agency, 20,000 of them are patriotic Americans and good public servants. And that there's there's some people mainly in a plant station. The espionage division of the CIA is, you know, is made up of extraordinary people principally who are, who are doing an important job of protecting our country. The espionage division is the division that does, that does, information gathering and analysis, and the president needs that.
The plans division is the action division. They are the ones that assassinate people, fix elections, you know, overthrow governments, and do all the, the things that I think we're paying for in our foreign policy today and in our domestic policy. My father was gonna separate those divisions. My uncle ultimately was gonna do that too. My uncle thought the CIA you know, he came out of his office during the big pigs, and he said, I wanna take the CIA, shatter it into a 1,000 pieces, and scatter it to the winds.
He then asked my father to run the agency. He said, you're the only one I trust to do this. And my father said it and my grandfather said, you can't do that. You can. It it would be like Molotov and you can't do that.
You can't. It it would be like Molotov and Stalin. You can't have the the brother of the president running a secret spy agency with all this extraordinarily hidden power. But they brought in John McComb to run it, but John McComb, you know, was not able to handle it. And, and my father, a week before he died, taught told one of his closest friends, Pete Hamill, who you may have known.
Speaker 0: But he was Pete Hamill, the journalist?
Speaker 1: Yeah. The journalist. Yeah. Of course. He told Pete Hamill Pete Hamill said, what are you gonna do about the CIA?
And my father said, I'm gonna separate the plans division from, espionage, and that's the only way to make it work. And that still makes a lot of sense today. Incidentally, I had dinner with Mike Pompeo, I don't know, 3 weeks ago. And he said something really interesting to me, which
Speaker 0: is Wait. You had dinner with Mike Pompeo? Yeah.
Speaker 1: He was famous. And he said something. What was that? It was it was it was the weirdest dinner I've ever been to. If I told you the other people were at that dinner Well, because
Speaker 0: I just can't imagine too if I know Mike Pompeo. I'm not attacking Mike Pompeo, but I can't imagine too. To talk to people who have more different views.
Speaker 1: No. No. I've always, you know, my my I have a kind of natal hostility toward Mike Pompeo, but I never knew him. And but, you know, just because he was from people who don't know know he was the CIA director, and and he was secretary of state under Trump. And, but he's a he's an interesting guy.
He's smart. Very smart. He's a Harvard. I think he went to Harvard Law School. I ended up at Harvard undergrad, and then I think he had a military career.
Army
Speaker 0: officer. Yep.
Speaker 1: And he, you know, he's he's by all on paper, he's kind of a great American by all you know, his CV is extraordinary. Oh, and you never know. You know, you make judgments about people before you meet them. And my judgment about them, I still don't know what to think of them, but I but this what he said
Speaker 0: wound up at dinner I'm sorry. Bobby Kennedy and Mike Pompeo in Vegas It wasn't just the 2 of us. If I'd stumbled across that, I would've stopped.
Speaker 1: It wasn't just the 2 of us. It was me. The rest of the group makes the story even even weirder. So I'm not I'm I'm not even gonna I don't know if I'll even go there. But but he said to me before dinner, you know, I was I had a moment with him.
And he said to me, he said, you know, when I was at the CIA, I did not do what I should have done to fix that agency. And he said, you know, I and he he was expressing regret. And he said, and then he turned to me and like looked me down in the eye and he said, the entire upper edge line of that agency is made up of individuals who do not believe in the democratic institutions of the United States of America. That's a quote. And
Speaker 0: But so it was Mike Pompeo who, convinced Trump not to release this file, and it was a guy who worked for Mike Pompeo texted me the day after I revealed that those files showed CIA complicity in your uncle's death, which they do because I talked to someone who read them. And I said that on Fox News, and I got a text from a guy who works for Mike Pompeo informing me that I have just broken federal law and that anyone who had told me that was a felon, because we had revealed classified information. And I said, wait a second. That classified information suggests the US government was involved in the murder of an American president. Yeah, that that's Mike Pompeo's position on that.
Yeah. So it's a little bit weird for him to say, I think.
Speaker 1: Well, there's a 1000000000 documents classified Yeah. I know. In the top secret. So, you know, they can call it they can stamp that stamp on anything they want to. That's a lawyer's trick, you know, to
Speaker 0: to put. And he was also behind keeping, convincing Trump not to pardon Assange.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, you know, that confirms my earlier assessment of, of Mike Pompeo.
Speaker 0: That's interesting. You like him? No. It says a lot. Okay.
So you have, there's a documentary called Midnight at the Border, about your visit to the border, California, Arizona border with Mexico, and I just wanna play a clip from it for our, for people who haven't seen it.
Speaker 2: We did 2 weeks to travel from Senegal to Nicaragua. After Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala, Mexico, and here. I'm going to New York to join my uncle. My dream is to leave the to dream Americans, to live in America, to work and to help my family.
Speaker 1: We coordinate with the airport in Phoenix, and then out they go to the final destination the same day.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I hope to begin a new life. Yeah. My brother, Lucia, he's a citizen. K.
Good luck. Goodbye.
Speaker 1: Most people bring the money or have a sponsor that buys their ticket. What happens if if, families don't have the money to buy the blind ticket? Well, FEMA reimburses us. We can we can buy that ticket and and, send that buy the ticket for. Yeah.
Speaker 0: What did you learn from that?
Speaker 1: Okay. You know, what I saw was so extraordinary that it took me 3 days to even understand what I was looking at on because the first night I I land I go to Yuma, and I get to the wall at, at 2 AM. And I watch the first group. There's a gap in the wall there. And I watched the first group come across, which was about 110 men from West Africa, mainly from Ghana.
They're all sort of military age men from Ghana. And by calling them military age men, I'm not making any implications about what they're here for. I'm just saying it's just a way of describing them. They were people between 1825 I've got it. So I expected to see a lot of Central Americans coming up, you know, and then, and that was not what I saw.
And then the next group was, again, about the same number. There were 2 busloads of people, and I interviewed every one of them. I talked to each one. And I wanna say this, what we're seeing there, a lot of people come from the to this issue of you know, I I think we need to close that wall. We need to close the border right now.
And I'm gonna explain to you why. A lot of people come to this issue from a sort of nationalistic or even a racist or xenophobic pet posh. And I'm not coming from that place. I'm coming from a place of compassion and a place of, you know, just concern for our country. And and, you know, this is a this is a heartbreaking humanitarian crisis, and everything that happens to these migrants along the way is terrible.
Oh, the next group that came and what what's happening to our country is a a catastrophe. And by the way, I was a person who ridiculed Trump's wall. Okay? So and now I've been down there, and I've talked to everybody down there. And, you know, I have a different position.
I don't think you need to build a 2,200 mile physical barrier from San Diego at Brownsville, Texas. But we definitely need physical barriers in densely populated area. We definitely because this, we cannot survive what's happening there now. The next group that came over were, again, about 110 people. There are 2 busloads.
The cartels dropped them on right on the other side of the wall in these buses, and there's 50 5 people per bus. Oh, the next group, there were people from Azerbaijan and from Kazakhstan, from Uzbekistan, from Afghanistan, from Pakistan, from Tibet, Nepal, and many from India, and the most came from China. There were only 2 families we met the entire night who were from, who were from Latin America, none from Central America. Interesting. One from Colombia and one from Peru.
And they were the only ones
Speaker 2: who
Speaker 1: had legitimate claims. They you know, of asylum claims. Everybody else we talked to said I'm here to have a better life. Well, that is not if you want if that's why you come to America, then you have to go through the front door. You know?
Go to the embassy. Yeah. You gotta go to the embassy. Well, they don't even have a legitimate any legitimate plan to be in the United States. Nevertheless, the the border patrol and the border patrol is so, disillusioned and discouraged.
I think there's 9 of the border patrolmen we were told had committed suicide in the last year because of what they're being forced to do. They're not protecting the border. They what they do is they fingerprint they can hold the hold the the migrants for 72 hours. They fingerprint them, and they see if they're if they have a criminal record. If they have a criminal record, they're put in a different process.
But, otherwise, they're then asked where they wanna go. And if they don't have a plane ticket, they are brought to the airport. The DHS purchased them a ticket and sends them anywhere they wanna go in the United States.
Speaker 0: So the country's getting poorer every year. Our country's getting poorer every year. We're in a poor place right now. What how who came up with I mean, why do we owe plane tickets to people who come here illegally?
Speaker 1: It it it it's it as far as I can tell, and there's a lot of evidence for this, and it's in our film, is that the Biden administration came in, you know, in the same position I was, which is any which is the wall is bad. But more import more importantly, anything Donald any idea that Donald Trump had is a bad idea. So they just opened the border, and they've had this open border policy where, where, they they have not hired the judges. That's the most important thing that needs to be done. The judges need to be hired so that these cases, if the asylum case cases can be adjudicated right at the border, and people who are not entitled to asylum are sent back.
But that's not what's happening. What happens is they're all given claims, and they're told to appear in court, and they go to an arraignment fairly soon after arriving in Boston or New York or Miami or wherever Minneapolis, wherever they're going. And then they're given a court date, which on average is 7 years out. So they're, there's so then they're they're in
Speaker 0: I hope next time I get arrested, I get the same courtesy.
Speaker 1: Oh, they're in our country then for 7 years, but and let me just tell you from their point of view what's happened. First of all, the cartels are now controlling our immigration policy in the United States. All of these people who came across came across knowing exactly what was gonna happen to them because they had seen it on advertisements. The cartels are sending around the world on TikTok and on YouTube. It tells you what you need to do to get in, where you what airports you fly into, what visas you get, how to get them, and how to get to the cartel parking lots where the buses will take you.
Some of them fly into Nicaragua. Most of them fly to directly to Mexico City and from anywhere in the world. These are not, you know, Central American, Latin American. They're coming from everywhere. They come to they fly to Mexico City.
The cartel has a system getting a Mexican visa, and then they are put on a domestic flight to Mexicali. And in Mexicali, there's a big parking lot with, with buses operated by the cartels. The cartels charge them between 10,000, $15,000 a piece to get through, and then they drive them up to the wall and they unload them. We watch them unloading them on the other side. They, large numbers of them get, get abused.
They get extorted. They get exploited. They get robbed, raped, beaten. The Peruvian family that I met had every, penny taken from. And he said my whole life savings was taken from me.
There's a tree that we could see from where we were in the day when it was daylight. It's called the rape tree, where the cartels extract final payment from women who are crossing the border. If there are attractive women that they in their view, and I I don't mean physically attractive, but if it's attractive for whatever their purpose is, to sell or to, you know, to traffic or whatever or children, Those children are separated out. We the Colombian family had lost a child girl and a teenage girl. And, you know, the father was desperate, and they they she had been separated from them by the cartels before they passed.
Oh my gosh. And 85,000 children have disappeared in this process. It it's it's monstrous. Sue, all the But then let me tell you this. They get into our country and there's a lot of people who are well meaning, mainly liberal people who care, who, you know, see themselves as deeply caring people who say, we should have sanctuary cities and we should you know, these people should be treated with dignity.
But what really happens to them in real life is that they get here and then they for for 7 years, none of them are legal. So they are now subject to terrible exploitation by unscrupulous employers all over this country. They're getting paid $6 or $5 an hour because they have no leverage in their employer. Of course. And that damage the wages where every other That's exactly right.
It steals the leverage from American workers. And and there's 16,000,000 of them here now, and they're crushing the social safety systems social safety nets in cities like New York has 95,000 of them have landed in New York. New York is now thinking of turning Roosevelt Island into an open air refugee camp, And there's a proposal that was on Bloomberg of turning Central Park or parts of it into open air camps for, for migrants. Oh, and that, you know, Eric Adams, who's the mayor, has been saying, this has gotta end. You know, we have to close the border.
And a lot of these mayors who were people who were saying we, you know, we're sanctuary cities and getting that, you know, you know, aligning themselves with that are now seeing what it really means. And it it does not mean human treating people humanely. It is the worst possible thing we can meanwhile, 7,000,000 have come across in 3 years. 7,000,000 illegally. In that same time, there's only been 3,100,000 legal immigrants.
So these are the people who waited in line. For every one of them, there are more than 2 illegal ones coming across and taking those places. And that, you know, a lot of the, anyway, that, you know, it's not it's not something that's sustainable. It's something that needs to end right away. And that that the if it the the cartels which are making Billy, the cartel, the Mexican drug cartels are literally running US immigration policy.
This time, not the president of the United States.
Speaker 0: And and corrupting the southwest United States. Last question. Will you succeed in getting a debate with Biden, do you think?
Speaker 1: I don't I don't I don't know. I mean, I think it's not very democratic to not do the debate. I hope that he will debate me. And I I can tell you this, and I I also hope that he'll come out and campaign because I'm seeing a vision of America in the you know, both Trump and Biden are are boasting about the economic prosperity that they've brought to our country. It's unusual to have 2 former presidents running against each other.
Both of them are are proclaiming their their their economic record. But I'm seeing things in this country that I never believed that I would see. I mean, I'd say, people living in a level of desperation that I you know what? I I I don't know. I've I've talked about I have a friend called Keith Amato who is and, you know, I represent a commercial fisherman for almost all my career as an environmental lawyer.
And he's one of my closest friends. And he, he's been he ran he worked hard his whole life fishing out of Wellfleet and peatown and, and Chatham. And but and his his son-in-law now owns a fishing business, but he has no pension and he has no and he's on full disability. You know, a lot of injuries and a lot of damage during his life. Oh, he was collecting food stamps.
$283 he was getting a month, and it's critical to his arrival. Even then, he was saying he was telling me, you know, I have to switch recipes to make to be able to get through the through the checkout line. You know? I have to buy cheaper recipes and get fillers, etcetera. And in the last 2 years, the price of food, because to fund these wars that we're, you know, we're funding, they print money and that means inflation, and that's a tax on the poor.
Oh, the price of food has gone up by 38%. The price of of basic food stuff, chicken, eggs, and milk have gone up 78%. So his food stamps were 78%, you know, less valuable. On March 1st this year, he got a phone call from the a government phone call, robocall. The recorded voice told him that he was getting his food stamps cut to $23 a month, so 90%.
30,000,000 Americans got that phone call. And, you know, that's the same month we ratcheted up our contributions to the Ukraine at at to Ukraine at 30 a 113,000,000,000. And we print the Fed printed 300,000,000,000 unanticipated dollars to pay for the failure of the Silicon Valley Bank. There's lots of money for for and we and we we began cutting 15,000,000 people from the rat welfare rolls. Since then, 4,000,000 have been cut.
This is on political this morning from from the Medicare rolls. Those oh, there's no money for poor Americans. And the people that I see are living because of the inflation and because of what's happening at this with this desperation. The average wage in this country is now $5,000 left less than the cost of, of basic goods of food, transportation, and housing. So half of Americans are making up that gap by putting it on their credit card bills.
And this week, we passed $1,100,000,000,000 in credit card debt. That's the first time in history. Most of that or 330,000,000,000 of that has been in the Biden and Trump administration. 2 men were saying I you know, I'm I'm helping America. The $1,000,000,000,000 in credit card debt, and those people are paying 22% interest.
If the mafia did that, it would be called loan sharking.
Speaker 0: Not dischargeable in bankruptcy, by the way.
Speaker 1: Right? And it can't be discharged. Oh, you're I'm meeting people who are, you know, couples who are sitting at their dining room tables and trying to figure out how how this math works for them because they can't. They're they're having to make choices. People in this country are choosing between food and gasoline and and food and medicine.
And they're they're listening to a a little baby crying in the room next door, young couples, and having to have them wonder whether that baby is $50 sick or $100 sick or 500 or $1500 sick before they bring them to a hospital. And, you know, my wife and I were talking about the other night, and we were talking about this epidemic of depression and mental illness and anxiety that is afflicting Americans in a deterioration, the sense of the wheels are falling off. And she said, you know, that's the way I felt when she was living in poverty. She said, that's the way I felt when the engine light came on my car because I knew there was no money to pay it. And you have all these Americans now who are living hand to mouth and they do not feel that anybody is listening to them in the political process.
They feel they've been completely abandoned by the Democratic Party and the Republican Party and that those parties are now serving elites. And, and that, you know, their voices aren't being heard. And particularly now, you know, the Democratic Party has had this very interesting shift where when I grew up, my when my uncle's friends and my father was in, the Democratic Party was where the people who are poor and working people are. And today, 70% of the wealth in this country is owned by the Democratic Party and only 30% the Republican Party. The top ten counties, the top richest counties in this country, 9 of the 10 are democratic counties.
So there is this kind of shift in in, in wealth that maybe is one of the reasons that, democrats do not seem to be talking to or for working people anymore. But I'm you know, the people that I talk to both through my job of representing them, you know, in you know, I'm representing a 1000 families in Columbiana County, Ohio, Eastern Ohio, Western Pennsylvania, Western West Virginia, whose lives were abandoned by the Norfolk Southern spill. And, you know, they are just living in a level of desperation that I never thought I'd see in the United States. And, you know, my father used to bring us to, to Southeast Washington. He'd load us in in a station wagon and bring us to Southeast Washington to to meet people who were who were poor.
Or he'd take us to Mississippi Delta or West Virginia to Appalachia or the Indian reservations. And he'd always said to us, these these are your people. He said the people are wealthy and the people who have, you know, the big corporate leaders and titans, they don't need the Kennedys. They have, they have lawyers and they have PR firms and they have lobbyists. And he said, these are your people.
And he came back from from, the Mississippi Delta one night, and he said to we were all eating. There were like 9 of our kids in the dining room at that time. And he said, I was in a tar paper shack today. There were 2 families there and they eat one meal a day, and the kids go to bed hungry. And he said, when you grow older, I want you to do something about those people.
And, you know, that's one of the reasons that I'm running.
Speaker 0: Robert F. Kennedy junior, thank you very much for that.
Speaker 1: Thank thank you.
Speaker 0: Appreciate it. It. John here, people say the news is full of lies.
Speaker 2: On Kennedy's motorcade.
Speaker 0: 139 to the death of Jeffrey Epstein.
@CitizenFreePres - Citizen Free Press
Tucker Carlson on X Ep. 68 just dropped: "Whatever happened to the truckers who dared to protest Justin Trudeau?" https://t.co/prUitMGye5
Video Transcript AI Summary
We're heading to Canada to explore its current state, especially after the COVID lockdowns and the trucker protests. Many Canadians feel oppressed under Justin Trudeau's government, which has been accused of authoritarianism. The media largely supports the government narrative, often ignoring the plight of those jailed for protesting, like the Coutts 4, who remain imprisoned without trial. The Canadian media has failed to cover these issues adequately, leading many to seek information from alternative sources. Concerns about rising housing costs and immigration policies add to the discontent. Despite the challenges, there are still Canadians who desire change and truth. We anticipate mixed reactions upon our arrival, with some supporting our mission to advocate for freedom and justice in Canada.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We're going to Canada. Make some attempt to liberate it. Non violently. Yes. It deserves to live in freedom and peace and not in rapid disgusting decline.
What kind of reception do
Speaker 1: you think we'll get in Canada?
Speaker 2: There are people who really do desire the truth and understand what's at stake. But if we show up
Speaker 0: and announce we're here to liberate Canada,
Speaker 1: what do you think will happen?
Speaker 2: Well, their hair is gonna start on fire and they're gonna freak out.
Speaker 0: Justin Trudeau is such a metrosexual buffoon, always dressing up in little costumes, that it's almost impossible, or it was almost impossible to think of him as an authoritarian dictator. You can't take him seriously enough to be afraid of him, but then you probably don't live in Canada. But all of that began to change 2 winters ago. This was the height of the COVID lockdowns, and Canada had some most restrictive COVID regulations in the world. Among them was a vax mandate.
The people who told you it was your body, your choice didn't believe that at all. All of a sudden, they told you, you must take the shot or you can't participate in life. Can't go anywhere. You can't work. Well, there is at least one group of Canadians with testosterone levels sufficient to question an order like that, and they turned out to be long haul truckers.
And they descended on Canadian cities in January of 2022 to make their voices heard as they say on the news, to make their voices heard. But they were not greeted in the way that other groups who wanna make their voices heard are greeted as heroes. No. They were greeted with derision in the Canadian media, which effectively is an arm of the Trudeau administration and by our media, which is effectively an arm of the Democratic Party. Almost nobody took their side.
But what's interesting is how reasonable their demands were. Listen to us. Hey, Canada. Maybe forcing people to take an untested medicine is not a good idea. They didn't threaten violence.
They weren't violent. They were the core of the Canadian middle class, which is almost extinct at this point. But what was so telling and should really have been foreshadowing of what came later was Justin Trudeau's reaction to the Canadian truckers, to the trucker convoy. He refused to speak to them. Here he's explaining why.
Speaker 3: Is there a reason that you can give as to why you will not discuss or have any negotiations with this particular group?
Speaker 4: I have attended protests and rallies in the past, when I agreed with the goals, when I supported the people, expressing their concerns and their issues. Black Lives Matter is an excellent example of that. But I have also chosen to not go anywhere near protests that have expressed hateful rhetoric, violence towards fellow citizens, and a disrespect, not just of science, but of, the frontline health workers and, quite frankly, the 90% of truckers who have been doing the right thing to keep Canadians safe to put food on our tables. Canadians know where I stand. This is a moment for responsible leaders to think carefully about where they stand and who they stand with.
Speaker 0: So people who are paying close attention learned a lot from that clip. 1st, here is a guy, Justin Trudeau, who will say literally anything. He will say the opposite of what is true with a smile on his face. His heart rate won't rise a bit. He's a sociopath.
Here is also a person who has no regard, in fact, contempt for democracy. This is the elected leader of a so called democracy who refuses to even listen to criticism of his policies. So in fact, he's not a democratic leader. He's an authoritarian, and that became very clear shortly after that was shot. At least 4 Canadian truckers went to jail.
Now what did they go to jail for? What did they do exactly? Well, to this day, no one can really say, and they're still in jail. Watch the Canadian media's description of that specific case. And as you listen to what we're about to show you, ask yourself, did they tell me anything real, or was every single word a lie spoken at the behest of the ruling party of Canada?
This is state media exhibit a. Watch this.
Speaker 5: According to newly unsealed court documents, RCMP believe 4 men accused of plotting to kill Mounties at the Cootes border blockade were being given orders by an outside leadership group. The names of the people in that group have been redacted from the report as they are part of an active investigation. The newly released records involve transcriptions of phone calls between the 4 charged with conspiracy to commit murder, Anthony Olynyk, Chris Lizaac, Jerry Morin, and Chris Carbert, and the unidentified leadership group. The documents state the leadership wanted more than just vaccine mandates lifted, but also the elimination of the professional political class. It also alleges Olinik, Lysak, Moore and Carbert trained for months and stockpiled firearms at Olinik's property near Claire's home while taking orders from an unidentified group.
