TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @TPostMillennial
@TPostMillennial - The Post Millennial
Video emerges of would-be Trump assassin Thomas Matthew Crooks performing dry-firing handgun drills. https://t.co/2VuxEt31S3
@TPostMillennial - The Post Millennial
Jack Posobiec speaks to CNN about Charlie Kirk's legacy and the problem of political violence. https://t.co/sc3JK0rtym
Video Transcript AI Summary
"Just because you see an influencer online, just because you get mad at something they said in a ten second clip, that doesn't mean that you have to go and pick up a rifle and shoot them." The Charlie Kirk show continued Friday without him, with Jack Pesovic occupying the chair as a tribute. Dostoevik is a leading voice in right wing media where some peers were quick to call Kirk's assassination an act of war. "Charlie Kirk's a casualty of war." "Are we facing a civil war?" "Well, there's no question that we're clearly facing asymmetric civil warfare. One of the key aspects of that is political assassinations." "That being said, the idea that we're going to a classic civil war scenario, I hope and I pray that that doesn't happen." The governor described the suspect's family dinner; the family member stated Kirk was full of hate and spreading hate. "I mean, it's from that person's perspective. Charlie Kirk represented everything they hated. He loved debate." Now turning point and the conservative right have to figure out where their movement goes from.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Just because you see an influencer online, just because you get mad at something they said in a ten second clip, that doesn't mean that you have to go and pick up a rifle and shoot them.
Speaker 1: Charlie Kirk's podcast continued on Friday without him.
Speaker 0: Alright. Well, welcome back to the Charlie Kirk show. We're remembering our friend, Charlie Kirk.
Speaker 1: His friend and Turning Point contributor, Jack Pesovic, sat in his studio, leaving Kirk's chair open as a tribute.
Speaker 0: I think the worst possible way to remember Charlie would be if to turn these lights off, that this is his life's work.
Speaker 1: How do you fill this void?
Speaker 0: Look. Everybody's gotta step up, and there's there's no replacement for Charlie Kirk. What's that? Get the shot.
Speaker 1: Dostoevik is a leading voice in right wing media where some of his peers were quick to call Kirk's assassination an act of war.
Speaker 0: Right. Charlie Kirk's a casualty of war.
Speaker 1: Do you think we're at war
Speaker 0: My friend's in a box right now, and it wasn't an accident.
Speaker 1: Are we facing a civil war?
Speaker 0: Well, there's no question that we're clearly facing asymmetric civil warfare. One of the key aspects of that is political assassinations. That being said, the idea that we're going to a, you know, classic civil war scenario, I I hope and I pray that that doesn't happen.
Speaker 1: Do you feel any responsibility to help bring the temperature down in this political discourse?
Speaker 0: I want people to be safe. But if you're someone who is part of a group that is fanning the flames of violence, that is encouraging this or celebrating this, then that's absolutely something that we have to tamp down a 100%.
Speaker 1: The governor this morning was describing the suspect having this family dinner. This is what the governor said. The family member also stated Kirk was full of hate and spreading hate. I
Speaker 0: mean, it's from that person's perspective. Charlie Kirk represented everything they hated. He loved debate. He loved just talking things out. It's what he lived for.
It's what he died doing. And this idea that, you know, Charlie is the one spreading this. No. It's he's got it completely backwards.
Speaker 1: Now turning point and the conservative right have to figure out where their movement goes from
@TPostMillennial - The Post Millennial
Source @CNN
@TPostMillennial - The Post Millennial
Video posted to Facebook alleging this was the start of the altercation in Cincinnati on July 26th that left two people seriously injured https://t.co/X9gklLojn4
@TPostMillennial - The Post Millennial
Dan Bongino @dbongino offers a heartfelt thank you to @elonmusk, and says that "he has done a service to this country" by buying Twitter and exposing censorship and collusion within the company. https://t.co/QAk6knjnlQ
Video Transcript AI Summary
Elon Musk stated the media is complicit and lied to the American public, spending minimal time on the story of election interference. He admitted Twitter acted as a propaganda arm of the Democratic party. Congress should demand transparency from Meta, Facebook, Google, Apple, and YouTube.
Regardless of the financial outcome for Musk, he has done a service to the country by exposing how big tech will operate moving forward. The press colluded to interfere in the 2020 election, particularly regarding the Hunter Biden story. This was malfeasance, active collusion between the FBI, DHS, DNI, FEC, Twitter, and big tech, to steal the country. Republicans in Congress need to act.
To win future elections, Republicans need open platforms like Twitter and Facebook, not just Fox News. There is relentless targeting, including Facebook fact-checking, Google banning, YouTube banning, and Twitter shadow banning.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Let's go back to Elon Musk, and let's go back to his words here. And he said the media is complicit, and they were lying to the American public. They spent a total of seven seconds this weekend on the Sunday programs talking about this huge, story that broke last Friday, or Elon Musk himself saying, if you shut down dissenting voices, it is by its very definition election interference. He even admitted that the that Twitter was acting as the propaganda arm of the Democratic party in this election. Election interference.
Now we're not even including Meta or Facebook or Zuckerberg. We're not including Google. We're not including Apple. We're not including YouTube. And I think that congress needs to demand that they become as transparent as as Elon Musk has become here, and I give him a lot of credit for this.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Listen. To Elon Musk, I don't know if you're watching or not, but, if you see it later, just a heartfelt thank you. You know, I I I was talking to our good friend Mark Levin before and his great radio show.
Speaker 2: And Mark said the same thing. Regardless yeah. Thank you, Ray. You know, Sean, regardless of what happened By
Speaker 0: the way, I look forward. Dan, you gotta love Mark. He's the best guest. He's the only one that tells you, That's it. I'm done.
Go ahead. I I know he hired
Speaker 2: a well, when he's when you're when you're called the great one,
Speaker 1: you can do that kind of stuff. That's why.
Speaker 2: You know? Defer to Mark. But with Elon Musk, you know, well, regardless of what happens, he may lose legitimately may lose billions of dollars on this acquisition. I don't think he will. I think he's a creative guy, and I think he's gonna build this thing out to be something special.
But he has done a service to this country. He he has literally, not figuratively, changed the history of, I think, how big tech is gonna operate moving forward. He's exposed one key point. I want the audience to understand this. That what the press did to collude and interfere in and potentially fleece the twenty twenty election away from Donald Trump based on the pay based on solid data, a polling taken afterwards about how people would have voted if they would have known about the Hunter Biden story.
We're not getting into any other stuff. I'm talking strictly about that. The media intentionally did that, Sean. This is my point. This wasn't misfeasance.
Right? Misfeasance is different. You see someone trip on the sidewalk in front of you. You don't help them. That's misfeasance.
That's not what this was. This was malfeasance. A guy trips on the sidewalk in front of you, and you kick him in the teeth as he's getting up. They did this on purpose. This was active collusion between the FBI, people in the DHS, the DNI, people at the FEC who'd heard about this stuff, Twitter and big tech to steal away your country.
And you know what? Listen to me, folks. They did it. And Elon Musk is trying to help you get it back to the Republicans in congress who now are about to take over in January. You better grow some moose nuts, and you better do something about this, or we're not gonna have a damn country left.
This is the public square. I love Fox News, and I love working here. But, Sean, even though we have the biggest shows in prime time, it's still just a small population of America. We cannot win an election in the future with just Fox News. You need Twitter to be open.
You need Facebook to be open. You need these other platforms. It's why I put my money behind these other things too because like you said, I'm trying to build this parallel economy out. Maybe that's why I'm public enemy number one to these guys, Sean. I don't know.
But I'm telling you, I promise the audience, don't whine about it every day on my show because I'm not a snowflake. You have no idea what goes on behind the scenes. With Facebook fact checking my page over nonsense, Google banning us, YouTube banning us, Twitter shadow banning us, this it's relentless. It never stops. They have put a target on my back for a long time now.
Speaker 0: And that it's because you're effective. That's why. I got off this platform myself. My my staff uses it because I just got sick of it. Dan Bongino, thank you, and we appreciate you joining us.
Alright.
@TPostMillennial - The Post Millennial
Dan Bongino asks "Are the Democrats purposely destroying the country, or are they just dumb?" https://t.co/9GhdM3006C
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker claims Democrats are purposely destroying the country by separating people from the dignity of work and creating chaos. They highlight three policies: welfare programs that disincentivize work, failing public schools, and minimum wage laws. Referencing Thomas Sowell, the speaker argues these policies create a "recipe for poverty."
The speaker criticizes Democrats for giving money away for having children and pushing for a $15 minimum wage, arguing these actions rob people of opportunity. They also attack the creation of an income inequality committee led by figures like AOC and Bernie Sanders, calling them hypocritical.
The speaker accuses Democrats of fueling public chaos through a war against the police, pointing to rising crime rates in liberal cities. They refute claims that gun violence is the primary cause, citing the FBI and Ronald Reagan to argue that criminals disregard gun control laws. The speaker concludes that Democrats are aware of the consequences of their actions and are intentionally undermining the country.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Are the Democrats purposely destroying the country, or are they just dumb? Well, they're not dumb. Let me answer that question for you right now. They know exactly what they're doing. And what do I mean by that?
Are they purposely trying to destroy the country? Well, if you had a battle plan to destroy the country, one of the first things I would do is separate people from the dignity of work. I mean, no work, no products, no medicine, no food, no nothing. Another thing I do is I'd cause chaos in the streets by doing everything you could to make sure public safety was in jeopardy and people had to rely on the government for everything because they were in fear. The Democrats know that these things they're doing right now have been tried to the in the past and have led to these two conditions, chaos in the streets and economic chaos everywhere, and yet they're doing them anyway.
It's not like we weren't warned. I want you to watch this clip from one of the greatest minds of our time, Thomas Sowell, decades ago, warning what destroyed the inner cities and the wealth and prosperity of minorities. This would remember, keep this in mind. This was decades ago. Listen to this.
Speaker 1: They've made it difficult to get jobs to get started in the job market. Minimum wage law would be one of those things, but only one. The terrible schooling would be major factor. That if you're trying to turn out kids who are 40% functionally illiterate upon graduation from high school, then you're gonna have very serious problems in the job market. They're doing many things to make it much tougher for the person at the bottom to get started, and they're also making it, less necessary to get started by having various subsidy programs, food stamps, welfare, and so on, which reduce the difference between working and not working.
So that the the general tendency of what they're doing is to make it harder to rise.
Speaker 0: This is the recipe is right there. If you had a recipe for poverty to decimate this country from the inside out, Thomas Sowell decades ago just said it. Create a wage floor so people can't get skills to get in the job market through minimum wage. They'll never get a job. You know what the minimum wage is?
The real minimum wage? Zero. Make sure the public schools are terrible so people can't get any skills to get actual jobs and then pay people welfare to not work. There's your recipe right there decades ago, and they're doing it again, the Democrats. Again, I asked you in the beginning, are they dumb or are they trying to destroy the country?
They're not dumb. Democrats giving money away for doing nothing except having kids. Didn't we try this before? And where are the Republicans standing up against this stuff and standing up boldly for the dignity of work, Separating people from the dignity of work and giving them money to not work is not just non compassionate, it's evil. You are robbing them of everything, every opportunity they ever had and they're ever gonna have.
But here's the Democrats doing it all over again, the same thing Thomas Sowell warned about. Here's a headline in the Washington Post. Child cash benefit will be hitting millions of parents' bank accounts this coming July 15. Get a load of this one. The IRS on July 15 will start delivering a monthly payment of 300 per child under six and $250 per child six or older for the rest of the year without any action required, robbing people of the dignity of work.
They're at it with schools too. You know, we could have school choice where parents could actually pick good quality schools, but Democrats don't want that. They want crap schools, and they wanna make sure the doors are locked in those crap schools so you can't get out of Look at this headline for economic education. New national report card shows public schools are failing in one huge way. They're failing in a lot of really huge ways.
Well, what's the third way? The third leg of this stool of poverty that Thomas Sowell warned about. Wage floors, minimum wage, creating a floor. A minimum wage so that people who don't have those kind of skills and can't earn $15 an hour will never get a job at all because the real minimum wage is nothing. It's no job.
Zero. Here's a headline from the AP. Biden and the Democrats hit the gas in their push for $15 an hour minimum wage. Folks, if your skills aren't enough, the the skills you had to earn a company $15 an hour, they are not gonna hire you and lose money. Is this hard?
Is this math complicated? Again, these people aren't stupid, the Democrats. They know that math. So why do it? Why keep people out of the workforce?
Because that's what that is. Where are the Republicans out there up in the Capitol Hill swamp speaking the truth? It's not compassion to separate people from the dignity of work. Not only are they doing these things again they've been warned about, they're funding an income inequality committee to discover what they already know. Income inequality is being caused by the Democrats and their silly policies.
Then you know what? They're destructive policies. I wish they were just silly. Here's a headline. Nancy Pelosi taps AOC and Himes for a new house inequality committee.
Himes is worth a lot of money out here. AOC drives a really nice Tesla. I'm wondering why does she need a Tesla? Someone get her a Ford Pinto. She can donate her Tesla to someone else.
Why does she need that's a really nice car. Why does she need that? She's a socialist. You don't like income inequality? You drive a super nice car.
Be equal. Go get yourself a Pinto. Give your Tesla to someone else. And by the way, who is the monarch of the income inequality cause? Our friend Bernie Sanders, and I use that term friend loosely.
Here's a headline from Politico about Bernie Sanders, champion of the little guy, by the way. Yeah. The secret of Bernie's millions. Notice it doesn't say the secret of Bernie's hundreds or the secret of Bernie's thousands or even 100. It says the secret of Bernie's millions.
This guy's a fraud, and he's telling lecturing us about income inequality? Why doesn't he give some of his millions away? And I'm tired of everyone co opting their language too. The Democrats keep discussing things like the income income distribution in The United States. Income distribution.
There's an income distribution center. Where is it? You know what the income distribution center is in the country? A job. A job.
A JOB. That's the income distribution center. You want income distributed? Go get a job. Go get a job.
And the Republicans have to get on the right side of this stat. There's no compassion in separating people from the dignity of work. None. There is nothing dignified about paying people to sit on their butts and then pretending it's compassionate to do so. Listen.
Nobody's hero here, and I'm not trying to be. I'm just a guy who's been blessed to have this microphone. But I mopped a lot of floors in my life. I cleaned a lot of toilet bowls. I cleaned a lot of mausoleums while working in the cemetery.
Wasn't easy to do that, but it was dignified, and I was proud of it. And when they told me to mop that damn floor in Aisle 4 in Key Food, I moped that damn floor, and it was the cleanest floor in that supermarket, and I was proud of it because all work is dignified. It allows you to add value to this society, to earn your keep, and not to live off the by the well, the, the hard work of others. You know, my daughter, she doesn't have to work right now, but she does. She scoops ice cream, not because she has to, but because she needs to.
Because work is dignified, and separating people from the dignity of work is not just non compassion. It's evil. And as I mentioned in the beginning, the Democrats know what they do what they were doing, separating people from the dignity of work. They know it, and they don't care. They are destroying this country.
They are now the party of anti work, and it's not only that. They wanna cause public chaos too. Their war against the police is out of control. We have street chaos everywhere. Crime is erupting in liberal cities all over this country right now.
Folks, again, it's not that the Democrats don't know what works. I was there in New York City. I was a police officer under former mayor Rudy Giuliani when we implemented broken windows policing, when we locked up people for the small crimes so they didn't go later and kill or murder or rape someone, God forbid, in the bigger crimes. I saw it. I was there.
They know what works, and they don't care. Here's Joe Biden on his solution for the current crime wave in liberal cities across America. Check this out.
Speaker 2: The gun lobby wants you to believe that cities that are the toughest gun had the toughest gun laws still have the highest rates of gun violence. Don't believe it.
Speaker 0: So it's the gun lobby? The gun lobby did it. And cities that are run by liberals aren't the cities with the highest crime? Really? Well, you don't have to believe the gun lobby.
You can believe the FBI, where the top cities for violent crime in the country are run by, yeah, that's right, liberals. It was Ronald Reagan at the NRA convention in 1983. Check this out.
Speaker 3: You pointed out that police would be so busy arresting handgun owners that they would be unable to protect the people against criminals. It's a nasty truth, but those who seek to inflict harm are not phased by gun control laws. I happen to know this from personal experience.
Speaker 0: Folks, the Democrats don't care anymore. They know criminals don't give a damn about gun laws. That's why they're criminals. They don't care. Here's Jen Psaki blaming the guns, again, not the people, for the rise in crime.
Check this out.
Speaker 4: There's been actually a rise in crime over the last five years, but really the last eighteen months. The president feels a lot a great deal
Speaker 5: of the crime we're seeing as a result of gun violence.
Speaker 0: They've been warned. They know exactly what they're doing. They know it'll fail, and they're doing it again. And it's up to us to stop it.
@TPostMillennial - The Post Millennial
Dan Bongino @dbongino rips into the Biden admin's push for electric vehicles. https://t.co/5wzFZpLqvQ
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker claims electric cars are a "con," citing John Kerry's private jet usage. A Jay Leno clip with Joe Biden was filmed at the Secret Service Training Center, where the speaker used to work, suggesting the whole thing is a "schtick."
According to an op-ed, there's only enough battery power to power the world for 75 seconds. The speaker analogizes this to a hospital patient on life support. By 2030, the plan is to have enough battery power for only eleven minutes. The speaker believes "liberals" are asking for a solution that doesn't exist. The other speaker agrees, stating that the plan is not well thought out.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Dan, I don't even know anybody with an electric car. The only people I saw with an electric car, they're worth, like, $25,000,000, and it's their fourth car. Do you know anybody like that?
Speaker 1: No. I don't have one. But, you know, they could be helpful, like, down here in Florida if there's, like, a hurricane or something that tends to be lines at the gas station. So if my wife wanted to take the kid to school and they have a spare $100,000, it's like a big glorified golf cart. But let me show you what you had that little graphic on the screen there about the con.
This is all a con. You got John Kerry, the climate czar, zipping around the world in a private jet, basically pissing out carbon dioxide all over The United States and the world all over the place because that's what they do. But something happened in that video. I bet you didn't even know. You see that Jay Leno clip with Joe Biden there?
You wanna see how much of a con this is? I'm gonna let you in a little secret. I noticed watching this. I was watching you know, I watch the show as I'm doing. I watch a I'm a guest, but I'm still checking it out.
Right. Because I like your show. I go to bed at, eight, and sometimes the last thing I see. That Joe Biden Jay Lenno clip was at the Secret Service Training Center. That look.
Oh, look at the background. That's the Secret Service I was a transportation section instructor. That's the driving pad. That whole thing's a schtick too. Look.
Thank you, producers. That that's the that's the James J. Rowley Training Center. Yep. That those are the secret service training vehicles in the background.
I used to train people on myself. The whole thing's a scam. Now a couple more points on this scam, though, too, to put some meat on the bone. There's a Beyond Lumbbourg op ed in The Wall Street Journal about this green car scam and all this great did you read this? It's so good.
He says, listen. There's enough battery power in the world right now, Jesse. Battery power right now to power the world for guess how long. Take a stab at it. Here's the answer.
Seventy five seconds. Seventy five seconds. So think about this. Because the liberals are really slow when they're watching the show. You wanna transition to a green future that doesn't exist.
You're going to the bullpen for the righty. There's no righty in the bullpen. So if I were to say to you, listen. Your your your girlfriend or wife, god forbid, is on life support in the hospital, gonna turn out the power to the hospital, but don't worry. We have enough battery power for seventy five seconds.
You'll be like, you're gonna kill her. That is exactly the Biden energy plan right now. You're going to a backup plan that doesn't exist.
Speaker 0: And and the plan is probably gonna take five centuries because if it took a year for them to spend point 01% of the trillion dollars that we gave them on four projects, sidewalks in New Hampshire? Is that what we were clamoring for in the infrastructure? They they put a they put a Chick fil A at Logan Airport in in Terminal E. They they fixed a dock and built a bridge, Dan. When are we getting to the real stuff?
