TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

- Speaker 0 expresses a core problem: how to support the Donald Trump presidency when the figures associated with his circle (Alex Jones, Owen Shroyer, Ian Carroll) embody traits they oppose, prompting questions about alignment with their side. He asks how to reconcile supporting Trump with these associations, calling it an objective problem. - Speaker 1 responds that he has not researched certain controversial items (Eric Prince’s phone) and notes that Eric Prince is a polarizing figure from the military-industrial complex world. He argues that involvement in war fighting does not automatically make someone evil and that a full picture requires digging beyond initial impressions, acknowledging he hasn’t done all the research. - Speaker 0 challenges this, citing his own video: Eric Prince has three CEOs for Blackwater, all with intricate ties to the IDF. He questions coincidence between Palantir Technologies and the surveillance state, Israel’s influence, and three IDF-affiliated Blackwater CEOs, referencing USS Liberty and suggesting Eric Prince’s past atrocities and a lack of accountability. He asks whether such a figure could ever be considered a good person and whether repentance is possible, noting he hasn’t seen Prince acknowledge past wrongs. - Speaker 0 adds BlackRock as another easy target, claiming BlackRock, with help from the Trump administration, bought two ports in the Panama Canal for $22.8 billion, and contends Trump mentioned a company would buy the Panama Canal during the State of the Union, but did not name BlackRock. He challenges the listener to consider whether Trump is on their side given this nugget of information. - Speaker 1 says he was not endorsing a specific device or action, calling the “phones” comment offhand and irrelevant. He reiterates he isn’t waiting for Trump or Elon Musk to act in the interest of people, and states he’s intentionally not waiting for them to do so. He emphasizes starting change bottom-up, and encourages starting conversations rather than trolling, suggesting Seven Seas could help. - Speaker 0 shifts to a broader miscommunication problem: there’s a gap where people misread each other, treating allies as enemies. He advocates filling this gap through dialogue with diverse figures like Seven Seas, Ian Carroll, Joe Rogan, Whitney Webb, Derek Brose. He mentions a planned March sit-down interview between Derek Brose and Ian Carroll, hoping for a productive exchange, while noting past heated exchanges where ad hominem attacks diminished constructive dialogue. He cites Clint Russell and redheaded libertarian as examples of contentious interactions. - They discuss disagreements over Trump’s ideology and policies, including concerns that Trump still praises the VA, pharma, and large-scale spending, which confounds libertarian critiques. He cites a national debt comparison between Obama and Trump era spending, arguing that debt devalues the dollar and harms Americans, regardless of party. - Speaker 0 reiterates suspicion that the criticism of Trump and Elon Musk coexists with perceived support for them, labeling it an inconsistency. He promises to withhold calling someone a shill until there is clear intent to deceive. Speaker 1 suggests focusing on good-faith arguments, mentioning Glenn Greenwald with respect, and invites Seven Seas to share their take on Ian Carroll’s reaction to Seven Seas’ post.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 argue that some conservatives sound a lot like the Marxist Islamists at an event. They say there's a grievance culture on the left that blames the West, Israel, capitalism, and the Jews, while a mirrored far-right view claims 'America actually was never great. America never landed on the moon' and that a shadowy group is manipulating all of this. They note conservatives sprinkle 'kooks' and 'American haters' into weekend events to maintain the big tent. They warn that because you vote Republican doesn't make you the preacher at the front of the church, if they spend all day criticizing the president as 'covering up a Mossad rape ring' or 'being a tool of the Israelis for hitting an Iranian nuclear facility.' Reverence should be 'the fundamental tenets of the American Republic,' and abandoning them for a pseudo coalition is a 'gigantic moral and political mistake.'

**Caller:** I was listening to your show and came across an article saying you're a Freemason. I know Masons do good things, but they're at the head of every global organization, so how is the world in such bad shape? I'm not joining because of this. **Speaker:** I have Masonic roots, but I've never been part of a lodge. My family was heavily involved. Freemasonry is just a university study of religions, philosophy, building, math, and agrarian systems. The Illuminati was a counter to the real Illuminati, like Francis Bacon, before the modern version. This country was founded by real Rosicrucians. I come from a classical enlightenment family—real Illuminati. There are no secret societies, just freedom, Jesus Christ, free markets, family, and the will to fight tyrants. Globalists have hijacked the idea of a new Atlantis and are selling the opposite of what this country was founded on.