The documents reveal in February, Mountie seized more than 36,000 rounds of ammunition, 2 pipe bombs, gas masks, camouflage, and tactical gear from the property. Other intercepted calls from the 4 men's cell phones refer to more potential weapons coming from a second stockpile in Nanten, as well as a growing tension between those protesting in Coutts and the leadership group. In February, Olinik, Lizaac, Moren, Carbert, and 9 others were arrested after RCMP uncovered a cache of weapons in Coutts. Olinik is also charged with making and possessing an explosive device, and Lizaac faces a charge of uttering threats.
Speaker 0: So parse what you just heard carefully. Again, that's state media in Canada. So here are 4 guys, working class guys, live in rural areas, and they've got a firearm stockpile. Right. They probably don't have a lot more between the 4 of them than your average farmer does in the state of Nebraska or the state of Maine or the state of Oregon or anywhere else far from a big city.
They're hunters, and so they have guns. Now the pipe bomb is a very specific question. What's a pipe bomb? We don't know, and neither does the media organization reporting it. But, critically, they don't tell you anything about this outside group that's supposedly coordinating them.
The point of that news report was not to inform you, but to scare the crap out of you and make those 4 people who are now in jail seem like scary threats to Canada. Mission accomplished. So what you have in a country like Canada where you have an authoritarian government that's taken away civil liberties, a dying middle class, and no media is you have almost nobody pushing back against the lies. There is maybe one news organization left in Canada that does, that ask very simple questions of the people who run the country. Why are you doing this?
Can you answer the question? That's Rebel News. Watch one of their reporters try to ask Krista Freeland, who's the finance minister of Canada, spent many years in Washington DC, known to many people who lived in DC as a kind of low IQ functionary. She now has power, and she does not wanna answer any questions from the one independent media organization remaining in Canada. Watch what happens when a reporter tries to get her to answer the question.
Speaker 1: Miss Greenland, how come the IRDC is not a terrorist group? Why is your government supporting Islamo now? What? You hear me? Excuse me.
What do you do? You're under arrest for assault. Why are you looking for free? You're under arrest for assault. Arrest for assault.
Officer. Are you looking for me? You're under arrest for assault. Arrest for assault. Arrest for assault.
Arrest for assault. Officer. Come. What about me? Police, you're under arrest for assault.
I under arrest for assault.
Speaker 2: You bumped into me.
Speaker 1: You bumped I was just scrubbing here. I've got my credentials here, and you just bumped into me. You're a rat. Can I have the microphone? Can I have the microphone?
Can I have the microphone? I'm not resistant. Can you give me I'm not resistant. Take your hand off. Why am why am why am I in the red zone?
I'm just doing my mom. This is you're Canada now, folks. You know, this is the gestapo taking blackface's orders.
Speaker 0: So Canada has descended to an extremely dark place, and there are a lot of threads to the story. We're going to Canada very soon to see it for ourselves. But before we go, we thought we would speak to Gord McGill, who knows a lot about this. He is a Canadian and a trucker. He was not strictly speaking part of the Freedom Convoy 2 winters ago, but he was there.
And for a lot of Americans, he was the main way that we knew what was happening because he recorded it and put it out on social media. He joins us now. Gord McGill, thanks so much.
Speaker 2: Thank you for having me, mister Carlson. Pleasure to meet you.
Speaker 0: It's great to meet you. So it's funny that Canada, second largest country in the world, bigger than United States, deeper natural resources in the United States, our biggest trading partner. Canada is a big deal to the US in a lot of ways.
Speaker 2: We've been good neighbors for the most part.
Speaker 0: I would say haven't tried to invade or anything like that.
Speaker 2: Although I think we need an invasion north, but
Speaker 0: I I think we can get that done. But the average American knows nothing about what's going on in Canada, and our understanding of Canada is ruled by cliches that developed 40 years ago. We think of it as a passive, ultra nice country where, you know, that no one gets arrested.
Speaker 2: I would submit to you that the Canadian media returns that in kind because they've been operating on cliches about Americans since forever.
Speaker 0: I I think that's right. And and there's a lot going on there. But I it's a little bit shocking, I think, to most Americans to see how authoritarian Canada has become. Truly a place where you can't ask a question, you'll be arrested for assault. Are you shocked?
Speaker 2: That particular incident with mister Menzies, I mean, I I wanna say it's shocking, but at this point, you know, the Freedom Convoy in Ottawa was crushed in much the same way. RCMP smashing the windows of trucks, beating up peaceful protesters. I'm I I I I'm not really surprised that they did this to mister Menzies.
Speaker 0: It's horrifying. But, again, you wouldn't be surprised since you've been following it, for more than 2 years now. So tell us let's let's go right to that clip that we played from state media in Canada about the 4 incredibly dangerous people who are still languishing in
Speaker 2: Right. Yes.
Speaker 0: Tell us who they are.
Speaker 2: So, colloquially known as the Coutts 4, Jerry Moran, Chris Leizak, Chris Carbert and Tony Olyaneck are a group of protesters who were at the Coutts Freedom Convoy site. Where is Coutts? It's on the border with Alberta and Montana, sort of where interstate 15 ends and
Speaker 0: then
Speaker 2: take the highway north to Calgary and other points. And, they they were there exercising, their rights to object to government policies. And, due to very powerful forces, they've been caught up in railroaded really, by the government and and sort of used as used as pawns because after the Freedom Convoy ended, was crushed by Trudeau and the government, there was an inquest into that, called the Public Order Emergency Commission, which the the Justice Rouleau in his conclusion about, the question of whether or not Justin Trudeau was justified in imposing the Emergencies Act. He was, I I can't remember the exact word but he was a little bit reluctant. He was sort of like reluctantly agreed that Trudeau was within his rights and most of that hinges on this case in Coutts, which once you investigate it, isn't much of a case at all.
And so these 4 regular working class dudes who are at the protest site have now been imprisoned for almost 2 years. They were denied bail. They're kept in what's called remand because they haven't been convicted of anything. They haven't faced trial yet, so they don't get the the rights afforded, convicted prisoners. And so they've, you know, been subject to, long stints of, oh, man.
Solitary confinement. Voluntary confinement and denial of certain medical care. There's been some drama around that. Tony Olenek has got, problems with his guts. He was denied, medication that he needed.
Chris Lysak is a big huge bear of a man. He's 6 foot 5, has size 15 feet. They still haven't given him the proper shoes to wear while he's in jail. He's, like, walking around in Crocs all the time. He also has problems because he's so big he needs an extra mattress.
They they've just they've they've treated these guys like crap. And what,
Speaker 0: I'll just say, there's no media in the world they have more contempt for than the Canadian media. They literally work for the government. They are state media.
Speaker 2: Yeah. They're financed to the hilt. In 2019, the Trudeau regime gave them $595,000,000 to bail them out because they're losing money, in part because a lot of people know they're liars and aren't interested in what they have to sell. And there's been top ups to that and I think, while I was looking it up, there's somewhere north of $700,000,000 in subsidies from Justin Trudeau.
Speaker 0: Right. So it's he owns the media. He uses your tax dollars to pay for flattering coverage of himself.
Speaker 2: Right. And that's not even counting the CBC. That's a whole another one Exactly. 7,000,000,000.
Speaker 0: And to eliminate all coverage of his MISTys. But I just wanna get to something that we played in that clip. They were accused of taking orders from a secretive outside group, and Canadian media wouldn't tell us because it was, quote, redacted what this group is. Has anyone ever explained who these guys were supposedly
Speaker 2: working for? There's there's been some
Speaker 0: The Russians, I assume?
Speaker 2: Yeah. There was one CBC reporter who accused the Freedom Convoy of taking money from Putin. Of course, that was ridiculous. One of the items there they were talking about, it was actually a telegram group that's run by 1 guy who's just a random dude that espouses his opinion, and the government is claiming this one random guy of the Telegram group to be some criminal mastermind. Interestingly enough, that guy hasn't been apprehended, arrested, or charged with anything.
And the media have also tried to conflate the Coots guys with a podcaster in Canada named Jeremy McKenzie. And his meme country he created in his mind called Diagon. And there's a social justice activist group in Canada called the Canadian Anti Hate Network who are also paid by Trudeau. And they claim that Diaglion are like an ethno nationalist threat and they're gonna, you know, they're armed to the hilt and they're gonna take over the government. And investigations showed that Diagon doesn't exist.
And Jeremy McKenzie is just a guy sitting in his house in Nova Scotia with some fans. And they tried to turn this into a thing. There was documents released showing that what the Canadian Anti Hate Network had said was totally false, and, media hasn't discussed that at all.
Speaker 0: So you've got 4 at least 4, I think many more, but you've got these 4 political prisoners rotting in prison, no bail, no trial, for 2 years. Has the Canadian media said anything about this other than to accuse them of being controlled by
Speaker 2: So at the beginning, the media repeated, these allegations from the RCMP and the Crown. The Defence sought a publication ban because it was apparent immediately that the media was trying to railroad these guys. So the media, what they've done now, is they're hiding behind that publication ban, but the publication ban is very specific on information to obtain, and these unproven allegations by the RCMP and the Crown. You can still ask questions about the case. Right?
Like, why have these guys been denied bail? What are the connections, the political connections to the Invocation of the Emergency Act and
Speaker 1: the resulting Public Order Emergency Commission ruling?
Speaker 2: There's all kinds of questions you can resulting Public Order Emergency Commission ruling. There's all kinds of questions you can still ask about this case that are not subject to the bans and there's been nothing.
Speaker 0: So, do Canadians understand what's happening? Do they care, do you think?
Speaker 2: A small number of us do, but we are not the people represented in the media.
Speaker 0: How do Canadians get I mean, your media blockade is North Korean. I mean, it's like it's hard to get information in Canada. How do people get news about what's actually happening?
Speaker 2: Well, they have to read, you know, I've written on this case in Newsweek. They have to go to American media or other parts of the world because, you know, there are some people in Canada trying, like, you know, I'm Canadian. I write on Substack. There's a couple other, you know, people who've been podcasting about
Speaker 0: I should say you're living in exile.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I'm I live in upstate New York now. That's weird. Yeah. I escaped the gulag.
Yep. But yeah. So if people back home wanna find out about this, there's only a small number of people discussing it and most of them aren't in the country.
Speaker 0: I assume that Trudeau, like all authoritarians like Joe Biden, is making an example of the Coutts 4 to discourage future protests. That's what Biden did with January 6th. Rest all these people, people are afraid. We haven't had mass protests about anything since January 6th because people know that the FBI will put them in prison. Is do you think that's why he did that?
Speaker 2: I think that's why he did that. And then over and above the Coutts 4 guys, there's a number of other people who are continuing to be punished. Chris Barber and Tamara Leech, who are the sort of the faces of the Ottawa convoy, they were charged with, like, mischief and intimidation and counseling mischief and all these, like, silly ridiculous charges, and their court cases are still ongoing. A a number of people who were involved in Ottawa, like, just showing up and protesting and taking part in it, making their voices heard, as you said, were also charged with mischief and various other, offenses. Some of those people, the they had their cases dropped or they were acquitted because there was nothing to it.
And now, the Crown is appealing those acquittals and they're trying to drag regular people who've already been through their court case and had it acquitted, and they're bringing them back and charging them again. He's vindictive, man. Like, he can't not be wrong. He can't not admit that the largest peaceful protest in Canadian history was just that. It has to be something else to, like, satisfy it's like sort of a proclivities towards totalitarianism.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Well, not even proclivities, just the totalitarianism he's imposing on the country. Have there been mass protests since the trucker convoy?
Speaker 2: No. I don't know where of. See?
Speaker 0: So it works.
Speaker 2: It does, unfortunately. And, the media, as you say, have a role to play in this because they are basically not discussing the fact that we have a assist a situation almost akin to Guantanamo Bay with 4 of our own citizens. Something many Americans might not know about. There was a young kid named Omar Kadir, who was born in Canada, but his you know, I think his father was from Egypt or somewhere else. And, Kadir senior was a supporter of the Taliban.
And after September 11th, Kadir senior and his boy went to Afghanistan. Omar Kadir was involved in a firefight with American troops. A medic was killed. Khadr was picked up, taken to, I can't remember if it was Kabul or Kandahar, and then sent to Guantanamo Bay. But the only person at Guantanamo with a Canadian passport.
Regardless of that case or what anybody thinks about Omar Khadr, the Canadian media did not shut up about that guy for the entire time. It was front page news, front and center. Omar Khadr's being done dirty by being in Guantanamo Bay. We have to get him out. Prime Minister at the time, Stephen Harper, was heavily criticized for not doing enough to have Omar Khadr extracted from Guantanamo Bay.
Eventually, he was. Came back to Canada. And then Omar Khadr and his lawyers sued the government and under the Trudeau Administration was cut a cheque for $10,500,000. As payment for shooting in American medic or? I I for being allowed to be in Guantanamo Bay for as long as he was.
But the point is is that the media did everything in their power to make sure that Omar Khadr was a household name And they haven't lifted a finger for the Coutts 4. So Canada from afar, haven't been there in a
Speaker 0: while, but it does seem like it's collapsing. I mean, it's kind of
Speaker 2: It's not a good time. Most expensive real estate prices in the world, Inflation out of control. People are finding it really difficult to afford to live. It's almost impossible to get a buy a home in many of the major cities. My sister went to go and see, Pierre Poilevre, who's now the leader of the Conservative Party.
And he was doing before he was elected to be leader of the Conservative Party, he was doing, like, you know, the meet and greets and talking with people all across the country. And my sister told me when she went to go meet him that the number one issue on everybody's lips, past COVID, past anything else, was real estate prices and the housing shortage. Like, where are our children going to live? How are they going to afford it? What are you going to do about this?
Speaker 0: Well, one of the reasons your housing prices just are so high is because there's massive foreign investment from China into your real estate markets.
Speaker 2: That's one of them. Yep.
Speaker 0: Yep. It is. Especially in Western Canada, in Vancouver. So the prime minister could end that tomorrow. The government of Canada could end that tomorrow.
Just only Canadian citizens can buy residential real estate in Canada. Why why not do that?
Speaker 2: Well, you know, it's been recently revealed that the Chinese Communist Party has been involved in federal politics in Canada since at least Brian Mulroney. And in the last two elections, like, CSIS has produced evidence that the Chinese Communist Party directly assisted the election of 19 or 20 different members of parliament. So, you know, I don't foresee mister Trudeau doing too much to upset his masters.
Speaker 0: Okay. Well, maybe the other thing that the Canadian government could do, if if you don't wanna rein in China because they're really in control, you could at least maybe slow down immigration a little bit. I think Canada has the highest immigration rate per capita of any country in the world. You're basically importing
Speaker 2: It's very high. Entire subcontinent. You know, I wanna like, there's no material way to support these people, right? Like, the, our healthcare, our nationally funded healthcare system has got major problems.
Speaker 0: When you say major problems, what do you mean?
Speaker 2: Like, unable to deliver care to the people who already live there, right?
Speaker 0: Yep.
Speaker 2: We don't have the housing, we don't have the economy can't support it, there's not enough jobs for everybody and we're just being told that, you know, a million immigrants a year is just fine even though there is no material way to support or integrate any of these extra people and it's just making all these problems worse.
Speaker 0: Has there been a national referendum on this? Do most Canadians support this? Hey, let's move Bangladesh to Canada. People before that?
Speaker 2: I I would submit to you most people would not support that, but again, no one's doing the polling and, the government doesn't care.
Speaker 0: So if the government doesn't care and if it's literally changing the nature of the country forever right in front of your eyes and your opinion is irrelevant, how is it a democracy?
Speaker 2: I would submit to you that it's not much of a democracy. And, Trudeau rules because he's got a deal with the leader of the new Democratic Party, Jagmeet Singh. And you know, obviously he's doing very poorly. Polling indicates that in the next election it's quite likely that the Conservative party is going to win. But I don't know if that's gonna change anything.
Speaker 0: Right? Right. The Conservatives in Canada seem very feminized to me and kind of self hating and sad
Speaker 2: and afraid. You know who Michael Malice is?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 2: He has a great saying, conservative conservatism is progressivism driving the speed limit. And that applies with the conservative party of Canada.
Speaker 0: But what is I mean, that that is one thing about Canada that's remained consistent and I think Canada will be a completely different country in 10 years because of immigration, so we'll reassess then. But people who are born in Canada have a reputation of being apologetic, not wanting to rock the boat, a little bit self hating, meek.
Speaker 2: I don't know about self hating, but they're definitely naval gazers.
Speaker 0: What is that?
Speaker 2: That that's that's a long running psyop. You know, if you grow up in Canada, you have, Canadian content rules on the CBC and in the rest of the media. And we're always taught to, like, think of ourselves as not being Americans. And it's always Canada Canada Canada all the time. Rather than, like, looking outwards and being adult about things.
There's there's there's something in the zeitgeist there that, like, you know, makes us extremely self referential and almost insular in a way while pretending to not be.
Speaker 0: Yes. And it it strips Canadians of their ability, with the exception of these truckers, I guess, their ability to say, wait a second. You can't do this to my country. Like, there's not a lot of that in Canada. They seem passive.
Speaker 2: Unfortunately, some people in Canada are passive and then when you get people who do rise up and say, hey, enough's enough. Well, this is what you get now. The media smears you, lies about you, the government crushes your protest and there you have it. Like, there's
Speaker 0: But if you have a cross dressing fascist like Justin Trudeau take over and one of his first orders of business is to take your guns away, I don't think you need to be a genius to ask, like, why would you want to do that? Canada doesn't I mean, there's no evidence that farmers in Saskatchewan are going on murder sprees, okay? Why would he be so intent on taking their guns away, their means of self defense? Did that raise any alarms for anyone in Canada? That maybe this guy doesn't have the best intentions?
Speaker 2: It's raised a number of alarms with people who are not represented in the media and not represented in the government. Like, people do know about this and people are concerned. But again, you have to go outside the country to hear about it or you have to go into, you know, alternative media.
Speaker 0: I I should say, just to be totally clear and sincere, I'm one of the few Americans who actually loves Canada because I think it's so beautiful.
Speaker 2: I love my country too. It is very beautiful. Yeah.
Speaker 0: It's the most beautiful. I'd say
Speaker 1: full of
Speaker 2: really good people who are not being served by their government.
Speaker 0: But the government killing thousands of Canadians a year through assisted suicide assisted suicide, which they encourage, not for immigrants, only for native born. That's that seems a pretty ominous sign. Like, if the government is killing its own citizens, maybe they don't mean you well? I'm just trying to connect dots here.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Well, given the sort of collapsing health care system, this, medical assistance in dying program and their seeming, their seeming lack of concern about making any of these material conditions better by just throwing more people at the problem would belie that no, in fact, they do not care about us at all.
Speaker 0: But does anybody I mean, in other words, if I say I love you and then I say, what I really think you should do is kill yourself and I'll help you, maybe I'm lying. Maybe I don't love you. I mean, I'm just again, just throwing that out there.
Speaker 1: Of course. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Has anyone in Canada said that? Are you allowed to say that out loud?
Speaker 2: I'm not a 100% sure on that one, but it seems like there's less and less things we are allowed to say if not in the letter of the law, but in what the media will allow in the discourse. Yes.
Speaker 0: Wow. That's pretty distressing. Do you think you'll be able to return to Canada? And do you want to?
Speaker 2: I mean, you know, I've got lots of family there. I have 2 daughters who are, you know, maybe one day when they grow up, they'd like to move back to Canada and, you know, check the place out, maybe settle there. I I, you know, I don't know but, it's it it doesn't look really good. And I, you know, when the, when the Emergencies Act was declared, I was thinking about going back to Ottawa a second time and I I actually sought, like, legal counsel about whether or not I would get picked up at the border because of what I was saying in Newsweek. Like, under the emergency department
Speaker 0: you saying were you calling for insurrection against Justin Trudeau?
Speaker 2: No. I was just simply telling the truth about what the protesters wanted and what was actually going on in the streets in Ottawa.
Speaker 0: Do you think it's weird that we have the state department that's totally obviously doesn't like America, but is focused supposedly on freedoms in other countries? And we're sending half a trillion to Ukraine to liberate Ukraine. But we have these grotesque human rights violations right across our border and no one says anything about it in the from the State Department. Does that seem weird?
Speaker 2: It does. And you know, something that was revealed in these documents, related to this Jeremy McKenzie Fellow is that, members of the 5 Eyes Security, arrangement were basically brought into this sort of wild goose chase after this guy. And so, like, your own security services resources were wasted chasing a Canadian podcaster.
Speaker 0: And the other English speaking the 5 I's refers to English speaking intelligence services. They Canada, New Zealand, Australia. United States. They were assisting with this?
Speaker 2: They were they were involved with it. Yeah. It was revealed in those documents that at least New Zealand and the United States were both, involved in this investigation. Have you
Speaker 0: I'm not surprised at all. I mean, it's not these are not separate governments. This is one government. Have you ever met anyone personally who likes Justin Trudeau? No.
You've never met like, even just just say hi. Like, you've never met anyone who likes him.
Speaker 2: I mean, I'm I'm I'm sure there are people I know and in my life who, you know, think he's alright or maybe even voted for him. But, like, most of my really good friends and associates dislike the man. And I mean, dislike is the diplomatic term I will use on TV.
Speaker 0: Would they feel comfortable announcing that in Canada, the ones who still live there?
Speaker 2: I mean, you know, there are people who will say things about mister Trudeau. I mean, it it's you you you are taking a risk, you know. Like I, I had the RCMP call me once for sending mean tweets at Prime Minister
Speaker 0: Trudeau. What'd they say? The Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
Speaker 2: Yes. There's a there's an organization, a sub organization within the RCMP called the Protective Investigations Unit.
Speaker 0: Well, they sound like fun.
Speaker 2: Yeah. They're sort of akin to the Secret Service.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: And there's like another group within them who monitor online Hate. Hate.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Hate, Gord.
Speaker 2: I I guess they they they didn't like me making fun of the prime minister.
Speaker 0: What were you saying? Nothing.
Speaker 2: I was just posting memes at him.
Speaker 0: Oh, but the memes were dangerous so the
Speaker 2: I guess, like the feds called you. As, as, who's this fellow in Florida that was, arrested, and charged and went to court for making memes by Oh,
Speaker 0: we we interviewed him. Yes. He's facing prison time for that. Yeah. Making fun of Hillary Clinton, not allowed.
But what I mean, I I do think it's fair to America's obviously becoming a police state, pretty clear, but Canada is farther along down that path. It's smaller, there's less resistance, there's no media at all independent. So it's a captive nation. What can Americans do to help our cousins north of the border?
Speaker 2: Just understand that most of the Canadian media are corporate welfare cases and that you're never gonna get the truth out of them, much like a lot of the media here. And, you know, stay awake to that. If they wanted to, they could help the Coutts 4 guys. We have, we have a new give send go set up for them simply called Trudeau's Political Prisoners because they have the full weight of the state against them, And they've had trouble getting decent and competent legal representation because, you know, being a lawyer or a judge in Canada means, in some way, you're connected to the Liberal Party. Right?
Like, 76% of judges in Canada are donors to and members of the Liberal Party. So it's very difficult to, like, fight this in court. And so if Americans wanna help, like, we could really use some money to get these guys half decent lawyers.