Speaker 1: Well, the I'm a big fan of Chick fil A, so I may have to throw the red flag and go into the hood and review for that one. But the other ones, you're good with. The heated sidewalk in New Hampshire, hard pass. But here's the thing. No.
You're right. Like, even the plan they have for the future because you may say the Liberals watching your show foaming at the mouth and, you know, wetting their diapers right now. They're probably like, oh, Bongino's crazy. So what? We have 75 of battery power to power the world.
Right. We have a plan for the future. In that same op ed by Beyond Lundberg, he says that their plan says that by 2030 I just read it before I came on the air. By 2030, don't worry, Jesse. In eight years, we'll have enough battery power for eleven minutes.
Yes. So then we're really good. Yes. Yes. That's right.
We are all set, brother. Set. You it'll be eleven minutes of glory. You'll get a few trailers on Netflix before the whole power system goes out, and we're all in the dark dying. I have people I I mean, it's just it's so you can't talk sense into these people.
They are. Asking you to go get the righty out of the bullpen, and there's nobody in the freaking bullpen, dude. There's nobody there.
Speaker 0: And they're making it up as they go along. They haven't thought this through.
Speaker 1: It's it's it's it's
Speaker 0: pretty clear. Alright. Dan Bongino, I know it's getting to your bedtime, so I'm gonna say goodbye. Thanks for joining
Speaker 1: us as always.
Speaker 0: Got it. Out on the weekends.
@TPostMillennial - The Post Millennial
Dan Bongino @dbongino reacts to having been blacklisted by Twitter: "This is some Soviet-style bullsh*t right here." https://t.co/eQrLV4jgUx
Video Transcript AI Summary
Dan Bongino claims he's been shadow banned on Twitter and other platforms for being a conservative, calling it "Soviet style bullshit." He says people have told him they can't find his verified Twitter account, despite his uncommon last name. Bongino states he's been called a conspiracy theorist for raising these issues, as well as for his views on Spygate, the impeachment, and cloth masks. He says he's become public enemy number one despite committing no crimes, but because of his conservative views. Bongino alleges his website was banned by Google Ads without explanation, and he was banned by YouTube for suggesting cloth masks don't work. He accuses the media of ignoring the "mass shadow banning of conservatives" by big tech, which he calls the biggest story of our time.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Alright. You were the fourth tweet of the night. I wrote you immediately and said, can you come on? I'd love to get your response to this. Let let's first look at the big picture and then talk about what they did to you specifically.
Speaker 1: Well, let me give you the big picture first. This is some Soviet style bullshit right here. There's the big picture. You wanna hear it? There's unfiltered Dan Bongino.
This is you know, I've known this the whole time. Just so you know, it was called the conspiracy theory. I interact like you do with the audience on radio, my podcast, and the TV. They email me. They send us through the website.
I read their Facebook messages. Not all of them, obviously, but I tried to read a good chunk of them. I've been told forever. So weird. I can't find you on Twitter.
You're a check mark, whatever verified account. The Bongino is not a common last name. It's not Joe Brown or John Smith. How come you don't come up? And it's interesting.
When I spoke about this on my show and elsewhere, I was called a conspiracy theorist in a wacko. Just like I was called a conspiracy theorist over Spygate, over the impeachment hoax, over discussing the idea that cloth masks are not gonna protect you from COVID. Now let me give you the even bigger picture because I've become public enemy number one, not for crimes, Sean. I've committed no crimes. As a matter of fact, I investigated crimes and served this country doing so, both with the NYPD and the Secret Service.
But these d bags over at Twitter and elsewhere who've made me public enemy number one, this is just the beginning. You don't even know what's happened to me because I don't whine about it all day like whiny leftist snowflakes. My website's been banned by Google Ads for no describable reason whatsoever. I was banned by YouTube for suggesting that cloth masks don't work, which is now scientific fact. And now I find out I'm on a not safe for work shadow ban list on Twitter because I've committed the thought crime of being a conservative.
Please, audience, look me in the face and tell me now, all you media clowns and goons and nuts who told me I was the crazy conspiracy theorist, tell me we live in a free country where three of the largest social media platforms that are the new public space we can all talk in when an opinion guy like me cannot speak on these platforms or is restricted from doing so or banned in the case of YouTube, shadow banned in the case of Twitter. Tell me again how we live in a free country. You're the fourth estate. You're supposed to protect this stuff. You guys have a constitutional carve out, the freedom of the press.
It's literally written in the constitution. And what do you do? You ignored this story the entire time. It's the biggest story of our time, the mass shadow banning of conservatives going on in this country by this big tech consortium right now.
@TPostMillennial - The Post Millennial
Dan Bongino @dbongino says Democrats are so obsessed with Jan. 6 because "their politics really suck" so they have to run on slamming Republicans instead. https://t.co/RkR2oa560V
Video Transcript AI Summary
Criminals are released back onto the street, while January 6th participants haven't been charged with terrorism. Democrats run on the idea that Republicans are worse and hate specific groups, using identity politics and the January 6th event as a political weapon.
Republicans were initially ashamed after January 6th, but current issues like inflation, crime, and the border are too significant to ignore. Democrats aim to shame people into not voting Republican.
Polling data shows Republicans are ahead, and many House Democrats are not running for reelection because they anticipate losing. The January 6th issue is a distraction from Joe Biden's policies. A prediction is made that Nancy Pelosi will be next to leave.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: It's not just the summer riots. It's what's happening across the country every single day. The criminals get the kick in the doors, and they wanna reform their lives. They get the smash and grab. They get to murder people, and they get to be right back on the street.
But but when it comes to the people that happened on January 6, by the way, no one has been charged with terrorism. Can we talk about that? Yeah. Like like if you feel like these all these people and they talk about text messages and all that type of stuff, colluding and all that, worst thing since 09/11, Charge the people. Charge them.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Lawrence, here's the problem here. The and and you're right about what you said, and there's a reason behind it, though.
And the reason is this. You know, we can all talk about this stuff, but when you understand the why, it all makes sense. Can never run on their stuff. Look. I shouldn't say Democrats.
Manchin may have a case in cinema. I'm not gonna agree with their politics, but you get the point. Liberals can't run on give us your money, give us your kids, give us your health care. Okay? Their politics really suck.
I mean, just being candid. So what do they run on? The Democrats always run on what they call the other guy theory. It's that the Republicans are even worse, and they're coming for you, and they hate you. It's why identity politics works for them.
That's why the January thing, that's why they need the attention on this, and they don't wanna highlight any of the problems that are going on in their liberal cities. Because what they're saying to America is this, you see this violence and all these violent people, all these crazy people, that's all those people on the right. Look. Even though our policies really suck, we'll protect you from them. It's the other guy theory.
The Democrats can never run on their stuff. They always run on the definitely stay away from those other guys because they really hate you because of fill in the bank blank. You're black, Hispanic, an immigrant, a single mom. It doesn't matter. And this is this January 6.
They think they have the they're on the top of the moral totem pole here, and they're gonna use it forever. It's a political weapon for 2022.
Speaker 0: You know, Dan, I'll wrap with this because it it worked for a period of time. A lot of Trump supporters, Republicans, they went into a corner after January 6 because they were ashamed of what happened. The media tried to connect the people that were at home and say, this is who you guys are, and so they were silent. But the country has gotten too far out of control. Inflation, crime, the border, everything that's impacted people, supply chain crisis.
I mean, you're not just gonna be able to, know, shame people into not showing up right now. And I think that's their their their their their intent right now. They don't want people to show up to the ballot box. They don't they want people to be ashamed to be a republican.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, it it's not gonna work. I mean, just look at the polling data. The polling data on the generic ballot has the Republicans up by huge, by huge numbers. I mean, Lauren, do you think Lawrence, do you think it's a a coincidence here that 25 house members on the Democrat side are not running again?
Wait. Do you think they had some revelation quick? Like, oh my gosh. This whole power thing in congress isn't my bag of dough. It's not my bag, baby.
Like, Austin Powers style? No. Oh, they love the power. They're leaving because they're gonna get their rumps kicked. That's why.
Nobody's buying it. You're right. It's the perfect distraction. Joe Biden's on step 11 of his 12 step plan to destroy America. They need a distraction, and and and this is their distraction du jour, and it'll it'll stay there.
Speaker 0: So true. And I predict shady Nancy is next. Just watch. Thanks, Dan.
Speaker 1: I hope so. See you, man.
Speaker 0: Good to talk to you, buddy.
@TPostMillennial - The Post Millennial
Dan Bongino @dbongino, Geraldo Rivera, and Sean Hannity argue about the Jan. 6 Committee's investigation: "Geraldo ... the backstabbing of the President you're engaging in is really disgusting." https://t.co/zGUHclsfSd
Video Transcript AI Summary
Dan Bongino calls the January 6th committee an "immoral, unethical, unconstitutional disgrace," accusing Liz Cheney of abusing subpoena power to release private texts in an attempt to silence conservatives before the 2022 election. Sean Hannity questions the committee's focus on January 6th while ignoring other riots, and asks why private citizens' texts are being released. Geraldo Rivera argues January 6th was unique because it was "unleashed, incited, and inspired by the president of The United States" and targeted American democracy. Hannity insists the president called for a "peaceful" march. Rivera reminds Hannity of his concern and frustration on January 6th, seeing an attack on democracy unfold. Bongino accuses Rivera of "backstabbing" Trump, while Rivera claims he supported Trump until he "abandoned the election results" and refused to accept the will of the American people.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Board. Here now, the host of unfiltered Dan Bongino, Fox News correspondent at large, Geraldo Rivera. Let's start with you, Dan You know, if if for both of you. If we're gonna have a committee, it's gotta be fair. They stack the deck.
They have a predetermined outcome. This is a waste of taxpayer time and money. Dan, you go first.
Speaker 1: Sean, this committee is an embarrassment. It's an immoral, unethical, unconstitutional disgrace to humanity. What Liz Cheney did last night was disgusting. Liz Cheney should never be welcomed in polite company in the Republican party again. What she did you know, she runs on dad's last name.
She's never had a serious job. She's disgraced herself. So she decided yesterday to go and read people's private text messages, pursuant to subpoena power they don't have in congress. Remember, supreme court's already ruled they're not a law enforcement entity. It's congress that's supposed to have some legislative intent.
Can I ask you this? What was the legislative intent to read Sean Hannity's text, Laura Ingram's text, and Brian Kilmeade's text text? What was the legislative intent? Can anybody answer that? This is one thing and one thing only.
This is an attempt to silence conservatives like you and I from communicating before the twenty twenty two election. That's all this is. And it's a message being sent to anyone who supports Donald Trump either now or in the future that it's open season on you. It's hunting season for your private communications. Don't you dare talk about your intentions or coordinate or do anything to get in a Republican elected again, cause Liz Cheney will make sure that they subpoena you and make your life really miserable.
That's all this was.
Speaker 0: This is the second time this has happened to me. Last time, it was about 1,200 of my personal correspondence private text. I thought we had privacy in the country. Geraldo, the big question here though is what is the point when you have an abusively corrupt bias committee like this, and how come they only investigate one riot and ignore 574 riots that hurt thousands of cops, caused billions of dollars in damage, and killed dozens of Americans. Can you explain why?
Speaker 2: Let me answer the second question first. Because the obvious difference between the riot that happened on January 6 and the 500 odd that you correctly cite as concerning and and and damaging to America, to our psyche, to our our our physical well-being is that this was a riot that was unleashed, incited, and inspired by the president of The United States which targeted Right. The part of American democracy.
Speaker 0: President didn't say no. You could That's opinion. The president said peacefully no. No. Stop.
The president said peacefully, patriotically march to the capital. That's your opinion. I don't even wanna go down that road. That's not the question tonight. The question is this corrupt committee.
The question is why this riot and not 574 other riots. The question is, is there any privacy in this country anymore, or do they get to release thousands more of individual private citizens' texts?
Speaker 2: I beg you, Sean, to remember the frame of mind you were in when you wrote that text on January 6, and when Laura did, and when Brian did and when Don Junior did, remember the concern you had. Remember the the frustration you had at our our beloved forty fifth president.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Because I
Speaker 2: wanted I wanted a riot to end. Doing this? Why doesn't he say something? Why okay. And he bet you wanted
Speaker 0: to see did.
Speaker 2: You saw unfolding before your he saw unfolding before your very eyes and attack on democracy.
Speaker 0: Let me give it to Dan.
Speaker 2: An attack on the constitution. An attack that he did not call for that. He said
Speaker 0: peacefully, and then he did do it. Dan, you have less than a minute. We're running out of time.
Speaker 1: Geraldo, we've been arguing about this forever. The backstabbing of the president you're engaging in is really disgusting, and it's really vile that you pretend
Speaker 2: to be this guy's friend. You continue to do this. I resent that. He supported Donald Trump. I supported Donald Trump.
Resent it. Until he said on ten
Speaker 1: Let me respond. Let me respond.
Speaker 2: He abandoned
Speaker 1: the election results, and he refused to march peacefully. He refused to accept will of the American people. You
Speaker 0: heard it. Nobody can hear you. You heard it. I gotta leave it there.
Speaker 1: And you stabbed them in the back. You heard
Speaker 0: it. Thank you. Thank you both. Straight ahead, the media had a complete meld
@TPostMillennial - The Post Millennial
Dan Bongino @dbongino reacts to Biden saying that "no one f*cks with a Biden": "Nobody screws with the Bidens besides Vladimir Putin, the Saudis, Xi Jinping ... who doesn't screw with Biden?" https://t.co/Z54xfGf0Fr
Video Transcript AI Summary
Dan Bongino says that Biden claiming no one "f's" with him suggests the opposite is true, pointing to instances where Vladimir Putin, the Saudis, and Xi Jinping have defied him. He also references Biden's claim that oil companies are "screwed."
Bongino questions how Biden has achieved political success despite past plagiarism accusations, a presidential loss, and his son's scandals. He suggests Biden was rescued politically multiple times: first by Barack Obama, then Jim Clyburn, and later by big tech companies suppressing negative stories about his son. Bongino also notes the FBI's apparent inability to find any crimes connected to Biden, despite his business partner's claims about Biden's involvement with the Chinese Communist Party. Speaker 2 adds that COVID-19 also contributed to Biden's success.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: No one messes with the big guy. Joe made that very clear today.
Speaker 1: I was I was no one about it.
Speaker 0: Dan Bongino is the host of unfiltered on Saturday night. No one f's with Biden, Dan.
Speaker 1: The Saudis just like Yeah. They gave this guy the double barreled family friendly middle finger That's true. In front of the whole universe. Nobody screws with the Bidens besides Vladimir Putin, the Saudis, Xi Jinping. Supposedly, Biden says the oil companies are screwed.
Yeah. Who doesn't screw with Biden? I love this guy. He's the fakest tough guy. Well, you know, listen.
I'm not gonna tell you, like, about me and mixed martial arts and crap like that. Whatever. Who cares? But I spend a lot of time around real badasses. I mean, real badasses, like guys who won one UFC titles and stuff like that.
And the one commonality is they don't tell you how nobody f's with them because nobody really f's with them. If you're saying nobody f's with me or a Biden, that probably means everybody f's with you. And let me just say too, I listen to your opening segment about Secret Service has no records on this in Delaware or whatever. And I'm thinking to myself, I wanna get your take up. I can just hijack your show.
Sure. Is this not the luckiest politician in human history? So he runs for office and he wins his seat in the Senate despite being being outed as a plagiarist and a liar repeatedly. Right. He runs for president, loses.
He gets rescued by Barack Obama from the scrap heap of political history, and he gets a he gets a vice presidential spot. He's getting destroyed when he runs for president. Jim Clyburn in South Carolina saves him from a political apocalypse and gets this guy in the White House. And then as he's running for election, his crack addicted son who likes to do like UFC fights with prostitutes, North South position stuff, whatever, on tape. On tape, It's on tape smoking crack.
The big tech companies come in, get the righty out of the bullpen. They take the relief pitcher, and they rescue this guy, and he magically finds himself sitting in the White House. And now all of a sudden, FBI's like, man, we can't seem to find a crime with this guy. You got his business partner on national television talking about him being a big guy cutting 10% from the Chinese Communist Party. I don't know.
We don't is it I'm serious. Is this not the luckiest guy you've ever
Speaker 2: man you forgot COVID nineteen. If it wasn't for COVID nineteen, it wouldn't have been closed, Stan.
Speaker 1: And also, let's go lost by five. Go
@TPostMillennial - The Post Millennial
Wanted Minnesota assassin allegedly had HIT LIST of 70 names https://t.co/H0ikHngxND
Video Transcript AI Summary
Police report a gunman killed Minnesota State Representative Melissa Hortman and her husband Mark at their home. The same gunman also shot Minnesota State Senator John Hoffman and his wife multiple times at their home. Governor Tim Walz calls the attacks a politically motivated assassination.
A car belonging to the suspect contained additional weapons, a large amount of ammunition, a Father's Day card, a manifesto, and a list of approximately 70 names. The list included Minnesota state legislators, other elected officials, mayors, medical clinics, abortion providers, pro-life advocates, and out-of-state individuals.
Police exchanged shots with the suspect in Brooklyn Park, Minnesota. The suspect, who was wearing a tactical vest, fled on foot, leaving the car and evidence behind. He may be wounded. A search is underway.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Where police say a gunman shot and killed Minnesota state representative Melissa Hortman and her husband Mark early this morning at their home. Police say the same gunman also shot Minnesota state senator John Hoffman and his wife multiple times at their home. Minnesota governor Tim Walz is calling the attacks a politically motivated assassination. Here's more of what he said earlier today.
Speaker 1: I assure you that those held, those responsible for this will be held accountable, and each and every one of us are committed to making sure that a tragedy like this never repeats itself in Minnesota or across this country.
Speaker 0: We have team coverage. Let's start with CNN chief law enforcement and intelligence analyst John Miller. What have you learned about this hit list that police say was found in the suspect's car? He's now on foot. He left the vehicle and possibly a lot of other valuable tools.
Speaker 2: Well, the car is a treasure trove of clues and potential clues, not just forensically, but things in plain sight. What we're told from law enforcement sources briefed on the investigation is that there are a cache of additional weapons inside that car indicating that the suspect was loaded for additional targets, possible confrontations with law enforcement or security, a large amount of ammunition in an ammunition bag. They found a Father's Day card presumably addressed to the suspect. But there is also this manifesto which lays out his issues. And on top of that, a very, very long list of names, approximately 70 names.
This includes numerous state legislators from Minnesota, but it also includes other elected officials, a couple of mayors. It includes other places in Minnesota, including medical clinics, abortion providers, pro life advocates, and it includes some locations and individuals from out of state. What does that tell us? It poses the question of what was the ultimate game plan? Was it to continue to get through this list, to go as far down with as many attacks or assassinations as possible until he was stopped by police?
What we know now is that at his location, he did his attack in the predawn hours of the morning in the darkness, that preemptively police went to the location where the nearest other, elected state official was and ran straight into the suspect. The Brooklyn Park Minnesota Police exchanged shots with the individual, which caused him to flee towards the house and then into the darkness, but that also made him leave that car, all of that evidence, and potentially part of his plan behind. Now with the idea that they exchanged gunfire, the fact that he was described as wearing a tactical vest, probably body armor, likely bullet resistant. He may be wounded, or the vest may have deflected that, but he is with whatever weapons he had on him without a vehicle and still theoretically on the move somewhere in that area that he could have gotten by foot or perhaps called, an associate or a friend to pick him up. So that hunt is still extraordinarily intense.
Speaker 0: Yeah. It really is indeed, very intense. Alright. John, thanks
@TPostMillennial - The Post Millennial
Sen. Cory Booker: “If you can make Alex Padilla forcibly kneel before this executive, when does it stop?” https://t.co/rRklu312Sx
Video Transcript AI Summary
A United States senator, the son of Mexican immigrants, was violently driven to his knees for being disrespectful. This should offend the conscience of the country. If Senator Alex Padilla can be forcibly made to kneel before the executive, when does it stop?