Speaker 0: Our only opportunity, our only chance to save our democracy is to fight fire with fire right now. Speaker 0: So, yeah, do I bemoan the fact that, you know, we're now blowing up norms? Yes. Speaker 0: So you have to be willing to do whatever is necessary in order to save the country. Speaker 1: When I hear that, I wonder if Is there enough people that believe that same thing? And until you get more to believe that, that may be why the Democrats aren't rowing in the same direction yet. Speaker 0: You can't get people to believe it if you don't act like it.

The transcript presents a detailed exploration of the relationship between former President Donald Trump and the QAnon conspiracy movement, tracing alleged endorsements, interactions, and “proofs” claimed by adherents. It weaves together interviews, clips, and a litany of “queue proofs” that supporters say demonstrate a hidden alliance between Trump and QAnon. - Trump and QAnon alignment signals: - An illustrated meme and QAnon slogans reshared by Trump on his social platform are described as one of his brazen endorsements of the conspiracy theory. Followers interpret Trump’s post as a sign he is with them and with QAnon, with quotes like “at this point, anyone denying that queue was a legit operation affiliated with the Trump administration is in major denial” and references to “real donald trump has over 4,000,000 followers, yet he seeks out q people to retreat.” - In several episodes during 2020, Trump is shown as engaging with questions about QAnon, sometimes dodging the topic, sometimes declining to distance himself, and sometimes acknowledging that the movement “likes me very much” and that its followers “love our country” and want problems in cities like Portland, Chicago, and New York to go away. - Sanctions and other policy items: - A separate strand notes Trump’s announcement of reimposed sanctions on Iran with a Game of Thrones-inspired poster, and HBO’s trademark joke. This is presented as contemporaneous political news but not tied causally to QAnon in the transcript’s framing. - Early QAnon questions and responses: - The transcript recounts early Q movement questions to Trump about Q, and Trump’s responses (or lack thereof) on August 15, 2020, and August 20, 2020. It quotes Trump saying he doesn’t know much about the movement beyond hearing that it is gaining in popularity and that supporters are upset with certain urban crime conditions, with statements about potentially sending federal troops or law enforcement to reform cities. - QAnon core theory and Trump’s stated stance: - The core QAnon theory is summarized as belief that Democrats are a satanic pedophile ring and that Trump is a savior, with questions about whether Trump is behind or involved in the movement. Trump’s replies are framed as either disclaimers or as partial acknowledgments, including expressions of willingness to “help save the world from problems” and to counter “a radical left philosophy” that could destroy the country. - Q’s evidentiary framework and “proofs”: - The documentary surveys “50 proofs” that supporters say demonstrate Q is a real military intelligence operation tied to Trump. Examples include: - Proof that Trump lurked on 4chan before Q postings, with a Trump tweet referencing “Colorado was amazing” followed by a Q-related post; the number 17 is emphasized as a recurring cue (Q is the 17th letter). - The “consecutive cues” and timing of Trump’s tweets about JFK conspiracies on the same day Q posted, suggesting synchronization. - The Saudi Arabia faction: Trump’s Saudi visit, a gold necklace gift, a traditional sword dance, and subsequent Saudi purges and financial seizures are linked to Q’s posts about the House of Saud, and to a broader argument about a global power triangle involving Saudi Arabia, the Rothschilds, and George Soros, with mentions of “plus plus plus” as code for Saudi Arabia and the idea of a global power realignment. - The Las Vegas Mandalay Bay shooting (October 1, 2017): The narrative presents the shooting as a staged or attempted assassination meant to serve a larger strategic purpose, including links to MBS (Mohammed bin Salman) and a claim that Trump warned MBS, with the “sword dance” seen as symbolic. - The Hillary Clinton-Alice and Wonderland code: Hillary Clinton is equated with Alice, Saudi Arabia with Wonderland, and the “trafficking lanes” and child rescue narratives tied to Saudi actions are presented as corroborative “Alice in Wonderland” symbolism in Q drops. - The “Alice” code, Hillary’s email timeline, and Hillary Clinton’s alleged insider status tied to alleged transfers involving Saudi interests and Clinton Foundation donations. - The “Alice in Wonderland” thread extends to Hillary, Hillary’s emails, and Hillary/Saudi Arabia as a recurring motif. - The “proofs” also connect to the 2017-2018 period’s geopolitical shifts and to the appearance of various slogans and signifiers in Trump’s public rhetoric and in Q postings (e.g., “the best is yet to come,” “where we go one, we go all,” and “this is not a game” type lines). - Notable Q proofs and their examples: - “Tip top” and the state of the union references; “space force” and the U.S. Space Force; Washington crossing the Delaware; “good win” vs. “when” typographical plays; the Pope’s changing Lord’s Prayer; “Magapill” via Trump retweets; “VIP Anon” back-stage access to Trump rallies; “Honk for Q” stunts at Trump events; “scot free” and references to the human-interest angle around a dramatized “Where we go one, we go all” refrain. - The chain of command, the military’s tacit support for QAnon, and the idea of a national-level security benchmark seeded in Q posts; the DoD’s National Geographic tie-in; the “best is yet to come” catchphrase as a refrain in Trump speeches. - The Flynn connection: Michael Flynn’s oath video and Flynn’s public slogans; Flynn’s book-signing and Q’s linking of Flynn with the “where we go one, we go all” slogan. - The documentary’s synthesis and conclusion: - The concluding argument frames Q as a military intelligence operation at the heart of the Trump administration, a war for credibility against a “criminal surveillance state” and a “mafia media.” It posits a global awakening and a countercoup against entrenched power structures, asserting that Q’s drops have prepared the public to accept a coming public disclosure of the operation and a reestablishment of a “full original republic.” - It emphasizes the Socratic method used by Q to guide Anons to conclusions without overtly revealing sensitive information, presenting Q as a boot camp for critical thinking and a driver of citizen journalism in an information war against mainstream media. - Final framing and call to action: - The film closes with a broad, conspiratorial meditation on “the end game” of QAnon, the impending public recognition of the operation, and a global reaffirmation of “one movement, one people, one family, and one glorious nation under God,” with the closing credits urging viewers to subscribe for more content.