Speaker 0: It's a I mean, it's a one party state at this point posing as a parliamentary democracy.
Speaker 2: Correct. Yeah. We have a similar uni party problem where the NDP and the Liberals work together and help each other out in order to stay in power and the Conservatives lie down and take it.
Speaker 0: Does that sound familiar? So I guess what you're saying, everything in Canada is a pale imitation of the United States.
Speaker 2: Yeah. It's it's a much more fake and pale. Yes.
Speaker 0: Is there hope?
Speaker 2: Oh, man. That's a good question. I I I don't know if there's, like, any political hope to this. Obviously, Western civilization is kind of in some very rough times at the moment and, you know, going through something of a crisis of meaning. And I don't I don't know if there's any political solutions to this.
Like, people need to start looking into themselves.
Speaker 1: Well, I agree with that.
Speaker 0: And speaking of that, and I'm not saying that the Canadian government's under demonic control, but hundreds of churches were burned have been burned. 100. Right. Churches Right. Under Justin Trudeau.
He's done nothing. He approves of it. So
Speaker 2: Not very much was done about it. And, well, you know what his associates in the NDP are doing? They have proposed legislation to make the discussion of those church burnings and the residential school program illegal? You either accept the government's narrative about the residential schools program, which led to all these church burnings, or you're gonna go to jail. They're gonna make it akin to holocaust denial to actually question the residential school's name.
Speaker 0: First of all, any historical event can be questioned legitimately any event and reassessed in light of new evidence, existing evidence reinterpreted. I mean, that is history. Correct. So anybody who criminalizes or uses force to discourage an assessment of any historical event is acting on behalf of evil and deception, of course, by definition. So, like, we know that.
Speaker 2: Right. Yeah. The NDP are evil. I I have no time for those guys. They used to be a pro worker party but now they're mostly sort of woke and they represent government employees and that's about it.
Yep. Last question. We're going to Canada trying to make some attempt to liberate it. Good luck in
Speaker 0: Non non violently.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 0: But it you know, I think there are a lot of decent Canadians. And again, it's one of the most beautiful places in the world. It deserves to live in freedom and peace and not in rapid disgusting decline. What kind of reception do
Speaker 1: you think we'll get in Canada?
Speaker 2: I think when you go to these events in Calgary and Edmonton, you're going to have, very large crowds because you do have fans in Canada. There are people who really do desire the truth and understand what's at stake. So I think you're gonna have some pretty big crowds.
Speaker 0: But if we show up and announce we're here to liberate Canada,
Speaker 1: what do you think will happen?
Speaker 2: Well, given that it's Alberta, you'll you'll get a good reception from the locals. The rest of the country, of course, you know, their hair is gonna start on fire and they're gonna freak out. Good. Mission accomplished. No.
The real mission is liberating, the great nation of Canada from itself. Right. And you know, I think like a joint operation between the South Dakota National Guard and the New Hampshire and Maine National Guards maybe could probably do it given, like, Canada's military is also in shambles. So, yeah, bring it on.
Speaker 0: I don't think there's any I don't think it would require 3 state national guards to liberate Canada by force. But who knows? You know, it's gonna be a dynamic here. Gurbigo, thank you so much for spending this time with us.
Speaker 1: Thank you
Speaker 2: for having me.
Speaker 1: Great to
Speaker 0: meet you. Appreciate it. Thank you. Free speech is bigger than any one person or any one organization. Societies are defined by what they will not commit.
What we're watching is the total inversion of virtue.
@CitizenFreePres - Citizen Free Press
Tucker Carlson on X Ep. 74 just dropped: "The Ukrainian government canceled elections and killed an American journalist. Congress is about send them another $60 billion. J.D. Vance is trying to stop it." https://t.co/Wb2sRYuiwZ
Video Transcript AI Summary
Ukraine cannot win its war against Russia, even with extensive Western support. The ongoing conflict is leading to significant loss of life and economic degradation. Recently, the U.S. Senate proposed sending another $60 billion to Ukraine, despite its corrupt government and ongoing issues. There is a critical procedural vote that could potentially kill this legislation, and efforts are being made to sway Republican senators against it. This funding not only supports Ukraine in 2024 but also ties future presidential decisions, limiting diplomatic options. Many senators seem to believe prolonging the war serves Ukraine's interests, but this perspective overlooks the devastating impact on the Ukrainian population and distracts from pressing domestic issues.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: It became very clear to anyone paying attention several months ago that Ukraine cannot win its war against Russia. The Ukrainian military will not be able, even with western backing 100 of 1,000,000,000 of dollars of it, to expel the Russian military from parts of Eastern Ukraine. Ukraine doesn't have the industrial capacity, neither does NATO or the United States, and it doesn't have the people. Russia has a 100,000,000 more in population than Ukraine does. And that means that further support from the West for the Ukrainian military only means more dead Ukrainians and a further degraded Western economy in the US and in Germany, particularly.
So it's not simply a fool's errand. It's self destruction. It's insane. It's cruel. It's abetting the killing of an entire generation of Ukrainians.
This is very obvious. No honest person at this point will deny it. And yet somehow the United States Senate, which is always several years behind reality and its perception just a few weeks ago decided to send another $60,000,000,000 to the Ukrainian government, which is both corrupt and authoritarian. They've canceled elections. They banned an entire Christian denomination, and then they killed an American journalist for noting any of this.
And yet, the United States Senate proposed under Mitch McConnell a plan to send another $60,000,000,000 to Ukraine. Well, imagine the surprise. Well, all rational people around the world to wake up this morning and discover this could actually happen. And so with that in mind, we thought it'd be worth talking to one of the very few Republican senators who's bothered to make the counter case, and that would be JD Vance of Ohio who joins us now from the United States. Senator, thanks so much for coming on.
If you wouldn't mind telling us where this legislation is right now, what you expect to happen, and what you think should happen.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Tucker. So there are 2 big things that will happen here. So tonight, we will clear a major procedural vote or we won't. So this is really the best opportunity tonight to kill this legislation. Encourage everybody to do everything that they can, contact everyone they can to ensure that we actually do kill the legislation.
It is very close. The Democrats have banded together with 17 Republicans. We only need 8 of those Republicans to flip their vote to kill this thing, and I think that we'll get at least 1, who will in fact flip their votes. So that that that's where it sits in the Senate. The second thing and frankly, the best opportunity we have to kill this is in the house, and that's part of what I'm trying to do is notify people about how bad this legislation is, so that after it clears the Senate, if it does, then it goes to the House and the House has a real opportunity to at least make it better, but hopefully kill it.
And I I wanna say just just a couple of things here, Tucker, that are extremely important to know about this legislation. Number 1, is that it sends $61,000,000,000 to Ukraine to fund, as you said, a hopeless war in Eastern Europe that will decimate the Ukrainian population even more than it's already been decimated. So it's a terrible terrible piece of legislation on the policy. The second thing I wanna say, Tucker, though, is that it doesn't just fund Ukraine in 2024, and this is the most important point. It actually funds Ukraine in 25 and 26.
Now, what's the problem with that? Say, for example, that we have a new president in 2025, that president would be handcuffed by the promises that we are making in law to Ukraine today. If you go back to to 2019, Tucker, to sort of give you a sense of why this matters. In 2019, the US House impeached then President Donald Trump on the theory that they had appropriated money to Ukraine and Donald Trump refused to send it to Ukraine. So if Trump is elected President again and become President on January of 2025, he will conduct diplomacy and if that diplomacy does not include sending additional 1,000,000,000 to Ukraine, there is a theoretical argument, a predicate, if you will, for impeaching Donald Trump because they have tried to tie his hands.
And the final point I'll make on this, Tucker, is that the Washington Post has already has already said, based on leaks from inside the intel community, the purpose of this legislation is to tie a future President Trump's hands. We're not just sending 1,000,000,000 to Ukraine in 2024, we're trying to make it impossible for the next president to conduct diplomacy on his terms. It's anti democratic and it will lead to endless war in the all over the world.
Speaker 0: So the political calculation behind this seems incredibly dark, so does the humanitarian effect. I noticed that no one on Capitol Hill seems interested in finding out how many have died in this war. Reliable estimates in the area, these are not partisan, are that about 400,000 Ukrainians have died. That's about as many Americans has died in the entire second World War over the entire duration, and it's, of course, a much smaller country. So how do senators, Republican senators, get away with saying we're doing this on behalf of Ukrainian people, on behalf of democracy when it's destroying an entire generation and it's not a democracy?
Like, what's the thinking here?
Speaker 1: Well, Tucker, they bought into the propaganda that what is in the best interest of Ukraine is to prolong this war. And so Zelensky comes to Washington. You know, he's tougher than a lot of them are, and I think they get, you know, a a little bit of excitement from that. And Zelensky tells them a story that his war is in the best interest of the whole of Ukraine. Now never mind that there are people within Ukraine protesting the draft, never mind that the average age of a soldier there is pushing 45 years old, and never mind that the 650,000 wealthiest Ukrainians left the country at the beginning of the war, they didn't stay and fight.
So the idea that this is unanimously supported by the Ukrainian population is, of course, preposterous and absurd. No one believes it. But but here's here's the really crazy and I and I think ultimately the very cynical thing that's going on, Tucker, is that everyone knows that this war will lead to the destruction of Ukraine. I've had conversations with democratic colleagues where they get this sort of dark look in their eyes and they say, effectively, that they wanna fight Russia to the last Ukrainian drop of blood. I I I think if you really ask these guys, they recognize that this is not in the best interest of Ukraine.
This is fundamentally in the interest of military contractors and people who think that America's most pressing challenge is to defeat the Russians. Of course, that's not a preoccupation that I share. I don't think Russia should have invaded, Tucker, but I also think that we gotta be much more focused on more pressing problems, like the demographic collapse of the United States, like the open borders, and like what's going on in East Asia. So it's a massive campaign, Tucker, to distract people from the real problems in the world and the real problems that exist in this country.
Speaker 0: And underlying it all, as you just said, is is an impulse that's that's indefensible and I think deeply immoral. So I I'm so grateful for you having the courage to talk about this in public, and I and I hope common sense in your position prevails. Senator, JD Vance of Ohio. Thank you. Free speech is bigger than any one person or any one organization.
Societies are defined by what they will not permit. Local blockchain is the total inversion of virtue.
@CitizenFreePres - Citizen Free Press
Tucker Carlson on X Ep. 69 just dropped: "War with Iran? Yes. We’re already in it. An interview with Joe Kent who did 11 combat tours in the U.S. Army." https://t.co/hGOettJVlY
Video Transcript AI Summary
The Pentagon reported the deaths of three U.S. troops in a drone attack in Jordan, prompting immediate calls for retaliation against Iran from various political figures. Lindsey Graham and Nikki Haley emphasized a strong military response, linking the attack to perceived weaknesses in Biden's Iran policy. Joe Kent, a former Green Beret, criticized the U.S. military's positioning in vulnerable locations, suggesting it serves as bait for conflict. He argued that a war with Iran would rally its people around their government and exacerbate regional tensions, ultimately benefiting adversaries like China. Kent emphasized the need to prioritize domestic issues, such as the fentanyl crisis, over foreign military engagements, questioning the rationale behind continued U.S. involvement in the Middle East.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Yesterday, the Pentagon announced that 3 US troops had been killed and dozens injured after a drone loaded with explosives struck them at a base in Jordan near the Syrian border. Now none of that can be confirmed. The details anyway, the location of the attack, and there's some question about whether that's true. But there is no question that American troops were killed yesterday, and the reaction to that mixed with sadness was highly political. In fact, even strategic.
Within moments of this news breaking, Lindsey Graham, the Republican senator from South Carolina, called for blood. Quote, hit Iran now. Hit them hard, he tweeted. Nikki Haley, of course, piled on. Here's what she posted to x, quote, as a military spouse, my heart breaks for the families who lost loved ones.
This shows the barbaric nature of our enemies in Iran, and it shows that they would not be attacking our troops if Joe Biden weren't so weak in his treatment of Iran. We should retaliate with full force, the full force of American strength. It's the only way to prevent further war. If we do not, these attacks will continue. Interesting.
All of this came immediately. They were joined by Wes Clark, the former presidential candidate and commander of NATO, and buffoons like John Cornyn, who apparently is a senator from Texas, etcetera, all saying the same thing. Let's go to war with Iran. They all said this in both sides. Here's Nancy Pelosi on CNN telling you yesterday that anyone who is not for this, who would like to say a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, is working for Vladimir Putin.
Speaker 1: For them to call for a ceasefire is mister Putin's message. Mister Putin's message. Make no mistake. This is directly connected to what he would like to see. Same thing with Ukraine.
It's about Putin's message. I think some of these some of these protesters are spontaneous and organic and sincere. Some, I think, are connected, to Russia, and I say that having looked at this for a long time now as you know.
Speaker 2: Some of these protests are Russian plants?
Speaker 1: See, they're plants. I think some financing should be investigated, and I wanna ask the the, FBI to investigate that.
Speaker 0: It's hard for most people to believe that a person in his or her eighties could be evil, but she is evil, and she's speaking lies, which you heard is totally dishonest. But there's a point to the dishonesty, and that is a war with Iran, which people in Washington have been agitating for for more than 20 years. So are we going to war with Iran? Are we already in a war with Iran? And if so, what are the consequences?
Most Americans have no idea. It's not even something they're thinking about, but they should be. Joe Kent is a former Green Beret. He's a combat veteran who lost his wife in one of these wars. He's running for congress in Washington State in the 3rd congressional district, and he has an interesting and highly informed perspective on this.
And we're honored to have him join us now. Joe Kent, thank you so much for coming on today. So when you see all of this, and, you know, you hate to be cynical, but you really can't be too cynical, when you're dealing with the war party in Washington. It did seem like a coordinated response very quickly moments after the announcement of the of the tragic death of these American servicemen. What do you make of the response from both parties in Washington to the deaths yesterday?
Speaker 2: I mean, this whole thing, we we've seen it coming, Tucker. We left our troops in these vulnerable locations, like on the Jordanian, Syrian, and Iraqi border. Our troops have been attacked, we we think, at least a 150 times since the, October 7th, incident began, and so we've seen this coming. This was an inevitable conclusion. So by leaving our troops in these locations undefended essentially, we left them there as bait because so many people in Washington DC want to go to war with Iran.
They wanna go to a war with Iran so badly that we will prop up the government of Iraq while the government of Iraq is completely controlled by Iran. We spend 1,000,000,000 of dollars every single year funding, arming, trading, and equipping the Iraqi government so they can turn around and support the exact same militias that just killed our troops. Biden said with himself in his statement, he accused Iranian backed militants operating in Iraq and Syria of conducting this attack that killed the 3 Americans and wounded nearly 30 more. That is nothing short of saying the pop the Popular Mobilization Forces, which is the part of the Iraqi military that we support. So if you look at just the full scope of the way that we have arranged ourselves in the Middle East, who we're supporting and where our troops are, there's no other logical conclusion other than the fact that we have left them there as bait to be killed by Iranians at the time and place of their choosing so that we can continue to escalate towards a conflict with Iran.
And like you said, there was a very coordinated series of talking points that came out almost immediately that we need to go and and strike back against Iran. And, look, we do need to strike back. We can't just let this go unanswered. But if we start taking strikes inside of Iran itself, that is exactly what the Iranian regime wants. They will benefit from that.
If we start attacking Iran the way that we attacked Iraq, the way we attacked Afghanistan, then the Iranian government, the Iranian mullahs, the Ayatollah, the people will rally around them in support. We should be taking calculated strikes back at Iranian proxy groups for self defense, and then we should immediately get our troops out of these foolish locations before we lose more blood and treasure for absolutely nothing in the Middle East and before we're sucked further into a regional war.
Speaker 0: So if we could just go back to something you said at the beginning, which I think is demonstrably true, that American policymakers have left American citizens in these countries in order to be killed so they can justify killing more American citizens in a broader war against a very well armed country, Iran. If that is true, that's evil. That's a crime. And by the way, I should say it because you almost never say it that your wife was killed in one of those countries as one of those people. You ran for congress.
You almost never mentioned it. Perhaps it's too painful, and I'm sorry to bring it up now. But, I mean, you have lived this. So how is that not a crime?
Speaker 2: It's 100% crime, Tucker. Look. I lost my wife a month after Trump gave the order for our troops to be withdrawn from Syria because Trump ran on defeating the Islamic caliphate, ISIS, and that needed to be done. Unfortunately, ISIS was a byproduct of the Iraq war, the invasion, and all the blunders that we made there, but Trump inherited that problem. We had to deal with it.
We had to go take out the caliphate. We did that in very short order. Trump gave the order to withdraw, and that's when the DC war machine, which unfortunately is controlled by Republicans and Democrats and even more powerful unelected bureaucrats turned against Trump to leave our troops there. And and she was killed, and a lot of the justification for leaving our troops in Syria and in Iraq has been to prevent so called Iranian influence, malign Iranian influence to counter Russia, and that is nothing more than us baiting a trap for ourselves to get our troops killed to encourage and then really to justify a further war against Iran. It's absolute insanity, and we have to ask ourselves as American citizens, what do we gain from this?
If we're going to deploy our troops and we're going to lose our best and our brightest and we're gonna spend 1,000,000,000,000 of dollars, what do we, the American people, gain? At the same time, we just lost 3 Americans defending the Jordanian Syrian border. Our border is wide open. Fentanyl's killing over a 118,000 of our citizens. 10,000,000 illegal invaders have come into our country.
So where are the priorities of our ruling class? And I I think it's absolutely evil. I think it's completely and totally treasonous, and we need to get these people out of office as soon as possible.
Speaker 0: Well, it and it's it's also there's something bigger it seems to me. I have no evidence, but just watching, there's like a spirit of insanity or delusion that's descended on Washington. It's almost like ergotism or something you read about in the middle ages where the whole village goes crazy and commits cannibalism. I mean, here you have for just one example. John Cornyn, who's a senator from Texas, whose state is being invaded by millions of people, you can't get your child into the NICU in Texas hospitals.
You can't use the emergency room in Texas hospitals because they're full of people breaking our laws from foreign countries. So Texas is collapsing under the weight of this, and John Cornyn's entire day is spent worrying about the territorial integrity of foreign countries. Like, how do you how do you explain that? It can't just be payoffs from Lockheed or maybe it is. I don't know.
What do you think?
Speaker 2: I mean, I think a lot of it is this deeply entrenched mentality in Washington DC, which most certainly has financial interests assigned to it. However, I do think there is a lot of people and a lot of them, like you pointed out, like Nancy Pelosi, are in their eighties, and they've always thought this way, this with us or against us mentality that says, like, hey. You're either for the next war, the most current war and the current thing, or you're with the terrorists. You you just, are kowtowing to Vladimir Putin. It's the exact same mentality that got us into the Iraq war.
You're either with us or you're with the terrorists. And look, Tucker, I would love to come on here and defend neoconservatism as someone who, you know, lost my late wife in these wars, as somebody who lost countless friends, as somebody who fought myself, 11 combat deployments. I spent most of my twenties thirties in Iraq. I would love to tell you it had worked, but it simply did not. And that's a very hard thing to admit.
I get into arguments all the time, with fellow veterans about this exact same topic. So I think a lot of this is literally the gambler's fallacy. There's a lot of people who think, hey. Yeah. If we just keep trying, if we keep attempting to spread freedom through the barrel of a gun and 1,000,000,000,000 of US dollars, this time it's gonna work.
Let's just double down. And this is, well, how really nice casinos are built in Las Vegas off of this exact same mentality. So I think that combined with the financial interest from Lockheed Martin and every single defense contractor and, you know, putting, someone like Lloyd Austin as the secretary of defense who's still on the board at Raytheon, I think those that factor with that mentality and people not being able to admit that we got this wrong and then making adjustments to our policy, I I think that gets us in this current situation because it's actually challenging to thread the needle. Like, where do we go from here? We can't just let the Iranians attack and kill our people.
Right. But at the same time, we know if we go to war of Iran, this is going to be a disaster. There's no data that says, like, hey. Maybe if we just go to our war if Iran this time, it's gonna work out great. We've actually got to assess the past mistakes that we made, make adjustments, and then chart a more pragmatic way forward.
But at the same time, not lose sight of what's happening in our own country. I don't go anywhere in my district in Washington state without someone telling me a personal story about how the fentanyl crisis has affected them, how the wide open southern border is literally killing members of their family. So we need to prioritize this whole idea that we can be at war with the entire world is absolutely absurd while at the same time not prioritizing our own nation. We've gotta get our priorities in order.
Speaker 0: I I've always wondered how someone like you must feel, who, as you just said, spent a good part of your life on 11 combat deployments and lost her own wife in these wars. When you're denounced as a tool of Vladimir Putin or in the last race you ran, neocons subverted your message by claiming you were a CIA operative when you were arguing against the CIA's paramilitary involvement in these countries. I mean, it was the whole thing was so dishonest. But how does it make you feel, I don't think you need to prove your loyalty to this country you already have, to be denounced in public as a traitor to your country?
Speaker 2: You know, when it happens the first somewhere around the first 10 to a 100 times, it it hurts, and it makes you really mad. And then you get in this effort to prove why you're not what they say you are. I'm not a Nazi because I'm not a Vladimir Putin puppet because but then you know what? Actually, or somewhere around the 101st time and the 1 thousandth time, you can only laugh at it because it's so preposterous. The people that are arguing that we should forfeit our own territorial integrity for the territorial integrity of, I don't know, Ukraine or the Jordanian border, those are the people that will call us traitors, especially when the vast majority of them arguing for this have never had any skin in the game.
As a matter of fact, I think the vast majority of them don't know anyone personally who went over and fought these wars. So it's there's something liberating and being called that repeatedly over and over again because then you can truly see things for for the way that they are. That this is literally just propaganda to attempt to intimidate people to shut them up. And I'm I'm glad that you're doing what you're doing and you give us a platform where we can actually speak truth to power and show people what's actually happening in this country and how our foreign policy establishment is absolutely just really destroying the United States of America. They're attempting to make us sacrifice our republic for an empire that does nothing for the American people.
Speaker 0: Amen. So nicely put it. I would recommend, you know, the famous Eisenhower speech at the end of his term around 1960, or 61, the military industrial complex, which is worth watching. So please ask you one last question because he, you know, he called it 60 years ago. You referred to what a war with Iran would do to the United States, and I I don't know that a lot of people in this country fully understand what Iran is as a nation state.
It's it's not Afghanistan. What do you think the immediate and then longer term effects of a war with Iran would be on the United States?
Speaker 2: Immediately, it would be very bloody. I I have no doubt that we could probably defeat some of their air defense and go in there and have another shock and awe campaign. But again, like, we saw how the shock and awe campaign in Iraq really didn't actually work in the long run. So I have no doubt that we'd have some immediate results that people would cheer about here in the United States, but Iran, Persia has always been an empire. It's been around longer than any of the other players in the modern Middle East right now, and they are not going anywhere.