What does this say to other Americans who want to speak up, exercise their constitutional duty, or peacefully protest? What does it say to other Americans from humble backgrounds who know poverty? If a United States senator can be violently handcuffed after identifying himself, what message does it send?
Every member of the body should object to this treatment, regardless of political affiliation. Driving a man to his knees in the United States of America is wrong. This is a test and a crossroads that will define the character of this body.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And this son of Mexican immigrants who clean homes and serve food, this man with equal dignity in this body, today was driven violently to his kneels knees as if made to kneel before the authority of the executive because he was so called disrespectful. That should offend the consciousness not just of the other 99 members of this body. It should defend offend the conscience of this country. Because if you could make Alex Padilla forcibly be kneel before this executive, when does it stop? He's a United States senator.
And if you could force him to kneel to his knees violently, when does it stop? What does it say to other Americans who wanna speak up? What does it say to other Americans that wanna exercise their constitutional duty? What does it say to other Americans this weekend when they wanna peacefully protest? What does it say to other Americans from humble backgrounds who know poverty.
That if a United States senator who stands up to do its job could be made to heal, driven to his knees, violently handcuffed, what does it say? What message does it send? Everybody in this body should see that this is a crossroads. They treated a member of the United States senate violently after he identified himself, dragged him out of a room, threw him upon the ground, and put him in handcuffs. Every member of this body should object to that.
Why? Because Because the statement was that he was disrespectful. That is unacceptable. That is offensive. That is un American.
And so why is there silence right now? Why aren't my colleagues saying I don't care if he's a republican, a democrat or an independent. When you drive a man to his knees in The United States Of America that is wrong, that is wrong, that is wrong. This is a test. This is a crossroads.
This is a day in which the character of this body will be defined.
@TPostMillennial - The Post Millennial
Tucker Carlson reports on a Canadian biological male teacher who wears massive prosthetic breasts to school, saying that Canada is at the vanguard of the woke revolution so what happens in Canada's schools is certain to happen in the United States. https://t.co/yf6KT1hDA0
Video Transcript AI Summary
Canada is now a leading indicator of the woke revolution spreading across the West. Under Justin Trudeau, Canada has criminalized political speech, banned self-defense, and used the state to squelch Christianity.
A teacher at Trafalgar High School in Oakville, Ontario, named Stephen Hannah, has been dressing as a caricature of a woman, wearing large prosthetic breasts in class. According to journalist Jonathan Kay, Hannah's costume is based on Japanese Internet pornography. The speaker claims Hannah is enlisting children in his sexual fantasies and is a threat to children.
Trafalgar High School and the Halton District School Board are defending Hannah's behavior, citing the Ontario Human Rights Code, which protects against discrimination based on gender identity and expression. The speaker argues that the rights of the children are being ignored and that parents who complain are being treated as criminals. Most of the Canadian media is siding with Hannah, with exceptions like Jonathan Kay and a small feminist blog called Redux.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: If you're used to thinking of Canada as our slightly dorky Arctic cousin, literally the last nation on earth where the mullet is considered a legitimate haircut, the country where American fads go to die, and, of course, you're used to thinking all of that about Canada because it's long been true, It's time to think again. Suddenly, out of nowhere, Canada, of all places, is a leading indicator. As the woke revolution spreads across the West, Canada is at the vanguard of it. Under Justin Trudeau, Canada has done everything to the maximum possible extent. It has criminalized political speech.
It has banned self defense. It's used the power of the state to squelch Christianity, all of it. So if you wanna know what's gonna happen next in The United States, it's time to look north. Canada is the ghost of our Christmas future. So with that in mind is we're taking a look at what is happening right now in Canada's schools because you are certain to see all of it in your children's schools very soon.
So this week, video surfaced on the Internet from a place called Trafalgar High School in Oakville, Ontario. That's right across the lake from Niagara Falls. These videos show a teacher called Stephen Hannah, who apparently has been employed at Trafalgar High for several years. Recently, Hannah decided to dress like a woman or more precisely as a grotesque caricature of a woman, not a real woman, but a kind of pneumatically inflated Marilyn Monroe look alike. As part of his costume, Hannah strapped on a pair of gigantic prosthetic breasts, each the size of a 10 pound watermelon.
We're not exaggerating here. They're visible from at least a hundred yards away, if not from space. We'll show you the picture we are right now on the screen. But here's the thing. Hanna isn't doing this in private in his home, in restaurants, and clubs.
If he were, we'd not be mentioning on the show because it would not be our business. Have fun, Steve and Hanna. No. Steve and Hanna is doing it in class in front of children. As the Canadian journalist Jonathan Kay put it, Hannah has been dressing like this for a while, but only recently have students within the school gone public with this fact.
So they've been enduring this for a while. K also notes that Hannah's costume is based on the style of Japanese Internet pornography, which translates roughly into English as exploding milk porn. So what's going on here? We know exactly what's going on here. Let's stop pretending.
Women may not see it right away because, generally, their lives are not defined by their sex drives. But if you're a man, you get it instantly. What is this about? It's about sex. Stephen Hannah is enlisting other people's children in his sexual fantasies.
That's why he's doing this in class. Having an audience of children gives Stephen Hannah a sexual charge. He's getting off on this. There's no question about it. This is the guy in the van trying to give your sixth grader candy.
This is the flasher in the park. This guy is a pervert. He should not be within 500 yards of children, period. He's a threat to children. Now there have always been threats to children.
In every society, there are people like this. And every society deals with them swiftly and very harshly, but no longer in the West. Now people like this are not punished. They are celebrated and then protected. Trafalgar High School, which is public, it's funded by Canadian taxpayers, is vigorously defending his behavior and threatening anyone who notices.
So is the Halton District School Board, which oversees the school. They just sent us the statement, and we're quoting. The school board recognizes the rights of the parents, staff, students, guardians, community members to equitable treatment without discrimination based upon gender identity and gender expression. Gender identity and gender expression are protected grounds under the Ontario Human Rights Code. Oh, the Human Rights Code?
Really? Where are rights of the kids? There are none. In other words, if you complain, if you're a parent who complains about Stephen Hannah enlisting your children in his sexual fantasies, you are the criminal. You are breaking Canadian law.
For the most part, the Canadian media, the most supine media that speaks English, are siding with Stephen Hannah, the sicko. Other than the noble exceptions Jonathan Kaye, who we just quoted, and a small feminist blog called Redux, nobody is covering what Stephen Hannah is doing to kids sexually. The rest are effectively defending it. Toronto Sun, for example, went with this headline. School board prepares for backlash over trans high school teacher.
Oh, backlash. Trans high school teacher. He's protected. No. He's a freaking weirdo wagging fake breasts in the face of your children because it titillates him.
And if you complain about that, you're the problem.
@TPostMillennial - The Post Millennial
When President Trump lands in the middle of your golf tournament. 👀⛳️🤯 https://t.co/bacnmEJwSs
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker questions if a helicopter will land on the water. They speculate the helicopter pilot is not Jesus, but will land in the water. The speaker wonders if the pilot will present an award and put a jacket on them.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Is he landing on the water? I mean, I don't think he's Jesus. I think he's gonna go there. Think he's gonna that part. Yeah.
Dude, the amount of water that that helicopter He's gonna land in the water. So is he gonna, like, present us the award? Maybe. Yeah. He's gonna put the jacket on us.
reSee.it AI Summary
Sen. Amy Klobuchar criticized the Trump administration, stating that costs, chaos, and corruption have increased. In response, a user referenced a 2016 event where Klobuchar appeared with John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and the US Ambassador to Ukraine, suggesting her body language indicated she is "severely compromised." The user implied that her past associations raise questions about her integrity.
@TPostMillennial - The Post Millennial
Sen. Amy Klobuchar: "This is just another day in the Trump administration: costs are up, chaos is up, and yes, corruption is up." https://t.co/jjDr1ug195
@TheyCallMeTomO1 - Thomas O'Connor '62 baby, #GodBlessAmerica 🇺🇲
@TPostMillennial Here is Amy Klobuchar back in 2016 with John McCain, Lindsey Graham and the US Ambassador to Ukraine with Ukraine troops and the accepting some sort of award and a special envelope. . Watch her body language.. She is severely compromised and extremely compromised.. https://t.co/p5cWXCuME5
@TPostMillennial - The Post Millennial
Russell Brand @rustyrockets tells Tucker Carlson: "I need God or I cannot cope in this world. I need to believe in the best in people. I need to believe that there are new alliances possible ... because I see atrophying and corrupt systems delivering yet more misery to people." https://t.co/cnK8Xo3vfn
Video Transcript AI Summary
I've enjoyed privilege and luxury, but I've also known hardship. My well-being depends on spiritual connection and values, requiring sacrifice and self-reflection. I find bombastic morality and compassionless rhetoric unsettling. I need spirituality; I need God to cope. I believe in the potential for positive change and new alliances, rejecting cynicism and the need for heavy-handed control. I'm optimistic about the future, but recognize diverse perspectives and the need for mutual respect.
My past struggles with addiction led me to a deeper understanding of purpose. While ambition played a role, I've found greater meaning in helping others directly. My worldview is rooted in kindness, community, acceptance, and gratitude – principles I strive to live by, focusing on my own conduct rather than dictating to others.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Russell Brand has been an actor, comedian, a podcast host for decades. All of a sudden he's one of the most forceful voices for the truth in the English speaking world. He's also a deeply interesting person with a lot of insights about God. Amazing. Russell Brand.
We sat down with him for a long conversation, a brand new episode of Tucker Carlson today. Here's a small part of it.
Speaker 1: As much as I might enjoy the feeling of privilege and luxury and I'm certainly making no claims to be an ascetic, I remember what reality is. I remember that my wellness is contingent upon spiritual connection, certain values and principles and they, I am sorry to admit, involve sacrifice and self scrutiny about my own conduct and behavior which is often often fall short and I'm working on improving myself. I continue to work on improving myself. So when I sort of hear morality sort of as bombast or when I hear rhetoric divorced from compassion, it makes me feel uneasy. So I've been blessed with a very practical spirituality like many desperate people.
I need spirituality. I need God or I cannot cope in this world. I need to believe in the best in people. I need to believe that there are new alliances possible, new ways of us communicating because I see atrophying and corrupt systems delivering yet more misery to people, and I think it's increasingly necessary that we find new ways of framing the conversation and looking into our hearts when we're speaking. Are we being kind?
Are we being loving? Are we being the best that we can be? On whose behalf are we speaking? And what is my intention moment to moment? Am I doing this for self glorification?
Am I doing this because I have obligations to rumble the platform I'm on? Or am I doing this because I genuinely believe that a better world is possible and that world is born individually within each of us moment to moment, and it's possible to change? I genuinely believe in change, and I'm not on my court a misanthrope. I don't believe that we need systems of condemnation. I don't believe that if people aren't heavily policed and heavily controlled, they will behave badly.
I believe that we can self organize. I believe I'm optimistic about your country, and I'm optimistic about mine, and I'm optimistic about the world. But I think the price of that optimism is a degree of reason and an acceptance that many people see the world very, very different here at this time. And we're gonna have to allow one another some distance to be who we are, whether that's individually or communally. And these are the areas that interest me, and these are the things that have always interested me.
The fact was I just didn't have enough self discipline to resist to be allure of stardom, and I fell face first into the glitter, and I'm only just pulling myself out now. But once I stopped drinking and taking drugs, it became clear that there was a lot more on offer. The ability to in fact, as they say, recovery, the term recovery is undergirded by the idea that we recover the person we're intended to be. And this idea of intention, I think, is rather beautiful because when you live in a nihilistic, post rationalistic, materialistic world where there can be no telos, where there can be no glory, where there can be no meaning, none of us are meant to be anything. But the idea that there might be a purpose for you, that there might be something that you can become, this, I I found this idea very engaging and very comforting, and I've got to be honest, it also engaged the raw more egoic and narcissistic aspects of me that I could achieve something in my life.
But as time has gone on, there's been there's an ongoing tension between those things. Individual achievement and a sort of an ongoing desire for recognition and plaudits, but a a a a deeper understanding that there is something valuable here on offer that we can achieve something. And it's actually sort of quite humble irritatingly, isn't it? Like, that it's mostly about helping people directly. My world view is formed by spiritual principles rather than political spin principles Yeah.
That my values are derived from quite simple ideas around kindness, community, acceptance, gratitude, and I'm making no claim to practice these principles anything like perfectly. But at least I know what I'm aspiring to, And I know that my spirituality is about my conduct and how I behave rather than telling other people how they should behave.
@TPostMillennial - The Post Millennial
Tucker Carlson interviews Mike Benz https://t.co/t54UvEKWLM
Video Transcript AI Summary
America's exceptionalism stems from its free speech, enshrined in the First Amendment. However, this fundamental right is rapidly eroding due to censorship disguised as combating disinformation and malinformation. This censorship, directed by the US government, isn't about truth but about silencing inconvenient voices. Mike Benz, an expert on this, reveals how the military-industrial complex and foreign policy establishment weaponized internet freedom, initially using it for regime change, then turning it inward to control narratives and elections. This involved using social media companies and government-funded organizations to censor dissent, framing it as a national security threat. This has fundamentally altered American governance, potentially leading to military rule. The future of free platforms like X is precarious, facing pressure from the US government and the EU's Digital Services Act.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The defining fact of The United States is freedom of speech. To the extent this country is actually exceptional, it's because we have the first amendment to the Bill of Rights. We have freedom of conscience. We can say what we really think. There's no hate speech exception to that.
Just because you hate what somebody else thinks, you cannot force that person to be quiet because we're citizens, not slaves. But that right, that foundational right that makes this country what it is, that right from which all other rights flow, is going away at high speed in the face of censorship. Now modern censorship, there's no resemblance to previous censorship regimes in previous countries and previous eras. Our censorship is affected on the basis of fights against disinformation and malinformation. And the key thing to know about these is they're everywhere.
And, of course, they have no reference at all to whether what you're saying is true or not. In other words, you can say something that is factually accurate and consistent with your own conscience, and in previous versions of America, you had an absolute right to say those things. But because someone doesn't like them or because they're inconvenient to whatever plan the people in power have, they can be denounced as disinformation, and you could be stripped of your right to express them, either in person or online. In fact, expressing these things can become a criminal act and is. And it's important to know, by the way, that this is not just the private sector doing this.
These efforts are being directed by the US government, which you pay for and least theoretically own. It's your government. But they're stripping your rights at very high speed. Most people understand this intuitively, but they don't know how it happens. How does censorship happen?
What are the mechanics of it? Mike Benz is, we can say, with some confidence, the expert in the world on how this happens. Mike Benz had the cyber portfolio at the state department. He's now executive director of Foundation for Freedom Online, and we're gonna have a conversation with him about a very specific kind of censorship. By the way, we can't recommend strongly enough.
If you wanna know how this happens, Mike Benz, b e n z, is the man to read. But today, we just wanna talk about a specific kind of censorship, and that censorship that emanates from the fabled military industrial complex, from our defense industry in the foreign policy establishment in Washington. That's significant now because we're on the cusp of a global war, and so you can expect censorship to increase dramatically. And so with that, here is Mike Benz, executive director of Foundation for Freedom Online. Mike, thanks so much for joining us.
And I and I just can't overstate to our audience how exhaustive and comprehensive your knowledge is on this topic. It's almost it's almost unbelievable. And so if you could just walk us through how the foreign policy establishment and defense contractors and and DOD and and just the whole cluster, the constellation of defense related publicly funded institutions strip from us our freedom of speech.
Speaker 1: Sure. You know, one of the easiest ways to actually start the story is really with the story of Internet freedom and it switched from Internet freedom to Internet censorship because free speech on the Internet was an instrument of statecraft almost from the outset of the privatization of the Internet in 1991. We quickly discovered through the efforts of the Defense Department, the State Department and our intelligence services that people were using the Internet to congregate on blogs and forums and free speech was championed more than anybody by the Pentagon, the State Department and our sort of CIA cutout NGO blob architecture as a way to support dissident groups around the world in order to help them overthrow authoritarian governments as they were sort of build. Essentially, the Internet free speech allowed kind of insta regime change operations to be able to facilitate the foreign policy establishments State Department agenda. Google is a great example of this.
Google began as a DARPA grant by Larry Page and Sergey Brin when they were Stanford PhDs and they got their funding as part of a joint CIA NSA program to chart how birds of a feather flock together online through search engine aggregation. And then one year later, they launched Google and then became a military contractor quickly thereafter. They got Google Maps by purchasing a CIA satellite software essentially. And the ability to track to use free speech on the Internet is a way to circumvent state control over media over in places like Central Asia or all around the world was seen as a way to be able to do what used to be done out of CIA station houses or out of embassies or consulates in a way that was totally turbocharged. And all of the Internet free speech technology was initially created by our national security state, VPNs, virtual private networks to hide your IP address, tour the dark web to be able to buy and sell goods anonymously, end to end encrypted chats.
All these things were created initially as DARPA projects or as joint CIA NSA projects to be able to help intelligence backed groups to overthrow governments that were causing a problem to the Clinton administration or the Bush administration or the Obama administration. And this plan worked magically from about 1991 until about 2014 when there began to be an about face on Internet freedom and its utility. Now the high watermark of the sort of Internet free speech moment was the Arab Spring in twenty eleven, twenty twelve, when you had this one by one, all of the adversary governments of the Obama administration, Egypt, Tunisia, all began to be toppled in Facebook revolutions and Twitter revolutions. And you had the State Department working very closely with the social media companies to be able to keep social media online during those periods. There was a famous phone call from Google's Jared Cohen to Twitter to not do their scheduled maintenance so that the preferred opposition group in Iran would be able to use Twitter to win that election.
So it was an free speech was an instrument of statecraft from the national security state to begin with. All of that architecture, all of the NGOs, the relationships between the tech companies and the national security state had been long established for freedom. In 2014, after the coup in Ukraine, there was an unexpected counter coup where Crimea and the Donbas broke away. And they broke away with essentially a military backstop that NATO was highly unprepared for at the time. They had one last Hail Mary chance, which was the Crimea annexation vote in 2014.
And when the hearts and minds of the people of Crimea voted to join the Russian Federation, that was the last straw for the concept of free speech on the Internet in the eyes of NATO. As they saw it, the fundamental nature of war changed at that moment. And NATO at that point declared something that they first called the Gerasimov doctrine, which is named after this Russian military general, who they claimed made a speech that the fundamental nature of war has changed. You don't need to win military skirmishes to take over Central And Eastern Europe. All you need to do is control the media and the social media ecosystem because that's what controls elections.
And if you simply get the right administration into power, they control the military. So it's infinitely cheaper than conducting a military war to simply conduct an organized political influence operation over social media and legacy media. An industry had been created that spanned the Pentagon, the British Ministry of Defense and Brussels into a organized political warfare outfit, essentially infrastructure that was created initially stationed in Germany and in Central And Eastern Europe to create psychological buffer zones, basically to create the ability to have the military work with the social media companies to censor Russian propaganda or to censor domestic right wing populist groups in Europe who were rising in political power at the time because of the migrant crisis. So you had the systematic targeting by our State Department, by our IC, by the Pentagon of groups like Germany's AfD, the alternative for Deutschland there and for groups in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania. Now when Brexit happened in 2016, it was that was this crisis moment where suddenly they didn't have to worry just about Central And Eastern Europe anymore, it was coming westward, this idea of Russian control over hearts and minds.