Speaker 0 notes the world population is 6.8 billion and is headed up to about 9 billion. He says if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, and reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15%. Speaker 1 responds with the question: common sense would tell you that if a man standing in front of you says he's gonna reduce the world's population by 10–15% using vaccines, what does that mean to you? He explains that means somebody's going to die because you put a vaccine in them, and it doesn't mean you're going to save people. He says that’s common sense, but he saw him say it, and now he’s here; he says, "I’m now an anti vaxxer I wasn't before."

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about expressing "joy" over a CEO's death and posting an image of another CEO. Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of condoning assassination. Speaker 1 denies celebrating the death itself, but expresses joy that the "brutality of our healthcare system was finally being acknowledged." Speaker 1 claims 70,000 Americans die yearly due to lack of health insurance, calling the healthcare system "murderous" and "violent." Speaker 1 says they were describing the mentality of supporters, not their own beliefs. Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 to condemn those who praise assassination. Speaker 1 refuses to condemn those who praise the CEO, stating they don't "believe in things like souls." Speaker 1 says they specialize in extremism and want to understand ideologies, even those of violent extremists. Speaker 1 condemns the violence of the healthcare system. Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 1 condemns people that call for assassination. Speaker 1 wants Speaker 0 to acknowledge that half of bankruptcies are due to healthcare costs. Speaker 0 states anyone who wants to assassinate any innocent person is wrong. Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 to condemn those who want to be involved in assassination.

I believe in the theory that we are saving the world from a satanic cult of pedophiles. If it means helping to solve problems and save the world, I'm willing to put myself out there. We are actually saving the world from a radical left philosophy that would destroy our country. They want to defund the police and have open borders with no testing. Mexico has a high infection rate, but our wall is now 300 miles long. We need strength, not weakness, in our country.

Speaker 0 asks how people can trust Speaker 1 and if he is part of the cabal. Speaker 1 responds by saying not to trust him, but to trust themselves. He dismisses the idea of controlled opposition and encourages people to do their own research and make their own decisions. He criticizes those who are indecisive and urges them to take action and make a difference. Speaker 1 talks about his sacrifices and the hardships he faces, emphasizing that he doesn't care about votes but wants to save the country. He calls out politicians and accuses them of being part of controlled opposition. He concludes by telling people to stop asking him questions and to take responsibility for their own actions.

Speaker 0 asks if the belief that the person is secretly saving the world from a satanic cult of pedophiles and cannibals is something they support. Speaker 1 responds that they haven't heard that before, but if it means helping to save the world, they are willing to do it. They believe they are saving the world from a radical left philosophy that would destroy the country, and emphasize the importance of the country as a leader for the rest of the world.