And right now, Iran has a lot of internal problem. They have a lot of internal strife with the Ayatollah and that that government has only been in power since 1979. But, again, if we start conducting strikes in Iran, everyone in Iran will rally around their leader, and they will become even more revolutionary. And then we will have Iranian proxies throughout the entire region that will be conducting attacks just like we had, in Jordan. And, really, in the long term, Tucker, the access that has been built, really since Putin invaded Russia and we decided that since Putin invaded Ukraine and we decided we're gonna throw this massive massive sanctions package at them.
China has come in as a major player, and we are deeply compromised by China. They control a lot of our economy. They control, global manufacturing. They're deeply embedded in Wall Street, and they've also made deals with the Iranians. They want access to Iranian Petro, not to mention the fact that Biden killed off US energy independence, and now he's going after LNG, and the world's biggest LNG exporters are Iran, Russia, and Qatar.
So this axis would become very powerful. If we get deeply involved and deeply entangled with Iran, we are we are playing right into China's hands because China would like nothing more than for us to be, committing our military industrial base to a war in Eastern Europe and Ukraine, and then to be committing our conventional military power, our blood and our treasure back in the Middle East. That will make the Pacific, our actual border, extremely vulnerable to Chinese aggression, or China will simply just watch us bleed out economically as we bleed out on the battlefield on these couple different theaters. It's absolute insanity. It's opening up Pandora's box.
And, again, for what gain to the American people?
Speaker 0: I I mean, I think that's the most reasonable common sense based factual assessment I've seen of this from anyone. And the fact that you're not in congress tells you a lot about the forces you're up against, but godspeed. Joe Kent, thank you for summing it up for us today. I appreciate it.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much, Tucker. I really appreciate it. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Free speech is bigger than any one person or any one organization. Societies are defined by what they will not commit. What we're watching is the total inversion of virtue.
@CitizenFreePres - Citizen Free Press
VERY INTERESTING | Tucker Carlson interviews CEO who designed 'SMART' border wall #Tucker #BuildTheWall https://t.co/2B7yiIWt0i
Video Transcript AI Summary
The wall, designed by Charles Russillo, is unlike any other, featuring a southward lean at a 30-degree angle to deter climbers. Its serrated surface and extensive sensor system ensure security, alerting authorities to any attempts to breach it. This composite material wall is lighter and stronger than concrete, with ballistic and blast capabilities, allowing for quicker and more cost-effective construction while creating jobs. The speaker expresses strong support for the wall, viewing it as essential for national security and a cornerstone of the Trump movement. However, he faces backlash from cities like Berkeley and Oakland, which threaten to blacklist him, labeling it as tyranny and highlighting the disconnect between politicians and the people they represent. He challenges these politicians to experience life without their own walls.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Well, first just quickly did I characterize your wall correctly and all the features that it has? It doesn't sound like any wall I've ever seen.
Speaker 1: Well, sure. Actually all the credit goes to Charles Russillo who is the designer, the architect and a brilliant engineer And he approached me, not too long ago to really it's it's an honor and humbling to be the one to, hopefully build this wall because it's better than any concrete or any wall that anyone has ever seen. And it is. It basically any problem that anyone can really come up with to penetrate this wall, we have a system to basically combat that.
Speaker 0: So the the the wall looks like it leans a little bit in what direction and why?
Speaker 1: Right. Well, it would lean south towards Mexico at a 30 degree angle. And really, what this does, it makes it much more difficult to climb. You can kind of picture it as like a rock climber climbing, at a at a at a inverted type cliff. It's not a it's not a straight vertical wall.
And then, on top of that, it does. It has serrated face, which basically would cut your hands apart if you did try to climb this wall. There's sensors all over it, below it, and basically if anyone even gets near it or tries to penetrate it in any way, the governing authorities would know right away, via computer system. Each wall panel has a serial number and as soon as, one of these sensors picked up any type of activity, a computer system would read that and basically, the authorities could respond accordingly.
Speaker 0: I think that qualifies as a big beautiful wall. Not coining the phrase merely repeating it. So is this something that you're building because it's a job or do you wanna build this? Do you have an ideological attachment to it? Do you think it's necessary?
Speaker 1: Well, I'm really glad you asked that. I yeah. I mean, I I believe in this wall. I mean, one more thing that I wanna say, there's no concrete involved at this wall. This is a composite material.
This is something that no one's ever seen it has ballistic capabilities it has blast capabilities it's very light it's 10 times lighter or 10 times lighter than concrete or I'm sorry a 100 times lighter in concrete and 10 times stronger it has a 5,000 per square inch compression strength. Wow. It's amazing stuff and it'll go up faster, it'll go up cheaper and it's gonna take months not years to do and it can employ thousands of people But back to your question, yeah. I mean, I I think this wall is basically the foundation of really the Trump movement and the American movement to put our country first. It is so important and I can't stress that enough.
And so, yeah, it's a business decision for me. It'd be an excellent opportunity. It's something I'd love to do and be a part of because it's really I'm looking as being a part of history. And then, now there's a personal part of it that, you know, I support our president a 100%. I support his agenda, and I think we need this wall to basically save our country.
At this point, we're in a lot of trouble and we need to control our border. And this is one way we can do it.
Speaker 0: I can tell by your accent. You're a native Californian so I guess you would know. So tell me about the response that you're getting from these 3 cities, Berkeley, Oakland, and is it LA? Threatening to blacklist you. What does that mean exactly if you're blacklisted by those cities?
Speaker 1: Well, what it means is that they would boycott or blacklist you from doing any contracts with the cities with those cities and probably eventually the whole state of California. I mean, that's where I really see this going. It's really disturbing. I mean, if I was gonna describe describe it in one word, I call it tyranny. I mean, it's in I I don't think it's legal.
And what's really strange about it or these are companies that are in the Bay Area. It's not just construction companies or tech companies. All kinds of different types of businesses and business owners with employees, and these are people who probably voted for these politicians. So it's kinda really the first thing or incidents that I've seen where they're hurting their own people on their side. I mean, as far as the left goes are Democrats and
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: And, who really don't wanna see see this wall go up or really hate anything that our president wants to do. And so it's it's it's disturbing and it's kinda unique in that way. So I'm hoping, you know, the these the folks that are these business owners and the people that work for them, you know, it's kind of a wake up call and kinda see that, you know, I don't think these politicians really care about us. I don't think they have our best interests at heart, and I think they're all just drunk on money and power, and that's all they care about. And really, I would challenge them to call me, and I'll code go to their house, and I'll remove their fence or their walls for them and see how they would like it to live without a fence or a wall or with the gate on their front door or with a lock on their door.
I challenge that and I'll do it for free.
Speaker 0: I like your job, James. Thanks for joining us. Good
@CitizenFreePres - Citizen Free Press
Tucker — “Anyone who cares about the future of the United States should be concerned about what’s happened in El Paso.” https://t.co/7OgZK7LrOP
Video Transcript AI Summary
El Paso, Texas, and Juarez, Mexico, highlight stark contrasts in safety and order. While El Paso has a low crime rate and a stable community, Juarez suffers from chaos and violence. Recently, El Paso has faced a surge in illegal immigration, with encounters increasing by over 280%, leading to rising crime and social issues. The mayor declared a state of emergency due to the overwhelming number of migrants, many camping in public spaces, including the airport. Despite the crisis, state leaders have not effectively addressed the situation. The influx of migrants is affecting cities far from the border, straining resources and altering the American demographic landscape. This significant change is largely ignored by mainstream media, which often downplays concerns about immigration and its impact on communities.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The contrast between El Paso, Texas and Juarez, Mexico has always been one of the great advertisements for America and for the American way. The cities have a lot in common. They're literally right next to each other. They're separated by one of the narrowest stretches of the Rio Grande River by feet. From downtown El Paso, you can see downtown Juarez.
And populations are not that different. Most people in El Paso have relatives in Mexico. The difference is one city is American and one is not. El Paso has always been tranquil and orderly, a really nice town. With good schools and friendly people, you would move there.
Juarez is terrifying, chaotic, impoverished, dangerous. In 2010, Juarez recorded more than 3,000 murders. In El Paso, just yards away, there were 5. So on one side of the river, you had a high functioning civilization, ours. And on the other side, you had the 3rd world.
And the success of El Paso said everything about the superiority of the American system and American culture. But 2 years ago, Joe Biden set out to change that. It was an offense against equity. They were too different. But instead of fixing Juarez, he decided to destroy El Paso and make it much more like Juarez.
To do that, the administration opened America's southern borders to the world. No place in our country was hit harder by that decision than El Paso, Texas. In the last year, illegal immigration into El Paso has risen by over 280%. Hundreds of thousands of foreign nationals streaming in jobless, penniless, anonymous. What happened next?
You know what happened next. The most predictable disaster in the world. Crime skyrocketed. Social cohesion collapsed. Test scores in local schools plummeted.
And the city began to fall apart. People who grew up in El Paso started to leave in large numbers. This is what it looks like now.
Speaker 1: It's a chilly December night in El Paso, Texas, and these migrants are homeless, camping on the streets, preparing for a night of bitter cold after they were released from border patrol custody. The migrants surge also overwhelming local shelters as this unprecedented crisis seems headed for a potential breaking point with title 42 set to drop next week. And there is no reprieve coming as new Fox News video shows over 1,000 migrants camped at the border wall in El Paso last night waiting to be let in for processing after they crossed the Rio Grande illegally. CBP sources tell Fox News the El Paso sector has already seen over 139,000 migrant encounters since October 1st. That's enough to fill up LA SoFi Stadium twice, and it reflects a 255% increase over the same time last year.
Speaker 0: Imagine if that was your city, your city, where you work and raised your family, the city that you built. And then one day, some guy gets elected and decides to destroy it and the media ignore it. No one even covers it. Most Americans have no idea your city has been destroyed. And it's not just downtown and the shelters.
It's the airport. The window into El Paso. In case you haven't flown there recently, here's what it looks like. People seem to be camping on the floor of the place. Looks like the train station imposed partition Calcutta.
But at least they had a war to blame it on. There's no war in Texas except the war the White House declared on its own country. This footage comes from Katie Davis Court of Rebel News, whom we'll talk to in a moment.
Speaker 2: Because I just landed in El Paso, Texas, and here at the El Paso airport is an influx of illegal immigrants sleeping on the airport for us. So take a look at what's happening here in the airport. Peru? Peru. Everyone?
Dominican. Dominican.
Speaker 0: That's the airport. They're not waiting for flights. They're living there. And they're not from Mexico or even El Salvador and Guatemala. They're from, as you just heard, Colombia, Peru, the Dominican Republic, an island.
These are countries thousands of miles away to which we owe nothing. There's no reason for this. There are 7,000,000 American men of working age who are not working. They're on the Internet all day. They have nothing to do, and yet we're doing this.
The mayor of El Paso, Oscar Leaser, has just declared a state of emergency, and you can see why.
Speaker 3: We felt there was proper time today to call a state of emergency. And the reason why we're doing it is because I said from the beginning that I would call it when I felt that either our, asylum seekers or our community was not safe. And I really believe that today, our asylum seekers are not safe as we have 100 and 100 on the streets.
Speaker 0: El Paso wasn't like this just a few years ago. Ask anyone who went there. So the question is, why isn't the state of Texas stopping this? Where's the Texas National Guard? A few months ago, Greg Abbott, the governor, was running for office.
He's running its beta O'Rourke, and he's willing to say anything to get reelected. He was willing to lie, and apparently, he did. He said he deployed 10,000 troops to the border. Oh, but he hasn't. He just revised it to 5,000 troops.
And then, he came up with another solution, just bus thousands of migrants to other states, which is kinda funny. Make sure an amusing cable news segment but it's still our country, isn't it? And none of these people are ever leaving. This is an invasion of our country we don't have a border and Greg Abbott could stop it and he isn't so why is the Texas National Guard stopping this stopping this we can't answer that question we'd love to have Greg Abbott come on and tell us but because Texas isn't securing the border the rest of the country is also overrun with people from foreign countries who have no right to be here and whose identity we don't know At exactly the moment, we do not need a larger population as our economy moves south. This is what Denver, Colorado, a long way from the border, looks like now.
Speaker 4: With several shelters already at capacity, mayor Michael Hancock said more are needed to house migrants. More than 900 have arrived in Denver in the past several months. More coming every day.
Speaker 5: So let me be frank. This influx of migrants, the anticipated nature of their arrival, and our current space and staffing challenges have put an immense strain on city resources to the level where they're on the verge of reaching a breaking point.
Speaker 0: That's in Denver. Again, a long way from our southern border. This is the biggest story in recent American history. A total change in the American population. Millions and millions and millions of new people.
The country will never be what it was 5 years ago. Even if you're for this, you would acknowledge this is a big deal and it's completely ignored by the media, except when they are forced to respond and they tell you to shut up and stop complaining. On ABC News, someone called Martha Raditz argued that, actually, it's people who are against immigration who are to blame for the immigration crisis because they're talking about it and, therefore, advertising it to the rest of the world. Watch this.
Speaker 6: You talk about the border wall. You talk about open borders. I don't think I've ever heard president Biden say, we have an open board and come on over. But people I have heard say it for you are former president Trump, Iran de Santos. That message reverberates in Mexico and beyond.
So they do get the message that it is an open quarter, and smugglers use all those kinds of statements.
Speaker 0: You do fervently wish, say, 25,000 Haitians would move to Martha Raddis' neighborhood tonight. Maybe she'd give different coverage. But until that happens, and since they've been deported from Martha's Vineyard and all the places people like Martha Raditz live, the Democratic Party is, well, able to continue lying. Here's Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio explaining that really only racists and crazed conspiracy nuts care about the border.
Speaker 7: You know there's a lot of folks in the middle who are not very empathetic to to what's happening at the border. How do you change the tone of that conversation to get them to accept a compromise like the one that and tell us we're trying to put together?
Speaker 8: I I think they will. I think my voters are in Ohio reasonable, and I, we're a we're a slightly lean Republican state now. I don't I don't hear a lot about immigration from voters except people on the far right that that always wanna gain political, advantage by talking about it.
Speaker 0: It's amazing. That's Sherrod Brown, supposed populist from Ohio, a guy who cares about the little guy and displaced factory workers and those 7,000,000 working age American men who aren't working and are playing video games and watching porn all day. That's your country. Sherrod Brown was elected because he claimed to care about them. And, in fact, it wasn't that long ago that Sherrod Brown was down at the border declaring a humanitarian crisis because people were living in cages, people from other countries.
Now that same Sherrod Brown says you're not allowed to talk about anything that's happening at the border, people camping on streets or at the airport. You also, by the way, can't talk about conditions inside migrant detention centers anymore because they've got a democratic president now.
@CitizenFreePres - Citizen Free Press
Tucker Carlson; "Imagine this happened in Washington DC. If this had affected the rich or the favored poor, it would be the lede of every news channel in the world. But it happened to the poor town of East Palestine, whose people are forgotten." https://t.co/iV9yTCoUOi
Video Transcript AI Summary
A controlled release of vinyl chloride from a derailed train in East Palestine, Ohio, poses serious health risks. Residents in the red zone face potential death, while those in the orange zone risk severe injuries. Governor Mike DeWine emphasized the need for evacuation but appeared calm despite the grave situation. Following the controlled burn, residents were instructed to shelter in place, and many were later allowed back home without proper testing or cleanup of their properties. A hazardous materials expert criticized the railroad company for failing to ensure safety before residents returned. The situation highlights disparities in response based on community wealth, suggesting that if this incident occurred in wealthier areas, the response would have been significantly different. East Palestine, a poorer community, seems to be overlooked in this crisis.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Was one of the chemicals on that derailed train in East Palestine. Here's the governor of Ohio.
Speaker 1: North of Southern Railroad is planning a controlled release of the vinyl chloride at approximately 3:30 PM. The controlled release of the toxic chemicals also has the potential to be deadly if inhaled. Those in the red area those in the red area are facing grave danger of death if they are still in that area. Those living in the orange area are at risk of severe injury. Severe injury including skin burns and serious lung damage.
To state the obvious, all of you need to leave as well. And and and I need to leave as well too. So
Speaker 0: Notice the tone and the chocolate at the end. That's governor Mike DeWine of Ohio, a great defender of Ukraine. And he's just announced that, well, thousands of people in his state could die. But he doesn't seem panicked by it. It's not a hair on fire emergency.
It's only Kyiv is in peril. So after that controlled burn of the deadly chemicals, officials told residents within East Palestine that if you live within a 2 mile radius of the derailment, you had to shelter in place and keep your windows closed. Residents closer to the mushroom cloud were put up in a hotel. Within days, they were all let back into their home without the Department of Transportation in Washington saying a word. As one hazardous material specialist put it, the whole town may be unsafe as a result of this.
Watch.
Speaker 2: The railroad company is responsible for this and before these people went back their homes. Their their homes should have been tested. Their homes should have been cleaned. From the, you know, from the onset, these people were being marginalized in an effort to, to mitigate this. And, you know, at first they're being told, you know, go get a hotel and, keep your receipts and we'll reimburse this.
East Palestine is is a very poor community. Some of these people don't have the money to go get the hotels and do all of and, you know, all this stuff. This really looks like a nuclear winter. And I said, well, you know, pretty much, yeah. Yeah.
We nuked this tab for with chemicals, and this is what they're getting.
Speaker 0: Now imagine if this had happened in, well, the favored cities of Philadelphia and Detroit. Lots of poor people in those cities. Everyone feels for them. Everyone wants them to be safe. Imagine at the same time this has happened in Washington DC and say Georgetown.
Well, the National Guard we called in. There'd be no mushroom cloud of toxic chemicals on the horizon. We can promise you that. And of course, in both cases, if this affected the rich or the favored poor, it would be the lead of every news channel in the world. But it happened to the poor benighted town of East Palestine, Ohio, whose people are forgotten and in the view of the people who lead this country, forgettable.
So no big deal.
@CitizenFreePres - Citizen Free Press
Tucker Carlson on X Ep. 48 just dropped: "The Kid Rock Experience." https://t.co/qclM19gseu
Video Transcript AI Summary
Kid Rock discusses his reaction to Bud Light's controversial marketing move, expressing disappointment and frustration. He believes the brand made a mistake by not understanding its core consumers and suggests they should acknowledge their error and work to regain trust. He emphasizes the importance of not punishing working-class employees for corporate missteps. Kid Rock shares his positive experiences with Trump, noting his determination and focus on winning for the country. He also mentions his upcoming summer tour with Jason Aldean, aimed at providing entertainment for underserved areas. Kid Rock advocates for hard work, staying true to oneself, and surrounding oneself with good people as key advice for young entertainers.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: There was a point at which Kid Rock went from being a musician to an icon to a one man movement, and that's a friend of ours. And, and that was the moment we wanna sit down once again with him in studio and check-in on how he's doing changing America. Great to see
Speaker 1: you. Great to see you.
Speaker 0: So, I remember doing my text right before bed one night, and I read that Bud Light has decided to go tranny. That's kinda distressing. The next day, like, 12 hours later, you released the video of you executing the Bud Light with the card bean.
Speaker 1: Fuck Bud Light and fuck Anheuser Busch. Have a terrific day.
Speaker 0: And then months later, Bud Light effectively apologizes, doesn't go out of business closest to bottling plants, but it it is terrible for the guys who work there, but then comes back and hands the UFC a $100,000,000 basically to say, we're sorry, we will get better. That seems like a win to me.
Speaker 1: I think it could be. I think they got some work still to get, you know, some of that base that they lost. I I think to get them back, like, you know, I've said a few times I'd love to see them get triple fratty. Yeah. And then I'm like, hit it head on, kinda make light of the situation, self deprecation, you know, but, you know, at the end of the day, when you step back and look at it, like, yeah, they deserved a black eye and they got one.
They made a mistake.
Speaker 0: How did you know you you move so fast on that? I mean, a lot of things going on.
Speaker 1: It was like a lot of people. It just pissed me off. I was and I kept, you know, I keep a lot of beer on the property, a lot of light beer. Bud Light was one of them. And, I was like, I know who my consumers are.
Yeah. I was doing a little marketing to my folks. You know? It was spot on for me, but also a fun excuse to get my machine gun out and have some fun, but also to make a statement like, hey. A lot of us aren't cool with this.
You know, I believe a lot of people fought and died for people's right to be whoever they want. But when you're that type of brand, you know who your consumers are? You know how this kind of started, I think. Or thought about as they moved part of their corporate offices from Saint Louis to New York City. Yeah.
They did. Okay? Then they start hiring these Ivy League progressive, you know, people to work for them who don't know shit about working class people or middle America in
Speaker 0: Unhealthy women. Yeah.
Speaker 1: And so somebody wasn't watching the hen house. They're riding high and mighty as number 1, and the fox gets in. Yes. It was a mistake. So do I wanna hold their head underwater and drown them because they made a mistake?
No. I think they got the message. Like, hopefully, other companies get it too, but, you know, at the end of the day, I don't think the punishment that they've been getting at this point fits the crime. It's like I would like to see people get us back on board and become bigger because that's the America I wanna live.
Speaker 0: It's better to improve than destroy. Yeah. So that seems like a win as you we're talking to soft camera, and you said What would
Speaker 1: that say about us as like minded people Yeah. Who were like, hey. Cut it out. What's the matter with you? That, you know, if we brought them back up, you know, that's kind of the America I wanna live in.
Like, it's not wrong with giving a spanking. You know? The kid does something wrong and tries you know, maybe he's gonna harm themselves, but he'll spank him for the rest of their life. You kinda you know, someone gets taught a lesson. They say we made a mistake.
Alright, man. Let's move on. I mean, we've done it for, we've done it for a whole lot worse. What about Japan, Germany?
Speaker 0: You drop 2 atom bombs on Japan, then you rebuild it, then you become allies.
Speaker 1: Can't say it enough. You know, who's getting hurt in all this? The boycotts and stuff when people make mistakes in this cancel culture crap. It's a working class people who don't have any dog in the fight. Yeah.
It's like, alright. We don't wanna hurt these people, you know? Message that. Alright. Let's move on.
Here's a bag of ice. Put it on that shiny. Let's talk about it. I
Speaker 0: I I noticed that is not a Bud Light you're drinking. I I I saw that getting poured. Have you had one since this all started?
Speaker 1: Dude, my whole life has become Bud Light. That's right. I got a stack to the seals because every one of my friends thinks it's a joke to bring me a 12 pack.
Speaker 0: But you just got a lot of free beer out
Speaker 1: of it. Yeah. Or shove shove them in my golf bag. You know, they pop up everywhere. It's like it's kinda become, you know, a fun thing for my friends and us with me.
I'm like, you know, I'll drink I'll drink any kind of cold free beer. Let's put it that way.
Speaker 0: So that's, like, your main criteria in cold free? Cold and free. Trump. You've seen Trump a lot recently. How's he doing?
Speaker 1: Toughest son of a bitch on the earth. I tell you. He's doing great. It's incredible.
Speaker 0: He's gonna be nice and spend some
Speaker 1: time with him. Yeah. But you seem to be having more fun than anybody in that
Speaker 0: position. I was him.