And so that was Brexit was June 2016, the very next month at the Warsaw Conference, NATO formally amended its charter to expressly commit to hybrid warfare as this new NATO capacity. So they went from basically seventy years of tanks to this explicit capacity building for censoring tweets that they were deemed to be Russian proxies. And again, it's not just Russian propaganda, this was these were now Brexit groups or groups like Matteo Salvini in Italy or in Greece or in Germany or in Spain with the Vox party. And now at the time, NATO was publishing white papers saying that the biggest threat NATO faces is not actually a military invasion from Russia, it's losing domestic elections across Europe in to all these right wing populist groups who, because they were mostly working class movements, were campaigning on cheap Russian energy at a time when The US was pressuring this energy diversification policy. And so they made the argument after Brexit, now the entire rules based international order would collapse unless the military took control over media because Brexit would give rise to Brexit in France with Marine Le Pen, to Speggxit in Spain with the Vox Party, to Italy exit in Italy, to Grexit in Germany, to Grexit in Greece, the EU would come apart so NATO would be killed without a single bullet being fired.
And then not only that, now that NATO is gone, now there's no enforcement arm for the International Monetary Fund, the IMF, or the World Bank. So now the financial stakeholders who depend on the battering ram of the national security state would basically be helpless against governments around the world. So from their perspective, if the military did not begin to censor the Internet, every all of the democratic institutions and infrastructure that gave rise to the modern world after World War two would collapse. So you can imagine that we
Speaker 0: We may ask you to pause later.
Speaker 1: Donald Trump won the twenty sixteen election.
Speaker 0: So you well, you just told a remarkable story that I've never heard anybody explain as lucidly and crisply as you just did. But did anyone at NATO or anyone at the state department pause for a moment and say, wait a second. We've just identified our new enemy as democracy within our own countries. I think that's what you're saying. They they feared that the people, the citizens of their own countries would get their way, and they went to war against that.
Speaker 1: Yes. Now, you know, there's a rich history of this dating back to the Cold War. You know, the Cold War in Europe was essentially a a similar a similar struggle for hearts and minds of people, especially in Central And Eastern Europe Yes. You know, in these sort of, you know, Soviet buffer zones. And starting in 1948, the National Security State was really established then.
You had the 1947 Act, which established the Central Intelligence Agency, you had this new world order that had been created with all these international institutions and you had the 1948 UN Declaration on Human Rights, which forbid the territorial acquisition by military force. So, you can no longer run a traditional military occupation government in the way that we could in 1898, for example, when we took The Philippines. Everything had to be done through a sort of political legitimization process whereby there's some ratification from the hearts and minds of people within the country. Now, often that involves simply puppet politicians who are groomed as emerging leaders by our State Department. But the battle for hearts and minds had been something that we had been giving ourselves a long moral license leash, if you will, since 1948, '1 of the godfathers of the CIA, George Kennan, at twelve days after we rigged the Italian election in 1948 by stuffing ballot boxes and working with the mob, we he published a memo called the inauguration of organized political warfare, where he said, listen, it's a mean old world out there.
We at the CIA just rigged the Italian election. We had to do it because if the communist won, maybe there'd never be another election in Italy again. So, but it's really effective, guys. We need a department of dirty tricks to be able to do this around the world, and it's essentially a new social contract we're we're constructing with the American people because this is not the way we've conducted diplomacy before, but we are now forbidden from using the War Department. In 1948, they also renamed the War Department to the Defense Department.
So again, as part of this diplomatic onslaught for political control rather than it looking like it's overt military control. But essentially what ended up happening there is we created this foreign domestic firewall, we said, that we have a department of dirty tricks to be able to rig elections, to be able to control media, to be able to meddle in the internal affairs of every other plot of dirt in the country, but this sort of sacred dirt in which the American homeland sits will they are not allowed to operate there. The State Department, the Defense Department and the CIA are all expressly forbidden from operating on U. S. Soil.
Of course, this is so far from the case, it's not even funny, but that's because of a number of laundering tricks that they've developed over seventy years of doing this. But essentially, there was no moral quandary at first with respect to the creation of the censorship industry when it started out in Germany and in Lithuania and Latvia and Estonia and in Sweden and Finland. There began to be a more diplomatic debate about it after Brexit. And then it became full throttle when Trump was elected. And what little resistance there was, was washed over by the rise and saturation of Russiagate, which basically allowed them to not have to deal with the moral ambiguities of censoring your own people because if Trump was a Russian asset, you no longer really had a traditional free speech issue, it was a national security issue.
It was only after Russiagate died in July 2019 when Robert Mueller basically choked on the stand for three hours and revealed he had absolutely nothing after two point five years of investigation that the foreign to domestic switcheroo took place where they took all of this censorship architecture spanning DHS, the FBI, the CIA, the DoD, the DOJ and then the thousands of government funded NGO and private sector mercenary firms were all basically transited from a foreign predicate, a Russian disinformation predicate to a democracy predicate by saying that disinformation is not just a threat when it comes from the Russians, it's actually an intrinsic threat to democracy itself. And so by that, they were able to wander the entire democracy promotion regime change toolkit, just in time for the twenty twenty election.
Speaker 0: It it it I I mean, it's it's almost beyond belief that this has happened. I mean, my own father worked for the US government in this business in the information war against the Soviet Union and, you know, was a big part of that. And the idea that any of those tools would be turned
Speaker 1: against
Speaker 0: American citizens by the US government was, I I think, I wanna think, was absolutely unthinkable in, say, 1988. And you're saying that it's there really hasn't been anyone who's raised objections, and it's just it's absolutely turned inward to manipulate and rig our own elections as we would in, say, Latvia?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, as soon as the democracy predicate was established, you had this professional class of professional regime change artists and operatives. That is the same people who argued that we need to bring democracy to Yugoslavia to get and that's the predicate for getting rid of Milosevic or any other country around the world where we basically overthrow governments in order to preserve democracy. Well, if the democracy threat is homegrown now, then that becomes then suddenly, these people all have new jobs moving on The U. S.
Side and I can go through a million examples of that. But one thing on what you just mentioned, which is that from their perspective, they just weren't ready for the Internet. 2016 was really the first time that social media had reached such maturity that it began to eclipse legacy media. I mean, this was a long time coming. I think folks saw this building from 02/2006 through 2016.
Internet one point zero didn't even have social media. From 1991 to 02/2004, there was no social media at all. 02/2004, Facebook came out, 02/2005, Twitter, 02/2006, YouTube, 02/2007, the smartphone. And so and in that initial period of social media, nobody was getting subscriberships at the level where they actually competed with legacy news media. But over the course of being so initially, even these dissonant voices within The U.
S, even though they may have been loud in moments, they never reached 30,000,000 followers. They never reached 1,000,000,000 impressions a year type thing as an uncensored, mature ecosystem allowed citizen journalists and independent voices to be able to outcompete legacy news media. This induced a massive crisis both in our military and in our State Department and Intelligence Services. I'll give you a great example of this. In 2019, at meeting of the German Marshall Fund, which is an institution that goes back to The U.
S. Basically, I don't want to say bry, but essentially the soft economic soft power projection in Europe as part of the reconstruction of European governments after World War II to be able to essentially pay them with Marshall Fund dollars and then in return, they basically were under our thumb in terms of how they reconstructed. But the German Marshall Fund held a meeting in 2019. They held 1,000,000 of these, frankly. But where they where a four star general got up on the panel and said that the what happens he posed the question, what happens to the U.
S. Military, what happens to the national security state when The New York Times is reduced to a medium sized Facebook page? And he posed this thought experiment as an example of we've had these gatekeepers, we've had these bumper cars on democracy in the form of a century old relationship with legacy media institutions. I mean, our mainstream media is not in any shape and form even from its outset independent from the National Security State, from the State Department, from the War Department. You had the initial all of the initial broadcast news companies, NBC, ABC and CBS were all created by Office of War Information Veterans from the War Department's effort in World War II.
You had these Operation Mockingbird relationships from the 1950s to the 1970s. Those continued through the use of the National Endowment for Democracy and the privatization of intelligence capacities in the 1980s under Reagan. There's all sorts of CIA reading room memos you can read even on cia.gov about those continued media relations throughout the 1990s. And so you always had this backdoor relationship between The Washington Post, The New York Times and all of the major broadcast media corporations. By the way, Rupert Murdoch and Fox are part of this as well.
Rupert Murdoch was actually part of the National Endowment for Democracy Coalition in 1983 when it was formed as a way to do CIA operations in an above board way after the Democrats were so ticked off at the CIA for manipulating student movements in the 1970s. But essentially, there was no CIA intermediary to random citizen journalist accounts. There was no Pentagon backstop. You couldn't get a story killed. You couldn't have this favors for favors relationship.
You couldn't promise access to some random person with 700,000 followers who's got an opinion on Syrian gas. And so this induced and this was not a problem for the initial period of social media from 02/2006 to 2014 because there were never dissident groups that were big enough to be able to have a mature enough ecosystem on their own. And all of the victories on social media had gone in the way of where the money was, which was from the State Department and the Defense Department and the Intelligence Services. But then as that maturity happened, you now had this situation after the twenty sixteen election where they said, okay, now the entire international order might come undone. Seventy years of unified foreign policy from Truman until Trump are now about to be broken.
And we need the same analog control systems we had to be able to put bumper cars on bad stories or bad political movements through legacy media relationships and contacts. We now need to establish and consolidate within the social media companies. And the initial predicate for that was Russiagate, but then after Russiagate died and they used a simple democracy promotion predicate, then it gave rise to this multibillion dollar censorship industry that joins together the military industrial complex, the government, the private sector, the civil society organizations and then this vast cobweb of media allies and professional fact checker groups that that serve as this sort of sentinel class that surveys everywhere on the Internet.
Speaker 0: So can you give us and thank you again for this almost unbelievable explanation of why this is happening. Can you give us an example of how it happens? How just and just pick one among, I know, countless examples of how the national security state lies to the population, censors the truth, in real life?
Speaker 1: Yeah. So, you know, we have this State Department outfit called the Global Engagement Center, which was created by a guy named Rick Stengel, who described himself as Obama's propagandist in chief. He was the Undersecretary for Public Affairs, which is essentially the which is the liaison office role between the State Department and the mainstream media. So this is basically the exact nexus where government talking points about war or about diplomacy or statecraft get synchronized with mainstream media. And may may
Speaker 0: may I add something to that? Is someone I I know Rick Stengel. He was at one point a journalist, and Rick Stengel has made public arguments against the First Amendment and against free speech. And
Speaker 1: so Oh, yeah. He wrote a whole book on it. And he published an op ed in 2019. He wrote a whole book on it. And he, you know, he made the argument that that we just, you know, went over here, that essentially, the Constitution was not prepared for the Internet, and we need to get rid of the First Amendment accordingly.
And he described himself as a free speech absolutist when he was the managing editor of Time magazine. And even when he was in the State Department under Obama, he started something called the Global Engagement Center, which was the first government censorship operation within the federal government, but it was foreign facing, so it was okay. Now at the time, they used the homegrown ISIS predicate threat for this. And so it was very hard to argue against the idea of the State Department having this formal coordination partnership with every major tech platform in The U. S.
Because at the time, there were these ISIS attacks that were and we were told that ISIS was recruiting on Twitter and Facebook. And so the Global Engagement Center was established essentially to be a State Department entanglement with the social media companies to basically put bumper cars on their ability to platform accounts and to and one of the things they did is they created a new technology, which is it's called natural language processing. It is an artificial intelligence machine learning ability to create meaning out of words in order to map everything that everyone says on the Internet and create this vast topography of how communities are organized online, who the major influences are, what they're talking about, what narratives are emerging or trending and to be able to create this sort of network graph in order to know who to target and how information moves through an ecosystem. And so they began plotting the language, the prefixes, the suffixes, the popular terms, the slogans that ISIS folks were talking about on Twitter. When Trump won the election in 2016, everyone who worked at the State Department was expecting these promotions to the White House National Security Council under Hillary Clinton, who I should remind viewers, was also Secretary of State under Obama, actually ran the State Department.
But these folks were all expecting promotions on 11/08/2016 and were unceremoniously put out of jobs by a guy who was a 20 to one underdog according to The New York Times the day of the election. And when that happened, these State Department folks took their special set of skills coercing governments to for sanctions. And the State Department led the effort to sanction Russia over the Crimea annexation in 2014, these State Department diplomats did an international roadshow to pressure European governments to pass censorship laws to censor the right wing populist groups in Europe and as a boomerang impact to censor populist groups who were affiliated in The U. S. So you had folks who went from the State Department directly, for example, to the Atlantic Council, which was this major facilitator between government to government censorship.
The Atlantic Council is a group that was one of Biden's biggest political backers. They build themselves as NATO's think tank. So they represent the political census of NATO. And in many respects, when NATO has civil society actions that they want to be coordinated to synchronize with military action in a region, the Atlantic Council essentially is deployed to consensus build and make that political action happen within a region of interest to NATO. Now the Atlantic Council has seven CIA directors on its board.
A lot of people don't even know that seven CIA directors are still alive, let alone all concentrated on on the board of a single organization that's kind of the heavyweight in the censorship industry. They get annual funding from the Department of Defense, the State Department, and CIA cutouts like the National Endowment for Democracy. The Atlantic Council in January 2017 moved immediately to pressure European governments to pass censorship laws to create a transatlantic flank attack on free speech in exactly the way that Rick Stengel essentially called for to have The US mimic European censorship laws. One of the ways they did this was by getting Germany to pass something called NETTG in August 2017, which was essentially kicked off the era of automated censorship in The U. S.
What NETs.gg required was unless social media platforms want to pay a $54,000,000 fine for each instance of speech, each post left up on their platform for more than forty eight hours that have been identified as hate speech, they would be fined basically into bankruptcy when you aggregate $54,000,000 over tens of thousands of posts per day. And the safe haven around that was if they deployed artificial intelligence based censorship technologies, which had been, again, created by DARPA to take on ISIS to be able to scan and ban speech automatically. And this was this gave I call these weapons of mass deletion. These are essentially the ability to censor tens of millions of posts with just a few lines of code and the way this is done is by aggregating basically the field of censorship science fuses together two disparate groups of study, if you will. There's the sort of political and social scientists who are the sort of thought leaders of what should be censored.
And then there are the sort of quants, if you will. These are the programmers, the computational data scientists, computational linguistics, every university. There's over 60 universities now who get federal government grants to do this censorship, the censorship work and the censorship preparation work, where what they do is they create these codebooks of the language that people use the same way they did for ISIS. They did this, for example, with COVID. They created these COVID lexicons of what dissident groups were saying about mandates, about masks, about vaccines, about high profile individuals like Tony Fauci or Peter Daszak or any of these others protected VIP individuals whose reputations had to be protected online.
And they created these codebooks, they broke things down into narratives. The Atlanta Council, for example, was a part of this government funded consortium, something called the Virality Project, which mapped 66 different narratives that dissidents were talking about around COVID, everything from COVID origins to vaccine efficacy. And then they broke down these 66 claims into all the different factual sub claims. And then they plugged these into these essentially machine learning models to be able to have a constant world heat map of what everybody was saying about COVID. And whenever something started to trend that was bad for what the Pentagon wanted or was bad for what Tony Fauci wanted, they were able to take down tens of millions of posts.
They did this in the twenty twenty election with mail in ballots. It was the
Speaker 0: same thing. May I ask you, I I'm sorry. I just gotta have to there's there's so much here, and it's so shocking. So you're saying the Pentagon, our Pentagon, the US Department of Defense, censored Americans during the twenty twenty election
Speaker 1: cycle? Yes. They did this they oh, they did this through the so so there's the two most censored events in human history, I would argue, to date are the twenty twenty election and the COVID-nineteen pandemic. And I'll explain how I arrived there. So the twenty twenty election was determined by mail in ballots.
And I'm not weighing into the substance of whether mail in ballots were or were not a legitimate or safe and reliable form of voting. That's a completely independent topic from my perspective than the censorship issue one. But the censorship of mail in ballots is really one of the most extraordinary stories in our American history, I would argue. What happened was is, you had this plot within the Department of Homeland Security. Now this gets back to what we were talking about with the State Department's Global Engagement Center.
You had this group within the Atlanta Council and the foreign policy establishment, which began arguing in 2017 for the need for a permanent domestic censorship government office to serve as a quarterback for what they called a whole of society counter misinformation, counter disinformation alliance. That just means censorship, the counter misinfo. But the whole of their whole society model explicitly proposed that we need every single asset within society to be mobilized in a whole of society effort to stop misinformation online. It was that much of an existential threat to democracy. And so it but they fixated in 2017 that it had to be centered within the government because only the government would have the clout and the coercive threat powers and the perceived authority to be able to tell the social media companies what to do, to be able to summon a government funded NGO swarm to create that media surround sound, to be able to arm an astroturfed army of fact checkers and to be able to liaise and connect all these different censorship industry actors into a cohesive unified whole.
And the Atlantic Council initially proposed with this blueprint called forward defense, it's not offense, it's forward defense guys. They initially proposed that running this out of the State Department's Global Engagement Center because they had so many assets there who were so effective at censorship under Rick Stengel's stead and under the Obama administration. But they said, oh, we're not going to be able to get away with that because we don't really have a national security predicate and it's supposed to be foreign facing. We can't really use that hook unless we have a sort of national security one. Then they contemplated parking it at the CIA.
And they said, well, actually, there's two reasons we can't do that. CIA is foreign facing. We can't really establish a counterintelligence threat to bring it home domestically. Also, we're going to need essentially tens of thousands of people involved in this operation spanning this whole society model. You can't really run a clandestine operation that way.
So they said, okay, well, what about the FBI? They said, well, the FBI would be great. It's domestic. But the problem is is the FBI is supposed to be the intelligence arm of the justice department, and we and what we're dealing with here are not acts of law breaking. It's basically support for Trump or if, you know, if if left wing populists had risen to power like Bernie Sanders or Jeremy Corbyn, I have no doubt they would have done in The U.
K, they would have done the same thing to him there. They targeted Jeremy Corbyn and other left wing populist NATO skeptical groups in Europe. But in The U. S, it was all Trump. And so essentially, what they said is, well, the only other domestic intelligence equity we have in The US besides the FBI is the DHS.
So we are going to essentially take the CIA's power to rig and bribe foreign media organizations, which is a power they've had since the day they were born in 1947, and we're going to combine that with the domestic jurisdiction of the FBI by putting it at DHS. So DHS was basically deputized. It was empowered through this obscure little cybersecurity agency to have the combined powers that the CIA has abroad with the jurisdiction of the FBI at home. And the way they did this, how did an obscure little cybersecurity agency get this power, was they did a funny little series of switcheroos. So this little thing called CISA, they didn't call it the Disinformation Governance Board, they didn't call it the Censorship Agency, they gave it an obscure little name that no one would notice called the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, whose founder said, we just security we care about security so much it's in our name twice.
Everybody sort of closed their eyes and pretended that's what it was. But it was created by active Congress in 2018 because of the perceived threat that Russia had hacked the twenty sixteen election, had physically hacked it. And so we needed the cybersecurity power to be able to deal with that. And essentially on the heels of a CIA memo on 01/06/2017 and a same day DHS executive order on 01/06/2017, arguing that Russia had interfered in the twenty sixteen election and a DHS mandate saying that elections are now critical infrastructure, you had this new power within DHS to say that cybersecurity attacks on elections are now our purview. And then they did two cute things.
One, they said mis, dis and malinformation online are a form of cybersecurity attack. They are a cyber attack because they are happening online. And they said, well, actually, Russian disinformation is we're actually protecting democracy in elections. We don't need a Russian predicate after Russiagate died. So just like that, you had this cybersecurity agency be able to legally make the argument that your tweets about mail in ballots, if you undermine public faith and confidence in them as a legitimate form of voting, was now you are now conducting a cyber attack on US critical infrastructure by by articulating misinformation on Twitter.
And just like that now what they did then is they Wait.
Speaker 0: So in other words bunch of see it. Complaining about election fraud is the same as taking down our power grid.