Two speakers volley questions about fascism and anti-fascism. Speaker 1 asks: "Are you Antifa?" and "You're pro fascism?" "But can you at least say that you're anti fascist?" Speaker 0 responds: "I wouldn't say so." "I'm not really... I have still both political views on things." "I'm not gonna say that if I don't know." The exchange probes neutrality: "You think we're new you think you were we were neutral on fascism in World War two?" "The US was Antifa against the Nazis." Speaker 1 presses: "So then, like, why wouldn't you want to be Antifa?" Speaker 0: "I don't know. I'm trying to." "I can't believe Trump has you, like, so cooked in the brain that you don't even know how to say that fascism is wrong." A sponsor line interrupts: "Innovega is redefining what's possible for people with vision loss." Later, "Are you against fascism?" and "If you are against fascism in the comment section, type three in the comment section you're against fascism." The discussion veers to "Partying convicted felonies. Well, let's talk about that. So"

Speaker 0 questions if the theory of secretly saving the world from a satanic cult of pedophiles and cannibals is something Speaker 1 supports. Speaker 1 responds by saying they haven't heard of it, but they are open to the idea of helping to save the world and are willing to put themselves out there.

The speaker discusses a theory about saving the world from a satanic cult of pedophiles and cannibals. They express willingness to help save the world and mention the importance of preventing a radical left philosophy from destroying the country. They criticize ideas like defunding the police and open borders without testing. The speaker mentions the progress of building a wall on the border and emphasizes the need for strength in the country.

I believe in the theory that we are saving the world from a satanic cult. If I can help save the world, I'm willing to do it. We are fighting against a radical left philosophy that will destroy our country and then the rest of the world.

Speaker 0 raises questions about what’s happening culturally in Europe, noting crackdowns on free speech and people looking less like us, and asks whether a massive shift in world alliances is occurring long term. Speaker 1 responds that there is definitely a new world order, with changes in trade, globalization, and the way we invest in our economy versus foreign supply chains. They say the president is willing to shake up old alliance structures, and that NATO is much different now because of the president’s leadership, whereas ten years ago it was effectively a protectorate of the United States of America. They mention Venezuela as an example and state that the president is putting a stamp on world history, but in an America-first way.

Speaker 0 asserts: I’m not suicidal. Any creator, politician, or celebrity who tries to make a film or documentary on CPS has wound up dead, including a senator. The November film will be their hardest hitting, and they will “rip the veil off” to the point where CPS shows up at your door. Our government is running the world’s largest child trafficking network. They emphasize they would never kill themselves, do drugs, or put themselves in dangerous environments; if anything happens to them, it is the United States government. They watched the first take of the film and say, “they’re gonna kill me.” They urge a trip down memory lane to discuss Pizzagate, stating this is where it all starts. Speaker 1 begins by saying the Pizzagate story has outrageous connections and promising brand-new whistleblower information that will blow minds. They provide an overview: back to Bill and Hillary Clinton, whom many believe to be child pedophiles. They say there’s never been direct evidence, but in 02/2016 WikiLeaks published Hillary Clinton emails with John Podesta showing coded language about a child trafficking ring centered in a Washington, DC pizza restaurant basement at Comet Ping Pong. Edgar Maddison Welch went to the restaurant with firearms to “liberate the children,” but no one was hurt; it was later said there wasn’t a basement, so the scandal was dismissed, though there’s more to the story. The transcript then ties Hillary Clinton to Laura Silsbee, who was involved in trafficking, and outlines a chain: Hillary Clinton and Laura Silsbee exchanged documents detailing logistics of trafficking children from Haiti to Boise, Idaho. Laura Silsbee had previously kidnapped several dozen children from Haiti and attempted to cross into the Dominican Republic; she was caught and the children were returned to their families. Shawnee M. King is cited for reporting on Silsbee’s case. Jorge Puello, an attorney for Silsbee’s group, was suspected of leading an international trafficking ring; Puello was arrested in investigations by ICE and Homeland Security; his wife faced charges of sexual exploitation of minors and women. The narrative claims Hillary Clinton and Laura Silsbee were connected; Bill and Hillary Clinton allegedly helped negotiate the release of Laura Silsbee and her accomplices after their imprisonment in Haiti. Speaker 1 then ties the connections to CPS: the number-one source of child trafficking is the U.S. CPS system, and the number-one gateway to sex trafficking in America is the foster care system. The foster care system allegedly lost over 100,000 children in the last twenty years, raised questions about where they went, and claims millions of children are abused in foster care by financially compensated foster parents and social workers. The Adoptive Safe Families Act (ASFA), championed by Hillary Clinton and signed by Bill Clinton in 1997, supposedly created and financed CPS/foster care by diverting Social Security funds to 50 states, giving a financial incentive to “kidnap” children. It is claimed that CPS targets poor and minority children and single-parent families, and that the system now functions as a government-subsidized child-trafficking ring. Speaker 1 lists correlations: CPS is a tool used to target conservatives; CPS offices get paid per child kidnapped; 83% of removals lack proof of abuse. The claim is that Hillary Clinton created the system and that Laura Silsbee, a friend of Clinton, is involved in Idaho’s CPS network. Laura Silsbee allegedly works with Idaho Department of Health and Welfare (IDHW) and is a registered foster care parent in Idaho, receiving monthly payments for children in her custody, as shown by whistleblower-provided screenshots. Idaho’s Attorney General Raul Labrador opened an investigation into IDHW financial misappropriations, but Idaho’s Department director Dave Jepison resigned and disappeared, and Judge Lynn Norton allegedly issued an order halting the AG’s investigation. The Idaho Department of Health and Welfare allegedly dominates Idaho’s budget, and Laura Silsbee’s role with IDHW is framed as proof of a nationwide system. The narrative concludes by warning Idahoans to beware of Laura Silsbee (aka Laura Gaylor), Judge Norton, and supporters of IDHW, asserting that the system extends to all 50 states, including Arizona, Texas, and Florida, which are described as among the worst offenders in CPS corruption.