Speaker 1: You watched that video back. We're walking to the ring. Everyone's looking all tough. You're like, this is the greatest day of my life.
Speaker 0: I loved it.
Speaker 1: Which was that was so much fun.
Speaker 0: It was amazing.
Speaker 1: I I love spending time with him, getting to know him, you know, since he became president the 1st few months having dinner, at the White House with him and from there on we've just really hit it off and, you know, I can relate to in a lot of ways as somebody who might speak out of turn a little bit. Yeah. Stay what's on his mind, but, you know, I think if you look at his track record and who he is as a whole, there's a lot more good there than anything. I think people you know, I could go both ways. I always say with me, you can go on the Internet and you can make me out to be some crazy wild party animal who just has his middle fingers in there and doesn't care, or you can be someone who's a single father who loves his family, loves his country, does a lot of philanthropy.
It's all there for the taking and, you know, I try to see the good in people. I haven't always executed that correctly or, you know, on stop. But, you know, whatever it is when I give it, it's a 100% real.
Speaker 0: Well, so without, like, betraying the details of your conversations, you've been with the guy with Trump, a bunch of times since he got indicted and the world was kind of crashed in around him. How does he seem?
Speaker 1: Can't tell.
Speaker 0: Really? No.
Speaker 1: I mean, we were golfing and we're hanging out in in different scenarios here and there. It's, his spirits are always up, and he's he's he's always talking about this country. He's always talking about this country and how he wants to win for it. He likes to win in anything. Yeah.
Speaker 0: That's true.
Speaker 1: Anything. When we're golfing, like, you know, I won a $100 from him at the UFC. I don't think he was too happy about it. But What'd you bet on? We were betting up fights.
You know, we're just picking guys, you know, to make it more interesting. Yeah. And, man, somebody that's that's in that office, in any office that wants to win for this country, I'm in. I've never seen anybody who wants to win for this country like that guy. I I don't think we'll ever see anything like it in our lifetime.
Means the greatest president we've had.
Speaker 0: And he's unaffected in your experience by everything that's happening.
Speaker 1: Oh, is he pissed off? Sure.
Speaker 0: Yeah. But he doesn't seem broken at all.
Speaker 1: I wanna speak out of school, you know, but, you know, yeah. Who's not gonna hem and haw a little bit about the the people that are doing this to, them? You know, these people in New York. It's
Speaker 0: a freaking joke.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, one Google search on Zillow property in Palm Beach. There's, like, a couple acres that comes up on the water. It's a it's $200,000,000. Yeah.
And they're, like, Marlago is only worth 17,000,000. It's like, well, you are a stupid son of a bitch if you say that. Yeah. You know, he gives out he takes loans from the bank. Whatever.
He pays them all back. Everybody makes money. There's no crime here. Yeah. I I just you know, they're just it's it's completely anybody who can't see, they're fucking with is just blinded.
Yeah. I know the guy speaks out of turn a little bit, says some things. I can relate. Yes. I I do it myself, you know, quite often because I'm if I just say what's on my mind, and I I can get that, but I don't know how you look at his track record and what he did and how he had this country fired on all cylinders when he was in office.
Everybody working, you know, military is the strongest. He's leading with, you know, strength and borders, you know, under control, just energy independent. You know, he could go on and on. I I don't get it. You know?
Yeah. I understand because it seems like it's a lot of women. Like, in my life, it's up to like,
Speaker 0: I don't like the way he talks.
Speaker 1: It's like, come on, You're not you're not putting him in the office to hear him talk nice. How many years have we had of that? People that it seems like everybody, you know, because everything is very polarized. I get it. And speaking of Bud Light, it's like, I wish those guys could take this opportunity.
Maybe they could start a little civil discourse with the negative that's happened to them. Maybe they could figure out a way with that beer to kinda maybe bring people together a little bit. I don't know. I don't think they're gonna hire me as the head of their marketing anything. They probably should.
Yeah. Well, they impressed I like my day job.
Speaker 0: By the way, did they ever call you after you opened up on them with a machine gun?
Speaker 1: No. There's been some distributors Yeah. Who know you know who claim they know the people at top and this that and the other. I said, man, I'll sit down with anybody anytime. And, you know, we actually got to talk to the CEO, me and Trump, the other night, at, the UFC fight.
That was He's standing behind me. I recognized. Yeah. You were there. And I was like, it's kinda funny because I'm sitting there with Trump, and I'm like, hey, that dude behind us is the CEO of Anheuser Busch.
He's like, I'll go give him some shit. I'm like, ew. Trump's like, let's go. And actually, it was a really pointed conversation. The dude that dude, his name is Brendan.
He's a he's in the CIA. He's a marine. Yeah. He says when he got the videos of me shooting up the cans, he was hunting in Texas. I'm like, you sound like somebody I'd be friends with.
Like, how'd you guys get this so wrong? And, you know, I I hate speaking out of turn when I have conversations with people, but I don't think remind us, I was like, when you did that morning show, were you coached? And he's like, I was. I was like, fire that fucking person. I was like, it's terrible.
I was like, they asked you at one point, like, if you had the chance to send that can again, would you send it? And you go off in sweeping supporting the a, b, c, d, l, GBQ for 25 years. I'm like, oh, what are you doing? I'm like, you don't have to throw anybody to the bus. All you have to do is say, while we want everyone to enjoy our beer, we know who our consumer is, and we got that one wrong.
We're gonna double down. We hear you. Our bad. Just say that. Everyone would have been like, okay.
You still gotta eat a little crow. It's like it's like, you know, if you ever had infidelity in your life. It's like you can't, go to the person and just kinda sweep it under the rug and, you know, buy him a new ring or a car and think it's gonna go
Speaker 0: well Yeah.
Speaker 1: But Maybe a car. The car might work out.
Speaker 0: The guilt might be on the sweep
Speaker 1: it under the rug, throw money at it. I think it's gonna go away. At some point, you gotta be like, look. I screwed up. I got that one wrong.
And then you probably still gotta eat some crow for a while, which I think they have. You know, like I said, it's like, I don't wanna be the face of crushing working class people's jobs. Not only their jobs, but their livelihoods. Oh, I agree. People's livelihoods that work for that company that are just like, Jesus.
What happened? I know. They didn't have any fight in it. You know? You I hate to see people losing their jobs at any level.
Speaker 0: Two bottling plants closed. That's shocking.
Speaker 1: Because they they screwed up. They made a mistake. Alright. I'm over it, you know. I'm not I'm like I said, I'm not gonna I don't I'm not type of person to kick a man when he's down.
Speaker 0: I agree completely. Completely. How'd you wind up with Dolly Parton?
Speaker 1: You know, I've known her throughout the years here and there, you know, been friendly with her. She's just one of the greatest people on earth. Really? Oh, you never read anybody so positive in your life. And you and, you know, speaking of Dolly, we'll get it she called me about doing the song.
She'd wrote a song that she wanted to do with me, which ironically is about me cheating on her. I'm like,
Speaker 0: Had you ever cheated on her?
Speaker 1: No. I haven't had the opportunity. I have not been given that opportunity yet. No. She's the sweetest lady.
You know, I just read something on her words. I've never heard the word hate come out of her mouth. She just doesn't exist with her. She's just too sweet, too great. And I saw where she said, I hate cancel culture.
I mean, that should sum it up right there. I think I think most people, reasonable people, you got your small percentage of extremists on both sides of this thing, and they make the most noise. They get the most headlines because, you know, they're the most polarizing, they get the most clicks and views, I get it. I played the game a little bit myself, I'm guilty of it. But, I think most people, you know, level headed people with the shred of common sense are sick of all this stuff, this cancel culture and this, you know, God forbid if you say something that's a little bit wrong or ruffle somebody's, you know, feathers that you're gonna lose your job or your social standing.
Speaker 0: You think it's going away? I think it's like reached its peak?
Speaker 1: I think it has. You know, it's gonna be it's gonna be tough with this going into this election year
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Because it's gonna get real polarizing again. And I don't think that's a bad thing in politics. It always kinda is. Yeah. But everything else, it's like all my friends who are Democrats, you know, in my business, I
Speaker 0: have a lot of them.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I'm I'm I'm the one that's the diverse one. Yeah. Like, you're the one that you want inclusion, you know, they don't wanna include me. Yeah.
People on their talk shows and all this stuff anymore. It's like, I'm the one that needs inclusion. I'm the weird one here. I don't fit the narrative and and in this place of all these Hollywood and entertainers and singers and stuff like that.
Speaker 0: It doesn't seem to bother you at all though. No. No. But has it affected your relationships? I never heard you say that it has.
Speaker 1: No. I think maybe one relationship, that's about it, but everyone anyone I talked to, I've worked for dinner. Hang with the the things differently, like, we always find more common. Yeah. I'll be like, I love Trump.
But I can't stand the guy, but, like, cool. You wanna move on? Talk about something else? Yeah. Alright.
We'd find some other things that aren't common.
Speaker 0: So, I mean, Dolly Parton took some crap for working with you, she doesn't seem to care.
Speaker 1: No. I think she handled it beautifully. She's like I love everybody. Pretty simple answer. I mean that's what I took away from it, she said more than that but I took away, she said she loved everybody.
I was really proud to call her friend at that moment. I think we need more of that in this country, especially coming from people like me because I know sometimes I am the polarizing one. I am the loudest voice in the room.
Speaker 0: We do have a machine gun.
Speaker 1: Oh, yeah. That's
Speaker 0: why wouldn't you?
Speaker 1: Alright. Sounds great.
Speaker 0: Who you going on tour with this summer?
Speaker 1: Thank you for asking. So me and Jason Aldean are doing,
Speaker 0: What's he like?
Speaker 1: Jason, great kid. Known for years since he was first coming up. Great guy, great patriot, talented singer, musician. So we're gonna do 7 festivals. I see a need, when I partnered with these people, Premier Entertainment.
It's called Rock the Country, rock the country.com. See a need for a big portion of this country that's underserved entertainment wise, and that's pretty prevalent when you see the success of shows like Yellowstone and Duck Dynasty, things like that. People are just starving for it. So we wanted to go out and give, you know, hardworking people that love this country a music festival, something for them, like, you know, come show your patriotism just like they do at my shows, but do with a force of people, you know, we got different lineups and there's 7 small towns. What are they?
It's places like Ocala, Florida, Mobile, Alabama Yeah. Rome, Georgia, Kentucky, and Carolina, like, rock and roll has not been too kind to my memory. That's pretty good, actually. It's not bad. Well, there's 7 of them, Rocket Country and then, you know, we have people like Miranda Lambert on certain shows.
Hank Williams Junior, Leonard Skinner, Bradley Gilbert, Travis Trent, Nelly, Big and Rich, Gretchen Wilson, just, you know, whole cast of characters which, like I said, just trying to provide something for these smaller towns where we have a lot more freedom to do things that we might not be able to do in the bigger cities and especially to work with the local people there whether it could be the police, firefighters, city councils, whatever, we had all those people actually to my house in Nashville, Just all get on the same page because we wanna make this experience great for these people. And I was and we came up with the idea, let's have people that wanna come from these towns, from these states, some were senators, some were police chiefs, like I said, city council mayors. Let's have them up and break bread and just talk to them, try to get on the same page so we can try to create a great experience for people. Make no mistake, we would like to make some money out of this endeavor. Yeah.
But, you know, we want it to be a win win. We want the cities to win, you know, try to give back and do something good there. That's
Speaker 0: gonna sell out. I mean
Speaker 1: If if the presales went on sale today
Speaker 0: So 7 shows, does that wear you out?
Speaker 1: We're also doing first, I did another business deal with the PBR who does the rodeo. Yeah. Professional bull riders and we're doing Kid Rocks Rock and Rodeo at AT and T Stadium Stadium at Dallas, where we're gonna have rodeo teams compete against each other, and then I'm gonna do music. I'm gonna try we're still figuring it out, but I wanna make it more creative than some of the rodeos we played in the past where the rodeo happens and then you play the show. Yeah.
I'd like to kick the show off and like a horse is ripping around with American flags, you know, play something in the middle and like, I mean, I'd like to put like midgets on mini bowls. Yes. You know, we'll we'll see what happens.
Speaker 0: Is that allowed in Dallas now? Everything's allowed in Texas.
Speaker 1: That's true. So that's what we're doing. We're gonna play Sturgis again this year, which I played off and on for the last 20 some years, and that's my year. I think it's 9 shows.
Speaker 0: That's amazing.
Speaker 1: Work less, make more.
Speaker 0: Work so so the rodeo, have you ever been on any of the like, have you ridden?
Speaker 1: I mean, we have horses. I'm I'm not
Speaker 0: You're not getting on a bull? No.
Speaker 1: You're not bowling, jumping out of a plane, I'm not going up in f 16. I'm good. I'll be right here when you You've had enough risk? Yeah. I made it this far.
Speaker 0: I mean just like big picture, you've not changed your views throughout all this last 6 years. You've been really direct. Have you lost anything?
Speaker 1: I mean, it's
Speaker 0: it's kind of an amazing story.
Speaker 1: It's kinda funny. I always joke. I'm like, I'll do or say something. It's a little outrageous. You know?
It's people's panties in a bunch of some
Speaker 0: level
Speaker 1: and somehow they give me more money for
Speaker 0: it. So you've never you can't I mean, probably the only person who hasn't changed his views and I don't I'm
Speaker 1: I'm I'm open to changing my views if, you know, I don't know it all. I don't claim to him. Not the Pied Piper.
Speaker 0: Like, I'm not like you have it. You don't seem to be moderating your views on anything. You just see what you think.
Speaker 1: I say what I think. Yeah. And if I get something wrong, I'm cool enough to go back and, like, yeah, I had that one wrong. I remember what it's happened, but I'm not bigger than that. But, you know, it was I've been the same way since I was young and since my we'll call my first successful, you know, Devil Without A Cause CD came out.
I was running my mouth. There's middle fingers on the CD. I haven't changed. Times have changed. But you know, it's like, now you're not allowed to say that or do this.
You have to be politically correct. Blah blah blah. I'm like, I think it's fun.
Speaker 0: So if you just, like, ignore it, it just doesn't affect you. Is that the lesson?
Speaker 1: You know, I I live by my main motto, which a good friend of mine, excuse me, Rev Run, one of my heroes in music told me years ago from Run DMC, go where you celebrate it, not tolerate it.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: And that's what I do. That's why I choose to spend my time and, you know, and and thank God, you know, I've I've always been so big about family and friends because it's the oldest cliche. At the end of the day, that's what's really there for you. And I'm blessed every day to have greatest family, greatest friends, on earth. And I'm glad that, you know, I've really didn't let all this madness get in the way of that.
You know, I've always tried to be there and take care of them and and even there for me. And, really, that's that's what it is.
Speaker 0: And I met someone, I think that's right, but I judge a man by his dogs. Probably can't tell from this camera shop that you brought a couple of your boykins here. Dixie. Can can we meet? You've got 2 spaniels here.
Can you introduce one of them?
Speaker 1: This is Delta. I'm here by you. Okay. Dixie. Come here.
Dixie, come here. Dixie's a little one. Come here, Dixie. Come here, Dixie.
Speaker 0: So these are Boykins. She's she's a little one.
Speaker 1: Hey. She's a little one. How how old is next? She's old now. Is she 10?
That's amazing. She's 10.
Speaker 0: Do you go everywhere with him?
Speaker 1: My fiance, Andre, goes everywhere with him.
Speaker 0: Are you bringing them on tour? No. Select cities maybe. They don't like the tour.
Speaker 1: Ira freaks model that. Well, not Delta. She's trained on birds so she doesn't mind. Yeah.
Speaker 0: They're amazing, amazing bird dogs. If you were to sort of since you're pretty good at calling stuff, the next year, like a year from now will be November 2024. What will things look like?
Speaker 1: I hope they look like, you know, Trump's back in office and, I would love that we control, you know, congress and, that'd be a perfect case scenario for me, but that's so difficult for me. You know, I I know what I support in my views, but I'm really not Nostradamus when it comes to politics. Yeah. Alright. I think I don't wanna act like I know it all.
You know, I do study it. I probably watch a little more news than I should. Yeah. I got my views but, you know, it's gonna be interesting. I I I just don't see how like, you know, everyone's talking about, like, they can't run Biden against Trump.
It's impossible. Of course. And if god forbid something did go wrong, you're buying money would be for no other reason than just people's hatred for Trump. Yeah. You know?
Why aren't people just talking about policies? You know, I I don't need my president to be a saint. To get the job done.
Speaker 0: We haven't had any of those, I don't think.
Speaker 1: No. No. I don't think so. I don't know.
Speaker 0: But you said that if you were Bud Light, you would run a campaign bringing people together over your product.
Speaker 1: Maybe they should make a blue hat that says make Bud Light great again. No. Good point.
Speaker 0: But do you, I mean do you see like the division getting better or worse?
Speaker 1: I honestly, I would hope it gets a little better. Yeah. I see that with my friends like I said, I haven't I don't go around bragging about it. I probably got the most diverse band out there. Yeah.
We have white people, hillbillies, we have black people, we have gay people, we we got it all. Female, she's men.
Speaker 0: White people and hillbillies in 2 different categories.
Speaker 1: Good. Good. But, you know, I see it just with with my band where we don't get along, we don't joke about each other's backgrounds or colors or sexual preferences, like, we just give each other shit all the time and we get along. We're like family. We're not one of these bands.
It's just it's in each other's throats, fighting. We all love each other and always have. We accept that we're all different and we're all just cool. And so I keep saying this. It's like, no one cares if you're gay anymore.
We all got gay family members, friends, coworkers. It's like, just shut up about it. Like, I'm not gonna, like, oh, you're gay? I'm not gonna clap louder for you. Alright?
Just be cool. Be gay. Shut up is fine. Like, you know, no one cares. And, you know, the transgender thing is just a weird one.
I don't you know, it's like, leave our kids out of it, number 1. But, you know, to me, it looks like a mental illness. Yep. You know? That that's what I see.
But at the same time, like, that's that's who you wanna be. A lot of people fought and died for it. Go for it. We can exist in, you know, the same public spaces, so be it. You know?
You're not gonna be my first call to take out for a night out on the town probably, but I'm probably not yours. It's fine.
Speaker 0: Yeah. That's okay.
Speaker 1: And if you're different and you're weird, make no mistake, you get treated differently. When I was young, I had my hair up to here and my pants sagging running around, you know, talking junk, you know? People gave me crap all the time, you know, but I was trying to be seen. They said, oh, if you wanna be seen and you're gonna go out and be different like that and dye your hair blue and put a bunch of nose rings and some people are gonna look at you differently. Some people are gonna tease you a little bit.
You know? Whatever happened to sticks and stones. Yeah. You know, everyone's like, he teased me. I'm gonna cancel you and sue you, and I'm gonna tell on you.
I just freaking it's like we're racing it. I've pardon my line. We're raising, like, a complete, you know, generation of fucking pussies.
Speaker 0: Yeah. But that can't go on forever, right?
Speaker 1: No. The pendulum always swings. I've seen that, you know, at 52 years old, I've seen that life. Pendulum swings. Yeah.
So
Speaker 0: last question before we go get a cigar with your friend John Daly. If you were to give advice to you know a 22 year old trying to enter the public sphere right now what would it be what's your entertainment line either one you know you're you're the guy who wants people to look at you Okay? As you
Speaker 1: Well, number 1, work your ass off and be good at what you do. Be best at it. And that takes a lot of time. You know what I mean? 15 years, you know, in the trenches.
Riding around in vans with U Haul trailers, playing every little gig for, you know, 50 people, this, that, and the other. You know, it's the old cliche, the 10000 hours. I think it's 20,000.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Work your butt off and try to be the best of what you do. Study your craft. Be knowledgeable be knowledgeable about it. Surround yourself with good people. Don't hang out with knuckleheads.
That doesn't lead too many good spots.
Speaker 0: No. It doesn't.
Speaker 1: So you know?
Speaker 0: So work hard. Good. Don't hang out with shitheads.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And and be good at what you do. Be the best at what you do.
Speaker 0: Bobby, thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, mister Tucker.
Speaker 0: Good to see you, man. Pleasure. I'm coming this summer.
@CitizenFreePres - Citizen Free Press
Tucker Carlson on Twitter Ep. 2 just dropped https://t.co/DhGJOmTf2t
Video Transcript AI Summary
To control a country, one must ensure obedience from those with deadly force, starting with the military and law enforcement. Beyond physical control, influencing societal taboos is crucial. Taboos shape behavior more powerfully than laws. In America, taboos are rapidly changing, often dictated from above. Actions once deemed unacceptable, like racial discrimination or adultery, are now tolerated or even encouraged. The most alarming shift is the diminishing stigma around child molestation, highlighted by media coverage of incidents involving individuals like Joseph Rosenbaum. Meanwhile, authorities focus on perceived threats like white supremacy, often without clear definitions. This ambiguity creates fear and uncertainty, allowing for arbitrary accusations. The old system, based on clear laws and organic taboos, is eroding. It’s essential to protect these moral instincts and resist the pressure to conform to shifting societal norms.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Hey. It's Tucker Carlson. Let's say you wanted to control a country. How would you start? We'd wanna make sure you had the complete obedience of everybody inside your borders who was authorized to use deadly force.
You would start with the military and then federal law enforcement and move your way down ultimately to agencies like the IRS. Controlling the guns would be a top priority for you if you ever wanted to go dictatorial, if you wanted to be baby doc. But let's say you had deeper ambitions. Let's say you wanted the power not simply to control people's behavior, but to control how they think, not just their bodies, but their minds as a god would. In that case, you need to take charge of the society's taboos.
A taboo is something that by popular consensus is not allowed. A taboo may not be illegal, but it doesn't need to be. Over time, social prohibitions are more powerful and more enduring than laws. Societies are defined by what they will not permit, as are famously religions. Muslims don't eat pork, neither do orthodox Jews.
Traditional Christians oppose extramarital sex. The Amish avoid electricity and so on. American society isn't overtly religious, but it's governed by taboos, and it always has been. What's interesting is how fast our taboos are changing. This is not happening organically.
What we're allowed to dislike is being dictated to us from above, sometimes by force. Until failure recently, for example, it was taboo in this country to attack people on the basis of their race. That was the main lesson of the 2nd World War, we were told again and again. The one thing we learned from the Nazis is that it's dangerous to reduce human beings to their genetic code. There is no master race.
That made sense, but apparently, we no longer believe it. Punishing people based on their skin color is not only permitted in modern America, it is mandatory throughout business and government and higher education as long as the victims are white. At one time, that would have been unimaginable. So the current behavior of our politicians. As recently as the 1992 presidential campaign, adultery was considered disqualifying for anyone seeking higher office.
Bill Clinton was very nearly derailed in the New Hampshire primary by his affair with Jennifer Flowers. Clinton went to elaborate lengths to lie about the relationship because he had no choice, but he was the last presidential candidate who had to meet the standard. By 2008, it was obvious to anybody who was paying attention that Barack Obama had a strange and highly creepy personal life, yet nobody ever asked him about it. By that point, a leader's behavior within his own marriage, the core relationship of his life, have been declared irrelevant. It was Barack Obama's business, not yours.