Speaker 1: Yes. You could literally be on your toilet seat at 09:30 on on a Thursday night and tweet, I think that mail in ballots are illegitimate. And you were essentially then caught up in the crosshairs of the Department of Homeland Security classifying you as conducting a cyber attack on U. S. Critical infrastructure because you were doing misinformation online in the cyber realm and misinformation is a cyber attack on democracy when it undermines public faith and confidence in our democratic elections and our democratic institutions.
They would end up going far beyond that. They would actually define democratic institutions as being another thing that was a cybersecurity attack to, to undermine. And lo and behold, the mainstream media is considered a democratic institution. That would come later. What ended up happening was, in advance of the twenty twenty election, starting in April of twenty twenty, although this goes back before, you had this essentially never Trump, neocon, Republican DHS working with essentially NATO on the national security side and essentially the DNC, if you will, to use DHS as the launching point for a government coordinated mass censorship campaign spanning every single social media platform on earth in order to pre censor the ability to dispute the legitimacy of mail in ballots.
And here's how they did this. They aggregated four different institutions, Stanford University, the University of Washington, a company called Graphica and the Atlantic Council. Now all four of these institutions, the centers within them were essentially Pentagon cutouts. You had at the Stanford Internet Observatory, it was actually run by Michael McFaul. If you know Michael McFaul, he was The U.
S. Ambassador to Russia under the Obama administration, and he personally authored a seven step playbook for how to successfully orchestrate a color revolution. That is, and part of that involved maintaining total control over media and social media, juicing up the civil society outfits, calling elections illegitimate in order to and mind you, all of these people were professional Russiagaters and professional election delegitimizers in 2016. And then well, I'll get to that in a sec. So Stanford University, nominally, the Stanford Air Observatory under Michael McFaul was run by Alex Stamos, who was formerly a Facebook executive, who coordinated with ODNI and the with respect to, Russiagate, you know, taking down Russian propaganda at Facebook.
So this is another liaison essentially to the national security state. State. And under Alex Stamos at Stanford Internet Observatory was Renee de Resta, who started her career in the CIA and wrote the Senate Intelligence Committee report on Russian disinformation. And there's a lot more there that I'll be I'll get to another time. But the next institution was the University of Washington, which is essentially the Bill Gates University in Seattle, who is headed by Kate Starbird, who is basically three generations of military brass, who got her PhD in Crisis Informatics, essentially doing social media surveillance for the Pentagon and getting DARPA funding and working essentially with the National Security State then repurposed to take on mail in ballots.
The third firm, Graphica, got 7,000,000 in Pentagon grants and got their start as part of the Pentagon's Minerva Initiative. The Minerva Initiative is the psychological warfare research center of the Pentagon. This group was doing social media spying and narrative mapping for the Pentagon until the twenty sixteen election happened and then were repurposed into a partnership with the Department of Homeland Security to censor 22,000,000 Trump tweets, pro Trump tweets about mail in ballots. And then the fourth institution, as I mentioned, was the Atlantic Council, who's got seven CIA directors on the board. So one after another, it is exactly what Ben Rhodes described during the Obama era as the blob, the foreign policy establishment.
It's the Defense Department, the State Department or the CIA every single time. And of course, this is because they were threatened by Trump's foreign policy. And so while much of the censorship looks like it's coming domestically, it's actually by our foreign facing Department of Dirty Tricks color revolution blob who are professional government toplers, who were then basically descended on the twenty twenty election. Now they did this. They explicitly said the head of this election integrity partnership on tape, and and and my foundation clipped them and it's been played before congress and it's in, you know, a part of the Missouri v Biden lawsuit now.
But they explicitly said on tape that they were set up to do what the government was banned from doing itself. And then they articulated a multi step framework in order to coerce all the tech companies to take censorship actions. They said on tape the tech companies would not have done but for their pressure, which involved using threats of government force because they were the deputized arm of the government. They had a formal partnership with the DHS. They were able to use DHS's proprietary domestic disinformation switchboard to immediately talk to top brass at all the tech companies for takedowns.
And they bragged on tape about how they got the tech companies to all systematically adopt a new terms of service speech violation ban called de legitimization, which meant any tweet, any YouTube video, any Facebook post, any TikTok video, any Discord post, any Twitch video, anything on the Internet that that, undermine public faith and confidence in the use of mail in ballots or early voting drop boxes or or or ballot tabulation issues on Election Day was a prima facia terms of service violation policy under this new delegitimization policy that they only adopted because of pass through government pressure from the Election Integrity Partnership, which they bragged about on tape, including the grid that they used to do this and and simultaneously invoking threats of government breaking them up or or government stopping doing favors for the tech companies unless they did this, as well as inducing crisis PR by working with their media allies. So and they said the government DHS could not do that themselves, and so they set up this this basically constellation of State Department, Pentagon, and and IC networks to run this pre censorship campaign, which by their own math had 22,000,000 tweets on Twitter alone.
And mind you, they did this on 15 platforms. This is hundreds of millions of posts, which were all scanned and banned or throttled so that they cannot be amplified or they exist in a sort of limited state purgatory or had these frictions affixed to them in the form of fact checking labels where you couldn't actually click through the thing or you had to it was it was an inconvenience to be able to share it. Now they did this seven months before the election because at the time, they they were worried about the perceived legitimacy of a Biden victory in the case of a so called Red Mirage blue shift event. They knew the only way that Biden would be able to would win mathematically was through the disproportionate Democrat use of mail in ballots. They knew there would be a crisis because it was going to look extremely weird if Trump looked like he won by seven states in you know, and then three days later, it comes out actually the election switch.
I mean, that that would put the election crisis of the Bush Gore election, on a level of steroids that the national security say said, well, the the public will not be prepared for. So what we need to do is we need to in advance, we need to pre censor the ability to even question legitimacy. This took out Wait.
Speaker 0: Wait. May may I ask you to pause right there?
Speaker 1: Key influences, bro.
Speaker 0: So what you're saying is what you're suggesting is they knew the outcome of the election seven months before it was held.
Speaker 1: It looks very bad.
Speaker 0: Certainly what they did. Yes, Mike. It does look very bad.
Speaker 1: You know, and especially when you combine this with the fact that this is right on the heels of the impeachment, the Pentagon led CIA led impeachment. You know, it was, Eric Cimarello from the CIA, and it was the Vindman's from the Pentagon, who led the impeachment of Trump in late twenty nineteen over, you know, an alleged phone call around withholding Ukraine aid. This same network, which came straight out of the Pentagon hybrid warfare network military censorship network created after the first Ukraine crisis in 2014, were the lead architects of the Ukraine impeachment in 2019 and then essentially came back on steroids as part of the twenty twenty election censorship operation. But, you know, from their perspective, I mean, it certainly looks like the perfect crime. These were the people DHS, at the time, had actually federalized much of of the National Election infrast administration through this 01/06/2017 executive order from outgoing Obama, DHS head, Jed Johnson, which essentially wrapped all 50 states up into a formal DHS partnership.
So DHS was simultaneously in charge of the administration of the election in many respects and the censorship of anyone who challenged the administration of the election. This is like, you know, putting essentially the defendant, of a trial, as the judge and jury of the trial. It was very
Speaker 0: But but you're not describing democracy. I mean, you're describing a country in which democracy is impossible.
Speaker 1: What I'm essentially describing is military rule. I mean, this is I mean, what what's happened with the rise of the censorship industry is a total inversion of the idea of democracy itself. Democracy sort of draws its legitimacy from the idea that it is ruled by consent of the people being ruled. That is, it's not really being ruled by an overlord because the government is actually just our will expressed by our consent with who we vote for. The whole push after the twenty sixteen election and after Brexit and after a couple of other social media run elections that went the wrong way from what the State Department wanted, like the twenty sixteen Philippines election, was to completely invert everything that we described as being the underpinnings of a democratic society in order to deal with the threat of free speech on the Internet.
And what they essentially said is, we need to redefine democracy from being about the will of the voters to being about the sanctity of democratic institutions. And who are the democratic institutions? Oh, it's us. It's the military. It's NATO.
It's the IMF and the World Bank. It's the mainstream media. It is the NGOs. And, of course, these NGOs are largely State Department funded or IC funded. It's essentially all of the elite establishments that were under threat from the rise of domestic populism that declared their own consensus to be the new definition of democracy.
Because if you define democracy as being the strength of democratic institutions rather than a focus on the will of the voters, then what you're left with is essentially democracy is just the consensus building architecture within the within the democratic institutions themselves. And from their perspective, that takes a lot of work. I mean, I mean, the amount of work these people do I mean, for example, we mentioned the Atlantic Council, which is one of these big coordinating mechanisms for the oil and gas industry in a region, for the for the finance and the JP Morgans and and the BlackRocks in a region, for the NGOs in the region, for the media in the region. All of these need to reach a consensus, and that process takes a lot of time. It takes a lot of work and a lot of negotiation.
From their perspective, that's democracy. Democracy is getting the NGOs to agree with BlackRock, to to agree with the with the Wall Street Journal, you know, to to agree with, you know, the the community and activist groups who are onboarded with respect to a particular initiative. That is the difficult vote building process from their perspective. At at the end of the day, a bunch of, you know, populist groups decide that they like a truck driver who's popular on TikTok more than the, you know, carefully constructed consensus of the NATO military brass, well, then from their perspective, you know, that is now an attack on democracy. And this is what this whole branding effort was.
And, of course, democracy, again, has that magic regime change predicate where democracy is is our magic watch word to be able to overthrow governments from the ground up in a sort of color revolution style, whole of society effort to topple a a a a democratically elected government from the inside. For example, as we did in Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych was democratically elected by the Ukrainian people, like him or hate him, I'm not even issuing an opinion there. But the fact is, is we color revolution him out of office. We January 6 him out of office actually, to be frank. I mean, with respect to the you had State Department funded right sector thugs and, you know, dollars 5,000,000,000 worth of civil society money pumped into this to overthrow a democratically elected government in the name of democracy.
And they took that special set of skills home and now it's here perhaps potentially to stay. And this has fundamentally changed the the nature of American governance because of the threat of, you know, one small voice becoming popular on social media.
Speaker 0: May may I ask you a question? So into that that group of institutions that you say now define democracy, the NGOs, foreign policy establishment, etcetera, you you included the mainstream media. Now in 2021, the NSA broke into my private text apps and read them and then leaked them to the New York Times against me. That just happened again to me last week. And I'm wondering how common that is for the intel agencies to work with so called mainstream media like the New York Times to hurt their opponents?
Speaker 1: Well, that is the function of these interstitial government funded nongovernmental organizations and think tanks like, for example, we mentioned the Atlantic Council, which is, NATO's think tank, but other groups like the Aspen Institute, which draws the lion's share of its funding from the State Department and other government agencies. The Aspen Institute was busted doing the same thing with the Hunter Biden laptop censorship. You had this strange situation where the FBI had advanced knowledge of the pending publication of the Hunter Biden laptop story. And then magically, the Aspen Institute, which is run by essentially former CIA, former NSA, former FBI and then a bunch of sort of civil society organizations, all hold a mass stakeholder censorship simulation, a three day conference. This came out and Joe Roth was there.
This is a big part of the Twitter file leaks and it's been mentioned in multiple congressional investigations. But somehow, the Aspen Institute, which is basically an addendum of the national security state, got the exact same information that the national security state spied on journalists and political figures to obtain and not only leaked it, but then basically did a joint coordinated censorship simulator in in September, '2 months before the election, in order, just like with the censorship of mail in ballots, to be in ready position to pre censor anyone online amplifying
Speaker 0: Wait a second.
Speaker 1: Story that had not even broken yet.
Speaker 0: The Aspen Institute? So, I mean, which is, by the way, I Yes. Spent my life in Washington. It's kind of a I mean, Walter Isaacson, formerly of Time magazine, ran it from former president of CNN. I had no idea it was part of the National Security State.
I had no idea its funding came from the US government.
Speaker 1: You know, this
Speaker 0: is the first time I've ever heard that. But given assuming what you're saying is true, it's a little weird that Walter Isaacson left Aspen's to to write a biography of Elon Musk. Strange or no? Yeah.
Speaker 1: You you know, I don't know. I I haven't read that book. I I from what I've heard from people, it's a relatively fair treatment. I, just total speculation, but I suspect that Walter Isaacson has struggled with this issue and may not even firmly fall in one particular place in the sense that Walter Isaacson did a series of interviews of Rick Stengel, actually with the Atlantic Council and in other settings, where he interviewed Rick Stengel specifically on the issue of the need to get rid of the First Amendment and the threat that free speech on social media poses to democracy. Now at the time, I was very concerned.
This was between 2017 and 2019 when he did these Rick Stengel interviews. I was very concerned because Isaacson expressed what seemed to me to be a highly sympathetic view about the Rick Stengel perspective on killing the First Amendment. Now, he didn't formally endorse that position, but it left me very skittish about Isaacson. But what I should say is, at the time, I don't think very many people, in fact, I know virtually nobody in the country, had any idea how deep the rabbit hole went when it came to the construction of the censorship industry and how deep the tentacles had grown within the military and the national security state in order to buoy and consolidate it. Much of that, frankly, did not even come to public light until even last year.
Frankly, some of that was galvanized by Elon Musk's acquisition in the Twitter files and the Republican turnover in the House that allowed these multiple investigations, the lawsuits like Missouri v. Biden and the discovery process there, and multiple other things like the Disinformation Governance Board, who, by the way, the interim head of that the head of that, Nina Jankowicz, got her start in the censorship industry from this exact same clandestine intelligence community censorship network created after the twenty fourteen Crimea situation. Nina Jankovic, when her name came up in 2022 as part of the Disinformation Governance Board, I almost fell out of my chair because I had been tracking Nina's network for almost five years at that point when her name came up as part of The UK inter cluster cell of a busted clandestine operation to censor the Internet called the Integrity Initiative, which was created by the UK Foreign Office and was backed by NATO's political affairs unit in order to carry out this thing that we talked about at the beginning of this dialogue, the NATO's sort of psychological inoculation and the ability to kill so called Russian propaganda or rising political groups who wanted to maintain energy relations with Russia at a time when The US was trying to kill the Nord Stream and other and other, pipeline relations.
Well,
Speaker 0: they did that.
Speaker 1: Marine Le Pen imprint. They they Nina Jankovic was a part of this this outfit. And then who is the who is the head of it after Nina Jankovic went down? It was Michael Chertoff. And Michael Chertoff was running the the Aspen Institute cyber group.
And then this and the Aspen Institute then goes on to be the censorship simulator for the Hunter Biden laptop story. And then two years later, Chertoff is then the head of the disinformation governance board after Nina is forced to step down.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Our close friends are
Speaker 1: Of course, Michael Chertoff was the chairman at bay. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Of course. Yeah.
Michael Chertoff was the chairman of the yeah. The the largest military contractor in Europe, BAE, military is so So
Speaker 0: It's all connected. You've blown my mind so many times in this conversation that I'm gonna need a nap directly after it's done. So I've just got two more two more questions for you. One short, one a little longer. Short one is for people who've made it this far an hour in and wanna know more about this topic, and by the way, I hope you will come back whenever you have the time, to explore different threads of the story.
But for people who wanna do research on their own, how can your research on this, be found on the Internet?
Speaker 1: Sure. So our foundation is foundationforfreedomonline.com. We we publish all manner of of reports on every aspect of the censorship industry from what we talked about with the role of the military industrial complex and national security state to what the universities are doing to, I sometimes refer to as digital MK Ultra. There's just the field of basically the science of censorship and how and the funding of these psychological manipulation methods in order to nudge people into different belief systems as they did with COVID, as they did with energy and every sensitive policy issue is what they essentially had an ambition for. But, so, my foundationforfreedomonline.com website is one way.
The other way is just on x, my handle is mikebencyber. I'm very active there and publish a lot of long form video and written content on all this. I think it's one of the most important issues in the world today.
Speaker 0: So it certainly is. And so that leads directly and seamlessly to my final question, which is about x. And I'm not just saying this because I post content there, but I think objectively, it's the last big platform that's free or sort of free or more free. You post there too. But, you know, we're at the very beginning of an election year with a couple of different wars unfolding simultaneously, in in 2024.
So do you expect that that platform can stay free for the duration of this year?
Speaker 1: It's under an extraordinary amount of pressure and that pressure is going to continue to mount as the election approaches. Elon Musk is a very unique individual and he has a unique buffer perhaps when it comes to the national security state because the national security state is actually quite reliant on Elon Musk properties, whether that's for the electrical, the sort of the green revolution when it comes to Tesla and the battery technology there when it comes to SpaceX. The State Department is hugely dependent on SpaceX because of its unbelievable sort of pioneering and saturating presence in the field of low Earth orbit satellites that are basically how our telecom system runs, the things like Starlink. There are dependencies that the national security state has on Elon Musk. I'm not sure he'd have as much room to negotiate if he had become the world's richest man selling at a lemonade stand.
So there's and if the National Security State goes too hard on him by invoking something like CFIUS to sort of nationalize some of these properties, I think the shockwave that it would send to the international investor community would be irrecoverable at a time when we're engaged in great power competition. So they're trying to kill they're trying to sort of induce, I think, a sort of corporate regime change through a series of things involving a sort of death by a thousand paper cuts. I think there are seven or eight different Justice Department or SEC or FTC investigations into Elon Musk properties that all started after his acquisition of X. But then what they're trying to do right now is what I call the Transatlantic Flank Attack two point o. You know, we talked in this in this dialogue about how the censorship industry really got its start when a bunch of state department exiles, who were expecting promotions, took their special set of skills in coercing European countries to pass sanctions on themselves, to cut off their own leg to spite themselves in order to pass sanctions on Russia.
They ran back that same playbook with doing a roadshow for censorship instead for sanctions. We are now witnessing, you know, transatlantic flag attack two point zero, if you will, which is because they have lost a lot of their federal government powers to do this same censorship operation they've been doing from 2018 to 2022, in part because the House has totally turned on them, in part because of the media, in part because Missouri v. Biden, which won a slam dunk case actually banning government censorship at the trial court and appellate court levels, is now between this before the Supreme Court. They've now moved into two strategies. One of them is state level censorship laws.
California just passed a new law, which the censorship industry totally drove from start to finish around require they call it transform platform accountability and transparency, which is basically forcing Elon Musk to give over the kind of narrative mapping data that these CIA conduits and Pentagon cutouts were using to create these weapons of mass deletion, these abilities to just censor everything at scale because they had all the internal platform data. Elon Musk took that away. They're using state laws like this new California law to crack that open. But the major threat right now is the threat from Europe with something called the EU Digital Services Act, which was cooked up in tandem with folks like NewsGuard, which is run by which has a board of Michael Hayden, Head of the CIA, NSA, four star general. Rick Stengel is on that board from the State Department's Propaganda Office.
Tom Ridge is on that board from the Department of Homeland Security. Oh, and Anders Fogh Rasmussen is on that board. He was the General Secretary of NATO under the Obama administration. So you have NATO, the CIA, the NSA, four star general, DHS, and the state department working with the EU to craft the censorship laws that now are the largest existential threat to x other than potentially x advertiser boycotts because there is now disinformation is now banned as a matter of law in in in the EU. And the EU is a bigger market for x than The US.
There's only 300,000,000 some people in The US. There's 450,000,000 in Europe. X is now forced to comply with this brand new law that just got ratified this year, where they either need to forfeit 6% of their global annual revenue to the EU to maintain operations there or put in place essentially the kind of CIA bumper cars, if you will, that I've been describing over the course of this in order to have an internal mechanism to censor anything that the EU, which is just a proxy for NATO, deems to be disinformation. And you can bet with 65 elections around the around the globe this year, you can you can predict every single time what they're gonna define disinformation as. So that's the main the main fight right now is is dealing with the Transatlantic flank attack from Europe.
Speaker 0: I've said this five times, but that's just one of the most remarkable stories I've ever heard, and I'm grateful to you for bringing it to us. Mike Benz, Executive Director of the Foundation for Freedom Online, and hope we see you again.