Speaker 0: We have a problem with the CIA and FBI in Washington. Speaker 1: What's your plan to start over and fix them? Speaker 0: They've gotten out of control, with weaponization and other issues. The people need to bring about change. We were making progress, but more needs to be done.

Speaker 1 leads a march against the Russian consulate, claiming that the Russians are fighting the Khazarian mafia and trying to eradicate those who have been destroying the planet. They believe that the Russians, along with other nations, are engaged in a secret war to exterminate vermin. They argue that COVID mandates are part of a larger plan to depopulate the planet. Speaker 1 dismisses criticism from former colleagues and urges people to do their own research. They believe their messages have broad appeal and that major political parties are falling apart. They express hope to be proven wrong about the dire consequences they predict.

Speaker 0 says, "powerful institutions are at play here, and there's a coordinated effort to spread this parasitic ideology," and asks, "Are you willing to name the group behind us? Because behind all these institutions, there seems to be a Cohen, a Berg, a Stein." He then asks, "What are your thoughts on the Jewish influence about on gender ideology?" Speaker 1 replies, "So you're you're Am I gonna do anything about the Jews is what you're asking me? No." Okay. Do I need to dignify that with a further response, do think?" He adds, "Or And Jewish donors, they have a lot of explaining to do, a lot of decoupling to do, because Jewish donors have been the number one funding mechanism of radical open border neoliberal quasi Marxist policies, cultural institutions, and nonprofits." "This is a beast created by secular Jews."

Speaker 1: "Just because the other side... jokes about the bad things that happened to them, I don't think that makes it okay for us to turn around and do the same." Speaker 0: "No. We need to stop... the left just haven't cucked out enough." Speaker 0: "Trump is fucking insane because he has support from 90% of the conservatives in the Republican party who are entirely un American." Speaker 1: "One person is dead... a swing state voter." Speaker 1: "We don't know what the motivation of the shooter was." Speaker 1: "Just because there is fire burning doesn't give us leave to throw more wood on it." Speaker 0: "Donald Trump wanted absolute criminal immunity." Speaker 0: "Democracy only works when everybody participates." Speaker 1: "I reject this framing entirely."