1 by 1 with increasing speed, our old taboos have been struck down. Those that remain have lost their moral force. Stealing, flaunting your wealth, striking women, smoking marijuana on the street, shameless public hypocrisy, taking other people's money for not working, All of these things used to be considered unacceptable in America, not anymore. So it probably shouldn't surprise us that the greatest taboo of all is teetering on the edge of acceptability, child molestation. A generation ago, talking to someone else's children about sex was widely considered grounds for a thrashing.
Touching them sexually was effectively a death penalty offense. When Jeffrey Dahmer was bludgeoned to death in the bathroom of a Wisconsin prison in 1994, the Milwaukee District Attorney had to caution the public not to turn Dahmer's killer into a folk hero. Jeffrey Dahmer had molested and murdered children. People felt justified in celebrating his death. 25 years later, that standard had changed dramatically in the state of Wisconsin as in the rest of the country.
Get out
Speaker 1: of the park.
Speaker 0: In the summer of 2020 during the BLM riots in Kenosha, 17 year old Kyle Rittenhouse defended his life from a convicted child molester called Joseph Rosenbaum. Rosenbaum was trying to kill Rittenhouse, so Rittenhouse shot him in self defense. But it was Joseph Rosenbaum whom the media cast as the victim of the story. Kyle Rittenhouse, meanwhile, an underage boy fending off violence from a child molester, was denounced as the villain. Ultimately, he was indicted for murder.
One of the things that this tells us is the people who run our country no longer see child molesters as the worst among us. That's never been more obvious than it was yesterday when the Wall Street Journal ran a long expose about kiddie porn on Instagram. Instagram, the journal found, quote, helps connect and promote a vast network of accounts openly devoted to the commission and purchase of underage sex content. Instagram connects pedophiles and connects them to content sellers of child pornography. In one instance, the paper discovered that Instagram was recommending the phrase incest toddlers to users who'd expressed interest in similar material.
By the way, no one at Instagram denied that any of this had happened, nor did Mark Zuckerberg, who controls the company. The journal story was accurate. It was all pretty shocking, but not as shocking as what happened next, which was effectively nothing at all. The largest circulation newspaper in the United States revealed that one of the world's most influential companies was promoting pedophilia, and nobody in power did anything about it. The Justice Department did not announce an investigation.
Congress did not schedule hearings. The guy who runs Instagram, Adam Mosseri, still has his job. In fact, Mosseri's last tweet, which is pinned, is a video of himself bragging about how effective Instagram's algorithm is. Keep in mind as you watch this, it's real.
Speaker 2: People often talk about the algorithm, but there is no one algorithm for Instagram. There are many algorithms and ranking processes we use to try to personalize the experience to make it as interesting as we can for each and every person who uses Instagram. We believe in this idea of personalization. What you're interested in and what I'm interested in is different, and so therefore, your Instagram and my Instagram should be different.
Speaker 0: What you're interested in and what I'm interested in is different, Masseri patiently. So your Instagram feed will be different from mine. You're interested in children. That's why you're getting all the incest toddler posts. It's a highly personalized experience.
That tweet is still up tonight. Of course, everybody at Instagram, in fact, everyone everywhere in authority, will still claim to think that child molestation is bad, but the tone has changed unmistakably. When they say it's bad, they mean it in a kind of abstract way, bad like a civil war in Central Africa is bad. You wouldn't prefer it, but there are reasons it happens. That's why we now refer to pedophiles as minor attracted persons because, honestly, who can judge?
These people are a sexual minority, so pause before you attack them. And in any case, it's not like pedophiles are barging into the Capitol building to sit in Nancy Pelosi's chair or asking uncomfortable questions about the last election. For miscreants like that, no punishment is too harsh. So far this month, the FBI's Washington field office has issued 11 press releases. 10 out of 11 have been about January 6th.
Keep in mind that January 6th happened more than two and a half years ago. Now you know why the feds were ignoring kid touchers on Instagram. They're too busy to respond. They've got much more important things to do, like finding white supremacists. White supremacists are America's new child molesters.
We've got zero tolerance for white supremacists because no one threatens the life of this country more than they do. Here's Joe Biden once again making that very clear last month.
Speaker 3: To stand up against the poison of white supremacists, I did my inaugural address to single out as the most dangerous terrorist threat to our homeland is white supremacy. And I'm not saying this because I'm at a black HBCU. I say wherever I go. Pardon the feedback,
Speaker 0: but you heard the point. White supremacy is the most dangerous threat to the American homeland. Joe Biden just told us that. It's more dangerous than the threat of nuclear war with Russia. It's more dangerous than the threat of the Mexican drug cartels who've already killed 100 of thousands of Americans and are now in control of swaths of our southwestern states.
White supremacy is that bad, Joe Biden says. Act in fact, it's worse. But what is it? That's the question. Can anyone in authority actually define white supremacy?
What is it? Is white supremacy liking white people too much? If so, that's gonna put those of us with white children in a pretty tough spot, Or is white supremacy something much more obviously bad, like trying to expel all nonwhites from America and creating some kind of ethnostate? If that's Joe Biden's definition, what exactly is the scope of this threat? How many people are currently working on this American white ethno state project, and what are the chances they're gonna pull it off?
Our guess is not very many and precisely 0, but we can't say for sure because no one has showed us the numbers. These are not rhetorical questions. When the president of the United States describes something as the worst possible crime Americans can commit, you have a right to know what that crime is. You used to have that right. Under our pre revolutionary legal code before George Floyd, questions like these were easy to answer.
A crime was defined as something that an elected legislature had explicitly banned, usually an act that hurt somebody else. In America, crimes were described precisely with words in English and then preserved in books, which you could read yourself. If you ever wondered whether you were committing a crime, you could just look it up. You could know for sure whether you were a criminal. Now you can't, and needless to say, that's the point.
The point of the exercise is to keep you off balance, to keep you afraid. When no one's willing to define the offense, you can't be sure whether or not you're committing it. You could be accused at any time and everything you have taken from you. You live in fear. Remember this guy?
Speaker 1: Emmanuel Cafferty was driving near a Black Lives Matter protest in Poway in his SDG and E truck when he says he noticed somebody following him and trying to get his attention. Later, that person posted a picture of him making what some believed is a white supremacy symbol on Twitter. Cafferty says he had no idea about any white power symbols and was just cracking his knuckles outside his window when the picture was taken of him. Later that day, he says he was notified by SDG and E that he would be suspended pending an investigation. And a few days later, he was fired.
Speaker 0: What that man did was so offensive, as you just saw, that local news had to blur the photograph of his hand. He was fired from his job. His life was destroyed for cracking his knuckles. He didn't know cracking his knuckles was racist in his defense, but then nobody did until the day that poor Emmanuel Cafferty was unwise enough to crack them. When a crime has no definition, anyone can be guilty of it.
It's hard to relax in a country like that. The old system was better. Government operated on the basis of laws, not amorphous moral terror. Politicians couldn't accuse you of something they couldn't define. The legal code was straightforward.
Child molestation was a crime. Having unfashionable opinions was not. Outside of the public sphere, the population mostly governed itself as it does in every society and used taboos to do it. You knew what was allowed and what wasn't because the rules didn't change very often. The taboos were organic.
They derived from collective experience and instinct, the 2 most reliable guides to life. They evolved for a reason. They still do. Our job at this point is to protect them despite the hectoring, the nonstop hectoring from the people in charge. You know the outlines of right and wrong.
You're born knowing them. So don't let them talk you out of what you can smell. Don't let them rationalize away your intuitive moral sense. Cling to your taboos like your life depends on them because it does. Cherish and protect them like family heirlooms.
That's exactly what they are. The John Deere people say the news is full of lies on Canada's motorcade.
Speaker 1: 239, please. Of Jeffrey Epstein.
@CitizenFreePres - Citizen Free Press
Tucker Carlson on X Ep. 76 just dropped. An interview with Stella Assange. https://t.co/AB0FOlEkNk
Video Transcript AI Summary
Julian Assange has been imprisoned for over a decade, largely due to opposition from the U.S. government. He remains in Belmarsh prison without being charged with a crime in the UK. Assange believes his imprisonment stems from WikiLeaks' publication of sensitive U.S. government documents, particularly regarding CIA surveillance. His wife, Stella, updates on his imminent extradition hearing, emphasizing the high stakes involved. She criticizes the UK's complicity in his detention, likening it to actions taken by authoritarian regimes. Stella expresses concern for Julian's deteriorating health and calls for any U.S. president to consider a pardon, arguing that his case threatens press freedom and constitutional protections. Despite the challenges, she highlights the growing support for Julian and the implications of his situation for journalism.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Julian Assange has been locked away in one place or another for more than a decade. Julian Assange is so despised by elements within the permanent US government that at one point, CIA director Mike Pompeo discussed murdering him in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, where he was seeking asylum. Mike Pompeo has never been charged for that, which is a crime. Unelected bureaucrats can't just murder people they don't like, and he probably never will be charged with the crime. Virtually, the entire ruling class in Washington is opposed to Julian Assange, and that's the reason that he has sat for years now in Belmarsh prison in London.
Keep in mind, Julian Assange has not been charged with a crime in Great Britain, and yet he's being held there. So this fall, we went to Belmarsh, and we asked Julian Assange, why do you think you're being held as the most wanted man in America without ever being charged with a real crime? Here's what he told us. We talked about why he is in prison and my first question to him was what do you think this is actually about since you haven't been accused of a crime? And he said something that really struck me and and I think having spent my life in Washington is absolutely right.
He said he first became famous when WikiLeaks published, documents and videos that the US government had kept secret from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They were gravely embarrassing to the Pentagon. But that's that wasn't the red line. The red line was several years later when WikiLeaks published information about surveillance by the CIA. And so I asked him directly, are you aware of anyone being harmed or killed on the basis of of information being published?
He said, of course not. And and he said it in a sincere way. Like, by the way, I think if people were killed because of his publishing, because of the stories that he put online, he would feel bad about it. I I mean, he seems like a humane person. He went to he withheld information about CA because he didn't wanna get people hurt.
He famously published the contents of Hillary Clinton's email account. I asked him, when you publish these emails, did you realize how powerful Hillary Clinton was? We had a conversation about that, and I said, looking back, you know, do you regret doing that? He goes, honestly, it was fun. You'll notice that Julian Assange was not in that clip.
That was a recap of our conversation with Julian Assange, and the reason we did that was they wouldn't allow us to interview him on camera. So not only are they holding him, they hope until he dies in a maximum security prison, but they're also preventing him from telling his own story to the world. All of this is a crime. Every person running for president of the United States should be forced to answer the question, will you pardon Julian Assange if he ever winds up on American soil? So far, no one has been forced to answer that question.
We hope that will change. The woman you saw in the clip is Julian Assange's wife, Stella. She has been, his greatest advocate, in the free world, and she is now leading the effort to stop his extradition to the United States where he would wind up in a supermax prison, never be heard from again until he dies. She is a lawyer, a human rights activist, and we're honored to have her join us now. Stella Assange, thank you so much, for coming on.
Can you give us an update, because I know this is taking place right now, it's in progress currently, what the status of this extradition hearing is?
Speaker 1: Well, look, we've just been in court for 2 days, and this decision could be the final one. We didn't know when we were coming into it yesterday whether we would have a decision today. And if the UK decides in favor of the US, then it will put Julian on a plane to the US. I mean, that is how imminent it is. So, really, it's it's it's a very, very high risk moment for Julian.
And what happened during, these two days is that, the the two judges said that they would withhold their their decision until well, they haven't set a date, but at least a week. And so we don't know what will happen next. This, it remains the case that if he loses this round, then that's it in the UK. There's no further possibility for appeal. He can try to go to the European Court of Human Rights, but last year, only one only one application to the European Court of Human Rights to stop an extradition or deportation was granted out of 63 applications.
So it's really just in extremely rare cases. Of course, we say, this is one of them. This is one where there would be irreparable harm. And, of course, the European Court of Human Rights, should stop an extradition if if the UK fines against him, but it's not a given. So, Julian could be on US soil within a matter of weeks.
That's still the case.
Speaker 0: I'm I'm confused by the role of the UK in this. As far as I understand, he's never been charged with a crime in the United Kingdom, And yet, the UK government is holding him holding a journalist without charging him. I mean, this is what we accuse Russia and Iran and North Korea of doing. Why are British politicians degrading their own system and their history on behalf of the United States government? I feel like I'm missing something here.
Speaker 1: Well, this is the, this is the default state of affairs. The the UK views itself as a lap dog. I mean, it was obvious in courts at one point. One of the judges asked the US, well, if if, the your argument is that if the home secretary sees that there's that the US issued this extradition request, and that it's wrong on the face of it, that she wouldn't be able to do anything. And and the US lawyers said, yeah.
That's precisely right. It's completely lopsided. The US can do whatever it wants, basically. And that was part of their arguments in court. I mean, not to get too too much into the weeds of the court proceedings, but basically what they were saying was, you have to take these statements of these prosecutors at face value.
You don't, you know, you don't wanna offend, the United States, our ally. You would be implying that the prosecutors were lying, and, of course, that would never be the case. So, they were trying to convince the court that that they should just take it all at face value. And, of course, inside the courtroom, it's like they're running, 2 parallel cases. I mean, we're we're running, the case the the true reality, which is that Julian's a journalist that that exposed the wrongdoing of the country that's trying to extradite him, and the US is, you know, just trying to, attack Julian with all sorts of nonsense.
The UK is a willing participant. Of course, his his imprisonment is, has gone for so long. He's been, you know, in high Belmarsh high security prison for almost 5 years. But before that, in the embassy in in in the Ecuadorian embassy in the heart of London. And during this time, when he was in the embassy, it was surrounded by by British police.
They were spending something like 1,000,000 and 1,000,000. I think it was £5,000,000 a year on surrounding the embassy. And he was not charged with a crime at the time. It was a it was a show of force. And, of course, it was a show of force on behalf, you know, by this British police, but to show, the United States that that they were, you know, that they were they were showing their their allegiance basically.
And that's how we've had this this lawlessness for over a decade to hound Julian and to kind of send a a signal. And his his imprisonment in Balmarsh, you know, is is part of a game that they play that the US says, well, the UK is keeping him. It's not really us. He's not in the u on US soil. And the UK goes, well, it's not really us because this is a US extradition request, and he's been there for almost 5 years.
And so they play this game, and they, you know, he he he he's no one's responsibility. And it it's just, it's a game that they've been playing for years years.
Speaker 0: Does it I I know you live there, but you follow American politics. Was it surprising to you that Mike Pompeo, the neocon former CIA director who plotted to murder your husband, who'd not been charged with anything in the US at that point, that he was allowed to continue to be prominent in the United States. He ran for president, after that. And no one in the American media have said anything about it, really, with a few exceptions, but no one no no one even mentioned that. You tried to murder your husband.
What did you think of that?
Speaker 1: Well, I think the CIA is a is a rogue organization that everyone on every level of the US politics is is terrified of. That's true. And they are trained to assassinate. They are trained to to fabricate information and place it in the media and conduct propaganda warfare and
Speaker 0: to
Speaker 1: overthrow, governments and so on. And you know, not just abroad, it seems that there is a credible case that that they've done so domestically too. I mean, looking at this objectively, you think, well, what on earth is this? You know, there's a whole spiel about about, you know, US democracy and so on. And the CIA is is an agency that has, you know, caused all sorts of trouble for many countries around the world.
But also, domestically, they are a force for destabilization and compromise. And, you know, Mike Pompeo's ability to, you know, move around Washington without consequence, I don't think is because of his his, I don't know, attractiveness to to the Washington circles, but rather, he's seen as a dangerous person. But, you know, he tried to run for president and that didn't go very well. And he wrote a book and no one bought it, except for his pack or whatever. So there's that.
But, yeah, he's a dangerous individual. And even within the CIA, I mean, we know the story about Julian and the and the murder plot because people within his organization said that he had lost the plot, that that he had become obsessed with Julian, that he wanted to kill Julian, and and that he was discussing it, you know, in the White House and so on. So that means that there was, you know, internal internal disagreement about about his his obsession. And that's a that's a sign of hope, of course, within these organizations. There's always, you know, different types of people with with different levels of integrity and and commitment to the constitution and so on.
And the fact that many of them then spoke to these investigative journalists and exposed the crazy, Pompeo murder plot is commendable. And and I'm I'm personally very, very thankful to them that they said something, not not, not just because of, the fact that it it we've been able to introduce it in court, but because, it shows that that it goes against, you know, very basic, rules of of integrity and, that that this obsession with Julian that Pompeo had, is part of, like, a serious collapse even within the CIA that occurred during this time.
Speaker 0: Yeah. He is a dangerous person. He should be in prison, and it's just striking that so few journalists ask him about that. None, so far as I know. So tell me if your husband is extradited to the United States, what do you think there's any chance he'll receive a presidential pardon?
Speaker 1: Any any president who looks at this case and understands how it is a danger, to the the future of the US, not just the constitution, but the political culture that there has been in the United States that has been built on openness and, you know, a vibrant culture of of opposition to centralized power.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: All of that will go out the window at this case. So any president who actually values these traditional constitutional protections should free Julian in whatever in whatever form that takes. If it's a pardon, then, you know, I welcome it. I frankly I don't care how he's freed. He just needs to be freed.
The the corruption and the lawlessness around Julian's case, it's politically motivated. It's it's rotten to the core. All of that is self evident. And whatever happens, as long as Julian's free, you know, everything else is secondary as far as I'm concerned.
Speaker 0: And and my last question, how is he doing to the extent you can characterize it physically and psychologically?
Speaker 1: Well, he's not doing well. He wasn't even, attending these hearings, and and this is, you know, the decisive hearing for Julian. As I said, if he if he loses this round, and we don't know yet if he's lost, then he'll be put on a plane to the United States, unless we can prevent it some some other way. But he wasn't even attending, not even in person, not even over video link. He was able to call his lawyers during the hearing, so he was following what was happening in court.
But if he hadn't been kept in Belmarsh high security prison during the past 5 years, he wouldn't be in this state of of deterioration and decline. He would have, of course, have attended his own hearing, especially one like this. And I think it's it's should be a wake up call, that Julian's life is at risk, that every day he spends in prison is a day that his health deteriorates. I mean, 5 years inside that prison, many people don't survive it. There have been many people in Belmarsh who have committed suicide during this time, including a friend of Julian's who was, also inside the whom he met in the prison and and who who became a friend.
And, you know, it's it's a harsh environment, and he's under enormous pressure. And he he's he knows that the United States, is the country that's plotted his assassination. So, like, the stakes the stakes could not be higher, but he knows there's a lot of support out there. He knows I'm doing this interview with Tucker, and, he knows there's a lot of support. So that is also, something that keeps him afloat.
He's a fighter. And I think, you know, I think the world's waking up. I've seen a lot of support, actually. I've seen a lot of attention this time around. The process, I think, starting to realize what the implications are and how how serious this is.
And that it's not just about Julian, that it's actually, threatening the press's ability to do its job in a very, very, real way, especially the press that does the most important work, the one that makes those in power, feel uncomfortable and worried about their future careers and and freedom.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Not many of those left, but but some. Stella Sanch, thank you so much for taking this time, and godspeed.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Tucker.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Free speech is bigger than any one person or any one organization. Societies are defined by what they will not permit. What we're watching is the total inversion of virtue.
@CitizenFreePres - Citizen Free Press
Tucker Carlson: "Zelensky is a dangerous authoritarian who has used $100 billion in US tax dollars to erect a one-party police state in Ukraine." https://t.co/YqW3Tdd5K8
Video Transcript AI Summary
Zelensky's actions in Ukraine reveal a troubling authoritarianism, as he has banned opposition parties, shut down critical media, and arrested political opponents. Recently, he announced plans to ban the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, claiming it poses a threat due to its ties to Russia, despite its denunciation of the invasion. This move has been largely ignored or excused by U.S. leaders and media, who continue to support Zelensky as a defender of freedom. However, the reality is that Ukrainians face severe restrictions on their rights, including worship and political expression. The Ukrainian government is prioritizing its power over democratic principles, raising questions about the true nature of the support being given to them by the West.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Whatever you think of the war in Ukraine, it is pretty clear that Zelensky has no interest in freedom and democracy. In fact, Zelensky is far closer to Lenin than to George Washington. He's a dictator. He's a dangerous authoritarian who has used a 100,000,000,000 in US tax dollars to erect a 1 party police state in Ukraine, and that's not an overstatement. Over the past year, Zelensky has banned opposition parties.
He shut down critical media by force. He's arrested his political opponents. He has sent soldiers into churches. Zelenskyy secret police have raided monasteries across Ukraine. Even a convent full of nuns and arrested dozens of priests for no justifiable reason whatsoever and in clear violation of the Ukrainian constitution, which no longer matters.
And in the face of this, the Biden administration has said nothing, not one word. Instead, they just continue to push to send Zelensky more tax dollars. So naturally, Zelensky has become much bolder. Why wouldn't he? Last week, he announced his plan to ban an entire religion, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, and to seize its property all for being insufficiently loyal to his regime.
And he said it out loud. Watch this.
Speaker 1: We have to create such conditions when any people dependent on the country aggressor won't be able to manipulate Ukrainians and weaken Ukraine from within. 1st, the National Security and Defense Council instructed the government to submit to the Verhobnara, a draft law on making it impossible for religious organizations affiliated with centers of influence in the Russian Federation to operate in Ukraine.
Speaker 0: A free country does not ban a major religion just because it's not fully on board with the political program of the people running the country. But Zelensky is doing that, and his cabinet is now devising ways to punish Christians for practicing their banned ancient religion in Ukraine. Quote, personal economic and restrictive sanctions will be applied to any Christian caught worshiping in unapproved ways. Now the Ukrainian Orthodox Church is more than a 1000 years old. With the full backing of the Joe Biden administration in the US Congress, Zelensky has decided to ban it.
So here's the response of 1 bishop to the news. You're not allowed to send soldiers into churches. You're not allowed to arrest dozens of priests because they refuse to bow before you. You're not allowed to ban whole religions. So most of the US media, most have just ignored this.
Some have made excuses for it. Oh, he has to do this because there's a war, but there's no justification for this whatsoever. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church is not Russian. It's Ukrainian. It has no connection to the Putin government.
It is in fact officially denounced the Russian invasion of Ukraine. So once again, there is no justification for destroying and banning this church. And yet Zelensky's many celebrity backers in the west have said nothing about it, and they should know better. In May, George w Bush, the great defender of Christendom, met with Zelensky on a Zoom call and afterward described him as the Winston Churchill of our time, a man who should be praised for his, quote, commitment to liberty. So where's George w Bush on this question now that his friend, the George Washington of Ukraine, has banned a form of Christianity in that country?
Well, George w Bush has been silent as well. So have many purportedly Christian members of congress. They're backing as Zelensky no matter how many Christians he arrests, no matter how many churches he seizes. To the Ukrainian people, you can expect the congress to to be there with you in terms of supporting your efforts to maintain your freedom.