Speaker 1: Thanks, Tucker.
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.
@TPostMillennial - The Post Millennial
.@JacquiHeinrich asks the WH press sec: "Why is it that you seem unwilling to extend any credit to Trump for this deal?" https://t.co/RHV2MIsy9p
Video Transcript AI Summary
The deal was achieved under the current president's framework, with significant support from Israel, which weakened Hamas and created the conditions for this outcome. Coordination with the incoming administration was key, emphasizing the importance of a peaceful transition for the American people. The focus is not on credit but on the successful negotiations that will bring hostages home after 15 months of suffering. This is a critical development, and the hope is for continued progress towards ending the conflict. Additionally, increasing humanitarian aid to Gaza is essential, as many people there are in need.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Why is it that you seem unwilling, to extend any credit to Trump for this, deal? Couldn't he just have said, you know, hold off until I'm in office?
Speaker 1: What I will say is that, what we know to be true, what we know this process, how it has moved over the past 8 months, this is a deal that happened under the framework that this president put forward and was endorsed by the world. And this is also an administration that has had certainly the support the back of Israel that helped denigrate Hamas, their military severely, weaken them. And we created because of also being doing that, we created the conditions for this deal. That is what has happened over the last 8 months. And we have talked closely, worked closely, coordinated closely with the incoming incoming administration, and that is how we've been able to get to this point.
And the reason we were able to do that, having that conversation with the transition team, is because this president believed. He believed in the importance of having a peaceful transfer of power. Right? And having a transition that worked for the American people and had, the American people at the forefront in trying to make sure that we got this done. I guess
Speaker 0: we've heard variations of that answered through the briefing, but I guess more plainly, I'm wondering if, you know, if you'll just say your view, which seems to be that Trump gets no credit.
Speaker 1: That's I've shared my view. I don't have anything else to share. I've shared how we got to this point. The president shared that moments ago. He laid out, in very succinct way on how we got to this how we got to this point.
I've talked about Brett McGurk, who's on the ground talking to negotiators, has been there working at the direction of this president, the leadership, obviously, of the national security adviser. This has been something that has been in the works for months for months, way before November. That is just how this has worked. I'm not here to talk about the transition. I'm not talk here to talk about who gets credit, not get credit.
I'm here to talk about what this president has been able to do. And here's what is also incredibly important here. We're gonna get hostages who are going to go home to their family after 15 months of I don't even wanna think the horror the horror that they have gone through. I don't I can't even imagine it. And I think that matters.
I mean, we're going back and forth about credit, but people are gonna go home to their families, and that is so important. And hopefully, the phases will continue, and we'll get to an end of war here. And that is important. And let's not forget, increase that humanitarian aid into Gaza because there are people there who need that aid and the assistance.
@TPostMillennial - The Post Millennial
New Tucker Carlson episode just dropped…and it’s spicy! Former police officer, congressman exposes truth of Jan. 6 https://t.co/M81l8Pi9Yb
Video Transcript AI Summary
Three years after January 6th, questions remain about the events of that day and the FBI's involvement. Congressman Clay Higgins directly questioned FBI Director Christopher Wray about whether the FBI had undercover agents among the protesters, particularly inside the Capitol. Higgins asserts that evidence suggests FBI assets were present, potentially instigating actions that led to the chaos. He believes there were over 200 FBI agents involved, manipulating the situation to entrap Trump supporters. Higgins emphasizes the need for transparency and calls for the release of all digital evidence from January 6th to the public, asserting that the American people deserve to know the truth about what transpired. He expresses concern over the implications of government actions and the need for accountability within federal agencies.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: It has been exactly 3 years since January 6th, the events of January 6th. The racist insurrection that shocked this nation to its core, more profoundly than anything since Pearl Harbor plus the civil war. And it has taken a while, honestly, even for people who aren't on the side of the professional liars to realize there's something amiss about what happened that day. Not just the response, the largest law enforcement mobilization in the history of the United States that was obviously disproportionate, because it wasn't the worst riot that year, not even close. But the day itself, there was something about January 6th that didn't feel right, and hovering over that day has remained the question to what extent was it a setup.
And we still don't really know, but what's interesting is how few people have asked that entirely legitimate question. One of the very few, really one of the only in the United States Congress, is a member called Clay Higgins from Louisiana. In case you haven't seen this clip, it's worth rewatching. This is from 2022 at Homeland Security Committee hearing where he asked it just directly of the FBI director. Why?
Speaker 1: Did the FBI have confidential human sources embedded within the January 6th protesters and on January 6, 2021?
Speaker 2: Well, Congressman, as I'm sure you can appreciate, I have to be very careful about what I can say about when
Speaker 1: Even now, that's what you told us a few
Speaker 2: years ago. Matt finish. About when we do and do not and where we have and have not used confidential human sources. But to the extent that there's a suggestion, for example, that the FBI's confidential human sources or FBI employees in some way instigated or orchestrated January 6th, that's categorically false.
Speaker 1: Did you have confidential human sources dressed as Trump supporters inside the capitol on January 6th prior to the doors being open?
Speaker 2: Again, I had to be very careful
Speaker 1: with what be a no. Can you not tell the American people no? We did not have confidential human sources dressed as Trump supporters positioned inside the capitol. Gentlemen, Pam has expired. You should
Speaker 2: not read anything into my decision not to share information Director Ray. Confidential.
Speaker 1: Gentleman's time has expired.
Speaker 0: What a sleazy, repulsive, little authoritarian liar Chris Wray is. That's obvious when you watch that tape. The sad part is so few tapes like that exist because so few have confronted him directly and asked questions to which the entire country has a right to know the answer like that one. Clay Higgins did that. Congressman from Louisiana Louisiana Lafayette joins us in studio.
Congressman, thanks so much for coming up.
Speaker 1: Thank you for having me, Tuck.
Speaker 0: So that was over a year ago that you asked that question, which is a central question, and you asked it as I think is appropriate without any embarrassment at all on behalf of your constituents and the rest of the country. Are you any closer to the answer now?
Speaker 1: Well, we're closer to being in a position where we can reveal the answers that we already have. Much of the evidence that we have compiled from investigative effort over the the course of the last couple of years. Some offices like my own would have operated in silos of investigative endeavor, have now been able to come together now that we have a republican majority and we have access to the to the to the staffs of the appropriate investigative committees. And so I sit on the oversight committee and we republicans run that committee now, therefore we control the staff. So when you can magnify the efforts that individual, members of congress have have have pushed within our own offices.
When you can magnify those efforts by the the skill and the numbers of staff from the committees, you you get a lot of evidence reviewed professionally and aligned and assembled into essentially a case file. And in in this case, this is a big file because the the the involvement of of certain actors, and you could say deep state actors within the federal government, to set the stage for, what happened in in j 4, 5, and 6, and and to, entrap thousands of Americans from across the country and lure them into this this set stage on j 4, 5, and 6. The people that were involved in that is is is quite a large web. So, yes, sir. We do have a great deal of evidence compiled, and we are we are gradually, professionally, rolling that evidence out.
So you sort
Speaker 0: of answered the question right there in larger terms. You just said that elements within the federal government, I assume law enforcement intel and military, and I'm using your words, lured Americans to Washington into what you called a trap. Yes, sir. So that would I mean, that's a shocking and I assume that's a that's a sober conclusion based on the evidence. That's what you're saying.
Speaker 1: That's that would be my sober assessment as an investigator, and I'm, you know, I'm quite a I love my country, and and I've I've always been a staunch defender of the thin blue line. And I I would proudly count the FBI amongst that number. They're just like brothers to me. So to find that level of, of conspiratorial corruption at the highest levels of the FBI has been very troubling to me as a man, as a cop, and and yet did you know, you follow the evidence wherever it leads, and Yes. This is what investigators do.
So, when I asked Christopher Wray that that question, for instance, I already knew the answer. I had reviewed compelling evidence that the that FBI had assets, human assets, dressed as Trump supporters inside the capitol prior to the doors being open and the masses allowed in. So now I I knew that the FBI was deeply involved. I'd seen evidence even at that time with, that the FBI had embedded themselves into various groups online across the country of Americans who were essentially voicing their their concerns and airing their grievances with each other about COVID oppression. Those Americans were targeted by the FBI, almost universally, Republicans and and, largely Trump supporters, but the FBI worked undercover to infiltrate those conversations and become a significant part of those individual Americans' communications.
And when you dig into the evidence that we've we've had revealed through through some criminal cases that I've I've followed and worked with the families of j six political detainees and Americans that have been persecuted for their involvement in in the capital that day. And some of that evidence is shockingly reveals that the the the FBI agents that were operating undercover within the online groups across the country were were the first ones to plant the seeds of of, suggestions of of a more radical occupation of the capital and and they were sort of testing the waters of who amongst that group would would begin acknowledging that, you know, yeah, may maybe we should do that. Maybe we should plan for an occupation like that. But if you look at the the origins of those conversations, it it was started by the the FBI undercover guy that was operating inside the group. And then months later, on January 4th, 5th, 6th, many of those Americans met for the first time in person when they gathered for the massive rally where American patriots assembled to object to to everything that had happened during 2020, the COVID oppression, and the the stunning results of what we believe was a compromised election cycle in November 2020.
So Americans gathered at their own capital to to appropriately air grievances and protest at their capital, but embedded amongst their number was an FBI asset that had been working from within their group online for many months. So this was the level of of manipulative effort that the FBI invested into American citizenry and our our assembly online to, and to exercise our rights under the first amendment, to talk to each other about whatever we wanna talk about, including the the the insidious suppressions of COVID that we were suffering across the country. So and our concerns about where the election was going, the whole mail in ballot thing, we could see the stage was being set for a compromised election cycle possibly, and to our horror that's what happened. So FBI had fingerprints on this thing from from many months prior to j 4, 5, and 6.
Speaker 0: I wanna go back to something you said in the first sentence, which is you have seen evidence and that's for your questions to Chris Wray that there were FBI assets dressed as Trump supporters within the capital. So that is proof of entrapment because, of course, the federal government could have prevented entry into the capital building. Aren't that many doors. You work there, you know. But they allowed people in on purpose to entrap them.
That's what that proves, I think. Does it not?
Speaker 1: Well, it's certainly condemning. It's another piece of the of the strategy that the that the government employed to sort of complete the entrapment of Americans that they had had, infiltrated and then prodded and provoked with online with the with the those original seeds planted of of, actions like, you know, what type of gear to wear and and and just in language that incited behavior that could go the wrong way. You know, pushing actions of of legal and legitimate peaceful protest to an edge where where those Americans would likely not have gone had they not been been, you know, encouraged by the FBI plant amongst their number that they didn't know was there. So by the time it was actually j 6 and you had you had, masses of Americans assembled outside the capitol, almost, like, 99.9%, 100% peaceful. On the inside, you had FBI assets dressed as Trump supporters that knew their way around the capitol.
Before the doors even open. Before the doors open. Or else how are you gonna get around the capitol? You've been there many times. You need a guide to get from whatever door you go in.
It's a labyrinth. It's, yeah, it's it's a maze inside there. So you that's right. So there's no way just Americans, most of which, had never been to the capitol, There's no way they can come in some random door that gets opened and then get their way directly to the to the statuary or the house chamber or the senate chamber. It's just not possible.
So the the the FBI assets that were dressed as Trump supporters that were inside the capitol were there, I believe, and evidence indicates that they were there to to specifically waive in the the Trump supporters that had gathered outside the capitol, and the doors open and they were allowed in. And on the inside were were oh, there's some more Trump supporters, but really those were FBI assets, law enforcement assets that knew their way around the capital. And they they waved those guys in, said, come on. Follow us. And they they're the ones that led them on the path directly.
Now how do you think of guys? Never been to the capital. Gotta gotta come into the capitol all amped up on on emotion and make his way straight to Nancy Pelosi's office. Come on. It's like I couldn't get to there's no way.
I've been there for 7 years. Could come in some random door at the capitol and make my way to Nashville. Everything is unmarked.
Speaker 0: I mean, those leadership offices are unmarked. So how would
Speaker 1: you know? It's confusing to get around in the capitol. Every American that has been there knows this. When you go on a tour, you bring your family to DC, you go through the capital, you have to have a guide. And and on January 6th, the guides were FBI assets, the law enforcement assets, and they were dressed as Trump supporters.
They were positioned inside the capitol prior to the doors being open so that the Americans that had assembled outside the capitol, once allowed in, could be brought directly to the areas where the FBI, the DOJ, and the deep state actors knew would be the most, the most sort of condemning criminal action of of Americans being a lot being inside the capital, protesting without permit and things. So they knew they were setting the stage for arrest and prosecution. It's such a crime. Who who planned this, do you think? I think factions planned this.
I wouldn't say who talked about it because that, yeah, I don't think there was one person that that planned this, but I believe the the faction of, establishment liberals within the FBI and the Democrat Party and our intelligence services to to another extent, use their massive powers of surveillance and, investigative, assets that they have across the country, confidential informants, registered informants, non registered informants, voluntary informants. It's a it's a complex web of of FBI assets across the country that can be activated. So if you have authority at some of the highest levels in the FBI, it doesn't take much, the faction within the FBI and within our intelligence services that would coordinate with with the most extreme liberal, factions within a Democrat party that were desperate to keep Trump out of office, and and, you know, worked within the the theater of operations, shall we say, that had been that had been set by the COVID alleged medical emergencies nationwide and millions and millions of mail in ballots. There's no daylight between the the compromised election cycle of November 2020 and ultimately what happened on on on j6. So you ask who planned this?
This would be the combination of several several of the most extreme liberal anti Trump, anti America First factions that, that were in positions of authority within our federal law enforcement organizations and the the Democrat party across the country.
Speaker 0: Can when you say that there were FBI assets in the crowd, it in the building beforehand and and certainly outside, What's the scale of this? You're talking, like, 10, 20? No.
Speaker 1: Based upon some very conservative, but, like, hard investigative effort evaluation of of the numbers from putting together eyewitnesses and and videos and, and affidavit statement, and whistleblower statements, and court records that have been revealed through individual criminal cases where j6 defendants have been prosecuted, and smart attorneys have forced, admissions by the DOJ and the FBI, but those admissions have been sealed within the parameter of that criminal case by protective order by the judge, so they I I can't share them, but I've seen them. So real hard objective and conservative, estimates would would put the number of FBI assets in the crowd outside and working inside at at well over 200. 200? Yeah.
Speaker 0: Yeah. So you're in law enforcement. Yeah. Yep. Before you came to congress in the military as well, that seemed that's an extraordinary number.
Is it?
Speaker 1: Well, no. When you think about the scope of the operation, if you were gonna do this, you would need you would
Speaker 0: need that relative to so like when, I don't know, Minneapolis burned down or when Saint John's, the Episcopal Church of Carson, the White House in Lafayette Square was set ablaze, and all the secret service agents were injured. Were there 200 FBI assets in the crowd among Antifa then?
Speaker 1: I mean, I I don't know how many undercover agents FBI would have in a situation like that, but but but but j 6 was the was the was the final act prior to arrest and prosecution of of Americans that that were identified as as Trump supporters. I mean, the objective was to destroy the entire MAGA movement, to to forever stain the, the patriotic fervor that was associated with with the America First Mega Movement that had won in 2016 and we believe won again in 2020, and the the establishment on both sides, both major parties were determined to smash that out of existence, not just by defeating Trump, but by destroying the reputations of the movement itself by creating this narrative that was totally false, but was heavily pushed that mega Republicans, America First Republicans are somehow a danger to our republic and a a domestic terror threat, which is a whole another story about what the FBI has done to tagging Americans as, suspected domestic terrorists and and following us as we travel across the country. But the the bottom line is that, 200 as a I I believe is a conservative number. First of all, I think there were there's many more, But a number that I'm comfortable going on record with is that we believe that there were that there were easily 200 FBI undercover assets operating in the crowd, outside the capital, embedded into groups that entered the capital or provoked entry of the capital, and working with FBI assets that would have included Metro Police and Capitol Police that would dress as Trump supporters inside the capital because those were the guys that knew their way around the capitol.
So given the scope of the operation and the number of doors where entry was allowed or even encouraged, and the number of people that were actually outside the capital and it entered, we believe 200 is a conservative number. Yes, sir.
Speaker 0: It's it's shocking what you're saying. It confirms everyone's worst suspicions about this. It's clearly true. Did you come across any evidence that the the DOD, the military, either Defense Intelligence Agency or National Guard or any part of the US military played any role in this at all?
Speaker 1: I have not seen that. I've heard the echoes of that suspicion, and I have I have observed, circumstantial evidence that that has been presented to me, that I've that I have reviewed, but to but to me, it does not rise to the level that I would call actionable from an investigative perspective. So there's some there was some suspicion, but in in in law enforcement the thresholds you're looking across is reasonable suspicion that would prompt a criminal investigation, and then the next threshold is probable cause, which you need for arrest. And then of course in our system, finally, the last threshold is is, is conviction, guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. So the I I did review evidence, Tucker, regarding some suspicions of military involvement in some way, but and I and I've I have reviewed some of that evidence that that had been that I've been able to get my hands on, and, I do not think that the the military was, was involved, not at the level, most certainly not at the level of the of the FBI and, over the course of all of 2020.
And then on j 4, 5, and 6, the FBI working in coordination with other law enforcement assets that that they roped into the operation Right. From Metro PD, from DC, and and, the Capitol Police was sort of sort of tricked into participating with the with what the FBI had been staging for, you know, 10 months. Just a bit
Speaker 0: if you take 3 steps back, this is not democracy. So the federal agencies serve under the oversight of the elected president, and then on under the oversight of the elected congress. Their elected people get to make the decisions. You have a Republican president. You now have a Republican congress, and neither one can get a straight answer from the FBI.
No no one has any control of the FBI. You're describing a government within a government.
Speaker 1: Well, in America, a question becomes reasonable men would would would ask when we face a crisis like this, who investigates the investigate? Right. And the answer in America is is congress. So we we have the responsibility to investigate through the appropriate committees, which would we're certainly we're certainly doing that now that we have a republican majority in control of the committees, but we don't have the power to arrest. We can we can give criminal referrals based upon our investigative efforts, but we have to have a DOJ that's receptive to the criminal referrals.
So we we've hit quite a a brick wall, have we not? Constitutionally, we we have the responsibility to investigate objectively, and and and anyone that knows me know that's exactly what I'm I'm pursuing. I do not have I'm not trying to create a crime to fit a narrative to blame on the FBI. I'm following the evidence, and and to my horror, it implicates our FBI at the highest level, and a and a a conspiracy within our government at the highest level to create the the, to set the stage for a compromised election cycle in 2020, and then the the the actions that took place on j 4, 5, and 6, and then the the criminal investigation, arrest, and prosecution of Americans that they were able to entrap and document with the thousands of cameras that were operating that day and use that evidence that they knew they were setting up to investigate, arrest, and prosecute the Americans that they had entrapped. So Congress can investigate these things, and we and we are, and we will reveal these horrific truths, and we will have criminal referrals.
But until you have a a a president running the executive branch that will clean house at the DOJ and FBI at the highest levels and put American patriots in place that will be that will act upon the criminal referrals that that congress provides, then none of those guys are gonna get arrested because they're not gonna arrest themselves, and we don't have arrest authority.
Speaker 0: I'm a little surprised and don't expect to be critical of your colleagues in the Republican conference, but, I mean, they do control the house. Impeachment is a thing. Chris Wray is still the FBI director. I watched Republicans, some of whom I know, cheer the murder of Ashley Babbitt who was unarmed woman less than 55, by Michael Byrd. They were Michael Byrd side, and it I have to say for a lot of Republican voters and I count myself among them.
Very clarifying. If you're cheering Ashley Babbitt's murder shooting women now, that's okay because she likes Trump. And the Republicans were like, yeah. I was happy. Like, a lot of them thought that.
What the hell?