Speaker 0: Honestly, nothing scarier to me than a white liberal woman. Speaker 1: Why do you never care about anything that happens in your own country? Why is it always like women in Afghanistan, women in Syria? I'm like, well, what about under the Biden administration with your candidate Harris, the 350,000 children that are trafficked that went missing. Because American issues, you can bring attention to and you can solve. I just find it weird that the social justice warriors that are the white women of America never seem to care about anything that they could do in America, but I think that would actually involve caring, and it would be going against their own side. Speaker 0: There's honestly nothing scarier to me or more destructive to society than a white liberal woman. Speaker 1: I know. Speaker 0: Name something worse. Speaker 1: I saw Jimmy John's was doing a sandwich and the bread was pickles. Speaker 0: That sounds so good. Speaker 1: Okay. So liberal women are Speaker 0: so worse.

Speaker 0 asks what group they are with and then expresses belief in the Holocaust. They question why it is illegal to question the Holocaust in 18 countries. When asked if they think it should be illegal to question the Holocaust, they answer yes. The speaker mentions being in 3 seats and wanting power. They tell someone to leave and make a crude comment about subscribing to someone's beliefs.

Speaker 0 argues that there are crucial moments in which questions must be asked. They state that when someone like a Graham comes along and asks too many questions, those questioning individuals have to be shut up. They emphasize that they must be shut down. The speaker contends that if people begin asking too many questions, the entire “house of cards” narrative that has been carefully put in place for the last hundred years to control us will come collapsing on our heads. This collapse, according to the speaker, would lead to an alternate reality.

Speaker 0 frames Peter Thiel as an investor in AI, Palantir, military tech, surveillance, and warfare, and says he had an "epiphany that he might be hastily ushering in the antichrist." The other speaker asks: "Isn't that a concern? Wouldn't that be the irony of history would be that the man publicly worrying about the Antichrist accidentally hastens his or her arrival?" Speaker 2 replies: "They're all look. There there are all these different scenario. I obviously don't think that that's what I'm doing." The questioner adds: "I'm just interested in how you get to Will a world willing to submit to permanent authoritarian rule." Speaker 2 continues: "there are these different gradations of of this we can describe, but is is this so preposterous what I've just told you as a broad account of the stagnation that the entire world has submitted for fifty years to peace and safetyism. This is first Thessalonians five three. The slogan of the Antichrist is peace and safety, and and we've"

Speaker 0 argues that Freemasons, the New World Order, Skull and Bones, the Bohemian Grove, the North American Union, martial law, military checkpoints, US concentration camps, and a one world government will come to Americans unless action is taken now. The time is here; act now, America, before it's too late. Speaker 1 defines false flag operations as a distract-and-unify tactic for the government to push a hidden agenda. Globalization, control of oil, and suspension of civil liberties are used to gain more control, with fear being the game. He urges liberals, conservatives, and independents to join together as Americans and make their voices heard. He claims attackers want people split and distracted, and warns of an escalated attempt by the administration to scare the public into thinking Iran is a threat. He cautions to look for another false flag operation to justify fighting Iran, and to check for other mock drills occurring during the same time as real events; citing the nine-eleven attacks and the London bombings as examples where similar exercises happened the day of the attacks. He asks questions, demands answers, and asks who benefits. He asserts there is no interest in creating a stable environment in Iraq. He states the Pentagon has lost track of guns and ammunition and questions whose hands they fall into, arguing that disorder and chaos are being sought as distractions, with the conflict expected to last years. He predicts continued bases in Iraq under the pretext of security and national interest, and repeats the question: who benefits? Speaker 2 notes that in 2005 ExxonMobil achieved a record profit of $35,000,000,000, and an economist estimated that $7,000,000,000 of that amount was due to market conditions created by the war. Speaker 1 continues that under the pretext of security and fear of being attacked, the government will suspend freedom of speech, the right to assemble, and protection from illegal searches and seizures; they will ask law-abiding citizens to turn in their guns and to bear arms; they will establish martial law with the army policing the citizens, which is described as illegal. Speaker 3 adds that fear of nuclear, biological, or chemical attacks on US territory might trigger drastic measures. NFL News 12 Jeff Bell reports that clergy would help the government with their biggest problem, which is "us." Speaker 1 repeats: remember, ask yourself, who benefits? Speaker 3 reiterates that their biggest problem is "us," not external enemies, and that those who follow the markets see increasing housing foreclosures and banks calling in loans. People who couldn’t afford loans would have houses bought back by those who built them for pennies on the dollar. This would allow a small elite to regain control, weaken the dollar, realize a North American union, and establish a broader global economy. The repeated question remains: who benefits? Speaker 2 concludes with the confession: “The truth is, I hope I'm wrong.”