Speaker 2: Everything that we can do, to be helpful to them as they fight for as they fight for their freedom.
Speaker 0: I think the history of the 21st century turns on how fiercely we defend freedom in Ukraine.
Speaker 3: We will continue to provide military equipment so that Ukraine can defend its territory and its freedom. United States will continue our unwavering support for Ukraine as it defends its freedom.
Speaker 0: And let's get the job done so that we can save lives in Ukraine and defend the cause of freedom.
Speaker 4: The free world had no choice. America could not stand by. The American people did what they always have done, defend freedom around the world.
Speaker 0: Every single person you just watched has campaigned many to make a habit of campaigning Lindsey Graham, ladies and gentlemen, in Christian churches in the United States. Well, a single Christian leader say anything to them about this? You are funding the destruction of Christianity in Ukraine? Oh, but it's the cause of freedom. Really?
The reality is that Ukrainians cannot listen to media outlets that criticize the Zelensky government because they've been banned. They cannot play music from Russian singers. No. This is not in Taliban controlled Afghanistan. This is in the democracy of Ukraine that we support.
They can't play music for Russian singers. They can't vote for an opposition party because they've all been shut down. And now their churches are being raided and their priests arrested. So the fact that our leaders are calling this freedom tells you a lot about what they're planning here. Of course, why would you defend this?
Because you approve of it. For its part, Ukraine's defense ministry has stopped pretending this is about freedom. They're just happy they're getting paid, and they're finally crushing any opposition in their own country.
@CitizenFreePres - Citizen Free Press
Tucker Carlson on J6: "There were a lot of things going on there that were clearly part of something that was not organic" https://t.co/ZBTVihuLiV
Video Transcript AI Summary
We had full cooperation from the Capitol Police and the speaker's office, but we couldn't show that FBI agents were present in the crowd, which the FBI has admitted. Ray Epps was not a civilian; he encouraged violence, yet the January 6th committee defended him. There were clear signs of federal involvement, like individuals with earpieces breaking things and then fleeing. I didn't want to wrongly label anyone as an agent without proof. The recent Proud Boys trial revealed an FBI agent lied and hid evidence. We need crowdsourcing for the footage, which should be public. The narrative around January 6th has been misrepresented; it was a violent political demonstration, not a deadly insurrection. Intelligence about the event was withheld from Capitol Police, suggesting a deliberate attempt to create chaos for political gain.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: No. We had, full cooperation from the Capitol Police and from the speaker's office, but what we couldn't do, which is the main thing I wanted to do, which is show that there were FBI agents in the crowd. And there were, and the FBI's admitted that. But it's obvious to me they played a pivotal role. Ray Epps clearly was working for somebody.
He was not a pure civilian. He encouraged violence and then the January 6th committee and Adam Kinzinger and Liz Cheney and Bennie Thompson and Adam Schiff, they all defended him. He's their friend? What? He's not an insurrectionist.
He's an ally? Like, explain that. It's it it it violates common sense. Okay? But we couldn't answer a lot of these questions because we couldn't identify the people positively.
And because we couldn't, we couldn't put their video on the screen because what if we're wrong? I mean, I tried to be as responsible as we could be. Like, there were a lot of things going on there as you know that were clearly part of something that was not organic. It was very obvious. Guys with earpieces, breaking things, and then running away when they're filmed.
Like, what is that? And some of these people are so obviously cops. I mean, it's absolutely ridiculous. You know? Right.
Some, like, body builder type with short hair and a MAGA hat. He's got oh, spare me. A guy with a gun. You know, this was you know, I know what's going on here. A lot of this was clearly influenced by federal agents or informants.
It it was. Okay? But I didn't want to suggest that someone was a federal agent or informant unless I knew for a fact because you really could get someone in trouble. Right? If you're like, this is the guy, and, like, we don't know.
I do know for I mean, it's very clear that something very strange is going on with Ray Epps. We've named him repeatedly. We've invited him on the show repeatedly. I mean, don't don't lie to my face. Like, the Rayaps thing is is
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 0: You know, isn't, isn't organic. Sorry.
Speaker 1: Well, we know from the Proud Boys trial this week that an FBI agent was caught lying on the stand in front of a judge. Right? Turns out that the FBI hid evidence from defense attorneys. I mean, this came out in trial. This is not just us, you know, bullshitting here.
And that according to according to the defense attorneys, unless they're lying in this, and it's possible, there was initially thought maybe the criminal informants there that wanted this information scrubbed, removed from the records. We now know that actually it might have been an agent who wanted this information scrubbed from the records. And of course, we were wondering, oh, my gosh, in these 41 hours that Tucker is going to have here, will we be able to see any more evidence of the Fed's involvement? So it appears without that facial recognition, what's the next step then? If we don't have that, what will happen with this footage?
Will anyone else be able to kinda go through it with facial recognition? Will Kanye be able to do it?
Speaker 0: I'm what you need is crowdsourcing here. I mean, you need of you need this to be in as many hands as possible. McCarthy has said and I don't have ownership of this footage. It's publicly owned, of course. It's not owned by the congress.
They don't own anything. There are this is like this is like it's insane, actually, how they treat the US government like they own it. I mean, that's like your housekeeper pretending she owns your bank account. Like, these are our servants. Okay?
But they get these attitudes and it's hard to disabuse them of them. But, but I he has said, you know, we're gonna turn this over to the public and I that can't come soon enough as far as I'm concerned. We've I mean, we're a prime time TV show. We're not, you know, in the fabled news division. We're an opinion show.
So, you know, we've kind of reached the limits, and it was only our show. Like, there was no other element of the company I worked for, and there was no other news organization helping in any way. So I'm not I'm not whining, but, we've kind of done what we could do. And from my perspective, like, the core claims about January 6th were a lie. It was not a violent insurrection, a deadly insurrection.
It was a violent political demonstration, one of many in the year in which it took place. From January of 2020 to January of 2021, there were a lot of violent political demonstrations, including one at the White House where, I'm sure, injured then at January 6th. So if we could kind of leave it there and stop lying about it, I'm not defending vandalism or hooliganism or violence in January 6th. Of course not. I abhor that.
Just don't tell me it's the same as 911. If you start talking like that, if you start lying to me, I'm gonna push back. Clearly, Nancy Pelosi wanted this to happen. There was a lot of intel that it was going to happen. That intelligence was kept from line officers at the Capitol Police.
I know that because I've talked to them and including some of their supervisors, and they all say the same thing. We were not given this intelligence. Well, why is that? They were the front line in this. Why would you keep it from them?
And I of course, the answer is you would only do that if you wanted it to be ugly and discrediting for the political party associated with it. And, that's obvious. That's obviously what happened.
@CitizenFreePres - Citizen Free Press
Holy Media Bias in Australia Stop whatever you're doing and watch this clip. Tucker Carlson absolutely stomps this braindead leftist bish. https://t.co/Dff7WFes1f
Video Transcript AI Summary
You discussed immigration and the concept of a "great replacement." I challenged the claim that I said whites are being replaced, stating I focus on native-born Americans, including Black Americans, whose concerns are valid. My position is that the leaders should prioritize citizens, and the U.S. population is growing through immigration due to low birth rates. I believe improving the economy and culture is essential for encouraging families to have children. I reject any implication that my views inspire violence or hate crimes, emphasizing my opposition to mass shootings and my right to self-defense. I expressed disappointment in the media's approach to these discussions, hoping for more thoughtful engagement.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Much for your address today. So you talked a little bit about immigration, and in the past, you've talked about how, white Australians, Americans, Europeans are being replaced by non white immigrants in what is often referred to as the great replacement theory. This is the same
Speaker 1: Have I said that whites are being replaced?
Speaker 0: Well
Speaker 1: I don't I don't think I said that.
Speaker 0: Well, it's been mentioned on your show 4,000 times. And Really?
Speaker 1: When did I say that?
Speaker 0: On your on your show. Whites are being replaced? You have said that before. Really?
Speaker 1: Yeah. I I I would challenge you to cite that because I did I'm pretty sure I haven't said that. I said native born I said native born Americans have are being replaced, including blacks.
Speaker 0: Native born Americans.
Speaker 1: Native born Americans. Americans who've like, black Americans have been African Americans have been in the United States for, in many cases, their families over 400 years, and their concerns are every bit as real and valid and alive to me as the concerns of white people whose families have been there 400 years. So I I've never said that whites are being replaced, Not one time. And you can't cite it. Untrue.
So, I'm We we just met, but when our relationship starts with a lie, it makes it tough to be friends.
Speaker 0: So let's let's pull that back.
Speaker 1: I'm happy to explain what I do
Speaker 0: think. So.
Speaker 1: Well, you actually can't say it because I didn't say it, and I don't believe it. And I'm telling you that to your face, so why don't you just accept me at face value? My concern is that the people who are born in the country are the main responsibility of its leaders. And as noted earlier, when those leaders shift their concern from the people whose responsibility it is to take care of to people around the world to put their priorities above that of their own citizens, that's immoral. And they are being replaced in my country, people who are born in the United States, and the birth rate tells the whole story.
They are not at replacement rate. And so the US population is growing because we're importing people from other countries. And my view is that happy people have children, and a functioning economy allows them to do that. And we don't have that. And so you need to fix the economy, and fix the culture, and make it so that people who wanna have kids can.
You don't just go for the quick sugar fix of importing new people. Like, that's my position, and if you think that's racist, that's your problem.
Speaker 0: I never called you a racist.
Speaker 1: But of course you are suggesting.
Speaker 0: And I must say
Speaker 1: one of the reasons people don't like people like you in the media, is that you never say exactly what you mean. Your slurs are all by implication, and you're about to tell me the great replacement theory is racist or anti Semitic, whatever. I I've said what I've said to you right now, like, a 100 times in public. I hope to, if I live long enough, say it a 100 more times. I think it's completely honest and real, not racist or scary.
It's factually true. It's not a theory. It's a fact. And your the whole point of your question was to be like, you're a scary racist.
Speaker 0: Well, I haven't And my response
Speaker 1: is, no. I'm not. Okay. Well, how about no more lying in your
Speaker 0: questions, and then I'll answer it. Okay. Well, this is the same theory, or as you say, idea that has inspired the New York Buffalo shooting where an 11 Oh, god. Americans were killed. Come on.
2 Americans were killed. But it's also inspired
Speaker 1: It's not first of all
Speaker 0: It's inspired the worst the one of the worst Australian guys all the time stupid
Speaker 1: in media. I guess it doesn't pay well. Look, I I'm sorry. I've lived among people like you for too long. And I
Speaker 0: I don't mean to I
Speaker 1: don't mean to call you call you stupid. Maybe you're just pretending to be. But I've never I'm totally against violence. I'm totally against the war in Ukraine, for example, which doubtless you support. And, like, all dutiful liberals support more carnage.
I don't. I hate mass shootings, actually. Nothing I said what does it mean to inspire something? My views are not bigoted against any group. They're honest.
They're factual. That's not hate. That's reality, and my views derive from my deep concern for Americans, actually. Americans aren't having kids because they can't afford to, and nobody in charge cares. And so that's my position.
That doesn't inspire mass shootings. How dare you try to tie me to some lunatic who murdered people? How dare you, actually? And in fact, do you know what I mean? I'll be like, you know, Hitler wore those shoes.
A lot of people are saying that you're like Hitler. Can you explain those shoes? Hitler wore exactly the same shoes, and you're like, I've got nothing to do with Hitler. That's how I feel about your absurd, disingenuous question.
Speaker 0: Right. So therefore, you support gun control?
Speaker 1: What?
Speaker 0: I thought it couldn't get any more cheating.
Speaker 1: No. I don't support disarming law abiding people, so they can't defend themselves. So the government has a monopoly on violence? I don't think so. First of all, in my country, that's illegal, as you know.
But moreover, it should be illegal in every country. A sovereign person has the right to defend himself and his family. Period. And, that said, I'm totally opposed to harming anyone, anyone. Have you been calling are you concerned about the war in Ukraine?
And the countless innocents being murdered there every single day? I doubt you are. Probably Putin bad. I am. I'm a Christian.
I hate violence. I hate mass shootings. I have guns at home, and often on my personal run-in the United States, I'm proud to say, because I want to defend myself and those I love against violence. That's the point. I'm not perpetrating crimes.
I'm not shooting strangers. I'm defending what I love. And if you're against that, I guess, I I would ask why. Why would you be against that?
Speaker 0: Well, so you don't think you harbor any kind of responsibility for these hate crimes?
Speaker 1: I'm sorry. I'm trying to be charitable. I'm trying to be charitable. I was like, maybe you're just pretending to be dumb. Now I don't think it's an act.
Speaker 0: Taco, thank you, for taking those questions. I'm sure you enjoyed,
Speaker 1: some questions. I just feel sorry. I mean, because I got here, and the country's so unbelievably beautiful, and the people are so cheerful and funny and cool and smart. I'm like, your media's gotta be better than ours. It can't just be a bunch of castrated robots questions from the boss, and then, it turns out, it's exactly the same, maybe even a tiny bit dumber.
@CitizenFreePres - Citizen Free Press
Tucker Carlson lays out ACTUAL voting fraud in Fulton County. Even left-wing editors at Atlanta Journal Constitution agreed. https://t.co/QrU5oiDHsK
Video Transcript AI Summary
There was significant voter fraud in Fulton County, Georgia, during the November election, with over 4,000 mail-in ballots double counted. Voter GA's findings indicate that more than 3,300 votes were counted for Biden and 865 for Trump due to these discrepancies. The Atlanta Journal Constitution corroborated that hundreds of ballots were improperly duplicated. Surveillance footage shows ballots being scanned multiple times, raising questions about how many times votes were counted. An audit revealed falsified tally sheets, with discrepancies in reported vote totals. Additionally, over 200 mail-in ballot images were found that were not included in the hand count. An expert noted that nearly 35,000 voters had moved out of their counties before the election but still voted illegally. These issues highlight serious concerns about election integrity and the need for transparency in the electoral process.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: It now appears there actually was meaningful voter fraud in Fulton County, Georgia last November. That is not a conspiracy theory. It's true. From the beginning, this show has tried to be fact based when we talk about the 2020 election results. So here's what we know tonight, factually.
At least 36 batches of mail in ballots from the November election were double counted in Fulton County. That's a total of more than 4,000 votes. Those numbers come from a group called voter GA, which along with Bob Chielly sued to get them. The final tally from the double counts we know about amounts to more than 33 100 votes for Joe Biden and 865 votes for Donald Trump. Now before you dismiss Bob Chielly and voter GA as dishonest partisan actors, keep in mind that the strongly left of center Atlanta Journal Constitution appears to agree with this, at least in outline.
The newspaper reviewed the available digital ballot images independently and concluded that hundreds of ballots were improperly duplicated. What does that look like exactly? Well, here's what it looks like. At a press conference yesterday, a consultant with voter GA called David Cross showed how we can be certain that votes in Fulton County were counted more than once. Watch.
Speaker 1: What I'm gonna show you here is 2 ballots side by side. One of them is marked for Jason Shaw. It's got a little squiggle mark next to it. You can see it's got the identical mark on the second valid image is stored up here on the top left. So this one over here is scanner 5162.
That's scanner number 3. Fax number 235, image number 19. And that matches 234 image 59. So you have the same ballot counted twice in the images and counted in the audit world. How that's possible?
I don't know.
Speaker 0: How's that possible? I don't know. Every American should wanna know because the answer gets to the heart of the integrity of our elections, otherwise known as our democracy. We're not talking about a couple of ballots here. We're talking about a lot of ballots, at least hundreds of ballots involved enough potentially to affect the outcome of the election.
Here's another example.
Speaker 1: Here's one of the next ones. Alright? So same facts, number 234, image number 2. And 235, image number 61. Republican, Republican, Republican, Republican, all the way down to the point where this little spot up in Fannie Lewis matches this one over here.
So question that that ballot was counted twice.
Speaker 0: So what's the explanation for this? Well, if you ask Fulton County, these discrepancies, the ones you just saw on the screen, were isolated incidents. Just a handful of bad ballots happens all the time. The county claims that any errors were caught in previous recounts. The problem is that neither one of those claims is true.
Surveillance footage obtained by voter GA appears to show large numbers of ballots being scanned multiple times. Pay attention to the tape we're showing you to the woman wearing yellow at the desk. According to voter GA, she slides ballots into a scanning machine, removes the ballots, and then reinserts the same ballots. This happens multiple times. The question is, how many times were those ballots counted?
Was each vote counted more than once? Fulton County won't answer that question. Now one way to know the answer would be to check what are called audit tally sheets. Tellingly, for months after the presidential election, Fulton County failed to provide more than a 100,000 of those tally sheets, including 50,000 of them for mail in ballots. When voter GA finally forced Fulton County to turn over the tally sheets, the conclusion was stunning.
Here's what the audit found. Quote, 7 falsified audit tally sheets containing fabricated vote totals. For example, a batch containing 59 actual ballot images for Joe Biden and 42 for Donald Trump was reported as a 100 for Biden and 0 for Trump. The 7 batches of ballot images with 554 votes for Joe Biden, 140 votes for Donald Trump, and 11 votes for Joe Jorgensen had tally sheets in the audit falsified to show 850 votes for Biden, 0 votes for Trump, and 0 votes for Jorgensen. Wait.
Did you just follow that? How is that not flat out criminal fraud? We'd love to know because it certainly sounds like flat out criminal fraud. We've obtained photographs showing what went on during the recount process for mail in ballots at Fulton County. These pictures were taken by a whistleblower a whistleblower who participated in the recount.
She said she noticed something odd as she did. None of the ballots that she saw had any creases on them. You can see the stacks of unfolded ballots on your screen now. That's strange because, of course, mail in ballots need to be bent in order to be mailed in. These ballots clearly had never been inside an envelope.
And then the whistleblower noticed something else. All of the ballots that whistleblower tells us have been filled out by a printer, not by hand. And many of them supported the exact same candidates, Democrats, including Joe Biden. Voter GA detected a series of other apparent irregularities in the recount. The group's audit found, for example, that quote, over 200 Fulton County mail in ballot images contained votes that were not included in the hand count audit results for the November election.
Now why is that? We don't know. Keep in mind once again, the results in the state of Georgia were decided by fewer than 13,000 votes. It was a close race. Every vote mattered.
And then there's this, an elections expert called Mark Davis analyzed data from the post office. He found that nearly 35,000 Georgia voters moved out of their county of residence more than a month prior to election day. They were ineligible to vote, and yet they did. They still voted in their old county. That is illegal.
It's not a small thing. Violating election law is something we should care about. And by law, their vote should have been excluded from the total, but they were not excluded. Why are we okay with that? Why are we okay with any of this?
We're okay with it because we've been told we have to be okay with it. We're undermining democracy if we ask questions about what happened during the 2020 election. And, of course, that's a perfect inversion of the truth. Without answers to legitimate questions like the ones we just post, and those are legitimate questions, democracy dies. People begin to understand the system they've been told is on the level is in fact rigged.
And when they believe that, God knows what they do next. So let's find out what actually happened. Let's find out immediately. Let's find out without shame. It's our right to know.
It's our responsibility to know. Jon Voigt is one of the best known actors in the world. We talk
@CitizenFreePres - Citizen Free Press
Tucker holds nothing back, compares the Biden family to the Hussein dictatorship in Iraq https://t.co/PLkFn8615A
Video Transcript AI Summary
Living in a non-democratic country often means facing the wrath of those close to power, like Uday Hussein in Iraq. In the U.S., parallels can be drawn with the Biden family, particularly Hunter Biden, who has faced no legal repercussions despite his troubled past and questionable business dealings. His lawyers have demanded that those who criticize him, including the owner of a repair shop where he left a laptop, face imprisonment. They claim the laptop is his property, yet they also argue its existence is uncertain. Hunter's failure to reclaim the laptop, due to personal issues, led to its current ownership status. The situation highlights the disparity in power and accountability, with Hunter Biden benefiting from his father's political connections while others face potential legal consequences.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Living in a non democracy when it's dangerous to displease the ne'er do well children of the supreme leader. If you were for example at a red light in pre invasion Baghdad and Uday Hussein came screaming up behind you drunk in his Lamborghini, You got the hell out of the way and you did not complain about it. And you didn't complain about it because Uday's dad ran the place and you did not want to make him mad. You might wind up like the members of his personal soccer team who dared to miss penalty kicks. That's what third world countries are like.
All citizens are not equal in countries like that. Power derives from proximity to power. That means the second most powerful people in a country like that are the children of the president. Very often they don't have jobs and are addicted to something. That's the way it works in places like that.
And for a long time, that system seemed very foreign to most Americans. They were used to living in a democracy. They could barely even imagine it. But then during the last presidential campaign, Joe Biden's daughter abandoned her somehow in a house she was staying at in Florida after she got of rehab and in that diary Ashley Biden recounted how her father had taken showers with her when she was young and she attributed her later sexual compulsions to that experience with her father. So by any standard that seemed like clear evidence of abuse and yet no law enforcement agency so far as we know ever asked Joe Biden about it.
Instead, once Joe Biden became president, his FBI raided the home of journalist James O'Keefe and seized the evidence. Ashley Biden's diary was taken by force and has never been seen again. So the message was unmistakable. When Uday Hussein blows Biden's Lamborghini, get the hell out of the way, peasant. Princelings have power.
You do not. By the way, Hunter Biden's whole life has been a monument to that message. Despite a decades long drug problem and no record of legitimate achievement of any kind. Hunter Biden has managed to accumulate the highest possible academic credentials. Georgetown and Yale Law.
Don't try that at home as well as what appears to be 1,000,000 and 1,000,000 and 1,000,000 of dollars. How did he do that? You couldn't do it, but then you're not Joe Biden's son and that's how he did it. He cut business deals with the corrupt countries that his father was conducting diplomacy in as vice president of the United States. And then we know from evidence that he apparently planned to kick back some of that money to his father as part of the deal.
10% for the big guy. Now that's completely illegal. And yet neither Hunter Biden nor his father Joe Biden have ever been indicted for doing that. Instead, and here's the best part. The real criminals we learned yesterday are the people who dared to talk about it.
Yesterday, Hunter Biden's legal team released a letter demanding that Joe Biden's friends imprison anyone who criticizes Joe Biden's son. So these letters call on the Department of Justice, Joe Biden controls and Delaware attorney general Kathy Jennings from Joe Biden state to file criminal charges against Republicans who dared to possess and share the contents of his son's now famous laptop. And that list would include among others, John Paul McIsaac, the owner of the Mac repair shop where Hunter Biden abandoned said laptop. According to Hunter Biden's high paid lawyers, John Paul McIsaac should be in prison for doing this. Quote, Mister McIsaac chose to work with Donald Trump's personal lawyer to weaponize mister Biden's personal computer data against his father Joseph r Biden.
In other words, John Paul McIsaac didn't want Joe Biden to become president and apparently that's now a federal crime. But wait a second. Back up a sec. Does that mean we can now say with certainty the laptop is real? If we can say that, that means that Adam Schiff is now running for senate in California had better issue a statement pronto correcting his previous categorical claims about the laptop.