Speaker 1: Yeah. I was and it it made me sick. Me too. You know, I'm there's a a great responsibility when you when you wear a badge in America. I mean, think about it.
To be to be the to be the designated servant of your community that has that has the the authority to, to deny the freedom of a fellow American in the land of the free. Like, that's a heavy responsibility. So the the escalation of of force is must be appropriate in order to affect a lawful arrest, and and a a bad a bad shoot is the worst thing that an officer can possibly be involved in in his in his career. It's it's, you know, we it's it's it's the thing of nightmares for for good police officers. So to take what was what was from a law enforcement perspective was clearly a bad shoot because there's some basic rules you just cannot violate.
You have to attempt to effect an arrest before you can go to deadly force. There was there was no attempt to arrest Ashley Batman. There were there were officers on the other side of the window she was climbing through. There were officers on the interior side of the window she was climbing through. There was no indication that had been that this had been going on for an hour, and there was there was no reports on the radio or anywhere else of of gunfights.
So there was no reason at that point to expect that Ashley Babin or anybody else in the in the crowd was gonna produce a firearm and start firing on police officers. Why? Because it had not happened. So that's part of the totality of circumstance that a police officer is responsible for knowing. We stay in constant communication with our radios.
We know what's going on. That officer that that that pulled that trigger would shot a a American woman who was clearly in a in like a physically compromised position climbing through the broken glass of a of a window is not, you know, it's not like she just stepped into the cage in MMA and she was ready to fight. She was climbing through a window draped in a flag. There's police officers on the other side of the window. There's police officers on the interior side of the window.
So you have plenty enough officer presence. If you wanna arrest that woman, then by all means, pull it through the window, you know, put flex cuffs on her and throw her in the corner. We'll get to you later, ma'am. We're kinda busy right now. That's what you do.
You'd have grabbed that woman and pulled her through the and threw her in the corner, or handed her back to somebody that could pull her back, you know, from that front line right there. So understand that very well, I understand officers have to make split second decisions, but you never you never make a decision to use lethal force unless it's absolutely called for and required, if you're losing a fight attempting to effect an arrest, then then, yeah, if if there's if if the officer's life is in danger and he's all by himself, but there's never should be a circumstance where you just pull the trigger and a woman climbing through a window that's clearly unarmed. There's no evidence of gunplay from the crowd that she's coming from. You got officers on both side of where she is. If you gotta arrest her, then by all means, arrest her.
You know, to put flex cups on her and and move on. So, you know, she'd nannle the next person trying to come through the window, but she don't shoot her. So that was a
Speaker 0: bad issue. An invest a reveal investigation. Was cheered.
Speaker 1: Yep. Why do you think that was? And there's this in there's this insanity that has taken hold in the in the the minds and hearts of many otherwise reasonable American citizens where they did they they hate Trump so much. Like, they're they're so deeply embedded, and they're they've sold their souls to the establishment that when we had an America first president and and he and he, like, stopped the, the military industrial complex forward momentum and and he and he began restoring power to individual members of congress and restoring individual rights and freedoms and sovereignty of the state, and he took away the actions of the cartels and and brought this this real common sense approach to the executive branch and was leading our country in that beautiful direction. This was interfering with the business model of the establishment.
So many career politicians on both sides of the aisle, and I, you know, I don't like those guys, man. I'm not one of them. And I I served my country in congress, but, I I don't consider myself a politician by any means. I'm a servant to We The People. Some of these guys, man, they pop out of the womb to be to be politicians.
They get groomed their whole life, you know, to be a a career politician. And those are the ones that had this instinctive cheer for something really bad happening to a Trump supporter. You know, they their true color showed in that moment and was an ugly color. Yeah. That's it.
Speaker 0: We shouldn't be shooting women, number 1. I couldn't agree more. So where where does this go from here? You have this corpus of information. It sounds like it's definitive.
When does the public see the detail, and what's the process after that?
Speaker 1: It's a good question. So evidence from criminal investigations by nature is rather secretive, but there is a, a tremendous compilation of data that I think should be made completely available to the public, and that's the digital files from from j 4, 5, and 6. This is where, speaker Mike Johnson can be a champion for for that will be remembered for throughout history as the speaker of the house that fully released unredacted, digital files from j 4, 5, and 6 completely to the American people. And within that data, there is full truth, and and the American people, it is the only staff large enough to, you know, frame by frame, go through 80,000 hours of digital evidence. Nobody has a staff big enough to do that, but we can crowdsource it to the American people.
So you ask when will this evidence be released? I'd I've I've been encouraging speaker Johnson, as I did speaker McCarthy, to, my god, man, release this data to the American people.
Speaker 0: Why won't why won't they?
Speaker 1: I believe speaker Johnson will, but but Mike is a is is quite a skilled constitutionalist attorney himself, and he's a very measured, patient, faithful man. So, I have I extend trust to to speaker Johnson when he says that it's his intention to fully release the the call the j6 tapes, but really it's digital evidence, it's more than it's more than just video evidence, it's it's a lot. You know, radio transcripts, the whole thing. I I believe my speaker Johnson knows that this is a significant, duty that he must he he he must perform for the American people. It's a moment in history where where, you know, I believe our lord and savior has placed him in that in that position of service to the country, and he has a responsibility to to fully release that data.
And then the American people will see for themselves what some of us have already learned to our horror to be true.
Speaker 0: Congressman Hinggens, thank you very much. 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.
@TPostMillennial - The Post Millennial
The US Treasury says its workstations were hacked in a China-backed cyberattack https://t.co/yRa9z4LPZd
Video Transcript AI Summary
The US Treasury has reportedly been hacked by a Chinese state-sponsored actor, described as a major incident. The cyber attack occurred earlier this month, with reports indicating that Treasury workstations and unclassified documents were accessed remotely.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Breaking right now, the US Treasury reportedly saying it was hacked by a Chinese state sponsored actor. It's being called a quote, major incident. The AFP reporting that the cyber attack happened earlier this month. Treasury workstations and unclassified documents were reportedly accessed remotely.
@TPostMillennial - The Post Millennial
WATCH: Bongino claims that he and the other owners of Parler are dedicated to free speech, set record straight about former CEO John Matze. https://t.co/iGw6itLDaR
Video Transcript AI Summary
The Parler CEO, John Matzey, was terminated by the board, and the narrative surrounding his departure is inaccurate. The board was committed to a clear vision of Parler as a free speech platform, while Matzey's vision diverged from this. The board fought to restore Parler after it was taken down by Amazon and others, refusing to compromise on free speech principles. Matzey's claims about advocating for free speech and product stability are false. The board worked tirelessly to revive the platform, and any contrary narrative is misleading. The commitment to free speech remains strong, and further details will be discussed on the Dan Bongino Show.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So, it's time to correct the record. The Parler CEO, John Matzey, was terminated by the board of Parler, but the story you're hearing, unfortunately, is not correct. Here's the real story so you have it and don't believe the hype so this fake news doesn't fester and you don't I'm already getting emails from listeners understandably so asking me questions about why was the parlor CEO let go? I read a story at fox news.com where he claims he was a real advocate for free speech, and he was a real advocate for product stability, and he was let go. And, folks, that's not accurate.
Those are his statements, not mine. I have no personal gripe against John, the CEO at all. I wanna be crystal clear, but John decided to make this public, not us. We were handling it like gentlemen, and John decided somehow to make this public or put out this memo that was made public via press reports. So here's what really happened.
We were the ones in fact fighting to get parlor back up. It was some really bad decisions made by people on the inside, and listen, this isn't us airing dirty laundry, this is protecting a company that is absolutely committed to free speech that I put the last year of my life into. Do you actually believe that someone else was on the side of free speech and me from the eponymously named Dan Bongino Show was would get involved with a company that was fighting against free speech. You'd have to be an imbecile to believe that. There were 2 separate visions from the for the company, and I don't know what John's saying in his reports out there, but this free speech vision that was ours, the other owners of the company.
Let me be crystal clear on this. He makes two points that, oh, I was a big advocate for free speech. It was my vision, and I was a big advocate for product stability. That is not true. Everybody digging my chili, what I'm laying down, that is not true.
That is false. If he wants to get into a battle over here of narratives, he's going to lose because there's this thing getting in the way of that story he keeps telling and it's called the truth. I'm really pissed off right now because that's absolutely not what happened. The relationship with Parler and the CEO did not work out because the CEO's vision was not ours. Are we everybody clear on that?
Our vision was crystal clear. We needed to get up and fight back. Some terrible decisions were made in the past that led to this, that led us to getting put down by Amazon and others. It was us, me and the 3 other and the 2 other owners, excuse me, and the 2 other owners that were constantly on the side of this site was gonna be a free speech platform or it was gonna be nothing. We have to be crystal clear on this.
Again, I love my show, I love my audience, I love everyone who watches what I do. You guys are great ladies out there, I read your emails and I'm a little bothered because one, I didn't see this coming, we were handling this like gentlemen before it decided to become a public issue, but now that it is a public issue, make absolutely no mistake, I'm going to say this for the 10th time, The vision of the company as a free speech platform was mine and the 2 other owners, and we were resolutely committed to that. Folks, we could have been up after Apple, Amazon, and Google wiped this out, we could have been up in a week if we just would have bent the knee and followed all the ridiculous Apple edicts to become a heavy moderation site to the left of Twitter. That's not what we're going to do. We don't want garbage on our site either, and we took the proper steps to do that, but we were a free speech site and will remain as such, and that's why it's taken so long to get back up.
And John's statements out there that he made in this in this leaked memo that made it into the news, those statements are false. Again, I cannot tell you that enough, and I'm not gonna let this narrative fester. It is me and my co owners that are resolutely committed to a free speech site. He is not telling the truth there, and the product stability, and he was committed to product stability. Wait till the real story comes out there one day about product stability and our warnings, our, me, and the 2 other owners warnings to him about product stability.
Is he really sure he wants to get into this? Again, I have no personal beef with the man at all, but this is an outrageous attack on people who have done nothing but work day and night to get this site back up and to fight back against these cancel culture goons and to get kneecapped like this by someone we trusted is a disgrace. He is no white knight in this story. There are people who fought hard to get this back up and are fighting right now and are working nonstop. And that story you're hearing is not true.
That is a version of events. So I'm leaving after this, I have to go do something. Sorry, but this is an emergency press conference. I thought that I shouldn't say that's a Dave Portnoy thing. It's just a press conference.
That's a Dave Portnoy has a monopoly on emergency press conferences. This is a press conference for me, but I just wanna leave you with this. The vision for the company as a free speech site and a stable product, immune and hardened to cancel culture was ours, ours, me and the 2 owners. Anyone telling you otherwise is feeding you fairy tales and fables. That is false.
And when the real story comes out and you see the communications, if those ever come out, you'll see my story is 100% true because it's not a story, it's the facts. Hey, thanks for tuning in. I rarely do these, but you know what happens with fake news. If you let it fester, people start to believe it. Please share this, pass it on to your friends, and let them know Parler is absolutely committed to free speech no matter what, and that's why it's taken so long to get back.
Thanks for your time. Sorry to bother you during dinner, many of you, but I appreciate the 37,000 people that are watching right now. Thanks a lot. Please please spread the word. And I'll by the way, just one more thing.
I'll talk about it more on my show tomorrow. If you want more details on, the Dan Bongino Show, you can check it out. Go to bongino.com, and I'll talk about the whole thing. Alright? You don't wanna miss that.
See you later.
@TPostMillennial - The Post Millennial
MSNBC’s Michele Norris describes a "rush to the exits" at Howard University following the announcement Kamala will not be speaking tonight. Her speaking tomorrow "is a logistical nightmare on several levels, because the university was not expecting her to come back tomorrow." https://t.co/xar8QsjBgi
Video Transcript AI Summary
Cedric Richmond announced that the vice president will not be speaking tonight, prompting many in the crowd to leave immediately. The atmosphere grew somber as the election results became clearer. Richmond confirmed that she would return to Howard tomorrow to address both the university and the nation, which poses logistical challenges since her visit was unexpected. There is uncertainty about the crowd size, and her team faced difficulties deciding when she should leave her victory party. As the mood shifted, music replaced the TV coverage, reflecting the disappointment among attendees. Despite the challenging numbers, some still cling to hope in a divided country.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You just saw those remarks from Cedric Richmond. We saw the reaction from the crowd from that aerial or that high mounted shot in terms of people turning and leaving. Cedric Richmond, Michelle, making clear that the vice president will not be speaking tonight. Nobody should be waiting to hear anything from her. But it does sound like was I was I right in understanding what Cedric Richmond was saying, that she will be back at Howard tomorrow to make remarks both to Howard and to the nation?
Speaker 1: Yes. Yes. You heard that right. The crowd you can probably see behind me, the rush to the exits. I mean, as soon as he said that, people turned on their heels and they were out of here.
The evening was getting increasingly somber as people realized what this map is looking like. He did indicate that she would be back tomorrow to speak to people here and to speak to the nation. That, of course, is a logistical nightmare on several levels because the university was not expecting her to come back tomorrow.
Speaker 0: I
Speaker 1: don't know how large the crowd will be. There are a lot of unknowns in that statement. I do know that there was a lot of hand rain and consternation in her camp about when she should leave, about when she should start to head here in her victory party, which was in another part of town. At what point, they turned off the TV set and just up the music because the room was starting to get increasingly somber. So a lot of people here, I'm not you know, I haven't had a chance to talk to people who expressed disappointment.
There really is still a lot of people who are holding on to hope, trying hard to hold on to hope. But the numbers, you know, it's hard to do that in the face of a map that really looks like it's presenting a very steep challenge. And a country that at this point is still very divided.
@TPostMillennial - The Post Millennial
Whoopi compares Trump to a bug, Biden pretends to kill the bug https://t.co/0dPk7LHtde
Video Transcript AI Summary
He wouldn't leave and kept being there. He was like a bug.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Then he just wouldn't go. He was like a a bug. He just kept being there. He was like a like a bug right there. So you felt
@TPostMillennial - The Post Millennial
BREAKING: President Trump announces he will end sanctuary cities: "We will hunt down and capture every single gang member, drug dealer, rapist, murderer, and migrant criminal." https://t.co/ont8JtKAeS
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker announces a plan to end all sanctuary cities in North Carolina and across the country. Upon taking office, the speaker plans to surge federal law enforcement to cities failing to turn over criminal aliens. The speaker states they will hunt down and capture every gang member, drug dealer, rapist, murderer, and migrant criminal being illegally harbored. The speaker claims that the top 25 worst cities are Democrat-run.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Today, I'm announcing a new plan to end all sanctuary cities in North Carolina and all across our country. No more sanctuary cities. Uncle Sam, do you agree? Uncle Sam agrees. I had a feeling you would.
Right? You're great. As soon as I take office, we will immediately surge federal law enforcement to every city that is failing, which is a lot of them, to turn over criminal aliens and we will hunt down, capture every single gang member, drug dealer, rapist, murderer, and migrant criminal that is being illegally harbored. Every one of the top 25 worst cities are democrat run cities.
@TPostMillennial - The Post Millennial
Kamala says she spoke with Trump: "I checked on him to see if he was OK." https://t.co/C7U66uaGvO
Video Transcript AI Summary
The Vice President confirmed that President Biden spoke with former President Trump after the attempt on his life. She also spoke with Trump to check on his well-being and reiterated her public statement: there is no place for political violence in the country. She stated that she is in the election to fight for democracy, where disagreements should be resolved through healthy debate, not violence.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Madam vice president Madam did you president Biden spoke to former president Trump after the attempt on his life this weekend. Did have you spoken to him Uh-huh. And earlier today, I assume? Yes. How'd that go?
You wanna give us some intel? Sure. I, I checked on to see if he was okay. Yeah. And, I told him what I have said publicly.
There's no place for political violence in our country. I am in this election, in this race for many reasons, including to fight for our democracy. And in a democracy, there there is no place for political violence. We can and should have healthy debates and discussion and disagreements, but not resort to violence to to resolve those issues.
@TPostMillennial - The Post Millennial
Michigan's Dem sec of state keeps RFK Jr.’s name on ballot, while planning to keep Cornell West off https://ow.ly/pajq50T8frQ
@TPostMillennial - The Post Millennial
Kamala Harris admits the immigration policies under the Biden-Harris admin are broken, promises to fix them if she wins. https://t.co/hxX47j8oxB
Video Transcript AI Summary
I was attorney general of a border state and successfully prosecuted transnational gangs, drug cartels, and human traffickers. Our immigration system is broken, and we need comprehensive reform with strong border security and a pathway to citizenship.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: America has tried so many of those failed policies before, and like we all know, we're not going back. We we will move forward and take on the biggest issues facing our nation. For example, the issue of immigration. So I was attorney general of a border state. I went after the transnational gangs, the drug cartels, and human traffickers.
I prosecuted them in case after case, and I won. So I know what I'm talking about. We know our immigration system is broken, and we know what it takes to fix it. Comprehensive reform that includes strong border security and an earned pathway to citizenship.
@TPostMillennial - The Post Millennial
GRAPHIC CONTENT: Video shows knife attack in NYC laundromat https://t.co/Semz4FlLDA
@TPostMillennial - The Post Millennial
Tim Walz first order as Minn governor was to create DEI council, make himself the chair https://thepostmillennial.com/tim-walz-first-order-as-minn-governor-was-to-create-dei-council-make-himself-the-chair?utm_campaign=64466
Tim Walz first order as Minn governor was to create DEI council, make himself the chair
“Disparities in Minnesota, including those based on race, geography, and economic status, keep our entire state from reaching its full potential.”
thepostmillennial.com
@TPostMillennial - The Post Millennial
Kamala secures Dem nomination without winning single primary in 'virtual roll call' https://ow.ly/m8LF50SQrGU
@TPostMillennial - The Post Millennial
Secret Service Acting Director Rowe: “Neither the Secret Service counter sniper teams nor members of the former president's security detail had knowledge there was a man on the roof" https://t.co/o4vnVr9JT9
Video Transcript AI Summary
I will provide an overview of the security planning for the July 13th attack. The Secret Service and the former president's security team were unaware of a man with a firearm on the AGR building's roof until gunshots were heard. They were informed by local law enforcement about a suspicious individual before the shooting occurred.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: As you saw in my written statement, I am prepared to provide an overview of the security planning leading up to and during the July 13th attack. However, I would like to point out that based on what I know right now, neither the Secret Service counter sniper teams nor members of the former president's security detail had any knowledge that there was a man on the roof of the AGR building with a firearm. It is my understanding those personnel were not aware the assailant had a firearm until they heard gunshots. Prior to that, they were operating with the knowledge that local law enforcement was working an issue of a suspicious individual prior to the shots being fired.
@TPostMillennial - The Post Millennial
Kamala Harris VP contender Tim Walz: “One person’s socialism is another person’s neighborliness” https://t.co/GuNX7aDPbE
@TPostMillennial - The Post Millennial
JUST IN - A victim of the FBI plot to kidnap Michigan Gov. Whitmer speaks out: "The FBI set everything up. They drove people; they paid for everything. They wrote the script." https://t.co/qeaQRUP8pJ
Video Transcript AI Summary
I was part of the group arrested for the Whitmer kidnap plot, which was set up by the FBI. I was acquitted. I thought I was doing security work, but it turned out to be targeting Whitmer's cottage. I got charged for material support terrorism and felony firearm possession. The government lied about the situation. I urge people to take action to ensure real justice in the face of government overreach.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Sign here. Whitmer, kidnap, plot victim. Wait. You were one of them?
Speaker 1: Yes, sir.
Speaker 0: You were one of the ones I
Speaker 1: talked to you for a very long time.
Speaker 0: Real quick. I'm gonna go back to Miranda,
Speaker 1: but tell me real quick.
Speaker 0: We only got about 20 seconds. Alright. You're so you're one of the ones that got arrested for the plot?
Speaker 1: Yes, sir. Eric Molitor. I'm Eric Molitor.
Speaker 0: Tell me about it real quick.