Here was Adam Schiff in October of 2020 when he chaired the House Intelligence Committee.
Speaker 1: Does it surprise you at all that this information Rudy Giuliani is peddling, very well could be connected to some sort of Russian government disinformation campaign?
Speaker 2: Well, we know that this whole smear on Joe Biden, comes from the Kremlin. That's been clear for well over a year now that they've been pushing this false about the vice president and his son.
Speaker 0: Uh-huh. We know this comes from the Kremlin, Adam Schiff said. And of course, Adam Schiff would know since he unlike you had access to top secret information. You weren't allowed to see it. He did see it on the basis of that knowledge told you it was from the Kremlin.
And it's exactly what dozens of former intel officials told you. They saw the evidence and this was from Russia. So now it looks like they were all lying. According to Hunter Biden's lawyers quote, Mr. MacIsaac unlawfully shared Mr.
Biden's property with third parties. His property. He owned it. It was his. Yes.
The laptop according to Hunter Biden's lawyers belonged to Hunter Biden. Did not come from the Kremlin. That's settled. Except wait. No.
It's not settled. Because today we got yet another statement from Hunter Biden's lawyers and they seem to revise the first statement. Here's today's statement and we're quoting. These letters do not confirm mick Isaac's or others versions of a so called laptop. They address their conduct of seeking manipulating and disseminating would they alleged to be mister Biden's personal data wherever they claimed to have gotten it.
So in other words, we believe the government should send these people to jail for possessing stolen property that belong to Hunter Biden, but that so called property may not actually exist and may not even belong to Hunter Biden. That's their argument. It's a novel legal theory actually. In fact, it's so novel. It's totally incoherent.
It's like prosecuting somebody for stealing your imaginary car. But even if we can agree that the laptop is real and not a deep fake produced by some diabolical Russian AI program and again neither Hunter Biden nor his lawyers have conceded that yet Maybe they will tomorrow. But even if we could all agree on that, there is another more fundamental problem. And it's this. Hunter Biden signed an agreement acknowledging that if he left his device at John Paul McIsaac's repair shop in Delaware for more than 90 days, if he didn't pick it up, he would forfeit ownership of it.
He wrote that no one disputes that he did. And then Hunter Biden violated the contract that he signed. And he violated it because he was a crackhead who was having an affair with his sister-in-law, at least 3 of his employees and countless strippers and hookers while at the same time trying to execute an illicit business deals with the Chinese. So he just didn't have time to return for his laptops. That makes sense.
He was very busy. John Paul MacIsaac meanwhile, being the small business owner called Hunter Biden again and again and tried to give the laptop back. But Hunter Biden was so busy, he ignored John Paul MacIsaac. Watch.
Speaker 3: He sort of disappears on you. So he disappears and never comes for that external hard drive that now maintains the data.
Speaker 4: So now I'm in possession of his laptop, a backup of his laptop's home folder on an external drive that he provided, and no sign of Hunter. I think I called him again the following weekend or right before the end of the month. I always call customers at the end of the month to collect on out of, delinquent bills. And then, I think I called him a couple more times over the next month after that. So just no response.
Speaker 0: Kept calling him. Kept calling him. He was smoking too much crack with too many hunkers. He didn't call me back. That was John Paul McIsaac's explanation.
So it's kind of hard to blame John Paul McIsaac for this. He tried his best to return the laptop. And yet they are blaming him. In fact, Hunter Biden is demanding the Delaware attorney general Kathy Jennings put that guy John Paul McIsaac in jail for what he did. On what grounds?
Hunter Biden is the president's son. If he smokes too much crack to follow the terms of the contract he signed, that's not his problem. It's yours. Now in a normal country, a normal prosecutor would laugh at an argument like that, But Hunter Biden is betting that Delaware attorney general, Kathy Jennings, will take that argument very seriously, and he has reason to believe that she will. Because Kathy Jennings is not just the attorney general.
She is a long time party hack audio log who can be counted on to faithfully do the bidding of Democratic leaders and donors. And even better even better than that, Kathy Jennings is a longtime friend of the Biden family. In fact, she once worked for Hunter Biden's brother, Beau Biden, and she works worships his father, Joe. We're not guessing. Here's a Facebook post from the now attorney general of Delaware, Kathy Jennings, dated April 25, 2019.
We're quoting. I've known Joe Jill and the Biden family for most of my life. Joe is one of the kindest most genuine people I've ever known. Democrats are blessed with many excellent candidates this year and I am proud of those choices and what they say about our party. I'm choosing Joe because nobody understands more what it means to heal And right now, that's what America needs.
Well, right now, the Biden family needs something very different. And Kathy Jennings may be willing to provide it. Again, this is the person that Hunter Biden's lawyers are calling on to send John Paul McIsaac to jail, and she very well may send him there. Doesn't seem like a fair fight, really. So here you have John Paul McIsaac, a small business owner who lives in a small corrupt state controlled by the Biden family.
He's the peasant in this scenario. And then you have Hunter Biden is the princeling. So with no obvious means of support, Hunter Biden has been living in a $20,000 a month
@CitizenFreePres - Citizen Free Press
Tucker Carlson on Twitter Ep. 5 just dropped. https://t.co/kNcFibO4NA
Video Transcript AI Summary
Tucker Carlson discusses the House Oversight Committee's investigation into the Biden family's financial dealings, revealing potential criminal behavior linked to Joe and Hunter Biden. Despite the White House's claims of separation between their business dealings, evidence suggests otherwise, including shared bank accounts and cash kickbacks. Following the investigation's findings, which indicated over $10 million received from foreign nationals, Hunter Biden pleaded guilty to minor charges, avoiding serious consequences. Carlson critiques the Justice Department's selective enforcement of laws, particularly regarding foreign agent registration, highlighting Hunter's past influence peddling. He questions Hunter's current livelihood, noting his art sales and book deals, which seem to serve more as financial cover than genuine success. Ultimately, Carlson argues that the Biden administration exemplifies a troubling inversion of societal values, where traditional virtues are dismissed in favor of self-serving narratives.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Hey. It's Tucker Carlson. This spring, word began to circulate in Washington that the house oversight committee under its new chairman, congressman Jamie Comer, had discovered criminal behavior after reviewing thousands of pages of the Biden family's bank records. Now publicly, to the extent they responded at all, the White House dismissed the investigation as, of course, politically motivated. In any case, irrelevant.
Hunter Biden was an adult, so his business dealings had nothing at all to do with his father, in this case, the president of the United States. But in private, everybody understood it wasn't quite that simple. There has long been overwhelming evidence that Joe and Hunter Biden's financial lives are not separate at all, but deeply intertwined. On a Hunter Biden's laptop, there's a suggestion the 2 of them even at one point shared a bank account. And, of course, Hunter Biden wrote himself that he kicked back cash from his foreign business deals to his father.
He wrote that bitterly. So the Oversight Committee's investigation was potentially a disaster for the White House, a scandal, possibly even the prelude to criminal charges. So in order to get ahead of all of that, Joe Biden's handlers did the one thing they could do. They set up an MSNBC interview to preemptively whitewash whatever Jamie Comer might find. Here's the results of that.
This aired on May 5th.
Speaker 1: Sir, there is something personal that's affecting you. Your son, while there's no ties to you, could be charged by your department of justice. How will that impact your presidency?
Speaker 2: First of all, my son has done nothing wrong. I trust him. I have faith in him, and it impacts my presidency by making me feel proud of him.
Speaker 0: Okay. Time for the master class for free. You can audit it. Here it goes. Sir, showing appropriate respect says the shill, there is something personal that's affecting you.
Note the wording. Personal, not of public concern. Nothing law enforcement might be interested in, but personal, a sad family tragedy. That's the framing. And then this, a sentence choreographed to the letter.
Your son, while there's no ties to you, could be charged by your Department of Justice. Got that? Well, there's no tie to you. So the answer is in fact in the question, whatever Hunter Biden goes down for, and we know he is gonna be charged because MSNBC said so. But when that happens, that's Hunter's problem.
It's got nothing to do with Joe Biden. Rest easy, America. 5 days later, the oversight committee released its findings and they were in fact devastating. Quote, bank records show the Biden family, their business associates, and their companies, their many companies, received over $10,000,000 from foreign nationals and their related companies, the committee wrote. Investigators had, quote, identified payments to Biden family members from foreign companies while Joe Biden served as vice president and after he left public office.
So actually there was something there. It was a scandal. Racketeering, money laundering, wire fraud, those are some of the crimes the Biden seemed to have committed in addition, of course, to selling out the United States for cash. So what would happen to them? Well, Donald Trump had an idea.
Quote, they'll hit Hunter with something small to make their strike on me look fair. Trump wrote that about 2 weeks ago, and it turned out those were prescient words. This morning, Hunter Biden pleaded guilty to pretty much nothing. Biden plead to 2 misdemeanor tax evasion charges then entered a diversion on a federal gun charge. That's it.
As far as Merrick Garland's justice department is concerned, Hunter Biden is done. There was no predawn raid carried live simultaneously on CNN. There was no perp walk, no handcuffs, no press conference. Above all, there was no felony. Hunter Biden who broke federal gun laws can still carry a gun.
It's like it all never happened. In fact, the Justice Department just baptized Hunter Biden. A lifetime of sins washed away in an instant. It was a secular miracle. Most miraculous of all, Hunter Biden somehow escaped a FARA charge.
FARA is the foreign agent registration act and it is exactly what its name suggests. Under federal law, if you are acting as an agent of a foreign nation in Washington, you are required to register with our government to let everybody know. Well, for decades, pretty much nobody in Washington did register under FARA and precisely no one was ever prosecuted for it. No one. But starting several years ago, the Justice Department began sending people to prison on FARA violations.
The official explanation was we're cracking down on foreign influence in Washington. And, of course, privately, everyone in Washington laughed. They knew that was absurd. In fact, it's the opposite of the truth. Foreign powers have never had more power in Washington.
Their agents are everywhere in every federal agency and throughout business, down to and including in executive positions at various social media companies. The Biden administration knows all of this, and it's not a problem. In fact, it's their policy. From the administration's perspective, the concerns and the demands of, say, the Chinese government or particularly the Ukrainian government are far more important than the needs of American voters. We're cracking down on foreign influence, please.
The point, the only point of enforcing FARA after decades of ignoring it, is to harass and imprison high profile political opponents. Trump donor Elliot Broidy pled to a FARA violation a few years ago, So did Trump campaign manager famously Paul Manafort. He went to prison. Last year, the DOJ went after Trump confidant Steve Wynn under FARA. But in the end, the Biden administration overreached so comically that the whole thing was thrown out by a judge, but they tried.
So as long as they're trying, if it was a fair system, Hunter Biden would be first on the list of those next to be charged with a FARA violation. In fact, many of them. Hunter Biden was a foreign agent. He never registered as one. But for years, that's exactly what he was.
He sold access to his father and other lawmakers to the Chinese and the Ukrainians and countries throughout the world. There's no debate about that. The FBI has known about it for years. For years, they've had possession of Hunter Biden's laptop, but they didn't charge him for it today. They never will.
Why? Well, you know the answer. Hunter Biden has good genes. A more interesting question, though, which is another question the feds will never consider, is what does Hunter Biden do for a living now? This is a man with no obvious job and, of course, zero skills.
He spent midlife smoking crack. Yet somehow, he's managed to live pretty well despite rising inflation. He's been living in big houses in the costliest residential neighborhoods in the world. He's been paying a stripper baby mama 20 grand a month in child support, and he has retained a team of the most expensive lawyers in the country who spend quite a bit of time sending threatening letters to anyone who asks questions about how they're being paid. We can confirm that firsthand.
So, again, what does Hunter Biden do for work? That's a fair question. And so then we have the answer. For years, Hunter Biden was an influence peddler. Now Hunter Biden is a self actualizer.
He self actualizes for a living. He gets in touch with himself, his feelings, and he follows his muse. Here he is explaining his new vacate vocation in a 2019 ABC News interview.
Speaker 3: This is new? Yeah. Studio. Yeah. But now he's opening the doors to a place never captured by a paparazzi's lens.
His refuge, an art studio where he finds solace in painting. What's the goal eventually? No no goal. That's the perfect part about it. It's just it literally keeps me sane.
Speaker 0: His refuge, far from the paparazzi's lens. In other words, we're not the paparazzi. We're ABC News. What's the goal of this? Your refuge.
There's no goal, he says, grinning with those fake teeth. It just keeps me sane. But, actually, there was a goal. And if you didn't know what a virtuous person Hunter Biden was, you might think it looked a lot like money laundering. 2 years after that interview, Hunter Biden was selling prints of his art.
And to be clear, just the prints, not the quote art itself, but effectively photocopies of it for $75,000 a pop. Apparently, Hunter Biden moved 5 of these repros in just days. That's $375,000 in less than a week for signing copies of your fake art. As for the paintings themselves, childish self indulgent blots, those sold for half a $1,000,000 a piece. So the question is who bought them and why?
It'd be interesting to know. There's a story there for sure, but, of course, we have no right to know. There's no public policy implication. It's not like Hunter Biden's finances have anything to do with his father's finances. Meanwhile, once his father did become president, corporate publisher Simon and Shuster lined up as well to pay Hunter Biden's bills.
According to news reports, Simon and Shuster gave Hunter Biden 1,000,000 of dollars for his highly selective account of his wholly unaccomplished life. And then the publisher lined up brainless celebrity endorsers like Dave Eggers and Stephen King to promote it. King who apparently will say anything if it helps the party called Hunter Biden's silly manuscript a quote harrowing and compulsively readable memoir, And then Stephen King described Hunter Biden himself as beautiful. Needless to say, the book sold miserably, but Hunter Biden got to keep the 1,000,000, and that was the point and so on. This kind of thing apparently happened a lot.
Again, there seems to be a story here, and we think it's probably worth learning a lot more about it and bringing it to you. In the coming weeks, we will. In the meantime, though, the question is what can we learn from Hunter Biden's plea deal today? First off, the obvious. For the children of the people in charge, there are no penalties.
There are only upsides. They're princelings. They can do what they want. You are not. Therefore, you can't.
So don't get any ideas about cheating on your taxes or violating federal gun laws unless you wanna celebrate next year's Father's Day through the glass in the visitors room. The rules definitely apply to you, including rules you don't yet know exist. But there's also a deeper lesson here, a more disturbing one. What we're watching through Hunter Biden's life and through the Biden administration now entering its 3rd year is the total inversion of virtue. What was once considered admirable is now derided as stupid, if not racist.
That would include achievement, intelligence, honesty, self control, humility. Those are features of the old America. Those were yesterday's virtues. They are gone. In their place, all that we once considered contemptible and repulsive were told to worship that now.
Here's a small example, but we think a revealing one. In addition to his many other sins, Joe Biden has hired what has to be the single dumbest, nastiest, most dishonest, most ridiculous person he could possibly find for the very public position of White House press secretary. There's a point to it, of course. It was a humiliation exercise. It was designed to degrade the country and to spirit the rest of us.
That's the White House press secretary. Shut up. But here's the thing. The White House press secretary herself has no idea why she's in the job. She thinks she's amazing.
Here she is in a clip we just saw.
Speaker 4: A year in this role, there's been a couple of things that I that has made me incredibly proud. Many things many things that made me incredibly proud to be at that podium, during this historic moment. Again, this is a historic administration. I'm a historic figure, and I certainly walk in history every day. I'm a
Speaker 0: historic figure? Imagine saying that. I'm a historic figure but she does and she says it in a burst of sincere self congratulation marked by her signature bad grammar illiterate but proud. Of course, she's proud. Karine Jean Pierre is now a historic figure just like Hunter Biden is now an important artist.
He makes you feel stupid for going to work. Jean Pierre people say the news is full of lies. And Kennedy's motorcade. 139 people. The death of Jeffrey Epstein.
@CitizenFreePres - Citizen Free Press
Tucker Carlson: "If you can’t defend yourself, your family and your property, you have no rights." https://t.co/lDM92DdVp2
Video Transcript AI Summary
Liberal discussions about rights have shifted, often overlooking the fundamental right of self-defense, which is essential for protecting oneself, family, and property. Recent cases illustrate this concerning trend. In Missouri, a firefighter was killed by a felon's girlfriend after he intervened in a threat. The local DA chose not to press charges against the shooter, raising questions about political motivations. In Texas, a store clerk was charged with murder after shooting a violent man who threatened him with a knife. Similarly, George Allen Kelly, who shot an illegal migrant on his property, faces first-degree murder charges despite having no violent history. These cases suggest a troubling message: individuals may face severe consequences for defending themselves against violent threats.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: It used to be before liberals embraced authoritarianism that they would talk a lot about rights. You're right. My right. Everything was a right. A right to health care.
Miranda rights. You can debate whether those are rights or not. But if you're talking about rights, you at some point want to identify the most basic human right of all. What is that? Well, of course, it's the right of self defense.
That's the essential right upon which all other rights depend. If you can't defend yourself, you can't defend your family and your property. You don't have any rights at all. You're a slave by definition. So you may be wondering in this moment of creeping authoritarianism, how is the right to self defense doing in our country?
We could give some kind of long lecture, but instead how about some examples? Consider 2 shootings that took place at gas stations in the past year in the United States. The first shooting occurred around 2 PM on October 6th in the state of Missouri. A 23 year old felon called Javon Taylor, who had a long criminal record convictions for armed robbery, for example, began threatening a female clerk apparently because the gas station didn't carry the kind of cigars that he wanted. That's when an off duty fireman called Anthony Santi who was inside decided to step in.
He told Jayvon Taylor to leave the store. Well, in response to that, Taylor began threatening him and then ran toward his SUV outside. Santi followed him outside because he suspected that Jayvon Taylor would retrieve a gun from the car and that's exactly what he did. Jayvon Taylor pulled an illegal handgun with an extended magazine from his s SUV. Santee not wanting to get shot put Taylor in a headlock.
And that's when Jayvon Taylor handed the gun to his girlfriend and his girlfriend shot the unarmed fireman in the back killing him. It was an execution. It's not a close call. The footage is online. We're not gonna show it to you because it's awful, but if you have any doubt, you can watch it.
So there's no debate about what happened here. And yet, the local social justice DA, Jean Peters Baker refused to press charges against the person who killed the firefighter. Now, why? Well, there may have been a political component. We know that because online, BLM activists immediately celebrated the killing on racial grounds.
Jayvon Taylor was black. Anthony Santee was white. That was enough for them. They're glad he's dead. Now consider the second gas station shooting.
This one happened just before midnight, less than a month ago in Austin, Texas. An An armed man with a long criminal record called Marquis Demps walked into a shell station and became violent. Here's a report from the local Fox station describing what happened next.
Speaker 1: Customers who frequent the family owned Shell gas station on East MLK in Springdale can't say enough good things about 25 year old employee, Yacine Nas. They're stunned to hear Nas is charged with first degree murder after police say he shot and killed 42 year old Marquis Demps outside the store late Saturday night. According to court documents, Demps came into the store and caused a verbal disturbance that turned physical.
Speaker 2: That there was some type of altercation happening inside the store, and that's what started everything.
Speaker 1: Demps waving a knife at the workers, so Nas grabbed a gun, telling him to leave. Instead, Demps began trashing the store. Nas's father showing us the damaged merchandise and display cases, the credit card machine ripped out of the counter. As Demps left, Nas followed him into the parking lot and shot it multiple times through his car window.
Speaker 0: So a guy with a criminal record and a knife in his hand starts trashing your store and then runs outside to his car. You see Naz told police later that he shot Marquis Demps because he feared for his life. He thought the guy was gonna get a gun and come back and kill him. And that's a reasonable fear, of course, the Anthony Santis murder demonstrates that it is. But in this case, the DA, a Soros funded anti police political activist called Jose Garza, is pressing charges against the clerk.
He wants to see Naz, a man who's widely respected in his community, man who actually contributes to our society as you just heard. He's trying to send that man to prison for the rest of his life. So but these two cases together, consider them in tandem. What's the message? Well, the message is if a violent felon starts terrorizing people and you're still ripping your store apart on which you rely for your livelihood, you can't do anything.
If he goes back to his car to get a gun, you have to let it happen. So get shot or go to jail for the rest of your life. Those are your choices, which of course are not really choices at all. And these are not isolated cases that we cherry pick to make some clinical point. It's happening everywhere.
We saw it happen to Jose Alba last summer in New York. He's the bodega clerk. The prosecutors sent to Rikers Island on a murder charge because he fought back when a thug, another convicted felon attacked him with his girlfriend in the store. Now that charge was ultimately dropped after the public flipped out because it was so unfair, but Alba left this country for the Dominican Republic because he saw where things are going. Self defense, the cornerstone of all freedoms without which you cannot be free or owned, self defense is becoming illegal in effect in a lot of places.
And not just in very liberal places like New York City. Even in states with some of the strongest self defense laws on the books. Arizona, for example, allows residents to shoot trespassers on their property. So 73 year old George Allen Kelly lived right on the border. Now you may have heard that Joe Biden opened the border to 1,000,000 and 1,000,000 of people from other countries whose identities we don't know to just walk in.
So if you live on the border, this has changed your life completely and it scared you. So George Allen Kelly was one of those people lives on the border. He's seeing this firsthand. Now he is in jail tonight charged with first degree murder because he shot an illegal alien who trespassed onto his ranch in Keno Springs. That's less than 2 miles from the border.
This happened January 30th, just the other day. Now, we don't know the details of the altercation between the man in prison and the man he killed. But the man in prison has no record of killing anyone else. He's not a convicted felon. He does not have a violent history.
The man he killed was an illegal migrant called Gabriel Cohen Butima. And he was deported several times to the United States, but let back in. We're not attacking him, just noting him. That's true. So George Allen Kelly apparently felt threatened and shot that illegal migrant, but prosecutors did not give him the benefit of that.
They instantly charged him with first degree murder. So here he is, George Allen Kelly. This is the guy who according to Arizona authorities is a dangerous risk to public safety who must spend the rest of his life in prison. Assess, does he seem dangerous to you?
Speaker 3: I noticed coming in, your honor, my wife is in at present in the court. May I ask her to make an appointment for audiovisual conference and I've not been able to talk to her or anyone?
Speaker 2: So that's something that has to be discussed with the detention facility downstairs. So that conversation would have to be had with them, sir. Okay. So if your wife wants to have communication with you, she can go to the sheriff's office and they can go ahead and make the proper accommodation that they need to make.
Speaker 3: I appreciate you giving that instruction.
Speaker 0: This is an elderly man who can barely walk, who's never been convicted of a violent crime, and he's being treated like a child by some disembodied voice from some fascist. That's that's what you just saw. Now the judge in this case is called Emilio Velasquez. Now who's Emilio Velasquez? He's a judge.
He doesn't know a law degree. He he's not a lawyer and yet he's a judge. He's an elected politician and he is allowing the prosecution of an American citizen who exercise his rights under Arizona law and his most basic human right which is if someone comes on to your property and you feel threatened by it, you have a right to defend yourself by force. Period.