Speaker 1: Real quick. I don't even know where to start. And it
Speaker 0: it FBI infiltrated, basically set it up. Am I right?
Speaker 1: The FBI set everything up. They drove people. They paid for everything. They wrote the script. Governor Whitmer herself opened her scheduling book and decided with the FBI and state police when it'd be the best time for the daytime ride, the nighttime ride, then they dupe people into it.
They even have we even have proof of them telling people, get as many people in the trucks as possible, and don't tell them what you're doing until they're already on the road. Yep. It was a 100% set up, and governor and if they can do it to nobody like me, they will come after everybody else.
Speaker 0: So let me ask your part in this without getting I don't know if you're still going through the legal battles on it.
Speaker 1: Acquitted, man. Acquitted.
Speaker 0: I mean, I So this is one of those things. She's still out there pushing this as if it was a legitimate thing that there was a kidnap plot against her Yeah. That she set up with the FBI. Walk me through what actually happened that night.
Speaker 1: Oh my gosh, man. So I didn't go on to what's known as the nighttime ride. I was duped into the daytime ride, and I've oh my gosh. Again, there's so much that goes into it. Anyways, I had set up a civil defense force for my area in Wexford, Cadillac City because Antifa and BLM was coming up there.
Through this process, I had met Adam Fox, who lived down here in Grand Rapids, actually. After a while, he got me a job in private security, which was really awesome. I thought that student was really really cool, and he actually is a good guy, by the way. The FBI, the government has lied about this man who's still in prison. Anyways, got a hold of me and asked me if I wanted wanted to go for a ride.
I asked, yeah, you know, what what do you have in mind? I'm thinking it's this good guy shit that we got going on. I'm sorry. I'm so sorry. That's okay.
But, yeah, good guy stuff that we had going on. You know, looking for these vans that the police were telling us, you know, yeah. They're coming. This is what they're driving. Anyways, so that's what we're I thought we were doing.
He did nothing was said about governor Wimmer or anything like that. So, anyways, we get, him and Dan Chappell, the original FBI informant there, another lying person right there. He, yeah, he came up to pick me up, so him and Adam Fox. We get all the way up to Elk Rapids, which was an hour away from my house. Nothing was talked about.
It was a truck with 3 men. We talked about women, alcohol, guns, like like Americans do. You know? And, anyways, we get up to Elk Rapids, and they said her cottage. I'm still not putting it together.
You know, I'm thinking maybe a t, the Antifa BLM is trying to hold up it in a a private residence instead of doing doing these hotels and motels that we heard about.
Speaker 0: You guys were more doing security or what?
Speaker 1: I was. I thought that we were. When we got up there, and I'm already in a truck with people a 100 miles away from my house, then they started talking about Whitmer's Cottage. And right there, dude, like, my heart sunk. I I didn't know if I was gonna make out of the situation alive.
I had no idea what was going on. So anyways, yeah, I took a video. Adam asked me, he said, hey, monitor. I need to take a video. So we drove by her place, and on his phone, I took a video, and that's how I got the material support terrorism.
And because I had my side piece on me like I always did, that was the felony firearm. Wow. Yeah. That was really nice of him. The government.
That's who I'm talking about. So, anyways, then so that's how I got wrapped into it and then nothing happened after that. I'm like, well, if this was serious, they'd be talking more, they'd be doing there'd be a whole group. I didn't know about all the other guys. I went and truck with 2 people, man.
So I don't know what the heck is going on. You know what I mean? So anyways, I didn't say anything. Why am I gonna tell on crazy people? What seemed like crazy talk, it didn't make sense.
Anyways, then I got raided during a family get together. They pointed guns at my children. You know, they were just little, little kids, man.
Speaker 0: And and so you look at what you guys have gone through, and I just wanna wrap this up this way. You went through that. How concerned are you now what they're doing to president Trump, how concerned are you for the rest of the people if they can do it to you like you said, that, how how do we get justice back, real justice, if this is what our justice department will do?
Speaker 1: Well, what you need to do, everybody, write, call, email your representatives, form civil groups in your own community amongst yourselves. I'm not even talking about militias or anything, just people who are active. Learn how the system works.
@TPostMillennial - The Post Millennial
The current scene outside the White House: Democrats rally, "Thank you, Joe! It's time to go!" https://t.co/Y2yasEIu9h
@TPostMillennial - The Post Millennial
Large rally outside the White House where Democrats are calling on President Biden to quit the race https://t.co/NrdUoxFJOK
@TPostMillennial - The Post Millennial
Joy Reid: “The idea of political violence that we have been nursing ... It’s so dangerous that you cannot avoid the consequences of it even if you’re one of the people promoting it.” https://t.co/4WwgcGEzg0
Video Transcript AI Summary
In 2016 in Cleveland, I felt fear when armed men with AR-15s menaced us, sending a message with their firearms. Similar intimidation tactics were used at Arizona polling places. Political violence, nurtured since then, is perilous. Even those promoting it cannot escape its consequences.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And if I could just very quick, I don't wanna monopolize the time,
Speaker 1: but, you know, the one time I've ever been afraid doing this job, honestly, was in 2016 in Cleveland when men, because it's an open carry state, Ohio, were pacing in front of our position with long guns, with AR fifteens, in a way to menace us. As we were in our outdoor positions, they felt that they needed to send a message to us visually with their firearms. And I think about the people who've tried to vote in Arizona when men with long guns were standing outside of those polling places to send them a message. You don't vote the right way. I'm here with this gun.
And so the idea of political violence that we've been nursing really since then is so dangerous. Yeah. It's so dangerous that you cannot avoid the consequences of it even if you're one of the people promoting it. No. That's
@TPostMillennial - The Post Millennial
Rachel Maddow says that the motives of the person who shot Trump are “irrelevant.” https://t.co/DgnCzGRY5d
Video Transcript AI Summary
Looking back to the 1800s, the motive of violence is always irrelevant. Violence turns politics into crime, making the shooter's views unimportant. Everyone must unite against violence, whether targeted or incited. The recent tragic event in Pennsylvania highlights the seriousness of political violence. We are grateful Trump wasn't seriously hurt, but the loss of life is devastating. Let's hope this tragedy brings a sobering realization that violence in politics is never acceptable. Violence is unpredictable and can't be controlled once it's part of the system.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You look back at that whole string, going all the way back to the 1800, is that the motive of the person committing the violence is never relevant. Very true. The act of violence itself ends politics, turns it over into crime, and makes the views and the motivations of the shooter irrelevant. Everybody in politics, no matter where you are ideologically, must unite around the idea that violence is unacceptable. Absolutely.
And it's unacceptable both, it it both when it comes to targeted stuff like this, but it's also unacceptable when you try to incite that as a way of getting things that you want that you can't get through political means. So it's true in terms of violent rhetoric. It's true in violence orientation toward the idea of confrontation with your fellow Americans. And, of course, it's true in the case of some sort of insane event like we saw on Saturday in in Pennsylvania. And I just feel like it was this it's a very obviously, we're all very grateful that president Trump was not more seriously hurt.
We are all absolutely shattered by the fact that somebody was killed. Somebody was killed. Yeah. People were put in the hospital very seriously hurt. But I'm hope I am hoping that the one positive thing that come out of this is some sobriety around the idea of violence in politics being no freaking joke and nothing that anybody should play with ever.
Fit. Yeah. And it's and and you're right. You can't be be ahistorical about it. And we do need to think of it as a as a spectrum while being completely real about the risks of this to everybody.
Violence, among everything else, is very unpredictable. Once it's part of your political system, you never know which direction it's gonna go. Yeah. Nobody can harness it in one direction only. It just doesn't work that way.
@TPostMillennial - The Post Millennial
Congressman @RonnyJacksonTX says his nephew was struck by a bullet during Trump assassination attempt https://t.co/IY6BNbSqLi
Video Transcript AI Summary
My nephew was grazed in the neck by a bullet at the event. He was in the friends and family section near the president when shots were fired. Another person nearby was critically injured. He was taken to the triage tent where they saw someone with a severe head wound.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Yes, Sean. So, my, my nephew was at the at the event tonight, and they were in their friends and family pen. And they heard the shots, and everybody dropped to the ground. And I don't know if you guys have the picture or not, but he was grazed in the neck. A bullet crossed his neck, cut his neck, and he was bleeding.
This is your So I just got up. Congressman, this is your nephew? Yep. Yeah. This is my nephew.
They were there. I'd set them up. They went to the rally. They were in the friends and family pin, which was just to the president's right down a little bit lower, on the left on the screen, but to the president's right in in the line of fire, and a, they they heard shots coming in. Apparently, there was someone also that were 4 or 5 rows behind them that was critically injured.
Whenever he was shot, you know, they they they realized that a bullet had grazed his neck. My, my sister-in-law had encouraged him to to go to the to the to the first aid tent, to the triage tent. They went to the triage tent, and when they got to the triage tent, while they were there, there was another member of the crowd. Unfortunately, there was in the triage tent that was on a gurney, in the tent that was had had a had a devastating wound, had a critical wound to the head that was
@TPostMillennial - The Post Millennial
Crowd sings Happy Birthday to Trump. https://t.co/xaRovgouCZ
Video Transcript AI Summary
We made minor changes at the border. Thank you for the birthday wishes. Sometimes you just want to ignore your birthday. My parents lived long, happy lives, so maybe we will too. We will turn this country around quickly, bringing it back to where it was 4 years ago and even better.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: About the border. We made a couple of minor changes, but it's very true, and I think it's very true. It's just that happy birthday. Thank you, darling. Don't tell me that.
I don't want to. I don't want to hear that. I don't wanna hear it. Thank you. I wish Thank you.
You know, there's a certain point at which you don't want to hear happy birthday. You just want to pretend the day doesn't exist. But anyway but there's still a big difference, you know? There's still a big difference. It's long, long way.
My my father lived a long time. My mother lived a long time, and they were happy and they were great. So maybe, we're gonna live a long time. I hope so. But we're gonna definitely we're gonna turn this country around.
We're gonna turn it around really fast. We're gonna do the things that you've wanted to do. We're gonna bring it back to 4 years ago and do even more.
@TPostMillennial - The Post Millennial
Kevin Holland shares a special moment with President Trump after win at UFC 302 https://t.co/QMAvFgdzEb
@TPostMillennial - The Post Millennial
DEVELOPING: @RealAlexJones GOES OFF on Biden's feds who he says are in the process of shutting down InfoWars and seizing his studio. "You will at the end of the day know that Alex Jones, the American patriot, defeated your evil a**!" Warning: language. https://t.co/E0YagZLdkU
Video Transcript AI Summary
I have been attacked and falsely accused of crimes. America is corrupt, with scum in charge. I will not back down. I will expose the truth and defeat those trying to shut me down. I am a patriot, and I will prevail.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I've been under attack. I've been gaslit. I've had secret federal filings follow me that I'm committing crimes referred to the justice department, which which of course wasn't true. We'd already filed it in federal court months 4. They didn't even check this shit.
If you're gonna fucking frame somebody and fucking lie about the goddamn federal court with the fucking notes already filed the goddamn court, you bastard. So fuck you. And fuck anybody else that tries to go on your shit. You want fucking war, you fucking got it. I told you one more fucking lie, and I was gonna do this.
Alright? I tried to sustain this place. I didn't believe America was as corrupt as this. I didn't believe we were this fucked, and we are this fucked. This country is administratively got a bunch of scum in charge of it.
That's why it's going down the tubes in America and the whole world sees it. So you misjudge who I am, and in a year, minions misjudge who I am, and you have no idea. No idea. So go ahead. Try to jerk off some operation to shut the doors here and do that and prove everything I said.
It doesn't matter. And I don't sit there and make threats. I make promises. I haven't had time yet to dig it out of my phone, but I will. And you will, at the end of the day, know that Alex Jones, the American patriot, defeated your evil ass.
You guys wanna comment? Well, I'll just
@TPostMillennial - The Post Millennial
President Zelensky says that the way Western media is covering Ukraine is creating panic. https://t.co/zhEBhrP6u9
Video Transcript AI Summary
In early 2021, media coverage of Ukraine was intense but unbalanced. The President emphasized the need for a more fair portrayal, as the current image is exaggerated. Despite concerns of escalation, there is no need for panic as the situation is not as dire as portrayed in the media. The President stressed the importance of avoiding unnecessary fear and maintaining a balanced perspective on the situation.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Than it was at that time, at the peak time in early 2021, it was very intense but such informational attitude towards Ukraine and its question not only to you but to the world. There was no such coverage at that time of Ukraine. And we've talked to the president. The president. We've talked to about this.
We think that it has to be there has to be a balanced approach. I'm not saying that they he's influencing, American media, the independent, but the media policy there has to be well balanced. If they want to know what the situation is that they can come to Cuba. Do we have tanks on the street? No.
But the feeling is if you're not here, the the feeling is when you listen to them in Germany, in in in in France, in Lithuania, I'm talking to the president of Lithuania and other leaders. The the image that mass media creates is that we have troops on the roads. We have mobilization. People are leaving for places. That's not the case.
We don't need this panic. That's a very important moment. I'm not saying that that escalation is excluded. We have been talking about this for 8 years now. It has happened already.
The escalation did already happen part.
@TPostMillennial - The Post Millennial
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott announces the plans for an 80-acre base at Eagle Pass to house National Guard troops for securing the border. https://t.co/F4NFqP22j9
Video Transcript AI Summary
We are expanding border security in Texas by constructing a new military base camp for the Texas National Guard. The construction has begun on 80 acres of land near the river in Eagle Pass. This will enhance the capabilities of the Texas military department personnel to operate more effectively and efficiently in the area.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Thank you everybody for being here today. I'm joined by General Seltzer and the Border Czar, Mike Banks. I wanna explain to you, what Texas is doing at this time. To expand our border security capabilities, We are building a new Texas military department base camp that allows the Texas National Guard to increase and to improve operations in this area. What you see now is the first stage of construction that's already begun on what is 80 acres, of an area to be built out for this base camp.
From your camera view, it goes all the way down the edge here to those trees, all the way to the back, close to where the river is, on this side, just back behind you about 50 feet is where it stops. This will increase the ability for a larger number of Texas military department personnel in Eagle Pass to operate more effectively and more efficiently.
@TPostMillennial - The Post Millennial
Trudeau says that what Pierre Poilievre "is proposing to do is to make Canada great again. That is not what Canadians want." https://t.co/g8laRmvfEv
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker criticizes the leader of the opposition for suggesting that everything was perfect under the previous conservative government and wanting to make Canada great again. Canadians do not share this nostalgia. The speaker highlights the leader's past as part of Stephen Harper's failed housing minister, where he violated the rights of indigenous peoples, ignored environmental responsibilities, and lacked a plan for the future.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Mister speaker, what we hear from the leader of the opposition is, under the previous conservative government, everything was perfect, and what he is proposing to do is to make Canada great again. That is not what Canadians want. He is pining for a nostalgia that, quite frankly, Canadians do not feel. They remember what he did as part of Stephen Harper's failed housing minister. He remembers the people who the rights of individual in the, indigenous peoples violated, the, ignoring of environmental responsibilities and the lack of an environmental and economic plan for the future, we're gonna continue.
@TPostMillennial - The Post Millennial
This object in the sky appeared over Charlotte, North Carolina and people are questioning what it might be. https://t.co/svzkOtAloL
@TPostMillennial - The Post Millennial
Vivek Ramaswamy: "Why am I the only person on this stage at least who can say that January 6 now does look like it was an inside job? That the government lied to us for 20 years about Saudi Arabia's involvement in 9/11...?" https://t.co/yZfGQuoTrr
Video Transcript AI Summary
My colleagues on this debate stage have all been loyal to Donald Trump for personal gain. They begged for his endorsement and attacked him in the past. But the real enemy is the deep state, which Trump tried to challenge. I'm the only one here who can speak the truth. January 6th looks like an inside job, the government lied about Saudi Arabia's involvement in 9/11, the great replacement theory is part of the Democratic Party's platform, Big Tech stole the 2020 election, and the National Security Establishment stole the 2016 election from Trump with the false Trump-Russia collusion hoax. We need someone who won't flip-flop and criticize Trump when it's convenient.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We heard my issue with all 3 of my other colleagues on this debate stage is all 3 of them have been licking Donald Trump's boots for years for money and endorsements. Ron DeSantis, you've been a great governor, but you would have never been one without actually begging Donald Trump for that endorsement. And you attacked him in your butt a year ago. With Chris Christie as a lobbyist, begging them for COVID money for his special interest in New Jersey, prepping him for the debates last time around. These people are now Monday morning quarterbacking some decision he made.
I think the real enemy is not Donald Trump. It's not even Joe Biden. It is the deep state that at least Donald Trump attempted to take on. And if you want somebody who's gonna speak truth to power, then vote for somebody who's gonna speak the truth to you. Why am I the only person on the stage at least who can say that January 6th now does look like it was an inside job?
That the government lied to us for 20 years about Saudi Arabia's involvement in 911, that the great replacement theory is not some grand right wing conspiracy theory, but a basic statement of the Democratic Party's platform, that the 2020 election was indeed stolen by Big Tech, that the 2016 election, the one that Trump won for sure, was also one that was stolen from him by the National Security Establishment that actually put up the Trump Russia collusion hoax that they knew was false. There's a reason why I'm the only person on the side who can say these things. That's what it's gonna take, not people who are licking his boots one time, and now Monday morning quarterback game and criticizing when it's convenient.
@TPostMillennial - The Post Millennial
Vivek Ramaswamy: "One thing that Joe Biden and Nikki Haley have in common is that neither of them could even state for you three provinces in eastern Ukraine that they want to send our troops to actually fight for." https://t.co/ENGL3H0j8T
Video Transcript AI Summary
I want to emphasize that foreign policy experience does not equate to wisdom. I was the first to advocate for a reasonable peace deal in Ukraine, while many neocons are now starting to agree. However, Nikki Haley and Joe Biden still support what I believe is a pointless war in Ukraine. It's concerning that neither of them can even name three provinces in Eastern Ukraine that they want to send our troops to fight for. This highlights the lack of understanding they have while advocating for military action. Don't be fooled by the idea that someone with a brief stint at the UN and a high salary has real foreign policy experience. It takes an outsider to truly see the situation.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I wanna say one thing about the tide of Ukraine. Yeah. So foreign policy experience is not the same as foreign policy wisdom. I want everybody at home to know that I was the 1st person to say we need a reasonable peace deal in Ukraine. Now a lot of the neocons are quietly coming along to that position with the exceptions of Nikki Haley and Joe Biden who still support this, what I believe is, pointless war in Ukraine.
And I think those with foreign policy One thing that Joe Biden and Nikki Haley have in common is that neither of them could even state for you 3 provinces in Eastern Ukraine that they want to send our troops to they fight for. Look at that. This is what I want people to understand. These people have I mean, she has no idea what the hell the names of those provinces are, but she wants to send Our sons and daughters and our troops and our military equipment to go fight it. So reject this myth that they've been selling you that somebody had a cup of coffee stint at the UN and then makes $8,000,000 after has real foreign policy experience.
It takes an outsider to see this through. Look at the blank expression. She doesn't know the names of the provinces that she wants to actually fight for. And there's a puppet
@TPostMillennial - The Post Millennial
Pro-Palestinian protestors take over the US Capitol https://t.co/1awLF2tWuV
@TPostMillennial - The Post Millennial
EXCLUSIVE: Lead plaintiff against Canadian Freedom Convoy leaves court in tears after contradicting previous testimony https://thepostmillennial.com/exclusive-lead-plaintiff-against-canadian-freedom-convoy-leaves-court-in-tears-after-contradicting-previous-testimony?utm_campaign=64466
EXCLUSIVE: Lead plaintiff against Canadian Freedom Convoy leaves court in tears after contradicting previous testimony
She caught flack for repeatedly calling the Freedom Convoy protest an “occupation.”
thepostmillennial.com